An answer to a letter from a clergyman in the city, to his friend in the country containing his reasons for not reading the declaration.

LETTER.

II. Others therefore think, that when we read the Declaration, we should publickly profess, that it is not our own judgment, but that we only read it in obedience to the King; and then our reading it cannot imply our consent to it: Now this is only Protestatio contra factum, which all people will laugh at, and scorn us for: for such a solemn reading it in the time of Divine Ser∣vice, when all men ought to be most grave and serious, and for from dis∣sembling with God or Men, does in the nature of the thing imply our appro∣bation; and should we declare the contrary, when we read it, what shall we say to those who ask us, Why then do you read it? But let those who have a mind try this way, which, for my part, I take to be a greater and more un∣justifiable

provocation of the King, than not to read it; and I suppose, those who do not read it, will be thought plainer and honester men; and will escape as well as those who read it and protest against it: and yet nothing less than an express Protestation against it will salve this matter; for only to say, they read it meerly in obedience to the King, does not express their dissent: it signifies indeed, that they would not have read it, if the King had not commanded it; but these words do not signifie, that they disapprove of the Declaration, when their reading it, though only in obedience to the King, signifies their approbation of it, as much as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can signifie a consent: let us call to mind how it fared with those in King Charles the First's Reign, who read the Book of Sports, as it was called, and then preached against it.