LETTER.
Let us then examine this matter impartially, as those who have no mind either to ruine themselves, or to ruine the Church: I suppose no Mi∣nister of the Church of England can give his consent to the Declaration. Let us then consider whether reading the Declaration in our Churches be not an interpretative Consent, and will not with great reason be inter∣preted to be so: For,
First, By our Law all Ministerial Offcers are accountable for their Actions: The Authority of Superiors, though of the King himself, can∣not justifie inferiour Officers, much less the Ministers of State, if they should execute any illegal Commands; which shews, that our Law does not look upon the Ministers of Church or State to be meer Machines and Tools to be managed wholly by the Will of Superiours, without exercising any Act of Judgment or Reason themselves; for then inferiour Mini∣sters were no more punishable than the Horses are which draw an inno∣cent man to Tyburn: and if inferiour Ministers are punishable, then our Laws suppose that what we do in obedience to Superiours, we make our own Act by doing it, and I suppose that signifies our Consent, in the eye of the Law, to what we do. It is a Maxim in our Law, That the King can do no wrong; and therefore if any wrong be done, the Crime and Guilt is the Minister's who does it: For the Laws are the King's publick Will, and therefore he is never supposed to command any thing contrary to Law; nor is any Minister, who does an illegal Action, allowed to pretend the King's Command and Authority for it: and yet this is the only Reason I know, why we must not obey a Prince against the Laws of the Land, or the Laws of God, because what we do, let the Authority be what it will that commands it, becomes our own Act, and we are responsible for it; and then as I observed before, it must imply our own Consent.