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.

Indeed, let mens private opinions be what they will, in the nature of the thing, he that reads such a Declaration to his People, teaches them by it. For is not Reading Tea••••ing? Suppose then I do not con∣sent to what I read, yet I consent to teach my People what I read; and herein is the evil of it; for it may be it were no fault to consent to the Declaration, but if I Consent to teach my People what I do not consent to, my self, I am sure that is a great one: And he who can distinguish between consenting to read the Declaration, and consenting to teach the People by the Declaration, when reading the Declaration is teaching it, has a very subtile distinguishing Conscience: Now if consenting to read the Declaration be a consent to teach it my People, then the natural Inter∣pretation of Reading the Declaration, is, That he who Reads it, in such a solemn teaching-manner, Approves it If this be not so, I desire to know, why I may not read an Homily for Transubstantiation, or Invocation of Saints, or the worship of Images, if the King sends me such good Catholic Homi∣lies, and commands me to read them? And thus we may instrust our People in all the points of Popery, and recommend it to them with all the Sophistry and artificial Insinuations, in obedience to the King, with a very good Conscience, because without our consent: If it be said, this would be a contradiction to the Doctrine of our Church by Law Esta∣blished; so I take the Declaration to be; And if we may read the De∣claration

contrary to Law, because it does not imply our consent to it; so we may Popish Homilies, for the bare reading them will not imply our consent, no more than the reading the Declaration does: But whether I consent to the Doctrine or no, it is certain I consent to teach my People this Doctrine; and it is to be considered, whether an honest man can do this.