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.

AN ANSWER TO A LETTER From a Clergyman in the City, to his Friend in the Country, Con∣taining his REASONS for not Reading the Declaration.

With Allowance, June the 4th. 1688.

LETTER.

SIR,

I Do not wonder at your concern for finding an Order of Council published in the Gazette for Reading the King's Declaration for Liberty of Conscience in all Churches and Chappels in this King∣dom. You desire to know my Thoughts about it, and I shall fre∣ly tell them; for this is not a time to be reserved.

Our Enemies who have given our Gracious King this Counsel against us, have taken the most effectual way not only to ruin us, but to make us appear the Instruments of our own Ruin, that what course soever we take, we shall be undone; and one side or other will conclude that we have undone our selves, and fall like Fools.

ANSWER.

They who had formerly heard the frequent Sermons upon Loyalty preach'd over Tea an•• Coffee at Sam's Coffee-House, would hardly then have believ'd that ever any Clergyman of Lon∣don of that stamp, would have been seen in publick pickeering a∣gainst the Orders of his Prince, especially issued forth after ma∣ture debate in Council. I know not kow he can boast such a vast

stock of Loyalty as this Gentleman pretends to, when he shall be so homely as to tax the King with following Council to the Ruin of his Subjects. So that the business of this Pamphlet is to render his Majesty a person that follows ill Counsel to the Ruin of the Church of England's Party. Nor is it to be question'd but that this single Clergyman speaks the sense of many more, or at least would have many more believe, what he does. That what course soever they take they shall be undone. And yet we find that his Majesty has publickly declar'd it to be his Aim to fix his Govern∣ment upon such a Foundation as may make his Subjects happy in the injoyment of their Religion with freedom of Exercise, and their Property without Invasion. However this Loyal Town Cler∣gyman is an Infidel that will give no credit at all to the solemn At∣testations of the King in this particular. Nay he will have it, that both the one and the other side will conclude that they have undon them∣selves, and fall like fools; that is to say, should they have Read the Declaration in their Churches according to the order of Council. By which it is apparant that the Church of England men have a very bad opinion not only of the Declaration, but of the very de∣sign and meaning of it as if it were fram'd to draw them first into Inconvenience and then to undo them. For says he,

LETTER.

To lose our Livings and Preferments, nay our Liberties and Lives in a plain and direct opposition to Popery, as suppose for refusing to read Mass in our Churches, or to swear to the Trent-Creed, is an honourable way of falling, and has the divine comforts of suffering for Christ and his Religion; and I hope there is none of us but can chearfully submit to the will of God in it. But this is not our present Case; to read the Declaration, is not to read the Mass, nor to profess the Romish Faith; and therefore some will judg that there is no hurt in reading it, and that to suffer for such a refusal, is not to fall like Confessors, but to suffer as Criminals for disobeying the lawful Commands of our Prince: but yet we judge, and we have the concurring Opinions of all the No∣bility and Gentry with us, who have already suffered in this Cause, that to take away the Test and Penal Laws at this time, is but one stop from the introducing of Popery; and therefore to read such a Declaration in our Churches, though it do not immediatly bring Popery in, yet it sets open our Church doors for it, and then it will take its own time to enter:

So that should we comply with this Order, all good Protestants would despise and hate us, and then we may be easily crushed, and shall soon fall with great dishonour and without any pity. This is the difficulty of our Case; we shall be censur'd on both sides but with this difference: We shall fall a little sooner by not reading the Declaration, if our Gracious Prince resent this as an act of an obstinate and peevish or factious Diso∣bedience, as our Enemies will be sure to represent it to him; We shall as certainly fall, and not long after, if we do read it, and then we shall fall unpitied and despised, and it may be with the Curses of the Nation, whom we have ruined by our complyance; and this is the way never to rise more And may I suffer all that can be suffered in this World, rather than contribute to the final Ruin of the best Church in the World.

ANSWER.

Here is a very plausible Harangue built upon the bare suppo∣sition of a single Town Clergyman, while he refuses to read the De∣claration which is the very Act of his Majesties Grace and Favour that secures him from all those fears and jealousies which he la∣bours to instill into the People. Nor is it to be thought that men of Reason and Loyalty, will as the City Clergyman seems to be convinc'd, so readily believe that the King and his Council sit to impose Dilemma's upon the Subject. We shall fall if we do, and we shall fall if we do not read it. But this is only the Clergyman's supposal; On the other side, the refusal to read it is an unquesti∣onable Act of Disobedience to the Command of the Soveraign Au∣thority, than which there cannot be a greater mark of that Dis∣loyalty which the Clergy of the Establish'd Religion of much dis∣own. Besides that it is a Disobedience to the Orders of the Church it self, which injoyns her Ministers to read during the time of Di∣vine Service whatever is injoyned by the King. But, says he, the Reading such a Declaration in our Churches, though it do not immedi∣ately bring in Popery, yet it sets open our Church doors for it, and then it will take its own time to enter. But says the Declaration, In the first place we do declare, That we will protect and maintain our Archbishops, Bishops and Clergy, and all other our Subjects of the Church of England, in the free exercise of their Religion, as by Law Establish'd, and in the full injoyment of all their Possessi∣ons without any molestation or disturbance whatsoever: Here is

the word of a King to bar the Introducing of Popery so much fear'd: which if it were sacred as coming from the Lips of a Crowned Head, they would have render'd still more solemn by reading it in their Churches. And therefore the refusal of it seems to be rather an Act of wilful indiscretion, than of that Religious Care and wary Zeal to which the City Clergy-man pretends.

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.

ANSWER.

This Paragraph runs all along upon a meer Begging the Que∣stion. For it would enforce an Argument from a Topick that nei∣ther

can nor ought to be allowed him: Besides, that it smells very strong of Common-wealth Logick: as pickeering against the Power of Princes, and insinuating the Declaration to be Illegal, contrary to the Laws of God and the Land, and therefore not to be obey'd. So that a greater presumption certainly could not have enter'd the Breast of a Clergy-man of the Church of England, than thus to question the Legality of the King's Publick Acts. Certainly it was never thought unlawful, till this Gentleman found it out, for a King to grant an Act of Indulgence and a Toleration of Religion to his Subjects. And then again to say, the King can do no wrong, insinuates that some Body has done wrong, in advising the Order: which is a Reflexion of too great Importance for men of Loyal Di∣spositions to scan. If he mean that the Order, or rather the De∣claration, is contrary to the Law of the Land, that is to say, to the Penal Laws, and the Law enforcing the Test, that is absolutely to deny the King's Royal Power of Dispensation, which has alrea∣dy render'd them invalid. For he should have first made it out that the Penal Laws and Test were such Sacred and Inviolable Sta∣tutes, that all things done contrary to them, were contrary to Justice and Equity, before he had so slily Inferr'd an Impossibility of giving his Consent to reading the Declaration, as contrary to the Law of the Land, and the Act of a Superiour Authority nor justifi∣able by the King himself. But this Gentleman did not consider that there is no such Stress to be laid upon the Sanctimony of the Penal Laws, and that supporting the Test. For that the Conditi∣ons of all Humane Laws are, That the Law be Honest, Just, Pos∣sible, Convenient to Time and Place, and Conformable to Religi∣on and Reason. In every one of which Characters the Penal Laws, &c. are deficient, if for no other, though there are many, yet for that very Reason alledg'd in His Majesties Declaration, be∣cause they discourage and disable his Majesties Subjects that are well inclin'd and fit to serve him, from doing him those Ser∣vices which by the Law of Nature they are bound to do. But he goes on

LETTER.

Secondly, The Ministers of Religion have a greater tye and obliga∣tion than this, because they have the care and conduct of mens Souls, and therefore are bound to take care that what they publish in their Churches, be neither contrary to the Laws of the Land, nor to the good

of the Church: For the Ministers of Religion are not lookt upon as com∣mon Cryers, but what they Read, they are supposed to recommend too, though they do no more than Read it; and therefore to read any thing in the Church, which I do not consent to and approve, nay which I think prejudicial to Religion, and the Church of God, as well as contrary to the Laws of the Land, is to Mis-guide my People, and to Dissemble with God and Men, because it is presum'd, that I neither do, nor ought to read any thing in the Church, which I do not in some degree approve.

ANSWER.

If Arrogance and high Conceit might pass for Arguments, here is a fair shew of both: For one would think that the Head of the Church might be as competent a Judge of what is fittest to be read in the Churches under his protection, as the Parson of the Parish. Whoever thinks otherwise must have a very low opinion of the Head, who takes upon him to be so wise and censorious a Member. When the Head of the Church sends his Mandates and Injunctions to his inferior Ministers, Reason does in no measure justifie their Disputes and Oppositions to the Inverting the Order of Nature. And therefore it would have argu'd a much more noble confidence in the truth of his Majesties Sincerity and Piety, to have read without boggling, the Declaration recommended to their publishing in Churches, which they could not in good Man∣ners believe that their Soveraign Head would have enjoyn'd them, had he not fore-deem'd it both proper and warrantable. We find the Declaration grounded upon the solid foundation of Constant Royal Sense and Opinion, which no question, had the Concurrence of many able Divines of the first Order in the Church, among whom that Learned Prelate, and famous Combatant against the Church of Rome, the B. of L. appears to be none of the meanest. So that upon so fair a poise, besides the over-ballancing judge∣ment of the King himself, the Opposit•••••• of any other Sanhedrim within this Nation, can never be thoug•••• to be so equal as they pretend, in their own Cause; A Cause wherein Interest, rather than any deep sense of Religion seems to carry the greater sway. The Declaration duly consider'd, and fram'd with mature delibe∣ration, is of one Judgment, but They, hand over-head, are of another: The Declaration finding the Consciences of the Subjects pester'd and incumber'd with Penal Laws, Oaths, and Tests, endea∣vours

to remove those incumbrances. They on the other side, strive to uphold the Dagons of their Animosity against all other Opinions but their own. Who are now to be the Deciders of this Controversie? who indeed but the Soveraign Authority in the person of the King who is Gods Vicegerent; and to whom for that very reason, unless they will deprive him of that supream Dignity, all other persons are bound to submit, there being no higher Tribunal upon Earth to give a more Authentic Determi∣nation. And therefore it was that Cicers in his Oration for Clu∣entius, tell us, that the Supream Magistrate is the Judge of the Laws, and the cheif Interpreter of the Law; we only the Ser∣vants of the Law, that we may be free. Which being so true as it is, what must be thought of them that set up an Interpretation of their own against the Interpretation of the Soveraign Magi∣strate? But the City Clergyman goes on with a very quaint Di∣stinction.

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.

ANSWER.

The first Question here is, Whether a man that consents to read, consents to teach? Or rather, Whether Teaching and Reading be all one? Certainly no man of reason but will believe the City-Clergy-man was very hard put to it to lay the stress of a Refu∣sal to obey the Command of Soveraign Authority upon a Cavill about the signification of a word or two. Who could have ima∣gin'd it would ever have been requisite for the Council to have con∣sulted a Tribunal of Grammarians to obviate such an Objecti∣on as this, before they issu'd forth the Order for Reading the De∣claration. But whether Teaching and Reading be all one, is no∣thing here to the purpose; For there is not any thing as yet ap∣pears in the Letter which proves the Declaration unlawful to be read: Which he ought first to have done before he had gone about to split the signification of Words to gratifie a Conscience, there∣fore squeamish because over-surfeited with the Kings Favours. For there is no Person in England ought to uphold that Law which the King condemns, if it be not in it self unjust and contrary to the Union of Mankind. For the Introducing of Popery into Eng∣land, or the Abolishing of any Laws that may prevent it, if it be the Will and Pleasure of the Soveraign Government, is no more Ille∣gal in it self, than it was for the United Netherlands to abolish Po∣pery and introduce the Protestant Religion into their Dominions, contrary to the Constitutions of the Empire, and the Laws of Spain. So that this City-Clergyman moves all this while upon an Assertion, That the Declaration is Illegal and contrary to the Law of the Land. For if the King of England may be depriv'd of his undoubted Right of Altering, Repealing, or Suspending such Laws as are inconsistent with those Maxims of Rule which he pro∣poses at his coming to the Crown, and which he finds destructive to the greatest part of his Subjects, he loses one of the greatest Advantages which he enjoys, to pursue those Methods of Govern∣ment

which he deems most proper for the renowning his Reign in future History. So much the more hard, when the only means which he accounts most proper for his purposes shall be condemn'd for Unlawful by a nice Splitter of Verbal signification. And yet the distinction of Reading and Consenting is not so difficult as he pretends. For Consent is an agreement of Thoughts as well as Words. But a man may read the Story of Bell and the Dragon in the Church, and yet not agree it to be Orthodox. Nor can a man by reading be said to teach his People, unless he inculcates what he reads by Instruction; for tho' Instruction comprehends Reading, Reading does not comprehend Instruction. Which is the reason there are so many ignorant Persons in the world, to whom the Bible and the Creed it self are read every Sunday in the Year, and yet at the Years end they are not able to tell ye whose Son Iesus Christ is, or who was Solomon's Father. And whereas he says, the King might as well command him to read a Homily for Transubstan∣tiation, as the Declaration, the Inference is false, The one being an Actual Invasion upon the Articles of the Church of England, from which the Declaration upon the Word of a King, is the very thing that secures him: the other only a Civil Duty requir'd in Obe∣dience to the King's Command: and the Refusal of it only a piece of Fineness to render the King's Authority and his Proceedings suspected to the People.

LETTER.

Thirdly, I suppose no man will doubt, but the King intends, that our Reading the Declaration should signifie to the Nation, our Consent and Approbation of it; for the Declaration does not want Publishing, for it is sufficiently known already: but our Reading it in our Churches must serve instead of Addresses of Thanks, which the Clergy generally refused, tho it was only to Thank the King for his Gracious Promises renewed to the Church of England, in his Declaration, which was much more in∣nocent, than to publish the Declaration it self in our Churches: This would perswade one, that the King thinks our reading the Declaration, to sig∣nifie our Consent, and that the People will think it to be so. And he that can satisfie his Conscience, to do an action without consent, which the nature of the Thing, the Design, and intention of the Command, and the Sense of the People expound to be a Consent, may, I think, as well satisfie himself with Equivocations and mental Reservation.

ANSWER.

Here is nothing still but barely repeated Supposition, together with an open and glory'd in Confession of the Ingratitude of the generality of the Church of England; than which he could not certainly have bestow'd a worse Character either upon himself or his Friends. Since it was an Obstinate Ingratitude that no renew∣ances of the King's Favours could reconcile to him, as proceed∣ing from a sowre Disgust, that his Majesty had granted to others the same Liberty which they enjoy'd. As if all Mankind besides them, were bound to groan under the continual Yoak of their Pe∣nal Laws and Tests, no less Rigorous and Uncharitable. To the remainder of this part, the Gentleman has form'd a very substan∣tial Answer of himself. I or, says he,

LETTER.

There are two things to be answered to this, which must be considered. I. That the People understand our Minds, and see that this is matter of Force upon us, and meer Obedience to the King.

ANSWER.

Then the Refusal was a work of Supererogation, the People being better instructed, than all their reading could teach them; and then they must fall that way by going about to instruct them by their Obstinacy, who were of opinion that their Obedience would have been a far better Admonishment. To which he answers,

LETTER.

1. That possibly the People do understand that the matter of the Decla∣ration is against our Principles: But is this any excuse, that we read that, and by reading recommend that to them, which is against our own Con∣sciences and Iudgments? Reading the Declaration would be no Fault at all, but our Duty, when the King commands it, did we approve of the mat∣ter of it; but to censent to teach our People such Doctrines as we think con∣trary to the Laws of God, or the Laws of the Land, does not lessen but ag∣gravate the Fault, and People must be very good natur'd to think this an Excuse.

2. It is not likely that all the people will be of a mind in this matter, some may excuse it, others, and those it may be the most, the best, and the wisest man, will condemn us for it, and then how shall we justifie our selves against their Censures? when the world will be divided in their Opinions, the plain way is certainly the best, to do what we can justifie ourselves, and then let men judge as they please. No men in England will

be pleased with our Reading the Declaration, but those who hope to make great advantage of it against us, and against our Church & Religion▪ others will severely condemn us for it, & censure us as false to our Religion, and as be∣trayers both of Church and State: and besides that, it does not become a Mi∣nister of Religion, to do any thing, which in the opinion of the most charita∣ble men can only be excused; for what needs an excuse, is either a fault or looks very like one; besides this I say; I will not trust mens Charity▪ those who have suffered themselves in this Cause, will not excuse us for fear of suffering; those who are inclined to excuse us now, will not do so when they consider the thing better, and come to feel the ill consequences of it: when our Enemies open their Eyes & tell them what our Reading the Declaration sig∣nified, which they will then tell us we ought to have seen before, tho they were not bound to see it; for we are to guide and instruct them, not they us.

ANSWER.

Tempora mutantur & nos mutamur in illis—Time was when there was nothing more abominable, more hainous, or more cry'd down by the Gowned Clergy of England, than Vox Populi; now Vox populi is the only Suprema ••ex that guides them; they have no other fears than of the Condemnations and Censures of Vox Populi: Vox populi is Vox Dei, and they dare not read the King's Declaration for fear of Vox populi: And all this out of an Infallible Certainty, that no people in England will be pleased with their reading the Declaration but their Enemies. More than this, they see ill Consequences in the Declara∣tion, and find Doctrines in the Declaration contrary to the Laws of God and the Land; invisible however to all those vast numbers of lowd and thankful Addresters for the publishing of it. Quick-sighted Synxes in their own Concerns: but such as car'd so little for the Voice of the People, that they never melted at the Groans of the People, when they had the Scourge in their hands.

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.

ANSWER.

Then it appears that the Declaration has been read, and that by se∣veral Gentlemen of the Church of England also. So that it appears that the reading of it is not of that dangerous Consequence to the Con∣science, as the Author of the Letter would pretend to. For we are to have that charity for those that read it as for those that refused it, that the forme had as much care for their Consciences, as the latter. Now then to what purpose all these Terrors and affrights of Consci∣ence, all this dread of the censures of the People for reading it, since the business admits such a positive variety of Opinion. The Loyal and Obedient may read it, but the Scrupulous and Refractory will not. Well then, if the case be so, the City Clergyman should have done well, to have reserv'd his Niceties and Slicing of significations to himself, and not have gone about so Zealously to spread the infection of his Scru∣ples to the discouragement of others. But he has past the Rubicon and will forward.

LETTER.

To return then to our Argument; If reading the Declaration in our Churches be in the nature of the action, in the intention of the command, in the opinion of the People, an interpretative consent to it, I think my self bound in conscience not to read it, because I am bound in conscience not to approve it.

ANSWER.

To this the Loyal Gentlemen that read it, reply, That if Reading the Declaration in their Churches, be neither in the nature of the Acti∣on, nor in the Intention of the Command, nor in the Opinion of the People an Interpretative Consent to it, they think themselves bound in conscience to read it, because they are bound in conscience to ap∣prove it. But, says he,

LETTER.

It is against the Constitution of the Church of England, which is established by Law, and to which I have subscribed, and therefore am bound in conscience to teach nothing con∣trary to it, while this Obligation lasts.

ANSWER.

He must of necessity allow the Constitution of the Church of England to be a strange uncharitable constition, that will not allow Liberty of Conscience to any but it self. And it is his misfortune, that he has subscribed to a Church that wants the bond of Perfection, which is the reason that many believes he mistakes the Constitution of the Church of England.

LETTER.

It is to teach an Vnlimited and Vniversal Toleration, which the Parliament in 72. declared Illegal, and which has been Condemned by the Christian Church in all Ages.

ANSWER.

What the Parliament Declared in 72, signifies nothing against the Authority of the Scripture, which all along declares the contrary. And whereas the Gentleman is pleased to say, That Universal Toleration has been condemned by the Christian Church in all Ages; There is nothing more contrary to the in∣finite Sayings of the Primitive Fathers and their Successors, and that celebrated Maxim of Tertullian, Religionis non est Religionem cogere.

LETTER.

It is to teach my People, that they need never come to Church more, but have my free Leave, as they have the King's, to go to a Con∣venticle or to Mass.

ANSWER.

This is like Cardinal Wolsey, Ego & Rex, His leave and the King's. But they are a sorry sort of People, That do not know already, That a Rector of a Parish is no Sovereign; but that the People may come and go where they please without his Leave.

LETTER.

It is to teach the Dispensing Power, which alters what has been for∣merly thought, the whole Constitution of this Church and Kingdom, which we dare not do till we have the Authority of Parliament for it.

ANSWER.

It seems the King's Authority signifies nothing, with this City Clergyman. But if he had the Authority of Parliament for it, he would stretch his Conscience, and Read the Declara∣tion. In the mean time, The King's Dispensive Power is no Business for a Man in his Station to meddle with: Nor is he to be such a Judge of Royal Declarations, as to be the Inter∣preter of their Meaning or Intention. That Power is not within the Verge of his Desk or Pulpit either, neither can the

Authority of Parliament warrant any such Boldness among Ec∣clesiasticks.

LETTER.

It is to Recommend to our People, the Choice of such Persons to sit its Parliament, as shall take away the Test and Penal Laws, which most of the Nobility and Gentry of the Nation have declared their Iudgment against.

ANSWER.

Then, not to Read the Declaration, is to recommend to the People, the Choice of such Persons, as shall not take away the Test and Penal Laws; as if the Peoples Election of Parliament Men depended upon the Recommendation of the City-Clergy∣men. But the Declaration requires no such Officious Recom∣mendation from them: And therefore the Gentleman might have spared his Complement to the Nobility and Gentry.

LETTER.

It is to condemn all those Great and Worthy Patriots of their Coun∣try, who forfeited the dearest thing in the World to them, next a good Conscience, viz. The Favour of their Prince, and a great many Ho∣nourable and Profitable Imployments with it, rather than consent to that Proposal of taking away the Test and Penal Laws, which they apprehend destructive to the Church of England and the Protestant Religion; and he who can in Conscience do all this, I think need scruple nothing.

ANSWER.

The Nobility and Gentry are mightily beholding to the City-Clergyman for his kind Encomiums: But whether they would have thought it any Condemnation of their Resolutions, in Re∣ference to the Penal Laws and Test, is uncertain; for the No∣bility and Gentry do not depend upon this Gentleman's Divi∣nity; their Motions, and the Circumstances that guide their Actions being of a higher Nature, than to care for the Condem∣nation of their Chaplains. However, if the Nobility and Gen∣try were so Kind to do what they did for their sakes, the City-Clergyman has ill retaliated their Favour, to lay the Load of his Actual Disobedience upon the Shoulders of the Nobility and Gentry of the Nation. But now he's come to his Effects and ill Consequences: for says he,

LETTER.

For let us consider further, What the Effects and Consequences of our Reading the Declaration are likely to be, and I think they are Matter of Conscience too, when they are Evident and Apparent.

This will certainly render our Persons and Ministry infinitely Con∣temptible, which is against that Apostolick Canon, Let no man de∣spise thee, Tit. 2. 15. That is, so to Behave himself in his Ministe∣rial Office, as not to fall under Contempt; and therefore this obliges the Conscience, not to make our selves Ridiculous, nor to render our Mi∣nistry, our Counsels, Exhortations, Preaching, Writing, of no effect, which is a thousand times worse than being Silenced: Our Sufferings will Preach more effectually to the People, when we cannot Speak to them: But he who for Fear or Cowardize, or the Love of this World, betrays his Church and Religion by undue Compliances, and will cer∣tainly be thought to do so, may continue to Preach, but to no purpose; and when we have rendred our selves Ridiculous and contemptible, we shall then quickly Fall, and Fall unpitied.

ANSWER.

He is now wrapt up in the Spirit of Prophesie, what Strange things will befal him for reading the Declaration, which he calls a Betraying the Church by undue Complyances: But the Prophet mistakes the Points that renders the Ministerial Office he means Ridiculous; for while they keep to the Business of Sound Doctrine, and meerly True Divinity, there is not a more Profound or Learned Clergy in the World, than are they of the Church of England; but when they will be Studying the Points of Royal Declarations, which are Acts of State, will be making their Pulpits the Stages of Farce and Satyr, will be In∣terloping and Intruding into State Affairs, which nothing at all concern them; when they will be Teaching the King, the Judges, Deputy Lieutenants, and all other Magistrates, their Duties: This is that which renders the Ministry, before men∣tioned, or any Ministry in the World, Ridiculous. And it is to be feared, The City-Clergyman has not altogether freed himself from that Contempt, in calling the Reading of the De∣claration, a Betraying of the Church by Undue Complyances; and then Complementing the Nobility and Gentry of the Na∣tion to Justifie his Ridiculous Language; and all this to gain Popularity, or to preserve the Possession of his Living under

the Name of the Protestant Religion; for he must not take it amiss, That others dive with the same severity into his Mean∣ing as he dives into the King's Intentions.

LETTER.

There is nothing will so effectually tend to the final Ruin of the Church of England, because our Reading the Declaration will Dis∣courage, or Provoke, or misguide, all the Friends the Church of England has: can we blame any man for not preserving the Laws and the Religion of our Church and Nation, when we our selves will venture nothing for it? can we blame any Man for consenting to Re∣peal the Test and Penal Laws, when we recommend it to them by Reading the Declaration? Have we not Reason to expect that the No∣bility and Gentry, who have already Suffered in this Cause, when they hear themselves condemned for it in all the Churches of England, will think it time to mend such a Fault, and reconcile themselves to their Prince? and if our Church fall this way, is there any Reason to ex∣pect that it should ever rise again? These Consequences are almost as evident as Demonstrations, and let it be what it will in it self, which I foresee will destroy the Church of England and the Protestant Re∣gion and Interest, I think I ought to make as much Conscience of doing it, as of doing the most immoral Action in Nature.

ANSWER.

Here we find him talking as if the Final Ruine of the Church of England, lay upon the Church of England-mens Reading or Not Reading the Declaration, and that by Not Reading it, they had saved the Palladium's and Ancilia of their Religion. And all these Rodomontado's upon bare Sup∣positions and Imaginations no ways compatible to Reason; for it is not Rational to Believe, That the Nobility and Gentle∣men of England, when they delivered their Sentiments contra∣ry to what was Proposed to them concerning the Test (for as to the Penal Laws, 'tis well known, Their Judgments are much more Remiss) did what they did for Fear of being Con∣demned by the Levites whom they feed. 'Tis therefore a Pre∣sumption in the City-clergyman to arrogate in the Plural Number such a Power over the Nobility and Gentry, as if they were bound to Justifie his and his Friend's particular Acts of Disobe∣dience,

and could not be Safe in their Resolutions, unless they were Obstinate. What was proposed to the Nobility and Gentry was one thing, what was commanded them was another; and there is a great Difference between not Consent∣ing to a Proposal, and not Submitting to a Sovereign Com∣mand.

LETTER.

To say that these mischievous Consequences are not absolutely necessary, and therefore do not affect the Conscience, because we are not certain they will follow, is a very mean Objection. Moral Actions indeed have not such necessary Consequences, as Natural Causes have Necessary Effects; because no Moral Causes act necessarily. Reading the Declaration will not as necessarily destroy the Church of England, as Fire burns Wood; but if the Consequence be plain and evident, the most likely thing that can happen, if it be unreasonable to expect any other, if it be what is plainly intended and designed, either I must never have any regard to Moral Consequences of my Actions, or if ever they are to be consider'd, they are in this case.

Why are the Nobility and Gentry so extremely averse to the Repeal of the Test and Penal Laws? why do they forfeit the King's Favour, and their Honourable Stations, rather than comply with it? If you say that this tends to destroy the Church of England and the Protestant Religion, I ask whether this be the necessary consequence of it? whether the King cannot keep his Promise to the Church of England if the Test and Penal Laws be repealed? We cannot say, but this may be: and yet the Nation does not think fit to try it; and we commend those Great Men who deny it; and if the same Questions were put to us, we think we ought in Conscience to deny them our selves: and are there not as high probabilities, that our Reading the Declaration will promote the Repeal of the Test and Penal Laws, as that such a Repeal will ruine our Constitution, and bring in Popery upon us? Is it not as probable, that such a Complyance in us, will disoblige all the Nobility and Gen∣try, who have hitherto been firm to us, as that when the power of the Nation is put into Popish Hands; by the Repeal of such Tests and Laws, the Priests and Iesuites may find some salvo for the Kings Conscience, and persuade him to forget his Promise to the Church of England? and if the probable ill consequences of Repealing the Test and Penal Laws, be a good reason not to comply with it, I cannot see but that the as

probable ill consequences of Reading the Declaration, is as good a reason not to Read it.

ANSWER.

These are all meer Comments and Descants of the City-Clergyman, upon the Honour and Conscience of his Majesty, and the evil design of the Declaration upon the Church of Eng∣land, drawn from Probabilities of the evil consequences of Re∣pealing the Penal Laws and Test, which the Church of England must no more part with, then the Iews with their Ark, without exposing themselves to utter ruine and destruction. For the charitable Clergyman takes no care of any other part of the Protestant Religion, so the Church of England be secure. To all which if he would have but vouchsaf'd to have read the De∣claration, he might have found an Answer shining fully out, and dispelling all the Fogs and Mists of his Probable Consequences in His Majesty's own words; where he declares a second time, That ever since His granting the Indulgence, he has made it His principal Care to see it preserved without distinction; And farther adds his Resolutions, To use His utmost Endeavours to Establish Liberty of Conscience on such just and equal foundations, as will render it unalterable, and seoure to All People the free Exercise of their Religion for ever. But this will not serve the City-Clergy-man's turn; he must have the Rains of Temporal as well as Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in his own hand, and drive on for ever, or else there is nothing to be done. They are like Caesar, contemning all Superiors; and like Rom∣pey, disdaining all Equals. A passionate conceit of their own Perfection above all other, which no Man of common sense can be reconcil'd to; and a convincing Argument that those Persons must have but little or no Conscience themselves, who with so much vigor and obstinacy labour to uphold a Civil Per∣secution of Penal Laws and Tests, so directly opposite to all the Dictates of Conscience and Reason.

LETTER.

The most material Objection is, That the Dissenters, whom we ought not to provoke, will expound our not Reading it, to be the effect of a Persecuting Spirit: Now I wonder Men should lay any weight on this, who will not allow the most probable consequences of our Actions,

to have any influence upon Conscience; for if we must compare con∣sequences, to disoblige all the Nobility and Gentry by Reading it, is likely to be much more fatal, than to anger the Dissenters; and it is more likely, and there is much more reason for it, that one should be offended than the other: For the Dissenters who are Wise and Consi∣dering, are sensible of the Snare themselves, and though they desire Ease and Liberty, they are not willing to have it with such apparent hazard of Church and State: I am sure that though we were never so desirous that they might have their Liberty, (and when there is op∣portunity of shewing our Inclinations without danger, they may find that we are not such Persecutors as we are represented,) yet we cannot consent that they should have it this way, which they will find the dearest Liberty that ever was granted.

ANSWER.

After his Complements put upon the Nobility and Gentry of the Nation, the Author of the Letter descends to scrape a new acquaintance with the Dissenters, and fain would draw them into his Belief, upon a very odd surmise, that they are now in some kind of manner reconcil'd. But the Complement is at such a remote distance, that he betray'd his Politicks to court them at such an indifferent rate. And in∣deed his Expressions are so obscure, that if this Church of England Man, is so nice that he dare not trust the King upon such clear and solemn Promises, the Dissenters, who have had such severe Experience of their Favours, have much less rea∣son to credit the forc'd Complement of the City-Clergyman. This is only to be wonder'd at, that the City-Clergyman should make the King so dear a Seller of Liberty of Conscience, when there was no Price could purchase it from the Persecution of the Penal Law-Men, his undoubted Brethren.

LETTER.

This Sir, is our Case in short, the Difficulties are great on both sides, and therefore now if ever, we ought to besiege Heaven with our Prayers, for Wisdom, and Counsel and Courage, that God would pro∣tect his Church and Reformed Christianity, against all the devices of their Enemies: Which is the daily and hearty Prayer of,

SIR,

Your Friend and Brother.

May 22. 1688.

ANSWER.

Being thus come from his Politicks to his Prayers, 'tis time to leave him, not doubting but if his Prayers be Just, they will be heard; if not, neither his Letter nor his Prayers will signifie any thing.

POSTSCRIPT.

I Have just now seen H. Care's Paper, called, The Publick Oc∣currences, which came out to day, and cannot but set you right as to his News about the Reading of the Declaration on Sunday: He tells you, That several Divines of the Church of England, in and about the City, eminent for their Piety and Moderation, did Yester∣day Read His Majesty's late Declaration in their Churches, accord∣ing to the Order in that behalf; but some (to the great surprize of their Parishioners) were pleased to decline it. You in the Country are from this Account to believe, that it was Read here by the gene∣rality of the Clergy, and by the eminent Men among them: But I can and do assure you, that this is one of the most impudent Lyes that ever was printed: For as to this City which hath above a Hundred Parishes in it, it was Read only in Four or Five Churches, all the rest and best of the Clergy refusing it every where. I will spare their Names who Read it; but should I mention them, it would make you who know this City, a little heartily to deride H. C's. Account of them. And for the Surprize he talks of, the contrary of it is so true, that in Wood-street, where it was Read by one Dr. M. the People generally went out of the Church. This I tell you, that you may be provided for the future against such an impudent Lyar, who, for Bread, can vouch and put about the Nation, the falsest of things.

I am Yours.

ANSWER.

The City-Clergyman has given the Lye to the Author of the Publick Occurrences: It were to be wish'd that the Author had nam'd all the rest besides those we already know, that were so Loyal as to Read the Declaration. If they were not so numerous as they are said to be in the Occurrences, we wish they had been as many in number as their Loyalty required. But we leave this for the Author himself, to do himself Justice by a more particu∣lar Answer.

FINIS.