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 interpreted 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 cannot 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 Ministers were no more punishable than the Horses are which draw an innocent 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 Question For it would enforce an Argument from a Topick that neither 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 Dispositions to scan If he mean that the Order or rather the Declaration 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 already render'd them invalid For he should have first made it out that the Penal Laws and Test were such Sacred and Inviolable Statutes 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 justifiable 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 Conditions of all Humane Laws are That the Law be Honest Just Possible Convenient to Time and Place and Conformable to Religion 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 because they discourage and disable his Majesties Subjects that are well inclin'd and fit to serve him from doing him those Services 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 obligation 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 common 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 Manners 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 judgement of the King himself the Oppositâ—â—â— of any other Sanhedrim within this Nation can never be thougâ—â— 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 deliberation 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 endeavours 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 Determination And therefore it was that Cicers in his Oration for Cluentius tell us that the Supream Magistrate is the Judge of the Laws and the cheif Interpreter of the Law we only the Servants 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 Magistrate But the City Clergyman goes on with a very quaint Distinction 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 Teaâ—â—ing Suppose then I do not consent 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 Interpretation 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 Homilies 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 Established so I take the Declaration to be And if we may read the Declaration 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 Refusal to obey the Command of Soveraign Authority upon a Cavill about the signification of a word or two Who could have imagin'd it would ever have been requisite for the Council to have consulted a Tribunal of Grammarians to obviate such an Objection as this before they issu'd forth the Order for Reading the Declaration But whether Teaching and Reading be all one is nothing here to the purpose For there is not any thing as yet appears 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 therefore 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 England or the Abolishing of any Laws that may prevent it if it be the Will and Pleasure of the Soveraign Government is no more Illegal in it self than it was for the United Netherlands to abolish Popery 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 proposes 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 Government 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 Transubstantiation 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 Obedience 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 innocent than to publish the Declaration it self in our Churches This would perswade one that the King thinks our reading the Declaration to signifie 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 renewances of the King's Favours could reconcile to him as proceeding 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 Penal Laws and Tests no less Rigorous and Uncharitable To the remainder of this part the Gentleman has form'd a very substantial 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 Declaration 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 Consciences and Iudgments Reading the Declaration would be no Fault at all but our Duty when the King commands it did we approve of the matter of it but to censent to teach our People such Doctrines as we think contrary to the Laws of God or the Laws of the Land does not lessen but aggravate 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 betrayers both of Church and State and besides that it does not become a Minister of Religion to do any thing which in the opinion of the most charitable 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 signified 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 â—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 Declaration 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 Service when all men ought to be most grave and serious and for from dissembling with God or Men does in the nature of the thing imply our approbation 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 unjustifiable 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 several Gentlemen of the Church of England also So that it appears that the reading of it is not of that dangerous Consequence to the Conscience 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 Conscience all this dread of the