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 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 Interloping 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 mentioned 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 Declaration a Betraying of the Church by Undue Complyances and then Complementing the Nobility and Gentry of the Nation 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 Meaning 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 Discourage 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 Repeal the Test and Penal Laws when we recommend it to them by Reading the Declaration Have we not Reason to expect that the Nobility 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 expect 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 Region 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 Suppositions and Imaginations no ways compatible to Reason for it is not Rational to Believe That the Nobility and Gentlemen of England when they delivered their Sentiments contrary to what was Proposed to them concerning the Test for as to the Penal Laws 't is well known Their Judgments are much more Remiss did what they did for Fear of being Condemned by the Levites whom they feed 'T is therefore a Presumption 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 Disobedience 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 Consenting to a Proposal and not Submitting to a Sovereign Command 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 Gentry 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 England drawn from Probabilities of the evil consequences of Repealing 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 Declaration 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
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