UNless you had told me in what manner your Friend was Con­cern'd, when he met with His Majesties Order to Read His Declaration; I cannot tell whether he had any ground to wonder or not: It looks like Ingenuity in you, to tell your Friend your thoughts freely; but if you mean by freely, the liberty you take to tell the World plainly, how much you Clash with your Prince, which seems to be your mean­ing, by your saying, It is not a time to be Reserved: Such a Freedom taken, might not long since have met with such a Sus­pition, of something being Reserved in this presumed Freedom, which might have been Accompanied with a dangerous Inuendo.

Your next Paragraph Owns, You are intirely Out-witted; which does as little Credit your Prudence, as your following Discourse, does your Cause: But if you fall for want of Fore-cast, who can help it? You would not abate your Violence one jott, when seasonably prompted to consider what the Fruit of your Rigorous, and more then Legal Prosecution of Pro­testants upon Penal Laws would produce; Nor will you stand to your Old and A­vowed Principles.

There is indeed an Honourable way of Falling: When a Christian is called to Suffer for such things as will bear him out in Suffering, and whereof he will never have occasion to be Ashamed, 1 Pet. 4. 16. But it may deserve a Clergy-mans Consideration, Whether a Sturdy Resol­vedness not to part with such things, as have oft occasioned uncommendable Pra­ctices, may not have some Affinity with that Evil-Doing, and as a Busy-Body in other Mens matters, which St. Peter cau­tions against, v. 15.

In the next place, You says▪ That to take away the Test and Penal Laws at this time, is but one step from Popery.

Why did you not then Consent, and Press to have them taken away, when [Page 2] there was no such Danger, yea, when the Taking them away, might have rendred the Introducing of Popery inconceivably Difficult, if not Impossible?

But how do you know, that you judge Right in this Case now? Why say you, We have the Concurring Opinion of the No­bility and Gentry with us, who have already Suffered in this Cause: But is this the proof of an Opinion, to say, That some of Honour and Wealth, have Embraced and Adhere to it, though with some In­convenience to themselves? It would al­most tempt a man to think a Reasoner is at a great Loss, when instead of Argu­ments, he insists for proof on the Out­side Grandeur of such as are of the Opini­on he pleads for.

When the Prince, and many of the People were averse to the Crucifying of CHRIST, what a Clamour did the Cler­gy make, Have any of the Rulers, or the Pharisees believed on him? But this People who know not the Law, are Accursed: John 7. 48, 49.

But suppose you are right in this point, What Efficacy hath the Clergy's Read­ing the King's Declaration, to take off the Tests and Penal Laws? If the Clergy's Breath can shake, or throw them away, Either the Laws are of little worth, and have a very sorry foundation, or the Cler­gy are Men of an Admirable Character.

But say you, Though our Reading, do not immediately bring in Popery, yet it sets open our Church Doors for it: I cannot ima­gine, Why our Church Doors may not be Shutt and Lock'd as fast after Reading, as before; But if the Clergy pretend to such Power with their breath (as to break the Strongest Barrs, set Open our Church-Doors so Wide, as that they can never be Shut again) They may well allow their Prince a Dispensing Power; or how can He be Safe, as long as they can breathe?

Say you, If we comply with this Order, all good Protestants will Despise and Hate us: To Hate any Person, is against an Es­sential part of a good Protestants Religi­on; if the Order be not Sinful, they will have no cause to Despise you, because you read it, and Act therein according to your Avowed Doctrine.

If the Order be in your Opinion Sinful, Why do you not shew, what Law of God is Broken by it? This is that you should have done, and not have insisted on such poor low considerations, as Personal Danger, Dishonour, and falling without Pity.

He that Suffers on a Good Account, hath Honour and Comfort enough in him­self, and from his God; He that Suffers in a bad Cause, falls Dishonourably, though he have never so many Great Men to pity him.

The Great Difficulty, You say, of your Case is this, That fall you must, Sooner or Later; And therefore like Prudent Men, you think the Wisest Course is, to be Rui­ned presently; But it is not the first time I have heard of that Wise sort of People, who are for a short Life, and a Merry: But what Necessity is there of your latter Falling? This is certainly like a Melan­choly Mans cherishing such a resolved Jea­lousie of wanting Bread at Last, as makes him Pine himself to Death in the midst of Plenty. But what is the ground of this Jealousie? If we fall after Reading, this is the way never to Rise more: And what mean you by that? Is it that after Read­ing the Declaration, if Penal Laws be ta­ken away, you shall never be trusted a­gain with such a Power to mischief your Fellow Subjects? If this be all, it may be all for the better; for neither the Prospe­rity of the Church of Christ, nor the Ho­nour or Welfare of the Kingdom, do at all depend on One Parties having it in their Power to Impoverish or Ruine all the Rest of the Nation for Meer Matters of Conscience.

You now come to Examine the Matter, as you say, Impartially; And first, Yo [...] Suppose, That no Minister of the Church of [Page 3] England can give his consent to the Decla­ration: This is just as much as to beg the Question you should prove, and so all you Write signifies nothing with those who do not Suppose what you Suppose.

If you had indeed impartially Exami­ned, and Proved the matter of the Decla­ration to be Sinful; you would have had no occasion to have discovered your Disloyal­ty, in pretending an Authority against the Command of your Prince, nor of Instan­cing (as if you had lately perused the Old History of the Barons Wars) that you have the Nobility and Gentry on your Side.

You say, 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. This is not Express'd after the usual manner of the Church of En­gland, when treating with the Dissenters; They would not then yield that Orders might be Suspended from a Publication, till those who were required to publish them did approve the matter; but it was then constantly Affirmed, that the Or­der must be Obeyed, if the matter of it were not plainly Sinful; and of this, you Asserted, Authority was to judge: Was not this the lowest, you would ever stoop, when Scruples were raised, and Con­science pretended against your Orders? Where does the Scriptures forbid it? If it be not Forbidden, the Command is plain (and the safest way must be taken, which is) to Obey. It is certain, some parts of the Declaration, contain very plain and necessary Truths, which Church-of-England-Ministers ought to Approve; If there be any thing in it which you think you may not Approve, that should have been Specified; it would have been more modest, humbly to have Applyed to the King for a convenient Explication in that part, then presently in Print, to Cry the whole is Sinful, and a device to ruine that you call the best Church in the World.

Next, You endeavour to prove, That Reading the Declaration in our Churches, is an Interpretative Consent: Because, say you, By Our Law, Ministerial Officers, are accountable, for their Actions; and the Authority of Superiours, though of the King himself, cannot justifie Inferiours in Exe­cuting any Illegal Command: With reference to the Command of Superiours, we are to exer­cise our own Judgment and Reason; and we may 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.

This sort of Arguing (whatever may be in it) would not a few years since be allow­ed by some sort of People sufficiently known in this Kingdom, when urg'd in opposition to their Inclinations: Then the Prince was set above Law, and it was His Command, and the Notification of His Pleasure, made any thing (which was not Malum in se) Obliging; Private Judgment might by no means be admitted, when once the Governours had interessed themselves in it, and made a Determination. Is it not ve­ry Dis-ingenuous for any Men, especially for Ministers, to have recourse to a Principle of their Adversaries, (which they have for many years decried) onely because they would serve themselves with it upon a par­ticular Occasion, and to forsake their own Doctrine, which they Avowed so long as it would gratifie their Revenge and Ambition, tho now they think it may do them some Diskindness? This is to fetch Weapons out of their Adversaries Artille­ry, not to Fight against them, but to As­sault their Prince, and batter that Autho­rity of which they formerly boasted, They were the only Supporters: The most Unjustifiable, and Shameful Inconstancy, is that of Altering, and Changing, and Closing with any thing, to serve a present Turn; Why may you not tell the People in his Majesties words, That none of His Subjects shall be Forced by Fines, and o­ther Penalties, to Submit their Judgment [Page 4] to others in the weightiest matters, as well as to tell the Nation this in Print, That Clergy-men must follow their own Judgment, not only in matters of Reli­gion, but of Law also? If Inferiour Offi­cers are not satisfied that their Superiours Command is not Lawful, Is it not e­nough for them to desist from Obeying it, without making Clamours against it in Print? Can they not comfort themselves (in Silence) with that Doctrine of Uni­versal Passive-Obedience, which they, when in the height of their Ease and Au­thority, Preached to others as Orthodox and Sound; and thought they thereby Signalized their Loyalty above all other Societies of People in the World? If a Prince Declares, That there are some Laws in being, which are greatly Injuri­ous to many of His Subjects, and that He is willing, That these Inconveniences shall be redressed in a Legal Way: Can any thing be more Condescending and Gracious, then for him to Certifie this to his People, who are to Choose those that are to Repeal such Laws as are Prejudicial, and make such Others, as may be for the Publick Good? What hurt can there be in making known the Princes Pleasure in this, as particularly as he shall think meet, that His People may have time to Consider and weigh Matters, that nothing be done Unadvisedly in such Important Concerns?

But say you, Ministers of Religion have the Care and Conduct of Souls, and there­fore are bound to take Care, that what they publish in their Churches be neither contrary to the Laws of the Land, or the good of the Church.

If you would keep close to your own Argument, you should have said, That Ministers who have the Care of Souls, are bound to take Care, that what they publish in their Churches, be not con­trary to the Law of God.

But Since you Speak of the Laws of the Land, I can see no reason from thence, Why such Orders as are given, by those that are under His Majest [...] should be Enjoyned to be Observed, (though Conscience be really concerned in the Matter) and His Majesties Orders, which have far greater Authority be, De­nied: It may be when People are well acquainted with the Kings Declaration, it may have this good Effect, That the Ministers of Religion, shall not be com­pelled to Publish other Peoples Pleasures in their Churches; at least, not under such severe Temporal Penalties, as have been heretofore insisted on.

You say, Ministers of Religion are not looked upon as common Cryers; but what they Read they are supposed to Recom­mend too.

If they have not been looked upon as common Cryers, I think they have been looked upon as Worse; When Bishops sent Orders made Arbitrarily by Justi­ces of the Sessions, to be Published by them in time of Divine Service: B [...]t doth not the Rubrick appoint, That what the King Enjoyns, as well as what the Bishops Enjoyn [...], shall be Published in the Churches? The Clergy of the Church of England have loudly Taught, and solemnly Owned, That the King of England, as Head of the Church, has Power to make Injunctions and Con­stitutions, and are not Ministers every jot as much obliged to be His Maje­sty's Cryers, as to be Instruments through which the Bishop's Eccho may sound more Audibly to the People?

But what they Read, they Recommend too. Ministers are not to be considered alike, in every thing they Publish in the Church. A difference arises from the Nature of the things we Publish: Read­ing a Chapter in the Bible, and Publish­ing the Banns of Matrimony, or Cita­tions, are differently to be Considered; when you Publish the Banns, what do you Recommend, unless it be to know, Whether any of the People have any [Page 5] thing to Object, against such Persons Marrying? But seeing you say, That for a Minister to Read any thing in the Church which he does not consent to, or approve, is to Misguide the People: I would ask you this one Question, Whether you do really think, that the Worship which His Majesty doth Celebrate, be the true, and right Way of Worshipping God, which Protestants ought to Pray He may be kept and strengthened in? If you are for the Negative, Pray con­sider what you Recommend to the Peo­ple, when you Read these Words in the Litany; That it may please Thee to keep and strengthen, in the true Worshipping of Thee, Thy Servant James, Our most Gra­cious King and Governour.

But Reading is Teaching: Very good; What then? I may not Read any thing in the Church, but what I approve. But, are not the People Judges for themselves of what you Read? It is not your Reading a thing in the Church, that Determines the People, unless they pay the Clergy a greater Deference than they deserve; After all your Reading, and Teaching too, be it in a Sermon of your own making, (which no doubt, you prefer much above His Majesty's Declaration) Protestants will not fol­low your Conduct any farther, than they are Convinced it is good: A Man is not Determined by what he hears, otherwise than by the Evidence he hath concerning it: Now it would almost tempt Peo­ple to believe the Declaration hath so much Reason and Light accompanying it, as Our Clergy cannot well Answer; and that therefore they are afraid to read it, least the People should be Convinced, and not follow their Conduct so servile­ly as they would have them.

But, Why may I not then Read a Homily for Transubstantiation, or Invocation of Saints, if the King sends me such? Let the Question be, Whether every thing Read in the Church, be a part of Divine Service? And then if you Consider, and Answer it sedately, you will find your own Question Resolved.

If you can prove the Declaration to be contrary to the Word of God, I will have no further Contest with you about Read­ing it in the Church: I wish no humane Orders were imposed upon Ministers, to be Read in the Church: But if any Persons have right to enjoyn them to Read such Orders there, certainly the KING has much more.

The King intends, Our Reading this De­claration should signifie to the Nation, Our Consent and Approbation of it: What have Clergy-men to do, to pry into the King's secret Intentions? The Declaration speaks plainly for it self. But the D [...]claration does not want Publishing. How can you tell that? Must the Clergy, or His Majesty judge when His Declaration is sufficient­ly made known? But this is designed to serve instead of Addresses of Thanks, which the Clergy generally refused, though it was only to thank the King for His Gracious Pro­mises, Renewed to the Church of England: Many of the Clergy have been looked up­on a great while, as Persons Addicted be­yond Measure to flatter their Prince; and behold, all on a sudden, they are become Rude towards him, or worse; if they may not have leave to Mischief their Dissen­ting Neighbours, they will not thank their Prince for renewed Promises to Pro­tect and Maintain them: Was ever ill Manners and Ingratitude towards a Prince, thus rudely and disingeniously boasted of? Who can think these Persons apprehend themselves to be in danger of falling without Pity, who brag thus openly of their Stoutness, that they would not so much as give their Prince Thanks, for the most Gracious Promise he could make them?

You say, It does not become a Minister of Religion to do any thing, which in the O­pinion [Page 6] of the most Charitable Man, can only be Excused. In this, I think you are very much in the Right; I wish the Multitude to whom your Letters are sent, may fix their Hearts on this pertinent Passage: No Charity can Excuse at present, a great many of your former Practises, nor will they find any Excuse at last, if not time­ly repented of: If you had hitherto Acted by this Rule, you would never have need­ed to fear your Fall with Contempt, or without Pity.

You mention the Book of Sports, which w [...] ordered to be read in Churches. I will not say, how strict the greatest Church-men were for Reading of it, nor how well it did Comport with the Fourth Command; I only enquire, whether the present KING, has not as much Right and Power, to Order his Declaration to be Read in Churches, as King Charles the 1st. had, to order the Book of Sports to be Read there? And which of these two did Thwart the Holy Scriptures most?

You say, It is against the Constitution of the Church of England; It is to teach an Ʋn­limited and Ʋniversal Toleration, which was Declared in Parliament Illegal, in 1672, and has been condemned by the Christian Church in all Ages.

The King's Authority to make Injun­ctions and Orders, has been heretofore cry­ed up, as a main part of the Constitution of the Church of England; How comes this Change all on a sudden? But, what is this Universal Toleration? No more but this, That no one Party of His Maje­sty's Subjects, shall be trusted with a Pow­er to destroy all the Rest: Will nothing serve your turn, unless you may conti­nually render your selves grievous to your Fellow Subjects? Must none live and en­joy the comfortable Influences of Society and Government, but those who will en­tirely surrender themselves blindly to your Dictates? Methinks, Sober, Under­standing and good Clergy-men, should be afraid, lest any of that which was Levi's Reproach, should be a Brand upon them.

The Instruments of Cruelty are in their Habitation; Oh! My Soul, come not thou into their Secret, Gen. 49. 5, 6.

I will not intermeddle with Parliaments, but only say, They are not always of one and the same mind; and Time was, when many of the Clergy of the Church of En­gland, talked very contemptibly of some of them. But in that you say, It has been Condemned by the Christian Church in all Ages; this wants Proof: If it be well considered, the Christian Church will be found to thrive best, under such an Uni­versal Toleration as Constantine did grant, before Ease, Pleasure and Wealth, had Corrupted the Bishops. Hence the Pro­verb, Golden Priests, and Wooden Chalices, Golden Chalices, Wooden Priests; till the Clergy grew Negligent and Haughty under Constantines Reign: It is certain, the Orthodox had no Humane Penal Laws whereby to punish Hereticks.

Say you, (1.) It is to Teach my People, they need never come to Church more: To what an Extravagant Indecency, towards both their Prince and their Church, will the Affection of Tyrannizing over others, Transport some Church-men? Could any Enemy of the Church of England, have ad­vanced any thing more to Her Discredit, than to say, Her Members are under no Ob­ligation to attend on Her Ministry, but what arises from Force and Penal Laws? Why may not People have your leave, as well as their KING's, to go, not only to Con­venticles, but to the Mass, till they are convinc'd, that they do ill in going thi­ther? It is much better becoming a Mini­ster of Religion, to Convince such by Scripture and Reason, that their Wor­ship is false, then to Contend to have them cast into Prison, and by Fines and Confiscations, to Compel them against their Conscience to come to Church; for their Presence there, is no more plea­sing [Page 7] to God, nor Beneficial to their own Souls, whilst their Minds are elsewhere, than it would be, if they were at a Con­venticle, or at Mass.

(2.) It is to teach the Dispensing Pow­er, which alters what has been formerly thought the whole Constitution of this Church and Kingdom.

Who are they that thus thought for­merly? Surely, none of those who Taught loudly, and in Prints solemnly Authori­zed, That Acts of Parliament were Acts of Grace, that the Princes Power could not be bounded; if there be any remain­ing, who were always of another Opini­on, they may pretend the same things now as heretofore: But for such Persons as have been Instruments of Wrong and Mischief, to borrow such Notions from o­thers, before they have Renounced their former Avowed Principles, and satisfied for their Injuries they have done, They can have nothing to Alledge for them­selves, which can justifie them in this pre­sent Affair.

(3.) It is to Recommend to Our People the Choice of such Persons to sit in Par­liament, as shall take away the Test and Penal Laws.

Is not this to Recommend the Clergy, as Persons of great Tenderness toward the People? You would never permit them to be Quiet, as long as it was in your Power to make them Uneasy: You would now perswade them, that the No­bility and Gentry are as much against the People's Ease, as you are; (for which, I suppose, some of them will re­turn you no Thanks) and now you will not Read the King's Declaration to your People, because it teacheth them how they may provide for their own Ease, so as to live peaceably among themselves, and securely, under His Majesty's Ten­der and Equal Care for them all.

(4.) It is to Condemn all those great and Worthy Patriots of their Countrey, who forfeited the dearest thing in the World to them, next a good Conscience; viz. The Favour of their Prince, and a great many Honourable and Profitable Employments with it, rather than consent to that Pro­posal, of taking away the Test and PenalLaws, 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.

Your Reading the Declaration, doth no more condemn those who approve not of the King's Intentions therein Explain­ed, than your refusing to Read it, doth Condemn the KING: A good Consci­ence should be very Dear to every Man; I think no Man should Act in direct Op­position to an Erring Conscience, till he can be better Instructed. Those that do really Apprehend, that taking away Penal Laws will be Destructive to the Church of England, and Protestant Re­ligion, ought not to Interest themselves for the taking them away: But I do not understand, why both these may not be sufficiently secured by other means, than by putting a Power in the Hands of one Party of His Majesty's Subjects, to ruine all the rest; whether such a Security may not be found out, will be best Determined, when consi­dered by the Wisdom of the Nation, when met; and in a Capacity to Re­peal some Old, and make other New Laws, as Emergencies may require.

Now let any Rational Man judge, Whether, notwithstanding all your Arguments, a Conscien­tious Man, who does not scruple to Read the King's Declaration, may not scruple at many things which you have done formerly, and at your stri­ving to keep your selves still in a Capacity, to do the like for the future.

You say, Reading the Declaration, will Render your Persons and Ministry, infinitely Contemptible. Infinite Contempt, is huge Contempt indeed; I acknowledge, Ministers ought to behave themselves so, as that they be neither Blamed nor Contem­ned: There is scarce any thing makes a Minister [Page 8] more justly contemptible, than Encouraging Im­moralities, Flattering and Soothing great Men, and shewing a Domineering Temper, and Insatia­ble Cruelty, where they can have an Opportunity to Exercise it: Let such as have been Guilty of these or the like Crimes, reflect on themselves and Repent, and they need not fear Contempt for Reading the Declaration.

Nothing will so Effectually tend to the Final Ru­ine of the Church of England, because Our Read­ing will discourage, or provoke, or misguide all the Churches Friends.

In that You except not one of her Friends, you horridly affront them all, by the Character you give them; for you herein suppose them all to be either very Timerous, very Testy, or very Ignorant Persons; But I think you are greatly out, and lay abundantly more Weight on the Clergies Reading the Declaration, than it will bear: For whether you Read or no, such as are judicious and good Friends to the Church, will be firm to Her, and to their Religion; and till you prove, that nothing can secure the Religion of our Church, but these Penal Laws and Tests, your dismal Consequence vanishes into Nothing: The Church of England may be kept upon Her true Foundation, (and I hope Penal Laws have not much to do there) and be by Law secured in all Her Rights, from being hurt by any other Parties, (if these LAWS and TESTS be Re­pealed.) And she will be never the less Beautiful and Prosperous, because the Power which she has used to hurt others, is taken out of her hands: But how does your Reading Contribute so migh­tily to a Repeal, when all that hear it, are at Li­berty to judge for themselves? Your Way of Discoursing as you do, about Reading the Decla­ration, would tempt one to think, that you are of Opinion, either, that the Declaration is At­tended with such convincing Reason, as will cer­tainly satisfie People as soon as they hear it; or else, that nothing is necessary in any Point to De­termine, and fix People's Minds and Judgments, but only to have such a thing Read by the Mini­ster in the Church.

Your Answer to the Objection you raise touching Dissenters, is very Faint: Say you, When there is an Opportunity of shewing Our Inclinations without Danger, they may find We are not such Persecutors as we are Represen­ted.

Though they are not to be Compared with the Nobility and Gentry; yet one would think, one Positive Promise might have been by you, on this Occasion afforded them; What signifies, They may find, that which they could never yet find? For as oft as you have been Tryed hitherto, you have as soon as ever you were in a Capacity, proved Unfaithful to them; They have felt the Weight of your Fingers: There neither has been, nor is any need of others to Represent to them what Persecutors you have been, and may be found again, if you have Opportunity of shewing your In­clinations without Danger, for ought that you have hitherto Manifested to the contrary: For here is not a Word of any positive Respect or Tender­ness towards them: Is there a Change wrought in your Inclinations, without any Sence of the Wrong you have done? Here is not a Syllable of any Relenting at your former Severities; your Letter abounds with Flattery towards the Nobili­ty and Gentry, Repeated many times over, but not a tittle of any Care you have taken, that the Dissenters may have their Liberty: As oft as it hath been granted by Royal Dispensations, you have been angry at it; as oft as it has been pro­pos'd in Parliament, you have Oppos'd it: So that you might have Omitted this Objection you have raised concerning the Dissenters, and have passed them over in Silence, as a People, whose Anger or Friendship you have no regard to; un­less after you made the Objection, you had vouch­safed to have Answered it also, more to their Sa­tisfaction.

You Conclude with a very honest Proposal of Prayer, with which I heartily Concur; and Pray, That every Party of Professed Christians, may up­on all Occasions, approve themselve Persons of True Piety, Moderation, and Real Fidelity.