ALtho in our present Dispersion, most dear and honoured Brethren, it has pleased the Providence of God to conduct us into places very distant from one another. Yet that union which ought always to continue betwixt us, obliges us to declare our sense to one another with a Christian and Brotherly Freedom upon all oc­casions, that may present themselves to us so to do. 'Tis this makes us hope that you will not take it amiss of us, if at this time we deliver our opinion to you touching the Affairs of England in matters of Religion, and with re­ference to that Conduct which you have ob­served therein.

We ought not to conceal it from you, That the greatest part of the Protestants of Europe have been extremely scandalized to understand, that certain among you, after the example of many of the Dissenters, have Addressed to the King of England, upon the account of his De­claration, by which he has granted Liberty of Conscience to the Non-conformists: And that some others who had already ranked themselves under the Episcopal Communion, nevertheless published the said Declaration in their Churches; and this at a time when al­most all the Bishops themselves with so much Firmness and Courage refused to do it.

If we may be permitted to tell you freely what our opinion is concerning the conduct of the Bishops and of the Dissenters in this con­juncture, we shall make no difficulty to pro­nounce in favour of the former. We look upon it that they have exceedingly well an­swered the Duty of their Charge, whilst despi­sing their own private Interest, they have so worthily supported that of the Protestant Re­ligion: Whereas the others, for want of con­sidering these things as they ought to have done, have given up the interest of their Re­ligion to their own particular advantages.

It is not out of any complement to the Bi­shops, much less out of any enmity to the Dissenters, that we make such different judg­ments concerning them. We know well e­nough how to commend or blame, what seems to us to deserve our Praise or our Censure both in the one and in the other. We do not at all approve the conduct of the Bishops to­wards the Dissenters under the last Reign. And altho we do not any more approve that of the Dissenters in separating from their Communi­on, yet we do confess they had some reason in the bottom for it; and that the Ceremonies which they have refused to submit to are the Remains of Popery, which we could rather wish might have been entirely abolished. In this unhappy Schism which has so long time rent the Church of England; we look upon it, that both Parties have been equally defective in their Charity. On the one side, the Dis­senters [Page 2] ought by no means to have separated themselves for the Form of Ecclesiastical Go­vernment, nor for Ceremonies which do not at all concern the Fundamentals of Religion. On the other side, The Bishops should have had a greater Condescension to the Weakness of their Brethren: And without doubt they would have acted in a manner more agree­able to the Spirit of the Gospel, if instead of treating them with so much Rigor as they did, they had left them the Liberty of serving God according to their Conscience, till it should have pleased him to re-unite All un­der the same Discipline. However the Con­formity of Opinion between the dissenters and Us, ought to have prejudiced us in their favour, had we been capable of Partiality on this occasion. There is also another thing which might have disposed us to judge less favourably of the Bishops than of them, and that is the Yoke which they have imposed upon the French Ministers, by obliging them to receive a second Ordination before they could be permitted to Exercise their Ministry in the Church of England, as if the Ordi­nation they had received in France had not been sufficient. But we must do Justice to all the World, and bear witness to the Truth. We have already said, and we must again re­peat it, It seems to us that on this last Occasi­on the Bishops have discharged their Duty, and are most worthy of Praise, whereas the Dissenters on the contrary are extreamly to be [...]ned. And we will presently offer our Reasons wherefore we judge so of the one, and of the other.

In the mean time, most dear Brethren, give us leave freely to tell you, That if our Brethren the Dissenters of England, who have Addressed to the King, are to be blamed, (as we verily believe they are) you certainly are much more to be condemned. The Hardships under which they had lived for many years without Churches, without Pa­stors, without Assemblies, made them think the Liberty of Conscience which was offered to them, a great Ease. Their Spirits, soured and prejudiced by the ill Treatments they had received from the Church of England, had not freedom enough to let them see that the Pre­sent which was made them was Empoison'd. And therefore upon the sudden they received it with joy, and thought themselves obliged to testifie their Acknowledgment of it. But for you who never had any part in the Divisions of the Church of England, and who by con­sequence were in a state to judge more soundly of things, How is it that you should not have perceived the Poison that was hid under the Liberty of Conscience offered to them? Or if you did not perceive it of your selves, how is it that the Generous Refusal of the Bishops, tho' at the peril of their Liberty and Estates, to publish the Declaration in their Diocesses, should not at least have open'd your eyes?

How have those Venerable Prelates now highly justified themselves from the Reproach that was laid upon them of being Popishly affected, and of persecuting the Dissenters on­ly, but of a secret Hatred to the Reformation? How well have they made it appear that these were only Calumnies invented by their Ene­mies to render them odious to the Protestants, and that their hearts were truly fix'd to the Reformed Religion, and animated with a Zeal worthy Primitive Bishops? Could you see those faithful Servants of God, disobey the order of their Soveraign, expose themselves thereby to his Disgrace, suffer Imprisonment, and pre­pare themselves to suffer any thing, rather then betray their Consciences and their Religi­on, without admiring their Constancy, and being touched with their Examples? But above all, could you resolve by your Conduct to condemn that of those generous Confessors? Is this the Acknowledgment which you ought to have made to them for that Charity, with which they had received and comforted you in your Exile? Is this to Answer the Glorious Quality of Confessors, of which you so much vaunt your selves? Is this the Act of Faith­ful Ministers of Christ? Give us leave to tell you, most dear Brethren, your Proceedings in this Affair appear so very strange to us, that we cannot imagine how you were capable of so doing. It seems to us to have even effa­ced all the Glory you had attained by your Sufferings, to reproach your Ministry and to be unworthy of True and Reformed Chri­stians.

[Page 3] This is no rash judgment which we pass; and to convince you that it is not, we beseech you only to examine these things with us without Prejudice and Interest.

The Declaration of which we speak is de­signed for two purposes: The one, the re­establishment of Popery. The other, the extinction of the Reformed Religion in Eng­land. The former of these designs appears openly in it. The second is more concealed; 'tis a mystery of Iniquity, covered over with a specious appearance; and of which the trace must be concealed till the time of mani­festation comes. We will say nothing of a third Design, which is, Of the oppression of the Liberties of England for the Establish­ment of an absolute Authority, but shall leave it to the Polititians to make their Re­flexions upon it. As for us, if we some­times touch upon it, it shall be only with re­ference to Religion: We will apply our selves chiefly to the two other Designs which they proposed to themselves who made that De­claration.

It cannot be deny'd but that by this De­claration, there is Liberty of Conscience granted indifferently to the Papists and to the Dissenters. It comprehends both the one and the other under the name of Nonconformists. And we may with con­fidence affirm, That they were the Pa­pists especially whom the King had in his eye when he gave this Declaration. And howsoever he may pretend to have been touched with the Oppressions which the Dis­senters had suffered; yet that his principal design was to re-establish Popery.

Behold here already a very great evil, and such as all true Protestants are obliged with their utmost power to oppose. What, shall we see Popery, that abominable Religion, that prodigious heap of Filthiness and Impu­rity, re-establish it self, with all its honours, in Kingdoms from which the Reformation had happily banished it? And shall there be found in those Kingdoms Protestants who not only stand still without making any oppositi­on to it, but e'en favour its re-establishment, and openly give it their Approbation? Who could have thought that the Dissenters of England, Men who have always testified so great an aversion to the Roman Religion; and who have no other pretence to separate from the Bishops, than that they have in part retained in their Government and Ceremo­nies the Exteriors of that Religion, should now themselves joyn to bring it intirely in? But above all, Who could have believed that the French Ministers, who after having experimented all the Fury of Popery in France, were at last banished, rather than that they would subscribe to its Errors and Abuses: And for this very cause fled into England, that they might there more freely profess the Protestant Religion, should now contribute to re-establish Popery in their new Country, where they had been receiv­ed by their Brethren with so singular a Cha­rity? Would you indeed, Gentlemen, see England once more submitted to the tyranny of the Pope, whose Yoke it so happily threw off in the last age? Would you there see all those monstrous Doctrins, all those Supersti­tions, and that horrible Idolatry which reign­ed there before the Reformation, domineer once more in it? Would you that the People should again hear the Pulpits and the Churches sounding out the doctrins of Pur­gatory, of Indulgences, of the Sacrifice of the Mass, &c. and see the Images and Re­liques of the Saints carried solemnly in Pro­cession, with a God formed by the hand of Men? And that in fine, they should again publickly adore those vain Idols? We are confident there is not a good Protestant in the world that would not startle but at the thought of it.

But this is not yet all. The Declaration of which we speak does not only re-establish Popery with all its abominations, but does moreover tend to the Ruine of the Reforma­tion in England. A Man need not to have any great Sagacity to be convinced of this. And that as much as it seems to establish for ever the Protestant Religion in that King­dom, it does on the contrary destroy the very Foundations of it.

The ground upon which the Reformation is founded in England, are the Laws which have been made at several times for the settle­ment [Page 4] of it, and to abolish either the Ty­ranny of the Pope, or the Popish Religion altogether. And as these Laws have been made by the King and Parliament together, so that the King has not the power to Re­peal them without a Parliament, they secure the Protestant Religion against the Enter­prises of such Kings as should ever think to Destroy it.

But now if this Declaration be executed, we are no more to make any account of those Solemn Laws which have been passed in favour of the Reformation, they become of no value, and the Protestant Religion is intirely left to the King's Pleasure. This is what will clearly appear from what we are about to say.

The King not having been able to ob­tain of the last Parliament to consent to a Repeal of the Laws which had been made against the Nonconformists, Dissolved the Parliament it self. Not long after, with­out attending a new one, he did that a­lone by his Declaration which the Parlia­ment would not do conjunctly with him. He granted a full Liberty of Conscience to the Nonconformists; he freed them from the Penalties which had been appoint­ed against them, and dispensed with the Oaths to which the Laws obliged all those who were admitted to any Charges, whe­ther in the Soldiery, or in Administration of Justice, or of the Government. In pursu­ance of these Declarations he threw the Protestants out of all Places of any great Importance to clap in Papists in their room, and goes on without ceasing to the intire Establishment of Popery. Who does not see, that if the Protestants approve these Declarations, and themselves authorise such Enterprises, the King will not stop here, but that this will be only one step to carry him much further? What can be said when he shall do the same thing with reference to those Laws which exclude the Papists out of the Parliament, that he has done to those which shut them out of all Charges and Im­ploys, and forbad them the Exercise of their Religion? Does not the Approbation of such Declarations, as it overthrows these last, carry with it before hand the approbation of those which shall one day overthrow the former? And if the King shall once give himself the Authority to bring Papists into the Parliament, who shall hinder him from using Solicitations, Promises, Threatnings, and a thousand other the like means to make up a Popish Parliament? And who shall hin­der him with the Concurrence of that Par­liament to Repeal all the Antient Laws that had been passed against Popery, and make new ones against the Protestants? These are without doubt the Natural Consequen­ces of what the King at this time aims at. These are the Fruits which one ought to expect from it, if instead of Approving as some have done his Enterprises against the Laws, they do not on the contrary with all imaginable Vigor oppose them.

Reflect a little on what we have here said, and you will consess that we have reason to commend the Conduct of the Bishops who refused to publish the Declara­tion; and to condemn those Dissenters who have made their Addresses of Thanks for it.

It is true that the Dissenters are to be pitied, and that they have been treated hardly enough, and we do not think it at all strange, that they so earnestly sigh after Liberty of Conscience. It is natural for Men under Oppression to seek for Relief: And Liberty of Conscience considered only in it self, is it may be the Thing of all the World the most precious and most desirable. Would to God we were able to procure it for them by any lawful means, and without such ill Consequences, tho' it were at the peril of our Lives! But we Conjure them to consider how pernicious that Liberty of Conscience is which is offer'd to them, as we have just now shewn. On the one side, It is inseparably linked with the Establishment of Popery; and on the other, it cannot be accepted without approving a terrible Breach which his Majesty thereby makes upon the Laws, and which would be the ruine of the Reformation in his Kingdoms, were not some Remedy brought to it. And where is the Protestant who would buy Liberty of Conscience at so dear a rate, and not rather [Page 5] choose to continue deprived of it all his Life?

Should the private interest of our Bre­thren the Dissenters blind them in such a manner, that they have no regard to the ge­neral Interest of the Church? Should they for enjoying a Liberty of Conscience so ill assured, shut their Eyes to all other Conside­rations? How much better would it be for them to re-unite themselves to the Bishops, with whom they differ only in some points of Discipline; but especially at this time, when their Conduct ought to have entirely defaced those unjust Suspicions which they had conceived against them? But if they could not so readily dispose themselves to such a Re-union, would it not be better for them to resolve still to continue without Li­berty of Conscience, and expect some more favourable time when they may by lawful means attain it, than to open themselves a gate to Popery, and to concur with it to the Ruine of the Protestant Religion?

You will, it may be, tell us, that it looks ill in us, who so much complain, That we have been deprived of Liberty of Consci­ence in France, to find fault with the King of England for granting it to his Subjects: And that it is the least that can be allowed to a Sovereign, to allow him the Right to permit the exercise of his own Religion in his own Kingdoms, and to make use of the service of such of his Subjects as himself shall think fit, by putting them into Charges and Employs. You will add, That his Majesty does not go about neither to abrogate the an­tient Laws, nor to make new ones. All he does being only to dispense with the Obser­vation of certain Laws in such of his Sub­jects as he thinks fit, and for as long time as he pleases; and that the right of dispensing with, and suspending of Laws, is a right in­separably ty'd to his Person: That for the rest, the Protestant Religion does not run the least Risque. There are Laws to shut the Papists out of Parliament, and these Laws can neither be dispensed with, nor suspended: So that the Parliament partaking with the King in the Legislative Power, and continu­ing still Protestant, there is no cause to fear, that any thing should be done contrary to the Protestant Religion. Besides, What pro­bability is there, that a King, who appears so great an Enemy to oppression in matters of Conscience and Religion, should ever have a thought, tho he had the power himself, to op­press in this very matter the greatest part of his Subjects, and take from them that Liberty of Conscience which he now grants to them, and which he promises so inviolably to ob­serve for the time to come?

These are all the Objections that can with any appearance of reason be made against what we have before said. They may all be reduced to five, which we shall examine in their order. And we doubt not but we shall easily make it appear, that they are all but meer illusions.

1. We do justly complain, That they have taken from us our Liberty of Conscience in France, because it was done contrary to the Laws. And one may as justly complain, that the K of England does labour to re-establish Pope­ry in his Country, because he cannot do it but contrary to the Laws. Our Liberties in France were founded upon solemn Laws, upon perpe­tual, irrevocable, and sacred Edicts; and which could not be recalled, without violating at once the Public Faith, the Royal Word, and the Sacredness of an Oath. And Popery has been banished out of England by Laws made by King and Parliament, and which cannot be repealed but by the Authority of King and Parliament together; so that therefore there is just cause to complain, that the King should go about to overthrow them himself alone by his Declaration.

2. It is not true that a Sovereign has al­ways the right to permit the exercise of his own Religion in his Dominions, and to make use of the service of such of his Sub­jects as he himself shall think fit, that is to say, by putting of them into Charges and Em­ploys: And in particular, he has not this right, when the Laws of his Country are contrary thereunto, as they are in the case before us. Every King is obliged to observe the Fundamental Laws of his Kingdom. And the King of England, as well as his Subjects, ought to observe the Laws which have been established by King and Parliament together.

[Page 6] 3. For the third, the distinction between the Abrogation of a Law, and the Dispen­sing with and Suspending of it cannot here be of any use; whether the King abrogates the Laws which have been made against Po­pery, or whether without saying expresly that he does abrogate them; he overthrows them by his Declarations, under pretence of dispensing with, or suspending of them; It is still in effect the same thing. And to what purpose is it that the Laws are not ab­rogated, if in the mean time all sorts of Charges are given to Papists, and Popery it self be Re-established contrary to the tenor of the Laws? The truth is, If the King has such a power as this, if this be a Right ne­cessarily tied to his Person,'tis in vain that the Parliament does partake with him in the Legislature. This Authority of the Parlia­ment is but a meer Name, a Shadow, a Phan­tome, a Chimera, and no more. The King is still the absolute Master, because he can a­lone, and without his Parliament, render useless by his Declarations the Laws which the Parliament shall have the most solemnly established together with him. We confess the King has Right of Dispensing in certain Cases, as if the Concern be what belongs to his private Interest, he may without doubt whenever he pleases depart from his own Rights; 'tis a Liberty which no body will pretend to contest with him. But he has not the power to dispense to the prejudice of the Rights of the People, nor by Con­sequence put the Property, the Liberty, and the Lives of his Protestant Subjects into the hands of Papists.

4. What we have now said in Answer to the third Objection, will be more clear from the Answer we are to give to the fourth. They would perswade the Prote­stants that their Religion is in safety, because on the one side the King cannot make Laws without the Parliament; and that on the o­ther, there being Laws which exclude Pa­pists out of the two Houses, it must necessa­rily follow, That the Parliament shall con­tinue to be Protestant. But if the King has the Power to break throught the Laws, un­der the pretence of Dispensing with and Suspending of them, What Security shall the Protestants have that he will not Di­spense with the Papists, the observation of those Laws which do exclude them out of the Parliament, as well as he has Dispensed with those that should have kept them out of Charges and Imployments? What Secu­rity shall they have that he will not at any time hereafter suspend the Execution of the former, as he has already suspended the Ex­ecution of the latter? Which being so, what should hinder us from seeing in a little time a Popish Parliament, who together with the King shall pass Laws contrary to the Pro­testant Religion? What difference can be shewn between the one and the other of these Laws, that the one should be liable to be dispensed with and suspended, and the other not? Were they not both esta­blished by the King and Parliament? Were not both the one and the other made for the Security of the Protestant Religion, and of those who profess it? Are not the Rights of the People concerned in the one, as well as in the other? And whosoever Suffers and Approves the King in the Violation of these Rights in some things, does he not thereby Authorise him to violate them in all? If the King has power to put the Liberty and Property and Lives of his Protestant Sub­jects at the Mercy of the Papists, by placing them in Charges contrary to the Law, why should he not have the power to raise the same Papists to the Authority of Legislators by declaring them capable of sitting in Par­liament, seeing that is but contrary to Law? Do not deceive your selves, the Laws are the Barrier which bound the Authority of the King, and if his Barrier be once bro­ken, he will extend his Authority as far as he pleases. And it will be impossible for you after that to set any bounds to it.

5. In fine, He must be very little ac­quainted with the Spirit of Popery, who i­magines that it will be content to Re-establish it self in England, without aiming to destroy the Protestant Religion. Give it but Time and Opportunity to fortifie it self, and you may then expect to see what it is. In all Places where it has got the Power in its [Page 7] hands, it will not only rule, but Rule alone, and not suffer any other Religion besides it self; and imploys the Sword and Fire to Ex­tirpate that which it calls Heresie. Were not this a Truth confirmed by infinite Ex­amples both Ancient and Modern, which every one knows who has read any thing of History, it would be too much evidenced by the Cruelties which it has so lately ex­ercised against the Churches of Hungary, of France, and of the Valleys of Piemont. And men ought not to be lulled asleep by the Pretence of an Inclination which the King of England would be thought to have for Liberty of Conscience; nor by the Promises which he makes to preserve it to all his Subjects without distinction. Every one knows that Perfidiousness and Breach of Faith are Characters of Popery no less essenti­al to it than Cruelty. Can you doubt of this, Gentlemen? You who so lately came from making a sad Experiment of it? How often did our King promise us to preserve us in our Priviledges? How many Declarations, how many Edicts did he set out to that pur­pose? How many Oaths were taken to con­firm those Edicts? Did not this very King Lewis XIV. himself solemnly promise by se­veral Edicts and Declarations to maintain us in all the Liberties which were granted to us by the Edict of Nantes? And yet after all, what scruple was there made to violate so many Laws, so many Promises, and so ma­ny Oaths? The Protestants of England have themselves also sometimes likewise experi­mented the same Infidelity: And not to al­ledge here any other example, let us desire them to remember only the Reign of Queen Mary, what Promises she made at her com­ing to the Crown, not to make any change of Religion; and yet what bloody Laws she afterwards passed to extinguish the Reforma­tion as soon as she saw her self fast in the Throne? And with what inhumanity she spilt the Blood of her most faithful Subjects to accomplish that design? After such an in­stance as this, a man must be very credulous indeed, and willing to deceive himself, that will put too much confidence in the Promises of the King that now Reigns. Do we not know, that there are neither Promises nor Oaths which the Pope does not pretend to have power to dispense with in those whom he employs for the extirpation of Heresie? And do we not also know, that it is one of the great Maxims of Popery, a Maxim au­thorized both by the Doctrin and Practice of the Council of Constance, That they are not obliged to keep any Faith with Hereticks. We ought not to believe that King James II. a Prince who has so much Zeal for Popery, should be govern'd by any other Maxims than those of his Religion. And whosoever will take the pains to examine his Conduct both before and since his coming to the Crown, will find that he has more than once put 'em in practice.

And this, Gentlemen, we suppose may be sufficient to convince all reasonable persons, that there is nothing more pernicious than that Declaration which you have approved; whether by publishing it, as some of you have done, or by Addressing to the King to thank him for it. When you shall have re­flected upon these things, you will without doubt your selves confess, that you have suf­fered your selves to be amused with some ima­ginary advantages which you hope to make by this Declaration. In the mean time, most dear Brethren, you will pardon us, if we have chanced to have let any thing slip that is not agreeable to you. We had no design to give the least offence either to you, or to our Brethren the Dissenters of England. If we have spoken our Thoughts freely of your Conduct and of theirs, we have at least spo­ken with no less liberty of that of the Bi­shops. And God is our Witness, that we have said nothing of the one or the other, but in the sincerity of our heart, and out of a desire to contribute somewhat to his Glory, and the good of his Church. We are,