The minister's reasons for his not reading the kings declaration, friendly debated by a dissenter.

The minister's reasons for his not reading the kings declaration, friendly debated by a dissenter.

Table of contents

§

§

§

§

[Page]

THE Miniſter's Reaſons For His not reading the Kings' Declaration, Friendly Debated.

By A Diſſenter.

Allowed to be Publiſhed this 21ſt day of June 1688.

§

SIR,

I Am beholding to you for Publiſhing the Reaſons you alledg for your refuſal to Read His Majeſties Declaration in your Church; for by them I diſcern, that he who writ the firſt Letter to a Diſſenter, wherein he told us you were convinc'd of your Error, in being Severe towards us, and that we had not now to do with thoſe Rigid Prelates, who made it a matter of Conſcience to give us the leaſt Indulgence, writ this of his own Head, without any Authority from you; but that He, or They who writ a Treatiſe, which was Publiſhed a little before the Kings Declaration, Entituled, The Vanity of all pretenſions for Toleration, (wherein the Queſtion is put and Anſwered, Shall we give up the Cauſe, and ſubſcribe to a Toleration? Nothing leſs, and that becauſe in our Circumſtances, it is not only contrary to Religion and Civil Prudence, but alſo to Charity and Compaſſion) were guided in this matter by the ſame temper of Mind, with that which is diſcovered in your reaſonings, which are as like one to the other as Face is to Face in a Glaſs; for therein the Author, who is your Advocate, and [Page] without doubt had both your Countenance and Aſſiſtance, tells us, That the practice of puniſhing Diſſenters is contrary neither to the Doctrine or Practice of Chriſt, and therefore He hopes, they that uſe it upon great occaſion may be diſcharged of the odious Imputation of Antichriſt; and that Experience hath taught us, that Compulſion in matters of Religion ſerves many times to render Men more Teachable, and willing to be Inſtructed; And beſides all this, That a ſteady and diſcreet Execution of the Laws againſt Diſſenters, might happily have been a much more merciful Conduct, even with reſpect to them, then that R [...]niſſneſs or Connivance which tempted them to preſumptuous Sins. One touch he hath alſo at the Kings Prerogative, not like to your preſent reaſoning, which calls it into Queſtion, but by way of Allowance and Commendation; for he ſays, We owe it only to the Wiſdom and Foreſight of His late Majeſty, that ſome of the moſt conſiderable Laws are now in being, I mean that of 35 Q. Elizabeth, which He ſaved by His Prerogative, as well as Men, when it was condemned to be Aboliſhed, and if His Clemency had ſaved many, who the Laws had juſtly Condemmed, Why ſhould it not ſave a Law that had done Him and His Anceſtors no ſmall Service, and was then doom'd to an undeſerved Fate.

I intend not to enter upon Examination of this your Advocate Treatiſe, which is ſufficiently refelled and rebuked by His Majeſties Royal Declaration of Indulgence; but to ſhew you, until you give a better Evidence to the contrary, then hitherto you have done, how the Diſſenters are to interpret Your Charity, Your Compaſsion, Your Mercy, Your Clemency, and Your due tenderneſs towards them, when you have an opportunity of ſhewing your Inclinations without danger: But I paſs from this to what I intend, and that is to make a brief enquiry into the weight of your Reaſons, which I ſuppoſe, you therefore make Publick, that they might be well conſider'd & ſcann'd, in order thereto I have without partiallity, or injury to their proper ſence, not Literally Tranſcribed but Extracted the ſubſtance of them.

That which hath principally induced me to this, is, becauſe I think you either do not your ſelf underſtand the ſubſtance of the Kings Declaration, or elſe by your not Reading it, and Miſ-repreſenting it, you ſeem unwilling that it ſhould be underſtood by any others: For thus you begin.

I. To take away the Teſt and Penal Laws at this time is but one step from the introducing of Popery, and therefore to read ſuch a Declaration in our Churches, though it do not immediately bring Popery in, Yet it ſets open our Church Doors for it, and then it will take its own time to enter.

Here is a far fetch'd Inference; How would you be underſtood? Suppoſe it granted for Argument ſake, that to take away the Teſt and Penal Laws is but one ſtep from the introducing of Popery; Is your Reading the Declaration a nearer ſtep to the introducing of Popery then ſuch a Repeal? If you ſhould Read it, will that open your Church Doors ſo [Page] wide that Popery may enter without any more to do, though the Penal Laws and Teſt ſhould not be taken away? I take the true and genuine ſenſe of the Kings Declaration to be a ſetting open your Church Doors that Papiſts and Diſſenters, who have no mind to be there, may not be Compelled by Temporal Penalties to come in, and abide there, whether they will or no; For you have hitherto opened your Church Doors, that you may drive them in, and in force of Penal Laws to keep them there in Spiritual Bondage againſt their Wills; and if they have at any time, for above theſe Hundred Years, adventured to ſtart out of your Churches to free themſelves from this ſort of Bondage, you by your Excommunication proſecuted them into Corporal Bondage without Redemption: Its accounted an ill Omen to ſtumble at the Threſhold, but this you have done by calling that an opening your Doors to let Popery in, which is intended only to let Papiſts and Diſſenters out, and to leave you with all that are of the Religion Eſtabliſhed by Law in the full and peaceable Poſſeſſion of your Churches, and to enjoy them with Security to Perpetuity.

II. You ſay, Should we comply with this Order all good Proteſtants would Deſpiſe and Hate us, and then we may be eaſily Cruſh'd, & may ſoon fall without any Pity.

In reaſoning thus, you are either very Cenſorious and Uncharitable toward all Diſſenters, or elſe you greatly miſtake their Temper; For your reaſoning herein can conclude no leſs, then, either that there is not one good Proteſtant among all the Diſſenters, or elſe, if there be any ſuch, that they would Diſpiſe and Hate you for doing of that which is their Intereſt to do themſelves, and to have done by all Men, and by you in particular, that the Juſtice, Reaſon and Clemency which the King has manifeſted in His Gracious Declaration may be known and acknowledged by all: If any other good Proteſtants ſhould Deſpiſe and Hate you for it, for which they have no cauſe, yet you do not ſuppoſe, that they are the Men that would Cruſh you; and for the Diſſenters, though you Miſ-repreſent them in the Cloſe of your Letter, yet herein I would do them this right, to rid you of your groundleſs Fears; You may be aſſured that for your Reading & Purſuing the intent of the Kings Declaration which Tends both to your and their Security in Equity and Law, they will not Cruſh you, for thereby they will expoſe themſelves to be Cruſh'd together with you; ſo that I ſee no cauſe for your Fears, either of Diſhonour or Downſal, unleſs you reſolve to throw your ſelves down, and pu [...] down the Diſſenters alſo to veriſie your ſubſequent Prognoſtications.

III. You ſay, We fall a little ſooner for not Reading the Declaration, If our Gracious Prince reſent this as an Act of an Obſtinate, Peeviſh or Factious Diſobedience (as our Enemies will be ſure to repreſent it to Him) we ſhall as certainly [Page] fall, and not long after if we do read it, and then we ſhall fall Ʋnpitied and Deſpiſed, and it may be with the Curſes of the Nation, whom we have ruined by our Compliance, and this is the way never to riſe more.

I do not Reckon my ſelf to be among the Number of your Enemies, and therefore, though you are ſomewhat Peeviſh, I would not that you ſhould be repreſented to the King as Obſtinate: For my Hopes are, that upon better Conſideration you will ſhew your ſelves Obedient to his Commands; But if it ſhould prove otherwiſe, as your Enemies will not, ſo your Friends cannot Excuſe you, as being altogether Free from Faction, But how comes it to paſs that you being a Miniſter of the Goſpel ſhould fix your Eye ſo ſteadity upon the Diſhonour being Unpitied and Deſpiſed, as inſeparable Concomitants of a Certain Fall not long after you have read the Kings Declaration, if you Comply to Read it? A ſettled Apprehenſion that you ſhall certainly Fall, whether you Read or not Read, is ſufficient to Diſturb your Fancy, ſo as to Interrupt the making of a Solid Judgment in reference to your Duty, and Diſcharge of a good Conſcience towards God: There is as little need, as there is Juſt Occaſion for you to Surmize, as you do, that your Complyance will Ruin the Nation, and procure their Curſes; for I cannot ſee any ſuch moral certainty attending your reading as Ruining the Nation: Thoſe other Incredients might have been p [...]termitted, if you have no Diſpoſition, by diſcovering your ſeeming Fears, to ſtir up a real fear in the minds of others. I think it more nearly concerns you, ſetting aſide all thoughts of Honour and Diſhonour, good Report or bad Report, to ſee to it that you have the Law of God on your ſide, to excuſe your Diſobedience to the King; for otherwiſe the ill Conſequences of contending with Soveraign Power, and inticing others to do the like after your example will lye heavy upon you. For tho you Mention onely your own Fall, yet you intimate plainly enough, that you are not to Fall alone, and never to Riſe more, but that this will be the Fate of all the Proteſtant Chruches alſo, and therefore you proceed after that Manner.

IV. May I Suffer all that can be Suffer'd in this World, rather than to contribute to the final Ruin of the best Church in the World.

So that it ſeemes if you Fall, the beſt Church in the World muſt Fall alſo, and that not partially, or for a ſeaſon, but Totally and Finally. Do you not Attribute too much to your ſelf in this? Are you the only Pillar upon which the beſt Church in the World is Built? And are Penal Laws the onely ſtrength by which you Support the Church? If thoſe you will have in this point to be accounted, your Adverſaries, ſhould prevail (as once you know they did do, for Twenty Years together) to Diveſt you of your Coercive Power, your Experience may Dictate to you; that a Proteſtant Church here, as well as elſe where has ſubſiſted, and may Subſiſt through Divine Aſſiſtance, when that [Page] coercive Power is taken out of your Hands: However I acknowledg no Man can juſtifie himſelf for contributing to the Ruin of any true Church; but in this you are not ſingular, as you would make your ſelves to be; the Diſſenter may claim Equally with your ſelves a ſhare in ſuch a reſolution as this, and ſay as you do; may I Suffer ſtill, as I have Suffered all that you have Inflicted upon me, or what elſe the Providence of God Allots for my Portion; rather then that I ſhould contribute to the Ruin of the beſt, or any Church of Chriſt in the World.

V. You ſay, I ſuppoſe no Miniſter of the Church of England, can give his conſent to the Declaration, and reading the Declaration in our Churches, will be with great Reaſon interpreted a Conſent.

You might have taken caution from your own Poſtſcript to your Reaſons, concerning Henry Care, not to have made your Suppoſition, ſo Univerſally Comprehenſive of every Miniſter of the Church of England; in regard you ſay, Reading is Teaching, and ſignifies Conſent to the matter Read; and you Inſtance in Four or Five which did Read, and I think I may more probably ſuppoſe, that if any preciſe Diſquiſition ſhould happen to be made, many of your Miniſters who did not Read, may chuſe to excuſe themſelves, rather by their not receiving Directions from their Ordnary to Read, then to alledge as you do, that [...]hey did refuſe to do it, becauſe they could not conſent to the matter of the Declaration.

VI. You ſay, By our Law, all Miniſterial Officers are Accountable for their Actions, which ſhews, that our Law does not look upon the Miniſters of the Church to be meer Machines and Tools, to be managed wholly by the will of Superiours, without Exerciſing any Act of Judgment or Reaſon themſelves.

Apply this to your uſual Practice of publiſhing all ſuch Declarations in your Churches, as have been commended to you by your Ordnary, or his Official: Tell me in what caſe you have charged your Conſcience, ſo much as to make a private Judgment, which you ought always to have done whether all the ſentences of Excommunication, and Eccleſiaſtical Cenſures and Orders which you have publiſhed; Cenſures of Church-Wardens, for refuſing the Oath preſcribed by your Cannons: Cenſures for not paying your Apparitors and Officers the Fees they Demanded. Excommunications purpoſely contrived and improved to prevent many of their Votes at Elections: Interdicting any Divine Service, to be performed in a Church for Burying of perſons Excommunicated for Non-conformity in Conſecrated ground, till the Church-Wardens cauſed the Dead Corp [...] to be Dug up again, and removed: Publiſhing whole Sheets full of Orders of S [...] ons, wherein ſuch Diſſenters as conformed ſo far as to come to Church, have been reproached, as doing i [...] to ſave their Money; and therefore giving a charge to mark all ſuch [...] not Kneel at their Prayers, and ſtand [Page] up at the Gloria Patri: Orders that none ſhould be relieved that fell under Poverty, if they came not to Church and Conformed to your Ceremonies, if they were able of Body ſo to do; and many others of like nature: Have all theſe in your private Judgment been warranted by the Law of God? Do you Eſteem it a light thing to Caſt, or Publiſh any Mans being caſt out of all Chriſtian Society, and delivered over to Sathan for ſuch matters as are no crimes againſt any Divine Law? I take it (for ought that ever I ſaw manifeſted to the contrary) that a Subjection to the command of your Superiours, as being onely in ſuch things Miniſterial Offices, has been at leaſt your tacite Plea, for not ſtirring up or troubling your Conſciences, to make a Diſ [...]retive Judgment; whether the Act of your Superiour which you are commanded to Publiſh, were Lawful, or Unlawful, by the Law either of God, or of the Land; and to tell you the truth, I do not think you are in the Eye of the Law ſuch Criminals as on this particular occaſion you would render your ſelves to be, in caſe you ſhould Read the Kings Declaration in Obedience to his Command, though you did not approve the matter of it in your private Judgment; it not being your Province, poſitively to determine concerning it in point of Law: You might with better pretence of Conſcience, (if preſſed to it in your own mind, as an Act neceſſary to avoid a Sin againſt God) after the Reading of the Declaration, have taken your Exceptions to it in your particular Station, then to have followed the courſe you have taken, as it were by common conſent, one in the name of all the Reſt, thus openly to Declaim againſt it, for that had been an Exerciſing of ſuch an Act of Judgment, and Reaſon, if the cauſe Required it, as a Miniſter of the Goſpel might have done in reference to God, whatever had been the conſequence of it in reſpect to Men: And the Proſpect you had of this (as you afterwards manifeſt) does not excuſe but rather condemn you for ſeeing better things, and following the worſe.

VII. You ſay, Our Law ſuppoſes, that what we do in Obedience to Superiours, we make our own Act by doing it: This is the onely 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 Commandt it, becomes our own Act, and we are Reſponſible for it.

If you State this as a general Caſe of every Subject, I ſuppoſe you miſtake the Law, for I cannot conceive how a Clerk in Parliament, Privy Council, Court of Juſtice, or Convocation who Writes, and afterwards Reads openly what his Superiours have Dictated, and Commanded him to Read ſhould be ſuppoſed in the Eye of the Law, to be his own Act: If you mean by your Laws, you being Miniſters are Reſponſible for what you do in any other Manner, then the reſt of the Kings Subjects, or Miniſterial Officers are, you ſhould have done well to have ſhewed it, [Page] for till that be done I know not how to Diſtinguiſh of your Caſe as Different from other Miniſterial Clerks.

The onely Reaſon you alledge, why you muſt not obey a Prince againſt the Law of the Land or the Laws of God, is both Complicated, and Equivocal; For if you willingly walk after any Command, which is contrary to the Law of God, let the Authority be as you ſay what it will, that Commands it, whether of a Prince ſingly, or a Prince in conjunction with a Parliament; I grant, that it becomes your own Act, for which you are reſponſible to God; But it is not ſo in many Caſes, where a Prince may Command to Do, or forbear, what a particular Statute forbids or appoints, Becauſe He may therein Exerciſe His Prerogative according to the Common Law.

Beſides, if you being a Miniſter ſhould obey the Kings, and your Lawful Superiours Order, and Read his Declaration, by which ſome Penal Laws are ſuſpended, and this Act of Prerogative ſhould afterwards come to be Queſtioned in Parliament to whom are you Reſponſible? Surely not to the King, nor to your Ordnary, whom you have Obeyed; you cannot mean tha [...], not to any ordinary Court of Juſtice, for no Information or Indi [...]ment will lye againſt you there at the Kings Suit; you muſt be then Arraign'd for it in Parliament, or no where, And if you come to be Reſponſible for it there, I think your Rubrick eſtabliſhed by Law, and our Ignorance of any other Law will be a Sufficient Plea to excuſe you, For it will be a Preſident of the Firſt Impreſſion; I know not of any Pariſh Miniſter has ever heretofore been Queſtion'd and Condemn'd in Parliament for obeying an Order in this Kind of His Prince or Lawful Superiour.

VIII. Miniſters are bound to take care that what they Publiſh in their Churches, be neither contrary to the Laws of the Land, nor the good of the Church. Miniſters of Religion are not look'd upon as common Cryers, but what they Read, they are ſuppoſed to recommend too, though they do no more then read it, For is not Reading Teaching? 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.

I take it for granted that you have ſufficiently demonſtrated to all Men, that Reading and not Preaching off Book, is Teaching, for that has been your ordinary Practice for many Years, and it is true, by Reading you Teach your People to underſtand what you Read, but when that is done, your People are at liberty to judge, and you alſo in this Preſent Caſe being ordered to read what the King hath declared, are at liberty to Pen a Sermon that may be a Paraphraſe upon what you read before, and read that in your Pulpit afterwards, ſo as therein you do not tranſgreſs the Law of God, or of the Land, and by that your People may underſtand whether you conſent to, or diſſent from what you have read, and if your are commanded by Law to read what you do not conſent [Page] to in your own Conſcience, and for the diſcharge of a good Conſcience towards God, let your People know ſo much; I think you therein diſcharge both the Office of a Miniſter to Man, and Duty of a Teacher to God; and in ſuch a Caſe, tho you ſhould afterwards be judged by Mans Law, yet you may with a quiet Mind, therein commend your Cauſe to God, who judgeth righteouſly.

Be it ſo, That Miniſters are not look'd upon as common Cryers, yet give me leave to ſay, you being Miniſters are look'd upon as publick Preachers, or Heralds to publiſh the Orders of your Superiors, and are no more accountable to any Man for the matter which you ſo publiſh, then a Herald who Publiſhes the Kings Proclamation to his Subjects; con [...]der the Conſequence, if the Judgment of what i [...] agreeable or contrary to the Laws of the land, the Good or Hurt of the Church, be left to the private Determination of every Pariſh Miniſter, What will become of the Authority of their Superiours? Of what uſ [...] is the Rubrick to which they have Subſcribed, which directs them to read what the King or their Ordnary enjoyns? For in this Caſe, 'tis all one, as I ſaid before, whether you are enjoyned to Read by an [...] of State or an Act of Parliament; for I think you will grant me this, That the [...] of an Eternal [...]t [...]t of Parliament then [...]: So that in [...], [...] no [...] f [...]r in your S [...]tion to [...]it himſelf of Evil a [...] the [...] of [...], but by the Method before preſcribed, eſpecially i [...] ſuch a caſe as is before us; wherein you ſay, It may be no fault to conſent to the Declaration, for if the Matter be ſo doubtful in it ſelf, as that it cannot be any otherwiſe determined to be either Good or Evil, then by every Mans private Judgment, by ſuch a Rule as What is not of Faith is Sin; you have exceeded your Bounds in preſcribing a general Rule concerning it, as a like Obligatory upon all Miniſters.

IX. You ſay, I take the Declaration to be a contradiction of the Doctrine of our Church by Law Fſtabliſhed.

O [...]r Reading it in our Churches, muſt ſerve inſtead of Addreſſes of thanks, which our Clergy generally Reſuſed, tho it was onely to thank the King for his Gracious Promiſes renewed to the Church of England in his Declaration, which was much more Innocent then to Publiſh the Declaration it ſelf in our Churches.

I think my ſelf bound in Conſcience not to Read it, becauſe I am Bound in Conſcience not to approve it.

Its againſt the Conſtitution of the Church of England which is Eſtabliſhed by Law, and to which I have Subſcribed, and am therefore bound in Conſcience to Teach nothing contrary to it while this obligation lasts.

Your Terms are ſo general, and the ſ [...]nſe of your Arguments are ſo Ambiguous▪ that tho I labour to Pick out your true meaning, I am afraid of miſtaking it, if I do ſo, pray R [...]i [...]ie me Candidly, and Friendly, becauſe the manner of your Expreſſ [...] your ſelf, and not any wilful Error in [...] is the cauſe of it.

[Page]You take the Declaration to be a Contradiction of the Doctrine of your Church by Law Eſtabliſhed; In what Sence ſhall I take your ſay ſo? Is the whole, and every part of the Declaration contrary to all, and every part of your Doctrine by Law Eſtabliſhed? This cannot be your Meaning, becauſe you take Notice of the Kings Gracious Promiſes Renewed to the Church of England: I can find none of the Thirty-Nine Articles Contradicted, nor any of your Religious Conſtitutions Invaded by any thing in the Kings Declaration; But Your Doctrines, your Service, your Ceremonies remain all the ſame, as they were Settled, and Exhibited to the late King Charles the Second, by the Preſidents, Biſhops, and Clergy of Both Provinces, with the ſame Civil Sanction for the uſe of them, that Ever they had: And beſides that, they are neither contradicted nor Invaded, The Royal promiſe you mention, is to Protect, and Maintain his Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, and Clergy, and all other His Subjects of England, in the Free Exertiſe of their Religion, as by Law Eſtabliſhed; and therefore if you would Free your Self from all Suſpition of Prevarication in this Point, Its incumbent on You firſt to ſhew, wherein the Kings Declaration Contradicts it ſelf, and then, wherein, in particular, [...] Coatradicts your Doctrine, and Invades your Conſtitution; For till then, your telling openly, That You take the Declaration in General to be a Contradicton, and againſt the Conſtitution of the Church of England in General, may be taken, as Intended by You to Amuſe, and not to Edify your Reader:

But what is it you mean, when you ſay, Your Reading muſt ſerve inſtead of Addreſſes of Thanks, which your Clergy generally Refuſed? Did His Majeſty Require, You ſhould Thank Him for his Declaration, as He does, that you ſhould Read it; & did you Refuſe to Obey Him in that, tho' as you ſay, It was more Innocent than the Other, as you do in this? Is this Intended as a Memorial of unmannerly Diſobedience at Firſt, and undutiful Carriage at Laſt? or what is that you ſignify, by your Reſuſing to Thank Him, which muſt now be Recompenced by Reading? Do you think His Command to Publiſh His Declaration, is of no more Weight, in point of State, than your paſſing of a complement with His Majeſty, in Giving Him Thanks, or that the Thing He deſigned in His Command, was principally to Solve the Want of your thankful Addreſſes? Let me tell you, this is not only a ſtreign of Levity in Interpreting the Reaſon of the Royal Precept for your Reading His Declaration in your Churches, unbecoming your Gravity, but a Surmize of a more Dangerous conſequence: The King Commanded, that you ſhould Publiſh His Declaration in your Churches, that All His Loving Subjects might Know the Contents of it; And you Inſinuate to them, That it is to Serve inſtead of a thankful Addreſſing, which before you Refuſed.

But you paſs from this to Matter of Conſcience, and herein you ſhew your Self more Subtle in your Diſtinction, of Conſcience, then the Learned Biſhop [Page] Sanderſon in all his Praelections on this Subject; For you ſeem to have a Politick Conſcience, not to do any thing, which by conſequence may Hurt (your Intereſt, or as you Term it) the Church, and herein your Conſcience is Guided by a frequent Review, and Muſt' ring up the Numbers on both ſides; How many may be for, and how many may be againſt your Reading; and finding by the Computation you make, that the greateſt Number of your ſuppoſed Friends will be Diſobliged by your Reading, and that more may be againſt it than for it: This Governs you to make as much Conſcience of Reading the Declaration, as of Doing the moſt Immoral Action in Nature.

Your Second Diſtinction is of a Temporary Conſcience, which is to Laſt as long as the Obligation of your Subſcription, to that, you call the Conſtitution of the Church of England, laſts: By what means you will reckon your ſelves Diſcharged of this Temporary Obligation of Conſcience, I cannot divine, unleſs you Reckon, that perhaps you may be Abſolved from it by an Act of Convocation, or Statute-Law: But then here lies the Difficulty with me. Becauſe

Your Third Diſtinction of the Obligation of Conſcience ſeems to be of ſuch a permanent Nature, as no Law of Convocation or Parliament, any more than the Kings Prerogative can Abſolve you from: For this I take to be the Genuine Senſe of this ſort of Conſcience you mention in contradiſtinction from the other; That you are Bound in Conſcience not to Read the Kings Declaration, becauſe you are bound in Conſcience not to Approve it; And If you make the Invariable Law, or Revealed Will of God, the Rule of your Conſciencious Approving, or not Approving the Matter of the Kings Declaration; You cannot in my Apprehenſion any more Approve of it, or Conſent to the Reading of it, if it ſhould be Eſtabliſhed by A Convocation, or Statute-Law (the Law of God, and the Matter remaining the ſame, as now they are) than you can Do it at the Command of the Kings Royal Will.

Tenthly, Poſſibly the People underſtand, that the Matter of the Declaration is againſt Our Principles; But is this any Excuſe that we Read, and by reading Recommend that to them, which is againſt our Cenſcience and Judgments?

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 Conſent 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.

Conſenting to Teach your People ſuch Doctrine, as you think contrary to the Laws of God, is a Fault; may be a great Fault: Tho' the Doctrine you Teach, may, in it ſelf, be true Doctrine, becauſe Conſcience, though Erroneous, obliges not to Act againſt it: But what it is that does not leſſen, but aggravate the Fault you mention, I cannot diſcern, For you Grant, That reading the Declaration, [Page] when the King commands it, if you Approved the Matter of it, would be no Fault at all: You ſay, It is poſſible the People underſtand that the Matter of the Declaration is againſt your Principles; I Anſwer, Tis poſſible they underſtand neither the Declaration nor your Principles, for by the Reports I hear frequently [...]ut of the Countrys, there may be Thouſands that never Read themſelves, nor heard the Kings Declaration read to them, but take the Matter of it to be, as you repreſent it, which to be ſure is Bad enough; and thus they are kept in ignorance, and Affrighted with the conceit of it. Moſt certainly, if the Kings Heart were not well Aſſured of the Juſtice and Clemency towards all His Subjects in what He has Declared, It would be the moſt Impolitick Action imaginable for Him to command, that it ſhould be Publiſhed, and Communicated to all of them, in the moſt ſolemn manner, when they are Diſcharged from all Secular Diverſions, and have their Minds moſt Free, and Intent upon the Matter that is read to them: His Majeſty Declares the Reaſon why He would have it thus Publiſhed, Viz. That they may Vnderſtand and Reap the Benefit of that General Good, which He deſigns for the whole Kingdom; That His chief Aim has been, not to be the Oppreſſor, but the Father of His People, That they may lay aſide all Animoſities, and groundleſs Jealouſies, and Chooſe ſuch Members of Parliament, as may do their part to Finiſh what He has Begun, for the Advantage of the Monarchy, over which Almighty God hath placed Him. Now, if the Matter of the Declaration would not bear the moſt exact Scrutiny, and Recommend it ſelf to the Conſciences and Underſtanding of all His Subjects: Can any Man rationally think, that this was a probable way for His Majeſty to Effect the End He propoſed therein? But ſince you put me upon Poſſibilities, I think it may poſſibly be, and very probably alſo, as I Gather from your Reaſonings, that you do what lyes in you, to Conceal from your People, the Matter of the Declaration, leaſt your People would Approve it, and Conſent to Promote it.

But though you are thus Induſtrious to Conceal the Declaration, Why do you not tell us what your Principles are, for in this, you are as Dark as in all the reſt? I muſt profeſs, if I had no other means of knowing what the Declaration contains, nor what your Principles are, than by what you have ſaid in your Diſcourſe concerning them, you deal ſo much in Generals, that I ſhould never be Able to Underſtand either of them, nor wherein the One is againſt the Other.

But now let us come to the main Point, for in compariſon of that, All the Reſt is of little value.

You ſay, For you to Conſent to Teach your People ſuch Doctrines as you think contrary to the Laws of God, or the Laws of the Land, does not leſſen, but aggravate the Fault.

You have, in your Letter, made mention of an old Maxim, The King [Page] can do no Wrong, And therefore if any Wrong be done, the Crime, and Guilt is the Miniſters, who does it: Nor is any Miniſter, who does an Illegal Action, allowed to pretend the Kings Commiſſion, and Authority for it.

You cannot Forget who They were that before you Inſiſted upon this ſort of Argument, nor how ſeverely you of all Men have in your Pulpits and Prints, handled them for it; But now you think it may ſerve your Turn, you Revive it again.

Since therefore you make it no ſcruple of Conſcience in this Caſe, to Approve ſuch Things now, as you Condemned heretofore; Why ſhould you not do it in ſome other Caſes alſo?

The Diſſenters, as oft as they were Summoned into your Courts, or elſewhere, for their Nonconformity to your Modes of Worſhip, or for Aſſembling to Worſhip in other manner, Pleaded ſimply, They could not Do the One, nor Forbear the Other; becauſe in doing the firſt, or forbearing the laſt, They ſhould Sin againſt their Conſcience, and Tranſgreſs the Law of their Lord; whatever your Laws, or the Laws of the Land commanded, or prohibited: This Plea was uſually Termed a meer pretence, and their Aſſemblies Cenſured by their Secular Judges, as Riots, Routs, Seditious or Ʋnlawful Aſſemblies; and by your Judges they were Condemned, as Obſtinate and Contumacious; and upon theſe Scores they ſuffered the Penalties inflicted: Now, though you did Publiſh, and cauſe to be Executed, ſuch Sentences heretofore againſt the Diſſenters, who made uſe of this Plea, as a Pure matter of Conſcience, with reſpect to God's Law; this may be no Bar, as appears by your former inſtance, but that you may take up the ſame ſimple Honeſt Plea at this time, if you are, as they were, ſincere therein, and make it for your ſelves now, as they did then; And by this way you may, without Intangling your ſelves by determining poſitively Doubtful Points of Law (which is not your Province) come to a fair Iſſue in that, which is the proper Charge of your Function as Miniſters; for the Diſſenters agree with you in this Principle, that For any Man to Conſent to Teach others ſuch Doctrines as he thinks contrary to the Laws of God, is a great Fault: Let the Matter of the Declaration therefore be fairly Diſcuſſed between you and us, with that Modeſty, which becomes Subjests: Many Diſſenters differ from you in their Thoughts in this point; They think The King's Declaration is not contrary to the law of God; and that therefore it may lawfully be Read; If any of them queſtion any part of it, It is that wherein the King promiſes to Protect and Maintain the Arch-Biſhops, and Biſhops, as Lord Biſhops, of which they find no Footſteps in the Holy Scriptures; but if they will conſider, that the Dignity of Barons is only an Addition to that of a Biſhop, and does neither Alter, Enlarge, or Abrogate the Spiritual Office; but is an Honour conferr'd upon them by the Civil Sovereign Power: There is no Reaſon for any Diſſenter, or any other of the King's Subjects, to make this a ſcruple of Conſcience, in regard it proceeds from a Civil Conſtitution, [Page] and is a Law of Mans Creation, to which, among others of like nature, every Chriſtian is to ſubmit for the Lord's ſake: And that you and I may as well Agree in our Thoughts about the Subject in hand, as in the Principle I have mention'd: Its neceſſary that we conſider, what it is that His Majeſty has Declared; I ſhall repeat that Point, upon which many others Depend, as a neceſſary Conſequence, as that to which I think you take the greateſt Exception: The KING declares, that It hath been His conſtant Senſe and Opinion, that Conſcience ought not to be conſtrained; nor People Forced in Matters of meer Religion.

Now its incumbent on you to ſhew wherein you think this Point is contrary to the Laws of GOD, and that you do it, is but a reaſonable Requeſt, for elſe you perform not your Function to your people, but will lye under the ſuſpition of Teaching for Doctrines, the Commands of Men, which you know our Lord ſharply Reproves in thoſe that exerciſe the Function of Teachers.

Till you have done this, and made it plain, you have no Reaſon to Carp at any Thing that is naturally ſubſequent, as the ſuſpending ſuch Penalties, by which many of His Subjects are co-erced to Worſhip contrary to their Conſciences, or pardoning Offences againſt ſuch Laws, For this is a natural Exerciſe of His Prerogative, as God's Vicegerent in Acts of Goodneſs and Clemency; It can be no Offence to GOD, that the Execution of ſuch Laws be neglected by the King's Miniſters, or Suſpended by Himſelf, till they can be Repealed by Parliament, which ought never to have been made, and could never be obeyed, without Tranſgreſſing the Law of GOD: The King's lawful, proper, and neceſſary Prerogative, is to provide for all Exigents, wherein there is no proviſion made by a particular Law, and to ſuſpend ſuch particular Statutes, as were from the Beginning, or in proceſs of time, prove uſeleſs, or burthenſom to a multitude of His Subjects, and Wherein no particular Subject is injured, as to any Right, or Priviledge, which he can claim by Law: ſo that till you have performed your Task, and ſhewed that this Doctrine, which the Declaration Teacheth, is againſt the Law of God, and what Branch of the Divine Law it is againſt, that the Penalties whereby Men are compelled to Worſhip contrary to their Conſciences, ſhould be ſuſpended: No more need to be ſaid to this, taking it ſingly, as it is a Matter of pure Conſcience, ſuppoſed by you to be an Offence againſt the Law of God.

But I conſider how you ſtate it with a double Aſpect, having an Eye both to the Laws of God, and to the Laws of the Land, and that not conjunctively, but disjunctively: It is an Aggravated Fault with you to Conſent to Teach your People ſuch Doctrines as you think contrary to the Laws of God, or the Laws of the Land, that ſo you may have a double ſtring to your Bow: If you cannot prove the Doctrine of the Kings Declaration to be contrary to the Laws of God, yet you cannot conſent to Teach it your People, becauſe you think it is contrary to the Laws of the Land: nevertheleſs taking your Reaſoning [Page] to be conſiſtent with it ſelf, having before ſhewed, you did not Approve of the Matter of the Declaration, I cannot ſuppoſe you made mention of the Laws of God ſuperfluouſly, or vainly, and therefore it remains as a Charge upon you to declare plainly, Whether you think it contrary to the Laws of God, or not: And having Repeated this, that you may take the more Notice of it, I'le paſs to the next Branch, and that is for you to ſhew, wherein it is contrary to the Law of the Land; the Reaſons for this I ſhall give you in my Remarks upon your next Paragraph.

Eleventhly, Say you, It is to Teach an unlimited, and univerſal Toleration, which the Parliament in 1672. declared Illegal, and which has been Condemned by the Chriſtian Church in all Ages.

It is to Teach my People, that they need never come to Church more, but have my Free Leave, as they have the Kings, to go to a Conventicle, or to Maſs.

It is to Teach the Diſpenſing Power, which Alters what has been formerly thought the whole Conſtitution of this Church, and Kingdom, which we dare not Do, till we have the Authority of Parliament for it.

Let us conſider what part of the King's Declaration may be ſuppoſed by you to do the Things here Alledged, and whether, what you are required to do, be as to the Matter of it, of any other Nature, than what has heretofore been Approved by Authority of Parliament.

His Majeſty, after the ſuſpention of all Penal Laws in matters Eccleſiaſtical, for not coming to Church, or not Receiving the Sacrament, or for any other Nonconformity to the Religion Eſtabliſhed, or for, or by reaſon of the Exerciſe of Religion in any manner whatſoever, is pleaſed to Declare upon what Terms, and in what Manner All His Loving Subjects have Free leave to Meet, and Serve God after their own Way, and Manner.

Now I muſt pray you to Interpret what you mean by an Unlimited, and Univerſal Toleration, for you are ſtill in Generals, Is it ſuch an Unlimited, and Univerſal Toleration, as gives all Men Liberty to Meet in ſuch manner, and to do, and ſay as they pleaſe: There ſeems to me many Reſtrictions in the Declaration, the Meeting muſt be For the Exerciſe of Religion, and not Irreligion, and though All may Meet, and Serve in their Own Way, yet It is to Serve God, and not an Idol.

For my part, if I had no Fear of God before me, yet I ſhould very much fear ſevere Corporal puniſhment from the Hands of the Civil Power, if I ſhould Meet, and openly preach Blaſphemy, Idolatry, or any other Doctrine of immortality, againſt the Light, and Law of Nature given to, and inſcribed on the Heart of every Man; For tho' the King is pleaſed to ſay, I ſhall not be compelled to perform any Act of Worſhip contrary to my Conſcience, I am nevertheleſs Accomptable for all Things that I openly and voluntarily, without any compulſion do, or ſay, which fall under the Cognizance of the Civil Magiſtrate, as all things do, which are againſt the Reaſon of Mankind, and common Light and Law of Nature; and tho' there ſhould be no [Page] Statute Law in the Caſe, The Comman Law of the Land is grounded upon the Law of Nature, and no way ſuſpended by the King's Declaration, and by this, open Scandals againſt the Light of Nature are Puniſhable by the Civil Judges.

But you ſay, an unlimited, and univerſall Toleration the Parliament in 1672 declared Illegall; It may be ſo, but I doe not know it; I have ſeen no Copy of any Law, or Ordinance of Parliament applicable to the point in hand: If you Intend to prove the Kings preſent Declaration, was declared to be Illegall by the Parliament in 1672, you muſt mend your Common Fault of Dealing in General, For it is all one, and no more a Proof of any thing being Declared Illegal in a Parliament, to Quote onely the year, without repeating the Words of the Law, and applying the matter of the Declaration to it, then if you had ſaid it of your Own Head, or mention'd for a proof of your Aſſertion, a Vote of the Houſe of Commons, which was Publiſhed by Order of their Speaker, Jan: 10. 1680, Wherein it was reſolved to be the Opinion of that Houſe, That the Proſecution of Proteſtant Diſſenters upon the Penal Laws, was at that time Grievous to the Subject, a Weakening of the Proteſtant Intereſt, an Encouragement to Popery, and Dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom.

Your next Aſſertion is, That an unlimited and univerſal Toleration has been Condemned by the Chriſtian Churches in All Ages; If you mean by this, that the Chriſtian Churches in All Ages did Aſſume to themſelves a Power of Judging, and Juriſdiction over all men that were without the Church, or that the Church in all Ages did by Temporal Penalties conſtrain men to come into the Church, or when they were there, to Worſhip contrary to their Conſciences, or to Abide there, when they had no Heart to do ſo, but would Forſake their Faith, their Profeſſion, or their Chriſtian Doctrine, and Converſation, and alſo their Aſſemblys: I think you are very much miſtaken in the Chriſtian Doctrine and Practiſe of the Churches in the primitive Ages: Surely I may ſay in this, as in the Reſt, Shew me an Apoſtolical Authority for ſuch a Practiſe; And I have ſo much the more Reaſon to inſiſt upon this, Becauſe Chriſts Diſciples in the primitive Age, were All Volunteers, Suitable to the Doctrine which Our Lord, and his Apoſtles Taught, Repentance from Dead Works, and Faith in the Son of God, which are Convictions, and Operations upon the Mind of Man, and neceſſary Qualifications to the being of a True Chriſtian, and the profeſſion of them to the being of a Viſible Chriſtian, and the Doctrine of Self-Denial to his Continuance in his Profeſſion; The Doctrine is plain, Whoſoever Will, let him take of the Water of life Freely, You will not Come to me that you may have life; and when many of thoſe, who for ſome time profeſſed to be our Lords Diſciples went back, and Walked no more with him, That which was the Ground of the Others perſeverance was, that with him were the words of Eternal Life, and that they Believed, and knew that He was the Chriſt, the Son of the Living God, and that therefore there was none Elſe to whom they could Go; [Page] The Apoſtle Foretels us, That in the Latter Times, ſome would Depart from the Faith, Giving heed to ſeducing Spirits, and Doctrines of Devils; That there would be M [...]ckers Walking after their own Ungodly Luſts; that ſuch They were, who being ſenſual, and having not the Spirit, ſeperated themſelves, and the Apoſtle John ſays Expreſsly, that in his day there were Many Antichriſts, who went out from us (that is from the Apoſtles, and Churches) but they were not of us; For if they had been of us, they would have Remained with us, But They went out, that it might be made Manifeſt, they were not All of us: And this the Apoſtle makes as the Characteriſtical Note, by which he Knew it was the Laſt time.

Now as I cannot find the I eaſt Mention in any One word, Doctrine, or Precept, that any perſons were, or ſhould be Compelled, by Outward Force to come or continue in the Chriſtian Church in the Firſt Age, ſo neither can it be agreeable to the Mind of Our Lord, that any perſons ſhould be Compelled by Temporal Penalties ſo to do againſt their Minds in After Ages, Unleſs you can ſhew us, that the Doctrine of Chriſt, and his Apoſtles are not the ſame in After Ages, that they were when they were firſt delivered.

Say you, It is to Teach my People that they need never come to Church more, but have my Free Leave, as they have the King's, to go to a Conventicle, or to Maſs.

Does any thing of this kind Flow naturally from the King's Declaration? Does that Engage or Incline you, or any Man elſe to teach any Doctrine contrary to his own Sentiment? I take it rather to be an Encouragement to do, and ſay ſincerely what they apprehend, and believe to be the Will of God, relating to the Worſhip of himſelf, and that your Leave is neither Asked nor Granted in my going from your Church, further than this, That if I be Excommunicate by you for it, you cannot thereupon, by your Certificate, obtain as formerly, the Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo, to make me a perpetual Priſoner, whilſt the King is pleaſed to Suſpend the Execution of that Penalty.

The Declaration does not Teach any of your Hearers, that they need not come to Church, and Worſhip God any more there in that Way and Manner, if in their Own Conſciences they are Convinced they ought ſo to do; It does not Forbid your Teaching or Reading to your People any Doctrines, or Homilies Approved of by the Church of England, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, (which ſhe Enjoyned to be Read in your Churches Four Times in a Year,) or any thing Elſe by which they may be Inſtructed in the knowledge, or diſcharge of their Duty to God in your Churches.

You greatly undervalue your Miniſtry and Doctrine, to ſuppoſe that there are no Arguments to prevail with your People to come to your Church, but only Temporal Scourges, For if you have the Truth of God on your ſide, as no Humane Law can Alter the Nature of it, ſo you are at Liberty, notwithſtanding any thing in the Declaration, to Preach it to your People.

[Page]The Declaration is an Incitement to all the King's Subjects to Worſhip God, and no enticement for any of them to forſake his Worſhip, and that they may reſpectively ſerve God, (as the Chriſtian Religion teaches, in Holineſs and Righteouſneſs) without fear: His Majeſty promiſes Equal Protection to all who do worſhip God in ſuch Way and Manner, as each of them Underſtand and Believe, it is his Will they ſhould do; And in the firſt place gives the Royal Countenance and Protection to All of the Church of England in their worſhiping of God in their Churches, as by Law Eſtabliſhed: So that you make a wrong Gloſs upon the Declaration, in inſinuating that it Teacheth your People, that they need never to come to Church more, or that they have the King's Free Leave, or Yours, contrary to their own Minds and Conſciences to forſake the Church, or to go to a Conventicle, or to Maſs. For there is nothing in the Declaration that requires, gives Leave or Countenance to any man to forſake that Religion, and way of Worſhip to which his Conſcience obliges him, or to Diſſemble, and play the Hypocrite, in forſaking of any one way, and (in appearance) to adhere to another, if he do it not in ſincerity, but againſt his Mind and Conſcience.

But we are now come to another Point, at which you ſeem to ſtick more than at all the reſt.

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

Let this Matter then, as you ſay in your Letter, be examined Impartially, and take in here alſo that Queſtion I touched upon before; Whether the Matter of the King's Declaration herein be contrary to the Laws of the Land? Whole Treatiſes have been Written upon this Subject, with great Evidence to Manifeſt the Kings Right of Indulgence in Spiritual Matters, which you may do well (in Order to your Satisfaction) at your Leiſure to Peruſe: I ſhall here Inſtance only in ſome few Caſes, wherein the Kings of England, have for ſeveral Ages paſt Exerciſed ſuch a Diſpenſing Power; and in their Grants, Tolerated a Diſſent from the Religion and Ceremonies by Law Eſtabliſhed, which have been, either not Queſtion'd at all in Parliament, or there admitted to be legally done: Queen Elizabeth in her Reign, granted many Diſpenſations of this kind; and as is credibly Reported, to ſome Lay-men to Preach publickly. Several Grants have been made before, and in the Reigns of the three laſt Kings, both to Foreigners here, and to their own Subjects abroad, for the Exerciſe of Religion in their own Way; with a Non Obſtance to the Statute in Force, for Uniformity in Religion. The Act for Uniformity in the 14th Year of King Charles the Second, takes notice of thoſe Grants to Foreigners; and Provides, that the Penalties of that Act, ſhall not extend to ſuch Churches as have been Allowed, or ſhall be Allowed by the King, His Heirs or Succeſſors.

[Page]The Act for Suppreſſion of Seditious Conventicles, though it do not in expreſs Words grant a Licenſe for any Number of Perſons, not exceeding four beſides the Family, to meet under Pretence of Exerciſing Religious Worſhip, otherwiſe than according to the Lyturgy and Practice of the Church of England; yet it doth not make it Penal for any ſo to do, except they exceed that Number: And the common Interpretation given of it, by your ſelves and others, and Encouragement taken thence has been, That it was Tantamount to ſuch a Licence; and this I think, fully reaches that, which you call the Matter of the Declaration that you cannot approve of: For if you admit, as you have done in all the Arguments I have ſeen upon this Point, that is was Allowed▪ that four Diſſenters beſides the Family might meet, and Worſhip in other manner than is by Law Eſtabliſhed, without Incurring any Temporal Penalties thereby, the Paucity or Greatneſs of the Number, cannot alter the Religious Nature of the Matter; What's lawful for Four, is lawful for Four Thouſand, with reſpect to the Matter of Worſhip; The reſtraining the Number, is only the Policy and Prudence of the Civil State, which may be Limited or Enlarged at Pleaſure: And by this Act, It is provided, That Nothing therein Contained ſhall Extend to Invalidate, or Avoid His Majeſties Supremacy in Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, but that His Majeſty, His Heirs and Succeſſors, may from Time to Time, and at all times hereafter, Excerciſe and Enjoy all Powers and Authorities in Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, as Fully and as Amply, as Himſelf and His Predeceſſors have or might have done the ſame, any thing in this Act Notwithſtanding: And I think, the Exerciſe of the King's Power, is as naturally applicable to his Diſpenſing with the Limitation of Numbers, in this Caſe, as to any other Clauſe in that Act; which without this Eſpecial Proviſion, might have been Conſtrued, an Abridgment of the King's Supremacy.

To make good this, That the King's Diſpenſing Power in His Declaration, alters what has been formerly thought the whole Conſtitution of this Church: It is Incumbent on you, to ſhew wherein it does ſo, more th [...]n has been done in any Caſe of the like Nature heretofore, by any former Royal Diſpenſations, Grants, or Authority in Parliament.

And tell me ingeniouſly, if without any Offence againſt the Holy Scriptures, the King may not, if He ſo pleaſe, Grant a Diſpenſation to His Own Subjects, as well as to Strangers and their Off ſpring, (even after they are become Denizens, and underſtand Our Language) to Worſhip God after their own Way and Manner? And whether among all the Juriſdictions Annexed to the Crown, which heretofore have been, or may lawfully be uſed for the Reforformation or Order of the Eccleſiaſtical State, there be no manner of Diſpenſing Power Contained?

12. Say you, No Men in England will be pleaſed with Our Reading the Declaration, but thoſe who hope to make great Advantage againſt us, and againſt Our Church and Religion. [Page] This is a bare Suppoſition, ariſing meerly from your own Diſturbed Imagination, which is through Prejudice ſo Darkned, that you cannot diſcern between your Friends and your Enemies: I can tell you of many, who neither Hope, nor ſeek to make any Advantage againſt you, your Church or Religion, that are diſpleaſed at your refuſing to Read, becauſe you thereby give an Advantage to ſuch as may be your Adverſaries, which they could never have gained by your Compliance with the King's Order.

You afterwards ſuggeſt, That the Diſſenters, who are Wiſe and Conſidering, are ſenſible of the Snare themſelves, and though they deſire Eaſe and Liberty, they are not willing to have it with ſuch Apparent Hazzard of Church and State.

But if there be any Diſſenters who deſerve the Epithites you give them, you have by your Severities kept them at ſuch an uncharitable Diſtance from you, that you are unacquainted with their Temper; and thence it is, that as on the one Hand you Miſrepreſent them, that you may render them Equally Obnoxious to the Government with your ſelves, as giving Countenance to your Diſobedience: So on the other Hand, you ſuſpect them without Cauſe, to be ſeeking an Advantage againſt you, your Church and Religion: You cannot but know, that the Generality of Diſſenters (who have rendred their ſolemn Thanks to the King for His Indulgence, and the Eſtabliſhment propoſed in His Declaration,) are for the Reading of it, That all the King's Subjects may underſtand, and in their places, purſue the Contents of it to Effect: Therefore▪ upon what Grounds you ſuggeſt, (as if you ſpoke their Language) that they are not willing to have their Liberty in the Way which the King propoſes, I cannot Imagine.

You Term it with ſuch Apparent Hazard of Church and State; They Apprehend and Expreſs it, with Apparent Advantages of Church and State, and that which has a direct Tendency to ſettle Both on ſuch a Righteous Foundation, as may preſerve them in a ſafe and proſperous State to Perpetuity.

But, is not this to [...]tter ſuch among the Diſſenters, as you can Intice to hearken to your Inſinuations, that they may be thought Wiſe and Conſidering? For you tell them, When there is an Opportunity of ſhewing your Inclinations without Danger, they may find you are not ſuch Perſecutions as you are Repreſented: But while you ſpeak of their being ſenſible of a Snare, are not you laying a Snare for them? How long may they wait for ſuch a Seaſon, wherein you may in your own Apprehenſion without Danger, Manifeſt any Incli [...]n [...]ions or Kindneſs towards them? Immediately after the Houſe of Commons Declared, That the Proſecution of Diſſenters, was a weakning of the Proteſtant Intereſt, you Promoted it with greater Vehemence than ever before: If the King at any time diſpenſe with Penal Laws, you Cry out, The Diſpenſation is Illegal: As oft as any Bill of Comprehenſion has been brought into Parliament to touch any thing of your Conſtitution, ſo as to enlarge it beyond its preſent Streightneſs, it hath met with Oppoſition [Page] from your Ordinaries: So that the Dulleſt Diſſenters in England, have been ſenſibly taught by you, That there has been no Opportunity, wherein you could without Danger, ſhew them any kindneſs for Twenty Eight Years paſt; and if any Diſſenters ſhould be ſo Catch'd in the Snare of your Inſinuations, that at ſome time or other hereafter, there may happen an Opportunity, wherein you may be kind toward them, as to let go the preſent Seaſon, wherein His Majeſty Propoſes, a Legal and Perpetual Eſtabliſhment both of your Church State and their Freedom from Temporal Penalties for Nonconformity to it; I ſhall not take ſuch Diſſenters to be in this Caſe, either Wiſe or Conſiderate.

13. Say you, Reading the Declaration, is to Recommend to Our People, the choice of ſuch Perſons to Sit in Parliament, as ſhall take away the Teſt and Penal Laws, which moſt of the Nobility and Gentry of the Nation have declared their Judgment againſt.

Our Reading will Diſcourage, Provoke or Miſguide, all the Friends the Church of England has; Have we not Reaſon to Expect, That the Nobility and Gentry, who have already Suffer'd 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 Religion and Intrest; I think I ought to make as much Conſcience of Doing it, as of Doing the most Immorall Action in Nature.

If We muſt compare Conſequences, To Diſ-oblige all the Nobility and Gentry, by Reading the Declaration, is likely to be much more Fatal then to Anger the Diſſenters.

By Your Miſtaking, and Miſrepreſenting the Sentiments of the Diſſenters; You have given me Cauſe to Suſpect, You may be Miſtaken in ſome things which you have Aſſerted concerning the Nobility and Gentry; particularly in that you make no diſtinction, between the Repeal of the Penal Laws, and that of tie Feſt; which diverſe of the Nobility and Gentry in their ordinary Diſcourſes on this Subject have Done; and this ſeems to me the more Remarkable, becauſe you make it Equally as Neceſſary for the preſerving your Conſtitutions, to keep the Penal Laws on Foot, as the Teſt.

Secondly, You lay, in my Opinion, too great a Streſs upon your Reading; Do you ſuppoſe, None of your Friends to have any better Diſcerning, then to be Miſguided in their Judgments by the bare Reading the Declaration? No more Reſolution then to be Diſcouraged by it? No more Charity, then to be Provoked to be your Enemies by it?

I cannot ſee any Reaſon you have to Expect, that your Reading the Declaration, ſhould lay any of the Nobility or Gentry under any Conviction of a Fault, or that they would reckon themſelves Condemned (if it had been or ſhould be read in all the Churches of [Page] England) for any thing which they have Done or Suffer'd in that you call this Cauſe.

His Majeſty has been pleaſed to Declare the Reaſon of the Changes He has made in Civil and Military Officers; not thinking any ought to be Employed in His Service, who will not Contribute towards the Eſtabliſhing the Peace and Greatneſs of their Countrey: If a Queſtion be put to any Noble Man, or Gentleman; Whether he will give his Conſent to Repeal the Penal Laws and Teſts? Where ſuch a Queſtion meets an Inward Setled Principle, that no man ought to be Debarr'd of his Civil Rights or Privilidge, for the ſake of his Religious Opinions, and that, no man ought to be Compelled by Temporal Penalties to perform an Act of Religious Worſhip againſt his Conſcience, Such a Perſon is always prepared to give a Ready Anſwer; l'ts fit that all ſuch Laws, as tend to do either of theſe, ſhould be Repealed; becauſe they Tend to Alter ſuch Fundamental Maxims as ſhould ever be preſerved Inviolable, the One in reference to Civil Rights the other in reference to the Chriſtian Religion: But where the Queſtion meets not with any ſuch Setled Principle; but either the Contrary Opinion, or that preſent Policies of State may Govern in deciding it: In this latter Caſe, Honour and Prudence both, may be pleaded againſt a Pre-engagement, until they Arrive to a Satisfaction therein, by Debates on this Subject in Parliament. Who ſees not, that there's a vaſt difference between a previous Obligation to a poſitive Vote in Parliament, and your Refuſal to perform Such a Miniſterial Act, in Obedience to the King's Order, which you have never Scrupled to do in Obedience to any Order of your Ordinary, or his Officials, without any regard had to the matter publiſhed.

But I perceive, You are now upon your Politicks, and you would therefore have it, That theſe Noblemen and Gentlemen, are already Engag [...]d in the ſame Cauſe with your Selves, or if they be not, you do your Beſt that they may be ſo, and not be Reconciled to their Prince; For then you Suppoſe your Church would Fall, and not only So; but that if it Fall this Way, You have no Reaſon to Expect It ſhould Ever-Riſe again. And theſe Conſequences you would have to paſs for Demonſtrations, & from your Foreſight of the Event, make as much Conſcience of Reading the Declaration, as of Deſtroying the Proteſtant Religion and Intereſt, together with the Church of England: I will not give my Self the Liberty for your Churches Sake, to Dilate upon the Surmiſes; I take them to be the Effect only of a Sudden Vertigo, raiſed by an Imagination, that You are upon the Top of a Precipice in imminent Danger of a Deſtructive Fall; When in Truth, though you are in the ASCENT above any of your Fellow Subjects; yet you have there a broad Space to Walk upon as long as you pleaſe and a ſafe Deſcent into the Plain, to others of your Companions when you pleaſe, and are in no Danger at all of Falling Down, from any other Cauſe, but the Swimming▪ Conceipt of your Own Head.

[Page]If it were not ſo, You would never have taken the Method you have done, to draw your Concluſion from ſuch Compariſon of Conſequences, as you have made; to Diſoblige all the Nobility and Gentry, is likely to be much more Fatal, then to Anger the Diſſenters. Would you have it Conceited, That you have Engaged the Nobility and Gentry by a Poſitive Promiſe, upon no Terms to part with the Penal Laws, or give the Diſſenters any Eaſe, till you Signifie to them, by Reading the Declaration, That it is an Opportunity, wherein they may Do it without any Danger?

Have you no Cauſe, as you are a Miniſter of the Goſpel, to relent at the Hard Meaſure, which You, and Others by your Inſtigation have Meted out to the Diſſenters of all Sorts? Suppoſe, All the Nobility and Gentry were againſt the Repealing of Penal Laws, Yet I ſhould think, If you ſet your Thoughts upon the proper Diſcharge of your Function, that Equal Juſtice and Clemency would Govern your Determinations more then all Worldly Policy.

But you are for putting a Queſtion Ironically, and Anſwering it plainly and poſitively: Cannot the King keep his Promiſe to the Church of England, if the Teſt and Penal Laws be Repeal'd? Your Anſwer is, We cannot ſay, but this may be; And yet the Nation does not think fit to try it; and if the Question were put to us, We think We ought in Conſcience to deny them Our Selves, and we Commend thoſe Great Men that deny it.

This looks as if your Paſſions were in a high Ferment, and yet there is ſome appearance of an Artifice in it: It Sounds with what follows, as if you had an Aſſurance, That the gene [...]a Vogue of the Nation, is under your management and direction, either to have or not to have a Parliament, to Repeal or not Repeal the Teſt and Penal Laws, as you pleaſe,—For ſay you, 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?

Herein you ſhew your ſelves, to be greater Artiſts the Doctrine of Probabilities then any College of Jeſuits, whilſt you perſiſt in your Diſobedience to the Kings Order, and will not read it: The Nation does not think fit to try; But if you Return to your Obedience and Read, you ſhall thereby induce them to Try and Promote the Repeal. Let me for once after your Example (tho I come One Thouſand degrees ſhort of your skill in the Doctrine) Conjecture at a few probable Points.

Firſt, It ſeems to me that you are convinced in your Conſcience that there is Such an innate Vertue and Power in the matter o [...] the King's Declaration, as will command an Aſſent in the minds of them that hear and conſider it; whence it may be, That you think in your Conſcience it is not ſafe for your Intereſt to Read it.

Secondly, If you were not under ſome ſuch Conviction, it's probable you would make as little Conſcience to read it, as you did any of thoſe Cenſures or Orders, which you cannot otherwiſe juſtifie, than as you therein only performed a Miniſterial / Act, in Obedience to your Superiours.

Thirdly, It's very probable, that it is alſo from hence, that in your Reaſonings, [Page] you run altogether upon the Topicks of Truſting to the King's Promiſe, and upon a Repeal of the Teſt and Penal Laws, and ſpeak not a Word; either of the King's making no doubt of the Concurrence of his two houſes of Parliament (when he ſhall think ſit to call them) to this Declaration of Indulgence, (which he mentions in the firſt Paragraph of it) or of His Majeſty's Conjuring His Subjects to lay aſide all private Animoſities, as well as ground leſs Jealouſies, and to chooſe ſuch Members of Parliament, as may do their part to finiſh what he has begun, (in the cloſe of it) or of any of the Clauſes throughout the whole of it, or of His Majeſty's Endeavours to eſtabliſh Liberty of Conſcience on ſuch juſt and equal Foundations, as will vender it unalterable, and ſecure to all People the free Exerciſe of their Religion for ever.

Now if this be plainly manifeſt, (as it is in its ſelf, and will appear to every Man who is not ſcar'd by you from conſidering it) that it is not any one Single Clauſe but the whole and every part of the Declaration, that the King ſeeks to have Eſtabliſhed by a Perpetual Law; and that he would have this ſpeedily Effected. Why is it that you deſcant ſo much upon His Royal Promiſe, (of the ſtedfaſtneſs whereof, we have had ſo general an Experience) as if that were all the Security intended to Perpetuity; unleſs you have ſtill a Mind to Monopolize the Laws to your ſelves, and that none of His Subjects ſhould have the Benefit of any Law, but ſuch as will (though it be contrary to their Conſcience) Conform to a Tittle to your Meaſures and Modes of Worſhip?

Laſtly, It may be alſo probable, if a Parliament be ſpeedily called, as His Majeſty declares he intends it ſhall be, that they, when they are met, will wiſely Conſider, how both to gratifie the King in what he deſires, and ſecure the Subject in all their Properties, Civil and Religious: For the Sum of all that is to be Granted, de Novo, Is Liberty of Conſcience, to worſhip God without incurring any temporal damage by it. What things are already ſetled by Law, as to the Religion of the Church of England, and their Poſſeſsions, are ſo to continue, and be confirmed to them. And if ſuch a New Law be contrived to this Purpoſe, as may continue for ever, it will require ſuch Ingredients to be in it, as may by the Proviſions therein made, (which the Wiſdom of Parliament will readily ſuggeſt,) render it ſtable and perpetual, and it may be in particular, ſuch as may prevent your ſuggeſted Jealouſies of Preiſts and Jeſuits; and alſo, keep you as well as them, within the Spheres of your proper Function, that all of the Clergy who expect the Benefit of other Laws, ſhall ſubſcribe t before your Eyes, that no Royal Promiſe, no ſetled Laws, no common Intereſt can diſpel it, ſo as to give a Diſcerning of the proper Means to Arrive at a ſecure Eſtabliſhment?

Bear with my Expoſtulations; I am coming to a Cloſe.

It is not deſired you ſhould Part with any Laws in [...]ing, but ſuch only as are the Cauſes of an Vnjuſtifiable [...]preſſion, and conſequently of an Vnavoidable Contention.

If you can juſtifie the Compelling of any Man [...]y Temporal Puniſhments, [Page] to Worſhip God contrary to his Vnderſtanding and Conſcience, bring out your ſtrong Reaſons for it, that all who are otherwiſe minded may be Convinced; But if you cannot do this, bring your Mind to do, and permit Right to be done to all Men herein: Even your Enemies, that they may have no juſt Quarrel againſt you, nor ſeek by any undue Attempt, to wreſt themſelves from under your Power: Neither you nor any others▪ have any Reaſon to fear a Downfall; if you are willing to depart from the Ways of Opreſſion.

It is not deſired, that any Laws in being, ſhould be Removed by any other means, but by Introducing ſuch as are Juſt, Equal, and of much greater security in their ſtead: Do not conceit your ſelf ſafe (and that you can be ſecured o [...]) under the Continuance of Vnequal and Oppreſſive Laws; ſuch as [...] iust humane Nature, Chriſtian Grace, and Known Maxims of the Law of the Land.

I Conſider how you cloſe your Letter, That if you were never ſo deſirous that the Diſſenters might have their Liberty, yet you canno [...] conſent they ſhould have it this Way, which they will find the deareſt Liberty that ever was Granted: I am afraid from Firſt to Laſt, le [...]ſt I ſhould miſtake your Meaning; You have ſaid before, You dare n [...]t [...]each the Diſpenſin [...] Power▪ till you have the Authority of Parliament for it; You cannot Read the Declaration, becauſe it is to Recommend to your People, the Choice of ſuch Perſons to Sit in Parliament, as ſhall take away the Teſt and Penal Laws: So that you ſuggeſt, as there is no Authority, ſo you are not willing there ever ſhould be any countenance given by Authority, Either to Diſpenſe With, or to Repeal Penal Laws againſt Diſſenters; Where to do your Deſires that they ſhould have Liberty Tend? You cannot conſent they ſhould have it This Way; that is, by a Diſpenſing Power; nor that Way, that is▪ by a Repeal. In your next, I Pray ſignifie what means you Propoſe, that are effectual for the Accompliſhment of your Deſires; and if upon the Contemplations thereof, you cannot find any Means in common Uſe heretofore, ſo effectual for making Way for Removal of Spiritual Oppreſſions as the ſtirring up the Hearts of Princes: In the firſt Place, To give the Subjects eaſe, by Diſcountenancing and Suſpending ſuch Laws, as are the Occaſion of their Oppreſſion. And in the next place, By the Royal Aſſent to the Advice of their great Council, to Repeal ſuch Laws, and Eſtabliſh better, and more equal in their ſtead;

Return to your Obedience, and acknowledge it is juſt and equal that together with your own Perpetual Eſtabliſhment by Law, Diſſenters of all ſorts, ſhould by the ſame Law be ſecured in that which is THEIR RIGHT by the Law of GOD and NATURE, in common with all mankind; not to be Compelled to Worſhip contrary to their Conſciences, but to enjoy a juſt, and duly-ſtated Liberty to Worſhip God according to their Conſciences; and that meaſure of Underſtanding of the Will of God, that he has, or ſhall pleaſe to Reveal to them: And if you can remove your Prejudice, and come to a right Mind in theſe things, I doubt not, but they will Incline you, not barely to Read the Kings Declaration in your Churches; but alſo to Recommend to your Auditors, (from the Conſideration of the Reaſonableneſs, Righteouſneſs, and Clemency of it) the Choice of ſuch Members to ſerve in Parliament, as may Happily Finiſh that, which His Majeſty has therein Propoſed, and Mercifully Begun.

§

LONDON: Printed by G. Larkin, at the Two Swans without Biſhopſgate. 1688.

Information about this book

Title statement

The minister's reasons for his not reading the kings declaration, friendly debated by a dissenter.

Dissenter.

Edition statement

1688

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A50967

ID [STC]

Wing M2195

ID [STC]

ESTC R10242

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12999294

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12999294

ID [VID]

96454

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A50967)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 96454)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 391:12)

Source

— The minister's reasons for his not reading the kings declaration, friendly debated by a dissenter., Dissenter..

Extent

24 p.

Printed by G. Larkin ...,. London :: 1688.. (Caption title.) ("Allowed to be published this 21st day of June, 1688") (Imprint from colophon.) (Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.