THE Countrey-Minister's REFLECTIONS, ON THE City-Ministers Letter To his FRIEND; Showing the Reasons why We cannot Read the King's Declaration in Our Churches.  
UNless you had told me in what manner your Friend was Concerned, when he met with His Majesty's Order to Read His Declaration; I cannot tell whether he had any ground to wonder or not: It looks like Ingenuity in you, to tell your Friend your thoughts freely; but if you mean by freely, the liberty you take to tell the World plainly, how much you Clash with your Prince, which seems to be your meaning, by your saying, It is not a time to be Reserved: Such a Freedom taken, might not long since have met with such a Suspicion, of something being Reserved in this presumed Freedom, which might have been Accompanied with a dangerous Inuendo.  
Your next Paragraph Owns, You are entirely Out-witted; which does as little Credit your Prudence, as your following Discourse, does your Cause: But if you fall for want of Forecast, who can help it? You would not abate your Violence one jott, when seasonably prompted to consider what the Fruit of your Rigorous, and more than Legal Prosecution of Protestants upon Penal Laws would produce; Nor will you stand to your Old and Avowed Principles.  
There is indeed an Honourable way of Falling: When a Christian is called to Suffer for such things as will bear him out in Suffering, and whereof he will never have occasion to be Ashamed, 1 Pet. 4. 16. But it may deserve a Clergyman's Consideration, Whether a Sturdy Resolvedness not to part with such things, as have oft occasioned uncommendable Practices, may not have some Affinity with that Evil-Doing, and as a Busy-Body in other men's matters, which St. Peter cautions against, v. 15.  
In the next place, You says▪ That to take away the Test and Penal Laws at this time, is but one step from Popery.  
Why did you not then Consent, and Press to have them taken away, when there was no such Danger, yea, when the Taking them away, might have rendered the Introducing of Popery inconceivably Difficult, if not Impossible?  
But how do you know, that you judge Right in this Case now? Why say you, We have the Concurring Opinion of the Nobility and Gentry with us, who have already Suffered in this Cause: But is this the proof of an Opinion, to say, That some of Honour and Wealth, have Embraced and Adhere to it, though with some Inconvenience to themselves? It would almost tempt a man to think a Reasoner is at a great Loss, when instead of Arguments, he insists for proof on the Outside Grandeur of such as are of the Opinion he pleads for.  
When the Prince, and many of the People were averse to the Crucifying of CHRIST, what a Clamour did the Clergy make, Have any of the Rulers, or the Pharisees believed on him? But this People who know not the Law, are Accursed: John 7. 48, 49.  
But suppose you are right in this point, What Efficacy hath the Clergies Reading the King's Declaration, to take off the Tests and Penal Laws? If the Clergy's Breath can shake, or throw them away, Either the Laws are of little worth, and have a very sorry foundation, or the Clergy are Men of an Admirable Character.  
But say you, Though our Reading, do not immediately bring in Popery, yet it sets open our Church Doors for it: I cannot imagine, Why our Church Doors may not be Shutt and Locked as fast after Reading, as before; But if the Clergy pretend to such Power with their breath (as to break the Strongest Barrs, set Open our Church-Doors so Wide, as that they can never be Shut again) They may well allow their Prince a Dispensing Power; or how can He be Safe, as long as they can breathe?  
Say you, If we comply with this Order, all good Protestants will Despise and Hate us: To Hate any Person, is against an Essential part of a good Protestants Religion; if the Order be not Sinful, they will have no cause to Despise you, because you read it, and Act therein according to your Avowed Doctrine.  
If the Order be in your Opinion Sinful, Why do you not show, what Law of God is Broken by it? This is that you should have done, and not have insisted on such poor low considerations, as Personal Danger, Dishonour, and falling without Pity.  
He that Suffers on a Good Account, hath Honour and Comfort enough in himself, and from his God; He that Suffers in a bad Cause, falls Dishonourably, though he have never so many Great Men to pity him.  
The Great Difficulty, You say, of your Case is this, That fall you must, Sooner or Later; And therefore like Prudent Men, you think the Wisest Course is, to be Ruined presently; But it is not the first time I have heard of that Wise sort of People, who are for a short Life, and a Merry: But what Necessity is there of your latter Falling? This is certainly like a Melancholy Man's cherishing such a resolved Jealousy of wanting Bread at Last, as makes him Pine himself to Death in the midst of Plenty. But what is the ground of this Jealousy? If we fall after Reading, this is the way never to Rise more: And what mean you by that? Is it that after Reading the Declaration, if Penal Laws be taken away, you shall never be trusted again with such a Power to mischief your Fellow Subjects? If this be all, it may be all for the better; for neither the Prosperity of the Church of Christ, nor the Honour or Welfare of the Kingdom, do at all depend on One Parties having it in their Power to Impoverish or Ruin all the Rest of the Nation for Mere Matters of Conscience.  
You now come to Examine the Matter, as you say, Impartially; And first, Yo● Suppose, That no Minister of the Church of England can give his consent to the Declaration: This is just as much as to beg the Question you should prove, and so all you Write signifies nothing with those who do not Suppose what you Suppose.  
If you had indeed impartially Examined, and Proved the matter of the Declaration to be Sinful; you would have had no occasion to have discovered your Disloyalty, in pretending an Authority against the Command of your Prince, nor of Instancing (as if you had lately perused the Old History of the Baron's Wars) that you have the Nobility and Gentry on your Side.  
You say, Reading the Declaration would be no fault at all, but our duty, when the King Commands it, did we approve of the Matter of it. This is not Expressed after the usual manner of the Church of England, when treating with the Dissenters; They would not then yield that Orders might be Suspended from a Publication, till those who were required to publish them did approve the matter; but it was then constantly Affirmed, that the Order must be Obeyed, if the matter of it were not plainly Sinful; and of this, you Asserted, Authority was to judge: Was not this the lowest, you would ever stoop, when Scruples were raised, and Conscience pretended against your Orders? Where does the Scriptures forbid it? If it be not Forbidden, the Command is plain (and the safest way must be taken, which is) to Obey. It is certain, some parts of the Declaration, contain very plain and necessary Truths, which Churches-of-england-minister ought to Approve; If there be any thing in it which you think you may not Approve, that should have been Specified; it would have been more modest, humbly to have Applied to the King for a convenient Explication in that part, then presently in Print, to Cry the whole is Sinful, and a device to ruin that you call the best Church in the World.  
Next, You endeavour to prove, That Reading the Declaration in our Churches, is an Interpretative Consent: Because, say you, By Our Law, Ministerial Officers, are accountable, for their Actions; and the Authority of Superiors, though of the King himself, cannot justify Inferiors in Executing any Illegal Command: With reference to the Command of Superiors, we are to exercise our own Judgement and Reason; and we may not obey a Prince against the Laws of the Land, or the Laws of God, because what we do, let the Authority be what it will that Commands it, becomes our own Act, and we are responsible for it.  
This sort of Arguing (whatever may be in it) would not a few years since be allowed by some sort of People sufficiently known in this Kingdom, when urged in opposition to their Inclinations: Then the Prince was set above Law, and it was His Command, and the Notification of His Pleasure, made any thing (which was not Malum in se) Obliging; Private Judgement might by no means be admitted, when once the Governors had interessed themselves in it, and made a Determination. Is it not very Disingenuous for any Men, especially for Ministers, to have recourse to a Principle of their Adversaries, (which they have for many years decried) only because they would serve themselves with it upon a particular Occasion, and to forsake their own Doctrine, which they Avowed so long as it would gratify their Revenge and Ambition, though now they think it may do them some Diskindness? This is to fetch Weapons out of their Adversaries Artillery, not to Fight against them, but to Assault their Prince, and batter that Authority of which they formerly boasted, They were the only Supporters: The most Unjustifiable, and Shameful Inconstancy, is that of Altering, and Changing, and Closing with any thing, to serve a present Turn; Why may you not tell the People in his Majesty's words, That none of His Subjects shall be Forced by Fines, and other Penalties, to Submit their Judgement to others in the weightiest matters, as well as to tell the Nation this in Print, That Clergymen must follow their own Judgement, not only in matters of Religion, but of Law also? If Inferior Officers are not satisfied that their Superiors Command is not Lawful, Is it not enough for them to desist from Obeying it, without making Clamours against it in Print? Can they not comfort themselves (in Silence) with that Doctrine of Universal Passive-Obedience, which they, when in the height of their Ease and Authority, Preached to others as Orthodox and Sound; and thought they thereby Signalised their Loyalty above all other Societies of People in the World? If a Prince Declares, That there are some Laws in being, which are greatly Injurious to many of His Subjects, and that He is willing, That these Inconveniences shall be redressed in a Legal Way: Can any thing be more Condescending and Gracious, then for him to Certify this to his People, who are to Choose those that are to Repeal such Laws as are Prejudicial, and make such Others, as may be for the Public Good? What hurt can there be in making known the Prince's Pleasure in this, as particularly as he shall think meet, that His People may have time to Consider and weigh Matters, that nothing be done Unadvisedly in such Important Concerns?  
But say you, Ministers of Religion have the Care and Conduct of Souls, and therefore are bound to take Care, that what they publish in their Churches be neither contrary to the Laws of the Land, or the good of the Church.  
If you would keep close to your own Argument, you should have said, That Ministers who have the Care of Souls, are bound to take Care, that what they publish in their Churches, be not contrary to the Law of God.  
But Since you Speak of the Laws of the Land, I can see no reason from thence, Why such Orders as are given, by those that are under His Majesty should be Enjoined to be Observed, (though Conscience be really concerned in the Matter) and His Majesty's Orders, which have far greater Authority be, Denied: It may be when People are well acquainted with the King's Declaration, it may have this good Effect, That the Ministers of Religion, shall not be compelled to Publish other People's Pleasures in their Churches; at least, not under such severe Temporal Penalties, as have been heretofore insisted on.  
You say, Ministers of Religion are not looked upon as common Criers; but what they Read they are supposed to Recommend too.  
If they have not been looked upon as common Criers, I think they have been looked upon as Worse; When Bishops sent Orders made Arbitrarily by Justices of the Sessions, to be Published by them in time of Divine Service: B●t doth not the Rubric appoint, That what the King enjoins, as well as what the Bishops Enjoyn●, shall be Published in the Churches? The Clergy of the Church of England have loudly Taught, and solemnly Owned, That the King of England, as Head of the Church, has Power to make Injunctions and Constitutions, and are not Ministers every jot as much obliged to be His Majesty's Criers, as to be Instruments through which the Bishop's Echo may sound more Audibly to the People?  
But what they Read, they Recommend too. Ministers are not to be considered alike, in every thing they Publish in the Church. A difference arises from the Nature of the things we Publish: Reading a Chapter in the Bible, and Publishing the Banns of Matrimony, or Citations, are differently to be Considered; when you Publish the Banns, what do you Recommend, unless it be to know, Whether any of the People have any thing to Object, against such Persons Marrying? But seeing you say, That for a Minister to Read any thing in the Church which he does not consent to, or approve, is to Misguide the People: I would ask you this one Question, Whether you do really think, that the Worship which His Majesty doth Celebrate, be the true, and right Way of Worshipping God, which Protestants ought to Pray He may be kept and strengthened in? If you are for the Negative, Pray consider what you Recommend to the People, when you Read these Words in the Litany; That it may please Thee to keep and strengthen, in the true Worshipping of Thee, Thy Servant James, Our most Gracious King and Governor.  
But Reading is Teaching: Very good; What then? I may not Read any thing in the Church, but what I approve. But, are not the People Judges for themselves of what you Read? It is not your Reading a thing in the Church, that Determines the People, unless they pay the Clergy a greater Deference than they deserve; After all your Reading, and Teaching too, be it in a Sermon of your own making, (which no doubt, you prefer much above His Majesty's Declaration) Protestant's will not follow your Conduct any farther, than they are Convinced it is good: A Man is not Determined by what he hears, otherwise than by the Evidence he hath concerning it: Now it would almost tempt People to believe the Declaration hath so much Reason and Light accompanying it, as Our Clergy cannot well Answer; and that therefore they are afraid to read it, lest the People should be Convinced, and not follow their Conduct so servilely as they would have them.  
But, Why may I not then Read a Homily for Transubstantiation, or Invocation of Saints, if the King sends me such? Let the Question be, Whether every thing Read in the Church, be a part of Divine Service? And then if you Consider, and Answer it sedately, you will find your own Question Resolved.  
If you can prove the Declaration to be contrary to the Word of God, I will have no further Contest with you about Reading it in the Church: I wish no humane Orders were imposed upon Ministers, to be Read in the Church: But if any Persons have right to enjoin them to Read such Orders there, certainly the KING has much more.  
The King intends, Our Reading this Declaration should signify to the Nation, Our Consent and Approbation of it: What have Clergymen to do, to pry into the King's secret Intentions? The Declaration speaks plainly for itself. But the Declaration does not want Publishing. How can you tell that? Must the Clergy, or His Majesty judge when His Declaration is sufficiently made known? But this is designed to serve instead of Addresses of Thanks, which the Clergy generally refused, though it was only to thank the King for His Gracious Promises, Renewed to the Church of England: Many of the Clergy have been looked upon a great while, as Persons Addicted beyond Measure to flatter their Prince; and behold, all on a sudden, they are become Rude towards him, or worse; if they may not have leave to Mischief their Dissenting Neighbours, they will not thank their Prince for renewed Promises to Protect and Maintain them: Was ever ill Manners and Ingratitude towards a Prince, thus rudely and disingeniously boasted of? Who can think these Persons apprehend themselves to be in danger of falling without Pity, who brag thus openly of their Stoutness, that they would not so much as give their Prince Thanks, for the most Gracious Promise he could make them?  
You say, It does not become a Minister of Religion to do any thing, which in the Opinion of the most Charitable Man, can only be Excused. In this, I think you are very much in the Right; I wish the Multitude to whom your Letters are sent, may fix their Hearts on this pertinent Passage: No Charity can Excuse at present, a great many of your former Practices, nor will they find any Excuse at last, if not timely repent of: If you had hitherto Acted by this Rule, you would never have needed to fear your Fall with Contempt, or without Pity.  
You mention the Book of Sports, which w●● ordered to be read in Churches. I will not say, how strict the greatest Churchmen were for Reading of it, nor how well it did Comport with the Fourth Command; I only inquire, whether the present KING, has not as much Right and Power, to Order his Declaration to be Read in Churches, as King Charles the 1st. had, to order the Book of Sports to be Read there? And which of these two did Thwart the Holy Scriptures most?  
You say, It is against the Constitution of the Church of England; It is to teach an Unlimited and Universal Toleration, which was Declared in Parliament Illegal, in 1672, and has been condemned by the Christian Church in all Ages.  
The King's Authority to make Injunctions and Orders, has been heretofore cried up, as a main part of the Constitution of the Church of England; How comes this Change all on a sudden? But, what is this Universal Toleration? No more but this, That no one Party of His Majesty's Subjects, shall be trusted with a Power to destroy all the Rest: Will nothing serve your turn, unless you may continually render yourselves grievous to your Fellow Subjects? Must none live and enjoy the comfortable Influences of Society and Government, but those who will entirely surrender themselves blindly to your Dictates? Methinks, Sober, Understanding and good Clergymen, should be afraid, lest any of that which was Levi's Reproach, should be a Brand upon them.  
The Instruments of Cruelty are in their Habitation; Oh! My Soul, come not thou into their Secret, Gen. 49. 5, 6.  
I will not intermeddle with Parliaments, but only say, They are not always of one and the same mind; and Time was, when many of the Clergy of the Church of England, talked very contemptibly of some of them. But in that you say, It has been Condemned by the Christian Church in all Ages; this wants Proof: If it be well considered, the Christian Church will be found to thrive best, under such an Universal Toleration as Constantine did grant, before Ease, Pleasure and Wealth, had Corrupted the Bishops. Hence the Proverb, Golden Priests, and Wooden Chalices, Golden Chalices, Wooden Priests; till the Clergy grew Negligent and Haughty under Constantine's Reign: It is certain, the Orthodox had no Humane Penal Laws whereby to punish Heretics.  
Say you, (1.) It is to Teach my People, they need never come to Church more: To what an Extravagant Indecency, towards both their Prince and their Church, will the Affection of Tyrannising over others, Transport some Churchmen? Could any Enemy of the Church of England, have advanced any thing more to Her Discredit, than to say, Her Members are under no Obligation to attend on Her Ministry, but what arises from Force and Penal Laws? Why may not People have your leave, as well as their KING's, to go, not only to Conventicles, but to the Mass, till they are convinced, that they do ill in going thither? It is much better becoming a Minister of Religion, to Convince such by Scripture and Reason, that their Worship is false, then to Contend to have them cast into Prison, and by Fines and Confiscations, to Compel them against their Conscience to come to Church; for their Presence there, is no more pleasing to God, nor Beneficial to their own Souls, whilst their Minds are elsewhere, than it would be, if they were at a Conventicle, or at Mass.  
(2.) It is to teach the Dispensing Power, which altars what has been formerly thought the whole Constitution of this Church and Kingdom.  
Who are they that thus thought formerly? Surely, none of those who Taught loudly, and in Prints solemnly Authorized, That Acts of Parliament were Acts of Grace, that the Prince's Power could not be bounded; if there be any remaining, who were always of another Opinion, they may pretend the same things now as heretofore: But for such Persons as have been Instruments of Wrong and Mischief, to borrow such Notions from others, before they have Renounced their former Avowed Principles, and satisfied for their Injuries they have done, They can have nothing to Allege for themselves, which can justify them in this present Affair.  
(3.) It is to Recommend to Our People the Choice of such Persons to sit in Parliament, as shall take away the Test and Penal Laws.  
Is not this to Recommend the Clergy, as Persons of great Tenderness toward the People? You would never permit them to be Quiet, as long as it was in your Power to make them Uneasy: You would now persuade them, that the Nobility and Gentry are as much against the People's Ease, as you are; (for which, I suppose, some of them will return you no Thanks) and now you will not Read the King's Declaration to your People, because it teacheth them how they may provide for their own Ease, so as to live peaceably among themselves, and securely, under His Majesty's Tender and Equal Care for them all.  
(4.) It is to Condemn all those great and Worthy Patriots of their Country, who forfeited the dearest thing in the World to them, next a good Conscience; viz. The Favour of their Prince, and a great many Honourable and Profitable Employments with it, rather than consent to that Proposal, of taking away the Test and PenalLaws, which they apprehend Destructive to the Church of England, and the Protestant Religion: And he who can in Conscience do all this, I think, need scruple nothing.  
Your Reading the Declaration, doth no more condemn those who approve not of the King's Intentions therein Explained, than your refusing to Read it, doth Condemn the KING: A good Conscience should be very Dear to every Man; I think no Man should Act in direct Opposition to an Erring Conscience, till he can be better Instructed. Those that do really Apprehend, that taking away Penal Laws will be Destructive to the Church of England, and Protestant Religion, ought not to Interest themselves for the taking them away: But I do not understand, why both these may not be sufficiently secured by other means, than by putting a Power in the Hands of one Party of His Majesty's Subjects, to ruin all the rest; whether such a Security may not be found out, will be best Determined, when considered by the Wisdom of the Nation, when met; and in a Capacity to Repeal some Old, and make other New Laws, as Emergencies may require.  
Now let any Rational Man judge, Whether, notwithstanding all your Arguments, a Conscientious Man, who does not scruple to Read the King's Declaration, may not scruple at many things which you have done formerly, and at your striving to keep yourselves still in a Capacity, to do the like for the future.  
You say, Reading the Declaration, will Render your Persons and Ministry, infinitely Contemptible. Infinite Contempt, is huge Contempt indeed; I acknowledge, Ministers ought to behave themselves so, as that they be neither Blamed nor Contemned: There is scarce any thing makes a Minister more justly contemptible, than Encouraging Immoralities, Flattering and Soothing great Men, and showing a Domineering Temper, and Insatiable Cruelty, where they can have an Opportunity to Exercise it: Let such as have been Guilty of these or the like Crimes, reflect on themselves and Repent, and they need not fear Contempt for Reading the Declaration.  
Nothing will so Effectually tend to the Final Ruin of the Church of England, because Our Reading will discourage, or provoke, or misguide all the Church's Friends.  
In that You except not one of her Friends, you horridly affront them all, by the Character you give them; for you herein suppose them all to be either very Timorous, very Testy, or very Ignorant Persons; But I think you are greatly out, and lay abundantly more Weight on the Clergies Reading the Declaration, than it will bear: For whether you Read or no, such as are judicious and good Friends to the Church, will be firm to Her, and to their Religion; and till you prove, that nothing can secure the Religion of our Church, but these Penal Laws and Tests, your dismal Consequence vanishes into Nothing: The Church of England may be kept upon Her true Foundation, (and I hope Penal Laws have not much to do there) and be by Law secured in all Her Rights, from being hurt by any other Parties, (if these LAWS and TESTS be Repealed.) And she will be never the less Beautiful and Prosperous, because the Power which she has used to hurt others, is taken out of her hands: But how does your Reading Contribute so mightily to a Repeal, when all that hear it, are at Liberty to judge for themselves? Your Way of Discoursing as you do, about Reading the Declaration, would tempt one to think, that you are of Opinion, either, that the Declaration is Attended with such convincing Reason, as will certainly satisfy People as soon as they hear it; or else, that nothing is necessary in any Point to Determine, and fix People's Minds and Judgements, but only to have such a thing Read by the Minister in the Church.  
Your Answer to the Objection you raise touching Dissenters, is very Faint: Say you, When there is an Opportunity of showing Our Inclinations without Danger, they may find We are not such Persecutors as we are Represented.  
Though they are not to be Compared with the Nobility and Gentry; yet one would think, one Positive Promise might have been by you, on this Occasion afforded them; What signifies, They may find, that which they could never yet find? For as oft as you have been Tried hitherto, you have as soon as ever you were in a Capacity, proved Unfaithful to them; They have felt the Weight of your Fingers: There neither has been, nor is any need of others to Represent to them what Persecutors you have been, and may be found again, if you have Opportunity of showing your Inclinations without Danger, for aught that you have hitherto Manifested to the contrary: For here is not a Word of any positive Respect or Tenderness towards them: Is there a Change wrought in your Inclinations, without any Sense of the Wrong you have done? Here is not a Syllable of any Relenting at your former Severities; your Letter abounds with Flattery towards the Nobility and Gentry, Repeated many times over, but not a tittle of any Care you have taken, that the Dissenters may have their Liberty: As oft as it hath been granted by Royal Dispensations, you have been angry at it; as oft as it has been proposed in Parliament, you have Opposed it: So that you might have Omitted this Objection you have raised concerning the Dissenters, and have passed them over in Silence, as a People, whose Anger or Friendship you have no regard to; unless after you made the Objection, you had vouchsafed to have Answered it also, more to their Satisfaction.  
You Conclude with a very honest Proposal of Prayer, with which I heartily Concur; and Pray, That every Party of Professed Christians, may upon all Occasions, approve themselves Persons of True Piety, Moderation, and Real Fidelity.   

Allowed to be Published this 9th. Day of July, 1688.   

LONDON● Printed for E. Reyner and W. Faulkner, and are to be Sold by most Booksellers.