A Sober anwer To a Scandalous Paper termed Three Queries And Answers to them.  
Privately spread abroad to amuse the People, and disaffect them to the King, and his late Christian Declaration FOR Liberty of Conscience, By calling in question the Legallity of it.  

With Allowance.   
London, Printed and Sold by Andrew soul, at the Three Keys, in Nags-Head-Court, in Gra●t-Church-Street, over-against the Conduit, 1688.   

A Sober anwer TO A Scandalous Paper, &c.  
AMong the many prudent Admonitions of King Solomon, I find these, Prov. 17.26, 27. To Punish the Just is not good, nor to Strike Princes for Equity: He that hath Knowledge spareth his Words, and a Man of Understanding is of an excellent Spirit; or as the margin hath it, a soft Spirit. Surely if this Advice had been taken, the Author of this Paper would never have so highly taxed the King for doing an Act wherein he hath shewed so much Prudence and Christianity as his Declaration demonstrates; for by it he hath hurt none, but hath prevented the hurting of many, and that this should stir up any to inveigh so bitterly against him, is a matter greatly to be admired and lamented by all Sober and Moderate Men.  
The first Query is,  
Whether the matter of the late Declaration be Illegal.  
The first Answer,  
It is altogether Illegal, the reason given is, the Foot upon which the Declaration stands, is not only a Dispensing Power in particular Cases, but a Disannulling Power, and highly prejudical to the King himself, because it takes away the Faith and Trust which his People repose in Him, when a Law is made which they look upon as their Security.  
Reply, The Query being put in general terms, and the Answer like it, it may be reasonably apprehended the Author judgeth it contrary to the Law of God and the Nation; that Liberty of Conscience is not contrary to the Law of God, is very evident by the Scriptures, which hath been proved very largely in many public Prints on this occasion, enough to satisfy any unprejudiced Enquirer. And to take Law in the right sense, it cannot be against the Law of the Nation, for it is an approved maxim, Salus Populi est suprema Lex, The Sasenty of the People is the supreme Law; especially when the King who best understands wherein the Safety of the People lys jugeth so.  
And do not the Lawyers aclowledge, that the Law of God is written in the Heart? and that every Mans Law must be consonant with the Law of God, and therefore the Laws of Princes, the Commandments of Prelates, the Statutes of Communalities, nor yet the Ordinances of the Church are not Righteous nor Obligatory, but as they are consonant to the Law of God, against which Law Prescription, nor Custom may not prevail; and if any be brought in against it, they be not Prescriptions, Statutes, nor Customs, but things voided, and against Justice; and are not Laws for illegal Ruining and Destroying People for their Conscientious Worshipping of God such? for Legallity and Illegallity doth not depend upon Laws made by a particular Faction, for the Ruining all that are not of their Stamp, but that is truly Legallity which hath a regard to the general good of all, and distributes equal right unto all Men without partiality, which is the matter and end of the Declaration, so that it is a most malicious Insinuation to say, The King thereby takes away that Faith and Trust which the People repose in Him. And in regard the King refers the abrogating of those destructive Laws to the meeting of a Parliament, the Power he useth is not a disannulling, but a Power to prevent Mischief.  
For Experience shows nothing more common among careful Men, who have Herds and Flocks, then if any of them are given to Butt and Gore the rest, that they either cut their Horns, or clog them, to prevent their doing Mischief: And are not Dogs often Mussled to prevent their Bitting People? And may not a better Argument be maintained against the preventing the Mischief these Creatures may do, seeing they are deprived of the use of what Nature affords them? but these Laws for Ruining People are mere contrivances for that purpose and intent.  
So that the King coming to his Crown, seeing what Ruining and Destroying there was of People for their Consciences, having a due regard to the good of his People in general, hath interposed his Power to prevent the like for the future; and pray herein what good Law hath he broken? and wherein hath he deceived the People, or failed them in the Trust reposed in him?  
And seeing the Kings dispensing Power is so much inveighed against, which is only a forbearing the Execution of some Penal Laws, which ruined the industrious part of the Nation; Why hath there not been as much Zeal shown against the Justices of Peace for these many Years in not strictly prosecuting the Penal Laws against Cursing, Swearing, Drunkenness and Whoring, which they are sworn to Execute? or should the Justices of Peace have a Power to suspend the Punishment of Evil, but the King being more straightly tied, that he shall not have power to dispense with the Penalties provided against tender Consciences? Doth not this plainly show, that the King cannot please some, except he suffer them to destroy others? and that their Zeal is not for the right use of Law, but for the abuse of it, to gratify their envious Minds. But if things are well considered the King hath a better Foot for his Declaration then this Author would assign him. It cannot be forgotten, that the late King, to quiet the Minds of all his Subjects, in his Declaration from Breda saith thus,  
We do declare a Liberty to tender Consciences, and that no Man shall be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in matter of Religion, which do not disturb the Peace; and that we shall be ready to consent to such an Act of Parliament as upon mature deliberation shall be offered to us, for the full granting of that Indulgence.  
But none being offered to him, and the King being not forgetful of his Promise in 1662. he put forth another Declaration, wherein he repeated his Promise in his former, and further faith thus, We remember well the confirmations we have made of them since upon several occasions in Parliament, and all t●ese things are still fresh in our Memory, so are we still firm in the resolution of performing them to the full.  
And in 1672. he gave forth another Declaration, in the Preamble of which he useth many substantial Anguments inducing him to it, he thus expresseth himself, We do in the next place declare, our Will and Pleasure to be that the Execution of all and all manner of Penal Laws in matters Ecclesiastical against whatsoever sort of Nonconformists, or Recusants be immediately suspended, and they are hereby suspended, &c.  
All these foregoing Declarations Plainly show, that the King would have granted a general Liberty, had he met with a Parliament that would have joined with him; but His and the Nations unhappiness was, that the Parliament instead of centering with him in so good a Work, put him upon enacting Laws quiter of another nature, so that the King was drawn from the conscientious performance of his promise at Breda, to a vehement Prosecution of those he had promised Liberty to.  
For in the time of the Sickness, the Prisons being infected, were crowded full of Conscientious Dissenters, whereby many were made Widows and Fatherless, and many Families Ruined, and these Prosecutions continued to the end of the Kings Reign, who by his Declarations cleared himself from the Blood and spoil that was made thereby, and so it lies at the Doors of them who were the promoters of it, for which they must give an account to the Righteous Judge of Heaven and Earth.  
The present King seeing how his Brother was disappointed of his good intentions, and fore-seeing the Ruin that was coming upon the Nation, through the violent proceedings that were on Foot, might very well think a conscientious Obligation lay on the Crown for the performance of that which his Brother had promised, gave forth his Gracious Declaration, whereby he delivered the Oppressed, and stop the Violence of the Oppressors; which makes them as much out of Order as Diana's Silver-Smiths were when the Apostle Paul came to Ephesus, so that they spared not to throw Dirt in the face of the King, and say His Declaration is Illegal; and yet in another place to Excuse the Clergy, for not publishing it, say, The King can do no Illegal thing; whereby the whole design of the Paper is made voided. For if the Declaration be the Kings, and he own it as his Act, as without doubt he will, then it is confessed to be Legal, and the Clergy are no ways excusable in not reading of it, being commanded by the King, and permitted by their own Liturgy.  
But the question may be put, whether a good Christian would make a greater scruple, of reading the Book of Sports, or the Order of Sessions for Prosecuting Dissenters, or the Kings Declaration for Liberty of Conscience? Surely this is not unlike straining at a Gnat, and swallowing a Camel.  
Upon the second Reason I query; if each Bishop or Minister is not a capable judge in such Cases, but are Judges of their own Consciences; why did they not urge that for their Reason, which not doubt would have better pleased the King, then the Reasons they gave; but in regard they looked upon themselves to be Computent Judges, they undertook to dispute the Kings dispensing power; such Disputations and Actions would not have been allowed in King Henry the Eight's time, who brought all the Clergy in England under a praemunire, for transgressing his Proclamation, wherein he did forbid the divulging or publishing any thing heretofore within this Year, passed, purchased, or to be purchased hereafter, containing matter prejudicial to the high Authority, Jurisdiction, and Prorogative Royal of this his said Realm, or to the Let, hindrance or Impeachment of his Graces noble and intended Purposes in the Premises, upon pain of incuring his Highnesses Indignation and Imprisonment, and further Punishment of their Bodies for their so doing, at his Graces Pleasure, to the dreadful Example of all other, as the Words of the Proclamation are.  
The occasion of this Proclamation was; the King was minded to put away his Brother Prince Arthurs Wife, whom he had Married, wherein he was opposed by the Church of Rome, but the Clergy of England supporting and maintaining the Legantine Power of the Cardinal in opposition to the King, by reason thereof, were all entangled in a praemunire, which cost them a Contribution of 118840 l. 10 d. with which Sum of Money, much Labour, and their humble submission( in which they called the King the supreme Head of the Church of England) obtained their Pardon, and yet at that time, or not long before, the King was no Enemy to the Pope, but sought all means to establish the See of Rome, as may be seen in the Book of Martyrs, Fol. 959. the old Impression.  
If King Henry the Eight was so severe with the Clergy of his own Religion, for their only doing that he commanded them they should not do, and that only in opposition to them that went about to hinder the putting away his Wife, with whom he had lived with near Tweny Years: How much more are they to blame, who transgress the Kings command in a matter which so meerl, concerns the good of the Nation? Surely our King hath as much power to command as He to forbid, and the cause in hand is much more lawful then that he promoted: And though they have so lightly come off for this their contempt against the King, yet those who have been found in contempt against the Bishops Courts have found more Severe dealing, for first they are Excommunicated, then upon the Writ de Excommunicato Capiendo, Imprisoned during Life, except they comform and be Absolved; which hath cost many long Imprisonments, and their Lives at last, so that it is much be ter to fall into the Hand of a merciful King, then an unmerciful Bishop. For the King for a high contempt, is willing to take their own recognisance for their appearance to answer the Law, and for refusing thereof sends them to a Prison fit for Men, gives them a fair trial at Law by a Jury of their own Church-Men, and their Council Liberty to pled what they can for them. Ent for contempt against the Bishops, though many times Ignorant ones, for want of the knowledge of the methods of their Courts, and sometimes real conscientious ones, Men and Women are Excommunicated, and cast into noisome Goals, fitter for Dogs and Swine then Men and Women, where many have lain till Death, which hath been little taken notice of. But what a clatter hath there been about a few Dayes Imprisonment of Seven Bishops, only for a wilful refusal of giving recognisance to appear at the King-Bench-Bar in order to a fair trial. Surely that Bishop was in a terrible fright, who Preaching a Sermon after he was sent for up, no Text would serve him, but, Father if it be thy Will let this Cup pass from me; intimating that he expected to meet with very great Suffering, or as if he was very unable to bear what he expected; else he would never have so abused the Words of our Saviour.  
But this Carriage of the Bishops brings to my mind an old proverb of their own, No Bishop, No King, intimating that without the Bishops the King could not long continue, but their Behaviour in this late matter doth bespeak, that except the King will do only what they will have him, and admit them for his Superiors, they will divest him of his Prorogative, and then no King, but in subjection to the Bishops; if this be the Legal Loyalty spoken of, I suppose the King will hardly take it so, but rather as tending to Crimen laesae Majestatis.  
And I would willingly know whether it is only Bishops and Ministers that are Judges of their own private Conferences, and against which they must not go? or it is a privilege that belongs to all Christians in general; if it is answered in the af●… rmative as of necessity it must, 〈◇〉 according to truth, for Rom. 14.5. the Apostle 〈◇〉, Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind, and 〈…〉 n such small matters, much more in matters that concerns Life and Salvation; then the Kings Declaration cannot be abusively termed Illegal, the end and intent of it being to leave every Man to be judge of his own Conscience, and to worship God as he is persuaded he ought to do; herein this Author hath done like the rest of his Brethren, for it is a common practise with them, when they are put to it, to make use of their Opponents Arguments to defend their own Cause; and allow that for a good Plea to themselves, which they denied to others when used to more purpose: Surely he intended none but Fools and idiots should red his Paper, and not considerate Men, for they would soon find out his nonsense and Contradictions.  
For it it be allowed that every Man is judge of his own private Conscience, against which he must not go; then how ill have the Church of England done above these Twenty Years, in Persecuting People for keeping to it? And how well hath the King done to stop the violence thereof, he hath done like a true Father of his Country, and no doubt God will own, and stand by him in it against all opposition.  
Thirdly, he saith, This case is publicly adjudged against in Parliament 1672.  
Query, Whether the Iudgment of a Dissolved Parliament, or a Reigning King, with the approbation of the Iudges be most authentic, but some have been adju●ged by Parliament to be Protestant Dissenters, and yet have been Prosecuted as Popish Recusants.  
Secondly, He saith, The general forbearance of Addresses, grounded upon the illegallity of that dispensing Power, shows this to have been the judgement of the greatest part of the Clergy, and others.  
Reply, If each Bishop and Minister is not capable to judge in such cases, then what signifies their judgement in forbearing of Addresses, but Ingratitude in the highest Nature? for no People but the Church of England, who had received such gracious Promises from a Prince of a different persuasion, but would have thought themselves Obliged, to have made a grateful acknowledgement for them.  
And as to the Declaration of the Judges, he seems to undervalue it, because it never yet came legally to the knowledge of the Subjects.  
Reply, It is a sign the King was not minded to do any thing that is illegal, for he not only took the advice of his wise Council, but also of the Judges, who sit in the House of Lords to be advised with in difficult Cases of Law; for if they are judged capable of advising the Law-makers, surely the King hath fully shewed his clearness in taking their advice; for they are as Capable to advice Him in matters of Law, as they would have been the House of Lords, if they were now sitting; if the judgement of the Judges had been for the Authors purpose, he would not have cavelled at it as he doth.  
His fourth Reason is, The Bishops refusing to sand the Order and Declaration, the Ministers have something more then their own private Judgments to move them to refuse to red it.  
Reply, What help is this to them, when they are not capable Judges in such cases.  
The Second Query with its answer and reasons depending upon the legallity or illegallity of the Declaration is already answered by proving it illegal, that I need say little to it, for it is the Kings Act, and he saith, The King can do no illegal thing.  
The Third Query.  
What are the ill Consequences of reading the Declaration?  
Answer, They are many and great, and therefore in Prudence as well as Conscience, it ought not to be done, and draws up the ill Consequences under sieve Heads.  

First, The Clergy will be judged Cowards and Hypocrites.  
Secondly, He fears many who have Votes in choosing Parliament Men, will be strengthened in choosing not only Friends to the Indulgence, but dispensing Power.  
Thirdly, He apprehends the reading of it, was only ordered to make them parties to it, it being so well known already.  
Fourthly, He fears an advantage will be taken by their reading it, and it will be published in the Gazette, &c.  
Fifthly, That after they have red it, they may expect other things may be ordered to be published by them, at which they making a stand when they have lost their Reputation, will be of no force, and the danger he proposeth, is losing their interest in the Penal Laws and Tests.   
Reply, These are inconsiderable Inconveniences in comparison of what would attend them for their Disobedience, if the King should be severe; for as the wise King Solomon saith, The Wrath of the King is as a Messenger of Death, but a wise Man will pacify it. And again, The King's Wrath is as the Roaring of a Lion, but his Favour is as the due upon the Grass: Therefore be advised and lay aside your high Provocations against the King, least his Patience and Gentleness be turned into Wrath, and ye repent when it is to late.  
Objections in General,  
It may be Objected, There will be great Inconveniences on the other side. To which he Answers,  
If any thing be Illegal, both in Matter and Publication, we are not to do it for fear of Inconveniences, but perform our Duty, and to leave the event to God, a certain Evil must not be done to avoid a Contingent one.  
Reply, The Legallity of the matter is already proved, and the Publication of it is hindered by the flubbornness of the Clergy; so that you have just cause to fear the contingent Inconveniences, seeing you are contending against your King, and how can you expect a good event from God in so bad a Work.  
Objections in Particular.  
It may be Objected, first, This will be interpnted by the Papists, as a failure of our great Principles and Loyalty.  
To which I answer Yes, and all sober Men besides, for you not acknowledging so large a Favour as the King hath bestowed on you, affects you both with Disloyalty and Ingratitude; for it is acknowledged the Clergy refused to Address even in a branch that made for themselves, because it proceeded from the dispensing Power, which is an absolute stubborn piece of Disloyalty, and appropriating a legal sort of Loyalty to yourselves, because you oppose the King in dispensing with the Ruining Penal Laws, will not make you the better Subjects, but shows what you would be at; and because you cannot still be perplexing your Neighbours with those cruel Laws; you would make People believe that all Law is taken away, and you are the Men that only stand up to hinder it, but do not show the obstruction of any good Law to the prejudice of the meanest Subject: And this course you take doth not maintain the Principle of Suffering without an Antichristian opposition, for then you would have taken Christ for your Example, Who when he was Reviled, Reviled not again; when he Suffered, he Threatened not, but committeth himself to him that judgeth righteously, 1 Pet. 2.23. But because the King will not let you Ruin and Destroy People, as you have done for many Years, you revile him, and care not what Dirt you throw in his Face.  
The Second Objection,  
That Dissenters may construe this refusal a Declaration against all Tenderness to them.  
Answer, Which very well they may, and no assurances from your Church-Men of their inclination to Tenderness to them will persuade them to the contrary, for they continued spoiling and Destroying as long as they durst, and some having attempted it since the coming forth of the Kings Declaration, plainly shows it; and they look upon this refusal to be on purpose to hinder Favours towards them; for the Indulgence or dispensing Power doth hurt to no body, but administers a great deal of Comfort and Liberty to the Dissenters; for now they are not forced to come to your Church against their Consciences, but have Liberty to serve God as they are fully persuaded in their own Minds, without being Ruined for their so doing.  
But as you have invaded the Prerogative of God, his Rule in the Conscience, so you would deprive the King of his Prerogative, in saving his People from Ruin; and none among the D●ssenters are so foolish, who are in their right Wits, as to take this not to proceed from disaffection to them, but a Testimony of your Sincerity for the Protestant Religion, which if you were not wilfully Blind you might easily see.  
The Third Objection,  
That Suspension or Depravation of the Refusers may follow, whereby the People of our Church may be left as Sheep without a Shepherd.  
To which he answers, first, Our Church, &c. will suffer less by the Conscientionsness of their suspended Ministers, then it will do by their illegal compliance in so great and fundamental a Point.  
Secondly, God will provide for them, being his own Cause for which they suffer.  
Which it will be a hard matter to prove, but after all, the Kings Clemency is that they most depend on, but would do well to consider how ill they have treated him for his tendered Clemency, so that in Justice he might wholly with-draw it from you, and look upon you of Quondam Friends to be his present Enemies.  
How do you think King Henry the Eighth would have taken such dealings from his Subjects? he would soon have made the Clergy understand better. And if you had lived in his Days, and suffered as much as many then did, and the King had by virtue of his Prerogative dispensed with the Penal Laws by which you Suffered, would you have exclaimed against his dispensing Power for so doing, or rather blessed God for putting it into the Kings Heart to take Compassion of you, as many do now?  
And though you take so much pains to malign the King for hi● Zeal and Resolution in this Glorious Work, yet I do not doubt but it will make him more Renowned then any of his Progenitors, so that Ages and Generations to come will Bless God on his behalf.  
And in short, to sum up the whole drift of this Paper, which is,  

First, To charge the King and his Declaration with Illegallity.  
Secondly, Te excuse the Clergy in their Disobedience.  
Thirdly, To excuse themselves both to Papist and Protestant Dissenters, and to cast a jealousy into their Minds, that if Liberty of Conscience should be Established by a new Magna Charta, a new Declaration may put it aside. Which cannot be if the Kings Example be followed. For he hath taken all the legal Courses that may be in the present Juncture, and defers the disannulling of them till a Parliament meets; and intends in order thereunto to call a Parliament.   
But as to the Magna Charta already granted, the King hath not been taxed with the infringing or breaking it in the least; for it doth not appear by all that hath or can be said, that the King hath denied, deferred or sold Justice to any Man, neither hath he taken, imprisoned or disseised any Man of his Free-hold, Liberties and Customs, but by the judgement of his Peers.  
But the Church of England, and their Church-Men, have made Laws to disseise Men of their Free-holds, Liberties and Customs, without the judgement of their Peers, or saving to every Man his Contenement, the Merchant his Merchandise, and the villain his Wanage; for by the Oaths of two infamous Informers, a Man for only being at a Religious Meeting, was liable to be Fined from Five Shillings a time to Forty pound, without trial of his Peers, and without saving unto him his Contenement or Merchandise, many times taking away from his Wife and Children, the Beds they lay on, the Pots they dressed their Victuals in, and all things needful and necessary for their subsistence, and when Informers have been impeached of Perjury, some Justices have been so kind as to excuse them with being mistaken.  
Such as this are the Laws, and such the execution of them, which the King hath despenced with, and for which many are so much concerned, that they would make People believe all Law and Equity is going to Ruin, because they cannot still be ruining their peaceable Neighbours.  
So that those who have broken the old Magna Charta, liable to the C 〈…〉ed by the Makers of it, are the only Persons to be suspected ●ould break a new one if they could tell how; but I hope other ●rovision will be made.  
And whereas the Author in the close of the Paper would entitle them to a dependency on God, and his owning their Cause, I shall bring a few instances of many which might be produced, of very eminent Persons of their own communion, which may convince them to the contrary.  
First, I hope none of the Church of England will deny that King Charles the First was a good Protestant, who thus said,  
I have often declared, how little I desire my Laws and sceptre should entrench upon Gods sovereignty, who is the only King of Mens Consciences.  
Secondly, I may also suppose, that King Charles the Second was not questioned to be a Protestant, by reason of the Law made in his time against saying he was a Papist, who plainly shewed he was of his Fathers mind, as he manifested by the three Declarations he gave forth.  
Thirdly, Dr tailor an Irish Bishop, and without doubt a Protestant, writes thus; Why are we so Zealous against those we call heretics, and yet great Friends with Drunkards, and Swearers, and Fornicators, and Intemporate and Idle Persons; I am certain a Drunkard is as contrary to God, and lives as contrary to Christianity as a heretic; and I am also sure, that I know what Drunkenness is, but I am not sure that such an opinion is heresy, &c.  
Fourthly, The Bishop of Hereford in his late print plainly disowns the refusal of the Clergy to red the Kings Declaration, avowing it to be contrary to the Word of God, refuting the Arguments and Reasons to the Contrary; but I am afraid too many professing Christianity stand up more for Interest then for Religion; for sometimes, Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man, is good doctrine, though he ordains things to which People cannot submit for Conscience sake; but if it thwart their Interest though it doth not entrench upon their Consciences, then this Doctrine is to be wholly laid aside, and not at all regarded, so that by this rule all that may be called Religious, is made like a Nose of Wax to be formed into what shape they please. So that the King, in taking the advice of his Father, and performing the Promise of his Brother, and therein being justined by the Testimonies of many approved Men, hath done more like a Christian then some would have him; showing that a Roman catholic King may be of better Principles, then those that pretend so much to Reformation.  
What I have here written I hope will satisfy all Moderate Men, who are willing to do as they would be done by; but as for those who are willing to be deceived, I cannot help it if they be deceived, though I should be more glad of the Contrary.  
FINIS.