The MANAGERS Pro and Con; or an Account of what is faid at Child's and Tom's Coffee-Houfes for and against · Dr. SÁCHEVERELL. By Sir John St. Leger.

W

Per Graijum Populos, mediæque per Elidis Urbem
Ibat ovans, Divumque fibi pofcebat Honores.

1710.

HEN I faw Doctor Sacheverell, that triumphant Criminal, pass by my Door in a flaming and open Chariot, now and then stopping, and then marching flowly in State to Westminster-ball, impeach'd by the Commons of Great-Britain, for a wicked, malicious, and feditious Intention to undermine and fubvert her Majefty's Government, and the Proteftant Succeffion as by Law established; to defame her Majefty's Administration; to afperfe the Memory of his late Majefty; to traduce and condemn the late happy Revolution; to contradict and arraign the Refolutions of both Houses • of Parliament; to excite Jealoufies andDivifions amongst herMajesty'sSubjects; ⚫ and to incite them to Sedition and Rebellion: (Which in my humbleOpinion amounts to somewhat more than high Crimes and Mifdemeanors) I could not but think it an unparallel'd Prefumption in the Prifoner to go fo rebelliously attended, when, as a publick Enemy to his Church and Country, he ought to have been drawn upon a Sledge.

The Doctor appear'd to me to be gay and infolent, which made me ferious: The Occasion and Subject was the fame, but by us differently confider'd. I, who can never forget our Deliverer; he, who will never forgive him: I, who am so pleased and easy under her Majefty's Adminiftration; he, who is fo reftlefs and difcontented: I, who am fo folicitous to confirm the Hanover Succeffion; he, who is fo active to defeat it. Yet I could not but be of Opinion: with him, that he was going to the Hall to make good upon the Commons the Accufation of Treafon and Rebellion, upon which he had lately arraign'd them in St. Paul's Church. To him, and to me, he and his Council feem'd to be the Ma nagers for the Pretender; and the Commons Managers feem'd only to be of Council for the Queen and the Nation: He and I thought, that whilft they pretended to prosecute him, they only pleaded their own Caufe; and if he had been acquitted of high Crimes and Mifdemeanors, they must have been convicted of Rebellion and Perjury. This we both thought was the true State of the Cafe, which fo differently affected us.

The Lords our Judges have agreed, that the Commons have made good the feveral Articles of Impeachment, and notwithstanding the Doctor folemnly for fwore it, have found him guilty of the criminal Intention; but yet fuch is their Humanity, fuch their undeferved Mercy, that if compared with the unexampled Cruelties, and unprecedented Punishments inflicted formerly by Laud and the High-Church Party in the Star Chamber, the World must own, that their Chastisements are next to Impunity; the Crime only cenfured, the Criminal dismiss'd; and muft confefs too, that there is something more than Cant, in that Divine and Royal Word, Moderation.

Since the Doctor has published his colourable Defence, by way of Seditious Appeal to the People, and it is impoffible fo foon to print off the excellent Arguments of the Managers for the Commons, I wifh fome better Pen, who had heard them, would have undertaken to have wiped out the Impreffion, that the Doctor's evasive and prevaricating Speech has made upon fome People, whofe Paffions of every Kind are much eafier moved, than their Judgments rightly informed; which is my Excufe for this Paper.

ARTICLE I.

The Doctor in his Speech is pleafed to affirm, that the Managers of the Commons have supported their Charge by Intendments, unneceffary Implications, and ftrain'd Conftructions; by piecing broken Sentences, conjoining diftant and independent Paffages, in order to make him speak what he never 'thought of.'

The Managers methinks were very patient to hear this Language, and very indulgent to acquiefce in his printing it, before their Arguments were published, that the World might judge whether they were the artful Knaves, which, in my Opinion, the Doctor has here reprefented them, by applying to them the true Character of the King's Council in a former Reign: But I hope, that eyen the Managers at Tom's Coffee-House are able to vindicate the Managers of the Commons from this Afperfion, till they have an Opportunity to do it much better themselves. The Managers at Tom's, to fupport the firft Article, read forty-four continued Lines of the Sermon, out of which entirely they maintain their Charge. And is this to piece broken Sentences, and to conjoin diftant ⚫ and independent Paffages?' The Managers begin with the 11th Page. The 'grand Security of our Government, and the very Pillar upon which it stands, is founded upon the steady Belief of the Subjects Obligation to an absolute ⚫ and unconditional Obedience to the fupream Power, in all Things lawful; and the utter Illegality of Refiftance upon any Petence whatfoever. Here the Managers go on verbatim, till they come to thefe Words, Our Adverfaries think they have us fure and unanswerable on this Point, when they urge the • Revolution of this Day in their Defence. But certainly they are the greatest • Enemies of that, and his late Majefty, and the most ungrateful for the Deliverance, who endeavour to caft fuch black and odious Colours upon both: • How often must they be told, that the King himself folemnly disclaim'd the • least Imputation of Resistance, and the Parliament declared, that they fet the • Crown on hisHead, upon no other Title but that of the Vacancy of the Throne." Upon this the Managers atTom's charge you with fuggefting and maintaining, that the neceffary Means used to bring about the late happy Revolution were 'odious and unjuftifiable. The Managers affirm and prove, that there was Resistance at theŘevolution,and that theRefiftance then made was the neceffary Means to bring about the Revolution. You fay in your Sermon, and confirm it in your Anfwer and Speech, that all Refiftance, upon any Pretence whatsoever, is utterly illegal. Do the Managers then make an unneceffary Implication, when VOL. III. they

• Page 5.

Hh

Sermon at St. Paul's, 2d Edit. p. 11, 12.

they infer,that if Resistance be utterly illegal, that it is odious and unjustifiable ? When you fay that it is not justifiable in any Cafe whatsoever, is it a ftrained ConAtruction to make you fay that it is unjuftifiable in the Cafe of the Revolution? And when you fay that it is odious and unjuftifiable, is it not a fair Collection to fay that you have caft odious and black Colours upon it?

The Managers at Child's anfwer this, and fay, that though Refiftan ce should have been made, and though it were juftifiable, yet the Refiftance was not the necessary Means, nor did it bring about the Revolution, but that the Abdication was the Caufe of the Revolution, and the Refiftance was only the Caufa fine qua non. This learned Diftinction has ftruck deep into the Noddles of those who are lately come from the University, and many who have lived too long in it. But I must ask them whether the Refiftance was the Caufe of the Abdication, or the Abdication was the Caufe of the Refiftance? If they think fit to allow that the Refiftance was the Caufe of the Abdication, then the Refiftance must be the Caufa efficiens, and the neceffary Means; and the Abdication only the Canfa fine qua non: Nor was the Abdication (which was but one Inftance of the late King'sMale-Administration among many others enumerated in the A7 of Rights, Primo Gul. & Mar.) the fole Caufe of the Vacancy of the Throne.

Here I muft take Notice of a general Plea that fome of your Managers have put in for you, which goes to the whole, that Whereas your Sermons be ing only a Bundle of inconfiftent Nonfenfe, they know no Law in being, by which a Fool is punishable, and that the Confequences would extend to too many, if a Precedent fhould be made, to correct any body for preaching and fpeaking foolishly.' I know that this pinches clofe a Perfon of your Pride and Self-Sufficiency, to have fuch an Afperfion caft upon your Parts, and do really believe that you would rather plead guilty, than own yourfelf to be an Infignificant; and to oblige you I'll take upon me the Defence of your Understanding, and fhew that you had a Meaning, and a malicious one, which (as it happens commonly to Men of your Capacity) is always uppermoft, for if you were fo weak as to mean nothing at all, you were certainly a very infignificant Tool of the Party. The firft Article against your Underftanding is grounded upon this Pofition of yours, That an abfolute and unconditional Obedience is due to the fupream Power in all Things lawful; and that Refiftance is utterly illegal upon any "Pretence whatfoever. Here, they say, you are perfectly abfurd, and contradictory to yourself, by tacking a Condition to your unconditional Obedience, and thereby you affert nothing, and are very clear of any Sufpicion of a Meaning in this Place. But in this Point, Doctor, I own you are extreamly wrong'd, for I think that you write as good Senfe upon the Subject as moft of the Fathers either living or dead, and you feem to think fo too; and impatient of this Calumay, you point out your Finger,in the Margin of your Collections, to a certain Bishop, as if you defired him, in his own and your Juftification to fay, whether the Diftinction of active Obedience in all Things lawful, and paffive Obedience in all Things poffible, will not make your Doctrine orthodox, and your Senfe unquestionable.

But your Managers at Child's, who have a better Opinion of your Underftanding, fay, that your Art was nice, and your Caution remarkable, to leave the Jupream

fupream Power indefinite and at large, to fix it where you please upon Occafion; and that if, by any other Paffages of your Sermon, it should be demonstrated, that by the fupream Power you mean the Prince, yet ftill you are at Liberty to explain that unconditional Obedience, as due to his executive Power. That you laid down the Doctrine of Non-refiftance only as a general Rule, to which you allow'd Exceptions, and that undoubtedly Non-refiftance was a good and wholesome Doctrine, and proper to be preach'd with a mental Refervation: That Neceffity made Refiftance lawful. And they fay, that your Council infifted much upon this as your best Defence. But your Managers differ among themselves in this Point, and those who afperfe your Understanding say, that you were ftark mad to depart from the Defence of your Council; and to avow in your Speech, that you preach'd that Doctrine in the full Latitude that the Fathers Dead and Living taught it, because thofe Fathers, who are the principal Teachers of unconditional Obedience (as Bishop Sanderfon) do moft undeniably in exprefs Words exclude all Exceptions to their general Rule, and it is evident that they lodge the fupream Power in the Prince, that they make no Diftinction of the executive Power. This Juftification, they fay,untwifts all that your Council faid in your Defence, and from hence it follows, that the Cafe of the Revolution could not be even mentally excepted out of your general Rule, and I hope that I fhall fatisfy most People, that your Defign was exprefly to condemn it.

The Doctor fays, Page 11. That our Adverfaries think they effectually stop our Mouths,and have us fure and unanswerable on this Point, when they urge the Revolution of this Day in the r Defence; but certainly they are the greatest • Enemies of that, and his late Majesty, and the most ungrateful for the Deliver⚫ance, who endeavour to caft fuch black and odious Colours upon both. How often muft they be told, that the King himself folemnly difclaim'd the leaft • Imputation of Refiftance in his Declaration, and that the Parliament declared, that they set the Crown on his Head upon no other Title but that of the Vacancy of the Throne, &c.' And then a little further he fays, Thus do they ⚫ endeavour to draw Comparisons, and to justify the horrid Actions and Principles of Forty-one."

The Doctor having laid down the general Rule of Non-Resistance, now undertakes to defend the Generality of it, and being aware that the late Revolution would be objected against it, and left his Adverfaries (viz. the Friends to the Revolution) fhould offer the Refiftance of that Day, as an Exception to his general Rule, he answers them before-hand, that there was no Resistance at that Time, that the King himself has denied the leaft Refiftance, and that they who endeavour to prove there was any Refiftance, caft odious and black Colours upon his Majefty and the Deliverance.

To what Purpose was the Cafe of the Revolution mention'd juft after the Doctor's general Rule of the Illegality of Refiftance? It must be, either to except it out, or condemn it by that general Rule. If then he excepts it out of the Rule, it is because there was no Refiftance made: But if it happens, that there was Resistance at the Revolution, the Doctor has caft odious and black Colours upon both the Deliverer and Deliverance. And to blacken them yet more, he fays,that thus (i. c. by maintaining that Refistance) they (i.e. his Adverfaries,who deHh 2 fend

fend the Revolution) juftify the Actions and Principles of Forty-one, by a Comparison drawn between them. By which it's plain that the Doctor makes the Revolution as fcandalous as the Transactions about Forty-one, if founded on Resistance.

The Doctor perfifts to the last in his Speech, p. 7. That there was no Refistance made at the Revolution: What will not this Man dare to affirm or deny? Did not the Bishop of London himself re-affume the Sword? And had he not the Honour to have the Princess ANNE under his Guard? Did he not display his Co'ours with that remarkable Motto,that fuccinctly comprehended the Reason of the general Resistance, viz. Quia nolumus mutare leges Anglia? Did not Archbishop Sancroft take up Offenfive and Defenfive Arms, when he forced the Tower from the King's Governor? But tell me, Doctor, how could you affirm to the Queen's Face, that there was no Refiftance? when you knew that her Majefty herself was in Arms, and acted fo great a Part in the glorious Revolution; and that many Hundreds of your Audience had been in Arms. How many Lords have fince boafted of the Refiftance they then made, notwithstanding you were capable of afferting the contrary to their Faces?

I am not surprised to fee the Prince of Orange's Declaration wrested by the Doctor, who is as free with the Scriptures; the Prince never difclaim'd Resistance, but the Title of Conqueft: But Sacheverell either understands nothing, or is refolved to pervert every Thing.

It appears by the Letter left by King James, That he himself apprehended he was refifted, when he complains of an Order fent him at Midnight, to remove ⚫ next Morning from his Palace, and that the Prince of Orange's Guards had ta⚫ken Poffeffion of the Posts about Whitehall, without his being advertised of it; afterwards be fays, he was born free, and defires to continue fo; therefore be ⚫ thinks it not convenient to expose himself to be fecured, and not to be at Li- · 'berty.'* 'Tis plain by this Letter, that the King apprehended, that when he was ordered to go to Ham, that he was made a Prifoner, or at least that he was likely to be made one foon; and to imprison the King, is as high Resistance as can be made. Therefore as many Gentlemen as believe, there was actual Force and Refistance made at the Revolution, muft fay that Sacheverell has caft odious and black Colours (which I hope won't stick) upon the Revolution; and that he is the greatest Enemy of that, and his late Majefty, and the most ungrateful for the Deliverance.'

The Doctor defends the Doctrine of Paffive Obedience and Non-Refistance, as taught by the Sermons or Homilies put out in Edward the Sixth's Time, and fays, That thofe Homilies were establish'd by the Thirty-nine Articles, and that thofe Thirty-nine Articles were confirm'd by the Thirteenth of Elizabeth, and that they are now made perpetual and fundamental by the Act of Union.* The Managers against the Doctor attack the very Foundation of the Doctor's Defence, and if the Reader judges the Argument to be good, it's a full Answer to all the Speeches that have been made for him; they fay, that the Article, which contains the Homilies, and a great many more of the Nine and Thirty Articles, were not confirm'd by the Thirteenth of Elizabeth, nor any other Act of Parliament;

Vide State Tracts, Vol. I.