yet we fee that God himself fupported their juft Caufe, and by God's Affiftance, they quenched the Violence of Fire, efcaped the Edge of the Sword, out ⚫ of Weaknefs were made strong, waxed valiant in Fight, turn'd to flight the Ar'mies of the Aliens.* Though St. Paul himself gives them thefe Encomiums, yet this Bishop would make St. Paul fay in another Place, that they, and all thofe who refift in any Cafe whatsoever, were to receive to themselves Damnation,

I doubt not, if St. Paul were now living, but he would applaud the Arms of the English taken up against their Antiochus, because, as in the Cafe of the Maccabe s, Idols were brought into our Church, and our Laws broken; and becaufe that God, even our own, and his God, has given them bis Bleffing,

The Managers for the Doctor bring another Argument against the Revolution, and fay, that they are proud of the Part they acted in it; and yet it was Rebellion, because if they had not fucceeded, they would have been all hang'd by the Laws. Undoubtedly, if a Tyrant gets the Upper-hand of the Subjects, he will put them to Death without Mercy, and we know that King James had then a fet of Judges, and fome Bithops, who would have declared it both Law and Gospel. But thofe who confider the Authority of the Laws before-mentioned will fay, that King James upon his Male-Adminiftration was ipfo facto no King, and that there could be no Rebellion against him, to whom no Allegi ance was due.

It seems strange to me, that Gentlemen fhould value themfelves for being Rebels; yet I with that fome of them may not really now think, that they deferve to be hang'd for having done fo much at the Revolution. And it is to be apprehended, left through a conftant Reflection upon their Rebellion, and Injuftice done to the late King, they may at laft, through a Compunction of Confcience, think of fome Reftitution; and to make fome amends for the Expulfion of the Father, at laft propofe a Restoration of the fuppofed Son.

This leads me to reflect, who have revived this Doctrine, to what End should it be now trumped up,and univerfally preached? How is this Doctrine wholefome and neceffary for thefe Times? when our beloved Queen reigns in the very Souls of all her People, except Sacheverell and Company. I muft obferve, that the Author of the Latin Sermon, not contented to inftill artfully this Poisonous Doctrine into the Ears of most of the Congregations about Town, but projecting to fpread it univerfally, took an Opportunity to harangue the whole Clergy of London together. The Duty of the Day was forgot, the Defign of the Preacher was only to defend and recommend this Doctrine to their particular Care; and in his Dedication he gives them their Cue, and infinuates, that this Doctrine, by a Common Confent, and a Common Concern, is to be propagated.

Sacheverell's Part was to fet right (as they cant) the young Clergy and Youth of the University. And thefe two Gentlemen have laboured fo abundantly in their Provinces, that go to moft Churches, and you will be apt to think there's but one Text in the Bible, or that every Text fpeaks but one Thing.

Since this rank Weed has fo overspread, and is fo deep rooted in the University; fince a hew set of Profeffors is established to teach Jacobitifm; fince fuch Industry

Thorndike, p. 306. St. Chryfoftom, Hom. 27. in Epift. ad Heb. & alli.

16

is used to breed up the young Nobility and Gentry in an Averfion to the true Prin ciples of our Conftitution, in an Abborrence of the late Revolution, in a general Dislike of the Hanover Succeffion; fince they are become downright Nurferies of Parties and Factions; fince even Popery itself begins to peep abroad; fomething more must be done by the Parliament than burning their Decrees, or elfe a foreign Education will infallibly be the Confequence.

When was this Doctrine revived? Since the Declension of the Power of France, and a little before the Scotch Expedition. What are the neceffary Confequences to be drawn from thefe Doctrines, if they were once fettled? That the Revolu tion was founded in Iniquity, and that Injuftice was done to King James, who ought not to have been refifted; then it will follow that King William and Queen Mary were Ufurpers, that our rightful and lawful Queen is an Ufurper, that there is another Brood of Ufurpers coming over from Hanover, and that fo much Blood and Money has been spent in an unjuft War. These are the odious and black Colours that thefe Gentlemen caft upon the Revolution and the present Government. And to what Purpose they do it at this Juncture appears plainly, fince now they have loft all Hopes of carrying on the Work by a French Power,

Who were most concerned for the good Succefs of Sacheverell's Doctrine and Trial? The Non-jurors, Jacobites, and Papifts; who own this to be the fairest Pub that ever was made for their Mafter. Who were the moft remarkable Managers for the Doctor? Those who were for an Administration and Regency, and against the Coronation of the P. of O. Thofe, who put fuch a fudden Stop to the laft War, and were fo unwilling to enter into this: Thofe, who distress'd King William into the Partition Treaty, and afterwards thought it reasonable to hang his Minifters for it: And thofe to a Man, who were against the Union, and now with their ufual Sincerity pretend to be the Zealous Maintainers of it. How close are all these united, and almost under Arms to defend this unknown and worthless Man! Hated by all who know him, for his Ingratitude and Prefumption; nay,they themselves will tell you, it is not the Man,but the Cause, they defend. Since therefore we defend the Caufe of the Revolution, I wish they would explain what Caufe it is they defend.

It is remarkable, that now all private Quarrels are forgot, and open Enemies put Confidence in one another: No body hated Sacheverell more than the Chief of his own Managers; Sacheverell was never fo bitter as upon a certain falfe Brother, whom he diftinguifh'd in his Sermon by the Name of Turn-coat: But for that Purpose, and at that Time, Pilate and Herod were made Friends, for before they were at Enmity between themselves.

Sacheverell, in his Speech, would make us believe, it is impoffible that he fhould be a Favourer of the Pretender, because he has abjured him. This indeed would be a good Argument in the Mouth of a Man of Probity; but fince Sacheverell and his Managers allow of Mental Exceptions and Refervations, we muft examine this Matter. It is now well known, that fome Gentlemen formerly, who would never qualify themfelves for the Lieutenancy, or the Commiffion of the Peace, took all the Oaths, to get into the House of Commons, and had Difpenfations for the Services which they were capable of doing there. There are now Circumstances to make us believe, that the Jacobite Clergy have the like

like Inftructions to take any Oaths, to get Poffeffion of a Pulpit for the Service of the Caufe to bellow out the hereditary Right, the pretended Title of the Fretender. Have not the Non-jurors at this Juncture, and for this very Purpofe, taken the Oaths? Has not Parfon Hs, the most inveterate, and most impudent of the Non-jurors, just now done it; and did he not lately out-brazen Sacheverell himfelf? And no doubt but for the fame Caufe that Hs has fworn Allegiance to Queen ANN E, Sacheverell has abjured the Right of the Pretender. We know that the one allows the Defactofhip of the Queen, and the other referves to himfelf the Divine Right of the Pretender. Sacheverell fays, that he has given Pub ick Demonftrations of his Trae Zeal for her Majesty, by defending her Title to the Crown. Which he does thus in his Oxford Sermon ; he allows, That by a long Succeffion of her Royal Ancestors, an Hereditary Right has been devolved upon her, and fays very truly, That even her very worst Enemies will acknowledge it, as he himself, and Mr. Leflie, who was the firft Defender of this Title. Afk the Gentlemen at St. Germains what Title their Mafter has to the Crown of Great-Britain, they'll fay his 'Hereditary Right devolved upon him. from his Royal Ancestors.' Afk Sacheverell what Right the Queen has to the Crown, he anfwers, her Hereditary Right devolved upon her from her Royal 8. Ancestors.' But if thefe Advocates fhould ever meet, they would foon reconcile these Difficulties, and compound the Two Hereditary Rights into One. Sacheverell, Leslie, and the Queen's new Council Extraordinary, maintain her Hereditary Right to the Crown, because they pretend to know that there is a nearer Heir: It is for this they labour to make the Crown hang upon her Head, only. by that Slipknot of Hereditary Right, when it is fo hard bound on by Parliament. And if that Point could be once gain'd, they are ready,no doubt, to produce their Immediate Heir; and thus thefe Counsellors, a fet of falfe Brethren, that the. Doctor takes no notice of, whilft they pretend to be of Council for the Queen, only open and fet forth the Title of her Adverfary. It is thus that thefe Defen ders will allow the Hereditary Right of the Hanover Family, because they know that even the Houfe of Bourbon is before them.

་

The King and Parliament have always had, and ufed a Power of fettling, directing and binding the Defcent of the Crown in the royal Blood, different from the common Courfe of other Inheritances (it was Treafon to deny this by the13th of Elizabeth, which Act in Subftance is revived by the late Act of the Queen)' who often have prefer'd the mediate Heir to the immediate, as lately the Queen was advanced before the Pretender, without taking Notice of his Illegitimacy; the House of Hanover, before the Houfe of Savoy. When Sacheverell and his Managers talk upon this Point,they are juft upon the Brink of Treason, puzzled to bring it out, and labouring to with-hold it.

Mr. Hoadly, who, to his Honour, has incur'd the Mal'ce of the whole Party, and been recommended by their Satire to the Parliament, and by the Parliament in a very honourable Manner to the Queen, has admirably expofed the Self-Contradictions of one of them, in the Appendix to his laft Book: There he brings in the Dean, defiring, That the Clergy may be put in Heart, and be at Hand always,

* Rights and Powers of English Convocation, Ed. 1. p. 105.

always, to ftand up with them (viz. the Laity) and to refift a growing Tyranny, either in Church or State.' Mr. Hoadly is not able to reconcile this Doctrine, with that contained in the Latin Sermon: But though fuch inconfiftent Principles are irreconcileable, yet if we confider the Circumflances of Time, we may account for them; because it seems to be much the fame Defign that made him print that Doctrine then, that has made him preach this Doctrine now. That Book was printed in 1700. Then K. William was upon the Throne, and the Hanover Succeffion upon the Anvil; then Mr. Dean was ready to refift a growing Tyranny in Church and State. The Latin Sermon I hear was first preached in Englifb about 1708, then it was a damnable Sin to refift their bereditary Right, who was about that Time on board the Mars.

Since the Doctor complains fo much of his hard Fortune to be misunderstood,and other bard Circumstances of his Impeachment, I must here enumerate fome of his Felicities: First, he fent to Oxford for a Teftimonium of his Loyalty and good Behaviour; they, it feems, were fo much inclined in his Favour, as only to deny it; and fo backward, as not to draw up an Information against him. Next, he had the Confidence to appeal to a noble Lord in his Speech, the Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, for his Character; after which Day the Bishop charitably abfented from the Houfe, apprehending (as it is fuppofed) that he might be called upon to give a Character of him,. which would have been fuch (it is believed). as would have made out the criminal Intention laid in the Impeachment. If this be not true, it would be much to the Doctor's Reputation, yet to procure a Testimonial from the Bishop. Is it not a peculiar Happiness that has attended the Doctor through the whole Courfe of his Trial, that though he chal lenges the World to fhew any. Indication of his Diflike to the Proteftant Succeffion, to prove any favourable Expreffians towards the Pretender, or Afperfions upon the Memory of the late King, no body appeared to prove, that this innocent. Doctor had faid that King William deferved to be Dewitted, and that he had curfed him for his Legacy, the Hanover Succeffion?

To conclude this Article, let us confider this Loyal and Faithful Subject; this fincere Proteftant, affociated in Principles with Jacobites, Papifts, juring, non juring, and (what is worse) fuch abjuring Clergy; let us confider this Defender of the Queen's Title, who waves her Parliamentary Limitation, to reft it only upon an Hereditary Right. Let us confider this Friend to the Proteftant Succeffion, who ridicules the Parliamentary Right under the Name of the Right of the People, and the Title of the Mob,taught by new Preachers and new Politicians; when it is certain, that the Houfe of Hanover has its Title by Parliament: Let us confider the Scope of the Sermon, and we cannot but fay it was to condemn the Revolution; and if the Doctor is guilty of any of thefe ill Intentions, he is in a most deplorable Condition, and has now more Occafion for the Prayers of the Church, as under a State of Reprobation, than when under an imaginary Perfecution,

ARTICLE II.

The Managers against the Doctor fay, that in Pages 8, 9, among the feveral Sorts of falfe Brethren, with relation to God, Religion and the Church, enumerated by the Doctor, thofe who defend Toleration and a Liberty of Confcience are comprehended.

6

prehended. The Doctor himself has not fworn off the Intention to condemn a Toleration, but owns in his Speech, That what he may have said offenfive of that, cannot be adjudged to reflect on the Act of Exemption.' Here the Doctor only diftinguishes himself off, by faying, that he reflected only upon A Toleration, and not The Toleration, or legal Indulgence, which looks to me more like a Quibble than a Diftinction. He fays, that he cannot be thought to reflect upon the Act of Parliament, because there is no Act of Toleration. Does not the Doctor and his Managers continually tell us of the Test Act? And though there is no Act fo entitled, yet we understand what Act they mean; as they understand us, when we talk of the Toleration Act, to mean that Act of the First of William and Mary. Is there a Neceffity, either in Speaking or. Writing, to ufe fuch a Circumlocution, as to fay, The Act for exempting their Majesties • Proteftant Subjects, diffenting from the Church of England, from the Penalties ' of certain Laws,' as often as there is Occafion to fpeak of the Toleration? Do not our publick Inftruments run thus? Has not the Queen promised that the will inviolably maintain the Toleration? But the Doctor takes this to be one of his bard Fortunes, that the Lords, his Judges, fhould understand this Word, or any other Words, or Paffages of his Sermon, in the common Senfe that the reft of Mankind do. The Doctor fays, there is no fuch a Thing as a Toleration Act, because the Word Toleration implies more than the Law-givers defign'd to grant: The A&t fays, in Section 8. that fuch Perfons fhall be exempted from Penalties for the Exercise of Religion, permitted and allowed by this A&t.' Which feem to be more favourable Words than Tolerated; Allowance, in my humble Opinion, implying Approbation; Toleration, only a bare Sufferance.

Let us here examine how the Doctor treats the Diffenters, if not his Brethren, at least his nearest Relations in Chrift. It would be tedious to repeat all the nafty Names he bestows upon them, but let us obferve the Hiftory that he gives of them in Page 20. First he pretends to give you the Original of thefe Mifcreants begot in Rebellion, born in Sedition, and nursed up in Faction; then he tells you they are grown up to be almoft Chriftians, feditious, and fchifmatical Impoftors; and then they became wretched, empty, bypocritical Sophifters: Then he tells you what is to be done with them; they are to be treated like growing Mischiefs, and infectious Plagues. Then he difpofes of them, conducts them to Hell, and there fettles them. This is the Liberty of Speech that the Doctor takes, yet how barbarous was it to call him only a Tool of a Party! In how Chriftian-like Manner have these Diffenters borne thefe Revilings? With what Refignation and primitive Patience have they endured the late Infults and Injuries done them? Sure Self-Defence is lawful against Midnight incendiaries, Plunderers, Rioters, Felons, and Rebels; yet how did thefe People, bred up in the Principles of Rebellion, defend themfelves, but by Flight? Have thefe clamorous Church-devouring Malignants even fo much as complained of the Church-men, who raised this Mob? Have thefe profefs'd Enemies of the Queen undutifully remonftrated to her, that the publick Faith of the Nation has been violated, by the Indignities lately done to their religious Worfhip? Have they murmur'd at their Loffes? Or petition'd the Parliament for a Recompence! So dutiful has been their Behaviour!

The