The Commons cannot but apprehend, that the just resentment and indignation they have shown upon this occasion, will meet with the general applause of all that are heartily and sincerely well affected to her majesty and her government; but for all those, whose principles and practices render them most justly suspected to have other views, they are not at all surprised to find them alarmed, and under the greatest concern at this trial.

I am very sensible, my lords, of the difficulty and nicety that attends the speaking to this point, and that whilst a loyal subject and faithful servant to the best of queens, is speaking in defence of the necessary and commendable Resistance used at the Revolution, his arguments may be misconstrued and misrepresented, as maintaining anti-monarchical schemes.

But surely, my lords, to plead for Resistance, that Resistance, I mean, which alone can be concerned in this debate, is to assert and maintain the very being of our present government and constitution; and to assert Non-Resistance in that boundless and unlimited sense in which Doctor Sacheverell presumes to assert it, is to sap and undermine the very foundations of our government, to remove the natural basis and fundamental strength of our constitution, and to leave it underset, with imaginary props and buttresses, which do, at best, but ill support a shaken foundation: and it is a most surprising assurance in the enemies of our government, that whilst they are striking at the root, and digging up the foundations, upon which our present and future settlement is built, they should hope to pass upon the world as friends to either. But so irreconcilable are the professions and practices of some men; so awkwardly do they speak well of what they do not in their hearts approve, that in vindication of his late majesty (for that is a part that sometimes they think useful to act) they declare his most glorious enterprise to save a sinking nation, utterly illegal: to recommend themselves to the queen, they condemn that Revolution, without which she had never been queen, and we a most unhappy people: to testify their zeal and affection to the Protestant succession, they invalidate all the laws that have been made for securing that blessing to posterity: and lastly, to manifest their aversion, and for ever to blast all hopes of the Pretender, they advance and maintain the hereditary right, as the only true right of the crown. But what interest these opinions may at one time or another be produced to support, and in favour of whose pretensions these insinuations are easily understood to be, and in favour of what settlement they can hardly be construed, I submit to your lordships' consideration.

The utter illegality of Resistance, upon any pretence whatsoever, is the general position laid down in the Sermon, which, if it be strictly, and in the most extensive manner, true, the assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with, and suspending the laws; the commitment and prosecution of the bishops; the erecting a court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes, the levying money by pretence of prerogative; the raising and keeping a standing army without consent of parliament; the violating the freedom of elections of members to serve in parliament; and all the grievances enumerated in the Bill of Rights, were all mere pretences, and not sufficient to warrant and justify what was then done in defence of the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom; which are now again enacted, ratified and confirmed, and enjoined to be firmly and strictly holden and observed. By what evasions, or distinctions, the Doctor will explain himself off upon this head, I cannot easily foresee; unless he will be so ingenuous as now to confess, what there is too much reason to believe will be his opinion, if ever a proper time shall serve for declaring, that the acts of parliament made upon, and since the Revolution, are only the effects of a happy usurpation, and no part of the true law of the land.

Resistance is no where enacted to be legal, but subjected, by all the laws now in being, to the greatest penalties; it is what is not, cannot, nor ought ever to be described or affirmed, in any positive law, to be excusable: when, and upon what never-to-be-expected occasions it may be exercised, no man can foresee, and ought never to be thought of, but when an utter subversion of the laws of the realm threatens the whole frame of a constitution, and no redress can otherwise be hoped for: it therefore does, and ought for ever to stand, in the eye and letter of the law, as the highest offence. But because any man, or party of men, may not, out of folly or wantonness, commit treason, or make their own discontents, ill principles, or dis guised affections to another interest, a pretence to resist the supreme power, will it follow from thence that the utmost necessity ought not to engage a nation in its own defence for the preservation of the whole? Or, on the other side, because the greatest and most inexpressible emergencies did sufficiently justify and warrant the Resistance of the Revolution, will it be a consequence, that therefore, upon every slight pretext or common occasion, the laws that fence against treason will be of no effect? No, my lords, I hope your just judgment in this case will convince the world, that every seditious, discontented, hot-headed, ungifted, unedifying preacher, (the Doctor

U

will pardon me for borrowing one string of epithets from him, and for once using a little of his own language) who had no hopes of distinguishing himself in the world, but by a matchless indiscretion, may not advance, with impunity, doctrines destructive of the peace and quiet of her majesty's government, and the Protestant Succession, and prepare the minds of the people for an alteration, by giving them ill impressions of the present establishment and its administration.

The doctrine of unlimited, unconditional Passive Obedience, was first invented to support arbitrary and despotic power, and was never promoted or countenanced by any government that had not designs some time or other of making use of it: what then can be the design of preaching this doctrine now, unasked, unsought for, in her majesty's reign, where the law is the only rule and measure of the power of the crown, and of the obedience of the people? If then this doctrine can neither be an advantage or security to her majesty, who neither wants nor desires it, to what end and purpose must every thinking man conclude it is now set on foot, but to unhinge the present government, by setting aside all that has been done in opposition to that doctrine and when, by these means the way is made clear to another's title, the people are ready instructed to submit to whatever shall be imposed upon them.

It may be expected, after I have said thus much in general, that I should proceed to shew in what parts of the Sermon these aspersions are contained: but, my lords, that part has been so fully and distinctly spoke to by those learned gentlemen who are more proper, and a great deal more able to manage that province, that I will not misspend your lordships' time by repeating what has been so fully and justly made out; but so much I will venture to say, that if we remove the rubbage, with which the Doctor has an excellent talent at puzzling common sense, and bring together the several sentences, that can only be relative to one another, it is impossible for the art of man to make any inferences or constructions, so close and strong, as the plain and general sense of the whole scope of his Sermon must, at first view, suggest to every man's understanding. And all that the Doctor alleges in his defence is, that in the Revolution there was no Resistance at all; and that the king did utterly disclaim any such imputation. But surely, my lords, it cannot be now necessary to prove Resistance in the Revolution; I should as well expect that your lordships would desire me, for form's sake, to prove the sun shines at noon-day. If then there was most undoubtedly Resistance used to

bring about the Revolution, it will follow that all the censures, which are so freely bestowed upon Resistance in general, must attend, and will be imputed to the Revolution; and if Resistance be utterly illegal, upon any pretence whatsoever; if it is a sin, which unrepented of, by the doctrine of the Church of England, carries sure and certain damnation; if, upon repentance, there is no remission of sins without a stedfast purpose to amend the evil we have done, and to make all possible restitution, or at least to do our utmost endeavours for that purpose; I beg your lordships to consider what a duty is here pressed, upon the peril of damnation, upon every man's conscience, that knows or believes that there was Resistance in the Revolution, and is conscious to himself of being any ways assisting, or even consenting to this damnable sin; and what must be the consequences if these doctrines, without any reserve or exception, are with impunity preached throughout the kingdom. All which, my lords, I hope, is sufficient to satisfy your lordships that Doctor Sacheverell is guilty of the charge exhibited against him in the First Article; and that he is an offender of that nature and malignity, that this Court only could be the proper judge of such high crimes; and from your lordships' justice, the Commons hope, That his punishment will be adequate to the heinousness of his offence.

Sir Simon Harcourt. (For the Defence.) Having thus stated to your lordships the question between us, Whether such excepted cases, as the Revolution was, are not more proper to be left as implied, than to be expressed, when the general duty of obedience is taught?

I shall endeavour to satisfy your lordships, first, that the Doctor's assertion of the illegality of Resistance to the supreme power on any pretence whatsoever, in general terms, without expressing any exception, or that any exception is to be made, is warranted by the authority of the Church of England: And secondly, That his manner of expression is agreeable to the law of England. . . .

My lords, is this doctrine of Non-Resistance taught in the Homilies in general terms, in the same manner as doctor Sacheverell has asserted it, without expressing any exception? Do the articles of our religion declare the doctrine taught in the homilies to be a godly and wholesome doctrine and will your lordships permit this gentleman to suffer for preaching it? Is it criminal in any man to preach that doctrine, which it is his duty to read? The Doctor is not only required by the 35th Article to read this doctrine diligently, and distinctly, that it may be understood by the people; but to shew your lordships, the doctrine taught in the homilies did not die, nor was

altered at the Revolution, I must observe to your lordships, that the rubric of the office appointed for the 6th of November, by the late queen of blessed memory, directs the clergy on that day if there be no sermon, to read one of these homilies against rebellion. Since the Doctor chose rather to preach, than to read a homily on that day, how could he better comply with the command of her late majesty, than by preaching the same doctrine as was contained in those homilies he was commanded to read on that day, if he did not preach? Does an act of parliament inserted in the Act of Union, injoin him to subscribe to this doctrine before the ordinary, and declare his unfeigned assent to it in his parish church? and shall he be condemned in parliament, for asserting the truth of it? I must admit this 35th article of our religion is not by the Toleration-act (I will give no offence by calling it by its true name) required to be subscribed by any persons dissenting from the Church of England, to entitle them to their exemption from the penalties mentioned in that act. But that act of parliament no way varies the case with respect to the clergy; so that whatever duty was incumbent on them before, is so still and therefore I hope, your lordships will not think this gentleman has so highly offended.

As a further proof that this doctrine of Non-Resistance, as laid down by the Doctor in general terms, without making any exception, is the doctrine of the Church of England, I shall shew your lordships, that it has been so preached, maintained and avowed, and in much stronger terms than the Doctor has expressed himself, by our most orthodox and able divines from the time of the Restoration. It would be endless to offer your lordships all the authorities I might produce on this occasion; but we shall beg your lordships' patience to lay before you some passages out of the learned writings of several reverend fathers of our Church, of nine archbishops, above twenty bishops, and of several other very eminent and learned men.

That your lordships may not think this doctrine died at the Revolution, I shall humbly lay before your lordships the opinions of three archbishops, and eleven bishops, made since the Revolution, which will fully shew the doctrine of Non-Resistance is still the doctrine of our Church; I would not willingly give offence in naming them; I am sure I mean no reflection, nor can it, as I think, be any reproach to them; I find no other doctrine in this case taught by them, as far as I am able to judge, than what the Apostles taught before them. With your lordships' leave, I will therefore presume to name them archbishop Tillotson, the two present archbishops,1

1 Dennison and Sharpe. See the case of Bishop Compton, S.T. xi. p. 1123.

1