of Resistance; and that to impute Resistance, has been largely opened, relating to the subto the said Revolution, is to cast black and jects' obligation to an absolute and uncondi odious colours on his late majesty. In making tional obedience to the supreme power; the good which Article against the Doctor, I hope rather, because, if it was doubtful, the acts of the gentlemen that have spoke before me will parliament mentioned in the preface to the Arexcuse me, if I make use of another method ticles, whereby the Revolution has been dethan what they have done; which I shall do, clared to be a glorious enterprize, and the not misliking the course they have taken, not means whereby it was brought about justified, that I think the method I shall take is better have determined that matter; and because than theirs, but only because I would not re- your lordships, as I think, will not suffer the peat what is said by them, which, I am sure, Doctor, or his counsel, to say any thing against would come with a worse grace from me, than the Revolution, or the means whereby it was it did from them; and because I am sure what brought about. was said is very well remembered by your lordships. What I shall offer, is, I think, somewhat to the purpose, and was not mentioned by the gentlemen before. As to the passages taken out of the Sermon to prove the Doctor guilty of the fact of this First Article, they have been so fully opened, and so very well applied, that I have very little to add to what has been said; I shall therefore only say, that the clause of his Sermon, wherein he asserts, that "The grand security of our goverument, and the very pillar on which it stands, is founded upon the steady belief of the subjects' obligation to an absolute and unconditional Obedience to the supreme power in all things lawful, and the utter illegality of Resistance upon any pretence whatsoever," he lays down not as a doctrine he would teach his congregation; but in order to draw an argument from thence for some other purpose; and what that is, appears plainly afterwards. For having alleged some things not proper for the occasion for which the day upon which he preached was solemnized, he adds, "Our adversaries think they effectually stop our mouths, and have us sure 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 majesty, and the most ungrateful for their deliverance, who endeavour to cast such black and odious colours upon both. How often must they be told, that the late king himself solemnly disclaimed the least imputation of Resistance?" By which it is plain, that the position of the subjects' obligation to an absolute and unconditional obedience to the supreme power laid down, was only to shock and lay odious colours upon the Revolution, or the means whereby it was brought about; he knowing that the means whereby the Revolution was brought about was by force, and he knew it was so declared by the act of parliament made in the first year of king William and queen Mary, for preventing vexatious Suits against such as acted in order to the bringing in the late king and queen. And though be would insinuate that the same was not done by force, I must own he does not assert that either it was or was not done by force; but be strongly insinuates it was not done by force, when he asserts, though untruly, that the late king disclaimed any Resistance upon his coming. I will say nothing more as to that matter; and nothing as to that other, that The Commons of Great Britain own your lordships to be the supreme court of judicature in this government, but yet they think that acts of parliament, whereof your lordships are in part the makers, are as binding upon your lordships, as a court of judicature, as they are upon any court of Westminster-hall, where matters determined by act of parliament are never suffered to be disputed afterwards; but I own, what is practised in Westminster-hall is not a rule whereby your lordships ought to be governed, and therefore I rely only upon the reason of what I asserted; for although your lordships are the supreme court, and from whom no appeal lies to any other court of judicature, yet your lordships, as you are part of the legislature, are greater than you are in your judicial capacity, in which you are subject to the law; though in your legislative capacity, in concurrence with two other powers, you are above the law. It is therefore incongruous, that a court of persons of less power should judge otherwise than the court of greater power had determined; but this I submit to your lordships, and am sure the gentlemen of counsel with the Doctor know their duty so well in this matter, that they will not give your lordships the trouble of an admonition upon this occasion. I won't add more upon this subject, but proceed, with your lordships' permission, to prove the Doctor guilty of what he is charged with in this First Article, by the doctrine by himself laid down in his Sermon, and admit, for argument-sake, the same to be true; though this I must assert, that he carries the doctrine somewhat farther than the Apostles did in some respects, but in other respects seems to restrain it more than they did. In the restraining part he seems to confine the absolute and unconditional obedience to things lawful; which restraint looks like something, but in truth, upon examination, is nothing; for suppose the supreme power commands the subject to do something which it thinks is lawful, but the subject not willing to obey, pretending the thing to be unlawful, the true reasons being that they are chargeable, troublesome, hazardous, or the like; in this case who is to be judge, the supreme power, or the subject? In the reason of the thing, neither of them are proper judges; for the supreme power will be biassed, by reason of the command given by them at first, and will be ashamed to own what they commanded was unlawful, and therefore will heathens it was a political law, and obliged (as other laws did) for fear of punishment; yet Christianity first pressed this doctrine upon the conscience of the subject, which no other religion did, and that was sufficient to intitle it to the name of Christian. But the Doctor as I said, has carried it farther than the words of the Apostles did, extending it to an active obedience, which the words of the Apostles do not warrant, in the strictuess of the expressions. But yet I will not contest with the Doctor in this matter; for if the doctrine, as preached by the Apostles, was sufficient to secure the government they lived under, as it was, and that doctrine is not sufficient to secure the government we now live under, as it is not; the Doctor might very well think, that what he now asserts, by the equity, as we call it, (that is) the reason of the doctrine preached by the Apostles, was well warranted. give judgment on their own side, to justify themselves in what they have commanded; and the subject will be as much biassed for the same reason that he was at first dissatisfied with the command. And there being no higher power or authority to appeal to than the supreme power, that must needs be the judge, from whom there can be no appeal. But perhaps the Doctor and I differ in the persons in whom the supreme power is lodged; for the Doctor has not mentioned thatmatter, either in his Sermon, or in his Answer to the Articles; but I hope, in the answer he is to give to what is now objected against him, he will tell us in whom that power is lodged. I will tell him in whom I think it is lodged; I think it is lodged in the queen's majesty, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled: And I think when the acts mentioned in the Impeachment did pass (except the Act for declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Having thus stated the matter of the subjects' Subject), the supreme power was lodged in the obedience to the supreme powers, in which I late king William and queen Mary, and the have agreed with the doctrine set forth in the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Sermon, I cannot imagine how the Doctor can Parliament assembled. But as the Doctor justify himself in declaring against the Revoseems to have restrained his doctrine of Non-lution, as he has done; when he knows, as Resistance, he has as much enlarged his doc-well as any, that the Revolution has been justrine of absolute Obedience; for, as I think, tified by the supreme power, in the acts of parwhat bitherto written or asserted, upon the oc- liament mentioned: For certainly it must be casion of that matter, went no farther than granted that the doctrine that commands obePassive Obedience and Non-Resistance; but dience to the supreme power, though in things the prisoner's doctrine extends to active obe- contrary to nature, even to suffer death, which dience as well as passive; because, as I think, is the highest injustice that can be done a man, the words of the Apostles, from whom this doc- rather than make an opposition to the supreme trine is taken, seems to restrain it only to Passive power; because the death of one, or some few Obedience and Non-Resistance; and the rea-private persons, is a less evil than disturbing sons why the Apostles inculcated no other obedience, as I believe, was, because that was sufficient to secure the government under which the Apostles lived, which was the Roman government, and which stood in fear of no foreign force, and which government was said and believed could not be ruined but by its own subjects, which afterwards proved to be true. That that, their doctrine, was the doctrine of Christianity, and truly so called, I will readily agree to the prisoner; but I do not think that Christianity introduced that doctrine into the world; for I think, as the Doctor does, that it was as ancient as government, because it was impossible that government could subsist, unless supported by its subjects; but how ancient that doctrine was, cannot be asserted, without knowing how government came to be introduced into the world. If it was patriarchal, as some have asserted, it was as ancient as Adam; if it was introduced by conquest, then its date was no higher than Nimrod; if it was by compact, then I cannot say when it began; but this is certain, that it was as ancient as the Roman people, which was about seven hundred years before the coming of our Saviour; but how long before the Roman name was known, I cannot take upon me to say. But though this doctrine was not introduced by Christianity, yet I think it may well and properly be called the Christian doctrine; for though amongst the the whole government; that law must needs be understood to forbid the doing, or saying any thing to disturb the government, the rather, because the obeying that law cannot be pretended to be against nature: and the Doctor's refusing to obey that implicit law, is the reason for which he is now prosecuted; though he would have it believed, that the reason he is now prosecuted, was for the doctrine he asserted of Obedience to the supreme power; which he might have preached as long as he had pleased, and the Commons would have taken no offence at it, if he had stopt there, and not have taken upon him, on that pretence or occasion to have cast odious colours upon the Re. volution. If he is of the opinion he pretends, I cannot imagine how it comes to pass, that he that pays that deference to the supreme power, has preached so directly contrary to the determinations of the supreme power in this government; he very well knowing that the lawfulness of the Revolution, and of the means whereby it was brought about, has already been determined by the aforesaid acts of parliament; and do it in the worst manner that he could invent. For questioning the right to the crown here in England, has procured the shedding of more blood, and caused more slaughter, than all the other matters tending to disturbances in the government put together. If therefore the doctrine, which the Apostles has done, I think he has quoted a good authority for so doing; but he must give us a better proof of such command than hitherto he hath done. had laid down, was only to continue the peace of the world, as thinking the death of some few particular persons better to be borne with than a civil war; sure it is the highest breach of that law, to question the first principles of this government. It is not forgotten how much blood was spilt upon the account of the title between the houses of York and Lancaster, in which the learned in the law did differ; and the setting on foot that question of the title of the present government, which was above twenty years ago determined, and that determination acquiesced in from that time till now, in all probability, if not suppressed, would tend to as great mischief as that war intailed on the nation. But yet the Doctor, who preaches up the subjects' submission to the supreme power, even to death itself, thinks he hath not only a licence, but a command from God, to enquire into the late king and queen's right to the crown; and to blow a trumpet, to set his fellow subjects to cut one another's throats upon that account. This surely is the absurdest construction of a text that ever was made; and yet this I will say is the case, if you will compare the prisoner's practice with his doctrine. Methinks the Doctor ought to have considered what our Saviour and his Apostles did in their time: We do not find that any of them ever questioned the title of the emperors under whose government they lived; or ever said any thing relating to their titles, or that power they exercised; and yet if they had thought it law. ful or expedient, they had just occasions to have done it. St. John, the survivor of the Apostles, lived (as it is said) to the time of Trajan; so that by that account he lived under thirteen emperors, including Augustus and Trajan; and yet neither of them had so much as a pretence of right to the empire, according to the opinion we have of that right now. The first and last of those emperors were the very best the Romans had, except perhaps Titus Vespasian; and yet Augustus came to the empire by the worst means of any of them, for he waded through a sea of blood, and was guilty of a great many acts of treachery and cruelty: But after the world had reaped so many benefits by his excellent government, it forgot the iniquity of the means whereby the empire was obtained. And the best means of obtaining the empire, by the following emperors, till the time of Titus Vespasian, were by force, and most of them by treacherous murders; and yet we do not find that either our Saviour or his Apostles, reproached any of those emperors with the injustice of the means whereby they became so. And methinks it would have become the Doctor to have followed those good examples. But the Doctor is of another opinion, and thinks the aforesaid words of Isaiah, to Cry aloud, &c. do well warrant that his opinion; not considering that that prophet had that express command from God, for reproving the hypocrisy of the Jews: And if the Doctor had the like command for preaching as he If he thinks the command given to Isaiah extends to him; how came it to pass that the Apostles did not think that the same command extended to them? Did not they live nearer the time of Isaiah? Were not they acquainted with the writings of Isaiah, as well or better than the Doctor, and so might have known the authority given to that prophet better than the Doctor? but yet forbore to do as the Doctor has done: And their having forborne so to do, cannot proceed from any other reason, than that they thought those words did not extend to the Apostles; or that they thought it was not lawful or expedient for them to question the title of those princes, or the justice or means whereby they obtained it. I will only add to this matter, that if the Doctor had been contented with the liberty he took of preaching up the duty of Passive Ŏbedience in the most extensive manner he had thought fit, and would have stopped there, your lordships would not have had the trouble, in relation to him, that you now have; but it is plain, that he preached up his absolute and unconditional obedience, not to continue the peace and tranquillity of this nation, but to set the subjects at strife, and to raise a war in the bowels of this nation; and it is for this that he is now prosecuted; though he would fain have it believed, that the prosecution was for preaching the peaceable doctrine of absolute obedience. I cannot but take notice of the scandal the Doctor charges upon the late king, as if when he landed here, he had disclaimed all manner of imputation of Resistance; than which nothing is more untrue, even by his own confession in his Answer, and the words of the Declaration mentioned in the print of the Sermon, though no part of the Sermon; whereby he pretends to explain himself, by saying, he intended a disclaimer of Resistance in order to a conquest: than which nothing could be more absurd: For never was a conquest made, or ever will be made, by bare Resistance; nor ever was there a weaker thing charged upon a prince, than to make him disclaim all Resistance, at a time when he was actually making war: For his bringing an armed force of that number he did into this kingdom, with a great train of artillery with him, was making war by the law of nations, and then and now by the law of Great Britain: And he hath charged the prince of Orange with an act of the highest treachery, in pretending peace, when he actually made war. The last matter I shall take notice of, are the words in the nineteenth page of the Doctor's Sermon; viz. "That old leaven of their forefathers is still working in the present generation; that this traditional poison still remains in this brood of vipers, to sting us to death, is sufficiently visible, as to the dangerous en eroachment they now make upon our government, and the treasonable reflection they have published upon her majesty, God bless her! whose hereditary right to the throne they have had the impudence to deny and cancel, to make her a creature of their own power; and that by the same principles they placed a crown upon her, they tell us, they (that is the mob) may re-assume it at their pleasure." Now I think it cannot be doubted who it is the doctor means by the word Mob, which is the people of England: For though the word Mob is a cant word amongst a sort of people called Gypsies, and with them signifies the meanest, or the scum or dregs of the people, yet as the Doctor has used it in this place, it can signify nothing else than the body of the people of England; of whom, I think, your lordships do not think it beneath you to be thought a part, and the chiefest part: For be asserts, they say, that they placed a crown upon her majesty; and from thence makes an inference, that they may-reassume it at their pleasure; which can be intended nothing else than what was done in respect of her majesty by the Bill of Rights; wherein it is said, "That the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament as sembled, did declare her majesty after the death of the late king and late queen without heirs of her body, was lawful and rightful queen of this realm." Now, though her majesty hath an hereditary right and title to the crown, and so she is not so much concerned in the Declaration by the said act, as the last king and queen, in what that act conferred upon them, which was done only by the people of England, under the denomination of Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled: And if that did not confer a title to the crown on the late king and queen, they, who were in their lives-time thought to be lawful and rightful king and queen of these realms, by the Doctor's reasoning, were no better than the usurpers of another's right. And though that Bill of Rights was afterwards confirmed by an act in the second year of their reign, yet that will not at all mend the matter; for if they did not obtain a right by the Bill of Rights, to the crown of these realms, they were no more king and queen of these realms, than they were before the said Bill of Rights. But the truth is, that when a government is brought out of frame, by the extraordinary steps of a prince, it is a vain thing to hope that it ever can be set right by regular steps; this never was done, nor ever will be done: But those methods which were necessary to set the government in a right frame again, have been always taken to be legal, though by the nicety of law it could not be well justified. Upon the change of government from Richard the 2nd, to Henry the 4th, the parliament called in the time of Richard the 2nd, and by his authority, continued to sit in the time of Henry the 4th, and passed several acts in the time of Henry the 4th; which was never practised before, nor warranted by any laws that we know of; yet what was done was allowed to be legal. To the same purpose was that which was done in the time of Henry, the 7th: For he and those of his friends being attainted of high-treason, which, according to the rules of law at that time, prevented the descent of the crown on him; and his friends being mostly attainted, were uncapable of sitting in parliament till those attainders were reversed, which could not be done but by act of parliament, or the court of King's-bench; and he did not care to have a parliament, till his friends were capable of sitting there; nor could he make judges till he was king; which difficulty seemed to be insuperable: But the judges made a Resolution according to the exigence of the thing, and declared that sir William Stanley's placing the crown upon the earl of Richmond's head, purged his attainder, and he thereby became from thenceforwards king of England, and the king thereby enabled to constitute judges, and the judges to reverse the attainder of all the king's friends. It is true, Henry the 7th married the heiress of the House of York, and was thereby (as we now think) king in right of his queen; but he never would own her title to the crown, nor ever suffer her to join with him in any act of government, nor ever declared by what title he possessed the crown: but yet none of the acts passed in his time, nor any thing then transacted was afterwards questioned upon the account of his title to the crown. It is true, there was an act passed in his time, that indemnified such as should obey, or assist the king that was in being, whether he had right to the crown or no: But if he had not been allowed to be king before the passing of that act, the acts of parliament that passed in his time would have been of no more validity, than the acts passed in the time of Cromwell, or any other usurper. Whereby it is plain, that the Doctor now, and the persons who had the best knowledge of matters of this kind in those days, disagreed in opinion. And I cannot but take notice that the Doctor, notwithstanding his little knowledge in the matters he discourses of, makes the Declaration by parliament of the queen's title to the crown, to be the cancelling of her title by descent; and therefore he seems to advise her majesty to quit that title she claims from her people, and to rely upon her title by inheritance. Whereas, if the Doctor had but known what our laws allow, or if he had read any thing of this matter, he would have known that those titles did by no means disagree, but were consistent with one another; and that princes that sometimes have claimed by several titles, would not make their choice of which they relied on. Henry the 8th, who was heir of the House of York and Lancaster, never declared on which title he relied. Queen Elizabeth, after the death of her brother and sister, claimed as heir to Henry the 8th, and was likewise devisee of the government of England by the will of her father, who was (by act of parliament) enabled to give it by his will to whom he pleased: But notwith persons, so as to make them swear to them: No, the Commons of Great Britain would only have bim restrained from publishing any thing, and especially in the pulpit, which reflects upon the supreme power; or what they have or shall determine, which even the nicest conscience never yet boggled at. I can add more aggrato do it, rather following the example of the Commons of Great Britain; who have, indeed, demanded judgment against this person of your lordships, but they have done it in mercy; for they might have charged these matters against the Doctor as high-treason; and so it has been done in indictments against some divines, in a reign known to your lordships, for matters in their Sermons less heinous than those for which he is impeached; yet the Commons have called the matters of this Impeachment only High Crimes and Misdemeanors; and it is a rule in our law, that the Court in which a prosecution is had, cannot call the crimes greater than what the prosecutor thought fit to charge them, and cannot adjudge a greater punishment to the crimes than usual; but in some cases may lessen the punishment for such crimes; and whatsoever censure your lordships shall pass upon this criminal, the Commons of England will acquiesce, and be well satisfied with the same. standing that she desired to have an act of parliament, which she had, declaring her to be the queen of England, &c. Which act of parliament was to the same purpose, as was the Bill of Rights in respect of her majesty's title to the crown. I will trouble your lordships with no more, to prove the prisoner guilty of the crimes charged upon him by the first Article of Im-vations of the Doctor's crimes, but will forbear peachment; but I cannot but observe some aggravating circumstances of the prisoner's crime. As first, That the doctrine in the Impeachment was preached by a divine of the Church of England as by law established: For a divine of the Church of England is a person of that credit, that the people are ready to assent to what he says, without considering what the same is, or how made out. In the next place, it was preached in the cathedral church of the metropolis of this kingdom: Had it been preached in some obscure country town, it would have hardly been taken notice of. In the third place, it was preached before the lord mayor and court of aldermen of the city of London, and so far approved of by them, or some of them, as to be commanded to be printed; for which reason, what he preached hath done more mischief than otherwise it would have done; there having been about 40,000 printed, to vilify the Revolution, on which depend the security of the Protestant Religion both at home and abroad, and the succession of the crown in the Protestant line; the Union of the two kingdoms, the queen's bounty to the poor clergy, and several other benefits we enjoy by the Revolution; and amongst others, that her majesty was and is so peaceably possessed of the crown. For if the force before the Revolution, which suppressed her majesty's hereditary right to the crown, had not been removed by the Revolution, as it was, that her majesty's title would never have been able to have exerted itself: And if ever the Doctor, or any of his accomplices, should ever be able so to shock the Revolution, as to remove what is built upon it, I doubt that force which the Revolution removed, will return again, and oppress the queen's title to the crown as it did before. I cannot pass by the Doctor's Answer to the Articles, without taking notice of one passage in the same, viz. "Hard is the lot of the ministers of the Gospel, if when they cite the word of God in their general exhortations to piety and virtue, the several texts by them cited, should be said to be by them meant of particular persons and things." Now I must submit to your lordships' judgment the unreasonableness of this complaint; and whether the several texts and passages cited by him in the Sermon, can bear any other construction than what has been made ? and whether it be not the duty of the preacher to deliver himself so in the pulpit, that his meaning should not be doubtful to his congregation? The Commons of Great Britain do not go about to make him assent or swear to what the supreme power hath determined; though the Doctor in his Sermon has thought fit to impose matters of that kind upon other Major General Stanhope. My lords, the gentlemen who spoke before me to this Article, have said so much to it, that they have left little to me, who am last in it. I shall therefore particularly apply myself to make out to your lordships, that as the prisoner at the bar is guilty of the matter charged in this first Article, so he has done it (as the preamble of this Article sets forth) with a wicked and malicious intention to undermine and subvert her majesty's government, and the Protestant Succession, as by law established; to defame her majesty's administration; to asperse the memory of his late majesty, and to traduce and condemn the late happy Revolution, as in the same preamble to the Articles it is charged against him. My lords, if it be truth, (as your lordships have been told by most of the gentlemen who went before me) that Non Resistance, asserted in general terms, does destroy the foundation of the Revolution, the present establishment, and her majesty's title to the crown, and the settlement of the Protestant Succession: if that be true, it is as true that the Doctor, who has advanced that doctrine in general terms, is guilty of that charge of intending to subvert the government: and then your lordships ought to proceed against him, as an enemy to the government. What has been said by the gentlemen that spoke before me, concerning the doctrine of Non Resistance, has been said with so much regard to truth, to her majesty and her govern ment, that I am persuaded, nothing that has been said on that subject can justly be misconstrued. But, on the contrary, to assert in ge |