our present unhappy divisions, I submit to your lordships.

It remains, my lords, that I answer one of the learned counsel, what the nature of this offence is: I shall only tell him in the words of your lordships and the Commons' Resolution, made public by her majesty's proclamation, "That whoever creates unreasonable distrusts, and groundless jealousies in the minds of the people; whoever distracts the kingdom by false and seditious rumours of the danger of the Church, to cover designs they dare not own; whoever goes about to insinuate that the Church is not in a safe and flourishing condition under her majesty's happy administration, is an enemy to the queen, the Church, and the kingdom." Which, in other words, is, against the law, against the temple, and against Cæsar bas he offended.

Nay, my lords, has not this bold offender gone yet farther? Has he not told your lordships at your own bar, That notwithstanding the Toleration the Dissenters are Schismatics, and liable to spiritual censure; that by continuing the indulgence to them, you countenance schism; and that while schism is continued, the Church must be in danger? So that resolve what you please, and make what laws you will in their favour, he must still thunder out his vehement anathemas against them, as dangerous to the Church.

This, my lords, is a specimen of that independency of the Church that of late has been so much struggled for; and which, if not confuted in time by authority, may soon devour the supremacy and the state. And since the Doctor has and does still thus presume to defy and arraign the Resolution of your lordships and the Commons, he is properly before this tribunal; and I may apply to him the saying to a goat brousing on a vine, and which was applied to one of another function upon such an occasion, who had defied the power of parliaments:

Rode Caper vitem, tamen hinc cum stabis ad Aras, In tua quod fundi Cornua possit, erit.

My lords, the Commons are so fully assured of your lordships' wisdom and justice, that they cannot question but your determination in this proceeding will be to their satisfaction; therefore I shall trouble you no farther, but submit to your lordships' judgment.

Serj. Parker. My lords, having already, by command of the Commons, endeavoured to make good the fourth Article of this Charge; it is now my duty to support what I offered before, both against the particular objections, and the general rules, proposed or insinuated by the counsel, or the prisoner.

The first thing I attempted to prove by particular passages, was the second clause of this Article:

"That Dr. Sacheverell suggests, that there are men of characters and stations in Church and State who are False Brethren, and do in

themselves weaken, undermine and betray, and do encourage, and put it in the power of others, who are professed enemies, to overturn and destroy the constitution and establishment.” This I thought would be plainly made out, if I could shew these two things:

1. That the Doctor has asserted, in express terms, of all False Brethren in general, that they do in themselves weaken, undermine and betray, and do encourage, and put it in the power of others, who are professed enemies, to overturn and destroy the constitution and establishment. And,

2. That he charges persons of characters and stations with False Brotherhood.

Apprehending the consequence clear, that if these two things were asserted by the Doctor, the charge was just.

I used likewise some farther proofs, which I shall not need repeat.

Besides some little cavils as to the two propositions, which I shall take notice of by the way; great complaint is made, often repeated, and much exaggerated, that I have brought together these two propositions, that are twelve, or nine, or at least seven pages asunder.

My lords, I took notice of this trifling objection before; and what I said to it, neither the Doctor nor his counsel have attempted to

answer.

But they all seeming to lay the greatest stress upon this part, and the counsel every one repeating it, I beg leave to state once more how that matter stands.

The Doctor in this Sermon proposes, (1,) To describe False Brotherhood; (2,) To shew the mischief; and (3,) the malignity of it.

And this single consideration would make one expect, that these heads should relate to one another, at whatever distance he takes them up.

1

Under the second head, page 15, he asserts, of all False Brethren in general, that "they do in themselves weaken, undermine and betray, and do encourage, and put it in the power of others, who are professed enemies, to overturn and destroy the constitution and establishment.

This is my first proposition in terms, and nothing is objected to it.

Only a little attempt is made to divert the question, by mentioning some particular sorts of False Brethren, and saying he there speaks of False Brethren in some of those senses of the word.

I agree it: He that speaks of all, speaks of such as are included in those senses of the word which he mentions; but likewise speaks of all others too; speaks of such as he has mentioned any where else, as well as there, such as are men of characters and stations, as well as such as are not.

*Note, the pages of the Sermon are referred to as in the second edition, which was that which was proved and read in evidence. Former Edition.

Under the third head,

In shewing the malignity of this sin (not in itself, that he had shewn before, but) with regard to the world: He instances first, in the mischiefs arising from men of characters and stations, in the words I formerly cited. This, I thought, made out my second proposition to be the Doctor's, "That men of characters and stations are False Brethren."

This is faintly denied; and it is said, he does not here suggest men of characters and stations to be False Brethren; but what is here spoke relates to their private behaviour, and not to the administration.

Besides, that this is directly against the plain import of the words: to let your lordships see the candour of this Defence, let us suppose it true; and that it is the Doctor's opinion that the persons he here speaks of, be they great or mean, are not False Brethren.

Then the Doctor, to be consistent with this Defence, must affirm, that he here sets forth the malignity of False Brotherhood, by shewing the malignity of another sin which is not False Brotherhood, in persons of characters and stations, who are not False Brethren.

This is the wretched shift he is driven to, taking it the best for him.

extend both to those whose crime he describes, and to those whose malignity for that crime he exposes?

And, which is most to be regarded, the distance of the place, or the connexion of the scheme, and the nature of the propositions?

The Doctor himself seems rather to press the objection thus, that this is inference, and joining independent propositions; which, though spoke by him in general, the unanimity of his counsel in falling upon this part of what I said, shew, it was spoke principally with a view to these two passages. Are then passages that speak of all False Brethren, and that speak of some particular False Brethren, independent?

My lords, these are so far from being independent, and so ill have they chosen out what to find fault with, (that if your lordships will pardon the pedantry, considering I have a man of logic and disputation to deal with) the two propositions are the two propositions of a syllogism, concluding in the first figure.

And the inference he complains of is the conclusion necessarily arising from them, according to the roles of logic.

The whole syllogism runs thus:

All False Brethren do in themselves weak

The two propositions being thus cleared, let us see if that which is laid hold of to declaim so earnestly upon, have any more weight in it, that is, the joining together these two distant propositions.

The objection, rightly stated, is this:

He has in one place affirmed of all False Brethren in general, "That they do in themselves weaken, undermine and betray, and put it in the power of others, who are professed enemies, to overturn and destroy the constitution and establishment."

And seven pages off, has represented men of characters and stations as False Brethren.

And we (very unreasonably!) have charged him with suggesting, "That there are men of characters and stations in Church and State who are False Brethren, and do in themselves weaken, undermine and betray, and do encourage, and put it in the power of others who are professed enemies, to overturn and destroy the constitution and establishment."

This is the true strength of the objection, and the very stating it exposes it.

The general mischief he mentions, as common to all False Brethren, page 15, I presume will be admitted to belong to those described, page 7; why then not as well to those page 22?

Must not what is said of all False Brethren, VOL. XV.

Persons of characters and stations are False Brethren.

Therefore persons of characters and stations, do, &c.

The two first propositions are what I have shewn the Doctor plainly to lay down; the other only a necessary consequence.

Would any one expect that the Doctor should be so forgetful of the rules of logic, as when he had laid down the premises, to deny the conclusion? Or to deny the conclusion to be his doctrine, who laid down those premises?

Can it be thought, that he laid them down without an intention that his hearers should make the conclusion? Or could he think it possible they should not make it?

Or, shall the suppressing a conclusion so plainly arising, which is taken notice of in some that write of logic as an elegance in discourse, pass for an excuse?

Let the Doctor describe False Brethren in general as betrayers and destroyers of the Church, and the proper objects of the rage and fury of the people, and then expose as False Brethren those in the administration, persons of characters and stations, from the chief to the least, the people will quickly make the appli cation.

If any one should inflame the mob to such a degree of rage and mistaken zeal, as to forget the spirit of the Gospel, and to believe it their duty to serve God by breaking the public peace, and to support his Church, by pulling down all meeting-houses, and rifling the houses of all Dissenters; he needs afterwards only tell 2 G

them, This is a meeting-house; here liveth a Dissenter, they are not so dull as to fail of making the conclusion; therefore this house is to be pulled down; therefore this man is to be plundered; and of putting it immediately in execution where they dare.

Suppose such a man should, in defence of himself, say, "I did not bid them pull down this house, nor rifle that; my telling them all meeting-houses were to be pulled down, all Dissenters to be marked and plundered, was four months before I told them this was a meeting-house, or that man a Dissenter; and to carry back a man's words, spoke only by way of information, to what was said four -months before by way of doctrine, is the greatest hardship in the world."

Would this pass for an excuse? Or would it not add to the indignation against so inspertinent a trifler on so sad an occasion.

My lords, the burning a meeting-house, the burning all the meeting-houses, the laying this metropolis once more in ashes by the enemies of our constitution, is nothing to the inflaming the nation, and rendering the queen and her administration odious to the people.

Shall it then be an excuse for the Doctor here, when he has laid down the premises, to say, that he has not in words expressed the conclusion?

Shall the meanest of the people, clearly and rightly collect, this is Dr. Sacheverell's doctrine; and shall not we in accusing, and your lordships in judging, be allowed to collect it, when we are endeavouring to preserve the queen and constitution, and all that is dear to us?

Surely, my lords, we shall. Nor is the strict consequence that your lordships find in this clause, always necessary in cases of this nature: but I was willing to shew it here, that your Jordships may see with what justice this was made the great topic whereupon to declaim against hardships; and to couple such inferences with innuendoes, as if both were the

same.

As for taking one part of one sentence, and another part of another, whoever makes a conclusion in logic ever does it; and only then does amiss in it, when in doing it he departs from the proper rule, and where the consequence is not just; which I have shewn is not the case here, and nobody has attempted to make out that it is.

It is as little to the purpose what is said, that he has not restrained this to persons of the highest characters and stations; which I shewed so fully before, that it has been thought more advisable to pretend I admitted what I believe I plainly disproved, than to offer any answer to my reasons.

I will only add, that it is not pretended, that there is one word in the Sermon that looks like the least hint, that only inferior officers were meant; and it is plainly shewn that others were intended: and then the Doctor's excuse amounts, at best, but to this: he has indeed

spoke in reproachful terms of magistrates in general, he has pointed to those that have, and those that bestow the honours of the Church, and places and preferments in the state; he has pointed to the chief; his reasoning, when he shews the malignity of the sin from exam. ples of persons of characters and stations, is the stronger, the greater these persons are, as the examples of the greatest are the most conta gious; but yet he relies upon it, that since the general mention of persons of characters and stations takes in the meanest as well as the greatest, it is not to be doubted but the all-discerning people, especially when sufficiently fired and enraged, will restrain the words to the most innocent meaning, and apply them only to inferior officers, constables, and those in the nearest degrees to them.

This is the sum of this notable excuse.

Let this therefore, where, by bending their united force against it, they seemed to have the greatest hopes of making some impression, serve for the specimen chosen by themselves, of the hardships of inferences and innuendoes in this charge.

The third clause, "That he chargeth her majesty, and those in authority under her, with a general mal-administration; the first, That he suggests that her majesty's administration, both in ecclesiastical and civil affairs, tends to the destruction of the constitution;" are so manifest, that after what has been said, and is unanswered, it would be but losing time to at tempt to make them more plain.

And their defence, and the books and pamphlets read on this head, are not to the pur

pose.

For sure, the shewing that there have been some paltry scribblers, few in number, many long since dead, some mad, some that have undergone the infamous punishment of the pillory, most of them prosecuted or unknown, does not prove that there are seminaries for the open profession of those blasphemies and impieties; much less, that they are suffered by the government, or that their follies can be called an open violence upon the Church, or their faults made the general character of the nation, and charged upon the queen and her administration.

When a scandalous book is published, or contagious sin committed, any subject who has a real zeal to prevent the mischief spreading, may apply to the proper magistrate to suppress it; and if inferior magistrates neglect their duty, may carry the complaint, against them and it, to their superiors.

But is it to be endured, in any established government, that a man pass over all the ma gistrates, and make an appeal to the people, not only against the offenders, but against the magistrates too?

This is properly faction, this is invading the royal authority; it is in the Doctor's own words, "A rebellious appeal to the people as the dernier resort of justice and dominion;" it is erecting a popular tribunal, where not only