to bear; and then I am sure I may depend upon your lordships' known candour, honour and justice, that if any thing should fall from me less correct, or less guarded than it ought to be, it shall receive the most favourable construction that it is capable of.

Before I deliver my opinion, 1 beg leave briefly to state the question; and in order to that, to lay down two premises.

1. That government in general, was in its original institution designed for the good of the whole body. Men were not formed into societies, only to be subjects of the arbitrary wills, the slavish instruments in the gratifying the ambitious or other corrupt designs of any one or more men; but for the safety and prosperity of the whole community.

2. That in the Holy Scriptures (as far as I can find) there is no specification of any one particular form of government to which all nations and bodies of men, in all times and places, ought to be subject; nor are there any such exact accounts of the extent of the power of the governor, or obedience and submission of the governed, as can reach to all cases that may possibly happen.

to obey in all things absolutely, but in all things that are lawful and honest.

And as to the passive part of the child's obedience, the submission or Non-Resistance required, permit me to put a case: suppose a parent in a frenzy, in a fit of drunkenness or passion, draws his sword, and attempts to kill his innocent son, and the son had no way to escape from him: is he obliged by this duty of not resisting, to stand still, and let his father sheath his sword in his bowels? May he not, though he must still have a care of his father's life, defend his own? May he not put by the pass, grapple with his father, and disarm him if he can? My lords, surely he may; that prime law of nature, of self-preservation, will justify him in it: and then why may not the same law of self-preservation justify the politi cal child, the body of the people, in defending their political life, i. e. their constitution, against plain and avowed attempts of the poli tical parent utterly to destroy it? And it is upon this point only that I shall state the question.

I do allow, that in all governments whatsoever, there is an absolute power lodged some There are many general precepts requiring where. With us, as I humbly conceive, that the obedience and submission of subjects to power is lodged in the legislature; for which their governors: "Let every soul be subject to I have the authority of a great politician and the higher powers: you must needs be sub-statesman, sir Thomas Smith, who was secreject not only for wrath, but also for conscience-sake: he that resists, resists the ordinance of God: and submit yourselves to every human constitution for the Lord's sake,"

&c.

But yet these Scriptures do not tell us how far we must obey and be subject, nor do they necessarily imply that there can never be any cases wherein we may not obey and not be subject, but resist; because there are other places in Scripture, where other duties are required in terms as large and general as these, nay in universal terms, which yet must admit of exceptions.

Some of the most zealous contenders for the absolute power of the prince, and unconditional submission of the subject, found themselves very much upon the fifth commandment, honour thy father and mother,' which they expound as comprehending political as well as natural parents; and I do not gain-say it: but then, pray my lords, let us see in what terms the duty of children to their natural parents is required in Scripture? Children, says the Apostle, obey your parents in things.' This expression is surely us ive all enough; and from hence, according to some men's reasoning, it must follow, if children must obey their parents in all things, then they may resist in none.

6

But will any body say, that notwithstanding the universality of this precept, there may not be some exceptions and limitations understood, both as to the active and passive part of the child's obedience? As to the active, no one will deny, but the command must be restrained to licita et honesta; they are not

tary of state to two princes, king Edward 6, and queen Elizabeth; who in his book, De Republica Angl. a book seen and allowed, as is said in the title-page, in that chapter where be treats of our parliaments, and the authority thereof, lays down this assertion, "The most high and absolute power of the realm of Eng land consisteth in the parliament." And giving particular instances of that power, among others, mention this, "That the parliament gives form of succession to the crown."

The executive power with us is lodged with the prince; and I do readily allow, that the prince so vested with the executive power, and all others lawfully commissioned by him, acting according to their commission, and within those laws with the execution whereof he and they are respectively trusted, are irresistible: the person of the prince is always inviolable; no personal faults in him; no injuries to particular persons, where they can have no redress by law, as in several cases they may have; no general mal-administration, whereby the public may be greatly hurt, can justify any forci ble

Resistance of his subjects; nor any thing

else than a total subversion of the constitution.

But if in a legal monarchy, where such laws have been enacted by common consent of prince and people, as are to be the measures of his government, as well as of their obedience, that limit his power, as well as secure their rights and properties, the prince shall change this form of government into an absolute tyranny, set aside those laws, and set up an arbitrary will in the room of them: when the case is plain, and when all applications and attempts of other kinds prove unsuccessful; if then the no

|

bles and Commons join together in defence of support of what I have laid down, but I shall their ancient constitution, government and mention but one: it is in a book written prolaws, I cannot call them rebels. Allow me, fessedly on this subject, and the passage I shall my lords, to lay before you a few things in quote comes home in point to the matter in maintenance of what I have advanced. And, hand. The book was written in queen Eliza1. I would humbly offer some facts, which beth's time: every one that is acquainted with I allow do not directly prove what I have said the history of her reign, knows what attempts to be true, but they do prove it to have been were made by the Pope and his party against the opinion of our princes, parliaments, clergy her government and life, by excommunicating, and people, in the reign of those three great deposing her, absolving her subjects from their princes, queen Elizabeth, king James and king allegiance, by raising tumults and insurrections, Charles 1. I mean the assistanee which those by dagger, poison, and what not: and it is cerprinces gave to the subjects of other countries tain, that they were these wicked practices of that were resisting their respective princes; the Pope and his followers, and the doctrines' and to enable them to do so, they had subsidies by which they justified them, that the comgiven them in parliament and convocation- pilers of the homilies, which were then made, and there were prayers composed and used for and other authors, who then wrote about the the success of their arms. power of the prince, and the duty of the subSurely, my lords, if those princes, parlia-ject, had principally in their view. The book ments, clergy and people, had been of opinion I mean, is entitled, The True Difference be that the Resistance of subjects against their tween Christian Subjection and Unchristian Reprinces was in no case lawful, but always dam-bellion. It is written by way of dialogue benable rebellion; they would never by aiding tween a Christian, whom the author calls Theoand assisting such rebels have involved them- philus, and a Jesuit wbom he calls Philander. selves in the guilt, and exposed themselves to I beg leave to read a quotation out of it. Theothe dangerous consequences of such a sin. I philus the Christian says, "I busy not myself mention not the particular stories, because they in other men's commonwealths as you (the Jeare better known to your lordships than to me, suits) do, neither will I rashly pronounce all and because I doubt not but in the course of that resist to be rebels: cases may fall out even this debate, some lord or other will give a in Christian kingdoms, where the people may larger account of them. But I cannot forbear plead their right against their prince, and not observing one thing relating to that assistance, be charged with rebellion." Philander the Jewhich that pious prince, and now glorious saint suit asks, "As when, for example?" Theoin heaven king Charles 1, gave to the Rochel- philus the Christian replies thus: "If a prince lers, who were surely the subjects of the king should go about to subject his kingdom to a of France: he ordered a fast by proclamation, foreign realm, or change the form of the comand appointed a form of prayer to be drawn up monwealth from impery to tyranny, or neglect for the imploring of God's blessing. It is the laws established by common consent of highly probable, that bishop Laud had the great prince and people, to execute his own pleasure: hand in composing those prayers, he being in these and other cases, which might be named, then bishop of London, and in great favour, if the Nobles and Commons join together to and the archbishop of Canterbury, Abbot, at defend their ancient and accustomed liberty, that time in disgrace. But whoever composed regiment and laws, they may not well be acthem, I beg leave to read part of one of the counted rebels." This book is said, in the titlecollects in that office; "O Lord God of Hosts, page, to have been perused and allowed by that givest victory in the day of battle, and de- public authority; was written by a great man, liverance in the time of trouble, we beseech Dr. Bilson, then warden of Winchester Colthee to strengthen the hands, and encourage lege; printed at Oxford by the University the hearts of thy servants, in fighting thy bat- printer, and dedicated to queen Elizabeth; and tles, and defending thy altars that are among the author was afterwards made bishop of Winus, and in all the reformed churches." It chester. I could offer many other authorities, seems the reformed churches were thought to not from false sons, or perfidious prelates of have God's altars among them then, however the Church, not from men of factious and antithey have been vilified since. But that which monarchical principles in relation to the state; 1 would observe from this passage, is this, but venerable names, ornaments to the ages That neither that excellent king who com- they lived in, and such as will be remembered manded those prayers to be composed, nor the with honour in succeeding ones: but I am subishops who composed them, nor the clergy perseded in producing, and your lordships' and people who used and joined in them, could trouble saved in hearing more particular quoin so solemn a manner have recommended tations to this purpose, by what is yielded by a those forces to the divine protection and fa- reverend divine of great parts and learning, far vour, and as such as were fighting God's bat enough from the suspicion of being prejudiced tles, if they had thought they were fighting against the rights of princes, or partial to those against God in bis vicegerent; and as defend- of the people; I mean the reverend dean of ing his altars, if they believed they were resisting his ordinance.

2. I could produce several authorities in VOL. XV.

* Of this Bishop, see some particulars in the Case of lord and lady Essex, vol. 2, p. 785. 2 K.

for her? Do they not on all occasions express their grateful sense of the many inestimable blessings they enjoy through her administration? Do they not constantly offer up their devout prayers to God for her long life and happy reign? Do they not willingly pay their taxes for the support of her government, cheerfully expend their treasure and blood too in defence of it?

What then can be said for such a conduct, which can have no other natural tendency than to create unreasonable jealousies of her people in the head of our queen, and groundless fears of their queen in the hearts of her people? Jealousies in the queen, that her subjects are inclinable to rebel against her, when the clergy think it necessary thus to press these restraints upon them; and fears in the people when their pastors are so industriously preparing them for sufferings.

that the case of the Revolution was a case of such necessity: but how did they apply this to the case of their client? Thus: they said, that those divines whom they had quoted, were never found fault with, for asserting the doctrine in general terms, not expressing but tacitly implying the exception: then they asked, Why should the Doctor be charged for asserting the doctrine in general terms, as others had done, not expressing the exception which they had not expressed? Why should not he be intitled to the favourable construction of tacitly implying the exception of cases of necessity, such a necessity as they allowed justified the Revolution?

Indeed I should readily have admitted the plea, if the Doctor had done no more than barely assert the doctrine in general terms, and his only fault had been that he had not expressed the exception which he tacitly implied: but has he done no more than this? Has he not mentioned the case of the Revolution, with no other view, as I can see, than to expose it; not as an exception out of his general position, but an objection against it? Our adversaries, says he, that is, those that oppose his general doctrine, think they have us sure, i.e. effectually confute that doctrine, by ob

My lords, I would not be thought to charge upon all that hold and assert this doctrine, the consequences which I may with too much reason charge upon some of them; I mean such as do not allow her majesty's title to the crown, but refuse to take the oaths to her, or join in prayer for her, and have upon that account formed one of the most unaccountable schisms that ever was made in the Church.jecting the Revolution. This objection must Some of these have engaged zealously in asserting this doctrine; and one of them, in a paper written in vindication of it, has not been afraid to insinuate a parallel between the case of her majesty and the Pretender, and that of Athaliah and Joash.

suppose that there was Resistance at the Revolution; for to say that the general doctrine, that it is not lawful in any case to resist, is not true, because the Revolution was lawful, in which there was no Resistance, would be wonderful objection indeed: I say, Resistance Horrid suggestion, that would make one must be supposed in the objection, to make tremble! What do these men mean? Any sense of it. How then does he solve this observice to her majesty? No; the conse-jection? Does he say, the general doctrine quences as to them are plain. If to resist upon any occasion whatever be unlawful, be rebellion, damnable rebellion; then the Revolution was rebellion, and all that were concerned in it are involved in that guilt; then we have continued in a rebellion ever since; then if we would avoid damnation, we must repent of that sin: but there is no true repentance without restitution; and if there must be restitution, they will tell you what that is.

I would charitably hope, that the unfortunate person now in judgment before your lordships, did not intend to carry matters so far: but I must say, his doctrine as he has stated and managed it, under his head of False Brotherhood with relation to the state, does give too great a handle for those that have such views, to improve what he has said to

their purposes.

The counsel for him have laboured to defend hun against the charge in this Article, by producing a great many quotations out of the Homilies, Statutes, and Writings of divines dead and living, wherein this doctrine has been laid down generally. They all allowed that cases of extreme necessity were always excepted out of this general doctrine; and that though the exception was not expressed, yet it was always implied; and they allowed farther,

always implies an exception of cases of necessity? That the Revolution was a case of such necessity, and therefore that necessity justified the Resistance at the Revolution; no, but by advancing a strange position (which he proves by as strange a medium) viz. That there was no Resistance at the Revolution :' plainly implying, that if there was Resistance at the Revolution, which every body knows there was, the Revolution stands condemned by his general doctrine. So that I cannot see that his learned counsel, who wanted neither abilities nor inclinations to serve him, have at all defended him against the Charge in this Article. But this they have effectually done, they have given up his general doctrine, if it admits of no exceptions; and thereby cleared the Revolu tion, and the necessary means whereby it was brought about, from those black and odious colours which he endeavoured to cast upon them.

After all, I can truly appeal to my own heart, and a greater than it, the Searcher of it, that I am not any ways prejudiced against the person of the unhappy prisoner, but rather in favour of him, as I am of all men in his suffering circumstances, by a natural tenderness (it may be a weakness, but such a one as I cannot help,) which never suffers me, however obliged in