as it is objected for in such cases the Subjects may lawfully swear to the Possessor and are obliged to pay all Allegiance to him unless his Competitor can make it appear that the Right is his and not the Possessor's and then the Subjects not knowing this before are guilty of no breach of Allegiance to him but are bound as soon as his Right becomes known to them to yield him their Allegiance having taken an Oath or given any other assurance or proof of Obedience to the Possessor only out of ignorance that any other Person could make out a clear and certain Title 3. But granting that St. Paul had meant Usurpers as well as Lawful Powers in this Text yet the perplexities of Conscience would not have been much less than it is said they must necessarily be according to the contrary exposition For so learned a Man as Dr. Sherlock could not find out the true sence of the Text it seems till now upon this occasion and very few perhaps besides have been able to discover it since the Epistle was written * Case of Resistance p. 122. The Doctor acknowledges that St. Chrysostom is against him and produces no Father nor any other Author ancient or modern for his Opinion except the Convocation which I have shewn says nothing to his purpose And St. Basil says expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Basil Tom. 2. Constitut Monast c 22. p. 715. that the higher Powers mentioned by St. Paul are such as attain to the Government according to Humane Laws and this appears to have been the sence of the Church in his time for he sets it down as a thing certain That the Civil Powers must receive their Authority in a Legal way and from thence proves that if they that resist those who receive their Power according to humane Laws resist the Ordinance of God then much rather must those resist his Ordinance who resist the Ecclesiastical Powers which are by Gods own more immediate Institution invested with his Authority according to the Divine Laws So that if Dr. Sherlock's Interpretation were true yet it would not much have eased Mens Consciences since it has been so little known and so lately discovered and by his own Confession was by himself so lately suspected of Novelty and Singularity 4. The Titles of the Roman Emperours were then neither stark nought nor very doubtful The Titles of Claudius and of Nero were not at all doubtful and under one of them this Epistle was written Claudius was saluted Emperour by the Soldiery and approved of by the Senate and Nero was adopted by Claudius and chosen by the Army and the choice confirmed by the Senate and they were both owned and submitted to by the whole Empire which is all that could be requisite to make them Lawful Emperours for it is evident beyond all dispute that the Roman Empire was not Hereditary Jovian c. 1. And when at any time the Title was doubtful they might have submitted with a safe Conscience to the Possessor as I before observed And thus much may serve in answer to his first Argument from Scripture out of Rom. 13. 2. He urges That we have no example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submitting to the present Powers P. 21. whatever the Vsurpation were tho' we have examples of their being condemned for refusing to submit to them This he proves from the Prophecies of Jeremiah and from our Saviour's Argument in his discourse with the Scribes and Pharisees which relies wholly on the Possession of Power Whose Image and Superscription hath it I answer that the silence of Scripture is no Argument unless it can be shewn that the Prophets at the same time that they reproved the People for their other Crimes did not blame them for submitting to an Usurper while the Lawful King himself had not submitted nor was commanded by God to submit but had a Right to their Allegiance For in matters of History the Scriptures often give a bare Narrative without any remark or censure at all upon it We read of Lot's Incest and that both Noah and he were drunken but no Man I suppose will conclude that either Incest or Drunkenness is Lawful because the Scripture relates only the matter of Fact and says nothing more of it for they are Vices notorious enough in themselves and it was not the design of the Sacred History to inveigh against Vices but only to declare by whom and with what circumstances they were committed in like manner if there be any instance in Scripture where the Subjects abandoned their natural Sovereign and betook themselves to the Usurper and fought against him a bare Narrative of this can no more prove that it is lawful than that it is unlawful for an Historical Relation can prove nothing but that such a thing was done and in such a manner but the nature of the action it self with the circumstances of it or some command in Scripture must discover the goodness or the wickedness of it But in the present case the Scriptures are not silent but plainly enough declare that Allegiance is only due to the lawful King tho' an Usurper be never so well settled For St. Peter and St. Paul both declare this as it has been just now shewn unless we can serve two Masters for they teach subjection to the Rightful King which implies that it cannot be due to his mortal Enemy And when Jehoiada charged the People by their duty to God and to the King to submit to Joash and to depose Athaliah this was a sufficient Declaration against Allegiance to an Usurper in prejudice to the Lawful King 's Right But the case of the Jews under the King 's of Pabylon was such as made their Obedience to them a necessary Duty according to those Principles which are most contrary to the Doctor 's Opinion For 1. God had commanded both King and People to submit to these Kings 2. They did submit and take Oaths to them accordingly 3. Therefore the Kings submitting as well as the People there was none who could claim their Allegiance in competition with the Kings of Babylon And under these Circumstances either of a Divine command or of a joint consent and submission both of King and People no Man who maintains the Right of an Hereditary Succession and a Legal Title can with any Reason scruple to submit to a Foreign Conqueror But I shall speak more particularly to the Texts which the Doctor has produced 1. He acknowledges that the Prophet Jeremy 's Argument is Prophecy P. 21. or an express command from God to submit to the King of Babylon which he says because of the Entail that God himself had made of the Kingdom of Judah upon David's Posterity was necessary though other Kingdoms which are governed only by God's Providence ought to submit to any Conquerour or Invader in the same manner as the Jews did to Nebuchadnezzar without any Revelation to
it But he answers There is a vast Difference between these two Cases which is granted or else the Objection would be needless or none at all But if nowtithstanding the circumstantial Difference between them they be both through Setlements it is unanswerable for we are concerned to consider none of those other Differences which he reckons up but only this of the Settlement of that Usurpation the Question being not about any particular manner of Settlement but in general of a thorough Settlement And the Doctor must say according to his Principles and the whole Tenour of all the rest of his Book that the most illegal and unnatural Usurpers who have murthered the best of Kings and excluded the right Heir who have overthrown both Church and State and have neither National Consent nor any other Pretence of Right but the Sword yet if they can once settle themselves in their Injustice and Violence to the utter Ruine of Church and State notwithstanding all this have God's Authority as much as Saul or David ever had And if the ancient Government be destroyed and another erected in its Room this is still the greater Evidence that they have God's Authority because it is the fuller Proof of a thorough Settlement But if all those Terms and Conditions are required which the Doctor remarks were wanting in the late Usurpations the Providence of God will be confined and limited almost as much as he complains it will be by maintaining a Legal Right For how can God set over Kingdoms the basest the most unworthy and wicked Men who will have no regard to Forms of Law and Government if the Fundamental Laws of a Nation can put any Bar to his Power and if they can is not the Legal Right of the King a Fundamental Law and the principal too of those Laws Nothing then can make a difference between one Usurper and an other as to this matter if both have a Thorough Settlement their Authority must be the same and the Duty of Subjects the same to yield an entire Allegiance to them The only thing therefore to be considered is whether there were such a Thorough Settlement as the Doctor maintains does infer Gods Authority in those Usurpations And the Doctor himself has determined the point For P. 33. says he no Man could have foreseen how King Charles II. should have returned who had a powerful Army against him all the Plots and Conspiraces of the Royal Party were vain and had no other effect but to bring some worthy and gallant Men to an unhappy end but what they could not do God did without them And when it was impossible to foresee that King Charles could ever return when all human endeavours proved in vain and to his disadvantage when God alone could by his Providence restore him this certainly was as full a Settlement of the Party which kept him out of his Kingdom as can be imagined For if that be not setled which God only can displace there can be no such thing as a Settlement in the World But there were many alterations and changes of Government in those times It is plain that their Government was never setled P. 47. it was frequently changed and modelled which was no Argument of Settlement and which was more than that they had not a National Consent and Submission Men who were forced submitted to force but the Nation did not by any National Act ever own them Yet when all those changes conduced nothing at all to the Kings Interest but on the contrary were all fixed and centred in this that he should not be suffered to return this might be interpreted rather to signifie that God had determined he should never be restored because tho' they quarrelled amongst themselves and their Frames of Government so often fell to pieces yet still new Models were erected against him to set him at a further distance from the Throne And Oliver Cromwel at least was setled for he was made Protector in the year 1653. and from that time till his Death exercised all the Power of a King He had brough the Three Kingdoms to an entire subjection so as to be able to crush those who would not submit whenever he pleased P. 9. which is the description the Doctor gives of a Thorough Settlement all the Bordering Nations feared his Power or sought his Friendship and he had a full and uninterrupted Possession for the space of five years It was the common Theme of his Flatterers and of all the Enthusiasts of those times That God had raised him up and they had certainly been in the Right if any Usurper from a bare Possession of Power can claim by Authority from God in prejudice of the Rightful King As for what he adds to make this Case Parallel with that of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes it has been already shewn that that was a quite contrary Case For if the Jews had made a National Submission to Antiochus they had injured no Body nor excluded any Right Heir by it But a National Consent in this case could have been of no force whilst King Charles the Second or any of the Royal Family had been alive And by the Doctors Principles the Authority of Kings depends not upon any Consent of Men whatsoever but solely and purely upon the will of God who puts an Usurper in full Power and Possession of any Kingdom If therefore God's Authority remained in King Charles a National Consent could not have taken it away if it did not remain it must be in Cromwel without any National Consent But a National Consent would have been an Evidence of a Thorough Settlement It would so but this does not infer that no other evidence but that could suffice The Doctor often says that by what way or means soever an Usurper becomes fully possessed of the Supreme Power he has God's Authority So that a National Consent and Submission may be the more regular and orderly way but if an Usurper come to the Throne against the Consent both of King and Subjects and settle himself upon the Ruins both of the Kings Rights and the Subjects Liberties this is no prejudice to the Title he receives from God For if the Sovereign Authority be obtained tho' by the destruction of the Government and the desolation of the whole Kingdom against all Laws both of God and Man when it is once acquired it is by these Principles as much the Ordinance of God as if he had succeeded as next Heir or had been nominated by God himself and were the best and most Rightful King for all Kings are Rightful with respect to God I have now considered all that concerns the point in Question in the Doctor 's Book the rest concerns the Obedience to a King de Facto by the Laws of England not as he is Gods Vicegerent and invested with his Authority But before I dismiss this Question I shall shew that it was the constant Practice of the
strengthned himself by Lies and Perjury and continued his Usurpation by the Murder of Gratian and the banishment of Valentinian and was the same unjust Usurper till his death (p) Zos lib. 4. Zoâ—… indeed says that Theodosius h 〈…〉 nted that Maximus should be acknowledged Emperour and commanded his Statues to be set up that he might under a shew of Kindness and Friendship have the better opportunity to ruin him but this is against the Authority of all other Historians and Zosimus never omits any occasion to defame the Christian Emperours and particularly Theodosius And besides his hatred to Christianty which he exactly copyed from Eunapius whose History he is is said to abridg he is singular in other circumstances relating to this very Story (q) Omne judicium quod vafra mente conceptum injuria non jura reddendo Maximus infandissimus Tyrannorum credidit promulgandum damnabimus nullus igitur sibi lege ejus nullus judicio blandiatur Theodos cod lib. 15. Tu. 14. De infirmandis his quae sub Tyrannis aut Barbaris gesta sunt But it is more material to observe that Theodosius declared all the Laws and Edicts of Maximus to be of no Force or Authority and that this was no more than the Christian Emperours used to do in such cases Which implies that the Christians did not think Tyrants or Usurpers received any Authority from God for if they had all their Acts which had been according to natural Right and Justice must have been valid as being made by such as had God's Authority to enact Laws and decree Justice and it would have been sinful to declare them void ab initio and of no effect For if God had empowered them to act as Emperours against the standing Laws and Constitutions of the Empire he had authorized them to give out Edicts and Decrees which must have been as obligatory in Conscience as those of the Lawful Emperours themselves and whatever they wanted of the Formality of Law ought to have been supplyed by the Lawful Emperours and not all their Acts to have been declared invalid and never to have been of any Authority or Obligation St. Ambrose was not the Bishop that would tamely have seen Gods Authority in his Vicegerents thus despised but Theodosius would have found him the same Man that he did upon some other occasions if this had been the Doctrin of the Church But it may not be unfit to observe a little more particularly of Eugenius how well setled he was in this Usurped Power (r) Theod. lib. 5. c. 24. Niceph. lib. 12. c. 39. The Historians relate that the disproportion and inequality was so great between his Forces and the Forces of Theodosius that nothing less than that Miracle which was wrought for him could have delivered Theodosius out of his hands Eugenius was so confident and so secure of success that he said Theodosius had a mind to be destroyed and indeed if he had not been encouraged by a Revelation he would never have ventured a battel at that disadvantage but must have been forced to protract the War till he could have got together a much greater strength which the Commanders of his Army all advised him to but he was resolved to come to a Battel Eugenius retired and stayed at a distance expecting the news of the Victory and gave Order to have Theodosius brought alive bound to him And the overthrow of his Army was so unexpected to him and so incredible that when some of his own Soldiers who upon a conviction that God fought against them had gone over to Theodosius were sent to fetch Eugenius before him he asked them whether they had brought Theodosius along with them not suspecting but that they came to acquaint him with the Victory they had gained him (s) Secrat lib. 5. c. 25. Aug. Civ Dei lib. 5. c. 25. Eugenius had caused Valentinian to be strangled as Secrates relates tho' St. Augustine leaves it doubtful whether he was murthered or died by some other Accident (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. lib. 5. c. 24. but in Theodoret the Emperour Theodosius when Eugenius was brought to him puts him in mind both of his Treason against Valentinian and of his Rebellion and continued Usurpation afterwards till his defeat And not he alone but St. Ambrose as I have shewn after the death of Eugenius and I think I may say all Authors that have given any account of him have esteemed him no better from the beginning to the end of his pretended Reign than an Usurper who never had any Right either from God or Man I know of but one example in Antiquity that may seem to suit with the Doctors Notion and it is that of Theophilus of (w) Socrat. lib. 6. c. 2. Alexandria who at the Battel between Theodosius and Maximus had sent Isidorus with Presents and with Letters to both of them to be delivered to him that should come off Conquerour This some censure him for very highly and others think it a Calumny invented by his Enemies to defame him but it had been so far from any Aspersion if Maximus had been immediately to commence God's Vicegerent if he could but have subdued Theodosius that it had been no more than what all the other Bishops must soon after have done and he ought to have been commended rather for his zeal in attending the first Designations of Providence to pay a ready and early Obedience to the new Emperour and his Enemies had been strangly mistaken in reporting this as one of the worst Marks of Infamy they could fasten upon him I shall conclude all in Doctor Sherlock's own Words p. 54. That we must obey and submit to our Prince is a Duty which the Laws of God and Nature enjoyn And we must not suffer any Man be he Lawyer or Divine to perswade us that this is not our Duty But what Prince we must obey and to what particular Prince we must pay our Allegiance the Law of God does not tell us but this we must learn from the Laws of the Land FINIS An Appendix to The Title of an Usurper after a Thorough Settlement examined containing some Remarks on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of his Case of Allegeance THe Vindication has little new in it as to the main Controversy and not withstanding there be some variations I believe the Doctor will give me leave to say that if his Case of Allegiance be answered the Vindication of it will need no Confutation But because there are some things in it that may seem to obviate several Arguments that I have brought I shall briefly endeavour to remove those Objections and leave the rest to his learned Adversary The Convocation teaches Ch. 28. that when changes of Government are brought about either by the Rebellion of Subjects or the Invasion of Foreign Princes and the degenerate Formes of Government are established the Authority either so unjustly gotten or wrung by Force from the