therefore Jehoiada said to the Congregation Behold the King's Son shall Reign as the Lord hath said of the Sons of David 2. Chr. 23 2. and the Convocation observes that he acquainted them that it was the Lord's will that he should reign over them and that God himself had required all that they did at their Hands For when God has given his Promise we must interpret no occurrences of Providence in contradiction to in and therefore we see that when the Kingdom was taken from David's Posterity it was not done without an express Revelation But where God has made no Promise to a King and his Successors that they shall enjoy the Kingdom he may by his Providence take it away from them To this I answer That the whole design of the Convocation is as I have shewn to explain the Duty of Subjects by the example of God's own People and therefore if in this place they suppose something so peculiar in the Constitution of their Government that it could be no precedent to other Kingdoms this must be a manifest contradiction to their whole design They tell us that Government in its Original and by its first Institution was immediately from God and was the same throughout the World and tho it were corrupted in other Nations God preserved it amongst his own People and yet still the same Obedience was due under those alterations from the said mild and temperate Government at first instituted that was to be paid under this itself and by consequence there must be the same obligation to the Right Heir in all other Hereditary Monarchies and therefore they call Joash here the true and natural apparent Heir to the Crown and their only natural Lord and Sovereign which would be very unfit expressions if they did not think that he had an unalterable Right by the Law of Nature as well as by God's Promise In was enough indeed that Jehoiada should remind the People of God's own choice of Davids Posterity to rule over them and nothing more needed to be said by him and it was very fit that this should not be omitted by the Convocation But if this were the only Title which Joash had it would have been improper to call him a Natural Heir a Natural Lord and Sovereign and it would have overthrown all their Arguments from the Pâ—…ce of the Jews if they had said thâ—… Joash ought to be plac'd upon the Throne of his Ancestors after that six years interval only by vertue of a Divine Promise For a Divine command concerning any of their Kings or Judges for the time of their Lives is equivalent to a Divine Promise concerning David and his Posterity and so it might be said by parity of Reason that the Duty which they owed their Kings was due by vertue of a revealed command from God and could not be the same in other Nations where there is no such revealed Command Thus David would not stretch forth his Hand against Saul for this Reason because he was the Lords anointed that is he was so chosen and appointed by God himself as no King now can pretend to be And so in all other instances if we must argue from no example where Gods command or promise intervenes in vain does the Convocation explain the Duty of Subjects from the sacred History and yet we must argue from no such examples if Gods revealed will alters the case and makes it different from Cases of the same Nature which fall out in other Governments concerning which God has not revealed any thing It is true indeed when God so interposes as to invert the ordinary course of Government as in the case of Ahud and Jehu this can be no Precedent for any to imitate without the same command to authorise them that they had but then it was no more a Precedent to the Jews themselves than to any other Nation But when God only regulates the Jewish Government according to the first institution at the Creation and settles it upon the Right of Succession which is common to that with all other Hereditary Monarchies and makes choice of the Person to whom and to his Posterity he grants a Donation of the Kingdom or when he reforms abuses and puts things into their due course and order again and enjoyns nothing but what without a Divine warrant is of itself lawful to be done we may conclude that all these things are written for our instruction and must be a Rule to all other Nations in the like Cases The Convocation therefore proceeds all along upon this Principle Ch. 2.6 Can. 2.6 that from the first institution of Government there is both a Natural and a Divine Right in all Sovereigns which is Natural as it is founded on the Laws of Nature and Divine because Government is Gods Ordinance and owes its Original Form and Constitution to Gods own immediate appointment and therefore that when God by his express direction and command afterwards settled that sort of Government which he at first instituted to all the World among his own People he did not thereby make any alteration in the Duty of Subjects or Rights of Kings but did only oblige both to perform their several Duties in that way and manner which he had enjoyn'd them The Children of Israel asked a King to judg them like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.5.20 And God chose Saul to be their King but what ever variations there might be in some circumstantials of Government they owed just the same Duty and Subjection to him which was due to Adam and Noah c. And according to the Convocation every other Sovereign Prince has the very same Right that he had neither they in asking nor God in giving them a King made any distinction between the Authority of their King and the Kings of other Nations but the manner or Royal Power of their King is described to be just the same with that of the Kings round about them God entailed the Kingdom of Judah upon David and his Seed but the Right of Succession was still the same in that which it is in all other Hereditary Kingdoms only they had a Secondary Obligation to the performance of their Duty from an immediate and positive Command whereas others are oblig'd to the same Duties but by Virtue only of the Law of Nature and of the first Institution of Government The Jews then were bound to set up Joash in that Kingdom upon two accounts that is both as he was their Natural Sovereign and as he descended from David to whom God had made a peculiar Promise and had given the Kingdom to him and to his Posterity but the first obligation had been of itself sufficient and those Kings who hold by no Divine Promise but only by Right of Inheritance have the same Right which he had who held by a Twofold Title because either of them had been alone sufficient For a single Title is enough to convey a Right and an Additional
always be so unless he acquires a Right by some other means than a setled and habitual Injustice The Scripture no where informs us that God authorises Usurpers after a thorough Settlement but on the contrary that those are no Usurpers concerning whom God by his Prophets has given assurance to the People that himself had raised them up to the Throne Fourthly All are now to be lookt upon as Usurpers who invade the Rights of their Neighbour Princes for the same Reason that we esteem all pretenders to Miracles and Prophecys no better than Cheats and Impostors For Nebuchadnezzar had Prophecys delivered coucerning him which entitled him to the Kingdoms he possessed For tho he sin'd in Invading the Dominions of other Princes if he did not believe the Prophet or knew not of his own Title granted him by God himself to them yet he did them no injury because their Right was already transferred to him and therefore his Sin was only that of a Man who robs another of that which is his own not knowing it to be so But now Prophecys are ceased as well as Miracles and God acts by the ordinary course of his Providence as well as by the ordinary course of Nature Miracles were necessary to awaken Mens attention and put them upon a serious consideration of Religion and bring them to an acknowledgment of the Truth of it and so were such Revelations needful to manifest Gods infinite Power and Majesty and to make the greatest Princes stand in awe of him but when once these ends are served we are left to the Moral and Divine Laws of Reason and of Scripture for our Direction in the performance of our Duty as we are to the Physical Laws of Nature in the Provisions of Health and Life and to conclude that every Conqueror has the same Right to our Obedience that Nebuchadnezzar had to be obeyed by the Nations whom he had subdued is as groundless as to think that any man who comes with lying Wonders and confident Stories has a Power of Miracles and a Gift of Prophecys God many times by a wonderful Providence casts down Usurpers when they are most setled and secure in their unjust Possessions and it is the Glory of his Infinite Wisdom that when he suffers the World to go on in one constant Tenour and does not interrupt wicked men in heir enterprises and practices yet the still holds the Helm of Government and the most lasting and setled Usurpations cannot in the least prejudice the execution and accomplishment of his just and Holy Decrees And in this he exercises his Dominion over Mankind as he shews his Dominion over Nature by a steddy and constant concourse with natural Agents notwithstanding the many seeming Irregularities that appear in the World and we ought no more to imagine his Authority in any Usurpers from whom we promise our selves Protection then we may suppose a Miraculous Power in those Charms which sometimes cure Diseases The Earth is the Lords and all that dwell in it and it cannot be denied but God might if he had pleased frequently raise up Princes as he did Nebuchadnezzar but then he would send his Prophets to give notice of it For we must conclude in this case as the Convocation does in the case of Jehu that it is unlawful to follow such extraordinary examples except first that it might plainly appear that there are now any such Prophets sent extraordinarily from God himself Can. 25. with sufficient and special Authority in that behalf and that we might be assured of every such Prince as is by Usurpation setled in anothers Dominions that God himself had in express words required and commanded us to submit to him by Name as he commanded the Nations whom Nebuchadnezzar conquered to serve him declaring that he had given all those Lands into the Hand of Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon his Servant Jer. 27 6. But we may observe that as Nebuchadnezzar was raised up by God himself so the Kings of those Nations were commanded to submit to him as well as their People and did submit or were subdued by him so that the Peoples part in that Revolution was no more than what Subjects may do now if such a thing should be brought about by Providence for when the King has submitted himself there is no Question to be made but that the Subjects may do so too II. Having considered the Arguments from the Authority of the Convocation I now proceed to the Arguments from the Reason of the Thing itself By an Usurper in this Question is plainly meant one who is in Possession of the Kingdom contrary to the Laws and Constitution of the Realm and without any Title but that of Possession and an Usurper In Possession is opposed to a Rightful King out of Possession whether he be either first actually dispossessed and driven out of his Kingdom or secondly have an undoubted Right to it but has been always kept out of Possession and could never come to the enjoyment of it But it 's granted that First If the Title be doubtful the Subjects are at liberty to submit to the Possessor and ought not to embroil the Nation with Wars and sacrifice the Peace and Happiness of it for an Uncertainty And in this case the Subjects are oblig'd to stand by him to whom they have sworn Allegiance till a clear Title be made out against him upon defect whereof the Oath was taken upon supposition that there was no precedent Obligation to another Prince and therefore must oblige till it appears that his Competitor claims by an Hereditary or other antecedent Right Secondly If in an Hereditary Monarchy after the thorough Settlement of an Usurper it should so happen that the Royal Line had failed and the Right of Succession were extinct the People might be oblig'd for their own and for their Countrey 's sake to submit to the Usurper and after their Submission he would become their lawful King For tho he could have deriv'd no Authority from his Thorough Settlement notwithstanding there were none surviving of the Royal Line and the Subjects might have yielded themselves up to the Obedience of any other Person if they had had a convenient opportunity so as to have done it without bringing damage and mischief to the Publick by it yet they might be obliged to submit to him to prevent that Slaughter and confusion which else would ensue and if they should have resused to do it they would have sinned against God in neglecting the safety of themselves and of their Country supposing nevertheless that no Injustice would have been done to the Usurper thereby and that he could have had no Right before their Submission The Question therefore is Whether an Usurper who has no claim to the Crown but that of Possession tho he be never so long and throughly setled in the Throne can have a Right to the Allegiance of the Subjects whilst their Rightful King who has an Hereditary or
whatsoever other undoubted Title by the Constitution of the Kingdom is alive and requires them to bear Faith and Allegiance to him The Sum of what can be said in the Affirmative seems to be this That as it is shewn at large in the Convocation Book Christ has reserved the Government of the World and the disposal of Kingdoms entirely to himself and can make or dispose Kings as he pleaseth notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Kingdoms and as he first ruled the world by frequent Revelations and Prophecies so since these are ceased he doth it by his Providence only for he always retains the same immediate Inspection with human affairs but now manifests his Pleasure and gives out his Commands as Governor of the world by the Declarations of his Providence that is by the Success and Event of things for he could not govern the World as supreme Lord and King of it or which is all one he could not require our Obedience in Compliance to his disposal of Kingdoms if his Will were not some way or other discovered to us and this being now the only way whereby he discovers it we must acquiesce in the Events of his Providence so as to obey Christ the Supreme Governor of the world in the Person of him whosoever he be whom he has set over us making no enquiry into the Justice of the Cause or into the means by which the Person now fully possessed of another Princes Power and Dominions came so possessed of them For God can take away and transfer any Right or Title as he pleaseth and the Conduct of his Providence in a Thorough Settlement of the Government is a sufficient evidence that he has transferred it because it is the only evidence we now can have And therefore we ought to look upon the Person thus setled as invested with God's Authority and to pay him a full and entire Allegiance as his Vicegerent with the same Submission and upon the same Reasons as if he had commanded us to do it by an express and immediate Revelation since his Providence is now the only Revelation or Manifestation of his will that we can expect and it must be instead of all other Revelations to us This seems to be the full of what can be fairly offered in the Affirmative and it is liable to the following Difficulties I. By Gods Providence must be understood either his Permission in concurring with Natural Causes to produce their Effects or his Appointment First If he only suffer or permit a thing to be done without denying his Concourse or interposing his Almighty Power to prevent it this by no means proves his Approbation of the Event or Success of it For he permits all the Wickedness that is committed in the World and suffers the worst men to prosper many times in their evil Courses Secondly If by Gods Providence be meant his Appointment this may signifie First that he from all Eternity decreed to permit the Event and designed and ordained it to advance his own Glory and to bring about some good to Mankind by it And so the Treachery of Judas was appointed Act. 2.23 that is God had decreed to suffer it to come to pass and had ordained it when come to pass for the Salvation of Mankind And there can be no doubt but the final Issue and ultimate event of all the worst Actions is ordained of God and approved of by him but the Case before us is of an intermediate and subordinate End which must be judged of whether it be good or bad by the Nature of the thing and not by any success or event That all will at last conclude in some good End in the long Series and Chain of Causes and Events which are ordained by God's Decree is most certain but then this doth not prove that the intermediate Causes and Events are approved of by him but we must enquire into the Justice of the Cause whereby we can only know whether the Event be pleasing to him or not Secondly By Gods Providence as it signifies his Appointment may be meant his Will or Command And this Will or Command is either for the doing of a thing or for our Submission and acquiescence in it after it is done His command for the doing of a thing cannot be known before the Event but by the Justice of the Action or by Revelation to neither of which the Doctor pretends And the Event cannot discover to us God's command to do a thing which is already done and past and I have in part shewn and shall more fully shew afterwards that it can as little discover to us his Approbation of the thing done or that it is his Will that we should acquiesce and submit to it II. Whereas it is said that since God now governs the World only by his Providence we must of Necessity acquiesce in the Event of things or else we should disobey him in not submitting to his disposal of the Governments of the World First God governs the World so as to require no Duty or Act of Obedience now of us but what the Laws of Nature or of Scripture enjovn And because Revelations are ceased it seems requisite that he should have revealed it in the Scriptures if he had required us to acquiesce in the Events of things and to look upon the most unjust Usurper as invested with his own Authority when he is once gotten into Possession of the Throne I say this seems necessary to have been revealed since Natural Reason cannot dictate it to us for in Gods permission of all othersort of Injustice in the World we never imagine that any Right can accrue to the Injuring Person by it Secondly God by his Power and Wisdom so orders things as to make the most unjust actions subservient to the Ends of Justice and Righteousness but not to reward Usurpation with the Investiture of his own Authority or to turn wrong into right And all that we learn from Scripture concerning God's Providence is that we must rely upon it for Protection in the performance of our known Duty and by consequence that we are to regard the Justice only of a Cause not the Success of it III. This would make it unlawful for any Prince who is dispossessed or excluded from the Throne to wage War against the Usurper in defence of his own Right For he is supposed to have no longer any Right after the Usurper is in full Possession because that Right which God gives to the Usurper the Lawful King must be divested of unless there can be two opposite Sovereign Authorities at the same time and both from God who severally retain the whole and entire Right at once to the same Kingdom But we read that David waged War against Ish-bosheth who was possessed of the Kingdom of all Israel for two years and against the Jebusites who were in possession of Jerusalem and he was in continual Wars before he
is from God p. 10. This he rightly observes no man will deny him but an Atheist But then it ought to be proved That it is so from God as to exclude all Humane Rights and Titles or that God now bestows and conveys this Authority contrary to the Rules of Law and Justice amongst Men and in opposition to the Constitutions of particular Governments and the Agreement and Consent of the several Nations of the World That God by his Providence doth set aside all Humane Law and Right and doth give an extraordinary and immediate Right and Title to every Usurper who is got into full Possession of any Kingdom because no Man can have any Authority but from God is no Consequence unless there be no other way for God to rule the World but in this manner for if God may govern the World agreeably to the Methods of Right and Justice which Reason obliges men to observe towards their Sovereign and which by an Authority derived from God himself and settled and enacted in particular Countreys then it cannot be known but by Revelation that God does ever interpose to the Prejudice of Legal Right or absolve Subjects from their Allegiance to their Natural Sovereign by transferring his Authority to an Usurper Prop. 2. That Civil Power and Authority is no otherwise from God than as he gives his Power and Authority to some particular Person or Persons to govern others Civil Power and Authority is from God in its Original Institution as well as in its Application and Donation to particular Persons But not to insist upon that The Person or Persons who are invested with it are either qualified for the Reception of this Authority from God by a just Accession to the Throne according to the particular Form or Constitution of the Government or they must be appointed by Divine Revelation which may discharge the Subjects from adhering to the Legal Constitution in performance of their Allegiance sworn to any other Person But the Exercise of Power may be in him who has properly no Authority but only a Nominal one that is Men are forced to call it so though it be really nothing less for meer Force and External Power gives no Right nor is any otherwise from God than are the Natural Powers and Force of Wild Beasts who devour Men and other Creatures not without the Permission and Concurrence of God's Providence and to use the Doctor 's Expression they cannot devour a Man whether God will or no. But if he Governs without receiving his Personal Authority from God he Governs without God's Authority No doubt of it he Governs when he has no Right and ought not to Govern for the Exercise of Authority may be usurped as well as the Ensigns of Authority or the Jewels of the Crown but the Right to Govern which is bestowed by God is not always in him who actually Governs but in him who ought to Govern tho' perhaps he does not Prop. 3. There are but three ways whereby God gives this Power and Authority to any Persons either by Nature or by an express Nomination or by the Disposals of Providence This may be granted and yet the Disposals of Providence may be such as are agreeable to the Rules of humane Laws and Justice and it remains to be proved that there are any disposals of Kingdoms by God's Providence contrary to these Rules And whereas the Doctor says that by what bounds the Paternal and Patriarchal Authority was limitted we cannot tell I can see no Reason to make any scruple or enquiry concerning that matter according to his Principles for Men always had just as much Authority as they could by any means attain to the exercise of if they could enlarge their Dominions all they got by fraud or violence or by any way whatsoever of Injustice was the gift of Providence and if their Patriarchal Authority would not bear them out in it yet the Divine Authority which upon a full Possession they became invested with would never fail to give them an undoubted Right and Title If they could by any means deprive their Subjects of all the Priviledges they enjoyed and take from them all their Liberty and Property and reduce them to the vilest Slavery they were by God himself settled in an Absolute and Arbitrary Government And by the same Argument the King of France has a Divine Right not only to the Principality of Orange but to all the Despotick Power which his Adversaries say he exercises over his own Subjects since he is throughly settled in the Possession of both That God made Kings only in Jewry by a particular Nomination is a mistake Pag. 11. For he nominated Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus as particularly as he nominated David himself Nor is it true that God entailed no other Kingdom but that of Judah as the Doctor seems here to say For as he entailed the Kingdom of Judah upon David's Posterity indefinitely so he entailed the same Kingdom with many others upon Nebuchadnezzar and his Son and his Sons Son Jer. 27.7 And God entailed the Kingdom of Israel first upon Jeroboam and his Posterity promising him that if he would keep his Statutes and Commandments as David did he would be with him and build him a sure house as he built for David and would give Israel unto him 1 Kings 11.38 And afterwards he entailed it upon Jehu and his Children of the fourth Generation 2 Kings 10.30 There can be no doubt but that God ruled in all the other Kingdoms of the World as well as in Jewry and all other Kings ruled by Gods Authority as well as the Kings of Judah and Israel who were advanced by his command And therefore God sometimes interposed his immediate Command in the advancement of Kings in other Kingdoms as well as in those of Judah and Israel and he entailed other Kingdoms and might do so now if he pleased but this is no argument that he will do it nor that we are now to expect it since we are left to the guidance and protection of his Providence in the ordinary course of things and in our obedience to the Laws of that Constitution of Government under which we live which are to determin when the Authority of Sovereigns ceases and the Allegiance of Subjects and we are not to think their Power and Authority transferred unless it be transferred legally For God now Rules the World by no express Commands or extraordinary Declarations of his Will but Governs every People by the just Laws and Constitutions of their Country and whatever happens contrary to these he permits for good and wise Reasons known only to himself But Subjects are not to look upon themselves as discharged from their Duty and Oaths of Allegiance unless the Laws themselves and the Nature of the Constitution discharge them for we are not at liberty to have recourse to Providence for a Dispensation or Release from the most Solemn Obligations that Nature and the Laws of
Subjects All this proves nothing but is only the Consequence of what is supposed to be already proved His Sixth Argument is from the Necessity of Government p. 38. to preserve Human Societies p. 39. For if God will preserve Human Societies we must conclude That when he removes one King out of the Throne he gives his Authority to him whom he places there for without Authority Human Societies must disband He supposes here that every thing is just which is necessary to the preservation of Human Societies nay that God empowers and requires Men to do every thing that is necessary in order to that End Which is true if it be meant of Society in General because nothing that is sinful and derogatory from Authority can really tend to the Peace and Preservation of Mankind For though such Practices may give some sort of Ease and Protection to particular Societies for some Time in a particular Case yet this is accidental and proceeds not from the Nature of Things and these Practices usually end in the Destruction or great Galamity of such Societies Or however the Examples and the Effects are mischievous and of pernicious Consequence to Societies in general The Laws therefore of God and of Nature are in General Terms and we have no Liberty to interpret them so as to fit them to some particular Occasions and to determin that they do not oblige when they seem in some particulars not to serve the Ends which they were designed for because God foresaw all Inconveniencies and Emmergencies whatsoever and yet he appointed them We are not to measure our Duty from the Usefulness of the Practice of it in particular Cases but from its General Usefulness and God can provide for extraordinary Exigencies But though God has appointed Society and will always preserve Societies of Men and Government in the World yet we have no Assurance that he will preserve any particular Society How many Nations do we read of in Scripture which God did quite root out and destroy for their Sins and how many other Nations of the World have there been besides whose Memories are quite lost to us The Sins of a Nation may provoke God to destroy it and therefore it can be no good Argument that God gives Authority to every Usurper and commands obedience to him lest a particular Society should be destroyed For God may design its Destruction and then no submission can avail to preserve it or he may by other Means unthought of by us deliver it from Destruction though we do not submit God having instituted Society commands by consequence every thing that is necessary to Society but it is not necessary because Man is a sociable Creature and must live under Government that any particular Society must always continue and that whatever is done to maintain it is for that reason lawful Self-preservation is a necessary Duty implanted in our Nature but it does not from thence follow that all necessary Means of Self-preservation is lawful For a Man may be obliged not to preserve himself but to sacrifice his Life when the Glory of God or the Wellfare of his Country requires it Societies in lik manner are established by God himself in the World and we are obliged to the Preservation of them but we must preserve particular Societies only by such Means as are agreeable to the Laws of God designed for the Benefit of Society in general To endeavour to preserve any particular Society in such a way as naturally tends to the Destruction of Society in general is to act against the Nature and Institution of Society and by consequence sinful though the immediate Act should be never so beneficial to a particular Government Now for Subjects to pay Allegiance to Kings and for both Prince and Subjects to perform their mutual Duties to each other as far as they are able is the only Security of Human Society and to say that we owe no Allegiance to an absent Prince because God will have Human Societies preserved is to say That God will have particular Societies preserved by the Violation of that which is the alone Support and Security of Society in general when yet we cannot be sure whether God will have this or that particular Society preserved or no. We must distinguish between the Reason of Obedience to Governours and the end of it The formal Reason of Obedience is the Ordinance of God or the Divine Authority in him to whom it is due but the End of it is the Good of Societies If the Reason of Obedience were to be resolved into the End of it the End would justifie any means whatsoever by which it could be attained but since God who has proposed the End to us has likewise directed us to the Means we must make use only of such means as he has appointed and if at any Time they should fail of their End as to any particular Society we must conclude That God has some further End to serve and that is always best which he has commanded not that which for the present may seem more beneficial or expedient For we have an Eye only upon one Time or Place or Government but he has an Universal Care and Regard for all Times Places Persons and Governments in the World and sees their several Relations and Dependences and Effects upon one another and has provided for all Mankind by standing Laws and has not proposed an End only to them and then left them to come at it as they can themselves The Prince's Right and the Subjects Allegiance being reciprocal and necessarily supposing each other for if the Prince have a Right to any thing it must be to the Subjects Allegiance it is difficult to determine what may be done by Subjects for the Preservation of Government in Cases of Necessity when both King and People are reduced to these Circumstances that they lye under an Incapacity of actually performing those mutual Obligations and what Obedience to an Usurper may be consistent with the Allegiance due to a Rightful Prince There is some Difficulty I say in determining precisely in such Cases just how far Subjects may comply and no further But this is nothing to the present purpose and so I pass by all that the Doctor has said of it It is enough for me that the Necessity of Human Society does not imply That God has transferred the Allegiance of the Subjects to an Usurper And when all lawful Compliances have been made if the Government be ruined the Fault must lye only upon the Usurper and his Party His next Argument is p. 43. that these Principles answer all the Ends of Government both for the Security of the Prince and Subjects because they secure the Prince in Possession by putting an end to all Disputes of Right and Title and binding his Subjects to him by Duty and Conscience and a Reverence of God's Authority And they secure the Subjects by obliging them not to hazard and Ruin
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
for them of themselves to take Arms against the Kings whose Subjects they were Ch. 27. tho indeed they were Tyrants And therefore they cryed unto the Lord for Succour Yet both these Nations could have no other Authority over them but what was obtained by Conquest and a thorough Settlement I answer first the Scripture says the Anger of the Lord was hot against Israel and he sold them into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim Judg. 3.8 and v. 12. The Children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord and the Lord strengthned Eglon the King of Moab against Israel From whence it is probable that God who governed the Israelites by a more than ordinary Providence and made frequent Declarations of his Will to them especially in denouncing his Judgments before any remarkable Punishment was inflicted upon the whole Nation to give them time for Repentance did now discover to them that the Aramites and Moabites were sent by him to subdue them For the Anger of the Lord was hot against Israel and he sold them into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim and he strengthened Egion the King of Moab against Israel But if this Judgment were not particularly foretold and denounced yet this they knew in general that these Nations the Lord left to prove Israel by them to know whether they would hearken to the Commandments of the Lord which he commanded their Fathers by the hand of Moses v. 1. and 4. And therefore when they were vanquished and were forced to seek their Preservation by subjecting themselves to their Enemies they well knew that they had no Power nor Authority to oppose such Kings whom God for their sins as he had before threatned had set over them but they cryed unto the Lord and he raised up a Deliverer for them Secondly the whole Nation was in subjection 18 years to the Moabites and 8 years to the Aramites and when they had once yielded themselves up and were become their Subjects no Right which any other Person had over them being prejudiced thereby they were obliged to keep their Oaths or other Engagements of Obedience to them and were bound to pay all Duties of Allegiance to these Kings after they had owned them for their Kings tho they were Tyrants that is tho they governed them in a rigorous and tyrannical manner For the consent of a Nation may be the means of conveying a Right to a Prince in such a Case where no other has any precedent Right to their Allegiance tho there be no express Warrant from God for their so doing so that there being at this time no King in Israel there was no injury done to any man if the whole Nation submitted to the Conqueror Obj. Can. 31. But the Jews generally both Priests and People were the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled amongst them as they had been before the Subjects of the Kings of Babylon and Persia Tho it appears from History that Darius was alive when Jaddus made a surrender of Jerusalem to Alexander or if he had been dead yet he left Heirs behind him Answ First the Convocation observes that when Alexander sent to Jaddus to require him to submit to him and send him Assistance in his Wars Jaddus answered that he might not yield thereunto because he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius Ch. 30. which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived And when Jaddus afterwards submitted to him it was by reason of a Command which he had received by Revelation from God Joseph Antiqu. l. 11. c. 8. For as Josephus relates in the place referred to by the Convocation Jaddus had appointed Publick Prayers and Sacrifices upon this account and it was revealed to him in a Dream That the People in white and the Priests and Jaddus himself in their Holy Garments should go out to meet Alexander and make their Submission to him who no sooner saw Jaddus but he fell down and worshipped God whose name he saw written on his Mitre and when his Followers were all amazed at it and Parmenio asked him the Reason of that strange Action he answered that before his Expedition he saw in a Vision one attired as Jaddus was who encouraged him to undertake it and promised him success in it and that it was not the Priest but that God whom he served that he worshipped Secondly in Chap. 30. the Answer of Jaddus to Alexander that he was bound by his Oath of Allegiance to Darius during his Life is mentioned and approved of by the Convocation but neither in the following Chapter nor Canon is any mention made of Jaddus only it is said in the Canon that both Priests and People were the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled among them c. Which might be true tho Jaddus had been faulty in submitting to Alexander whilst Darius was alive Thirdly Jaddus went out to meet Alexander and made his Submission to him at his first Approach to Jerusalem so that if his Example be to be followed a City ought to surrender before it be besieged or so much as a Sword be drawn against it And the first sight and appearance of an Enemy is a different thing from that Thorough Settlement which the Convocation requires whatsoever we understand by it The Convocation therefore could not propose the Example of Jaddus in all Circumstances for our imitation for either he had a Divine Warrant for what he did or according to their Principle he must be highly blameable because he did not stay till there was a Thorough Settlement nor indeed till there was any Settlement at all before he submitted to Alexander But after the Death of Darius his Authority was throughly setled for Darius just before he expired sent such a Message to him with his thanks for his great Courtesie and Civility to his Mother and to his Wife and Children as can amount to no less than a bequeathing to him his Kingdom and Alexander taking one of his Daughters in Marriage no Pretensions were made afterwards against his Right to the Kingdom of Persia Obj. But God is the universal Lord and Ruler over all the World and the whole World is his universal Kingdom in the Government whereof he ever used the Ministry of Civil Magistrates as well in other Countries as amongst his own peculiar People of Israel without any desert of them but as in his heavenly Providence he thought it most convenient I have made saith he the Earth the Man and the Beasts that are upon the Ground Jer. 27.5 and have given it to whom it pleaseth me And again the Prophet Daniel telleth us that God changeth the times and seasons Dan. 4.14.12.17.32 that he hath Power and beareth Rule over the Kingdoms of men that he taketh away Kings and setteth up Kings and that it was the God of Heaven who gave unto Nebuchadnezzar so great a Kingdom Dan. 2.37.5.8 Power Strength and Glory
force as all Moralists allow such a mixt choyce and election to be But Flight is no Consent at all but a declaration of the contrary and therefore whether Forced Submission will transfer Allegiance or no 't is certain Flight cannot and that is all we are now to enquire after He argues P. 20. that Jaddus begged God's Directions not whether he should submit to Alexander or not for he was already resolved to submit but about the manner of his Submission that he might do it so as that Alexander would accept it after the Provocation he had given him by his denyal before Josephus does indeed say that Jaddus dreaded how he should meet Alexander who was provoked by his former Answer but what he means by his meeting him and to what intent and purpose he designed to meet him is not said much less that he was resolved to make an entire surrender of himself and the whole City unto his power and meeting an Enemy is a very different thing from making such a Submission to him He appointed publick Prayers and Sacrifices to be offered up for their Deliverance but whether they should be delivered by their Submission or by any other way we must suppose they left it wholly to God Almighty to determine And whatever Jaddus might think with himself it cannot be imagined he would come to a Resolution and would openly declare it too but since he sought to God for his direction and assistance in so extraordinary a way he would in all humility and devotion refer the whole matter and not only the manner and circumstance of it to his Determination Thus Jaddus ought to have done and thus probably he did and there is nothing in Josephus that contradicts it If Jaddus stood to his first Answer he could not be resolved to submit and it is most unlikely that he would appoint solemn Supplications and Sacrifices to be made to God about the Circumstance only and overlook the thing it self resolving with himself before he knew Gods pleasure in it to submit when he had so lately answered peremptorily that he might not do it so long as Darius lived this must be a great and sudden and a very improbable change and very rash and unwarrantable and not to be drawn into example if true For suppose that Jaddus was resolved to submit suppose he was resolved to do the thing which he but just before professed he ought not to do this makes no difference in the thing nor in the Judgment of the Convocation about it who mention his first resolution but take no notice of this new own nor of his Submission it self neither and perhaps for this Reason because they might not give much credit to the Account in Josephus of the Revelation and without this his Surrender could not be justified either by their Principles or his own But we are concerned only for the matter of Fact and for the Authority he had to act upon not for the opinion with which he acted He first refused Submission and that the Convocation approves he afterwards submitted and this the Convocation takes not the least notice of but if there were a Revelation for it his Submission was lawful if not it was contrary to that Duty which he so lately owned to Darius and to the Judgment of the Convocation The Doctor says if they believed any of the story upon Josephus 's Authority P. 19. they must believe all But why so some of it may be probable and that they might believe and other parts of it so improbable that his Authority might not be sufficient to give it Credit with them and it is likely they rejected what they did not mention when it was so very material to the Subject before them that if they had believed it they would scarce have omitted it The Doctor is forced to own P. 35. that Athaliah if she were throughly settled had God's Authority till the Right Heir was known to be alive though if she had it may be not only Lawful but a Duty to resist Gods Authority since he maintains that Jehoiada supposing her throughly settled was nevertheless bound in Duty to Joash to depose her and set him up But assoon as the true Heir appeared P. 35. she fell from her Power as much by the express Ordinance and Command of God as Joram did when Jehu was anointed for a Divine Entail as the Convocation asserts is equivalent to an express Nomination I Answer the Appearance of the true Heir respects only the Peoples Duty but the Question is concerning Jehoiada and what could the Appearance of Joash signify to him who all the while knew that he was alive and acted all along for his Right and Interest and was obliged at the first fit opportunity to make the true heir known and if so he must be found to do it by vertue of an Hereditary Right which was in Joash and by consequence he could not be bound to obey Athaliab though she were never so well settled for it is a contradiction to say that he was bound to obey her at the same time that he was bound to depose her or which is all one when he was bound to make the Right Heir known in order to depose her It may perhaps be said that Jehoiada was not bound in Duty to Athaliah it was only lawful for him to submit as the Doctor now distinguishes But if so then a Providential Right may oblige some Subjects to Obedience and not others which is as strange as any thing besides for sure Gods Authority must oblige all Subjects alike and if she were invested with Gods Authority or to use the Doctors word if she were God's Providential Queen I cannot see how any Subject in her Dominions could be exempted from Gods Authority nor consequently from Obedience to her while it remained in her Besides how did she fall from her Power assoon as the true Heir appeared According to the Doctor 's Principles she could never have fallen from it till she had fallen from her Actual Dominion and her Authority was at an end not because the Right Heir was known but because she was dispossessed for the Doctor tells us that Actual Dominion and Sovereign Power make a King P. 36. that it is certain he who has the Exercise of the Regal Power and Authority P. 38. P. 50. P. 56. is King and he is no King who has no Regal Power whatever his Title be and that it is certain no Prince can have Gods Authority who is not in Possession of the Throne and then no Allegiance can be due to him and the Doctor cannot guese how these Princes who whatever the Right be have no Authority of Government should have Gods Authority And if this be so very certain from the nature of the thing that Sovereignty is founded in the Actual Administration of Government or in the Actual Possession of Power and Authority to govern P. 37. if Possession of Power be of the very