of that Tyrant Antiochus being not then either generally received by Submission nor setled by Continuance though I cannot blame him for this because the Author whom he answers took no notice of it but I must blame him for affirming that the Convocation say That when Athaliah was fully possessed of the Throne she ought not to be obeyed but to be resisted and slain for they say no such thing and though he may imagine this to be the Consequence of what they say he ought not therefore to affirm that they said it because he may mistake in his Consequence and that he has done so shall presently appear The Convocation says not one word of the thorough Settlement of Athaliah in the Throne but if we may learn the Sence of the Convocation as this Author concludes we may from what Bishop Buckridge a Member of that Convocation has written in his Defence of Barclay they did not think her settled in the Throne for when Bellarmin had objected the quiet Possession of Athaliah for six Years the Bishop as this Author cites him answers How quiet soever it was it was violent for she was guarded with Souldiers and affirms that Athaliah had not acquired a Right to the Crown I suppose he means only such a Right as a thorough Settlement gives neither by the Consent of the People nor by the Prescription of six Years Six Years were not long enough for a Prescription which he says must be a hundred Years and the Consent of the People it seems she had not and therefore being a meer Usurper and no Queen she might be Deposed And thus his whole Argument is lost And here I must observe that the Bishop allows as the Convocation does that either the Consent of the People or a long Prescription gives a Right that is such a Right as makes Obedience due to Princes thus settled without a legal Title and therefore our Author greatly prevaricates when he pretends to give the Bishop's sence of a thorough Settlement that is when a Right to the Government is acquired by a Prescription and that is a long and uninterrupted Possession joyned with the Consent of the People The Bishop distinguishes between the Consent of the People and a long Prescription and says that either of them will give a Right And our Author though he pretends to give the Bishop's sence makes both of them together necessary to give a Right a long and uninterrupted Possession which is what the Bishop calls Prescription joyned with the Consent of the People so that he leaves out neither and nor as insignificant Particles and likes with better as more agreeable to his Design and at this rate he may make Convocations and Bishops speak his sence when he pleases But to gratifie our Author let us suppose the Convocation did own Athaliah to have been as throughly settled on the Throne as any Usurper can be while the right Heir is living and then the Consequence is That the Convocation teaches that Kings and Queens de Facto who have all the Settlement that can be had without Right may be Deposed and Murthered by their Subjects And will this Author say that this is the Doctrine of the Convocation Do they not expresly warn us against believing any Person who shall affirm by all the Arguments which Wit or Learning could devise that God had called him to Murther the King de Facto under whom he lived It seems then the Convocation made a great difference between the Case of Athaliah and other Kings de Facto who had no better Title nor more thorough Settlement than she had if they thought her settled in the Throne without which Supposition our Author's Argument is lost for they justifie the killing Athaliah and condemn the murder of a King de Facto and this I gave two accounts of in my Case of Allegiance 1. All that this Story amounts to is no more than this That when the legal and rightful Heir is actually possessed of his Throne Subjects may return to their Allegiance and by the Authority of their King prosecute the Usurper for Ioash was first Anointed and Proclaimed before any one stirred a finger against Athaliah now this is a very different Case from raising a Rebellion against a Prince who is in possession of the Throne to restore an Ejected Prince 2. But this was a peculiar Case for God himself had Entailed the Kingdom of Iudah on the Posterity of David and therefore nothing could justifie their Submission to an Usurper when the King's Son was found to whom the Kingdom did belong by a Divine Entail and by this Iehoiada justifies what he did Behold the King's son shall reign as the Lord hath said of the sons of David Now when God has Entailed the Crown by an express Declaration of his Will and Nomination of the Person or Family that shall Reign as it was in the Kingdom of Iudah Subjects are bound to adhere to their Prince of God's chusing when he is known and to persecute all Usurpers to the utmost and never submit to their Government But in other Kingdoms where God makes Kings and Entailes the Crown not by express Nomination but by his Providence the placing a Prince in the Throne and settling him there in the full Administration of the Government is a reason to submit to him as to God's Ordinance This our Author answers with great Triumph in his Postscript p. 4 5. but with how much Reason I shall now examine and I must begin with his Answer to the second This Distinction That God himself had Entailed the Kingdom of Iudah upon David's Posterity he says is not in the Convocation Book and so does not affect their Sence I grant it and therefore did not concern the Convocation-Book in the Story nor make any mention of it but only raised this Objection from the Story and gave that Answer to it by which Iehoiada the High-Priest justified what he did For tho' the Convocation takes notice of this Story yet they neither make nor answer this Objection in direct Terms They had another Design in mentioning it and fitted their Answers wholly to that viz. to prove against the Papists That no Priest in the Old Testament did ever Depose from their Crowns any of their Kings how wicked soever or had any Authority so to do And because this Example of Iehoiada used to be urged by them to this purpose they shew that no such thing can be proved from it But tho' the Convocation does not answer a Question which they never proposed yet this is a good Answer to it and agreeable to the Sence of the Convocation in that place for they take notice that Iehoiada when he had sent to the Levites and chief Fathers both of Judah and Benjamin acquainted them with the Preservation of their Prince and that it was the Lord's will that he should Reign over them which plainly refers to that Divine Entail of the
first Case tho the Subject is taken Captive yet the foundation of the Relation is not destroyed for his Prince is on his Throne still in the actual administration of the Government tho he be violently torn from him so that this Relation may continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related but when the Prince is fallen from his Kingdom and Power the foundation of the Relation is at present destroyed the Kingdom is translated to another Prince and the Subjects and their Allegiance translated with it Our Author proceeds to argue from the Case of Ioash The Doctor 's distinction that is about a Divine Entail is against him 'T is true God did entail the Kingdom of Judah on the Family of David and for that reason they ought not to submit to an Vsurper But this is so far from being a reason why they may submit to one in other Kingdoms where Entails are made by Laws that it is a reason and a very good one why they ought not But before we hear his Reason I must observe that he mistakes the use of my Distinction which was not to prove That because God had entailed the Kingdom of Iudah on the Posterity of David and had reserved to himself a right in the Kingdom of Israel to nominate their King and entail the Crown when he pleased that therefore the Subjects of those Kingdoms might not submit to any other Kings whom the Providence of God placed in the Throne without such a Divine Nomination and Entail for it appears from what I have already discoursed that they both actually did and lawfully might submit to such providential Kings when either there was no King by God's Nomination or Entail or no such King was known but the use of the Distinction was to shew that in such Theocratical Kingdoms where God challenged a peculiar right to make Kings by his express Nomination or Entail though God may see fit sometimes to set a providential King upon the Throne yet whenever he nominates a new King or discovers the right Heir to whom the Crown belongs by a Divine Entail the Reign of such Providential Kings is at an end and the Subjects may and ought to depose or kill them and own the King of God's nomination so that if he will prove any thing from my Distinction with reference to other entailed Kingdoms he must shew that my Distinction proves that in such Kingdoms where God makes Kings only by his Providence a Humane Entail of the Crown will justifie Subjects in deposing and murthering a new King who is placed and setled in the Throne by Providence while the Legal King or Legal Heir is Living as much as God's express Nomination or Entail would justifie the deposing a Providential King in the Kingdoms of Iudah and Israel And now let us hear his Reason For says he God's entailing the Crown of Judah was the Law of that Kingdom in that respect and the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Iudah were theirs All Humane Laws that are just bind in Conscience and according to the Doctor 's own Principles these Laws were made by God's Authority So that the Doctor mistakes the Question we do not oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws which are made by God's Authority and which are Rules to us to Providence which is no Rule When God entailed the Crown upon David's Posterity they had then a Legal Right to it and so hath every Family in other Kingdoms upon which an Entail is made by the respective Laws of the Countrey But what would our Author prove from this That in every Hereditary Kingdom the Legal Heir has a Legal right to the Crown as well as in Iudah and did I ever deny it or that the standing Laws of every Countrey are the Rule for Subjects in setting up Kings when it is their own free Act and Choice and who denies this too There is a Dispute indeed whether the Laws of England do oblige Subjects in all cases to make the next Lineal Heir to the Crown their King but no man ever denied but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act. I am sure my Hypothesis is not concerned in this Question and therefore be it how it will it can prove nothing against me Or would he prove that when an Entail is setled either by Divine or Humane Laws God never interposes by his Providence to set up a King who has not this Entailed Legal Right This was manifestly false both in the Kingdom of Iudah and Israel which God had reserved for his own Nomination or Entail and yet He set up several providential Kings Athaliah in Iudah and Baasha and Omri and Ahab and Ioram and others in Israel and in all other Kingdoms at one time or other Or would he prove that when God by his Providence has setled a Prince in the Throne without a Legal Right Subjects ought not to obey him and submit to him as their King This is confuted by the Examples of Iudah and Israel who submitted to Athaliah and their providential Kings who had no Legal Right by a Divine Nomination or Entail and are yet never blamed for it Or would he prove that a Human Entail of the Crown does as much oblige Subjects in Conscience to pull down a King who is setled in his Throne by God's Providence with a National Consent and Submission but without a Legal Right to set the Legal Heir on his Throne again as Iehoiada was by virtue of the Divine Entail to anoint Ioash and slay Athaliah This is the single Point he ought to prove but I do not see that he offers any thing like a proof of it The sum of his Argument is this That a Human Entail of the Crown made by the Laws of any Countrey does in all Cases and to all intents and purposes as much oblige Subjects as a Divine Entail which is only the Law of the Kingdom too For the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Judah were theirs The Dispute in general about the Authority and obligation of Humane Laws is very impertinent to this purpose for no man denies it But yet we think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than any meer Human Laws tho they are made by men who have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God and I believe our Author is the first man who has equalled Humane Laws with those Laws which are immediately given by God But the Dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and a Divine and Humane Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature though they be both the Laws of the Countrey for which they are made as will easily appear if we compare God's making Kings by a providential settlement of them
Providence and Government signifie only his Permission that God looks on and sees Men snatch at Crowns and take them and keep them and exercise an Authority which he who is the universal Lord of the World never gave them To resolve Providence into a bare Permission especially in matters of such vast Consequence as the disposal of Crowns is to deny God's Government of the World But it is objected that to say that Prosperous Usurpers when they are setled in the Throne are placed there by God and have his Authority is to make God a Party to their Wickedness Now this is another Argument not merely against God's making Kings but in general against God's Providence and Government of the World for if God cannot direct and over-rule the Wickedness of Men to accomplish his own Wise Counsels and Purposes without being the Author of those Sins whereby such Events are brought to pass there is an end of the Providence of God or of his Holiness and Justice for the most glorious designs of God's Grace and Providence have been accomplished by very wicked means even the Crucifixion of our Saviour himself But to confine my self to our present Case of transferring Kingdoms and Empires as it was in the four Monarchies It is possible this may sometimes be done by very honest means but it is commonly done by great Injustice and Violence in Men and yet God very just and righteous in doing it No Man I suppose will deny but that God as the Supreme Lord and Sovereign of the World may give the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases without doing Injustice to any Prince who can have no Right but by his Gift No Man will deny but that God may be very just and righteous in removing some Princes from their Thrones and in setting up others And then the Translation of Kingdoms the pulling down one Prince and setting up another is no act of Injustice with God but is his Prerogative as the King of Kings and when it is done for wise and holy and just Reasons as we ought always to presume of what God does is a plain Demonstration of the Wisdom and Holiness and Justice of his Providence The only dispute then can be about God's bringing such Events to pass by the Wickedness of Men and what hurt is there in this if God can so over-rule the Ambition of Princes or the Faction and Rebellion of Subjects as to do that in pursuit of their own lusts which God for wise and holy Reasons thinks fit to have done It cannot be denied but that God does permit Men to do very wickedly and if he can permit the Wickedness of Men without being guilty of their Sins I hope to direct and over-rule their Wickedness to wise purposes to bring Good out of Evil and Order out of Confusion can be no blemish to Providence indeed I should be much puzzled to justifie the Divine Providence in permitting the Sins of Men especially such Sins as do great mischief to the World were I not very well satisfied that God over-rules all to wise and good Ends. Let us suppose an Ambitious Prince spurred on with Fame and Glory to grasp at an Universal Empire our Author will not say but that God may permit this Man to ravage and depopulate Countries to pull Princes from their Thrones and to bring their Kingdoms into Subjection to himself such Men there are in all Ages did not God think fit to restrain them and to fling Difficulties in their ways to make them tame and quiet Now I would ask any Man which most becomes the Divine Wisdom to suffer such Men when they please to overturn Kingdoms and to bring horrible Desolations on the World only to gratifie their own Lusts or to give the Reigns and to give prosperous Success to them when he sees fit to new model the World to pull down such a Prince or to chastise and correct such a Nation I am sure this much more becomes the Wisdom and Justice of Providence than a bare permission of such Violence without any farther design which does not become the Wise Governor of the World And if God may permit such Wickedness and Violence without contributing to their Sin or being a Party to their Wickedness much more may he over-rule their Wickedness for wise Ends make them the Executioners of his Justice in punishing a wicked Age and transferring Kingdoms and then why may not God give them those Kingdoms which he has overturned by them for I suppose it is as agreeable to the Sovereignty Wisdom and Justice of God to give a Kingdom to a violent Usurper as to suffer a wicked impious tyrannical Prince to ascend the Throne with a legal Title and yet this God often does witness many of the Roman Emperors whom I know our Author will have to be legal Princes and those who will not allow them to be legal Princes need not want Examples of this nature in Hereditary Kingdoms But our Author says that to own an Usurper who is setled in the Throne by Providence and to obey and submit to him as our King justifies an unreasonable and wicked Doctrine by making the Acts or Permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Justice as for his Right and Iustice it has been considered already let us now consider how far the Providence of God may be the Rule for practice It is indeed an impious Doctrine to justifie every Action and every Cause which has success God many times prospers very evil Designs when he can serve a good End by them and therefore to measure the good or evil of things by external success to conclude that is God's Cause which the Providence of God prospers confounds the difference of good and evil and destroys all the standing Rules of Right and Justice but yet it is so far from being an impious Doctrine that it is a necessary Duty to conform our selves to the Divine Providence and to discharge those Duties and Obligations which the Providence of God lays on us according to the Nature and Intention of the Providence and thus the Providence of God in some sense may be the Rule of our Practice and may make that our Duty which was not and that cease to be our Duty which was our Duty before and thus it always is when the Providence of God changes our Relations or Condition of Life as to mention only our present Case when he removes one King and sets up another for he must transfer my Allegiance when he changes my King The truth is as far as I can perceive the great if not the only fault of my Case of Allegiance is this unreasonable and impious Doctrine of Providence for some Men cannot endure to hear that God makes Kings by his Providence for that argues there is a God others cannot bear the thoughts that Kings Reign by God's Authority for then they cannot make and unmake Kings as they please others will by
when the Government is setled by such submission then submission which necessity justified before becomes a Duty and those who would not submit at first or might have refused to do so without sin when the Government is setled by a general submission are then bound in Conscience to submit themselves The Question then between us is or ought to be this if he intends to oppose me Not whether the Iews might lawfully submit to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne for this I grant they might lawfully do but whether they having sosubmitted and she being thoroughly setled in her Throne for that our Author will suppose it were not as unlawful upon my Principles for the Iews to set up Ioash and to kill Athaliah as it is for any other People to Depose and Murther a King de facto whose Government is throughly setled among them And here he takes notice of two Arguments I make use of the Argument from Providence and from the necessity of Government for the preservation of human Societies which he says will equally serve Athaliah as any other King or Queen de facto and if they will I will give them up for lost 1. As for Providence the sum of all he says is this That according to my Principles Athaliah was placed in the Throne by God by his Counsel Decree and Order and peculiar Order Well! I must own it for I know none but God who can advance to the Throne and I know no more hurt in owning that God exalted Athaliah to the Throne than that he exalted Baasha who slew Nadab the Son of Ieroboam and Reigned in his stead and yet God himself by his Prophet tells Baasha I exalted thee out of the dust and made thee Prince over my people Israel 1 Kings 16. 2. And what does he prove from this Now Athaliah says he had the actual administration of Soveraign Power and therefore according to the Doctor she was Queen by God's Authority tho' not by the Law of the Land and Allegiance must be due to her as well as to any other And all the Doctor 's Arguments are as conclusive and valid for submission to Athaliah as for submission to any body else Grant all this and what then Why then this justifies the submission of the Iews to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne and no rightful Heir appeared And what hurt is there in this Will our Author condemn them for this submission or does the Scripture or Convocation do it If he would have concluded any thing to the purpose he should have said And therefore it was unlawful for Jehoiada to have anointed Joash and to have killed Athaliah But this he knew did not follow from my Principles for I expresly distinguish between God's making Kings by a particular nomination as he made Kings in Jewry and entailed the Kingdom of Judah on David ' s Posterity and his making Kings by his Providence as he does in other Nations Now what I say about the Rights and Prerogatives of Kings advanced to the Throne and setled there by the Divine Providence concerns only such Kingdoms where God makes Kings only by his Providence not such Kingdoms where God ordinarily makes Kings by a particular nomination of the Person or by a Divine entail which is equivalent to a particular nomination For this greatly alters the Case To make this plain let us consider the state of the Kingdom of Iudah and of the Kingdom of Israel after the Ten Tribes were divided from the House of David God first made Kings by an express nomination of the Persons as he did Soul and David and afterwards entailed the Kingdom on David's Posterity when the Ten Tribes were divided from Iudah he still reserved to himself the Prerogative of nominating their Kings when he pleased but yet he did not so strictly confine himself to nominate whom he would have to be King or to an entail of his own making but that he sometimes set up Kings by his Providence without a particular nomination or any successive right as he did in other Nations let us then consider what the right of these providential Kings was in Iudah and Israel Now these Kings when they were setled in their Thrones had all the rights of other Soveraign Princes of Iudah or Israel excepting this that they were liable to be divested of their Kingdom by God's nomination of a new King or by the revival of an old Entail When God nominated any King and gave command to his Prophets to anoint him it was always for life and tho' during his Life he might nominate another to succeed him after his death as he did David to succeed Saul yet he never nominated another to take his Life and his Crown from him and when he had made a perpetual Entail tho' he might for a time interrupt the Succession he did not cut it off but it was otherwise with meer providential Kings as it must necessarily be in such Kingdoms which were under the immediate disposal and nomination of God A new nomination or the appearing of the right Heir put an end to their Reign As for example Ieroboam was placed on the Throne of Israel by God's nomination and Reigned as long as he lived but for his sins God would not entail the Kingdom on his Family but Baasha slew his Son Nadab and succeeded in the Kingdom and was the first providential King of Israel without a Divine nomination or entail Elah Baasha's Son was slain by Zimri and the Children of Israel without any Divine appointment made Omri King Ahab his Son succeeded Omri and Ioram Ahab who were all advanced by the Divine Providence without God's nomination but now their sins being very provoking God commands his Prophet to anoint Iehu King over Israel to destroy the Family of Ahab and Iehu as soon as he was anointed immediately takes possession of the Kingdom kills Ioram and destroys the House of Ahab For tho' Ioram was advanced by the Providence of God and was the third successive King of his Family and therefore had a good right against all human claims yet he could have no unalterable right in the Kingdom of Israel because that Kingdom was at God's immediate disposal when ever he pleased to nominate a King And this is the Reason of the different behaviour of David and Iehu David was anointed as well as Iehu but he never pretended to the Crown while Saul lived because there was then an anointed King on the Throne But this was not Ioram's case He had no more than a Providential Right which in the Kingdom of Israel must give place to God's anointing and therefore Iehu was King of Israel as soon as he was anointed and Ioram was his Subject And this was Athaliah's case She took possession of the Throne by very wicked means but must be allowed to be placed there by the Providence of God and if she had as thorow a settlement as other
fruitless and insignificant Authority But to proceed our Author proves by a parallel Case that St. Paul by the Higher Powers could mean only Lawful Powers for the Apostle exhorts 13. Hebr. 17. Obey them that have rule over you meaning the Ministers of the Gospel now the Apostle makes no distintion between lawful Ministers and Intruders and yet we must understand it of lawful Ministers and by the same reason though St. Paul makes no distinction between lawful and unlawful Powers yet he means only lawful Powers for this is the force of his Argument though he has not expressed it But these Cases are by no means parallel For the Apostle to the Hebrews had no reason to make any such distinction which yet was necessary for St. Paul to have done had he intended his Precept of Obedience should be understood only of lawful Powers The Apostle to the Hebrews knew who had the rule over them at that time that they were lawful Ministers and exhorts the Hebrews to obey them and had he added such a distinction it would have insinuated that he knew some among them who were not lawful Ministers and such a Suggestion without naming the Persons would have made them jealous of them all and spoiled his Exhortation of obeying them The Hebrews knew whom St. Paul meant by those who had the Rule over them St. Paul knew they were such as ought to be obeyed and therefore there was no need here of any distinction between lawful Pastors and Intruders But St. Paul gives a general Charge to be subject to the higher Powers and generally affirms that all power is of God and therefore if he had not intended that we should understand this as universally as he expresses it of all Powers however they came by their Power he should have limited it to legal and rightful Powers He adds In short the Dr's Reason is against him There has ever been a distinction in the World between Legal and Usurped Powers and 't is probable enough that St. Paul who was so learned a Man knew it and if he had intended to enjoin Obedience to Usurped Powers 't is probable he would have said so in express terms but since be never said so we have reason to conclude he never intended it Now I doubt not but St. Paul did know this distinction between Legal and Usurped Powers and knew also that the Pharisees made this Objection against their Submission to the Romans and for that reason he affirms that all power is of God and that they must be subject to the Higher Powers without any distinction which he would not have done if any distinction ought to have been made when he knew the dispute was about the Romans whom they looked upon as Usurpers over Israel who were God's peculiar People and Inheritance and yet though there was a distinction between Legal and Usurped Powers there was no distinction made in point of Obedience to them but only by the Pharisees and therefore with respect to the rest of the World he ought to have made this distinction in express words if he intended any distinction should have been made I have insisted the longer on this because it gives a full Answer to his next Objection that the Interpretation I give of the Convocation Book justifies an unreasonable and impious Doctrine by making the Acts or Permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Iustice. Now this I confess is a very unreasonable and impious Doctrine and were I sensible that any thing I have said would justifie this Doctrine I would immediately renounce it but I hope when our Author considers again that I have evidently proved that the Interpretation I have given is the true Sense of the Convocation he will be more favorable to it for their sakes But I have already stated this matter about Right and Justice and have shewn the difference between the Right of private Men to their Estates and of Princes to their Thrones and to the Allegiance of Subjects between a Thief 's taking a Purse and an Usurper a Crown by the Providence of God between the Providence of God in such matters as he refers to the Correction and Redress of publick Laws and publick Government and what he reserves to his own cognizance and disposal as he does the Revolutions of Government the removing Kings and the setting up Kings The truth is our Author writes at that rate that it is to be feared some People will suspect that he does not believe a Providence or does not understand it or has a mind to ridicule it For let me ask him does God make Kings in England or not if he does which I hope our Author will grant or he renounces the jure divino with a witness how does he make Kings He sends no Prophets among us to anoint Kings and to tell us whom he has nominated to Reign over us and therefore he can make Kings no other way among us but by the Events of Providence and how does God make Kings by his Providence truly this can be done no other way but by placing them in the Throne and setling them there with the general Consent and Submission of the People does then this Providential Settlement in the Throne which makes a King invest such a King with God's Anthority if it does not then it seems God makes a King without giving him his Authority makes a King without any Authority to govern which is a Contradiction if he does does not this make it the duty of Subjects to obey such a King Are not Subjects bound to obey such Kings as have God's Authority Again suppose a Prince ascends the Throne and obtains the Consent and Submission of the People by the most unjust force and the most ungodly Arts that can be thought on who places such a Prince on the Throne if God don't Our Author according to his Principles must answer that by God's Permission he Usurps the Throne but is no King much less a King of God's making Well let him call him King or Usurper or what he pleases but it seems a Prince may ascend the Throne and govern a Kingdom for many years it may be a hundred years for so long a Prescription our Author requires to give a Just Title to an Usurper without God's Authority and then I desire to know whether God Rules in such a Kingdom while an Usurper fills the Throne The reason of the question is plain because the Prophet Daniel pronounces universally that God ruleth in the Kingdom of men and as a proof of it adds and giveth it to whomsoever he will and then it should seem that God does not Rule in these Kingdoms which he does not dispose of by his own Will and Counsel which he does not give to whom he will but suffers Usurpers to take the Government of them For indeed will any Man say that God governs such a Kingdom as is not governed by his Authority or Minister Does