that the former Right is relinquished But it is also affirmed by Lawyers That quiet and immemorial Possession is a Right by the positive Law of Nations and if that be true then a wrongful Possession may become rightful by Continuance But though the former Right be extinguished Though no body else has any Right to the Crown How does this make him a rightful King who has no Right I answer in his own Words Possession is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose it it is a Right by the Law of Nations and it may be founded also on the Consent of the People for they are free to Consent when the former Right is relinquished and they actually consent by submitting to his Government This Right of Prescription the Doctor will not understand He demands will an uninterrupted Possession of an hundred Years make the Vsurper a Rightful King without the Death or Cession of the whole Royal Family I answer a Cession is presum'd by the Consent of Nations and by Equity it self because it is reasonable to believe that he has relinquish'd his Right who suffers another to enjoy it without interruption and because it is the Interest of Societies that the Controversies about Dominion should at length be ended How then says the Doctor does the Royal Family come to lose their Right by an usurp'd Possession And if an Vsurpation will destroy their Right why not a short one as well as a long one Their Right is lost by Cession not by Usurpation and the Cession is not presum'd by the Law of Nations when the Usurpation is of short continuance short possession of an Estate is no right in any civiliz'd Society but a long Possession is a right almost all the World over So it is in Kingdoms and this consent of Nations will justify this Distinction though the Doctor will not understand it He demands farther How the People shall be justified in consenting that the Vsurper should reign while their rightful King is living If they cannot hinder him from reigning they need not justifying if they can and will not and therefore cannot be justified who can help it And what is that to the matter of Prescription But how long must the Vsurper reign before the People consent to it Till they can reasonably be persuaded that the former Right is extinguish'd Lastly he asks again Whether an hundered Years Possession be a good right against a better claim or how this better claim comes to expire after an hundred Years Vsurpation And I answer again that Prescription supposes the former Right to be extinguish'd which is so far from being a better that it ceases to be any Right the extinction of it may be grounded upon Equity or the positive Law of Nations as to the time of its expiring an hundred Years is not always necessary if the Cession can be prov'd that will suffice without respect to time but without other Proof by the consent of Nations undisturb'd Possession for a hundred Years does entinguish the former Title We come next to Hereditary Right and thus he argues against it it is either a continued Vsurpation which can give no Right or a Right by Law How Usurpation may produce a Right is consider'd already and what says he against a Right by Law why that is by the consent of the People to entail the Crown on such a Family which he has observ'd before cannot be done for what Right had my Ancestors three or four hundred Years agoe to choose a King for me Here a Question is made whether an Act or Law made by our Ancestors may oblige their Posterity He gives no Reasons to prove the Negative but supposes it Self-evident But the Reason and Practice of Mankind suppose the quite contrary if Children cannot be bound by the Acts of their Parents the Authority of Parents does signifie nothing but we need not this Authority to enforce the Obligation of Laws every Human Law does oblige the whole Community or Political Society to which it is a Law and therefore the Society being still the same it was four hundred Years agoe the Obligation reaches to every Member of it Thus Mr. Hooker to be commanded we do consent when that Society whereof we are a part hath at any time before consented without revoking the same after by the like universal Agreement Wherefore as any Man's Deed past is good as long as he himself continueth so the Act of a publick Society done five hundred Years sithence standeth as theirs who presently are of the same Societies because Corporations are immortal We were then alive in our Predecessors and they in their Successors do live still Even the publick Good and Interest of Societies is a sufficient Foundation for the extending the Obligation of Laws to Posterity If the Acts of Predecessors cannot bind their Successors standing Leagues between Nations are impracticable a King in being cannot be oblig'd by the Acts and Grants of former Kings the publick Faith of a Society is a publick Cheat for the Society can never be bound by it for a Week together and lastly where the explicite Consent of the People is requir'd to a Law it is plain that all Laws must expire as soon as born for the People are in a continual Flux and they are not the same to Day as Yesterday so that absolute Necessity seems to have introduc'd an universal Agreement in all Societies 〈◊〉 that the Obligation of Laws should be extended to Posterity This is the undeniable practice of all Nations every Act of Parliament is intended to oblige the future as well as present Generation till it is repeal'd In the Recognition of James the First the Lords and Commons do submit and oblige themselves their Heirs and Posterity for ever until the last drop of their Bâ—oods be spent to his Majesty King James and his Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever Here it is plain this Parliament thought they had a right to make Acts and Vows for their Posterity and we have not a Parliament only but also the Reason and Practice of all Nations against a single Doctor and I think he is the first Doctor that ever undertook to prove that Hereditary Right is no Right and that there is no Right to Sovereignty but Possession But I think also that the Doctor does contradict the Doctor for he allows that in an Hereditary Kingdom the lawful Heir has a legal Right to the Crown before he is in Possession and even after he is dispossess'd and when the Crown is vacant he acknowledges the Subjects are bound to maintain the Succession and to set up the lawful Heir And if this be true then it is evident that an Hereditary Right without Possession may lay an Obligation upon the People and consequently the People may be oblig'd by this Right though they did not personally consent to it He urges farther that this Hereditary Right must be ultimately resolved
Devil Even the Devil is his Instrument to good Ends and Purposes and God orders and over-rules his Wickedness to accomplish them Has he therefore God's Authority to govern us and when God gives him Power are we bound to pay Obedience The Doctor argues That all Events are ordered by God to the good or evil of private Persons as well as Societies Thus the Events of Robbery and Murther are often directed by Providence to the good and evil of private Men and sometimes of Societies but is this a Proof that Murtherers and Robbers have God's Authority The Incest and Usurpation of Absalom were equally from God's permissive Providence and were alike ordered by God as a punishment to David had he therefore a divine Commission to lie with his Father's Wives and to usurp his Throne For the one undoubtedly as much as the other and much the same as have all other rebellious Sons and unnatural Usurpers The summ is this if God be the Authour of all Events then he is the Authour of all wicked Actions and if he is not the over-ruling them to good Ends is no Commission of Government and therefore the Doctor 's Argument thus far does either border upon Blasphemy or is nothing to the purpose However the Doctor thus pursties it If there were any such distinction as this that some Events God only permits and some he orders and appoints we ought in reason to asscribe the Advancement of Kings to God's Decree and Counsel because it is the principal Act of Providence which has so great an Influence upon the Government of the World and if he decree and order any Events certainly he peculiarly orders such Events as will doe most good or most hurt to the World he must with his own hand immediately direct the Motions of the great Wheels of Providence and not permit them to move as they please themselves The Doctrine here delivered is this That all great Events such as have an Influence upon the Government of the World are God's Order and Appointment his Decree his Counsel and his Positive Doing Strange and prodigious Doctrine from a Divine of the Church of England for are not all the great Villanies of the World great Events Are not all Insurrections and Rebellions the Murthering of Kings the Desolation of Kingdoms the Destruction of Millions of innocent Persons and the infinite Barbarities that are committed in unjust and impious Wars are not all these Events and such Events as doe most hurt to the World and have a great Influence upon the Government of it And must it not then be said that lesser Wickednesses are fit to be acted by miserable Men but the great and flagrant Villanies are the peculiar Works of the Almighty How the Hand of God does direct the great Wheels of Providence is to us incomprehensible but this we can easily comprehend that God is no more the Authour of greater than of lesser Villanies he did not move Absalom to usurp upon David nor Athaliah upon Joash he directed neither the Hearts nor Hands of Jacques Clemens and Ravilliaâ— to assassinate the two Henries nor did he order and appoint our English Regicides to execute the Royal Martyr upon a Scaffold It is a false Notion of Providence to think it is more concerned about greater than about lesser Affairs Providence has as much to doe with Beggars as with Princes with Families as with Kingdoms and it numbers up all the Hairs of our Head as well as the Destiny of Empires All Nations are before God as the small Dust of the Balance and are counted less than nothing neither is there any difference of great and little as to Omnipotency and Immensity Events therefore are not peculiarly to be asscribed to God because they appear great to us and the Reason why some Events are said to be permitted and others to be caused by God is not because they are great or little but because they are morally good or evil If Usurpation of another's Right be a thing evil in itself God must be equally discharged from being the Authour of it in the case of a Cottage and a Kindgom God may permit and may decree the Deposition of a King as a just Punishment from him who is righteous in all his Judgments and he knows how to effect it without wicked Instruments but if he makes use of such Instruments for the execution of his Judgments if he punisheth a lawfull King by the Rebellion of his Subjects or the Usurpation of his Throne Have the wicked Instruments therefore the Decree and Appointment of God to authorize them Or is the Usurpation any more from God than the Rebellion Nay farther he may decree to advance a private Person to the Throne as he decreed to advance David and Jeroboam and God can certainly effect such a Decree by lawfull ways as by the Extinction of all former Titles but if the Person whose Advancement is decreed expects not till Providence opens a lawfull way to the Ascension of the Throne but ascends it himself by the way of Usurpation can the secret Decree of God either justifie his Usurpation or give him Authority to continue it Shall we say that God mov'd him to this Wickedness or not rather that his Wickedness and his Advancement are only from himself God decreed to make David King yet after the Decree was revealed to him he accounted Saul as God's King and he patiently waited till God made him a lawfull Sovereign by the Extinction of the former Title But Jeroboam anticipated God's Covenant and advanced himself to the Throne by Rebellion and Usurpation and therefore he is generally branded as an Usurper and of him among others it is thought that God himself hath said by the Prophet They have set up Kings but not by me God decreed to raise Joseph to great Dignity in Egypt but if Joseph had wickedly usurped that Power or Wealth which was the Right of another Could it then be said that God's Decree did give him Authority to keep it any more than it did to his Brethren to sell him to the Midiâ—nites Thus would it be if the Decrees of God were made known to Men and much more is it so when his Decrees are secret and unsearchable and cannot possibly be known before they are accomplished A Distinction there must be between God's decreeing the Possession of a Throne to a Person and giving him Authority to possess it while it is the Right of another for otherwise the Decree of God must give Authority to Injustice However nothing is effected by the Providence of God but as it was decreed by him and therefore when any wicked Event does happen since it happens onely by the permissive Providence of God the antecedent Decree about it must be permissive also We can never know whether God's Decrees be permissive or authoritative but from the nature of the Events decreed we are certain he onely permits Wickedness and he decrees onely to permit it
or to any other Man in the World and therefore when it is asserted that God never gives a Kingdom without a lawful Right to it this is very well consistent with that Assertion of the Prophet though it be understood of God's Authoritative Gift and in the utmost comprehension of the Words for though God's Authority be annexed to Right yet he gives that Right to whomsoever he will But farther he instances in the giving of an Estate and that instance will lead us to a Resolution of his Questions God giveth Estates to whomsoever he will this Proposition is contain'd in Scripture and is undeniably true it is nevertheless certain that no one can have a Divine Right to an Estate when the legal Right is another's and then though God's Providence gives Possession of an Estate that Gift is no conveyance of Right or Authority to keep it But then the Doctor briâ—kly demands does whomsoever signifie those only who have a legal Right to an Estate does giving it suppose an antecedent Right does giving an Estate to whomsoever be will signifie giving it only to those to whom the Law gives it The Answer is obvious God gives Estates by his permissive and by his positive Will by the latter to those only who have a legal Right by the former to every one that gets Possession in respect to this Gift whomsoever may be taken universally but must be limited to a lawful Right in respect to the other Thus in the disposal of Kingdoms every one who has Possession has a permissive Gift but not a positive or authoritative Gift which always attends upon Right in relation to the former God does give Kingdoms absolutely to whomsoever he will without regard to Right in relation to the latter God does give Kingdoms to whomsoever he gives Right to possess them In short he gives them to whomsoever he will but God's Will is either positive or permissive and it is impossible to distinguish by which of them he gives any Possession but by considering the Right to possess them When an Estate is entail'd the Possessor cannot give it to whomsoever he will for he has no Right to alienate it from the Heir neither does Providence properly give it to those who have no Right to it But nevertheless God can give Estates to whomsoever he will by permitting Power or conveying a legal Right to possess it God can do both when it is not in the Power of a Man to do either and therefore there is a great Disparity in this Case between God's giving and Man 's giving And now what Absurdity is there in saying that God giveth a Kingdom to whomsoever he will permit the Possession of it and conveys his Authority on whomsoever he will confer a Right to possess it does the Absurdity lie in distinguishing between his permissive and authoritative Will that is a Distinction generally receiv'd and hitherto I see no Reason why it is not applicable to the disposal of Kingdoms Is it absurd to say that God gives a thing when he only suffers the taking it that is the Language of Scripture thus saith God himself unto David I will give thy Wives unto thy Neighbour and he shall lie with them I will do this thing before all Israel and before the Sun But surely no Right was hereby given unto Absalem to his Father's Wives The Actions of seducing deceiving and moving unto Wickedness of blinding and hardening Men in it are expresly attributed to God in Scripture and if such Expressions may be reasonably expounded only of God's Permission or his being the accidental cause of such Effects there can be certainly no Absurdity in expounding God's giving a Kingdom without Right by granting Power to Usurpers and permitting them to abuse it Lastly Does the Absurdity lie in restraining whomsoever he will unto rightful Princes when we speak of God's giving Authority But if God gives a legal Right to whomsoever he will then there is no Restriction because none are excepted God gives Riches to whomsoever he will but he always gives a legal Right when he gives Authority to keep them and in fine it is no Absurdity to restrain the general Expressions of Scripture when the matter does require it Thou hast wrought all our Works in us saith the Prophet if we understand this of God's positive Operations wicked Works must be excepted He hardneth whom or whomsoever he will saith the Apostle and I think the Doctor will not think it absurd to restrain the Words to those who make themselves obnoxious to the Divine Vengeance by their obstinate Incredulity and if this Expression may be restrain'd in one place so it may in another if there be equal Reason for it In short it is no Absurdity to restrain such general Words when it is absurd to understand them without Restriction But the Doctor argues that these Passages relate to the Four Monarchies which were all as manifest Vsurpations aâ— ever were in the World and yet set up by the Decree and Counsel of God and foretold by a Prophetick Spirit Here he affirms that the most manifest Usurpers that ever were in the World were set up by God conseqently they had God's Authority to govern and therefore a Right to Allegiance otherwise Usurpers are never the better for being set up by God and those Passages are produc'd superfluously to prove it But if the most manifest Usurpers in the World are God's Ordinance what shall become of his distinction between Usurpers setled and unsetled such as Cromwel was and such as those that are enthron'd by a full Convention such as have and such as have not the consent of the People If all Usurpers have God's Authority these distinctions are perfect Banter but if all have it not certainly the most manifest Usurpers that ever were in the World were without it But let this pass for an Hyperbole I answer 1. It appears not that those Monarchies were Usurpations I grant they were such in sieri those I mean who set them up were Usurpers in doing it and for some time it may be after their Advancement but they soon became rightful Sovereigns by the extinction of the former Right and if at first they were Usurpers and afterwards rightful Sovereigns How knows the Doctor that those Passages in the Prophet relate to the four Monarchies as Usurpations and not as rightful Governments He affirms that the Prophet tells us with respect to the very Revolutions which were nothing else but Force and Vsurpation that God changeth Times and removeth and setteth up Kings Then it follows that even the unjust and violent Changes of Governments are acted and authoriz'd by God for if in respect to them it is said that God changeth Times and sets up Kings and setting up is the act of God and conveyance of Authority then it is certain that God does act and authorize Changes then those very Usurpers whose Government is founded only upon Force without the consent of the
no purpose to resist yet it is no more lawful to assist an Usurper to the destruction of a Rightful Prince meerly for my own Safety than it is to assist a High-way-Man to save my own Purse or to compound for my own Life by assisting an Assassine to destroy my Neighbour's Thus I have consider'd all the Doctor 's Arguments from Scripture but there is one Text more to be consider'd which the Doctor propounds as an Objection against his Principle the place is Hosea 8. 4. where God himself does thus complain of the Israelites They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not Here we are assur'd that all Kings have not been set up by God and this is as plainly and expresly declar'd as Words can do it and how then is this reconcileable with the Apostle's universal Proposition there is no Power but of God I have intimated that this Proposition is restrained by the following Words unto the Powers then in being which were lawful Powers And thus the Texts are easily reconcil'd and there is no Contradiction between them if we understand the latter of lawful Powers the former of Usurpers or if we distinguish between Kings set up by God's Ordinance and Authority and Kings set up by his Permission and the general Concourse of his Providence But what saith the Doctour 1. Those Words in Hosea are not true of all the Kings of Israel after their Separation from the Tribe of Judah for Jeroboam and Jehu were set up by God's own Appointment This is contrary to the general-Sense of Expositors who apply this Speech to to Jeroboam especially But did not God declare by the Prophet Abiah that he would give him the Kingdom over Israel It is answered though Jeroboam had a Prediction of his Advancement yet he did not tarry for God's farther direction about it as David did he possessed himself of the Kingdom not by God's Appointment but by the Gift of the People who had no Command nor Direction from God to depose Rehoboam and whereas another Prophet declared that the Thing was from God this may denote that God permitted and ordered the Rebellion and Usurpation for the punishment of Solomon and his Son and such a permitting and over-ruling Providence could be no Conveyance of Authority for thus the Cursing of Shimei and the Usurpation of Absalom were also from God 2. One of these Kings was Baasha who made himself King without God's express Nomination and yeâ— God tells him I exalted thee out of the Dust and made thee Prince over my People Israel This might have been said of Cromwell who yet had no Title to God's Authority and it may be understood of the general Concurrence of God's Providence and the concession of Power to usurp the Throne But as for these Kings if God did actually deprive the Family of David of their Right to the Kingdom of Israel then they were lawfull Kings because Possession was a Right when there was no other if he did not which seems very doubtful they were certainly Usurpers upon a Divine Right and therefore though they were exalted by God's Providence yet they could not be invested with his Authority 3. The true Answer is this Israel was a Theocracy and therefore they ought to have received their Kings from God's Nomination but instead of that they submitted to any who could set up themselves over them and this he says was a great Crime it being in effect a renouncing their Prerogative of having Kings set up by God's Nomination and putting themselves into the common condition of the World where Kings are set up onely by his Providence This contains the force of his Answer and at most 't is only conjecture and such as has little shew of Probability No doubt it was a Crime not to consult God when they might have consulted him but upon the Doctour's Principle it could be no fault to submit to any who could set themselves over them for he says himself concerning those Princes that they were set up by God and surely it could be no fault to submit to his Ordidinance He affirms expresly That in Judah and Israel God did sometimes set up Kings onely by his Providence and these providential Kings had all the Rights of other Sovereign Princes of Judah or Israel consequently they had a Right to Submission and therefore it was no fault to pay it and if it was a fault to submit to those Kings of Providence then certainly they were not invested with God's Authority and then the meaning of the Words in debate is this they have set up Kings by the Concurrence of my Providence but not by me but without the conveyance of my Authority As for the Prerogative of receiving Kings by express Nomination I understand not upon the Doctor 's Principles how that could be any Prerogative I am sure it could be no advantage for if Kings of Providence have divine Authority as much as Kings by Nomination where is the difference Cannot good Kings be made by Providence as well as by a Prophet Is not the one God's Act and will as much as the other There can be no Priviledge or Advantage in a singular way of making Kings if all are made by God and enjoy his Authority and therefore in the nature of the thing it self it could be no Crime to forego it I hope it appears now that his Scripture-Proofs are as ill grounded as his Propositions I might well spare the Labour of examining his other Reasons but if they be not answered they may be thought unanswerable and therefore I will briefly consider them 2. The Doctor observes That his Hypothesis gives the easiest and intelligible Account of the Original of humane Government that all Power is from God who is the Sovereign Lord of the World Having observed this he recites the various Opinions about the Origine of Monarchy and confutes them severally and concludes at last That he cannot see where to fix the Foundation of Government but in the Providence of God who by the choice of the major or stronger part of the People or by Conquest or Submission or the long successive Continuance of Power or by humane Laws gives a Prince and his Family Possession of the Throne which is a good Title against all humane Claims and requires the Obedience of Subjects as long as God is pleased to continue Him and his Family in the Throne but it is no Title against God if he please to advance another Prince To set this Matter in a clear Light I observe 1. That our Dispute with the Doctor is not about the Origine or first Beginning of Government whether it began in Paternal Authority or by Original Contracts but about the Resolution of Government and Obedience whether they must be resolved into Right or Possession 2. The Dispute is not whether the Power of Government is derived from God or whether it is founded upon
discharge of our Allegiance and that we may not abjure and resist our lawful Sovereign because God has suffer'd others to rebel or to depose him We confine not God's Providence but we confine our selves to that which is just and lawful and we hope it is no shackling of God to say he is not the Author of Iniquity He observes that when lawful Kings and Usurpers are advanc'd it is all but Providence still and he desires to know why the Providence of an Entail is more Sacred and Obligatory than any other act of Providence which gives a setled Possession of the Throne And is not an unsetled Possession an effect of Providence too Is a Divine Entail any thing more than an Act of Providence It is all but Providence still But the Answer is obvious it is God's Authority and not Providence which is Obligatory we are sure that Lawful Kings have his Authority but not that Usurpers have it they are advanced by God but by his permissive Providence only Lastly He raises a great Dust about opposing Humane Rights and Laws to God's Authority I will not dispute with him about the Obligation of Humane Laws it is enough to answer that he supposes what he has not proved that Usurpers have God's Authority because they are advanc'd by his Providence and if this is not true all his Harangues about Humane Laws and Providence do signify nothing I have often urged the Case of Robbery and the unjust possession of private Estates and Properties to shew the unconclusiveness of all his Arguments from Providence and to prove that Possession by Providence is no Evidence of Divine Right or Authority But the Doctor has found out Distinctions and Evasions to take off the Force of these Instances and now I am at leisure to consider them The Substance of his First Answer is That the Dispute is not about legal Right but about Authority no Man pretends that Thieves and Pirates have God's Authority they have Force and Violence which every Man may submit to when he cannot help it but Sovereign Power is God's Authority though Princes may be advanc'd to it by no honester means than Theft or Burglary I answer 1. That no difference is here assign'd between the Usurpations of Sovereignty and private Property but only this that Sovereign power is God's Authority I have answer'd all his Arguments whereby he would make good his Proposition and if this Proposition be unprov'd the Evasion that is founded on it must needs be insufficient 2. This Evasion is at last a begging of the Question the Fundamental Dispute is Whether God's Authority is always annex'd unto Sovereign Power His Fundamental Argument from Reason is that all Providential Events are God's Appointment it is objected that Piracy and Robbery are Providential Events as well as Usurpation and the summ of his Answer is this That Sovereign Power is God's Authority which is nothing but arguing in a Circle and is plainly petitio principii 3. Thieves and Pirates have often Sovereign Power they exercise the Power of the Sword they make Laws decide Controversies and assume all the Properties and Badges of Sovereign Authority and to make them absolutely God's Ordinance according to the Doctor 's Principle the Sovereign Thieves and Pyrates are setled in their Administration by the voluntary Consent and Submission of their Subjects such there have been in the World and such there may be and whenever they shall be they will have as good a Title to God's Authority as any Usurper for Sovereign Power is God's Authority and when once the Subject Thieyes have consented to their Sovereignty upon pain of Damnation they must pay Allegiance to them 4. It has been answer'd that Thieves and Pyrates have God's Providence as well as Usurpers though they have not God's Anthority A Thief cannot take a Purse whether God will or no and he must have the Concurrence of God's Providence to take it and if these are Arguments of God's Will and Appointment if Providence give a Divine Right it is certain that the Thief has it as well as the Usurper for they have both the same evidence for it To this the Doctor replies That there is a great difference between these Cases which is this that to the settlement of an Estate nothing more is requir'd but a meer legal Humane Right and though the Providence of God allots Men's private Fortunes yet he gives no Man a Right to an Estate which he has got by Fraud Injustice and Violence but leaves all such legal Rights to the care of publick Government But on the contrary it is God's Authority which makes a King and not a meer Humane Right and God's Authority is not inseparably annexed to Humane Entails for he can make a King without a Humane Right if meer Law made a King as it makes an Heir to an Estate it were very unjust to own any but a legal King but if God can remove a legal King and set up an Vsurper then it is no Injustice when God does so to transfer our Allegiance This contains the force of his Reply and in Answer to it I observe 1. That this is no Reply to the Objection which is only levell'd against his Arguments from Providence the summ of it is this that the Usurpation of a Crown and an Estate are effected alike by Providence and that 't is impossible to find any difference in the Concurrence of it and therefore if Providence proves a Right the Usurper of an Estate has a divine Right to it The Doctour replies that a legal Right is sufficient for an Estate but to make a King he must have God's Authority Admit this to be true what does it signifie to the Dispute about Providence How does it shew that there is not the same concurrence of Providence to the Usurping of an Estate and the Usurping of a Kingdom As God can give Kingdoms so he can give Estates to whomsoever he will and if the meer providential Advancement to a Kingdom is a proof that it is God's Will to give it why is not the same providential Advancement to an Estate a proof of the divine Donation also If God may give the Possession of an Estate without a Right to keep it so he may give Kingdoms and if God's Providence does not over-rule and cancel the Obligation of Laws in the one Case how shall it appear that it cancels them in the other he acknowledges that Providence gives no Right to the unjust Possession of an Estate and yet the unjust Possession is certainly an Event and therefore he must quit his fundamental Argument which is drawn from the Events of Providence for he must either confess that all Events are not God's Doing or that his Doing his Giving Possession of any thing is no Evidence of any Right or Authority to possess it In short his Reply is a Confession that his general Arguments from Providence are unconclusive God's Providence is nothing when