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
as it is objected for in such cases the Subjects may lawfully swear to the Possessor and are obliged to pay all Allegiance to him unless his Competitor can make it appear that the Right is his and not the Possessor's and then the Subjects not knowing this before are guilty of no breach of Allegiance to him but are bound as soon as his Right becomes known to them to yield him their Allegiance having taken an Oath or given any other assurance or proof of Obedience to the Possessor only out of ignorance that any other Person could make out a clear and certain Title 3. But granting that St. Paul had meant Usurpers as well as Lawful Powers in this Text yet the perplexities of Conscience would not have been much less than it is said they must necessarily be according to the contrary exposition For so learned a Man as Dr. Sherlock could not find out the true sence of the Text it seems till now upon this occasion and very few perhaps besides have been able to discover it since the Epistle was written * Case of Resistance p. 122. The Doctor acknowledges that St. Chrysostom is against him and produces no Father nor any other Author ancient or modern for his Opinion except the Convocation which I have shewn says nothing to his purpose And St. Basil says expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Basil Tom. 2. Constitut Monast c 22. p. 715. that the higher Powers mentioned by St. Paul are such as attain to the Government according to Humane Laws and this appears to have been the sence of the Church in his time for he sets it down as a thing certain That the Civil Powers must receive their Authority in a Legal way and from thence proves that if they that resist those who receive their Power according to humane Laws resist the Ordinance of God then much rather must those resist his Ordinance who resist the Ecclesiastical Powers which are by Gods own more immediate Institution invested with his Authority according to the Divine Laws So that if Dr. Sherlock's Interpretation were true yet it would not much have eased Mens Consciences since it has been so little known and so lately discovered and by his own Confession was by himself so lately suspected of Novelty and Singularity 4. The Titles of the Roman Emperours were then neither stark nought nor very doubtful The Titles of Claudius and of Nero were not at all doubtful and under one of them this Epistle was written Claudius was saluted Emperour by the Soldiery and approved of by the Senate and Nero was adopted by Claudius and chosen by the Army and the choice confirmed by the Senate and they were both owned and submitted to by the whole Empire which is all that could be requisite to make them Lawful Emperours for it is evident beyond all dispute that the Roman Empire was not Hereditary Jovian c. 1. And when at any time the Title was doubtful they might have submitted with a safe Conscience to the Possessor as I before observed And thus much may serve in answer to his first Argument from Scripture out of Rom. 13. 2. He urges That we have no example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submitting to the present Powers P. 21. whatever the Vsurpation were tho' we have examples of their being condemned for refusing to submit to them This he proves from the Prophecies of Jeremiah and from our Saviour's Argument in his discourse with the Scribes and Pharisees which relies wholly on the Possession of Power Whose Image and Superscription hath it I answer that the silence of Scripture is no Argument unless it can be shewn that the Prophets at the same time that they reproved the People for their other Crimes did not blame them for submitting to an Usurper while the Lawful King himself had not submitted nor was commanded by God to submit but had a Right to their Allegiance For in matters of History the Scriptures often give a bare Narrative without any remark or censure at all upon it We read of Lot's Incest and that both Noah and he were drunken but no Man I suppose will conclude that either Incest or Drunkenness is Lawful because the Scripture relates only the matter of Fact and says nothing more of it for they are Vices notorious enough in themselves and it was not the design of the Sacred History to inveigh against Vices but only to declare by whom and with what circumstances they were committed in like manner if there be any instance in Scripture where the Subjects abandoned their natural Sovereign and betook themselves to the Usurper and fought against him a bare Narrative of this can no more prove that it is lawful than that it is unlawful for an Historical Relation can prove nothing but that such a thing was done and in such a manner but the nature of the action it self with the circumstances of it or some command in Scripture must discover the goodness or the wickedness of it But in the present case the Scriptures are not silent but plainly enough declare that Allegiance is only due to the lawful King tho' an Usurper be never so well settled For St. Peter and St. Paul both declare this as it has been just now shewn unless we can serve two Masters for they teach subjection to the Rightful King which implies that it cannot be due to his mortal Enemy And when Jehoiada charged the People by their duty to God and to the King to submit to Joash and to depose Athaliah this was a sufficient Declaration against Allegiance to an Usurper in prejudice to the Lawful King 's Right But the case of the Jews under the King 's of Pabylon was such as made their Obedience to them a necessary Duty according to those Principles which are most contrary to the Doctor 's Opinion For 1. God had commanded both King and People to submit to these Kings 2. They did submit and take Oaths to them accordingly 3. Therefore the Kings submitting as well as the People there was none who could claim their Allegiance in competition with the Kings of Babylon And under these Circumstances either of a Divine command or of a joint consent and submission both of King and People no Man who maintains the Right of an Hereditary Succession and a Legal Title can with any Reason scruple to submit to a Foreign Conqueror But I shall speak more particularly to the Texts which the Doctor has produced 1. He acknowledges that the Prophet Jeremy 's Argument is Prophecy P. 21. or an express command from God to submit to the King of Babylon which he says because of the Entail that God himself had made of the Kingdom of Judah upon David's Posterity was necessary though other Kingdoms which are governed only by God's Providence ought to submit to any Conquerour or Invader in the same manner as the Jews did to Nebuchadnezzar without any Revelation to
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
Primitive Christians to adhere to that Emperour who had the Legal Title and that they did not look upon the Usurpers or in the language of those times the Tyrants who were set up against them to have any Authority or Approbation from God tho' sometimes their Power and the extent of their Dominions equalled if not exceeded that of the Rightful Emperour The first Instance I give shall be that of the Christians that lived under the Jews before they were subdued by Adrian The Jews had made one Cochebas their King who it is said reigned above thirty years over them this is certain they were a most dangerous Enemy to the Romans for about twenty years in the Emperours Reign Their numbers were so great and their fury so desperate that they became formidable to the whole Empire Dio. lib. 69. Adrian therefore chose out his best Captains to send against them of whom Julius Severus who was sent for out of Brittain was the chief and he durst not engage with them in a pitcht Battel but waited fit opportunities to take them at advantage and set upon them apart and so in time destroyed them by degrees But at last the victory cost Adrian very dear and lost him great part of his Army which made him in his Letter to the Senate omit the usual stile Si vos liberique vestri valetis bene est Ego quidem exercitus valemus (a) Cochebas dux Judaicae factionis nolentes sibi Christianos adversum Romanum militem ferre subsidium omnimodis cruciatibus necat Euseb Chron. Vltusque est Christianos Hadrianos quos illi Cocheba duce quod sibi adversus Romanos non assentarentur excruciabant praecepitque necui Judeae introeundi Hierosolymam esset licentia Christianis tantum civitate permissa Oros lib. 7. c. 13. The Christians all this while refused to give any Assistance to the Jews under whose usurped Government they lived against Adrian the lawful Emperour and because they would neither assist them in the War nor acknowledge the Justice of it they were put to excessive Torments by Cochebas and the Emperour in reward of their Loyalty granted the Christians liberty to inhabit Jerusalem after he had forbid the Jews under the greatest Penalties to come so much as in sight of it above once a year to lament their calamity It will be objected here that Cochebas pretended to be the Messias or that Star as his name denotes in Balaam's Prophecy Numb 24.17 And that besides the Jews were to be no more a People their destruction being decreed by God and foretold in the Scriptures But this could be no reason why the Christians should deny obedience to Cochebas if his being as he was in full Possession of the Government had made him the Ordinance of God For tho' he had assumed to himself more than belonged to him yet this had been no prejudice to that Right which was truly his and which must depend upon his Possession of the Supreme Power not upon his behaviour or pretensions in matters of Religion And as long as God continued his Power and Authority which he had committed to him they would have been obliged to obey him as God's Ordinance For if his blasphemous pretensions did not provoke God to deny him his Authority what could justifie the Christians in with-holding their Allegiance Gods Authority must challenge the same Duty and Reverence in whomsoever it is placed Jo. 19.11 in a Herod or a Pontius Pilate or a Cochebas And if he had had God's Authority by usurping the Power and Title of a King they would have submitted to his Authority at the same time that they had confuted his Blasphemies with the Peril of their lives And tho' the Jews were to be utterly destroyed and to be no more a Nation the time of this was uncertain but it was certain that the time was not yet come because they had as yet a Powerful Government and so by these Principles had Gods Authority and therefore the Christians would have acknowledged their Authority as the Apostles did that of the Governours of Judea in their times if these Principles were true and there had not been this difference that they were lawful Powers in the time of the Apostles being set over them by the Roman Emperors who had the Supreme Authority in Judea as well as in other Provinces But Chochebas was set up in opposition to the Lawful Powers which only are ordained of God and for that reason no Obedience could be due to him but the Christians chose to endure any Torments rather than they would oppose their Lawful Sovereign in behalf of this Usurper tho' his Power were never so great (b) Vnde shall Cassij Ter Nigri Albini de Romanis nisi faller id est de non Christianis Sed qui nunc Scelestarum Partium Socij aut plausores quotidie revelantur post vindemiam Patricidarum racematio Superstes c. Tertul. Apolog c. 35. Sic circa Majestatem Imperatoris infamamur tamen nunquam Albiniani nec Nigriani vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani Sed ijdem ipsi qui per Genios eorum impridie usque juraverant c. id ad Scapulam c. 2. The next Example I shall bring of the Primitive Christians shall be from these famous Passages of Tertullian one in his Apology and the other in his Book ad Scapulam He in both those places declares and defies any Man to shew the contrary that the Christians never sided with Avidius Cassius against Marcus Antoninus or with Piscennius Niger Governor of Syria or Clodius Albinus Governor of Britain who set themselves up as Emperors in the Provinces over which they presided and upon enquiry it will be found that these two last had as full Possession of their respective Dominions as Septimius Severus the Lawful Emperour had in his part of the Empire (c) Vulcat Gallican in Avid Cassio Avidius Cassius was soon taken off for M. Antoninus was so well beloved and so highly esteemed that Cassius had never been proclaimed Emperour if it had not been given out that Antoninus was dead And no City of note but Antioch took part with him so that his Rebellion had little danger in it being considerable neither for the Strength nor for the continuance of it (d) Onuph Panvin Fast lib. 2. But Niger was in Possession of all the Eastern part of the Empire a year and some Months besides odd days and Albinus reigned as Emperour in the West between three and four years (e) Herodian lib. 2. c. 22. When the Pretorian Bands had murthered Pertinax they set the Empire to Sale making open Proclamation that he should be Emperour who would give most and Didius Julianus outbidding Sulpicianus was accordingly declared Emperour by them and the Senate was forced to confirm their choice But Julianus disappointed the expectations of the Soldiers in not being able to make full payment for his Purchase and was cursed
the Land and our own Oaths and God himself by his Authority in his Vicegerents by whom these Laws are enacted laies upon us But it is said g. 12. That it makes no difference in this case to distinguish between what God permits and what he does for this distinction does not relate to the events of things but to the wickedness of Men which is the only reason for this Distinction for the Scripture never speaks of God's bare permission of any events but makes him the Author of all the good or evil which happens either to private Persons or publick Societies The events of all things are in his Hands and are ordered and disposed by his Will and Counsel as they must be if God go verns the World but God cannot be the Author of any wickedness cannot inspire Men with any wicked Counsels or Designs nor incline their Wills to the commission of it and therefore this we say God only permits but when it comes to Action he over-rules their wicked Designs to accomplish his own Counsels and Decrees and either disappoints what they intended or gives success to them when he can serve the ends of his Providence by their wickedness and herein consists the unsearchable Wisdom of Providence that God brings about his own Counsels by the free Ministries of Men He permits Men to do wickedly but all events which are for the good or evil of private Men or publick Societies are ordered by him as the Prophet declares Amos 3.6 Shall there be evil in a City and the Lord hath not done it 1. I answer There is no Reason why we should distinguish in this case between the Counsels and Designs of wicked Men and their Actions in the execution of them for God concurs as much to the Physical Operations of the Mind in purposing and contriving Evil as he does to the corporal acts in the bringing it to effect for the Mind is as little capable of thinking as the Body is of moving without God's continual concourse both having a necessary dependance upon him in the exercise of their proper Faculties And the Resolution and Contrivance to do Evil is the event or result of Thought and Consideration as the success in the performance and accomplishment of the Evil designed and resolved upon is the event of the several outward Actions which are done in order to it so that God concerns himself no more in the events which proceed from the exercise of the bodily Powers in bringing about ill Designs than in those which proceed from the Operations of the Mind in the projects and contrivances of Evil he permits both and concurs with both as they are the acts of Natural Causes in the production of their effects but as they have a tendency to Evil he concurs with neither He leaves Men a Liberty of Acting and Thinking and concurs with them accordingly he suffers them to sin and does not take from them the use of their Natural Faculties of Body or Mind though they employ them to ill Purposes and about wrong Objects 2. Evil whether considered Physically or Morally that is as it signifies Affliction or as it signifies Sin is in the Action as well as in the Event and therefore the words of the Prophet Amos are applicable to both alike For not only the Events of all things but the Actions of all Creatures are in Gods hands and are ordained and disposed by his Will and Counsel and by the Doctors arguing in all Actions as well as in all Events there is no distinction between what God permits and what he does which he says relates only to the wickedness of Men and therefore it does not relate to the Actions of Men but only to the wickedness of humane Actions For God gives success he says to wicked Designs when they come to Action he sets up Kings he advances them to the Throne he gives them the Throne Pag. 12 13. that is he goes along with them and assists them in the attainment of the Supreme Power and at last puts it into their hands So that they have his concurrence and assistance as much before the settlement as after it and he that at last gives them the Plenitude of Power gave them all along the opportunity and the means of attaining it For God makes no immediate Donation of it but bestows it upon them by his Providence that is by affording them ways and means to come by it The plain consequence of which must be that God not only suffers Men by wicked means to get into Power and then bestows his Authority upon them but he conduct them in every step they take and at last when they arrive at the Throne he places them in it For what God gives by Providence he does not give all at once but by the several degrees of success by which it is attained and the success of every particular action must be his Gift as much as the event it self And if every Event be of Gods doing every Action must be so too because Events proceed from Actions and are no otherwise done or brought about than by the performance of those Actions which are requisite to produce them and to say that God is the Author of the Event but not of the Action is to say that he is the Author of the Effect but not of the Causes Acting whereas he cannot appoint the Effect without appointing the Cause to Act unless the Effect could be produced without its Cause 3. End and Event are both but relative Terms the end of one sort or series of Actions may be but the begining of another and the Event or Effect of one Enterprise the Cause of another For that which is an Effect in respect of its Cause is a Cause in respect of its Effect and that which in respect of the means is the Event is the means in respect of another Event If then the Event of all things is from God and therefore gives a Right a Rebel or Usurper would have a Right to every Fort or Castle he gets into his Possession in order to his Thorough Settlement in the whole Kingdom for that in its kind is as truly an Event as a Thorough Settlement it self is in a different kind for he that possesses himself of a Castle has gained his end as much for that time and in that particular design as he that is possessed of a Kingdom has gained his end in the full accomplishment of his desires and designs And when he has his wishes in this perhaps he stops not here but makes this End and Event only a step to another Enterprise upon a Neighbour Kingdom and then the obtaining the first Kingdom is but a means to gain the latter as the several degrees of success were the means of obtaining the first But all other Events whatsoever are as means in Gods Hands and are made use of by him for the bringing about the final Events of things God therefore does not