themselves in Caves and Mountains and yet this was the only defensive War which David made with all his Men about him nay all that he would make and all that he could make according to his Professed Principles that it was not Lawful to stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed And when these Men are pursued as David was by an enraged and Jealous Prince I will not charge them of Rebellion tho' they fly before him by thousands in a Company Yet there was sufficient Reason why David should entertain these Men who voluntarily resorted to him tho' he never intended to use them against Saul for some of them served for Spies to watch Sauls Motions that he might not be surprised by him but have timely notice to make his Escape And the very presence of such a number of Men about him without any Hostile Act preserved him from being seiz'd on by some Officious Persons who otherwise might have delivered him into Sauls hands And he being Anointed by Samuel to be King after Sauls Death this was the first step to his Kingdom to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him which made his Advancement to the Throne more easie and discouraged any Oppositions which might otherwise have been made against him as we see it proved in the event and have reason to believe that it was thus ordered by God for that very End It is certain that Gad the Prophet and Abiathar the Priest who was the only Man who escaped the Fury of Saul when he destroyed the Priests of the Lord were in Davidâ— Retinue and that David enterpriz'd nothing without first asking Counsel of God But he who had Anointed him to be King now draws Forces after him which after Saul's Death should facilitate his Advancement to the Kingdom F. I cannot think your Answer to this Objection satisfactory for first it is evident that when David was at the Cave of Adullam his Brethren and all his Fathers House as soon as they heard it went down thither to him and tho' it be not expresly said that he sent for any to come to his Assistance yet it is plain he refused none that came and to what purpose should he make use of so many as 400 or 600 Men unless it were to defend himself against those Men that Saul might send against him since half a score or twenty Persons had been enough to have served for Spies and if he had thought himself obliged only to run away three or four Servants had been enough in conscience to have Waired on him in any Neighbouring Country but that David thought it no Sin to defend himself from the Violence of those which Saul should send to Kill him is plain from what he says to Abiathar upon his flight unto him after the Death of his Father Abide thou with me fear not for he that seeketh my Life seeketh thy Life but with me thou shalt be in safeguard And if David had not meant by these Words to have defended Abiathar's as well as his own Life if assaulted and without a Possibility of escaping it had been very cold comfort for David to have only assur'd him that he should be in safe-guard with him till the first assault that should be made upon them but that then he should shift for himself for as for his own part he would rather permit his Throat to be cut by the Kings Officers or Souldiers than resist them And therefore tho' I own that it was not Lawful for him to stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed Since I do not allow any Private Subject to Kill even Tyrants unless a in State of actual War or Battle wherein they are Aggressors nor then neither if it can possibly be avoided Yet do I not find it at all unlawful for David or any other private Man to defend his own Life against such Assassinates as his Prince may send against him So it may be done without a Civil War or endangering the Peace of the Common-Wealth And so much you your self tho' Coldly seem to yield when you say that the very Presence of such a number of Men about David without any Hostile Act preserved him from being seiz'd on by some Officious Persons who otherwise might have delivered him into Sauls Hands For I cannot think that David would have been at the trouble of keeping so many Men only for shew and a Terrour to those Officious Persons you mention without resisting of them if there had been occasion And tho' you tell me that his being Anointed by Samuel to be King after Sauls Death was the first step to the Kingdom to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him which made his Advancement to thoâ—punc Throne so much the â—aster and discouraged any Opposition which might have been made against him and that we see it proved so in the Event and therefore have Reason to believe that it was thus ordered by God to that very End I must take the Liberty so far to differ from you For first I desire to know by what Authority David could List 600 or 700 Men in Arms in Sauls Territories and whether according to your Doctrine they were not Rebels for joyning themselves with one who was declared a Traytor by the King And tho' you say it was thus ordered by God I grant indeed it was yet doth it not appear that it was done by any Divine Revelation to Nathan or Abiathar but only by the Ordinary Course of his Providence like other things in the World and therefore it is no fair way of Arguing for you to affirm that what ever David did in the matter of his own Defence contrary to your Principles he must needs do it by express order from God of which the Scripture is wholy silent much less doth it appear from the Story that these Men whom David kept with him were only to facilitate his attaining the Kingdom as you affirm since the Scripture mentions no such thing only that after Saul's Death he went up by Gods Command to Hehron with the Men that were with him and thither the Men of Iudah came and there they Anointed David King over the House of Judah but 't is no where mention'd that these Men were of any use to David for the Obtaining of the Crown since the Tribe of Iudah would have made him King tho' these Men had not been with him for what could 600 or 1000 Men do against so vast a Multitude as the whole Tribe of Iudah And therefore it is evident that these Forces were for no other End than his own defence And tho' you make very light of this State of War in which David was in relation to Saul yet pray tell me supposing that the Duke of Monmouth had really been as he Pretended the Legitimate Son of King Charles the II. but by some Particular Disgust of his Father or by the Intrigues of his Competitor the Duke of York had
in the mean time remember that we reassume this Question the next time we meet But to come to the matter in hand I think there are yet some material Arguments behind to prove Monarchical Government of Divine Institution For in the first place you may please to remember that you your self have acknowledged that all Civil Government proceeds from God Secondly You have likewise admitted that the Government of Fathers or Heads of Families was the first and most Antient Government of any in the World after the Fall when some Government became necessary for the punishment of offences and the restraining of the inordinate Appetites and Passions of Mankind And lastly That this Government having absolute Power of Life and Death in some cases over the Wife Children and Servants of the Family and that if this Power is conferred upon them by God which you likewise granted and doth not depend upon the consent or compact of the Wife Children and Servants If these things were so I leave it to your self to consider from the Premises whether this Power in Heads or Fathers of Families call them which you please is not a Monarchical Power or the Government of one Man and that ordained by God and that this was the only Government in the World before the Institution of Common-Wealths you your self cannot deny F. I shall shew you plainly that you would impose a Fallacy either upon your self or me in this Argument and such a one which I have likewise already answered at our last meeting For I then told you that the Government of such Heads or Fathers of Families was only an Oeconomical and not a Civil Power and this I proved by divers Arguments against what you then argued to the contrary and therefore I think I may yet safely affirm that Kingly or Monarchical Power cannot be proved to be of Divine Institution by this Argument And I have a greater Man than Sir R. F. viz. the Judicious Mr. Hooker on my side who makes a plain distinction between such a Head or Master of a Family and a King as appears by these words in his Ecclesiastical Policy which I desire you would read with me It is no improbable Opinion therefore which the Arch-Philosopher was of That the Chief person in every Houshold was always as it were a King so when numbers of Housholds joyned themselves in Civil Societies together Kings were the first kind of Governours amongst them which is also as it seems the reason why the name of Fathers continued still in them who of Fathers were made Rulers as also the Antient Customs of Governours to do as Melchisedeck as being Kings to exercise the Office of Priests which Fathers did at the first grâ—w perhaps by the same occasion Howbeit this is not the only kind of Regiment that hath been received in the World the inconveniences of one kind have caused sundry others to be divised So that in a word all Civil Regiment of what kind soever seems evidently to have risen from the deliberate Advice Consultation and Composition between Men judging it convenient and helpful there being no impossibility in Nature considered by it self but that Man might have lived without any Publick Regiment So that you may see that tho he places the Original of all Governments in the Heads or Fathers of Families which Opinion I shall not oppose yet it is plain that he makes a clear distinction between Oeconomical Government and that Politique or Civil Power which arises from Compact between Men. So that this will not serve the purpose you bring it for You may now proceed to what other Arguments and Instances you please but pray do not make use any more of the Examples of the Patriarchs either before or after the Flood since they are either altogether uncertain or else as to those after the Flood I have proved them to have been not Kings but only Masters of separate Families And you may likewise omit Moses Ioshuah and the Judges as Instances of Monarchical Power by Divine Institution since I have so lately proved their Authority not to have been at all Absolute or Regal M. I shall not any longer insist upon them since you will not admit of those Instances tho' I think there may be a great deal of weight in them But this much I suppose you cannot deny as well from the Testimony of Sacred as Prophane History that Monarchy is the first and most antient Government in the World as appears by those remains we have left concerning the Egyptian and Assyrian Monarchies And as for the Government of Gods own People the Jews he was pleased to be King over them himself tho' to Govern by his Viceroys till such time as he was pleased to make Saul and David Kings over them Now what can be a greater argument than this for the Divine Institution of Monarchical Government F. I suppose you will not urge the Antiquity of a Government to be a mark of its Divine Institution it may indeed be an argument to prove that Monarchy was the most Natural Government because the most simple and easie for Men to light on and so no doubt it was in the first Ages of the World before Ambition Avarice and Luxury had debauched the Minds of Monarchs the best sort of Government And so on the other side there is this to be objected against it that the setting up of so many Common-wealths upon the Ruines of Monarchies shewed that Men found great Mischiefs and Inconveniences in that sort of Government when once it grew Tyrannical or else they had never departed from it And this made them as Brutus said at the beginning of the Roman Common-Wealth to invent other sorts of Government which might partake of all the Benefits without the Inconveniences of Absolute Monarchy But as for your Instance of God's being himself King over the People of Israel this touches not the Question in hand since that being a Theocratical and not a Civil Common-Wealth could concern no other Nation but themselves And as for your other Instance of God's making Saul King I hope you will not bring that for an Argument of his Approbation which it appears he was so angry with the Israelites for desiring And though it is true he did at their Request make them a King yet it is apparent God would have been much better pleased had they still continued without one So that I think there can no Conclusive Argument be drawn from any Examples in the Old Testament to prove Monarchical Government to be of Divine Institution M. Well However slight you make of my Authorities out of the Old Testament yet I hope I shall be able to shew more cogent ones out of the New to prove that Monarchy is the only Power Instituted or so much as taken Notice of by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles And therefore when he would Command the Pharisees to yield Obedience to the Supreme Power then in Being He bids them
and irresistible the Persons and Authority of Kings were under the Iewish Government and there cannot be a plainer Example of this than in the Case of David He was himself anointed to be King after Sauls death but in the mean time he was grievously persecuted by Saul who pursued him from one place to another with a design to take away his Life How now doth David behave himself in this Extremity What Course doth he take to secure himself from Saul Why he takes the only Course that is left to a Subject he flies for it and hides himself from Saul in the Mountains and Caves of the Wilderness and when he found he was discovered in one place he removes to another He kept Spies upon Saul to observe his Motions not that he might meet him to give him Batâ—le or to take him at an Advantage but that he might keep out of his way and not fall unawares into his hands Well but this was no thanks to David you 'll say because he could not do otherwise He was too weak for Saul and not able to stand against him and therefore had no other Remedy but flight But yet we must consider that David was a Man of War he slew Goliah and fought the Battles of Israel with great success he was an admired and beloved Captain which made Saul so Jealous of him the Eyes of Israel were upon him for their next King and how easily might he have raised a Potent and formidable Rebellion against Saul But he was so far from this that he invites no Man to his Assistance and when some came uninvited he made no use of them in an Offensive or Defensive War against Saul Nay when God delivered Saul twice into David's hands that he could as easily have killed him as have Cut off the Skirts of his Garment at Engedi or as have taken That Spear away which stuck on the Ground as his Bolster as he did in the Hill of Hachilâ—h yet he would neither touch Saul himself nor suffer any of the People that were with him to do it tho' they were very importunate with him to let them kill Saul nay tho' they urged him with an Argument from Providence that it was a plain Evidence that it was the Will of God that he should kill him Because God had now delivered his Enemy into his Hands according to the Promise he had made to David we know what use some Men have made of this Argument of Providence to justifie all the Villanies they had a Mind to act But David it seems did not think that an opportunity of doing evil gave him a License and Authority to do it Opportunity we say makes a Thief and it makes a Rebel and a Murderer too No man can do any wickedness which he has no opportunity of doing and if the Providence of God which puts such opportunities into Mens hands might justifie the wickedness they commit no Man can be chargeable with any Guilt whatever he does and certainly Opportunity will as soon justifie any other Sin as Rebellion and the Murder of Princes We are to learn our Duty from the Law of God not from his Providence At least this must be a settled Principle that the Providence of God will never justifie any Action which his Law forbids And therefore notwithstanding this Opportunity which God has put into his hands to destroy his Enemy and to take the Crown for his Reward David considers his Duty remembers that tho' Saul were his Enemy and that very unjustly yet he was still the Lords anointed The Lord forbid says he That I should do this unto my Master the Lords anointed to stretch forth any Hand against him seeing he is the Lords anointed Nay he was so far from taking away his Life that his Heart smote him for cutting off the Skirt of his Garment And we ought to observe the Reason David gives why he durst not hurt Saul because he was the Lords anointed which is the very Reason the Apostle gives in the Romans because the Powers that are are ordained of God and he that resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God For to be anointed of God signifies no more than that he was made King or ordained by God For this external Unction was only a Visible Sign of Gods Designation of them to such an Office And it is certain they were as much Gods Anointed without this Visible Unction as with it Cyrus is called Gods Anointed tho' he never was Anointed by any Prophet but only designed for his Kingdom by Prophecy And we never read in Scripture that any Kings had this external Vnction who succeeded in the Kingdom by Right of Inheritance unless the Title and succession were doubtful and yet they were the Lords Anointed too that is were plac'd in the Throne by him So that this is an Eternal Reason against râ—sistiâ—g Soveraign Princes that they are Set up by God and invested with his Authority and therefore their Persons and their Authority are Sacred F. I am so far from differing with you in what you have said concerning this Example of David towards Saul tho' his Enemy that I think it ought to be a Pattern to every single Private Man tho never so great in a Kingdom or Common-Wealth how to comport himself towards the Supream Powers if he himself alone be unjustly persecuted by them either in his Life or Estate that is to fly if he can tho' with the loss of all his Estate rather than resist tho' there are some Circumstances in this Story of David that make it evident that he did not think a Defensive War against those Cut-throats that Saul might send to Kill him unlawful and so much Dr. Fearn himself in his first Discourse call'd resolving of Conscience c. against Resistance of the Higher Powers acknowledges For David when he fled from Saul made himself Captain of four hundred Men which number soon encreased to six hundred And still every day grew more by Additions Now why should he entertain those Men but to defend himself against the Forces of Saul that is to make a Defensive War when ever he was assaulted by him M. I think I can give you a sufficient answer to this and therefore you must observe that David invited none of these Men in to him but they came as Volunteers after a Beloved Captain and General which shews how formidable he could easily have made himself when such Numbers resorted to him of their own Accord When he had them he never used them for any Hostile Acts against Saul or any of his Forces he never stood his Ground when he heard Saul was coming but always fled and his Men with him Men who never were us'd to fly and were very ready to have served him against Saul himself would he have permitted them And I suppose you will not call it a defensive War to fly before an Enemy and to hide
without their Consent and therefore Samuel appeals to them how little he had opprest them whose Ox or whose Ass have I taken whom have I defrauded whom have I opprest Neither could they nor the Judges their Successors make any new Laws for the People God himself being their King and Legislator and therefore what you urge as to the Regal Power of Moses and Ioshua after the Sanhedrin had been constituted amounts to no more but that both of them were Heads or Captains of the People to lead them out to War and bring them back again which is exprest by going in and out before them and their Obedience to their Military Orders as also to such things which God hath expresly commanded is understood by these words All that thou commandest us we will do and whithersoever thou sendest us we will go Yet still this was with respect to their obtaining the Land of Canaan for otherwise if either Moses or Ioshua should have gone about of their own Heads to have Led them again into Egypt I suppose you will not say the Israelites were bound either to have followed them or submitted to them but rather might have resisted them in such cases And therefore Iosephus his Speech which he makes Moses to deliver is not so ridiculous as you are pleased to make it for the Laws here mentioned by him and here set in opposition to Monarchy were not such Laws as were made by the Greek Common-Wealth as you suppose but the Law given from God by his hand and these he might well think were sufficient with such Power as he and Ioshua enjoyed without having any recourse to a Human Monarchical Government since God himself was their King and as for the Judges that succeeded them they had much less Power than either Moses or Ioshua Since it is apparent by the Story of Deborah and Barak Iudges the 4th who were the Princes or Generals of the Tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali that they had no power to force the People to go out to fight against the Canaanites whether they would or no. And therefore you will find in the next Chapter in the Song of Victory which they sung that many of the Tribes came not in to their Assistance therefore it is there said That for the Divisions of Reuben there were great thoughts of heart therefore they ask Why abidest thou among the Sheepfolds c. And presently after it is said Gilead abode beyond Jordan and why did Dan remain in the Ships Asher continued on the Seashore and abode in his breaches And so they conclude with Curse ye Meroz curse ye bitterly the Inhabitants thereof because they came not to the help of the Lord against the Mighty So that I am perswaded it was the want of this Power in the Judges of making Laws of imposing Tributes or Taxes and of forcing Men to serve in the Wars against their Enemies which they did before only as Volunteers that made the Israelites the more desirous to have a King over them like those of other Nations who were endued with these Prerogatives And therefore the best Commentators do interpret the Prediction of Samuel concerning the manner of the King that should Reign over them and would take their Sons for his Chariots and his Horse men and to be Captains over thousands c. to relate to his Royal Power of enrolling and making them serve in his Army either as Officers or Souldiers and the taking of their Fields and their Vineyards and the Tenth of their Seeds c. to give his Officers and Servants to signifie no more than his Power of imposing Publick Tribute and Impositions on the People to maintain his Royal Splendor the Necessities of the State as other Neighbouring-Kings were wont to do all which they not being used to before they should cry unto the Lord by reason of them as a great oppression And that Saul when he came to be King used this Prerogative of forcing the People to come and serve in the War in a higher manner than Samuel or the Judges had done before appears by the 11th Chapter of this Book when Nahash the Ammonite came to make War against Iabesh Saul took a Yoke of Oxen and hewed them in pieces and sent them throughout all the Coasts of Israel by the hands of Messengers saying Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel so shall it be done unto his Oxen and the fear of the Lord fell on the People and they came out with one Consent And it seems evident to me that the Power which Samuel had before the Children of Israel desired a King was not Monarchical but mixt of Aristocracy and Monarchy together in which Samuel as Judge had a Judicial Authority and likewise a Supream Military Power of leading them out to War against the Philistines and other Enemies and yet notwithstanding the Supreme Power in all other things remained wholly in the Principal Heads or Fathers of the Tribes which whether they were chosen by the People or enjoyed it by Right of Inheritance I confess the Scripture is silent and therefore I am not at all satisfied with your Notion that the Government of these People when they had no Judges consisted of Twelve petty Monarchies under the Heads or Princes of the Tribes for there is no Authority in Scripture to countenance any such opinion the place you bring for it out of the 1st and 7th of Numbers not at all proving it For tho' I grant there were twelve Princes of the Tribes whose names are there set down and who are called Heads of the Houses of their Fathers yet is it no where said that these were endued with Civil Power or were Chief Rulers over the Tribes for it is apparent all Civil Power remained then in Moses and the Sanhedrim who under him decided all controversies So that it is most natural to suppose that these Heads of the Tribes were not Civil Magistrates but the Military Leaders or Captains of each Tribe when they went out to War and are the same who in this Chapter are called the renowned of the Congregation c. and Heads of the Thousands of Israel Nor doth it follow that because there were such Officers in Moses his time that they must continue the same after under the Judges so many Slaveries and oppressions that this People had undergone or that if they did still continue that their Power was Monarchical or that they could do any thing without the consent of the Heads or Fathers of Families of each Tribe in whom I suppose the Supream Authority was in the Intervals of the Judges and therefore we find in the ninth of Iudges that the men of Shechem and all the House of Millo made Abimelech King that is not over all the Tribes of Israel but over Ephraim and half Manasses only which is to be understood by Israel in this Chapter where it is said v. 18. by Iotham the Son of
but resolves that his Lust shall be unconfined whereby he becomes insupportable to his People they may as well distinguish his Person from his Power as they do in the Case of Princes when they are either Fools or mad Men. M. But Pray consider the rest of the Consequences of my last Discourse and will not then the supposing a Power in the People of making this Distinction when they please and of Judging when the Prince's Government becomes intolerably Tyrannical make them to take upon them to judge it so when it is quite otherwise and so not scruple to Rebel or to Resist as you call it when ever they are in the mind to do it And we have the more reason to be afraid of this because from the Long Parliaments and their Adherents making use of this Distinction among other Specious Pretences were derived all the Miseries of our last Civil War And therefore tho' I own it is an easie thing to judge of the Madness and Folly of Princes as well as other men yet the Wickedness and Partiality of Human Nature consider'd it is a much harder Task to judge rightly what Actions of Princes are destructive to Civil Government and tender them as uncapable of it as the most Extravagant Actions of Foolish and Mad Princes can be pretended to make them so F. If the Instance of mad Men and Fools seem to displease you because it is very pat to the Subject in hand I think I may likewise remark that those Inconveniences you suppose of making the People Iudges in this Case is the Sole Objection I can find you have against what I have said for otherwise I do not see you have any thing to alledge against the fitness of the Parallel But I have already I believe made it pretty plain that Murdering Enslaving and Robbing of the People of their Properties are thing as easie to be Judged of as Folly or Madness and if a few Domesticks about the Prince shall be allowed to Iudge when their Monarch is mad or foolish enough to be resisted and shut up I cannot see any Reason why the whole Body of the People may not as well be able to Iudge when by his Tyranny and Oppression he hath dissolved the Government and entered into a State of War with them But to return now to the last part of your former Answer wherein you grant that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometimes signifie not onely the Person but the Exercise of Authority but that it doth not signifie the Right or Lawful Use of it but Abuse too and for the Proof of this you alledge the Speech of Pilate to our Saviour I am very well satisfied that that Text will make nothing for your Purpose For tho' I grant that the Word in that place denotes Power or Authority yet doth it not there signifie the Abuse of it too For certainly Pilate would never have told our Saviour that he had a Power to abuse his Authority and to condemn him tho' innocent Neither would our Saviour have answered him that he had that Power from above And therefore I think I may very well maintain my Syllogism to be true notwithstanding your denying of the Minor Proposition For since you cannot affirm Tyranny to be the Ordinance of God yet that the Power or Authority of which this Tyranny is but an Abuse is of Divine Institution which is but a Fallacy if it be lookt into For tho' you may vulgarly speaking call all Tyranny an Abuse of Civil Power yet some Tyranny is more than that For it is not so properly an Abuse as a Corruption of it into quite another thing which God never Instituted and consequently therefore is not to be submitted to out of Conscience It is an old saying Corruptio optimi est pessima and you may as well tell me that Vinegar notwithstanding its Acidity continues Wine still as that Civil Government when it degenerates into the rankest Tyranny continues still Gods Ordinance and if this be the true Consequence you draw from your Argument it signifies little viz. that the Abuse of this Power doth not make void the Authority of the Law of God or Nature For I think I may maintain the clear contrary to what you assert viz. that the Obligation not to resist Supream Powers doth receive some Validity from the Iustice they execute and is weakened and at last annulled by their Intolerable Violence or Injustice Nor are your Instances of Saul or Pilate to the Question in hand I grant Saul was God's Anointed and could not have been Lawfully resisted by David notwithstanding his Murdering of Abimelech and the rest of the Priests And Pilate might have his Authority from above notwithstanding his Abuse of it Yet doth it not therefore follow that if either the one or the other had declared themselves Sworn Enemies to the whole Nation of the Iews and that instead of Governing and Protecting them they had gone about utterly to destroy them I think they had then ceased to be the Ordinance of God and their Divine Commission had been at an end To conclude as for the Reason you give why St. Paul might call the Roman Emperours by the Name of Powers I shall not deny it But whether by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle means Persons or Powers is much at one for if he means the former he only urges Obedience to them as they are the means of the Happiness and Preservation of the People as appears by the Third and Fourth Verses of the Chapter you now quote where the main Reason St. Paul gives for our Obedience is That Rulers are not a Terror to God Works but to the Evil and that He viz. the Supream Power is a Minister to us for our Good and indeed it had been a very odd way of enforcing our Obedience for him to have said the quite contrary that this Power was to be Obeyed because he was a Terror to good Works and a Plague to all good Men and a Minister to us of all manner of mischief and misery This had been an excellent way of proving the Supream Powers to be the Ordinance of God M. Before I can give you a full Answer to what you have now said I must beg leave to look back to the beginning of your first Answer where you object that if by the higher Powers here mentioned the Persons and not the Authority of those in Power are to be understood then it would follow that Tyrants and Usurpers are likewise the Powers ordained of God which Objection I think may admit of an easie Answer First can there be no wise Reason given why God may advance a bad man or Tyrant to be a Prince If there may then it is no Reproach to the Divine Providence The Natural End of Human Societies is the Preservation of publick Peace and Order and this is in some measure attained even under the Government of Tyrants But God hath