only that Legal Titles and Legal Authority may be parted from each other but that Legal Titles and Legal Authority may be rightfully separated from the Persons to whom they were once due which Natural Rights can never be A King may cease to be a King though a Father can never cease to be a Father for Laws have not the same force and power that Nature has All men confess this may be done by a voluntary Resignation which divests such a Prince of all Right and Authority to Govern and if it may be done any way his Right and Authority is not inseparable from his Person Our Adversaries indeed will not allow that a King can lose his Right unless he voluntarily part with it himself and therefore that no man can be King while a former King is living and that God himself cannot advance a King to the Throne while any one is living who ever had a Right to that Throne and never resigned his Right because it is contrary to Justice to give away the Throne from a Prince who has the Right to it as if God had not an Original Right to all the Kingdoms of the World but was confin'd to Human Rights and Claims in making or unmaking Kings But if a King can part with his Kingship it is possible he may lose it too for there are usually more ways than one of parting with that which may be parted with And besides what is granted viz. A Voluntary Resignation I shall consider two other Conquest and Abdication 1. Conquest Which I do not mention as if I thought this to be our Case that we are a Conquer'd People and that King William ascends the Throne by Conquest For whatever may be said of the Conquest of King James who was either forc'd out of his Kingdoms or left them voluntarily if the first he was Conquer'd if the second he Abdicated in the most proper Sense and I know no medium between them Yet the People of England are not Conquer'd nor did the King ever pretend any such Right to the Throne But let this be as it will all I intend at present is to convince these Men That the Crown may be lost by Conquest which may extinguish old Rights and begin a new one and deliver Subjects from their Allegiance to a Conquer'd Prince That de facto Kings do lose their Crowns by Conquest that many great Revolutions of States and Kingdoms are owing to this Cause and that no Nation ever made a scruple of Conscience about submitting to a Conqueror is plain beyond denial but the question is quo jure How a Conqueror can gain a Right to a Throne which another Prince has a Legal Right to And how Subjects tho Conquered can transfer their Allegiance from the Rightful Prince to the Conqueror who has no other Right but his Sword And I shall distinctly consider this with respect to Princes and with respect to Subjects Now the general Answer to both is this That Legal Rights can reach no farther than the Laws of the Land nor oblige any persons whom they do not oblige nor oblige any longer than the Laws oblige These are self-evident Propositions and need no proof for Rights which are founded only on Laws can reach no farther nor last any longer than the Laws do 1. In the first place then with reference to Princes no Legal Right that any Prince has to his Throne can debar another Foreign Independent Prince in case of a just Quarrel to subdue and conquer and take his Crown The reason is because the Laws of the Land which give a Prince his Crown do not oblige Foreign Princes but only Subjects The Laws of particular Countries are Laws only to themselves but there is no Law between Sovereign Princes but the Laws of Natural Justice and the Law of Nations The Rights of Princes with respect to each other are only Possession which is the only Right men can have to any thing in a state of Nature before the forming of Civil Societies and with them Legal Properties and for the same reasons that any man in a state of Nature might justly be turned out of his Possession a Prince may still with equal Justice be turned out of his Kingdom by another Prince and the Prince who conquers in a just War may seize the Throne of the conquered Prince and if he be placed there by the Consent and Submission of the people is no Usurper upon either Prince or People but a Rightful Prince who begins a new Legal Title How indefeasible soever a Prince's Right be by the Laws of the Land that is no rule to Foreign Princes so they do not violate the Laws of Nations nor the natural Rules of Justice in seizing his Throne and whenever the Crown may be justly taken it is justly lost and there needs neither the Death nor the Resignation of the Legal King to give a just Title to the Conqueror Possibly there have seldom been any such just Wars or just Conquests but it is enough to my purpose if such there may be and I think no man doubts but that there may be just Causes of War and a just War will make the Conquest just If any Prince or State be injurious to their Neighbours the injur'd Prince may demand Satisfaction and if it be denied may take it himself as every private man may do in a state of Nature when there is no superion to judge between them which brings such a Dispute to the Decision of the Sword which is the only redress of Injuries when there is no Civil Authority to judge between them and yet it were to no purpose to fight if it were unlawful to conquer and not only to do himself right but prevent suture wrongs from the injurious Prince For a Prince to invade the Dominions of another Prince or to assist such an aspiring Monarch to enslave his Neighbours is a just Cause for the injured Princes and their Confederates to oppose Force to Force to fight and conquer if they can and take the Crowns of such injurious Princes Nay it has been always accounted not barely a just Cause of War but an Heroical Act to subdue Tyrants and rescue their oppressed Subjects who either cannot or must not defend themselves To vindicate the injured and oppressed is what all mankind not only allow but applaud private men may do this against private Oppressors by a course of Law where they are under Laws or by private Force where they are not Princes who have the Power of the Sword may repress Violence and Injustice where-ever they see it for though they have no superior Authority over each others persons nor Jurisdiction in each others Kingdoms yet being under no Authority neither nor any Laws which forbid their redressing Injuries and relieving the oppressed it is so far from being a fault that it is great and generous to do it Every man in a state of Nature where there are no Civil Laws nor Government
has Authority enough to right those who suffer against natural Right But this Liberty is restrained for the advantage of Human Societies and the administration of Justice is put into the hands of the Prince and his Ministers But Princes themselves are under none of these Restraints and therefore may not only administer Justice to their own Subjects but may repress the Violences and Injuries of other Princes not only against their Neighbour Princes but against those who are subject to them and cannot help themselves They have certainly as much Authority to relieve oppressed Subjects as an oppressed Prince and no man thinks it ill for one Prince to assist another against a Powerful Oppressor And I do not know it was ever thought a fault yet to relieve Subjects against an oppressing Prince where the Oppression was notorious and not made a mere pretence for Usurpation I would desire any man to give me a tolerable Reason why it was not as lawful for the Prince of Orange had there been no other reason for it to rescue and defend the Subjects of England against the illegal Power and Oppressions of their King as it is for the French King some mens Pattern of Honour and Bravery to endeavour by force of Arms to restore the Late King James to his Throne again And if Religion be concern'd in the Quarrel it is never the worse for that but the more reasonable and just For why should not Princes be concern'd for the Glory of God from whom they receive their Authority and vindicate his Worshippers from the Persecutions of Cruel Tyrants Subjects indeed must not rebel Christianity must not be forced upon Men by Fire and Sword but must it not be defended neither by Christian Princes When God has put the Sword into their hands must they stand by and see the Worshippers of Christ persecuted and not help them when they can I am sure God delivered the Christian Church from the most bloody Persecution that ever was by the Arms of Constantine and made the Cross his Banner And this was none of the least Causes of his War with Licinius That he persecuted the Christians When Constantius the Arian Emperor persecuted Athanasius and the Orthodox Bishops and Christians Constantine advised him of it and threatned War against him if he persisted in it and it does not appear that the Christians of those days who fled to Constantine for refuge thought he would have done ill in it and yet their Dominions and Authority were as distinct and absolute as France and the Grand Signior though the most Christian King follows other measures Now I know not how to think that men are serious when they will not allow an oppressed people delivered by such a Generous and Charitable Prince to own their Deliverer and pay Duty and Allegiance to him I think slaves have so much liberty as to own the Conqueror and if he deliver them and set them at liberty and make Subjects of them instead of slaves to be his Liege-men for ever But some mens Notions make them greater Slaves to Princes than ever the world knew before 2dly But this brings me to a more difficult Enquiry viz. How Subjects even in case of Conquest can be delivered from their Rightful Prince while he lives and be at liberty with a safe Conscience to transfer their Allegiance to the Conqueror for tho Foreign Princes are not obliged by the Laws of the Land yet Subjects are and therefore are still bound to pay their Allegiance to that Prince whom the Laws of the Land make their Prince How difficult soever it may be to assign the Reasons of this it is certain it must be so if a Prince may lose his Crown by a just Conquest for if a Prince justly lose his Crown he must lose the Allegiance of his Subjects which must follow the Crown and it is impossible one Prince should lose his Crown and another win it were it unlawful for Subjects to transfer their Allegiance to the Conqueror which is reason enough to conclude That the Laws of the Land do not oblige Subjects in such cases and if we carefully consider the true nature and obligation of National Laws we shall be easily satisfied That they do not For it is certain National Laws have their whole dependance on the National Authority it is that only makes them Laws and they can continue Laws no longer than that Authority lasts which gives Being and Obligation to them and therefore National Laws must of necessity partake in all the Changes and Alterations of Government Our Obedience is not due to Laws but by virtue of the Authority that commands them and when the Authority is at an end the Obligation of Laws must cease as far as they respected that Authority Laws are made for a settled Government and they oblige Subjects while the Government is and can be administred by these Laws but when the Authority and Government is changed and they cease to be Laws in Westminster-Hall they are no Laws in Conscience neither For how can Laws oblige without Authority Or what Authority can mere humane National Laws have against all the present Authority and Government of a Nation As for example The Legal Right to the Crown concerns a Regular and Legal Succession but not the beginnings of a Regal Power The Law of Inheritance continues the Regal Power in the family possessed of it whose Inheritance originally it was not for the first King of the Family could not be Heir to the Crown by whatsoever other means he came by it and therefore it can oblige Subjects only against their own voluntary Interruption of the Royal Line but not against violent Revolutions for this is to make a Law that no Prince shall conquer the Legal King and possess himself of his Throne that is to make a Law that the Sea should never break its banks and in case of such a Revolution to make a Law That no Subjects should own or submit to the prevaling Prince is like making a Law That no Cottages or Villages should be drown'd or carried away when such a Deluge happens Laws were never made for such cases as these and therefore in such cases cannot be said so properly to lose their Obligation as not to be Laws We may as reasonably say That the Subjects of England are bound to observe the Laws of England when they are in France as that they are bound in conscience to observe the Old English Laws if the French King should by Force ascend the English Throne No Laws can be made against violent Revolutions because such Revolutions over power Laws and it is as absurd to suppose that any Laws should oblige the Conscience to oppose the Ruling and Governing Power when setled by a Legal Investiture Which is to suppose That Laws which are only Rules of Government and owe their Being to a National Authority should oppose all the Authority of the Nation Thus I observe farther That mere human Laws
therefore consider the Case of the late K. J. with relation to Pleas of this kind All that ever I could hear said against his Abdication and Desertion is that he was driven out of his Kingdom by just and reasonable fears and therefore left his Throne very unwillingly and did not intend to devest himself of Royal Authority but only to reserve himself for better times till he could return to his Throne by force and power All this I verily believe is true that he went away unwillingly and hoped to return again with power and had no mind no intention to part with his Kingdom for ever but what would they prove by all this would they prove that the late King did not leave his Throne or that when he had left it the Throne was not empty which is to prove that he did not leave his Throne or that though he left it it was not empty because he left it and left it empty in a fright Or would they prove that his going away in a fright was not a voluntary Resignation of his Throne I care not much if I grant this too if they will but grant that it was a leaving it for to leave a Throne gives Subjects a Right to fill it as well as a voluntary Resignation does because the Throne must be full or Government ceases and a King that leaves his Throne though he knows it must be filled if he leaves it does that by leaving his Throne which he who resigns it does by a formal Instrument of Resignation that is he signifies to his Subjects that he won't govern them but they must shift for themselves for it is not at the will of a Prince whether a Kingdom shall be governed or not and when the King has left them it seems more Regular and Legal to place the next Heir on the Throne than to set up any other Person or Government The Reasons then why Subjects should not have filled the Throne when the late King had left it empty ought to be resolved into the Reasons of his going away What they were is sufficiently known and I believe no English Protestant who loves the Religion and Liberties of his Country will say that they are such Reasons as would excuse or justifie his leaving them or make it the Duty of Subjects to recal him The only visible Reason of his leaving us was this That if he staied he must be under a necessity to call a Parliament and he was resolved Not to venture his Cause with them Not to suffer them to censure and redress the Miscarriages of his Government Not to part with his Dispensing Power Not to give such Security as a Parliament would have demanded for the Preservation of their Laws Liberties and Religion That is he was resolved to be no King or to be Absolute and Arbitrary and let any Man judge whether this were not a good Reason for Subjects to take the Advantage which he had given them and to fill the Throne which he had made empty To renounce a Legal Government is to renounce the Crown of England and he who leaves the Throne to avoid the Necessity of Governing by Law may get it again when he can but Subjects are not bound to give it him They know for what Reason he parted with it and to restore it to him would be a plain consent that he should have it upon his own Terms I know it is pretended That he had reason to fear that his Person was not safe in England and that was the true Reason why he withdrew into France But this was so unreasonable a Fear had he resolved to have complied with the Parliament that it seems rather to be a plausible Pretence than the true Cause of his withdrawing The Prince indeed was landed with a considerable Force and the King was deserted by some of his Subjects who declared for the Prince and by part of his Army that went over to him which I grant was Reason enough for him to suspect that it was not safe for him to dispute this Matter by the Sword and defeat his Hopes of attaining his irregular Desires by a Victory but it was no Reason to think that his Person was not safe would he have called a Parliament and referred the Redress of all Grievances to them those who would not fight for him against the Prince and against their Religion and Liberties would have secured his Person from all violent Attempts He had Reason to believe this since the Prince desired no more and the Associators declared for no more and all their Words and Actions spoke it than that they would adhere to the Prince till our Religion Laws and Liberties History of Desertion page 75. are so far secured to us in a free Parliament that we shall no more be in danger of falling under Popery and Slavery The denial of this was the Reason why the Prince of Denmark Duke of Grafton Lord Churchill and others of the Nobility left him as appears from the Letters of the Prince and my Lord Churchill And when his Voyage for France was stopped and he returned to London the general Acclamations wherewith he was received as he passed through London-Streets might have satisfied him how little danger his Person was in and it is said that he observed it himself That though they hated his Religion they loved his Person If then the late King had no reasonable Cause to fear the safety of his Person would he have staid to redress all Grievances by a free Parliament if Subjects had no sufficient Reason to think that he withdrew his Person and Authority for any other Cause but to avoid the necessity of giving Satisfaction to his People in Parliament if there be no Evidence that he would have staied to redress all Grievances had he been assured of the safety of his Person it seems to me that the Estates had great Reason and Necessity to do as they did to declare the empty and forsaken Throne vacant and to fill it with the next Heir It is certain this is such a Case as belongs to the Supreme Judgment of the Estates for when a Throne is empty by what means soever it become so it belongs to them to consider whether and how it is to be filled And in such Cases it is the publick Judgment and not some Mens private Reason which is our Rule But let us suppose his Fears had been never so just and reasonable we must consider who brought him into this state of Fear and Danger for if the Guilt of this were wholly his own his Fears are no better excuse than those violent and illegal Proceedings which first frightned the whole Nation and then brought these Fears upon himself What he had already done justified both the Prince of Orange and the Subjects of England in what they did and if no Body were in Fault but himself if his own Misgovernment made him Fear and his Fear made him quit