For a legal Right as the Right to the Crown is may be lost by Conquest or parted with by Resignation or by Abdication and Desertion and that the late King has so deserted his Throne as to make it not only lawful but even necessary for his Subjects to fill it again I have already proved So that it is not enough for those who insist on King James's Right to say That he was Rightful Heir to the Crown and that he was once Rightful King which is all that they pretend to For though he was once a Rightful King he may now neither be a King nor have any Right to be King II. Another Question is Whether King William and Queen Mary be the Rightful King and Queen of England Now had King James died before the pretended Birth of the Prince of Wales this had been no Question for then Queen Mary had been the undoubted Heir to the Crown and in her Right and by Consent of the Princess Anne allowed and confirmed by the Authority of the Estates King William had been the Rightful and Legal King Now if King James parted with his Right and Crown together by forsaking his Government and leaving his Throne vacant and the Estates had a Right if they pleased to fill it there can be no more Pretence of Right upon the late King's Account than if he had been dead And as for the pretended Prince of Wales at best his Birth was so very doubtful that there was no reason for the Estates to reject the next undoubted Heir for him especially when the King refused to submit that Dispute to Parliament as the then Prince of Orange had done And had his Birth been never so unquestionable he could not be had without taking the late King again which was Reason enough for the Estates not to concern themselves with that Dispute but to place the next Heir upon the Throne that could be had The King withdrew himself and sent away him whom he called the Prince of Wales before him that we should not have him to make him King had we had never so much mind to it and had all the Royal Family deserted in the like manner or had they been conveyed away from us I see no reason why the Estates might not as well have chosen a new King as if all the Royal Family had been extinct And if this be the true State of the Case as certainly it is there can be no Dispute whether their Present Majesties be Rightful King and Queen III. A Third Question is How far those who are not satisfied in their own private Judgments whether the late King James have lost his Right and their Present Majesties are Rightfully advanced to the Throne may own and pay their Allegiance to their Present Majesties Now if we do but allow that this is matter of Dispute all Disputes about legal Rights must be determined by a legal Authority and private Subjects must acquiesce in such Determinations unless we will dissolve Civil Societies for the sake of some disputed legal Rights Since then the Estates of the Realm who are the Highest Atuhority when there is no King on the Throne have determined this Matter private Subjects have nothing now to do with it In Matters which concern Civil Government they must follow the publick Judgment which is the Rule and Measure of Civil Obedience in contradiction to their own private Opinions where the Dispute is only about Civil and Legal not about Natural and Moral Rights Private Subjects must own him for their King who is invested with the Royal Authority by the Estates of the Realm to whom alone it belongs to judge Authoritatively about such matters IV. But the last and great difficulty of all still remains viz. Supposing King James should land in England with a Military Force to demand the Crown what the Subjects of England are bound in Conscience to do Which Side they ought to take Whether they must fight for the late King James against their Present Majesties or for their Present Majesties against the late King James Now if King James has lost his Crown and his Right to it and King William and Queen Mary are Rightfully possessed of the Throne which I take to be the truth of the Case this will admit of no Dispute for it is certain we ought to fight for our Rightful King and Queen against One who has been King but is no King now nor has any Right ever to be King again But there is no absolute necessity of insisting upon Right it is sufficient to determine the Case only to say that the Laws of the Land require us to fight for our King against him who is no King and he is King whom the Laws of the Land own to be King that is He who is placed on the Throne and invested with the Royal Authority with all usual and accustomed Solemnities by the Estates of the Realm A legal Investiture makes a legal King and the Law requires our Allegiance to such a King that is all legal Obedience and Defence and the Law is the measure of legal Rights Whatever Right then any Prince may pretend to the Throne if the Law does not allow private Subjects to take Cognizance of such Rights against a legal Possessor if it does not extinguish yet at least it limits suspends and sets aside such Rights in such Cases that they are to Subjects as if they were not And as the Law can make and create legal Rights so it can limit and set Bounds to them and determine in what Cases and to what Effect and Purposes they shall be Rights and they are legal Rights no farther But besides this it is worth observing That the Law does not allow Civil and Legal Rights to be disputed and determined by the Sword for that is a dissolution of Civil Authority and Civil Government and therefore no Subjects can be bound at any time by the Laws of the Land to fight for a supposed or pretended Right against a Legal Possessor We are bound to fight for our King to defend his Person Crown and Dignity but it is for a King whom the Laws own to be King that is who is invested with the Royal Authority by the Estates of the Realm and is actually on the Throne According to the Fundamental Constitution of all Civil Societies the Disputes about the Legal Rights must be determined by the Judgment and Sentence of a Competent Authority not by the Sword which can decide no Question but which side is strongest An Appeal to the Sword against the Sentence of the last Authority puts an end to the Authority of Laws and consequently is no part of Legal Obedience and Defence and then I cannot guess how any Subjects should be bound in Conscience to fight for the meer Right of a Prince whatever Opinion he may have of his Right against a Legal Possessor of the Throne nay it seems to me that Subjects are bound in Conscience not to do it as much as they are bound not to fight against Civil Authority and Government Nor is this to fight for Wrong or to fight against Right where ever we suppose the Right to be for we neither fight for or against either which the Laws and the very Nature of Civil Constitutions will not allow but we sight for our King against all his Enemies at home or abroad as the Laws of the Land require us to do And what Right soever any Prince has when he comes to dispute it with the Sword Subjects may and ought to defend the Possessor against him and to leave the dispute of Right of the Judgment and Determination of a proper Tribunal Thus the Prince of Orange his present Majesty did though he came with the Sword in his Hand it was not to try his Cause by the Sword but to referr his Cause to a free Parliament and to procure such a Parliament by the Sword which nothing but the Sword could obtain In short when a Prince challenges his Right by the Sword it is seldom seen that his own contents him if he wins his Crown he makes himself Master also of his Subjects Rights and may carve out what kind of Power or Government he pleases with a Conquering Sword And therefore whatever Obligation Subjects should be supposed to lie under to the Rightful Heir they are not bound to make him a Conqueror which is to make themselves Slaves if he pleases They cannot fight for his Right without fighting against their own and against the Rights and Liberties of their Country which is proof enough that no Civil Constitution can allow of fighting for the Crown Such things have been and such things will be but the Question is what Subjects are bound in Conscience in such Cases to do And unless they are bound to enslave themselves and their Country they can never be bound to suffer much less to assist any Prince whatever his Pretences be to seize the Crown by Conquest This is a good Argument against any Prince who will force his way to the Throne which is already filled by the Estates of the Realm but it is an unanswerable Argument in our present Case We know the late King James too well to trust him with a Conquest if we can help it and we know the French King too well to receive his Troops among us if we can keep them out and those whose Consciences command them to assist the late King to Conquer their Country need some other Cure than Arguments to convince them But this has been so fully stated in the two Letters to a Friend concerning the French Invasion that I shall referr my Readers for farther Satisfaction to those Letters FINIS
AN ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURE and OBLIGATION OF Legal Rights With Respect to the Popular Pleas OF THE Late K. JAMES's Remaining Right TO THE CROWN LICENS'D LONDON Printed by Thomas Hodgkin 1693. AN ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURE and OBLIGATION OF Legal Rights c. IT seems to me a needless Task to prove to Protestants That it is more for their Spiritual and Temporal Interest to have a Protestant than a Popish King and Queen and therefore I cannot apprehend any great Danger to Their Majesties Government from those Scandalous Libels which are writ with some Art and dispersed with greater Diligence to raise and foment New Discontents Those are very sanguine men who hope to persuade us That our Liberties and Properties will be more secure and that the Church of England will flourish better under the Government of the late King if he return than under the Government of King William and Queen Mary We remember how it lately was and we feel how it is at present and if we can trust our Memory and our Senses all the Wit of man cannot impose upon us in so plain a matter and therefore I shall take it for granted That the Argument from Interest ties the Subjects of England in the fastest Bonds of Duty and Allegiance to Their present Majesties But the Laws of Justice and Righteousness ought to have a greater Authority over Mankind than all other Temporal Considerations and at one time or other they will And therefore while men are persuaded That how advantagious soever the late Revolution may prove it is founded in Injustice no other Argument but Force will for any long time be able to keep the late King out or to establish Their present Majesties in the Throne Which shews That other Arguments are lost labour till the Dispute of Right and Wrong is better cleared And tho there have been many Wise things said about it it has not yet been stated to a General Satisfaction The Government of the late King gave great reason to his Subjects to be willing to part with him whenever he would set them at liberty and therefore if King James hath suffered no Injustice but what he has done himself if he hath delivered his Subjects from their Allegiance and if King William and Queen Mary are Legally Invested with the Royal Power and are the Legal King and Queen of England it will be no hard matter to make all men who love the Peace and Prosperity their Religion and the Liberties of their Countrey to be easy and satisfied and thankful for such a Change And to state this matter plainly to silence this Pretence of Right and Justice on the late King's side it will be necessary to enquire What Right Princes have to their Thrones This may at first be thought a Dangerous Enquiry but it will appear to have no hurt in it and the loud Clamours about Right which disquiet so many mens minds and disturb the Peace and Settlement of these Kingdoms and daily threaten us with new Convulsions or Revolutions make it absolutely necessary at this time to say some few plain Truths which carry their own Evidence and Conviction with them which will do no Wrong to Princes and will do great Right to Subjects The whole Resolution of this matter depends upon one single Question if so plain a Case may be called a Question viz. Whether Princes have a Natural or only a Legal Right to their Thrones I think I might reasonably enough take it for granted without disputing That no Prince has any other Right to his Throne but what the Laws of the Land or the Laws of Nations give him For tho some men have disputed warmly for the Natural and Patriarchal Right of Kings yet they have so few Followers and the Hypothesis it self is so new and built upon such uncertain Conjectures and so contrary to plain Matter of Fact and the universal practice of all Nations that it is not worth any man's contending about whoever has a mind to know the mystery of this may read the Second Dialogue of the Bibliotheca Politica and try if he can make any thing of it For who knows what the Paternal and Patriarchal Authority was Whether it were a Civil and Political or only an Oeconomical Authority such as Parents still have over their Children or not much more Who knows how this Authority descended and what difference there was between the Authority of the Supreme Father and of the immediate Fathers over their own Children Whether this by Natural Right does not make the whole World one Monarchy under the Government of the Lineal Heir of the Eldest Family And how came the World then contrary to Natural Right to be canton'd into so many Absolute and Independent Monarchies Does not this damn all Republicks and Commonwealths as Usurpations upon the Natural Rights of Monarchy For if the Natural Right of Government be in the Natural Heir all other Forms of Government besides Monarchy are contrary to Nature and an Usurpation upon Natural Right But be all this as it will Where is the Monarch this day in the world that derives his Pedigree and Lineal Descent from some Ancient Pataiarch who had this Natural Right of Government Do we not know what the Original of many Monarchies hath been and what Changes they have suffered How Pirates and Robbers have advanced themselves to Royal Dignity and founded New Kingdoms and begun a Race of New Kings And were all these the Lineal Heirs of those Kingdoms they subdued And yet how can they have the Natural Patriarchal Right of Government without it For Natural Rights can never be sparated from those Natural Relations which create them These are very great absurdities and yet I must do these men this right that unless you can find a Paternal Patriarchal Right there can be no Natural Right to Civil Government for there is no other Natural Right of Government but only the Natural Authority of Fathers For we are now speaking of the Right to Government not of the Nature and quality of it And therefore though we should grant that Kings succeed to the Paternal Authority that they have now the same Authority over their Subjects that Fathers anciently had over their Children which I doubt if truly stated would satisfy but few Kings yet it does not hence follow that they have the same Natural Right to their Thrones which Fathers have to their Authority There may be several different Rights to the same kind of Authority but he who is not in the Paternal Line nor by Primogeniture inherits the Fathers right cannot have a Natural Paternal Right For as for Natural descent in an Hereditary Monarchy where the next lineal Heir succeeds to the Crown whom we commonly style a Natural Prince and a Prince born who is the Natural Heir to the Crown which is his Birth-right it is plain this is not a Natural Right but the Effect of Laws For if this were the Right of Nature
he parts with the Possession For though a Right to the Crown be a different thing from the Possession of the Crown yet the legal Possession of the Throne and the legal Right to Government are either the same thing or so inseparably annexed that to part with one is to part with both The Right of Government which is nothing but a Right to exercise all Acts of Government is given by the legal Possession and Investiture and therefore he who parts with his legal Possession and Administration of Government parts with his Right to Govern To forfeit the Obedience of Subjects I think is the same thing as to forseit the Right to Government and that he most certainly does who leaves the Government For Subjects cannot be bound to obey him who will not Govern who leaves them to take care of the Government themselves or gives up the Government to those who will take it No Prince has a Right to oblige Subjects to live without any Government when he thinks fit to leave them and therefore by leaving the Government he absolves them from his Government and gives them a Right to take care of themselves and if he gives them a Right to dispose of the Government he must give away his own Right to Govern Thus it is in the nature of the Thing whatever the Occasion be that moves Princes to leave their Thrones and how unwillingly soever they do it For when a Prince leaves his Throne he either leaves his Subjects in Possession of some new Powers or makes it necessary for them to submit to some new Government and the same Necessity which justifies a Prince in leaving his Throne and Government must Absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance But then the different Reasons for which Princes leave their Thrones make a great difference in the Obligations of Subjects as far as it is in their Power to receive or not to receive such a Prince again the understanding of which will be of great use in our present Case When a Prince is driven out of his Kingdoms by a Foreign Power if Subjects are able to do it they are bound in Conscience to resist the Usurper and to restore their Prince to his Throne again if they cannot resist they may and must submit As their King unwillingly left his Subjects to save his own Life and Liberty so Subjects may as unwillingly leave their King and submit to the Conqueror to save their own Lives and Liberties and Fortunes For the Necessity is equal on both sides the King does actually leave his Throne and Government though he be forced by a hard Necessity to do so and when the Throne is left empty Subjects are free but such a Vacancy being only the effect of Force Subjects ought to take no Advantage of it against their King when it is in their power to restore him but when they are under the same Necessity to fill the Throne that he was to leave it his leaving it vacant will justifie their filling it again and submitting to a new Prince If a King be driven out of his Kingdom by his own rebellious Subjects this will never justifie them in keeping him out For though the King be gone he did not leave them but they drove him away and if the Throne be vacant they themselves made it so and therefore are bound to fill it again with the Prince whom they have put out And yet how far Loyal Subjects in this case may submit to Force and Necessity and consult the Peace and good Government of their Country is a great dispute which I have no occasion to interpose in at present all that I have to say as to this matter is That though in this Case the Throne be de facto Vacant yet it is not such a Vacancy as will justifie Subjects in filling it with a new Prince But if the Throne be filled or a new Government set up how far Subjects may submit to it is anonother Question If a King without any force from his Subjects privately without their knowledge withdraws his Person and Authority it is certain he leaves his Throne empty but whether his Subjects may fill it with the next Heir or must invite him back to fill it again himself belongs to a publick Judgment upon a wise and equitable Consideration of all Circumstances and such a publick Judgment ought to determine all private Subjects The Throne is empty when the King has left it and an empty Throne must be filled because the Nation must be governed But yet there seems to be some difference in the nature of the thing between such a Vacancy as this by the King 's withdrawing his Person and Authority and a Vacancy by Death which gives the next Heir an immediate Right to ascend the Throne The Right of Inheritance and Succession does not immediately take place but upon the natural Death of the King Whether the Throne be so Vacant while the former King is living as to give Right to the next Heir to succeed is matter of Judgment and must be determined by the judicial Sentence of those to whom the Cognizance of such Matters belong Now though the Judgment of the Estates ought to be conclusive to private Subjects yet if it be lawful after such a Judgment to enquire into such Matters it seems to me that King James had given them sufficient Reason to justifie them to all the World in declaring his Throne vacant I have already observed for there is no need of proving what is self-evident that when a King has left his Throne it is empty and that the Necessities of Government require that an empty Throne should be filled again and then it must be in the Power of Subjects whom the King has left without any Government to shift for themselves to fill it Now if the Reason of the King 's leaving be such as makes it just for them if it be in their Power to call him back they ought to do it but if he left them for such Reasons as would make very good and Loyal Subjects glad to be rid of him they may with a good Conscience take the Advantage of his leaving them to fill the Throne with a more desirable Prince For no Prince has Liberty voluntarily to forsake his Government without giving up his Right to it for human Societies must be governed and therefore he actually devests himself of the Government who by leaving it makes it his own choice not to govern And when he has done so 't is very hard to conceive whence he should have Authority to resume the Government again at his Pleasure without the concurrence of the People whom he would govern So that to me it seems plain That a Prince who once quits his Government must expect a Restauration from the good Nature of his former Subjects not of Right His Appeal must be to Conscience and Equity not a Demand of their Duty by the strict Rules of Justice Let us
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
his Throne his Abdication is as perfectly his own Act as his Misgovernment was and then Subjects might very innocently take the Advantage which without their Fault he had put into their Hands to deliver themselves from Fear and Slavery The Prince of Orange now our Gracious Sovereign had very just Reasons for what he did His Princess was the next Presumptive Heir to the Crown of England and in Her Right he was immediately concerned in the Protection and Defenc of these Protestant Kingdoms at least so far as to secure the Succession The late King made great haste to subvert the Fundamental Constitution of the English Government to change our Laws and Liberties and Religion and both to effect and secure such Usurpations took care as fast as he could to put the whole Civil and Military Power into the Hands of Papists What an evil Aspect this had on Protestant Heirs and Successors besides the present Oppression of the Subject every one saw especially when it was pretended that the Queen had brought forth a Prince of Wales to inherit the Crown and to perfect that blessed Work of Slavery and Popery If this will not justifie the Prince of Orange's early Care for a Legal Redress of Abuses which would infallibly have altered the Succession and defeated his Right if they had proceeded any farther I think the Heir to the Crown is in an ill condition for it may be with the latest to put in his Claim when another is step'd into the Throne before Him It is no new thing for the Parliament of England to settle the Succession to the Crown while the King is living and to make all legal Provisions to secure the Succession and if this may be done during the Life of the King the Prince had great Reason to make his Appeal to a Free Parliament and to take Arms to obtain such a Free Parliament which the humble Addresses and Supplications of Subjects could not obtain and this was all the Prince did to put him into this Fright and if he had not done it he had in some degree deserted his Right as King James has now deserted his Throne As for the Subjects of England the great Body of the Nation stood still and neither assisted nor opposed King James though generally they wished well to the Prince And what was the Fault of this The most Passive Men have always declared That they are not bound actually to serve and defend the King in his illegal Oppressions or in his Usurpations upon the Laws and Liberties and Religion of their Country for no Man can be bound by Law to fight for the King against the Laws For the Right of the King which is only a Right by Law can never be more Sacred than all the Laws and it seems very hard to fight for one Law against all other Laws to fight for a King to make our selves and all his other Subjects Slaves The Prince of Orange came with an Army into England to demand a Free Parliament to redress the Miscarriages of Government to secure the Succession our Liberties and Religion which were beyond denial in danger What now should the Subjects of England do Should they fight for King James against the Prince What had that been but to fight against a Free Parliament our Laws and our Religion Those Protestants who are now the most zealous Assertors of the late King 's Right did at that time for these Reasons excuse themselves from the Obligation of fighting for him And yet Engish Subjects cannot be charged with denying to assist their King against the Prince of Orange for they were never required to do it There were no new Commissions granted them without which some are of Opinion according to strictness of Law it had been Criminal in them to take Arms though it had been to defend their King And it seems very hard if such a difficult Juncture as that was when there were two Armies in the Bowels of the Kingdom will not justifie those Gentlemen who took Arms and stood upon their own defence and that they declared to stand by the Prince of Orange till all Miscarriages should be redress'd by a Free Parliament seems to me little more than what those Bishops themselves did who now refuse the Oaths for when they were required to do it they would not sign an Abhorrence of the Prince's Undertaking and at Guild-hall they figned the Lords Address to the Prince wherein they promised him their Assistance to procure a Free Parliament And if neither the Prince nor the Subjects of England were to be blamed for what they did it is easie to guess where the whole Blame must lie And if he wilfully brought this Necessity upon himself of quitting his Kingdoms and rather chose to leave his Throne than satisfie the just Demands of the Prince and of his own Subjects he left his Throne for such Reasons as made it just and necessary for his Subjects to fill it If these Principles be true they furnish us with plain and easie Answers to all the Difficulties relating to our present Settlement which I shall briefly observe as the Sum of this whole Discourse 1. As first Whether the late King James be still of Right the King of England or of Right ought to be so The only Argument to prove King James's remaining Right is That he was the Rightful Heir to the Crown and was legally and rightfully possessed of it and therefore is Rightful King still or at least of Right ought to be King Now from what I have already said and I hope proved the Answer to this is plain 1. That as to his Right of Succession the Subjects of England owned it and actually gave him the Crown with all the accustomed Rites and Ceremonies of Coronation and therefore there is no dispute about that But the Question is Whether a King who loses or gives away or deserts his Crown and falls from the Regal Power have a new Right of Succession when the Throne is again filled that is Whether if he part with his Crown he can be Heir and Successor to himself and by the Right of Inheritance challenge his Abdicated Throne again 2. That he was once a Rightful King does not prove that he is King still For legal Right to a Relation and the legal Relation may be separated he may be no King who had once a legal Right and a legal Possession of the Throne and he may be the legal King or One whom the Law owns to be King who had no immediate antecedent Right to the Throne For though in Relations which are founded in Nature the Right and the Relation cannot be separated yet in legal Relations they may And if he who had or has a legal Right to the Crown may be no King Subjects can owe him no Allegiance for Allegiance is due only to the King 3. That he was once a Rightful King does not prove that he has any Right to be King now