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
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
the one is a Right of a Legal Claim the other of a Legal Possession And that this may and must be in all Civil Governments and mere Legal Rights appears from the different Laws and Customs on which such different Rights are founded This I have hinted at before but must now explain it more particularly In all Civil Societies there must be particular Laws to determine mens personal and particular Rights and whatever is due to any man by such Laws is his Legal Right But yet we know these Laws can determine no Controversy without a living Judge for if every man were to judge for himself every man will make the Law to be on his side and then we had as good have no Laws at all and therefore the Fundamental Law of all Societies which is superior to all particular Laws is this That the last and final Judgment of Authority shall be esteemed the Law and that shall be every man's Right as to all the effects of Law which is thus adjudged him Whoever calmly considers things will find that it is impossible it should be otherwise without overturning all Civil Governments Suppose then that the true Heir to an Estate should be dispossessed of it by an Erroneous or Corrupt Judgment at Law and another by the same Judgment should by all Legal Methods used in such Cases be possess'd of it though he be not the true Heir here now is jus ad rem and jus in re The true Heir by the Laws of Inheritance has the Legal Right to the Estate but by the Supreme Law of all Societies which refers the decision of all personal Rights to a Legal Authority he who by a Legal Judgment is possessed of it has the Legal Right in the Estate against all Claims and Legal Authority must defend him in it and all who will submit to Laws and Legal Authority must acquiesce in it And thus it must be with respect to the Rights of Princes as well as of Subjects The Right to the Crown is often disputed as we all know and to say that when such Disputes happen there is no Authority in the Nation to decide them is to say that Princes have no Rights to their Crowns by the Laws of that Nation for there can be no Civil Laws of which there are and can be no Civil Judges for no man no not a Prince can be Judge in his own Cause and if Princes have no Legal Rights they can lose no Legal Rights when they lose their Crowns and I doubt their Natural Rights will affect the Consciences of very few Subjects A Supreme Independent Society must from the Nature of such Societies and the Reason of their Institution have Authority within it self to decide all Controversies which may arise about the Rights of every part or Member of the Society and to preserve it self from falling into a State of War which is a Dissolution of Civil Government and if there be such an Authority in every Nation when the Supreme Authority has determined such Disputes it must determine Subjects and no Right or pretence of Right can affect the Conscience after such a final Judgment unless Civil Rights can oblige Subjects to dissolve Civil Governments and to dispute Legal Rights not by the Law but by the Sword which is to overthrow all Civil Rights and to put an end to the Authority of Laws This shows how much those men are mistaken who think there can be no King in an Hereditary Monarchy but the next Lineal Heir and that no Allegiance being due or to be paid to him who is no King none can therefore be due to any Prince however possessed of the Throne if he be not the next Heir That no Obedience is due to him who is no King I readily grant though it may in some cases be paid to him who is no King but he may be a Legal King who is not the next Rightful Heir as almost half of the Kings of England since the Conquest were not and yet have been always own'd and obey'd as Legal Kings But the ground of the mistake is that they do not distinguish between Natural and Legal Relations but think a King to be a King by as certain and unchangeable a Right as a Father is a Father as if Laws were of the same force and power with Nature as if to be Heir to a King which in Hereditary Monarchies gives a Legal Title to Succession did as necessarily and unavoidably make a King as Natural Generation makes a Father These men do not consider that in Natural Relations the Right makes the Relation and enters its definition and therefore the Right and the Relation can never be separated The Right to be a Father is to beget and the definition of a Father is he who begets and therefore no man can be a Natural Father but he who begets and every one who begets is a Father But now in Legal Relations an Antecedent Right does not make the Relation nor is any part of its definition The Right to be a King is one thing and to be a King is another the Rights may be very different but the Notion of a King is the same The Rights may be Hereditary Patrimonial Testamentary by Election or by Conquest but the Notion of a King is one who Administers the Civil Government with a Sovereign Authority whoever does so is a King whatever his Title may be as he that begets is a Father though it be by Unlawful Embraces The answer to that question Who is King is not He who has the Right to the Crown but be who is invested with the Regal and Sovereign Authority But if we enquire how he came to ascend the Throne Whether he be an Hereditary or Elective King a King de facto or an Usurper These questions must be answered by the Claim or Title by which he holds That he was the Right Lineal Heir of the last King or that he was Elected by the people or that there being some dispute about the Crown it was adjudged to him by the Estates of the Realm or that he won it by his Sword and either keeps it still by Power or now wears it by the Consent and Submission of the people An Antecedent Right cannot belong to the definition of the King for then there could be no Kings but Hereditary or Testamentary Monarchs and as for any other Right he has it who is invested in the Regal Authority by those who are the Supreme Power of the Kingdom and represent the body of the people when there is no Monarch nor provision for administration of Government Whoever is invested with the true Regal Authority is a True and Right King for he to whom the true definition of a King belongs is a true King An Usurper who Governs by mere Power and by the forced Submission of the people has the Power but not the Authority of a King But he who is setl'd in the Throne by the
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
can prove that there ought to be no Government in a Nation while the Rightful Prince cannot Govern I will grant that Subjects ought to own no other Authority but if no Laws no Legal Rights can be more sacred than the very being of human Societies and Civil Government the Rights of Princes must give place to the necessities of Government for it is more absolutely necessary that human Societies should be maintained and governed than that any Prince how uncontested soever his Right be should Govern for I think Legal Rights which owe their very beings to human Societies were never intended to put an end to them This I hope is enough to elear this Point That a King may lose his Legal Right to the Crown by Conquest which gives the Conqueror in a Just War a new Right and sets Subjects at Liberty to transfer their Allegiance to the Conqueror And I shall observe by the way that though we are not a Conquered People yet most of those reasons which will justify Subjects in transferring their Allegiance to a Conqueror will much more justify our Submission and Allegiance to Their present Majesties whatever opinion we have about Right For it is certain the Authority of the Nation is now in their Hands and placed there by a legal Judgment and if National Laws which are the Laws of the Government cannot oblige the Conscience without a National Authority to give an Obligation to them much less against a National Authority then there can be no Law in England which at this time obliges the Consciences of English Subjects to pay their Allegiance to the late King James There is no such Law to be found in Westminster-Hall or Parliamentary Judgments or Determinations and then I know not where to find it There is no King in Westminster-Hall or on the Parliament Rolls but King William and Queen Mary no Treason but what is committed against them and therefore no Allegiance due by Law but only to them For Treason is a violation of our Allegiance and where no Treason can be committed no Allegiance can be due Tho' the Nation is not Conquered yet it is certain that private Subjects are under as great Restraint by the legal Change of the Government as if they were in the Power of a Conqueror for to resist would be equally fatal to them in both Cases and there is no Authority that can defend them And if Human Laws cannot oblige the Conscience against Force if every Man has a natural Right to preserve himself by yielding and submitting to Power when there is no Authority to defend him against it why may he not as well submit to the irresistible Power of a National Authority how unjust soever he thinks it is as to the Military Power of the Sword Why may not Men as well submit when they are conquered in the highest Judicature as in the Field It seems to me that there is little difference between them when Men must forfeit their Lives Estates or Honours either way And when the Authority of the late King whatever they suppose it to be can no more defend them from the Laws than from the Sword what shall hinder his Authority's being at an end to them and their being at liberty to take care of themselves The Subjects of England have a legal Right to their Lives and Liberties and Properties as well as the King and I know no Law that commands Subjects to forfeit their Lives and Liberties and Propeties meerly because they cannot defend the King in his nor the King them in theirs In Cases of such Extremity Kings will take care of themselves and Subjects have as much Right to take care of themselves If any Necessity will justifie Kings in leaving their Thrones and the Government and the Defence of their Subjects the same Necessity will justifie Subjects in submitting to a new Power No meer human Laws nor human Authority can oblige in Cases of extream Necessity The Authority of God indeed can because God can reward and punish beyond the Grave But though the Laws of Men are bound on us by the Authority of God yet God requires us to obey Men and their Laws no farther than their Authority reaches and therefore not in Cases of extreme Necessity which in most Instances will dispence with the positive part of Moral Laws themselves Secondly Let us now consider the Case of Abdication and Desertion which was plainly the Case of the late King James For he seeing himself deserted by his Subjects and by part of his Army who would not sight for him against their Religion and Liberties durst not venture the Fortune of a Battel and being as appears by his Actions resolv'd not to submit the Redress of all Grievances to a Free Parliament had no other way left but to withdraw his Person and fling up the Government The Qustion then is Whether this was such a Leaving of his Crown as put it into the Hands of the Estates to dispose of it to the next Heir We must not expect to find any Precedent of this Nature nor any Provision made for it in Law for there never was an Example of this kind before and probably never will be again But all such unusual Cases must be determined by living Judges according to the reason and nature of Things We know how it has been determined and what Disputes those Words Abdication and Desertion have caused but I shall not dispute about Words but consider the Thing I need not be at any pains to prove that Government is absolutely necessary and that all people have as natural a Right to supply the Vacancies of Government according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom as they had at first to form themselves into human Societies That Kings are made for Government and therefore have no longer any Right to Kingship than they will administer the Government And I think it is as plain that for a King deliberately to quit his Kingdoms without making any manner of Provision or leaving any Authority behind him to govern in his Name is actually to quit the Government For to leave off governing as he does who withdraws his Person and Authority is to quit the Government And when the King leaves his Crown and Government it must either of Right belong to the next Heir or the Body of the Nation and the Estates of the Kingdom will be restored to their Liberty of providing for themselves for the Nation must be governed It is evident indeed that Princes many times leave their Thrones without any intention to give up their Right to Government But the Question is not what they intend but what they do If to leave their Thrones empty which must be filled by some-body be in the nature of the thing or by necessary and unavoidable Consequence to give up the Possession of them to some-body else it is in vain to talk of parting with the Possession without parting with the Right as far as
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
then Elective Monarchies were a violation of the Rights of Nature if it be a Natural Right for the next Heir to succeed his Father in the Kingdom the next Heir of all Kings have the same Right for the Rights of Nature are equal and universal and then it is contrary to Natural Right for any Subjects to own or elect any King but the Natural Heir There must be in all Kingdoms the same Laws of Succession which now very much vary there must be no difference between Hereditary Patrimonial and Elective Kingdoms For the next Lineal Heir by a Natural Right must always be King It is certain the first Ring of every Family could have no Natural Right without recurring to an invisible Patriarchal Authority and if he had none how could be transmit that Right to his Posterity which he had not himself But I shall urge this no farther since the Wisest men even among the Assertors of K. J's Authority pretend to no more then a Legal Right Let us then in the next place consider the nature of those Legals Rights especially with respect to the Rights of Princes to their Thrones The whole Dispute about Legal Rights and the Rights of Princes to their Thrones are no other then Legal Rights must be resolved into the Laws of the Land and therefore we must consider the nature extent and obligation of National Laws for pure Legal Rights must of necessity be subject to all the changes restrictions limitations diminutions that Laws are and here are so many things to be consider'd that it is hard to reduce them into method But it will be most proper to begin with what immediately concerns the Late King 's Right I observe then 1. That the Law is satisfied when that is done which the Law requires to be done and Subjects are no longer bound in Conscience by that Law when they have answerd its demands Thus the Law of Succession is satisfied when the next Lineal Heir is placed on the Throne and when Subjects have done this they can never more be charged with denying him his Right of Inheritance when they have actually given it him This was the case of K. J. though his Protestant Subjects had too just apprehensions of a Popish Prince yet they set the Crown upon his head with all the usual Solemnities and own'd and recogniz'd him for their King with all the Formalities of Law So that the Subjects of England never denied nor do they to this day James the Second's Hereditary Right to the Crown they own'd and gave him his Right and he had it if he would have kept it and this answered the Law of Succession to the full but if the King will leave his Throne and make it Vacant the Law of Succession does not oblige Subjects to give him his Throne again but to fill the Vacant Throne with the next Heir The case of Edward the 4th and Charles the 2d was very different They were the undoubted Heirs to the Crown by a Lineal Succession and were unjustly kept from their Right and therefore Subjects were bound to do them Right by placing them on the Throne But the Question is not and never was Whether K. J. were the Rightful Heir but whether he still be the Legal and Rightful King to whom our Allegiance is due and his being once the Right Heir does not prive that he is now the Legal and Rightful King or that he has any Right to be so again If he hath no Right but only by Law I never could find or hear of any Law which gives him any Right to resume what he thought fit once to quit and renounce and consequently the Subjects of England deny him no Right in denying to restore him to his Abdicated Throne and then the Dispute of Right and Justice is out of doors as to this matter as far as the Right of Succession is concerned 2dly All Legal Rights are subject to some Legal Judgment or definitive Declaration and must be determined by it and such a Judgment is the rule and resolution of Conscience as to such adjudged Cases For we have no other rule in matters of Law but a Legal Judgment or Sentence and our Obedience to Government requires us to acquiesce in such a Judgment as is pronounced by a legal and competent Authority So that to govern and to judge must belong to the same Authority as far as I am bound to obey any man I must follow his Judgment and not my own especially when this judgment is pronounced by the last Judicature from whence lies no appeal Let us then apply this to our present case The late King withdrew his Person and Authority and left us without any provision for or face of Government The Estates of the Realm Assemble upon this great occasion adjudge this to be an Abdication and Desertion of the Government and declare the Throne Vacant and fill it with their Present Majesties And the Question now is Whether this be not such a Legal and Decisive Judgment as all the Subjects of England ought to acquiesce in If the Disputes about Legal Rights must be decided by Law not by the Sword which is not the decision of Civil Authority but of Force the sentence of competent Judges must end the Dispute and if the Estates of the Realm be not the proper and legal Judges of such Disputes as concern the Right to the Crown there can be none and if they be Subjects must acquiesce in their Judgment or it is all one as if there had been none for if men may pretend Conscience and adhere to their own private Opinions in contradiction to the definitive Sentence of the last and sole Judges the Dispute must end in Blows which is contrary to the Reason and Nature of humane Societies which were instituted to prevent Wars and to end all Controversies by a legal Judgment without the Sword I deny not but there may be great Injustice done by Corrupt or Ignorant Judges and the Law has made the best provision it can against this by allowing appeals from Inferior to Superior Courts But if the highest Authority from whence lies no Appeal happens to judge wrong there is no remedy but to bear it patiently We are not bound indeed to think that right which we know to be wrong but we are bound to acquiesce in it to all the intents and purposes of Law as much as if we did believe it right And as hard as this may sometimes prove there is the same necessity for this that there is for Laws and Civil Authority all Legal Rights are held by this tenure to be subject to a Legal judgment and determination and though some men may suffer by a wrong judgment it is much better to oblige them to acquiesce under it than by leaving them a right to dispute it to endanger the bringing the whole into a state of Anarchy and War Civil Authority will compel private men to submit to its decisions