of the Kings of Great Britain since the States of Parliament are only call'd by the King and derive their Authority from him and the Legislative Power is solely in the King the States of Parliament being only Consenters he not they can only make Peace and War and grant Remissions and against him and not them Treason only is committed and the Law Books of both Nations do affirm that the King is Supream and consequently even according to Calvin's Doctrine neither his People nor any of their Representatives can justly oppose and much less punish him I know that Grotius is by the Republicans and the Fanaticks oft-times cited to defend this their Doctrine of opposing Princes but though his Testimony might be justly rejected as being himself born under a Commonwealth yet he is most impudently cited for he lib. 1. cap. 4. does positively lay down as a general and undoubted Rule That Summum imperium tenentibus resisti non potest Those who have the Supream Power cannot lawfully be resisted which Rule he founds upon the Principles of Reason the Authority of Scripture and the Practice of the Primitive Church and though he limits the same thereafter by some exceptions yet it will easily appear that these exceptions extend not at all to our Case For the first relates only to such Kings as have receiv'd their Power with express condition that they may be tryed by other Magistrates The second to such as have voluntarily resign'd their Empire as Charles the 5th did and so the one may be oppos'd because they were only Titular Kings and the other because they left off to be Kings and consequently we are concerned in neither of these Cases The third limitation is only in the Case where he who was truly a King has alienated his Kingdom to Strangers In which Case Grotius does contend That Subjects may refuse to obey because he ceaseth to be their King But as this is not our Case so even in that Case Grotius is very clear that if this alienation be made by an Hereditary Monarch the alienation is null as being done in prejudice of the lawful Successor but he does not at all assert that the Monarch may be thereupon depos'd by his People The fourth relates only to such Kings as from a hatred to their Countrey design its Destruction and utter Ruine but as he confesseth himself Id vix accidere potest in Rege mentis compote and consequently can take only place in a mad Man in which Case all Laws allow the Kingdom to be rul'd by Governours and Administrators in the King's Name if the madness be Natural and a Total depravation of Sence But if by Madness be meant a moral Madness and design to ruin the Kingdom and the Subjects as was and is most impiously pretended against King CHARLES the first and King CHARLES the 2 d the best and most reasonable of Kings then Opposition in such Cases is not at all warranted by Grotius who speaks only of a Physical and Natural Madness for else every thing that displeaseth the people should be call'd Madness and so the exception should not limit but overturn the general rule and should Arm all Subjects to rebel against their Princes and make them the Soveraign Judges in all Cases Which is inconsistent with Grotius's own Doctrine and is excellently refuted by his own Reasons The fifth relates only to Kings who by the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom are ty'd to such and such Conditions so as that if they fail in them they may be oppos'd The sixth relates only to Kingdoms where the Power is equally divided betwixt the King and the Senate The seventh is in case the King was at first invested by the People with express reservation to them to resist in such and such Cases and so is almost the same with the fifth and all these three differ little from the first And with Grotius's good leave they err also in this that they are not properly exceptions from his own rule for the rule being only that Supream Powers cannot be resisted these Powers are not Supream and they needed not be caution'd by an exception since they did not fall under the rule But neither of these Cases extend to us since our King is by the Acts of Parliament formerly cited declared to be Supream over all Persons and in all Causes nor made our Predecessors any such express reservations at the first erection of the Monarchy and consequently by Grotius own positive Doctrine cannot be resisted And so far is Grotius an enemy to such Fanatical Resistance upon the Pretence of Liberty and Religion that num 6. he calls the Authors of those Opinions Time-Servers only And Gronovius a violent Republican and Fanatick taxes him extreamly for it in his Observations upon that fourth Chapter whose Arguments produc'd against Grotius I shall answer amongst the other Objections Gronovius's first Argument why it should be lawful to resist the Supream Magistrate in defence of Religion is because if it be not Lawful for Subjects to Arm themselves for Religion against their Prince it should not be lawful for their Prince by the same rule to defend himself against Turks and Infidels who would endeavour to force him to comply with their Impieties But to this it is answered That Resistance to Superiors is expresly forbid by the Laws of God and Nature as is said but this cannot be extended to Cases where there is no Subjection nor Allegiance and it may be as well argu'd that because one private man may beat another who offers to strike him that therfore a Child may beat his Parent or a Servant his Master or that because I may violently resist a private man who offers to take away my Goods unjustly that therefore I may oppose the Sentence of the Magistrate because I forsooth do not think the same just His second shift is That our Saviour commanded only absolute submission without resistance in the Infancy of the Church when he himself was miraculously to asist his own Servants but this Submission was to end with the Miracles to which it related As to which my answer is 1. That all Commands in Scripture may be so eluded nor is there any Duty more frequently and fully inculcated than this is and that too in the same Chapters amongst other Duties which are to last for ever such as Submission to Parents and Masters and this is founded upon plain reason and conveniency and not upon Miracles 2. This was receiv'd and acknowledged by the Pagans as has been fully prov'd though it cannot be pretended that they rely'd upon any such miraculous assistance 3. It cannot be deny'd but the Fathers of the Primitive Church did recommend and justifie themselves in their Apologies to the Heathen Emperours for bearing patiently when they were able not only to have resisted but to have overthrown their Persecuters as is clear by the Citations out of Tertullian Cyprian Lactantius Augustine and others to be seen in
their consent But that can never amount to a power of transferring the Monarchy from one branch to another which would require that the Transferrers or Bestowers had the Supreme Power originally in themselves Nemo enim plus juris in alium transferre potest quam ipse in se habet And if the States of Parliament had this power originally in themselves to bestow why might they not reserve it to themselves and so perpetuate the Government in their own hands And this mov'd Judge Jenkins in his Treatise concerning the Liberty and Freedom of the Subject pag. 25. to say that no King can be named or in any time made in this Kingdom by the People A Parliament never made a King for there were Kings before there were Parliaments and Parliaments are summoned by the King's Writs Fourthly A King cannot in Law alienate his Crown as is undeniable in the Opinion of all Lawyers and if he do that deed is void and null nor could he in Law consent to an Act of Parliament declaring that he should be the last King And if such Consents and Acts had been sufficient to bind Successors many silly Kings in several parts of Europe had long since been prevailed upon to alter their Monarchy from Hereditary to Elective or to turn it into a Commonwealth and therefore by the same Reason they cannot consent to exclude the true Successor For if they may exclude one they may exclude all Fifthly In all Societies and Governments but especially where there is any association of Powers as in our Parliaments there are certain Fundamentals which like the noble parts in the Body are absolutely necessary for its preservation for without these there would be no Ballance or Certainty And thus with us If the King and each of the Estates of Parliament had not distinct and known limits set by the gracious Concessions of our Monarchs each of them would be ready to invade one another's Priviledges And thus I conceive that if the Parliament should consent to alienate half of the Kingdom or to subject the whole to a Stranger as in King John's Case in England and the Baliols in Scotland it has been found by the respective Parliaments of both Kingdoms that that Statute would not oblige the Successor Or if the House of Commons in England or the Boroughs of Scotland should consent to any Act excluding their Estate and Representatives from the Parliament doubtless that Statute excluding them would not prejudge their Successors because that Act were contrary to one of the Fundamental Laws of the Nation And the late Acts of Parliaments excluding Bishops were reprobated by the ensuing Parliaments as such and therefore by the same Rule any Statute made excluding the Legal Successor would be null and void as contrary to one of the great Fundamental Rights of the Nation And what can be call'd more a Fundamental Right than the Succession of our Monarchy Since our Monarchy in this Isle has ever been acknowledg'd to be Hereditary And that this Acknowledgment is the great Basis whereupon most of all the Positions of our Law run and are established such as That the King never dies since the very moment in which the last King dies the next Successor in Blood is Legally King and that without any express Recognizance from the People and all that oppose Him are Rebels His Commissions are valid He may call Parliaments dispose of the Lands belonging to the Crown all men are liable to do him Homage and hold their Rights of Him and His Heirs And generally this Principle runs through all the veins of our Law it is that which gives life and authority to our Statutes but receives none from them which are the undeniable Marks and Characters of a Fundamental Right in all Nations But that this Right of Lineal Succession is one of the Fundamental and Unalterable Laws of the Kingdom of Scotland is clear by the Commission granted by the Parliament for the Union in Anno 1604. in which these words are His Majesty vouchsafing to assure them or His sincere disposition and clear meaning no way by the foresaid Vnion to prejudge of hurt the fundamental Laws ancient Priviledges Offices and Liberties of this Kingdom whereby not only the Princely Authority of His most Royal Descent hath been these many Ages maintain'd but also His Peoples Securities of their Lands and Livings Rights Libertie Offices and Dignities preserv'd Which if they should be innovated such Confusion would ensue as it could no more be free Monarchy Sixthly There would many great Inconveniencies arise both to King and People by the Parliaments having this Power For weak Kings might by their own simplicity and gentle Kings by the Rebellion of their Subjects be induced to consent to such Acts in which their Subjects would be tempted to cheat in the one Case and rebel in the other Many Kings likewise might be wrought upon by the importunity of their Wives or Concubines or by the misrepresentations of Favourites to disinherit the true Successor and He likewise to prevent this Arbitrariness would be oblig'd to enter in a Faction for His own Support from His very Infancy This would likewise animate all of the Blood Royal to strive for the Throne and in order thereunto they would be easily induc'd to make Factions in the Parliament and to hate one another whereas the true Successor would be ingag'd to hate them all and to endeavour the Ruine of such as he thought more Popular than himself and every new Successor would use new Ministers Officers Methods and Designs whereas the apparent Heir uses those whom his Predecessor preferr'd Nor would the People be in better Case since they ought to expect upon all these accounts constant Civil Wars and Animosities and by being unsure whom to follow might be in great hazard by following him who had no Right And their Rights bearing to hold of the King and his Heirs it would be dubious to the Vassals who should be their Superior as well as who should be their King It is also in reason to be expected that Scotland will ever own the Legal Descent And thus we should under different Kings of the same Race be involved in new and constant Civil Wars France shall have a constant door open'd by Alliances with Scotland to disquiet the Peace of the whole Isle and England shall lose all the endeavours it used to unite this Isle within it self Another great Absurdity and Inconveniency which would follow upon the exclusion of the lineal Successor would be that if he had a Son that Son ought certainly to succeed and therefore after the next Lawful Heir were brought from abroad to Reign he ought to return upon the Birth of this Son and if he dyed he would be again call'd home and would be sent back by the Birth of another Son which would occasion such affronts uncertainties divisions factions temptations that I am sure no good nor wise man could admit of such a
them to Reform 4. That the People or their Representatives may Exclude the Lineal Successor and raise to the Throne any of the Royal Family who doth best deserve the Royal Dignity These being all matters of Right the plain and easie way which I resolve to take for refuting them so as the learned and unlearned may be equally convinced shall be first by giving a true account of what is our present positive Law 2. By demonstrating that as our present positive Law is inconsistent with those Principles so these our positive Laws are excellently well founded upon the very nature of Monarchy and that those Principles are inconsistent with all Monarchy And the third Class of my Arguments shall be from the Principles of common Reason Equity and Government abstracting both from the positiveness of our Law and the nature of our Monarchy And in the last place I shall answer the Arguments of those Authors As to the first I conceive that a Treatise De Jure Regni apud Scotos should have clear'd to us what was the power of Monarchs by Law and particularly what was the positive Law of Scotland as to this point for if these points be clear by our positive Law there is no further place for debate since it is absolutely necessary for Mankind especially in matters of Government that they at last acquiesce in something that is fix'd and certain and therefore it is very well observ'd by Lawyers and States-men that before Laws be made men ought to reason but after they are made they ought to obey which makes me admire how Buchannan and the other Authors that I have named should have adventur'd upon a debate in Law not being themselves Lawyers and should have written Books upon that Subject without citing one Law Civil or Municipal pro or con Nor is their Veracity more to be esteemed than their Learning for it 's undeniable that Buchannan wrote this Book De Jure Regni to perswade Scotland to raise his Patron though a Bastard to the Crown and the Authors of Lex Rex Jus Populi Vindicatum and others were known to have written those Libels from picque against the Government because they justly suffered under it I know that to this it may be answered That these Statutes are but late and were not extant in Buchannan's time and consequently Buchannan cannot be refuted by them 2. That these Statutes have been obtain'd from Parliaments by the too great influence of their Monarchs and the too great Pusillanimity of Parliaments who could not resign the Rights and Priviledges of the People since they have no Warrant from them for that effect To the first of which I answer that my Task is not to form an Accusation against Buchannan but against his Principles and to demonstrate that these Principles are not our Law but are inconsistent with it and it is ridiculous to think that any such Laws should have been made before those Treasonable Principles were once hatched and maintained for Errors must appear before they be condemned and by the same Argument it may be as well urged that Arius Nestorius c. were not Hereticks because those Acts of General Councils which condemned their Heresies were not extant when they first defended those opinions and that our King had not the power of making Peace and War till the Year 1661. But 2dly For clearing this Point it is fit to know that our Parliaments never give Prerogatives to our Kings but only declare what have been their Prerogatives and particularly in these Statutes that I shall Cite the Parliament doth not Confer any New Right upon the King but only acknowledge what was Originally his Right and Prerogative from the beginning and therefore the Parliament being the only Judges who could decide whether Buchannans Principles were solid and what was Jus Regni apud Scotos These Statutes having decided those points controverted by him there can be hereafter no place for Debate and particularly as to Buchannan his Book De jure Regni apud Scotos it is expresly condemn'd as Slanderous and containing several offensive Matters by the 134 Act Parl. 8. Ja. 6. in Anno 1584. which was the first Parliament that ever sate after his Book was printed To the 2 d I answer that it being controverted what is the Kings Power there can be no stronger Decision of that Controversie in Favours of the King than the acknowledgment of all Parties Interested and it is strange and unsufferable to hear such as appeal to Parliaments cry out against their Power their Justice and Decisions and why should we oppress our Kings and raise Civil Wars whereby we endanger so much our selves to procure powers to Parliaments if Parliaments be such ridiculous things as we cannot trust when they are impowred by us and if there be any force in this answer of Buchannans there can be none in any of our Laws for that strikes at the Root of all our Laws and as I have produced a Tract of reiterated Laws for many Years so where were there ever such free unlimited Parliaments in any Nation as these whose Laws I have Cited 2dly Whatever might be said if a positive Contract betwixt the King and People were produced clearing what were the just Limits of the Monarchy and bounding it by clear Articles mutually agreed upon yet it is very absurd and extravagant to think that when the Debate is what is the King of Scotlands just Power and Right and from whom he Derives it that the Laws and repeated Acknowledgements of the whole Representatives of the People assembled in the Supream Court of the Nation having no open force upon it but enacted at several times in many several Parliaments under the gentlest peaceablest and wisest Kings that ever they had should not be better believed than the Testimonies of three or four byass'd and disoblig'd Pedants who understood neither our Laws nor Statutes and who can bring no clear fundamental Law nor produce no Contract nor Paction restricting the King or bounding his Government 3dly That which adds a great deal of Authority to this Debate and these Statutes is that as this is clear by our positive Law so it is necessarily inferred from the nature of our Monarchy and is very advantagious for the Subjects of this Kingdom which I shall clear in the second and third Arguments that I shall bring against those Treasonable Principles nor can they be seconded by any solid Reason as I shall make appear in answering the Arguments of those Authors I know that Nephthaly the Author of Jus Populi and our late Fanatical Pamphlets alleadge that our Parliaments since 1661. are null and unlawful because many who have right to Sit as Members or to Elect Members were excluded by the Declaration or Test but my answer is First That these were excluded by Acts of Parliament which were past in Parliaments prior to their exclusion and so they were excluded by Law and no man can be said to
restrained by coactive Law Arnisaeus de essentia Majest cap. 3. num 4. By the 25. Act Parl. 15. Ja. 6. The Parliament does acknowledge That it cannot be deny'd but his Majesty is a free Prince of a Soveraign Power having as great Liberties and Prerogatives by the Laws of this Realm and Priviledge of his Crown and Diadem as any other King Prince or Potentate whatsoever And by the 2. Act. Parl. 18. Ja. 6. The Parliament consenting to his Majesties restoring of Bishops declare and acknowledge the absoluteness of our Monarchy in these words The remedy whereof properly belongs to his Majesty whom the whole Estates of their bounden duty with most hearty and faithful affection humbly and truly acknowledge to be a Soveraign Monarch absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Persons Estates and Causes both Spiritual and Temporal within his said Realm And by the first Act of that same Parliament The Estates and whole Body of this present Parliament acknowledge all with one voluntary humble faithful united heart mind and consent his Majesties soveraign Authority Princely Power Royal Prerogative and Priviledge of his Crown over all Persons Estates and Causes whatsoever within his said Kingdom And because no Acts were ever made giving Prerogatives nor even declaring Prerogatives to have been due until some special controversie did require the same so that Possession and not positive Law was the true measure of the Prerogative therefore the Parliament doth in that same Act approve and perpetually confirm all the Royal Prerogatives as absolutely amply and freely in all respects and considerations as ever his Majesty or any of his Royal Predecessors possessed used and exercised the same and they promise that his Majesties Imperial Power which God has so enlarg'd shall never be in any sort impair'd prejudg'd or diminished but rather reverenc'd and augmented as far as possibly they can In the Preface to our Books of Law call'd Regiam Majestatem it is acknowledg'd that the King has no Superiour except the Creator of Heaven and Earth who governs all Forreign Lawyers also such as Lansius de Lege Regia num 49. and others do number the King of Scotland amongst the Absolute Monarchs My second Argument for proving our King to be an absolute Monarch shall be from my former position wherein I hope I have prov'd sufficiently that our Kings derive not their Right from the People for if the King derive not his Power from the People the Monarchy can never be limited by them and consequently it must be an absolute Monarchy for there could be nothing more unjust more unnatural and more insolent then that the People should pretend a Right to limit and restrain that Power which they never gave and the only reason why Buchannan and his Complices do assert our Monarchy to be a qualified and limited Monarchy being thâ—â— the People when they first Elected our Kings did qualifie and restrain their Government This position being false as appears by the absolute Oath and original Constitution above set down which is lessened or qualified by no condition whatsoever therefore the conclusion drawn from it must be false likewise The third Argument shall be deduced from the Nature of Monarchy and in order thereto I lay down as an uncontroverted principle that every thing must be constructed to be perfect in its own Nature and no mixture is presum'd to be in any thing but he who alledges that the thing controverted is added against Nature must prove the same and therefore since Monarchy is that Government whereby a King is Supream the Monarch must be presum'd neither to be oblig'd to Govern by the advice of the Nobility for that were to confound Monarchy with Aristocracie nor by the advice of the People for that were to confound it with Democracie and consequently if Buchannan and others design to prove that our Kings are obliged to Govern by the advice either of the Nobility or People or are subject to be Chastised by them they must prove that our Kings at their first Creation were Elected upon these Conditions the very Essence and Being of Monarchy consisting in its having a Supream and absolute Power Arnisaeus c. 30. Vasquez l. 1. Controv. c. 47. Budaeus in l. princeps Zas ibid. ff de legibus pone enim says Arnisaeus populum in Regem habere aequalem potestatem neutrum pro summo venditari posse When we hear of a Monarch the first notion we have is that he is a Subject to none for to be a Subject and a Monarch are inconsistent but if we hear that his Nobility or People or both may Depose or punish him we necessarily conclude by the Light of Nature that They and not He are the supream Governours Thus we see that in allowing our King to be an absolute Monarch we have only allow'd him to be a Monarch and to have what naturally belongs to him and that by as necessary a consequence for as every Man is presumed to be reasonable because reason is the Essence of Man so is a King presum'd to be absolute except these limitations whereby the Monarchy is restrained could be prov'd by an express Contract 4thly How is it imaginable but that if our Predecessors had Elected our Kings upon any such Conditions but they would have been very careful to have limited the Monarchy and this Contract had with these conditions been recorded whereas on the contrary we find that albeit great care was taken to record the Oath of Allegiance made to the King and to grave the same upon Marble Tables consign'd unto the custody of their Priests as sacred Oracles yet none of all our Historians make the least mention of any limitations in these Oaths or by any other Contract and to this day our Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance are clogged and lessened by no limitations If it be answered that these limitations do arise from the nature of the thing it self there being nothing more unreasonable and contrary to the nature of Government than that a Monarch who was design'd to be a Protector to his People should be allow'd to destroy them To this it is answered That Monarchy by its nature is absolute as has been prov'd and consequently these pretended limitations are against the nature of Monarchy and so arise not ex natura rei nor can there any thing be more extravagant than to assert that that which is contrary to the nature of Monarchy should arise from its nature and it might be with greater reason pretended that because the great design of men in Marriage is to get a Helper that therefore they may repudiate their Wives when they find them unsupportable and that the putting them away in such cases is consistent enough with the nature of their Oath though simple and absolute this cause of Divorce arising from the nature of Marriage it self This is after Vows to make Inquiry and what Vow or Oath could be useful if the giver were to be Judge how
three Estates which shews that there 's nothing design'd in this Act in favour of their Authority and that this King was Minor the time of this Act and that he had great Troubles in his Youth is very clear from the short characters given of our Kings by Skeen in the end of our Acts of Parliament It will I hope easily appear by the ballance of these Arguments that at least the Municipal Laws of our Nation which punish Defensive Arms as Treason should be obey'd by our Countrey-men since as I have oft inculcated the Laws of any Nation should still be obey'd except where they are inconsistent with the Word of God and the most that the most violent Republicans alive can say upon this Subject is that the case may be debated by probable Arguments and that neither of the Positions want their inconveniencies so that in this as in all other Debates the Law of each Nation is the best Judge to decide such Controversies and therefore such as maintain these Principles after so many positive and reiterated Laws are obliged for preserving the Peace of humane Society and the Order which God has establisht to remove from places where they cannot obey for they will always find some place where the Government will please them and better they be disquieted than the Government of the whole World should be disturb'd But if they will stay and oppose the Government it must be excus'd to execute those who would destroy it Having thus glanc'd only at Answers to these Objections because I think the Objections rather plausible than strong I shall sum up this Debate with these Reflections First Buchannan and our Republican Authors debate all these Grounds as if we were yet to form the Government under which we were to live wheras we live under and are sworn to a Monarchy fixt by Law and Consent time out of mind and the Levellers may as well urge that no Nobleman should be dignifi'd nor no Gentleman enriched above a man of good sence and Tenants may argue that it is not reasonable that they bearing God's Image as well as the Master should toil to feed their Lusts Thus Reason may be distorted and we call that Treason and Providence which pleases us best Secondly Most of their Citations and Authorities are the Sentiments of those Greeks and Romans who liv'd under Common-wealths and so magnifi'd their Countrey in opposition to Usurpers whereas our King is the Father of our Countrey and whatever they said of their Countrey we should say of him and therefore these Citations concern us no more than the Law of England binds Scotchmen they praise their own Children and Servants for their Faithfulness and Obedience to them and yet they rail at us for being faithful to our great Master and chief Parent under God Thirdly Most of the Authors cited and admir'd by them are Heathens particularly Stoicks who equall'd themselves not only to Kings but to their own Gods and against whose selfishness and pride all Christians have justly exclaim'd and so they are not competent Judges nor sure Guides to Christians in the exercise of those purely Christian Vertues of Humility Submission Self-denial Patience Faith and Reliance upon God Fourthly They balance not all the conveniences and inconveniences of either Government but magnifie the one and conceal the other and thus it is true that Kings may be Tyrants but so may and usually are the Leaders of the Rabble Cromwel was such and Shaftsbury had been such he was such in his Nature and had been such in his Government and the Distractions of a Civil War which ordinarily attend Competitions amongst Republicans destroy more than the Lusts of any one Tyrant can do which made Lucan tho a Republican and of the Pompeyan Party conclude after a sad review of the continued Civil Wars betwixt Sylla and Marius Caesar and Pompey without considering what followed under the Trium viri Faelices Arabes Medique Eoaque tellus Qui sub perpetuis tenuerunt Regna Tyrannis Fifthly Those who debate against Magistracy gratifie their own Vanity and Insolence but such devout men as Ambrose Augustine Vsher and others debate against the dictates of Interest as well as Passion which two nothing save Grace can overcome and there can be no surer mark of Conviction than to decide against these Lastly Even Buchannan repented his horrid Doctrine Cambden 10. year of Queen Elizabeths Reign in 1567. But forasmuch as Buchannan being transported with partial affection and with Murrays bounty wrote in such sort that his said Books have been condemned of falshood by the Estates of the Realm of Scotland to whose Credit more is to be attributed and he himself sighing and sorrowing sundry times blam'd himself as I have heard before the King to whom he was School-master for that he had imploy'd so virulent a Pen against that well deserving Queen and upon his Death-bed wished that he might live so long till by recalling the truth he might even with his Blood wipe away those Aspersions which he had by his bad Tongue falsly laid upon her but that as he said it would now be in vain when he might seem to dote for Age c. Idem Anno 1582. And not content with all this speaking of their surprizing the King they compell'd the King against his Will to approve of this intercepting of his Letters to the Queen of England and to decree an Assembly of the Estates summoned by them to be just yet could they not induce Buchannan to approve of this their Fact either by writing or perswasion by Message who now sorrowfully lamented that he had already undertaken the Cause of Factious people against their Princes and soon after Died c. THAT THE LAWFVL SVCCESSOR CANNOT BE DEBARR'D FROM Succeeding TO THE CROWN Maintain'd against DOLMAN BUCHANNAN And OTHERS BY Sir GEORGE MACKENZIE His Majesties Advocate in Scotland LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls Church-yard 1684. King James In His Advice to Prince Henry Page 173. IF God give you not Succession Defraud never the Nearest by Right whatsoever Conceit ye have of the Person for Kingdoms are ever at God's disposition and in that Case we are but Liferenters it lying no more in the Kings than in the Peoples hands to dispossess the Righteous Heir Page 209. Ibid. FOR at the very moment of the Expiring of the King Reigning the Nearest and Lawful Heir entereth in his place and so to refuse him or intrude another is not to hold out the Successor from coming in but to expel and put out their Righteous King And I trust at this time whole FRANCE acknowledgeth the Rebellion of the Leaguers who upon pretence of Heresie by Force of Arms held so long out to the great Desolation of their whole Countrey their Native and Righteous King from possessing his own Crown and natural Kingdom THE RIGHT OF THE Succession DEFENDED THE Fourth Conclusion to be cleared was That neither
suffer for it ye take it patiently this is acceptable to God for even hereunto were ye called Our blessed Saviour's practice did likewise agree most admirably with his Precepts and Doctrine formerly insisted on for though no man ever was or can be so much injur'd as his blessed self nor could ever any defensive Arms have been so just as in his quarrel yet he would not suffer a Sword to be drawn in it and to discourage all Christians from using Arms he told those who were offering to defend even himself with Arms that whosoever should draw the Sword should perish by it and it seems that God Almighty permitted Peter to draw his Sword at that time meerly that we might upon that occasion be for ever deter'd from Defensive Arms by this our Saviour's Divine example and reasoning The last Argument I shall produce shall be from that most Christian Topick us'd by St. Paul Rom. 3. 8. We should not do ill that good may come of it And therefore since disobedience to Magistrates but much more to Rebel against them is forbid by the Laws both of God and Men This disobedience and opposition cannot be justifi d by pretending that it is design'd for Reforming the Nation And if it be answer'd That this opposition is not in it self ill because the design justifies it It is to this reply'd That if this answer be sufficient then the former excellent Rule is of no use for when a Servant steals his Masters Mony to give to the Poor or a Son cuts his Fathers Throat because he is vicious or when Jacques Clement Stabbed Henry the 3. and Ravillack Henry the 4. of France they might have alleadg'd the same in their own defence Nor know we surer proof that any thing is impious or unlawful then when the Laws of our Nation have forbid it as a great Crime they being against and contrary to no positive Law of God but rather suitable to the same and own'd as such by Christian Synods and Divines there being no necessity to enforce this going out of the Road. All which holds in this case nor can it be imagin'd how Reforming by Arms can be thought necessary since God both can without a Miracle Turn the hearts of Kings in whose hands they are as Rivers of Waters And can send devout Men to influence Kingdoms And should not we rather suffer Patiently as the Primitive Christians did that his Divine Majesty may be by our Patience prevail'd upon to Reform us now as he did of old our Predecessors from Paganism by our own Kings in a Regular way than upon every Notion of Bigot and Factious Ring-leaders overturn all Government and Order rent all Unity and involve our Native Countrey in Blood and Confusion And whilst we are fighting for the terms of Religion lose the true efficacy of Piety and Devotion for what use can there be of Patience Humility Faith and Hope if we will presently repair our selves submit to no Magistracy that differs from us and believe that Religion cannot subsist except by us The Fathers also of the Primitive Church have inculcated so much this Doctrine every where both by their Doctrine and Practice and both these are so fully known that I shall remit this point to those Learn'd Men who have fully handled it Only I must remember that excellent passage of St. Ambrose who being commanded to deliver up his Church to the Arians says Volens nunquam deseram coactus repugnare non novi dolere potero flere potero gemere potero adversus arma milites Gothos Lachrymae meae mea arma sunt talia enim sunt munimenta sacerdotis aliter nec debeo nec possum resistere Which Prayers and Tears are likewise call'd the only Arms of the Church by the great Nazianzen in his first Oration against Julian and by St. Bernard in his 221. Epistle But more of this is to be found Tom. 2. Concil Galliae pag. 533. Where it is fully prov'd that all Subjects ought humbly and faithfully to obey the Regal Power as being ordained by none but God with whom the wise Heathens agree for Marcellus Eprius Tacit. lib. 4. hist. pray'd for good Princes but obey'd bad ones and Terentius in the same Author An. lib. 6. § 3. confesses That the Gods had bestow'd on the Emperor the sole disposal of all things leaving nothing to Subjects save the honour of obedience But because these of that perswasion rather will believe Calvin than the Fathers I have taken pains to consider in him these few passages cap. 20 lib. 4. Institut § 27. Assumptum in Regiam Majestatem violare nefas est nunquam nobis seditiosae istae cogitationes in mentem veniant tractandum esse pro meritis Regem § 29. Personam sustinent voluntate Domini cui inviolabilem Majestatem ipse impressit insculpsit § 31. Privatis hominibus nullum aliud quam parendi patiendi datum est mandatum And all this Chapter doth so Learnedly and judicially impugn this Doctrine that it is a wonder why Calvinists should differ from Calvin I know that to this it may be answered That the same Calvin does qualifie his own words which I have cited with this following Caution Si qui sunt saith he populares Magistratus ad moderandam Regum libidinem constituti quales olim erant qui Lacedemoniis regibus oppositi erant Ephori qua etiam forte potestate ut nunc res habent funguntur in singulis regnis tres ordines quum primarios conventus peragunt adeo illos ferocienti Regum licentiae pro offico intercedere non veto ut si Regibus impotenter grassantibus humili plebeculae insultantibus conniveant eorum dissimulationem nefaria perfidia non carere affirmem quia populi libertatem cujus se tutores Dei ordinatione positos norunt fraudulenter produnt To which my reply is That these words must be so constructed as that they may not be inconsistent with his former clear and Orthodox Doctrine of not resisting Supream Powers the former being his positive Doctrine and this but a supervenient Caution and they do very well consist for though Calvin be very clear that Kings cannot be resisted yet he thinks that this is only to be meant of those Kings who have no Superiors to check them by Law as the Kings of the Lacedemonians had who by the fundamental Constitution of their Monarchy might have been call'd to an accompt by the Ephori and so in effect were only Titular Kings Or of such Monarchs as had only a co-ordinate Power with the States of their own Kingdom and even in these Cases he does not positively assert that these Monarchs may be resisted but does only doubt whether if there be any such Superior or co-ordinate Magistrate representing the People they may not restrain the Rage and Licentiousness of their Kings But that Caution does not at all concern the Jus Regni apud Scotos because this cannot be said