Regii sanguinis praerogativa dignitas ut vitium non admittat nec se contaminari patiatur And thus though he who were to succeed had committed murther or were declar'd a traitour formerly to the Crown for open Rebellion against the King and Kingdom yet he needed not be restor'd by Act of Parliament upon his comming to the Crown But his very Right of blood would purge all these imperfections Of which there are two reasons given by Lawyers one is that no man can be a Rebel against himself nor can the King have a Superior And consequently there can be none whom he can offend And it were absurd that he who can restore all other men should need to be restored himself The second reason is because the punishment of crimes such as confiscations c. Are to be inflicted by the Kings Authority or to fall to the Kings Thesaury and it were most absurd that a man should exact from himself a punishment Likeas upon this account it is that though in the Canon Law Bastards cannot be promov'd to sacred orders without dispensation nor can alibi nati that is to say people born out of England be admitted to succeed in England by express Act of Parliament there Yet Agapaetus Theodorus Gelasius and many others have been admitted to be Popes without any formal dispensation their election clearing that imperfection And the Statute of alibi nati has been oft found not to extend to the Royal line That the Succession to the Crown purges all defects is clear by many instances both at home and abroad The instances at home are in England Henry the VI. Being disabled and attainted of high treason by Act of Parliament it was found by the Judges notwithstanding that from the moment he assum'd the Crown he had Right to succeed without being restored And the like was resolved by the Judges in the case of Henry the VII As Bacon observes in his History of Henry the VII fol. 13. And in the case of Queen Elizabeth who was declar'd Bastard by Act of Parliament as is clear by Cambden anno 2. Elizabeth And though in Scotland there be no express instances of this because though some Rebellious Ring-leaders in Scotland have often in a privat capacity been very injurious to their King Yet their Parliaments have been ever very tender of attainting the blood Royal or presumptive Heirs But Alexander Duke of Albanie and his Succession being declared traitours by his Brother King Iames the IV. his Son Iohn was notwithstanding called home from France upon his Uncles death and declar'd Tutor and Governour without any remission or being restor'd that employment being found to be due to him by the right of blood therefore he had been much more declared the true Successor of the Crown if his Cousin King Iames the V. had died These being sufficient to establish our design I shall mention only some forraigne stories CHARLES the VII of France who though banish'd by Sentence of the Parliament of Paris did thereafter succeed to the Crown And though Lewis the XII was forfeited for taking up armes against CHARLES the VIII Yet he succeeded to him without restitution And Lewis the II. his Son being declared a Rebel whom his Father desiring to disinherit and to substitut in his place Charles Duke of Normandie that Son had succeeded if he had not been hindered by the Nobility who plainly told him it was impossible to exclude his Sone from the Succession My next task shall be to satisfy the arguments brought for mantaining this opinion whereof the first is That God himself has authorised the inverting the Right of Succession by the examples of Esau Salomon and others To which I answer that these instances which are warranted by express commands from God are no more to be drawn into example than the robbing of the Aegyptians ear-rings And it 's needing an express command and the expressing of that command does evince that otherwayes Iacob nor Salomon could not have succeeded against the priviledge of birth-Right and possession The next objection is that it is naturally imply'd in all Monarchies that the people shall obey whilst the Prince Governs justly As in the paction betwixt David and the people 2 Sam. 5. Which is most suitable to the principles of justice and Government Since relations cannot stand by one side so that when the King leaves off to be King and becomes a Tyrant the people may consult their own security in laying him aside as Tutors may be remov'd when they are suspect And that this is most just when Kings are Idolaters since God is rather to be obey'd then men To all which it is answered that God who loves order and knows the extravagant levity and insolence of men especially when baited by hope of prey or promotion did wisely think fit to ordain under the paine of eternal damnation that all men should be subject to Superiour powers for conscience sake 1 Pet. 2.13 and that whoever resists the power resists God Rom. 13.2 reserving the punishment of Kings to himself as being only their Superiour And thus David Asa and others committed crimes but were not depos'd nor debarr'd by the people Nor were even the Idolatrous Kings such as Achab Manasse c. judged by their subjects nor did the Prophets exhort the people to rise against them though they were opposing Gods express and immediat will And overturning the uncontraverted fundamentals of Religion Nor did the Fathers of the primitive Church excite the Christians to oppose the Heathen and Idolatrous Princes under which they lived and Paul commands them to pray for these Heathen Emperours Nor was the Emperour Basilicus depos'd for abrogating the Council of Chalcedon as is pretended by some Republicans but was turn'd out by the just Successor Zeno whom he had formerly dethron'd Nor were Zeno or Anastasius degraded for their errors in Religion or their vices by the ancient Christians but were opprest by private faction And sure they must think God unable to redress himself who without warrand and against his expresse warrand will usurpe so high a power And we in this rebellious principle owne the greatest extravagancy with which We can charge the Pope and Jesuits and disowne not only our own Confession of faith which Article 1. Chap. 22. acknowledges that infidelity or difference in Religion doth not make void the Magistrats just or legal authority nor free the People from their due obedience to him but contradict the best Protestant divines as Musculus Melancthon and others vid. libell de vitand superstit Anno 1150. Consil. Biden Dec. 1. Consil. 10. Decad. 10. Consil. 5. nor can the subterfuge us'd by Buchanan and others satisfie whereby they contend that the former Texts of Scripture prove only that the Office but not the Persones of Kings are Sacred so that Parliaments or People may lay aside the Persons though not the Office seing the Sacred Text secures oftner the Person than the Office
that the Fanaticks who think that every throw of the Dice is influenc'd by a special Providence will not allow that God does by a special Providence take care who shall be his Representative who shall be the Pastor of his Flock and nursing Father of his Church let us therefore trust his Care more than our own and hope to obtain more from him by Christian Submission Humility and Obedience than we can by Caballing Rebelling and Sacrilegious-Murdering or Excluding the true Successor FINIS What follows is immediatly to be subjony'd to the Testimony of Calvin Page 90. 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 quâ etiam fortè potestate ut nunc res habent fuguntur in singulis regnis tres ordines quum primarios conventus peragunt adeo illos ferocienti Regum licentiae pro officio intercedere non veto ut si Regibus impotenter grassantibus humili plebeculae insultantibus conniveant eorum dissimulationem nefariâ perfidiâ non carere affirmam quia populi libertatem cujus se tutores Dei ordinatione positos nôrunt fraudulenter produnt To which my reply is That these words must be so constructed as that they may not be incosistent 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 mean'd 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 Ius Regni apud Scotos because this cannot be said 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 and 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 whilch 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 try'd by other Magistrats The second to such as have voluntarily resign'd their Empire as Charles the 5 th 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 Sense But if by Madness be mean'd a moral Madness and design to ruine 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 fall in them they may be oppos'd The sixth relates only to Kingdoms where the Power is equally devided betwixt the King and the Senate The seventh is incase 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 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 fomerly 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
and may rise in Arms against them if the Monarch hinder them to Reform 4. That the People or their Representatives may seclude 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 these 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 Iure 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 observed 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 undenyable that Buchannan wrot this Book De Iure Regni to perswade Scotland to raise his Patron though a Bastard to the Crown and the Authors of Lex Rex Ius 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 Buchanans time and consequently Buchanan cannot be Redargu'd 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 Warrand from them for that effect To the first of which I answer that my Task is not to form an Accusation against Buchanan but against his Principles and to demonstrat 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 these 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 2 dly 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 Ius Regni apud Scctor These Statutes having decided those points contraverted 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. Ia. 6. in Anno 1584. which was the first Parliament that ever sat 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 empowered 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 2 dly 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 3 dly 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 necessarly 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 these 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 Ius 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 secluded 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
who can only take it away because he gave it And if it be objected that this last branch of the Argument seems either to prove nothing or else to prove that there can be no Elective Monarchies To this it is answered that even in Elective Monarchies the Nomination proceeds only from the People but the Royal Power from God as we see in inferiour Magistracies such as Burrows Royal c. the People Elect and so the Nomination is from them but the power of Governing proceeds from the King and not from the Electors and therefore as the People who Elected the Magistrats in these Towns cannot Depose them by their own Authority so neither can the People Depose their King but the punishment of him belongs to God Almighty I confesse that if the People Choose a King with expresse Condition that they may punish him as the Lacedemonian Kings were punishable by those Magistrats call'd the Ephori the Kings are in that case accountable to the People but then they are not Monarchs having supream Power as our Kings have and who are therefore declar'd to hold their Power immediatly from God and not to be at all punishable by the People The 4 th Argument that I shall use for proving that our Kings derive not their power from the People shall be from the natural Origin of Monarchie and of ours in particular which I conceive to be that Right of Paternal Power which is stated in them for understanding whereof it is fit to know that God at first created only one Man that so his Children might be subject to him as all Children yet are to their Parents and therefore the Jesuitical and Fanatical Principles that every man is born Free and at Liberty to choose what form of Government he pleaseth was ever and is most false for every man is born a Subject to his own Parents who if they were not likewise subject to a Superiour Power might judge and punish them Capitally lead them out to War and do all other things that a King could do as we see the Patriarches did in their own Families And as long as it is known who is the Root of the Family or who represents it there is no place for Election and people Elect only when the memory of this is lost and such as overcome the Heads of Families in Batle succeed to them in their Paternal Right If it be answered that the Father may by nature pretend to a power over his Children or it may be an Elder Brother over his Cadets yet there is no tye in nature subjecting Collaterals as Uncles and their descendents to those descended from the Eldest Familie To this I reply that 1. This power over all the Family was justly given by nature to shun divisions for else every little Family should have erected it self in a distinct Government and the weakest had still been a Prey 2. We see that Abraham did lead out to War and in every thing Act as King not only over his own Children but all the Family and whole Nations are call'd the Children of Israel the Children of Edom c. 3. That must be concluded to be establish'd by natural instinct which all men in all Ages and Places allow and follow but so it is that all Nations in all Places and Times have ever allow'd the Eldest Son of the Eldest Family to govern all descended from the Stock without new Elections and the Author of the late famous Moral Essayes have admir'd this as one of the wisest Maxims that we have from Natural Instinct for if the wisest or strongest were to be choos'd there had still been many Rivals and so much Faction and Discord but it is still certain who is the Eldest Son and this precludes all Debate and prevents all Dissention For applying this to our Case it is fit to know that if we believe not our Historians then none else can prove that the People of Scotland did at first Elect a King that being contrarie to the acknowledgements of our own Statutes and all Buchannans Arguments for restricting Kings being founded upon the authority of our Historians who as he sayes assert that K. Fergus was first Elected King by the People if he be not able to prove that our Kings owe their Crowns to the Election of the People without any inherent or previous Right all his Arguments evanish to nothing but on the other hand if we consider exactly our Historians we will find that our Kings Reign over us by this Paternal Power and though I am not very fond of Fabulous Antiquities yet if Tradition or Histories can be believ'd in any thing they should at least be believ'd against Buchannan and those who make use of them to restrict the power of our Kings and by our Histories it is clear that Gathelus having led some Forces into Egypt he after several Victories setl'd in Portugal call'd from him Portus Gatheli from which an Collonie of that Race transported it self into Ireland and another into Scotland nor should this be accounted a Fable since Cornelius Tacitus in the Life of Agricola makes the Scots to be of Spanish and the Picts to be of German Extraction The Scottish Collonies finding themselves opprest by the Brittains and Picts they sent over into Ireland to Ferquhard and he sent them a considerable Supplie under the Command of Fergus his Son who having secur'd them against their Enemies all the Heads of the Tribes acknowledged him for their King and swore that they should never admit of any other Form of Government then Monarchie and that they should never obey any except Him and his Posterity which if they brake they wish'd that all the Plagues and Miseries that had formerly fallen on their Predecessors might again fall upon their Posterity as the punishment of that Perjury All which Religious Vows and Promises Seal'd by those dreadful Oaths voluntarly given were graven on Marble Tables and Consign'd for preservation into the custody of their Priests and these are Boetius own words Fol. 10. From which I observe 1. That as our Laws assert that our Kings derive their Power from God and not from the People so we ought not to believe the contrary upon the Faith of our Historians except they were very clear and unanimous in contradicting our Laws whereas it appears to me that our Laws agree with our Historie for Gathelus was not at all Elected by the People but was himself the Son of a King and did Conquer by his own Subjects and Servants and all those who are descended from his Collonies were by Law oblidg'd to obey the Eldest Son and Representative of that Royal Family And Ferquhard is acknowledg'd to have been his only Successor nor did ever any of the Scottish Tribes pretend to the Supremacie and our Histories bear that none of our Tribes would yield to another and the Fatal Marble Chair that came from Spain remaining with these who went to Ireland does evince that
King is Supream in himself and accountable to none save God Almighty alone But more of this will be found in the Sequel of this Discourse upon other occasions 8 ly Whatever proves Monarchy to be an excellent Government does by the same Reason prove absolute Monarchy to be the best Government for if Monarchy be to be commended because it prevents Divisions then a limited Monarchy which allows the people a share is not to be commended because it occasions them if Monarchy be commended because there is more expedition secresie and other excellent Qualities to be found in it then absolute Monarchy is to be commended above a limited one because a limited Monarch must impart his secrets to the people and must delay the noblest designs until malitious and factious Spirits be either gain'd or overcome And the same anallogy of Reason will hold in reflecting upon all other advantages of Monarchy the Examination whereof I dare trust to every mans own breast 9 ly It was fit for the People that their Kings should be above Law because the severity of Law will not comply with that useful tho illegal Justice which is requisit in special cases for since summum jus is summa injuria and since impossibile est sola innocentia vivere we may well conclude that absolute Monarchy is necessary to protect the guilty innocent by Remissions to break Laws justly in a Court of Chancery and to crook them uprightly in our Courts by an officium nobile For strict and rigid Law is a greater Tyrant than absolute Monarchy I know that some pretend that the 25. Act 15. Par. Ia. 6. declaring the King to be an absolute Prince is only to be interpreted in opposition to the Popes Authority he being so far absolute only as not to be Subject to the Pope who pretended then a Jurisdiction over all Kings But the answers to this are clear First This Statute is made to declare the Kings of Scotland to have Right by their Inherent Prerogative to their exacting Customs for all Merchandice because they are absolute Monarchs which Argument had been ridiculous if this absoluteness had only been in opposition to the Pope nor is there any mention of the Pope in all this Statute and what interest hath the Pope in our Customs 2 dly When the Kings power is by our Statutes rais'd above the Pope it is done by declaring him Supream and not by declaring him absolute 3 dly All Lawyers and States-men divide Monarchies in absolute and limited Monarchies and the word Absolute is still taken in opposition to limited as is clear by Arnisaeus Bodin c. And whereas it is pretended that these words in this Statute acknowledging the King to be absolute are only exprest transiently and enunciatively but are not Decisive and Statutory It is answered that our Parliaments never give our Kings Prerogatives but only acknowledge what our Kings have by an Inherent and Independent Right and these words in this Statute are of all others in our Laws exprest with most of Energy for they are usher'd with It cannot be deny'd but His Majesty has as great Liberties and Prerogatives as any Monarch whatsoever and this acknowledgment is made the Foundation of His Right to exact Customs And in true Reasoning nothing is made the proposition of an Argument but that which is most uncontrovertable I foresee that our Fanaticks and Republicans will be ready to mis-represent absolute Monarchy as Tyrany But a Tyrant is he who has no Right to Govern and so he may be oppos'd as the common Enemy of all the Society And it is ridiculous to pretend with Hobs That we are oblig'd to obey whoever is once in possession for that were to invite men to Torment us and to justifie Crimes by success Nor can it be from this deduc'd that since it is lawful to oppose any who are in Possession that it is therefore lawful to oppose our Monarchy because they have as Algernon Sidney pretends· Vsurpt over us a power inconsistent with our natural Liberty And owe their Right to that Prescription which the greatest Tyrants may maintain by force and to that consent which they may procure by Violence or Flattery For to this I answer That our Monarchs have their power establisht by Birth-right by Consent by Prescription and by Law which are all the wayes whereby any Right can be legally Establisht But it is a gross mistake in Buchannan and others to conclude a lawful King punishable as a Tyrant because he becomes vitious For though God may punish him as such yet his People cannot that were to raise the Servant above the Master and to occasion a thousand Disorders to redress one and when King Iames acknowledges that a good King thinks Himself made for his People and not His People for Him That is only said with reference to the Kings duty to God but not with Relation to the Peoples Duty to their King And when Trajan delivering the Sword to the Proconsul said Pro me si mereor in me Grotius observes justly That this was spoke as a Philosopher and not to subject himself to the others jurisdiction And so Buchannan did most traiterously advise the Printing this on our Coin Nor do's this Title of absolute Monarch empower him to dispose upon our Estates For it is fit to know that Government is the Kings and Property is the Subjects Birth-right Monarchy is a Government and so can include no more than what is necessary for Government And though the Turk or Mogul arrogat to themselves the total Property of their Subjects in this they are Tyrants and not Kings And when our Statute above-mentioned says That our Kings have as much power as they this is only to be understood of what Right they have by the Nature of Monarchy Rex nomen est jurisdictionis non dominij say the Lawyers For the Law having said that all things were the Emperours l bene a Zenone § Sed scimus C. de Quadr Praescript The Emperor asked the famous Lawyer Bulgarus in what sense all was his who is mightily prais'd for having answer'd Omnia Rex possidet imperio singuli dominio Accurs in praem ff in Verb Sanctioni For what is once ours cannot be taken away without our consent And therefore by the 5. Act 1. Par. Ch. 2. It is declared lawful for the King to make Garisons His Majesty entertaining them on His own expence And by the Act 3. Par. 3. Ch 2. It is declared that the people shall not be subject to free Quarter c. And yet right reason teacheth us that all the Land of Scotland having been once the Kings for the Law saith that the King is Safitus ratione Coronae in all the Lands of Scotland His Majesty is therefore presumed Proprietar of all and every thing belongs to him if some other cannot instruct a right which is the sense of that Law Nemo terram nisi authoritate Regiâ possideto And of King Malcolm
above him And the Acts of Parliament in the late Rebellion having run thus Our Soveraign Lord and the three Estates contrare to the Tenor of all the Laws that ever were made in Scotland The Parliament returning to their duty ordained that Style to be altered and to bear as formerly Our Soveraign Lord with Advice and Consent c. But lastly what advantage can the people have by placing their security in the Parliament since they are so lyable to Passions Errors and Extravagancies as well as Kings are and have if Buchannan be believed betrayed the interest of the Kingdom since K. Kenneth the seconds time now above 700. years and they are ordinarily led by some pragmatical Ring-leaders who have not that interest to preserve the Kingdom that Kings have and since the King may make so many Noble-men and Burghs Royal at pleasure by whose Votes he may still prevail What security can we have by giving them a power above the King or how can they have it From all which it may clearly appear that we have had Kings long ere we had Parliaments and that the Parliaments derive their power from the King and that at first our King only called the Heads of Families and his own Officers as his Council with whom he consulted without any necessity to call any others than he pleased there being no Law Article nor Capitulation obliging him from the beginning thereto And our Kings were so far from having Parliaments associated with them in their Empire that there is no mention at all of them or of any condition relating to them in the first Institution of our Kings above-related nor were there any Parliaments in beeing at that time But after the Feudal Law came to be in vigor then our Kings looking upon the whole Kingdom as their own in property King Malcolme Canmore did distribute all the Land of Scotland amongst his Subjects as his Liedge-men which is clear by the first Chapter of his Laws and according to the Feudal Law all the Vassals of our Kings compeared in their Head-Court and therein consulted what was fit for the Kingdom but thereafter the way of making War requiring Money and Property belonging to the Subject as Government did to the King it was necessary to have their consent for raising Money And from this did arise the inserting the advice and consent of the three Estates in our Acts of Parliament From this also it is very clear that their opinion is very unsolid and ill founded who think that Kings can do nothing without a special Act of Parliament even in matters of Government As for instance that he cannot restrain the licence of the Press or require his Subjects to take a Bond for securing the Peace for these and the like being things which relate immediatly to Government the King has as much right to regulate these as we have to regulate and dispose upon our Property Government being the King's Property 2. Though the Monarchy had been derived from the People yet how soon our Kings got the Monarchy they got every thing that was necessary for the Explication and Administration of it which as it is common sense and reason so it is founded upon that most wise and just Maxime in Law Quando aliquid conceditur omnia concessa videntur sine quibus concessum explicari nequit 3. I desire to know where there is yet a Law giving the King a Negative voice a power of erecting Incorporations or a power to grant Remissions for Crimes or Protections for Civil Debts and yet the people is far more concerned in these and the King 's having power to do these and a thousand other things doth rather oblige and warrand me to lay down a general rule that the Kings of Scotland can do every thing that relates to Government and is necessary for the administration thereof though there be no special Law or Act of Parliament for it if the same be not contrary to the Law of God Nature or Nations The second Conclusion that we draw from these former principles is that Princes cannot be punished by their own Subjects as Buchannan and our Republicans do assert which is most clear by the former Laws wherein it is declared that the King is a Soveraign and Absolute Prince and deriving his power from God Almighty That it is Treason to endeavour to depose or suspend the King Wherein our Law is founded on the nature of Monarchy for if He be Supream He cannot be judg'd for no man is judg'd but by his Superior and that which is Supream can have no Superior and on the Principles of the Law of Nature and Nations because saith the Law no man can be both the person who Judgeth and the person Judg'd and it is still the King who Judgeth since all other Judges do represent him and derive their power from him Ipse se prator cogere non potest quia triplici officio fungi nequit suspectum dicentis coacâ—â— cogentis L. Ille aâ—quo ff ad Trebell It is a principle in all Law that Jurisdiction and all other Mandats cease with the power that granted it and therefore as they acknowledge that a King cannot be cited till he have forfeited His just Right so how soon he has forfeited it all the power of the ordinary Judges in the Nation falls and becomes extinct and no other Judge can Judge Him because no other Judge can sit by vertue of any other Authority till it be known that he has forfeited his and that cannot be till the event of the Process and if the People be Judges yet they cannot assume the Government till the King has forfeited it And why also should they be Judges who have neither knowledge nor moderation who are acted by humor and delight in insolence And how shall they meet Or who shall call them Nor can the Parliament judge them because they derive their right from the King as shall be prov'd And though they were equal yet no equal can judge another par in parem non habet Imperium nemo sibi Imperare potest No man can command himself l. si de re sua ff derecept â—rbitr Nemo sibi legem imponere potest l. quid autem ff de donat inter virum uxorem and therefore the Civil Law which is ours by Adoption does positively assert that Princeps legibus solutus est the King is liable to no Law l. princeps ff de legibus For though He be lyable to the Directive Force of the Law that is to say He ought to be Governed by it as His Director Yet He is not lyable to the Co-ercive Force of the Law as all Lawyers that are indifferent do assert Hâ—rmenopol l. 1. tit 1. Sect. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The King is not Subject to the Law because offending against them he is not punisht vid Granswinkell cap. 6. Arnis cap. 4. Francisc. a victoria Relect. 3. num 4. Ziegler de
Principles fitted for these ends of Order and Society amongst which one is That the publick Safety of the whole is to be preferr'd to the Safety of any one man or of any number of private men who are not to be considered as the publick because that is the publick Interest which is the Representative of the Nation and that this Principle may be the better obey'd he has commanded men to suffer injuries rather than occasion Disorders and has promised to reward Patience and Submission for his sake with eternal Life a Nobler Prize than we here can contend for This being then Premis'd It is answered that though Brutes may defend themselves because Order and the common good of Societies are not there concern'd yet there is no reason to extend this to Men whose self-defense against Authority occasions more mischief than it can bring advantage and if this Argument hold it would prove that every man who is unjustly Condemn'd or at least thinks so may kill the King or His Judge Servants might bind their Masters and the people of any private Town might pull down their Judge from the Bench when they thought he opprest them And as these must submit because they expect Reparation from a higher Tribunal So God has promised Reparation to those who suffer for his sake and the greatness and sureness of this Reward makes this no uncomfortable Doctrine and this Submission is as necessary and rather more for mens preservation than Resistance and is a kind of self-defence since opposition to Authority would bring a certain ruine and confusion in which moe would perish than opposition by private self defence would preserve Upon which Christian Principles also Ames a Protestant and Calvinist Divine has resolv'd that In bonis temporalibus tenetur quisque personam publicam siâ—i ipsi praeferre bonum enim totius pluris faciendum est quam bonum alicujus partis Cas conscient l. 5. cap. 7. Thes· 14. and Lex Rex confesses p. 335. That a private man should rather suffer the King to kill him than that he should kill the King because he is not to prefer the Life of a private man to the Life of a publick man And whereas it may be pretended that though this opposition should not be trusted to any private man yet Parliaments and the Collective Body should and may be trusted with it But to this I have answered formerly that all Convocations without Authority from the King and all rising against him are indefinitely declared unlawful and justly for whoever wants Authority is but in a private capacity none having a publick capacity save the Magistrates And if they be allow'd to rise because their quarrel is just it must be as just to allow a lesser number if they have the same Justice in their pretexts and we have frequently seen that the same persons who magnified the multitude for their numbers did shortly thereafter divide from them pretending that they were the Sanior pars or juster Party 4. This position is against the very Nature not only of Monarchy but of all Governmments For who will obey when they may resist And who can be Judges whether the pretences upon which Arms are taken be lawful or not And therefore since it is unlawful for Subjects to take up even Defensive Arms until it be found that the King against whom these defensive Arms are taken up be a Tyrant and an Oppressor It clearly follows that these Subjects must first have a power to judge and find that the King has erred which is to declare the People to be Judges of their King and we may be soon convinced that this Principle is against the Nature of all Government if we consider that if it were lawful for Subjects with us to rise against the King it should be lawful for these in a Common-wealth or Aristocracy to rise against their Governors since these may erre as well as Kings do and if this were allowed all Nations should alwayes have one Rebellion rising out of the Ashes of another for only they who prevail'd should be satisfi'd and all the rest would certainly conclude that they might more justly oppose these Usurpers one or moe then the first did oppose their lawful Prince and thus Government which is design'd for the security of the State should run in a Circle fixt upon no certain Basis and determined by no sure Measures 5. This Principle is dangerous for the Subjects as well as for the King and other Governors for if Kings be perswaded that Subjects think this opposition lawful then they will be still jealous of them and will be necessitated on all occasions to secure against such oppositions and so this Doctrine tends more to make our King a Tyrant than to make us free And if the difference betwixt King and People should draw both to Arms where can we find a Judge to whom both Parties will submit So that to allow this power in the People to debate is to allow a difference that can never end and so what innocent man shall be able to know whom he may securely follow And the best issue that could be expected from these debates would be that the one half of the Nation should ruine the other So comfortable and just is this rebellious Doctrine 6. If we consult either our own experience or History we will find that these pretexts of Liberty and Religion have alwayes been used by those who loved neither and that they have been ordinarily used against the best of Kings and so prove to be meer Cheats upon their parts who use them and absolute Villanies if we consider against whom they are used and it cannot be otherwayes for the worst of men are alwayes readiest to take Arms and the best of Kings are most inclined to suffer insolence to grow up by degrees to Rebellion And as few or none ever took up Arms against their King in whom even the dullest did not see other motives than a love to liberty and Religion so when they who did take up Arms upon these pretexts did succeed in their attempts they became themselves greater grievances to the people than these lawful Powers against whom they pretended to protect them and when others rose against them upon the same pretexts they did in the severest manner declare that to be Rebellion in others which they contended to be lawful in themselves 7. So dangerous is this Principle that it has been alwayâ—s us'd as a Tool to promote contrary designs and to serve the worst of men in all the opposite sides And thus we see that the Bigot Papists have by it overturn'd Thrones and disinherited and murdered Kings In which the most impious of their Doctors have been admir'd and follow'd by the rigid Phanaticks who did notwithstanding teach that all Papists were to be extirpated and unquiet Spirits in the establish'd Republicks of Rome Venice and Florence have by this Principle endeavour'd to overturn and disquiet as much
our late Debates are but the Militia of Pride Vanity and Ambition and that if they be allow'd the best of Princes will ever fall by them And as to the Act 14. Par. 4. Ia. 4. Whereby it is pretended that the opposing and even the killing K. Ia. the 3. in Battle is justified and which Act was never repelled It is answered First That this Statute was made by the same Rebels who had opposed their lawful Prince and so was rather a continuing of their Rebellion than a justification of it 2. That abominable Statute proceeds on the Precept of K. Ia. the 3. calling in the English and designing to enslave the Kingdom to Forraigners which was not prov'd as it ought to have been though the pretext had been legal as it was neither legal nor true in the least circumstance and the Noblemen and Barons are Condemn'd without being Cited or heard though the Act be not a Statute but a Verdict so unjust are all Rebels who are forc'd to maintain one Crime by another 3. In the new Collection of our Statutes made by K Ken. and Authoriz'd in many subsequent Parliaments The Dreadful and Treasonable Act is not insert which was the best way to Rescind it because it was though a reproach to the Nation to have any formal Law made to Rescind the Statute which behov'd to preserve its memory in annulling its Authority 4. Many Statutes since that time are made declaring the rising in Arms against the King and his Authority upon any pretext whatsoever to be Treason and expresly Rescinding all Acts and Statutes to the contrary as Rebellious and Treasonable and there needed no more Positive Statutes to Rescind that Rebellious and Treasonable Combination rather than Law As to the 44. Act 6. Par. Ia. 2. From which its urged that because that Act declares it Treason to Assault Castles and Places where the Kings Person shall happen to be without the Consent of the three Estates And that it is therefore lawful to Assault the same with the Consent of the three Estates and consequently to rise in Arms with the Consent of the three Estates is no Treason It is answered that it being but too ordinary in the Minority of our Kings to have great Factions amongst the Nobility which shews also the danger of placeing the Supream Power in the Proceres Regni one of the Factions ordinarly either having made the young King Prisoner or using to Assault the Castle where he was really preserved It was therefore most wisely declared by this Statute That to lay hands upon the Kings Person violently what age the Ring be of young or auld or to Assailzy Castles or Places where the Kings person shall happen to be without the Consent of the three Estates shall be punished as Treason That is to say that so great respect was to be had to his sacred Person that no violence was to be offered to the Place where he was untill the same was allowed by the three Estates But in all the former Laws as well as those made in our age it is still declared Treason to Rebel against the Kings Person or to refuse to assist him without adding except the same be done by the three Estates which shews that there 's nothing design'd in this Act in favours 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 alwayes 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 shining 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 whereas 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 Enrich'd above a man of good sense and Tennents may argue that it is not reasonable that they bearing Gods Image as well as the Master should toile to feed their Lusts thus Reason may be distorted and we call that Reason and Providence which pleases us best 2. Most of their Citations and Authorities are the Sentiments of these 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 concerns us no more than the Law of England binds Scotsmen 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 3. Most of the Authors cited and admir'd by them are Heathens particularly Stoicks who equal'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-denyal Patience Faith and Relyance upon God 4. They ballance not all the Conveniencies and Inconveniencies 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 ordinarly attend Competitions amongst Republicans Destroy moe than the Lusts of any one Tyrrant can do which made Lucan conclude after a sad review of the continued
and so they were excluded by Law and no man can be said to be illegally excluded from his Seat in Parliament who is excluded by a clear Statute 2 dly If this were not a good answer then the Papists might pretend that they are unjustly excluded because they will not take the Oath of Supremacy and because they are Papists and how can the Fanaticks pretend to make this objection since they by the same way excluded the Kings Loyal Subjects in the Year 1647. and 1649. c. Or how would these Authors have rail'd at any Malignant for using this Argument against them which they use now most impudently against us with far less justice for their Parliaments were unjust upon other Heads as being inconsistent with the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and so their acts of exclusion were null in themselves 3 dly All the Statutes made since 1661. are necessary consequences of former Laws and so are rather renewed than new Laws 4 ly If this were allow'd there could be no end of controversie for all who are excluded would still alleadge that they were unjustly excluded and consequently there could be no submission to Authority and so no Society nor Peace The last answer that our Dissenters make when they are driven from all their other grounds is that they though the lesser are yet the sounder part of the Nation but this shift does not only overturn Monarchy but establishes Anarchy and though they were once settl'd in their beloved Commonwealth this would be sufficient to overturn it also for every little number of Dissenters nay and even the meanest Dissenter himself might pretend to be this sounder part of the Common-wealth but God Almighty foreseeing that pride or ignorance would suggest to frail Mankind this principle so inconsistent with all that Order and Government whereby he was to preserve the World he did therefore in his great Wisdom convince men by the Light of their own Reason that in matters of common concern which were to be determined by Debate the greater number should determine the lesser and such as drive beyond this Principle shall never find any certain Point at which they may rest and by the same Reason the Law has pronunc'd it safer to rest in what is decided though it be unjust than to cast loose the authority of Decisions upon which the peace and quiet of the Common-wealth does depend who would be so humble and just as to confess that his Adversary has the juster side Or who would obey if this were allow'd And what Idea of Government or Society could a man form to himself allowing once this principle It is also very observable that those who pretend to be the sounder part and deny obedience upon that account are still the most insolent and irregular of all the Society the greatest admirers of themselves and the greatest enemies to peace and so the unfitest to be Judges of what is the sounder part though they were not themselves parties But what pretence is there for that Plea in this case where the foundations of our Monarchy have been unanimously acknowledg'd by many different Parliaments in many different Ages chosen at first from the Dictats of Reason and confirm'd after we had in many Rebellions found how dangerous all those popular pretences are and in which we agree with the Statsmen Lawers and Divines of all the well Govern'd Nations under Heaven who are born under an hereditary Monarchy as it is confess'd we are To return then to the first of those Points I lay down as my first position that our Monarchs derive not their Right from the People but are absolute Monarchs deriving their Royal Authority immediatly from God Almighty and this I shall endeavour to prove first from our positive Law By the 2. Act Par. 1. Ch. 2 d. in which it is declar'd That His Majesty His Heirs and Successors have for ever by vertue of that Royol Power which they hold from God Almighty over this Kingdom the sole choice and appointment of Officers of State Counsellors and Judges But because this Act did only assert that our Kings did hold their Royal Power from God but did not exclude the people from being sharers in bestowing this Donative therefore by the 5 th Act of that same Parliament they acknowledge the Obligation lying on them in Conscience Honour and Gratitude to own and assert the Royal Prerogatives of the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom which the Kings Majesty holds from God Almighty alone and therefore they acknowledge that the Kings Majesty only by vertue of His Royal Prerogative can make Peace and War and Treaties with forraign Princes Because this last Statute did only assert that the King did hold His Imperial Crown from God alone but did not decide from whom our Kings did only derive their Power therefore by the 2 d· Act Par. 3 d Ch. 2 d. It is declar'd that the Estates of Parliament considering that the Kings of this Realm Deriving their Power from God Almighty alone they do succeed Lineally thereto c. Which Statutes do in this agree with our old Law for in the first Chapter of Reg. Magist. vers 3. These Words are That both in Peace and War our Glorious King may so Govern this Kingdom committed to Him by God Almighty in which He has no Superiour but God Almighty alone which Books are acknowledg'd to be our Law and are called the Kings Laws by the 54 th Act Par. 3 d Iam. 1. and the 115. Act Par. 14. Iam. 3. These our Laws both Ancient and Modern can neither be thought to be extorted by force nor enacted by flattery since in this we follow the Scripture the Primitive Church and their Councils the Civil Law and its Commentators and the wisest Heathens both Philosophers and Poets As to the Scripture God tells us That by him Kings Reign and that he hath anointed them Kings and that the King is the Minister of God David tells us That God will give strength to his King and deliverance to his King and to his Anointed Daniel sayes to Nebuchadnezar The God of Heaven hath given thee a Kingdom And to Cyrus God gave to Nebuchadnezar thy Father a Kingdom and for the Majesty that he gave him all Nations trembled As to the Fathers Augustin de Civit. Dei l. 5. c. 21. Let us not attribute unto any other the power of giving Kingdoms and Empyrs but to the true God Basil in Psal. 32. The Lord setteth up Kings and removeth them Tertul apol contra gentes Let Kings know that from God only they have their Empyre and in whose power only they are And Ireneus having prov'd this point fully ends thus l. 5. c. 24. By whose Command they are born men by his likewise they are ordain'd Kings This is also acknowledg'd by the Councils of Toledo 6. c. 14 of Paris 6. c. 5. vid Council aquis gran 3. c. 1. Amongst our late Divines Marca the famous Arch-bishop of Paris
the undenyable 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 vouchsafeing to assure them of his sincere disposition and clear meaning no way by the foresaid Union to prejudge or 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 Liberties Offices and dignities preserv'd Whilks if they should be innovated such confusion should ensue as it could no more be a free Monarchy 6. 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 rebell in the other Many Kings likewise might be wrought upon by the importunity of their Wives or Concubins or by the misrepresentations of Favourits to disinherit the true Successor and he likewise to prevent this arbitrarienesse would be oblidg'd to enter in a faction for his own support from his very infancy This would likewise animate all of the Blood Royal to compete for the Throne and in order thereto they would be easily induc'd to make factions in the Parliament and to hate one another whereas the true Successor would be ingadg'd to hate them all and to endeavour the ruine of such as he thought more popular than himself Nor would the people be in better case since they behov'd to expect upon all these accompts constant civil warres 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 superiour as well as who should be their King It is also in reason to be expected that Scotland will ever owne the legal descent and thus we should under different Kings of the same Race be involv'd in new and constant civil warrs France shall have a constant door open'd by allyances with Scotland to disquiet the peace of the whole Isle and England shab loose 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 behoov'd certainly to succeed and therefore after the next Lawful Heir were brought from abroad to Reigne he behov'd 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 project I find also that as the debarring the Righteous Heir is in reason the fruitful seed of all civil warr and misery for who can Imagine that the Righteous Heir will depart from his Right or that wise men will endanger their lives and fortunes in opposition to it so experience has demonstrated how dangerous and bloody this injustice has prov'd Let us remember amongst many Domestick examples the miseries that ensu'd upon the exclusion of Mordredus the Son of Lothus the destruction of the Picts for having secluded Alpinus the Righteous Heir the warrs during the reigne of William the Conquerour these betwixt King Stevin and Henry the II betwixt the Houses of Lancaster and York betwixt the Bruce and the Baliol the murther of Arthur Duke of Britanny true Heir of the Crown of England with many other forreigne Histories which tell us of the dreadfull michiefs arising from Pelops preferring his youngest Son to the Kingdom of Micene from Aedipus commanding that Polinices his youngest Son should reigne alternatly with the eldest from Parisatis the Queen of Persia's preferring her youngest Son Cyrus to her eldest Artaxerxes from Aristodemus admitting his two Sons Proclus and Euristhenes to an Equall share in the Lacedemonian Throne The like observations are to be made in the Succession of Ptolemaeus Lagus and Ptolemaeus Phisco In the Sons of Severus in the Succession of Sinesandus who kill'd his Brother Suintilla Righteours Heir of Spaine And that of Francis and Fortia Duke of Millan with thousands of others In all which either the usurpers or the Kingdom that obey'd them perish'd utterly To prevent which differences and mischiefs the Hungarians would not admitte Almus the younger Brother in exclusion of the elder Colomanus though a silly deform'd creature albeit Almus was preferr'd by Ladislaus the Kings elder Brother to both Nor would France acquiesce in St. Lewis his preferring CHARLES his 3 Son to Lewis the eldest And the English refus'd to obey Lady Iean Gray in prejudice of Queen Marie though a Papist and persecuter Tali constanti veneratione nos Angli legitimos Reges prosequimur c. sayes an English Historian 7. If Parliaments had such powers as this then our Monarchy would not be hereditary but elective the very essence of ane hereditary Monarchy consisting in the right of Succession according to the contingency of blood Whereas if the Parliament can preferre the next save one they may preferre the last of all the line for the next save one is no more next than the last is next And the same reason by which they can choose a Successor which can only be that they have a power above him should likewayes in my opinion justifie their deposing of Kings And since the Successor has as good Right to succeed as the present King has to Govern for that Right of blood which makes him first makes the other next and all these Statuts which acknowledge the present Kings Prerogatives acknowlege that they belong to him and his Heirs It followes clearly that if the Parliament can preclude the one they may exclude the other And we saw even in the last age that such reasons as are now urged to incapacitat the children of our last Monarch from the hope of Succession viz. Popery and arbitrary Government did embolden men to Dethrone and Murder the Father himself who was actual King 8. That such Acts of Parliament altering the Succession are ineffectual and null Is clear from this that though such an Act of Parliament were made it could not debarre the true Successor because by the Laws of all Nations and particularly of these Kingdoms the Right of Succession purges all defects and removes all impediments which can prejudge him who is to Succeed And as Craig one of our learn'd lawyers has very well express'd it Tanta est