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
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
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 Magistrates 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 confess that if the People Choose a King with express Condition that they may punish him as the Lacedaemonian Kings were punishable by those Magistrates 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 immediately from God and not to be at all punishable by the People The 4th Argument that I shall use for proving that our Kings derive not their power from the People shall be from the natural Origin of Monarchy 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 Patriarchs 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 Battle 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 younger yet there is no tye in nature subjecting Collaterals as Uncles and their descendents to those descended from the Eldest Family 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 hath admir'd this as one of the wisest Maxims that we have from Natural Instinct for if the wisest or strongest were to be chosen there had still been many Rivals and so much Faction and Discord but it is still certain who is the Eldest Son and this shuts out 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 contrary to the acknowledgements of our own Statutes and all Buchannans Arguments for restraining 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 vanish to nothing but on the other hand if we consider exactly our Historians we shall 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 restrain 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 a Colony 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 Golonies finding themselves opprest by the Britains and Picts they sent over into Ireland to Ferquhard and he sent them a considerable Supply 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 Monarchy 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 History 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 oblig'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 Scotish Tribes pretend to the Supremacy and our Histories bear that none of our Tribes would yield to another and the Fatal Marble Chair that came from Spain remaining with those who went to Ireland does evince that the Birth-right remain'd with them and therefore when Fergus the Son of Ferquhard came over he brought over
Sequel of this Discourse upon other occasions 8ly 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 malicious and factious Spirits be either gain'd or overcome And the same analogy of Reason will hold in reflecting upon all other advantages of Monarchy the Examination whereof I dare trust to every mans own breast 9ly 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 injura 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. Ja. 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 Merchandise 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 2dly 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 3dly 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 Boâ—in 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 acknowledgement 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 misrepresent absolute Monarchy as Tyranny 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 ways 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 James 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 King's 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 rectè impero si male contra 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 of 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 Mogol arrogate 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 dominii 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 Emperour 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. Pav 3. Ch. 2. It is declar'd 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 Susitus ratione Coronae in all the Lands of Scotland His Majesty is therefore presumed Proprietor 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 Regia possideto And of King Malcolm Canmor's Law that Rex distribuit totam Terram Scotiae hominibus suis And it therefore clearly follows that the King has
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 liable to Passions Errors and Extravagancies as well as Kings are and have if Buchannan be believed betrayed the interest of the Kingdom since King Kenneth the Seconds time now above 700. years and they are ordinarily led by some pragmatical Ring-leaders who have not that kindness or 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 thereunto 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 being 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 Liege-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 an Engagement for securing the Peace for these and the like being things which relate immediately to Government the King has as much right to regulate these as we have to regulate and dispose of our Property Government being the Kings Property 2. Though the Monarchy had been derived from the People yet as soon as our Kings got the Monarchy they got ever thing that was necessary for the Aministration 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 warrant 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 praetor cogere non potest quia triplici officio fungi nequit suspectum dicentis coacti cogentis L. Ille a quo ff ad Trebell It is a prnciple 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 as soon as 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 de recept Arbitr Nemo sibi legem imponere potest l. quid autem ff de denat 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 Coercive Force of the Law as all Lawyers that are indifferent do assert Harmenpol l. 1. tit 1. Sect. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The King is not Subject to the Law because offending against it he is not punisht vid. Granswinkell cap. 6. Arnis cap. Francisc a victoria Relect. 3. num 4. Ziegler de jur Majes cap. 1. num 12. with whom the Fathers also agree Ambros in Apol. David cap. 4. Liberi sunt Reges
Primitive Christians did not oppose their Emperours in the defence of the Christian Religion was because they had not been secured at that time in the Exercise of their Religion by the Laws of the Empire and therefore the practice of those Christians can be no Argument why we may not now rise to defend the Orthodox Religion since it is now established by Law But this Objection is fully answered by that great Antiquary Samuel Petit. Diatriba de Jur. Principium edictis Ecclesiae quaesito where he clearly proves that they were actually secured by the Edicts of the Emperours in the days of the Emperor Tiberius and downward and yet they would not rise in Arms though they were persecuted under those same Emperors because the Word of God and the Christian Religion did command Obedience under Persecution and did forbid Resistance and taking up of Arms. The Arguments that can be produc'd to justifie this Principle of Defensive Arms are almost answered in the former Article viz. That there is a mutual Obligation betwixt King and People so that when He breaks the one they are free from the other and that all Government is Establisht for the advantage of the People and thus these few Arguments peculiar to this Point remain now only to be here resolv'd 1. That Self-defence is by the Law of Nature allow'd to all and even to Brutes why then should men who may lose more who deserve better and can use self-defence more innocently be debar'd from it 2 We see in Scripture that the People deserted and oppos'd their Kings for Religion 3. This has been allow'd with us in the instance of King James the third against whom his Subjects rose in Rebellion for misgoverning and oppressing His People and this opposition was first justified by God in the success he gave to their Arms and thereafter by a special and express Act in the ensuing Parliament which stands yet unrepeal'd To which I shortly answer That as to the first of Self-defence in Brutes we must still remember that God hvaing design'd Government to bridle the Extravagancies ofrestless Mankind he has appointed Magistrates to be his Vicegerents and Representatives and has entrusted them with his Power and so opposition to them is unlawful because it is not lawful against him and because if it were allow'd all would pretend to it and so there should be no Order nor Government And that this may be the better observ'd God has endowed man with 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-defence 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 more would perish than opposition by private Self-defence would preserve Upon which Christian Principles also Ames a Protestant and Calvinist Divine has resolv'd In bonis temporalibus tenetur quisque personam publicam sibi 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 pretence 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 The Examples produc'd by our Republicans of the revolt of Libna 2 Chron. 1. 21. And of Jeroboam because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers and of the Ten Tribes from Rehoboam because of Rehoboam his oppression 1 King 12. prove not at all the lawfulness of the Subjects defection from their Kings because these defections are only Related but not allow'd in Scripture and are recorded rather as instances of God's vengeance upon the wickedness of these Princes than as examples justified in these Revolters and to be follow'd by such as read the Sacred History In which when Examples are propos'd by the Spirit of God for our imitation they are still honour'd with the Divine approbation And I hope my Readers will still remember that I design not by this Treatise to encourage Princes to wickedness by Impunity but only to discourage Subjects from daring to be the punishers The great esteem which the great Bishop Vsher has justly even among Republicans and Fanaticks for Learning and Devotion has prevail'd with me to set down two Objections used by him with his pious Answers hereto The first is Suppose say they the King or Civil Magistrate should command us to Worship the Devil would you wish us here to lay down our Heads upon the Block and not to repel the violence of such a Miscreant to the utmost of our Power and if not What would be come of Gods Church and his Religion To which the Holy Man answers That even when the Worship of the
without restitution And Lewis the II. his Son being declared a Rebel whom his Father desiring to disinherit and to substitute in his place Charles Duke of Normandie that Son had succeeded if he had not been hindred by the Nobility who plainly told him it was impossible to exclude his Son from the Succession My next task shall be to satisfie the arguments brought for maintaining 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 otherwise Jacob nor Solomon could not have succeeded against the priviledge of Birth-right and Possession David was a Prophet and a Man according to God's own Heart and so it is presumable that he knew the Will of God and God did wonderfully and remarkably declare Solomon to be preferable to all his Brethren The next Objection is That it is naturally imply'd in all Monarchies That the People shall obey whil'st 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 removed when they are suspected and that this is most just when Kings are Idolaters since God is rather to be obey'd than 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 pain of Eternal Damnation that all men should be subject to Superior 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 Superior 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 God's express and immediate Will and overturning the uncontroverted 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 Emperors Nor was the Emperor 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 warrant and against his express warrant will usurp so high a power And we in this rebellious principle own the greatest extravagancy with which We can charge the Pope and Jesuits and disown not only our own Confession of faith which Article 1. Chap. 22. acknowledges That infidelity or difference in Religion doth not make void the Magistrates 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 Buchannan and others satisfie whereby they contend that the former Texts of Scripture prove only that the Office but not the Persons of Kings are Sacred so that Parliaments or People may lay aside the Persons though not the Office seeing the Sacred Text secures oftner the Person than the Office as I have formerly more fully prov'd And if this principle prevail'd as to the differences in the Theory of Religion it would in the next step be urg'd as to the practice of Religion and we would change our Kings because we thought them not pious as well as Protestant And did not our Sectarians refine so far as to think dominion founded on grace and this opinion seems to me more solid than the other for certainly an impious Protestant is a worse Governour and less Gods Vicegerent and Image than a devout Papist And amongst Protestants every Sect will reject a King because he is not of their opinion And thus our Covenanters by the Act of the West-kirk Anno 1650. declar'd they would disown our present Monarch if he did not own the Covenant And though a King were a Protestant yet still this pretence that he design'd to introduce Popery would raise his People against him if differences in Religion could lawfully arm Subjects against their King or did empower them to debar his Successor And when this cheat prevail'd against devout K. Charles I. the Martyr of that Orthodox Faith to which he was said to be Enemy what a madness is it to allow this fatal Error which was able to ruin us in the last Age and went so near to destroy us in this This is indeed to allow that Arbitrariness against our Kings which we would not allow in them to us The second Objection is that in England the Parliament has frequently devolv'd the Crown and Government upon such as were not otherwise to have succeeded as in the instances of Edward the II. and Richard the II the first of whom was most unjustly depos'd for making use of Gavestoun and the Spencers which shews how extravagant the People are in their humours rather than how just their Power is For besides that we do not read that these Counsellors were unsufferable there is no good Christian that can say that a King can be depos'd for using ill Counsellors And as to Richard the II. his case is so fully examined and all the Articles brought both against him and Edward the II so fully answered by the learn'd Arnisaeus a Protestant Lawyer and who had no other interest in that debate than a love to Truth and Law in that Treatise Quod nulla ex causa subditis fas sit contra legitimum principem arma sumere That we Protestants should be asham'd to bring again to the field such instances upon which Arnisaeus in answer to the Fourteenth Article against Richard the II viz. that herefus'd to allow the Laws made in Parliament does very well remark that this was in effect to consent to their being King and to transfer upon them the Royal Power and this will be the event of all such undertakings The Instances of Henry IV. and Henry VII are of no more weight than the other two since these were likewise only Kings
be illegally excluded from his Seat in Parliament who is excluded by a clear Statute 2dly 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 3dly All the Statutes made since 1661 are necessary consequences of former Laws and so are rather renewed than new Laws 4ly If their reasons 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 settled in their beloved Common-wealth 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 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 pronounc'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 unfittest 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 Dictates 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 Statesman Lawyers 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 immediately 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 Royal 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 5th 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 54th Act Par. 3 d. Jam. 1. and the 115. Act Par. 14. Jam. 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 Empires 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 Empire and in whose power only they are And Irenaeus 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 late Divines Marca the famous Arch-Bishop of Paris Concord sacerd imperii l. 2. c. 2. n. 2. asserts That the Royal Power is not only bestowed
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
Devil was comanded by the cruel Edicts of persecuting Emperours the Christians never took up Arms against them but used fervent Prayers as their only refuge And St. Peter animates them to this patient suffering 1. Pet. 4. 12. 13. Beloved think it not strange concerning the fiery Tryal but rejoice in as much as ye are partakers of Christs sufferings But let none of you suffer as a murtherer or a Thief or as an Evil-doer or as a Busie body in other mens matters By which last words if I durst add to so great an Author as Bishop Vsher the Apostle seems expresly to me to have obviated the dreadful Doctrine of rising in Arms upon the pretence of Religion and the killing such as differ from them which if the Christians did allow they ought to pass for Murtherers and to forbid them to meddle in matters of Government upon this pretence because then they ought to suffer justly as busie bodies And here Bishop Vsher does most appositely cite St. Augustine in Psal 149. The World rag'd the Lion lifted himself up against the Lamb but the Lamb was full stronger than the Lion The Lion was overcome by shewing cruelty the Lamb did overcome by suffering And St. Jerome Epist 62. By shedding of Blood and by suffering rather then doing injuries was the Church of Christ at first founded it grew by Persecutions and was Crowned by Martyrdoms The second objection is If mens hands be thus ty'd no mans Estate can be secure nay the whole frame of the Commonwealth would be in danger to be subverted and utterly ruin'd To which he answers That the ground of this objection is exceeding faulty and inconsistent with the Rules of Humanity and Divinity of Humanity because this would impower private Persons to Judge and so should confound all Order and invite all men to oppose Authority and make Subjects Accusers Judges and Executioners too and that in their own Cause against their own Soveraign and against Divinity because it is contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers who command Submission Humility and Patience Rex est si nocentem punit cede justitiae si innocentem cede fortunae Seneca de Jura lib. 2. cap. 30. If the King punish thee when thou art guilty submit to Justice If when thou art innocent submit to Fortune And if a Heathen could be induced by his vertue to submit to blind Fortune how much more ought a Christian to be prevail'd upon by Devotion to submit to the All-seeing Providence of the most wise God who maketh all things to work joyntly for good to them that love him And as St. Augustine piously adviseth Princes are to be suffered by their People that in the exercise of their patience temporal things may be born and Eternal hop'd for The instance of King James the Third being punished by his Subjects is so far from being an Argument able to justifie Subjects rising in Arms against their King that this part of our History should for ever convince all honest men of the dangers that attend Defensive Arms For this Prince was so far from being one of those Tyrants against whom Defensive Arms are only confest to be just That few Princes were more meek and careful of his Subjects But because he imploy'd such as himself had rais'd finding that the Nobility had too often been insolent Servants to their Prince and severe Task-masters to the People the Nobility thinking more upon this imaginary neglect than their own duty did from combinatitions proceed to Arms and rejecting all conditions of peace they were at last curs'd with a Victory in which this gentle Prince was murthered whilst he sought to save his Sacred life in a deserted Mill. By which we may see that these Defensive Arms so much hallowed in 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. Ja. 4. Whereby it is pretended that the opposing and even the killing K. Ja. the 3. in Battel is justified and which Act was never Repeal'd 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 Secondly That abominable Statute proceeds on the pretence of K. James the 3d. calling in the English and designing to enslave the Kingdom to Foreigners which was not prov'd as is 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 Thirdly In the new Collection of our Statutes made by Skeen and Authoriz'd in many subsequent Parliaments that abominable and Treasonable Act is not inserted which was the best way to rescind it because it was thought a reproach to the Nation to have any formal Law made to rescind the Statute which would have preserv'd its memory in anulling its Authority Fourthly Many Statutes since that time are made declaring the rising in Arms against the King and his Authority upon any pretence whatsoeve 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. Ja. 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 placing the Supream Power in the Proceres Regni one of the Factions ordinarily 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 King be of young or old or to Assail 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 until 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 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
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