de facto till King Henry VII by his Marriage with the Lady Elizabeth eldest daughter to King Edward IV. did by her transmit a just Title to his Successor and therefore it was not strange that either of these should allow the Parliament to interpose when they owed to them the possession of the Throne But yet Henry VII himself as the Lord Bacon relates in his History shun'd to have the Parliament declare his Title to be just being content with these ambiguous words viz. That the inheritance of the Crown should rest remain and abide in the King c. And upon this account it was that the same King caus'd a Law to be made that such as should serve the King for the time being in his Wars could not be attainted or impeach'd in their Persons or Estates As to Henry VIII his procuring an Act whereby the Parliament declares That in case he had no Issue by the Lady Jean Seymour he might dispose of the Crown to whatsoever person he should in his own discretion think fit It is answered That by a former Statute in the 25th year of his Reign he by Act of Parliament settles the Crown upon the Heirs-male of his own Body and for lack of such Issue to Lady Elizabeth and for lack of such Issue also to the next Heirs of the King who should for ever succeed according to the Right of Succession of the Crown of England which shews that the Succession to the Crown of England is establish'd by the Law of Nature and the Fundamental Laws of England upon the Heirs of Blood according to the Proximity of Degrees so that though that King did afterwards prevail with the Parliament to declare this Elizabeth a Bastard as he did also his daughter Mary by another Act and resolve to settle the Crown upon Henry Fitz-Roy Duke of Richmond Yet these Acts teach us how dangerous it is to leave Parliaments to the impression of Kings in the case of naming a Successor as it is to expose Kings to the Arbitrariness of Parliaments But such care had God of his own Laws that Mary succeeded notwithstanding she was Papist and Elizabeth succeeded her though she was declar'd Bastard the Rights of Blood prevailing over the Formalities of Divorce and the Dispensations of Popes as the strength of Nature does often prevail over Poisons And God remov'd the Duke of Richmond by death to prevent the unjust Competition and so little notice was taken of this and the subsequent Act Anno 1535. that the Heirs of Blood succeeded without repealing of that Act as an Act in it self invalid from the beginning for only such Acts are past by without being repeal'd And Blackwood pag. 45. observes very well that so conscious were the Makers of these Acts of the illegality thereof and of their being contrary to the immutable Laws of God Nature and Nations that none durst produce that King's Testament wherein he did nominate a Successor conformable to the power granted by those Acts that as soon as they were freed by his death from the violent Oppressions that had forced them to alter a Successor three several times and at last to swear implicitly to whomsoever he should nominate a Preparative which this Age would not well bear though they cite it they proclaimed first Queen Mary their Queen though a Papist and thereafter Queen Elizabeth whom themselves had formerly declared a Bastard And as in all these Acts there is nothing declaring the Parliaments to have power to name a Successor but only giving a power to the King for preventing mischiefs that might arise upon the dubiousness of the Succession to nominate a Successor two of the legal Successors having been declar'd Bastards upon some Niceties not of Nature but of the Pope's Bulls for divorcing So this Instance can only prove that the King may nominate a Successor and that the Parliament may consent not to quarrel at it which is all that they do but does not at all prove that where the Right of Nature is clear the Parliament may invert the same And Strangers who considered more the dictates of Law than of Passion did in that Age conclude That no Statute could be valid when made contrary to the fundamental Law of the Kingdom Arnisaeus cap. 7. num 11. Henricus VIII Angliae Rex Eduardum filium primo deinde Mariam denique Elizabetham suos haeredes fecerat verum non aliter ea omnia valent quam si cum jure Regni conveniant Vid. Curt. Tract Feud Par. 4. Num. 129. There seems greater difficulty to arise from 13 Eliz. c. 2. by which it is enacted that if any person shall affirm that the Parliament of England has not full power to bind and govern the Crown in point of Succession and descent that such a person during the Queens life shall be guilty of High-Treason But to this Act it is answered that this Act does not debar the next legal and natural Successor and these words That the Parliament has power to bind and Govern the Succession must be as all other general expressions in Statutes interpreted and restricted by other uncontroverted Laws and so the sense must be that the Parliament is judge where there are differences betwixt Competitors in nice and controvertable Points which cannot be otherwise decided and both this and the former Acts made in Henry the VI. time are not general Laws but temporary Acts and personal Priviledges and so cannot overturn the known current of Law Quod vero contra rationem juris receptum est non est producendum ad consequentias And in all these instances it is remarkable that the restriction was made upon the desire of the Soveraign and not of the Subject And if we look upon this Act as made to secure them against Mary Queen of Scotland and to let her know that it was to no purpose for her to design any thing against the Right or Person of Queen Elizabeth as being declar'd a Bastard by Act of Parliament in England since her other Right as next undoubted Heir by Blood to the Crown might be altered or Govern'd we must acknowledge it to be only one of these Statutes which the Law sayes are made ad terrorem ex terrore only Nor was there ever use made of it by Queen Elizabeth nor her Parliaments so fully were they convinc'd that this pretended power was so unjust as that it could not be justified by an Act of Parliament being contrary to the Laws of God of Nature of Nations and of the Fundamental Laws of both Kingdoms But this Law being made to exclude Queen Mary and the Scottish line as is clear by that clause wherein it is declared that every Person or Persons of what degree or Nation soever they be shall during the Queens life declare or publish that they have Right to the Crown of England during the Queens life shall be disinabled to enjoy the Crown in Succession inheritance or otherwayes after the
subject to Parliaments and inferiour to them and owe their private Rights to a municipal Law and so may and ought in point of Right to be regulated by them And yet I am very clear that a Parliament cannot arbitrarily debar the eldest Son of a private Family and devolve the Succession upon the younger and if they did so their Acts would be null But if this argument were good we might as well conclude by it that no person born out of England or attainted of Treason could succeed to the Crown because he could not succeed to a private Estate All which and many more instances do clearly demonstrate that the Successor to the Crown cannot be debarr'd nor the Succession to the Crown diverted by Act of Parliament The last objection is that Robert the III. King of Scotland was by an Act of Parliament preferr'd to David and Walter who as he pretends were truly the eldest lawful Sons of Robert the 2 d. because Euphan Daughter to the Earl of Ross was first lawful Wife to King Robert the 2 d and she bore him David Earl of Strathern and Walter Earl of Athol Alexander Earl of Buchan and Euphan who was married to James Earl of Dowglass after whose decease he married Elizabeth Muir Daughter to Sir Adam Muir not so much as Buchannan observes from any design to marry a second Wife as from the great love he carried to Elizabeth Muir whom because of her extraordinary Beauty he had lov'd very passionately in his youth and before he married the Earl of Rosses Daughter and from the love which he bore to the Sons whom Elizabeth had born before that first Marriage who were John Earl of Carrick who thereafter succeeded to the Crown by the Title of Robert the 3 d and Robert Earl of Fife and Monteith he prevail'd with the Parliament to prefer John eldest Son by Elizabeth Muir to the two Sons which he had by the Earl of Rosses Daughter who was as they pretend his first lawful Wife In which though I might debate many nice points of Law relating to this Subject yet I chuse only to insist on these few convincing answers 1. That in a Case of so great moment Historians should be little credited except they could have produc'd very infallible Documents and as in general one Historian may make all who succeed him err so in this Case Boetius who was the first liv'd and wrote 200 years after the Marriage of King Robert the 2 d and wrote his History at Aberdeen very remote from the Registers and Records by which he should have instructed himself nor did he know the importance of this point having touch'd it only transiently though it has been design'dly press'd by Buchannan to evince that the Parliaments of Scotland might prefer any of the Royal Line they pleas'd and it is indeed probable that King Robert the 2 d. did for some time make no great noise of his first Marriage with Elizabeth Muir least the meanness of the Match should have weaken'd his Interest upon his first coming to the Crown he being himself the first of the Race of the Stuarts and having so strong Competitors as the Earl of Dowglass who claim'd Right to the Crown in the Right of the Baliol and the Cummings as Boetius himself observes 2. King Robert the 3 d. having succeeded as the eldest lawful Son and having been receiv'd as such by that Parliament and his Posterity by all succeeding Parliaments the Possession of the King and the Acquiesence of the People is the most infallible proof that can be adduc'd for proving that Robert was the eldest lawful Son nor have most Kings in Europe or the Heads of most private Families any other proof of their being the eldest and Lawful Sons save that they succeeded and were acknowledg'd as such 3. To ballance the Authority of these Historians I shall produce the Testimony of the Learned Sir Lewis Stewart one of the most famous Lawyers we ever had and who ought much more to be believ'd than Buchannan not only because he was more disinterested but because he found upon Acts of Parliament and old Charters which he himself had seen in the Registers in which Elizabeth Muir is acknowledg'd to have been the first Wife Buchananus lib. 9. in vita Roberti 2. affirmat Euphaniam Comitis Rossenssis filiam primam Regis Roberti 2. uxorem fuisse ea mortua Regem superinduxisse Elizabetham Moram ex qua prius Liberos ternos mares suscepisset et eam uxorem duxisse ejusque liberos regno destinasse ut postea â—orum natu maximus successit quod quam fâ—lsum sit apparet ex archivis in carcere Edinburgensi reconditis ubi exstant separata acta duorum Parliamentorum subscripta manibus Ecclesiasticorum praefalum nobilium baronum aliorum statuum Parliamenti eorum sigillis roborata quibus Elizabetha Mora agnoscitur prima uxor Euphania Rosse secunda liberis ex Elizabetha Mora tanquam justis haeredibus Regni successive regnum decernitur post eos liberis Euphaniae Rosse nec non ibidem cartae extant plurimae factae per Davidem secundum eorum patruum magnum ex diversis terris Joanni filio primogenito nepotis ejus Roberti dum Euphania Rosse viveret nec non Davidi filio natu maximo Euphaniae Rosse quem solum filium indigitat Roberti nepotis quod non fecisset si Elizabetha Mora non prius fuisset nupta Roberto ejus nepoti nam primogenitus nunquam attribuitur notho imo ego plures quam viginti cartas in archivis inveni ubi etiam eas reliqui ex quibus sole clarius elucessit Elizabetham Moram primam fuisse uxorem Euphaniam Rosse secundam nam extra controversiam liberi Elizabethae Morae aetate grandiores erant liberis Euphaniae Rosse which Paper I did get from the Lord Pitmeden who has himself written some learned Observations upon this Point 4. I have my self seen an Act of Parliament found out by the industry of Sir George Mackenzie of Tarbet now Lord Register having the intire Seals of the Members of Parliament appended thereto by which the Parliament do swear Allegiance to Robert the Second the first King of the Race of the Stuarts and after him Roberto Comiti de Carrict filio suo natu maximo his eldest Son in Anno 1371. which was the first year of his Reign I have also found out a Copy of an Act of Parliament amongst the Records of the late famous Lord Register Skeen which I think fit to insert word for word at the end of this Treatise in Latin the substance whereof in English runs thus That a Parliament being call'd at Scoon the 4th of April Anno 1373. and third year of the Reign of King Robert the Second on purpose to secure the Succession and to prevent all disorders that might afterwards arise in any part of the Kingdom about Titles to the Crown It was Enacted by the said
VI. and the II III IV. Acts Parl. 1. CHARLES II. And by our Oath of Allegiance we are bound to bear faithful and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Lawful Successors which word LAWFUL is insert to cut off the pretences of such as should not succeed by Law and the insolent arbitrariness of such as being but Subjects themselves think they may chuse their King viz. Act 1. Parl. 21. JAMES the VI. That this right of Succession according to the Proximity of Blood is founded on the Law of God is clear by Num. Chap. 27. v. 9. and 10. If a man hath no Son or Daughter his Inheritance shall descend upon his Brother by Num. 36. Where God himself decides in favour of the Daughters of Zelâ—phehad telling us it was just thing they should have the inheritance of their Father And ordains that if there were no Daughters the Estate should go to the Brothers St. Paul likewise concludes Rom. 8. If Sons then Heirs looking upon that as a necessary Consequence which if it do not necessarily hold or can be any way disappointed all his divine reasoning in that Chapter falls to nothing And thus Ahaziah 2 Chron. 22. v. 1. was made King though the youngest in his Fathers stead because says the Text The Arabians had slain all the eldest which clearly shews That by the Law of God he could not have succeeded if the eldest had been alive We hear likewise in Scripture God oft telling By me Kings reign And when he gives a Kingdom to any as to Abraham David c. he gives it to them and their Posterity That this Right of Succession flows from the Law of Nature is clear because that is accounted to flow from the Law of Nature which every man finds grafted in his own heart and which is obey'd without any other Law and for which men neither seek nor can give another distinct Reason all which holds in this Case for who doubts when he hears of an Hereditary Monarchy but that the Next in Blood must succeed and for which we need no positive Law nor does any man enquire for a further Reason being satisfied therein by the Principles of his own heart And from this ground it is that though a remoter Kinsman did possess as Heir he could by no length of time prescribe a valid Right since no man as Lawyers conclude can prescribe a Right against the Law of Nature and that this Principle is founded thereupon is confest l. cum ratio naturalis ff de bonis damnat cum ratio naturalis quasi lex quaedam tacita liberis parentum haereditatem adjecerit veluti ad debitam successionem eos vocando propter quod suorum haeredum nomen eis indultum est adeo ut ne à parentibus quidem ab ea successione amoveri possint Et § emancipati Institut de haered quae ab intest Praetâ—r naturalem aequitatem sequutus iis etiam bonorum possessionem contra 12 tabularum leges contra jus civile permittit Which Text shews likewise That this Right of Nature was stronger than the Laws of the Twelve Tables though these were the most ancient and chief Statutes of Rome which Principle is very clear likewise from the Parable Matth. 21. where the Husband-men who can be presum'd to understand nothing but the Law of Nature are brought in saying This is the Heir let us kill him and seize on his inheritance Nor does this hold only in the Succession of Children or the Direct Line but in the collateral Succession of Brothers and others L. hac parte ff unde cognati Hac parte proconsul Naturali aequitate motus omnibus cognatis permittit bonorum possessionem quos sanguinis ratio Vocat ad haereditatem Vid. l. 1. ff de grad l. 1. § hoc autem ff de bonor possess And these who are now Brothers to the present King have been Sons to the former and therefore whatever has been said for Sons is also verified in Brothers As for instance though his Royal Highness be onely Brother to King CHARLES II. yet He is Son to King CHARLES I. and therefore as St. Paul says If a Son then an Heir except he be secluded by the Existence and Succession of an elder Brother That this gradual Succession is founded on the Law of Nations is as clear by the Laws of the Twelve Tables and the Praetorian Law of Rome And if we consider the Monarchy either old or new we will find That where ever the Monarchy was not Elective the degrees of Succession were there exactly observed And Bodinus de Republ. lib. 6. cap. 5. asserts that Ordo non tantum naturae divinae sed etiam omnium ubique gentium hoc postulat From all which Pope Innocent in c. grand de supplend neglig praelati concludes In regnis haereditariis caveri non potest ne filius aut frater succedat And since it is expresly determined That the Right of Blood can be taken away by no positive Law or Statute L. Jura Sanguinis ff de Reg. jur L. 4. ff de suis legitim And that the power of making a Testament can be taken away by no Law L. ita legatum ff de conditionibus I cannot see how the Right of Succession can be taken away by a Statute for that is the same with the Right of Blood and is more strongly founded upon the Law of Nature than the power of making Testaments Since then this Right is founded upon the Law of God of Nature and of Nations it does clearly follow That no Parliament can alter the same by their municipal Statutes as our Act of Parliament has justly observed For clearing whereof it is fit to consider That in all Powers and Jurisdictions which are subordinate to one another the Inferior should obey but not alter the Power to which it is subordinate and what it does contrary thereto is null and void And thus If the Judges of England should publish Edicts contrary to Acts of Parliament or if a Justice of Peace should reverse a Decree of the Judges of Westminster these their endeavors would be void and ineffectual But so it is that by the same Principle but in an infinitely more transcendent way all Kings and Parliaments are subordinate to the Laws of God the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nations and therefore no Act of Parliament can be binding to overturn what these have established This as to the Law of God is clear not only from the general Dictates of Religion but 28 Hen. 8. cap. 7. the Parliament uses these words For no man can dispense with God's Laws which we also affirm and think And as to the Laws of Nature they must be acknowledged to be immutable from the principles of Reason And the Law it self confesses that Naturalia quaedam jura quae apud omnes gentes peraeque observantur divina quadam providentia constituta semper firma atque immutabilia permanent § sed naturalia
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
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
King Robert the Second with the Advice and Consent of the whole Three Estates That the Sons then born to the King by his first and second Wives and their Heirs should in order succeed to the King in manner after specified That is to say that his eldest Son by the first Marriage John Earl of Carrick should immediately succeed as had been already declar'd in the preceding Parliament and after him his Heirs And in case he dy'd without Issue that his Brother Robert Earl of Monteith the King 's second Son of that Marriage should succeed and his Heirs Which failing that Alexander Earl of Badenoch the King 's third Son of that Bed and his Heirs should inherit the Crown And in case that fail'd that David Earl of Strathern the King 's fourth Son by his second Wife and his Heirs should succeed And that failing that Walter the King 's fifth Son by the said second Wife and his Heirs should inherit the Crown And if it should happen that the said five Sons and their Issue should fail that then the next in Blood of the Royal Line should succeed Which Act all the Three Estates did for themselves and their Heirs for ever solemnly swear to observe as is more at large to be seen in the Original it self And if the pretended Defect be true it was a very palpable and a very undeniable one and could not but have been unanswerably known to the whole Nation And how can we imagine that the whole Parliament would have unanimously drawn upon themselves so dreadful a Perjury by excluding the lawful Heir against their National Oath in the Reign of King Kenneth the third whereby they swore to own always the immediate Heir or that they would have entail'd upon themselves a Civil War by preferring even a questionable Heir after the Miseries which they had lately then felt in the Competition betwixt the Bruce and the Baliol amongst which Seals the Seal of James Earl of Dowglas is one and how ridiculous is it to think that he would sit and declare a Bastard preferable to the Brother of his own Lady and to his own Lady who would have succeeded if her Brothers had died without Succession Which Act of Parliament does also clearly prove that Buchanan did not at all understand matters of Fact in this part of the History for he asserts that after the death of Euphan Ross the King married Elizabeth Muir and did by Act of Parliament obtain the Crown to be setled upon Robert the third Son to the said Elizabeth Muir upon whom he also bestow'd the Title of Carrick all which is most false for this Act of Parliament is dated in Anno 1371. and King Robert the second succeeded to the Crown that year nor did Euphan Ross die till the third year after he succeeded to the Crown and so not till the year 1374. and yet in Anno 1371. this Act is past designing him Heir to the Crown and Earl of Carrick and consequently he was so design'd before the death of Euphan Ross 5. I have seen a Charter granted by King Robert the 2 d when he was only Steward of Scotland in anno 1365 and so long before he was King In which Charter likewise John thereafter King by the name of Robert the 3 d is a conjunct Disponer with him under the express designation of the eldest Son and Heir Robertus Senescallus Scotiae Comes de Strathern Joannes Senescallus primogenitus haeres ipsius Dominus Baroniae de Kyle c. which Charter confirms to the Abbacy of Pasley several Lands disponed to them by Reginaldus More Father to Sir William More of Abercorn And I find that David Duke of Rothsay was alwayes in the Charters granted by his Father King Robert the first called Primogenitus and he was no Bastard nor can this designation be given to a Bastard as is clear by Covaruvias de Matrim part 2. cap. 8. § 2. num 4. But how can it be imagined that the Monks of Pasley would have taken a Right from a person as Heir to the Crown who was not for this would have infer'd Treason against them beside the annulling their Right or who could understand better the lawfulness of a Marriage than a body of Church-men living in the time and very near to the Residence of the married Persons and in whose Conventual-Church the said King Robert and Elizabeth Muir lie buried together Item I have seen in the Registers another Charter granted by King Robert the 2d in the first year of his Reign with the consent of John Earl of Carrick primogenitus haeres Allano de Lavidia terrarum de Whitslet And another granted by the said King 1. June anno primo regni confirming to Paulo Metire a Charter granted by the Earl of Ross Father to Euphan wherein the said John primogenitus haeres is a Witness And to shew that the said Euphan Ross was then living when he was so design'd Heir there is a Charter to her by the King upon the very same day of the Lands of Lochleaven As also there is a Charter granted by King Robert the 2 d the first year of his Reign to Alexander his Son and another to John Kennedy of the Barony of Dalrymole in both which the said John Earl of Carrick is call'd Primogenitus and is Witness with the Earl of Dowglas so that he has been design'd eldest Son and Heir openly uncontrovertedly and in all Papers and with the consent of the second Wife and her Relations 6. In the Parliament 1372. the said John Earl of Carrick is design'd to be Lieutenant of the Kingdom and all the Estates of Parliament swear to own him in his Government and which Statute is printed amongst the Statutes of King Robert the second Father to the said John and which must be during the Marriage with Euphan Ross for she liv'd three years after her Husband was King and he succeeded to the Crown Anno 1371. And this also confutes Buchanan who asserts that he was created Earl of Carrick after the death of Euphan Ross and it is against all sense and reason to think that he could have been acknowledg'd during her life if he had not been the true apparent Heir of the Crown and a lawful Son I have also seen in Fordon's History lib. 14. pag. 73. a Charter granted by King David to the Bishops with the consent of Robert his Nephew and his Sons giving power to the Bishops to dispose in Testament upon their own Moveables which before that time did by a corrupt custom fall to the King in which Charter the Witnesses are Robertus Senescallus Comes de Strathern Nepos noster Joannes Senescallus Comes de Carrict filius suus primogenitus haeres Thomas Comes de Mar Georgius de Dunbar Comes de March Gulielmus Comes de Dowglass so that here is not only the attestation of the Father before he was King naming John Earl of Carrick
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 those in a Common-wealth or Aristocracie to rise against their Governors since these may err as well as Kings do and if this were allowed all Nations should always have one Rebellion rising out of the Ashes of another for only they who prevail'd should be satisfied and all the rest would certainly conclude that they might more justly oppose these Usurpers one or more then the first did 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 Bafis 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 in that case 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 ruin 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 Pretences of Liberty and Religion have always 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 Villainies if we consider against whom they are used and it cannot be otherways for the worst of men are always 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 pretences did succeed in their attempts they became themselves greater grievances to the people than those lawful Powers against whom they pretended to protect them And when others rose against them upon the same pretence 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 always 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 disinherited and murdered Kings In which the most impious of their Doctors have been admir'd and followed 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 their own Commonwealths as our Republicans have impiously endeavour'd to destroy Just Monarchy thereby to settle an usurping Commonwealth 8. The only pretext that can justifie the rising up in Arms being that it is lawful to all Creatures to defend themselves the pretence must be dangerous since its limits are uncertain For how can Defensive Arms be distinguished from Offensive Arms Or whoever begun at the one who did not proceed to the other Or what Subject did ever think himself secure after he had drawn his Sword against his King without endeavouring to cut off by it that King against whom he had drawn it the hope of Absolute Power is too sweet and the fear of punishment too great to be bounded and match'd by the best of Men And how could we expect this moderation from those who at first wanted patience to bear the lawful Yoke of Government but because examples convince as much as reason let us remember how when this Nation was very happy in the Year 1638. under the Government of a most Pious and Just Prince born in our own Kingdom we rais'd an Army and with it Invaded His Kingdom of England upon the pretence that He was Govern'd by wicked Counsellors and design'd to introduce Popery and this was justified as a Defensive War by a long tract of General Assemblies and Parliaments and if this be a Defensive War that is justifiable what King can be secure Or wherein shall we seek security against Civil Wars Or what can be more ridiculous than to pretend the invading Kingdoms murthering such as are Commissionated by the King after that Invasion entring into Leagues and Covenants against him both at home and abroad the robbing him of his Navies and Militia and denying him the power to chuse his own Counsellors and Judges are meerly Defensive but God Almighty to teach us how dangerous these Defensive Arms are and how impossible it is to regulate Lawless violence how gentle and easie soever the first beginnings are suffered our War which was so much justified for being meerly Defensive to end in the absolute overthrow of the Monarchy and the taking away the life of the best of Kings and it is very remarkable that such as have begun with the Doctrine of giving only Passive Obedience in all things as in refusing to pay just Taxes to concur in securing Rebels c. have from that stept up to defensive Arms and from that to the power of Reforming by the Sword and from that to the power of Dethroning and Murthering Kings by Parliaments and Judicatures and from that to the Murthering and Assassinating all who differ'd from them without any other pretence or formality whatsoever so hard a thing it is to stop when we begin once to fall from our Duty And so easie a thing it is to perswade such as have allowed themselves the first degrees of guilt to proceed to the highest extravagancies of Villanie Oh! What a blindness there is in Error And how palpably doth God desert them who desert their Duty suffering them after they have done what they should have abhorred to
project I find also that as the debarring the Right Heir is in reason the fruitful seed of all Civil War and misery for who can imagine that the Right 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 Right Heir the Wars during the Reign of William the Conqueror those betwixt King Stephen 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 foreign Histories which tell us of the dreadful mischiefs arising from Pelops preferring his youngest Son to the Kingdom of Micene from Aedipus commanding that Polinices his youngest Son should reign alternately 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 equal share in the Lacedaemonian 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 of Sinesandus who kill'd his Brother Suintilla Righteous Heir of Spain 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 admit 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 eldest Brother to both Nor would France acquiesce in St. Lewis's preferring CHARLES's third Son to Lewis the Eldest And the English refus'd to obey Lady Jean Gray in prejudice of Queen Mary though a Papist and persecuter Tali constanti veneratione nos Angli legi timos Reges prosequimur c. says an English Historian Seventhly If Parliaments had such Powers as this then our Monarchy would not be hereditary but elective the very essence of an hereditary Monarchy consisting in the right of Succession according to the contingency of blood Whereas if the Parliament can prefer the next save one they may prefer the last of all the Liue for the next save one is no more next than the last is next And the same reason by which they can chuse a Successor which can only be that they have a Power above him should likewise 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 Statutes which acknowledge the present Kings Prerogatives acknowledge that they belong to him and his Heirs it follows 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 incapacitate 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 Eighthly 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 debar 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 Regii sanguinis praerogativa dignitas ut vitium non admittat nec se contaminarep atiatur And thus though he who were to succeed had committed Murther or were declar'd a Traitor 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 coming to the Crown But his very Right of blood would purge all these imperfections Of which there are 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 Like as upon this account it is that though in the Canon Law Bastards cannot be promoted 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 private 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 Albany and his Succession being declared Traitours by his Brother King James the IV his Son John 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 James the V. had died These being sufficient to establish our design I shall mention only some forraign stories CHARLES the VII of France who though banish'd by Sentence of the Parliament of Paris did afterwards succeed to the Crown And though Lewis the XII was forfeited for taking up Arms against CHARLES the VIII yet he succeeded to him