since it is not lawful for the Wife to judge her Husband or for the Body to cut off the Head The 3. Conclusion which I shall draw from the former Principles shall be That as it is not lawful for Subjects to punish their Kings so neither is it to rise in Arms against them upon what pretext soever no not to defend their Liberty nor Religion Which Conclusion also I shall endeavour to Establish on sure foundations of Positive Law Reason Experience and Scripture As to our Positive Law it is clear for by the 3. Act Par. 1. Ja. 1. It is declared Rebellion to rise in Arms against the Kings Person And by the 14. Act 6. Par. King Ja. 2. It is Treason to Rebel against the Kings Person or Authority By the 25. Act Par. 6. Ja. 2. It is Treason to rise in fear of War against the Kings Person or his Majesty or to lay hands upon his Person violently whatever age they be of or to help or supply those who commit Treason By the 131. Act 8. Par. Ja. 6. All the Subjects are forbid to Convocate for holding of Councils or other Assemblies without his Majesties express Warrant and by the 12. Act 10. Par. King Ja. 6. The entring into Leagues or Bonds without his Majesties special Command is declared to be Sedition Most of which Acts are prior to Buchannans time and consequently he was very inexcusable in advancing this Rebellious Principle And these Laws having excepted no case exclude all cases and pretexts of rising in Arms against the Lawful Monarch but our unhappy Country-men having by a long and open Rebellion opposed the most devout and most just of all Kings upon the false pretence of Liberty and Religion the Parliament of this Kingdom from a full Conviction of the Villainies of those times and to prevent such dangerous Cheats for the future they did by the 5. Act Par. 1. Char. 2. declare it to be Treason for any number of his Majesties Subjects to rise in Arms upon any pretence whatsoever and to shew that all such Glosses as were us'd by Buchannan were absurd and did not make void the first Laws though general the Parliament did by the 4. Act of that 1. Parliament declare that any Explanation or Gloss that during the late Troubles hath been put upon these Acts as that they are not to be extended against any Leagues Councils Conventions Assemblies or Meetings made holden or kept by the Subjects for Preservation of the Kings Majesty the Religion Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom or for the publick Good either of Church or Kingdom are false and Disloyal and contrary to the true and genuine meaning of these Acts. Which Statute is a clear decision against Buchannan finding that the Statutes that were prior to his time and all other such general Statutes made in favours of the King did formerly strike against his Principles and Distinctions As also to preclude all avenues to Rebellion by teaching defending or encouraging others to Rebel upon these pretexts as the former Act declared that actual rising in Arms was Rebellion So by the 2. Act Sess 2. Par. 2. Charles 2. It is declared Treason for any Subject to maintain these Positions viz. That it is Lawful for Subjects upon Pretence of Reformation or any other Pretence whatsoever to enter into Leagues or Covenants or to take up Arms against the King or any Commissionated by him 2. All the Arguments formerly produc'd against the power of the Subject to punish His Person do fully prove likewise that they have no power to rise in Arms against him For either the collective Body of the Subjects are superiour to him and if so they may not only rise up in Arms against him but they may punish him but if the King be superiour to them as has been formerly prov'd then it cannot be lawful for Subjects to rise up in Arms against him no more than it is to punish his Person Nor can I see how all such as declare for a Defensive War are not to be concluded guilty of designing to murther the King for if the King come in Person to defend His own Right as certainly he will and must Can it be thought they will shoot at none lest they kill him and if they shoot how can they secure His Sacred Person and if they kill him in the Field are they less guilty of his murther than those Ruffians who lately design'd it Or doth it lessen the Guilt that these design'd to kill him alone privately whereas our moderate men will in face of the Sun and with display'd Banners against God and him kill with him all such as being perswaded that they are obliged before God to assist him expose their lives for their Duty 3. That dangerous though specious Principle of defensive Arms is inconsistent with that order of Nature which God has established and which is absolutely necessary amongst all other humane Relations and by the same Analogy by which we allow Subjects to rise against their Prince we may much more allow Children to rise against their Parents Servants against their Masters Souldiers against their Officers and the Rabble against their Magistrates for the King does eminently comprehend all these relations in his Soveraignty as inferiour Branches of that Paramount Monarchial power And what a glorious state should Mankind be left in if Anarchy were thus Established and every man should be invested with power to be his own Judge Or dares any reasonable man assert that this is fit to be allowed in the present condition of Mankind for since the generality of men can scarce be contained in their Duty by the severest Laws that can be made what can be expected from them when they are loosed from all Law and are encouraged to transgress against it If the Multitude could prove that they were Infallible and that no Oppression could be expected from them something might be said why we might ballance them with Authority But since both Reason and doleful Experience teach us that generally the Multitude consists of Knaves and Fools who alter not to the better by Conspiring together nor become juster for being led by such ambitious and discontented Spirits as ordinarily lead on Rebellions it is safer to obey those of the two fallible Governours whom God hath set over us and whom the Law ties us to obey and to whom also we are bound by the Oath of Allegiance especially seeing thus we may probably expect that they will be more careful of us as being their own than meer Strangers who use us only for their own Ends. And at the worst in the King we can have but an ill Master whereas in allowing Subjects to usurp we may fight to get our selves hundreds of Tyrants and these too fighting one against another so that we shall not even know which of these Divils to obey 4. This Position is against the very Nature not only of Monarchy but of all Governments For who will
Grotius De Jure Belli lib. 1. cap. 4. num 7. And it had been great impudence as well as sin in them to have boasted of a recent matter of Fact which was not true nor could there be a greater injury done to the Primitive Christians as Grotius observes than to ascribe that to their Weakness which they consider'd as an effect of Duty and why should the Heathen Emperours have suffered those to multiply who obey'd only because Disobedience was not safe for they might have certainly concluded that by the same Principle that they obeyed only because they were weak they would disobey as soon as they were able 4. If the first Christians in general had obeyed only because they were not able to resist then any private Christian had resisted when he was able or would have fled or conceal'd himself whereas it is acknowledg'd in the other answers press'd by Gronovius himself that they sought for Martyrdom and so these two answers are inconsistent and the Theban Legion and others did submit themselves voluntarily to Martyrdom with their Arms in their hands and when they were able to have overthrown the Emperour And lastly If this Doctrine were allow'd no Society could subsist for when Dissenters grew strong the lawful Magistrate behov'd to perish whereas Jesus Christ did contrive the Christian Religion so as that all Governours should reasonably wish their Subjects to be Christians and so as no Christian should attempt to overthrow the order and establishment of Civil Government and that they should not be drawn away from practise of Christian Devotion by the carnal desires of being Great and Strong in the World nor have any hopes in the Arm of Flesh to the lessening of their immediate dependence upon him His third shift is That his Doctrine of Submission and of dying for the Christian Religion without making Resistance was only the Practise but not the Command of the Primitive Church and proceeded from their immoderate affectation of the Crown of Martyrdom as Milton also pretends But since the express Command of Scripture is founded upon such clear Reason and since as Grotius well observes the Practise of the Primitive Christians who liv'd so near the Age wherein these Scriptures were pen'd is the best Interpreter of the Scripture it is horrid Impiety to make those blessed Martyrs pass for vain Hypocrites and distracted Self-murderers and it becomes us with holy reverence to imitate those whom the Christian Church has ever admir'd The fourth shift is that the Protestant Churches have been reform'd by such Insurrections as these contrary to the Royal Authority But this is fully answered by the learned Henry More in his Divine Dialogues and by Du Moulin in his Philanax Anglicus where likewise are to be found the many Testimonies of Protestant Churches and Protestant Divines condemning positively the taking up of Arms against the Soveraign Power even for the defence of Religion and the very Presbyterian Confession of Faith at Westminster is so positive as to this point that the Presbyterians themselves can never answer it The sum of which answer is That the King of Spain coming by Marriage in place of the Duke of Burgundy the said King of Spain could pretend to no more Power than they had nor could the House of Burgundy pretend to any more Power by marrying the Heirs of the Counts of the several Provinces than those Counts had over their Provinces and therefore since none of these were Soveraigns over their Provinces the Provinces might have resisted the King of Spain when he oppress'd them and consequently that Resistance cannot defend such as resist Supream Powers upon pretence of Religion Grotius de Antiq. Reipub. Batav cap. 7. The opposition made by the Protestants in France was not occasion'd by Religion but upon a Quarrel betwixt the Princes of the Blood and the House of Guise in the Minority of Francis the 2 d and is defended most excellently by King James himself not to have been Rebellion in his Defence of the Right of Kings pag. 14. The Opposition made by the Princes of Germany to the Emperour was founded upon the inherent Right in the Princes by the Golden Charter of the Empire And Luther himself declar'd that Magistratui non erat resistendum and has written a Book to that purpose nor would he engage in the Confederacy for Defensive Arms at Smalcald until the Lawyers declared that that Resistance was lawful by the Laws of the Empire Vide Slydan Hist lib. 8. anno 1531. The War that arose in Switzerland was not occasion'd by Religion for the Reformation was once establish'd with the consent of the Magistrate And the Eruption that was made by other Cantons upon the Reform'd Cantons eleven years after that Establishment Vide Slydan anno 1522. Nor was it Calvin who banish'd the Prince and Bishop of Geneva for he fled eight Months before upon the detecting of a Conspiracy by which that Bishop was to deliver over the Liberties of that City to the Duke of Savoy and for which his Secretary was hang'd Vide Turretin Annal. Reformationis anno 1529 And albeit those who Reform'd in Scotland in the Reign of Queen Mary pretended Authority from the King yet they were certainly Rebels and are condemn'd by Rivet a famous Protestant Divine who also inveighs bitterly against this Principle Castiga Not. in Epist ad Bal. fac cap. 13. num 14 sub finem From all which I observe First That all the Protestant Divines by making Apologies for such of their Profession as have risen in Arms against Supream Powers must be thereby concluded to be asham'd of the Principle Secondly immediately upon the quieting those Rebellions all the Protestant Churches have in their Confessions of Faith declared their abhorrence of that Principle which being the product of Conviction and Experience joyn'd with Duty must be the most judicious and sincere Testimony of all others Thirdly All those Rebellions have been occasion'd by a mistake in Point of Law and not in point of Religion for the Divines as I have related have been abused by the Lawyers and therefore since in the Isle of Britain the Laws of both Kingdoms have declared the Rising in Arms against the King to be Treason although for the defence of Religion it necessarily follows that this must be unlawful in point of Conscience in this Kingdom Fourthly Though good things may be occasion'd by a Rebellion yet that does not justifie a Rebellion for though Jeroboam was allow'd by God to rise against Rehoboam yet God Almighty himself calls his revolt Rebellion 1 Kings 12 19. and 2 Chron. 10. 19. and it is observable that after this Revolt there was but one good King amongst all the Rebellious Kings of Israel whereas amongst the Kings of Judah who were lawful Kings there was but one or two who were any ways impious so far does God bless a lawful Succession Some also use as a shift against this Orthodox Doctrine that the reason why the
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
the People nor Parliaments of this Kingdom could exclude the Lineal Successor or could raise to the Throne any other of the same Royal Line For clearing whereof I shall according to my former method First clear what is our positive Law in this Case Secondly I shall shew that this our Law is founded upon excellent Reason And lastly I shall answer the Objections As to the first It is by the second Act of our last Parliament acknowledged That the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almighty alone do Lineally succeed thereto according to the known degrees of Proximity in Blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statute whatsoever and that none can attempt to alter or divert the said Succession without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion and without exposing them to all the fatal and dreadful consequences of a Civil War DO THEREFORE from a hearty and sincere sence of their duty recognize acknowledge and declare that the right to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is by the inherent right and the Nature of Monarchy as well as by the fundamental and unalterable Laws of this Realm transmitted and devolved by a lineal Succession according to the Proximity of Blood And that upon the death of the King or Queen who actually reigns the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound by Law duty and allegiance to obey the next immediate and Lawful Heir either Male or Female upon whom the right and administration of the Government is immediatly devolved And that no difference in Religion nor no Law nor Act of Parliament made or to be made can alter or divert the right of Succession and lineal descent of the Crown to the nearest and Lawful Heirs according to the degrees aforesaid nor can stop or hinder them in the full free and actual administration of the Government according to the Laws of the Kingdom LIKE AS OUR SOVEREIGN LORD with advice and consent of the said Estates of Parliament do declare it is High-treason in any of the Subjects of this Kingdom by writing speaking or any other manner of way to endeavour the alteration suspension or diversion of the said right of Succession or the debarring the next Lawful Successor from the immediate actual full and free administration of the Goment conform to the Laws of the Kingdom And that all such attempts or designs shall infer against them the pain of Treason This being not only an Act of Parliament declaring all such as shall endeavour to alter the Succession to be punishable as Traitors but containing in it a Decision of this Point by the Parliament as the Supream Judges of the Nation and an acknowledgment by them as the representatives of the people and Nation There can be no place for questioning a point which they have plac'd beyond all controversie especially seeing it past so unanimously that there was not only no vote given but even no argument proved against it And the only doubt mov'd about it was whether any Act of Parliament or acknowledgment was necessary in a point which was in it self so uncontroverted And which all who were not desperate Fanaticks did conclude to be so in this Nation even after they had heard all the arguments that were us'd and the Pamphlets that were written against it in our Neighbour-Kingdom But because so much noise has been made about this question and that blind bigotry leads some and humorous faction draws others out of the common road I conceive it will be fit to remember my Reader of these following Reasons which will I hope clear that as this is our present positive Law so it is established upon the fundamental constitution of our Government upon our old Laws upon the Laws of God of Nature of Nations and particularly of the Civil Law As to the fundamental constitution of our Government I did formerly remark that our Historians tell us that the Scots did swear Allegiance to FERGUS who was the first of our Kings and to his Heirs And that they would never obey any other but his Royal Race Which Oath does in Law and Reason bind them to obey the Lineal Successor according to the proximity of Blood For an indefinite obligation to obey the Blood Royal must be interpreted according to the proximity in Blood except the swearers had reserv'd to themselves a power to chuse any of the Royal Family whom they pleas'd which is so true that in Law an obligation granted to any man does in the construction of Law accrue to his Heirs though they be not exprest Qui sibi providet haeredibus providet And Boethius tells us that after King FERGUS'S death the Scots finding their new Kingdom infested with Wars under the powerful influence of Picts and Britains they refus'd notwithstanding to prefer the next of the Royal Race who was of perfect age and a Man of great Merit to the Son of King FERGUS though an infant which certainly in reason they would have done if they had not been ty'd to the lineal Successor But least the Kingdom should be prejudg'd during the minority they enacted that for the future the next of the Blood Royal should always in the minority of our Kings administer as Kings till the true Heir were of perfect age But this does not prove as Buchannan pretends that the people had power to advance to the Throne any of the Royal Race whom they judg'd most fit for common sense may tell us that was not to chuse a King but a Vice-Roy or a Regent For though to give him the more authority and so to enable him the more to curb factions and oppose enemies he was called King yet he he was but Rex fidei Commissarius being oblig'd to restore it to the true Heir chosen rather to serve than Reign and so Governed only for a time and consequently was only his Vice-Roy But because the Uncles and next Heirs being once admitted to this fidei Commissarie title were unwilling to restore the Crown to their Nephews and sometimes murder'd them and oft-times rais'd Factions against them Therefore the People abhorring those impieties and weary of the distractions and divisions which they occasion'd begg'd from King KENNETH the 3 d that these following Laws might be made 1. That upon the Kings death the next Heir of whatsoever Age should succeed 2. The Grand-child either by Son or Daughter should be preferr'd 3. That till the King arriv'd at 14 years of age some Wise-man should be chosen to Govern after which the King should enter to the free Administration and according to this constitution some fit Person has still been chosen Regent in the Kings Minority without respect to the Proximity of Blood and our Kings have been oft-times Crown'd in the Cradle In conformity also to these Principles all the acknowledgments made to our Kings run still in favour of the King and his Heirs As in the first Act Parl. 18 JAMES
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
by God but that it is immediatly bestowed by God upon Kings and Refutes Bellarm. de laico c. 6. maintaining That the Jesuits Doctrine in this lessens Authority and raises Factions and contradicts both the Design and Word of God Duvalius de suprem potest Rom. Pontif. p. 1. q. 2. Asserts that Kings derive their Rights by the Laws of God and Nature non ab ipsa Republica hominibus and in all this the Fanaticks and Republicans agree with the Jesuits against Monarchy In the Civil Law this is expresly asserted Cod. de vet Cod. enucleand Deo anctore nostrum gubernante imperium quod nobis a coelesti majestate traditam est Nov. 6. in init Nov. 133. in proem in Nov. 80. 85 86. Justinian acknowledges his Obligation to care for his People because he received the Charge of them from God and certainly Subjects are happier if their Kings acknowledge this as a duty to God than if they only think it a Charge confer'd on them by their People and that they are therefore answerable to them That the Doctors and Commentators are of this opinion is too clear to need Citations vid. Arnis cap. de Essentia Majest Granswinkel de jur Maj cap. 1. 2. As to the Heathens Hesiod in Theog ver 96. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings are from God Homer sayes their Honour is from God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iliad 1. verse 197. Themistous asserts that the Regal Power came from God Orat. 5. whith whom agrees Dion Chrysostom Orat. 1. diotog apud Stob. serm c. Plat. de legibus c. But above all Aristotle in polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plutarch Agis Cleom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If to these Statutes and Citations it be answered That God Almighty may indeed be the principal and chief Author of Monarchy and that Monarchs may derive their Power from him as from the Supream Being that directs all more immediate Causes and yet the People may be the immediate Electors of Monarchs and so Kings may derive immediately from them their Power and thus these Statutes are not inconsistent with the principle laid down by Buchannan and others whereby they assert That Kings in general and particularly the Kings of Scotland derive their Power immediately from the People To this my answers are that first If we consider the propriety of the Words there can be nothing more inconsistent then that Kings should derive their Power from God Almighty alone and yet that they should derive it from the People for the Word Alone is of all other words the most exclusive 2dly The design of the Parliament in that acknowledgement was to condemn after a long Rebellion the unhappy Principles which had kindled it and amongst which one of the chief was that our Kings derived their Power from the People and therefore they might qualifie or resume what they at first gave or might oppose all Streaches in the Power they had given and might even punish or depose the King when he transgressed none of which Principles could have been sufficiently condemned by acknowledging that though God was the chief Author yet the People were the immediate Electors 3dly There needed no Act of Parliament be made for acknowledging God to be the chief Author and first Fountain of every Power for that was never controverted amongst Christians 4thly That foolish glosse cannot at all consist with the Inferences deduced from that Principle in the former Statutes for in the 2. Act Par. 1. Char. 2. It is inferr'd from His Majesties holding His Royal Power from God alone that therefore he hath the sole choice of his own Officers of State Privy Counsellors and Judges And in the 5th Act it is inferr'd from the same Principle that because he derives his Power from God alone that therefore it is Treason to rise in Arms without his Consent upon any pretext whatsoever and in the 2 d. Act Par. 3. Char. 2. It is concluded that because our Kings derive their Power from God Almighty alone therefore it is Treason in the People to interrupt or divert their Succession upon any Difference in Religion or other pretext whatsoever whereas all this had been false and improper Reasoning if the design of the Parliament had not been to acknowledge that our Kings derived not their Power from the People for though they derived their Power from God as the supream Being only and not as the immediate bestower and if the People were the immediat bestowers of that Power then the People might still have pretended that they who gave the Power might have risen in their own Defence when they saw the same abused and might have diverted the Succession when it descended upon a person who was an enemy to their Interest but how false this glosse is will appear more fully from the following Arguments and it is absolutely inconsistent with St. Augustins opinion formerly cited wherein he forbids to attribute the giving of Kingdoms to any other but to God My second Argument for proving that Kings derive their Power from God alone and not from the People shall be from the principles of Reason For First The Almighties design being to manifest his Glory in Creating a World so vast and regular as this is and his goodness in Governing it and that Men might live peaceably in it having both Reason and Time to Serve him it was consequential that he should have reserved to himself the immediate dependence of the supream Power to shut out the extravagant and restless multitude from those frequent Revolutions which they would make and Desolations which they would occasion if they thought that the Supream Power depended on them and that they were not bound to obey them for Conscience sake so that those expressions in Scripture were very useful in this to curb our Insolencies and to fix our restlesness and it seems that Kings are in Scripture said to be gods to the end it might be clear that they were not made by Men. 2dly God Almighty being King of Kings it was just that as inferiour Magistrates derived their Power from the King so Kings should derive their Power from God who is their King and this seems to be clear from that analogy which runs in a Dependence and Chain through the whole Creation 3dly as this is most suitable to the principles of Reason so it is most consonant the analogy of Law by which t is declar'd that no Man is master of his own Life or Limbs nemo est Dominus membrorum suorum and therefore as no Man can lawfully take away his own Life so neither can he transfer the power of disposing of it to any other Man and consequently this Power is not derived to Kings and Princes by privat Men but is bestowed upon them by God Almighty who is the sole Arbiter of Life and Death and who can only take it a away because he gave it And if it be objected that this last branch
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
proceed to do what they first abhorred really To these I must recommend the History of Hazael who when the Prophet foretold him 2 King 8. 12 13. That he should slay their young men with the sword dash their Children and rip up their Women with child answered him am I a dog that I should do such things and yet he really did what he had so excerated The moderation likewise of these modest pretenders to Self-defence and Defensive Arms will appear by the bloody Doctrine of their great Rabbies Buchannan not only allows but invites Subjects to murder their King And Lex Rex Pag. 313. tells us That it is a sin against Gods Command to be Passively Subject to an unjust Sentence and that it is an Act of Grace and Virtue to resist the Magistrate violently when he does him wrong and after that horrid Civil War was ended the Author of Nahptali doth justifie it pag. 16 and 17 in these words Combinations for assistance in violent opposition of the Magistrates when the ends of Government are preverted which must be referr'd to the discretion of them who mind Insurrection are necessary by the Law of Nature of Charity and in order to Gods Glory and for violation of this Duty of delivering the oppressed from Magistrates Judgment comes upon People From which he proceeds Pag. 18 and 19. do assert that not only the power of self-defence but vindicative and reforming power is in any part of the People against the whole and against all Magistrates and if they use it not Judgment comes on supposing their capacity probable to bear them forth and they shall be punish'd for their connivance and not acting in way of vindication of Crimes and reforming Abuses Before I enter upon those Arguments which the Scripture furnishes us with against these Rebellious Principles I must crave leave to say 1. That Defensive Arms seem to me very clearly inconsistent with that Mortification Submission and Patience which is recommended by our Blessed Saviour in all the strain of the new Testament and how will these People give their Coat to a Stranger or hold up their other Cheek to him when they will rise even in Rebellion against their Native Prince 2. As the taking up of Arms is inconsistent with the temper requir'd in a Christian so it seems a very unsuitable mean for effectuating the end for which it is design'd since Religion being a Conviction of what we owe to God how can that be comanded which should be perswaded and how can Arms become Arguments Or how can External Force influence immaterial Substances such as are the Souls of Men. And we may as well think to awake a mans Conscience by Drums or to perswade his Judgment by Musquets and therefore the Apostle speaks only of spiritual Arms in this our Warfare The Sword of the Spirit and the Helmet of Salvation c. But good God how could the extravagancy of forcing the Magistrate by Arms in Defence of Religion enter into Mens heads When it is unlawful even for the Magistrate himself to force Religion by Arms. And as Subjects should not be by the King forced to Religion so if they use Force against the King the pretext of Religion tho specious should not defend them And therefore when the sons of Zebedee desired fire from Heaven upon those who oppos'd even our Saviour he told them that they knew not what Spirit they were of 3. It seems very derogatory to the power of Almighty God that he should need humane assistance and it is a lessening of the great esteem that we ought to have for the energy force and reasonableness of the Christian Religion that it needs to be forc'd upon men by Arms as if it were not able to force its own way This Mahomet needed for his Cheats but our Blessed Saviour needs not for his Divine Precepts and therefore when Peter offered to fight for him our Saviour checkt him commanding him to put up his Sword and to perswade him the more effectually assures him That all they who take the Sword shall perish by it and that his Kingdom was not of this World and so he needed no such worldly help but if he pleas'd to call for Legions of Angels his Omnipotent Father would send them and sure Angels are fitter and abler Instruments to carry on such a work of Reformation than Rebellious Regiments of Horse and Dragoons 4. Our blessed Saviour foreseeing that Mans Corruption would in spite of Christianity prompt him to resist he therefore did command by the Apostle Paul Rom. 13. v. 1. and 2. Let every Soul be Subject to the higher Power for there is no Power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation In which Text it is very remarkable that the Apostle urges this Christian duty of submission as being a mark of mans immediate dependence upon God and as that which when contemned brings eternal damnation And whereas it is pretended that this Text commands only submission to Magistrates whilst they Act Piously and Vertuously because only in so far they are Gods Vicegerents but forbids not resistance to their impious commands It is answered that the Text has no such limitation and we must have so much respect to the Scripture as to think that if God Almighty had design'd to allow such an opposition he would have warranted it in as clear Terms as he commanded the submission and the reason why this submission is commanded is not because the Power is rightly us'd but because the Power is ordained of God And we see that St. Paul himself did think that the power should be reverenc'd even when abus'd for when the High Priest was Injuring him he acknowledged that he was obliged not to speak evil of the Rulers of his People Acts 23. 2. And if this place of Scripture and the submission therein commanded were so to be limited we behoved likewise so to limit the fifth Commandment and not to honour our Parents except when they are Pious nor to obey them if they vex or trouble us and St. Paul having written this Epistle to those who were then living under that monstrous Emperour Caius did clearly design that the Christian Religion was to be admired for commanding Subjects not only to obey good Princes but even submitting peaceably to Tyrants And suitable to this Doctrine are these Texts Heb. ch 12. v. 9. We had Fathers of our flesh who corrected and chastened us after their own pleasure and we gave them reverence and lest we might think that Text rather a Narration than a Command it is told us Peter 2. v. 18. Servants be subject to your Masters with all fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward for this is thanks-worthy if a man for conscience toward God do endure grief And v. 20. If when ye do well and
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
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
Queens death It therefore follows that it was never valid For if it had King James might have thereby been excluded by that person who should have succeeded next to the Scottish Race For it 's undeniable that Queen Mary did during Q. Elizabeths Life pretend Right to the Crown upon the account that Queen Elizabeth was declared Bastard And therefore the calling in of King James after this Act and the acknowledging his Title does clearly evince That the Parliament of England knew that they had no power to make any such Act The words of which acknowledgment of King James's Right I have thought fit to set down as it is in the Statute it self 1 Jac. Cap. 1. That the Crown of England did descend upon King James by inherent Birthright as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal. And to this Recognition they do submit themselves and Posterities for ever until the last drop of their Blood be spilt And further doth beseech His Majesty to accept of the same Recognition as the first Fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to His Majesty and to His Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever It may be also objected That by the 8 Act. Parl. 1. Ja. 6. it is provided in Scotland that all Kings and Princes that shall happen to Reign and bear Rule over that Kingdom shall at the time of their Coronation make their faithful promise by Oath in presence of the eternal God that they shall maintain the true Religion of Jesus Christ the preaching of the Holy Word and due and right Administration of the Sacraments now received and preach'd within this Kingdom from which two Conclusions may be inferr'd 1. That by that Act the Successor to the Crown may be restricted 2. That the Successor to the Crown must be a Protestant that being the Religion which was professed and established the time of this Act. To which it is answered That this Act relates only to the Crowning of the King and not to the Succession Nor is a Coronation absolutely necessary Coronatio enim magis est ad ostentationem quam ad necessitatem Nec ideo Rex est quia coronatur sed coronatur quia Rex est Oldrad consil 90. num 7. Balbus lib. de coronat pag. 40. Nor do we read that any Kings were Crown'd in Scripture except Joas And Clovis King of France was the first who was Crown'd in Europe Nor are any Kings of Spain Crown'd till this day Sisenandus was the first who in the fourth Tolletan Council gave such an Oath amongst the Christians as Trajan was the first amongst the Heathen Emperours And we having had no Coronation Oath till the Reign of King Gregory which was in Anno 879. he having found the Kingdom free from all Restrictions could not have limited his Successor or at least could not have debarr'd him by an Oath Nullam enim poterat legem dictare posteris cum par in parem non habeat imperium as our Blackwood observes pag. 13. 2. There is no Clause irritant in this Act debarring the Successor or declaring the Succession Null in case his Successor gave not this Oath 3. The Lawful Successor though he were of a different Religion from his People as God forbid he should be may easily swear That he will maintain the Laws now standing And any Parliament may legally secure the Successor from overturning their Religion or Laws though they cannot debar him And though the Successor did not swear to maintain the Laws yet are they in little danger by his Succession since all Acts of Parliament stand in force till they be repeal'd by subsequent Parliaments and the King cannot repeal an Act without the consent of Parliament But to put this beyond all debate the 2d Act of this current Parliament is opposed whereby it is declared That the Right and Administration of the Government is immediately devolv'd upon the next lawful Heir after the death of the King or Queen and that no difference in Religion nor no Law nor Act of Parliament can stop or hinder them in the free and actual Administration Which is an abrogation of the foresaid Act concerning the Coronation as to this Point for how can the administration be devolv'd immediately upon the Successor if he cannot administer till he be Crown'd and have sworn this Oath And therefore King James urges very well That sure immediately upon the death of the last King the Successor acquires a Right they who debar the Successor do not exclude a Successor from entering but debar a righteous King And by Act 2. Parl. 1. Sess 2. Ch. 2. It is declar'd Treason to suspend the King from the Stile Honour or Kingly Name And whereas Dolman urges That at all Coronations the People are ask'd If they will have such a King It is answered That this is no necessary Solemnity and is done rather to give the People occasion to shew their affection than their power even as a Gentleman in England is appointed to offer Dueâ— to any who would controvert the King's Right who is to be Crown'd notwithstanding of which offer he who would controvert the Title would certainly commit Treason Nor can it be deni'd from our History but that many of our Kings have reign'd long before they were Crown'd and that those who rebell'd against them before their Coronation were as legally Traytors as those who rebell'd after it All Kings number the years of their Reign from their Predecessors death and not from their Coronation They grant new Commissions and Judicatures who should understand Law best of all others decide in their Name and by their Authority before they be Crown'd So that I cannot but smile at Dolman's Conceit who says That a King before his Coronation is betroth'd but not a King espous'd to the Commonwealth till his Coronation and consequently may till then be rejected But this is a meer Whimsie and Scholastick Conceit for sure he acts as King and since they who oppose him commit Treason it is certain that he cannot be rejected and the solid Right of Blood and not airy Formalities make Kings Nor can I understand how Election and Birth can be join'd to compleat the excellency of Hereditary Monarchy as Doleman teaches for make it our Elective upon the unfitness of the Successor and all Successors shall be call'd unfit and unable to govern when a Faction resolves to set up a Rival though he be really yet more unfit than the true Heir is The next Objection is That since the King and Parliament may by Act of Parliament alter the Successions of private Families though transmitted by the Right of Blood why may they not alter the Succession in the Royal Family To which it is answered that the reason of the difference lyes in this that the Heirs of the Crown owe not their Succession to Parliaments for they succeed by the Laws of God Nature and the Fundamental Laws of the Nation whereas private Families are