pretexts of rising in Arms against the lawful Monarch but our unhappy Countrey-men having by a long and open Rebellion oppos'd the most devout and most just of all Kings upon the false pretexts of Liberty and Religion the Parliament of this Kingdom from a full Conviction of the Villanies of these 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 pretext whatsoever and to shew that all such Glosses as were us'd by Buchannan were absurd and did not evacuat the first Laws though general the Parliament did by the 4. Act of that 1. Parliament declare that any Explanation or Glosse 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 kep't by the Subjects for Preservation of the Kings Majesty the Religion Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom or for the publick Good either of Kirk or Kingdom are false and Disloyal and contrare 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 adduc'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 Superior 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 Superior 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 least 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 these Russians 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 necessar 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 and Monarchical 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 some thing might be said why we might ballance them with authority But since both Reason and dolefull 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 ordinarly lead on Rebellions It is safer to obey those of the two fallible Governours whom God hath set over us and whom the Law tyes us to obey and to whom also we are bound by the Oath of Allegiance especially seing 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 two fighting against one another so that we shall not even know which of these Devils to obey The Arguments that can be adduc'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 solv'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-defense 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 Iames the third against whom his Subjects rose in Rebellion for Mis-governing 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-defense in Brutes we must still remember that God having design'd Government to bridle the Extravagancies of restless 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
their own Common-wealths as our Republicans have impiously endeavour'd to destroy Just Monarchy thereby to settle an usurping Common-wealth 8. The only pretext that can justifie the rising up in Arms being that it is lawful to all Creatures to defend themselves the pretext 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 march'd by the best of Men And how can we expect this moderation from these 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 pretext 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 entering 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 choose 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 regulat 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 pretext 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 in 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 execrated The moderation likewayes 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 Naphtali 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 perverted which must be referr'd to the discretion of them who minds 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 Judgement comes upon People From which he proceeds Pag. 18 and 19. to 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 these Arguments which the Scripture furnishes us with against these rebellious Principles I must crave leave to say 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 commanded 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 Spiritual 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 Defense 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 these 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 reasonablenesse 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 check't him commanding him to put up his Sword and to perswade him the more effectually he assures him that all these 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 Which Divine Argument serves also to refute the Atheistical Doctrine of Buchannan and Owen who would perswade us that our Saviour did only recommend to his Disciples to flee from one City to another when they were persecuted Because they then wanted power to resist For tho they did want yet our Saviour could have by legions of Angels defeated all the Powers upon Earth And Tertullian in his Apology for the Christians insists on their patient suffering under Persecution tho their number were sufficient to have resisted 4. Our blessed Saviour foreseeing that Mans Corruption would in spight 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 immediat dependance upon God and as that which when contemned brings eternal damnation And whereas it is pretended that this Text commands only submission to Magistrats whilst they Act Piously and Vertuously because only in so far they are Gods Vicegerents but discharges not resistence 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 5. 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 monstruous 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 Saviours 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 these 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 deterr'd from defensive Arms by this our Saviours Divine example and reasoning The last Argument I shall adduce 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 Magistrats but much more to Rebel against them is discharg'd both by the Laws 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 Money to give to the Poor or a Son cuts his Fathers Throat ecause he is vitious or when Iacques Clement Stabed Henry the 3. and Ravilleck Henry the 4. they might have alleadg'd the same in their own defence Nor know we a surer proof that any thing is impious or unlawful then when the Laws of our Nation have discharg'd it as a great Crime they being against and contrare to no positive Law of God but rather suitable to the same and own'd as such by Christian Synods and Divines and there being no necessity to inforce 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 Throne 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 these Learn'd Men who have fully handled it Only I must remember that excellent passage
as I have formerly more fully prov'de 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 my self more solide 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 Secte 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 Protestant yet still this pretext that he design'd to introduce Popery would raise his People against him if differences in Religion could Lawfully Arme subjects against their King or did empower them to debar his Successor And when this cheat prevail'd against devout King Charles the I the Martyr of that Orthodox Faith to which he was said to be enemie what a madness is it to allow this fatall error which was able to ruine 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 otherwayes to have succeeded as in the instances of Edward the II. and Richard the III the first of whom was most unjustly depos'd for making use of Gavestoun and the Spencers which shewes how extravagant the People ar 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 III. 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 nullâ ex causâ 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 14. Article against Richard the II viz. that he refus'd to allow the Lawes made in Parliament does very well remark that this was in effect to consent to their being King and to transferre upon them the Royal power and this will be the event of all such undertakings The instances of Henry the IV. and Henry the VII are of no more weight than the other two since these were likewayes only Kings de facto till King Henry the VII by his marriage with the Lady Elizabeth eldest Daughter to King Edward the IV. did by her transmit a just title to his Successor therefore it was not strange that either of these should allow the Parliament to interpose when they behov'd to owe to them the possession of the Throne But yet Henry the VII himself as the Lord Bacon relates in his Historie shunn'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 accompt it was that the same King caus'd make a Law that such as should serve the King for the time being in his warrs could not be attainted or impeach'd in their persons or Estates As to Henry the VIII his procuring an Act whereby the Parliament declares that in case he had no issue by the Lady Iean 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 25 year of his Reigne he by Act of Parliament setles 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 shewes that the Succession to the Crown of England is establish't 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 prevaile with the Parliament to declare this Elizabeth a Bastard as he did also his Daughter Mary by another Act and resolve to setle 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 prevaile 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 ane Act in it self invalide 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 contrarie to the immutable Laws of God Nature and Nations that none durst produce that Kings Testament wherein he did nominat a Successor conform to the power granted by these Acts that how soon 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 whomever he should nominat a preparative which this age would not well bear though they cite it they proclamed 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 nominat a Successor two of the legal Successors having been declar'd Bastards upon some niceties not of nature but of the Popes Bulls for divorcing their Mothers so this instance can only prove that the King may nominat a Successor and that the Parliament may consent not to quarrell it which is all that they do but does not at all prove
Doctrine cannot be resisted And so far is Grotius an enemy to such Fanatical Resistance upon the pretence of Liberty and Religion that num 6. he calls the Authors of these Opinions Time Servers only And Gronovius a violent Republican and Fanatick taxes him extreamly for it in his Observations upon that fourth Chapter whose Arguments adduc'd against Grotius I shall answer amongst the other Objections Gronovius's first Argument why it should be lawful to resist the Supream Magistrate in defence of Religion is because if it be not lawful for Subjects to Arm themselves for Religion against their Prince it should not be lawful for their Prince by the same rule to defend himself against Turks and Infidels who would endeavour to force him to comply with their Impieties But to this it is answered That Resistance to Superiors is expressly discharg'd by the Laws of God and Nature as said is but this cannot be extended to Cases where there is no Subjection nor Allegiance and it may be as well argu'd that because one private man may beat another who offers to strike him that therefore a Child may beat his Parent or a Servant his Master or that because I may violently resist a private man who offers to take away my Goods unjustly that therefore I may oppose the Sentence of the Magistrat because I forsooth do not think the same just His second shift is That our Saviour commanded only absolute submission without resistance in the Infancy of the Church when he himself was miraculosly to assist his own Servants but this Submission was to end with the Miracles to which it related As to which my answer is 1. That all the Commands in Scripture may be so eluded nor is there any Duty more frequently and fully inculcated than this is and that too in the same Chapters amongst other Duties which are to last for ever such as submission to Parents and Masters and this is founded upon plain reason and conveniency and not upon Miracles 2. This was receiv'd and acknowledg'd by the Pagans as has been fully prov'd though it cannot be pretended that they rely'd upon any such miraculous assistance 3. It cannot be deny'd but the Fathers of the Primitive Church did recommend and justifie themselves in their Apologies to the Heathen Emperors for bearing patiently when they were able not only to have resisted but to have overthrown their Persecuters as is clear by the Citations out of Tertullian Cyprian Lactantius Augustine and others to be seen in Grotius De Iure 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 Emperors 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 how soon 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 it acknowledg'd in the other Answer press'd by Gronovius himself that they sought for Martyrdom and so these two Answers are inconsistent and the Thebean Lègion and others did submit themselves voluntarly to Martyrdom with their Arms in their hands and when they were able to have overthrown the Emperor And lastly If this Doctrine were allow'd no Society could subsist for when Dissenters grew strong the lawful Magistrat 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 the practice 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 Practice but not the Command of the Primitive Church and proceeded from their immoderat affectation of the Crown of Martyrdom as Milntoun also pretends But since the express Command of Scripture is founded upon such clear Reason and since as Grotius well observes the Practice 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 these 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. Baâ—av 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 Iames 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 Emperor 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
Concord sacerd imperij l. 2. c. 2. n 2. asserts That the Royal Power is not only bestowed by God but that it is immediatly bestow'd by God upon Kings and Refutes Bellarm. â—de laico c. 6. maintaining That the Iesuits 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 auctore nostrum gubernante imperium quod nobis a coelesti majestate traditum est Nov. 6. in init Nov. 133. in proem in Nov. 80.85 86. Iustinian 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 verse 96. sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings are from God Homer sayes their Honour is from God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iliad 1. verse 197. Themistcus asserts that the Regal Power came from God Orat. 5. with whom agrees Dion Chrisostom Orat. 1. diotog apud Stob. serm c. Plat. in polit c. But above all Aristotle in polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plutarch Ages 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 Beeing that directs all more immediat Causes and yet the People may be the immediat Electors of Monarchs and so Kings may derive immediatly from them their Power and thus these Statutes are not inconsistent with the principle laid down by Buchanan and others whereby they assert that Kings in general and particularly the Kings of Scotland derive their Power immediatly from the People To this my answers are that first if we consider the proprietie of the Words there can be nothing more inconsistent than that Kings should derive their Power from God Almightie alone and yet that they should derive it from the People for the Word Alone is of all other words the most exclusive 2 dly The design of the Parliament in that acknowledgement was to condemn after a long Rebellion the unhappie 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 immediat Electors 3 dly 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 contraverted amongst Christians 4 thly 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 Counsellers and Judges And in the 5. 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. 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 inept 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 Beeing only and not as the immediat 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 goodnesse 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 immediat dependence of the supream Power to preclude the extravagant and restlesse 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 restlesnesse 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· 2 dly God Almighty being King of Kings it was just that as inferiour Magistrats 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 3 dly As this is most suitable to the principles of Reason so it is most consonant the analogy of Law by which it 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 upon 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
jur Majes cap. 1. num 12. with whom the Fathers also agree Ambros. in Apol. David cap. 4. Liberi sunt Reges a vinâ—ulis delictorum neque enim ullis ad poenam vocantur legibus tuti Imperij potestate Isiodorus 3. sent cap. 31. populi peccantes Iudicem meâ—â—uâ—t Reges autem solo Dei timore metuque gâ—hennae coercentur And in this Sense they take these words Psal. 51. Against thee thee only have I sinned and I was glad to find in Bishop Vshers Power of Prinâ—es amongst many other Citations that the Rabbies and particularly Rabbi Ieremiah ownâ—d that no Creature may Judge the King but the Holy and Blessâ—d God alone in which also Heathens agree with Jews and Christians Ecphantas the Pithagorean makes it the Priviledge of God and then of the King to be Judg'd by none Stobeus Sermon 46. and Dion in Marco Aurelio tells us that it is certain that free Monarchs cannot be Judg'd save by God alone and if it were otherwise we should see them very unsecure for the ambition and avarice of insolent Subjects should never or seldom miss to form their Process and why should Parties be Judges But to demonstrate the Justice Kings and Princes are to expect from the Populace and Mobile let us remember their Material Justice in the usage of our Saviour when they cryed Crucifie him Crucifie him their Sentence against King CHARLES the Martyre when they were at the hight of their pretensions to Pietie and publick Spiritedness their usage of de Witt the Idolizer of them and their Common-wealth and if we want a true Idea of their Form of Process we will find it in their usage of the Arch-bishop of St. Andrews and others no Lâ—bel no Citation no Defenses no Sentences no time to prepare to die and yet all this are the Dictates of pure and devout publick Spiritedness Buchannans Bloody Arguments for this position are that Tyrants have been Murthered with applause and Princes would become licentious if they were not Restrained by the just fear of being called to an account That the Roman and Venetian Magistrates have been punish'd by the people and that the ordinary Judges of the place have Judg'd them and that some of our Kings as well as these of other Nations have been punish'd as Tyrants To which I answer shortly that Inconveniencies must not prevail with us to break our Oathes and overturn our Laws for nothing has so great inconveniencie in it as this has these being but partial and this is a total Inconveniency And the English Lawyers agree that a mischief is better than an inconvenience and this should have been considered before we swore to Monarchy and if the people were Electors as they never were yet they should have reserv'd this power or else they cannot now challenge it But though our Law were not clear as it is most uncontroverted upon this point Yet right Reason should perswade us to have reserv'd no such power For as Kings may erre so may the Judges who are to Try them and it is more probable their Tryers will because they may be acted by Revenge Ambition or Popularity and there is nothing so lyable to erre as the populace The Romans and Venetians might have punish'd their Magistrates because these Magistrates were not Vested with a Supream power nor were they Soveraigns as our Monarchs are And those Judges who Try'd them deriv'd not their power from those Magistrates who Try'd them as our Judges do for the same consent and compact by which they were made the Chief the others were made also Magistrates which cannot be said of absolute Monarchs who derive not their power from the people as these do and the Instances of Kings who have been Murder'd are Crimes in them who did commit them and so should not be Rules to us And generally the best of Kings have been worst us'd But who can escape by innocence when King CHARLES the Martyre fell by Malice Such also as cry up the Murtherers of Tyrants who had no just Right never meant to allow the Arraignment of lawful Monarchs who when they erre have God only for their Judge and if they fear not Him and eternal Punishment they will not probably fear mortal Men and their own Subjects whom they can many wayes escape 2. There is no Creature so unreasonable but he will use his own with discretion though there be no Law obliging him to it nor Punishment to be inflict'd if he do otherwayes who burns his own House or drowns his Lands though he may do it For the Law considers that a King is either mad and if so he will respect no Law and should not be punisht at least he will not stand in awe for fear of it or else he is of a sound Judgment and then he needs no Law and therefore Why should we apprehend that a King will destroy His own Kingdom 3. A King is also obliged by His Fame to do things worthy of His high Trust and things able to abide that conspicuous hight to which he is expos'd 4. Though His people ought not to Rebel yet no thinking man can be sure that they will not And therefore even the greatest Tyrants fear such accidents though they know they are not bound by these Laws that tye Subjects And if all these fail yet we must reverence Gods Dispensations and expect a redress of these unusual Emergents from his Divine Goodness for whose sake we suffer them Rather then expose all to ruine by endeavouring a revenge that may be so unjust in the preparative and dangerous in the event 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. Ia. 1. It is declar'd Rebellion to rise in Arms against the Kings Person And by the 14. Act 6. Par. K. Ia. 2. It is Treason to Rebel against the Kings Person or Authority By the 25. Act Par. 6. Ia. 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 these who commit Treason By the 131 Act 8 Par. Ia. 6. All the Subjects are discharged to Convocat for holding of Councils or other Assemblies without his Majesties expresse Warrand and by the 12. Act 10. Par. K. Ia. 6. The entering into Leagues or Bonds without his Majesties special Command is declared to be Sedition All which Acts are prior to Buchannans time and consequently he was very inexcuseable in advancing this Rebellious Principle And these Laws having excepted no case exclude all cases and
Principles fitted for these ends of Order and Society amongst which one is That the publick Safety of the whole is to be preferr'd to the Safety of any one man or of any number of private men who are not to be considered as the publick because that is the publick Interest which is the Representative of the Nation and that this Principle may be the better obey'd he has commanded men to suffer injuries rather than occasion Disorders and has promised to reward Patience and Submission for his sake with eternal Life a Nobler Prize than we here can contend for This being then Premis'd It is answered that though Brutes may defend themselves because Order and the common good of Societies are not there concern'd yet there is no reason to extend this to Men whose self-defense against Authority occasions more mischief than it can bring advantage and if this Argument hold it would prove that every man who is unjustly Condemn'd or at least thinks so may kill the King or His Judge Servants might bind their Masters and the people of any private Town might pull down their Judge from the Bench when they thought he opprest them And as these must submit because they expect Reparation from a higher Tribunal So God has promised Reparation to those who suffer for his sake and the greatness and sureness of this Reward makes this no uncomfortable Doctrine and this Submission is as necessary and rather more for mens preservation than Resistance and is a kind of self-defence since opposition to Authority would bring a certain ruine and confusion in which moe would perish than opposition by private self defence would preserve Upon which Christian Principles also Ames a Protestant and Calvinist Divine has resolv'd that In bonis temporalibus tenetur quisque personam publicam siâ—i ipsi praeferre bonum enim totius pluris faciendum est quam bonum alicujus partis Cas conscient l. 5. cap. 7. Thes· 14. and Lex Rex confesses p. 335. That a private man should rather suffer the King to kill him than that he should kill the King because he is not to prefer the Life of a private man to the Life of a publick man And whereas it may be pretended that though this opposition should not be trusted to any private man yet Parliaments and the Collective Body should and may be trusted with it But to this I have answered formerly that all Convocations without Authority from the King and all rising against him are indefinitely declared unlawful and justly for whoever wants Authority is but in a private capacity none having a publick capacity save the Magistrates And if they be allow'd to rise because their quarrel is just it must be as just to allow a lesser number if they have the same Justice in their pretexts and we have frequently seen that the same persons who magnified the multitude for their numbers did shortly thereafter divide from them pretending that they were the Sanior pars or juster Party 4. This position is against the very Nature not only of Monarchy but of all Governmments For who will obey when they may resist And who can be Judges whether the pretences upon which Arms are taken be lawful or not And therefore since it is unlawful for Subjects to take up even Defensive Arms until it be found that the King against whom these defensive Arms are taken up be a Tyrant and an Oppressor It clearly follows that these Subjects must first have a power to judge and find that the King has erred which is to declare the People to be Judges of their King and we may be soon convinced that this Principle is against the Nature of all Government if we consider that if it were lawful for Subjects with us to rise against the King it should be lawful for these in a Common-wealth or Aristocracy to rise against their Governors since these may erre as well as Kings do and if this were allowed all Nations should alwayes have one Rebellion rising out of the Ashes of another for only they who prevail'd should be satisfi'd and all the rest would certainly conclude that they might more justly oppose these Usurpers one or moe then the first did oppose their lawful Prince and thus Government which is design'd for the security of the State should run in a Circle fixt upon no certain Basis and determined by no sure Measures 5. This Principle is dangerous for the Subjects as well as for the King and other Governors for if Kings be perswaded that Subjects think this opposition lawful then they will be still jealous of them and will be necessitated on all occasions to secure against such oppositions and so this Doctrine tends more to make our King a Tyrant than to make us free And if the difference betwixt King and People should draw both to Arms where can we find a Judge to whom both Parties will submit So that to allow this power in the People to debate is to allow a difference that can never end and so what innocent man shall be able to know whom he may securely follow And the best issue that could be expected from these debates would be that the one half of the Nation should ruine the other So comfortable and just is this rebellious Doctrine 6. If we consult either our own experience or History we will find that these pretexts of Liberty and Religion have alwayes been used by those who loved neither and that they have been ordinarily used against the best of Kings and so prove to be meer Cheats upon their parts who use them and absolute Villanies if we consider against whom they are used and it cannot be otherwayes for the worst of men are alwayes readiest to take Arms and the best of Kings are most inclined to suffer insolence to grow up by degrees to Rebellion And as few or none ever took up Arms against their King in whom even the dullest did not see other motives than a love to liberty and Religion so when they who did take up Arms upon these pretexts did succeed in their attempts they became themselves greater grievances to the people than these lawful Powers against whom they pretended to protect them and when others rose against them upon the same pretexts they did in the severest manner declare that to be Rebellion in others which they contended to be lawful in themselves 7. So dangerous is this Principle that it has been alwayâ—s us'd as a Tool to promote contrary designs and to serve the worst of men in all the opposite sides And thus we see that the Bigot Papists have by it overturn'd Thrones and disinherited and murdered Kings In which the most impious of their Doctors have been admir'd and follow'd by the rigid Phanaticks who did notwithstanding teach that all Papists were to be extirpated and unquiet Spirits in the establish'd Republicks of Rome Venice and Florence have by this Principle endeavour'd to overturn and disquiet as much
of St. Ambrose who being commanded to deliver up his Church to the Arians sayes Volens nunquam deferâm coactus repugnare non novi dolere potero flere potero gemâ—re potero adversus arma milites Gothos Lachrymae meâ— 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 Nazianz in his first Oration against Iulian 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 Tacit. lib. 4. hist. pray'd for good Princes but obey'd bad ones and Plinij in his Panegirick to Trojan 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 will believe better Calvin than the Fathers I have taken pains to consider in him these few passages cap. 20. lib 4. Institut § 27. Assumptum in Regiam Majâ—statem violare nefas est nunquam nobis seditiosae istae cogitationes in mentem veniant tractandum esse pro meritis Regem § 29. Personam sustinent voluntale Domini cui inviolabile in Majestatem ipso 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 The Examples adduced by our Republicans of the revolt of Libra 2 Chron. 1.21 And from Ieroboam 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 all the lawfulness of the Subjects defection from their Kings because these defections are only narrated but not allowâ—d in Scripture and are recorded rather as instances of Gods 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 Phanaticks for Learning and Devotion has prevail'd with me to set down two Objections used by him with his pious Answers thereto 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 outmost of our power And if not what would become of Gods Church and his Religion To which the Holy Man Answers That even when the Worship of the Devil was commanded by the cruel Edicts of persecuting Emperours the Christians never took up Arms against them but used fervent Prayers as their only refuge And St. Peter animats them to this patient suffering 1 Pet. 4.12 13. Beloved think it not strange concerning the fiery trial but rejoice in as much as ye are partakers of Christs sufferings But let none of you suffer as a murtherer or a thief or as an evil-doer or as a busie body in other mens matters By which last words if I durst add to so great an Author as B. Vsher the Apostle seems expresly to me to have obviated the dreadful Doctrine of rising in Arms upon the pretext of Religion and the killing such as differ from them which if the Christians did allow they behov'd to pass for Murtherers and to discharge them to meddle in matters of Government upon this pretext because then they behov'd to suffer justly as busie bodies And here B. Vsher does most appositly cite St. Augustine in Psal. 149. The World rag'd the Lion lifted himself up against the Lamb but the Lamb was full stronger than the Lion The Lion was overcome by shewing cruelty the Lamb did overcome by suffering And St. Ierome Epist. 62. By shedding of blood and by suffering rather then doing injuries was the Church of Christ at first founded it grew by Persecutions and was crowned by Martyrdoms The second Objection is If mens hands be thus ty'd no mans estate can be secure nay the whole frame of the Common-wealth would be in danger to be subverted and utterly ruin'd To which he answers that the ground of this Objection is exceeding faulty and inconsistent with the Rules of Humanity and Divinity of Humanity because this would impower privat persons to Judge and so should confound all Order and invite all men to oppose Authority and make Subjects Accusers Judges and Executioners too and that in their own Cause against their own Soveraign and against Divinity because it is contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers who command Submission Humility and Patience Rex est si nocentem punit cede justitiae si innocentem cede fortunae Seneca de Iura lib. 2. cap. 30. If the King punish thee when thou art guilty submit to Justice If when thou art innocent submit to Fortune And if a Heathen could be induced by his vertue to submit to blind Fortune how much more ought a Christian to be prevail'd upon by Devotion to submit to the All-seeing Providence of the most wise God who maketh all things to work joyntly for good to them that love him And as St. Augustine piously adviseth Princes are to be suffered by their People that in the exercise of their patience temporal things may be born and external hop'd for The instance of King Iames the Third being punished by his Subjects is so far from being an Argument able to justifie Subjects rising in Arms against their King that this part of our History should for ever convince all honest men of the dangers that attend Defensive Arms For this excellent Prince was so far from being one of these Tyrants against whom Defensive Arms are only confest to be just that few Princes were more meek and careful of his Subjects But because he imploy'd such as himself had rais'd finding that the Nobility had too often been insolent Servants to their Prince and severe Task-masters to the People the Nobility thinking more upon this imaginary neglect than their own duty did from Combinations proceed to Arms and rejecting all conditions of peace they were at last curs'd with a Victory in which this Gentle Prince was murthered whilst he sought to save his Sacred life in a deserted Miln By which we may see that these Defensive Arms so much hallowed in
Civil Wars betwixt Scilla and Marcus Caesar and Pompeij without considering what followed under the Trium viri Faelices Arabes Medique Eoaque tellus Qui sub perpetuis tenuerunt Regna Tyrannii 5. These who debate against Magistracy gratifie their own Vanity and Insolence but such devout men as Ambrose Augustine Vsher and others Debate against the Dictats of Interest as well as Passion which two nothing save Grace can overcome and there can be no surer mark of Conviction than to recide against these Lastly even Buchannan repented this horrid Doctrine Cambden 10. year of Queen Elizabeths Reign in 1567. But forasmuch as Buchannan being transported with partial affection and with Murrays bounty wrot in such sort that his said Books have been condemned of falsehood by the Estates of the Realm of Scotland to whose Credite more is to be Atributed and he himself sighing and sorrowing sundry times blam'd himself as I have heard before the King to whom he was School-master for that he had employ'd so virulent a Pen against that well deserving Queen and upon his Death-bed wished that he might live so long till by recalling the truth he might even with his Blood wipe away these Aspertions which he had by his bad Tongue falsly laid upon her but that as he said it would now be in vain when he might seem to dote for Age c. Idem Anno 1582. And not content with all this speaking of their surprizing the King they Compell'd the King against his Will to approve of this intercepting of him by his Letters to the Queen of England and to Decree an Assembly of the Estates Summoned by them to be just yet could they not enduce Buchannan to approve of this their Fact either by writting or perswasion by Message who now sorrowfully lamented that he had already undertaken the Cause of Factious people against their Princes and soon after Died c. THAT THE Lawful Successor Cannot be DEBARR'D From Succeeding to the CROWN Maintain'd against Dolman Buchannan and others BY Sir GEORGE MACKENZIE His Majesties Advocat EDINBVRGH Printed by the Heir of Andrew Anderson Printer to His most Sacred Majesty Anno DOM. 1684. King James In His Advice to Prince Henry Page 173. IF God give you not Succession Defraud never the nearest by Right whatsoever conceit ye have of the Person for Kingdoms are ever at Gods Disposition and in that Case we are but Liferenters it lying no more in the Kings than in the Peoples Hands to Dispossess the Righteous Heir Page 209. Ibid. FOr at the very moment of the Expyring of the King Reigning the nearest and Lawful Heir entereth in his place and so to refuse him or intrude another is not to hold out the Successor from coming in but to expel and put out their Righteous King and I trust at this time whole France acknowledgeth the Rebellion of the Leaguers who upon pretence of Heresie by force of Arms held so long out to the great Desolation of their whole Countrey their Native and Righteous King from possessing his own Crown and natural Kingdom ERRATA Page 5. delet at his Majority Page 33. for Richard 3d. Read 2d The Right of the Succession Defended THe fourth Conclusion to be cleared was that neither the People nor Parliaments of this Kingdom could seclude the lineall 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 realme deriving their Royal power from God Almighty alone do lineally succeed therto according to the known degrees of proximitie in blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statut 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 warr DO THEREFORE from a hearty and sincere sense of their duty Recognize acknowledge and declare that the right to the Imperial Crown of this realme is by the inherent right and the nature of Monarchy as well as by the fundamental and unalterable laws of this realme 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 reignes the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound by Law duty and alledgance to obey the nixt immediat 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 foresaids nor can stop or hinder them in the full free and actuall administration of the Government according to the Laws of the Kingdom LIKE AS OUR SOVERAIGNE LORD with advice and consent of the saids 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 Lawfull Successor from the immediat actual full and free administration of the Government conform to the Laws of the Kingdom And that all such attempts or designes shall inferre against them the paine of treason This being not only ane 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 ane acknowledgement 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 contraversie especially seing it past so unanimously that there was not only no vote given but even no argument propon'd against it And the only doubt mov'd about it was whither any Act of Parliament or acknowledgement was necessary in a point which was in it self so uncontraverted And which all who were not desperat fanaticks did conclude to be so in this nation even after they had hear'd 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 drawes 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
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 Sones to the former and therefore whatever has been said for Sones is also verified in Brothers As for instance though his Royal Highness be only Brother to King CHARLES the II. yet he is Son to King CHARLES I. and therefore as Saint Paul sayes if a Son then ane Heir except he be secluded by the existence and Succession of ane elder Brother That this gradual Succession is founded on the Law of nations is as clear by the Laws of the 12 Tables and the Praetorian Law of Rome And if we consider the Monarchy either old or new we will find that wherever 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. Iura 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 subordinat to one another the Inferiour should obey but not alter the power to which it is subordinat and what it does contrary thereto is null and void And thus if the judges of England should publish edicts contrare to Acts of Parliament or if a Justice of Peace should ranverse a decree of the judges of West-minster these their endeavours would be void and ineffectual But so it is that by the same principle but in ane infinitly more transcendent way all Kings and Parliaments are subordinat 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 dictats of Religion but 28 Hen. 8. cap. 7. the Parliament uses these words For no man can dispence with Gods Laws which we also affirme 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 peraequè observantur divina quadam providentia constituta semper firma atque immutabilia permanent § sed naturalia Institut de Iur. Natural § singulorum de rer divis And when the Law declares that a Supream Prince is free from the obligation of Laws Solutus legibus which is the highest power that a Parliament can pretend to or arrive at Yet Lawyers still acknowledge that this does not exeem these Supream powers from being lyable to the Laws of God nature and nations Accurs in l. Princeps ff de Leg. Clementina pasturalis de rejudicatâ Bart. in l. ut vim de justitiâ jure Voet. de Statutis Sect. 5. Cap. 1. nor can the Law of nations be overturned by private Statutes or any Supream power And thus all Statuts to the prejudice of Ambassadours who are secured by the Law of nations are confess'd by all to be null and the highest power whatsoever cannot take off the necessity of denuncing watr before a warr can be Lawful And Lawyers observe verie well that these who would oppose the common dictats of mankind should be look't upon as enemies to all mankind My second argument shall be that the King Parliament can have no more power in Parliament than any absolute Monarch has in his own Kingdom for they are when joyn'd but in place of the Supream power sitting in judgement and therefore they cannot in Law do what any other Supream and absolute Monarch cannot do For all the power of Parliaments consists only in their consent but we must not think that our Parliaments have ane unlimited power de jure so as that they may forfeit or kill without a cause or decerne against the Subjects without citing or hearing them or that they can alienat any part of de Kingdom or Subject the wholl Kingdom to France or any other Forraigne Prince all which deeds would be null in themselves and would not hinder the partie injur'd from a due redress For if our Parliaments had such power we would be the greatest slaves and live under the most arbitrary Government imaginable But so it is that no Monarch whosoever can take from any man what is due to him by the Law of God nature and nations For being himself inferiour to these he cannot overturne their statuts Thus a Prince cannot even ex plenitudine potestatis legitimat a Bastard in prejudice of former children though they have only but a hope of Succession l. 4. sequen de natal restituend and for the same reason it is declared in the same Law that he cannot restore a free'd man restituere libertum natalibus in prejudice of his Patron who was to succeed though that succession was but by a municipal Law For clearing which question It is fit to know that the solid lawyers who treat jus publicum as ARNISAEUS and others do distinguish betwixt such Kingdoms as were at first conferr'd by the People and wherein the Kings succeed by contract and in these the Laws made by King and People can exclude or bind the Successor And yet even here they confess that this proceeds not because the Predecessor can bind the Successor but because the People renew the paction with the succeeding King But where the Successor is to succeed ex jure regni in hereditary Monarchies there they assert positively that the Predecessor cannot prejudge the Successors right of Succession Which they prove by two arguments First that the Predecessor has no more power nor right than the Successor for the same right that the present King has to the possession the next in Blood has to the Succession And all our Laws run in favours of the King and his Heirs and no man can tye his equal or give him the Law par in parem non habet dominium The second is that it were
Regii sanguinis praerogativa dignitas ut vitium non admittat nec se contaminari patiatur And thus though he who were to succeed had committed murther or were declar'd a traitour formerly to the Crown for open Rebellion against the King and Kingdom yet he needed not be restor'd by Act of Parliament upon his comming to the Crown But his very Right of blood would purge all these imperfections Of which there are two reasons given by Lawyers one is that no man can be a Rebel against himself nor can the King have a Superior And consequently there can be none whom he can offend And it were absurd that he who can restore all other men should need to be restored himself The second reason is because the punishment of crimes such as confiscations c. Are to be inflicted by the Kings Authority or to fall to the Kings Thesaury and it were most absurd that a man should exact from himself a punishment Likeas upon this account it is that though in the Canon Law Bastards cannot be promov'd to sacred orders without dispensation nor can alibi nati that is to say people born out of England be admitted to succeed in England by express Act of Parliament there Yet Agapaetus Theodorus Gelasius and many others have been admitted to be Popes without any formal dispensation their election clearing that imperfection And the Statute of alibi nati has been oft found not to extend to the Royal line That the Succession to the Crown purges all defects is clear by many instances both at home and abroad The instances at home are in England Henry the VI. Being disabled and attainted of high treason by Act of Parliament it was found by the Judges notwithstanding that from the moment he assum'd the Crown he had Right to succeed without being restored And the like was resolved by the Judges in the case of Henry the VII As Bacon observes in his History of Henry the VII fol. 13. And in the case of Queen Elizabeth who was declar'd Bastard by Act of Parliament as is clear by Cambden anno 2. Elizabeth And though in Scotland there be no express instances of this because though some Rebellious Ring-leaders in Scotland have often in a privat capacity been very injurious to their King Yet their Parliaments have been ever very tender of attainting the blood Royal or presumptive Heirs But Alexander Duke of Albanie and his Succession being declared traitours by his Brother King Iames the IV. his Son Iohn was notwithstanding called home from France upon his Uncles death and declar'd Tutor and Governour without any remission or being restor'd that employment being found to be due to him by the right of blood therefore he had been much more declared the true Successor of the Crown if his Cousin King Iames the V. had died These being sufficient to establish our design I shall mention only some forraigne stories CHARLES the VII of France who though banish'd by Sentence of the Parliament of Paris did thereafter succeed to the Crown And though Lewis the XII was forfeited for taking up armes against CHARLES the VIII Yet he succeeded to him without restitution And Lewis the II. his Son being declared a Rebel whom his Father desiring to disinherit and to substitut in his place Charles Duke of Normandie that Son had succeeded if he had not been hindered by the Nobility who plainly told him it was impossible to exclude his Sone from the Succession My next task shall be to satisfy the arguments brought for mantaining this opinion whereof the first is That God himself has authorised the inverting the Right of Succession by the examples of Esau Salomon and others To which I answer that these instances which are warranted by express commands from God are no more to be drawn into example than the robbing of the Aegyptians ear-rings And it 's needing an express command and the expressing of that command does evince that otherwayes Iacob nor Salomon could not have succeeded against the priviledge of birth-Right and possession The next objection is that it is naturally imply'd in all Monarchies that the people shall obey whilst the Prince Governs justly As in the paction betwixt David and the people 2 Sam. 5. Which is most suitable to the principles of justice and Government Since relations cannot stand by one side so that when the King leaves off to be King and becomes a Tyrant the people may consult their own security in laying him aside as Tutors may be remov'd when they are suspect And that this is most just when Kings are Idolaters since God is rather to be obey'd then men To all which it is answered that God who loves order and knows the extravagant levity and insolence of men especially when baited by hope of prey or promotion did wisely think fit to ordain under the paine of eternal damnation that all men should be subject to Superiour powers for conscience sake 1 Pet. 2.13 and that whoever resists the power resists God Rom. 13.2 reserving the punishment of Kings to himself as being only their Superiour And thus David Asa and others committed crimes but were not depos'd nor debarr'd by the people Nor were even the Idolatrous Kings such as Achab Manasse c. judged by their subjects nor did the Prophets exhort the people to rise against them though they were opposing Gods express and immediat will And overturning the uncontraverted fundamentals of Religion Nor did the Fathers of the primitive Church excite the Christians to oppose the Heathen and Idolatrous Princes under which they lived and Paul commands them to pray for these Heathen Emperours Nor was the Emperour Basilicus depos'd for abrogating the Council of Chalcedon as is pretended by some Republicans but was turn'd out by the just Successor Zeno whom he had formerly dethron'd Nor were Zeno or Anastasius degraded for their errors in Religion or their vices by the ancient Christians but were opprest by private faction And sure they must think God unable to redress himself who without warrand and against his expresse warrand will usurpe so high a power And we in this rebellious principle owne the greatest extravagancy with which We can charge the Pope and Jesuits and disowne not only our own Confession of faith which Article 1. Chap. 22. acknowledges that infidelity or difference in Religion doth not make void the Magistrats just or legal authority nor free the People from their due obedience to him but contradict the best Protestant divines as Musculus Melancthon and others vid. libell de vitand superstit Anno 1150. Consil. Biden Dec. 1. Consil. 10. Decad. 10. Consil. 5. nor can the subterfuge us'd by Buchanan and others satisfie whereby they contend that the former Texts of Scripture prove only that the Office but not the Persones of Kings are Sacred so that Parliaments or People may lay aside the Persons though not the Office seing the Sacred Text secures oftner the Person than the Office
that where the Right of Nature is clear the Parliament may invert the same And strangers who considered more the dictats of Law than of Passion did in that age conclude that no Statute could be valide when made contrare to the fundamental Law of the Kingdom Arnisaeus Cap. 7. Num. 11. Henricus VIII Angliae Rex Eduardum filium primò deinde Mariam denique Elizabetham suos haeredes fecerat verùm non aliter ea omnia valent quà m si cum jure Regni conveniant Vid. Curt. Tract Feud Par. 4. Num. 129. There seems greater difficulty to arise from the 13 Elizabeth c. 2. by which it is enacted that if any persone shall affirme that the Parliament of England has not full power to bind and Governe the Crown in point of Succession and descent that such a persone during the Queens life shall be guilty of high treason But to this Act it is answered that this Act does not debarre 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 uncontraverted Laws and so the sense must be that the Parliament are Judge where there are differences betwixt Competitors in nice and contravertable points which cannot be otherwise decided and both this and the former Acts made in Henry the VI. time are not general Laws but temporarie Acts and personal Priviledges and so cannot overturn the known current of Law Quod verò contrà 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 Soveraigne and not of the Subject And if we look upon this Act as made to secure against Mary Queen of Scotland and to let her know that it was to no purpose for her to designe 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 contrair 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 Scotish line as is clear by that clause wherein it is declared that every Person or Persones 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 Queens death It therefore followes that it was never valide For if it had King Iames might have thereby been excluded by that person who should have succeded next to the Scotish race For it 's undeniable that Queen Marie did during Queen Elizabeths life pretend Right to the Crown upon the account that Queen Elizabeth was declared Bastard And therefore the calling in of King Iames 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 acknowledgement of King Iames's Right I have thought fit to set down as it is in the statute it self 1. Ia. Cap. 1. That the Crown of England did descend upon King Iames 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 untill 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. Ia. 6. It is provided in Scotland that all Kings and Princes that shall happen to reigne and bear Rule over that Kingdom shall at the time of their Coronation make their faithfull promise by Oath in presence of eternal God that they shall mantaine the true Religion of Iesus 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 absolutly necessar Coronatio enim magis est ad ostentationem quà m ad necessitatem Nec ideo Rex est quia coronatur sed coronatur quia Rex est Oldard consil 90. num 7. Balbus lib. de coronat pag 40. Nor do we read that any Kings were Crown'd in Scripture except Ioas. And Clovis King of France was the first who was Crown'd in Europe Nor are any Kings of Spaine Crown'd till this day Neither is ane Coronation Oath requisit Sisenandus being the first who in the 4. Tolletan Councel 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 Reigne of King Gregorie 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 Lawfull Successor though he were of a different Religion from his People as God forbid he should be may easily swear that he shall mantaine the Laws presently standing And any Parliament may legally secure the Successor from overturning their Religion or Laws though they cannot debarre him And though the Successor did not swear to mantaine the Laws Yet are they in litle danger by his Succession since all Acts of Parliament stand in force till they be repeal'd by subsequent Parliaments And the King cannot repeale an Act without the consent of Parliament But to put this beyond all debate the 2. Act of this current Parliament is opponed whereby it is declared that the Right and administration of the Government is immediatly devolv'd upon the nixt Lawfull 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 immediatly upon the Successor if he cannot administrat till he be Crown'd and have sworn this Oath The next objection is that since the King and Parl. may by Act of Parl. alter the Successions of privat 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 privat Families are Subject to Parliaments and inferiour to them and owe their privat 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 arbitrarly debarr the eldest Son of a privat 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 persone born out of England or attainted of treason could succeed to the Crown Because he could not succeed to a privat Estate All which and many moe instances do clearly demonstrat that the Successor to the Crown cannot be debarr'd not the Succession to the Crown diverted by Act of Parliament The last objection is that Robert the III. King of Scotland was by ane Act of Parliament preferr'd to David and Walter who were 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 deceass he married Elizabeth Muir Daughter to Sir Adam Muir not so much as Buchanan 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 passionatly 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 choose 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 wrot 200 years after the Marriage of King Robert the 2 d and wrot 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 Buchanan 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 meaness 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 Stewarts 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 Acquiescence 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 Testimonie 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 Buchanan not only because he was more disinterested but because he founds 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 vitam Roberti 2. affirmat Euphaniam Comitis Rossenssis filiam primam Regis Roberti 2. uxorem fuisse eâ mortuâ Regem superinduxisse Elizabetham Moram ex qua prius Liberos ternos mares suscepisset eam uxorem duxisse ejusque liberos regno destinasse ut postea eorum natu maximus sucâ—essit quod quam falsum sit apparet ex archivis in carcere Edinburgensi reconditis ubi exstant separata acta duorum Parliamentorum subscripta manibus Ecclesiasticorum praesulum 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 dâ—cernitur post eos liberis Euphaniae Rosse nec non ibidem cartae extant plurimae factae per Davidem secundum eorum patruum magnum ex diversis terris Ioanni filio primogenito nepotis ejus Roberti dum Euphania Rosse viverit 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 contraversiam liberi Elizabethae Morae etate grandiores erant liberis Euphaniae Rosse which Paper I did get from the Lord Pitmeden who has himself written some learn'd 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
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 con-consent of the Magistrat 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 condem'd by Rivet a famous Protestant Divine who also inveighs bitterly against this Principle Castiga Not. in Epist. ad Balsac cap. 13. num 14. sub finem From all which I observe First That all the Protestant Divines by making Apollogies for such of their Profession as have risen in Arms against Supream Powers must be thereby concluded to be asham'd of the Principle 2. Immediatly upon the quieting those Rebellions all the Protetestant 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 3. All these 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 albeit for the defence of Religion it necessarily follows that this must be unlawful in point of Conscience in this Kingdom 4. Though good things may be occasion'd by a Rebellion yet that does not justifie a Rebellion for though Ieroboam 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 Iudah 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 Emperors 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 great Antiquary Samuel Petit. Diatriba de Iur. Principum edictis Ecclesiae quaesito where he clearly proves that they were actually secured by the Edicts of the Emperors in the days of the Emperor Tiberius and downward and yet they would not rise in Arms though they were persecuted under these same Emperors because the Word of God and the Christian Religion did command Obedience under Persecution and discharged Resistance and taking up of Arms. Add to Page 73. 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 dispone 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 Ioannes 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 Iohn Earl of Carrick thereafter King Robert the 2 d. his eldest Son and Heir but the attestation of the Grand-Uncle King David who could be no ways byassed in the Affair and here he is ranked before the three eldest Earls in the Nation who were then the three first Subjects therein and it is against all Sense to think that the whole Bishops would have sought the consent of the said Iohn as Apparent Heir of the Crown if he had not been Apparent Heir I find also that Fordon calls him when he is crown'd King Primogenitus Roberti secundi nor was there the least opposition made to his Coronation nor to the Coronation of Annabella Drummond his Queen a Daughter of the House of Stob hall now Pearth though both the Sons of the second Marriage were then alive I find also that Boetius himself acknowledges that the Earl of Marches Son George being pursu'd for having married clandestinly one of the Daughters of Elizabeth Muir his defence was that he married her when she was the Daughter of a private Subject and before King Robert was King whereas if she had been only a Bastard-Daughter it could have been no Crime to have married her