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
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
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
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
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
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