since it is not lawful for the Wife to judge her Husband or for the Body to cut off the Head The 3. Conclusion which I shall draw from the former Principles shall be That as it is not lawful for Subjects to punish their Kings so neither is it to rise in Arms against them upon what pretext soever no not to defend their Liberty nor Religion Which Conclusion also I shall endeavour to Establish on sure foundations of Positive Law Reason Experience and Scripture As to our Positive Law it is clear for by the 3. Act Par. 1. Ja. 1. It is declared Rebellion to rise in Arms against the Kings Person And by the 14. Act 6. Par. King Ja. 2. It is Treason to Rebel against the Kings Person or Authority By the 25. Act Par. 6. Ja. 2. It is Treason to rise in fear of War against the Kings Person or his Majesty or to lay hands upon his Person violently whatever age they be of or to help or supply those who commit Treason By the 131. Act 8. Par. Ja. 6. All the Subjects are forbid to Convocate for holding of Councils or other Assemblies without his Majesties express Warrant and by the 12. Act 10. Par. King Ja. 6. The entring into Leagues or Bonds without his Majesties special Command is declared to be Sedition Most of which Acts are prior to Buchannans time and consequently he was very inexcusable in advancing this Rebellious Principle And these Laws having excepted no case exclude all cases and pretexts of rising in Arms against the Lawful Monarch but our unhappy Country-men having by a long and open Rebellion opposed the most devout and most just of all Kings upon the false pretence of Liberty and Religion the Parliament of this Kingdom from a full Conviction of the Villainies of those times and to prevent such dangerous Cheats for the future they did by the 5. Act Par. 1. Char. 2. declare it to be Treason for any number of his Majesties Subjects to rise in Arms upon any pretence whatsoever and to shew that all such Glosses as were us'd by Buchannan were absurd and did not make void the first Laws though general the Parliament did by the 4. Act of that 1. Parliament declare that any Explanation or Gloss that during the late Troubles hath been put upon these Acts as that they are not to be extended against any Leagues Councils Conventions Assemblies or Meetings made holden or kept by the Subjects for Preservation of the Kings Majesty the Religion Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom or for the publick Good either of Church or Kingdom are false and Disloyal and contrary to the true and genuine meaning of these Acts. Which Statute is a clear decision against Buchannan finding that the Statutes that were prior to his time and all other such general Statutes made in favours of the King did formerly strike against his Principles and Distinctions As also to preclude all avenues to Rebellion by teaching defending or encouraging others to Rebel upon these pretexts as the former Act declared that actual rising in Arms was Rebellion So by the 2. Act Sess 2. Par. 2. Charles 2. It is declared Treason for any Subject to maintain these Positions viz. That it is Lawful for Subjects upon Pretence of Reformation or any other Pretence whatsoever to enter into Leagues or Covenants or to take up Arms against the King or any Commissionated by him 2. All the Arguments formerly produc'd against the power of the Subject to punish His Person do fully prove likewise that they have no power to rise in Arms against him For either the collective Body of the Subjects are superiour to him and if so they may not only rise up in Arms against him but they may punish him but if the King be superiour to them as has been formerly prov'd then it cannot be lawful for Subjects to rise up in Arms against him no more than it is to punish his Person Nor can I see how all such as declare for a Defensive War are not to be concluded guilty of designing to murther the King for if the King come in Person to defend His own Right as certainly he will and must Can it be thought they will shoot at none lest they kill him and if they shoot how can they secure His Sacred Person and if they kill him in the Field are they less guilty of his murther than those Ruffians who lately design'd it Or doth it lessen the Guilt that these design'd to kill him alone privately whereas our moderate men will in face of the Sun and with display'd Banners against God and him kill with him all such as being perswaded that they are obliged before God to assist him expose their lives for their Duty 3. That dangerous though specious Principle of defensive Arms is inconsistent with that order of Nature which God has established and which is absolutely necessary amongst all other humane Relations and by the same Analogy by which we allow Subjects to rise against their Prince we may much more allow Children to rise against their Parents Servants against their Masters Souldiers against their Officers and the Rabble against their Magistrates for the King does eminently comprehend all these relations in his Soveraignty as inferiour Branches of that Paramount Monarchial power And what a glorious state should Mankind be left in if Anarchy were thus Established and every man should be invested with power to be his own Judge Or dares any reasonable man assert that this is fit to be allowed in the present condition of Mankind for since the generality of men can scarce be contained in their Duty by the severest Laws that can be made what can be expected from them when they are loosed from all Law and are encouraged to transgress against it If the Multitude could prove that they were Infallible and that no Oppression could be expected from them something might be said why we might ballance them with Authority But since both Reason and doleful Experience teach us that generally the Multitude consists of Knaves and Fools who alter not to the better by Conspiring together nor become juster for being led by such ambitious and discontented Spirits as ordinarily lead on Rebellions it is safer to obey those of the two fallible Governours whom God hath set over us and whom the Law ties us to obey and to whom also we are bound by the Oath of Allegiance especially seeing thus we may probably expect that they will be more careful of us as being their own than meer Strangers who use us only for their own Ends. And at the worst in the King we can have but an ill Master whereas in allowing Subjects to usurp we may fight to get our selves hundreds of Tyrants and these too fighting one against another so that we shall not even know which of these Divils to obey 4. This Position is against the very Nature not only of Monarchy but of all Governments For who will
the People nor Parliaments of this Kingdom could exclude the Lineal Successor or could raise to the Throne any other of the same Royal Line For clearing whereof I shall according to my former method First clear what is our positive Law in this Case Secondly I shall shew that this our Law is founded upon excellent Reason And lastly I shall answer the Objections As to the first It is by the second Act of our last Parliament acknowledged That the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almighty alone do Lineally succeed thereto according to the known degrees of Proximity in Blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statute whatsoever and that none can attempt to alter or divert the said Succession without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion and without exposing them to all the fatal and dreadful consequences of a Civil War DO THEREFORE from a hearty and sincere sence of their duty recognize acknowledge and declare that the right to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is by the inherent right and the Nature of Monarchy as well as by the fundamental and unalterable Laws of this Realm transmitted and devolved by a lineal Succession according to the Proximity of Blood And that upon the death of the King or Queen who actually reigns the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound by Law duty and allegiance to obey the next immediate and Lawful Heir either Male or Female upon whom the right and administration of the Government is immediatly devolved And that no difference in Religion nor no Law nor Act of Parliament made or to be made can alter or divert the right of Succession and lineal descent of the Crown to the nearest and Lawful Heirs according to the degrees aforesaid nor can stop or hinder them in the full free and actual administration of the Government according to the Laws of the Kingdom LIKE AS OUR SOVEREIGN LORD with advice and consent of the said Estates of Parliament do declare it is High-treason in any of the Subjects of this Kingdom by writing speaking or any other manner of way to endeavour the alteration suspension or diversion of the said right of Succession or the debarring the next Lawful Successor from the immediate actual full and free administration of the Goment conform to the Laws of the Kingdom And that all such attempts or designs shall infer against them the pain of Treason This being not only an Act of Parliament declaring all such as shall endeavour to alter the Succession to be punishable as Traitors but containing in it a Decision of this Point by the Parliament as the Supream Judges of the Nation and an acknowledgment by them as the representatives of the people and Nation There can be no place for questioning a point which they have plac'd beyond all controversie especially seeing it past so unanimously that there was not only no vote given but even no argument proved against it And the only doubt mov'd about it was whether any Act of Parliament or acknowledgment was necessary in a point which was in it self so uncontroverted And which all who were not desperate Fanaticks did conclude to be so in this Nation even after they had heard all the arguments that were us'd and the Pamphlets that were written against it in our Neighbour-Kingdom But because so much noise has been made about this question and that blind bigotry leads some and humorous faction draws others out of the common road I conceive it will be fit to remember my Reader of these following Reasons which will I hope clear that as this is our present positive Law so it is established upon the fundamental constitution of our Government upon our old Laws upon the Laws of God of Nature of Nations and particularly of the Civil Law As to the fundamental constitution of our Government I did formerly remark that our Historians tell us that the Scots did swear Allegiance to FERGUS who was the first of our Kings and to his Heirs And that they would never obey any other but his Royal Race Which Oath does in Law and Reason bind them to obey the Lineal Successor according to the proximity of Blood For an indefinite obligation to obey the Blood Royal must be interpreted according to the proximity in Blood except the swearers had reserv'd to themselves a power to chuse any of the Royal Family whom they pleas'd which is so true that in Law an obligation granted to any man does in the construction of Law accrue to his Heirs though they be not exprest Qui sibi providet haeredibus providet And Boethius tells us that after King FERGUS'S death the Scots finding their new Kingdom infested with Wars under the powerful influence of Picts and Britains they refus'd notwithstanding to prefer the next of the Royal Race who was of perfect age and a Man of great Merit to the Son of King FERGUS though an infant which certainly in reason they would have done if they had not been ty'd to the lineal Successor But least the Kingdom should be prejudg'd during the minority they enacted that for the future the next of the Blood Royal should always in the minority of our Kings administer as Kings till the true Heir were of perfect age But this does not prove as Buchannan pretends that the people had power to advance to the Throne any of the Royal Race whom they judg'd most fit for common sense may tell us that was not to chuse a King but a Vice-Roy or a Regent For though to give him the more authority and so to enable him the more to curb factions and oppose enemies he was called King yet he he was but Rex fidei Commissarius being oblig'd to restore it to the true Heir chosen rather to serve than Reign and so Governed only for a time and consequently was only his Vice-Roy But because the Uncles and next Heirs being once admitted to this fidei Commissarie title were unwilling to restore the Crown to their Nephews and sometimes murder'd them and oft-times rais'd Factions against them Therefore the People abhorring those impieties and weary of the distractions and divisions which they occasion'd begg'd from King KENNETH the 3 d that these following Laws might be made 1. That upon the Kings death the next Heir of whatsoever Age should succeed 2. The Grand-child either by Son or Daughter should be preferr'd 3. That till the King arriv'd at 14 years of age some Wise-man should be chosen to Govern after which the King should enter to the free Administration and according to this constitution some fit Person has still been chosen Regent in the Kings Minority without respect to the Proximity of Blood and our Kings have been oft-times Crown'd in the Cradle In conformity also to these Principles all the acknowledgments made to our Kings run still in favour of the King and his Heirs As in the first Act Parl. 18 JAMES
Queens death It therefore follows that it was never valid For if it had King James might have thereby been excluded by that person who should have succeeded next to the Scottish Race For it 's undeniable that Queen Mary did during Q. Elizabeths Life pretend Right to the Crown upon the account that Queen Elizabeth was declared Bastard And therefore the calling in of King James after this Act and the acknowledging his Title does clearly evince That the Parliament of England knew that they had no power to make any such Act The words of which acknowledgment of King James's Right I have thought fit to set down as it is in the Statute it self 1 Jac. Cap. 1. That the Crown of England did descend upon King James by inherent Birthright as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal. And to this Recognition they do submit themselves and Posterities for ever until the last drop of their Blood be spilt And further doth beseech His Majesty to accept of the same Recognition as the first Fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to His Majesty and to His Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever It may be also objected That by the 8 Act. Parl. 1. Ja. 6. it is provided in Scotland that all Kings and Princes that shall happen to Reign and bear Rule over that Kingdom shall at the time of their Coronation make their faithful promise by Oath in presence of the eternal God that they shall maintain the true Religion of Jesus Christ the preaching of the Holy Word and due and right Administration of the Sacraments now received and preach'd within this Kingdom from which two Conclusions may be inferr'd 1. That by that Act the Successor to the Crown may be restricted 2. That the Successor to the Crown must be a Protestant that being the Religion which was professed and established the time of this Act. To which it is answered That this Act relates only to the Crowning of the King and not to the Succession Nor is a Coronation absolutely necessary Coronatio enim magis est ad ostentationem quam ad necessitatem Nec ideo Rex est quia coronatur sed coronatur quia Rex est Oldrad consil 90. num 7. Balbus lib. de coronat pag. 40. Nor do we read that any Kings were Crown'd in Scripture except Joas And Clovis King of France was the first who was Crown'd in Europe Nor are any Kings of Spain Crown'd till this day Sisenandus was the first who in the fourth Tolletan Council gave such an Oath amongst the Christians as Trajan was the first amongst the Heathen Emperours And we having had no Coronation Oath till the Reign of King Gregory which was in Anno 879. he having found the Kingdom free from all Restrictions could not have limited his Successor or at least could not have debarr'd him by an Oath Nullam enim poterat legem dictare posteris cum par in parem non habeat imperium as our Blackwood observes pag. 13. 2. There is no Clause irritant in this Act debarring the Successor or declaring the Succession Null in case his Successor gave not this Oath 3. The Lawful Successor though he were of a different Religion from his People as God forbid he should be may easily swear That he will maintain the Laws now standing And any Parliament may legally secure the Successor from overturning their Religion or Laws though they cannot debar him And though the Successor did not swear to maintain the Laws yet are they in little danger by his Succession since all Acts of Parliament stand in force till they be repeal'd by subsequent Parliaments and the King cannot repeal an Act without the consent of Parliament But to put this beyond all debate the 2d Act of this current Parliament is opposed whereby it is declared That the Right and Administration of the Government is immediately devolv'd upon the next lawful Heir after the death of the King or Queen and that no difference in Religion nor no Law nor Act of Parliament can stop or hinder them in the free and actual Administration Which is an abrogation of the foresaid Act concerning the Coronation as to this Point for how can the administration be devolv'd immediately upon the Successor if he cannot administer till he be Crown'd and have sworn this Oath And therefore King James urges very well That sure immediately upon the death of the last King the Successor acquires a Right they who debar the Successor do not exclude a Successor from entering but debar a righteous King And by Act 2. Parl. 1. Sess 2. Ch. 2. It is declar'd Treason to suspend the King from the Stile Honour or Kingly Name And whereas Dolman urges That at all Coronations the People are ask'd If they will have such a King It is answered That this is no necessary Solemnity and is done rather to give the People occasion to shew their affection than their power even as a Gentleman in England is appointed to offer Dueâ— to any who would controvert the King's Right who is to be Crown'd notwithstanding of which offer he who would controvert the Title would certainly commit Treason Nor can it be deni'd from our History but that many of our Kings have reign'd long before they were Crown'd and that those who rebell'd against them before their Coronation were as legally Traytors as those who rebell'd after it All Kings number the years of their Reign from their Predecessors death and not from their Coronation They grant new Commissions and Judicatures who should understand Law best of all others decide in their Name and by their Authority before they be Crown'd So that I cannot but smile at Dolman's Conceit who says That a King before his Coronation is betroth'd but not a King espous'd to the Commonwealth till his Coronation and consequently may till then be rejected But this is a meer Whimsie and Scholastick Conceit for sure he acts as King and since they who oppose him commit Treason it is certain that he cannot be rejected and the solid Right of Blood and not airy Formalities make Kings Nor can I understand how Election and Birth can be join'd to compleat the excellency of Hereditary Monarchy as Doleman teaches for make it our Elective upon the unfitness of the Successor and all Successors shall be call'd unfit and unable to govern when a Faction resolves to set up a Rival though he be really yet more unfit than the true Heir is The next Objection is That since the King and Parliament may by Act of Parliament alter the Successions of private Families though transmitted by the Right of Blood why may they not alter the Succession in the Royal Family To which it is answered that the reason of the difference lyes in this that the Heirs of the Crown owe not their Succession to Parliaments for they succeed by the Laws of God Nature and the Fundamental Laws of the Nation whereas private Families are
by God but that it is immediatly bestowed by God upon Kings and Refutes Bellarm. de laico c. 6. maintaining That the Jesuits Doctrine in this lessens Authority and raises Factions and contradicts both the Design and Word of God Duvalius de suprem potest Rom. Pontif. p. 1. q. 2. Asserts that Kings derive their Rights by the Laws of God and Nature non ab ipsa Republica hominibus and in all this the Fanaticks and Republicans agree with the Jesuits against Monarchy In the Civil Law this is expresly asserted Cod. de vet Cod. enucleand Deo anctore nostrum gubernante imperium quod nobis a coelesti majestate traditam est Nov. 6. in init Nov. 133. in proem in Nov. 80. 85 86. Justinian acknowledges his Obligation to care for his People because he received the Charge of them from God and certainly Subjects are happier if their Kings acknowledge this as a duty to God than if they only think it a Charge confer'd on them by their People and that they are therefore answerable to them That the Doctors and Commentators are of this opinion is too clear to need Citations vid. Arnis cap. de Essentia Majest Granswinkel de jur Maj cap. 1. 2. As to the Heathens Hesiod in Theog ver 96. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings are from God Homer sayes their Honour is from God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iliad 1. verse 197. Themistous asserts that the Regal Power came from God Orat. 5. whith whom agrees Dion Chrysostom Orat. 1. diotog apud Stob. serm c. Plat. de legibus c. But above all Aristotle in polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plutarch Agis Cleom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If to these Statutes and Citations it be answered That God Almighty may indeed be the principal and chief Author of Monarchy and that Monarchs may derive their Power from him as from the Supream Being that directs all more immediate Causes and yet the People may be the immediate Electors of Monarchs and so Kings may derive immediately from them their Power and thus these Statutes are not inconsistent with the principle laid down by Buchannan and others whereby they assert That Kings in general and particularly the Kings of Scotland derive their Power immediately from the People To this my answers are that first If we consider the propriety of the Words there can be nothing more inconsistent then that Kings should derive their Power from God Almighty alone and yet that they should derive it from the People for the Word Alone is of all other words the most exclusive 2dly The design of the Parliament in that acknowledgement was to condemn after a long Rebellion the unhappy Principles which had kindled it and amongst which one of the chief was that our Kings derived their Power from the People and therefore they might qualifie or resume what they at first gave or might oppose all Streaches in the Power they had given and might even punish or depose the King when he transgressed none of which Principles could have been sufficiently condemned by acknowledging that though God was the chief Author yet the People were the immediate Electors 3dly There needed no Act of Parliament be made for acknowledging God to be the chief Author and first Fountain of every Power for that was never controverted amongst Christians 4thly That foolish glosse cannot at all consist with the Inferences deduced from that Principle in the former Statutes for in the 2. Act Par. 1. Char. 2. It is inferr'd from His Majesties holding His Royal Power from God alone that therefore he hath the sole choice of his own Officers of State Privy Counsellors and Judges And in the 5th Act it is inferr'd from the same Principle that because he derives his Power from God alone that therefore it is Treason to rise in Arms without his Consent upon any pretext whatsoever and in the 2 d. Act Par. 3. Char. 2. It is concluded that because our Kings derive their Power from God Almighty alone therefore it is Treason in the People to interrupt or divert their Succession upon any Difference in Religion or other pretext whatsoever whereas all this had been false and improper Reasoning if the design of the Parliament had not been to acknowledge that our Kings derived not their Power from the People for though they derived their Power from God as the supream Being only and not as the immediate bestower and if the People were the immediat bestowers of that Power then the People might still have pretended that they who gave the Power might have risen in their own Defence when they saw the same abused and might have diverted the Succession when it descended upon a person who was an enemy to their Interest but how false this glosse is will appear more fully from the following Arguments and it is absolutely inconsistent with St. Augustins opinion formerly cited wherein he forbids to attribute the giving of Kingdoms to any other but to God My second Argument for proving that Kings derive their Power from God alone and not from the People shall be from the principles of Reason For First The Almighties design being to manifest his Glory in Creating a World so vast and regular as this is and his goodness in Governing it and that Men might live peaceably in it having both Reason and Time to Serve him it was consequential that he should have reserved to himself the immediate dependence of the supream Power to shut out the extravagant and restless multitude from those frequent Revolutions which they would make and Desolations which they would occasion if they thought that the Supream Power depended on them and that they were not bound to obey them for Conscience sake so that those expressions in Scripture were very useful in this to curb our Insolencies and to fix our restlesness and it seems that Kings are in Scripture said to be gods to the end it might be clear that they were not made by Men. 2dly God Almighty being King of Kings it was just that as inferiour Magistrates derived their Power from the King so Kings should derive their Power from God who is their King and this seems to be clear from that analogy which runs in a Dependence and Chain through the whole Creation 3dly as this is most suitable to the principles of Reason so it is most consonant the analogy of Law by which t is declar'd that no Man is master of his own Life or Limbs nemo est Dominus membrorum suorum and therefore as no Man can lawfully take away his own Life so neither can he transfer the power of disposing of it to any other Man and consequently this Power is not derived to Kings and Princes by privat Men but is bestowed upon them by God Almighty who is the sole Arbiter of Life and Death and who can only take it a away because he gave it And if it be objected that this last branch
Grotius De Jure Belli lib. 1. cap. 4. num 7. And it had been great impudence as well as sin in them to have boasted of a recent matter of Fact which was not true nor could there be a greater injury done to the Primitive Christians as Grotius observes than to ascribe that to their Weakness which they consider'd as an effect of Duty and why should the Heathen Emperours have suffered those to multiply who obey'd only because Disobedience was not safe for they might have certainly concluded that by the same Principle that they obeyed only because they were weak they would disobey as soon as they were able 4. If the first Christians in general had obeyed only because they were not able to resist then any private Christian had resisted when he was able or would have fled or conceal'd himself whereas it is acknowledg'd in the other answers press'd by Gronovius himself that they sought for Martyrdom and so these two answers are inconsistent and the Theban Legion and others did submit themselves voluntarily to Martyrdom with their Arms in their hands and when they were able to have overthrown the Emperour And lastly If this Doctrine were allow'd no Society could subsist for when Dissenters grew strong the lawful Magistrate behov'd to perish whereas Jesus Christ did contrive the Christian Religion so as that all Governours should reasonably wish their Subjects to be Christians and so as no Christian should attempt to overthrow the order and establishment of Civil Government and that they should not be drawn away from practise of Christian Devotion by the carnal desires of being Great and Strong in the World nor have any hopes in the Arm of Flesh to the lessening of their immediate dependence upon him His third shift is That his Doctrine of Submission and of dying for the Christian Religion without making Resistance was only the Practise but not the Command of the Primitive Church and proceeded from their immoderate affectation of the Crown of Martyrdom as Milton also pretends But since the express Command of Scripture is founded upon such clear Reason and since as Grotius well observes the Practise of the Primitive Christians who liv'd so near the Age wherein these Scriptures were pen'd is the best Interpreter of the Scripture it is horrid Impiety to make those blessed Martyrs pass for vain Hypocrites and distracted Self-murderers and it becomes us with holy reverence to imitate those whom the Christian Church has ever admir'd The fourth shift is that the Protestant Churches have been reform'd by such Insurrections as these contrary to the Royal Authority But this is fully answered by the learned Henry More in his Divine Dialogues and by Du Moulin in his Philanax Anglicus where likewise are to be found the many Testimonies of Protestant Churches and Protestant Divines condemning positively the taking up of Arms against the Soveraign Power even for the defence of Religion and the very Presbyterian Confession of Faith at Westminster is so positive as to this point that the Presbyterians themselves can never answer it The sum of which answer is That the King of Spain coming by Marriage in place of the Duke of Burgundy the said King of Spain could pretend to no more Power than they had nor could the House of Burgundy pretend to any more Power by marrying the Heirs of the Counts of the several Provinces than those Counts had over their Provinces and therefore since none of these were Soveraigns over their Provinces the Provinces might have resisted the King of Spain when he oppress'd them and consequently that Resistance cannot defend such as resist Supream Powers upon pretence of Religion Grotius de Antiq. Reipub. Batav cap. 7. The opposition made by the Protestants in France was not occasion'd by Religion but upon a Quarrel betwixt the Princes of the Blood and the House of Guise in the Minority of Francis the 2 d and is defended most excellently by King James himself not to have been Rebellion in his Defence of the Right of Kings pag. 14. The Opposition made by the Princes of Germany to the Emperour was founded upon the inherent Right in the Princes by the Golden Charter of the Empire And Luther himself declar'd that Magistratui non erat resistendum and has written a Book to that purpose nor would he engage in the Confederacy for Defensive Arms at Smalcald until the Lawyers declared that that Resistance was lawful by the Laws of the Empire Vide Slydan Hist lib. 8. anno 1531. The War that arose in Switzerland was not occasion'd by Religion for the Reformation was once establish'd with the consent of the Magistrate And the Eruption that was made by other Cantons upon the Reform'd Cantons eleven years after that Establishment Vide Slydan anno 1522. Nor was it Calvin who banish'd the Prince and Bishop of Geneva for he fled eight Months before upon the detecting of a Conspiracy by which that Bishop was to deliver over the Liberties of that City to the Duke of Savoy and for which his Secretary was hang'd Vide Turretin Annal. Reformationis anno 1529 And albeit those who Reform'd in Scotland in the Reign of Queen Mary pretended Authority from the King yet they were certainly Rebels and are condemn'd by Rivet a famous Protestant Divine who also inveighs bitterly against this Principle Castiga Not. in Epist ad Bal. fac cap. 13. num 14 sub finem From all which I observe First That all the Protestant Divines by making Apologies for such of their Profession as have risen in Arms against Supream Powers must be thereby concluded to be asham'd of the Principle Secondly immediately upon the quieting those Rebellions all the Protestant Churches have in their Confessions of Faith declared their abhorrence of that Principle which being the product of Conviction and Experience joyn'd with Duty must be the most judicious and sincere Testimony of all others Thirdly All those Rebellions have been occasion'd by a mistake in Point of Law and not in point of Religion for the Divines as I have related have been abused by the Lawyers and therefore since in the Isle of Britain the Laws of both Kingdoms have declared the Rising in Arms against the King to be Treason although for the defence of Religion it necessarily follows that this must be unlawful in point of Conscience in this Kingdom Fourthly Though good things may be occasion'd by a Rebellion yet that does not justifie a Rebellion for though Jeroboam was allow'd by God to rise against Rehoboam yet God Almighty himself calls his revolt Rebellion 1 Kings 12 19. and 2 Chron. 10. 19. and it is observable that after this Revolt there was but one good King amongst all the Rebellious Kings of Israel whereas amongst the Kings of Judah who were lawful Kings there was but one or two who were any ways impious so far does God bless a lawful Succession Some also use as a shift against this Orthodox Doctrine that the reason why the
VI. and the II III IV. Acts Parl. 1. CHARLES II. And by our Oath of Allegiance we are bound to bear faithful and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Lawful Successors which word LAWFUL is insert to cut off the pretences of such as should not succeed by Law and the insolent arbitrariness of such as being but Subjects themselves think they may chuse their King viz. Act 1. Parl. 21. JAMES the VI. That this right of Succession according to the Proximity of Blood is founded on the Law of God is clear by Num. Chap. 27. v. 9. and 10. If a man hath no Son or Daughter his Inheritance shall descend upon his Brother by Num. 36. Where God himself decides in favour of the Daughters of Zelâ—phehad telling us it was just thing they should have the inheritance of their Father And ordains that if there were no Daughters the Estate should go to the Brothers St. Paul likewise concludes Rom. 8. If Sons then Heirs looking upon that as a necessary Consequence which if it do not necessarily hold or can be any way disappointed all his divine reasoning in that Chapter falls to nothing And thus Ahaziah 2 Chron. 22. v. 1. was made King though the youngest in his Fathers stead because says the Text The Arabians had slain all the eldest which clearly shews That by the Law of God he could not have succeeded if the eldest had been alive We hear likewise in Scripture God oft telling By me Kings reign And when he gives a Kingdom to any as to Abraham David c. he gives it to them and their Posterity That this Right of Succession flows from the Law of Nature is clear because that is accounted to flow from the Law of Nature which every man finds grafted in his own heart and which is obey'd without any other Law and for which men neither seek nor can give another distinct Reason all which holds in this Case for who doubts when he hears of an Hereditary Monarchy but that the Next in Blood must succeed and for which we need no positive Law nor does any man enquire for a further Reason being satisfied therein by the Principles of his own heart And from this ground it is that though a remoter Kinsman did possess as Heir he could by no length of time prescribe a valid Right since no man as Lawyers conclude can prescribe a Right against the Law of Nature and that this Principle is founded thereupon is confest l. cum ratio naturalis ff de bonis damnat cum ratio naturalis quasi lex quaedam tacita liberis parentum haereditatem adjecerit veluti ad debitam successionem eos vocando propter quod suorum haeredum nomen eis indultum est adeo ut ne à parentibus quidem ab ea successione amoveri possint Et § emancipati Institut de haered quae ab intest Praetâ—r naturalem aequitatem sequutus iis etiam bonorum possessionem contra 12 tabularum leges contra jus civile permittit Which Text shews likewise That this Right of Nature was stronger than the Laws of the Twelve Tables though these were the most ancient and chief Statutes of Rome which Principle is very clear likewise from the Parable Matth. 21. where the Husband-men who can be presum'd to understand nothing but the Law of Nature are brought in saying This is the Heir let us kill him and seize on his inheritance Nor does this hold only in the Succession of Children or the Direct Line but in the collateral Succession of Brothers and others L. hac parte ff unde cognati Hac parte proconsul Naturali aequitate motus omnibus cognatis permittit bonorum possessionem quos sanguinis ratio Vocat ad haereditatem Vid. l. 1. ff de grad l. 1. § hoc autem ff de bonor possess And these who are now Brothers to the present King have been Sons to the former and therefore whatever has been said for Sons is also verified in Brothers As for instance though his Royal Highness be onely Brother to King CHARLES II. yet He is Son to King CHARLES I. and therefore as St. Paul says If a Son then an Heir except he be secluded by the Existence and Succession of an elder Brother That this gradual Succession is founded on the Law of Nations is as clear by the Laws of the Twelve Tables and the Praetorian Law of Rome And if we consider the Monarchy either old or new we will find That where ever the Monarchy was not Elective the degrees of Succession were there exactly observed And Bodinus de Republ. lib. 6. cap. 5. asserts that Ordo non tantum naturae divinae sed etiam omnium ubique gentium hoc postulat From all which Pope Innocent in c. grand de supplend neglig praelati concludes In regnis haereditariis caveri non potest ne filius aut frater succedat And since it is expresly determined That the Right of Blood can be taken away by no positive Law or Statute L. Jura Sanguinis ff de Reg. jur L. 4. ff de suis legitim And that the power of making a Testament can be taken away by no Law L. ita legatum ff de conditionibus I cannot see how the Right of Succession can be taken away by a Statute for that is the same with the Right of Blood and is more strongly founded upon the Law of Nature than the power of making Testaments Since then this Right is founded upon the Law of God of Nature and of Nations it does clearly follow That no Parliament can alter the same by their municipal Statutes as our Act of Parliament has justly observed For clearing whereof it is fit to consider That in all Powers and Jurisdictions which are subordinate to one another the Inferior should obey but not alter the Power to which it is subordinate and what it does contrary thereto is null and void And thus If the Judges of England should publish Edicts contrary to Acts of Parliament or if a Justice of Peace should reverse a Decree of the Judges of Westminster these their endeavors would be void and ineffectual But so it is that by the same Principle but in an infinitely more transcendent way all Kings and Parliaments are subordinate to the Laws of God the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nations and therefore no Act of Parliament can be binding to overturn what these have established This as to the Law of God is clear not only from the general Dictates of Religion but 28 Hen. 8. cap. 7. the Parliament uses these words For no man can dispense with God's Laws which we also affirm and think And as to the Laws of Nature they must be acknowledged to be immutable from the principles of Reason And the Law it self confesses that Naturalia quaedam jura quae apud omnes gentes peraeque observantur divina quadam providentia constituta semper firma atque immutabilia permanent § sed naturalia