Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	henry_n	king_n	2,829	5	3.8707	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50542	Jus regium, or, The just, and solid foundations of monarchy in general, and more especially of the monarchy of Scotland : maintain'd against Buchannan, Naphthali, Dolman, Milton, &c. / by Sir George Mackenzie ...	Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.; Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691. That the lawful successor cannot be debarr'd from succeeding to the crown.	1684 (1684)	Wing M162; ESTC R39087	83,008	208

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

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 quàm 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 quàm 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

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

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 suc●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 d●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