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 John 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 clandestinely one of the Daughters of Eliz. 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 7. Walter who they pretend should have succeeded to the Crown having kill'd his Nephew King James the first Son to King Robert the 3 d He was not only not own'd after the death of the said King James as certainly he had been if his Title had been good and his Right so recent and demonstrable having so many great and powerful Relations that his Father was induc'd upon their account to marry his Mother but yet the said Walter was by all the Parliament unanimously condemn'd as a Traitor for having conspir'd the death of his lawful Prince Nor does Boetius justifie Walter 's Title in the least but on the contrary magnifies the Parliament for their just Sentence As did likewise Aeneas Silvius the Popes learned Legat who exhorted the Parliament to condemn him 8. How is it imaginable that King Robert who had so lately and after a strong Competition come to the Crown would have adventur'd to make his Title yet more disputable by preferring a Bastard to the true Heir who had so many Friends by his Mother and who being an Infant had never disoblig'd him 9. If we will consider the opinion of the Civilians whom we and almost all Nations follow in the Cases of Succession we will find that the said King Robert the third was the eldest and lawful Son of King Robert the second Filius legitimus non legitimatus For 1. They conclude that a Son is prov'd to be a lawful Son by the Assertion of the Father Alciat tract praesumpt Reg. 1. praesumpt 2. numb 6. and certainly the Father is the best Judge in such Cases but so it is we have the Father owning the said Robert the 3 d. to be his eldest Son and Heir both in Charters and Acts of Parliaments which are the most solemn of all Deeds 2. Quando pater instituit aliquem tanquam filium suum which holds in this Case where the Father institutes and leaves him Heir and the Parliament swears Allegiance to him as the Heir Muscard de prob vol. 2. conclus 799. And in dubious Cases the Father's naming such a man as a Son presumes him to be a lawful Son nominatio parentis indueit filiationem in dubio l. ex facto § si quis Rogatus ff ad trebell 3. Even Fame and the common opinion of the People do in favours of these that are in Possession and in antient Cases prove filiationem legitimationem Mascard conclus 792. but much more where the Fame and common Opinion is supported by other Arguments fulgos consil 128. Panorm in cap. transmiss qui filii sunt legitimi 4. When Writs are produc'd calling a man a Son the Law concludes him to be a lawful Son Muscard vol. 2. conclus 800. num 15. all which can be easily subsum'd in our Case In which Robert the 3 d. is nam'd not only Son but Heir and Allegiance sworn to him even in the life-time of the second Wife and her Relations sitting in Paliament and all this acquiesc'd in for many hundreds of years and the Competitors punish'd as Traitors by the unanimous consent of all the Parliament I know that Buchannan does most bitterly inveigh against those Laws made by King Kenneth the 3 d as Laws whereby the ancient Right of Succession was innovated and whereby the Government was setled upon Children who were neither able to consult with the People nor to defend them and whereby those had the Government of the Nation conferr'd upon them who were not capable to Govern themselves To which my Answer is That in this Buchanan's Malice contradicts his History for his own History tells us That the Scots swore Allegiance to Fergus and his Posterity and consequently Fergus's Son ought by Law to have succeeded and not his Brother for his Brother was none of his Posterity and therefore those Laws made by King Kenneth did but renew the old Law and the Innovation introduc'd in favours of the Uncles was a subversion of the fundamental Law to which they had sworn 2. That the old Law was not abrogated but was in Being by vertue of the first Oath appears very clear by Buchanan himself who confesses that upon the death of Durstus a wicked Prince it was debated whether his Son should not succeed juxta sacramentum Fergusio praestitum veteremque esse morem servandum which acknowledgeth that the Succession was even in those days established by Law by Oath and by Custom and after the death of Fergus the second his Son Eugenius though a Minor was Crown'd and his Uncle Graemus allow'd to be his Guardian And Buchanan also brings in Bishop Kennedy lib. 12. praising this Law as made by Kenneth a most wise and glorious Prince with advice of all his Estates of Parliament and which rather confirms as he says the old Law than introduces a new one So far did Buchanan's Rage against Queen Mary prevail with him to praise and rail at the same individual Law and it is observable that it is very dangerous to recede once from fundamental Laws for Buchanan makes not only the Succession Elective but he makes no difference betwixt lawful Children and Bastards and excludes not only Minors during the Uncle's life but Women for ever 3. In all Nations where the Monarchy is Hereditary Minors succeed and so this innovation of causing the next Male succeed for all his Life was contrary to the Nature of the Monarchy and to the Customs of all Nations and God in Scripture gives us many instances of it Joas succeeded when he was seven years of age Josiah when he was eight Manasseh in twelve and Azariah in sixteen And yet in those days God is said to have chosen the King for it is said in Deuteronomy Thou shalt set over thee the King whom I have chosen and consequently the choice of
Energy of that Priviledge without respect either to what Land they possess or what number of People they represent And thus the Nobility and Bishops sit there by vertue of the Kings Creation and the King may Create a hundred Noblemen that morning that the Parliament is to sit though none of all the hundred have one foot of Land in Scotland and though the Knights Barons must have some Land else they cannot Represent any Shire yet though a Gentleman had 5000. pounds Sterling a year he could not sit there except he be the Kings immediate Vassal and hold his Lands of His Majesty in capite So that he sits not by vertue of his Land but as Capacitated by the King And though those who Represent the Burrows Royal are Commissionated by the people of their Burghs yet the people who send them are not considered in that Commission but the Power only which the King gives them to send For though a Town had a hundred thousand Inhabitants and another only twenty Inhabitants yet these hundred thousand could not be Represented in Parliament except the King had erected their Town into a Burgh Royal From which I evince two things 1. That the Parliament is the Kings Council in which he may call any He pleases and not as the peoples Representatives only since there are great multitudes in the Nation Represented by none there For though they Represent their Constituents in Parliament yet the power of sending Representatives is derived from the King Originally and flows not from any proper Right inherent in those whose Representatives they are 2. That Judicature cannot have a Co-ordinate power with the King which he needs not call unless He pleases and which he can dissolve when He pleases and in which when they are assembled He has a Negative Voice by which He can stop all their Proposals and Designs For if they were Co-ordinate with the King then par in parem non habet imperium and it is against common Sense to think that these two can be equal since the Power of the one flows from the other By which is likewise clear that the great principle laid down by Buchannan viz. That the King is Singulis Major Vniversis Minor greater than any one but less than the collective Body of the Parliament taken together is absolutely false because he has a Negative Voice over that collective Body and as they cannot Meet without him so he can dissolve them when he pleases and I confess it seems to me unintelligible how they can be greater than the King by vertue of a power which they derive from the King 4. The Parliament is called the Kings Council as is clear from the Inscriptions of all our old Parliaments Thus the Statutes of Alexander the Second begin Alexander By the Grace of God King of Scots did by the Common Council of his Earls Decree c. The Statutes of King Robert the First bear to be by the Common Council of his Prelates c. The first Statute of King Robert the Second bears that none who is elected to be of the Kings Council shall bring another to it who is not elected The 8. and 13. Parliaments of King James the First and the 2. 3 4. and 7. of King James the Second bear for inscriptions The Parliament or general Council of such Kings And the first Act of that 8. Parliament of King James the first Bears Quo Die Dominus Rex deliberatione consensu totius Concilii c. And it is against Sense to think that any mans Counsel can have Authority over him for as we say Counsel is no Command 5. The Parliament was but the Kings Baron Court as is very clear to any man who will read the old Registers of Parliament in which he will see that the Parliament was assembled and the Suits were called and Absents Outlawed as in other Baron Courts whereof many publick Records are extant and I shall only set down that of the 8. Parliament Ja. 1. The words of which Inscription are In the eighth Parliament or General Council of the Illustrious Prince James by the Grace of God King of Scotland holden at Perth and begun ratified and approved by the three States of the Kingdom as sufficiently and rightly summoned the twelfth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand four hundred and twenty eight continued from Time to Time the Bishops Abbots Priors Earls Barons and all Free-holders which hold in Chief of our said Lord the King and certain Burgesses of every Burrow of the Kingdom being summoned and called in due and wonted manner all those assembling that ought would and might be concerned but some were absent some of which were lawfully excused others absenting themselves through Obstinacy whose Names appear in the Rolls of the Suits were every one of them amerc'd ten pounds for his Contumacy And that the King was Judge what Barons should come to the Parliament is most clear by the 75. Act Par. 14. Ja. 2. whereby it is declared No Free-holder under the sum of twenty pounds shall come except he be specially called by the King either by his Officer or by Writ and though afterwards the King allowed two Barons of every Shire to be sent to represent all the Barons for saving Expences yet even after that Concession it is declared by the 78. Act Par. 6. Ja. 4. That no Freeholder be compelled to come except our Soveraign Lord writ specially for them It being thus clear that the Parliament is the Kings Baron Court it seems a wonder to me how it could have entered into the heart of any sober man to think that any mans Baron Court and much less the Kings Baron Court should have power and jurisdiction over him and that it should be lawful to them as Buchannan and these other Authors assert to punish him or lay him aside all which Assertions are equally impious and illegal 6. When the King resolves to lessen any way his own Power this is not done by the Authority of the three Estates as certainly it would be if they had the power to lessen his Authority but the King does the same from his own proper Motive as when the King binds up his own Hands form granting Remissions in cases of fore-thought Fellony Ja. 4. Par. 6. Act 63. And when an Act was to be made forbiding the Lords of the Session to admit of private Writings from the King to stop the procedure of Justice this is not Enacted by the three Estates but only by the King and is founded upon the Kings own promise Act 92. Par. 6. Ja. 6. And in all Acts of Parliament the King only Statutes as Legislator and the Parliament only Advise and Consent which shews that they are not Co-ordinate with the King as is asserted by Buchannan and others much less above him And the Acts of Parliament in the late Rebellion having run thus Our Soveraign Lord and the three Estates contrary to the
a vinculis delictorum neque enim ullis ad poenam vocantur legibus tuti Imperii potestate Isiodorus 3. sent cap 31. populi peccantes Judicem metuunt Reges autem solo Dei timore metuque gehennae coercentur and in this Sense they take these words Psal 51. Against thee thee only have I sinned and I was glad to find in Bishop Vshers Power of Princes amongst many other Citations That the Rabbies and particularly Rabbi Jeremiah own'd that no Creature may Judge the King but the Holy and Blessed God alone in which also Heathens agree with Jews and Christians Eâ—phantas the Pythagorean makes it the Priviledge of God and then of the King to be Judg'd by none Stobeus Sermon 46. and Dion in Marco Aurelio tells us That it is certain free Monarchs cannot be Judg'd save by God alone and if it were otherwise we should see them very unsecure for the ambition and avarice of insolent Subjects should never or seldom miss to form their Process and why should Parties be Judges But to demonstrate the Justice which Kings and Princes are to expect from the Populace and Mobile let us remember their Material Justice in the usage of ovr Saviour when they cryed Crucifie him Crucifie him their Sentence against King CHARLES the Martyr when they were at the height of their pretensions to Piety and a publick Spirit their usage of De Witt the Idolizer of them and their Commonwealth and if we want a true Idea of their Form of Process we will find it in their usage of the Archbishop of St. Andrews and others no Enditement no Citation no Defences no Sentences no time to prepare to die and yet all this are the Dictates of pure and devout publick Spirits Buchannan's Bloody Arguments for this position are That Tyrants have been Murthered with Applause and Princes would become licentious if they were not Restrained by the just fear of being called to an account That the Roman and Venetian Magistrates have been punish'd by the people and that the ordinary Judges of the place have Judg'd them and that some of our Kings as well as those of other Nations have been punish'd as Tyrants To which I answer shortly that Inconveniencies must not prevail with us to break our Oaths and overturn our Laws for nothing has so great inconveniency in it as this has these being but partial and this a total Inconveniency And the English Lawyers agree that a mischief is better than an Inconveniency and this should have been considered before we swore to Monarchy and if the People were Electors as they never were yet they should have reserv'd this Power or else they cannot now challenge it But though our Law were not clear at it is most uncontroverted upon this point Yet right Reason should perswade us to have reserv'd no such Power For as Kings may err so may the Judges who are to Try them and it is more probable their Tryers will because they may be acted by Revenge Ambition or Popularity and there is nothing so lyable to err as the Populace The Romans and Venetians might have punish'd their Magistrates because these Magistrates were not Vested with a Supream Power nor were they Soveraigns as our Monarchs are And those Judges who Try'd them deriv'd not their Power from those Magistrates whom they Try'd as our Judges do for the same consent and compact by which they were made the Chief the others were made also Magistrates which cannot be said of Absolute Monarchs who derive not their Power from the People as these do and the Instances of Kings who have been Murther'd are Crimes in them who did commit them and so should not be Rules to us and many of the best of Kings have been worst us'd But who can escape by innocence when King CHARLES the Martyr fell by Malice Such also as cry up the Murtherers of Tyrants who had no just Right never meant to allow the Arraignment of lawful Monarchs who when they err have God only for their Judge and if they fear not Him and eternal Punishment they will not probably fear mortal Men and their own Subjects whom they can many ways escape 2. There is no Creature so unreasonable but he will use his own with discretion though there be no Law obliging him to it nor Punishment to be inflicted if he do otherways who burns his own House or drowns his Lands though he may do it For the Law considers that a King is either mad and if so he will respect no Law and should not be punisht at least he will not stand in awe for fear of it or else he is of a sound Judgment and then he needs no Law and therefore Why should we apprehend that a King will destroy His own Kingdom 3. A King is also obliged by His Fame to do things worthy of His high Trust and things able to abide that conspicuous light to which he is exposed 4. Though his People ought not to rebel yet no thinking man can be sure that they will not And therefore even the greatest Tyrants fear such Accidents though they know they are not bound by those Laws that tye Subjects And if all these fail yet we must reverence God's Dispensations and expect a redress of these unusual Emergencies from his Divine Goodness for whose sake we suffer them rather then expose all to ruine by endeavouring a revenge that may be so unjust in the preparative and dangerous in the event Doleman does here urge that although the People have conferred upon the King the Power and Jurisdiction which naturally resided in them yet they have not so delegated that Power as to devest themselves of all Jurisdiction privatively so that they still retain a cumulative Jurisdiction by which in case of necessity they may judge the King and all other Delinquents To which my Answers are 1. It is fully proved that the King derives not his Power from the People and so they connot retain that Power which they never had 2. A Cumulative Jurisdiction is only granted to those who cannot devest themselves of the Power they give because Supream Power is essential to their Character and therefore though a King retain a Cumulative jurisdiction when he delegates his Power to a Subject it cannot at all be inferred that therefore the People retains the same when they transfer all their Power upon the King for the one designs to make a King who is to be Supream and the other designs to gratifie a Person who is to remain still a Subject Populus jus omne in Caesarem transfert qui totum dicit nihil excipit The People may be a People without a Cumulative Power or without being Supream but a King cannot and I admire why Doleman who compares always the King to the Husband and the Common-wealth to the Wife the King to the Head and the Common-wealth to the Body can think that it is Lawful for the People to judge and punish their King
Grotius De Jure Belli lib. 1. cap. 4. num 7. And it had been great impudence as well as sin in them to have boasted of a recent matter of Fact which was not true nor could there be a greater injury done to the Primitive Christians as Grotius observes than to ascribe that to their Weakness which they consider'd as an effect of Duty and why should the Heathen Emperours have suffered those to multiply who obey'd only because Disobedience was not safe for they might have certainly concluded that by the same Principle that they obeyed only because they were weak they would disobey as soon as they were able 4. If the first Christians in general had obeyed only because they were not able to resist then any private Christian had resisted when he was able or would have fled or conceal'd himself whereas it is acknowledg'd in the other answers press'd by Gronovius himself that they sought for Martyrdom and so these two answers are inconsistent and the Theban Legion and others did submit themselves voluntarily to Martyrdom with their Arms in their hands and when they were able to have overthrown the Emperour And lastly If this Doctrine were allow'd no Society could subsist for when Dissenters grew strong the lawful Magistrate behov'd to perish whereas Jesus Christ did contrive the Christian Religion so as that all Governours should reasonably wish their Subjects to be Christians and so as no Christian should attempt to overthrow the order and establishment of Civil Government and that they should not be drawn away from practise of Christian Devotion by the carnal desires of being Great and Strong in the World nor have any hopes in the Arm of Flesh to the lessening of their immediate dependence upon him His third shift is That his Doctrine of Submission and of dying for the Christian Religion without making Resistance was only the Practise but not the Command of the Primitive Church and proceeded from their immoderate affectation of the Crown of Martyrdom as Milton also pretends But since the express Command of Scripture is founded upon such clear Reason and since as Grotius well observes the Practise of the Primitive Christians who liv'd so near the Age wherein these Scriptures were pen'd is the best Interpreter of the Scripture it is horrid Impiety to make those blessed Martyrs pass for vain Hypocrites and distracted Self-murderers and it becomes us with holy reverence to imitate those whom the Christian Church has ever admir'd The fourth shift is that the Protestant Churches have been reform'd by such Insurrections as these contrary to the Royal Authority But this is fully answered by the learned Henry More in his Divine Dialogues and by Du Moulin in his Philanax Anglicus where likewise are to be found the many Testimonies of Protestant Churches and Protestant Divines condemning positively the taking up of Arms against the Soveraign Power even for the defence of Religion and the very Presbyterian Confession of Faith at Westminster is so positive as to this point that the Presbyterians themselves can never answer it The sum of which answer is That the King of Spain coming by Marriage in place of the Duke of Burgundy the said King of Spain could pretend to no more Power than they had nor could the House of Burgundy pretend to any more Power by marrying the Heirs of the Counts of the several Provinces than those Counts had over their Provinces and therefore since none of these were Soveraigns over their Provinces the Provinces might have resisted the King of Spain when he oppress'd them and consequently that Resistance cannot defend such as resist Supream Powers upon pretence of Religion Grotius de Antiq. Reipub. Batav cap. 7. The opposition made by the Protestants in France was not occasion'd by Religion but upon a Quarrel betwixt the Princes of the Blood and the House of Guise in the Minority of Francis the 2 d and is defended most excellently by King James himself not to have been Rebellion in his Defence of the Right of Kings pag. 14. The Opposition made by the Princes of Germany to the Emperour was founded upon the inherent Right in the Princes by the Golden Charter of the Empire And Luther himself declar'd that Magistratui non erat resistendum and has written a Book to that purpose nor would he engage in the Confederacy for Defensive Arms at Smalcald until the Lawyers declared that that Resistance was lawful by the Laws of the Empire Vide Slydan Hist lib. 8. anno 1531. The War that arose in Switzerland was not occasion'd by Religion for the Reformation was once establish'd with the consent of the Magistrate And the Eruption that was made by other Cantons upon the Reform'd Cantons eleven years after that Establishment Vide Slydan anno 1522. Nor was it Calvin who banish'd the Prince and Bishop of Geneva for he fled eight Months before upon the detecting of a Conspiracy by which that Bishop was to deliver over the Liberties of that City to the Duke of Savoy and for which his Secretary was hang'd Vide Turretin Annal. Reformationis anno 1529 And albeit those who Reform'd in Scotland in the Reign of Queen Mary pretended Authority from the King yet they were certainly Rebels and are condemn'd by Rivet a famous Protestant Divine who also inveighs bitterly against this Principle Castiga Not. in Epist ad Bal. fac cap. 13. num 14 sub finem From all which I observe First That all the Protestant Divines by making Apologies for such of their Profession as have risen in Arms against Supream Powers must be thereby concluded to be asham'd of the Principle Secondly immediately upon the quieting those Rebellions all the Protestant Churches have in their Confessions of Faith declared their abhorrence of that Principle which being the product of Conviction and Experience joyn'd with Duty must be the most judicious and sincere Testimony of all others Thirdly All those Rebellions have been occasion'd by a mistake in Point of Law and not in point of Religion for the Divines as I have related have been abused by the Lawyers and therefore since in the Isle of Britain the Laws of both Kingdoms have declared the Rising in Arms against the King to be Treason although for the defence of Religion it necessarily follows that this must be unlawful in point of Conscience in this Kingdom Fourthly Though good things may be occasion'd by a Rebellion yet that does not justifie a Rebellion for though Jeroboam was allow'd by God to rise against Rehoboam yet God Almighty himself calls his revolt Rebellion 1 Kings 12 19. and 2 Chron. 10. 19. and it is observable that after this Revolt there was but one good King amongst all the Rebellious Kings of Israel whereas amongst the Kings of Judah who were lawful Kings there was but one or two who were any ways impious so far does God bless a lawful Succession Some also use as a shift against this Orthodox Doctrine that the reason why the
Primitive Christians did not oppose their Emperours in the defence of the Christian Religion was because they had not been secured at that time in the Exercise of their Religion by the Laws of the Empire and therefore the practice of those Christians can be no Argument why we may not now rise to defend the Orthodox Religion since it is now established by Law But this Objection is fully answered by that great Antiquary Samuel Petit. Diatriba de Jur. Principium edictis Ecclesiae quaesito where he clearly proves that they were actually secured by the Edicts of the Emperours in the days of the Emperor Tiberius and downward and yet they would not rise in Arms though they were persecuted under those same Emperors because the Word of God and the Christian Religion did command Obedience under Persecution and did forbid Resistance and taking up of Arms. The Arguments that can be produc'd to justifie this Principle of Defensive Arms are almost answered in the former Article viz. That there is a mutual Obligation betwixt King and People so that when He breaks the one they are free from the other and that all Government is Establisht for the advantage of the People and thus these few Arguments peculiar to this Point remain now only to be here resolv'd 1. That Self-defence is by the Law of Nature allow'd to all and even to Brutes why then should men who may lose more who deserve better and can use self-defence more innocently be debar'd from it 2 We see in Scripture that the People deserted and oppos'd their Kings for Religion 3. This has been allow'd with us in the instance of King James the third against whom his Subjects rose in Rebellion for misgoverning and oppressing His People and this opposition was first justified by God in the success he gave to their Arms and thereafter by a special and express Act in the ensuing Parliament which stands yet unrepeal'd To which I shortly answer That as to the first of Self-defence in Brutes we must still remember that God hvaing design'd Government to bridle the Extravagancies ofrestless Mankind he has appointed Magistrates to be his Vicegerents and Representatives and has entrusted them with his Power and so opposition to them is unlawful because it is not lawful against him and because if it were allow'd all would pretend to it and so there should be no Order nor Government And that this may be the better observ'd God has endowed man with Principles fitted for these ends of Order and Society amongst which one is That the publick Safety of the whole is to be preferr'd to the Safety of any one man or of any number of private men who are not to be considered as the publick because that is the publick Interest which is the Representative of the Nation and that this Principle may be the better obey'd he has commanded men to suffer injuries rather than occasion Disorders and has promised to reward Patience and Submission for his sake with eternal Life a Nobler Prize than we here can contend for This being then Premis'd it is answered that though Brutes may defend themselves because Order and the common good of Societies are not there concern'd yet there is no reason to extend this to Men whose Self-defence against Authority occasions more mischief than it can bring advantage And if this Argument hold it would prove that every man who is unjustly Condemn'd or at least thinks so may kill the King or His Judge Servants might bind their Masters and the People of any private Town might pull down their Judge from the Bench when they thought he opprest them And as these must submit because they expect Reparation from a higher Tribunal So God has promised Reparation to those who suffer for his sake and the greatness and sureness of this Reward makes this no uncomfortable Doctrine and this Submission is as necessary and rather more for mens preservation than Resistance and is a kind of Self-defence since opposition to Authority would bring a certain ruine and confusion in which more would perish than opposition by private Self-defence would preserve Upon which Christian Principles also Ames a Protestant and Calvinist Divine has resolv'd In bonis temporalibus tenetur quisque personam publicam sibi ipsi praeferre bonum enim totius pluris faciendum est quam bonum alicujus partis Cas conscient l. 5. cap. 7. Thes 14. and Lex Rex confesses p. 335. That a private man should rather suffer the King to kill him than that he should kill the King because he is not to prefer the Life of a private man to the Life of a publick man And whereas it may be pretended That though this opposition should not be trusted to any private man yet Parliaments and the Collective Body should and may be trusted with it But to this I have answered formerly That all Convocations without Authority from the King and all rising against him are indefinitely declared unlawful and justly for whoever wants Authority is but in a private capacity none having a publick capacity save the Magistrates And if they be allow'd to rise because their quarrel is just it must be as just to allow a lesser number if they have the same Justice in their pretence and we have frequently seen that the same Persons who magnified the multitude for their numbers did shortly thereafter divide from them pretending that they were the Sanior pars or juster Party The Examples produc'd by our Republicans of the revolt of Libna 2 Chron. 1. 21. And of Jeroboam because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers and of the Ten Tribes from Rehoboam because of Rehoboam his oppression 1 King 12. prove not at all the lawfulness of the Subjects defection from their Kings because these defections are only Related but not allow'd in Scripture and are recorded rather as instances of God's vengeance upon the wickedness of these Princes than as examples justified in these Revolters and to be follow'd by such as read the Sacred History In which when Examples are propos'd by the Spirit of God for our imitation they are still honour'd with the Divine approbation And I hope my Readers will still remember that I design not by this Treatise to encourage Princes to wickedness by Impunity but only to discourage Subjects from daring to be the punishers The great esteem which the great Bishop Vsher has justly even among Republicans and Fanaticks for Learning and Devotion has prevail'd with me to set down two Objections used by him with his pious Answers hereto The first is Suppose say they the King or Civil Magistrate should command us to Worship the Devil would you wish us here to lay down our Heads upon the Block and not to repel the violence of such a Miscreant to the utmost of our Power and if not What would be come of Gods Church and his Religion To which the Holy Man answers That even when the Worship of the
three Estates which shews that there 's nothing design'd in this Act in favour of their Authority and that this King was Minor the time of this Act and that he had great Troubles in his Youth is very clear from the short characters given of our Kings by Skeen in the end of our Acts of Parliament It will I hope easily appear by the ballance of these Arguments that at least the Municipal Laws of our Nation which punish Defensive Arms as Treason should be obey'd by our Countrey-men since as I have oft inculcated the Laws of any Nation should still be obey'd except where they are inconsistent with the Word of God and the most that the most violent Republicans alive can say upon this Subject is that the case may be debated by probable Arguments and that neither of the Positions want their inconveniencies so that in this as in all other Debates the Law of each Nation is the best Judge to decide such Controversies and therefore such as maintain these Principles after so many positive and reiterated Laws are obliged for preserving the Peace of humane Society and the Order which God has establisht to remove from places where they cannot obey for they will always find some place where the Government will please them and better they be disquieted than the Government of the whole World should be disturb'd But if they will stay and oppose the Government it must be excus'd to execute those who would destroy it Having thus glanc'd only at Answers to these Objections because I think the Objections rather plausible than strong I shall sum up this Debate with these Reflections First Buchannan and our Republican Authors debate all these Grounds as if we were yet to form the Government under which we were to live wheras we live under and are sworn to a Monarchy fixt by Law and Consent time out of mind and the Levellers may as well urge that no Nobleman should be dignifi'd nor no Gentleman enriched above a man of good sence and Tenants may argue that it is not reasonable that they bearing God's Image as well as the Master should toil to feed their Lusts Thus Reason may be distorted and we call that Treason and Providence which pleases us best Secondly Most of their Citations and Authorities are the Sentiments of those Greeks and Romans who liv'd under Common-wealths and so magnifi'd their Countrey in opposition to Usurpers whereas our King is the Father of our Countrey and whatever they said of their Countrey we should say of him and therefore these Citations concern us no more than the Law of England binds Scotchmen they praise their own Children and Servants for their Faithfulness and Obedience to them and yet they rail at us for being faithful to our great Master and chief Parent under God Thirdly Most of the Authors cited and admir'd by them are Heathens particularly Stoicks who equall'd themselves not only to Kings but to their own Gods and against whose selfishness and pride all Christians have justly exclaim'd and so they are not competent Judges nor sure Guides to Christians in the exercise of those purely Christian Vertues of Humility Submission Self-denial Patience Faith and Reliance upon God Fourthly They balance not all the conveniences and inconveniences of either Government but magnifie the one and conceal the other and thus it is true that Kings may be Tyrants but so may and usually are the Leaders of the Rabble Cromwel was such and Shaftsbury had been such he was such in his Nature and had been such in his Government and the Distractions of a Civil War which ordinarily attend Competitions amongst Republicans destroy more than the Lusts of any one Tyrant can do which made Lucan tho a Republican and of the Pompeyan Party conclude after a sad review of the continued Civil Wars betwixt Sylla and Marius Caesar and Pompey without considering what followed under the Trium viri Faelices Arabes Medique Eoaque tellus Qui sub perpetuis tenuerunt Regna Tyrannis Fifthly Those who debate against Magistracy gratifie their own Vanity and Insolence but such devout men as Ambrose Augustine Vsher and others debate against the dictates of Interest as well as Passion which two nothing save Grace can overcome and there can be no surer mark of Conviction than to decide against these Lastly Even Buchannan repented his horrid Doctrine Cambden 10. year of Queen Elizabeths Reign in 1567. But forasmuch as Buchannan being transported with partial affection and with Murrays bounty wrote in such sort that his said Books have been condemned of falshood by the Estates of the Realm of Scotland to whose Credit more is to be attributed 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 imploy'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 those Aspersions 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 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 induce Buchannan to approve of this their Fact either by writing 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 LAWFVL SVCCESSOR CANNOT BE DEBARR'D FROM Succeeding TO THE CROWN Maintain'd against DOLMAN BUCHANNAN And OTHERS BY Sir GEORGE MACKENZIE His Majesties Advocate in Scotland LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls Church-yard 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 God's 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 Expiring 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 THE RIGHT OF THE Succession DEFENDED THE Fourth Conclusion to be cleared was That neither
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
project I find also that as the debarring the Right Heir is in reason the fruitful seed of all Civil War and misery for who can imagine that the Right Heir will depart from his Right or that wise men will endanger their lives and fortunes in opposition to it so experience has demonstrated how dangerous and bloody this injustice has prov'd Let us remember amongst many Domestick examples the miseries that ensu'd upon the exclusion of Mordredus the Son of Lothus the destruction of the Picts for having secluded Alpinus the Right Heir the Wars during the Reign of William the Conqueror those betwixt King Stephen and Henry the II betwixt the Houses of Lancaster and York betwixt the Bruce and the Baliol the murther of Arthur Duke of Britanny true Heir of the Crown of England with many other foreign Histories which tell us of the dreadful mischiefs arising from Pelops preferring his youngest Son to the Kingdom of Micene from Aedipus commanding that Polinices his youngest Son should reign alternately with the eldest from Parisatis the Queen of Persia's preferring her youngest Son Cyrus to her eldest Artaxerxes from Aristodemus admitting his two Sons Proclus and Euristhenes to an equal share in the Lacedaemonian Throne The like observations are to be made in the Succession of Ptolemaeus Lagus and Ptolemaeus Phisco In the Sons of Severus in the Succession of of Sinesandus who kill'd his Brother Suintilla Righteous Heir of Spain and that of Francis and Fortia Duke of Millan with thousands of others In all which either the Usurpers or the Kingdom that obey'd them perish'd utterly To prevent which differences and mischiefs the Hungarians would not admit Almus the younger Brother in exclusion of the elder Colomanus though a silly deform'd Creature albeit Almus was preferr'd by Ladislaus the Kings eldest Brother to both Nor would France acquiesce in St. Lewis's preferring CHARLES's third Son to Lewis the Eldest And the English refus'd to obey Lady Jean Gray in prejudice of Queen Mary though a Papist and persecuter Tali constanti veneratione nos Angli legi timos Reges prosequimur c. says an English Historian Seventhly If Parliaments had such Powers as this then our Monarchy would not be hereditary but elective the very essence of an hereditary Monarchy consisting in the right of Succession according to the contingency of blood Whereas if the Parliament can prefer the next save one they may prefer the last of all the Liue for the next save one is no more next than the last is next And the same reason by which they can chuse a Successor which can only be that they have a Power above him should likewise in my opinion justifie their deposing of Kings And since the Successor has as good right to succeed as the present King has to Govern for that Right of blood which makes him first makes the other next and all these Statutes which acknowledge the present Kings Prerogatives acknowledge that they belong to him and his Heirs it follows clearly that if the Parliament can preclude the one they may exclude the other And we saw even in the last age that such reasons as are now urged to incapacitate the Children of our last Monarch from the hope of Succession viz. Popery and arbitrary Government did embolden men to Dethrone and Murder the Father himself who was actual King Eighthly That such Acts of Parliament altering the Succession are ineffectual and null is clear from this that though such an Act of Parliament were made it could not debar the true Successor because by the Laws of all Nations and particularly of these Kingdoms the right of Succession purges all defects and removes all impediments which can prejudge him who is to Succeed And as Craig one of our learn'd Lawyers has very well express'd it tanta est Regii sanguinis praerogativa dignitas ut vitium non admittat nec se contaminarep atiatur And thus though he who were to succeed had committed Murther or were declar'd a Traitor formerly to the Crown for open Rebellion against the King and Kingdom yet he needed not be restor'd by Act of Parliament upon his coming to the Crown But his very Right of blood would purge all these imperfections Of which there are reasons given by Lawyers one is that no man can be a Rebel against himself nor can the King have a Superior And consequently there can be none whom he can offend And it were absurd that he who can restore all other men should need to be restored himself The second reason is because the punishment of crimes such as confiscations c. are to be inflicted by the Kings Authority or to fall to the Kings Thesaury and it were most absurd that a man should exact from himself a punishment Like as upon this account it is that though in the Canon Law Bastards cannot be promoted to sacred orders without dispensation nor can alibi nati that is to say People born out of England be admitted to succeed in England by express Act of Parliament there Yet Agapaetus Theodorus Gelasius and many others have been admitted to be Popes without any formal dispensation their election clearing that imperfection And the Statute of alibi nati has been oft found not to extend to the Royal Line That the Succession to the Crown purges all defects is clear by many instances both at home and abroad The instances at home are in England Henry the VI. Being disabled and attainted of High-Treason by Act of Parliament it was found by the Judges notwithstanding that from the moment he assum'd the Crown he had Right to succeed without being restored And the like was resolved by the Judges in the case of Henry the VII as Bacon observes in his History of Henry the VII Fol. 13. And in the case of Queen Elizabeth who was declar'd Bastard by Act of Parliament as is clear by Cambden anno 2 Elizabeth And though in Scotland there be no express instances of this because though some Rebellious Ring-leaders in Scotland have often in a private capacity been very injurious to their King Yet their Parliaments have been ever very tender of attainting the Blood-Royal or presumptive Heirs But Alexander Duke of Albany and his Succession being declared Traitours by his Brother King James the IV his Son John was notwithstanding called home from France upon his Uncles death and declar'd Tutor and Governour without any remission or being restor'd That Employment being found to be due to him by the right of Blood Therefore he had been much more declared the true Successor of the Crown if his Cousin King James the V. had died These being sufficient to establish our design I shall mention only some forraign stories CHARLES the VII of France who though banish'd by Sentence of the Parliament of Paris did afterwards succeed to the Crown And though Lewis the XII was forfeited for taking up Arms against CHARLES the VIII yet he succeeded to him
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
King Robert the Second with the Advice and Consent of the whole Three Estates That the Sons then born to the King by his first and second Wives and their Heirs should in order succeed to the King in manner after specified That is to say that his eldest Son by the first Marriage John Earl of Carrick should immediately succeed as had been already declar'd in the preceding Parliament and after him his Heirs And in case he dy'd without Issue that his Brother Robert Earl of Monteith the King 's second Son of that Marriage should succeed and his Heirs Which failing that Alexander Earl of Badenoch the King 's third Son of that Bed and his Heirs should inherit the Crown And in case that fail'd that David Earl of Strathern the King 's fourth Son by his second Wife and his Heirs should succeed And that failing that Walter the King 's fifth Son by the said second Wife and his Heirs should inherit the Crown And if it should happen that the said five Sons and their Issue should fail that then the next in Blood of the Royal Line should succeed Which Act all the Three Estates did for themselves and their Heirs for ever solemnly swear to observe as is more at large to be seen in the Original it self And if the pretended Defect be true it was a very palpable and a very undeniable one and could not but have been unanswerably known to the whole Nation And how can we imagine that the whole Parliament would have unanimously drawn upon themselves so dreadful a Perjury by excluding the lawful Heir against their National Oath in the Reign of King Kenneth the third whereby they swore to own always the immediate Heir or that they would have entail'd upon themselves a Civil War by preferring even a questionable Heir after the Miseries which they had lately then felt in the Competition betwixt the Bruce and the Baliol amongst which Seals the Seal of James Earl of Dowglas is one and how ridiculous is it to think that he would sit and declare a Bastard preferable to the Brother of his own Lady and to his own Lady who would have succeeded if her Brothers had died without Succession Which Act of Parliament does also clearly prove that Buchanan did not at all understand matters of Fact in this part of the History for he asserts that after the death of Euphan Ross the King married Elizabeth Muir and did by Act of Parliament obtain the Crown to be setled upon Robert the third Son to the said Elizabeth Muir upon whom he also bestow'd the Title of Carrick all which is most false for this Act of Parliament is dated in Anno 1371. and King Robert the second succeeded to the Crown that year nor did Euphan Ross die till the third year after he succeeded to the Crown and so not till the year 1374. and yet in Anno 1371. this Act is past designing him Heir to the Crown and Earl of Carrick and consequently he was so design'd before the death of Euphan Ross 5. I have seen a Charter granted by King Robert the 2 d when he was only Steward of Scotland in anno 1365 and so long before he was King In which Charter likewise John thereafter King by the name of Robert the 3 d is a conjunct Disponer with him under the express designation of the eldest Son and Heir Robertus Senescallus Scotiae Comes de Strathern Joannes Senescallus primogenitus haeres ipsius Dominus Baroniae de Kyle c. which Charter confirms to the Abbacy of Pasley several Lands disponed to them by Reginaldus More Father to Sir William More of Abercorn And I find that David Duke of Rothsay was alwayes in the Charters granted by his Father King Robert the first called Primogenitus and he was no Bastard nor can this designation be given to a Bastard as is clear by Covaruvias de Matrim part 2. cap. 8. § 2. num 4. But how can it be imagined that the Monks of Pasley would have taken a Right from a person as Heir to the Crown who was not for this would have infer'd Treason against them beside the annulling their Right or who could understand better the lawfulness of a Marriage than a body of Church-men living in the time and very near to the Residence of the married Persons and in whose Conventual-Church the said King Robert and Elizabeth Muir lie buried together Item I have seen in the Registers another Charter granted by King Robert the 2d in the first year of his Reign with the consent of John Earl of Carrick primogenitus haeres Allano de Lavidia terrarum de Whitslet And another granted by the said King 1. June anno primo regni confirming to Paulo Metire a Charter granted by the Earl of Ross Father to Euphan wherein the said John primogenitus haeres is a Witness And to shew that the said Euphan Ross was then living when he was so design'd Heir there is a Charter to her by the King upon the very same day of the Lands of Lochleaven As also there is a Charter granted by King Robert the 2 d the first year of his Reign to Alexander his Son and another to John Kennedy of the Barony of Dalrymole in both which the said John Earl of Carrick is call'd Primogenitus and is Witness with the Earl of Dowglas so that he has been design'd eldest Son and Heir openly uncontrovertedly and in all Papers and with the consent of the second Wife and her Relations 6. In the Parliament 1372. the said John Earl of Carrick is design'd to be Lieutenant of the Kingdom and all the Estates of Parliament swear to own him in his Government and which Statute is printed amongst the Statutes of King Robert the second Father to the said John and which must be during the Marriage with Euphan Ross for she liv'd three years after her Husband was King and he succeeded to the Crown Anno 1371. And this also confutes Buchanan who asserts that he was created Earl of Carrick after the death of Euphan Ross and it is against all sense and reason to think that he could have been acknowledg'd during her life if he had not been the true apparent Heir of the Crown and a lawful Son 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 dispose 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 Joannes 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 John Earl of Carrick