in England or Scotland makes the Children either of Papist or Protestant born of Marriages not prohibited by the Law of God Illegitimate Therefore all Children born of Marriages not prohibited by the Law of God are Legitimate by the Law of the Land for though some Penal Laws have been by Pontifical pretences procured which have presumed too far to prohibit contrary to the Divine Ordinance Marriages and Meats not prohibited by the Law of God yet none but the Pope and Council of Trent who in their Luciferian Pride pretend to power above God's Law ever transgress'd so far in these Kingdoms as by such penal Laws to null or make void such Marriages or to Illegitimate their Children or though they imposed penalties on the Parents to impose any on the Children as may appear by the Statutes 3 Jac. 5. for England prohibiting Popish Recusants to Marry otherwise than by a Minister lawfully authorized in some open Church or Chappel according to the Orders of the Church of England And the Act Car. 1. Par. 2. Sess 2. Act 8. fol. 88. for Scotland prohibiting any to Marry in another Kingdom without the Banns first proclaimed in Scotland And that the Omission of Ceremonies contrary to a penal Law neither Nulls the Marriage nor Illegitimates the Issue Vid. proved before Lib. 1. p. 110 111. 7. Frustra probatur quod probatum non relevat It were time mispent to prove Ceremonies which when they are proved prove nothing to the Matters in question which are a lawful Lady Companion as intended by this Statute and an eldest Son by her of the Blood of King Charles the Second the rightful present Possessor of the Three Kingdoms and of the Blood and of his two special Predecessors King Edward the Third of England and King Fergusius of Scotland as to which Probation of the Ceremonies of a Marriage proves nothing of the Truth or Lawfulness of the Marriage for many Ladies have been Married with all the Ceremonies the Priest could lay on them yet have their Marriages been utterly unlawful and prohibited by the Law of God nor do they prove the Truth or Lawfulness of the Lineal Blood derived from the Possessors or Predecessors As for Example The Kings of Sparta were to be of no other Blood but of the race of Hercules these were Married with all the Ceremonies accustomed in that Kingdom yet did not those Ceremonies preserve the Chastity of the Queen from being so over-familiar with Alcibiades her Husband 's ingrateful Guest and whom he had hospitably entertain'd when fled from his own Country of Athens but he having got her with Child boasted when he was gone from thence that he had left Heirs of his Blood to the Kingdom of Lacedaemon So Henry of Spain Anno Dom. 1459. having Married his Queen with all the Ceremonies accustomed in that Kingdom but being unable himself perswaded her to be got with Child by Bertrand of Guttua Joan thus gotten is proclaimed Heir but refused by the people Bertrand is made Earl of Ledesma and Duke of Alburquerk Sp. Hist Canutus the Dane Married here in England Algine who was Barren she to oblige the love of her Husband feigned her self with Child and packt one that was Suppositions on her Husband King Canutus was very joyful of his supposed Son and called his Name Sweno and after gave him the Kingdom of Norway Philip the Second of Spain was Ceremoniously Married to Queen Mary for whose being with Child as was supposed a Day of Publick Thanksgiving was kept and the Bells rang with Joy through all England but as is said King Philip was Jealous of the like Issue with Canutus what had the proof of the Ceremonies of Marriage been to the purpose to prove Adulterous Children to be of the race of Hercules or Henry or such as had been Suppositions of the Danish or Spanish Races 8. It were a Dishonour to the Holy Protestant Religion and the Professors thereof to be able to Establish the Lawfulness and Validity of their Marriages on no more Sacred Principles than Ceremonies of so unclean an Original as Popes Common Prostitutes Magicians Aruspices Astrologers Southsayers Priests of Priapus and Venus Pagan Gods and Goddesses and Daemons themselves as is already proved Lib. 1. p. 43 44.51 52. Then as to Witnesses It were an unnecessary Tempting of God to cast what is not the cause of a single person but of all the Protestants in the Three Kingdoms on the hazard of such Witnesses as the Probation of Ceremonies Thirty years since and in a Foreign Catholick Country will require for it is certain the Bishops and Magistrates of that Countrey are Papists and therefore no equal Witnesses may be had thence but such as may think it is Meritorious to overthrow the Protestants right or wrong and the same Danger is of Witnesses at home obnoxious to as great Temptations of Papists here whose Religion is not to keep Faith with Hereticks as they call Protestants whereby they may as is commonly practised be corrupted with Money either in a counterfeit manner to offer their Testimonies and when they have Sworn to Recant and Reprobate themselves whereby the Truth shall be betrayed or a greater Number of false Witnesses be Suborned to Swear against the Truth then may be got to Swear for it whereby the Truth shall be destroyed or such Judges may be as will hear no Witnesses but such as are right for the turn whereby the Truth will be suppressed of which Popish practices too much hath appeared fresh before our Eyes in the Examination of the late Horrid Plot. Therefore no Prudence to give them opportunity to do the like or worse by joyning Issue with them on the Impertinent point of Ceremonies of Marriage wherein only they are able to corrupt Witnesses But it is more secure to stand on the points of Substance of Marriage according to the Law of God which are these viz. Cohabitation Conjugal Society Chastity Children and acknowledgment of them by the Father to be his of which God's Providence hath provided so many Witnesses as will be in vain for them to Suborn or Corrupt false Witnesses to the contrary Besides if Witnesses may be had yet alive after Thirty years time yet they may Die or be Poison'd or otherwise made away when known before they come to Hearing or so terrified that they will not dare to testifie the Truth why then shall all be put in danger by Ceremony when Substance Places all in Security and it were an injust thing Three Kingdoms should be hazarded on the Lives of two or three Witnesses To speak at last in reference to the Judges and Court by whom this Marriage ought to be judged which ought to be only by the King and Parliament both as to the Fact and the Law for as to both the same as alleadged being made beyond Sea in a Foreign Catholick Country not under the Jurisdiction of the King and Parliament nor where his Writ runneth The Archbishop of
ubi Rex pervenerit ipsi sibi curatores Eligere posset That the King being under the Age of Fourteen Years Election should be made of a Guardian of great Estate and Wisdom who should be his Regent in the mean while and Administer his Affairs in the King's Name till he arrived at the Age of Fourteen and when he came to that Age he himself might choose his own Guardians Which Election of a Guardian must be intended to be by Parliament for it appears by the words That the Infant or Minor King must not nor is able to choose himself till he come to the Age of Fourteen And it is contrary to Reason that any other should be his own Judge to choose himself to have to himself to his own use the Custody of the Person of the King Dangerous to Commit the Guardianship of a Minor prince to the next Major in whom all his Subjects have an Interest And it would be very Dangerous to the Infant if he who is next Successor to the Crown should get the Custody of the Heir into his hands There is no Third Power can be therefore above Exception who ought to choose the Guardian of an Infant King but the Parliament And accordingly we find it to be the constant Practice of that Kingdom as appears Buchanan Lib. 19. p. 687. when it is said Sed cum homines usu rerum Edocti Perspicerint vix fieri posse ut in tanta fortunae inconstantia non aliquando in pueros aut alioqui Regno ineundo Impares haeredes jus summi Magistratus inciderit c. But when taught by Experience men saw that it could not be but in so great inconstancy of Fortune but the Right of the Supreme Magistracy might fall amongst Children or other Heirs unfit to Govern a Kingdom they Ordained That in the mean time one should be Elected Regent who Excell'd the rest in Estate and Counsel Guardians chosen by Parliament the only Security of Kings in Minority and our Ancestors following this way for the space of Six hundred Years have transmitted thereby the Kingdom safe to Posterity So Robert Bruce being dead Thomas Randolph Earl of Murray and Donald Earl of Mar Andrew Murray John Randolph Robert Stuart succeeded singly and sometimes more number are by Parliament chosen into that place So James II. being a child Alexander Leviston being of no Kin nor of the chief Rank of Nobility but only a Knight and of more repute for Prudence then Antient Descent was elected to be his Guardian Neither can there be alledged any want of persons of the Royal Stock to have been the cause of such choice for there was at that time John Kennedy chief of his Family and King James his Nephew by his Sister there were his Uncles James Kennedy Archbishop of St. Andrews Primate of the whole Kingdom in all kind of Vertue and his Brother born of the Kings Aunt Douglass Earl of Angus was not remote from the Kings Blood Archibald Earl of Douglas in Power almost equal to the King and superiour to any of the rest yet did none of these complain of any Injustice in the Parliament for making another choice and not long after four Guardians were given to James III. not taken for the Kindred but chosen by Parliament It was but of late that John Duke of Albin was sent for by the Nobility out of France to moderate the Affairs of Scotland James I. being then a child and was confirmed by a publick Act of Parliament Neither was it done because he was next of Kin for he had an Elder Brother called Alexander But James I. being absent Robert his Uncle ruled the Kingdom And with what Right Was he taken for nearness of Blood No he was chosen by the People Nor so neither How then was he created When Robert III. was so sick in body and mind that he was not able to discharge his Office he made his Brother Robert his Vice-Roy and commended his Children to him So his Brother starved to death David his Eldest Son and sought how to destroy likewise James his Younger had he not escaped by slight But he being now placed in possession of his Tyranny and his Brother dead with grief without Parliament or assent of the People he kept it and by force left it to his Son Mordach c. Buchanan proceeds p. 688. Quid enim minus justum esse poterat quam aetatem innoxiam atque infirmam ejus fidei committere qui pupilli sibi crediti mortem semper expectat optat What can be more injust then to commit the innocent and weak Age to one who always hopes for or wishes the death of the Pupil intrusted in his hands And after he saith Laodice the Queen of the Cappadoceans is related to have killed every one of her children as in order they arrived at fourteen years of age to gain thereby a little more time to reign If a Mother will destroy her Children to get the use of a little time what shall we think will their old Enemies dare yea will they not dare to do inflamed with the Brands of Covetousness to cruelty against a Child hindering their hopes of a perpetual Kingdom If this Example seems old and obscure or far-fetch'd I will add more clear and nearer home For who is so ignorant of things so lately acted as he knows not Galeacius Sfortia though at mans Estate though married and the Son in Law of a Potent King to be killed by Lodowick his Uncle Or to whom are the Calamities unknown which ensued that cruel Parricide the most beautiful Region of Italy brought almost to a Devastation the Sfortian Family The not abolishing Episcopal Laws which pretend to Illegitimate whom they please the sense of the Murder of Edward V. and his Brother so fruitful of valiant men destroyed Barbarians let into the most pleasant Country watered by Po. Against whose Rapine nothing was safe against whose Cruelty nothing was secure Who hath been born in the soil of Great Britain and hath not heard of the cruel Murder by Richard III. King of England of the Sons of his Brother Edward IV A great cause of the murder likewise of these Princes was that Papal and Episcopal Laws were not abolished which pretend to illegitimate whom they please Answ 5 Making a Kingdom hereditary to the eldest Son weakens not the Power of Parliaments And 5. as to the Reason against these Statutes which maketh the Crown hereditary to the eldest Son that the same enervate the strength of Parliaments and without a Contract made by every Prince with a Parliament no Government can be just in regard if he receives not the Kingdom by Contract he assumes it by Conquest which over a Free Nation is unjust To which is answered First that these Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland which entail the Crown to the Eldest Son do no way weaken but confirm and establish the Power of Parliaments and
it be said of all the Kings and Queens which succeeded concerning whom any Question of Legitimation was raised as for Example John of Gaunt the fourth Son of Edward the Third because he was a great favourer of the Wicklenites who were in those days most Zealous Protestants was so hated by the Bishops to whom the Doctrine of Wickliff was then terrible that the then Bishop of Winchester John of Gaunt for favouring Protestants falsly slandred by the Bishop of Winchester to be Illegitimate Confessor to his Mother Queen Phillippa falsly slander'd him to make him Illegitimate That he was the Son of a Flemming and not of King Edward though his Mother Queen Phillippa was the most virtuous Wife of a King that was then in the World and to Illegitimate his Posterity by the Lady Katherine Swinford who was a virtuous Lady and not Prohibited by the Law of God to be Married But yet never was Married to him by the Ceremony of a Priest or Temple and by whom he had Issue John Duke of Somerset Thomas Duke of Exceter Henry Bishop of Winchester and Cardinal and Joan a Daughter which Daughter and all her Brethren were sirnamed Beaufort from Beaufort a Castle which he had in France where they were all Born and in regard thereof bare the Portcullis of a Castle for the Cognizance of the Family and these four Children though they were Legitimated by Act of Parliament in the Twentieth year of King Richard the Second and made capable of all Dignities yet by Episcopal Power there was inserted Excepta dignitate Regali which did as much as lay in an Exception so much Illegitimate them to the Crown that Coke says Part 4. fol. 37. Henry the 7th dâ—riveth â—imselâ— from Katherine Swinford 〈◊〉 Maâ—…d by a Priest in a Temple The best Title of Henry the Seventh who derived himself from John de Beaufort Duke of Somerset Son of John of Gaunt by the Lady Katherine Swinford was by Elizabeth his Wife eldest Daughter of Edward the Fourth which Episcopal Opinion of his would not have been taken for Law if he had lived in the time of H. 7. himself who notwithstanding this Episcopal Illegitimation assumed the Title of the House of Lancâ—ster as Legitimate by the Law of God Both York and Lancaster derive the Lines from Persons slander'd to be Illegitimate by Laws of Men but made Legitimate by the Law of God and descending from a Lady not Prohibited to have been Married to John of Gaunt by the Law of God In like manner the Lady Elizabeth eldest Daughter to King Edward the Fourth by the Lady Elizabeth Gray from the House of York claims was declared Illegitimate by Richard the Third because as was allâ—adged E. 4. was praecontracted to the Lady Lucy which Lady Elizabeth was her sâ—lf likewise first promised in Marriage to the Daulphin of France before she was Married to H. 7. yet was she Legitimate and her Issue Legitimate by the Law of God and succeeded United to the House of Lancaster to the Kingdom according to the same Law The same hath been before mentioned of the Lady Elizabeth More her Children by Robert the Second King of Scotland were Born before any Ceremonial Marriage of a Priest in a Temple yet were they all Legitimate by the Moral Law of God Edward the Sixth Illigitimated by Papal Laws but Legitimated by the Law of God the eldest succeeded to the Crown In like manner King Edward the Sixth was declared Illegitimate by the Pope and the pretended Ecclesiastical Laws but he was Legitimate by the Moral Law of God and succeeded to the Crown accordingly Lastly Queen Elizabeth was not only declared Illegitimate by the Pope but by the Acts of Parliament of her own Father H. 8. which is above any Declaration or Proclamation of a Privy Council Queen Elizabeth Illegitimated by Papal Laws and Act of Parliament but Legitimated by the Law of God yet no true Protestant doubts but she was Legitimate by Moral Law of God which is above all Laws and happily succeeded to the Crown according to the Law of God to the Comfort of all Protestants From which Examples and Reasons appears the truth of the Thesis before laid down 1. That the Legitimation and Succession of Kings eldest Sons born of Women not Prohibited by the Moral Law of God was never questioned by any Laws except that of Popes and Bishops 2. That Legitimate and lawful Heirs may be Born of unlawful Marriages 3. That the Moral Law of God hath always been and still is the greatest Security of Legitimation and Succession to the Crown of Great Britain and ought to be prefer'd above all Ceremonial Laws of Men. 4. Next to the Moral Law of God the greatest Humane Security of Legitimation and Succession to the Crown is either a general Act of Parliament as this is constituting and ascertaining the Heir by a General or Special Distinction or Description or when any doubt or danger ariseth by Act of Parliament Declaratory of the Particular Successor or Name That 't is High Treason by this Statute for any Subject to slander the King 's eldest Son with Illegitimacy Though Papal and Episcopal Canons have made their ordinary work to Illegitimate the most Sacred Persons of Protestant Princes who disdain to buy their Mercenary Dispensations Faculties Licences and Pardons of Popes or Bishops and particularly the most Pious King Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth And as is said Jude 8. Defile the flesh despise Dominions speak evil of Dignities yet let them know there is this Statute above all their Canons and Synods will punish their wickedness if they presume to Illegitimate any King of England or his eldest Son it seems on these Reasons 1. Because this compasseth the Death of the King himself his Father for who destroys the Kings Armies or Fleets which should defend him compasses his Death but Non legiones non classes aeque firma imperii Munimenta ac numeros Liberorum Not Legions nor Fleets equally defend a Kingdom as Children And above all Children the eldest Son All which is more authentically expressed by a great King and Souldier Psa 127.3 Lo Children are an heritage of the Lord and the fruit of the womb is his reward as arrows are in the hand of a mighty man so are the Children of the youth happy is the man who hath his quiver full of them they shall not be ashamed but they shall speak with the Enemies in the Gate And likewise as to the eldest Son the Scripture it self magnifies him as an high defence to the Father as Jacob expresseth of his Gen. 49.3 My first-born my might and the beginning of my strength the excellency of Dignity and the excellency of Power And who hath Vindicated His Majestie 's Honour and Safety in Wars abroad and against Popish Plots Assassinations Pistols Poniards and Poisons at home with such Fidelity Affection Zeal Constancy Vigillancy and Valour as his eldest Son And
THE RIGHT OF PRIMOGENITURE In Succession to the Kingdoms of ENGLAND SCOTLAND and IRELAND AS DECLARED By the Statutes of 25 E. 3. Cap. 2. De Proditionibus King of ENGLAND AND Of Kenneth the Third and Malcolm Mackenneth The Second Kings of SCOTLAND AS LIKEWISE Of 10 H. 7. made by a Parliament of Ireland With all Objections answered and clear Probation made That to Compass or Imagine the Death Exile or Disinheriting of the KING 's Eldest Son is High Treason To which is added An Answer to all Objections against Declaring him a Protestant Successor with Reasons shewing the Fatal Dangers of Neglecting the same And when the Husbandmen saw the Son they said amongst themselves This is the Heir come let us kill him and seize on his Inheritance Matth. 21.38 London Printed for the Author 1681. THE PREFACE Reader THE General Question now in Agitation amongst the People is Who is next Lawful Heir to the Crown The Protestant saith The King 's Eldest Son The Papist a Collateral Heir The free Statesman None at all The Two incident Questions to the General and Principal are not rightly stated for they are not as they ought to be made Whether here is a Lawful Marriage or a Lawful Filiation But whether there are Witnesses to prove the Papal and Episcopal Ceremonies of a Marriage and a Filiation which false state the Case and are nothing to the purpose But we cannot come to the resolution either of the Principal or Incidents false or true before the Discussion of Two other Preparatory Questions 1. By what Law Marriage Filiation and Succession ought to be judged Lawful or Unlawful 2. By what Judge the same ought to be judged As to which I have already proved at large in the First Book That the same ought to be judged by no other Law than the Moral Law of God And in the Second That the same ought to be judged by no other Judge than the King and Parliament To avoid therefore vain Repetitions I must desire to refer thee to the First and Second Books for thy full Satisfaction and in this Third shall only from the Two other Premisses make this Conclusion That the King 's Eldest Son is the next undoubted Lawful Heir both by the Law of God and of the Land wherein though I wave the false state of the Question Whether Ceremony or no Ceremony and only insist on the true Whether Lawful or Unlawful yet I desire thou wilt accept these following Reasons for my Excuse 1. In reference to the Parties contending 2. The Laws by which they are to be judged 3. The Witnesses 4. The Court by which they are to be judged As to the Parties contending 1. Because as to the Matter of Fact Whether Ceremony or no Ceremony I am altogether a Stranger and know nothing of it and if I did yet all Council are Prohibited by the Law to speak to any Matter of Fact 2. This hinders not any others from using what Probation they shall please of Ceremonies but all Advantages of the same are hereby to them saved by Protestation 3. This seeks not to hinder any from using what Ceremonies in their Marriages they please which suit best with their Consciences and Conveniences only that which is here affirmed is the Lawfulness and Validity of the Marriages of such with whose Consciences or Conveniences such Ceremonies suit not if they are made without them 4. No Liberty of Conscience no not so much as of Opinion is hereby precluded any man touching the Point in Question nor is he hinder'd from opposing any thing here deliver'd but if he differ is invited to do it so it be in Print with Name subscribed whereby the same Liberty may be given to Reply 5. Because I write to Protestants and only desire to give Satisfaction to Conscience concerning Lawful and Unlawful before God and not to Superstition concerning Ceremony and no Ceremony before the Bishop 6. It were more for the Safety and Interest of the Protestant Religion that a Protestant Prince either waved his Legitimacy by the Papal and Episcopal Ceremonies and Law or were totally Illegitimated by the same as King Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth were and as they did Claim his Legitimation and Title from the most Righteous Sacred and Immutable Moral Law of God and the Law of the Land and not from Pontifical Laws To speak next in reference to the Laws by which Marriage and Filiation ought to be judged which are the Laws of God and of the Land agreeing with the same I wave insisting on Ceremonies 1. Because those Laws Civil or Canon of Emperors Popes Bishops Synods or Councils of Trent or other Councils which Impose Ceremonies on Marriage are neither the Laws of God nor of the Land but Usurpations as I have already proved at large Lib. 1. p. 43. Et Lib. 1. p. 31. Et Lib. 2. p. 182 183. 2. To set any value on the Ceremonies of those Laws were to give the Supremacy of the King and Parliament and the Laws enacted by them concerning Marriage Filiation and Succession to Popes and Bishops and their Canons and thereby to give them power to Depose Kings and give or sell the Successions of Kingdoms to whom they please 3. It is cleerly and unanswerably proved in the following Discourse That the Marriage now under consideration was a Lawful Holy and Indissoluble Marriage by the Moral Law of God as declared both in Nature and Scripture To bring a Ceremonial Law therefore where the Moral is so clear were to bring a Candle to give light to the Sun Then next as to the Laws of the Land The Marriage Filiation and Succession are as clear by them as by the Law of God As 1. by this present Statute 2. E. 3. cap. 2. of Treasons as is proved at large and all Objections answered in the following Discourse 2. By the Jus Coronae which is the Common Law of the Land whereby the Law of Succession to the Crown differs from that of Succession to Subjects proved likewise as before 3. By the Law of Necessity which is not only the Law of this but of all Lands and not only of Lands but Seas The time of this Marriage being alleadged to be in a time of War when the Ceremonies of the Common Prayer-Book and it self were abolish'd and prohibited by the Predominant Power of the Sword and the place beyond Sea and in Exile 4. By Presumptions which as to Marriage Filiation and Legitimation are the Law of the Land Praesumptiones Juris de Jure for to speak truly the same are impossible to be proved by Witnesses or any other way than by Presumption as is implyed by the Common Rule Filiatio non potest probari and likewise more fully shewn Lib. 1. p. 104 105. Now the Ground and usual Presumptions of Marriage and Legitimation by the Laws of the Land and of the very Canon and Civil Laws themselves Are 1. Fame and Reputation of Marriage 2.
Page 118. CAP. II. WHether necessary in the present juncture of Affairs for the King and Parliament to declare a Protestant Successor to the Three Kingdoms Page 121. Objections against it Answer'd Obj. 1. Declaring a Protestant Successor by the King and Parliament makes a Kingdom Elective and not Hereditary ibid. Obj. 2. Acts of Precedent Parliaments cannot bind Subsequent from repeal Page 122. Obj. 3. Acts of Parliament cannot bind the Power of the Sword from cutting off those Acts by Conquest Page 123. Obj. 4. Declaring a Successor by Act of Parliament incites him to be disobedient and rebellious ibid. Obj. 5. The Ottoman Emperors never declare a Successor Page 124. Obj. 6. Queen Elizabeth refused to Declare a Successor Page 127. Reasons for declaring a Protestant Successor by the King and Parliament with the Great Dangers insue the neglect Page 132. 1. Danger to the Conscience of the Prince ibid. 2. Danger by the incertainty of the Laws of Succession of the Crown Page 133. 3. Danger of the Arbitrary disposing of the Crown by Rome or Canterbury Page 134. 4. Danger of the Predominancy of Papal and Episcopal Laws of Marriage Filiation and Succession above the Moral Law of God and the Laws of the Land ibid. 5. Danger to the King's Person his Lineal Heirs and House Page 135. 6. Danger of Lineal and Collateral Heirs to destroy one another ibid. 7. Danger if the King 's Eldest Son should happen to die before his Father leaving his Heir and younger Children in Minority ibid. 8. Danger of a Successor without Assent of the People Page 137. 9. Danger of a Papist Successor Page 138. A Papist Successor more dangerous to Papists themselves than a Protestant Successor ibid. A Papist Successor or Male utterly Destructive to Protestants and a Female doubly Destructive Page 160. 10. Danger in regard of Foreign Princes Page 182. 11. Danger of exposing Succession to Counterfeit Wills and Testaments Page 190. 12. Danger of incouraging Vsurpers Page 191. 13. Danger in doubtful Titles of Interregnums Page 192. 14. Danger of Cantonizing the Kingdoms ibid. 15. Danger of Exposing the Succession of the Kingdoms to Sale Page 193. 16. Danger of Exposing the Succession of the Kingdoms to Conquest Page 197. LIB III. CHAP. I. The words of the Statute 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus as in the Original French AUxint pur ceo que divers Opinions ont estre eins ceax heurs quel Case doit estre dit Treason et en quel nemy le Roy a le request des Seigniors et Commons ad fait declarisment que ensuist cestassavoire quant home fait compasser ou imaginer la Mort nostre Seignior le Roy Madame sa compaigne ou de lour fits Eigne et Heir The words as Translated by Pulton and Coke into English WHereas divers Opinions have been before this time in what case Treason shall be said and in what not the King at the request of the Lords and Commons hath made a Declaration in the manner as hereafter followeth That is to say When a man doth Compass or Imagine the Death of our Lord the King of our Lady his Queen or of their Eldest Son and Heir The Statutes of Kenneth the Third and Malcolm Mackenneth the Second as related by Buchanan Lib. 6. Rer. Scot. p. 191 196. Adjectae sunt Aliae leges ut quemadmodum Regi maximus natu filius in regnum Succederit ita filio ante Patrem defuncto nepos avo subrogaretur Englished There were other Lawes also added That as the Eldest Son of the King should succeed to him in his Kingdom So if such Son dyed before the Father the Nephew should succeed in his stead to his Grandfather Another Law of Scotland mention'd by Skene Reg. Majest Lib. 2. cap. 33. De Nepote ex Primogenito filio Nepos ex filio Primogenito mortuo jure representationis succedit Avo suo filium postnatum Avi id est Avunculum suum excludit Englished The Eldest Son being dead before the Father the Nephew by the Eldest Son shall in right of Representation Succeed to his Grandfather and exclude any Younger Son of his Grandfather that is to say his Uncle This Law of Scotland was taken out of Glanvil Lib. 7. c. 3. which shews it is the unquestionable Law of England as well as of Scotland and likewise out of the Civil Law L. 3. C. de suis legit Haered l. Posthumorum 13. H. de Injust Testamento c. 33. ex l. 1. § 6. H. de Haered Skene saith further That of this Question between the Son of the Eldest Son and the Uncle Franciscus Vinius Treats at large Lib. 3. Decisionum Decis 501. and he allcadgeth Alciat Cons 101. Bartol in l. post fratres C. 1. de legit haered Bald. Salyc Doctores in l. si viva Mater C. de Bon. Pater The Statute made 10 H. 7. in a Parliament of Ireland called Poyning's Law The words of which are these It is Enacted That all Statutes late made within the Realm of England concerning or belonging to the Common or Publick Weal of the same from henceforth be deemed Good and Effectual in the Law and ever that be accepted used and executed within this Land of Ireland in all Points and at all times requisite according to the Tenor and Effect of the same Coke saith 4 Part 351. That Hil. 10. Jac. Regis it was resolved by the Two Chief Justices and Chief Baron that this word late in the beginning of this Act had the sense of before so that this Act extended to Magna Charta and to all Acts of Parliament made in England before this Act of 10 H. 7. And by the same Reason extends to the Statute of 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus on which this Discourse is founded from whence will be after proved these Conclusions Conclusion 1. This being granted That if the Eldest Son had happen'd to Die in the Life of his Father the Eldest Son of the Prince who died should have Succeeded Jure Representationis of his own Father as Heir Lineal to his Grandfather and excluded the Grandfather's Younger Son who is his Uncle à fortiori must it be granted that if both Grandfather and Father die the Eldest Son who is the Grandchild Surviving he ought to exclude his Uncle for he now comes in Jure proprio which is a greater Right than Jure representationis and if the less Right exclude the Uncle much more must the greater Conclusion 2. When the Right of the Crown shall actual descend from the King in Possession on the Eldest Son in Possession who is the next Lineal Heir of his Blood then is the Son Actually King both De Facto and De Jure as was his Father who died in Possession of the Kingdoms And therefore all the forementioned Acts of Parliament and Common Laws of England Scotland and Ireland and the Imperial Laws with them unanimously declare It will be
not only then High Treason to Compass the Death Exile or Disinheriting of the King 's Eldest Son but whatsoever else is High Treason against a King will be the same against him Objections chiefly by Buchanan against these Statutes and the Policy of them making Kingdoms Hereditary to the Eldest Sons Answered Object Who is best able to defend a Kingdom should have it Object 1. Salus Populi is above all Statutes and the Power of Kings and Parliaments themselves and above all Acts of Parliament Statutes therefore which Repeal the Ancient Fundamental Laws which were in Great Britain of Election by Parliament and in Ireland by the Custom of Tanistry of Succession of the Brother before the Son such Statutes ought themselves to be repealed and not to repeal those which are better and it being most necessary pro salute Populi that he who is best able to defend a Kingdom against Enemies Foreign and Native and hath learnt the same by Age and Experience should succeed which the Brother being more able and fit to do than the Son ought according to those Ancient and Necessary Customes to succeed before the Son which Custome as to Scotland is recited by Buchaman Mos majorum qui è propinquis Regum defunctorum non proximos sed maximè idoneos eligerent modo à Fergusio primo Scotorum Rege essent oriundi The Custom of Scotland was That the Parliament chose out of the Kindred of the King deceased not the next but the fittest so as they were such as were descendents from Fergusius the first King of the Scots and on this Custome Kenneth the Third who was the Brother of King Duffus was by Election of the Parliamem of Scotland preferred before Milcolumbus the Son of Duffus though a Youth of great hopes which Kenneth began his Reign Anno Dom. 970 and proved a most Valiant and Wife Prince and repell'd a Mighty Invasion of the Danes whom he overthrew in a Battel with a great Slaughter of them but the same Kenneth afterwards inflamed with Ambition Covetousness and Cruelty secretly poysoned Milcolumbus the then Prince of Scotland being the said Son of his Brother Duffus deccased and with great dissimulation counterseiting even Tears and great Grief for him Convened a Parliament at Scone whom partly by Terror and partly by Deceit he got to Abrogate the Law of Succession of Brothers before Sons which had made him King and been the Sanctuary of Publique Safety and Enacted a Law of Succession for his own private and not the Publique Interest clean contrary viz. That the Kingdom should be from that time Hereditary in this manner That his own Eldest Son should be Prince of Scotland That when any King dyed his Eldest Son should next succeed to the Crown and if the Eldest dyed living his Father the Nephew should succeed instead of his Son who dyed And other Constitutions as appears Buchanan rer Scotl. 190 191. Who saith further Kenneth making the Kingdome of Scotland Hereditary tormented in Conscience Ita Rex per scelus posteris uti putabat regno stabilito animum tamen suum confirmare non pot uit c. The King saith he having by so great a Wickedness established his Kingdom as he thought to his Posterity he could not Establish his Mind for although he courted all sorts of Men with the highest shew of Love and Courtesie and so managed the Affairs of the Kingdom that there was nothing wanting which shewed him not a good King Yet his Mind perpetually disquieted with the conscience of his wicked fact suffered him not to have any solid or sincere joy but the thoughts of his foul Crime rushing into his memory vexed him by Day and by Night most horrible Dreams disturbed his rest at length whether truly as some affirm or whether his troubled thoughts made him so fancy what oftentimes happens to Guilty persons a voice came from Heaven by which he seemed in his sleep to be warned Doest thou think the Murder of Milcolumbus an Innocent Person committed by thee most wickedly in Secret is hid from me or that I will any longer suffer it to pass without punishment For already there are Plots laid by Treason which thou shalt not escape to take away thy Life neither shalt thou as thou thinkest leave thy Kingdom Stable or Secure but full of Tumults and Tempests to thy Posterity With which fearful Dream the King being terrified Early in the Morning he flyes to the Bishops and Monks and declares to them the Confusion of his Mind and Anguish of his Conscience for his Crime but they gave him no true Remedy from the Doctrine of Christ for they had already degenerated from the Piety and Learning of the Ancient Professors But advised those many absurdities Long since invented by wicked Persons for their own gains and rashly believed of the Unlearned and Overcredulous That he should inrich with Gifts the Holy Places and Temples and should visit the Sepulchres of the Saints kiss their Reliques redeem his Sins by Masses and Alms and should have a greater Honour and Reverence for the Monks and Priests than he had formerly us'd to have Neither did he omit any of these Explations which he believed would help him But he was notwithstanding after by appointment of Fenella a Lady formerly Injured by him and an Ambuscada of Horse laid for him taken and killed as Buchanan p. 192. after the death of Kenneth and this Intayl of the Crown to his Issue by the Murder of his Brother's Son It appears Buchan rer Scotl. lib. 6. p. 192 193. That Constantinus the Son of Caten called Calvus Constantine Calvus procures the Law of Kenneth to be repealed began to dispute much against the Injustice of this Law to which they were circumvented by fear to assent and thus he begins Quid enim Stultius quam rem unam omnium maximam à prudentium censura Suffragiis ad Arbitrium fortunae revocare c. What saith he is more foolish than to take away a matter of the greatest concern from the Votes of Wise Men in Parliament and to cast it on the Wheel of Fortune and that these should bind themselves to be ruled by a Child who hath the chance to be born and who is ruled by some petty Woman and drive away most Valiant Men from assistance in the Government What if the Children of Kings should have any infirmity of Body or Mind whereby they are utterly disabled to perform necessary Acts of Empire what if Children should have possessed the Kingdom in such time when we fought with the Romans Britons Picts English and Danes not for the Kingdom but for Life or what can be said more Mad than what God threatens to the Contumacious that Children should reign over them as the highest Calamity we should enact as a Law on our selves and the greatest Threats of the Divine Prophets we should either contemn or run headlong into it of our own accord Neither is there any
the King 's eldest Son or against the Jus Coronae and this Act of Parliament of 25 E. 3. Cap. 2. De Productionibus as not to understand the same Slanders Militate against the Marriages and Legitimations of themselves their own Mothers Wives and Children or not to know what pretence or Power they put into the hands of Popes and Bishops to disinherit and dispose of the Successors and Succession of the Crown they give them a greater Power to disinherit and dispose at will of their own Inheritances Wives and Children and by forsaking the Moral Law of God of Marriages and Legitimations and Idozing the Ceremonial Laws Papal or Episcopal drive themselves into this inevitable Dilemma either to fall into the hands of a Papist Successor who will assuredly destroy all Married Priests and Ecclesiasticks their Wives and Children and Successors and make a prey of all they have or to fall into hands of Justice as the fruits of Folly and Treason in slandering the right of a Protestant Successor Of the Insolent Absurdity of Popish Laws disinheriting the Lawful Sons of Kings by the Law of God and Inheriting the Bastards of Popes by the Law of the Devil The Scripture saith Galat. 4.7 If a Son then an Heir that is to say to the Father who begot him and not to a Fictitious Father But the Popish Law or what is above it the Practique saith Let none be an Heir of a Marriage not Contracted by a Priest in a Temple except a Bastard of a Pope in which the Law of New Rome follows that of old Pagan Rome which prohibited some kind of Women to the Subjects but gave Authority to Caesar to lye with what Women he would And the like to the Romish false Prophet is imitated by the false Prophet Mahomet who in his Alchoran prohibited divers Women to the people but counterfeits God speaking to himself and saying But as for thee O Prophet thou may'st Lye with what Women thou wilt But in this the Pope goes beyond Mahomet for the one Illegitimates no Children nor disinherits them but the other all of Women not Churched except his own So Pope Paul the Fifth is related to have gotten out of his Leaden Bulls in a small time Twenty hundred Thousand Scutes of Gold with all which he bought Lands for his Bastards and Pope Sextus the Fifth being himself the Son of a Swineheard created his Bastard a Cardinal and gave him Ten Thousand Crowns per Annum Revenue and besides Left at his Death Ten Millions of Treasure Another Pope gave his Bastard the Kingdom of Sicily and divers Principalities of Italy and a vast heap of Treasure Pope Alexander the Sixth intended likewise to have given his Bastard Son Caesar Borgia a Kingdom whom though the veriest Villain in the World Matchiavel in his Treatise De Principe proposeth as the only Example for Kings to imitate And by Probability a Kingdom he had obtained had he not and his Father by the just Judgment of God been Poisoned by the same invenomed Wine at a Banquet which they had prepared for others All Italy is already over-stocked and the Principallities thereof and of other Catholick Countries in time likely to be the Inheritances of none but of the Bastards of Popes and their Descendents Male or Female under the Name of Nephews and Neices and by the Matches of Papal Descendents into Protestant Dominions the like Evil may be justly feared if not prevented and what is worse a perpetuating thereby of their Superstition from Generation to Generation The Scripture likewise saith Heb. 13.4 Marriage is honourable in all and the bed undefiled but Whoremongers and Adulterers God shall Judge But the Popish Law saith no Marriages are Honourable made by the Law of God unless made by the Papal Laws nor the Children nor Chastity nor the Bed undefiled nor the Sons though of Kings descending from the same according to the Foundation of all Honour the Immaculate Law of God But the Bastards of Popes such is the Impudence of the Whore of Babylon to Prohibit Honour to all except her self and her Brats And as to these Pope Eugenius the Second Usurped the Authority when he pleased to create them Kings Dukes Earls and Knights and hath plagued and incumbred the World with fictitious Titles of Honour but he vouchsafes the lawful Sons of Kings no better Title than Base Sons except they receive from him the mark of the Beast This is not strange that Swineheard Popes and their Trulls should not only not disinherit nor degrade their own Blood but extol the same above the Imperial But 't is strange that any Christian Emperors and Princes should have ever been so Pope or Priest-Ridden or so far have suffer'd them to have set their foot on their Necks as to Kick from their Heads the Crowns and Honours of them and their Sons for the Bastards of Popes to inherit and to disinherit their own for which not only his Holiness himself derides them but they become a Derision to Jews Turks and all the World besides none of them being so foolish to admit the Doctrine of Devils of Prohibiting Marriages not Prohibited by God amongst them or Illegitimating the Children of such Marriages Lastly It is already proved That Carnal Knowledge Chastity and Childbirth makes a Marriage Lawful Holy and Indissoluble by the Law of God between all persons not prohibited And it is notorious That Popes have kept openly their Whores and their Bastards and Rule what they call their Holy Church by them So did Theodora the Impudent Concubine of the Duke of Tuscany rule all Rome and gave her Daughter Marozia as wicked a Queen as her Mother to be Concubine to Pope Sergius the Third of whom he begot him who was afterwards his Bastard Pope John the Twelfth the Mother Marozia poisoned Pope Leo 6. and Pope Stephen 7. And got her Bastard Boy to be Pope John the Twelfth Pope John the Thirteenth was deposed in Council Anno 961 for abusing his Father's Concubines for Gelding some Men and putting out the Eyes of others for Drinking a health to the Devil c. Pope Clement the Fifth was a Common Fornicator and it is Notorious That all Popes are Panders-General of all the Stews and Houses of Fornication in Rome and fill their Treasuries with the hires of Whores And are these fit Fellows to make Marriages Holy or to make Laws to overthrow God's Holy Ordinance and dispose thereby of the Succession of Protestant Kingdoms LIB III. CHAP. II. Whether Necessary in the present Juncture of Affairs for the King and Parliament to declare a Protestant Successor to the Three Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland TO prepare which Question for the Consideration of Supream Authority it will be necessary first to recite the Objections which are made for the Negative And then the Reasons which are brought for the Affirmative Object 1. Declaring a Successor by the King and Parliament makes the Kingdom Elective and not Hereditary
making the Crown Hereditary to the Eldest Son answered ibid. Objections against the being of the King 's Eldest Son within the Statute of 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus Page 20. Obj. 1. That the Lady Mother was not a Queen ibid. Answ 1. The Statute is false Translated by the Lawyers and the Scripture false Translated by the Bishops in the word Queen ibid. Answ 2. Proved that the Lady Mother was Madam sa Compaign according to the Moral Law of God which is all and more than is required to be proved by the Statute ibid. Obj. 2. No Marriage according to the Mass-Book in the time of E. 3. nor by the Modern Common Prayer-Book or Book of Canons Page 23. Answ 1. No Marriage by any Book required by the Statute but only a Lady Companion according to the Moral Law of God Page 24. Answ 2. Marriage by the Common Prayer-Book not Necessary in a time of War when both Books of Common Prayer and of Canons were Prohibited and Abolished by the Power of the Sword ibid. Answ 3. The Legitimation of Children by the Law of God and of the Land ought not to be question'd after the Death of either Parent where not Judicially question'd and sentenced in their life-time Vid. Praeface Page 25. Answ 4. Not Necessary for a King who is Supreme Ordinary to Marry by the Common Prayer Book or Book of Canons Page 26. Answ 5. A King who is Supreme Ordinary may dispence with his own Canons and with any thing that is only Malum Prohibitum in his own Marriage but not with what is Malum in se by the Moral Law of God Page 28. Obj. 3. The Lady Mother was not HIS Companion which is the Article of Propriety required by the Statute Page 32. Answ She was HIS and he had the sole Propriety according to the Law of God and the Land Page 33. Obj. 4. There was no Marriage according to the Law of God Page 34. Answ 1. Certain Preparatory Considerations are laid down before the contrary is proved to this Negative By what Law and what Judges shall be judged what is the Law of God by which is after proved here was a Marriage according to the Law of God ib. Answ 2. Of the damnable Effects have followed by the Popish Prohibitions and Nulling of all Marriage not made by a Priest in a Temple Page 35. What is not Marriage by the Moral Law of God Page 39. What is not Matrimony by the Moral Law of God ibid. Answ 3. The Statute requires neither a King De Jure nor a Lady Companion De Jure nor a Son De Jure but only De Facto yet are they all here both De Jure and De Facto Page 40. Dangerous to leave the Succession of a Kingdom on so incertain a word as Lawful yet here both the King the Lady Companion and the Son are all Lawful ibid. Answ 4. A Lawful Successor may be of an unlawful Marriage Page 41. Obj. 5. The Lady Mother was not a Wife according to the Scripture Page 42. Answ 1. The Objection is false and it is after proved she was a Wife according to the Scripture ibid. Answ 2. The Statute requires no Wife according to Scripture but only a lawful Companion yet was she both a Wife and a lawful Wife according to Scripture as will hereafter be proved Page 43. Answ 3. The Bishops have falsly Translated the Scripture in all words relating to Marriage ibid. Of certain Differences between a Wife of the Bishop's making and a Wife of God's making Page 46. Obj. 6. There is no Bishop's Certificate to testifie the Marriage and Filiation Page 48. Answ The Statute requires no Certificate of either ibid. The Forms of Bishops Certificates Page 49. Their Original came from the Priests of Priapus Page 50. Of the Damnable Mischiefs insue from Tryal of Marriage and Filiation by Bishops Certificates ibid. The Certificates of Bishops inconsistent with the Right of Primogeniture Page 58. Of the General Custom of Nations of Successions to Kingdoms by Primogeniture and of the Mischiefs and Civil Wars commonly follow the disinheriting of the Eldest Son Page 62. What is Marriage and what Matrimony de Facto Page 66. What is Marriage De Jure according to the Law of God and of the Nations Page 67. Of the three Lawful Marriages amongst the Romans 1 Usu 2 Confarreatione 3 Coemptione Page 68. Of the three Lawful Marriages amongst the Hebrews 1 Copulatione 2 Coemptione 3 Instrumentis ibid. That Carnal knowledge Chastity and Childbirth between a Man and a Woman not prohibited by the Moral Law to Marry makes a Marriage Lawful Holy and Indissoluble without Banns Licence Priest Temple or any other Ceremony whatsoever Page 71. That the Marriage Coemptione Confarreatione or Instrumentis was not intended by Christ but only the Marriage Copulatione Page 86. An Epithalamium on the Marriage of Nature intended by Christ without a Priest or Temple Page 88. Obj. 7. The King 's Eldest Son is not the Heir intended by the Statute Page 90. Answ Proved he is the Heir both in the Letter and Intention of the Statute ibid. That to compass the Exile or Disinheriting of the King 's Eldest Son is High Treason Page 94. Obj. 8. By the Custom of Nations the Succession goes not to the Eldest Son born when the Father is only a Prince but to a younger Son born when he is a King ibid. Answ This Statute was made to prevent incertainty of this and other Customs and prevent all Cavils and Contentions about Succession by ascertaining the same to the Eldest Son Page 95. Obj. 9. The King 's Eldest Son is not yet declared Prince of Wales or of the Scots ibid. Answ The Statute requires no such thing Page 97. Obj. 10. Illegitimacy deprives of the benefit of the Statute ibid. Answ This Statute declares every Eldest Son of a King Legitimate and Heir to the Crown ibid. The Eldest Son of a King of Great Britain is Legitimate by his Birth-right per Jus Coronae ibid. Examples of the same Jus Coronae in other Nations Page 100. Examples of the same Jus Coronae in the Eldest Sons and Daughters of the Kings of England and Scotland who have thereby succeeded as Heirs to their Fathers Kingdoms on Marriages according to the Moral Law of God without the Ceremonies of a Priest or a Temple Page 102 103. That 't is High Treason for any Subject to slander the King 's Eldest Son with Illegitimacy Page 111. A Comparison of the Popish slanders of Illegitimacy against Queen Elizabeth and the King 's Eldest Son Page 112. A Comparison of the Popish slanders of Illegitimacy against King Edward the Sixth Queen Elizabeth the King 's Eldest Son and the Sons and Daughters of the whole Protestant Clergy Page 114. Of the insolent absurdity of Popish Laws Disinheriting the Lawful Sons of Kings according to the Law of God and inheriting the Bastards of Popes by the Law of the Devil
truth in what the Flatterers of Kenneth boast that by this means the Govetousness and Slaughters of Kindred are avoided Neither are the Treacheries of Guardians less to be feared to the Children of Kings left in Minority than of their Kindred wherefore now the Tyrant being fallen who Ravished our Liberty let us valiantly resume the same and his Law Enacted by force and assented to by fear if it be a Law and not rather a selling us for Slaves let us abrogate and repeal the same and Restore again our Ancient Fundamental Laws which brought forth this Kingdom of nothing and from so small beginnings not only advanced to such an height as is inferiour to none of our Neighbours but when cast down hath again raised the same to its former Strength and let us imbrace the present opportunity while it offers it self which if once Elapsed we may in vain seek again The People are by this perswaded and the Twelfth day after the Funeral of Kenneth he is chosen King Anno Domini 994. And was after Slain in Battel in the Town of Vaumond in Louthian in the Second Year of his Reign And though Milcolumbus or Malcolm the second Son of Kenneth the Third who was so tormented in Conscience for Poysoning the first Son of his Brother Duffus to get an Act to Intayl the Grown to his own Posterity made no Conscience to kill Grinius another Son of the same Duffus in Battel Malcolm Son of Kenneth revives and confirms the Law making the Kingdom hereditary and having by the Success gotten the Power of the Sword into his hand in the Same manner as his Father Kenneth had by force Enacted again by force confirmed at the Same Scone by Parliament the Act of Intayl of the Crown to the Issue of Kenneth Buchanan 196. Yet doth Buchanan the same Historian p. 200 201 censure this Act of changing the Ancient Law of Election by Parliament of the Brother or any other person more fit than the Son to be Injust Imprudent and Infortunate Objections against the Reviver 1. Injust 1. Injustice Because he saith Italex enervat vires consilij publici sine quo nullus Legitimus dominatus potest consistere Such a Law enervates the Strength of Parliaments without which no Lawful Government can be for all Government is either by Conquest or Contract As to Conquest there is none demanded or acknowledged on Such a Title As to Contract there can be none without a Parliament who are the Representative of the People to contract for them 2. Imprudent â— Imprudence Because Propinquorum in eos qui Regno potiuntur insidias et Regnantium adversus eos quos et natura et lex voluit â—â—ique esse Charissimos suspitiones nesarias quas narrationis or do Exphrabit tot priorum Seciâ—â—orum clades cum illis collatae calamitatibus quae Alexandri tertij interitum sunt consecutae Leves prae ijs tolerabiles videri possunt The Treacheries of Kindred against those who enjoy the Kingdom and the wicked Suspitions of those who Reign against them who by the Bonds of Nature and Law they ought to esteem most dear as this discourse in order shall declare And the Slaughters of so many former Ages compared with the Calamities which hereby followed the death of Alexander the Third were light and tolerable Note Alexander the Third began his Reign Anno Domini 1649. he Married first Margaret Daughter to Henry the Third King of England by whom he had Alexander the Prince David and Margaret who married Hangonamus or as some call him Ericus Son to Magnus 4th King of Norway who bare him a Daughter commonly called the Maiden of Norway The Maiden of Norway had United England and Scotland if she had lived Skene And concerning this Lady of Norway saith Buchanan Lib. 8. p. 241. Edvardus Anglorum Rex gnarus suae sororis neptem Regis Norvegiae filiam unam Ex Alexandri posteris esse superstitem Eandemque Regni Scotorum Legitimam Heredem Legatos ad eam deposcendam filio suo in Scotiam misit c. Edward the First King of England knowing his Neice the Daughter of the King of Norway to be the only Remaining Issue of Alexander the Third and Lawful Heir to the Crown of Scotland he sent his Ambassadours into Scotland to ask her in Marriage for his Son They when they Argued much in the Publique Gonvention of the Publique Benefit which would ensue such Marriage they found the Minds of the Scots not Dis-inclined from that affinity for Edward was a man of great Courage and of great Power and Ambition of greater And the glory of his Valour in the Holy Warr while his Father was alive and in Subduing Wales after his death shone bright Neither could they ever Remember the Scotish and English name to have been nearer Conjoyned than under the Last Kings Neither could old Hostility be more Commodiously abolished then if there were an Union made of both Nations upon Honest and Equal Conditions The Marriage was therefore Readily Assented unto and Conditions added by Mutual assent of both That the Scots should so long use their own Laws and Magistrates till such Children should be born of the same as were able to Reign And if none should happen to be procreated or being born should dye before their Lawful age Then the Kingdom of Scotland should go to the next of the Blood-Royal Things being thus Agreed Michael or as others mention Daevid Wemes and Michael Scot two Knights of Fife of great Repute for their Prudence with their Country in those Times were sent Embassadors to Norway but they because Margaret for that was the Young Ladies Name dyed before their Arrival returned home sad and nothing done by whose immature death there arose such Controversie as vehemently shook England and almost destroyed the Name of the Scots For to go on with the History as he and other Writers Relate it not withstanding this new Act of Intayling the Crown Ten Competitors arose to the Crown of Scotland notwithstanding the Act of Reviver making the same hereditary there arose Ten Competitors for the Succession Erick King of Norway Florence Earl of Holland Robert Bruce Earl of Anandale John de Baliol Lord of Galloway John de Hastings Lord of Abergaveny John Cumyn Lord of Badenair Patrick de Dunbar Earl of March John de Vesey Nicholas de Hues William de Ross All or the most part of them alledging themselves descended from David Earl of Huntingdon Younger Brother to William King of Scots and Great Uncle to the late King Alexander But the Principal and most Potent Factions which contended were that of Balyol and Bruce On which saith Sir Richard Baker Hist 96. broke out the Mortal Dissention between the Two Nations which consumed more Christian Blood and continued longer And the Wars between the Factions of Baliol and Bruce then any Quarrel we read of ever did between any Two People in the
what not and what lyable to the Lawes of Nature Fate and Providence whereas the Laws of Fate and Nature may be Exercised both over these and over Subjects Ignorant Insensible Irrational Foolish Mad-men and deprived of all Intellect alike Secondly in regard of their ability as the Law Moral can be only Exercised on persons able to perform it but the Laws of Nature Fate and Providence over Babes new born Blind Deaf Dumb Maimed and the Dead themselves Thirdly in regard of Liberty as the Law Moral can only be Exercised over free Agents but the Lawes of Nature Fate and Providence may be Exercised over necessary Agents forced Agents Bond-men Slaves Captives Prisoners and persons in Chains and Fetters Though therefore all humane Actions are under one of these four Laws a Man is a necessary Agent as to the Law of Nature and a forced Agent to the Law of Fate and Providence and a free Agent as to the Moral Law yet seeing he may be in many things Ignorant when he is Ruled by Nature when by Fate when by Providence Not revealed to Man by which of these four Laws he doth Act in any particular Action and when by the Moral Law and consequently it may be secret and not revealed unto him when he is a necessary agent when a forced agent and when a free agent or in the more Common word when his Will is free and when Bond In this Ignorance therefore of all the other Three Secret Laws he ought to act according to the Moral Law which God hath revealed and promulgated alwaies and according to the other Three when God hath in particular Acts of his own manifested his Will in them as it is an Act of God that an Eldest Son is born who is an Infant or Minor And a Brother born who is a Major and this Act of God is good and of great Mercy but that on this Act of God Murder should be Committed or Civil Wars be unjustly Raised is Evil and an Act of Man and God is not the Author of this Sin and though no humane Law could have caused or prevented this of the Infancy of a Son or Majority of a Brother yet may and ought human Laws prevent or punish the wicked acts of men which may ensue thereon in attempts to Murder either and seeing God by his Moral Law hath Commanded Powers to be a Terror to Evil Doers it is their Duty therefore And if they neglect it the bear the Sword in vain to make Laws to prevent and punish them and not to leave Infants and Subjects Exposed in such a Wilderness of Dangers as this is of Succession because its possible Fate may destroy them notwithstanding the greatest human care and Providence may without any such care taken at all preserve them Which Stoical and Epicuraean Follies of fata regunt homines fatis agimur Cedite fatis or Res humanas ordine nullo fortuna regit or vita regitur Fortuna non Sapientia to Extend beyond their Bounds prescribed by God or to all humane Actions because ordained and permitted in some were like the Ridiculous Pagan Divinity derived from none but such Authors Not to sow because Fate may destroy the Harvest with it and Providence may give an Harvest without it Not to wear Arms in War because Fate may destroy with them and Providence may preserve without them Not to do good Works because if Predestinated to be Damn'd thou shalt be Damn'd with them And if Predestinated to be Saved thou shalt be saved without them I should not have thought this of Fate worth the objecting or answering had I not found the same Actually press'd in the most Excellent Historian and Statist that ever writ in the Isle of Great Britain for such was Buchanan out of whom I have recited it Answ 4 To the Objection of the Civil Wars between Baliol and Bruce and York and Lancaster notwithstanding the Succession of the Crown ascertained to the Kings Eldest Son Answ 4. As to the Calamities of Civil Wars which followed between Baliol and Bruce in Scotland and the Houses of York and Lancaster in England notwithstanding the Laws in both Kingdoms making the Crown Hereditary to the Eldest Son And that such Lawes did not prevent the same I Answer first As to Scotland the effect of the Law of Primogeniture could not be expected where there was no Eldest Son surviving nor on the Death of Margaret of Norway so much as an Heir Lineal Male or Female left but if there had been an Eldest Son left there is no appearance of any thing against it but the Crown of Scotland had never Returned to the Line of the Earl of Huntingdon but remained in the Line of King Alexander the Third who was the last Possessor which would have prevented all those Ten Competitors to claym from Huntingdon and consequently the Wars between Baliol and Bruce Then as to the Civil Wars in England if Richard the Second had left a Son there appears no probability that ever there had been a Civil War between York and Lancaster Besides if when there is an Eldest Son left as was by Edward the Fourth and an younger Son with him and notwithstanding there followed a new Civil War between York and Lancaster in the Persons of Richard the Third and Henry the Seventh first though this Law of Primogeniture in Succession did not prevent it And though the Law make it High Treason to Compass the death of the Eldest Son yet could it not prevent the Murder of both the Sons To which I answer That it is not to be Imputed as a fault to the Statute or Law that some wicked persons dare break it but is notwithstanding of greater use as the Statutes which make it High Treason to Counterfeit the Kings Seal or to Clip Money and Felony to Rob on the High-Way Though many have notwithstanding Counterfeited the Seal Clipt Money and Rob'd on the High-way yet are not these Statutes Useless but a great Security to the People for though there are now a few if there were no such Statute at all there would be multitudes of Malefactors Richard the Third designing to Murder his Brother's Sons first slandered them with Illegitimacy Besides as to the Particular Instance of Edward the Fourth it was his Inadvertency and indeed Imprudence to Commit the Guardianship of his Son in Minority to his Brother who thereupon forged Illegitimacy against them and Murdered them And it was done for want of such a Law of Succession as was Enacted by Kenneth the Third and Malcolme Mackenneth the Second in Scotland which according to Buchanan lib. 6. p. 191. was A Guardian by the Law of Scotland to be Elected by Parliament during the Minority of the Prince Vt Rege Impubere Tutor qui pro Rege esset interea Eligeretur vir prudentia opibus insignis qui ad quartodecimum usque Annum Regis nomine rem administraret Ad id aetatis
Exercise of the same for the Publick safety 1 In regard the Entail being made to the Eldest Son by Act of Parliament the same declares that what is given by Act of Parliament may be taken by Act of Parliament and that every former Act inacted may by a latter Act be repealed according to the known Rule Vnumquodque dissolvitur eodem modo quo conflatum est Secondly according to the General Examples of Acts of Parliament amongst which nothing is more common than for later Acts to change the Entails of the Crown made by former Acts. Thirdly This Power of Parliaments is expresly declared by Act of Parl. 13 El. 1. still in force by which it is enacted that to affirm that the Laws and Statutes do not bind the Right of the Crown and the Descent Limitation Inheritance and Governance thereof is High Treason Fourthly All the Reason alledged of the Antient Custom of New Election of the Successor on every Descent is only lest the Eldest Son should happen to be an Infant or otherwise unfit for Government that the Parliament might choose the fittest which here is satisfied in the Eldest Son who is above all exception known to be the fittest who can be chosen Fifthly though this reserve of Power remain naturally in Parliaments to repeal and change former Acts concerning Succession by new Acts when there is just and necessary cause yet it is necessary likewise there should be a praevious Act to mark out the Heir in whose name the Parliament shall be called to declare the Succession or Guardianship if he happen to be an Infant And what if after a King happens to die there happen a Rebellion or Invasion which makes it impossible to assemble a Parliament will it not be a great safety to the People that a standing Act of Parliament hath before hand appointed the Successor to take care of the Kingdoms till he can call a Parliament to give their assistance therein There is nothing therefore can be justly excepted against these two Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland for ascertaining by Law the Eldest Son to be Heir to the Crown The excellency of the two said Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland which ascertain the Succession of the Crown to the Kings Eldest Son But it were a great unthankfulness to the Providence of God to undervalue such Laws whereby all Accidents are obviated Questions and Doubts resolved and Objections answered by so few words as two Lines in each and the Peace of Succession preserved in Great Britain for so many hundred years which in other Empires and Kingdoms cannot be effected without those horrid Murders of Younger Brothers by Elder or Elder Brothers by Younger of lineal Heirs by collateral or collateral Heirs by lineal of Sons by Fathers or of Fathers by Sons whereby Civil Wars Devastations and Ruines of Kingdoms have ensued and that the want of such Statutes or the Breach of them have been causes of these Evils and Enjoyment of them hath been the Cure will I hope appear in the Objections and Answers following Objections first against the not being of the Kings Eldest Son within these Statutes answered Object Obj. 1. That the Lady his Mother was not a Queen therefore the Kings Eldest Son is not within the Statute Answ Statute false translated in the word Queen Answ To this the answer is easie and clear that the word Madame sa Compaigne are falsly translated our Lady his Queen and ought to have been translated our Lady his Companion which is proved by the Reasons following 1. Because 't is manifest sa Compaigne signifies not the word Queen in specie but any Lady Companion in general 2. Because it is manifest the makers of this Act of Parliament intended not to restrain their several meaning onely to a Queen for they knew Royne was French for Queen as well as Roy for King and if they had intended so could have more certainly and easily said Compas le mort nostre Seignior le Roy sa Royne than Madame sa Compaigne 3. Because at the time of making this Statute the famous Black Prince being the Eldest Son to Edward III. was married to Joan Daughter to Edmund Earl of Kent and had Issue by her Richard of Bourdeaux after King of England and none doubts but it was the intention of the King Edward III. who passionately affected his Grandchild Richard that in case the Princes Wife should happen to die in his life time whereby she should not have been a Queen but that notwithstanding if the Black Prince had happened to have survived him which he did not and been King his Eldest Son Richard should have benefit of this Statute 4. It would have been made doubtful by the Bishops who usurped then the Papal Supremacy over Princes of giving or refusing to give them Coronation when they pleased whether the Kings Wife should be titled Queen if the Bishop refused her Coronation Ralph of Canterbury refuseth to Crown Adeliza Queen unless he should first discrown the King as Ralph Archbishop of Canterbury did to Adeliza the second Wife of H. I. unless the Kings would suffer him to pull off the Crown first from the Kings head and new Crown him in acknowledgment that the Supremacy of the Coronation Office belonged to Ralph the Archbishop Bak. Hist 43. Touching which Office of Coronation of Kings and Queens that it belongs to Parliaments and not to Bishops and that David himself was both crowned and anointed by his Parliament and not by the Priest is shewn lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 169 c. 5. The Law of Saxons and Scots that no Wife of a King should be called Queen Because the Title of Queen was then under Envy and doubtful whether not against the antient Law both of England and Scotland the same not appearing to have been repealed by any Act of Parliament Bak. Hist fol. 6. saith a Law was made by the West Saxons that no Wife of a King should be called a Queen fol. 8. that it was so rigorously observed that when Ethelwolph had married Judith the Beautiful Daughter of the Emperour Charles the Bald in honour of whom in his own Court he ever placed her in a Chair of State with all other Majestical Complements of a Queen contrary to the Law of the West Saxons made to avoid the great Expence of Treasure incident to great Titles and Ceremonies and against other inconveniences and so much displeased his Lords thereby that they were ready to have Deposed him but were prevented by his death not long after Buchanan Rev. Scot. 407. takes notice of this Law and says Saxones lege caverunt ne ulla deinceps Regis Vxor Regina vocaretur aut in sede honoris in publico Regi assideret And 406. mentions the like Law in Scotland Quas Reginas alii suo quisque sermone nos Regum uxores appellamus nec altioris fastigii nomen ullum in iis agnoscimus
both in England and Scotland sought to dishonour him with the Name of Nothus for by that name Buchanun Rerum Scot. 175. Stiles him and says Praerat omnibus Anglorum copiis Athelstanus Edwardi Nothus And in the same manner other Writers yet was neither the name nor the thing any bar of his Succession to the Kingdom but he was thereto prefer'd before his younger Brother Edmund whom Papal Laws made Legitimate and accordingly he was Crowned by Athelmus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury at Kingston upon Thames And proved after the most Heroick Victorious Prince that the English ever had before the Conquest for he conquered both the Danes and Scots confederated against him and Subdued the whole Island Edward the Son of Edgar Legitimate per Jus Coronae Ethestede for her excellent Beauty sirnamed the White was a Virgin and not Prohibited by Law of God for King Edgar to Marry but he neglected or despised Pontifical Ceremonies and begot on her without them his eldest Son Edward for which Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury injoyned him seven years Pennance which he underwent for the Fact After Edgar Married Elfrida the only Daughter and Heiress of Ordganus Duke of Devonshire with the Ceremonies of the Church and made her his Queen and likewise Contracted with her That her Children should be Heirs to the Crown and had Issue by her two Sons Edmund who died young and Ethelred who survived him Edgar dies Note here are all the Objections made against the succeeding to the Crown by Edward which are now made and more for here is an Heir by Marriage-Covenant opposed against the Natural Heir Queen Elfrid excepted against the Succession of Edward the eldest Son That his Mother was no Queen nor Wife Married according to the Ceremonies of the Church and that he was therefore Illegitimate That she her self was King Edgar's Queen and Wife whom he Married Solemnly according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church and that by his Marriage-Covenants he bound himself That her Children by him should be Successors to the Kingdom That therefore her Son was both the Legitimate Heir and Heir by Covenant and thereupon drew divers Lords to be of her Party and the two Sons are both produced before the Council assembled to demand their Rights But while the Council sate to Debate the same Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury came in with his Banner and Cross and not staying for dispute of the Title presented Prince Edward the eldest Son as next right Heir to the Crown and their lawful King and the Assembly consisting most of Clergy-Men drew the Approbation of the Rest whereupon Prince Edward was Admitted and Crowned King being but Twelve years old by Archbishop Dunstan at Kingston upon Thames Anno Dom. 975. and so continued till about Three years and Six Months after King Edward Hunting in the Isle of Purbeck not far from Corf Castle where his Mother-in-Law Queen Elfrid with his Brother Ethelred were then Residing he out of his Love to both would needs go to visit them where the cruel Step-mother out of Ambition to make her own Son King caused one to Stab him in the Back with a Knife as he was Drinking a cup of Wine on Horseback at his departing who feeling himself hurt set Spurs to his Horse thinking thereby to get to his Company but the wound being Mortal and he fainting through loss of so much Blood fell from his Horse and one foot being intangled in his Stirrup he was thereby ruefully dragged up and down and lastly left Dead at Corf Gate in Commiseration of which untimely Death he was ever afterward called Edward the Martyr On which may be noted 1. That notwithstanding the Mother of Edward was no Queen Notwithstanding she was never Contracted nor Married by the Rites and Ceremonies of the then Church Notwithstanding Elfrid was a Queen and solemnly Married by all those Rites and Ceremonies notwithstanding the Kingdom was by Marriage-Covenant setled on her Issue by King Edgar Notwithstanding Ethelred appeared with a Company of Lords Competitors Notwithstanding the accompanying of Edgar with Elfred was through Romish Superstition thought so unlawful as not to be Expiated under seven years Pennance Yet the same Archbishop Dunstan who imposed the same on the Father laid none on the Son but he and the Clergy declared him the Right and Lawful Heir by which they did implicitly confess and acknowledge That the Moral Law of God of Marriage and not any Ceremonial Law of Man is the immutable Law which ought to Govern the Succession of the Crown 2. The opinion of the Possession of the Crown to purge all Treason from him who commits it hath been a great incouragement to the committing of the same 3. That Princes disinheriting the Children of the first Wives and entailing their Kingdoms to the Children of the Second destroying thereby their own Houses 4. That none are more Cruel to the Children of the first Mothers than Step-mothers which it seems makes all Poets so out of Charity with them that they never mention them without some odious Epithet of Injustae mala dirae ferae terribiles Novercae and defame them with Stabbing Poisoning and Witchcraft Pocula si quando Saevae infecere Novercae Miscueruntque herbas non innoxia verba Virg. Georg. 2. When Cruel Step-mothers Poys'ning the Cup Add Herbs and Spells for Right Heirs to drink up I find but one kind of Step-mother excepted by Horace as not apt to be Guilty of these Practices which is she that neither brings Portion nor expects Jointure particularly of the Getick Women of whose Chastity and good Nature he thus writes Illic matre carentibus Privignis mulier temperat innocens Nec dotata regit virum Conjux nec infido fidit adultero Dos est magna parentium Virtus metuens alterius viri Certo foedere castitas Et peccare nefas aut pretium mori The innocent and kind Step-mothers there The Orphans Motherless to hurt forbear And not with Portions o're their Husbands rant Helpt by the Gay adulterous Gallant Vertue is Portion great and Chastity Strange man to touch more fearing than to Die 5. That where Marriage by the Ceremonial Laws of Men is preferr'd before a Marriage by the Moral Law of God this makes way for all Murders by Step-mothers of the Children of first Mothers of which see likewise the Example of Roxalana before related at large Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 245. William the Conqueror succeeded to his Natural Fathers Dukedom his Mother never Married by a Priest in a Temple William the Conqueror was the Son of Rollo Duke of Normandy by Arlotte a mean Woman whom he made Sa Compaigne or Sociam Thalami without any Ceremonies of a Priest or Temple she was a Person how mean soever yet not Prohibited by the Law of God for him to Marry and though some slander her in hatred to her Son as if by some Lightness of hers all such as were of that Trade