Selected quad for the lemma: nation_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nation_n	england_n	law_n	statute_n	1,497	5	9.0809	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

Vocat ad haereditatem Vid. l. 1. ff de grad l. 1. § hoc autem ff de bonor possess And these who are now Brothers to the present King have been Sones to the former and therefore whatever has been said for Sones is also verified in Brothers As for instance though his Royal Highness be only Brother to King CHARLES the II. yet he is Son to King CHARLES I. and therefore as Saint Paul sayes if a Son then ane Heir except he be secluded by the existence and Succession of ane elder Brother That this gradual Succession is founded on the Law of nations is as clear by the Laws of the 12 Tables and the Praetorian Law of Rome And if we consider the Monarchy either old or new we will find that wherever the Monarchy was not elective the degrees of succession were there exactly observed And Bodinus de Republ. lib. 6 Cap. 5. asserts that Ordo non tantum naturae divinae sed etiam omnium ubique gentium hoc postulat From all which Pope Innocent in c. grand de supplend neglig praelati concludes In regnis haereditariis caveri non potest ne filius aut frater succedat And since it is expresly determined that the right of blood can be taken away by no positive Law or Statute L. Iura Sanguinis ff de Reg. jur L. 4. ff de suis legitim and that the power of making a Testament can be taken away by no Law L. ita legatum ff de conditionibus I cannot see how the right of Succession can be taken away by a Statute for that is the same with the right of Blood and is more strongly founded upon the Law of nature than the power of making Testaments Since then this right is founded upon the Law of God of nature and of nations it does clearly follow that no Parliament can alter the same by their municipal Statutes as our Act of Parliament has justly observed For clearing whereof it is fit to consider that in all powers and jurisdictions which are subordinat to one another the Inferiour should obey but not alter the power to which it is subordinat and what it does contrary thereto is null and void And thus if the judges of England should publish edicts contrare to Acts of Parliament or if a Justice of Peace should ranverse a decree of the judges of West-minster these their endeavours would be void and ineffectual But so it is that by the same principle but in ane infinitly more transcendent way all Kings and Parliaments are subordinat to the Laws of God the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nations And therefore no Act of Parliament can be binding to overturn what these have established This as to the Law of God is clear not only from the general dictats of Religion but 28 Hen. 8. cap. 7. the Parliament uses these words For no man can dispence with Gods Laws which we also affirme and think And as to the Laws of nature they must be acknowledged to be immutable from the principles of reason And the Law it self confesses that naturalia quaedam jura quae apud omnes gentes peraequè observantur divina quadam providentia constituta semper firma atque immutabilia permanent § sed naturalia Institut de Iur. Natural § singulorum de rer divis And when the Law declares that a Supream Prince is free from the obligation of Laws Solutus legibus which is the highest power that a Parliament can pretend to or arrive at Yet Lawyers still acknowledge that this does not exeem these Supream powers from being lyable to the Laws of God nature and nations Accurs in l. Princeps ff de Leg. Clementina pasturalis de rejudicatâ Bart. in l. ut vim de justitiâ jure Voet. de Statutis Sect. 5. Cap. 1. nor can the Law of nations be overturned by private Statutes or any Supream power And thus all Statuts to the prejudice of Ambassadours who are secured by the Law of nations are confess'd by all to be null and the highest power whatsoever cannot take off the necessity of denuncing watr before a warr can be Lawful And Lawyers observe verie well that these who would oppose the common dictats of mankind should be look't upon as enemies to all mankind My second argument shall be that the King Parliament can have no more power in Parliament than any absolute Monarch has in his own Kingdom for they are when joyn'd but in place of the Supream power sitting in judgement and therefore they cannot in Law do what any other Supream and absolute Monarch cannot do For all the power of Parliaments consists only in their consent but we must not think that our Parliaments have ane unlimited power de jure so as that they may forfeit or kill without a cause or decerne against the Subjects without citing or hearing them or that they can alienat any part of de Kingdom or Subject the wholl Kingdom to France or any other Forraigne Prince all which deeds would be null in themselves and would not hinder the partie injur'd from a due redress For if our Parliaments had such power we would be the greatest slaves and live under the most arbitrary Government imaginable But so it is that no Monarch whosoever can take from any man what is due to him by the Law of God nature and nations For being himself inferiour to these he cannot overturne their statuts Thus a Prince cannot even ex plenitudine potestatis legitimat a Bastard in prejudice of former children though they have only but a hope of Succession l. 4. sequen de natal restituend and for the same reason it is declared in the same Law that he cannot restore a free'd man restituere libertum natalibus in prejudice of his Patron who was to succeed though that succession was but by a municipal Law For clearing which question It is fit to know that the solid lawyers who treat jus publicum as ARNISAEUS and others do distinguish betwixt such Kingdoms as were at first conferr'd by the People and wherein the Kings succeed by contract and in these the Laws made by King and People can exclude or bind the Successor And yet even here they confess that this proceeds not because the Predecessor can bind the Successor but because the People renew the paction with the succeeding King But where the Successor is to succeed ex jure regni in hereditary Monarchies there they assert positively that the Predecessor cannot prejudge the Successors right of Succession Which they prove by two arguments First that the Predecessor has no more power nor right than the Successor for the same right that the present King has to the possession the next in Blood has to the Succession And all our Laws run in favours of the King and his Heirs and no man can tye his equal or give him the Law par in parem non habet dominium The second is that it were

unjust and unequitable that the Predecessor should robbe his Successor nulla ergo sayes Arnisaeus Cap. 7. Num. 5. clausula Successori jus auferri potest modò succedat ille ex jure regni And Hottoman lib. 2. de Regno Galliae asserts that in France which is a very absolute Monarchy Ea quae jure Regio primogenito competunt ne Testamento quidem patris adimi possunt And thus when the King of France design'd to break the Salique Law of Succession as in the Reigne of CHARLES the V. It was found impracticable by the three Estates and when Pyrrhus was to preferre his youngest Son to the Crown the Epirots following the Law of Nations and their own refus'd him Paus. lib. 1. In the year 1649. Also Amurat the grand Seignior having left the Turkish Empire to Han the Tartarian passing by his Brother Ibrahim the wholl Officers of that State did unanimously Cancel that Testament and restore Ibrahim the true Heir tho a silly foole Which shewes the opinion not only of Lawyers but of whole nations and Parliaments Tho vander Graaff an Hollander confesses that it is not Lawfull to choose any of his Sons to succeed him in which the general quiet of the Kingdom is much concerned And therefore tho the next Heir were wiser braver and more generally beloved Yet the more immediat must be received as choos'd by God whither good or bad and as honored with his Character And if Kings could have inverted their Succession and choos'd their own Successor Saint Lewis had preferr'd his own third Son to Lewis his eldest and Alfonsus King of Leon in Spaine had preferr'd his Daughters to Ferdinand his eldest Son And Edward the VI. of England had preferr'd and did actually preferre the Lady Iean Gray to his Sisters Mary and Elizabeth And if Successions especially of such great importance had not been fixed by immutable Laws of God and nature the various and unconstant inclinations of the present Governours especially when shaken by the importunity of Step-mothers and Mothers or clouded by the jealousie of flatterers or favourits had made the Nations whom they Governed very unhappy and therefore God did very justly and wisely setle this Succession that both King and People might know that it is by him that Kings Reigne and Kingdoms are secur'd in Peace against faction and it were strange that this should not hold in Kings since even amongst subjects the Honour and Nobility that is bestow'd upon a Man and his Heirs does so necessarly descend upon those Heirs that the Father or Predicessor cannot seclude the next Successor or derogat from his right either by renuncing resigning following base or meane Trades or any other For say those Lawyers since he derives this right from his old Progenitors and owes it not to his Father his Fathers deed should not prejudge him therein Fab. Cod. 9. Tit. 28. Def. 1. Warnee Consil. 20. Num. 7. And as yet the Estates of Parliament in both Nations have no legislative power otherwayes than by assenting to what the King does so that if the King cannot himself make a Successor neither can they by consenting and all that their consent could imply wold only be that they and their Successors should not oppose his nomination because of their consent But that can never amount to a power of transferring the Monarchy from one branch to another which would require that the Transferrers or bestowers had the Supream power Originally in themselves nemo enim plus juris in alium transferre potest quàm ipse in se habet And if the States of Parliament had this power Originally in themselves to bestow why might they not reserve it to themselves And so perpetuate the Government in their own hands And this mov'd judge Ienkins in his treatise concerning the liberty and freedom of the subject pag. 25. To say that no King can be Named or in any time made in this Kingdom by the People A Parliament never made a King for there were Kings before there were Parliaments and Parliaments are summoned by the Kings writtes Fourthly A King cannot in Law alienat his Crown as is undenyable in the opinion of all Lawyers and if he do that deed is voyd and null nor could he in Law consent to an Act of Parliament declaring that he should be the last King And if such consents and Acts had been sufficient to bind Successors many silly Kings in several parts of Europe had long since been prevail'd upon to alter their Monarchy from Haereditarie to Elective or to turn it in a Common-wealth and therefore by the same reason they cannot consent to exclude the true Successor For if they may exclude one they may exclude all 5. In all Societies and Governments but especially where there is any association of powers as in our Parliaments there are certain fundamentals which like the Noble parts in the Body are absolutly necessar for its preservation for without these there would be no Ballance or certainty And thus with us if the King and each of the Estates of Parliament had not distinct and known limits sett by the gracious concessions of our Monarchs each of them would be ready to invade one anothers Priviledges And thus I conceive that if the Parliament should consent to alienate the half of the Kingdom or to subject the whole to a Stranger as in King Iohns case in England and the Baliols in Scotland it has been found by the respective Parliaments of both Kingdoms that that Statute would not oblidge the Successor Or if the House of commons in England or the Burrowes of Scotland should consent to any Act excluding their Estate and respresentatives from the Parliament doubtlesse that Statute excluding them would not prejudge their Successors because that Act was contrare to one of the fundamental Laws of the Nation And the late Acts of Parliaments excluding Bishops were reprobated by the ensuing Parliaments as such and therefore by the same rule any Statute made excluding the legal Successor would be null and voyd as contrare to one of the great Fundamental Rights of the Nation And what can be call'd more a Fundamental Right than the Succession of our Monarchy Since our Monarchy in this Isle has ever been acknowledg'd to be hereditary And that this acknowledgment is the great Basis whereupon most of all the positions of our Law run and are established such as that the King never dyes since the very moment in which the last King dyes the next Successor in Blood is Legally King and that without any expresse recognizance from the People and all that oppose him are Rebells His Commissions are valide He may call Parliaments dispose the Lands pertaining to the Crown all men are lyable to do him homage and hold their Rights of him and his Heirs And generally this principle runs through all the veins of our Law It is that which gives life and Authority to our Statutes but receives none from them which are

and may rise in Arms against them if the Monarch hinder them to Reform 4. That the People or their Representatives may seclude the Lineal Successor and raise to the Throne any of the Royal Family who doth best deserve the Royal Dignity These being all matters of Right the plain and easie way which I resolve to take for refuting them so as the learned and unlearned may be equally convinced shall be first by giving a true account of what is our present positive Law 2. By demonstrating that as our present positive Law is inconsistent with these Principles so these our positive Laws are excellently well founded upon the very nature of Monarchy and that those Principles are inconsistent with all Monarchy And the third Class of my Arguments shall be from the Principles of common Reason Equity and Government abstracting both from the positiveness of our Law and the nature of our Monarchy And in the last place I shall answer the Arguments of those Authors As to the first I conceive that a Treatise De Iure Regni apud Scotos should have clear'd to us what was the power of Monarchs by Law and particularly what was the positive Law of Scotland as to this point for if these points be clear by our positive Law there is no further place for debate since it is absolutely necessary for Mankind especially in matters of Government that they at last acquiesce in something that is fix'd and certain and therefore it is very well observed by Lawyers and States-men that before Laws be made men ought to reason but after they are made they ought to obey which makes me admire how Buchannan and the other Authors that I have named should have adventur'd upon a Debate in Law not being themselves Lawyers and should have written Books upon that Subject without citing one Law Civil or Municipal pro or con Nor is their Veracity more to be esteemed than their Learning for it 's undenyable that Buchannan wrot this Book De Iure Regni to perswade Scotland to raise his Patron though a Bastard to the Crown and the Authors of Lex Rex Ius Populi Vindicatum and others were known to have written those Libels from picque against the Government because they justly suffered under it I know that to this it may be answered That these Statutes are but late and were not extant in Buchanans time and consequently Buchanan cannot be Redargu'd by them 2. That these Statutes have been obtain'd from Parliaments by the too great influence of their Monarchs and the too great Pusillanimity of Parliaments who could not resign the Rights and Priviledges of the People since they have no Warrand from them for that effect To the first of which I answer that my Task is not to form an Accusation against Buchanan but against his Principles and to demonstrat that these Principles are not our Law but are inconsistent with it and it is ridiculous to think that any such Laws should have been made before these Treasonable Principles were once hatched and maintained for Errors must appear before they be condemned and by the same Argument it may be as well urged that Arius Nestorius c. were not Hereticks because those Acts of General Councils which condemned their Heresies were not extant when they first defended those opinions and that our King had not the power of making Peace and War till the Year 1661 But 2 dly For clearing this Point it is fit to know that our Parliaments never give Prerogatives to our Kings but only declare what have been their Prerogatives and particularly in these Statutes that I shall Cite the Parliament doth not Confer any New Right upon the King but only acknowledge what was Originally his Right and Prerogative from the beginning and therefore the Parliament being the only Judges who could decide whether Buchannans Principles were solid and what was Ius Regni apud Scctor These Statutes having decided those points contraverted by him there can be hereafter no place for Debate and particularly as to Buchannan his Book De jure Regni apud Scotos it is expresly condemn'd as Slanderous and containing several offensive Matters by the 134 Act Parl. 8. Ia. 6. in Anno 1584. which was the first Parliament that ever sat after his Book was printed To the 2 d I answer that it being controverted what is the Kings Power there can be no stronger Decision of that Controversie in Favours of the King than the acknowledgment of all Parties Interested and it is strange and unsufferable to hear such as appeal to Parliaments cry out against their Power their Justice and Decisions and why should we oppress our Kings and raise Civil Wars whereby we endanger so much our selves to procure powers to Parliaments if Parliaments be such ridiculous things as we cannot trust when they are empowered by us and if there be any force in this answer of Buchannans there can be none in any of our Laws for that strikes at the Root of all our Laws and as I have produced a Tract of reiterated Laws for many Years so where were there ever such free unlimited Parliaments in any Nation as these whose Laws I have Cited 2 dly Whatever might be said if a positive Contract betwixt the King and People were produced clearing what were the just Limits of the Monarchy and bounding it by clear Articles mutually agreed upon yet it is very absurd and extravagant to think that when the Debate is what is the King of Scotlands just Power and Right and from whom he Derives it that the Laws and repeated Acknowledgements of the whole Representatives of the People assembled in the Supream Court of the Nation having no open force upon it but enacted at several times in many several Parliaments under the gentlest peaceablest and wisest Kings that ever they had should not be better believed than the Testimonies of three or four byass'd and disoblig'd Pedants who understood neither our Laws nor Statutes and who can bring no clear fundamental Law nor produce no Contract nor Paction restricting the King or bounding his Government 3 dly That which adds a great deal of Authority to this Debate and these Statutes is that as this is clear by our positive Law so it is necessarly inferred from the nature of our Monarchy and is very advantagious for the Subjects of this Kingdom which I shall clear in the second and third Arguments that I shall bring against these Treasonable Principles nor can they be seconded by any solid Reason as I shall make appear in answering the Arguments of those Authors I know that Nephthaly the Author of Ius populi and our late Fanatical Pamphlets alleadge that our Parliaments since 1661 are null and unlawful because many who have Right to sit as Members or to Elect Members were secluded by the Declaration or Test But my answer is First That these were excluded by Acts of Parliament which were past in Parliaments prior to their exclusion

our late Debates are but the Militia of Pride Vanity and Ambition and that if they be allow'd the best of Princes will ever fall by them And as to the Act 14. Par. 4. Ia. 4. Whereby it is pretended that the opposing and even the killing K. Ia. the 3. in Battle is justified and which Act was never repelled It is answered First That this Statute was made by the same Rebels who had opposed their lawful Prince and so was rather a continuing of their Rebellion than a justification of it 2. That abominable Statute proceeds on the Precept of K. Ia. the 3. calling in the English and designing to enslave the Kingdom to Forraigners which was not prov'd as it ought to have been though the pretext had been legal as it was neither legal nor true in the least circumstance and the Noblemen and Barons are Condemn'd without being Cited or heard though the Act be not a Statute but a Verdict so unjust are all Rebels who are forc'd to maintain one Crime by another 3. In the new Collection of our Statutes made by K Ken. and Authoriz'd in many subsequent Parliaments The Dreadful and Treasonable Act is not insert which was the best way to Rescind it because it was though a reproach to the Nation to have any formal Law made to Rescind the Statute which behov'd to preserve its memory in annulling its Authority 4. Many Statutes since that time are made declaring the rising in Arms against the King and his Authority upon any pretext whatsoever to be Treason and expresly Rescinding all Acts and Statutes to the contrary as Rebellious and Treasonable and there needed no more Positive Statutes to Rescind that Rebellious and Treasonable Combination rather than Law As to the 44. Act 6. Par. Ia. 2. From which its urged that because that Act declares it Treason to Assault Castles and Places where the Kings Person shall happen to be without the Consent of the three Estates And that it is therefore lawful to Assault the same with the Consent of the three Estates and consequently to rise in Arms with the Consent of the three Estates is no Treason It is answered that it being but too ordinary in the Minority of our Kings to have great Factions amongst the Nobility which shews also the danger of placeing the Supream Power in the Proceres Regni one of the Factions ordinarly either having made the young King Prisoner or using to Assault the Castle where he was really preserved It was therefore most wisely declared by this Statute That to lay hands upon the Kings Person violently what age the Ring be of young or auld or to Assailzy Castles or Places where the Kings person shall happen to be without the Consent of the three Estates shall be punished as Treason That is to say that so great respect was to be had to his sacred Person that no violence was to be offered to the Place where he was untill the same was allowed by the three Estates But in all the former Laws as well as those made in our age it is still declared Treason to Rebel against the Kings Person or to refuse to assist him without adding except the same be done by the three Estates which shews that there 's nothing design'd in this Act in favours 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 alwayes 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 shining 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 whereas 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 Enrich'd above a man of good sense and Tennents may argue that it is not reasonable that they bearing Gods Image as well as the Master should toile to feed their Lusts thus Reason may be distorted and we call that Reason and Providence which pleases us best 2. Most of their Citations and Authorities are the Sentiments of these 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 concerns us no more than the Law of England binds Scotsmen 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 3. Most of the Authors cited and admir'd by them are Heathens particularly Stoicks who equal'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-denyal Patience Faith and Relyance upon God 4. They ballance not all the Conveniencies and Inconveniencies 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 ordinarly attend Competitions amongst Republicans Destroy moe than the Lusts of any one Tyrrant can do which made Lucan conclude after a sad review of the continued

that where the Right of Nature is clear the Parliament may invert the same And strangers who considered more the dictats of Law than of Passion did in that age conclude that no Statute could be valide when made contrare to the fundamental Law of the Kingdom Arnisaeus Cap. 7. Num. 11. Henricus VIII Angliae Rex Eduardum filium primò deinde Mariam denique Elizabetham suos haeredes fecerat verùm non aliter ea omnia valent quàm si cum jure Regni conveniant Vid. Curt. Tract Feud Par. 4. Num. 129. There seems greater difficulty to arise from the 13 Elizabeth c. 2. by which it is enacted that if any persone shall affirme that the Parliament of England has not full power to bind and Governe the Crown in point of Succession and descent that such a persone during the Queens life shall be guilty of high treason But to this Act it is answered that this Act does not debarre the next legal and natural Successor And these words That the Parliament has power to bind and Govern the Succession must be as all other general expressions in Statutes interpreted and restricted by other uncontraverted Laws and so the sense must be that the Parliament are Judge where there are differences betwixt Competitors in nice and contravertable points which cannot be otherwise decided and both this and the former Acts made in Henry the VI. time are not general Laws but temporarie Acts and personal Priviledges and so cannot overturn the known current of Law Quod verò contrà rationem juris receptum est non est producendum ad consequentias And in all these instances it is remarkable that the restriction was made upon the desire of the Soveraigne and not of the Subject And if we look upon this Act as made to secure against Mary Queen of Scotland and to let her know that it was to no purpose for her to designe any thing against the Right or Person of Queen Elizabeth as being declar'd a Bastard by Act of Parliament in England since her other right as next undoubted Heir by Blood to the Crown might be altered or Govern'd we must acknowledge it to be only one of these Statutes which the Law sayes are made ad terrorem ex terrore only Nor was there ever use made of it by Queen Elizabeth nor her Parliaments so fully were they convinc'd that this pretended power was so unjust as that it could not be justified by an Act of Parliament being contrair to the Laws of God of Nature of Nations and of the Fundamental Laws of both Kingdoms But this Law being made to exclude Queen Mary and the Scotish line as is clear by that clause wherein it is declared that every Person or Persones of what degree or Nation soever they be shall during the Queens life declare or publish that they have Right to the Crown of England during the Queens life shall be disinabled to enjoy the Crown in Succession inheritance or otherwayes after the Queens death It therefore followes that it was never valide For if it had King Iames might have thereby been excluded by that person who should have succeded next to the Scotish race For it 's undeniable that Queen Marie did during Queen Elizabeths life pretend Right to the Crown upon the account that Queen Elizabeth was declared Bastard And therefore the calling in of King Iames after this Act and the acknowledging his title does clearly evince that the Parliament of England knew that they had no power to make any such Act. The words of which acknowledgement of King Iames's Right I have thought fit to set down as it is in the statute it self 1. Ia. Cap. 1. That the Crown of England did descend upon King Iames by inherent Birthright as being lineally justly and Lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal. And to this recognition they do submit themselves and posterities for ever untill the last drop of their Blood be spilt And further doth beseech his Majesty to accept of the same recognition as the first Fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to his Majesty and to his Royal progeny and posterity for ever It may be also objected that by the 8 Act. Parl. 1. Ia. 6. It is provided in Scotland that all Kings and Princes that shall happen to reigne and bear Rule over that Kingdom shall at the time of their Coronation make their faithfull promise by Oath in presence of eternal God that they shall mantaine the true Religion of Iesus Christ the preaching of the Holy Word and due and Right Administration of the Sacraments now received and preach'd within this Kingdom from which two conclusions may be inferr'd 1. That by that Act the Successor to the Crown may be restricted 2. That the Successor to the Crown must be a Protestant that being the Religion which was Professed and established the time of this Act. To which it is answered that this Act relates only to the Crowning of the King and not to the Succession Nor is a coronation absolutly necessar Coronatio enim magis est ad ostentationem quàm ad necessitatem Nec ideo Rex est quia coronatur sed coronatur quia Rex est Oldard consil 90. num 7. Balbus lib. de coronat pag 40. Nor do we read that any Kings were Crown'd in Scripture except Ioas. And Clovis King of France was the first who was Crown'd in Europe Nor are any Kings of Spaine Crown'd till this day Neither is ane Coronation Oath requisit Sisenandus being the first who in the 4. Tolletan Councel gave such an Oath amongst the Christians as Trajan was the first amongst the heathen Emperours And we having had no Coronation Oath till the Reigne of King Gregorie which was in Anno 879 he having found the Kingdom free from all Restrictions could not have limited his Successor or at least could not have debarr'd him by an Oath Nullam enim poterat legem dictare posteris cum par in parem non habeat imperium as our Blackwood observes pag. 13. 2. There is no clause irritant in this Act debarring the Successor or declaring the Succession null in case his Successor gave not this Oath 3. The Lawfull Successor though he were of a different Religion from his People as God forbid he should be may easily swear that he shall mantaine the Laws presently standing And any Parliament may legally secure the Successor from overturning their Religion or Laws though they cannot debarre him And though the Successor did not swear to mantaine the Laws Yet are they in litle danger by his Succession since all Acts of Parliament stand in force till they be repeal'd by subsequent Parliaments And the King cannot repeale an Act without the consent of Parliament But to put this beyond all debate the 2. Act of this current Parliament is opponed whereby it is declared that the Right and administration of the Government is immediatly devolv'd upon the nixt Lawfull Heir after