THAT THE Lawful Successor Cannot be DEBARR'D From Succeeding to the CROWN Maintain'd against Dolman Buchannan and others BY Sir GEORGE MACKENZIE His Majesties Advocat EDINBVRGH Printed by the Heir of Andrew Anderson Printer to His most Sacred Majesty Anno DOM. 1684. King James In His Advice to Prince Henry Page 173. IF God give you not Succession Defraud never the nearest by Right whatsoever conceit ye have of the Person for Kingdoms are eveâ— at Gods Disposition and in that Case we are but Liferenters it lying no more in the Kings than in the Peoples Hands to Dispossess the Righteous Heir Page 209. Ibid. FOr at the very moment of the Expyring of the King Reigning the nearest and Lawful Heir entereth in his place and so to refuse him or intrude another is not to hold out the Successor from coming in but to expel and put out their Righteous King and I trust at this time whole France acknowledgeth the Rebellion of the Leaguers who upon pretence of Heresie by force of Arms held so long out to the great Desolation of their whole Countrey their Native and Righteous King from possessing his own Crown and natural Kingdom ERRATA Page 5. delet at his Majority Page 33. for Richard 3d. Read ad The Right of the Succession Defended THe fourth Conclusion to be cleared was that neither the People not Parliaments of this Kingdom could seclude the lineall Successor or could raise to the throne any other of the same Royal line For clearing whereof I shall according to my former method first clear what is our positive Law in this case Secondly I shall shew that this our Law is founded upon excellent reason and lastly I shall answer the objections As to the first It is by the second Act of our last Parliament acknowledged That the Kings of this realme deriving their Royal power from God Almighty alone do lineally succeed therto according to the known degrees of proximitie in blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statut whatsoever and that none can attempt to alter or divert the said Succession without involving the subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion and without exposing them to all the fatal and dreadful consequences of a civil warr Do THEREFORE from a hearty and sincere sense of their duty Recognize acknowledge and declare that the right to the Imperial Crown of this realme is by the inherent right and the nature of Monarchy as well as by the fundamental and unalterable laws of this realme transmitted and devolved by a lineal Succession according to the proximity of blood And that upon the death of the King or Queen who actually reignes the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound by Law duty and alledgance to obey the nixt immediat and Lawful Heir either male or female upon whom the right and administration of the Government is immediatly devolved And that no difference in Religion nor no Law nor Act of Parliament made or to be made can alter or divert the right of Succession and lineal descent of the Crown to the nearest and Lawful Heirs according to the degrees foresaids nor can stop or hinder them in the full free and actuall administration of the Government according to the Laws of the Kingdom LIKE AS OUR SOVERAIGNE LORD with advice and consent of the saids Estates of Parliament Do declare it is high treason in any of the Subjects of this Kingdom by writing speaking or any other manner of way to endeavour the alteration suspension or diversion of the said right of Succession or the debarring the next Lawfull Successor from the immediat actual full and free administration of the Government conform to the Laws of the Kingdom And that all such attempts or designes shall inferre against them the paine of treason This being not only ane Act of Parliament declaring all such as shall endeavour to alter the Succession to be punishable as Traitors but containing in it a Decision of this Point by the Parliament as the Supream Judges of the nation and ane acknowledgement by them as the representatives of the people and nation There can be no place for questioning a point which they have plac'd beyond all contraversie especially seing it past so unanimously that there was not only no vote given but even no argument propon'd against it And the only doubt mov'd about it was whither any Act of Parliament or acknowledgement was necessary in a point which was in it self so uncontraverted And which all who were not desperat fanaticks did conclude to be so in this nation even after they had hear'd all the arguments that were us'd and the Pamphlets that were written against it in our neighbour-Kingdom But because so much noise has been made about this question and that blind bigotry leads some and humorous faction drawes others out of the common road I conceive it will be fit to remember my reader of these following reasons which will I hope clear that as this is our present positive Law so it is established upon the fundamental constitution of our Government upon our old Laws upon the Laws of God of Nature of Nations and particularly of the Civil Law As to the fundamental constitution of our Government I did formerly remark that our Historians tell us that the Scots did swear alledgeance to FERGUS who was the first of our Kings and to his Heirs And that they should never obey any other but his Royal Race Which Oath does in Law and reason bind them to obey the lineal Successor according to the proximity of Blood For ane indefinite obligation to obey the blood Royal must be interpreted according to the proximity in Blood except the swearers had reserv'd to themselves a power to choose any of the Royal Familie whom they pleas'd which is so true that in Law ane obligation granted to any man does in the construction of Law accresce to his Heirs though they be not exprest Qui sibi providet haeredibus providet And Boethius tells us that after King FERGUS'S death the Scots finding their new Kingdom infested with warrs under the powerful influence of Picts Romans and Britans they refus'd notwithstanding to preferre the next of the Royal Race who was of perfect age and a man of great merit to the Son of King FERGUS though ane infant which certainly in reason they would have done if they had not been ty'd to the lineal Successor But lest the Kingdom should be prejudg'd during the minority they enacted that for the future the next of the Blood Royal should alwayes in the minority of our Kings administrat as Kings till the true Heir were of perfect age But this does not prove as Buchannan pretends that the people had power to advance to the Throne any of the Royal Race whom they judg'd most fit for common sense may tell us that was not to choose a King but a Vice-Roy or a Regent For though to give him the more
authority and so to enable him the more to curb factions and oppose enimies he was called King yet he was but Rex fidei Commissarius being oblidg'd to restore it to the true Heir at his majority and so Governed only in his Vice and consequently was only his Vice-roy But because the Uncles and next Heirs being once admitted to this fidei Commissarie tittle were unwilling to restore the Crown to their Nephews and sometimes murder'd them and oftetimes rais'd factions against them Therefore the People abhorring these impieties and weary of the distractions and divisions which they occasion'd beg'd from King KENNETH the second that these following Laws might be made 1. That upon the Kings death the next Heir of whatsoever age should succeed 2. The Grand-childe either by Son or Daughter should be preferr'd 3. That till the King arriv'd at 14 years of age some Wise-man should be choos'd to Govern after which the King should enter to the free administration and according to this constitution some fit Person has still been choos'd Regent in the Kings minority without respect to the proximity of Blood and our Kings have been oftentimes Crown'd in the Cradle In conformity also to these principles all the acknowledgements made to our Kings run still in favours of the King and his Heirs As in the first Act Parl. 18. JAMES VI. and the II III IV. Acts Parl. 1. CHARLES II. And by our Oath of Alledgeance we are bound to bear faithful and true alledgeance to his Majesty his Heirs and Lawful Successors which word LAWFUL is insert to cutt off the pretexts of such as should not succeed by Law and the insolent arbitrarieness of such as being but subjects themselves think they may choose their King viz. Act 1. Parl. 21. JAMES 6. That this right of Succession according to the proximity of blood is founded on the Law of God is clear by Num. Chap. 27. v. 9. and 10. If a man hath no Son or Daughter his inheritance shall descend upon his Brother by Num. 36. Where God himself decides in favours of the Daughters of Zelophehad telling us it was a just thing they should have the inheritance of their father And ordaines that if there were no Daughters the estate should go to the Brothers Saint Paul likewayes concluds Rom. 8. If Sons then Heirs looking upon that as a necessary consequence which if it do not necessarly hold or can be any way disappointed all his divine reasoning in that Chapter falls to nothing And thus Ahaziah 2 Chron. 22. v. 1. was made King though the youngest in his Fathers stead because sayes the text the Arabians had slain all the eldest which clearly shews that by the Law of God he could not have succeeded if the eldest had been alive We hear likewayes in Scripture God oft telling By me Kings reigne And when he gives a Kingdom to any as to Abraham David c. He gives it to them and their posterity That this right of Succession flowes from the Law of nature is clear because that is accounted to flow from the Law of nature which every man finds grafted in his own heart and which is obey'd without any other Law and for which men neither seek nor can give another distinct reason all which hold in this case for who doubts when he heares of ane hereditary Monarchy but that the next in blood must Succeed and for which we need no positive Law nor does any man enquire for a further reason being satisfied therein by the principles of his own heart And from this ground it is that though a remoter Kinsman did possess as Heir he could by no length of time prescribe a valide right since no man as Lawyers conclude can prescribe a right against the Law of nature and that this principle is founded thereupon is confest l cùm ratio naturalis ff de bonis damnat cùm ratio naturalis quasi lex quaedum tacita liberis parentum haereditatem adjecerit veluti ad debitam successionem eos vocando propter quod suorum haeredum nomen eis indultum est adeo ut ne a parentibus quidem ab eâ successione amoveri possint Et § emancipati Institut de haered quae ab intest Praetor naturalem aequitatem sequutus iis etiám bonorum possessionem contra 12 tabularum leges contra jus civile permittit Which text shewes likewayes that this right of nature was stronger than the Laws of the 12 Tables though these were the most ancient and chief Statutes of Rome Which principle is very clear likewayes from the Parable Math. 21. Where the Husband-men who can be presum'd to understand nothing but the Law of nature are brought in saying this is the Heir let us kill him and seaze on his inheritance Nor does this hold only in the Succession of Children or the direct line but in the collateral Succession of Brothers and others L. hac parte ff unde cognati Hac parte proconsul Naturali aequitate motus omnibus cognatis permittit bonorum possessionem quos sanguinis ratio Vocat ad haereditatem Vid. l. 1. ff aegrad 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. Jura Sanguinis ff de Reg. jur L. 4. ff de suis legitim and that the power of making a Testament can be taken away by no Law L. ita legatum ff de conditionibus I cannot see how the right of Succession can be taken away by a Statute for that is the same with the right of Blood and is more strongly founded upon the Law of nature than the power of making Testaments Since then this right is founded upon the Law of God of nature and of nations it does clearly follow that no Parliament can alter the same by their municipal Statutes as our
Act of Parliament has justly observed For clearing whereof it is fit to consider that in all powers and jurisdictions which are 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 Jur 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 re judicatâ 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 warr 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 Eaquae 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
unsufferable there is no good Christian that can say that a King can be depos'd for using ill Counsellors And as to Richard the III. his case is so fully examined and all the Articles brought both against him and Edward the II. so fully answered by the learn'd Arnisaeus a Protestant Lawyer and who had no other interest in that debate than a love to Truth and Law in that treatise Quod nullâ ex causâ subditis fas sit contra legitimum principem arma sumere that we Protestants should be asham'd to bring again to the field such instances upon which Arnisaeus in answer to the 14. Article against Richard the II viz. that he refus'd to allow the Lawes made in Parliament does very well remark that this was in effect to consent to their being King and to transferre upon them the Royal power and this will be the event of all such undertakings The instances of Henry the IV. and Henry the VII are of no more weight than the other two since these were likewayes only Kings de facto till King Henry the VII by his marriage with the Lady Elizabeth eldest Daughter to King Edward the IV. did by her transmit a just title to his Successor therefore it was not strange that either of these should allow the Parliament to interpose when they behov'd to owe to them the possession of the Throne But yet Henry the VII himself as the Lord Bacon relates in his Historie shunn'd to have the Parliament declare his title to be just being content with these ambiguous words viz. that the inheritance of the Crown should rest remain and abide in the King c. And upon this accompt it was that the same King caus'd make a Law that such as should serve the King for the time being in his warrs could not be attainted or impeach'd in their persons or Estates As to Henry the VIII his procuring an Act whereby the Parliament declares that in case he had no issue by the Lady Jean Seymour he might dispose of the Crown to whatsoever person he should in his own discretion think fit It is answered that by a former Statute in the 25 year of his Reigne he by Act of Parliament setles the Crown upon the Heirs male of his own body and for lack of such issue to Lady Elizabeth and for lack of such issue also to the next Heirs of the King who should for ever succeed according to the right of Succession of the Crown of England which shewes that the Succession to the Crown of England is establish't by the Law of Nature and the Fundamental Laws of England upon the Heirs of Blood according to the proximity of degrees so that though that King did afterwards prevaile with the Parliament to declare this Elizabeth a Bastard as he did also his Daughter Mary by another Act and resolve to setle the Crown upon Henry Fitz Roy Duke of Richmond yet these Acts teach us how dangerous it is to leave Parliaments to the impression of Kings in the case of naming a Successor as it is to expose Kings to the arbitrariness of Parliaments But such care had God of his own Laws that Mary succeeded notwithstanding She was Papist and Elizabeth succeeded her though she was declar'd Bastard the Rights of Blood prevailing over the formalities of divorce and the dispensations of Popes as the strength of Nature does often prevaile over poisons And God remov'd the Duke of Richmond by death to prevent the unjust competition and so little notice was taken of this and the subsequent Act Anno 1535 that the Heirs of Blood succeeded without repealing of that Act as ane Act in it self invalide from the beginning for only such Acts are past by without being repeal'd And Blackwood pag. 45. observes very well that so conscious were the Makers of these Acts of the illegality thereof and of their being contrarie to the immutable Laws of God Nature and Nations that none durst produce that Kings Testament wherein he did nominat a Successor conform to the power granted by these Acts that how soon they were freed by his death from the violent oppressions that had forced them to alter a Successor three several times and at last to swear implicitly to whomever he should nominat a preparative which this age would not well bear though they cite it they proclamed first Queen Mary their Queen though a Papist and thereafter Queen Elizabeth whom themselves had formerly declared a Bastard And as in all these Acts there is nothing declaring the Parliaments to have power to name a Successor but only giving a power to the King for preventing mischiefs that might arise upon the dubiousness of the Succession to nominat a Successor two of the legal Successors having been declar'd Bastards upon some niceties not of nature but of the Popes Bulls for divorcing their Mothers so this instance can only prove that the King may nominat a Successor and that the Parliament may consent not to quarrell it which is all that they do but does not at all prove that where the Right of Nature is clear the Parliament may invert the same And strangers who considered more the dictats of Law than of Passion did in that age conclude that no Statute could be valide when made contrare to the fundamental Law of the Kingdom Arnisaeus Cap. 7. Num. 11. Henricus VIII Angliae Rex Eduardum filium primò deinde Mariam denique Elizabetham suos haeredes fecerat verùm non aliter ea omnia valent quà m sicum 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 succeeded 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 James's Right I have thought fit to set down as it is in the statute it self 1. Ja. Cap. 1. That the Crown of England did descend upon King James by inherent Birthright as being lineally justly and Lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal. And to this recognition they do submit themselves and posterities for ever 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. Ja. 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 quà m 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 the death of the King or Queen and that no difference in Religion nor no Law nor Act of Parliament can stop or hinder them in the free and actual administration which is an abrogation of the foresaid Act concerning the Coronation as to this point for how can the administration be devolv'd immediatly upon the Successor if he cannot administrat till he be Crown'd and have sworn this Oath The next objection is that since the King and Parl. may by Act of Parl. alter the Successions of privat families though transmitted by the Right of blood why may they not alter the Succession in the Royal family To which it is answered that the reason of the difference lyes in this that the Heirs of the Crown owe not their Succession to Parliaments for they succeed by the Laws of God nature and the Fundamental Laws of the nation whereas privat Families are Subject to Parliaments and inferiour to them and owe their privat Rights to a municipal Law and so may and ought in point of Right to be regulated by them And yet I am very clear that a Parliament cannot arbitrarly debarr the eldest Son of a privat Family and devolve the Succession upon the younger and if they did so their Acts would be null But if this argument were good we might as well conclude by it that no persone born out of England or attainted of treason could succeed to the Crown Because he could not succeed to a privat Estate All which and many moe instances do clearly demonstrat that the Successor to the Crown cannot be debarr'd nor the Succession to the Crown diverted by Act of Parliament The last objection is that Robert the III. King of Scotland was by ane Act of Parliament preferr'd to David and Walter who as he pretends were truly the eldest lawful Sons of Robert the 2d because Euphan Daughter to the Earl of Ross was first lawful Wife
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 quà m 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 Jenkins 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 Johns 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 the undenyable marks and Characters of a Fundamental Right in all Nations But that this right of lineal Succession is one of the Fundamental and unalterable Laws of the Kingdom of Scotland is clear by the Commission granted by the Parliament for the union in Anno 1604. In which these words are his Majesty vouchsafeing to assure them of his sincere disposition and clear meaning no way by the foresaid Union to prejudge or hurt the Fundamental Laws ancient Priviledges Offices and Liberties of this Kingdom whereby not only the Princely Authority of his most Royal descent hath been these many ages maintain'd but also his Peoples securities of their Lands and Livings Rights Liberties Offices and dignities preserv'd Whilks if they should be innovated such confusion should ensue as it could no more be a free Monarchy 6. There would many great inconveniencies arise both to King and People by the Parliaments having this power For weak Kings might by their own simplicity and Gentle Kings by the rebellion of their Subjects be induced to consent to such Acts in which their Subjects would be tempted to cheat in the one case and rebell in the other Many Kings likewise might be wrought upon by the importunity of their Wives or Concubins or by the misrepresentations of Favourits to disinherit the true Successor and he likewise to prevent this arbitrarienesse would be oblidg'd to enter in a faction for his own support from his very infancy This would likewise animate all of the Blood Royal to compete for the Throne and in order thereto they would be easily induc'd to make factions in the Parliament and to hate one another whereas the true Successor would be ingadg'd to hate them all and to endeavour the ruine of such as he thought more popular than himself Nor would the people be in better case since they behov'd to expect upon all these accompts constant civil warres and animosities
and by being unsure whom to follow might be in great hazard by following him who had no Right And their rights bearing to hold of the King and his Heirs it would be dubious to the vassals who should be their superiour as well as who should be their King It is also in reason to be expected that Scotland will ever owne the legal descent and thus we should under different Kings of the same Race be involv'd in new and constant civil warrs France shall have a constant door open'd by allyances with Scotland to disquiet the peace of the whole Isle and England shab loose all the endeavours it used to unite this Isle within it self Another great absurdity and inconveniency which would follow upon the exclusion of the lineal Successor would be that if he had a Son that Son behoov'd certainly to succeed and therefore after the next Lawful Heir were brought from abroad to Reigne he behov'd to return upon the Birth of this Son and if he dyed he would be again call'd home and would be sent back by the Birth of another Son which would occasion such affronts uncertainties divisions factions temptations that I am sure no good nor wise man could admit of such a project I find also that as the debarring the Righteous Heir is in reason the fruitful seed of all civil warr and misery for who can Imagine that the Righteous Heir will depart from his Right or that wise men will endanger their lives and fortunes in opposition to it so experience has demonstrated how dangerous and bloody this injustice has prov'd Let us remember amongst many Domestick examples the miseries that ensu'd upon the exclusion of Mordredus the Son of Lothus the destruction of the Picts for having secluded Alpinus the Righteous Heir the warrs during the reigne of William the Conquerour these betwixt King Stevin and Henry the II. betwixt the Houses of Lancaster and York betwixt the Bruce and the Baliol the murther of Arthur Duke of Britanny true Heir of the Crown of England with many other forreigne Histories which tell us of the dreadfull michiefs arising from Pelops preferring his youngest Son to the Kingdom of Micene from Aedipus commanding that Polinices his youngest Son should reigne alternatly with the eldest from Parisatis the Queen of Persia's preferring her youngest Son Cyrus to her eldest Artaxerxes from Aristodemus admitting his two Sons Proclus and Euristhenes to an Equall share in the Lacedemonian Throne The like observations are to be made in the Succession of Ptolemaeus Lagus and Ptolemaeus Phisco In the Sons of Severus in the Succession of Sinesandus who kill'd his Brother Suintilla Righteours Heir of Spaine And that of Francis and Fortia Duke of Millan with thousands of others In all which either the usurpers or the Kingdom that obey'd them perish'd utterly To prevent which differences and mischiefs the Hungarians would not admitte Almus the younger Brother in exclusion of the elder Colomanus though a silly deform'd creature albeit Almus was preferr'd by Ladislaus the Kings elder Brother to both Nor would France acquiesce in St. Lewis his preferring CHARLES his 3 Son to Lewis the eldest And the English refus'd to obey Lady Iean Gray in prejudice of Queen Marie though a Papist and persecuter Tali constanti veneratione nos Angli legitimos Reges prosequimur c. sayes an English Historian 7. If Parliaments had such powers as this then our Monarchy would not be hereditary but elective the very essence of ane hereditary Monarchy consisting in the right of Succession according to the contingency of blood Whereas if the Parliament can preferre the next save one they may preferre the last of all the line for the next save one is no more next than the last is next And the same reason by which they can choose a Successor which can only be that they have a power above him should likewayes in my opinion justifie their deposing of Kings And since the Successor has as good Right to succeed as the present King has to Govern for that Right of blood which makes him first makes the other next and all these Statuts which acknowledge the present Kings Prerogatives acknowlege that they belong to him and his Heirs It followes clearly that if the Parliament can preclude the one they may exclude the other And we saw even in the last age that such reasons as are now urged to incapacitat the children of our last Monarch from the hope of Succession viz. Popery and arbitrary Government did embolden men to Dethrone and Murder the Father himself who was actual King 8. That such Acts of Parliament altering the Succession are ineffectual and null Is clear from this that though such an Act of Parliament were made it could not debarre the true Successor because by the Laws of all Nations and particularly of these Kingdoms the Right of Succession purges all defects and removes all impediments which can prejudge him who is to Succeed And as Craig one of our learn'd lawyers has very well express'd it Tanta est Regii sanguinis praerogativa dignitas ut vitium non admittat nec se contaminari patiatur And thus though he who were to succeed had committed murther or were declar'd a traitour formerly to the Crown for open Rebellion against the King and Kingdom yet he needed not be restor'd by Act of Parliament upon his comming to the Crown But his very Right of blood would purge all these imperfections Of which there are two reasons given by Lawyers one is that no man can be a Rebel against himself nor can the King have a Superior And consequently there can be none whom he can offend And it were absurd that he who can restore all other men should need to be restored himself The second reason is because the punishment of crimes such as confiscations c. Are to be inflicted by the Kings Authority or to fall to the Kings Thesaury and it were most absurd that a man should exact from himself a punishment Likeas upon this account it is that though in the Canon Law Bastards cannot be promov'd to sacred orders without dispensation nor can alibi nati that is to say people born out of England be admitted to succeed in England by express Act of Parliament there Yet Agapaetus Theodorus Gelasius and many others have been admitted to be Popes without any formal dispensation their election clearing that imperfection And the Statute of alibi nati has been oft found not to extend to the Royal line That the Succession to the Crown purges all defects is clear by many instances both at home and abroad The instances at home are in England Henry the VI. Being disabled and attainted of high treason by Act of Parliament it was found by the Judges notwithstanding that from the moment he assum'd the Crown he had Right to succeed without being restored And the like was resolved by the Judges in the case of Henry the VII As
past designing him Heir to the Crown and Earl of Carrick and consequently he was so design'd before the death of Euphan Ross. 5. I have seen a Charter granted by King Robert the 2d when he was only Steward of Scotland granted in anno 1165 and so long before he was King In which Charter likewise John thereafter King by the name of Robert the 3d is a conjunct Disponer with him under the express designation of the eldest Son and Heir Robertus Senescallus Scotiae Comes de Strathern Ioannes Senescallus primogenitus haeresipsius Dominus Baroniae de Kyle c. which Charter confirms to the Abbacy of Pasley several Lands disponed to them by Reginaldus More Father to Sir William More of Abercorn And I find that David Duke of Rothsay was always in the Charters granted by his Father King Robert the first called Primogenitus and he was no Bastard nor can this designation be given to a Bastard as is clear by Covarâ—vâ—as de Matrim part 2. cap. 8. § 2. num 4. But how can it be imagined that the Monks of Pasley would have taken a Right from a person as Heir to the Crown who was not for this would have infer'd Treason against them beside the annulling their Right or who could understand better the lawfulness of a Marriage than a body of Church-men living in the time and very near to the Residence of the married Persons and in whose Conventual-Church the said King Robert and Elizabeth Muir ly buried together Item I have seen in the Registers another Charter granted by King Robert the 2. in the first year of his Reign with the consent of John Earl of Carrick primogenitus haeres Allano de Lavidia terrarum de Whitslet And an other granted by the said King 1. June anno primo regni confirming to Paulo M ctire a Charter granted by the Earl of Ross Father to Euphan wherein the said John primogenitus hares is a Witness And to shew that the said Euphan Ross was then living when he was so design'd Heir there is a Charter to her by the King upon the very same day of the Lands of Lochleaven As also there is a Charter granted by King Robert the 2d the first year of his Reign to Alexander his Son and another to John Kennedy of the Barrony of Dalrymple in both which the said John Earl of Carrick is call'd primogenitus and is Witness with the Earl of Dowglass so that he has been design'd eldest Son and Heir openly uncontravertedly and in all Papers and with the consent of the second Wife and her Relations 6. In the Parliament 1372 the said John Earl of Carrick is design'd to be Lieutenant of the Kingdom and all the Estates of Parliament swear to own him in his Government and which Statute is printed amongst the Satutes of King Robert the 2d Father to the said John and which must be during the Marriage with Euphan Ross for she liv'd three years after her Husband was King and he succeeded to the Crown anno 1371 And this also confutes Buchanan who asserts that he was created Earl of Carrick after the death of Euphan Ross and it is against all sense and reason to think that he could have been acknowledg'd during her life if he had not been the true Apparent Heir of the Crown and a lawful Son 7. Walter who they pretend should have succeeded to the Crown having kill'd his Nephew King James the first Son to King Robert the 3d He was not only not own'd after the death of the said King James as certainly he had been if his Title had been good and his Right so recent and demonstrable having so many great and powerful Relations that his Father was induc'd upon their account to marry his Mother but yet the said Walter was by all the Parliament unanimously condemn'd as a Traitor for having conspir'd the death of his lawful Prince Nor does Boetius justifie Walter 's Title in the least but on the contrary magnifies the Parliament for their just Sentence As did likewise Aeneas Silvius the Popes learned Legat who exhorted the Parliament to condemn him 8. How is it imaginable that King Robert who had so lately and after a strong competition come to the Crown would have adventur'd to make his Title yet more disputable by preferring a Bastard to the true Heir who had so many Friends by his Mother and who being an Infant had never disoblig'd him 9. If we will consider the opinion of the Civilians whom we and almost all Nations follow in the Cases of Succession we will find that the said King Robert the 3d was the eldest and lawful Son of King Robert the 2d filius legitimus non legitimatus For 1. They conclude that a Son is prov'd to be a lawful Son by the Assertion of the Father Alciat tract praesumpt Reg. 2 praesumpt 2. num 6. and certainly the Father is the best Judge in such Cases but so it is we have the Father owning the said Robert the 3d. to be his eldest Son and Heir both in Charters and Acts of Parliamnets which are the most solemn of all Deeds 2. Quando pater instituit aliquem tanquam filium sâ—um which holds in this Case where the Father institutes and leaves him Heir and the Parliament swears Allegiance to him as the Heir Mascard de prob vol. 2. conclus 799. And in dubious Cases the Father's naming such a man as a Son presumes him to be a lawful Son nominatio parentis inducit filiationem in dubio l. ex facto § si quis Rogatus ff ad trebell 3. Even Fame and the common opinion of the People do in favours of these that are in Possession and in ancient Cases prove filiationem legitimationem Mascard conclus 792. but much more where the Fame and common Opinion is adminiculated by other Arguments fulgos consil 128. Panorm in cap. transmiss qui filii sunt ligittimi 4. When Writs are produc'd calling a man a Son the Law concludes him to be a lawful Son Mascard vol. 2. conclus 800. num 15. all which can be easily subsum'd in our Case In which Robert the 3d. is nam'd not only Son but Heir and Allegiance sworn to him even in the lifetime of the second Wife and her Relations sitting in Parliament and all this acquiesc'd in for many hundreds of years and the Competitors punish'd as Traitors by the unanimous consent of all the Parliament I know that Buchanan does most bitterly inveigh against those Laws made by King Kenneth the 3d as Laws whereby the ancient Right of Succession was innovated and whereby the Government was settled upon Children who were neither able to consult with the People nor to defend them and whereby those had the Government of the Nation conferr'd upon them who were not capable to govern themselves To which my answer is That in this Buchanan's Malice contradicts his History for his own History tells us
that the Scots swore Allegiance to Fergus and his Posterity and consequently Fergus's Son ought by Law to have succeeded and not his Brother for his Brother was none of his Posterity and therefore those Laws made by K. Kenneth did but renew the old Law and the innovation introduc'd in favours of the Uncles was a subversion of the fundamental Law to which they had sworn 2. That the old Law was not abrogated but was in Being by vertue of the first Oath appears very clear by Buchanan himself who confesses that upon the death of Durstus a wicked Prince it was debated whether his Son should not succeed juxta sacramentum Fergusio prestitum veteremque esse morem servandum which acknowledgeth that the Succession was even in these days established by Law by Oath and by Custom and after the death of Fergus the 2d his Son Eugenius though a Minor was crown'd and his Uncle Graemus allow'd to be his Tutor And Buchanan also brings in Bishop Kennedy lib. 12. praising this Law as made by Kenneth a most wise and glorious Prince with advice of all his Estates of Parliament and which rather confirms as he says the old Law than introduces a new one so far did Buchanan's rage against Queen Mary prevail with him to praise and rail at the same individual Law and it is observable that it is very dangerous to recede once from fundamental Laws for Buchanan makes not only the Succession Elective but he makes no difference betwixt lawful Children and Bastards and excludes not only Minors during the Uncles life but Women for ever 3. In all Nations where the Monarchy is Hereditary Minors succeed and so this innovation of causing the next Male succeed for all his Life was contrary to the nature of the Monarchy and to the Customs of all Nations and God in Scripture gives us many instances of it Jâ—as succeeded when he was seven years of Age Josiah when he was eight Manasseh in twelve and Azariah in sixteen and yet in those days God is said to have chosen the King for it is said in Deut. Thou shalt set over thee the King whom I have chosen and consequently the choice of Minors cannot be ill since God Almighty us'd to make such a choice I know that Eccless 10. 16. says Woe unto the land when thy King is a child but the Criticks interpret this of a King that is childish puen intellectu moribus or because Factions arise by the opposition to his Regents and this inconveniency did more necessarily attend the allowing a Regent King during Life for both the Subjects and the true Heir rais'd Factions in that Case whereas the Subjects only are factious in the other and yet even they are no more factious for that short time than they are always in Common-wealths 4. The reason why the Minor King was to have one to supply his Nonage ceasing with his Majority it was unreasonable that the Remedy should have lasted beyond the Disease and the worst effect that could have been occasion'd by the Infant King's Minority was that the Kingdom should have been during that time govern'd by joynt advice of Parliament Councils and Officers of State which in Buchanan's opinion in other places of his History and Book De Jure Regni is so excellent a Model that he decrys Monarchy as much inferior to it 5. It was most inconvenient to accustom any private Family to live in the quality of a King 6. It could not but occasion many Murders and much Faction for the true Heir could not live peaceably under this Eclipse and Exclusion nor could the Uncle live without making a Party to secure his pleasant Usurpation 7. As these Divisions and Factions were the natural and necessary Effects that were to be expected from this irregular Succession so it is very observable that from King Fergus to King Kenneth the 3d we had 79. Kings amongst whom almost the half were the most impious tyranical or lazie Kings that ever we had according to Buchanan's character of them so happy and wise a thing is this so much magnified Election of a Successor by the People and their Representatives to supply the defects of the lawful Heir whereas from King Kenneth the 3d to King CHARLES the 2d inclusivè we have had 3â— Kings 26. of whom have succeeded by a due lineal Right and have prov'd vertuous Princes greater by their Merit than their Birth as if God had design'd to let us see that though most of them succeeded whilst they were very young yet that he can choose a fitter Successor than Parliameuts can do whereas the other 5. Kings who came to the Crown against that Law of Kenneth the 3d viz. Constantine the bald Grimus Mackbeath Donal Bain and Duncan the 2d were all persons who deserved very ill to be preferred to the true Heir and who as they came to the Crown against Law so govern'd without it And it is very strange that the Fanaticks who think that every throw of the Dice is influenc'd by a special Providence will not allow that God does by a special Providence take care who shall be his Representative who shall be the Pastor of his Flock and nursing Father of his Church let us therefore trust his Care more than our own and hope to obtain more from him by Christian Submission Humility and Obedience than we can by Caballing Rebelling and Sacrilegious-Murdering or Excluding the true Successor FINIS What follows is immediatly to be subjony'd to the Testimony of Calvin Page 90. I Know that to this it may be answered That the same Calvin does qualifie his own words which I have cited with this following Caution Si qui sunt saith he populares Magistratus ad moderandam Regum libidinem constituti quales olim erant qui Lacedemoniis regibus oppositi erant ephori quâ etiam fortè potestate ut nunc res habent fuguntur in singulis regnis tres ordines quum primarios conventus peragâ—nt adeo illos ferocienti Regum licentiae pro officio intercedere non veto ut si Regibus impotenter grassantibus humili plebeculae insultantibus conniveant eorum dissimulationem nefariâ perfidiâ non carere affirmam quia populi libertatem cujus se tutores Dei ordinatione positos nôrunt frandulenter produnt To which my reply is That these words must be so constructed as that they may not be incosistent with his former clear and Orthodox Doctrine of not resisting Supream Powers the former being his positive Doctrine and this but a supervenient Caution and they do very well consist for though Calvin be very clear that Kings cannot be resisted yet he thinks that this is only to be mean'd of those Kings who have no Superiors to check them by Law as the Kings of the Lacedemonians had who by the fundamental Constitution of their Monarchy might have been call'd to an accompt by the Ephori and so in effect were only Titular Kings
Or of such Monarchs as had only a co-ordinate Power with the States of their own Kingdom and even in these Cases he does not positively assert that these Monarchs may be resisted but does only doubt whether if there be any such Superior or co-ordinate Magistrate representing the People they may not restrain the Rage and Licentiousness of their Kings But that Caution does not at all concern the Jus Regni apud Scotos because this cannot be said of the Kings of Great Britain since the States of Parliament are only call'd by the King and derive their Authority from him and the Legislative Power is solely in the King the States of Parliament being only Consenters he and not they can only make Peace and War and grant Remissions and against him and not them Treason only is committed and the Law Books of both Nations do affirm that the King is Supream and consequently even according to Calvin's Doctrine neither his People nor any of their Representatives can justly oppose and much less punish him I know that Grotius is by the Republicans and the Fanaticks oft-times cited to defend this their Doctrine of opposing Princes but though his Testimony might be justly rejected as being himself born under a Commonwealth yet he is most impudently cited for he lib. 1. cap. 4. does positively lay down as a general and undoubted Rule that Summum imperium tenentibus resisti non potest Those who have the Supream Power cannot lawfully be resisted whilch Rule he founds upon the Principles of Reason the Authority of Scripture and the Practice of the Primitive Church and though he limits the same thereafter by some exceptions yet it will easily appear that these exceptions extend not at all to our Case For the first relates only to such Kings as have receiv'd their Power with express condition that they may be try'd by other Magistrats The second to such as have voluntarily resign'd their Empire as Charles the 5th did and so the one may be oppos'd because they were only Titular Kings and the other because they left off to be Kings and consequently we are concerned in neither of these Cases The third limitation is only in the Case where he who was truly a King has alienated his Kingdom to Strangers In which Case Grotius does contend that Subjects may refuse to obey because he ceaseth to be their King But as this is not our Case so even in that Case Grotius is very clear that if this alienation be made by an Hereditary Monarch the alienation is null as being done in prejudice of the lawful Successor but he does not at all assert that the Monarch may be thereupon depos'd by his People The fourth relates only to such Kings as from a hatred to their Countrey design its Destruction and utter Ruine but as he confesseth himself Id vix accidere potest in Rege mentis compote and consequently can take only place in a mad Man in which Case all Laws allow the Kingdom to be rul'd by Governours and Administrators in the King's Name if the Madness be Natural and a total depravation of Sense But if by Madness be mean'd a moral Madness and design to ruine the Kingdom and the Subjects as was and is most impiously pretended against King CHARLES the first and King CHARLES the 2d the best and most reasonable of Kings then Opposition in such Cases is not at all warranted by Grotius who speaks only of a Physical and Natural Madness for else every thing that displeaseth the People should be call'd Madness and so the exception should not limit but overturn the general rule and should arm all Subjects to rebel against their Princes and make them the Soveraign Judges in all Cases Which is inconsistent with Grotius's own Doctrine and is excellently refuted by his own Reasons The fifth relates only to Kings who by the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom are ty'd to such and such Conditions so as that if they fail in them they may be oppos'd The sixth relates only to Kingdoms where the Power is equally devided betwixt the King and the Senate The seventh is incase the King was at first invested by the People with express reservation to them to resist in such and such Cases and so is almost the same with the fifth and all these three differ little from the first And with Grotius good leave they err also in this that they are not properly exceptions from his own rule for the rule being only that Supream Powers cannot be resisted these Powers are not Supream and they needed not be caution'd by an exception since they did not fall under the rule But neither of these Cases extend to us since our King is by the Acts of Parliament fomerly cited declared to be Supream over all Persons and in all Causes nor made our Predecessors any such express reservations at the first erection of the Monarchy and consequently by Grotius own positive Doctrine cannot be resisted And so far is Grotius an enemy to such Fanatical Resistance upon the pretence of Liberty and Religion that num 6. he calls the Authors of these Opinions Time Servers only And Gronovius a violent Republican and Fanatick taxes him extreamly for it in his Observations upon that fourth Chapter whose Arguments adduc'd against Grotius I shall answer amongst the other Objections Gronovius's first Argument why it should be lawful to resist the Supream Magistrate in defence of Religion is because if it be not lawful for Subjects to Arm themselves for Religion against their Prince it should not be lawful for their Prince by the same rule to defend himself against Turks and Infidels who would endeavour to force him to comply with their Impieties But to this it is answered That Resistance to Superiors is expressly discharg'd by the Laws of God and Nature as said is but this cannot be extended to Cases where there is no Subjection nor Allegiance and it may be as well argu'd that because one private man may beat another who offers to strike him that therefore a Child may beat his Parent or a Servant his Master or that because I may violently resist a private man who offers to take away my Goods unjustly that therefore I may oppose the Sentence of the Magistrat because I forsooth do not think the same just His second shift is That our Saviour commanded only absolute submission without resistance in the Infancy of the Church when he himself was miraculosly to assist his own Servants but this Submission was to end with the Miracles to which it related As to which my answer is 1. That all the Commands in Scripture may be so eluded nor is there any Duty more frequently and fully inculcated than this is and that too in the same Chapters amongst other Duties which are to last for ever such as submission to Parents and Masters and this is founded upon plain reason and conveniency and not upon Miracles 2. This was receiv'd and acknowledg'd