to King Robert the 2d and she bore him David Earl of Strathern and Walter Earl of Athol Alexander Earl of Buchan and Euphan who was married to James Earl of Dowglass after whose deceass he married Elizabeth Muir Daughter to Sir Adam Muir not so much as Buchanan observes from any design to marry a second Wife as from the great love he carried to Elizabeth Muir whom because of her extraordinary Beauty he had lov'd very passionatly in his youth and before he married the Earl of Rosses Daughter and from the love which he bore to the Sons whom Elizabeth had born before that first Marriage who were John Earl of Carrick who thereafter succeeded to the Crown by the Title of Robert the 3d and Robert Earl of Fife and Monteith he prevail'd with the Parliament to prefer John eldest Son by Elizabeth Muir to the two Sons which he had by the Earl of Rosses Daughter who was as they pretend his first lawful Wife In which though I might debate many nice points of Law relating to this Subject yet I choose only to insist on these few convincing Answers 1. That in a Case of so great moment Historians should be little credited except they could have produc'd very infallible Documents and as in general one Historian may make all who succeed him err so in this Case Boetius who was the first liv'd and wrot 200 years after the Marriage of King Robert the 2d and wrot his History at Aberdeen very remote from the Registers and Records by which he should have instructed himself nor did he know the importance of this point having touch'd it only transiently though it has been design'dly press'd by Buchanan to evince that the Parliaments of Scotland might prefer any of the Royal Line they pleas'd and it is indeed probable that King Robert the 2d did for some time make no great noise of his first Marriage with Elizabeth Muir least the meaness of the Match should have weaken'd his Interest upon his first coming to the Crown he being himself the first of the Race of the Stewarts and having so strong Competitors as the Earl of Dowglass who claim'd Right to the Crown in the Right of the Baliol and the Cummings as Boetius himself observes 2. King Robert the 3d. having succeeded as the eldest lawful Son and having been receiv'd as such by that Parliament and his Posterity by all succeeding Parliaments the Possession of the King and the Acquiescence of the People is the most infallible proof that can be adduc'd for proving that Robert was the eldest lawful Son nor have most Kings in Europe or the Heads of most private Families any other proof of their being the eldest and lawful Sons save that they succeeded and were acknowledg'd as such 3. To ballance the authority of these Historians I shall produce the Testimonie of the Learned Sir Lewis Stewart one of the most famous Lawyers we ever had and who ought much more to be believ'd than Buchanan not only because he was more disinterested but because he founds upon Acts of Parliament and old Charters which he himself had seen in the Registers in which Elizabeth Muir is acknowledg'd to have been the first Wife Buchananus lib. 9. in vitam Roberti 2. affirmat Euphaniam Comitis Rossenssis filiam primam Regis Roberti 2. uxorem fuisse eâ mortuâ Regem superinduxisse Elizabetham Moram ex qua prius Liberos ternos mares suscepisset â—am â—xâ—rem duxisse ejusque liberos regno destiâ—â—sse ut postea eorum natu maximus sucâ—â—essit quod quam falsum sit apparet ex archivis in carcere Edinburgensi reconditis ubi exstant separata acta duorum Parliamentorum subscripta manibus Ecclesiasticorum praesulum nobilium baronum aliorum statuum Parliamenti eorum sigillis roborata quibus Elizabetha Mora agnoscitur prima uxor Euphania Rosse secunda liberis ex Elizabetha Mora tanquam justis haeredibus Regni successive regnum dcernitur post eos liberis Euphaniae Rosse nec non ibidem cartae extant plurima factae per Davidem secundum eorum patruum magnum ex diversit terris Ioanni filio primogenito nepotis ejus Roberti dum Euphania Rosse viverit nec non Dar vidi filio natu maximo Euphaniae Rosse quem solum filium indigitat Roberti nepotis quod non fecisset si Elizabetha Mora non prius fuisset nupta Roberto ejus nepoti naâ— primogenitus nunquam attribuitur notho inâ— ego plures quam vigintâ— cartas in archivis inveni ubi etiam eas reliqui ex quibus sole clarius elucessit Elizabetham Moram primaâ—â— fâ—isse uxorem Euphaniam Rosse secundam nam extra contraversiam liberi Elizabethae Morae etate grandiores eraâ—t liberis Euphaniae Rosse which Paper I did get from the Lord Pitmeden who has himself written some learn'd Observations upon this point 4. I have my self seen an Act of Parliament found out by the industry of Sir George Mackenzie of Tarbet now Lord Register having the intire Seals of the Members of Parliament appended thereto by which the Parliament do swear Allegiance to Robert the 2d the first King of the Race of the Stewarts and after him Roberto Comiti de Carrict filio suo natâ— maximo his eldest Son in Anno 1371 which was the first year of his Reign and if the pretended defect be true it was a very palpable and a very undenyable one and could not but have been unanswerably known to the whole Nation And how can we imagine that the whole Parliament would have unanimously drawn upon themselves so dreadful a Perjury by excluding the lawful Heir against their National Oath in the Reign of K. Kenneth the 3d whereby they swore to own always the immediate Heir or that they would have entail'd upon themselves a Civil War by preferring even a questionable Heir after the Miseries which they had lately then felt in the competition betwixt the Bruce and the Baliol Amongst which Seals the Seal of James Earl of Dowglass is one and how ridiculous is it to think that he would sit and declare a Bastard preferable to the Brother of his own Lady and to his own Lady who would have succeeded if her Brothers had died without Succession Which Act of Parliament does also clearly prove that Buchanan did not at all understand matters of Fact in this part of the History for he asserts that after the death of Euphan Ross the King married Elizabeth Muir and did by Act of Parliament obtain the Crown to be settled upon Robert the 3d Son to the said Elizabeth Muir upon whom he also bestow'd the Title of Carrick all which is most false for this Act of Parliament is dated in Anno 1371 and King Robert the 2d succeeded to the Crown that year nor did Euphan Ross die till the 3d. year after he succeeded to the Crown and so not till the Year 1374 and yet in Anno 1371 this Act is
by the Pagans as has been fully prov'd though it cannot be pretended that they rely'd upon any such miraculous assistance 3. It cannot be deny'd but the Fathers of the Primitive Church did recommend and justifie themselves in their Apologies to the Heathen Emperors for bearing patiently when they were able not only to have resisted but to have overthrown their Persecuters as is clear by the Citations out of Tertullian Cyprian Lactantius Augustine and others to be seen in Grotius De Jure Belli lib. 1. cap. 4. num 7. And it had been great impudence as well as sin in them to have boasted of a recent matter of Fact which was not true nor could there be a greater injury done to the Primitive Christians as Grotius observes than to ascribe that to their Weakness which they consider'd as an effect of Duty and why should the Heathen Emperors have suffered those to multiply who obey'd only because Disobedience was not safe for they might have certainly concluded that by the same Principle that they obeyed only because they were weak they would disobey how soon they were able 4. If the first Christians in general had obeyed only because they were not able to resist then any private Christian had resisted when he was able or would have fled or conceal'd himself whereas it it acknowledg'd in the other Answer press'd by Gronovius himself that they sought for Martyrdom and so these two Answers are inconsistent and the Thebean Legion and others did submit themselves voluntarly to Martyrdom with their Arms in their hands and when they were able to have overthrown the Emperor And lastly If this Doctrine were allow'd no Society could subsist for when Dissenters grew strong the lawful Magistrat behov'd to perish whereas Jesus Christ did contrive the Christian Religion so as that all Governours should reasonably wish their Subjects to be Christians and so as no Christian should attempt to overthrow the order and establishment of Civil Government and that they should not be drawn away from the practice of Christian Devotion by the carnal desires of being great and strong in the World nor have any hopes in the Arm of Flesh to the lessening of their immediate dependence upon him His third shift is That his Doctrine of Submission and of dying for the Christian Religion without making Resistance was only the Practice but not the Command of the Primitive Church and proceeded from their immoderat affection of the Crown of Martyrdom as Milntoun also pretends But since the express Command of Scripture is founded upon such clear Reason and since as Grotius well observes the Practice of the Primitive Christians who liv'd so near the Age wherein these Scriptures were pen'd is the best Interpreter of the Scripture it is horrid Impiety to make those blessed Martyrs pass for vain Hypocrites and distracted Self-murderers and it becomes us with holy reverence to imitate those whom the Christian Church has ever admir'd The fourth shift is That the Protestant Churches have been reform'd by such Insurrections as these contrary to the Royal Authority But this is fully answered by the learned Henry More in his Divine Dialogues and by Du Moulin in his Philanax Anglicus where likewise are to be found the many Testimonies of Protestant Churches and Protestant Divines condemning positively the taking up of Arms against the Soveraign Power even for the defence of Religion and the very Presbyterian Confession of Faith at Westminster is so positive as to this point that the Presbyterians themselves can never answer it The sum of which answer is That the King of Spain coming by Marriage in place of the Duke of Burgundy the said King of Spain could pretend to no more power than they had nor could the House of Burgundy pretend to any more power by marrying the Heirs of the Counts of the several Provinces than these Counts had over their Provinces and therefore since none of these were Soveraigns over their Provinces the Provinces might have resisted the King of Spain when he oppress'd them and consequently that Resistance cannot defend such as resist Supream Powers upon pretence of Religion Grotius de Antiq. Reipub. Baâ—av cap. 7. The opposition made by the Protestants in France was not occasion'd by Religion but upon a Quarrel betwixt the Princes of the Blood and the House of Guise in the Minority of Francis the 2d and is defended most excellently by King James himself not to have been Rebellion in his Defence of the Right of Kings pag. 14. The Opposition made by the Princes of Germany to the Emperor was founded upon the inherent Right in the Princes by the golden Charter of the Empire And Luther himself declar'd that Magistratâ—â— non erat resistendum and has written a Book to that purpose nor would he engage in the Confederacy for Defensive Arms at Smalcald until the Lawyers declared that that Resistance was lawful by the Laws of the Empire Vide Slydan Hist. lib. 8. anno 1531. The War that arose in Switzerland was not occasion'd by Religion for the Reformation was once establish'd with the con-consent of the Magistrat And the Eruption that was made by other Cantons upon the Reform'd Cantons eleven years after that Establishment Vide Slydan anno 1522. Nor was it Calvin who banish'd the Prince and Bishop of Geneva for he fled eight Months before upon the detecting of a Conspiracy by which that Bishop was to deliver over the Liberties of that City to the Duke of Savoy and for which his Secretary was hang'd Vide Turretin Annal. Reformationis anno 1529. And albeit those who Reform'd in Scotland in the Reign of Queen Mary pretended Authority from the King yet they were certainly Rebels and are condem'd by Rivet a famous Protestant Divine who also inveighs bitterly against this Principle Castiga Not. in Epist. ad Balsac cap. 13. num 14. sub finem From all which I observe First That all the Protestant Divines by making Apollogies for such of their Profession as have risen in Arms against Supream Powers must be thereby concluded to be asham'd of the Principle 2. Immediatly upon the quieting those Rebellions all the Protetestant Churches have in their Confessions of Faith declared their abhorrence of that Principle which being the product of Conviction and Experience joyn'd with Duty must be the most judicious and sincere Testimony of all others 3. All these Rebellions have been occasion'd by a mistake in point of Law and not in point of Religion for the Divines as I have related have been abused by the Lawyers And therefore since in the Isle of Britain the Laws of both Kingdoms have declared the Rising in Arms against the King to be Treason albeit for the defence of Religion it necessarily follows that this must be unlawful in point of Conscience in this Kingdom 4. Though good things may be occasion'd by a Rebellion yet that does not justifie a Rebellion for though Jeroboam was allow'd by God to rise against Rehoboam yet God Almighty himself calls his revolt Rebellion 1 Kings 12. 19. and 2 Chron. 10. 19. and it is observable that after this Revolt there was but one good King amongst all the rebellious Kings of Israel whereas amongst the Kings of Judah who were lawful Kings there was but one or two who were any ways impious so far does God bless a lawful Succession Some also use as a shift against this Orthodox Doctrine that the reason why the Primitive Christians did not oppose their Emperors in the defence of the Christian Religion was because they had not been secured at that time in the Exercise of their Religion by the Laws of the Empire and therefore the practice of those Christians can be no Argument why we may not now rise to defend the Orthodox Religion since it is now established by Law But this Objection is fully answered by that great great Antiquary Samuel Pelit Diatriba de Iur. Principum edictis Ecclesiae quaesito where he clearly proves that they were actually secured by the Edicts of the Emperors in the days of the Emperor Tiberius and downward and yet they would not rise in Arms though they were persecuted under these same Emperors because the Word of God and the Christian Religion did command Obedience under Persecution and discharged Resistance and taking up of Arms. Add to Page 73. I have also seen in Fordon's History lib. 14. pag. 73. a Charter granted by King David to the Bishops with the consent of Robert his Nephew and his Sons giving power to the Bishops to dispone in Testament upon their own Moveables which before that time did by a corrupt custom fall to the King in which Charter the Witnesses are Robertus Senescallus Comes de Strathern Nepos noster Ioannes Senescallus Comes de Carrict filius suus primogenitus haeres Thomas Comes de Mar Georgius de Dunbar Comes de March Gulielmus Comes de Dowglass so that here is not only the attestation of the Father before he was King naming John Earl of Carrick thereafter King Robert the 2d his eldest Son and Heir but the attestation of the Grand-Uncle King David who could be no ways byassed in the Affair and here he is ranked before the three eldest Earls in the Nation who were then the three first Subjects therein and it is against all Sense to think that the whole Bishops would have sought the consent of the said John as Apparent Heir of the Crown if he had not been Apparent Heir I find also that Fordon calls him when he is crown'd King Primogenitus Roberti secundi nor was there the least opposition made to his Coronation nor to the Coronation of Annabella Drummond his Queen a Daughter of the House of Stob-hall now Pearth though both the Sons of the second Marriage were then alive I sind also that Boetius himself acknowledges that the Earl of Marches Son George being pursu'd for having married clandestinly one of the Daughters of Elizabeth Muir his defence was that he married her when she was the Daughter of a private Subject and before King Robert was King whereas if she had been only a Bastard-Daughter it could have been no Crime to have married her
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
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