The right of primogeniture, in succession to the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland as declared by the statutes of 24 E.3 cap 2. De Proditionibus, King of England, and of Kenneth the third, and Malcolm Mackenneth the second, Kings of Scotland : as likewise of 10 H.7 made by a Parliament of Ireland : with all objections answered, and clear probation made : that to compass or imagine the death, exile, or disinheriting of the King's eldest son, is high treason : to which is added, an answer to all objections against declaring him a Protestant successor, with reasons shewing the fatal dangers of neglecting the same.

Objections chiefly by Buchanan against these Statutes, and the Policy of them, making Kingdoms Hereditary to the Eldest Sons, Answered.

[Object.] * 1.1Object. 1. Salus Populi, is above all Statutes, and the Power of Kings and Parliaments themselves, and above all Acts of Parlia∣ment: Statutes therefore which Repeal the Ancient Funda∣mental Laws which were in Great Britain, of Election by Par∣liament, and in Ireland by the Custom of Tanistry of Suc∣cession of the Brother before the Son; such Statutes ought them∣selves to be repealed, and not to repeal those which are better; and it being most necessary pro salute Populi, that he who is best able to defend a Kingdom against Enemies Foreign and Na∣tive, and hath learnt the same by Age and Experience, should succeed; which the Brother being more able and fit to do than the Son, ought, according to those Ancient and Necessary Cu∣stomes,

to succeed before the Son; which Custome as to Scot∣land is recited by Buchaman, Mos majorum qui è propinquis Regum defunctorum non proximos sed, maximè idoneos, eligerent, modo à Fer∣gusio primo Scotorum Rege essent oriundi. The Custom of Scotland was, That the Parliament chose out of the Kindred of the King deceased, not the next, but the fittest, so as they were such as were descendents from Fergusius the first King of the Scots; and on this Custome Kenneth the Third, who was the Brother of King Duffus, was by Election of the Parliamem of Scotland pre∣ferred before Milcolumbus the Son of Duffus, though a Youth of great hopes; which Kenneth began his Reign Anno Dom. 970, and proved a most Valiant and Wife Prince, and repell'd a Mighty Invasion of the Danes, whom he overthrew in a Battel with a great Slaughter of them: but the same Kenneth after∣wards inflamed with Ambition, Covetousness, and Cruelty, se∣cretly poysoned Milcolumbus the then Prince of Scotland, being the said Son of his Brother Duffus deccased, and with great dis∣simulation counterseiting even Tears and great Grief for him, Convened a Parliament at Scone, whom partly by Terror, and partly by Deceit, he got to Abrogate the Law of Succession of Brothers before Sons, which had made him King, and been the Sanctuary of Publique Safety, and Enacted a Law of Succession for his own private and not the Publique Interest, clean con∣trary, viz. That the Kingdom should be from that time He∣reditary in this manner; That his own Eldest Son should be Prince of Scotland. That when any King dyed, his Eldest Son should next succeed to the Crown; and if the Eldest dyed living his Father, the Nephew should succeed instead of his Son who dyed: And other Constitutions, as appears, Buchanan rer. Scotl. 190, 191. Who saith further,* 1.2 Ita Rex per scelus posteris uti putabat regno stabilito, animum tamen suum confirmare non pot uit, &c. The King (saith he) having by so great a Wickedness established his Kingdom, as he thought, to his Posterity, he could not Establish his Mind; for although he courted all sorts of Men with the highest shew of Love and Courtesie, and so managed the Affairs of the Kingdom, that there was nothing wanting which shewed him not a good King; Yet his Mind perpetually disquieted with the conscience of his wicked fact, suffered him not to have any solid or sincere joy, but the thoughts of his foul Crime rushing into his memory, vexed him

by Day and by Night, most horrible Dreams disturbed his rest; at length, whether truly (as some affirm) or whether his troubled thoughts made him so fancy what oftentimes happens to Guilty persons, a voice came from Heaven, by which he seemed in his sleep to be warned, Doest thou think the Murder of Milcolumbus, an Innocent Person, committed by thee most wickedly in Secret, is hid from me? or that I will any longer suffer it to pass without punishment? For already there are Plots laid by Treason, which thou shalt not escape, to take away thy Life; neither shalt thou (as thou thinkest) leave thy Kingdom Stable or Secure, but full of Tu∣mults and Tempests to thy Posterity. With which fearful Dream the King being terrified, Early in the Morning he flyes to the Bishops and Monks, and declares to them the Confusion of his Mind, and Anguish of his Conscience for his Crime; but they gave him no true Remedy from the Doctrine of Christ (for they had already degenerated from the Piety and Learning of the Ancient Professors); But advised those many absurdities Long since invented by wicked Persons for their own gains, and rashly believed of the Unlearned and Overcredulous, That he should inrich with Gifts the Holy Places and Temples, and should visit the Sepulchres of the Saints, kiss their Reliques, redeem his Sins by Masses and Alms, and should have a greater Honour and Reverence for the Monks and Priests, than he had formerly us'd to have. Neither did he omit any of these Expla∣tions which he believed would help him: But he was notwith∣standing after by appointment of Fenella, a Lady formerly In∣jured by him, and an Ambuscada of Horse laid for him, taken and killed, as Buchanan, p. 192. after the death of Kenneth, and this Intayl of the Crown to his Issue by the Murder of his Brother's Son. It appears, Buchan. rer. Scotl. lib. 6. p. 192, 193. That Constantinus the Son of Caten called Calvus,* 1.3 began to dispute much against the Injustice of this Law, to which they were cir∣cumvented by fear to assent; and thus he begins, Quid enim Stultius quam rem unam omnium maximam à prudentium censura & Suffragiis ad Arbitrium fortunae revocare, &c. What (saith he) is more foolish than to take away a matter of the greatest con∣cern from the Votes of Wise Men in Parliament, and to cast it on the Wheel of Fortune; and that these should bind them∣selves to be ruled by a Child who hath the chance to be born, and who is ruled by some petty Woman, and drive away most

Valiant Men from assistance in the Government? What if the Children of Kings should have any infirmity of Body or Mind, whereby they are utterly disabled to perform necessary Acts of Empire; what if Children should have possessed the Kingdom in such time when we fought with the Romans, Britons, Picts, English and Danes, not for the Kingdom, but for Life? or what can be said more Mad, than what God threatens to the Contu∣macious, that Children should reign over them, as the highest Calamity we should enact as a Law, on our selves, and the grea∣test Threats of the Divine Prophets we should either contemn or run headlong into it of our own accord. Neither is there any truth in what the Flatterers of Kenneth boast, that by this means the Govetousness and Slaughters of Kindred are avoided. Neither are the Treacheries of Guardians less to be feared to the Children of Kings left in Minority, than of their Kindred; wherefore now the Tyrant being fallen who Ravished our Li∣berty, let us valiantly resume the same; and his Law Enacted by force, and assented to by fear, (if it be a Law, and not rather a selling us for Slaves) let us abrogate and repeal the same, and Restore again our Ancient Fundamental Laws, (which brought forth this Kingdom of nothing, and from so small beginnings not only advanced to such an height as is inferiour to none of our Neighbours; but when cast down, hath again raised the same to its former Strength; and let us imbrace the present opportunity while it offers it self; which if once Elapsed, we may in vain seek again. The People are by this perswaded; and the Twelfth day after the Funeral of Kenneth, he is chosen King Anno Domini, 994. And was after Slain in Battel in the Town of Vaumond in Louthian in the Second Year of his Reign. And though Milcolumbus or Malcolm the second Son of Kenneth the Third, who was so tormented in Conscience for Poysoning the first Son of his Brother Duffus, to get an Act to Intayl the Grown to his own Posterity, made no Conscience to kill Gri∣nius, another Son of the same Duffus, in Battel;* 1.4 and having by the Success gotten the Power of the Sword into his hand in the Same manner as his Father Kenneth had by force Enacted, again by force confirmed at the Same Scone, by Parliament, the Act of Intayl of the Crown to the Issue of Kenneth, Buchanan, 196. Yet doth Buchanan the same Historian, p. 200, & 201, censure this Act of changing the Ancient Law of Election by

Parliament of the Brother or any other person more fit than the Son, to be Injust, Imprudent and Infortunate.

Objections against the Reviver.

1. Injust,* 1.5 Because, he saith, Italex enervat vires consilij pub∣lici, sine quo nullus Legitimus dominatus potest consistere. Such a Law enervates the Strength of Parliaments, without which no Law∣ful Government can be; for all Government is either by Con∣quest or Contract. As to Conquest, there is none demanded or acknowledged on Such a Title. As to Contract, there can be none without a Parliament, who are the Representative of the People to contract for them.

2. Imprudent,* 1.6 Because, Propinquorum in eos qui Regno potiuntur insidias, et Regnantium adversus eos, quos et natura, et lex voluit ••••i{que} esse Charissimos suspitiones nesarias, quas narrationis or do Ex∣phrabit, tot priorum Seci••••orum clades cum illis collatae calamitatibus quae Alexandri tertij interitum sunt consecutae, Leves prae ijs & to∣lerabiles videri possunt. The Treacheries of Kindred against those who enjoy the Kingdom, and the wicked Suspitions of those who Reign against them, who by the Bonds of Nature and Law they ought to esteem most dear (as this discourse in order shall declare); And the Slaughters of so many former Ages compared with the Calamities which hereby followed the death of Alexander the Third, were light and tolerable.

Note, Alexander the Third began his Reign Anno Domini 1649. he Married first Margaret Daughter to Henry the Third King of England, by whom he had Alexander, the Prince David, and Margaret who married Hangonamus, or, as some call him, Ericus, Son to Magnus 4th King of Norway, who bare him a Daughter commonly called the Maiden of Norway,* 1.7 Skene. And concerning this Lady of Norway, saith Buchanan, Lib. 8. p. 241. Edvardus Anglorum Rex gnarus suae sororis neptem Regis Norvegiae filiam unam, Ex Alexandri posteris esse superstitem, Eandem{que} Regni Scotorum Legitimam Heredem, Legatos ad eam deposcendam filio suo in Scotiam misit, &c. Edward the First King of England knowing his Neice the Daughter of the King of Norway to be the only Remaining Issue of Alexander the Third, and Lawful Heir to the Crown of Scotland, he sent his Ambassadours into Scotland

to ask her in Marriage for his Son: They when they Argued much in the Publique Gonvention of the Publique Benefit which would ensue such Marriage, they found the Minds of the Scots not Dis-inclined from that affinity; for Edward was a man of great Courage, and of great Power, and Ambition of greater. And the glory of his Valour in the Holy Warr while his Father was alive, and in Subduing Wales after his death, shone bright: Neither could they ever Remember the Scotish and English name to have been nearer Conjoyned, than under the Last Kings; Neither could old Hostility be more Commodiously abolished, then if there were an Union made of both Nations upon Honest and Equal Conditions. The Marriage was therefore Readily Assented unto, and Conditions added by Mutual assent of both, That the Scots should so long use their own Laws and Magi∣strates, till such Children should be born of the same as were able to Reign: And if none should happen to be procreated, or being born, should dye before their Lawful age; Then the Kingdom of Scotland should go to the next of the Blood-Royal. Things being thus Agreed, Michael, or as others mention, Dae∣vid Wemes, and Michael Scot, two Knights of Fife, of great. Repute for their Prudence, with their Country in those Times, were sent Embassadors to Norway; but they, because Margaret (for that was the Young Ladies Name) dyed before their Arri∣val, returned home sad and nothing done; by whose immature death there arose such Controversie as vehemently shook En∣gland, and almost destroyed the Name of the Scots. For to go on with the History as he and other Writers Relate it, not with∣standing this new Act of Intayling the Crown,* 1.8 there arose Ten Competitors for the Succession, Erick King of Norway; Florence Earl of Holland; Robert Bruce Earl of Anandale; John de Baliol, Lord of Galloway; John de Hastings Lord of Abergaveny; John Cumyn, Lord of Badenair; Patrick de Dunbar, Earl of March; John de Vesey, Nicholas de Hues, William de Ross, All or the most part of them alledging themselves descended from David Earl of Huntingdon, Younger Brother to William King of Scots, and Great Uncle to the late King Alexander.

But the Principal and most Potent Factions which contended, were that of Balyol and Bruce, On which, saith Sir Richard Ba∣ker, Hist. 96. broke out the Mortal Dissention between the Two Nations, which consumed more Christian Blood, and

continued longer,* 1.9 then any Quarrel we read of ever did be∣tween any Two People in the World; for he that began it could not end it, but it lasted almost Three Hundred Years, and was never throughly abolished, till it pleased God to Unite the Discordant Blood of the Three Kingdoms in King James; Which Discords had never happened amongst these Ten Com∣petitors, had not the Ancient Law of Electing by Parliaments the fittest of the Blood-Royal (whereby generally Brothers were Elected before Sons) been abolished. A very Imprudent way therefore is it to design for Publique Peace, what Experi∣ence shews to have the greatest cause of perpetual Wars for so long a time as 300 years together.

The like Civil Wars in England followed between York and Lancaster from Generation to Generation, and this Statute of Treason prevented not the same.* 1.10 Another Imprudence, Bu∣chanan mentions, p. 201. Ʋt Reges videlicet constituamus quibus alij Rectores praeficiendi, & in eorum potestatem universum tradamus populum, qui ipsi sui potestatem non habent, & qui aegre Regibus usu rerum peritis & prudentia praestantibus parent, poscimus ut qualibus∣cun{que} Regum umbris pareant. That we should constitute Kings to govern, who must have others set over them to govern them∣selves; and that we should deliver the whole People into their Power who have not power over themselves; and that we should require of such who will hardly obey the best Kings, and most Excellent in Experience and Wisdom to obey any shadows of Kings shall be set over them.

* 1.11Of a third Imprudence and Infortunateness incident in this to Princes themselves, he sayes, Quod autem privatunt ex hac Lege petunt Reges Emolumentum ut generis et nominis perpetuitatem inde sibi promittunt, id quam sit vanum et fallax, &c. That the private profit which Kings seek out of this Law, being the Perpetuity of their Race and Name, is very vain and deceitful, not only in manifold ancient Examples, but Nature it self may teach them, if they will consider with how many Laws and Rewards the Romans endeavoured to perpetuate the Famous Names of their Families, of whom there remains now not the least sign in the whole World conquered by them. And deservedly, I think, this happens to them who contend to give Eternity, which nei∣ther themselves have, nor can have, to a thing in its nature so flying and frail, and every moment obnoxious to all Casuality,

as cannot be capable of Stability; And attempt the same by such a way as is most contrary to their design: for what is less faithful to Diuturnity then Tyranny? but to the same this new Law prepares the way, and a Tyrant is the universal mark of the hate of Mankind, for whom it is impossible to stand long; and when he falls, he draws the Ruine of his whole Fa∣mily with him. This Endeavour of Foolish Men, the Deity seems to me, many times, to break with a Contemptuous stroak, and sometimes as a Competitor with him in Power to expose it to publique derision: And I know not whether there can be any more fit or manifest Example of the Divine Pleasure than in him whom we now mention:* 1.12 For Milcolumbus who so much Laboured to confirm by Parliament a Law Enacted by his Fa∣ther by force for the Succession of the Sons of Kings in their Fathers room, left no Issue Male behind him. And as to his two Daughters, one of them called Beatrice, he matched to a Noble-man call'd Crinus, a Thane of the Western Isles, and a Chief of the other Thanes, whom that Age call'd an Athan. The other call'd Doaca, he match'd to the Thane of Angus, by whom was begot Macbeth, of whom I shall speak further in his proper place, and indeed do we not find in all Ages the greatest Races sooner destroyed than the meaner: And if any have escaped the Tempest of Time, they have not been the Lofty Cedars, but the humble shrubs. Where are now all the Races of Gyants of the Old World? Where are now the Races of the Egyptian Gods, who in the reputed forms of Men reigned on the Earth? Where is the Race of Nimrod the Founder of the Assyrian? Of Arbaces the Founder of the Median? Of Cyrus the Founder of the Persian Empire?* 1.13 Is not the saying of Solo∣mon true, Prov. 27.24. Riches are not for ever, and doth the Crown endure to every Generation?

(2.) This new Law of intayling to Sons, though it may pre∣serve the Counterfeit name, yet destroys the true Fame of the Father, which is call'd,* 1.14 Isa. 56.5. a Name better then of Sons and Daughters. As there were so many Pharaohs that the Chro∣nologists are by the Ears and cannot agree which was the Pha∣raoh when Abraham went into Egypt, which was the Pharaoh Entertained Joseph, which was the Pharaoh commanded the Male Children to be destroyed; And which was the Pharaoh

was drowned in the Sea. The like of the Dariusses, and of the Herods, though they were but few, and many others.

Many other Names and Races whereby there can be no En∣couragement of Fame to Vertuous Actions for Publique good; nor Discouragement to Vitious by Infamy, who are causes of Publique Evils: whereas on the contrary, as is well observed by Sir Francis Bacon, Actions of the highest Fame, and of greatest Merit to the Publique, have been done by the unmarried and Childless Men; yea we find this Vanity of Intayling the Father's Name so much slighted by the great Nestorian Church in Persia, that if after Marriage a Male-Child were born,* 1.15 the Father lost his own Name, and was called by the Name of his Eldest Son; as, if the Father's name was Moses, and the Son's name Joseph; the Father was no more called Moses, but Aben-Joseph; that is, the Father of Joseph. Heylin, 660.

And we find though Darius destroyed Belshazzar the Son of the Conquering Nebuchadnezzer, and Cassander the Children and Mother of the Great Alexander, and Augustus destroyed Caesarian the Son of the Renowned Julius Caesar, whereby the Race of every one of these Conquerours became Extinguished soon after their death; yet we hear the Names of the Fathers resound to this Day more gloriously from the single Trumpet of Fame, than they could have done from the weak Cryes of Infants in a Numerous Off-spring, had they left a Posterity.

(3.) It is said against this Law of Intayling to Sons, That though the Royal Lines are not alwaies so suddenly Extinguish∣ed, as in the Last Examples; Yet the Periods of them and their Heirs Male, and of Races and Kingdoms themselves are fatal, and, as some Polititians observe, terminate most with about the Term of about 500 Years many under;* 1.16 few above. So in the Ancient Kingdom of the Egyptians, there were above Twenty Dynastyes, at the Period of every one of which, the Race of that King who began to Rule the Dynastye, Either Ex∣pired, or was Extinguished or Destroyed; and it is easie to see how many Races and Names of several Kings have in short time worn out and been changed to new, both in England, Scotland, France, Spain, &c. It is in vain therefore by human Laws to seek to resist the Decrees of God, and perpetuate a Race which God hath appointed to Determine, Seeing, as Solomon saith,

Eccles. 9.11. The Race is not to the swift, nor the Battel to the strong; neither yet Bread to the wise, nor yet Riches to men of un∣derstanding, nor yet Favour to men of skill. And it is said, Dan. 4. The Most High Ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. Better therefore both to Princes and Sub∣jects, is the Counsel of Christ, Matth. 6.33. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his Righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. Dan. 7.27. Whose Kingdom is an Everlasting Kingdom. And as is said, Psal. 16.11. In his Presence is fulness of Joy, at his Right Hand are Pleasures for evermore.

[Answ. 1] Answ. 1. As to the first Objection, That the Brother ought to be preferred before the Son, and Liberty left, according to ancient Custom, to the Parliament to Elect him, if he is Judged fittest for Succession; And that the Brother is alwaies most fit and more for the Safety of the Kingdom, he being alwaies of greater Age and Experience than the Son, who may chance to be a Child, and more need Tutors and Governours himself, than to Govern others. As to which part of the Reason of possibility of Minority in the Son, I answer,

• First, That à Posse ad esse non valet Argumentum. And with all due Honour had to the Age and Experience of others, the Eldest Son is here no Infant or Minor: But hath attained to a higher Maturity and Flower of Age and Strength, than Alexan∣der the Great, who began at Twenty to Conquer the World; and hath shewn already the Highest Proof of Valour in War, and Affection to Religion and Justice in Peace.
• Secondly, admit it should happen the Eldest Son to be an Infant or Minor, as the intention of this Statute is it may; which make it, notwithstanding his Infancy, Treason to Practise against him: And though an Eldest Son should be left at the Death of any King an Infant or Minor; yet by the Mercy of God, the Righteousness of the Title, and a standing Parlia∣ment During the Minority, The Infant and Kingdoms are as Safe, as if he were of full Age; And more. Safe than in the hand of a Collateral Heir of full Age, whose Guardianship is most dangerous to a Lineal Heir.

[Answ. 2] Answ. 2. As to the Reason, That it is more for the Fame of Vertue for the Father to have none of his name; Than to have

his name Lost amongst a Multitude of the same names derived from him to numerous Posterity; I shall answer in the words of Buchanan, in another place on another dispute, p. 406. Quod si de honore unus Et non de omnium salute hic esset disputatio, Ego quo{que} facile ac Lubens ad eorum sententiam accederem; verum cum de eo Statuendum sit hodie quod omnium privatorum vitam Et for∣tunam, quod totius Regni incolumitatem complectitur; huic uni c••∣gitationi omnes Singulorum rationes concedere oportet.

[Answ. 3] Answ. 3. As to that Reason of the Objection, That Periods of Royal Races and Successions to Kingdoms are natural, in re∣gard the subject matter is so frail as not to be Capable of Per∣petuity; and fatal, in regard God hath appointed the same by an Immutable Decree; and Providential, in regard it is often likewise effected by a particular Providence: and seeing the Laws by which God Governs the World,* 1.17 are the Law of Na∣ture, the Law of Fate, and the Law of Providence, quae supra nos nihil ad nos, they are irresistible, and all Human Laws to cause or avoid their effects, are in vain. To which is answer'd and gladly acknowledg'd, That God is pleased to Govern the World by all these Three Lawes; First, the Law of Nature, which is his Decree of Subordination of Causes. Secondly, the Law of Fate, which is his Decree of Co-ordination of Causes to such Ends as to his Wisedom seem best. These two are the Greatest, Imperial and Immutable Law of the World; and against these it is not only folly and a Sin to make Common Laws or Acts of Parliament,* 1.18 but even to pray.

Desine fata Deum flecti sperare precando.

Hope not from Prayers thou Thy Fate from God canst bow.

Thirdly, The Law of Providence, which is the Regulation of Accidents which are neither Decreed nor Immutable. And this is the Law Paternal,* 1.19 by which he Governs all his Crea∣tures sensible of Good and Evil. And as to this Law of Pro∣vidence, human Laws, Endeavours and Prayers are not only Lawful in such as are Capable to Pray, but necessary to obtain the good, and to avert the evil; and both these are acknow∣ledged by the Heathen Poets themselves,

Sed satis est orasse Jovem qui donat et aufert, Det vitam Det opes aequum mî animum ipse parabo. Hor. lib. 1. ad Lollium Epist.

Flectitur Iratus voce Rogante Deus.

Ovid.

But if we will take our Limitations of Prayer from Christi∣ans, they must have alwaies these two, That they must be Law∣ful; that is, not contrary to any revealed Law or Will of God; and likewise be alwaies with submission to his Secret Will.

* 1.20I Answer therefore, That though the Three Laws mention∣ed are great and wonderful Wages by which God governs the World in general, and Successions to Kingdoms in particular; yet they are not the only Lawes by which he doth it; but there is a Fourth Law as great as any of the former, which is the Law Moral; the obligation of which is Reward and Punishment, which not Improperly may be called a Law Magistratical; for as God is the Supreme King and Father, so is he likewise Su∣preme Magistrate of the World, and beareth not the Sword in vain. And this Law may only be Exercised, and the Obli∣gations thereof laid on the most Noble Subjects, who are so in Three respects: First, In regard of their Knowledg, as the Law Moral can only be Exercised over the Subjects Sensible and Intellectual;* 1.21 whereas the Laws of Fate and Nature may be Ex∣ercised both over these, and over Subjects Ignorant, Insensible, Irrational, Foolish Mad-men, and deprived of all Intellect alike. Secondly, in regard of their ability, as the Law Moral can be only Exercised on persons able to perform it; but the Laws of Nature, Fate and Providence, over Babes new born, Blind, Deaf, Dumb, Maimed, and the Dead themselves. Thirdly, in regard of Liberty, as the Law Moral can only be Exercised over free Agents; but the Lawes of Nature, Fate and Providence may be Exercised over necessary Agents, forced Agents, Bond-men, Slaves, Captives, Prisoners and persons in Chains and Fetters.

Though therefore all humane Actions are under one of these four Laws, & a Man is a necessary Agent as to the Law of Nature, and a forced Agent to the Law of Fate and Providence, and a free Agent as to the Moral Law; yet seeing he may be in many

things Ignorant when he is Ruled by Nature, when by Fate, when by Providence,* 1.22 and when by the Moral Law; and conse∣quently it may be secret and not revealed unto him when he is a necessary agent, when a forced agent, and when a free agent; or in the more Common word, when his Will is free, and when Bond: In this Ignorance therefore of all the other Three Secret Laws, he ought to act according to the Moral Law which God hath revealed and promulgated alwaies, and accord∣ing to the other Three when God hath in particular Acts of his own, manifested his Will in them, as it is an Act of God, that an Eldest Son is born who is an Infant or Minor; And a Brother born who is a Major, and this Act of God is good and of great Mercy; but that on this Act of God Murder should be Committed, or Civil Wars be unjustly Raised, is Evil, and an Act of Man, and God is not the Author of this Sin: and though no humane Law could have caused or prevented this of the Infancy of a Son, or Majority of a Brother; yet may and ought human Laws prevent or punish the wicked acts of men which may ensue thereon in attempts to Murder either; and seeing God by his Moral Law hath Commanded Powers to be a Terror to Evil Doers, it is their Duty therefore (And if they neglect it, the bear the Sword in vain) to make Laws to prevent and punish them, and not to leave Infants and Subjects Exposed in such a Wilderness of Dangers as this is of Succes∣sion, because its possible Fate may destroy them, notwith∣standing the greatest human care; and Providence may, with∣out any such care taken at all, preserve them; Which Stoical and Epicuraean Follies of fata regunt homines, fatis agimur, Cedite fatis, or Res humanas ordine nullo fortuna regit, or vita regitur Fortuna non Sapientia, to Extend beyond their Bounds prescri∣bed by God, or to all humane Actions because ordained and permitted in some, were like the Ridiculous Pagan Divinity derived from none but such Authors, Not to sow, because Fate may destroy the Harvest with it; and Providence may give an Harvest without it. Not to wear Arms in War, because Fate may destroy with them, and Providence may preserve without them: Not to do good Works, because if Predestinated to be Damn'd, thou shalt be Damn'd with them; And if Predesti∣nated to be Saved, thou shalt be saved without them. I should not have thought this of Fate worth the objecting or answer∣ing,

had I not found the same Actually press'd in the most Excellent Historian and Statist that ever writ in the Isle of Great Britain; for such was Buchanan, out of whom I have re∣cited it.

[Answ. 4] * 1.23 Answ. 4. As to the Calamities of Civil Wars which follow∣ed between Baliol and Bruce in Scotland, and the Houses of York and Lancaster in England, notwithstanding the Laws in both Kingdoms making the Crown Hereditary to the Eldest Son; And that such Lawes did not prevent the same: I Answer, first, As to Scotland, the effect of the Law of Primogeniture could not be expected, where there was no Eldest Son survi∣ving, nor on the Death of Margaret of Norway so much as an Heir Lineal Male or Female left; but if there had been an El∣dest Son left, there is no appearance of any thing against it, but the Crown of Scotland had never Returned to the Line of the Earl of Huntingdon, but remained in the Line of King Alexander the Third, who was the last Possessor; which would have prevented all those Ten Competitors to claym from Hun∣tingdon, and consequently the Wars between Baliol and Bruce. Then as to the Civil Wars in England, if Richard the Second had left a Son, there appears no probability that ever there had been a Civil War between York and Lancaster. Besides, if when there is an Eldest Son left, as was by Edward the Fourth, and an younger Son with him, and notwithstanding there fol∣lowed a new Civil War between York and Lancaster in the Per∣sons of Richard the Third, and Henry the Seventh, first though this Law of Primogeniture in Succession did not prevent it; And though the Law make it High Treason to Compass the death of the Eldest Son, yet could it not prevent the Murder of both the Sons. To which I answer, That it is not to be Imputed as a fault to the Statute or Law, that some wicked persons dare break it; but is notwithstanding of greater use as the Statutes which make it High Treason to Counterfeit the Kings Seal, or to Clip Money, and Felony to Rob on the High-Way; Though many have notwithstanding Counterfeited the Seal, Clipt Money, and Rob'd on the High-way; yet are not these Statutes Useless, but a great Security to the People: for though there are now a few, if there were no such Statute at all, there would be multitudes of Malefactors.

* 1.24Besides, as to the Particular Instance of Edward the Fourth, it was his Inadvertency, and indeed Imprudence to Commit the Guardianship of his Son in Minority to his Brother, who thereupon forged Illegitimacy against them, and Murdered them; And it was done for want of such a Law of Succession, as was Enacted by Kenneth the Third, and Malcolme Mackenneth the Second in Scotland, which according to Buchanan, lib. 6. p. 191. was,* 1.25 Ʋt Rege Impubere Tutor qui pro Rege esset interea Eli∣geretur vir prudentia & opibus insignis, qui ad quartodecimum usque Annum Regis nomine rem administraret. Ad id aetatis ubi Rex per∣venerit ipsi sibi curatores Eligere posset. That the King being un∣der the Age of Fourteen Years, Election should be made of a Guardian of great Estate and Wisdom, who should be his Re∣gent in the mean while, and Administer his Affairs in the King's Name till he arrived at the Age of Fourteen; and when he came to that Age, he himself might choose his own Guar∣dians: Which Election of a Guardian, must be intended to be by Parliament; for it appears by the words, That the Infant or Minor King must not, nor is able to choose himself, till he come to the Age of Fourteen. And it is contrary to Reason, that any other should be his own Judge to choose himself, to have to himself to his own use the Custody of the Person of the King,* 1.26 in whom all his Subjects have an Interest. And it would be very Dangerous to the Infant, if he who is next Successor to the Crown, should get the Custody of the Heir into his hands. There is no Third Power can be therefore above Exception, who ought to choose the Guardian of an Infant King, but the Parliament; And accordingly we find it to be the constant Practice of that Kingdom, as appears, Buchanan, Lib. 19. p. 687. when it is said, Sed cum homines usu rerum Edocti Perspicerint vix fieri posse ut in tanta fortunae inconstantia non aliquando in pueros, aut alioqui Regno ineundo Impares haeredes, jus summi Magistratus inciderit, &c. But when taught by Experience, men saw that it could not be but in so great inconstancy of Fortune, but the Right of the Supreme Magistracy might fall amongst Children or other Heirs unfit to Govern a Kingdom, they Ordained, That in the mean time one should be Elected Regent who Ex∣cell'd the rest in Estate and Counsel;* 1.27 and our Ancestors fol∣lowing this way for the space of Six hundred Years, have trans∣mitted thereby the Kingdom safe to Posterity. So Robert Bruce,

being dead, Thomas Randolph Earl of Murray, and Donald Earl of Mar, Andrew Murray, John Randolph, Robert Stuart succeeded singly, and sometimes more number are by Parliament chosen into that place. So James II. being a child, Alexander Leviston being of no Kin, nor of the chief Rank of Nobility, but only a Knight, and of more repute for Prudence then Antient De∣scent, was elected to be his Guardian. Neither can there be alledged any want of persons of the Royal Stock to have been the cause of such choice; for there was at that time John Ken∣nedy chief of his Family, and King James his Nephew by his Sister, there were his Uncles James Kennedy Archbishop of St. Andrews, Primate of the whole Kingdom in all kind of Ver∣tue, and his Brother, born of the Kings Aunt, Douglass Earl of Angus was not remote from the Kings Blood; Archibald Earl of Douglas, in Power almost equal to the King, and supe∣riour to any of the rest; yet did none of these complain of any Injustice in the Parliament for making another choice; and not long after four Guardians were given to James III. not taken for the Kindred, but chosen by Parliament. It was but of late that John Duke of Albin was sent for by the Nobility out of France to moderate the Affairs of Scotland, James I. being then a child, and was confirmed by a publick Act of Parliament. Neither was it done because he was next of Kin, for he had an Elder Brother called Alexander. But James I. being absent, Robert his Uncle ruled the Kingdom. And with what Right? Was he taken for nearness of Blood? No he was chosen by the People. Nor so neither. How then was he created? When Robert III. was so sick in body and mind, that he was not able to discharge his Office, he made his Brother Robert his Vice-Roy, and commended his Children to him. So his Brother starved to death David his Eldest Son, and sought how to de∣stroy likewise James his Younger, had he not escaped by slight. But he being now placed in possession of his Tyranny, and his Brother dead with grief, without Parliament or assent of the People he kept it, and by force left it to his Son Mordach, &c. Buchanan proceeds, p. 688. Quid enim minus justum esse poterat quam aetatem innoxiam at{que} infirmam ejus fidei committere, qui pupilli sibi crediti mortem semper expectat & optat? What can be more injust, then to commit the innocent and weak Age, to one who always hopes for, or wishes the death of the Pupil intrusted in

his hands. And after he saith, Laodice the Queen of the Cap∣padoceans is related to have killed every one of her children as in order they arrived at fourteen years of age, to gain thereby a little more time to reign. If a Mother will destroy her Chil∣dren to get the use of a little time, what shall we think, will their old Enemies dare, yea will they not dare to do, inflamed with the Brands of Covetousness, to cruelty against a Child hindering their hopes of a perpetual Kingdom? If this Exam∣ple seems old and obscure, or far-fetch'd, I will add more clear and nearer home: For who is so ignorant of things so lately acted, as he knows not Galeacius Sfortia, though at mans Estate, though married, and the Son in Law of a Potent King, to be killed by Lodowick his Uncle? Or to whom are the Calamities unknown which ensued that cruel Parricide, the most beautiful Region of Italy brought almost to a Devastation, the Sfortian Family,* 1.28 so fruitful of valiant men, destroyed; Barbarians let into the most pleasant Country watered by Po. Against whose Rapine nothing was safe, against whose Cruelty nothing was secure. Who hath been born in the soil of Great Britain, and hath not heard of the cruel Murder by Richard III. King of England of the Sons of his Brother Edward IV? A great cause of the murder likewise of these Princes was, that Papal and Episcopal Laws were not abolished which pretend to illegiti∣mate whom they please.

[Answ. 5] * 1.29 And (5.) as to the Reason against these Statutes (which maketh the Crown hereditary to the eldest Son) that the same enervate the strength of Parliaments, and without a Contract made by every Prince with a Parliament, no Government can be just, in regard if he receives not the Kingdom by Contract, he assumes it by Conquest, which over a Free Nation is unjust. To which is answered, First that these Acts of Parliament of England, and Scotland, which entail the Crown to the Eldest Son, do no way weaken but confirm and establish the Power of Parliaments and Exercise of the same for the Publick safety. (1) In regard the Entail being made to the Eldest Son by Act of Parliament, the same declares, that what is given by Act of Parliament, may be taken by Act of Parliament; and that every former Act inacted, may by a latter Act be repealed, according to the known Rule, Ʋnumquodque dissolvitur eodem modo quo con∣flatum

est. Secondly according to the General Examples of Acts of Parliament, amongst which nothing is more common than for later Acts to change the Entails of the Crown made by former Acts. Thirdly, This Power of Parliaments is expresly de∣clared by Act of Parl. 13 El. 1. still in force, by which it is enacted that to affirm that the Laws and Statutes do not bind the Right of the Crown, and the Descent, Limitation, Inheritance, and Governance thereof, is High Treason. Fourthly, All the Reason alledged of the Antient Custom of New Election of the Successor (on every Descent) is only lest the Eldest Son should happen to be an Infant, or otherwise unfit for Govern∣ment, that the Parliament might choose the fittest, which here is satisfied in the Eldest Son, who is above all exception known to be the fittest who can be chosen. Fifthly, though this reserve of Power remain naturally in Parliaments to repeal and change former Acts concerning Succession by new Acts when there is just and necessary cause, yet it is necessary likewise there should be a praevious Act to mark out the Heir in whose name the Par∣liament shall be called, to declare the Succession or Guardian∣ship if he happen to be an Infant. And what if after a King happens to die there happen a Rebellion, or Invasion, which makes it impossible to assemble a Parliament, will it not be a great safety to the People, that a standing Act of Parliament hath before hand appointed the Successor to take care of the Kingdoms till he can call a Parliament to give their assistance therein. There is nothing therefore can be justly excepted against these two Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland for ascertaining by Law the Eldest Son to be Heir to the Crown.* 1.30 But it were a great unthankfulness to the Providence of God to undervalue such Laws, whereby all Accidents are obviated, Questions and Doubts resolved, and Objections an∣swered by so few words as two Lines in each, and the Peace of Succession preserved in Great Britain, for so many hundred years, which in other Empires and Kingdoms cannot be effected without those horrid Murders of Younger Brothers by Elder, or Elder Brothers by Younger; of lineal Heirs by collateral, or collateral Heirs by lineal; of Sons by Fathers, or of Fathers by Sons; (whereby Civil Wars, Devastations, and Ruines of Kingdoms have ensued: and that the want of such Statutes, or the Breach of them have been causes of these Evils, and Enjoy∣ment

of them hath been the Cure, will, I hope, appear in the Objections and Answers following.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Who is best able to defend a Kingdom, should have it.
• * 1.2

  Kenneth ma¦king the King∣dome of Scot∣land Heredi∣tary, tormen∣ted in Con∣science.
• * 1.3

  Constantine Calvus pro∣cures the Law of Kenneth to be repealed.
• * 1.4

  Malcolm Son of Kenneth re∣vives and confirms the Law making the Kingdom hereditary.
• * 1.5

  1. Injustice.
• * 1.6

  ••. Impru∣dence.
• * 1.7

  The Maiden of Norway had United England and Scotland, if she had lived.
• * 1.8

  Ten Compe∣titors arose to the Crown of Scotland, not∣withstanding the Act of Reviver ma∣king the same hereditary.
• * 1.9

  And the Wars between the Factions of Baliol and Bruce.
• * 1.10

  The Civil Wars between York and Lan∣caster not pre∣vented by the Statute ma∣king the El∣dest Son Heir.
• * 1.11

  Imprudence of attempts by such Acts to perpetuate a Name or Race.
• * 1.12

  Malcolm the Author of the Law of Suc∣cession of El∣dest Sons, dyed without a Son.
• * 1.13

  The Crown endureth not to every Ge∣neration.
• * 1.14

  Children of the same Name, destroy the Name of the Father.
• * 1.15

  Father lost his Name to his Son in Persia.
• * 1.16

  Imprudent to seek to per∣petuate Races against Na∣ture, Fate and Providence, which are ir∣resistible.
• * 1.17

  God governs the World by the Lawes of Nature, Fate and Provi∣dence.
• * 1.18

  Not lawful to pray against the Law of Nature or Fate.
• * 1.19

  Prayers not only Lawful but necessary in matters re∣served to Providence.
• * 1.20

  The Law Mo∣ral a Fourth Law by which God governs the World.
• * 1.21

  What Subjects liable to the Law Moral, and what not and what lyable to the Lawes of Na∣ture, Fate and Providence.
• * 1.22

  Not revealed to Man by which of these four Laws he doth Act in any particular Action.
• * 1.23

  To the Ob∣jection of the Civil Wars between Ba∣liol and Bruce, and York and Lancaster, not∣withstanding the Succession of the Crown ascertained to the Kings El∣dest Son.
• * 1.24

  Richard the Third design∣ing to Murder his Brother's Sons, first slandered them with Illegitimacy.
• * 1.25

  A Guardian by the Law of Scotland to be Elected by Parliament during the Minority of the Prince.
• * 1.26

  Dangerous to Commit the Guardianship of a Minor prince to the next Major.
• * 1.27

  Guardians chosen by Par∣liament, the only Security of Kings in Minority.
• * 1.28

  The not abo∣lishing Epis∣copal Laws which pretend to Illegitimate whom they please, the sense of the Murder of Edward V. and his Bro∣ther.
• * 1.29

  Making a Kingdom he∣reditary to the eldest Son weakens not the Power of Parliaments.
• * 1.30

  The excellen∣cy of the two said Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland, which ascer∣tain the Suc∣cession of the Crown to the Kings Eldest Son.