which was to them a Just and Necessary Right though it had been so long delay'd and was a Restitutio Naturalium and no less yea rather a more necessary Right though it hath been longer delayed were an Act of Legitimation of the Children of all Protestant Parents born between June 14. 1641. and March 24. 1660 who at the time of their begetting were not prohibited by the Moral Law of God to Contract Marriage would be Restitutio Natalium Restitutio Natalium as necessary to the Relief of the Children of such as suffered for his Majesty in his Dominions as Restitutio Naturalium to such as were born beyond Sea And be a great Relief to the Children of such Parents as Suffered for his Majestie in his Dominions and are far more in number than such Children as happened to be born beyond Sea there having been so many whose Necessities Disabled them to transport themselves from the Danger at home yet could not avoid it by staying here but living in fear of the power of the Sword Dared neither to Marry by the Common Prayer-Book because prohibited nor by the Ordinances of Parliament because by such Publication of themselves they had been Exposed to have been seised on by their Enemies So it seems either such Act of Legitimation or the former Act of Confirmation of Marriages will be Just and Necessary for the Suffering-Party not yet Relieved 5. If Bishops acknowledg in deed what they alledge in words Not necessary for a King to be Marryed by a Priest or Common-Prayer Book Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical in the King then must they acknowledg Supremacy of Marriage to be in him because they alledg Marriage to be a Cause Ecclesiastical and they themselves De facto Exercise the supremacy of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in it and if they give him Supremacy of Jurisdiction of Marriage in general They much more give Supremacy of Jurisdiction of his own Marriage in particular for majus continet minus Et cui licet quod majus est non aequum est quod minus non Licere If therefore a King of England hath Supream Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of his own Marriage and neither Pope nor Bishop can null or invalidate any Mariage of the King his Predecessors to Depose him from his Throne nor any Marriage of his own to Dis-inherit his Lineal Heir from the Succession Jus Coronae in the King relating to Marriage and Succession as shall be after further shewn is different from that of Subjects and as is by the Bishops themselves affirmed Canon 2. The same Supremacy belongs to the King which belonged to the godly Kings of the Jewes who could thereby marry themselves without Priest or Bishop The matter therefore must come to this Push If the Bishop acknowledg the King hath Supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of his own Marriage and no longer under a Guardian of the Spiritualities then must he acknowledg he may Exercise the Acts of such Supremacy for frustra est illa potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum And if he will acknowledg the King to be Supreme Ordinary as all the Common Law-Books do then must he acknowledg he may Exercise all Acts of a Supreme Ordinary But if he will not acknowledg him to have Ecclesiastical Supremacy and to be Supreme Ordinary and to have the same Supremacy the godly Kings of the Jewes had of their own Marriages Then must the Bishop shew a sign of his Mission from God to Exercise Supremacy and to be Supreme Ordinary over Marriages of Kings which neither Pope nor Bishop nor Priest ever could or can do Now all the height of Ecclesiastical Supremacy of Marriage whereof human Power is Capable A. King may dispence with Malum Probibitum in his own Marriage but not with Malum in S◠is to Dispence with Malum Prohibitum but not with Malum in se Malum Prohibitum is that which is Prohibited only by some positive Law of Man Malum in se is that which is Prohibited by the Moral Law of God As Prohibitions of Marriage without Banns Licence Ceremony Common Prayer-Book Priest or Temple these make only Mala Prohibita Because Prohibited only by the Positive Laws of Men and not by the Moral Law of God and Vnumquodque Dissolvitu◠eodem modo quo conflatum est All Lawes made of Marriage by men may be again dispenced changed repealed and abrogated by men who have the Supremacy of Marriage But Adultery Fornication Desertion of Virgins after Deslouring Divorce of a Wife without cause Abdication of a Natural Child without Crime charging a Child on a wrong Father charging adulterous or false Children on the Husband of a Woman Married by a Priest in a Temple c. These are Mala in se Because prohibited by the Moral Law of God which is Eternal and Immutable and cannot therefore be dispenced with or confirmed but all Lawes Customs Canons and Acts of Parliament Dispencing or Confirming any of these are void A King therefore who hath Supremacy Ecclesiastical may Dispence with all Mala prohibita if there were any in his own Marriage He may Self-Marry himself A King being Supreme Ordinary may Marry himself without Ceremonies by the Law of the Land as the Kings of Israel and Judah did without a Priest Banns Lycence Book of Cannons Common Prayer-Book Temple or any Ceremony And being Supreme Ordinary as the Kings of Israel and Judah were needs not the Bishops Certificate but may Certifie his own Marriage according to the Moral Law of God And this is clear and unanswerable by any who doth not deny the Supremacy Ecclesiastical 6. As Supremacy in the Person of the King inables him to Dispence with and Confirm his own Marriage in manner before said So à fortiore the Supremacy of this Statute made by the Supreme Legislative Power both of the King and Parliament united can clear the Marriage therein intended from all the Mala Prohibita laid on it for no Mala Prohibita could be laid on it but by some former Common-Law Custom Canon or Statute-Law But this Statute hath Supremacy of all those for Leges Posteriores Priores contrarias abrogant Latter Laws abrogate all former which are contrary So all contrary Laws which were before of Marriage Filiation Heirship Succession and Certificates of Bishops contrary to the intention of this Statute for the Safety of the Lady his Companion and their Eldest Son and Heir are by the same Intention abolished 7. As this Statute had Power to Enact what it Intended So is it manifest This Statute intended not that Marrlage or Filiation should be tryed by Certificate of the Bishop that it never intended to restrain the Companion Royal to be one Married by the Mass-Book or Book of Canons or their Eldest Son and Heir to be only one so made by the Certificate of a Bishop for Edward the Third who was the Author of this Statute was one of the most Wise Valiant Kings at that time
in the World And his Predecessors had been fresh in Memory too much turmoyl'd with the Bishop of Rome and their own Bishops and John Stratford Arch-Bishop of Canterbury sent himself though in the Head of a Victorious Army in France an Insolent Letter wherein he charged him with Violation of the Rights of the Church and Magna Charta and many other Matters and threatned to Excommunicate all his Officers Too great Affronts for so Great a Prince not to become sensible how dangerous It would be to suffer Bishops to have to do with the Marriages Filiations and Successions of Kings and thereby to put power into their hands to Depose and Dis-inherit his Successors when they pleased and William Whickham Bishop of Winchester who was Confessor to his Queen Philippa and ingratiated himself by Alice Peirce the King's Concubine An incredible Lie by a Bishop concerning John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster Tinsell's Hist 78. for Money shewed after how ready they should be to Act such Feats for Alice Pierce against Sons of first Wives for out of hatred to the Famous John of Gaunt King Edward's Fourth Son for no other cause but because he was a great Favourer of Wickliff's Doctrine the Proto-Protestant of England spread a false fame on him That the Queen Philippa one of the most Vertuous Wives that ever was had confess'd to him at her Death That he was not the King's Son but that she to please the King the more who desired Sons above Daughters she being Delivered of a Daughter caused her Daughter to be secretly conveyed away and this John the Son of a Flemish Priest to be brought and put to Nurse instead of her for the King's Son A most Incredible Lie but such a one as shews what Certificates Kings Sons may happen to have from Bishops for being Favourers of the Protestant Religion It is not therefore to be imagined that it was intended by this Statute in those times the Bishops and their Mass-Books and Certificates should have any thing to do with the Lady Companion of the King or their Eldest Son The King likewise then knew that by the then Laws of the Land A King is Supreme Ordinary of his own Marriage he had in himself the Right of Ecclesiastical Supremacy and that he was the Supreme Ordinary of his own Marriage and did never therefore intend to give away his own Prerogative to Pope or Bishop who being Supreme Ordinary could Self-Marry himself and without the Bishop Certifie his own Marriage 8. Books of Canons Common Prayer-Books Banns Lycenses Priests Temples and all other Ceremonies without which Marriage is forbidden being only Mala Prohibita and the Scripture prohibits the Prohibitions themselves of these Mala Prohibita to Marriage and calls such Prohibitions the Doctrine of Devils which is already proved Lib. 1. p. 52. What is Borum in se by the Law of God cannot be made Malum in se by the. Law of Man 9. Marriage without the Common Prayer-Book and Priest being only Malum Prohibitum by the Law of Man and the same Marriage being Bonum in se by the Moral Law of God Malum Prohibitum by the Law of Man cannot make that Malum in se which is Bonum in se by the Law of God As it was Bonum in se for Daniel to pray to God though Darius Dan. 6.7 by his Decree made it Malum Prohibitum to pray within Thirty Dayes except to the King or if he had said Except by the Book of Common-Prayer or Book of Canons it had been all one And under a great Penalty of being cast into the Den of Lyons yet notwithstanding this had not nor could make it Malum in se in Daniel to pray to God without the King Common Prayer-book or Book of Canons within the Thirty Daies prohibited much Less had it been a Malum in se for Darius himself who had the Supremacy notwithstanding this Ecclesiastical Law of his own whereby he Prohibited prayer or if he had prohibited Marriage to his Subjects to have Prayed or Marryed himself in the Manner himself and not the Law of God had Prohibited 10. Priests use to Self-Sacrament themselves though they have not Supremacy without any other Priest What hinders therefore why they may not Self-Marry themselves A Priest may self marry himself seeing Popery it self could never pretend to Raise Marriage to a higher Pitch then a Sacrament 11. If Priests may Self-Marry themselves there is no Reason why Lay-men should not be allowed the same Liberty of Conscience to Self-Marry themselves without a Priest A Lay-man may self-marry himself As a King who is Supreme Ordinary may Marry himself without Ceremonies by the Law of the Land So the Subject may marry himself by the Law of God which is above the Law of the Land 12. Qui potest majus potest minus And that Act which doth perfect Marriage is greater than any Act which doth only prepare or inchoat and leave it imperfect Now it is not denyed by the Popish Casuists and Schoolmen and the Civilians and Canonists themselves But carnal knowledg only perfects Marriage if therefore a Lay-Man may self-Ly with his Woman which perfects Marriage without a Common-Prayer Book or Book of Canons after the Priest hath first had her before him by his Bell Book and Candle why may not the poor Lay-man save all his Money and Selfe Ring the Bell Selfe take the Book Selfe light the Candle or Torch Selfe contract himselfe per verba de praesenti And then Selfe lye with a Woman or do it first without acting all this impertinent Pageantry and Running Round about Church unless they would bring in again the old Pagan way for the Priest likewise to Do the Act of Perfection of Marriage The Kings of Israel and Judab The Ottoman Emperours and Subjects Self-Marry themselves without a Priest as the Indian Priests and too many of the Popish Priests do Ly with the Woman first before the Husband 13. It is very well known that the Ottoman Emperours and Subjects of their Mighty Dominions self-Marry themselves according to the Moral Law of God without Priest Temple Bell Book or Candle yet to the shame of such as call themselves by the name of Christians may it be said Their Marriages are more Chast their Filiation and Successions more Certain and no such Adulteries Fornications Stewes Brothel-houses and Poxes and Plagues and other Mischiefs thereby as those who use all these and all the Luxuriancy of Papal and Episcopal Ceremonies besides in their Marriages And of the Mischiefs came to Solyman the Magnificent by being seduced by Roxalana to break the Custome of Emperours to Selfmarry themselves to Marry her by a Priest appears at large Lib. 2. p. 245. c. Object 3 Not HIS Companion Object 3. The Third Objection is That though the Lady Mother was a Companion to the King Yet she was not HIS Companion which is the Article of Propriety
of her own Body but while there was a possibility she might she Declared by 13 Eliz. 1. They should be her Successor and Enacts a Penalty of High Treason against those who should affirm the contrary 3. That Queen Elizabeth doth not think it fit that her Legitimation should be Judged by Popish Laws as she could expect no other would endeavour to be done if she permitted a Contest between her and a Papist What Shall a Virgin Queen be Judged by Laws which as is already shewn came from the Priests of Priapus and Venus Shall a Protestant Queen be Judged and Shot to Death by the Cannons and Constitutions of the Strumpets Theodora Marozia and the Whore of Babylon No she was Judged Legitimate by the Holy Moral Law of God and the Protestant Religion to be Successor to her Natural Father and though he forsook her God took her up and by his assistance the Gates of Hell were not able to prevail against the truth of the same And let any Papist now if he can shew any Reason or Scripture why he should with foul mouth asperse the Legitimation of King Edward the Sixth or Queen Elizabeth or the Kings Eldest Son or why the latter ought not to be Successor as well as was the former and Print the same with his Name subscribed And no question there are Protestants enough will answer him Yea The Interest of a Prince Legitimate by the Moral Law of God and the Protestant Religion to maintain both against Popish Ceremony and Superstition let him prove if he can That 't is not only the Greatest Honour to a Protestant Prince himself but a great Mercy and Providence of God to a Protestant People to offer them such a Prince whom he hath made Legitimate by his own Holy Law and the Protestant Religion and permitted him to be Declared Illegitimate by the Papist unholy Law and Superstition and thereby laid on him the highest Obligation of his own Interest to maintain the Holy Moral Law of God and Protestant Religion against the Popish Ceremonial Laws and Superstition and far worse it had been for the Protestants if Queen Elizabeth had not been made Illegitimate by the Papists then that she was To Conclude a full answer hath been therefore already given the Objection That Queen Elizabeth never refused to Declare a Protestant and Lieal Successor but only such as were either Papist or Collateral Obj. 7. A Protestant Successor will not be equal to Papists who are not only a Considerable but a great and potent Party of the People of the Three Kingdoms Answ This is fully answered already before Lib. 2. p. 401 402 403 c. where it is shewn to be the Interest of the Protestant Religion to abolish all Laws of Recusancy equally which are Penal to the Consciences either of Protestants or Papists except as to Mass Idols and Popish Priests This is likewise answered in the following Reasons wherein it is shewn That not only Protestants but Papists themselves except Popish Priests may hope for greater Security and Happiness from a Protestant Successor than they ever had or 't is possible for them to have from Papist Predecessors or Successors to which I therefore desire to refer Reasons for Declaring a Protestant Successor by the King and Parliament HAving answered all Objections against Declaring of a Protestant Successor I shall now only add some few Reasons for the same arising from the Great and manifold Dangers caused by the Neglect 1. Danger to the Conscience of a Prince 1. The first Danger is to the Conscience of a Prince when he shall give Account to God of the Neglect of so great a Duty to him and so great a Trust reposed in him by the People as to which There is none doubts but every private Father is by his Duty to God bound while it shall please God to lend him Life and Health and before Death with a sudden Arrest hurry him hence to give an account of his Stewardship to make Provision according to his Power for the leaving his Family in Peace after his Decease much more it is the Duty of all Princes who ought to be the Publick Father of their Countries who have so great Account to Give not only for their own Families but for Nations and Kingdoms and all the Wars Murders Massacres and Devastations which by their default shall happen after their Death To provide while God gives them Life and Health for prevention of such Calamities amongst their People and for the Peace of Succession in the Government over them And in the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 1. This great Trust Reposed in the King by the People is exprest a Chief Consideration of Declaring a Successor and setling the Succession of the Crown by King and Parliament in these words in the Preamble of the Act viz. Forasmuch as our most Dread Soveraign Lord the King upon good and just Grounds and Causes Intendeth by God's Grace to make a Voyage Royal in his most Royal Person into the Realm of France against his ancient Enemy the French King his Highness most Prudently and Wisely Considering and Calling to his Remembrance how this Realm standeth at this present time in the Case of Succession and poising and weighing further in himself the great Trust and Confidence that his Loving Subjects have had and have in him c. And to the Intent his Majestie 's Disposition and Mind therein should be openly Declared and manifestly known and Notified as well to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal as to all other his Loving and Obedient Subjects of this Realm to the Intent of their Assent and Consent might appear to Concur with thus far as followeth of his Majestie 's Declaration in the behalf and thereupon makes Provision for the Succession of the Crown in the same Act. In like manner it is provided by the Law of Persia as saith Herod Lib. 7. That whensoever the King goeth to War abroad he ought first to Declare his Successor that he may leave Peace at home 2. Danger by the incertainty of the Laws of Succession of the Crown 2. The Danger caused by Incertainty of the Laws of Succession of the Crown and that this is a Great Danger and necessary to be Remedied by a Declaration by King and Parliament appears likewise by the Preamble of the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 22. in these words viz. Wherefore we your said most humble and Obedient Subjects in this present Parliament Assembled calling to our Remembrance the great Divisions which in time passed have been in this Realm by reason of several Titles pretended to the Imperial Crown of the same which sometime and for the most part insued by Reason of Ambiguity and Doubts then not so perfectly Declared but that men might upon froward intents expound them to every man's sinister Appetite and Affection after their Sons Contrary to the Right Legalty of the Succession and Posterity of the Lawful Kings and
ubi Rex pervenerit ipsi sibi curatores Eligere posset That the King being under the Age of Fourteen Years Election should be made of a Guardian of great Estate and Wisdom who should be his Regent in the mean while and Administer his Affairs in the King's Name till he arrived at the Age of Fourteen and when he came to that Age he himself might choose his own Guardians Which Election of a Guardian must be intended to be by Parliament for it appears by the words That the Infant or Minor King must not nor is able to choose himself till he come to the Age of Fourteen And it is contrary to Reason that any other should be his own Judge to choose himself to have to himself to his own use the Custody of the Person of the King Dangerous to Commit the Guardianship of a Minor prince to the next Major in whom all his Subjects have an Interest And it would be very Dangerous to the Infant if he who is next Successor to the Crown should get the Custody of the Heir into his hands There is no Third Power can be therefore above Exception who ought to choose the Guardian of an Infant King but the Parliament And accordingly we find it to be the constant Practice of that Kingdom as appears Buchanan Lib. 19. p. 687. when it is said Sed cum homines usu rerum Edocti Perspicerint vix fieri posse ut in tanta fortunae inconstantia non aliquando in pueros aut alioqui Regno ineundo Impares haeredes jus summi Magistratus inciderit c. But when taught by Experience men saw that it could not be but in so great inconstancy of Fortune but the Right of the Supreme Magistracy might fall amongst Children or other Heirs unfit to Govern a Kingdom they Ordained That in the mean time one should be Elected Regent who Excell'd the rest in Estate and Counsel Guardians chosen by Parliament the only Security of Kings in Minority and our Ancestors following this way for the space of Six hundred Years have transmitted thereby the Kingdom safe to Posterity So Robert Bruce being dead Thomas Randolph Earl of Murray and Donald Earl of Mar Andrew Murray John Randolph Robert Stuart succeeded singly and sometimes more number are by Parliament chosen into that place So James II. being a child Alexander Leviston being of no Kin nor of the chief Rank of Nobility but only a Knight and of more repute for Prudence then Antient Descent was elected to be his Guardian Neither can there be alledged any want of persons of the Royal Stock to have been the cause of such choice for there was at that time John Kennedy chief of his Family and King James his Nephew by his Sister there were his Uncles James Kennedy Archbishop of St. Andrews Primate of the whole Kingdom in all kind of Vertue and his Brother born of the Kings Aunt Douglass Earl of Angus was not remote from the Kings Blood Archibald Earl of Douglas in Power almost equal to the King and superiour to any of the rest yet did none of these complain of any Injustice in the Parliament for making another choice and not long after four Guardians were given to James III. not taken for the Kindred but chosen by Parliament It was but of late that John Duke of Albin was sent for by the Nobility out of France to moderate the Affairs of Scotland James I. being then a child and was confirmed by a publick Act of Parliament Neither was it done because he was next of Kin for he had an Elder Brother called Alexander But James I. being absent Robert his Uncle ruled the Kingdom And with what Right Was he taken for nearness of Blood No he was chosen by the People Nor so neither How then was he created When Robert III. was so sick in body and mind that he was not able to discharge his Office he made his Brother Robert his Vice-Roy and commended his Children to him So his Brother starved to death David his Eldest Son and sought how to destroy likewise James his Younger had he not escaped by slight But he being now placed in possession of his Tyranny and his Brother dead with grief without Parliament or assent of the People he kept it and by force left it to his Son Mordach c. Buchanan proceeds p. 688. Quid enim minus justum esse poterat quam aetatem innoxiam atque infirmam ejus fidei committere qui pupilli sibi crediti mortem semper expectat optat What can be more injust then to commit the innocent and weak Age to one who always hopes for or wishes the death of the Pupil intrusted in his hands And after he saith Laodice the Queen of the Cappadoceans is related to have killed every one of her children as in order they arrived at fourteen years of age to gain thereby a little more time to reign If a Mother will destroy her Children to get the use of a little time what shall we think will their old Enemies dare yea will they not dare to do inflamed with the Brands of Covetousness to cruelty against a Child hindering their hopes of a perpetual Kingdom If this Example seems old and obscure or far-fetch'd I will add more clear and nearer home For who is so ignorant of things so lately acted as he knows not Galeacius Sfortia though at mans Estate though married and the Son in Law of a Potent King to be killed by Lodowick his Uncle Or to whom are the Calamities unknown which ensued that cruel Parricide the most beautiful Region of Italy brought almost to a Devastation the Sfortian Family The not abolishing Episcopal Laws which pretend to Illegitimate whom they please the sense of the Murder of Edward V. and his Brother so fruitful of valiant men destroyed Barbarians let into the most pleasant Country watered by Po. Against whose Rapine nothing was safe against whose Cruelty nothing was secure Who hath been born in the soil of Great Britain and hath not heard of the cruel Murder by Richard III. King of England of the Sons of his Brother Edward IV A great cause of the murder likewise of these Princes was that Papal and Episcopal Laws were not abolished which pretend to illegitimate whom they please Answ 5 Making a Kingdom hereditary to the eldest Son weakens not the Power of Parliaments And 5. as to the Reason against these Statutes which maketh the Crown hereditary to the eldest Son that the same enervate the strength of Parliaments and without a Contract made by every Prince with a Parliament no Government can be just in regard if he receives not the Kingdom by Contract he assumes it by Conquest which over a Free Nation is unjust To which is answered First that these Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland which entail the Crown to the Eldest Son do no way weaken but confirm and establish the Power of Parliaments and
Exercise of the same for the Publick safety 1 In regard the Entail being made to the Eldest Son by Act of Parliament the same declares that what is given by Act of Parliament may be taken by Act of Parliament and that every former Act inacted may by a latter Act be repealed according to the known Rule Vnumquodque dissolvitur eodem modo quo conflatum est Secondly according to the General Examples of Acts of Parliament amongst which nothing is more common than for later Acts to change the Entails of the Crown made by former Acts. Thirdly This Power of Parliaments is expresly declared by Act of Parl. 13 El. 1. still in force by which it is enacted that to affirm that the Laws and Statutes do not bind the Right of the Crown and the Descent Limitation Inheritance and Governance thereof is High Treason Fourthly All the Reason alledged of the Antient Custom of New Election of the Successor on every Descent is only lest the Eldest Son should happen to be an Infant or otherwise unfit for Government that the Parliament might choose the fittest which here is satisfied in the Eldest Son who is above all exception known to be the fittest who can be chosen Fifthly though this reserve of Power remain naturally in Parliaments to repeal and change former Acts concerning Succession by new Acts when there is just and necessary cause yet it is necessary likewise there should be a praevious Act to mark out the Heir in whose name the Parliament shall be called to declare the Succession or Guardianship if he happen to be an Infant And what if after a King happens to die there happen a Rebellion or Invasion which makes it impossible to assemble a Parliament will it not be a great safety to the People that a standing Act of Parliament hath before hand appointed the Successor to take care of the Kingdoms till he can call a Parliament to give their assistance therein There is nothing therefore can be justly excepted against these two Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland for ascertaining by Law the Eldest Son to be Heir to the Crown The excellency of the two said Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland which ascertain the Succession of the Crown to the Kings Eldest Son But it were a great unthankfulness to the Providence of God to undervalue such Laws whereby all Accidents are obviated Questions and Doubts resolved and Objections answered by so few words as two Lines in each and the Peace of Succession preserved in Great Britain for so many hundred years which in other Empires and Kingdoms cannot be effected without those horrid Murders of Younger Brothers by Elder or Elder Brothers by Younger of lineal Heirs by collateral or collateral Heirs by lineal of Sons by Fathers or of Fathers by Sons whereby Civil Wars Devastations and Ruines of Kingdoms have ensued and that the want of such Statutes or the Breach of them have been causes of these Evils and Enjoyment of them hath been the Cure will I hope appear in the Objections and Answers following Objections first against the not being of the Kings Eldest Son within these Statutes answered Object Obj. 1. That the Lady his Mother was not a Queen therefore the Kings Eldest Son is not within the Statute Answ Statute false translated in the word Queen Answ To this the answer is easie and clear that the word Madame sa Compaigne are falsly translated our Lady his Queen and ought to have been translated our Lady his Companion which is proved by the Reasons following 1. Because 't is manifest sa Compaigne signifies not the word Queen in specie but any Lady Companion in general 2. Because it is manifest the makers of this Act of Parliament intended not to restrain their several meaning onely to a Queen for they knew Royne was French for Queen as well as Roy for King and if they had intended so could have more certainly and easily said Compas le mort nostre Seignior le Roy sa Royne than Madame sa Compaigne 3. Because at the time of making this Statute the famous Black Prince being the Eldest Son to Edward III. was married to Joan Daughter to Edmund Earl of Kent and had Issue by her Richard of Bourdeaux after King of England and none doubts but it was the intention of the King Edward III. who passionately affected his Grandchild Richard that in case the Princes Wife should happen to die in his life time whereby she should not have been a Queen but that notwithstanding if the Black Prince had happened to have survived him which he did not and been King his Eldest Son Richard should have benefit of this Statute 4. It would have been made doubtful by the Bishops who usurped then the Papal Supremacy over Princes of giving or refusing to give them Coronation when they pleased whether the Kings Wife should be titled Queen if the Bishop refused her Coronation Ralph of Canterbury refuseth to Crown Adeliza Queen unless he should first discrown the King as Ralph Archbishop of Canterbury did to Adeliza the second Wife of H. I. unless the Kings would suffer him to pull off the Crown first from the Kings head and new Crown him in acknowledgment that the Supremacy of the Coronation Office belonged to Ralph the Archbishop Bak. Hist 43. Touching which Office of Coronation of Kings and Queens that it belongs to Parliaments and not to Bishops and that David himself was both crowned and anointed by his Parliament and not by the Priest is shewn lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 169 c. 5. The Law of Saxons and Scots that no Wife of a King should be called Queen Because the Title of Queen was then under Envy and doubtful whether not against the antient Law both of England and Scotland the same not appearing to have been repealed by any Act of Parliament Bak. Hist fol. 6. saith a Law was made by the West Saxons that no Wife of a King should be called a Queen fol. 8. that it was so rigorously observed that when Ethelwolph had married Judith the Beautiful Daughter of the Emperour Charles the Bald in honour of whom in his own Court he ever placed her in a Chair of State with all other Majestical Complements of a Queen contrary to the Law of the West Saxons made to avoid the great Expence of Treasure incident to great Titles and Ceremonies and against other inconveniences and so much displeased his Lords thereby that they were ready to have Deposed him but were prevented by his death not long after Buchanan Rev. Scot. 407. takes notice of this Law and says Saxones lege caverunt ne ulla deinceps Regis Vxor Regina vocaretur aut in sede honoris in publico Regi assideret And 406. mentions the like Law in Scotland Quas Reginas alii suo quisque sermone nos Regum uxores appellamus nec altioris fastigii nomen ullum in iis agnoscimus
is commonly call'd going a whoring after Idols because the Priests made the Men and Women the baits to intice one another under pretence of Religion to their Conventions in the Idol Temple where the Priest was the Pander-General and took the fees of all to his great Gain The Original of Certificates of Filiation came from the Priests of Priapus 2. The Original of Certificates by the Bishop or High Priests of Filiation began likewise from the Incertainty Children were cast into by these Promiscuous copulations at their Temples or Groves or other Publick Conventions by the Pander Priest who that he might not lose his fees kept a Register or Toll-Book where these who coupled for that time had their names entred to have paid them their fee. And when the Child got there was grown to discretion to enquire who was his Father his Mother who had play'd the Whore with so many Strangers at the several Sacrifices could not tell unless she sent to the Priest who kept the Priapeian Sacrifice at that time which suited nearest her Child's Age to send a Certificate of the name of the Person or Persons were then entred together with her name in his Toll-Book Which way of Certificate of Filiation by the Pagan Priest The Certificate of the Priest of Priapus better than that of the Bishop was far more Rational than the Certificate thereof by the Bishop For first the Child never sent for a Certificate to the Pagan Priest but when he did not know his Father Secondly The Pagan Priest entred in his Register every time the Woman copulated with a Man for which he had a new Fee But the Bishop will undertake that if it be but once set down in his Register That such a Man and Woman came to his Temple though they never came near one another afterward or the next day deserted one another or the Woman being beforehand with Child by an Adulterer was the next day after she had been thus with the Man at the Temple delivered of such an Adulterous Child or begot with Child or was Delivered of Twenty Children successively by twenty Adulterers for twenty years after yet the Bishop will make a ridiculous beastly and wicked Certificate And Littleton and Coke bear him out in it That in all these cases the Man who went Twenty years since with this Woman to his Temple if he were within the Four Sees at the time of the begetting of these Adulterous Children by the Adulterers yet he the Man within the Four Sees begot them and Probatio non admittitur in contrarium Oh! Excellent Law and excellent Divinity The Certificates of the Priests of Priapus are very bad but these Episcopal Certificates are ten times worse But I must for brevity refer the Reader to what hath been said before Lib. 1 p. 72 73. The original of these Certificates of Filiation by Priests for other causes were likewise either Cheats of the Priests or came from the Actual Response of the Devil So the Priests would anciently attribute the begetting of any Child whose Father was unknown if he proved an Hero The Priest fathered Men on the Gods or had any other Excellence especially if Rich and gave him Money to some of the Gods as Romulus and Remus were fathered on Mars Plato on Apollo and Vulcan they made himself a God because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Father But the greatest number of them they laid at Jupiter's Door who no question had a great charge upon his hands and sometimes when the Mother was unknown they Mother'd him on some Goddess or other as Achilles on Thetis Aeneas on Venus Oedipus not knowing his Father whom he had slain nor Mother wnom he had Married had a Response from the Oracle or Certificate from the Priest of Apollo which acquainted him with the same And Alexander ambitious to have a greater Father than Philip sent to the Oracle of Jupiter Ammon and for a great Sum of Gold had either a Response from the Devil or a cheating Certificate from the Priest That he was the Son of Jupiter But we never hear amongst the Pagans themselves of any Son who was so wise to know his own Father or was not ashamed of him who went for a Certificate to the Priest or the Devil 3. The final Causes why they so eagerly desire the Jurisdiction of Marriage and Filiation by this Power of making Certificates are their Covetousness and Ambition vid. at Large Lib. 1. p. 53. ad 57. Popery ruin'd if Episcopal Jurisdiction of Marriage were taken away And that the Pope were ruined if Episcopal Jurisdiction of Marriage and Filiation and their Certificates should be taken away Lib. 2. p. 184. It may be said therefore to Bishops Certificates as to the ends they designed them according to the saying of Christ Mat. 6.24 Ye cannot serve God and Mammon Certificates of Bishops condemn Infants without hearing Condemn Children for the Sin of the Parents 4. The Persons they make Certificates against being Infants and not able to answer for themselves in Suits in the Episcopal Courts are Condemn'd without Hearing 5. Infants are Condemn'd by such Certificates contrary to the Law of God for the Sins of their Parents 6. Certificates Judge of Filiation which is acknowledged by the Bishops themselves impossible to be proved according to the old known Rule Filiatio non potest probari A Certificate Episcopal is therefore a Sentence without Probation which is not only in the highest nature injust but void and ridiculous Of this Vid. plus Lib. 1. p. 104 105. Certificate an Usurpation of Jurisdiction of Lay-fee and Free-holds 7. The Certificate indirectly passes judgment on Temporal Inheritance and Lay-fee which is a meer Romish Usurpation assum'd by the Bishops which Bracton fo 420. will not allow the Pope himself to have for he says on a Certificate of Bastardy Cum Index Ecclesiasticus inquisitionem fecerit non erit ab eo appellandum c. and his Reason he gives Quia sic potest causam in insinitum protrahere de Judice in Judicem usque ad Papam sic potest Papa de Laico feodo indirecte cognoscere If therefore for the Pope to Sentence or Certificate Bastardy is indirectly to give Judgment of Lay-fee is not such Certificate of a Bishop in Great Britain as indirect a passing of Judgement on Lay-fee as is that of the Bishop of Rome And do not Lay-fees lye thereby as much under the Arbitrary disposing of the one as ever they did of the other Both Pope and Bishop must claim this Power of Certificate by Conquest or Contract if by Conquest 't is probable they must put it to another Tryal before any Romish Conquest will be granted if by Contract let them shew ever any Act of Parliament made for the same by assent of the House of Commons And if it were possible to shew any such yet all Acts confirming Magna Charta and likewise the Petition of
is not always necessary he should be his first begotten Son for the Second after the Death of the first begotten without Issue is Fitz-Eigne with the Statute Et sic de caeteris which doth implicitly seem to affirm That till the Issue of the Eldest Son fails the second Son shall not Succeed by this Statute which implicitly prefers the Nephews in Successions before the Uncle but he shewing no Authority therein but his own and that only implicit and not Express and the Common Law and Customs of the Crown being very incertain obscure and as often broken as kept when not Confirmed by Act of Parliament And King Edward himself the Wife Author of this Act when the Black Prince Died and left his Eldest Son Richard of Bindeax who was after R. 2. Doubting of the certainty of the Law in the Point did as the wisest way procure Richard to be Declared Successor by Act of Parliament in his Life-time to secure him against his Uncles Tâ—â—â—aw of Eâ—… not clear in point of Succession of the Crown between Nephew and Uncle where the Father dies before the Grandfather The certainty of the Law of England therefore may be not without Cause doubted in this Point of Succession between Nephew and Uncle and Danger there may be lest the incertainty of the same give the same Pretences to create Civil Wars here as it doth in other Countries unless prevented by an Act of Parliament as in Scotland Vt filio ante patrem Defuncto Nepos Avo Subrogaretur 8. Danger without Assent of the People Danger if the Successor assume the Crown without the Assent of the People by their Representative in Parliament the Right of a Successor is not here Disputed nor the Law whether he is King before Coronation or not until Contract with his Parliament and Coronation received from them Highest a Successor can say is only as Paul saith 1 Cor. 10.23 All things are lawful for me but all things are not expedient All things are lawful for me but all things edifie not Though the manner whereby a Successor ascends the Throne may be lawful yet may it not be Expedient neither may it Edifie the Throne H. 8. was a King of great Courage and Wisdom and doubted not the Right of him and his Posterity to the Crown Yea though he had more than any other King Power granted him by Act of Parliament himself to Declare his own Successor either by his Letters Patents or last Will yet he shewed therein his great Wisdom and Moderation and would not do it without Assent of his Subjects as appears in the already mentioned Statute 35 H. 8. cap. 1. in these words viz. And albeit that the King 's most Excellent Majesty for default of such Heirs as are Inheritable by the said Act might by the Authority of the said Act give and dispose the said Imperial Crown and other the Premisses by his Letters Patents under his Great Seal or by his Last Will in Writing Signed with his most gracious Hand to any Person or Persons of such Estate therein as should please his Highness to Limit and Appoint Yet to the Intent that his Majestie 's Disposition and Mind therein should be openly Declared and Manifestly known and notified as well to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal as to all other his Loving and Obedient Subjects of this his Realm to the intent that their ASSENT and CONSENT might appear to Concur with thus far as followeth of his Majestie 's Declaration in this behalf For so Wise a King well know that let the Right of a Successor be what it will yet if he lose the Love of his People which cannot be obtained without their Assent and Consent he loseth the Chief Defence under God of that and all other Right he hath if therefore a Successor is Declared by Act of Parliament so great a Danger is avoided of not having the Assent and Consent of his Subjects seeing such an Act of Parliament cannot be without the Assent and Consent of the major part of the People included in the plurality of Votes of their Representative 9. Danger of assuming the Crown by a Papist The next great Danger is The assuming of the Crown by Force by a Papist Successor if not prevented by a Declaration of a Protestant Successor by the King and Parliament That a Papist Successor is most Dangerous to all Lay-Papists themselves and that they may Live far more Happy under a Protestant than one of their own Religion A Distinction ought to be made between Lay-Papists and Papist Priests Both Religion Justice and Mercy ingage all those who are affected with the least of any of them to put a great difference betwixt the Deceived and Deceivers and betwixt the Blind and those who mislead them to fall into the Ditch A Distinction is therefore necessary to be made by all Protestants between the Lay Papist and the Papist Priest Mercy is to be shewn the one and Justice the other And if this just Course had been used from the Beginning of the Reformation that no Penal Statute had been made against the Lay-Papists but only against the Papist Priests The Protestant cannot be secure unless the Lay Papist be likewise secure from Penal Laws against Conscience No Bishop Bencroft under pretence of maintaining the Dominicans against the Jesuits and Regulars against Seculars had been able to maintain Legions of both in Secret to Destroy the Protestants in their own Land nor under the blind name of Recusants to turn the edge of all the Penal Laws pretending to be made against Papists to cut off the Protestants And the Sacrament of the Paschal Lamb to be a Destruction to the Israelites and a Passover to the Egyptians those Penal Laws being pursued with the highest Rigour against the Protestants but came not near the Papists Dwellings or if they did they took more easie Pardons from the Exchequer than from the Pope So if the late Act concerning Oaths and Sacraments had been Restrained only to Papists Protestants had not suffered in so high a Degree as now they do But I pass from what is past to what is future to shew what Mischiefs the Papists themselves are to expect from a Papist Successor and what benefit from a Protestant 1. The first Mischiefs they will meet with in a Papist Successor is a most miserable one take what Covenant what Vow what Promise what Oath they can from him yea an Hundred Oaths his Conscience cannot be bound with any of them and the Catholicks themselves shall take as little hold of his Catholick Faith as the most of those whom they think or call Hereticks As for Example William the Conqueror was a Papist and is mentioned Dan. Hist 36. to get Assistance of the King of France who was then young in his Design for England William the Conqueror a Papist King forswore himself to Papist Subjects promised if he obtained the Kingdom to hold it