under Imprudent to seek to perpetuate Races against Nature Fate and Providence which are irresistible 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 Expired 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 understanding 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 Subjects 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 Alexander 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 Parliament 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 quoque facile ac Lubens ad eorum sententiam accederem verum cum de eo Statuendum sit hodie quod omnium privatorum vitam Et fortunam quod totius Regni incolumitatem complectitur huic uni câ—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 regard the subject matter is so frail as not to be Capable of Perpetuity 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 God governs the World by the Lawes of Nature Fate and Providence are the Law of Nature 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 Not lawful to pray against the Law of Nature or Fate 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 Prayers not only Lawful but necessary in matters reserved to Providence by which he Governs all his Creatures sensible of Good and Evil. And as to this Law of Providence 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 acknowledged 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 Christians they must have alwaies these two That they must be Lawful that is not contrary to any revealed Law or Will of God and likewise be alwaies with submission to his Secret Will The Law Moral a Fourth Law by which God governs the World I Answer therefore That though the Three Laws mentioned 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 Supreme Magistrate of the World and beareth not the Sword in vain And this Law may only be Exercised and the Obligations 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 What Subjects liable to the Law Moral and
great Slander Peril and Disherison of such Children which untrue slanderous report of Holy Matrimony doth not only redound to the high dishonour of Almighty God but also to the King's Majesties dishonour and the High Court of Parliament and the Learned Clergy of this Realm who have determined the same to be most lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation as well by the Common consent as by the Subscription of their Hands and that most of all is to be lamented through such uncomely Railings of Matrimony and slanderous Reproaches of the Clergy the Word of God is not heard with Reverence followed with Diligence the Godly proceeding of the King's Majesty not received with due Obedience c. Banns required to the Marriage of the Clergy Provided always That this Act nor any thing therein contained shall extend to give Liberty to any Person to Marry without Asking in the Church or without Ceremonies according to the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments nor shall make any such Matrimony already made or hereafter to be made good which are Prohibited by the Law of God for any other cause The Protestant Clergy by these Acts thought themselves as secure as they do now But Queen Mary immediatly on King Edward's Death repealed this Law and made all the Married Clergy their Wives and Children Rogues Whores and Bastards From whence may be observed 1. That a Marriage and Legitimation which is lawful by the Law of God may be wickedly Slandered by Papists and by Papal and Episcopal Laws to be unlawful 2. It hath been already shewn that the Marriages of the Lady Mothers of King Edward the Sixth and of Queen Elizabeth and of the King 's eldest Son and the Legitimation of Children were and are lawful by the Moral Law of God but the same have been Slandered and still are by the virulent Tongues of Papists 3. That these wicked Slanders of the Legitimation of the King 's eldest Son do produce not only the same evil Effects which the Statute declares to insue from the Slander of the Legitimation of the Sons of the Clergy but greater and more dangerous 4. That the final Cause why the Papists and their Laws Slander the Legitimation of the King 's eldest Son and of all the Sons of the Protestant Clergy is the same which is because they would seize on their Inheritance or Estate and divide the Spoil amongst the Papists 5. It is well known that the Inheritances and Estates of the Descendents of the Protestant Spirituallity and Clergy in which Body are included all Spiritual Persons Doctors of the Civil Law exercising Spiritual Jurisdiction Church-men Ministers all persons within Orders are great and numerous through the Three Kingdoms who will all Suffer if a relapse to Popery 6. That their Wives and their Descendents which have Married have been obnoxious ever since the Time of Reformation the first to Consiscation of their Dowers Jointures and Thirds The other to Illegitimation and thereon Confiscation of their Inheritances Lands and Goods The Law which forbid the Clergy to Marry was made by Pope Nicholas the First to wicked intents which have been before already shewn the Clergy and their Wives and Children are likewise left obnoxious to the same by the Proviso mentioned which requires Banns to make lawful the Marriage of the Clergy but they usually have none but are Married by Licences which makes them likewise obnoxious to the very Letter of the Act which if there should happen a Papist Successor he may take advantage thereof without a Repeal or Repeal the Act and so take advantage either way which he will Let not the Protestant Clergy therefore nor the Bishops be deceived or vainly flatter themselves that they can compound or lay the Obligation of an Oath or an Act of Parliament on a Papist Successor if any happen to be nor think he will lose so infinite heaps of Treasures as this point of the Marriage of the Clergy and the Illegitimation of their Descendents will by Confiscations of all the Jointures Dowers Thirds of all the Archbishops Bishops and inferiour Clergies Wives and of the Successions of their Posterities in the Three Kingdoms will bring into his Treasury Therefore certainly if a Papist Successor happen there will be no living for a Married Clergy-man in England it will be Heresie sufficient to Burn him if he is Married and a cause sufficient will be his Estate and for Provision his Wife must expect none unless like the Indian Wife she Burn with him in hope to find it in another World Queen Mary Illegitimated and Destroyed all the Wives and Children of the Protestant Clergy notwithstanding they were Legitimated by Act of Parliament They need look no further for an Example than of Queen Mary who was a Papist Successor to the Protestant Act of King Edward her Brother who though he confirmed the Marriages of the Clergy and the Legitimation of their Children by two Acts of Parliament left in their highest Vigour and Power and though she had solemnly promised the Protestants without whose help she had not probably come to the Throne that they should injoy Liberty of Conscience yet as soon as ever she obtained the Kingdom she repealed her Brothers two Acts and made Whores of the Wives and Bastards of the Children of all the Protestant Clergy Married Burnt them and Confiscated their Estates And that Pious Martyr Archbishop Cranmer who was Married was Cruelly Burnt amongst the rest 7. There is no way to preserve the Marriages and Legitimations of the Protestant Clergy their Wives and Children from the destruction of a Papist Successor but to have Protection from a Protestant Successor of the Crown and to cast off this Papal Doctrine of Ceremonial Marriage and to teach the truth of Marriage according to the Moral Law of God which is the true Jus Coronae as hath been already shewn and makes the eldest Son of a Protestant King and himself a Protestant to be of the same Interest with the Sons of a Protestant Clergy and to ingage him by God's help to be his Instrument to defend them and the Protestant Religion Liberty and Propriety to the Glory of God and Comfort of the People Can therefore any of the Protestant Clergy be so imprudent as in their Doctrine to destroy the Holy Just True Ancient Eternal and Immutable Moral Law of God of Marriage and Legitimation to bring in the Unclean Adulterous Spurious Illegitimate Injust Lying Upstart new-fangled Ceremonial Laws of Priapusses and Popes and not understand they thereby Slander their own Mothers and Wives to be Whores their Daughters to be Bastards themselves and all their Sons to be Sons of Whores and Bastards Can they be so inconsiderate as to imagine that any Slander they shall raise against the Marriages of the Lady Mothers of Queen Elizabeth King Edward or the King 's eldest Son or the Legitimations of Queen Elizabeth her self King Edward or
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
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
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
Facto by the Birth of a Child Secondly That such Marriage and Matrimony between Persons not prohibited by the Moral Law are Lawful I prove 1 The Lawfulness of such Marriage and Matrimony in Respect no Prohibition by the Law of God of the same though without Ceremony 1. Because all Marriage and Matrimony is Lawful which is not Prohibited by the Moral Law of God but these are not Prohibited by the Moral Law of God Therefore they are Lawful Prohibition of Marriage without Ceremony not Prohibited by the Law of God is the Doctrine of Devils The Major is proved 1 Tim. 4.1 Because all Humane Laws forbidding Marriages or Meats which are not forbidden by the Moral Law of God are declared to come from the Devil and to be the Doctrine of Devils And accordingly all Papal and Episcopal Laws all Ecclesiastical Canon and Civil Laws all Decrees of Councils of Trent or any other Councils or Synods forbidding to Marry in any Circumstance or Ceremony not forbidden by the Law of God came from the Devil and are the Doctrine of Devils which see proved Lib. 1. p. 52. And that the final cause of such Prohibitions of Marriage without Pontifical Ceremonies The final Cause of such Prohibitions is only filthy Lucre of the Priests are only accumulation of Fees and Ambition of Pontiffs and Bishops Vid. Lib. 1. p. 55 56 57. 2. All Marriage and Matrimony is Lawful which is not a Sin or a Transgression but such Marriage and Matrimony which are not Prohibited by the Law of God are no Sin or Transgression Therefore they are Lawful The Minor is proved 1 Joh. 3.4 Sin is the Transgression of the Law And Rom. 4.15 Where no Law no Transgression Where no Law is there is no Transgression 3. What is declared no Sin by Scripture is lawful but Marriage between persons not Prohibited is declared no Sin by Scripture therefore Lawful The Minor is proved 1 Cor. 7.28 If thou marry thou hast not sinned and if a Virgin marry she hath not sinned 4. What is commanded by Scripture is Lawful and not Prohibited But Marriage and Matrimony is commanded by Scripture to young Women therefore Lawful The Minor is proved 1 Tim. 5.14 I will therefore the young women marry bear Children 5. What is in Scripture commanded and blessed between persons not Prohibited is Lawful and not Prohibited But Marriage and Matrimony by Carnal knowledge and multiplying Mankind is commanded and blessed in Scripture Therefore Lawful The Minor is proved Gen. 1.27 Male and Female â—reated he them And God blessed them and said unto them Increase and Multiply and replenish the earth 6. What is rewarded in Scripture in Persons not Prohiâ—ited is Lawful and not Prohibited but Marriage and Matrimony between Persons not Prohibited is rewarded Therefore â—awful The Minor is proved 1 Tim. 2.15 She shall be saved in Childbearing if she continue in Faith and Charity and Holiness with Sobriety The Lawfulness of Marriage which is not Prohibited by the Law of God is acknowledged by the Church of England Which I prove thus All Marriage acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles is acknowledged Lawful by the Church of England but the present Marriage whether there are any Witnesses alive or no to prove it Ceremonial is acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles Therefore the present Marriage is acknowledged Lawful by the Church of England The Minor is proved thus All Marriage not Prohibited by the Law of God is acknowledged lawful by the 39 Articles But the present Marriage is not Prohibited by the Law of God Therefore the present Marriage is acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles Though it is no ways necessary amongst so many clear and unanswerable Precepts and Examples of Scripture it self as are here cited establishing the Lawfulness of the present Marriage to add the Humane Authority of the Church of England or any other National Church yet in regard the Bishops in their Practice and Certificates deny that Doctrine of the Lawfulness of Marriage which they themselves acknowledge and pretend to establish in their own Book of Articles To confute therefore those Certificates of theirs out of their own mouths I have here inserted their own 32d Article without which they are not able to secure the Lawfulness of their own Marriages and Legitimation of their own Children against Papists Ossens Gnosticks Nicholaitans Hermogenians and other Hereticks but only on this Principle That all Marriages not Prohibited by the Law of God are Lawful as appears by the Article it self made Anno Dom. 1562. in the Fourth year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Roger's Articles p. 185 187 188. where is mentioned 1. That Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Prohibited by God's Law to Marry therefore it is Lawful for them to Marry 2. That it is Lawful for them and all other Christian men to marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve best to Godliness Whence will likewise follow That the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Ceremonies of the Church of England are two distinct things and to use the words of the Article As every Christian may Marry or not Marry according to his Discretion where not Prohibited by the Law of God so he may Marry with or without Ceremonies where not Prohibited by the same Law of God As Adam might have eaten of all the Fruits in Eden with Ceremony or without Ceremony according to his Discretion where not Prohibited by the Law of God And I think no man will question this 32d Article not to be according to the Doctrine of the Church of England And the same Article touching Marriage is known to be the Doctrine of the Helvetian Bohemian Saxon Suevian and all the Reformed Churches If therefore the Tree is Holy the Fruit is Holy if the Marriage is Lawful the Son is Lawful I have therefore proved him Lawful by Three unanswerable Laws 1 The Act of Parliament of Treasons 2 The Law of the Church of England 3 The eternal and immutable Law of God in the Scriptures 2. The Lawfulness of such Marriage and Matrimony without Ceremony appears in Respect of no Command of any Ceremony by the Law of God 1. There 's no Commandment of any Ceremony in Marriage in the whole Scriptures either Old Testament or New of Moses or Christ of Prophets or Apostles but the same as hath been already shewn have been invented by Priests of Priapus Venus Juno Diana Popes and Bishops either for Lust Covetousness or Ambition No Sin where no breach of a Commandment of God 2. The Scripture makes nothing unlawful nor Sin but what is a breach of the Commandment of God where there 's no Commandment therefore of God of joyning Ceremony with Marriage or Matrimony Marriage and Matrimony between Persons not Prohibited is lawful without them This is proved Luk. 18.18 And a certain Ruler asked him saying Good Master What shall I do to inherit eternal life The answer is
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