Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	abolish_v	according_a	answ_n	21	3	9.6621	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49781	The right of primogeniture, in succession to the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland as declared by the statutes of 24 E.3 cap 2. De Proditionibus, King of England, and of Kenneth the third, and Malcolm Mackenneth the second, Kings of Scotland : as likewise of 10 H.7 made by a Parliament of Ireland : with all objections answered, and clear probation made : that to compass or imagine the death, exile, or disinheriting of the King's eldest son, is high treason : to which is added, an answer to all objections against declaring him a Protestant successor, with reasons shewing the fatal dangers of neglecting the same.	Lawrence, William, 1613 or 14-1681 or 2.	1681 (1681)	Wing L691; ESTC R1575	180,199	230

making the Crown Hereditary to the Eldest Son answered ibid. Objections against the being of the King 's Eldest Son within the Statute of 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus Page 20. Obj. 1. That the Lady Mother was not a Queen ibid. Answ 1. The Statute is false Translated by the Lawyers and the Scripture false Translated by the Bishops in the word Queen ibid. Answ 2. Proved that the Lady Mother was Madam sa Compaign according to the Moral Law of God which is all and more than is required to be proved by the Statute ibid. Obj. 2. No Marriage according to the Mass-Book in the time of E. 3. nor by the Modern Common Prayer-Book or Book of Canons Page 23. Answ 1. No Marriage by any Book required by the Statute but only a Lady Companion according to the Moral Law of God Page 24. Answ 2. Marriage by the Common Prayer-Book not Necessary in a time of War when both Books of Common Prayer and of Canons were Prohibited and Abolished by the Power of the Sword ibid. Answ 3. The Legitimation of Children by the Law of God and of the Land ought not to be question'd after the Death of either Parent where not Judicially question'd and sentenced in their life-time Vid. Praeface Page 25. Answ 4. Not Necessary for a King who is Supreme Ordinary to Marry by the Common Prayer Book or Book of Canons Page 26. Answ 5. A King who is Supreme Ordinary may dispence with his own Canons and with any thing that is only Malum Prohibitum in his own Marriage but not with what is Malum in se by the Moral Law of God Page 28. Obj. 3. The Lady Mother was not HIS Companion which is the Article of Propriety required by the Statute Page 32. Answ She was HIS and he had the sole Propriety according to the Law of God and the Land Page 33. Obj. 4. There was no Marriage according to the Law of God Page 34. Answ 1. Certain Preparatory Considerations are laid down before the contrary is proved to this Negative By what Law and what Judges shall be judged what is the Law of God by which is after proved here was a Marriage according to the Law of God ib. Answ 2. Of the damnable Effects have followed by the Popish Prohibitions and Nulling of all Marriage not made by a Priest in a Temple Page 35. What is not Marriage by the Moral Law of God Page 39. What is not Matrimony by the Moral Law of God ibid. Answ 3. The Statute requires neither a King De Jure nor a Lady Companion De Jure nor a Son De Jure but only De Facto yet are they all here both De Jure and De Facto Page 40. Dangerous to leave the Succession of a Kingdom on so incertain a word as Lawful yet here both the King the Lady Companion and the Son are all Lawful ibid. Answ 4. A Lawful Successor may be of an unlawful Marriage Page 41. Obj. 5. The Lady Mother was not a Wife according to the Scripture Page 42. Answ 1. The Objection is false and it is after proved she was a Wife according to the Scripture ibid. Answ 2. The Statute requires no Wife according to Scripture but only a lawful Companion yet was she both a Wife and a lawful Wife according to Scripture as will hereafter be proved Page 43. Answ 3. The Bishops have falsly Translated the Scripture in all words relating to Marriage ibid. Of certain Differences between a Wife of the Bishop's making and a Wife of God's making Page 46. Obj. 6. There is no Bishop's Certificate to testifie the Marriage and Filiation Page 48. Answ The Statute requires no Certificate of either ibid. The Forms of Bishops Certificates Page 49. Their Original came from the Priests of Priapus Page 50. Of the Damnable Mischiefs insue from Tryal of Marriage and Filiation by Bishops Certificates ibid. The Certificates of Bishops inconsistent with the Right of Primogeniture Page 58. Of the General Custom of Nations of Successions to Kingdoms by Primogeniture and of the Mischiefs and Civil Wars commonly follow the disinheriting of the Eldest Son Page 62. What is Marriage and what Matrimony de Facto Page 66. What is Marriage De Jure according to the Law of God and of the Nations Page 67. Of the three Lawful Marriages amongst the Romans 1 Usu 2 Confarreatione 3 Coemptione Page 68. Of the three Lawful Marriages amongst the Hebrews 1 Copulatione 2 Coemptione 3 Instrumentis ibid. That Carnal knowledge Chastity and Childbirth between a Man and a Woman not prohibited by the Moral Law to Marry makes a Marriage Lawful Holy and Indissoluble without Banns Licence Priest Temple or any other Ceremony whatsoever Page 71. That the Marriage Coemptione Confarreatione or Instrumentis was not intended by Christ but only the Marriage Copulatione Page 86. An Epithalamium on the Marriage of Nature intended by Christ without a Priest or Temple Page 88. Obj. 7. The King 's Eldest Son is not the Heir intended by the Statute Page 90. Answ Proved he is the Heir both in the Letter and Intention of the Statute ibid. That to compass the Exile or Disinheriting of the King 's Eldest Son is High Treason Page 94. Obj. 8. By the Custom of Nations the Succession goes not to the Eldest Son born when the Father is only a Prince but to a younger Son born when he is a King ibid. Answ This Statute was made to prevent incertainty of this and other Customs and prevent all Cavils and Contentions about Succession by ascertaining the same to the Eldest Son Page 95. Obj. 9. The King 's Eldest Son is not yet declared Prince of Wales or of the Scots ibid. Answ The Statute requires no such thing Page 97. Obj. 10. Illegitimacy deprives of the benefit of the Statute ibid. Answ This Statute declares every Eldest Son of a King Legitimate and Heir to the Crown ibid. The Eldest Son of a King of Great Britain is Legitimate by his Birth-right per Jus Coronae ibid. Examples of the same Jus Coronae in other Nations Page 100. Examples of the same Jus Coronae in the Eldest Sons and Daughters of the Kings of England and Scotland who have thereby succeeded as Heirs to their Fathers Kingdoms on Marriages according to the Moral Law of God without the Ceremonies of a Priest or a Temple Page 102 103. That 't is High Treason for any Subject to slander the King 's Eldest Son with Illegitimacy Page 111. A Comparison of the Popish slanders of Illegitimacy against Queen Elizabeth and the King 's Eldest Son Page 112. A Comparison of the Popish slanders of Illegitimacy against King Edward the Sixth Queen Elizabeth the King 's Eldest Son and the Sons and Daughters of the whole Protestant Clergy Page 114. Of the insolent absurdity of Popish Laws Disinheriting the Lawful Sons of Kings according to the Law of God and inheriting the Bastards of Popes by the Law of the Devil

voluerunt enim opinor viri prudentes ut illae quoties mentionem sui fieri audirent ex adjuncto viri nomine se viris obnoxias esse meminissent 6. The Statute by Compaigne intended Sociam Thalami non Throni And in the same sense is the word Companion used in Scripture Cant. 1.15 It is said Behold thou art fair my Companion thou art fair And Mal. 2.14 Yet is she thy Companion and the Wife of thy Covenant In both which places the word Companion signifies the Companion of the Bed and not of the Throne Non bene conveniunt nec in una sede morantur Majest as Amor Nulla fides regni sociis omnisque potestas Impatiens consortis erit Of the like false Translation of the Scriptures by the Bishops of the Hebrew words Shegal and Gibhira into the English word Queen Scripture false translated by Bishops in the word Queen Psal 45.9 Is thus falsly translated Vpon thy right hand did stand the Queen in Gold of Ophir Whereas the Hebrew is only Shegal which signifies no more than Conjux or Wife from Shagal Coivit Concubuit and is no more than a Woman that hath been lain with by her Husband In like manner 1 King 15 13. 2 King 10.13 are false translated Queen the Hebrew word being Gibhira which signifies no more in French than Madame as in the Statute nor in Latin than Hera or Domina nor in English than Lady or Mistress And the Antient Hebrews and many other Nations did no more allow the Title of Queen except to a Queen Regnant than as is already said did the Saxons or Scots for Regina is derived à Regendo and is only proper to Gynarchies and imports none but the Supreme Governess of a Kingdom by which Title Queen Elizabeth was called Neither had Saul or David any Queens but onely Wives nor Solomon himself in all his Royalty of his thousand Wives any Queen for 700 are onely called in the Septuagint 1 King 11.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no more than Feminae Principes in Latine and Chief Women in English And the other 300 which are falsly translated Concubines as I have elsewhere at large shewed are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie no more in Latine than Juvenculae and in English than the honest name of Young Women Neither was he the Son of a Queen for his Mother wheresoever she is named is onely called plain Bathsheba as 1 King 1.5 And Bathsheba went in unto the King into the Chamber and the King was very old And verse 28. Then King David answered and said call me Bathsheba and she came into the Kings presence and stood before the King And 1 Chron. 3.5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem Shimeah and Shobah and Nathan and Solomon four of Bathsheba the Daughter of Ammiel That the Bishops have likewise falsly translated all in the Scripture relating to Marriage and Filiation is proved before at full Lib. 2. p. 142. usque ad p. 162. And in other matters as is assirmed by that great Linguist Doctor Broughton Old Testament false translated by Bishops in 848. places The Lady Mother of the Kings Eldest Son was Madame sa Compaigne intended in this Statute they have false translated the Old Testament in no less then 848. places Now that this Lady-Mother was Madame sa Compaigne which are both the words and intention of the Statute is so known as need not be proved by Witnesses For she had the honour to be Primus Amor the first Lady Companion of the Prince the Raies of whose Favour cast upon her made the Lustre of those Graces rarely conjoined in the same person the more illustrious for she was a Virgin and not praepossessed by another She was a Protestant and not a Papist She was a Native and not a Strange Woman She was a Subject and not Imperious In her were conjoined Beauty with Chastity Greatness with Humility Treasure with Frugality Fidelity with Adversity Though she did not reign with him to be called Queen she suffered with him and was partaker of all his troubles no bloudy Wars no Seas no Foreign Countries could fright her from him But as if the Soul of that sacred Queen Eleanor the Companion of the famous Edward I. in his Wars to the Holy Land had transmigrated into her Body she led the Pilgrimage of her life with him whithersoever he travelled and though she had no Crown in her Life she was faithful to Death and beyond Death left him such a pleadge of affection as is hoped by Gods mercy will indear her memory to all Protestants in the three Kingdoms which will evince to all except the Malicious That she was Madame sa Compaigne the Lady his Companion mentioned and intended in this Statute which is sufficient and as much as is necessary to be proved Object 2 Object 2. That she was not married according to the Mass-Book Common-Prayer Book of Canons or Ordinance of Parliament or by a Priest in a Temple therefore the Eldest Son is not within this Statute Answ Marriage by the Common Prayer Book not necessary within the Statute Answ 1. There is neither the word Marriage Mass Book Common-Prayer Book Book of Cannons or Ordinance of Parilament Priest or Temple named in the Statute therefore being not expressed they are not to be intended in so wise a Statute which minded substance and not Ceremonies and Safety of the Royal Blood and not Insecurity and Incertainty 2. Admit the Statute had in express terms said our Lady his Companion married by the Mass-book which was the Book then in Fashion at time of this Statute yet none will deny but when by a succeeding Power this Mass-Book was abolished or changed Marriage by the Common-Drayer-Book not necessary in time of War as in the time of H. 5. the Service Book of Pauls was changed into the Service Book of Salisbury that none need to marry according to it Then as to the Common-Prayer and Book of Cannons at the time of the Princes taking his Lady Companion it is known that both Mass-Book Common Prayer Book Book of Cannons and all were abolished by the then Power of the Sword and it might have been Death for a Prince to have married by a Book of Common-Prayer or in Publick Is any Protestant then so imprudent as to expect in such a time and place of War and the Usurping Power provailing in their contrary Ordinances and threatning death and destruction to all who opposed them that such who were in those dangers should publickly and with Rites and Ceremonies by a Priest Temple and Altar solemnize a Marriage or can any be so sensless as when in the time of King John Pope Innocent Marriage by the Common-Prayer Book not necessary in time of Interdiction Papal or Potentatical the French King and English Bishops conspired together and the Pope Excommunicated and Interdicted the King and whole Kingdom of England for the space

of six Years three Months and fourteen Days before the Interdiction could be bought off Neither payment of vast sums of Money and the laying down his Crown Scepter Mantle Sword and Ring at the feet of Pandolfus the Popes Legat and making his Kingdom tributary to Rome during all which time of Interdiction there was no Church open for Marriages or Burials but People were buried like Dogs in Ditches and where they married God knows And in the latter times of Potentates of Interdiction of the Common-Prayer Book and Marriage by it can any I say be so sensless as to censure in such a time those who were excluded from all Mass-Books Common-Prayer Books Priests and Temples if they make use of Gods Ordinance and not of the Priests and married without them 3. There is another Circumstance in this Case which makes it both Unlawful and Impossible to question the Validity of this Marriage because without Mass-Book or Common-Prayer or Ordinance of Parliament for the Lady Mother The Mother being dead the Legitimation of the Child not to be questioned who was the Royal first Companion is now dead And by Law of God and Man none ought to be Censured without hearing and answering for her self which now is impossible for who knowes if Question'd while alive What besides the necessities of War she could have alledged both as to the Fact and Law what Matrimonial Promises or Contracts Verbal or in Writing what Matrimonial Trusts what Witness what Evidence she could have produced For which reason even by our own Laws as appears 39 E. 3.32 If a man Marry his own Sister which is a very unlawful Incestuous Marriage and contrary to the Law of God and hath Issue by her and she dyes if not Judicially Questioned and Sentenced for it in her Life-time the Legitimation of her Issue shall not be questioned after her death because she was not Summon'd to answer while alive Of which see more before in the Preface So Littleton himself though he is much Devoted to the Service of the Laws and Religion of his Holy Father the Pope concerning Marriages yet he confesses Sect. 399.340 That if the Legitimation of a Child is not question'd while alive his Heir shall never be questioned after he is Dead And if a man Marry his Sister and hath Children by her if one Parent dye though Incest the Children are Legitimate 39 E. 3.32 But in this Case where there is no Incest nor any other matter in the least prohibited by the Law of God nor pretence or colour of any but the omission of a Petty Ceremony of a Common-Prayer-Book a human Law and that in a time of War too when abolished to violate the Sanctuary of the Sepulcher and the Deceased seems not only Unchristian but Barbarous How unlawful the Desertion of a Virgin is while alive hath been already shew Lib. 1. p. 88. But far more unlawful is the Desertions of her Children after her Death And how Unlawful Divorce of her is after Procreation of a Child hath been already shewn Lib. 1. p. 94. But far more Unlawful is the Divorce of the Dead Oh ye Romish Monsters ye are more Cruel than Death for death it self Divorceth not quoad praeterita Death a Divorce but no Dissolving of Marriage quoad praeterita but only quoad futura Death it self Nulls not but only Dissolves the Marriage No Dragon but that of the Seven Heads hath a Retrospect in repeal of Lawes No Wolves but those in Sheeps-clothing with their howles disturb the blessed Dead Act of Confirmation of Marriage to persons in Hostility by Ordiance of Parliament ought to have Confirmed Marriages of those who were not in Hostility 4. By the Statute 12 Car. 2.33 It is Enacted That all Marriages by pretence or colour of any Ordinance of Parliament since May 1642. which was during the Times of the War and Usurpation shall be adjudged of the same force and effect as if they had been solemnized according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England which is according to the Common Prayer-Book This ACT therefore though it give and intend Right and Justice to those who had been in Hostility and doth take away all Cavils and Scruples might after have arisen concerning the Ordinance Marriage and Legitimation and Succession of Children Yet did it not intend such as were Friends should be left in a worse condition as to their Marriages and Children than those to whom they had given the benefit of this Act or that there should only a Balm be provided for the Wounds of one party and those of the other who were more necessitated to receive them be left bleeding without any for the Royal Party could then neither Marry by the Common Prayer-Books which the Sword had abolished nor according to the Ordinance of Parliament not daring to approach their Quarters Act confirming Marriage according to Ordinance of Parliament ought to have Confirmed Marriage according to the Ordinance of God or to be publickly Banned at Church or Market-Cross Especially Persons of Eminency to Expose themselves to such a Snare as might intrap them and indanger their Lives It was not therefore the Intention of the Protestants in this Parliament That this Act of Confirmation of Marriages should have been partial and only to Confirm one Party but rather to have been as the Act of Confirmation of Judicial Proceedings made in the same Year was general to all Parties and to have Confirmed all Marriages in general made since May 1642. not contrary to the Moral Law of God to be of the same force and effect as if they had been Solemnized according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England or the Common Prayer-Book It is an old Rule that Favores sunt ampliandi Favours are to be inlarged and not restrained and it might be happy for many Families who have Suffer'd for his Majestie in time of the Wars if such a general Act of Confirmation of Marriages then made not contrary to the Moral Law of God were yet Enacted and the Favour not Restrained only to Marriages made by Ordinance of Parliament For as to those many Papists who had free Liberty to Live in the Parliament Quarters when the Royal Party had not took advantage of and first Married before Justices of Peace and after by their own Priests It is not Equal therefore that Protestants that could not have that Safety which Papists had or if they could thought it perhaps against their Conscience to Marry according to the Forms prescribed by Ordinance of Parliament should be Excluded from all Favour or Excuse to the Marriages of themselves and Successions of their Children which is by this Act given to the Marriages and Children of these who were in Hostility and of Papists themselves There was likewise another ACT made 29 Car. 2. 1677 for the Naturalizing of Children of his Majesty's English Subjects born in Forreign Countreys during the Late Troubles