Page 118. CAP. II. WHether necessary in the present juncture of Affairs for the King and Parliament to declare a Protestant Successor to the Three Kingdoms Page 121. Objections against it Answer'd Obj. 1. Declaring a Protestant Successor by the King and Parliament makes a Kingdom Elective and not Hereditary ibid. Obj. 2. Acts of Precedent Parliaments cannot bind Subsequent from repeal Page 122. Obj. 3. Acts of Parliament cannot bind the Power of the Sword from cutting off those Acts by Conquest Page 123. Obj. 4. Declaring a Successor by Act of Parliament incites him to be disobedient and rebellious ibid. Obj. 5. The Ottoman Emperors never declare a Successor Page 124. Obj. 6. Queen Elizabeth refused to Declare a Successor Page 127. Reasons for declaring a Protestant Successor by the King and Parliament with the Great Dangers insue the neglect Page 132. 1. Danger to the Conscience of the Prince ibid. 2. Danger by the incertainty of the Laws of Succession of the Crown Page 133. 3. Danger of the Arbitrary disposing of the Crown by Rome or Canterbury Page 134. 4. Danger of the Predominancy of Papal and Episcopal Laws of Marriage Filiation and Succession above the Moral Law of God and the Laws of the Land ibid. 5. Danger to the King's Person his Lineal Heirs and House Page 135. 6. Danger of Lineal and Collateral Heirs to destroy one another ibid. 7. Danger if the King 's Eldest Son should happen to die before his Father leaving his Heir and younger Children in Minority ibid. 8. Danger of a Successor without Assent of the People Page 137. 9. Danger of a Papist Successor Page 138. A Papist Successor more dangerous to Papists themselves than a Protestant Successor ibid. A Papist Successor or Male utterly Destructive to Protestants and a Female doubly Destructive Page 160. 10. Danger in regard of Foreign Princes Page 182. 11. Danger of exposing Succession to Counterfeit Wills and Testaments Page 190. 12. Danger of incouraging Vsurpers Page 191. 13. Danger in doubtful Titles of Interregnums Page 192. 14. Danger of Cantonizing the Kingdoms ibid. 15. Danger of Exposing the Succession of the Kingdoms to Sale Page 193. 16. Danger of Exposing the Succession of the Kingdoms to Conquest Page 197. LIB III. CHAP. I. The words of the Statute 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus as in the Original French AUxint pur ceo que divers Opinions ont estre eins ceax heurs quel Case doit estre dit Treason et en quel nemy le Roy a le request des Seigniors et Commons ad fait declarisment que ensuist cestassavoire quant home fait compasser ou imaginer la Mort nostre Seignior le Roy Madame sa compaigne ou de lour fits Eigne et Heir The words as Translated by Pulton and Coke into English WHereas divers Opinions have been before this time in what case Treason shall be said and in what not the King at the request of the Lords and Commons hath made a Declaration in the manner as hereafter followeth That is to say When a man doth Compass or Imagine the Death of our Lord the King of our Lady his Queen or of their Eldest Son and Heir The Statutes of Kenneth the Third and Malcolm Mackenneth the Second as related by Buchanan Lib. 6. Rer. Scot. p. 191 196. Adjectae sunt Aliae leges ut quemadmodum Regi maximus natu filius in regnum Succederit ita filio ante Patrem defuncto nepos avo subrogaretur Englished There were other Lawes also added That as the Eldest Son of the King should succeed to him in his Kingdom So if such Son dyed before the Father the Nephew should succeed in his stead to his Grandfather Another Law of Scotland mention'd by Skene Reg. Majest Lib. 2. cap. 33. De Nepote ex Primogenito filio Nepos ex filio Primogenito mortuo jure representationis succedit Avo suo filium postnatum Avi id est Avunculum suum excludit Englished The Eldest Son being dead before the Father the Nephew by the Eldest Son shall in right of Representation Succeed to his Grandfather and exclude any Younger Son of his Grandfather that is to say his Uncle This Law of Scotland was taken out of Glanvil Lib. 7. c. 3. which shews it is the unquestionable Law of England as well as of Scotland and likewise out of the Civil Law L. 3. C. de suis legit Haered l. Posthumorum 13. H. de Injust Testamento c. 33. ex l. 1. § 6. H. de Haered Skene saith further That of this Question between the Son of the Eldest Son and the Uncle Franciscus Vinius Treats at large Lib. 3. Decisionum Decis 501. and he allcadgeth Alciat Cons 101. Bartol in l. post fratres C. 1. de legit haered Bald. Salyc Doctores in l. si viva Mater C. de Bon. Pater The Statute made 10 H. 7. in a Parliament of Ireland called Poyning's Law The words of which are these It is Enacted That all Statutes late made within the Realm of England concerning or belonging to the Common or Publick Weal of the same from henceforth be deemed Good and Effectual in the Law and ever that be accepted used and executed within this Land of Ireland in all Points and at all times requisite according to the Tenor and Effect of the same Coke saith 4 Part 351. That Hil. 10. Jac. Regis it was resolved by the Two Chief Justices and Chief Baron that this word late in the beginning of this Act had the sense of before so that this Act extended to Magna Charta and to all Acts of Parliament made in England before this Act of 10 H. 7. And by the same Reason extends to the Statute of 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus on which this Discourse is founded from whence will be after proved these Conclusions Conclusion 1. This being granted That if the Eldest Son had happen'd to Die in the Life of his Father the Eldest Son of the Prince who died should have Succeeded Jure Representationis of his own Father as Heir Lineal to his Grandfather and excluded the Grandfather's Younger Son who is his Uncle à fortiori must it be granted that if both Grandfather and Father die the Eldest Son who is the Grandchild Surviving he ought to exclude his Uncle for he now comes in Jure proprio which is a greater Right than Jure representationis and if the less Right exclude the Uncle much more must the greater Conclusion 2. When the Right of the Crown shall actual descend from the King in Possession on the Eldest Son in Possession who is the next Lineal Heir of his Blood then is the Son Actually King both De Facto and De Jure as was his Father who died in Possession of the Kingdoms And therefore all the forementioned Acts of Parliament and Common Laws of England Scotland and Ireland and the Imperial Laws with them unanimously declare It will be
Cohabitation 3. No lawful Impediment why the Parties should not Marry 4. Chastity and Children 5. Length of time and no Judicial Questioning and Sentence to the contrary while alive 7. Promise of Marriage 8. Acknowledgment by the Father of the Children either by word or writing or by giving them Aliment and Education as Children As to the First Fame and Reputation which are Voces opinio Vulgi are an usual Presumption of Marriage As to the Second The Cannon Law it self Jus Pontificium praesumit ex diuturna Cohabitatione filium esse Legitimum Craig Feud 270. Cohabitation for any time is so high a Presumption of Marriage as it Legitimates the Son And amongst the Old Romans one of their chief ways of Lawful Marriage without Ceremony of Priest or Temple was Vsus that is Cohabitation and Conjugal Society for the space of a year and this was reputed so considerable a time as it made a Marriage by Prescription As to the Third which is where there is no Lawful Impediment nor the Parties are prohibited by the Law of God to Marry this makes a presumption of Marriage because it was no Sin for them by the Law of God to Marry As to the Fourth cause of Presumption which is Chastity and Children where all the Circumstances concur of Lawful Marriage as Cohabitation no Lawful Impediment Chastity of the Lady Children and acknowledgment by the Father of the Children to be his these are not only the strongest presumptions which can be made of a Lawful Marriage but are of themselves as is fully proved in the following Discourse without any Ceremony a Marriage Lawful Holy and Indissoluble As to the Fifth cause of presumption which is no Judicial Questioning and Sentence against the Marriage in the space of Thirty years in which time all Witnesses may be Dead and Writings lost or burnt the same is so high as by the Laws of the Land and of all Nations no proof ought to be admitted to the contrary nor no questioning now to be permitted of the same because it is beyond the time of Limitation of Actions and the peace and security of all Families and Kingdoms must be destroyed should Witnesses be required Thirty years after of all such Marriages as have not been Judicially question'd and sentenced in all that time As to the Sixth cause of presumption which is the Death of either Party without being Judicially question'd or sentenced while alive This by the Law of God and of the Land is so high a presumption for the Parents and so necessary justice for the Children That no Probation ought to be admitted to the contrary nor ought or can the Legitimation of the Child be question'd after the Death of either Parent yea though the Marriage of the Parents were Unlawful as if a man Marry his own Sister which is a far more Unlawful Marriage than to Marry without a Papal or Episcopal Ceremony and have Issue by her if she die before a Judicial hearing and sentence pass'd against her her Children are Inheritable and their Legitimation can never be question'd for she that is Deceased cannot be Summon'd before any Humane Tribunal And if Sentence should be there pass'd against her she is condemn'd without Hearing and therefore that the Children ought to be Legitimate and Inheritable hath been resolved by the Parliament it self as may appear Bro. Deraignement 5. Bro. Bastardy 23.44 24 H. 8. 39 E. 3.32 And it is for the same reason very clear That if Queen Katherine the Wife of H. 8. had died before Judicial Sentence pass'd against her the Legitimation of his Daughter by her who was afterwards Queen Mary could never have been question'd and should the Legitimation of the Royal Lines of England Scotland and Ireland or any other Kingdom in the World be permitted to be question'd after the Death of one or both of the Parents It is impossible but all certainty and security of the Successions to them must be utterly destroyed As to the Seventh cause of presumption which is presumption of a Promise of Marriage to shew which all the foremention'd circumstances concur and though the Ecclesiasticks of Scotland keep the people under sufficient servility of their Ceremonies of Marriage yet even thereby the Laws of the Land doth promise of Marriage without any Proclamation of Banns or other Ceremony both Endow the Mother and Legitimate the Children as appears Craig Feud 269.270 As to the last Cause of Presumption which is Filiation not only the Civil Law but the Law of God in the Scripture Legitimates every Son and makes him Heir to the Father who begot him either of a Primogenial or Filial Portion except of Inheritance intail'd to a former Wife as was that of Abraham to Sarah and whether this Probation of Filiation is made by the Son or Father as in the Civil Law is said Filium alicujus se esse probans videtur probare se esse Legitimum § Et ib. ad Marg. de Adopt who proves himself a Son to any proves himself Legitimate And by the same Law such as are proved Children are Legitimated though there were no Ceremonies of Marriage Authen Collation 6. Novella 174. Tit. 3. quibus modis Natur. cap. primo Siquis 3530. And the Scripture is Positive in the point Rom. 8.17 If Children then Heirs Et Gal. 4.7 If a Son then an Heir 5. To return again to other Laws of the Land besides those of Presumptions It is not necessary to prove a Lawful Marriage by proving Ceremonies But all Marriage is declared Lawful whether with or without Ceremonies by the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Law of the Land which is not Prohibited by the Law of God as appears by the 32 Art of the 39 Articles Roger's Articles p. 185. 187 188. as shewn more at large in the Discourse following and likewise in the Statute 32 H. 8. cap. 38. of Precontracts wherein there is this Clause And that no Reservation or Prohibition God's Law except shall Trouble or Impeach any Marriage without the Levitical Degrees Whereby it is clear that this Marriage being without the Levitical Degrees and not Prohibited by the Law of God ought not by the express words of the Act of Parliament to be troubled or impeach'd by any Humane Law whatsoever Ecclesiastical or Temporal Which said Act of Parliament except as to matter of Pre-contracts stands unrepealed to this Day and of full force And the Reasons of the said Act are expressed in the Preamble of the same to be because the Usurped Power of the Bishop of Rome hath always intangled and troubled the meer Jurisdiction and Regal Power of this Realm of England and also unquieted much the Subjects of the same by his Usurped Power in them and by making that Unlawful which by God's Word is Lawful both in Marriages and other things 6. They whom no Law of the Land makes Illegitimate are Legitimate by the Law of the Land But no Law of the Land either
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
required by the Statute Answ To which is Answered That if she had been the Wife of another man or any other had had a Lawful Propriety in her it is not denied but the Objection might have been material but here was the most Lawful way of Election of a Companion and acquiring Propriety in her not only according to Gods Ordinance but the Lawes of all Nations except the Papal and Episcopal and not Impertinently as expressed by the Poet Elige de vacuis quam non sibi vindicat alter Si nescis Dominum res habet ista suum Take her that 's free if it thou knowest not Think she some unknown Master then hath got Here was Possessio vacua Virgo intacta neither Party Prohibited by any Law of God to take or yield Possession or acquire Propriety one in another All Lawyers which write de modis acquirendi Dominij in a Wife and Children though they lay it as a Fundamental That Contract Sponsions Promises yea Buying and Selling it self only create an obligation but Transfer no Propriety without Tradition of Possession according to the Old Verses Rem Domino vel non Domino vendente duòbus In jute est potior traditione prior And though acquisition of the possession of Women and Children by Tradition or Seizure or other wayes without carnal knowledge and Generation doth only acquire the Propriety of them as of Slaves or Servants but not as of Wives or Children yet they assirm and the whole Scripture assirms with them that carnal knowledge between persons not prohibited by the Law of God is an acquisition of Propriety in the Woman and generation an acquisition of Propriety in children And that all Ceremonies of acquiring Propriety in Wives without carnal knowledge and all Adoptions for acquiring Propriety in children without genoration of them are Fictions and Fopperies The Scripture therefore calls every woman Lawfully laien with by a Man his Wife and every Son he begets his Son which gives a Propriety of all which Texts of Scripture I shall speak more largely in answer to the next Objection Object 4 Not Married according to the Law of God Object 4. That she was not Married according to the Law of God Answ 1 Before the contrary is proved to this Negative and the Truth shewen unanswerably that she was married according to the Law of God It will be necessary to prove by what Law the Law of God concerning marriage ought not and ought to be Judged whether it be the Law of God or no. Secondly By what Judge Marriage ought not and ought to be Judged to be not according or according to the Law of God As to the Law by which it ought not it is clearly and fully already prov'd therefore to avoid repetition I refer the Reader to the former Books Chapters Pages here following quoted viz. That it ought not to be Judged 1. By the Law of Moses and Customes of the Jewes of which Vid. Lib. 1. p. 2. 2. By the Laws and Customes of the Heathen Nations Vide. Lib. 1. p. 10. 3. By the Laws Civil Canon or Feudal Vid. Lib. 1. p. 21. 4. By the Laws of Mahomet Vid. Lib. 1. p. 26. 5. By Ecclesiastical Laws Vid. Lib. 1. p. 31. 6. By such Laws of England Scotland or Ireland as are Reliques of Popery or contrary to the Laws of God Vid. Lib. 1. p. 64. usque ad p. 125. 7. By Ceremonial Laws Vid. Lib. 1. p. 127. Of the Absurd and Ridiculous Ceremonies on which Priests would have Marriage Filiation Aliment and Succession to depend Vid. Lib. 1. p. 127. Of the Original of Compulsion to the Ceremonies of a Priest and Temple in Marriage which came from the Priests of Priapus and Venus Pagan Gods and Goddesses Magicians Aruspices Astrologers Daemons with the Strumpets Theodora Marozia and others and Popes and Bishops their Chaplains Vid. Lib. 1. p. 43.45.52.83 of Theodora and Morozia more p. 79. Of the sinal causes of Compulsion to the said Ceremony of a Priest and a Temple viz. the Insatiable Lust Covetousness and Ambition of Priests Vid. Lib. 1. p. 53. Of the most Dismal Effects and Mischiefs insuing Compulsion of the Ceremony of a Priest and Temple in Marriage Vid. Lib. 2. p. 192. usque ad 250. et ultra Of certain other Mischiefs not before Recited Of the damnable Effects ensuing Prohibitions to Marry and nulling Marriage except by a Priest in a Temple contrary to the Moral Law of God Other mischiefs not before recited of Compulsion of the Ceremony of a Priest and Temple in Marriage and the false naming that Marriage which is no Marriage and false nameing that no Marriage which is a Marriage whereby they call Good Evil and Evil Good Light Darkness and Darkness Light so that the whole Mystery of the Romish Antichrist depends on the Compulsion of this Ceremony to Marry Bury and Pray by a Priest in a Temple The wicked Causes of Prohibiting the Clergy to Marry by this Ceremony of a Priest and Temple and compelling the Laity 1 Without this Ceremony they could not prohibit marriage to their Clergy which Militia Togata of theirs to keep unmarried is one of the Arcana Imperij Papalis and was first Decreed by Pope Nicholas the First The sinal causes were 1. That the Priests might have no Dependance or be under command of the Lay-Lords by reason of their Wives and Families for whom if they kept them they would be necessitated to provide Lay-Maintenance the Spiritual being too short Commons for so many 2. That what Wives and Children the Priests had they might sit by other mens Fires and be maintained at other mens Tables and succeed to other mens Inheritances 3. That the Priests might be the Richer and Abler to pay the more Tributes and Taxes to the Pope 4. That they might be provoked to Lye with the more Lay-mens Wives and thereby fish out all the Secrets of their Husbands for Intelligence to Lay their own Plots and discover those against them in Auricular Confession 5. That they might not be put to the usual Cost of Intelligence which is commonly very Dear but might by this way be had for nothing and probably with Rewards to such Gallants 6. That between the Woman and the Priest they might Rob the Lay-man of his Goods and share it between them 7. That when the Lay-man was come to die the Woman to whom her Living man was more pleasant than her Dying might persuade him to make the Priest Overseer of his Goods and of the Children he had got for him And to give Land to Pious that is to say Pontifical Uses 8. That the Lay-men might not Lye with the Priests Wives and return to them the Talio to which end they made themselves Judges of the Causes of Divorce And made strict Canons Prohibiting the Lay Divorce à Vinculo for Adult'ry and that they should give Surety and Bond though Divorced à Mensâ Thoro while either was Living never to
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
in England or Scotland makes the Children either of Papist or Protestant born of Marriages not prohibited by the Law of God Illegitimate Therefore all Children born of Marriages not prohibited by the Law of God are Legitimate by the Law of the Land for though some Penal Laws have been by Pontifical pretences procured which have presumed too far to prohibit contrary to the Divine Ordinance Marriages and Meats not prohibited by the Law of God yet none but the Pope and Council of Trent who in their Luciferian Pride pretend to power above God's Law ever transgress'd so far in these Kingdoms as by such penal Laws to null or make void such Marriages or to Illegitimate their Children or though they imposed penalties on the Parents to impose any on the Children as may appear by the Statutes 3 Jac. 5. for England prohibiting Popish Recusants to Marry otherwise than by a Minister lawfully authorized in some open Church or Chappel according to the Orders of the Church of England And the Act Car. 1. Par. 2. Sess 2. Act 8. fol. 88. for Scotland prohibiting any to Marry in another Kingdom without the Banns first proclaimed in Scotland And that the Omission of Ceremonies contrary to a penal Law neither Nulls the Marriage nor Illegitimates the Issue Vid. proved before Lib. 1. p. 110 111. 7. Frustra probatur quod probatum non relevat It were time mispent to prove Ceremonies which when they are proved prove nothing to the Matters in question which are a lawful Lady Companion as intended by this Statute and an eldest Son by her of the Blood of King Charles the Second the rightful present Possessor of the Three Kingdoms and of the Blood and of his two special Predecessors King Edward the Third of England and King Fergusius of Scotland as to which Probation of the Ceremonies of a Marriage proves nothing of the Truth or Lawfulness of the Marriage for many Ladies have been Married with all the Ceremonies the Priest could lay on them yet have their Marriages been utterly unlawful and prohibited by the Law of God nor do they prove the Truth or Lawfulness of the Lineal Blood derived from the Possessors or Predecessors As for Example The Kings of Sparta were to be of no other Blood but of the race of Hercules these were Married with all the Ceremonies accustomed in that Kingdom yet did not those Ceremonies preserve the Chastity of the Queen from being so over-familiar with Alcibiades her Husband 's ingrateful Guest and whom he had hospitably entertain'd when fled from his own Country of Athens but he having got her with Child boasted when he was gone from thence that he had left Heirs of his Blood to the Kingdom of Lacedaemon So Henry of Spain Anno Dom. 1459. having Married his Queen with all the Ceremonies accustomed in that Kingdom but being unable himself perswaded her to be got with Child by Bertrand of Guttua Joan thus gotten is proclaimed Heir but refused by the people Bertrand is made Earl of Ledesma and Duke of Alburquerk Sp. Hist Canutus the Dane Married here in England Algine who was Barren she to oblige the love of her Husband feigned her self with Child and packt one that was Suppositions on her Husband King Canutus was very joyful of his supposed Son and called his Name Sweno and after gave him the Kingdom of Norway Philip the Second of Spain was Ceremoniously Married to Queen Mary for whose being with Child as was supposed a Day of Publick Thanksgiving was kept and the Bells rang with Joy through all England but as is said King Philip was Jealous of the like Issue with Canutus what had the proof of the Ceremonies of Marriage been to the purpose to prove Adulterous Children to be of the race of Hercules or Henry or such as had been Suppositions of the Danish or Spanish Races 8. It were a Dishonour to the Holy Protestant Religion and the Professors thereof to be able to Establish the Lawfulness and Validity of their Marriages on no more Sacred Principles than Ceremonies of so unclean an Original as Popes Common Prostitutes Magicians Aruspices Astrologers Southsayers Priests of Priapus and Venus Pagan Gods and Goddesses and Daemons themselves as is already proved Lib. 1. p. 43 44.51 52. Then as to Witnesses It were an unnecessary Tempting of God to cast what is not the cause of a single person but of all the Protestants in the Three Kingdoms on the hazard of such Witnesses as the Probation of Ceremonies Thirty years since and in a Foreign Catholick Country will require for it is certain the Bishops and Magistrates of that Countrey are Papists and therefore no equal Witnesses may be had thence but such as may think it is Meritorious to overthrow the Protestants right or wrong and the same Danger is of Witnesses at home obnoxious to as great Temptations of Papists here whose Religion is not to keep Faith with Hereticks as they call Protestants whereby they may as is commonly practised be corrupted with Money either in a counterfeit manner to offer their Testimonies and when they have Sworn to Recant and Reprobate themselves whereby the Truth shall be betrayed or a greater Number of false Witnesses be Suborned to Swear against the Truth then may be got to Swear for it whereby the Truth shall be destroyed or such Judges may be as will hear no Witnesses but such as are right for the turn whereby the Truth will be suppressed of which Popish practices too much hath appeared fresh before our Eyes in the Examination of the late Horrid Plot. Therefore no Prudence to give them opportunity to do the like or worse by joyning Issue with them on the Impertinent point of Ceremonies of Marriage wherein only they are able to corrupt Witnesses But it is more secure to stand on the points of Substance of Marriage according to the Law of God which are these viz. Cohabitation Conjugal Society Chastity Children and acknowledgment of them by the Father to be his of which God's Providence hath provided so many Witnesses as will be in vain for them to Suborn or Corrupt false Witnesses to the contrary Besides if Witnesses may be had yet alive after Thirty years time yet they may Die or be Poison'd or otherwise made away when known before they come to Hearing or so terrified that they will not dare to testifie the Truth why then shall all be put in danger by Ceremony when Substance Places all in Security and it were an injust thing Three Kingdoms should be hazarded on the Lives of two or three Witnesses To speak at last in reference to the Judges and Court by whom this Marriage ought to be judged which ought to be only by the King and Parliament both as to the Fact and the Law for as to both the same as alleadged being made beyond Sea in a Foreign Catholick Country not under the Jurisdiction of the King and Parliament nor where his Writ runneth The Archbishop of
Canterbury cannot be sent unto to certifie because it was made Beyond-sea the Foreign Catholick Bishop cannot be sent unto to certifie because he is out of the Jurisdiction And besides by Acts of Parliament all Foreign Certificates and all other Foreign Acts of Jurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome or any other Foreign Bishop ought not to be admitted here besides no Foreign Witness can either be Summon'd to appear here or to be examin'd there So as to the Fact of Ceremonies were they never so many at the Marriage they are impossible to be brought to an equal Tryal or Probation here and the Ceremony that 't was in a Church consecrated by a Bishop for as Coke says no House can be a Church without such Consecration which is impossible to be Sworn by any Witness For none but God can make place or time Holy and not a Bishop there remains therefore nothing which ought or can as to the Fact of Marriage be proved here but the Substance of Marriage which is Cohabitation Conjugal Society Chastity and Children which are Notorious and need no Foreign Witnesses Then as to to the Law of the Ceremonies the Protestant Ceremonies of Marriage are by the Law in a Catholick Country Heresie and forbidden The Catholick Ceremonies are forbidden here These Ceremonies therefore in a Foreign Marriage can neither be judged here by the Law of the Catholick Country because it concerns Inheritance which lyes in England nor by the Law of England because the Fact was done in a Foreign County it ought therefore only to be judged by the Moral Law of God which judgeth according to Substance and not Ceremonies and is the Universal Law of all Nations and Countries 2. It were impertinent to prove Ceremonies before a Parliament because the same being a Court of Equity ought to judge according to Trust and Intention of Marriage though the Witness of Ceremonies are Dead and Writings lost or burnt whereby any verbal Promise or Ceremonial form of Words cannot be proved 3. God forbid the Representative of the People in Parliament whom they have intrusted with all they have in Matters of such infinite weight should be so Ludicrous as to cast away the safety of the King's Person to Extinguish his Lineal Blood to Destroy the Religion Liberty Propriety and Lives of all his Protestant Subjects in the Three Kingdoms on such Toys as that there are no Witnesses to be got to prove Ceremonies of Verba de Praesenti or With my Body I thee worship or to Swear that the Ring was Gold and not Brass or that it was put on the fourth Finger and not on the fifth or not on the Tumb but on the Finger 4. It is impertinent to prove Ceremonies in a Court of Equity especially in the Supreme Court of Equity which a Parliament is who ought to judge Right Secundum aequum Bonum without any regard to Ceremonies as to make Estates good without Livery of Seisin Attornment Inrolement Fine Common Recovery or the like so likewise ought they to judge without any regard of the Ceremonies and Formalities of Pleadings according to the Truth and Merits of the Cause yea they ought not only to judge without but contrary to all Ceremonies and Formalities if they find them Estopples to Truth and Bars to Equity yea contrary to the Law it self if they find it Summum Jus. 5. In this very point of Legitimation the High Court of Parliament ought to judge according to Truth and Equity though contrary to all Ecclesiastical Laws and contrary to all Episcopal Certificates as appears by Coke expresly Part 4. fol. 36. where he saith The Parliament may Bastard a Child that is by Law Legitimate viz. Begotten by an Adulterer the Husband being within the four Sees as Rot. Parl. 5. Et 6 E. 6. in the Marquess of Winchester's Case and may Legitimate one that is by Law Illegitimate and born before Marriage that is without the Ceremonies of Marriage And this may be done Absolutely or with Exception of which later way take one Example for many John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster had by Katharine Swinford who was not Married with the Ceremony of a Priest and a Temple four Children Slander'd in those Popish Times with the Name of Illegitimate viz. Henry John Thomas and Joan and because they were Born at Beaufort in France they were vulgarly called Henry de Beaufort c. After at a Parliament holden 20 R. 2. The King by Act of Parliament in the form of a Charter doth Legitimate these three Sons and Joan the Daughter with an Exception which is Excepta dignitate Regali which shews that the King and Parliament may when they please Legitimate according to the Moral Law of God and not only without but contrary to Ceremonies And though they shall not yet is the Legitimation by the Law of God above that of all Humane Laws And though a Right thereby Dormit aliquando yet Moritur nunquam as appears in Henry the Seventh who long after derived his Title from John de Beaufort Duke of Somerset the second Son of John of Gaunt by Katharine Swinford who was only Married according to the Moral Law of God and without the Ceremonies of a Priest and a Temple notwithstanding the Exception in the Act R. 2. Excepta dignitate Regali for what that Act denied him a later Act gave him and before he Married with the Lady Elizabeth the Daughter of Edward the Fourth and Heir of the House of York the Crown was by Act of Parliament intailed to Henry the Seventh and the Heirs of his Body and indeed all Settlements of the Crown by Act of Parliament both in the House of York and Lancaster are in themselves Legitimations without any naming the word where there hath been any Scruples concerning the same and though there have been none are the surest and most undisputable Titles of Successors and of the greatest Advantage to the Possessors which is visible in the Examples of the Kings of England and Scotland the greatest part of whom have made use of Acts of Parliament though their Titles have been unquestionable Upon the whole it seems not possible for any Title of Succession to be more clear both in Divinity Law and Equity than the present except by Act of Parliament wherein the Person is particularly named which is only wanting to make known to others what the same is already in it self And to declare by a particular Act what is already declared by this General Act of E. 3. And all other the General Laws of God and the Land before mention'd WILL. LAWRENCE THE CONTENTS OF The Third BOOK CAP. I. THe words of the Statute 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus as in the Original French Page 1. The Statute of Kenneth 3. and Malcolm Mackenneth 2. concerning the Succession to the Crown of Scotland as related by Buchanan Page 2. Objections against these Statutes made chiefly by Buchanan himself and the Policy of them in
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
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
what not and what lyable to the Lawes of Nature Fate and Providence whereas the Laws of Fate and Nature may be Exercised both over these and over Subjects Ignorant Insensible Irrational Foolish Mad-men and deprived of all Intellect alike Secondly in regard of their ability as the Law Moral can be only Exercised on persons able to perform it but the Laws of Nature Fate and Providence over Babes new born Blind Deaf Dumb Maimed and the Dead themselves Thirdly in regard of Liberty as the Law Moral can only be Exercised over free Agents but the Lawes of Nature Fate and Providence may be Exercised over necessary Agents forced Agents Bond-men Slaves Captives Prisoners and persons in Chains and Fetters Though therefore all humane Actions are under one of these four Laws a Man is a necessary Agent as to the Law of Nature and a forced Agent to the Law of Fate and Providence and a free Agent as to the Moral Law yet seeing he may be in many things Ignorant when he is Ruled by Nature when by Fate when by Providence Not revealed to Man by which of these four Laws he doth Act in any particular Action and when by the Moral Law and consequently it may be secret and not revealed unto him when he is a necessary agent when a forced agent and when a free agent or in the more Common word when his Will is free and when Bond In this Ignorance therefore of all the other Three Secret Laws he ought to act according to the Moral Law which God hath revealed and promulgated alwaies and according to the other Three when God hath in particular Acts of his own manifested his Will in them as it is an Act of God that an Eldest Son is born who is an Infant or Minor And a Brother born who is a Major and this Act of God is good and of great Mercy but that on this Act of God Murder should be Committed or Civil Wars be unjustly Raised is Evil and an Act of Man and God is not the Author of this Sin and though no humane Law could have caused or prevented this of the Infancy of a Son or Majority of a Brother yet may and ought human Laws prevent or punish the wicked acts of men which may ensue thereon in attempts to Murder either and seeing God by his Moral Law hath Commanded Powers to be a Terror to Evil Doers it is their Duty therefore And if they neglect it the bear the Sword in vain to make Laws to prevent and punish them and not to leave Infants and Subjects Exposed in such a Wilderness of Dangers as this is of Succession because its possible Fate may destroy them notwithstanding the greatest human care and Providence may without any such care taken at all preserve them Which Stoical and Epicuraean Follies of fata regunt homines fatis agimur Cedite fatis or Res humanas ordine nullo fortuna regit or vita regitur Fortuna non Sapientia to Extend beyond their Bounds prescribed by God or to all humane Actions because ordained and permitted in some were like the Ridiculous Pagan Divinity derived from none but such Authors Not to sow because Fate may destroy the Harvest with it and Providence may give an Harvest without it Not to wear Arms in War because Fate may destroy with them and Providence may preserve without them Not to do good Works because if Predestinated to be Damn'd thou shalt be Damn'd with them And if Predestinated to be Saved thou shalt be saved without them I should not have thought this of Fate worth the objecting or answering had I not found the same Actually press'd in the most Excellent Historian and Statist that ever writ in the Isle of Great Britain for such was Buchanan out of whom I have recited it Answ 4 To the Objection of the Civil Wars between Baliol and Bruce and York and Lancaster notwithstanding the Succession of the Crown ascertained to the Kings Eldest Son Answ 4. As to the Calamities of Civil Wars which followed between Baliol and Bruce in Scotland and the Houses of York and Lancaster in England notwithstanding the Laws in both Kingdoms making the Crown Hereditary to the Eldest Son And that such Lawes did not prevent the same I Answer first As to Scotland the effect of the Law of Primogeniture could not be expected where there was no Eldest Son surviving nor on the Death of Margaret of Norway so much as an Heir Lineal Male or Female left but if there had been an Eldest Son left there is no appearance of any thing against it but the Crown of Scotland had never Returned to the Line of the Earl of Huntingdon but remained in the Line of King Alexander the Third who was the last Possessor which would have prevented all those Ten Competitors to claym from Huntingdon and consequently the Wars between Baliol and Bruce Then as to the Civil Wars in England if Richard the Second had left a Son there appears no probability that ever there had been a Civil War between York and Lancaster Besides if when there is an Eldest Son left as was by Edward the Fourth and an younger Son with him and notwithstanding there followed a new Civil War between York and Lancaster in the Persons of Richard the Third and Henry the Seventh first though this Law of Primogeniture in Succession did not prevent it And though the Law make it High Treason to Compass the death of the Eldest Son yet could it not prevent the Murder of both the Sons To which I answer That it is not to be Imputed as a fault to the Statute or Law that some wicked persons dare break it but is notwithstanding of greater use as the Statutes which make it High Treason to Counterfeit the Kings Seal or to Clip Money and Felony to Rob on the High-Way Though many have notwithstanding Counterfeited the Seal Clipt Money and Rob'd on the High-way yet are not these Statutes Useless but a great Security to the People for though there are now a few if there were no such Statute at all there would be multitudes of Malefactors Richard the Third designing to Murder his Brother's Sons first slandered them with Illegitimacy Besides as to the Particular Instance of Edward the Fourth it was his Inadvertency and indeed Imprudence to Commit the Guardianship of his Son in Minority to his Brother who thereupon forged Illegitimacy against them and Murdered them And it was done for want of such a Law of Succession as was Enacted by Kenneth the Third and Malcolme Mackenneth the Second in Scotland which according to Buchanan lib. 6. p. 191. was A Guardian by the Law of Scotland to be Elected by Parliament during the Minority of the Prince Vt Rege Impubere Tutor qui pro Rege esset interea Eligeretur vir prudentia opibus insignis qui ad quartodecimum usque Annum Regis nomine rem administraret Ad id aetatis
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
Right repeal it For Liberty and Propriety cannot consist with the Certificates of Bishops Marriage and Filiation not to be submitted to any Judges or Arbitrators except the Parties themselves or God 8. Certificates of Marriage and Filiation usurp the Power of Judgment of such Matters as cannot be submitted though the Parties assented to any Arbitrators or Judges but God himself or the Parties And this is very Judiciously delivered by West Symbol Tit. Compromise Arbitrement fo 165.6 That no causes Matrimonial are arbitrable lest men should separate those whom God hath joyn'd together If this is true as none but stupidity it self can be but sensible that the Laws of God cannot be submitted to the Arbitrement of Men what then becomes of all Episcopal Certificates of Marriage and Filiation unless they intend to fight against God himself Bishop who certifies ignorant both of Fact and Law 9. The Judge who makes the Certificate is totally Ignorant both of the Fact and Law which see already proved Lib. 2. p. 180. Herodotus tells of a Place in Lybia where the Children of Women who were common drew Lots before a Publick Assembly but whether the Assembly were Ecclesiastical it doth not appear of such whom their Mothers nominated and whom the Lot fell on what wise Children were these They knew them to be their own Fathers as infallibly no question as if they had try'd by the Witchcraft of a Seive and a pair of Shears and equally with a Bishop's Certificate only on the first they paid no Fees The blind Goddess being always found so just she will take none 10. The Case is false â—â—ated as the state of the Question which is made is Whether A fuit Legitimo Matrimonio copulata when the intent is by the Bishops Certificate to Null the Marriage whereas this Question as to Nulling the Marriage is impertinent for every Prohibited Marriage is not Null or Nullable but may be notwithstanding 't is Prohibitum be Indissolubile 11. 'T is stated Illegitimum Matrimonium in General Illegitimum Prohibitum illegitimum in se and doth not say whether Illegitimum Prohibitum or Illagitimum in se each of which will fall under clean different Considerations one from another And that to teach that any Illegitimum Prohibitum in Marriage is unlawful which is not Illegitimum in se is the Doctrine of Devils as is already proved Lib. 1. p. 52. The state of the Question ought to be whether Son or no Son which is Matter of Fact and not whether Legitimate or not Legitimate which is Matter in Law 12. The true state as to Filiation being to be the question Whether Son or no Son 't is false stated and false named Whether Bastard or whether Legitimate or not Legitimate where it hath been proved at large Lib. 1.79 That there 's no such word or thing as Legitimate or Illegitimate amongst the ancient Lawyers or in Rerum naturâ till Popery And Lib. 2. p. 146. and 156. That there was no such word or thing as Bastard in the whole Scripture or amongst the ancient Lawyers or Divines until the Popes and Bishops falsly Translated the Scriptures As to the word Mamzer which signifies no more than Alienigena and Nothus which signifies no more than Fictus into the forementioned Scurrilous word of their own unclean Invention Certificate of the Bishop Nonsense Certificate of the Bishop Nulls all Marriage Prohibited contrary to the Law of England and Scotland 13. Their Certificate as to Marriage Per verba de Praesenti is Nonsence which see already proved Lib. 1. p. 84. 14. The Certificate distinguisheth not between Marriage Prohibited and Null but Nulls every Marriage Prohibited and barbarously Illegitimates every Child born of the same which is already proved Lib. 1. p. 110. to be contrary to the Law of God and the Law of England and may likewise appear to be contrary to the Law of Scotland by an Act of Parliament there made Sess 2. Par. 2. Car. 1. Act. 22. against Clandestine Marriage which Act Prohibits and punisheth those who are Married without Banns or by Josuits or Popish Priests and layes Fines or every Nobleman so offending of Five Thousand Pounds and on every Gentleman or Burgess of one Thousand Marks but neither English nor Scotch make such Prohibited Marriages void nor Nulls them nor Illegitimates their Children neither can any Humane Law Null that Marriage which the Moral Law of God makes valid nor separate those whom the same Law Prohibits not to Marry though the Law of Man doth when God hath joyned them by Procreation and Birth of a Child Propriety in Parents and Children destroyed by Bishops Certificates 15. The Episcopal Certificate destroys all Propriety the Father hath in his Children and the Children have in their Father For by the Law of God and Nature there 's no way of acquiring Propriety in Children but by begetting of them This is Plain in the Scripture in all the Genealogies there mentioned And in the Fact of Adultery of David with Vriah's Wife where the Child who was begotten in Adultery is plainly made by the Scripture the Child of David though the Now Episcopal Certificate would make it the Child of Vriah And worthily may such be said to be ignorant of all Laws of acquiring Propriety in Children who pretend because the Propriety of another man's Lambs and Kids may by Contract of his own Wife be made his therefore the Propriety of another man's Children may likewise by her Contract be made his and because Quicquid plantatur seritur vel inaedificatur omne solo cedit And Judge Rikhill as before-mentioned will not only have the like accession of another man's Bull to his Cow to make the Calf to be his but likewise to be his Cow and himself to be not only the Owner but the Father of such Calf The Ignorance of all Law in Certificates therefore blindly subverts the Fundamental of all Acquisition of Propriety by the Father in begetting No wonder if they destroy the Propriety of the Children in the Father though begotten by him and make them Nullius filii and again forces a Child on him who is not the Father to be his Heir whether he will or no and robs him of his Inheritance Neque enim aequum non consentienti haeredem alium dare Craig 267. Certificates of Bishops deprive Infants of Aliment and destroy them 16. The Certificate of the Bishop exposeth Infants to be destroyed and deprives them of all Aliment from the Father who begot them For by making the Father who begot them to have no Propriety in them nor they in him and the Children to be Nullius filii all Obligation is taken off from the Father and he 's made worse than an Infidel not to provide for his own Children either by Aliment while alive or Succession after his death The true Children are disinherited by the Adulterous on Certificates 17. The Certificate starves and
fallen on the younger Sons of Jehosaphat by his leaving them overmuch Treasures and fenced Cities to the Diminution and Power of the eldest Son Jehoram 2 Chron. 21.1 2 3 4. Object 6. Queen Elizabeth Refused to Declare a Successor Osburne saith Q. Eliz. why she refused to declare a Suocessor The proposing any thing of Declaring a Successor was so ingrateful to Queen Elizabeth that the moving of the same cost Pigot and Wentmorth their Liberty though they proposed it in Parliament and others Dearer what were her Reasons against it may be partly drawn from Buchanan Lib. 17. p. 603. who saith on an Embassy sent from Scotland to her to desire she would Declare Mary Queen of Scots Successor to the Kingdom of England to which he saith Queen Elizabeth p. 606. answered to this Effect There are many Reasons saith she draw me away from this Transaction Primum quod non ignorem quam sit periculosum hanc movere camarimam ac jure mihi semper abstinuisse videor ne jus Regni in disceptationem vocarem Toties enim jam Sermonibus multorum Jactata est Controversia de Matrimonio justo deque nothis Legitimis Liberis dum pro ingenio quisque aut huic aut illi parti studet ut ego ipsa hactenus ob has Disputationes ad nubendum suerim Cunctatior c. First I am not Ignorant how dangerous it is to move this Contention and I seem to my self most Justly to abstain from Calling a Kingdom in Possession into Dispute concerning the Right for it is so often already Controverted what is Lawful Matrimony who are Legitimate and who are Illegitimate Children according to every man's Opinion and as he favours this or that Party That I my self by Reason of these Disputes have been hitherto more slow to Marry once when I Publickly received the Crown I was Married to my Kingdom and as a pledge of which I always wear this Ring And howsoever these Affairs stand I will as long as I live be Queen of England when I am dead let who hath the best Right be my Successor If your Queen is she I will no way be against her if another hath Right I will not do him wrong If there is a Law against your Queen it is unknown to me for I do not make willingly any curious Inquisition after this matter But if there is any such Law I took an Oath when I took the Kingdom that I will not Change my Subjects Laws without their assent But as to what you have alleadged in the second place That this Declaring a Successor will contract a straighter Friendship between us I rather fear it will sow hatred for do you think that I shall take any Delight to have my Funeral prepared always set before me It is a Peculiar of Kings that they have no friendly mind to Children who by Birth-right claim to be their Successors when they are dead Of what mind was Charles the Seventh the French King against Lewis the Eleventh and he against Charles the Eighth or Francis lately against Henry Of what mind therefore is it likely I shall be against my Neighbour when once Declared my Successor To this may be added what I think of very great weight I know the Peoples inconstancy I know how full they are of the present state of things I know what prying eyes they have into the next Successor The Dangerous Rising Sun is only a younger Brother or a Collateral Heir I know it is natural for more to adore the Rising than the Setting Sun And to omit other Examples I have seen enough in my own Time when my Sister Mary held the Kingdom what Prayers and they make to see me set in her Throne With what eagerness were my Concerns carried on neither am Ignorant to undergo what dangers they would have hazarded if I would have joyned with them according to their desire But now perhaps the same Men have not the same Mind towards me Like Children who in sleep rejoyce for Apples off'red them in a Dream and presently awaked in the Morning when deceived in their hopes Change their Joy into Weeping So they who with great Good will applied to me while I was called Elizabeth and if I beheld any with a more smiling Countenance they forthwith thought with themselves that as soon as I obtained the Kingdom they should be rewarded rather according to the measure of their Desires than of the good they had done me but now when the Event answers not their Expectation many of them would be ready to Change to any state of things so they might but gain a better fortune For no Riches of any Prince though never so great are sufficient to satisfie the insatiable desires of Men. Now if the affections of our People will Languish either for Moderate gifts or any other Light cause what will such Malevalents do if they have a certain Successor to whom to carry their grievances or go themselves when they are angry In what Danger do you think I shall be near so Potent a Prince my Successor to whom how much strength I add so much I take from my own Security This Danger by no Cautions or Bonds of Laws can be averted neither will Princes who fail of their hopes of a Kingdom easily contain themselves within the Bounds of Right and Equity And for my own Part if the world were certain of my Successor I shall never think my Affairs in Safety We see here the very Considerations we are now on of Declaring a Successor is in Debate by Embassador between these two great Queens Elizabeth of England and Mary of Scotland One the Head of the Protestants the other of the Papists in their two Kingdoms Queen Elizabeth was the Lineal Heir to the Kingdom of England to the last Possessor Queen Mary derived her self to be the Collateral Queen Elizabeth as it is before mentioned had been Declared Illegitimate by the Pope and Popish Laws and Canons and by her own Father And a Popish Act of Parliament she was not only Declared Illegitimate but the Marriage of the Lady Ann her Mother to her Father to be void with the Penalty of High Treason added on any who should affirm Contrary to the first or believe Contrary to the latter 1. Therefore it is to be observed That Queen Elizabeth being a Protestant thought it not wise or safe to Declare a Papist for her Successor yet she after Declared King James her Son who was a Protestant her Successor and it pleased God to make him an Happy Instrument to Unite both Kingdoms in the Protestant Religion 2. That she being the Lineal Heir thought it not wise or safe to Declare a Collateral Heir her Successor in her own Life-time Therefore thought she had a great Affection to make King James who was her Godson her Successor yet she forbare to Declare him so till on her Death-Bed she perceived her self past all hopes of having Lineal Heirs
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
The Mother of Henry the 3d. pre-contracted when King John Married her So if the World had been so much given to slander the Legitimation of the King 's Eldest Son as it is now here had been a greater Exception against the Succession of the Crown to him than can be now in the least shadow pretended for Isabel being pre-contracted to a former Man was a Woman Prohibited by the Law of God to be Contracted or Married by another Man Yet did neither this nor his Minority nor the amazing Danger of a Foreign Enemy Landed assisted by the Native Nobles possessed of the Royal City and entred into the Bowels of the Kingdom Deter this Wise and Noble Parliament for making use of the Coronation of the King 's Eldest Son Coronation of the King 's eldest Son the best remedy against the Barons calling in the French as the best Remedy against it and to Commit his Guardianship to a Person of Courage and Council they Succeeded accordingly for Louys was beaten in a Battel at Lincoln by the Protector and sending back for Recruits into France which were with great Expedition there provided and sent with a Mighty Fleet which Fleet was likewise met and beaten by the English Fleet at Sea and the Army therein Vanquished by God's great Providence which News coming to the Ears of Lovys made him hopeless of any longer Subsistance here with Safety and thereupon makes a Composition for his passage home abjures his Claim to the Kingdom and returns to France But if Louys had prevailed here wiâ—â— Security had the English Nobles had in his French Oath for within a little while after he had taken it he made spoil and plunder of all he could lay hands on Louys a Papist King breaks his French Oath to the Papist Subjects of England Friend or Foe which made many of the English he breaking his Oath to them to think themselves disobliged thereby from the Oath they had given him and to forsake his Party and more would have forsaken him had it not been for shame of Inconstancy and that he had their Hostages in France whom he would have on their Revolt Destroyed And to shew his Intention of perfecting his Perjury to the height if he could have got Power there was a constant Report and generally divulged concerning the Confession of the Viscount Melun a Frenchman who lying at the point of Death touch't with Compunction is said to reveal the Intention and Vow of Louys which was not only to Destroy the English Nobility but if he could the whole Nation Dan. Hist 148. The like Example is of the French Catholick more properly Papist Faith to the Nobility and People of Scotland Buchan Rer. Scot. Lib. 17. p. 156. where appears The French Papists were called into Scotland by the Scotch Papists to assist them against the Protestants there on Mutual Agreement on Oaths between the Papist of both Nations but when the French Army came they spoyl'd alike both Papist and Protestant And the French Garison at Leith destroy all with Fire and Sword as far as they could reach A French Papist King forsworn to the Papist Nobility of Scotland Clades autem Ex vastatione Agrorum non minus ad Papanos sine discrimine Scotorum Nobilitatem Extinguendam esse in corum autem praediis mille Catraphractos Equites Gallos collocari posse reliquam Multitudinem Servorum Loco habendam id Consilium literis ejus ad Gallum interceptis divulgatum mirum quantum Gallorum odium Jam aliis de Causis natum auxit Ambianus autem Episcopus non modo Romane Cause minus aequos sed etiam Gallorum partibus minus quam ipse Censebat aequum addictos in dicta causa agere rapere truci dare jubebat The Devastation of the Countrey about Leith by the French fell no less on the Papist than Protestant Labross advised that the whole Scottish Nobility was without any Difference made to be destroyed and a Thousand French Barbed Horse to be planted on their Estates and the rest of the Multitude to be kept for Slaves which Council his Letters being intercepted wherein he had sent the same to the French King after it was divulged 't is wonderful how it increased the hatred against the French which for other Causes was already sufficiently begun The Bishop of Amiens likewise without over hearing the Cause Commanded not only those who favoured not the Romish Religion but the French Cause as much as he would have them to be pursued taken by Force and Killed Henry the 3d. a Papist King forsworn to Papist Subjects To return again to England we left where King John having broken his Oath to the Nobility and Parliament being dead the same Oath of preserving the Laws and Liberties was again obtained of his Son Henry the Third who in the Barons Wars wanting Money a Tenth is granted him by the Clergy and a Scutage by the Layity of Three Marks of every Knights Fee yet with this Agreement That the often Confirmed Charter of Magna Charta and Charta Forestae should be again Rectified Confirmed and Sworn to and that in the most Solemn and Ceremonial manner as Religion or State could ever devise to do The Solemn manner of giving his Oath by Henry the Third to confirm his Subjects Liberties The King therefore with all the great Nobility of England all the Bishops and Chief Prelats in their Pontificalibus with burning Candles in their hands assemble to hear and pronounce the Terrible Sentence of by-Excommunication against the Infringers of the Charters and at the lighting of one of those Candles the King having received one in his hand gives it to a Prelate who stood by saying It becomes not me who am no Priest to hold this Candle my heart shall be a greater Testimony and withal laid his hand spread on his Breast the whole time the Sentence was Read which was thus pronounced Authoritate Dei Omnipotentis c. which done he caused the Charter of King John his Father granted by his free Consent to be likewise openly Read in the end having thrown away their Candles which lay smoaking on the ground they cryed out So let them who incur this Sentence be extinct and stink in Hell And the King with a loud voice said As God me help I will as I am a Man a Christian a Knight a King Crowned and Anointed inviolably observe all these things And therewithal the Bells rung out and all the people shouted for Joy Dan. Hist 169. but his Oath came to nothing Henry the 3d. secretly Absolved from his Oath to his Subjects by the Pope for he secretly sent to the Pope for his Absolution from them and the Pope for Money by his Apostolick Sentence Absolves the King from his Oath to his Subjects whence insued great Wars and Miseries in the Land Bac. Hist. 86. and though Magna Charta was in his time granted yet he never kept it but
Daughters to the Priest in Auricular Confessions to have their Nakedness discovered their Estates purloined the Secrets of their Houses and oftentimes their Lives betrayed to their Enemies and they shall be compelled to submit to the false Certificate of the Insolent Priest to disinherit their True and Natural Children and Heirs and to appoint false and adulterous Heirs and fils de Prestre to Succeed to their Inheritances and no Probation shall be admitted to the Contrary from which more than Pagan slavery a Protestant Successor will free them but never a Papist 6. If a Papist Successor happen all Lay-Papists shall Suffer for every one Offence two Punishments and shall pay all Fees Fines Taxes and Tributes double one to the Pope and his Officers the other to the King and his Officers one to the Spiritual Court another to the Temporal Court It is said of the Ass in the Fable That when he was let out of the Camp where his Master was to Graze he was admonished by his fellow Ass not to go too near another Camp which was in sight of them because that was the Enemies To which the other answered If the Enemy took him he would lay no worse Burdens on him than his Master did therefore it matter'd not which he went nearest A Lay-Papist therefore though the pamper'd Papist Priest perswade him otherwise would shew less Discretion than that gross-headed Animal should he not less fear to be in the Camp of a Protestant Successor though the supposed Enemy who would Load him but with half the Burden of his Master than to be in the Camp of a Papist Successor though his Master who will assuredly lay double the Punishment and double the Burden on him which a Protestant will do whose Camp will be like the Camp of Alexander the Great where the Persians found as courteous entertainment as the Macedonians And he used to say He would be the Common Father and his Camp should be the Common City of the World Dominicans and Jesuits 7. If a Papist Successor happen he will either favour the Jesuits and their followers or the Dominicans and their followers if he favour the Jesuits the Dominicans will be ruin'd if he favour the Dominicans the Jesuits will be ruin'd and so consequently the Lay-followers of both Again If a Papist Successor happen Guelphs and Gibellins he will either favour the Guelphs or the Gibellins the one being for the Papal the other for the Regal Supremacy if he favour the Guelphs the Gibellins will be ruin'd if he favour the Gibellins the Guelphs will be ruin'd Were not the Lay-Papist better have a Protestant Successor who will free them from both these sorts of Botefeâ— Papist Priests who set their own Papist Flock to tear one another that they may prey on both Were it not more wise for the Lay-Papist to do with their Guelphs and Gibellins as Bodin saith they did in all the Cities of Italy where these two Factions raged namely to Elect Strangers for their Magistrates Judges who were neither Guelphs nor Gibellins of all which Miseries which will assuredly be imposed and continued on them by their Priests and Princes whom no Covenant-Oath or Sacred Obligation of Conscience can tye if they happen to fall into the hands of a Papist Successor Let all Lay-Papists therefore but seriously consider if it be not more happy for them to be freed by a Protestant Successor Lay-Papist to be Prohibited nothing from whence a Protestant is not Prohibited except Publick Offices than inslaved to them by a Papist Let them but consider whether it is not better for them to be permitted to them by the Protestants the same Liberty from all penal Laws Taxes Tributes Oaths and Tests as Protestants have themselves than to have the same taken from both by a Papist Successor It will be the Interest of a Protestant Successor to prohibit the Lay-papist no other Idols no other Priests no other Sacrifice no other Offences Recusancies Crimes Arms Conventions nor any thing else except publick Offices which if really considered are rather Burdens than Benefits in all respects besides that of publick Safety than he prohibits equally his own Protestant Subjects It will be the Interest of a Protestant Successor to Rule by Laws and Love but a papist Successor will believe that it is his Interest to Rule by an Arbitrary power and Fire and Sword To Conclude Let the Lay-papist but consider at what rate they themselves who were Papists were Ruled by H. 8. a Papist King together with the Protestants who hanged the one for not acknowledging him Supreme Head of the Church and burnt the other for not believing Transubstantiation insomuch that a French Papist who came over hither and saw it Cryed out Deus bone quomodo hic vivunt gentes ubi suspenduntur Papistae comburuntur Anti-Papistae Good God said he what shift do people make to live here where Papists are hang'd and Anti-papists burnt And let them consider the more fresh example of Philip the Second of Spain the Son-in-Law of H. 8. after his Death by Marriage with Queen Mary for did he not Rule his Papists as well as Protestants Subjects in Holland and the Vnited Provinces after the same rate as H. 8. had done his here in England for he first by Oath and Agreement bound himself as well to his Papist as Protestant Subjects not to infringe their Laws and Liberties nor to increase the ancient Number of their Bishops which was but three But he notwithstanding his Oath indeavour'd to bring in amongst them the Inquisition increased the Number and Power of their Bishops from three to seventeen for every Province one both of them destructive to their Consciences Laws Liberties and Propriety but being after a long War overthrown by the Vnited Provinces and their Confederates he acknowledged them free and Soveraign States whereby they recover'd again their lost Liberties And though as is noted by Sir William Temple in his Excellent Observation on the Vnited Provinces Cap. 5. p. 200. the Roman Catholick Religion was alone excepted by the States from the Common Protection of their Laws making Men as they believed worse Subjects than the rest by the acknowledging of a Foreign and Superior Jurisdiction for so must all Spiritual Power needs be as grounded on greater Hopes and Fears than any Civil at least where the perswasions from Faith are as strong as from Sense of which there are so many Testimonies Recorded by the Martyrdoms Penalties Conscientious Restraints and Severities suffered by infinite persons in all sorts of Religion besides this Profession seemed still a Retainer of the Spanish Government which was then the greatest Patron of it in the World Yet was the Care of the States to give all Men ease in this point who ask'd no more than to serve God and save their own Souls in their own way and forms Of the great good Effects of not compelling Men to Faith or form of Worship