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given by Act of Parliament may be taken by Act of Parliament and that every former Act inacted may by a latter Act be repealed according to the known Rule Vnumquodque dissolvitur eodem modo quo conflatum est Secondly according to the General Examples of Acts of Parliament amongst which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
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
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
his whole Reign after the same was a perpetual Contention by him to raise his Prerogative to an Arbitrary Power Destructive to all Liberty and Propriety of his Subjects which he had Confirmed to them by Oath Charter and Act of Parliament and instead of asking a Dispensation of the Pope to Levy Taxes on the Subjects without their Consent in Parliament he took the easier way and dispensed with the Pope to Levy on them what he would and give him a share So the poor Subjects paid double whereas if they had paid only to the Pope or only to the King they had only born a single burden but now they Complained as the History mentioneth Shepheard and Woolf confederated to share the Sheep That the Shepheard and the Woolf Confederated both to destroy the Sheep and the Pope continually levied so many insupportable Taxes on them to maintain his Wars against the Emperor that both Clergy and Layety address'd their heavy Complaints of him to the King himself but the King was so far from relieving them that he offer'd the Pope's Legat to deliver up to him the Chief Opposers who now by the King's Animation grew more insolent to oppress them than before Henry the 3d. being dead his Son Edward the First Succeeded him a King Renowned for his Valour and Wisdom against his Enemies yet Dissentions with his Subjects hindred that Valour and from extending themselves to that degree of Glory they might have otherwise arrived neither is it only Valour and Wisdom unless Justice is likewise joyned can make a People happy in their Prince or himself happy in them Edward the First a Papist King forswore himself to his Papist Subjects He likewise took the same Oath for preservation of Laws and Liberties as his Father and Grandfather had done but whether seduced by their Example or their Evil Counsellors as he had imitated them in the taking so likewise did he in the Violation of his Oath for as his Father had done before him notwithstanding his Oath and Complaints by his Subjects of the Pope's oppressions he and the Pope as his Father had done like the Shepheard and the Woolf agreed to divide the spoil of the Flock between them the Pope therefore granted the King the Tenth of all the Churches of England and the King grants the Pope to have the first fruits of those Churches Dan. Hist 202. This Edward likewise after many Contests wanting Money in the 25th year of his Reign called a Parliament wherein with much ado he granted the Confirmation of the two Charters of Magna Charta and Charta Forrestae and that with the omission of the Clause of Salvo Jure Coronae Nostrae such another Clause as is Aut per Legem terrae which the King laboured much to have inserted but the People would by no means agree he therefore Confirmed them absolutely and Enacts further That All Arch-Bishops and Bishops shall Pronounce the Sentence of Excommunication against all those that by Word Deed or Counsel do contrary to the aforesaid Charters or that in any Point break or undo the same and that the said Curses be twice a year Denounced and Published by the Prelates aforesaid And if the said Prelates or any of them be Remiss in Denunciation of the said Sentences the Archbishop of Canterbury and York for the time being shall Compel and Distrain them to the Execution of their Duties in form aforesaid as appears in the Statute 25 E. 1. cap. 4. And all this he confirms by Solemn Oath What greater Security can be Invented here is an Act of Parliament Oath Excommunication Curses Edward the First for a furnish of Gold absolved by the Pope from his Oath Archbishops Bishops Prelates all ingaged to see it performed but to what purpose King Edward sends a Furnish of Gold to the Pope for his Chamber and he sends him back an Absolution from his Oath and Covenant with his Subjects concerning the Charter of their Liberties whereby they are all again broken by the King and lost to the Subjects Bak. Hist. 99. Edward the Second a papist King forswore himself to papist Subjects Edward the First being dead for the Pope's Absolution from his Oath could not keep him alive Edward the Second Succeeds him who not only took his Coronation Oath and kept it not but likewise before his Coronation in Regard the Lords threatned they would hinder it unless according to his Father's Will who had Commanded him to Banish Pierce Gaveston he would do the same he Solemnly swore That if they would not Dispute his Coronation but rest quiet till the next Parliament he would Banish him as they desired And likewise after in the Third year of his Reign being further press'd and importuned consented at last that the Parliament should draw Articles of Agreement between him and the People of whatsoever was necessary for the good of the Kingdom and he would Ratisie the same upon Oath who thereupon Elected divers Choice Men both of the Clergy Nobility and Commons to Compose those Articles which done the Archbishop of Canterbury with the rest of his Suffragans solemnly pronounce the Sentence of Excommunication against all such who should Contradict those Articles which are there Publickly read before the Barons and Commons of the Realm in the Presence of the King amongst which the Observation and Execution of Magna Charta is required with all other Ordinances necessary for the Church and Kingdom And that as the late King had done all Strangers should be Banished the Court and Kingdom and all Evil Counfellors removed That the Business of the State should be treated of by the Counsel of the Clergy and the Nobles That the King should not begin any War or go any way out of the Kingdom without the consent of the Common Council of the same Dan. Hist. 205. which Articles and others though they seemed harsh to the King yet to avoid further Trouble he yielded to them and Ratified them on Oath but especially to the Banishment of his Minion Pierce Gaveston who being a Gascoigne was a Stranger intended by the Articles to be Banished Strangers some to be Banished from Court though not under the same Suspition as other French their Countrey-men who have generally when entertained in Court by the English Kings been Evil Councellors to them to Imitate the French Arbitrary Power and Persidiousness over their Subjects and to breed Division between the King and People to prepare the Kingdom to be a Prey to their own French Masters Stranger at Court Spies whose Leidger Spies and Intelligencers they hear have usually been entertained at the Cost of the English Kings against themselves none can therefore doubt but King Edward the First the Father of this King Edward the Second did Nobly and Wisely in Banishing all Strangers from his Court and left the same Command on his Son And more particularly concerning this Gaveston though he not only broke in this the Command
Sons of Zerujah were too hard for her so it was an easie matter for Queen Mary who was a Papist Successor to lose Callice to the French The Possession of Callice once lost could not be again recovered which was done by King Philip's drawing out the Strength of the English Garrison Souldiers in his Wars against other Towns and the neglect of the Queens Council to send Recruits until too late though they had notice of a Seige intended against them The Town of Callice which was first taken by Edward the Third after Eleven Months Siege was esteemed of so high Import that on a Treaty of Marriage by King Edward between his Nephew Richard of Burdeaux and Mary a Daughter of Charles the French King Charles made an offer to King Edward to leave him Fourteen hundred Towns and Three thousand Fortresses in Aquitain upon Condition he would render Callice and all that he held in Picardy But before any thing could be concluded King Edward died And the Lord de Cordes a French Lord would commonly say He would be content to lye in Hell seven years so that Callice were in the French Possession Bak. Hist 240. But it seems since they got it in possession some of them would be content to lie in Hell for ever if Perjury will lay them there so long For there being Anno Dom. 1559. in the First year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth a Treaty of Peace between her and the French King and Commissioners of both sides to that end appointed and the Commissioners meeting accordingly the Chief point in difference was the Restitution of Callice for which the English Commissioners by the Queens Appointment offered to remit Two Millions of Crowns that by just Accompt were due from France to England At last on much Altercation it was Concluded and Agreed Perjury in the French King in not restoring Callice That Callice should remain in possession of the French for the term of Eight years and those Expired it should be delivered unto the English upon the forfeiture of Five hundred thousand Crowns for which Hostages were given But all this notwithstanding though the Conditions were Sealed and Sworn to and though Hostages were assigned to remain in England till one or other were performed yet all was frustrate and came to nothing Bak. Hist 351. So little Faith is there in the Oath of a Papist Prince And the same Danger will be in the delivering the possessions of Garrisons Forts in England to Papists or Papist Successor though on Conditions Sworn to by them the same difficulty yea impossibility for a Protestant Successor to recover again the Possession of Treasure Arms Offices Religion Liberty Propriety as it is of Life it self when once left to a papist Successor though he take an Oath to preserve all these By which and all former Examples appears That a papist Successor if he happen to be is of great Danger and Mischief to all Lay-papists themselves but totally and inevitably Destructive to all Protestants See other Examples of Perjury by Popes Bishops and Papist Princes before Lib. 2. p. 377. Of the Destruction double to Protestants if the Crown happen to fall to a Papist Successor Female and not prevented as before Destruction double to Protestants in a Papist Successor Female It is before spoken of the Destruction inevitable must follow to Protestants if a Male Papist Successor happen But if a Female happen it must be doubly Destructive for she will Marry a Foreign Papist Prince so the Protestants will be left naked and exposed to the rage and Cruelties both of a Papist and a Foreign Sword Hath not God given us already warning fresh in Memory in the late Examples of Queen Mary of England and Queen Mary of Scotland one of whom Married King Philip of Spain the other was sold by Cardinal Beton and Married to the French Dauphin And did not God even by Miracle though we most unthankfully so soon forget it Catch this Island as a Brand kindled at both ends out of the Fire Protestants barr'd of Succession to Papists by Salique Laws yet are not Papists barr'd to succeed to Protestants and hath he in vain given Sense and Reason and Strength to the Dull Protestants so far to tempt him and provoke his Judgment as to cast it thither again while the busie Papist hath barr'd all his Doors of Succession with his Laws against Hereticks and his Salique Laws to exclude alike both Female and Male Protestants 10. The next Danger is If no Successor should be Declared by the King and Parliament in regard of Foreign Princes 10. Danger of Foreign Princes That Danger is likewise very well expressed in the Statute 25 H. 8. Cap. 22. To have been the cause of great Bloodshed in this Realm and to be one of the Causes why the King desired to declare his Successor by Act of Parliament as appears in these words viz. And sometimes other Foreign Princes and Potentates of sundry Degrees minding rather Dissentions and Discord ot continue in this Realm to the utter Desolation thereof than Charity Equity and Vnity have many times supported wrong Titles whereby they might more easily and facily aspire to the Superiority of the same The continuance and sufferance whereof deeply considered and pondered were too Dangerous and Perillous to be suffered within this Realm any longer and too much contrary to the Vnity Peace and Tranquility of the same being greatly Reproachable and Dishonourable to the whole Realm The not Declaring Edgar Atheling Successor by Act of Parliament in the Life of Edward the Confessor William the Conqueror let in by not Declaring Edgar Atheling Successor let in the Foreign pretence of William the Conqueror which if it had been done 't is probable that never any Norman Invador had dared to have set his foot on English Ground So 't is probable the King of Spain had never been able to have seized on the Crown of Portugal had not the Superstitious Portuguese inslaved their Blood Royal to be Judged by the Papal and Episcopal Laws of Marriage and Succession contrary to the Moral Law of God whereby they left it in the Power of Popes or Bishops if the Spaniard or any other Papist Prince would give or promise them Money to Legitimate or Illegitimate whom they would and sell the Succession to the Kingdom at what rate they pleased Philip the Second of Spain seized the Crown of Portugal by the not Declaring Don Antonio Successor for as appears in that Judicious Author though Anonymus who writes The interest of Princes p. 95. The Case was this Henry the Third Son of Emanuel being according to the Papal Law Heir to the Crown of Portugal was accordingly Crowned Anno Dom. 1578. And being an Old Man without Children sensible of the Disputes would arise after his Death about the Succession erected a Judicature to hear and Determine the several Claims pretending to the same Of
injoyed near Threescore years after Had Antonio been allowed equal Judges or the Law of God been the Rule of their Judgment or had he been allowed to have pleaded the Law of the Land and Custom of both Portugal or Spain for Natural Sons to succeed the Crown he needed not have looked for more Examples of Natural Children than those from whom King Philip himself derived his many Spanish Kingdoms and according to the Customs of Portugal Don Antonio a Natural Son Crowned King of Portugal Don Antonio was on the Death of Henry chosen and Crowned King of Portugal at Lisbon their chief City till Philip sent the Duke of Alva thither with a greater Army than the Portuguese had put Don Antonio to flight Overcome by Philip flyes to England whom the People had Elected King and within Seventeen Days subdued all Portugal Don Antonio thereon flyes into England where he is kindly received of Queen Elizabeth as descended of English Blood and of the House of Lancaster and having entertained him here divers years his Title of being right Heir to the Crown of Portugal is so far approved by the Queen and Council Queen Elizabeth approves his Title as right Heir to Portugal and the Protestant Doctrine That she gave leave to Sir John Norris and Sir Francis Drake to undertake an Expedition at their own private Charges requiring nothing of her but a few Ships of War who took along with them Don Antonio the Heir of the Kingdom of Portugal and of Souldiers Eleven Thousand and of Seamen about Fifteen Hundred And setting Sail from Plimouth the Fifth day of April they arrived at the Groyne of Galizia whereof with great Valour they took first the Lower Town and afterwards the Higher and after Sailing towards Portugal they met Robert Earl of Essex who without the Queens leave had put to Sea after two days they arrive at Penycha a Town of Portugal which they took and left the Castle to Don Antonio And from thence they march by Land towards Lisbon Threescore Miles off the Foot Companies led by Norris whom Drake promised to follow with the Fleet being come to the West Suburbs of Lisbon they found no body there but a few poor disarmed Portugals who cryed out God save King Antonio The day following the Spaniards made a Sally in which Skirmish Bret Caresly and Carre three stout Commanders were Slain yet did the Earl of Essex drive the Spaniards to the very Gates of the City And now having tarried here two Days and no likelihood of the Portugals revolting which Don Antonio had hoped but was not probable that the strict hand of the King of Spain then in full Possession on them should give them that Liberty sinding fresh Supplies to come into the Town their own Army Sickly Victuals and Powder failing and what was most of all Sir Francis Drake not bringing the great Ordnance as he promised They departed from the Suburbs of Lisbon towards Caseais a little Town at the Mouth of the River Tagus which Town Drake had taken this mean while who excused his not coming to Lisbon by reason of the Flats he must have passed and the Castle of St. Julian Fortified with Fifty Pieces of great Ordnance Near this Place they found Threescore Hulks of the Hans-Towns of Germany Laden with Corn and all manner of Munition which they took as good Prize towards their Charges in regard the Queen had forbidden them to carry Victual and Munition to the Spaniard From hence they sailed to Virgo a Forlorn Town by the Sea side and Pillaging all along that Quarter returned for England having lost in the Voyage Soldiers and Marriners about Six thousand yet not so much by the Enemy as eating strange Fruit and Distemper of the Climate on which I shall only further observe That Kingdoms are not so easily got again as they are lost and that the Disinheriting of the Natural Heir of the Crown of Portugal was the cause of the seizure and Conquest by the Spaniard of that Kingdom Foreign Princes when the Successor is uncertain will stir up so many antiquated Genealogies Antiquated Genealogies used to be raked up by Foreign Princes that every one may pretend a right to the Crown and it hath been already mentioned that there were no less than Five or Six to the Crown of Portugal no less than Ten Titles Foreign and Domestick in Scotland in the time of Basiel and Bruce and no less than Sixteen in England before the Death of Queen Elizabeth and how far Papist Foreign Princes will go when they have none nearer to draw Genealogies as high as the Man in the Moon and when they have no substance to raise the Ghosts of Titles again from their old Purgatories nor Kif nor Kin to the last Possessors appears by the next Example Hacket endeavours to raise a Papist Title to the Crown Richard Hacket was sent from the English Fugitives beyond Sea in the Reign of Queen Eliz. to perswade Ferdinando Stanly E. of Derby Son to Henry newly Deceased to assume the Title of the Kingdom of England by right of Descent from Mary Daughter to Henry the Seventh and threatning him unless he undertook the Enterprize and withal concealed him the Abettor he should shortly die in a most wretched manner But the Earl fearing a Trap was laid for him revealed it and Hacket was thereon Condemned and Executed for Treason but this Fellow's Threatnings proved not vain four Months after for then the Earl being in the Flower of his Age was miserably Tormented and Vomited Stuff of a dark rusty Colour being thought to be Poisoned or Bewitched There was found in his Chamber a little Image of Wax with Hairs of the Colour of his Hair which some thought was done on purpose that men should not suspect him to be Poisoned his Vomit so stained the Silver Andirons that it could never be gotten out and his Body though put in Cere-Cloths and wrapped in Lead did so stink and putrifie that for long time none could endure to come near where he was Buried Bak. Hist 402. When good Correspondence between Queen Elizabeth and King James of Scotland gave the Papists small hopes that ever he would prove an Instrument to restore the Catholick Religion they begun thereupon to bethink themselves of some English Papist that might succeed the Queen but finding none of their own Sect a fit Person they fixed their thoughts on the Earl of Essex who always seemed a very moderate Man and him they advised to have some right to the Crown by Descent from Thomas of Woodstock King Edward the Third's Son But the English Fugitives were for the Infanta of Spain English Fugitives seek to seâ— up a Title for the Infanta of Spain and to exclude all Protestants from the Crown and desiring to set the King of Scots and the Earl of Essex at odds they set forth a Book which they Dedicated to Essex under the Name of Doleman but
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
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
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
voluerunt enim opinor viri prudentes ut illae quoties mentionem sui fieri audirent ex adjuncto viri nomine se viris obnoxias esse meminissent 6. The Statute by Compaigne intended Sociam Thalami non Throni And in the same sense is the word Companion used in Scripture Cant. 1.15 It is said Behold thou art fair my Companion thou art fair And Mal. 2.14 Yet is she thy Companion and the Wife of thy Covenant In both which places the word Companion signifies the Companion of the Bed and not of the Throne Non bene conveniunt nec in una sede morantur Majest as Amor Nulla fides regni sociis omnisque potestas Impatiens consortis erit Of the like false Translation of the Scriptures by the Bishops of the Hebrew words Shegal and Gibhira into the English word Queen Scripture false translated by Bishops in the word Queen Psal 45.9 Is thus falsly translated Vpon thy right hand did stand the Queen in Gold of Ophir Whereas the Hebrew is only Shegal which signifies no more than Conjux or Wife from Shagal Coivit Concubuit and is no more than a Woman that hath been lain with by her Husband In like manner 1 King 15 13. 2 King 10.13 are false translated Queen the Hebrew word being Gibhira which signifies no more in French than Madame as in the Statute nor in Latin than Hera or Domina nor in English than Lady or Mistress And the Antient Hebrews and many other Nations did no more allow the Title of Queen except to a Queen Regnant than as is already said did the Saxons or Scots for Regina is derived à Regendo and is only proper to Gynarchies and imports none but the Supreme Governess of a Kingdom by which Title Queen Elizabeth was called Neither had Saul or David any Queens but onely Wives nor Solomon himself in all his Royalty of his thousand Wives any Queen for 700 are onely called in the Septuagint 1 King 11.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no more than Feminae Principes in Latine and Chief Women in English And the other 300 which are falsly translated Concubines as I have elsewhere at large shewed are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie no more in Latine than Juvenculae and in English than the honest name of Young Women Neither was he the Son of a Queen for his Mother wheresoever she is named is onely called plain Bathsheba as 1 King 1.5 And Bathsheba went in unto the King into the Chamber and the King was very old And verse 28. Then King David answered and said call me Bathsheba and she came into the Kings presence and stood before the King And 1 Chron. 3.5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem Shimeah and Shobah and Nathan and Solomon four of Bathsheba the Daughter of Ammiel That the Bishops have likewise falsly translated all in the Scripture relating to Marriage and Filiation is proved before at full Lib. 2. p. 142. usque ad p. 162. And in other matters as is assirmed by that great Linguist Doctor Broughton Old Testament false translated by Bishops in 848. places The Lady Mother of the Kings Eldest Son was Madame sa Compaigne intended in this Statute they have false translated the Old Testament in no less then 848. places Now that this Lady-Mother was Madame sa Compaigne which are both the words and intention of the Statute is so known as need not be proved by Witnesses For she had the honour to be Primus Amor the first Lady Companion of the Prince the Raies of whose Favour cast upon her made the Lustre of those Graces rarely conjoined in the same person the more illustrious for she was a Virgin and not praepossessed by another She was a Protestant and not a Papist She was a Native and not a Strange Woman She was a Subject and not Imperious In her were conjoined Beauty with Chastity Greatness with Humility Treasure with Frugality Fidelity with Adversity Though she did not reign with him to be called Queen she suffered with him and was partaker of all his troubles no bloudy Wars no Seas no Foreign Countries could fright her from him But as if the Soul of that sacred Queen Eleanor the Companion of the famous Edward I. in his Wars to the Holy Land had transmigrated into her Body she led the Pilgrimage of her life with him whithersoever he travelled and though she had no Crown in her Life she was faithful to Death and beyond Death left him such a pleadge of affection as is hoped by Gods mercy will indear her memory to all Protestants in the three Kingdoms which will evince to all except the Malicious That she was Madame sa Compaigne the Lady his Companion mentioned and intended in this Statute which is sufficient and as much as is necessary to be proved Object 2 Object 2. That she was not married according to the Mass-Book Common-Prayer Book of Canons or Ordinance of Parliament or by a Priest in a Temple therefore the Eldest Son is not within this Statute Answ Marriage by the Common Prayer Book not necessary within the Statute Answ 1. There is neither the word Marriage Mass Book Common-Prayer Book Book of Cannons or Ordinance of Parilament Priest or Temple named in the Statute therefore being not expressed they are not to be intended in so wise a Statute which minded substance and not Ceremonies and Safety of the Royal Blood and not Insecurity and Incertainty 2. Admit the Statute had in express terms said our Lady his Companion married by the Mass-book which was the Book then in Fashion at time of this Statute yet none will deny but when by a succeeding Power this Mass-Book was abolished or changed Marriage by the Common-Drayer-Book not necessary in time of War as in the time of H. 5. the Service Book of Pauls was changed into the Service Book of Salisbury that none need to marry according to it Then as to the Common-Prayer and Book of Cannons at the time of the Princes taking his Lady Companion it is known that both Mass-Book Common Prayer Book Book of Cannons and all were abolished by the then Power of the Sword and it might have been Death for a Prince to have married by a Book of Common-Prayer or in Publick Is any Protestant then so imprudent as to expect in such a time and place of War and the Usurping Power provailing in their contrary Ordinances and threatning death and destruction to all who opposed them that such who were in those dangers should publickly and with Rites and Ceremonies by a Priest Temple and Altar solemnize a Marriage or can any be so sensless as when in the time of King John Pope Innocent Marriage by the Common-Prayer Book not necessary in time of Interdiction Papal or Potentatical the French King and English Bishops conspired together and the Pope Excommunicated and Interdicted the King and whole Kingdom of England for the space
of six Years three Months and fourteen Days before the Interdiction could be bought off Neither payment of vast sums of Money and the laying down his Crown Scepter Mantle Sword and Ring at the feet of Pandolfus the Popes Legat and making his Kingdom tributary to Rome during all which time of Interdiction there was no Church open for Marriages or Burials but People were buried like Dogs in Ditches and where they married God knows And in the latter times of Potentates of Interdiction of the Common-Prayer Book and Marriage by it can any I say be so sensless as to censure in such a time those who were excluded from all Mass-Books Common-Prayer Books Priests and Temples if they make use of Gods Ordinance and not of the Priests and married without them 3. There is another Circumstance in this Case which makes it both Unlawful and Impossible to question the Validity of this Marriage because without Mass-Book or Common-Prayer or Ordinance of Parliament for the Lady Mother The Mother being dead the Legitimation of the Child not to be questioned who was the Royal first Companion is now dead And by Law of God and Man none ought to be Censured without hearing and answering for her self which now is impossible for who knowes if Question'd while alive What besides the necessities of War she could have alledged both as to the Fact and Law what Matrimonial Promises or Contracts Verbal or in Writing what Matrimonial Trusts what Witness what Evidence she could have produced For which reason even by our own Laws as appears 39 E. 3.32 If a man Marry his own Sister which is a very unlawful Incestuous Marriage and contrary to the Law of God and hath Issue by her and she dyes if not Judicially Questioned and Sentenced for it in her Life-time the Legitimation of her Issue shall not be questioned after her death because she was not Summon'd to answer while alive Of which see more before in the Preface So Littleton himself though he is much Devoted to the Service of the Laws and Religion of his Holy Father the Pope concerning Marriages yet he confesses Sect. 399.340 That if the Legitimation of a Child is not question'd while alive his Heir shall never be questioned after he is Dead And if a man Marry his Sister and hath Children by her if one Parent dye though Incest the Children are Legitimate 39 E. 3.32 But in this Case where there is no Incest nor any other matter in the least prohibited by the Law of God nor pretence or colour of any but the omission of a Petty Ceremony of a Common-Prayer-Book a human Law and that in a time of War too when abolished to violate the Sanctuary of the Sepulcher and the Deceased seems not only Unchristian but Barbarous How unlawful the Desertion of a Virgin is while alive hath been already shew Lib. 1. p. 88. But far more unlawful is the Desertions of her Children after her Death And how Unlawful Divorce of her is after Procreation of a Child hath been already shewn Lib. 1. p. 94. But far more Unlawful is the Divorce of the Dead Oh ye Romish Monsters ye are more Cruel than Death for death it self Divorceth not quoad praeterita Death a Divorce but no Dissolving of Marriage quoad praeterita but only quoad futura Death it self Nulls not but only Dissolves the Marriage No Dragon but that of the Seven Heads hath a Retrospect in repeal of Lawes No Wolves but those in Sheeps-clothing with their howles disturb the blessed Dead Act of Confirmation of Marriage to persons in Hostility by Ordiance of Parliament ought to have Confirmed Marriages of those who were not in Hostility 4. By the Statute 12 Car. 2.33 It is Enacted That all Marriages by pretence or colour of any Ordinance of Parliament since May 1642. which was during the Times of the War and Usurpation shall be adjudged of the same force and effect as if they had been solemnized according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England which is according to the Common Prayer-Book This ACT therefore though it give and intend Right and Justice to those who had been in Hostility and doth take away all Cavils and Scruples might after have arisen concerning the Ordinance Marriage and Legitimation and Succession of Children Yet did it not intend such as were Friends should be left in a worse condition as to their Marriages and Children than those to whom they had given the benefit of this Act or that there should only a Balm be provided for the Wounds of one party and those of the other who were more necessitated to receive them be left bleeding without any for the Royal Party could then neither Marry by the Common Prayer-Books which the Sword had abolished nor according to the Ordinance of Parliament not daring to approach their Quarters Act confirming Marriage according to Ordinance of Parliament ought to have Confirmed Marriage according to the Ordinance of God or to be publickly Banned at Church or Market-Cross Especially Persons of Eminency to Expose themselves to such a Snare as might intrap them and indanger their Lives It was not therefore the Intention of the Protestants in this Parliament That this Act of Confirmation of Marriages should have been partial and only to Confirm one Party but rather to have been as the Act of Confirmation of Judicial Proceedings made in the same Year was general to all Parties and to have Confirmed all Marriages in general made since May 1642. not contrary to the Moral Law of God to be of the same force and effect as if they had been Solemnized according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England or the Common Prayer-Book It is an old Rule that Favores sunt ampliandi Favours are to be inlarged and not restrained and it might be happy for many Families who have Suffer'd for his Majestie in time of the Wars if such a general Act of Confirmation of Marriages then made not contrary to the Moral Law of God were yet Enacted and the Favour not Restrained only to Marriages made by Ordinance of Parliament For as to those many Papists who had free Liberty to Live in the Parliament Quarters when the Royal Party had not took advantage of and first Married before Justices of Peace and after by their own Priests It is not Equal therefore that Protestants that could not have that Safety which Papists had or if they could thought it perhaps against their Conscience to Marry according to the Forms prescribed by Ordinance of Parliament should be Excluded from all Favour or Excuse to the Marriages of themselves and Successions of their Children which is by this Act given to the Marriages and Children of these who were in Hostility and of Papists themselves There was likewise another ACT made 29 Car. 2. 1677 for the Naturalizing of Children of his Majesty's English Subjects born in Forreign Countreys during the Late Troubles