Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	daughter_n	earl_n	henry_n	18,380	5	7.9119	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30406	Reflections on The relation of the English reformation, lately printed at Oxford	Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.	1688 (1688)	Wing B5854; ESTC R14072	57,228	104

Precontract being with the Earl of Northumberland he had by a solemn Oath and by his receiving the Sacrament upon it in the Presence of the Duke of Norfolk and some others of the Privy Council denied any such Precontract Of which Dr. Burnet assures us he saw the Original Attestation under that Earl's own hand This had so far invalidated the Queens Confesssion that it seems the Parliament would not descend into the specifying of her Confession Dr. Burnet hath also given several Evidences of her being at that time so much disordered by Vapours that this doth in a great measure weaken the Credit of her Testimony even against her self Upon this whole matter then there are three important Considerations which arises out of the Fact and any one of these seems strong enough to overthrow all the Inferences that can be drawn from that part of our Story 1. She was a Person condemned now all the Examinations of Persons condemned are by the Laws of all Nations only Presumptions but not Proofs the Terrors of Death and the Hardiships of a Prison are such just abatements that Confessions so made can never have that Credit given them as to found any Sentence upon them but in that Queens Case there are two things which give this General Consideration yet more force as to her particular The one is That it being in the King's Power to order her either to be Burnt or Beheaded the Terror of the former might carry her to say any thing that might procure her the softer Death But the other was yet stronger it was a natural-enough Temptation to her to lead her to confess a Pre-contract since by that Confession she might hope so far to extinguish the Crime for which she was condemned as to obtain her Life by that means She was condemned for Adultery now the Confession of a Pre-contract might be drawn from her as a thing that dissolved the Marriage and by consequence acquitted her of the Adultery for which she was condemned since if she was never the Kings true Wife she could not be guilty towards him So that this matter was perhaps represented to her as that which must certainly save her Life And thus this Confession being grounded on the fears of Death and carrying in it the hopes of Life can be of no force in Law. 2. The bare Confession of a Pre-contract without any other Adminiele or Evidence to confirm it cannot be supposed a just ground to dissolve a Marriage otherwise Married Persons when they grow weary of one another may dissolve their Marriage by taking a false Oath It 's true in other cases the Parties own Confession is strong enough in Law against themselves but in this case both the married Persons being equally concerned in the Tie that follows upon it the Confession of the one cannot dissolve the Right that accrued to the other upon the Marriage and since two Witnesses are necessary in all such Cases the Confession of one of the Parties is at most but the single Evidence of one Witness and therefore Ann Bullens Confession could not make the Marriage void This is further confirmed by the Denial of the Person with whom the Pre-contract was preteneded to be made if her Confession gave such a Credit to the matter as to annul her subsequent Marriage with the King it ought likewise to have annulled the Earl of Northumberland's Marriage therefore it could not be received in Law. The other circumstances of it do also concur to weaken its credit it was so secretly carried that one of the Judges of that time tells us only that it was reported that she had confessed a Pre-contract so that it was not managed with the necessary Forms of Justice and it being probable that some General Promise of Marriage had passed between her and the Earl of Northumberland it is not likely that she understood the difference between a Promise and a Contract so she might especially in such a Hurry and under so much disorder mistake the one for the other 3. But in the last place it is to be considered that here was an Innocent Child in the case whose Legitimacy and Right could not be cut off by her Mothers extorted Confession Infants are more particularly under the protection of the Law and therefore Acts passed against them in that state of Feebleness have such flaws in them that they have always a right to reverse them so a single Witness in such Circumstances as her Mothers were could not be sufficient to disgrace and disinherit her and the Confirmation of the Act of Parliament that followed afterwards might have been a forcible bar in Law to her but could be no just one for as a Bastard is still a Bastard even tho he were Legitimated by Act of Parliament so a lawful Child is still what 't is notwithstanding a Sentence of Bastardy confirmed in Parliament and this is so true and was so evidently the Practice of that time that even King Henry in his suit of Divorce with Queen Catherine was willing to have his Daughter Mary declared Legitimate because Children begat in a Marriage are begotten bona fide and so they ought not to suffer because of the secret fault of their Parents And if this was yielded in a Marriage where both Parents were according to the Kings Pretensions guilty of Incest it was much more just in this Case of Ann Bullen even supposing her Precontract true for her secret fault ought not to blemish nor ruin her innocent Child Another Instance that fell out at this time in the Royal Family is very considerable and because it is little known I fancy the Reader will not be displeased to have it particularly opened to him Henry the 8th's Sister that was Queen of Scotland did after her Husband King Iames the 4th's Death marry the Earl of Angus and by that Marriage she had a Daughter Lady Margaret Douglas Some time after her Marriage she fell to be in ill terms with her Husband and discovered a Pre-contract he had given to another and upon this she sued him in the Spiritual Court and it being proved the Marriage was annulled but her Daughter was still held to be Legitimated and was entertained by King Henry as his Niece and given by him in Marriage to the Earl of Lenox of whom descended the Lord Darnly that was King Iames the 1st of England's Father and since he was considered to be the Second Person in the Succession to the Crown of England after the Queen of Scots this shews that by the Practice of that Time a Pre-contract even legally proved yet did not illegitimate the Issue that were begotten bona Fide by one of the Parents And thus I hope enough is said to overthrow the Objection that is made to the first Constitution of our Church under Q Eliz it was strangely put and decently and weightily writ and therefore I have answered it with the like Decency of Stile so that if I treat the

is made of the Corruption of the Foreign Universities 1. It is true all the World believed that the first Marriage was consummated as appears by what Cajetan saies upon it But 2. since our Author cites Lord Herbert's History of King Henry 8th he must needs have seen in him as clear Proofs of a Consummation as a thing of that nature is capable of 3. Prince Arthur's early Death was generally imputed to his too early Marriage and the care that was had of the Princess after his Death the delay of giving the Title of Prince of Wales to the younger Brother and the mention made of the Consummation of that Marriage dubiously indeed in the Bull for the second Marriage but more positively in the suspected Brief are all as strong Presumptions as could be brought for proving a thing of that nature 4. Tonstal concurred with the King in the Divorce and in all that followed upon it so that our Author had need find better Proofs of this than Sander's Word otherwise he 'l hardly gain Credit 5. The Learned Men he mentions come within a very small compass For as Cajetan was the first Author of that Opinion so he had very few followers in that Age tho the consequences of this Dispute hath drawn the current of the Authors of the Roman Communion since that time to follow his Opinion 6. An Act of Parliament made by Gardner and others in the beginning of Queen Maries Reign who were the chief managers of the Suit against her Mother and who by this Act intended to make their Peace and their Court with her is indeed a very venerable Authority and may very fitly come into the same Paragraph with Sanders V. He pretends that Cranmer and Cromwell were the Authors of the Advice of the King 's obliging the Clergy in their Submission to own him for the Supreme Head of the Church It is true he cites Antiqui Britt for this and for another thing that whereas the Clergy desired to have qualified that Title with these Words In so far as it is lawful by the Law of Christ the King refused this and the Clergy granted it without that Restriction Here an Author is pretended but if the Writer of this Treatise had examined these matters exactly he would have found by a Letter of King Henry's to the Convocation of York that the King had accepted of this Limitation and indeed the nature of things puts it in whether it had been set down in so many express Words or not and as for what is said here of Cranmer it is without ground for he was then beyond Sea imployed in disputing concerning the Divorce VI. He says Warham Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was a favourer of Queen Katherines Cause This agrees ill with his owning that he saw the Lord Herbert's History in which he might have found Warham's Deposition upon Oath in which he acknowledges that he thought the Marriage was neither honourable nor well-pleasing to God that therefore he had opposed it much And Warham did set forward the Divorce with so much zeal that he procured a Writing to be signed by all the Bishops of his Province declaring that they thought that the Kings Marriage was Vnlawful and in this he was so earnest that when Fisher refused to Sign it he pressed him vehemently unto it but the other said still that it was against his Conscience so he made another Person subscribe in Fisher's name and set to his Seal to the Paper and pretended that he had Fisher's leave to do it which he affirmed before the Legates when the matter came to be examined So false is it that Warham favoured the Marriage VII He pretends that the next step of the Reformation was the Submission of the Clergy by which they bound themselves not to Assemble without the Kings Writ nor to make or execute any Canons unless the King should by his Royal Grant Command them to make or to execute them But the Proof he cites for this discovers his Prevarication evidently It seems he thought a careless Reader seeing an Assertion and a Citation following after it would without reading the long Citation take it for granted that it agreed with the Assertion and without being at the pains to read it would run on to new matter The Clergy did not bind themselves never to meet without the Kings Writ They only said That the Convocation had ever been and ought always to be assembled by the Kings Writ which only shews what is the regular Method of their Assembling themselves But tho this obliges them to meet always when they are required to do it by the Kings Writ yet it doth not bind them up from meeting in ease the necessities of the Church do require it and that the King refuses his Writ for then they are reduced to these prudential Considerations in the managing of their matters in a case of Persecution Nor did they bind themselves up from executing the old Canons but only from the enacting of new ones which is very different from the view that our Author gives of it as was made out in the first Part of these Reflections VIII He fastens a very strange Inference on some Words of an Act of Parliament as if they had amounted to this That no Laws of the Land nor the Prerogative assumed by the King had any thing of Heresy in them If by this is only meant that the Laws then in being were not Heretical there is nothing extraordinary in such a Pretention For a Body in which the Legislative power resides will very naturally after its own Orthodoxy and the bare asserting it will hardly be thought a Criminal Attempt But if our Author meant as probably he did that by this a Declaration was made for all time coming that the Laws of the Land should be for ever the Standard of Heresy or sound Doctrine then this Conclusion will hardly be found in the Authority that he gives us for it which is an Act declaring That the speaking against those Laws made by the Authority of the See of Rome by the Policy of Man which were repugnant to the Laws of the Realm or the King's Prerogative should not be judged Heresy This is an Inference worthy of the Sincerity of its Author In the Body of the Canon-Law there are many Laws made that destroy all Civil-Government whatsoever and that subject Princes wholly to the Pope There are also many Laws made relating to Civil matters in Ordine ad Spiritualia but all to be sure for advancing the Interests of that Court from which they came Now the Civil Courts in England were already in Possession of giving a check to the Spiritual Courts and of granting Prohibitions upon their Judgments even in Cases of Heresy when the Spiritual Courts had judged men Hereticks for Articles that were not Heresy as Appeals lie for the like cases in France so that the Parliament made only a Regulation in this