Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	duke_n	son_n	wales_n	3,665	5	10.2344	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

First Because the Exiling or Disinheriting the King's eldest Son indangers the King himself Secondly Because to compass the Exile compasseth the Death of the eldest Son by depriving him of the King's Protection and exposing him to Poison or Assassination of his Enemies and to compass to Disinherit him is a manifest design to destroy him without which his Inheritance cannot be taken from him as Matth. 21.38 They said amongst themselves this is the Heir come let us kill him and let us seize on his inheritance And they caught him and cast him out of the Vinyard and slew him Object 8 Obj. 8. The Son of a King born after he is King is to be prefer'd in Succession before the Son of a King born while he is Prince And of this there are many Examples as Henry the First being the youngest Son of William the Conqueror Born when a Prince and born when a King standing in Competition for the Crown of England against Robert Duke of Normandy his elder Brother made this one of his Objections That Robert was born when his Father was but a Duke but Henry was born when his Father was a King and therefore obtained the Kingdom against Robert his eldest Brother And it is recited by Grot. de Jur. Bel. Pac. p. 171. That the like passed in Persia between Cyrus and Arsica in Judea between Antipater the Son of Herod the Great and his Brother in Hungary when Geissa obtained the Kingdom in Germany between Otto the First and Henry though not without Arms and likewise the same Question was between Xerxes and his Brother Atabarzanes and between Artaxerxes Mnemon and Cyrus the Sons of Darius and Parisatis Artaxerxes being the elder but born during the Private fortune of Darius and the like happened between Bajazet and Zemez contending for the Turkish Empire and many others Answ These were put to the Tryal of Battel and for the greatest part the eldest Son had the Success but if it had been otherwise the Event of War is no Rule of Justice and if it had been without War yet where there is a standing Act of Parliament Judicandum est Legibus non Examplis And this Act of Parliament was made to prevent the present and all other Accidents which might happen to disturb the Peace of Succession of the Kingdom and raise Civil Wars which it could not do without all other Sons and Heirs to the eldest Son and there being no other Son mentioned in the Letter of the Statute but the eldest and not a word of Distinction whether born before or after the Father's obtaining the Kingdom Vbi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus for then the same mischiefs would insue beforementioned of extending a Statute of Treason by Equity which leaves Treason arbitrary to every Judge who will assume to declare it beyond the Letter and to insert as many kinds of Sons and Heirs as he pleased which would make the Law and all the Care and Wisdom of it in ascertaining the Son Heir to be of no Effect and leave the Kingdom in a dangerous Condition that every Prince Married in his Father's life-time and having then some Children and after his Father's Death others might occasion a Civil War who should succeed to the Crown when he died Object 9 Obj. 9. The next Objection That the King 's eldest Son is not yet Declared Prince of Wales or Prince of the Scots The Original of this Title used to be given to the eldest Sons of the Kings of England was from Henry the Third who gave his eldest Son Edward who was afterward King Edward the First on his Marriage to Elianor the Daughter of Spain amongst other Principalities in France England and Ireland likewise that of Wales Hinc natum ut deinceps unusquisque Rex qui secutus est filium majorem natu principem Walliae facere consuevit And in continuance of this Custom Anno 1610. Prince Henry the eldest Son of King James was solemnly created Prince of Wales by his Father As to the Title designing the Prince of Scotland to be next Successor or Heir apparent it seems to have been by their Investiture of Cumberland for saith Buchanan Rer. Scot. lib. 6. p. 175. That Constantine the Third in the Tenth year of his Reign Milcolumbo proximo Regis filio Cumbriam donavit qui honos velut Augurium Argumentum erat eum proxime regnaturum Ac deinceps in proximis aliquot Regibus id fuisse observaturum manifesta adversus veterem Comitiorum rationem fraude quae omnem Liberorum susfragiorum vim prope tollerit non minus quàm Coss●à Caesaribus Designatio Constantine the Third in the Tenth year of his Reign gave Cumberland to Malcoli● the Son of the last King which Honour was as it were the Inauguration or Sign of him who was next to succeed in the Kingdom and was after observed by some of the next Kings to that end to take away by Fraud the free Election by Parliament no less than did the Designations of the Consuls by the Caesars and after p. 189. he sath That Kenneth the Third being King by Election of the People to make the Kingdom Hereditary to his own Son Malcolm finding it an Impediment in his way that his Brother Duffus his Son Malcolm Cumbriae tum praefectus erat quam Regionem Scoti beneficio Regum Anglorum it a tenebant ut Cumbriae Praefectura velut omen Regni esset atque ita jam per aliquot aetates observatum erat was then Governor of Cumberland which Region the Scots held by Gift from the Kings of England to that intent that the Presidentship of Cumberland should be for a Sign who should be next Successor to the Kingdom and so for divers Ages the same hath accordingly been observed he to inherit his own Poisoned his Brother's Son and p. 190. he saith Milcolumbus regis filius in natura adhuc ad rerum administrationem aetate Cumbriae praefectus et princeps Scotorum est Declaratus quod nomen perinde est Scotis atque apud Gallos Delfinus apud priores Romanorum Imperatores Caesar apud posterio res Rex Romanorum quibus omnibus Successor superiori Magistratui dari intelligitur Malcolm the King's Son in an unripe Age for Publick Affairs is declared President of Cumberland and Prince of the Scots which Name is with the Scots Equipollent to the Daulphin amongst the French to Caesar amongst the Ancient Romans and amongst the Modern to the King of the Romans by all which Titles the Successor to the Superiour Magistracy is understood but notwithstanding for the most part this hath been the Custom yet it hath been likewise often omitted and Admit it had not yet there being no Law requiring it there is no pretence that such Omissions makes any incapacity in the Heir to succeed at Common Law or to be within this Statute for the Statute making no Distinction between the King 's eldest Son when

were since called Harlots from her name Arlotte yet we find no proof of any Inchastity in her only she could Dance Ala mede de France and if they can prove she was Guilty of any worse and were an Harlot it only makes the President the stronger that the Law and Custom at that time and Countrey was that the Duke's eldest Son though by a Woman taken without any Ceremony of a Priest or Temple ought after the Death of the Duke succeed to the Dukedom neither was this way any other Law or Custom than what is already shewn to have been amongst the Princes of the Hebrews Greeks Romans and all other Nations not inslaved by Superstition to receive the Forms of Marriage and acknowledge the Supreme Jurisdiction of them to be in the Bishop of Rome or their own Prelates or Pontiffs by which Examples it appears That by the Brittish Scottish and Norman Laws the eldest Sons of Kings by Women not Prohibited to be Married by the Law of God though not Joyned by a Priest in a Temple or any other Episcopal Ceremony yet by Right of Primogeniture they succeeded in the Governments of their Fathers Dominions It will be asked how then came the ancient Law of God and the Land to be changed concerning these matters of Marriage Filiation and Succession and the Jurisdiction to be got or pretended to be in Episcopal hands to Judge and Dispose of Marriage Filiation and Successions both to the Crown and Lay-Inheritances according to Canonical Laws and not the Laws of God nor the Land To which is answered Hugh Capet an Usurper of the French Crown to curry favour with the Pope first disinherited natural Children That as to Normandy and other the English Dominions after acquired in France as Bodin says fol. 741. Hugh Capet was the first that made a Law in France That natural Sons that is to say such whose Parents were not Married by the Popish Ceremonies of a Priest in a Temple should not be Heirs nor succeed to the Kingdom And at last strain'd his Law to that Degree of unnatural Cruelty and Folly that it was Enacted That natural Children should not be accounted natural Children which Nonsence in that time of Popery was not only followed by the French but imitated to get Money by the English and Scotish Ecclesiastical and Common Lawyers who as hath been already shewn would not admit natural Children to be Sib Kin of Consanguinity nor Children to the Father who begot or the Mother who bare them as if it had been in the Power of Hugh Capet and them to overthrow or change the Laws of God and Nature Prohibition of Marriage Sans Ceremony a French Toy to disinherit all Protestant Children So likewise by a French Decree as saith Everard p. 24. All Children born in Marriages not Blessed by a Romish Priest are made incapable to succeed to the goods of Father or Mother the Law of Capet was plotted by the French Bishops to get themselves Supremacy of disposing the French Crown which foundation of Power they commonly got from Usurpers to the intent that by their Ecclesiastical pretence of Authority they might protect a false Title and disinherit the true Heirs of the Blood Heylin in his Geography p. 186. saith That Popes strengthen themselves by unlawful Marriages of Princes and not by lawful and p. 101. Popes strengthen themselves by unlawful Marriages and Successions of Princes and not by lawful That Hugh Capet being a Prince of a strange Blood was hoys●d up by the People to the Prejudice of Charles of Lorrain the true Heir of France as Brother to Lotherius and Uncle to Lodovicus the last King of the Line of Pepin And p. 129. he saith The occasion why Capet was chosen and Charles of Lorain refused was this Charles Son to Lewis the Fourth King of France being left to the courtesie of his Brother and by him not regarded was by Otho the Emperor invested in the Dutchy of Lorain Anno 984. which containeth one Marquisate five Earldoms and divers Baronies The eldest Son likewise of Lorain is intitled Prince of Barry for which cause that he received Lorain from the Emperor Charles shewed himself so alienated from the French and wedded to the Germans that the French after the Death of his Cousin Lewis the First rejected him and chose Hugh Capet for their King This Charles had one Son named Otho and one Daughter called Hermingrade from her descended Isabel Wife to Phillip the Second uniting the Bloods of Pepin and Capet to the great content of her Grandchild St. Lewis who being a Man of a very tender Conscience is said never to have Joyed in the Crown of France till it was proved that by the Mothers side he was the right Heir of Charles of Lorain whom Hugh Capet had so unjustly dispossessed French and Popish Laws of Marriage seek to destroy all English Heirs and the Protestant Religion So it appears this French Law against Natural Sons was made to disinherit the true Heirs of the Royal Blood of France and to inherit the Certificate Heirs of the French Bishops and the other French Law mentioned against all Succession of the Children whose Parents at their Marriage received not the Benediction of a Romish Priest was made on Design to disinherit all Protestant Children The Law of Theodora against Natural Heirs was to Disinherit the true and Inherit adulterous Heirs The Law of Trent nulling all Marriages without a Priest and Witnesses was to set to Sale Community of Women to raise Rents out of Stews to lay a Tribute on Marriage and inslave the Successions of Kingdoms and private Patrimonies to the will of Popes and Bishops Are there any Degenerous English so much Frenchified as will impose French Laws of Succession on the English Crown Capet's Law not to be compared with the Law of Edw. the 3d. Shall Hugh Capet's Laws dare to contend with this Law of Edward the Third who beat and Conquered the greatest Navies and Armies of France and in tryal by Battel at Cressey proved his Right better to the Title of King of France than the Heir of Capet his and had the same Heir of Capet taken Prisoner in Battel by the Black Prince the Heir of this Statute Are there any so false Protestants as to introduce such Popish Laws as disinherit all Protestant Children Are there any so prophane Christians as will prefer the Ceremonial Laws of Men above the Moral Laws of God It hath been shewn thus far by the Examples of so many Kings of this Island of Great Britain that their Legitimation and Succession thereby to the Crown were by the Moral Law of God and not by the Ceremonial Laws of Romish or Brittish Bishops and none dared in Great Britain though they did in France assume the Supremacy of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction above the Royal and Parliamentary in Declaring the Successors of the Crown or if they did they were overthrown in like manner may

Answ 'T is acknowledged if the Declaration were to be by the Parliament Sole without the King it might possible make a Kingdom Elective but where by Law the King hath a Negative and the Declaration is not made without his Consent it is otherwise for it is sufficient to make a Kingdom Hereditary if the Law make it descendible to the King's Heirs in Case it be not otherwise by the King himself and Parliament actually disposed of which is seldom done and in Cases of Necessity But yet are they not disabled of the Power to do it when they think necessary as a private Inheritance doth not therefore cease to be Hereditary because the Owner hath Power to Give Sell Alien or otherwise dispose of it 't is sufficient if by Law it descend to his own Heirs unless he Actually happen according to Law to dispose of it from them Obj. 2. Declarations by Act of Parliament are in vain Because Acts of Precedent Parliaments cannot bind the Power of a subsequent Parliament which is shewn by divers Examples Cok. 4 Part. fol. 42. And Grotius speaks to the same intent That Kings Predecessors cannot bind Kings Successors Est autem causa Successionis non subjecta Regi nunc regnanti quod inde apparet quod Rex nunc regnans nulla lege obligare potest Successorem Successio enim Imperii non est de Jure Imperii ac proinde mansit in statn naturali quo nulla erat Jurisdictio Grot. de Jure Bell. Pacis lib. 2. cap. 7. p. 171. That a cause of Succession is not subject to the King now Reigning appears from this that a King now Reigning can by no Law bind his Successor for the Succession to Empire is not of the Right of Empire But the same remains in the state of Nature wherein there was no Jurisdiction Answ Though a King and Parliament present by declaring a Successor cannot bind a Parliament future but they may again Repeal or Abrogate such present Act of Declaration yet doth it not follow that the present Act of Declaration is vain and of no use For first Then by the same Reason it might be said that Magna Charta and the Petition of Right And all the Acts of Parliament we have are vain and of no use because future Parliaments have Power to repeal them notwithstanding which it is manifest such an Act of Declaration would be of great Use and Benefit Secondly An Act though repealable is not vain because such an Act cannot pass without the Major number of Votes which will be an Incouragement to the major number to continue their indeavour to preserve And a Discouragement to the minor part in another Parliament to attempt to repeal Thirdly Because succeeding Parliaments have a Reverence to preceding and though they have Power to repeal yet do they not use to repeal to the utmost of their Power nor can a former Act be repealed but by another Parliament which if a Protestant Successor is Declared must be called by him and he hath then a sufficient Legal Power to Exclude so far Papists from Elections of Members of Parliament as probably they will have no Power to repeal former Protestant Acts. Fourthly Subsequent Parliaments cannot repeal the Act of a Precedent quoad praeterita for which reason the whole People will act with far greater Courage both in Peace and War in Execution of whatsoever they have a standing Act of Parliament to protect them than where there is none Fifthly Such an Act doth leave the Successor and his Parliament in a Posture and Possession of Arms Lawfully to defend his own Right and the Protestant Religion both against Secret Massacres and Open Rebellions and Invasions by Papists Object 3. Acts of Parliament cannot bind the Power of the Sword or Armies in the Field Answ Though they canot bind such as are Actually Convented without raising other Armies against them Prevents though it binds not the Power of the Sword yet they may take ways both to prevent their Convention and to raise other Armies against them if Convenient and the Success must be left to God Object 4. That a Successor Declared Declaring incites not a Lineal but a Collateral Heir to Rebel and not an eldest Son but a younger wrongfully present before him may prove Rebellious or Disobedient Answ This Objection is made 28 H. 8. cap. 7. But it makes no Danger of it except only in Case it should happen to be of a Collateral Heir when the King should have no Lineal Heir of his Body Concerning which Collateral Heir only and not his Lineal These are the words of the Statute by way of Petition from the Parliament to the King And if your Grace afore it may be certainly known whether ye shall have Heirs or no should suddenly name or declare any Person or Persons to succeed after your Decease and for lack of Heirs of your Body lawfully begotten into the Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of this Realm then it is to be doubted that such Persons that should be named might happen to take great heart and Courage and by Presumption fall into inobedience and Rebellion by Occasion of which Premisses great Divisions and Dissentions may be and is very likely to Arise and Spring in this Realm to the great Peril and Destruction of us Your Majesties most humble and obedient Subjects and of all our Posterities Whereby it appears This Statute is only afraid of Declaring Collateral Heirs If there should be no Lineal Heir of the Body or they should fail In like manner Queen Elizabeth having no Lineal Heir of her Body was afraid to declare the Collateral But she declared the Natural Heirs of her Body should Succeed as appears 13 Eliz. 1. which are the next Lineal and not Collateral Heirs And the Example of Christian Princes in like manner hath been never to Scruple the Natural affection of their own Natural eldest Sons to declare them Successor after their Death for that gives them no Greater present Power than they had before The Heir as is said Gal. 4.1 Differeth nothing from a Servant So Edward the Third did not doubt to Declare his Eldest Son the Famous Black Prince his Successor by the General name of his Eldest Son in this Statute nor likewise by making him Prince of Wales to declare him by name his Heir Apparent and Successor nor did he ever the less Trust him with the Command of great Armies in France with whom he was Victorious yet did the Son so declared never presume to any higher Title than Prince of Wales nor Motto than Ich Dien I serve as if he studied how to testifie his Obedience to God and his Father and to shew that the Heir differeth nothing from a Servant In like manner did the Old Roman Emperors declare their Eldest Sons Caesars and Principes Juventis The Modern Emperors theirs Kings of the Romans The Kings of England theirs Princes of Wales The Kings of Scotland

made Prince of Wales and when not Vbi Lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere Debemus Besides the Kingdoms being now United a Title common to both were more convenient than several Titles The Roman Title Princeps Juventutis extended to the whole Empire Object 10 The Objection of Illegitimation answered I think the Objector hath now spit his Venom Of Illegitimation but let him take heed it doth not Poison himself for first I answer it is already proved That the Marriage of the Lady-Mother was Lawful Holy and Indissolvable according to both Precepts and Example of Scripture and that no Humane Power can Prohibit such Marriages which the Law of God hath not Prohibited Marriage a thing not indifferent not to be limited by the Laws of Men. and that Marriage is not a thing indifferent but necessary and Commanded by God and therefore what are made Actus Legitimi by God non recipiunt modum aut Conditionem from Men nor ought the Holy Ordinance of God be compelled to be prophaned by Papal Ceremonies and dare any then Illegitimate that Law of God by a Law Papal or an Act of Parliament by a Law Episcopal and vend such an Act as will hereafter be shewn to make it High Treason for any Subject to affirm the King 's eldest Son Illegitimate but before I proceed to that I shall first prove the following Thesis The eldest Son of a King of Great Britain Legitimate by his Birthright That not only by this Statute but by the Law of God the Law of Nations and the Jus Coronae of Great Britain Primogeniture in Succession hath been prefer'd and such Issue adjudged Legitimate Though procreated of unlawful Marriages and Persons Prohibited to Marry but was never question'd by any Law except that of Popes and Bishops in the Issue of Persons not Prohibited by the Law of God to Marry Concerning Legitimation by the Law of God and Nature there is more than enough already spoken Lib. 1. p. 79. to 83. and several other places already mentioned concerning the Laws declared in Scriptures this Right of Primogeniture and Legitimation was always observed amongst the Kings of Israel and Judah Primogeniture succeeded amongst the Patriarchs though no Marriage by a Priest in a Temple even in their most unlawful Marriages and without Ceremonies with strange Women of foreign Nations though expresly Prohibited to them by the Law of Moses as appears by Maimonides Godwyn's Jew Antiq. Selden and others but as to the same to be as brief as possible I shall only insist on one Example though not a Prince yet a Patriarch amongst them It is said Gen. 29.16 Laban had two Daughters the name of the Elder was Leah and the name of the younger was Rachel Leah was tender-eyed but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured And Jacob loved Rachel and said I will serve thee-seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter And Laban said It is better that I give her unto thee then that I should give her to another man abide with me And Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed unto him but a few days for the Love he had unto her And Jacob said unto Laban Give me my Wife for my days are fulfilled that I may Go in unto her And Laban gathered together all the men of the place and made a feast and it came to pass in the evening that he took Leah his daughter and brought her in unto him and he went in unto her Et Vers 25. And it came to pass in the Morning behold it was Leah And he said to Laban What is this thou hast done unto me Did not I serve with thee for Rachel wherefore then hast thou beguiled me Et Ver. 32. And Leah conceived and bare a Son and she called his name Reuben Gen. 49.3 Jacob saith Reuben thou art my first born my might and the beginning of my strength the excellency of Dignity and the excellency of Power From whence may be observed That if it were possible for any Objections to be of weight against the Right of Primogeniture and Legitimation in any it might have been made against this of Reuben For First Here is no Intent nor Consent no Contract no Espousal of Marriage by Jacob with Leah 2. There is no Banns no Leadings to Church no Ceremony no Joyning by the Priest no Benediction by him of Jacob and Leah 3. What is worse than the want of all these Here is 1 a meer Cheat a Woman that is hated in the dark clapt into the Bridegroom's Bed instead of her that is beloved 2 Here is the true Bride Robbed of her seven years expected Enjoyment by a false 3 Here is the Marriage-Covenant most perfidiously broken 4 The Labourer is defrauded of his hire for seven years Labour 5 Here is Adultery and Incest committed by the eldest Sister with the contracted Husband of the younger Sister 6 The elder Sister her self knows and is accessary to all these Crimes yet hath the Impudence to Rest all Night Acting them in a stoln Bed and to out-face them in the Light of the Rising Sun for behold in the Morning it was Leah notwithstanding all which Reuben is not punished for the Crimes of Leah nor doth he lose thereby the Right of his Primogeniture but Jacob declares him as aforesaid Gen. 49.3 Reuben thou art my first born my might and the beginning of my strength the excellency of Dignity and the excellency of Power And though he likewise express for the great Crime of Reuben himself the forfeiture of his Birth-right and that excellency which thereby belonged unto him and saith Vers 4. Thou shalt not excel because thou wentest up to thy Father's Bed then defiled'st thou it And the same is likewise declared 1 Chron. cap. 5.1 Now the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel for he was the first-born But forasmuch as he defiled his fathers bed his Birth-right was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel Yet doth this prove the stronger that notwithstanding the unlawful Marriage and Crimes of Leah his Mother the Birth-right belonged unto him till he forfeited the Priviledge of it by so great a Crime as he himself Committed Legitimation impossible to be forfeited or to be taken from the Child or the Incidents to the same and notwithstanding he forfeited the Priviledge of his Birth-right yet he forfeited not his Legitimation but inherited an equal filial Portion with his younger Brethren for Legitimation is impossible to be forfeited taken away or destroyed unless it were possible to make the Son begot of such a Father not to have been begotten by him for if he was begot by him Filiation includes Legitimation and Aliment sufficient if the Child want it and the Father hath it in Possession and Succession ought to be given him though as to the Superalimentary Quantity of his Goods the Father hath Liberty to dispose them or alienate them from Legitimate and

theirs Princes of the Scots The French Kings theirs Dauphins with so little doubt of Danger thereby that they rather look on the same as the greatest Security of themselves their Families and Kingdoms to have their Eldest Sons declared Successors in their Life-time but always as is said this is true only where the Eldest Sons are declared and not where contrary to the order of Nature Younger Sons or Collateral Heirs are prefer'd before them or to disherit them Object 5. The Ottoman Emperors never declare a Successor Answ They are ill Presidents to be followed for the not declaring of a Successor causeth all those Bloody Butcheries of Fathers of their own Sons And Brothers one of another and gives the Janizaries Power to sell the Empire to that Son or Brother who will give most Money for the same which the Emperors would gladly reform if they were able and declare their Successors as other Princes do were they not over-power'd by their own Slaves as appears Turk Hist 479. Selymus The Ottoman Emperors why they declared no Successors a Younger Son of Bajazet the Second was made by his Father Governor of the Kingdom of Trapezond and Married without his Fathers liking the Daughter of Mahometes a mighty King of the Tartars called Precopenses Selymus by the assistance of his Father-in-Law provided a great Fleet and Army Pretending but not Intending War on Hungary Bajazet receiving Advertisement of Selymus his Army and that he had left Trapezond and was come over into Europe suspecting his Design notwithstanding his Pretences to be against himself yet not seeming to take notice thereof sends Embassadors to disswade him from the Hungarian War and to perswade him to return peaceably to his former Government but without effect for he continues his March onwards towards his Father In the mean time Bajazet moved the rather with the fear of Selymus resolved on that which he had long time in his Mind deeply Consider'd in regard he was aged and sickly to resign the Empire to Achomates his eldest Son and proposeth the same to the Soldiers but they being Corrupted before with Money by Selymus Cunningly seeming to commend Achomates yet would neither yield that Bajazet should resign or nominate him for his Successor And the chief Reasons they alleadged were That the same was neither according to the Custom of the Ottoman Kings nor for the behoof of the Men of War who should thereby be defrauded of the Rewards usually granted unto them during the time of vacancy of the Empire arising from the Spoil taking of them who are of Religions different from the Turks for it is a Custom that immediately on the Death of the Turkish Emperors all the Jews and Christians which dwell at Constantinople Pera Hadrianople Thessalonica and Prusa especially Merchants Exposed unto the Injuries of the Turks are by the Janizaries and other Soldiers of the Court spoiled of all their Wares and Goods and became unto them a Prey neither will they give their Oath of Allegiance unto the new Emperor until he grant them their Prey and Swear by his Head to Pardon all their Outrages before Committed When Bajazet saw his Men of War generally to oppose themselves against the Nomination of his Successor he tryed what Money would do with them and promise them Five hundred Thousand Duckets if they would stand favourable to Achomates and accept him for their Soveraign but he could not move them for they assured themselves of greater Rewards in Pay and Plunder from Selymus So with Grief and Patience he put up the Matter hoping for a fitter Opportunity to effect what he desired Selymus in the mean time under divers pretences marcheth on towards his Father and Corrupted the greatest part of his Council with Money and great Promises to betray him and advance Selymus to the Empire only Cherseogleson and old faithful Bassa adviseth Bajazet to Chastise the Rebellion of his unnatural younger Son and to give him Battel wherein Selymus was overthrown and the greatest part of his Army Slain Achomates hearing of all the trouble had happened between his Father and Brother Selymus writes to him desiring him to dispatch his long Determin'd and Promised Resignation of the Empire Bajazet of himself still continued desirous of the Translating the Empire to Achomates and making no great Secret of it Commanded Galleys to be provided to Transport Achomates for that end from Scutari where he then was to Constantinople but the Bassa's and Souldiers Corrupted by Selymus's Money would not suffer him whereupon he writes to Achomates how the matter stood and that he should therefore return from Scutari to his old Charge of Amasia until he might with bounty win the Minds of the Souldiers and great Men to effect his advancement with less Danger Achomates thus deceived of his hopes Complained of his Father how he had deceived him and made him a By-word and Laughing-stock to the World and meditating either Revenge or Defence against his Brother raiseth an Army and on Contumacy when Commanded to Disband is by the Incitation of Selymus with his Party proclaimed Traitor by his Father and Bajazet is so over-persuaded by the Conspirators That he sends home for his younger traiterous Son Selymus Pardons him and makes him General of his Armies against Achomates the elder Son Selymus having received the Army they Corrupted by him Proclaim him Emperor Selymus thereupon Poisons his Aged Father Bajazet being almost Fourscore years of Age and Murders his Brothers and Five of his eldest Brother's Sons From whence may be observed 1. The Great Error of Bajazet who gave his younger Son Selymus a Kingdom and so great Power with it that he was able to be a Competitor against his eldest Son and to raise a Rebellion against himself which is Inconsistent with the Right of Primogeniture and Divides the Empire into many Empires 2. That Excessive Treasure given to a younger Brother gives him Power to Corrupt both the Council and Army of his Father who gave it him 3. Bajazet by setting the younger Son in Contention with he eldest he lost the Fidelity of both and was destroyed between them 4. He did very imprudently to promise his eldest Son the Resignation of the Empire and ought only to have declared him Successor after his Death 1 Bajazet by preferring his younger Son before his eldest exposed him to be Murdered unless he took Arms in defence of his Life but more Imprudently to break his Promise to him and thereby to Expose him a Publick Laughing-stock to the World and a certain mark to be Murdered by his Brother Selymus unless he took Arms in his own Defence to prevent it 5. That by probabillity if he could have effected the Declaring of his eldest Son Successor and given only Moderate Portions to his younger Sons as the Chynoys and Aethiopians Emperors gives theirs such miserable Murders might not have fallen on himself his Sons and Nephews The like Destruction is before observed to have