which the Lord thy God GIVETH THEE Canaan is the Land promised and given to the Jews only not to the Gentiles nor ever intended for them it being indeed impossible that all Jews and Gentiles should live in that little Land But to pass by the promises which do not so properly belong to our present business I say 2. That it is as certain that all the Mosaical Laws de Poenis are not natural but Positive and Judicial Laws which never bound any save the Jews or those who became Proselytes and voluntarily submitted to them to whom only they were given That this may further and more distinctly appear it is to be confidered as certain and consessed I. That the Law of Nature as all just Laws do binds all men 1. Ad Obedientiam to a willing and perfect Obedience And 2. upon supposition of sin ad Poenam But the Punishment to which the Law of Nature binds is Death and that Eternal Death For as in Adam by reason of sin all die so they had died eternally had not God most graciously sent his Son to redeem them from that death Every sin how small soever by the Covenant of Works of which the Moral Law was the condition on mans part to be perform'd was a capital crime and Death the Wages or punishment by that law due to it But those many various laws de Poenis which occur in the Mosaical law which he gave to the Jews are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non leges nobiscum nataE in cord naturalitere inscriptae not Natural laws writ in our hearts and born with us But they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leges à Deo datae positive Laws which neither do nor ever did bind any but the Jews As may appear 2. Because they were given only to the Jews and that after they came out of Egypt which was after the Fall of Adam above 2450 years But those Mosaical Laws de Poenis of which we speak were never given nor publish'd to the Gentiles But had those Laws de Poenis been Natural Laws as the Precepts in the Decalogue are they would have bound all mankind from the Creation to this day and that indispensably and then all Christians should be bound to obey and practise those Penal laws and punish all Malefactors with such punishments only as in those laws are appointed which is evidently untrue as may appear 3. By the judgment and consent of the Christian World for no Christian Church or State did ever think themselves bound to observe those Mosaical Poenal Laws and to punish transgressors of the Divine Law with those punishments which are prescribed by Moses For instance That the stealing of a Sheep should be punish'd with restitutio in quadruplum with restoring four sheep for one if the thief had sold or kill'd the sheep he stole but if the sheep was found in his hand who stole it he was only to restore two sheep for one That the stealer of an Ox should restore five Oxen. That he who curseth or who smiteth his father or mother or will not obey them should be punished with death and stoned with stones That to do any of our own work so much only as to gather a few sticks on the Sabbath day should be capital and the offender in any one of these things surely put to death although these and such other Laws de Poenis were Divine given to the Jews by Moses and obliged them yet no Christian Church or State did ever think themselves obliged to the observation and practice of them And they had good ground in the Gospels to think so For 4. Our Blessed Saviour in his Sermon on the Mount explains and confirms all the Moral Laws de Officiis yet those severe Mosaical Laws de Poenis he did not confirm But expresly declares that legal severity to be inconsistent with the Charity of the Gospel For though by the Mosaical law a Jew might justly require and the Judge give an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth yet our Blessed Saviour expresly declares against such legal severity You have heard saith he it has been said in the Law of Moses an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth But I say unto you Resist not evil c He does not allow that severity in poenis in the Gospel which Moses allow'd the Jews under the Law and therefore we may be sure that it was not any Moral or Natural Law which required those punishments appointed for several sins in the Law of Moses for then they had been unalterable nor would our Blessed Saviour have contradicted them but it was the positive law of Moses which required them of the Jews to whom only these Laws were given and obligatory And here for further evidence of this truth it is to be considered 1. That in that Mosaical Law which is ignorantly or maliciously urged to prove that our Gracious Soveraign cannot pardon murder the strictest binding words are these The Murderer SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH Therefore say they he cannot be pardon'd They who reason thus did not well consider the consequence of such arguing from the Penal Laws in Moses For if this argument be good Moses says The Murderer shall surely be put to death Ergo He cannot be pardon'd Then this grounded on the same law of Moses will be every way as good and concluding The same Moses says Whosoever doth ANY work on the Sabbath-day he shall SURELY be put to death Ergo He cannot be pardon'd If such Logick were good it would conclude all men to be unpardonably guilty of death seeing I believe there is no man who on some Lords-day has not done some work and therefore by such Logick as this must be unpardonably guilty of death But enough of this for indeed such arguments do not deserve any serious answer or confufutation Sure I am that never any Christian Church or State did or had any reason to believe That the severe Jewish Law for the observation of the Sabbath did oblige Christians and therefore there neither is nor can be any more reason why their severe Law against Murder should be now obligatory to Gentiles or Christians to whom it was never given 2. When the Law says The Murderer shall SURELY die our best Commentators out of the Rabbins say that this is spoken to the Judges before whom such Causes regularly came Now those Judges in the Jewish Commonwealth were appointed by the Supreme Power and by his Authority judged and determined Causes under him Admit then that the Judges who were Magistrates Subordinate to the Supreme Power were to take no satisfaction for the life of a Murderer but were by that Law oblig'd to condemn and execute him yet it does not hence follow that the Supreme Power who made them Judges might
for 't is no man's duty to believe any positive truth of Christian Religion till it be sufficiently revealed a sufficient revelation of truth being absolutely necessary and antecedent to an obligation to believe it and so to the duty of believing and when that is the Magistrate cannot certainly know and therefore he cannot compell any to the belief of these or those opinions as a part of their duty seeing he cannot certainly know whether it be their duty or no. Sir These Adversaria tumultuarily put together will need your pity and pardon being neither in a just order or method nor having that evidence of proof which otherwise they might have had had either my parts been better or my time for Meditation more As they are you freely have them and an absolute power to approve or condemn them Given you by SIR Your most Obliged humble Servant c. THE CASE OF MURDER The Case of MURDER GEN. ix 6. An Objection from the said Text That Kings have not power to pardon Murder Answered FOR the clearing and further Evidence of the truth of this Position That Kings and Supreme Powers may in some Cases pardon Murder there remains one and for ought yet appears but one Objection to be answered 't is grounded on the Law given to Noah after the Flood and about 796 years before the Mosaical Law which says that the Murderer shall surely be put to death The Law given to Noah was in these words He that sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed Wherein God Almighty appoints death to be the punishment of Murder Now if it be granted that the Mosaical Law binds only the Jews to whom it was given yet this Law given to Noah and in him to all his Posterity must bind Jews and Gentiles too who are all equally his Posterity Sol. In answer to this Objection and the reason of it which no way proves what is pretended I say 1. It is confess'd that this Law given to Noah did bind him and all his Posterity There were three men and but three who could make Positive Laws to bind all the World 1. Adam 2. Noal 3. Our Blessed Saviour Whatever Laws any of them made after sufficient Promulgation oblig'd the whole World and what Laws God gave to Adam or Noah all such Laws after sufficient Promulgation oblig'd their Posterity that is the whole World for as before the Flood all the men in the World came from Adam so after the Flood from Noah and it must be confess'd that although this Law given to Noah does not bind many to whom it was never promulg'd or made known yet God has sufficiently made it known to all Jews and Christians in the holy Scriptures and therefore we must confess our selves under the Obligation of it 2. It is certain that this Law given to Noah was as all Penal Laws are a Positive Law and that all such Laws are capable of Dispensation and that in several Cases without any dispensation their Obligation ceases of which more anon 3. It is certain that by these words By man shall his blood be shed By man there the Magistrate is meant who had Jus Gladii Power of Life and Death and so Authority to condemn and execute a Murderer which no Private Person had or could upon any just Grounds pretend to 4. When it is said That the Murderers blood shall be shed by man The Proposition is not Universal that every Murderer shall be put to death For if Noah or any Supreme Power had been a Murderer as even David the best of Kings was he could not by this or any other Law be put to death 1. Because it is evident that the Supreme Power has no Superior and therefore none to punish him especially not with death the greatest Punishment man can suffer 2. Nor could he do it himself for although Kings and Supreme Powers have Authority to take away other mens lives when they are Capital Offenders and do things worthy of death yet they cannot take away their own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Self-murder being in no case lawful 3. And as they could not without sin and great Impiety kill themselves so they could not give Commission to any to do it It being impossible that I should give another Power to do that which I had no power to do my self 5. And as this Law extends not to Supreme Powers whose Blood cannot be shed by man although man's Blood have been shed by them so it extends not to all Subjects and Inferior persons who have Lawful Magistrates This the infinitely wise and just Lawgiver God himself has told us in the Text That if a Master had slain his Man-servant or Maid-servant and they die immediately under his hand then he was to be punish'd but if that Servant lived a day or two 24 hours say the Rabbins the Jews accounting 12. hours for a day his Master who kill'd him was not to die So that though a Master had shed the blood of his Man-servant or Maid-servant yet his blood by this Law given to Noah could not be shed for it 6. Other Cases there may be and are wherein a man may shed man's blood and yet his blood may not be shed for it For instance The Law required two Witnesses to put any Murderer to death and therefore if Sempronius had shed Titius his blood yet if there was but one Witness legally to prove it Sempronius his blood could not be shed by any man By the Premisses I think it is evident that this Law given to Noah He that sheds blood by man shall his blood be shed is not so universally obligatory as some may think it is Seeing there may be many persons and cases wherein man's blood may be shed and yet he who did it cannot be put to death for so doing The Query then will be Whether the Supreme Power who as to have his blood shed by any man is not under the Obligation of this Law may not in some cases pardon a person condemn'd for Murder For a distinct answer to this Query it is to be considered 1. That it is certain that this Law given to Noah nor any Law de poenis is not a Natural or Moral Law all which Laws were ab Origine at the Creation writ in the Heart of Adam and from him in the Hearts of all his Posterity and their Obligation eternal and indispensable But it was a positive Law given to Noah 1658. years after the Creation 2. It is certain That all such Positive and Penal Laws are capable of Dispensations and many Cases may happen in some times and circumstances of which the Supreme Power is the only or at least the Supreme Judge wherein the Obligation of such Laws ceaseth so that no man is bound to execute or undergo the Punishments appointed by those Laws That this may evidently appear I shall give some few Instances 1. It was a Divine
Positive Law that all the seed of Abraham should be Circumcised the eighth day on pain of being cut off from his People And yet the Obligation of that Divine Positive Law ceased for forty years while they wander'd in the Wilderness and yet Moses their Supreme Power did neither Punish according to the Letter of the Law nor blame them for it 2. It was a Divine Positive Law that they should keep the Passover on the Fourteenth day of the first Moneth and yet there were several Cases wherein the Obligation of that Law ceased so that they did not sin though they did not that day eat the Passover For if any one was casually unclean by touching a dead body or if he were on a journey c. the Obligation of that Law ceased as to him and he sin'd not though he did not eat the Passover on the day appointed by the Law 3. The Sanctification of the Sabbath as to that particular day was injoyn'd by a Divine Positive Law and by that Law it was capital to violate the Sabbath or do any of our own Work the Worship of God Almighty being the proper and only work of that day And yet it is certain and on all sides confess'd that in many Cases the Obligation of that Law ceaseth so that we may lawfully do that which otherwise to the Jews was Capital If an Enemy invade our Country or a City be set on fire on the Sabbath or our Lord's day we may lawfully take Arms to defend our Country and the Church and Divine Service left make haste and labour hard to quench the fire and save the City Now as to the aforementioned Divine Positive Laws there may be many Cases wherein their Obligation ceases so that the Punishment otherwise required by those Laws may lawfully be pardoned So in this Law given to Noah there have been and may be several Cases wherein that Law does not bind ad Poenam and so the Murderer may lawfully be pardon'd 3. And it is further to be consider'd that this Law de Homicidio given to Noah does neither expressly say nor by any good consequence intimate that the Supreme Power shall not in any Case pardon a condemn'd Murderer It only declares death to be the just reward and punishment of Murder but it does not say that it must necessarily be always executed so that no Pardon in no case is to be admitted 4. And it is certain and in our present case more considerable That Jacobs two Sons Simeon and Levi were guilty of Murder and yet were pardon'd notwithstanding the Law given to Noah Sure it is that they were neither sentenc'd nor put to death for their Murders but long after went down into Egypt with Jacob their Father and died there Though they had impiously and abundantly shed Man's blood yet their blood was not shed for it Tho Jacob their Father and Isaac who was then living were the Supreme Powers in the then Church of God consisting in the seed of Abraham and had power to do it Nor could those Patriarchs Isaac and Jacob be ignorant of the Law given to Noah seeing Noah himself lived till the fifty seventh year of Abraham and died only forty three years before Isaac's birth Now considering the persons of these two great Patriarchs that they were Prophets men of exceeding Piety and beloved of God we may be sure they would not have transgressed that Law given by God to Noah if they had believed that the Obligation of it was such as excluded all possibility of Pardon In short if those pious Patriarchs might pardon Murder then I desire to know why Supreme Princes in some cases may not pardon it now 5. Lastly I ask Did that Law given to Noah bind David and the Jews in his time or did it not If not how comes it to bind us now above 2700 years after David's death If it did bind David then so as no pardon was to be permitted or granted to a Murderer it is not probable that David a Prophet and the best of Kings would have transgress'd that Divine Law and pardon'd Absolom Especially if we consider that his other known sins as Murder Adultery Numbring the People c. are confess'd by him and in Scripture mentioned as his sins but his pardoning Absolom is no where in Scripture confess'd by him or laid to his charge as a transgression of any Law Sed manum de Tabula I desire you to ask those who made the former Objection against the King's power of pardoning Murder from the Law given to Noah and think the Laws given to Noah still Obligatory How it comes to pass that in the same place the first Law given to Noah is a Prohibition to eat any Blood which is confirm'd by Moses and no where abrogated And yet all Papists and Protestants eat Blood notwithstanding that Law of God to Noah forbidding it I desire to know of the Gentleman who made the Objection which I hope I have probably answer'd why the second Law given to Noah Gen. 9. 6. about Murder should be binding and yet the first Law Gen. 9. 4. against eating Blood should not be binding too He who can and will solve me this doubt will do me a kindness which if any few can I am Your Faithful Friend and Servant T. L. THE CASE OF Pardoning Murder The CASE of Pardoning MURDER Query Whether it be lawful for his Sacred Majesty to Reprive or Pardon a Person convict and legally condemned for Murder My Honoured Friend ALthough I well know your Loyalty to be as much and your Learning and Knowledg of the Laws and their Obligation to be more than mine yet according to your command and my promise I have here sent you a Compendium and short Account of some Discourses I lately had with some who seem'd to doubt Whether our Gracious Soveraign could reprive or pardon a person legally condemned for Murder For a distinct answer to this Query I consider 1. That it is certain that all we Subjects are by the indispensable law of God and Nature bound next to our good God the great King of Heaven and Earth to honour and obey our Gracious Soveraign and that not only for fear of punishment but for Conscience lake So that to do or speak or think dishonourably of the Lord Anointed our King and to question and deny any of the Rights of his Crown and Prerogatives is in all Subjects disloyal and impious In the Natural Body if there be any blemish or disease in the head if it be in any danger from without all the members of the body the dictates of Right Reason and the principles of Nature requiring it will industriously concur to cover and conceal that blemish to cure that disease and prevent all danger that may happen to the Head So in the Body Politick if the King the Head of that Body have any errors or
may limit themselves by Oath or promise and so our Kings have limited their power and promised and in their Coronation-Oath sworn to do none of those things without the consent of their people in Parliament But does not this limiting themselves take away and destroy their Absoluteness No if any other power could lay Obligations and Limitations upon them then I grant they were not absolute but to limit themselves is consistent with absolute power For the truth of this we have an evident and authentick instance It is most certain that God Almighty is an absolute King of all the world yet for the comfort of his people he has limited himself by Oath and promise so the Apostle tells us That by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lye we might have strong consolation These things premised concerning the great power of our Kings That it is Monarchical Supreme and Absolute the Query is Whether they can and lawfully may either 1. Reprive 2. Or pardon a person condemn'd for Murder Now it is a certain Rule in Law and Reason that Omne illicitum est ex lege aliqua illicitum Sin is the transgression of a Law and where there is no law there is no transgression If then such Reprive or Pardon be unlawful and may not be granted by the Kings of England then it must be so by some law which prohibits it and that must be either 1. Some Humane or 2. Some Divine Law For the first unless it do appear that the Kings of England are prohibited to reprive or pardon such malefactors by some law of our Nation to the making where of they have given their consent and so limited their own power I say unless there be such a law it will be evident that it cannot be unlawful by any humane law for our Kings to reprive or pardon such malefactors But although I have reason to believe that there is no such law Yet whether there be any such Law or no I shall not determine but leave it to the Reverend Judges and the learned in our laws who are best able to determine that Question It belongs not to my calling or present business to determine the Case by humane laws That which was desired of me was this Whether the Reprive or Pardon of a person legally condemn'd for Murder were prohibited and so unlawful by the law of God particularly by that Law given to the Jews by Moses in these words Thou shalt take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death he shall SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH NOW to determine this case of Conscience by the Divine Law is within the compass of my Calling and by this time at the Age of 77. I am or ought to be in some measure a competent Judge of such Cases And therefore seeing nothing is required of me save what is in my power to give my Opinion in the Case I shall here 1. Humbly and with submission to my Superiors give my opinion and judgment in the Case 2. The Reasons for it 1. For the first my present opinion and judgment is That there is no Divine Law which prohibits and so makes it unlawful for Supreme Princes to Reprive or Pardon a person legally condemned for murder And this I shall endeavour distinctly to shew and prove 1. That a Reprive 2. That a Pardon is not by any Law of God unlawful 1. For the first To Reprive is not to null or make void the Sentence pass'd upon a murderer or to free him from it but only for some time the delaying the execution of it Now 't is certain that there is no Law of God which prohibits such Reprive and delay of executing the sentence or any way make it unlawful for the Supreme power to grant such Reprive The severest Law against Murderers is that in the Book of Numbers but now nam'd which says That no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a Murderer but he shall surely be put to death But that Law does not say that he must die the same day the sentence pass'd or the same week or month If a Murderer be executed a month after the sentence passed he dies As SURELY as if he had died the same day 2. There may be just reasons drawn from the Law of Nature and Scripture why in many Cases the supreme Magistrate not only lawfully may but ought to grant such a Reprive The Law of God and Nature does indispensably bind all to love their neighbour as their selves and therefore so far as we have ability to endeavour his Salvation Now a condemn'd murderer who has no pardon is sure to lose a temporal life and that he may not lose eternal life too it is the observation and judgment of the best Scholar and Lawyer in his time it will and should be the care of pious Princes not to hurry such condemn'd malefactors hastily to death but to grant them some time by a Reprive before they leave this to consult their Ghostly Father and by prayer confessing their sins true penitence and the comfort of Absolution prepare themselves for a better life 3. But although this be a certain truth That the Supreme power may reprive a condemn'd Murderer yet it will further appear and beyond all contradiction in the proof of the next particular Where it will appear That the King by his Supreme power and Royal Prerogative may lawfully pardon such a condemn'd malefactor and therefore much more may he lawfully Reprive him For he who can lawfully pardon and remit the punishment of Death that it shall never be inflicted may certainly for some small time for a week a month or two suspend and delay the execution of it And so I proceed to the second particular 2. It is not unlawful by any Divine Law for the Supreme Power to pardon a person convict and condemned for Murder The reason is evident because there is no Divine Law which prohibits the Supreme power to grant such a Pardon That this may more distinctly appear it is certain and confess'd that Divine Laws are either 1. Evangelical made known to us in the Gospel 2. Mosaical such as God by Moses made known to his own people the Jews 1. For the first The Evangelical Laws were given by our Blessed Saviour in the Gospel for the gathering and perpetual Government of his Church Now it is certain that amongst these Laws there is nothing of any temporal punishment Our Blessed Saviour tells Pilate That his Kingdom was not of this world it was no Temporal Kingdom It was not to be promoted by the sword or temporal punishments He left his Apostles no power to punish the transgressors of his Laws either 1. In their Purse by Pecuniary Mulcts or Fines Nor 2. in their Persons by Death or Imprisonments All such Power does and ever did belong to the Civil Magistrate who only has
of a Father sufficient to Null the consent and matrimonial contract of his Daughter neither is nor can be pretended Secondly For humane Laws the Civilians and Canonists tell us That the fear of a Father makes not the Marriage or Consent of his Daughter a Nullity Plane metust reverentialis sive obsequium reverentiae Paternae debitum matrimonium non impedit uti nec Consensum No not when the Daughter gives her consent Patre suadente admodum urgente hortante And the law it self tells us That if a Father compell or force his Son to marry a Wife there is the same reason for his Daughter to marry a Husband which otherwise he would not have Married yet the marriage is valid and by reason of that force no Nullity si Filius Patre cogente ducit uxorem quam non duceret si sui arbitrij esset contraxit tamen matrimonium quod inter invitos non contrabitur maluisse hoc videtur So that even according to Human Civil and Canon Laws it is not all Co-action force or fear from a Father which makes the consent of a Daughter in a Matrimonial contract invalid or Nullity and therefore 't is impertinently pretended for such in our present Case 5. I confess the Canonists and Civilians say That fear makes the consent Involuntary and so indces a Nullity Locum non habet consensus ubi metus vel co-actio intercedit c. So saies that Law and the Lawyers consent and say further Quod Matrimonium per metum vel minis contractum deficiente consensu est ipso jure nullum But it is certain first That they do not mean a Reverential Fear a fear of displeasing a Father for the same Men in the same places say That such a fear does not vitiate the consent or make a Nullity Now all the fear pretended by Gallina in our Case was from her Father Secondly If the fear arise from the many and severe Threats of a Father yet this cannot make the consent involuntary and so a Nullity I confess that if a Father should Command and Threaten his Daughter to Marry an impious and unworthy Person the Law will warrant her disobedience for in that Case she is not by Law bound to obey her Father's commands or threatnings But in our Case no such indignity or incapacity of Patrimoniale's person is complain'd of or so much as pretended for a cause why Gallina's consent should be involuntary and the conjugal contract a Nullity Now if this be true and the Law it self says it That tum solum dissentiendi a Patre licentia Filie conceditur cum indignum moribus aut turpem sponsum ei Pater eligat If the Law allow a Daughter to disobey her Father's commands proposing a Huband to her only in such Case then if he chuse and propose a Person better qualified and no way unworthy of her and give his consent and command that she shall marry him as the matter of Fact was in our Case then she is bound to obey him For if it be Lawful for a Daughter to disobey her Father onely when he proposes and unworthy Husband then when he proposes one worthy she is bound to obey him Seeing then the Husband propos'd to Gallina by her Father was no way unworthy of her but she bound upon her Father's consent and command to marry him it follows Thirdly That her actual marrying him upon her Father's command and fear to displease him was an act of filial Obedience and Duty and therefore could not possibly vitiate her consent and make the conjugal contract involuntary invalid and as pretended a Nullity Nay Fourthly 't is certain that a Father hath a just Authority by the Law of God and Nature to consider and judge what is good for his Children and not only to command their Obedience but to use Threats and Menaces yea and Castigations and Whippings too to make them do their Duty and obey his just commands so our Heavenly Father commands us to obey his Laws useth Menaces threatens Death and Damnation if we do not and these Means he has appointed Threatnings as well as Promises to make us willing to do what he commands our Duty And therefore to say that such Paternal Commands and Threatnings whether of our Heavenly or Earthly Parents can be a just ground to make our consents to such commands involuntary which he has ordain'd to make us give a willing and voluntary Obedience is to Blaspheme his infinitely wise Providence and to say that the means which he has appointed to produce a willing and voluntary consent in us to obey his Commands and do our Duty has a necessary and contrary effect and makes them involuntary So that it being granted that Gallina's Father commanded her to marry Patrimoniale and to make her to do it added many and severe Threatnings for fear of which she did and without them would not have done it marry him this may prove that in those circumstances and to avoid her Father's displeasure she willingly made that conjugal contract but neither is not can be any ground to prove that her consent was involuntary and so the contract in valid as is pretended and a Nullity Fifthly And this may further appear that such Actions are not involuntary by the consent of Christendom thus In the Primitive Church and times of Persecution some Christians suffer'd Imprisonment and many Torments for their Religion yet at last for fear of Death threatned by their Pagan Persecutors they offered Incense in the Idol Temple and yet all those Imprisonments Torments and Threatnings of Death did not make that act of theirs Involuntary for then it had not been Sin peccatum utique non est peccatum nisi sit voluntarium and yet the Church and Christian World judg'd it to be a great Sin and Ecclesiastical Punishments and long Penances were imposed on them for it as appears by the for it as appears by the Antient and approved Canons Now if all these Sufferings and Fears of present Death did not make their act of Sacrificing in a Pagan Temple Involuntary then neither will the like if any such had been make Gallina's act of marrying in a Christian Church involuntary nor consequently invalid and a Nullity Sixthly But let it be further granted that Gallina was unden very great force and fear from her Father as is pretended and that that force and fear was of such a Nature and Degree as the Canon and Civil Laws judge sufficient to make a conjugal contract invalid and a Nullity Yet seeing in this case Idem est non esse non apparere till this do legally appear by just proofs no judge can as least none should give sentence for a Nullity nor can Mr. Cottington with any Security Quiet or Peace of Conscience Co-habit with her as with his legal Wife And in this and such other Matrimonial Cases of Nullity and Divorce our