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
admit the Jews into this Common-weal and of the conveniences and inconveniences of their admission he only and not the People is to judge and by a Law authorize their admission then as to the Subjects their admission is no more a thing of indifferency but necessity No more matter of Offence or Scandal but Obedience such as we who are Subjects should not dispute but obey So that if any Man take offence or be scandalized at it it will certainly be Scandalum acceptum non datum And so not the fault of the Magistrate but of the Men if there be any such who are irrationally offended And this will manifestly appear if we consider 1. The Magistrate in reference to the People under him 2. The People in reference to the Magistrate and in reference one to another 1. For the Magistrate as he stands in Relation to the People it is certain by virtue of that supreme authority with which he is entrusted he is to judge what things are convenient or inconvenient for the People 2 When after serious Debate and mature Deliberation all circumstances considered he shall really think and judge that this which before was indifferent and no way enjoyned is hic nunc best for the publick good then he justly may by his legislative Power enjoyn the doing of it and by a positive Law bring a just Obligation upon the Subjects to do accordingly 3. Nor is this all he not only may but is bound and if he will do his Duty must do so and that by the Law of Nature and from the very first Principles of his Duty and that Magistracy he is intrusted with for it being certain that Salus Populi suprema Lex est and by his great and sacred Office an Obligation lies upon him by all honourable and honest means to procure their good so far as in him lies if he see such things though at present indifferent would much conduce to the Publick Good if they were enjoyned and obey'd accordingly I say in this case if he do not command them he neglects his Duty and violates that sacred Obligation which binds him to it So in this present case if all things maturely considered he impartially judge the readmission of the Jews will really and indeed tend to the good of the Publick he is bound to readmit them and he should be wanting to his Duty in promoting the Interest and Good of the Common-weal if he should do otherwise 4. Nor is it possible that any Scandal or Offence taken by the People should be of that moment as to hinder him And the Reason of this is manifest because the Obligation of doing his Duty and procuring the Peoples Good lies so indispensably upon him that he must not omit it though they be never so much displeased seeing if it must be so that one party will be displeased it is far more rational to hazard the Peoples than Gods Displeasure For if he do it and the People be scandalized and offended at it that Scandal is only Scandalum acceptum groundless and on his part altogether causless But if he neglect his Duty and do it not God is really and justly offended So that in short if after all things considered the Wisdom of the State shall judge it convenient and beneficial for the Publick to readmit the Jews and we are bound in Charity to think that unless they judge so they will not admit them then they are in Duty bound to do it notwithstanding any Displeasure or pretended Scandal which their Subjects will or can conceive against them for so doing It being evident that no supreme Magistrate is to neglect the doing of his Duty or using his just and lawful Liberty and Authority in putting that in Execution which upon impartial judgment and deliberation he conceives convenient for the good of the Common-wealth It is I confess to be wished and heartily prayed for that all Men would with a charitable Opinion and obsequious Obedience rest satisfied with the deliberate resolutions and constitutions of their Magistrates really intended for the publick Good and no doubt all sober and moderate Persons will do so But this is rather to be wished than hoped for The understandings aimes and interest of Men being so different that supreme Governours in no Age or Country did ever satisfie all no not with their best Actions and therefore it is not to be expected now But this pretended Scandal and Dissatisfaction of some should in reason be no Remora or Hinderance to the Magistrate to go on and according to his best Skill and Judgment promote the Good of all And if this be not admitted it will unhinge and enervate all Governments whatsoever For the Command of no King ever pleased all his Subjects of no General all his Souldiers of no Fatherof a Family all his Children and Servants of no Schoolmaster all his Scholars and yet this never did or indeed should hinder any King or General or Father or Master to give Commands such as in prudence they thought convenient and being given to put them in Execution The truth is it were impossible for any Government to subsist if supreme Magistrates should make no Law or civil Sanction till all their Subjects were satisfied 5. And as evident Reasons may in this Case of readmitting the Jews be drawn for the Liberty which by the Law of Nature and Scripture is inherent in the supreme Magistrate's and his just Authority to determine of indifferent things to prove that he gives no Scandal in case he use that Liberty and Authority in readmitting and giving Priviledges such as in prodence he shall think fit to the Jews So there may be further Reasons drawn for the same purpose from the consideration of the Subjects in relation to the supreme Magistrate For as they stand in this Relation there lies an Obligation upon them by the Law of God and Nature to yield cheerful and willing Obedience to all the just Commands of their Governours as this undoubtedly is and then where Obedience is morally due Offence and Scandal is in vain pretended It is irrational and irreligious too to pretend Scandal for the neglect of my Duty and so evidently disobey God and my Governours upon pretence I am afraid so to do But enough if not too much of this He that would have more Reasons from the Nature of Scandal may find enough in the best Casuist of our Nation and may be of any Nation else where although his Discourse in Hypothesi be applied to other particulars and a different Case of Scandal from this now in question yet what he hath said there in Thesi is as applicable to this as that 6. Now concerning this Toleration of the Jews we may further enquire 1. What Power is to give this Toleration 2. In what things they are to give it 3. For what Reasons and Motives they are to do it 4. How far and with what Restrictions and Limitations this should be
not in some cases reprive or pardon some whom they had condemn'd Sure I am that David the best of Kings who knew the Jewish Laws as well as any did reprive Joab who had murder'd Amasa and Abner and delay'd the execution of the Law and left it to Solomon his Son who did accordingly put Joab to death 2. And as David reprived Joab so he pardon'd Absolon who had slain his Brother Amnon Nor does the Scripture any where impute the reprive of Joab or the pardon of Absolon to David as crimes or transgressions of the Law of Moses but rather declares him innocent when it is expressy said That David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and turned not aside from ANY THING that he commanded him ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE save ONLY in the matter of Uriah the Hittite Now if notwithstanding those Mosaical Penal Laws it was lawful for David the Supreme Power amongst the Jews to whom those Penal Laws were given and they bound to the observation of them I say if David might lawfully Reprive and Pardon Murderers how can it by those very Laws be unlawful for the Christian Supreme Power and Gentiles to whom those Laws were never given nor they ever under the obligation of them to reprive or pardon such condemned malefactors In short the sum of what I have said endeavour'd to prove and believe to be true is this 1. That there is no Law of God or Man which does prohibit and so make it unlawful for Supreme Princes to grant such Reprives and Pardons 2. That the end of all Penal Laws and of their due Execution is that the honour of our great and most Gracious God and his true Worship and Religion be preserved and Ne quid detrimenti capiat Respublica that the Commonwealth be not damnify'd by too usual and frequent granting pardons For too great Impunity will occasion and encourage Impiety 3. That all loyal and faithful subjects are bound and have good reason to believe that his Sacred Majesty as he is Gods immediate Vicegerent Defender of the Faith and whose greatest Interest it is to promote those good ends so he will carefully endeavour by a due Execution of our good Laws to attain those ends 4. That such Cases heretofore have and may again happen wherein the time persons and all other Circumstances duly consider'd a Reprive may not only be lawful but necessary And wherein a Pardon may conduce every way as much and possibly in some Cases more for attaining the good ends of Penal Laws as a perpetual severe and rigorous execution of them And of such Cases the King is the Supreme and sole Judge who if need be may call for and have The advice and counsel of any of his Subjects of whose prudence and piety he is well assur'd This is the sum and substance of what I have said at several times to several persons to confirm them in the belief and incourage them to a just vindication of His Majesties Legal Rights and undoubted Prerogative And what I have done in this was a duty I did owe to my Gracious Soveraign not only by common Allegiance as he is my King but in gratitude as to my Patron whose undeserved favour and goodness has plac'd me in the good Station wherein I am And therefore that God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless and preserve his Anointed from all the impious Plots and Conspiracies of all His enemies give Him a long and peaceable possession of a Temporal Crown here and an Eternal Crown of Glory hereafter is and shall while I live be the Prayer of Buckden Jan. 20. 1684. Your Affectionate Friend and Servant T. LINCOLN Mr. Cottington's Case CONCERNING The Validity or Nullity of his Marriage with Gallina her former Husband then living Anno. 1671. Mr. Cottington's Case A DOUBT OR Case of Conscience PROPOSED CASE THE FIRST 1. GAllina Marries Patrimoniale Anno. 1664. Lives and Cohabites with him as his Wife a year and a half has a Child by him a Daughter And all this while voluntarily gives him Reverence and due Benevolence Sine protestatione aut Querelâ without any protestation or complaint of any Nullity or Illegallity of the Matrimonial Contract by reason of any Antecedent Force or Fear to make her consent and plighted troth Involuntary never endeavours to recede and make an Escape from him when she was in Loco Tuto and had opportunity to make such Protestation or recess with safety 2. After this Anno. 1666. The Archbishop of Turine by sentence given pronounces the said Marriage Void and Null by reason of Force and Fear into which her Father put her which rendred Gallina's consent involuntary as was supposed and contrary to the nature of a Conjugall Consent which Jure Naturae ought to be free and spontaneous otherwise it will not be Obligatory 3. After this Anno. 1671 The said Gallina Marries Mr. Cottington her former Husband then Living and who is yet alive and at Law and in the Court of the Arches claims him for her Husband 4. The Court Sententiâ latâ Determines and Declares that Mr. Cottington and Gallina are lawfully Husband and Wife without taking notice of the Archbishop of Turin's Sentence whether it was valid or void and injoyn'd them to Co-habit 2. This is the Case and the Query is Whether Mr. Cottington after a just and serious consideration of the Premises may acknowledge take and use Gallina as a lawful Wife without Sin and so with a safe Conscience and without Danger or Fear of offending God with security to his Soul 3. This is the Case of Conscience in which my Opinion is desired which how insignificant soever it may prove yet in Obedience to the commands of that Excellent and Noble Person who requires it and Charity and Satisfaction to the doubting Gentleman and discharge of my own Duty as a Minister I shall willingly give it and plainly set down what at present I conceive truth in the Case and the reasons why I do so The Premises then as before set down being supposed true and as to matter of Fact granted with submission to the better Judgments of persons of greater Knowledg in Divinity the Common Canon and Civil Laws my answer is Negative That Mr. Cottington cannot with a safe Conscience and security from Sin acknowledg take and use Gallina as his lawful Wife And this seems to me not only a Probable but a certain and evident Truth That this may appear I consider 1. That 't is certain and confess'd that the Obligation of the Matrimonial contract is not grounded on any Positive constitution of Man but on the Divine Law of God and Nature For although the contract cannot be made without the positive consent of the Parties yet the consent once pass'd the Obligation to conjugal Duties ariseth immediately from the Law of Nature 2. Hence it is That this Matrimonial contract while the Parties live is
doubt not will be faithful in his Promises this secures me against such Fears and makes me willing to believe that the impious Popish Principles shall never be put in Execution in England Dirum omen qui solus potest averruncet Deus And because in these Times many who would be thought Wits and who by the Vanity and Loosness of their Principles have been tempted to malign the Clergy in general and have made the Priest-craft a Term in vogue it is thought seasonable to stop such Persons in their Career towards Atheism by letting them see from what Forge the virulent Expression of Priest-craft came Nor yet is this late Reverend Bishop's Testimony given in his Letter against the Rebellion of 41 fit to be conceal'd To … c. My Honoured Friend I Received yours and return what is most due for that and many more Civilities my hearty Thanks News here we have none and so I cannot requite your Kindness by sending you what you so kindly send me Intelligence You have seen I believe Machiavel's Works translated out of Italian or Latine in English which came out the last Year 1675. The Printer in the second Page says it was Licensed but tells us not by whom In the end of it there is a Machiavel's so 't is pretended in Vindication of his Writings That Letter indeavours two things 1. To magnify Democracy as the best Government and decry Monarchy 2. To decry the Clergy in general not only those of Rome as a sort of People so far from holy that they have nothing left of Integrity or Humanity He tells us of an execrable innate ill Quality inseparable from the Priest-craft and the Conjuration or Spell of their newnvented Ordination and would have them rooted out so as not one Sibra were left c. When t was printed by whose Authority or Advice I know not a considerable Piece one whole Leaf in Folio was left out which I have in MS. and do here enclosed send you a Copy of it The business of that Piece which is left out is to tell us what is not Rebellion so he pretends and if his Principles be true we have had no Rebellion in England this 40 Years My humble Service to your Neighbour and my honoured Friend I am in extreme haste and Q. Coll. Oxon. May 11 1676. Your affectionate Friend and Servant Tho. Lincolne Omitted out of Machiavel's Letter in Vindication of himself and his Writings between pag. 4 5. NOW having gone thus far in the Description of Rebellion I think my self obliged to tell you what I conceive not to be Rebellion Whosoever then takes up Arms to maintain the Politick Constitution or Government of his Country in the Condition it then is I mean to defend it from being changed or invaded by the Craft or Force of any Man altho it be in the Prince or Chief Magistrate himself Provided that such taking up of Arms be commanded or authorized by those who are by the Orders of that Government legally intrusted with the Custody of the Liberty of the People and Foundation of the Government this I hold to be so far from Rebellion that I believe it laudable nay the Duty of every Member of such Common wealth for he who fights to support and defend the Government he was born and lives under cannot deserve the odious Name of Rebel but he who endeavours to destroy it If this be not granted it will be in vain to frame any mixt Monarchies in the World yet such is at this Day the happy Form under which almost all Europe lives as the People of France Spain Germany Poland Sweedland Denmark c. wherein the Prince hath his Share and the People theirs which last if they had no means of recovering their Rights if taken from them or defending them if invaded would be in the same Estate as if they had no Title to them but lived under the Empire of Turkey or of Muscovy And since they have no other Remedy but by Arms and that it would be of ill consequence to make every private Man judg when the Rights of the People to which they have as lawful a Claim as the Prince to his are invaded which would be apt to produce frequent and sometimes causless Tumults therefore it hath been the great Wisdom of the Founders of such Monarchies to appoint Guardians to their Liberty which if it be not otherwise express'd is and ought to be understood to reside in the Estates of the Country which for that reason as also to exercise their Share in the Soveraignty as making Laws levying Monies are frequently assembled in all these Regions in Europe before mentioned These are to assert and mantain the Orders of the Government and the Laws Establish'd if it cannot be done otherwise to arm the People to defend and repel the Force that is upon them Nay the Government of Arragon goes farther and because in the Intervals of the Estates or Courts many Accidents may intervene to the prejudice of their Rights or Fueros as they call them they have during the Intermission appointed a Magistrate called Justitia who is by the Law and Constitution of that Kingdom to assemble the whole People to his Banner whenever such Rights are incroach'd upon who are not only justified by the Laws for such coming together but are severely punishable in case of Refusal So that there is no question but that if the Kings of Arragon at this day very powerful by the Addition of the Kingdom of Naples and of Sicily and the Union of Castile should in time to come invade their Kingdom of Arragon with the Forces of their new Dominions and endeavour to take from them the Rights and Priviledges they enjoy lawfully by their Constitution there is no question I say but they may tho their King be there in Person against them assemble under their Justitia and defend their Liberties with as much Justice as if they were invaded by the French or by the Turk for it were absurd to think since the People may be legally assembled to apprehend Robbers nay to deliver a Possession forcibly detained against the Sentence of some Inferiour Court that they may and ought not to bestir themselves to keep in Being and preserve that Government which maintains them in possession of their Liberty and Property and defends their Lives too from being Arbitrarily taken away But I know this clear Truth receives Opposition in this unreasonable and corrupt Age when Men are more prone to flatter the Lusts of Princes than formerly and the Favourites are more impatient to hear the Impartiality of Laws than the Sons of Brutus were who complained Leges esse surdas that is though they were fine Gentlemen in favour with the Ladies and Ministers of the King's Pleasure yet they could not Oppress Drink Whore nor Kill the Officers of Justice in the Streets returning from their Night-Revels but the Execution of the Laws would reach them as well as
Immutable and Indispensable and therefore Marriage in the Law is defin'd to be Maris Faeminae Conjunctio Divini humani Juris communicatio omnis vitae consortium 3. And hence it follows evidently That if the conjugall contract between Patrimoniale and Gallina was Matrimonium legittimum ratum a legall and valid marriage ab Origine and when it was made then it continues so both parties being yet living and was and still is valid and obligatory If it was a just and valid contract in 1664. it must continue and be so now in this year 1677. 4. And further if this be true and granted that Gallina's Marriage with Patrimoniale in 1664. was and to this day continues valid then her Marriage with Mr. Cottington Anno. 1671. is absolutely Null and to all intents and purposes void for first Impossibilium nulla est obligatio or contractus contra naturam bonos more 's initus est omnino nullus If Gallina's pre-contract and marriage to her former Husband was legal and valid when her subsequent Marriage with Mr. Cottington was an evident violation of the Law of Nature which indispensably oblig'd her to be Faithfull to her former Husband and of her Faith before Solemnly given to another and so absolutely Null and in it self Void Secondly It is consonant to Law and right Reason and a received rule in all contracts as well as Matrimonial Quod nemo potest alterâ parte invitâ a contractu semel perfecto recedere And therefore if Gallina's conjugal contract with Patrimoniale was perfect and legally valid she could not without manifest Injustice recede from it leave him and adhere to another Husband In Matrimony as generally in other contracts our consent in making them is and should be free and voluntary but when they are made their Obligation and our Observance of them is necessary So that if this be so if the Matrimonial contract between Patrimoniale and Gallina be legall and really valid then no power on Earth or de Jure can oblige Mr. Cottington to Co-habit with Gallina as with his Lawfull Wife seeing on the foregoing Hypothesis she is indeed Wife to another Man And if any though the Supreme Authority should command Mr. Cottington so to Co-habit with Gallina this were to require him to live in impious and abominable Adultery with another Man's Wife which as no Humane Power can justly command so neither Mr. Cottington nor any other can obey without wounding his Conscience and hazard of his Soul and Salvation T is active Obedience I mean for if such commands should come though we cannot do what 's requir'd yet we may and ought quietly to undergoe the punishment agere pati fortia Christianum est no Courage like that of a good Christian who will suffer any thing patiently from his Governour rather than sin against his God 2. The next Query will be concerning the Invalidity and Nullity of Gallina ' s Marriage with Patrimoniale For if it be indeed Null as it seems some do and would persuade others to believe then the Case is alter'd Mr. Cottington may and ought to Co-habit with Gallina as his lawfull Wife For if her first Marriage were indeed a Nullity then her second with Mr. Cottington will be lawfull and valid and he obliged to Co-habit with her as her undoubted Husband Now in the Case propos'd I find but two Mediums brought to induce a belief that Gallina's Marriage with Patrimoniale was a Nullity 1. The Authority and Judicial Sentence of the Archbishop of Turine declaring it to be a Nullity 2. The reason alledged on which it seems that sentence was grounded drawn from the Force and Fear which made Gallina's consent involuntary Now I conceive with submission to better Judgments that these Mediums are too weak and insufficient to give satisfaction to Mr. Cottington or to quiet his Conscience so as that he may without danger or doubting Co-habit with Gallina For if he should Co-habit with her and only doubt of the Lawfullness of it he certainly sins It is a received and certain rule amongst Casuists That quicquid fit reluctante vel dubitante conscientiâ est peccatum If may Conscience tell me 't is not or doubt whether the thing I do be good and Lawfull what ever it be I sin if I do it And that 's the meaning of that saying of the Apostle many times mistaken whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin That is whoever does any thing without a Moral Certainty that what he does is just and lawfull he sins in doing it Now concerning the former of those two Mediums the Archbishop's judicial Sentence in this Case it is to be consider'd That admit that Archbishop and the Pope too his Superiour and beyound Sea their supreme Judge had both concurr'd in giving the same Sentence and declared the Marriage of Patrimoniale and Gallina a Nullity yet seeing by the known and just Laws of England they have no Authority or Jurisdiction over any here 't is certain they can lay no Obligation on any English Men to approve or submit to such Sentence 2. Nor can such Sentence if the Pope and Archbishop had given it be any reason or just ground to warrant any Judge or Court in England to give the same Sentence in the same or the like Case or be any just bar or reason to hinder them to give the contrary Sentence All know that a Facto ad jus non sequitur Argumentum the Pope this or that Court or Council judg'd so ergo we must or may do so is evidently inconsequent In the Case of Hen. 8. and Queen Katharine the Pope in and with his Consistory judg'd that he had Power to give and actually gave a Dispensation to Marry Relictam Fratris his Brothers Wife and yet afterwards our own at home and abroad the greatest Universities in Christendom judg'd the quite contrary in their Convocations call'd for that purpose Nay our own Supreme Court the Parliament in Hen. 8. time Judg'd that Marriage to be against the Laws of God and in Queen Mary's time the Parliament by Publick Act declared that it was according to the laws of God The Sentences of that Supreme Court are contradictory and ergo one of them be which it may be is evidently Untrue and Erroneous and therefore can neither be a just Warrant for any in England to approve it or judg according to it or a just Bar or Let to hinder us to judge the Contrary Now if notwithstanding the respect and reverence we owe to that Supreme Court we may in this and many the like Cases disapprove its definitive Sentence and be of a contrary Judgment Then much more may we disapprove and be of a Judgment contrary to the definitive Sentence of the Archbishop of Turin who is in nothing our Superiour nor hath any Authority or Jurisdiction in England especially in a matter of Fact wherein neither