Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	bishop_n	pope_n	rome_n	4,981	5	6.4624	4	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

voluerunt enim opinor viri prudentes ut illae quoties mentionem sui fieri audirent ex adjuncto viri nomine se viris obnoxias esse meminissent 6. The Statute by Compaigne intended Sociam Thalami non Throni And in the same sense is the word Companion used in Scripture Cant. 1.15 It is said Behold thou art fair my Companion thou art fair And Mal. 2.14 Yet is she thy Companion and the Wife of thy Covenant In both which places the word Companion signifies the Companion of the Bed and not of the Throne Non bene conveniunt nec in una sede morantur Majest as Amor Nulla fides regni sociis omnisque potestas Impatiens consortis erit Of the like false Translation of the Scriptures by the Bishops of the Hebrew words Shegal and Gibhira into the English word Queen Scripture false translated by Bishops in the word Queen Psal 45.9 Is thus falsly translated Vpon thy right hand did stand the Queen in Gold of Ophir Whereas the Hebrew is only Shegal which signifies no more than Conjux or Wife from Shagal Coivit Concubuit and is no more than a Woman that hath been lain with by her Husband In like manner 1 King 15 13. 2 King 10.13 are false translated Queen the Hebrew word being Gibhira which signifies no more in French than Madame as in the Statute nor in Latin than Hera or Domina nor in English than Lady or Mistress And the Antient Hebrews and many other Nations did no more allow the Title of Queen except to a Queen Regnant than as is already said did the Saxons or Scots for Regina is derived à Regendo and is only proper to Gynarchies and imports none but the Supreme Governess of a Kingdom by which Title Queen Elizabeth was called Neither had Saul or David any Queens but onely Wives nor Solomon himself in all his Royalty of his thousand Wives any Queen for 700 are onely called in the Septuagint 1 King 11.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no more than Feminae Principes in Latine and Chief Women in English And the other 300 which are falsly translated Concubines as I have elsewhere at large shewed are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie no more in Latine than Juvenculae and in English than the honest name of Young Women Neither was he the Son of a Queen for his Mother wheresoever she is named is onely called plain Bathsheba as 1 King 1.5 And Bathsheba went in unto the King into the Chamber and the King was very old And verse 28. Then King David answered and said call me Bathsheba and she came into the Kings presence and stood before the King And 1 Chron. 3.5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem Shimeah and Shobah and Nathan and Solomon four of Bathsheba the Daughter of Ammiel That the Bishops have likewise falsly translated all in the Scripture relating to Marriage and Filiation is proved before at full Lib. 2. p. 142. usque ad p. 162. And in other matters as is assirmed by that great Linguist Doctor Broughton Old Testament false translated by Bishops in 848. places The Lady Mother of the Kings Eldest Son was Madame sa Compaigne intended in this Statute they have false translated the Old Testament in no less then 848. places Now that this Lady-Mother was Madame sa Compaigne which are both the words and intention of the Statute is so known as need not be proved by Witnesses For she had the honour to be Primus Amor the first Lady Companion of the Prince the Raies of whose Favour cast upon her made the Lustre of those Graces rarely conjoined in the same person the more illustrious for she was a Virgin and not praepossessed by another She was a Protestant and not a Papist She was a Native and not a Strange Woman She was a Subject and not Imperious In her were conjoined Beauty with Chastity Greatness with Humility Treasure with Frugality Fidelity with Adversity Though she did not reign with him to be called Queen she suffered with him and was partaker of all his troubles no bloudy Wars no Seas no Foreign Countries could fright her from him But as if the Soul of that sacred Queen Eleanor the Companion of the famous Edward I. in his Wars to the Holy Land had transmigrated into her Body she led the Pilgrimage of her life with him whithersoever he travelled and though she had no Crown in her Life she was faithful to Death and beyond Death left him such a pleadge of affection as is hoped by Gods mercy will indear her memory to all Protestants in the three Kingdoms which will evince to all except the Malicious That she was Madame sa Compaigne the Lady his Companion mentioned and intended in this Statute which is sufficient and as much as is necessary to be proved Object 2 Object 2. That she was not married according to the Mass-Book Common-Prayer Book of Canons or Ordinance of Parliament or by a Priest in a Temple therefore the Eldest Son is not within this Statute Answ Marriage by the Common Prayer Book not necessary within the Statute Answ 1. There is neither the word Marriage Mass Book Common-Prayer Book Book of Cannons or Ordinance of Parilament Priest or Temple named in the Statute therefore being not expressed they are not to be intended in so wise a Statute which minded substance and not Ceremonies and Safety of the Royal Blood and not Insecurity and Incertainty 2. Admit the Statute had in express terms said our Lady his Companion married by the Mass-book which was the Book then in Fashion at time of this Statute yet none will deny but when by a succeeding Power this Mass-Book was abolished or changed Marriage by the Common-Drayer-Book not necessary in time of War as in the time of H. 5. the Service Book of Pauls was changed into the Service Book of Salisbury that none need to marry according to it Then as to the Common-Prayer and Book of Cannons at the time of the Princes taking his Lady Companion it is known that both Mass-Book Common Prayer Book Book of Cannons and all were abolished by the then Power of the Sword and it might have been Death for a Prince to have married by a Book of Common-Prayer or in Publick Is any Protestant then so imprudent as to expect in such a time and place of War and the Usurping Power provailing in their contrary Ordinances and threatning death and destruction to all who opposed them that such who were in those dangers should publickly and with Rites and Ceremonies by a Priest Temple and Altar solemnize a Marriage or can any be so sensless as when in the time of King John Pope Innocent Marriage by the Common-Prayer Book not necessary in time of Interdiction Papal or Potentatical the French King and English Bishops conspired together and the Pope Excommunicated and Interdicted the King and whole Kingdom of England for the space

Cohabitation 3. No lawful Impediment why the Parties should not Marry 4. Chastity and Children 5. Length of time and no Judicial Questioning and Sentence to the contrary while alive 7. Promise of Marriage 8. Acknowledgment by the Father of the Children either by word or writing or by giving them Aliment and Education as Children As to the First Fame and Reputation which are Voces opinio Vulgi are an usual Presumption of Marriage As to the Second The Cannon Law it self Jus Pontificium praesumit ex diuturna Cohabitatione filium esse Legitimum Craig Feud 270. Cohabitation for any time is so high a Presumption of Marriage as it Legitimates the Son And amongst the Old Romans one of their chief ways of Lawful Marriage without Ceremony of Priest or Temple was Vsus that is Cohabitation and Conjugal Society for the space of a year and this was reputed so considerable a time as it made a Marriage by Prescription As to the Third which is where there is no Lawful Impediment nor the Parties are prohibited by the Law of God to Marry this makes a presumption of Marriage because it was no Sin for them by the Law of God to Marry As to the Fourth cause of Presumption which is Chastity and Children where all the Circumstances concur of Lawful Marriage as Cohabitation no Lawful Impediment Chastity of the Lady Children and acknowledgment by the Father of the Children to be his these are not only the strongest presumptions which can be made of a Lawful Marriage but are of themselves as is fully proved in the following Discourse without any Ceremony a Marriage Lawful Holy and Indissoluble As to the Fifth cause of presumption which is no Judicial Questioning and Sentence against the Marriage in the space of Thirty years in which time all Witnesses may be Dead and Writings lost or burnt the same is so high as by the Laws of the Land and of all Nations no proof ought to be admitted to the contrary nor no questioning now to be permitted of the same because it is beyond the time of Limitation of Actions and the peace and security of all Families and Kingdoms must be destroyed should Witnesses be required Thirty years after of all such Marriages as have not been Judicially question'd and sentenced in all that time As to the Sixth cause of presumption which is the Death of either Party without being Judicially question'd or sentenced while alive This by the Law of God and of the Land is so high a presumption for the Parents and so necessary justice for the Children That no Probation ought to be admitted to the contrary nor ought or can the Legitimation of the Child be question'd after the Death of either Parent yea though the Marriage of the Parents were Unlawful as if a man Marry his own Sister which is a far more Unlawful Marriage than to Marry without a Papal or Episcopal Ceremony and have Issue by her if she die before a Judicial hearing and sentence pass'd against her her Children are Inheritable and their Legitimation can never be question'd for she that is Deceased cannot be Summon'd before any Humane Tribunal And if Sentence should be there pass'd against her she is condemn'd without Hearing and therefore that the Children ought to be Legitimate and Inheritable hath been resolved by the Parliament it self as may appear Bro. Deraignement 5. Bro. Bastardy 23.44 24 H. 8. 39 E. 3.32 And it is for the same reason very clear That if Queen Katherine the Wife of H. 8. had died before Judicial Sentence pass'd against her the Legitimation of his Daughter by her who was afterwards Queen Mary could never have been question'd and should the Legitimation of the Royal Lines of England Scotland and Ireland or any other Kingdom in the World be permitted to be question'd after the Death of one or both of the Parents It is impossible but all certainty and security of the Successions to them must be utterly destroyed As to the Seventh cause of presumption which is presumption of a Promise of Marriage to shew which all the foremention'd circumstances concur and though the Ecclesiasticks of Scotland keep the people under sufficient servility of their Ceremonies of Marriage yet even thereby the Laws of the Land doth promise of Marriage without any Proclamation of Banns or other Ceremony both Endow the Mother and Legitimate the Children as appears Craig Feud 269.270 As to the last Cause of Presumption which is Filiation not only the Civil Law but the Law of God in the Scripture Legitimates every Son and makes him Heir to the Father who begot him either of a Primogenial or Filial Portion except of Inheritance intail'd to a former Wife as was that of Abraham to Sarah and whether this Probation of Filiation is made by the Son or Father as in the Civil Law is said Filium alicujus se esse probans videtur probare se esse Legitimum § Et ib. ad Marg. de Adopt who proves himself a Son to any proves himself Legitimate And by the same Law such as are proved Children are Legitimated though there were no Ceremonies of Marriage Authen Collation 6. Novella 174. Tit. 3. quibus modis Natur. cap. primo Siquis 3530. And the Scripture is Positive in the point Rom. 8.17 If Children then Heirs Et Gal. 4.7 If a Son then an Heir 5. To return again to other Laws of the Land besides those of Presumptions It is not necessary to prove a Lawful Marriage by proving Ceremonies But all Marriage is declared Lawful whether with or without Ceremonies by the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Law of the Land which is not Prohibited by the Law of God as appears by the 32 Art of the 39 Articles Roger's Articles p. 185. 187 188. as shewn more at large in the Discourse following and likewise in the Statute 32 H. 8. cap. 38. of Precontracts wherein there is this Clause And that no Reservation or Prohibition God's Law except shall Trouble or Impeach any Marriage without the Levitical Degrees Whereby it is clear that this Marriage being without the Levitical Degrees and not Prohibited by the Law of God ought not by the express words of the Act of Parliament to be troubled or impeach'd by any Humane Law whatsoever Ecclesiastical or Temporal Which said Act of Parliament except as to matter of Pre-contracts stands unrepealed to this Day and of full force And the Reasons of the said Act are expressed in the Preamble of the same to be because the Usurped Power of the Bishop of Rome hath always intangled and troubled the meer Jurisdiction and Regal Power of this Realm of England and also unquieted much the Subjects of the same by his Usurped Power in them and by making that Unlawful which by God's Word is Lawful both in Marriages and other things 6. They whom no Law of the Land makes Illegitimate are Legitimate by the Law of the Land But no Law of the Land either

of six Years three Months and fourteen Days before the Interdiction could be bought off Neither payment of vast sums of Money and the laying down his Crown Scepter Mantle Sword and Ring at the feet of Pandolfus the Popes Legat and making his Kingdom tributary to Rome during all which time of Interdiction there was no Church open for Marriages or Burials but People were buried like Dogs in Ditches and where they married God knows And in the latter times of Potentates of Interdiction of the Common-Prayer Book and Marriage by it can any I say be so sensless as to censure in such a time those who were excluded from all Mass-Books Common-Prayer Books Priests and Temples if they make use of Gods Ordinance and not of the Priests and married without them 3. There is another Circumstance in this Case which makes it both Unlawful and Impossible to question the Validity of this Marriage because without Mass-Book or Common-Prayer or Ordinance of Parliament for the Lady Mother The Mother being dead the Legitimation of the Child not to be questioned who was the Royal first Companion is now dead And by Law of God and Man none ought to be Censured without hearing and answering for her self which now is impossible for who knowes if Question'd while alive What besides the necessities of War she could have alledged both as to the Fact and Law what Matrimonial Promises or Contracts Verbal or in Writing what Matrimonial Trusts what Witness what Evidence she could have produced For which reason even by our own Laws as appears 39 E. 3.32 If a man Marry his own Sister which is a very unlawful Incestuous Marriage and contrary to the Law of God and hath Issue by her and she dyes if not Judicially Questioned and Sentenced for it in her Life-time the Legitimation of her Issue shall not be questioned after her death because she was not Summon'd to answer while alive Of which see more before in the Preface So Littleton himself though he is much Devoted to the Service of the Laws and Religion of his Holy Father the Pope concerning Marriages yet he confesses Sect. 399.340 That if the Legitimation of a Child is not question'd while alive his Heir shall never be questioned after he is Dead And if a man Marry his Sister and hath Children by her if one Parent dye though Incest the Children are Legitimate 39 E. 3.32 But in this Case where there is no Incest nor any other matter in the least prohibited by the Law of God nor pretence or colour of any but the omission of a Petty Ceremony of a Common-Prayer-Book a human Law and that in a time of War too when abolished to violate the Sanctuary of the Sepulcher and the Deceased seems not only Unchristian but Barbarous How unlawful the Desertion of a Virgin is while alive hath been already shew Lib. 1. p. 88. But far more unlawful is the Desertions of her Children after her Death And how Unlawful Divorce of her is after Procreation of a Child hath been already shewn Lib. 1. p. 94. But far more Unlawful is the Divorce of the Dead Oh ye Romish Monsters ye are more Cruel than Death for death it self Divorceth not quoad praeterita Death a Divorce but no Dissolving of Marriage quoad praeterita but only quoad futura Death it self Nulls not but only Dissolves the Marriage No Dragon but that of the Seven Heads hath a Retrospect in repeal of Lawes No Wolves but those in Sheeps-clothing with their howles disturb the blessed Dead Act of Confirmation of Marriage to persons in Hostility by Ordiance of Parliament ought to have Confirmed Marriages of those who were not in Hostility 4. By the Statute 12 Car. 2.33 It is Enacted That all Marriages by pretence or colour of any Ordinance of Parliament since May 1642. which was during the Times of the War and Usurpation shall be adjudged of the same force and effect as if they had been solemnized according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England which is according to the Common Prayer-Book This ACT therefore though it give and intend Right and Justice to those who had been in Hostility and doth take away all Cavils and Scruples might after have arisen concerning the Ordinance Marriage and Legitimation and Succession of Children Yet did it not intend such as were Friends should be left in a worse condition as to their Marriages and Children than those to whom they had given the benefit of this Act or that there should only a Balm be provided for the Wounds of one party and those of the other who were more necessitated to receive them be left bleeding without any for the Royal Party could then neither Marry by the Common Prayer-Books which the Sword had abolished nor according to the Ordinance of Parliament not daring to approach their Quarters Act confirming Marriage according to Ordinance of Parliament ought to have Confirmed Marriage according to the Ordinance of God or to be publickly Banned at Church or Market-Cross Especially Persons of Eminency to Expose themselves to such a Snare as might intrap them and indanger their Lives It was not therefore the Intention of the Protestants in this Parliament That this Act of Confirmation of Marriages should have been partial and only to Confirm one Party but rather to have been as the Act of Confirmation of Judicial Proceedings made in the same Year was general to all Parties and to have Confirmed all Marriages in general made since May 1642. not contrary to the Moral Law of God to be of the same force and effect as if they had been Solemnized according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England or the Common Prayer-Book It is an old Rule that Favores sunt ampliandi Favours are to be inlarged and not restrained and it might be happy for many Families who have Suffer'd for his Majestie in time of the Wars if such a general Act of Confirmation of Marriages then made not contrary to the Moral Law of God were yet Enacted and the Favour not Restrained only to Marriages made by Ordinance of Parliament For as to those many Papists who had free Liberty to Live in the Parliament Quarters when the Royal Party had not took advantage of and first Married before Justices of Peace and after by their own Priests It is not Equal therefore that Protestants that could not have that Safety which Papists had or if they could thought it perhaps against their Conscience to Marry according to the Forms prescribed by Ordinance of Parliament should be Excluded from all Favour or Excuse to the Marriages of themselves and Successions of their Children which is by this Act given to the Marriages and Children of these who were in Hostility and of Papists themselves There was likewise another ACT made 29 Car. 2. 1677 for the Naturalizing of Children of his Majesty's English Subjects born in Forreign Countreys during the Late Troubles

Wife of God's making shall by him be call'd though he false Translate Scripture for it Concubine and Whore And a Whore and Adulteress of the Bishops making shall be call'd a Wife of God's making of which Episcopal Abuses to get Money I shall only cite one Practique in Scotland and after some others in England Craig Feudorum Fo. 230. saith Memini Robertum Magistrum de Semphil Patrem Roberti nunc Principem illius familiae cùm ex concubinatu Joannae Hamiltoniae hunc ipsum filium suscepisset ei impensè faveret in Articulo Mortis cù sibi decedendum videret ad Aedem sacram se in Lecticâ deferri curaret ibique nuptiis solemniter peractis cùm domum rediisset Octavo pòst die fatis concessisse Ex quo subsequente Matrimonio licet in Lecto agritudinis in quo Decessit solemniter peracto filius antea susceptus non minùs in Haereditate successit quàm si ex legitimo Matrimonio natus fuisset I remember that Robert the Master of Semphil Father of Robert now chief of that Family when he had begotten him by his Concubine Madam Joane Hamilton and intirely loved him He being at point of Death when he saw himself past hopes caused himself to be carried to the Holy Church in a Litter and there the Ceremonies of Marriage being solemnly perform'd when he was brought back again to his House he died eight dayes after from which subsequent Marriage although in the bed of Sickness wherein he deceased the Son begot before did as Lawfully succeed to the Inheritance as if he had been begot in Lawful Matrimony And why should not the Lady have been call'd Wife but Concubine and the Son have succeeded without so barbarous a Ceremony as hurrying a Dying Man to a Priest and a Temple when he was gasping for another world to get a Wife in this an Act more proper to hasten his Death and Burial than Marriage and to have been abhorred by all Dutiful Children had they not been compell'd by the Tyranny of such Popish Ecclesiastical Laws as to the Dishonour of the two so Renown'd Protestant Kingdoms in Great Britain are Tolerated to prey worse than Death on them and their Posterity But of the false Translations of Scripture by Bishops in all other words related to Marriage see more at large Lib. 2. cap. 1. 142 ad 162. Of certain differences between a Wife of the Bishop's making and Wife of God's making which make the first neither within the Law of God nor the Statute There 's no Protestant Nation in Christendom wherein the Jurisdiction usurped by Bishops is so high and Extravagant in making other Mens Wives and Children for them as in England 1. The first difference between a Wife of the Bishop's making and of God's making is The former lets herself to Hire to him who will give most Jointure Dower or Thirds for her but the latter doth neither buy nor sell her Husband but he keeps his own and she hers both Money Goods and Lands Concerning mercenary Marriages Vid. Lib. 1. cap. 6.113 Vsque ad 118. 2. A Wife of the Bishops making hath Power to Steal and Esloigne all her Husband's Substance and to put it into the hands of his Enemies for her own use and he can have no account against her because as is already shewn Lib. 1. p. 70. The Bishop by his Sacrament of Marriage hath Transubstantiated two persons into one person but the Wife of Gods making is under account and nothing keeps a Steward Faithful but Account 3. The Wife of the Bishops making hath Power given her by the Benediction of a Priest in a Temple if she is not able her self to hire unknown persons with her Husbands Goods to Rob Beat and Disseise her Husband and Esloigne his Goods and no remedy against her But a Wife of Gods making though she hath Gods Benediction which is above the Priests hath no such power but there 's remedy against her 4. The Wife of the Bishops making hath Power to lay all her secret and unknown debts true and feigned by her Confederates and as many as she will on her husband and to undo him and no remedy against her 5. The Wife of the Bishops making hath Power by the Benediction of a Priest in a Temple to commit as many Trespasses either with Tongue or hand truly or by Confederacy with complices as often as she pleases making her husband pay Damages till undone and he hath no remedy 6. A Wife of the Bishops making hath full Power by virtue of the said Benediction to hire Adulterers with her Husbands Goods and Money to get Children to succeed to them and he has no remedy Adulteresses protected and the Son of an Adulterer made Heir before the Lawful Child of the Husband by Episcopal Certificat 7. A Wife of the Bishops making if she hath a Daughter by her Husband and Elope and run away from him with another man and hath Issue by her New Companion the Adulterer her Eldest Son this Son of the Adulterer shall be Heir to the Husbands Inheritance though he were the greatest Peer in the Land Yea though he had an Elder Daughter before of his own begetting by her As appears 7 H. 4. fo 9. Where the Case was That Julian took to Husband John de C. in the County of York and was Married at Fleetsham and the said John had Issue by her W After the said Julian Eloped and went into the County of N. and it being not Felony in those daies took to Husband W. B. and he had Issue by her W. her Eldest Son who after sued to be Heir to John and the true Heir of John objected against him the Elopement of his Mother ●●dian and his being begotten by the Adulterer and not by John On which Justice Rikhill gives Judgment That if John were within the Four Seas at the time of the begetting of W. then W. was the Son and right Heir-Male of John The Calf his whose Cow is Bull'd by anothers Bull. And of this he giveth a good Lusty Reason For saith he who that Bulleth my Cow the Calf is mine And my Lord Coke Com. 244 doth on the Margin refer to this Authority of Justice Rikhill and agrees with him as right as a Gun and adds over That no Proof ought to be admitted to the contrary and therein I think none will Envy Justice Rikhill or my Lord Coke who I think were within the Four Seas and never out to enjoy the Liberty of Conscience in disposing their own Goods how they please But there appears no Reason why they should deny the same Liberty of Conscience to all the rest of their fellow Subjects who live within the same Four Seas to dispose of their own Goods as they think Just neither ought they by so unequal a Sentence to have given away the Successions of True and Lawful Heirs without allowing them hearing or witnesses to those who are false and adulterous And

Right repeal it For Liberty and Propriety cannot consist with the Certificates of Bishops Marriage and Filiation not to be submitted to any Judges or Arbitrators except the Parties themselves or God 8. Certificates of Marriage and Filiation usurp the Power of Judgment of such Matters as cannot be submitted though the Parties assented to any Arbitrators or Judges but God himself or the Parties And this is very Judiciously delivered by West Symbol Tit. Compromise Arbitrement fo 165.6 That no causes Matrimonial are arbitrable lest men should separate those whom God hath joyn'd together If this is true as none but stupidity it self can be but sensible that the Laws of God cannot be submitted to the Arbitrement of Men what then becomes of all Episcopal Certificates of Marriage and Filiation unless they intend to fight against God himself Bishop who certifies ignorant both of Fact and Law 9. The Judge who makes the Certificate is totally Ignorant both of the Fact and Law which see already proved Lib. 2. p. 180. Herodotus tells of a Place in Lybia where the Children of Women who were common drew Lots before a Publick Assembly but whether the Assembly were Ecclesiastical it doth not appear of such whom their Mothers nominated and whom the Lot fell on what wise Children were these They knew them to be their own Fathers as infallibly no question as if they had try'd by the Witchcraft of a Seive and a pair of Shears and equally with a Bishop's Certificate only on the first they paid no Fees The blind Goddess being always found so just she will take none 10. The Case is false ●●ated as the state of the Question which is made is Whether A fuit Legitimo Matrimonio copulata when the intent is by the Bishops Certificate to Null the Marriage whereas this Question as to Nulling the Marriage is impertinent for every Prohibited Marriage is not Null or Nullable but may be notwithstanding 't is Prohibitum be Indissolubile 11. 'T is stated Illegitimum Matrimonium in General Illegitimum Prohibitum illegitimum in se and doth not say whether Illegitimum Prohibitum or Illagitimum in se each of which will fall under clean different Considerations one from another And that to teach that any Illegitimum Prohibitum in Marriage is unlawful which is not Illegitimum in se is the Doctrine of Devils as is already proved Lib. 1. p. 52. The state of the Question ought to be whether Son or no Son which is Matter of Fact and not whether Legitimate or not Legitimate which is Matter in Law 12. The true state as to Filiation being to be the question Whether Son or no Son 't is false stated and false named Whether Bastard or whether Legitimate or not Legitimate where it hath been proved at large Lib. 1.79 That there 's no such word or thing as Legitimate or Illegitimate amongst the ancient Lawyers or in Rerum naturâ till Popery And Lib. 2. p. 146. and 156. That there was no such word or thing as Bastard in the whole Scripture or amongst the ancient Lawyers or Divines until the Popes and Bishops falsly Translated the Scriptures As to the word Mamzer which signifies no more than Alienigena and Nothus which signifies no more than Fictus into the forementioned Scurrilous word of their own unclean Invention Certificate of the Bishop Nonsense Certificate of the Bishop Nulls all Marriage Prohibited contrary to the Law of England and Scotland 13. Their Certificate as to Marriage Per verba de Praesenti is Nonsence which see already proved Lib. 1. p. 84. 14. The Certificate distinguisheth not between Marriage Prohibited and Null but Nulls every Marriage Prohibited and barbarously Illegitimates every Child born of the same which is already proved Lib. 1. p. 110. to be contrary to the Law of God and the Law of England and may likewise appear to be contrary to the Law of Scotland by an Act of Parliament there made Sess 2. Par. 2. Car. 1. Act. 22. against Clandestine Marriage which Act Prohibits and punisheth those who are Married without Banns or by Josuits or Popish Priests and layes Fines or every Nobleman so offending of Five Thousand Pounds and on every Gentleman or Burgess of one Thousand Marks but neither English nor Scotch make such Prohibited Marriages void nor Nulls them nor Illegitimates their Children neither can any Humane Law Null that Marriage which the Moral Law of God makes valid nor separate those whom the same Law Prohibits not to Marry though the Law of Man doth when God hath joyned them by Procreation and Birth of a Child Propriety in Parents and Children destroyed by Bishops Certificates 15. The Episcopal Certificate destroys all Propriety the Father hath in his Children and the Children have in their Father For by the Law of God and Nature there 's no way of acquiring Propriety in Children but by begetting of them This is Plain in the Scripture in all the Genealogies there mentioned And in the Fact of Adultery of David with Vriah's Wife where the Child who was begotten in Adultery is plainly made by the Scripture the Child of David though the Now Episcopal Certificate would make it the Child of Vriah And worthily may such be said to be ignorant of all Laws of acquiring Propriety in Children who pretend because the Propriety of another man's Lambs and Kids may by Contract of his own Wife be made his therefore the Propriety of another man's Children may likewise by her Contract be made his and because Quicquid plantatur seritur vel inaedificatur omne solo cedit And Judge Rikhill as before-mentioned will not only have the like accession of another man's Bull to his Cow to make the Calf to be his but likewise to be his Cow and himself to be not only the Owner but the Father of such Calf The Ignorance of all Law in Certificates therefore blindly subverts the Fundamental of all Acquisition of Propriety by the Father in begetting No wonder if they destroy the Propriety of the Children in the Father though begotten by him and make them Nullius filii and again forces a Child on him who is not the Father to be his Heir whether he will or no and robs him of his Inheritance Neque enim aequum non consentienti haeredem alium dare Craig 267. Certificates of Bishops deprive Infants of Aliment and destroy them 16. The Certificate of the Bishop exposeth Infants to be destroyed and deprives them of all Aliment from the Father who begot them For by making the Father who begot them to have no Propriety in them nor they in him and the Children to be Nullius filii all Obligation is taken off from the Father and he 's made worse than an Infidel not to provide for his own Children either by Aliment while alive or Succession after his death The true Children are disinherited by the Adulterous on Certificates 17. The Certificate starves and

great Slander Peril and Disherison of such Children which untrue slanderous report of Holy Matrimony doth not only redound to the high dishonour of Almighty God but also to the King's Majesties dishonour and the High Court of Parliament and the Learned Clergy of this Realm who have determined the same to be most lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation as well by the Common consent as by the Subscription of their Hands and that most of all is to be lamented through such uncomely Railings of Matrimony and slanderous Reproaches of the Clergy the Word of God is not heard with Reverence followed with Diligence the Godly proceeding of the King's Majesty not received with due Obedience c. Banns required to the Marriage of the Clergy Provided always That this Act nor any thing therein contained shall extend to give Liberty to any Person to Marry without Asking in the Church or without Ceremonies according to the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments nor shall make any such Matrimony already made or hereafter to be made good which are Prohibited by the Law of God for any other cause The Protestant Clergy by these Acts thought themselves as secure as they do now But Queen Mary immediatly on King Edward's Death repealed this Law and made all the Married Clergy their Wives and Children Rogues Whores and Bastards From whence may be observed 1. That a Marriage and Legitimation which is lawful by the Law of God may be wickedly Slandered by Papists and by Papal and Episcopal Laws to be unlawful 2. It hath been already shewn that the Marriages of the Lady Mothers of King Edward the Sixth and of Queen Elizabeth and of the King 's eldest Son and the Legitimation of Children were and are lawful by the Moral Law of God but the same have been Slandered and still are by the virulent Tongues of Papists 3. That these wicked Slanders of the Legitimation of the King 's eldest Son do produce not only the same evil Effects which the Statute declares to insue from the Slander of the Legitimation of the Sons of the Clergy but greater and more dangerous 4. That the final Cause why the Papists and their Laws Slander the Legitimation of the King 's eldest Son and of all the Sons of the Protestant Clergy is the same which is because they would seize on their Inheritance or Estate and divide the Spoil amongst the Papists 5. It is well known that the Inheritances and Estates of the Descendents of the Protestant Spirituallity and Clergy in which Body are included all Spiritual Persons Doctors of the Civil Law exercising Spiritual Jurisdiction Church-men Ministers all persons within Orders are great and numerous through the Three Kingdoms who will all Suffer if a relapse to Popery 6. That their Wives and their Descendents which have Married have been obnoxious ever since the Time of Reformation the first to Consiscation of their Dowers Jointures and Thirds The other to Illegitimation and thereon Confiscation of their Inheritances Lands and Goods The Law which forbid the Clergy to Marry was made by Pope Nicholas the First to wicked intents which have been before already shewn the Clergy and their Wives and Children are likewise left obnoxious to the same by the Proviso mentioned which requires Banns to make lawful the Marriage of the Clergy but they usually have none but are Married by Licences which makes them likewise obnoxious to the very Letter of the Act which if there should happen a Papist Successor he may take advantage thereof without a Repeal or Repeal the Act and so take advantage either way which he will Let not the Protestant Clergy therefore nor the Bishops be deceived or vainly flatter themselves that they can compound or lay the Obligation of an Oath or an Act of Parliament on a Papist Successor if any happen to be nor think he will lose so infinite heaps of Treasures as this point of the Marriage of the Clergy and the Illegitimation of their Descendents will by Confiscations of all the Jointures Dowers Thirds of all the Archbishops Bishops and inferiour Clergies Wives and of the Successions of their Posterities in the Three Kingdoms will bring into his Treasury Therefore certainly if a Papist Successor happen there will be no living for a Married Clergy-man in England it will be Heresie sufficient to Burn him if he is Married and a cause sufficient will be his Estate and for Provision his Wife must expect none unless like the Indian Wife she Burn with him in hope to find it in another World Queen Mary Illegitimated and Destroyed all the Wives and Children of the Protestant Clergy notwithstanding they were Legitimated by Act of Parliament They need look no further for an Example than of Queen Mary who was a Papist Successor to the Protestant Act of King Edward her Brother who though he confirmed the Marriages of the Clergy and the Legitimation of their Children by two Acts of Parliament left in their highest Vigour and Power and though she had solemnly promised the Protestants without whose help she had not probably come to the Throne that they should injoy Liberty of Conscience yet as soon as ever she obtained the Kingdom she repealed her Brothers two Acts and made Whores of the Wives and Bastards of the Children of all the Protestant Clergy Married Burnt them and Confiscated their Estates And that Pious Martyr Archbishop Cranmer who was Married was Cruelly Burnt amongst the rest 7. There is no way to preserve the Marriages and Legitimations of the Protestant Clergy their Wives and Children from the destruction of a Papist Successor but to have Protection from a Protestant Successor of the Crown and to cast off this Papal Doctrine of Ceremonial Marriage and to teach the truth of Marriage according to the Moral Law of God which is the true Jus Coronae as hath been already shewn and makes the eldest Son of a Protestant King and himself a Protestant to be of the same Interest with the Sons of a Protestant Clergy and to ingage him by God's help to be his Instrument to defend them and the Protestant Religion Liberty and Propriety to the Glory of God and Comfort of the People Can therefore any of the Protestant Clergy be so imprudent as in their Doctrine to destroy the Holy Just True Ancient Eternal and Immutable Moral Law of God of Marriage and Legitimation to bring in the Unclean Adulterous Spurious Illegitimate Injust Lying Upstart new-fangled Ceremonial Laws of Priapusses and Popes and not understand they thereby Slander their own Mothers and Wives to be Whores their Daughters to be Bastards themselves and all their Sons to be Sons of Whores and Bastards Can they be so inconsiderate as to imagine that any Slander they shall raise against the Marriages of the Lady Mothers of Queen Elizabeth King Edward or the King 's eldest Son or the Legitimations of Queen Elizabeth her self King Edward or