Exercise of the same for the Publick safety 1 In regard the Entail being made to the Eldest Son by Act of Parliament the same declares that what is given by Act of Parliament may be taken by Act of Parliament and that every former Act inacted may by a latter Act be repealed according to the known Rule Vnumquodque dissolvitur eodem modo quo conflatum est Secondly according to the General Examples of Acts of Parliament amongst which nothing is more common than for later Acts to change the Entails of the Crown made by former Acts. Thirdly This Power of Parliaments is expresly declared by Act of Parl. 13 El. 1. still in force by which it is enacted that to affirm that the Laws and Statutes do not bind the Right of the Crown and the Descent Limitation Inheritance and Governance thereof is High Treason Fourthly All the Reason alledged of the Antient Custom of New Election of the Successor on every Descent is only lest the Eldest Son should happen to be an Infant or otherwise unfit for Government that the Parliament might choose the fittest which here is satisfied in the Eldest Son who is above all exception known to be the fittest who can be chosen Fifthly though this reserve of Power remain naturally in Parliaments to repeal and change former Acts concerning Succession by new Acts when there is just and necessary cause yet it is necessary likewise there should be a praevious Act to mark out the Heir in whose name the Parliament shall be called to declare the Succession or Guardianship if he happen to be an Infant And what if after a King happens to die there happen a Rebellion or Invasion which makes it impossible to assemble a Parliament will it not be a great safety to the People that a standing Act of Parliament hath before hand appointed the Successor to take care of the Kingdoms till he can call a Parliament to give their assistance therein There is nothing therefore can be justly excepted against these two Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland for ascertaining by Law the Eldest Son to be Heir to the Crown The excellency of the two said Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland which ascertain the Succession of the Crown to the Kings Eldest Son But it were a great unthankfulness to the Providence of God to undervalue such Laws whereby all Accidents are obviated Questions and Doubts resolved and Objections answered by so few words as two Lines in each and the Peace of Succession preserved in Great Britain for so many hundred years which in other Empires and Kingdoms cannot be effected without those horrid Murders of Younger Brothers by Elder or Elder Brothers by Younger of lineal Heirs by collateral or collateral Heirs by lineal of Sons by Fathers or of Fathers by Sons whereby Civil Wars Devastations and Ruines of Kingdoms have ensued and that the want of such Statutes or the Breach of them have been causes of these Evils and Enjoyment of them hath been the Cure will I hope appear in the Objections and Answers following Objections first against the not being of the Kings Eldest Son within these Statutes answered Object Obj. 1. That the Lady his Mother was not a Queen therefore the Kings Eldest Son is not within the Statute Answ Statute false translated in the word Queen Answ To this the answer is easie and clear that the word Madame sa Compaigne are falsly translated our Lady his Queen and ought to have been translated our Lady his Companion which is proved by the Reasons following 1. Because 't is manifest sa Compaigne signifies not the word Queen in specie but any Lady Companion in general 2. Because it is manifest the makers of this Act of Parliament intended not to restrain their several meaning onely to a Queen for they knew Royne was French for Queen as well as Roy for King and if they had intended so could have more certainly and easily said Compas le mort nostre Seignior le Roy sa Royne than Madame sa Compaigne 3. Because at the time of making this Statute the famous Black Prince being the Eldest Son to Edward III. was married to Joan Daughter to Edmund Earl of Kent and had Issue by her Richard of Bourdeaux after King of England and none doubts but it was the intention of the King Edward III. who passionately affected his Grandchild Richard that in case the Princes Wife should happen to die in his life time whereby she should not have been a Queen but that notwithstanding if the Black Prince had happened to have survived him which he did not and been King his Eldest Son Richard should have benefit of this Statute 4. It would have been made doubtful by the Bishops who usurped then the Papal Supremacy over Princes of giving or refusing to give them Coronation when they pleased whether the Kings Wife should be titled Queen if the Bishop refused her Coronation Ralph of Canterbury refuseth to Crown Adeliza Queen unless he should first discrown the King as Ralph Archbishop of Canterbury did to Adeliza the second Wife of H. I. unless the Kings would suffer him to pull off the Crown first from the Kings head and new Crown him in acknowledgment that the Supremacy of the Coronation Office belonged to Ralph the Archbishop Bak. Hist 43. Touching which Office of Coronation of Kings and Queens that it belongs to Parliaments and not to Bishops and that David himself was both crowned and anointed by his Parliament and not by the Priest is shewn lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 169 c. 5. The Law of Saxons and Scots that no Wife of a King should be called Queen Because the Title of Queen was then under Envy and doubtful whether not against the antient Law both of England and Scotland the same not appearing to have been repealed by any Act of Parliament Bak. Hist fol. 6. saith a Law was made by the West Saxons that no Wife of a King should be called a Queen fol. 8. that it was so rigorously observed that when Ethelwolph had married Judith the Beautiful Daughter of the Emperour Charles the Bald in honour of whom in his own Court he ever placed her in a Chair of State with all other Majestical Complements of a Queen contrary to the Law of the West Saxons made to avoid the great Expence of Treasure incident to great Titles and Ceremonies and against other inconveniences and so much displeased his Lords thereby that they were ready to have Deposed him but were prevented by his death not long after Buchanan Rev. Scot. 407. takes notice of this Law and says Saxones lege caverunt ne ulla deinceps Regis Vxor Regina vocaretur aut in sede honoris in publico Regi assideret And 406. mentions the like Law in Scotland Quas Reginas alii suo quisque sermone nos Regum uxores appellamus nec altioris fastigii nomen ullum in iis agnoscimus
truth in what the Flatterers of Kenneth boast that by this means the Govetousness and Slaughters of Kindred are avoided Neither are the Treacheries of Guardians less to be feared to the Children of Kings left in Minority than of their Kindred wherefore now the Tyrant being fallen who Ravished our Liberty let us valiantly resume the same and his Law Enacted by force and assented to by fear if it be a Law and not rather a selling us for Slaves let us abrogate and repeal the same and Restore again our Ancient Fundamental Laws which brought forth this Kingdom of nothing and from so small beginnings not only advanced to such an height as is inferiour to none of our Neighbours but when cast down hath again raised the same to its former Strength and let us imbrace the present opportunity while it offers it self which if once Elapsed we may in vain seek again The People are by this perswaded and the Twelfth day after the Funeral of Kenneth he is chosen King Anno Domini 994. And was after Slain in Battel in the Town of Vaumond in Louthian in the Second Year of his Reign And though Milcolumbus or Malcolm the second Son of Kenneth the Third who was so tormented in Conscience for Poysoning the first Son of his Brother Duffus to get an Act to Intayl the Grown to his own Posterity made no Conscience to kill Grinius another Son of the same Duffus in Battel Malcolm Son of Kenneth revives and confirms the Law making the Kingdom hereditary and having by the Success gotten the Power of the Sword into his hand in the Same manner as his Father Kenneth had by force Enacted again by force confirmed at the Same Scone by Parliament the Act of Intayl of the Crown to the Issue of Kenneth Buchanan 196. Yet doth Buchanan the same Historian p. 200 201 censure this Act of changing the Ancient Law of Election by Parliament of the Brother or any other person more fit than the Son to be Injust Imprudent and Infortunate Objections against the Reviver 1. Injust 1. Injustice Because he saith Italex enervat vires consilij publici sine quo nullus Legitimus dominatus potest consistere Such a Law enervates the Strength of Parliaments without which no Lawful Government can be for all Government is either by Conquest or Contract As to Conquest there is none demanded or acknowledged on Such a Title As to Contract there can be none without a Parliament who are the Representative of the People to contract for them 2. Imprudent â— Imprudence Because Propinquorum in eos qui Regno potiuntur insidias et Regnantium adversus eos quos et natura et lex voluit â—â—ique esse Charissimos suspitiones nesarias quas narrationis or do Exphrabit tot priorum Seciâ—â—orum clades cum illis collatae calamitatibus quae Alexandri tertij interitum sunt consecutae Leves prae ijs tolerabiles videri possunt The Treacheries of Kindred against those who enjoy the Kingdom and the wicked Suspitions of those who Reign against them who by the Bonds of Nature and Law they ought to esteem most dear as this discourse in order shall declare And the Slaughters of so many former Ages compared with the Calamities which hereby followed the death of Alexander the Third were light and tolerable Note Alexander the Third began his Reign Anno Domini 1649. he Married first Margaret Daughter to Henry the Third King of England by whom he had Alexander the Prince David and Margaret who married Hangonamus or as some call him Ericus Son to Magnus 4th King of Norway who bare him a Daughter commonly called the Maiden of Norway The Maiden of Norway had United England and Scotland if she had lived Skene And concerning this Lady of Norway saith Buchanan Lib. 8. p. 241. Edvardus Anglorum Rex gnarus suae sororis neptem Regis Norvegiae filiam unam Ex Alexandri posteris esse superstitem Eandemque Regni Scotorum Legitimam Heredem Legatos ad eam deposcendam filio suo in Scotiam misit c. Edward the First King of England knowing his Neice the Daughter of the King of Norway to be the only Remaining Issue of Alexander the Third and Lawful Heir to the Crown of Scotland he sent his Ambassadours into Scotland to ask her in Marriage for his Son They when they Argued much in the Publique Gonvention of the Publique Benefit which would ensue such Marriage they found the Minds of the Scots not Dis-inclined from that affinity for Edward was a man of great Courage and of great Power and Ambition of greater And the glory of his Valour in the Holy Warr while his Father was alive and in Subduing Wales after his death shone bright Neither could they ever Remember the Scotish and English name to have been nearer Conjoyned than under the Last Kings Neither could old Hostility be more Commodiously abolished then if there were an Union made of both Nations upon Honest and Equal Conditions The Marriage was therefore Readily Assented unto and Conditions added by Mutual assent of both That the Scots should so long use their own Laws and Magistrates till such Children should be born of the same as were able to Reign And if none should happen to be procreated or being born should dye before their Lawful age Then the Kingdom of Scotland should go to the next of the Blood-Royal Things being thus Agreed Michael or as others mention Daevid Wemes and Michael Scot two Knights of Fife of great Repute for their Prudence with their Country in those Times were sent Embassadors to Norway but they because Margaret for that was the Young Ladies Name dyed before their Arrival returned home sad and nothing done by whose immature death there arose such Controversie as vehemently shook England and almost destroyed the Name of the Scots For to go on with the History as he and other Writers Relate it not withstanding this new Act of Intayling the Crown Ten Competitors arose to the Crown of Scotland notwithstanding the Act of Reviver making the same hereditary there arose Ten Competitors for the Succession Erick King of Norway Florence Earl of Holland Robert Bruce Earl of Anandale John de Baliol Lord of Galloway John de Hastings Lord of Abergaveny John Cumyn Lord of Badenair Patrick de Dunbar Earl of March John de Vesey Nicholas de Hues William de Ross All or the most part of them alledging themselves descended from David Earl of Huntingdon Younger Brother to William King of Scots and Great Uncle to the late King Alexander But the Principal and most Potent Factions which contended were that of Balyol and Bruce On which saith Sir Richard Baker Hist 96. broke out the Mortal Dissention between the Two Nations which consumed more Christian Blood and continued longer And the Wars between the Factions of Baliol and Bruce then any Quarrel we read of ever did between any Two People in the
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
in England or Scotland makes the Children either of Papist or Protestant born of Marriages not prohibited by the Law of God Illegitimate Therefore all Children born of Marriages not prohibited by the Law of God are Legitimate by the Law of the Land for though some Penal Laws have been by Pontifical pretences procured which have presumed too far to prohibit contrary to the Divine Ordinance Marriages and Meats not prohibited by the Law of God yet none but the Pope and Council of Trent who in their Luciferian Pride pretend to power above God's Law ever transgress'd so far in these Kingdoms as by such penal Laws to null or make void such Marriages or to Illegitimate their Children or though they imposed penalties on the Parents to impose any on the Children as may appear by the Statutes 3 Jac. 5. for England prohibiting Popish Recusants to Marry otherwise than by a Minister lawfully authorized in some open Church or Chappel according to the Orders of the Church of England And the Act Car. 1. Par. 2. Sess 2. Act 8. fol. 88. for Scotland prohibiting any to Marry in another Kingdom without the Banns first proclaimed in Scotland And that the Omission of Ceremonies contrary to a penal Law neither Nulls the Marriage nor Illegitimates the Issue Vid. proved before Lib. 1. p. 110 111. 7. Frustra probatur quod probatum non relevat It were time mispent to prove Ceremonies which when they are proved prove nothing to the Matters in question which are a lawful Lady Companion as intended by this Statute and an eldest Son by her of the Blood of King Charles the Second the rightful present Possessor of the Three Kingdoms and of the Blood and of his two special Predecessors King Edward the Third of England and King Fergusius of Scotland as to which Probation of the Ceremonies of a Marriage proves nothing of the Truth or Lawfulness of the Marriage for many Ladies have been Married with all the Ceremonies the Priest could lay on them yet have their Marriages been utterly unlawful and prohibited by the Law of God nor do they prove the Truth or Lawfulness of the Lineal Blood derived from the Possessors or Predecessors As for Example The Kings of Sparta were to be of no other Blood but of the race of Hercules these were Married with all the Ceremonies accustomed in that Kingdom yet did not those Ceremonies preserve the Chastity of the Queen from being so over-familiar with Alcibiades her Husband 's ingrateful Guest and whom he had hospitably entertain'd when fled from his own Country of Athens but he having got her with Child boasted when he was gone from thence that he had left Heirs of his Blood to the Kingdom of Lacedaemon So Henry of Spain Anno Dom. 1459. having Married his Queen with all the Ceremonies accustomed in that Kingdom but being unable himself perswaded her to be got with Child by Bertrand of Guttua Joan thus gotten is proclaimed Heir but refused by the people Bertrand is made Earl of Ledesma and Duke of Alburquerk Sp. Hist Canutus the Dane Married here in England Algine who was Barren she to oblige the love of her Husband feigned her self with Child and packt one that was Suppositions on her Husband King Canutus was very joyful of his supposed Son and called his Name Sweno and after gave him the Kingdom of Norway Philip the Second of Spain was Ceremoniously Married to Queen Mary for whose being with Child as was supposed a Day of Publick Thanksgiving was kept and the Bells rang with Joy through all England but as is said King Philip was Jealous of the like Issue with Canutus what had the proof of the Ceremonies of Marriage been to the purpose to prove Adulterous Children to be of the race of Hercules or Henry or such as had been Suppositions of the Danish or Spanish Races 8. It were a Dishonour to the Holy Protestant Religion and the Professors thereof to be able to Establish the Lawfulness and Validity of their Marriages on no more Sacred Principles than Ceremonies of so unclean an Original as Popes Common Prostitutes Magicians Aruspices Astrologers Southsayers Priests of Priapus and Venus Pagan Gods and Goddesses and Daemons themselves as is already proved Lib. 1. p. 43 44.51 52. Then as to Witnesses It were an unnecessary Tempting of God to cast what is not the cause of a single person but of all the Protestants in the Three Kingdoms on the hazard of such Witnesses as the Probation of Ceremonies Thirty years since and in a Foreign Catholick Country will require for it is certain the Bishops and Magistrates of that Countrey are Papists and therefore no equal Witnesses may be had thence but such as may think it is Meritorious to overthrow the Protestants right or wrong and the same Danger is of Witnesses at home obnoxious to as great Temptations of Papists here whose Religion is not to keep Faith with Hereticks as they call Protestants whereby they may as is commonly practised be corrupted with Money either in a counterfeit manner to offer their Testimonies and when they have Sworn to Recant and Reprobate themselves whereby the Truth shall be betrayed or a greater Number of false Witnesses be Suborned to Swear against the Truth then may be got to Swear for it whereby the Truth shall be destroyed or such Judges may be as will hear no Witnesses but such as are right for the turn whereby the Truth will be suppressed of which Popish practices too much hath appeared fresh before our Eyes in the Examination of the late Horrid Plot. Therefore no Prudence to give them opportunity to do the like or worse by joyning Issue with them on the Impertinent point of Ceremonies of Marriage wherein only they are able to corrupt Witnesses But it is more secure to stand on the points of Substance of Marriage according to the Law of God which are these viz. Cohabitation Conjugal Society Chastity Children and acknowledgment of them by the Father to be his of which God's Providence hath provided so many Witnesses as will be in vain for them to Suborn or Corrupt false Witnesses to the contrary Besides if Witnesses may be had yet alive after Thirty years time yet they may Die or be Poison'd or otherwise made away when known before they come to Hearing or so terrified that they will not dare to testifie the Truth why then shall all be put in danger by Ceremony when Substance Places all in Security and it were an injust thing Three Kingdoms should be hazarded on the Lives of two or three Witnesses To speak at last in reference to the Judges and Court by whom this Marriage ought to be judged which ought to be only by the King and Parliament both as to the Fact and the Law for as to both the same as alleadged being made beyond Sea in a Foreign Catholick Country not under the Jurisdiction of the King and Parliament nor where his Writ runneth The Archbishop of
making the Crown Hereditary to the Eldest Son answered ibid. Objections against the being of the King 's Eldest Son within the Statute of 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus Page 20. Obj. 1. That the Lady Mother was not a Queen ibid. Answ 1. The Statute is false Translated by the Lawyers and the Scripture false Translated by the Bishops in the word Queen ibid. Answ 2. Proved that the Lady Mother was Madam sa Compaign according to the Moral Law of God which is all and more than is required to be proved by the Statute ibid. Obj. 2. No Marriage according to the Mass-Book in the time of E. 3. nor by the Modern Common Prayer-Book or Book of Canons Page 23. Answ 1. No Marriage by any Book required by the Statute but only a Lady Companion according to the Moral Law of God Page 24. Answ 2. Marriage by the Common Prayer-Book not Necessary in a time of War when both Books of Common Prayer and of Canons were Prohibited and Abolished by the Power of the Sword ibid. Answ 3. The Legitimation of Children by the Law of God and of the Land ought not to be question'd after the Death of either Parent where not Judicially question'd and sentenced in their life-time Vid. Praeface Page 25. Answ 4. Not Necessary for a King who is Supreme Ordinary to Marry by the Common Prayer Book or Book of Canons Page 26. Answ 5. A King who is Supreme Ordinary may dispence with his own Canons and with any thing that is only Malum Prohibitum in his own Marriage but not with what is Malum in se by the Moral Law of God Page 28. Obj. 3. The Lady Mother was not HIS Companion which is the Article of Propriety required by the Statute Page 32. Answ She was HIS and he had the sole Propriety according to the Law of God and the Land Page 33. Obj. 4. There was no Marriage according to the Law of God Page 34. Answ 1. Certain Preparatory Considerations are laid down before the contrary is proved to this Negative By what Law and what Judges shall be judged what is the Law of God by which is after proved here was a Marriage according to the Law of God ib. Answ 2. Of the damnable Effects have followed by the Popish Prohibitions and Nulling of all Marriage not made by a Priest in a Temple Page 35. What is not Marriage by the Moral Law of God Page 39. What is not Matrimony by the Moral Law of God ibid. Answ 3. The Statute requires neither a King De Jure nor a Lady Companion De Jure nor a Son De Jure but only De Facto yet are they all here both De Jure and De Facto Page 40. Dangerous to leave the Succession of a Kingdom on so incertain a word as Lawful yet here both the King the Lady Companion and the Son are all Lawful ibid. Answ 4. A Lawful Successor may be of an unlawful Marriage Page 41. Obj. 5. The Lady Mother was not a Wife according to the Scripture Page 42. Answ 1. The Objection is false and it is after proved she was a Wife according to the Scripture ibid. Answ 2. The Statute requires no Wife according to Scripture but only a lawful Companion yet was she both a Wife and a lawful Wife according to Scripture as will hereafter be proved Page 43. Answ 3. The Bishops have falsly Translated the Scripture in all words relating to Marriage ibid. Of certain Differences between a Wife of the Bishop's making and a Wife of God's making Page 46. Obj. 6. There is no Bishop's Certificate to testifie the Marriage and Filiation Page 48. Answ The Statute requires no Certificate of either ibid. The Forms of Bishops Certificates Page 49. Their Original came from the Priests of Priapus Page 50. Of the Damnable Mischiefs insue from Tryal of Marriage and Filiation by Bishops Certificates ibid. The Certificates of Bishops inconsistent with the Right of Primogeniture Page 58. Of the General Custom of Nations of Successions to Kingdoms by Primogeniture and of the Mischiefs and Civil Wars commonly follow the disinheriting of the Eldest Son Page 62. What is Marriage and what Matrimony de Facto Page 66. What is Marriage De Jure according to the Law of God and of the Nations Page 67. Of the three Lawful Marriages amongst the Romans 1 Usu 2 Confarreatione 3 Coemptione Page 68. Of the three Lawful Marriages amongst the Hebrews 1 Copulatione 2 Coemptione 3 Instrumentis ibid. That Carnal knowledge Chastity and Childbirth between a Man and a Woman not prohibited by the Moral Law to Marry makes a Marriage Lawful Holy and Indissoluble without Banns Licence Priest Temple or any other Ceremony whatsoever Page 71. That the Marriage Coemptione Confarreatione or Instrumentis was not intended by Christ but only the Marriage Copulatione Page 86. An Epithalamium on the Marriage of Nature intended by Christ without a Priest or Temple Page 88. Obj. 7. The King 's Eldest Son is not the Heir intended by the Statute Page 90. Answ Proved he is the Heir both in the Letter and Intention of the Statute ibid. That to compass the Exile or Disinheriting of the King 's Eldest Son is High Treason Page 94. Obj. 8. By the Custom of Nations the Succession goes not to the Eldest Son born when the Father is only a Prince but to a younger Son born when he is a King ibid. Answ This Statute was made to prevent incertainty of this and other Customs and prevent all Cavils and Contentions about Succession by ascertaining the same to the Eldest Son Page 95. Obj. 9. The King 's Eldest Son is not yet declared Prince of Wales or of the Scots ibid. Answ The Statute requires no such thing Page 97. Obj. 10. Illegitimacy deprives of the benefit of the Statute ibid. Answ This Statute declares every Eldest Son of a King Legitimate and Heir to the Crown ibid. The Eldest Son of a King of Great Britain is Legitimate by his Birth-right per Jus Coronae ibid. Examples of the same Jus Coronae in other Nations Page 100. Examples of the same Jus Coronae in the Eldest Sons and Daughters of the Kings of England and Scotland who have thereby succeeded as Heirs to their Fathers Kingdoms on Marriages according to the Moral Law of God without the Ceremonies of a Priest or a Temple Page 102 103. That 't is High Treason for any Subject to slander the King 's Eldest Son with Illegitimacy Page 111. A Comparison of the Popish slanders of Illegitimacy against Queen Elizabeth and the King 's Eldest Son Page 112. A Comparison of the Popish slanders of Illegitimacy against King Edward the Sixth Queen Elizabeth the King 's Eldest Son and the Sons and Daughters of the whole Protestant Clergy Page 114. Of the insolent absurdity of Popish Laws Disinheriting the Lawful Sons of Kings according to the Law of God and inheriting the Bastards of Popes by the Law of the Devil
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 â—â—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
Facto by the Birth of a Child Secondly That such Marriage and Matrimony between Persons not prohibited by the Moral Law are Lawful I prove 1 The Lawfulness of such Marriage and Matrimony in Respect no Prohibition by the Law of God of the same though without Ceremony 1. Because all Marriage and Matrimony is Lawful which is not Prohibited by the Moral Law of God but these are not Prohibited by the Moral Law of God Therefore they are Lawful Prohibition of Marriage without Ceremony not Prohibited by the Law of God is the Doctrine of Devils The Major is proved 1 Tim. 4.1 Because all Humane Laws forbidding Marriages or Meats which are not forbidden by the Moral Law of God are declared to come from the Devil and to be the Doctrine of Devils And accordingly all Papal and Episcopal Laws all Ecclesiastical Canon and Civil Laws all Decrees of Councils of Trent or any other Councils or Synods forbidding to Marry in any Circumstance or Ceremony not forbidden by the Law of God came from the Devil and are the Doctrine of Devils which see proved Lib. 1. p. 52. And that the final cause of such Prohibitions of Marriage without Pontifical Ceremonies The final Cause of such Prohibitions is only filthy Lucre of the Priests are only accumulation of Fees and Ambition of Pontiffs and Bishops Vid. Lib. 1. p. 55 56 57. 2. All Marriage and Matrimony is Lawful which is not a Sin or a Transgression but such Marriage and Matrimony which are not Prohibited by the Law of God are no Sin or Transgression Therefore they are Lawful The Minor is proved 1 Joh. 3.4 Sin is the Transgression of the Law And Rom. 4.15 Where no Law no Transgression Where no Law is there is no Transgression 3. What is declared no Sin by Scripture is lawful but Marriage between persons not Prohibited is declared no Sin by Scripture therefore Lawful The Minor is proved 1 Cor. 7.28 If thou marry thou hast not sinned and if a Virgin marry she hath not sinned 4. What is commanded by Scripture is Lawful and not Prohibited But Marriage and Matrimony is commanded by Scripture to young Women therefore Lawful The Minor is proved 1 Tim. 5.14 I will therefore the young women marry bear Children 5. What is in Scripture commanded and blessed between persons not Prohibited is Lawful and not Prohibited But Marriage and Matrimony by Carnal knowledge and multiplying Mankind is commanded and blessed in Scripture Therefore Lawful The Minor is proved Gen. 1.27 Male and Female â—reated he them And God blessed them and said unto them Increase and Multiply and replenish the earth 6. What is rewarded in Scripture in Persons not Prohiâ—ited is Lawful and not Prohibited but Marriage and Matrimony between Persons not Prohibited is rewarded Therefore â—awful The Minor is proved 1 Tim. 2.15 She shall be saved in Childbearing if she continue in Faith and Charity and Holiness with Sobriety The Lawfulness of Marriage which is not Prohibited by the Law of God is acknowledged by the Church of England Which I prove thus All Marriage acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles is acknowledged Lawful by the Church of England but the present Marriage whether there are any Witnesses alive or no to prove it Ceremonial is acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles Therefore the present Marriage is acknowledged Lawful by the Church of England The Minor is proved thus All Marriage not Prohibited by the Law of God is acknowledged lawful by the 39 Articles But the present Marriage is not Prohibited by the Law of God Therefore the present Marriage is acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles Though it is no ways necessary amongst so many clear and unanswerable Precepts and Examples of Scripture it self as are here cited establishing the Lawfulness of the present Marriage to add the Humane Authority of the Church of England or any other National Church yet in regard the Bishops in their Practice and Certificates deny that Doctrine of the Lawfulness of Marriage which they themselves acknowledge and pretend to establish in their own Book of Articles To confute therefore those Certificates of theirs out of their own mouths I have here inserted their own 32d Article without which they are not able to secure the Lawfulness of their own Marriages and Legitimation of their own Children against Papists Ossens Gnosticks Nicholaitans Hermogenians and other Hereticks but only on this Principle That all Marriages not Prohibited by the Law of God are Lawful as appears by the Article it self made Anno Dom. 1562. in the Fourth year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Roger's Articles p. 185 187 188. where is mentioned 1. That Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Prohibited by God's Law to Marry therefore it is Lawful for them to Marry 2. That it is Lawful for them and all other Christian men to marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve best to Godliness Whence will likewise follow That the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Ceremonies of the Church of England are two distinct things and to use the words of the Article As every Christian may Marry or not Marry according to his Discretion where not Prohibited by the Law of God so he may Marry with or without Ceremonies where not Prohibited by the same Law of God As Adam might have eaten of all the Fruits in Eden with Ceremony or without Ceremony according to his Discretion where not Prohibited by the Law of God And I think no man will question this 32d Article not to be according to the Doctrine of the Church of England And the same Article touching Marriage is known to be the Doctrine of the Helvetian Bohemian Saxon Suevian and all the Reformed Churches If therefore the Tree is Holy the Fruit is Holy if the Marriage is Lawful the Son is Lawful I have therefore proved him Lawful by Three unanswerable Laws 1 The Act of Parliament of Treasons 2 The Law of the Church of England 3 The eternal and immutable Law of God in the Scriptures 2. The Lawfulness of such Marriage and Matrimony without Ceremony appears in Respect of no Command of any Ceremony by the Law of God 1. There 's no Commandment of any Ceremony in Marriage in the whole Scriptures either Old Testament or New of Moses or Christ of Prophets or Apostles but the same as hath been already shewn have been invented by Priests of Priapus Venus Juno Diana Popes and Bishops either for Lust Covetousness or Ambition No Sin where no breach of a Commandment of God 2. The Scripture makes nothing unlawful nor Sin but what is a breach of the Commandment of God where there 's no Commandment therefore of God of joyning Ceremony with Marriage or Matrimony Marriage and Matrimony between Persons not Prohibited is lawful without them This is proved Luk. 18.18 And a certain Ruler asked him saying Good Master What shall I do to inherit eternal life The answer is
First Because the Exiling or Disinheriting the King's eldest Son indangers the King himself Secondly Because to compass the Exile compasseth the Death of the eldest Son by depriving him of the King's Protection and exposing him to Poison or Assassination of his Enemies and to compass to Disinherit him is a manifest design to destroy him without which his Inheritance cannot be taken from him as Matth. 21.38 They said amongst themselves this is the Heir come let us kill him and let us seize on his inheritance And they caught him and cast him out of the Vinyard and slew him Object 8 Obj. 8. The Son of a King born after he is King is to be prefer'd in Succession before the Son of a King born while he is Prince And of this there are many Examples as Henry the First being the youngest Son of William the Conqueror Born when a Prince and born when a King standing in Competition for the Crown of England against Robert Duke of Normandy his elder Brother made this one of his Objections That Robert was born when his Father was but a Duke but Henry was born when his Father was a King and therefore obtained the Kingdom against Robert his eldest Brother And it is recited by Grot. de Jur. Bel. Pac. p. 171. That the like passed in Persia between Cyrus and Arsica in Judea between Antipater the Son of Herod the Great and his Brother in Hungary when Geissa obtained the Kingdom in Germany between Otto the First and Henry though not without Arms and likewise the same Question was between Xerxes and his Brother Atabarzanes and between Artaxerxes Mnemon and Cyrus the Sons of Darius and Parisatis Artaxerxes being the elder but born during the Private fortune of Darius and the like happened between Bajazet and Zemez contending for the Turkish Empire and many others Answ These were put to the Tryal of Battel and for the greatest part the eldest Son had the Success but if it had been otherwise the Event of War is no Rule of Justice and if it had been without War yet where there is a standing Act of Parliament Judicandum est Legibus non Examplis And this Act of Parliament was made to prevent the present and all other Accidents which might happen to disturb the Peace of Succession of the Kingdom and raise Civil Wars which it could not do without all other Sons and Heirs to the eldest Son and there being no other Son mentioned in the Letter of the Statute but the eldest and not a word of Distinction whether born before or after the Father's obtaining the Kingdom Vbi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus for then the same mischiefs would insue beforementioned of extending a Statute of Treason by Equity which leaves Treason arbitrary to every Judge who will assume to declare it beyond the Letter and to insert as many kinds of Sons and Heirs as he pleased which would make the Law and all the Care and Wisdom of it in ascertaining the Son Heir to be of no Effect and leave the Kingdom in a dangerous Condition that every Prince Married in his Father's life-time and having then some Children and after his Father's Death others might occasion a Civil War who should succeed to the Crown when he died Object 9 Obj. 9. The next Objection That the King 's eldest Son is not yet Declared Prince of Wales or Prince of the Scots The Original of this Title used to be given to the eldest Sons of the Kings of England was from Henry the Third who gave his eldest Son Edward who was afterward King Edward the First on his Marriage to Elianor the Daughter of Spain amongst other Principalities in France England and Ireland likewise that of Wales Hinc natum ut deinceps unusquisque Rex qui secutus est filium majorem natu principem Walliae facere consuevit And in continuance of this Custom Anno 1610. Prince Henry the eldest Son of King James was solemnly created Prince of Wales by his Father As to the Title designing the Prince of Scotland to be next Successor or Heir apparent it seems to have been by their Investiture of Cumberland for saith Buchanan Rer. Scot. lib. 6. p. 175. That Constantine the Third in the Tenth year of his Reign Milcolumbo proximo Regis filio Cumbriam donavit qui honos velut Augurium Argumentum erat eum proxime regnaturum Ac deinceps in proximis aliquot Regibus id fuisse observaturum manifesta adversus veterem Comitiorum rationem fraude quae omnem Liberorum susfragiorum vim prope tollerit non minus quà m Cossâ—à Caesaribus Designatio Constantine the Third in the Tenth year of his Reign gave Cumberland to Malcoliâ— the Son of the last King which Honour was as it were the Inauguration or Sign of him who was next to succeed in the Kingdom and was after observed by some of the next Kings to that end to take away by Fraud the free Election by Parliament no less than did the Designations of the Consuls by the Caesars and after p. 189. he sath That Kenneth the Third being King by Election of the People to make the Kingdom Hereditary to his own Son Malcolm finding it an Impediment in his way that his Brother Duffus his Son Malcolm Cumbriae tum praefectus erat quam Regionem Scoti beneficio Regum Anglorum it a tenebant ut Cumbriae Praefectura velut omen Regni esset atque ita jam per aliquot aetates observatum erat was then Governor of Cumberland which Region the Scots held by Gift from the Kings of England to that intent that the Presidentship of Cumberland should be for a Sign who should be next Successor to the Kingdom and so for divers Ages the same hath accordingly been observed he to inherit his own Poisoned his Brother's Son and p. 190. he saith Milcolumbus regis filius in natura adhuc ad rerum administrationem aetate Cumbriae praefectus et princeps Scotorum est Declaratus quod nomen perinde est Scotis atque apud Gallos Delfinus apud priores Romanorum Imperatores Caesar apud posterio res Rex Romanorum quibus omnibus Successor superiori Magistratui dari intelligitur Malcolm the King's Son in an unripe Age for Publick Affairs is declared President of Cumberland and Prince of the Scots which Name is with the Scots Equipollent to the Daulphin amongst the French to Caesar amongst the Ancient Romans and amongst the Modern to the King of the Romans by all which Titles the Successor to the Superiour Magistracy is understood but notwithstanding for the most part this hath been the Custom yet it hath been likewise often omitted and Admit it had not yet there being no Law requiring it there is no pretence that such Omissions makes any incapacity in the Heir to succeed at Common Law or to be within this Statute for the Statute making no Distinction between the King 's eldest Son when
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
Sons of Zerujah were too hard for her so it was an easie matter for Queen Mary who was a Papist Successor to lose Callice to the French The Possession of Callice once lost could not be again recovered which was done by King Philip's drawing out the Strength of the English Garrison Souldiers in his Wars against other Towns and the neglect of the Queens Council to send Recruits until too late though they had notice of a Seige intended against them The Town of Callice which was first taken by Edward the Third after Eleven Months Siege was esteemed of so high Import that on a Treaty of Marriage by King Edward between his Nephew Richard of Burdeaux and Mary a Daughter of Charles the French King Charles made an offer to King Edward to leave him Fourteen hundred Towns and Three thousand Fortresses in Aquitain upon Condition he would render Callice and all that he held in Picardy But before any thing could be concluded King Edward died And the Lord de Cordes a French Lord would commonly say He would be content to lye in Hell seven years so that Callice were in the French Possession Bak. Hist 240. But it seems since they got it in possession some of them would be content to lie in Hell for ever if Perjury will lay them there so long For there being Anno Dom. 1559. in the First year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth a Treaty of Peace between her and the French King and Commissioners of both sides to that end appointed and the Commissioners meeting accordingly the Chief point in difference was the Restitution of Callice for which the English Commissioners by the Queens Appointment offered to remit Two Millions of Crowns that by just Accompt were due from France to England At last on much Altercation it was Concluded and Agreed Perjury in the French King in not restoring Callice That Callice should remain in possession of the French for the term of Eight years and those Expired it should be delivered unto the English upon the forfeiture of Five hundred thousand Crowns for which Hostages were given But all this notwithstanding though the Conditions were Sealed and Sworn to and though Hostages were assigned to remain in England till one or other were performed yet all was frustrate and came to nothing Bak. Hist 351. So little Faith is there in the Oath of a Papist Prince And the same Danger will be in the delivering the possessions of Garrisons Forts in England to Papists or Papist Successor though on Conditions Sworn to by them the same difficulty yea impossibility for a Protestant Successor to recover again the Possession of Treasure Arms Offices Religion Liberty Propriety as it is of Life it self when once left to a papist Successor though he take an Oath to preserve all these By which and all former Examples appears That a papist Successor if he happen to be is of great Danger and Mischief to all Lay-papists themselves but totally and inevitably Destructive to all Protestants See other Examples of Perjury by Popes Bishops and Papist Princes before Lib. 2. p. 377. Of the Destruction double to Protestants if the Crown happen to fall to a Papist Successor Female and not prevented as before Destruction double to Protestants in a Papist Successor Female It is before spoken of the Destruction inevitable must follow to Protestants if a Male Papist Successor happen But if a Female happen it must be doubly Destructive for she will Marry a Foreign Papist Prince so the Protestants will be left naked and exposed to the rage and Cruelties both of a Papist and a Foreign Sword Hath not God given us already warning fresh in Memory in the late Examples of Queen Mary of England and Queen Mary of Scotland one of whom Married King Philip of Spain the other was sold by Cardinal Beton and Married to the French Dauphin And did not God even by Miracle though we most unthankfully so soon forget it Catch this Island as a Brand kindled at both ends out of the Fire Protestants barr'd of Succession to Papists by Salique Laws yet are not Papists barr'd to succeed to Protestants and hath he in vain given Sense and Reason and Strength to the Dull Protestants so far to tempt him and provoke his Judgment as to cast it thither again while the busie Papist hath barr'd all his Doors of Succession with his Laws against Hereticks and his Salique Laws to exclude alike both Female and Male Protestants 10. The next Danger is If no Successor should be Declared by the King and Parliament in regard of Foreign Princes 10. Danger of Foreign Princes That Danger is likewise very well expressed in the Statute 25 H. 8. Cap. 22. To have been the cause of great Bloodshed in this Realm and to be one of the Causes why the King desired to declare his Successor by Act of Parliament as appears in these words viz. And sometimes other Foreign Princes and Potentates of sundry Degrees minding rather Dissentions and Discord ot continue in this Realm to the utter Desolation thereof than Charity Equity and Vnity have many times supported wrong Titles whereby they might more easily and facily aspire to the Superiority of the same The continuance and sufferance whereof deeply considered and pondered were too Dangerous and Perillous to be suffered within this Realm any longer and too much contrary to the Vnity Peace and Tranquility of the same being greatly Reproachable and Dishonourable to the whole Realm The not Declaring Edgar Atheling Successor by Act of Parliament in the Life of Edward the Confessor William the Conqueror let in by not Declaring Edgar Atheling Successor let in the Foreign pretence of William the Conqueror which if it had been done 't is probable that never any Norman Invador had dared to have set his foot on English Ground So 't is probable the King of Spain had never been able to have seized on the Crown of Portugal had not the Superstitious Portuguese inslaved their Blood Royal to be Judged by the Papal and Episcopal Laws of Marriage and Succession contrary to the Moral Law of God whereby they left it in the Power of Popes or Bishops if the Spaniard or any other Papist Prince would give or promise them Money to Legitimate or Illegitimate whom they would and sell the Succession to the Kingdom at what rate they pleased Philip the Second of Spain seized the Crown of Portugal by the not Declaring Don Antonio Successor for as appears in that Judicious Author though Anonymus who writes The interest of Princes p. 95. The Case was this Henry the Third Son of Emanuel being according to the Papal Law Heir to the Crown of Portugal was accordingly Crowned Anno Dom. 1578. And being an Old Man without Children sensible of the Disputes would arise after his Death about the Succession erected a Judicature to hear and Determine the several Claims pretending to the same Of