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.

Object. 6. There is no Bishops Certificate of the Marriage and Filiation.

The Form of the Bishops Certificate of Marriage.

Cok. Lib. Intra. fo. 181. In Dower on a Nunquam fuit in le∣gitimo Matrimonio copulata pleaded; A Writ is sent to the Bi∣shop to Certifie, who returns this Certificate, Et praedictus Episcopus per literas suas Patentes & Clausas &c. And the fore∣said Bishop by his Letters Patents and Close hath Certified to the Justices here, That by virtue of the foresaid Writ to him di∣rected, Convocating before him such of right as are to be Convocated, hath diligently Enquired and Certified the truth of the matter, That in the Chappel of B. in the County of G. in the Diocess of L. the Sixth day of Aug. An. 1606. Matrimony true, pure and lawful per verba de praesenti, according to the Form and Rites of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, between the said A. B. and C. B.

was solemnized by one Mr. A. U. Clork, in the prosence of J.J. W.B. W. W. R.M. Witnesses in this part by the said Bishop examined and sworn, and of other Witnesses then present, the said A. B. and C. D. his Wife being of Lawful Age, and of all other Matrimonial Contracts free, cleer and clean, as the Witnesses so sworn and exa∣mined believe.

The Form of the Bishops Certificate of Bastardy, Rast. Lib. Intra. 105. b.

On a Plea of Bastardy pleaded, and a Writ to the Bi∣shop to Certifie, he makes a Return, Venerabilibus viris Justiciarijs in Brevi Regio praesentibus annex. specific. permissione Divinâ C. Episcopus &c. Certificamus quòd diligentem & solertem fieri fecimus Inquisitionem de mate∣rijs in Brevi praedict' Content', per quam invenimus per Legitimas in hâc parte probationes & alia in hâc parte Canonicè requisit', quòd infra nominat' N.H. de T. A. H. de P. J. H. de P. & P. H. de P. Bastardi sunt & quilibet corum Bastardus est, prout praedict' R. B. in Brevi praedict' nominat' placitando allegavit, & non Legitimè prout prae∣dict' N. A. J. & E. placitando allegarunt, & hoc idem no∣bis satis constat.

We Certify, That we have made diligent and cunning Inquisition of the Matters contain'd in the Writ, by which we find by Lawful Proofs and other things Canonically in this behalf required, that the within named N. H. of T. A. H. of P: J.H. of P. and E. H. of P. are Bastards, and every of them is a Bastard, as the said R. H. in his Writ aforesaid named in Pleading hath alledg'd, and not Legi∣timate as the said N. A. J. and E. have in Pleading al∣ledg'd; and this appears cleer enough to us.

Having shewn the Form of these Certificates what they are, I now answer to the Objection:

• (1.) That the Letter of the Statute not mentioning either Marriage, Legitimation, Bishop or Certificate, there needs no Proof or use of these at all; but it is sufficient to prove a Lady Companion De Facto, and an Eldest Son de Facto, as mention'd in the Statute.
• (2.) Admit there was a Marriage or Legitimation to be proved, the Statute doth not limit to any special manner of Probation, but leaves liberty to make Probation qu cun{que} modo, as in all other Matters.
• (3.) A Penal Statute cannot be extended by Equity to make Treason against an Heir so made only by Certificate of the Bishop, feeing the Letter of the Statute makes not any such Treason; and it would be of very dangerous Consequence, to make any Intentional or Express Statute to give Power to any Bishop or Arch-Bishop to declare Kings or their Successors by Certificates under pain of Treason: for then is the old Papal Power, and greater than the Papal, put into their hands of making and deposing them at their pleasure, either under Pain of Excommunication or Treason; and the power of Declaring or laying the Penalty of Treason in the Bishop, would be greater than it was of Excommunication in the Pope.
• (4.) It is manifest, that the Wise and Renowned King Ed∣ward the Third, the Author of this Statute (as hath been alrea∣dy shewn) never intended they should have thereby any such Power or Pretence; which though sufficient to answer the Objection, I shall give some further Touch of the Mischiefs that insue by them to the People, as well as to Princes.

Of the Mischiefs that insue of Bishops Certificates of Marriage and Filiation, which Certifie other kinds of Heirs than the Heir intended by this Statute.

* 1.1(1.) The Original of Bishops Certificates of Marriage and Filiation, came not from Christ or his Apostles; for we neither find, that he or they ever Contracted or Married any Man and Woman, nor gave Certificate of Marriage or Filiation them∣selves, nor Precept to their Successors to do the same.

(2.) The only Original of them which can be found, came from the Priests of Priapus, who forbid all Marriages, except by the Ceremonies of a Priest in a Temple; of which kind of

unclean Priests, I shall only here repeat a short Note before mentioned, from Cornelius Agrippa de Van. Scient. p. 738. in these words, Sordidissimus Priapus pro Deo habitus hunc coluerunt primi illi Religionum artifices Chaldaei, Aegyptii, Assyrii, Babylonii, Arabes, Scythae, Aethiopes, ac perinde tota Africa, Asia & Euro∣pa; nec fas erat ullum Sacerdotem fiori qui Priapi sacris non crat ini∣tiatus. Hic est ille Belphegor, Idolum omnium antiquissimum, quod est Chamos dictum, à Chamo filio Noe. The filthy Priapus was reputed a God, him worshipped the first Founders of supersti∣••ous Religions, The Chaldaeans, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylo∣nians, Arabians, Scythians, Ethyopians, and almost all Africa, Asia and Europe: neither was it lawful for any to be made a Priest, unless he was first Initiated in the Sacred Rites of Priapus. This is Belphegor, of all other the most ancient Idol, which is likewise call'd Chamos, from Cham the Son of Noah.

That these Priests of Priapus, who is the same with Baal-Peor and Milcom, had their Doctrine of compelling Women and Men to be Married by Priests with Ceremonies, from the Devil, appears by what use they put it to, Numb. 25.1. And the People be∣gan to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab, and they call'd the People to the sacrifice of their Gods, and the People did eat, and bowed down to their Gods, and Israel joyned himself to Baal Peor. And in the Scripture, Idolatry is commonly call'd going a who∣ring after Idols, because the Priests made the Men and Women the baits to intice one another, under pretence of Religion, to their Conventions in the Idol Temple, where the Priest was the Pander-General, and took the fees of all to his great Gain.

* 1.22. The Original of Certificates by the Bishop or High Priests, of Filiation, began likewise from the Incertainty Chil∣dren were cast into by these Promiscuous copulations at their Temples or Groves, or other Publick Conventions by the Pan∣der Priest; who that he might not lose his fees kept a Register or Toll-Book, where these who coupled for that time had their names entred to have paid them their fee. And when the Child got there, was grown to discretion to enquire who was his Father, his Mother, who had play'd the Whore with so many Strangers at the several Sacrifices, could not tell, unless she sent to the Priest who kept the Priapeian Sacrifice at that

time which suited nearest her Child's Age, to send a Certifi∣cate of the name of the Person or Persons were then entred to∣gether with her name in his Toll-Book. Which way of Certi∣ficate of Filiation by the Pagan Priest,* 1.3 was far more Rational than the Certificate thereof by the Bishop: For first, the Child never sent for a Certificate to the Pagan Priest, but when he did not know his Father. Secondly, The Pagan Priest entred in his Register every time the Woman copulated with a Man; for which he had a new Fee. But the Bishop will undertake that if it be but once set down in his Register, That such a Man and Woman came to his Temple, though they never came near one another afterward, or the next day deserted one ano∣ther, or the Woman being beforehand with Child by an Adul∣terer, was the next day after she had been thus with the Man at the Temple delivered of such an Adulterous Child, or begot with Child, or was Delivered of Twenty Children successively by twenty Adulterers for twenty years after; yet the Bishop will make a ridiculous, beastly and wicked Certificate. And Littleton and Coke, bear him out in it, That in all these cases the Man who went Twenty years since with this Woman to his Temple, if he were within the Four Sees at the time of the begetting of these Adulterous Children by the Adulterers; yet he the Man within the Four Sees begot them, and Probatio non admittitur in contrarium. Oh! Excellent Law, and excellent Divinity. The Certificates of the Priests of Priapus are very bad, but these Episcopal Certificates are ten times worse. But I must, for brevity, refer the Reader to what hath been said before, Lib. 1, p. 72, 73. The original of these Certificates of Filiation by Priests for other causes, were likewise either Cheats of the Priests, or came from the Actual Response of the Devil: So the Priests would anciently attribute the begetting of any Child whose Father was unknown, if he proved an Hero,* 1.4 or had any other Excellence, especially if Rich, and gave him Money, to some of the Gods; as Romulus and Remus were fathered on Mars; Plato on Apollo; and Vulcan they made himself a God, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without a Father. But the greatest number of them they laid at Jupiter's Door, who no question had a great charge upon his hands, and sometimes when the Mother was unknown, they Mother'd him on some Goddess or other, as Achilles on Thetis; Aeneas on Venus;

Oedipus not knowing his Father whom he had slain, nor Mo∣ther, wnom he had Married, had a Response from the Oracle, or Certificate from the Priest of Apollo, which acquainted him with the same. And Alexander, ambitious to have a greater Father than Philip, sent to the Oracle of Jupiter Ammon, and for a great Sum of Gold had either a Response from the Devil, or a cheating Certificate from the Priest, That he was the Son of Jupiter. But we never hear amongst the Pagans themselves, of any Son who was so wise to know his own Father, or was not ashamed of him who went for a Certificate to the Priest or the Devil.

(3.) The final Causes why they so eagerly desire the Juris∣diction of Marriage and Filiation by this Power of making Cer∣tificates, are their Covetousness and Ambition, vid. at Large, Lib. 1. p. 53. ad 57.* 1.5 And that the Pope were ruined if Epis∣copal Jurisdiction of Marriage and Filiation, and their Certifi∣cates should be taken away, Lib. 2. p. 184. It may be said there∣fore to Bishops Certificates, as to the ends they designed them, according to the saying of Christ, Mat. 6.24. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.

* 1.6(4.) The Persons they make Certificates against being In∣fants, and not able to answer for themselves in Suits in the Episcopal Courts, are Condemn'd without Hearing.

(5.) Infants are Condemn'd by such Certificates, contrary to the Law of God, for the Sins of their Parents.

6. Certificates Judge of Filiation, which is acknowledged by the Bishops themselves impossible to be proved according to the old known Rule, Filiatio non potest probari. A Certificate Epis∣copal is therefore a Sentence without Probation, which is not only in the highest nature injust, but void and ridiculous. Of this,. Vid. plus. Lib. 1. p. 104, 105.

* 1.7(7.) The Certificate indirectly passes judgment on Tempo∣ral Inheritance and Lay-fee, which is a meer Romish Usurpa∣tion assum'd by the Bishops, which Bracton fo. 420. will not allow the Pope himself to have; for he says on a Certificate of Bastardy, Cum Index Ecclesiasticus inquisitionem fecerit, non erit ab eo appellandum, &c. and his Reason he gives, Quia sic po∣test causam in insinitum protrahere, de Judice in Judicem us{que} ad Papam, & sic potest Papa de Laico feodo indirecte cognoscere. If therefore for the Pope to Sentence, or Certificate Bastardy,

is indirectly to give Judgment of Lay-fee, is not such Certifi∣cate of a Bishop in Great Britain as indirect a passing of Judge∣ment on Lay-fee, as is that of the Bishop of Rome. And do not Lay-fees lye thereby as much under the Arbitrary disposing of the one, as ever they did of the other? Both Pope and Bishop must claim this Power of Certificate by Conquest, or Con∣tract; if by Conquest, 'tis probable they must put it to ano∣ther Tryal before any Romish Conquest will be granted; if by Contract, let them shew ever any Act of Parliament made for the same, by assent of the House of Commons. And if it were possible to shew any such, yet all Acts confirming Magna Char∣ta, and likewise the Petition of Right, repeal it. For Li∣berty and Propriety cannot consist with the Certificates of Bishops.

* 1.8(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 him∣self?

* 1.9(9.) The Judge who makes the Certificate is totally Ig∣norant 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 As∣sembly (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 copu∣lata, 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 'tis Prohibitum be Indissolubile.

(11.) 'Tis stated Illegitimum Matrimonium in General,* 1.10 and doth not say whether Illegitimum Prohibitum, or Illagitimum in se; each of which will fall under clean different Considera∣tions one from another. And that to teach, that any Il∣legitimum Prohibitum in Marriage is unlawful, which is not Illegitimum in se, is the Doctrine of Devils, as is already proved, Lib. 1. p. 52.

* 1.11(12.) The true state as to Filiation, being to be the que∣stion, Whether Son or no Son, 'tis false stated, and false named, Whether Bastard, or whether Legitimate or not Le∣gitimate, 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 an∣cient 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.

* 1.12(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 ap∣pear to be contrary to the Law of Scotland, by an Act of Par∣liament 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 Illegiti∣mates their Children; neither can any Humane Law Null that Marriage which the Moral Law of God makes valid; nor sepa∣rate those whom the same Law Prohibits not to Marry (though the Law of Man doth) when God hath joyned them by Procre∣ation and Birth of a Child.

* 1.13(15.) The Episcopal Certificate destroys all Propriety the Father hath in his Children, and the Children have in their Fa∣ther; 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 Ʋriah's Wife, where the Child who was begotten in Adultery, is plainly made by the Scripture the Child of David; though the Now Episco∣pal Certificate would make it the Child of Ʋriah.

And worthily may such be said to be ignorant of all Laws of acquiring Propriety in Children, who pretend because the Pro∣priety 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 Ig∣norance 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, Ne{que} enim aequum non consentienti haeredem alium dare. Craig. 267.

* 1.14(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 Chil∣dren 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.

* 1.15(17.) The Certificate starves and disinherits the true Chil∣dren, and Aliments and Inherits the false. For shame take away such wickedness amongst Christians, which is not to be found among Infidels.

This hath already been shewn to be the wicked Practice of Episcopal and Common Lawyers Pa••o••nized by Judge Rikhil, Littleton and Coke, contrary to the Law of God, where the Husband is within the Four Seas at the time of begetting the Child, and gives power to disinherit the right, and intrude Adulterous Heirs not only into private Families, but King∣doms. Of which take a strange attempt emboldened on this absur'd Popish Principle, That adulterous Children born with∣in Matrimony, are inheritable to the Husband of the Adulte∣ress, and not to the Adulterer, Anno 1459. Henry of Spain being himself unable for generation, persuaded his Queen to be got with Child by Bertrand of Guttua; Joane thus gotten is Proclaimed Heir, and Bertrand is made Earl of Ledesma, and Duke of Albuquerk: Hist. Hisp.

The People force him to reject his supposed Daughter, and to declare his Brother Alphonsus; and he refusing, they Depose him, and Crown Alphonsus. Hist. Hisp.

Henry overcometh: Queen Joane hath two Children more by another Minion; Alphonsus dieth; Isabel the King's Sister refuseth the Kingdom; she is declared Heir, and Marrieth Fer∣dinand of Aragon. Hist. Hisp.

Anno 1474. Divers joyn for Joane with Alf. of Portugal, who meant to Marry her; But Anno 1480. she entreth into a Monastery, and Alf. of Portugal. Here Joane was born with∣in Matrimony, and the Certificate of the Bishop, and the Do∣ctrine of Judge Rikhil, if it had been sent for, would have made Joane Heir; but the very light of Nature taught the People, though in a Countrey blinded with Popish Superstition, that she was not the true Heir by the Law of God, but by Fiction; therefore they would not bear it.

* 1.16(18.) The Certificate slanders and dishonours the true, and makes honourable the false and Adulterous Children, as ap∣pears in the before-mentioned form of Certificate of Bastardy, That the under-named N. H. of T. A. H. of P. J. H. of P. and E.

H. of P. are Bastards, and every of them a Bastard: He makes Bastards by Bundles, 'tis as easie to him as cracking of Nuts; and though 1 Cor. 6.10. after other bad Company mentioned, it is said, No Revilers shall inherit the Kingdom of God, yet the mouth of this Certificate is full of Revilings, and devours no less than four Innocents at once, who against others might have had their Actions of Slander; but against a pretended Jure Divino of an Episcopen Slander, there's no Remedy to be had.

* 1.17(19.) The Certificates undermine the Pillar of Truth, and lays the Foundation of Marriage and Filiation on Fictions and Lies; As that Sponsa before a Priest in a Temple is Ʋxor; That Verba De Praesenti, are Facta de praeterito & futuro; That Pro∣hibited Marriages are Null and void; That feigned and void Marriages are by Licence and Dispensation true and valid; That Intention is Contract; Contract is Tradition; Obliga∣tion is Propriety; and Promise is Gift.

Si donare vocas, promittere, nec dare, Cai, Vincam te donis, muneribús{que} m••is. Mart.

That a Child is not Sib, or Kin, or of Consanguinity, or the Child of the Father who begot, or the Mother who bare him or they of him; of which see more, Lib. 2. p. 154, 155. That Children begot by Adulterers, were begot by the Husband within the four Seas. That two Persons are Transubstantia∣ted into one Person by the words of Priests pronouncing them Man and Wife, L. 1. p. 66. with many other, which I forbear here to repeat. All which are meer Fictions and Falsities, and to be Abhorred, to be Tolerated to support Ceremonial Mock-Marriage against the true Marriage according to the Moral Law of God.

* 1.18(20.) The Certificate disinherits Primogeniture in Succes∣sion to Kingdoms, contrary to this Statute, and contrary to the Law of God and Nature.

Patritius Lib. 9. De Regn. T. 22. says, Jus naturae exigit & Gentium Consuetudo confirmat, ut Maximus natu Ex filiis Mortuo Regi succedat. And Tiraquel in Praefat. de Jure Primog. with this agrees the Rule that Deus facit Haeredes. And no other sign

can be in the Law of Nature interpreted to come from God, but Primogeniture of a Son: with which likewise agrees the Scripture, Deut. 21.15. If a man have two women (for that's the Original, and it is falsly Translated, Si fuerit alicui duae Ʋxores) one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him Children both the beloved and the hated; And if the first born Son be hers that is hated, Then it shall be when he shall make his Sons to inherit that which he hath, That he may not make the Son of the beloved First born before the Son of the hated, which is indeed the First born: But he shall acknowledge the Son of the hated for the First born, by giving him a double Portion of all that he hath; for he is the beginning of his Strength, the Right of the First born is his. The other Text of Scripture is,* 1.19 2 Chro. c. 21.1. Now Jehosophat slept with his Fathers, and was buried with his Fathers in the City of David, and Jehoram reigned in his stead. And he had Brethren the Sons of Jehosophat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Sephatiah; all these were the Sons of Jehoso∣phat King of Israel, and their Father gave them great Gifts of Silver and of Gold, and of precious things, with fenced Cities in Judah: But the Kingdom he gave to Jehoram, because he was his First born. Now when Jehoram was risen up to the Kingdom of his Father, he strengthned himself, and slew all his Brethren with the Sword, and divers also of the Princes of Israel; And 2 King. 8.18. And he walked in the ways of the Kings of Israel, as did the House of Ahab; for the Daughter of Ahab was his Wife, and he did evil in the sight of the Lord.

Which Texts, the one for Primogeniture in private Fami∣lies, the other for the same in Successions to Kingdoms, make such Right appear very strong in both; and these Observations tending to the same, may be taken from them.

(1.) That though the Eldest Son be the Son of a second Woman Married after the first; yet if the Son of the second be the Son First born before the Son of the first, he shall be pre∣ferred in the Succession.

(2.) Though the second Woman is an unlawful Woman: for here are the highest Circumstances which can make a Wo∣man unlawful; for the first Woman is still alive, and hath

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

born the Husband Children as well as the second. For the words of the Text are, They have born him Children, both the beloved, and the hated: Yea, it may often fall out, That the Children of the first Woman may be first born, and elder than the Children of the second Woman; yet if the first and the Lawful man hath an eldest Daughter, and the second and un∣lawful Woman hath an eldest Son; The Son of the second un∣lawful and hated Woman shall succeed before the Daughter of the first Lawful and beloved Woman, à Fortiore, shall the eldest Son, if born of the first Woman succeed.

* 1.20(3.) Though there is no Ceremonial, but only the Moral Marriage, yet shall the eldest Son of the Moral Marriage inhe∣rit: For it is not mentioned, nor is it that the Woman who brought forth the First born should be first carried before a Priest in a Temple, before the Woman who had a younger Son; for that would be repugnant to the Law of Succession by Primogeniture, and impossible to consist with it; and the Israelites never used any such Ceremony or other: But used the first Solemnity of Marriage when they used any, except Sub Dio, where they might see the Heavens in Memory of the Promise made to Abraham, Gen. 15.5. That his Seed should be in Number as the Stars.

(4.) 'Tis to be observed, That not an eldest Son by Fiction of an Husband who was within the Four Seas, but the truly first begotten Son shall succeed: for the words are (he may not make the Son of the beloved first born, but the Son of the hated, which is indeed the first born) so not the eldest Son by Fiction, but the eldest Son indeed is here only both expres∣sed and intended.

(5.) That the Right of Primogeniture extends not only to Aliment, for that all Children, elder and younger, Sons and Daughters, have an equal right to. But the right of Primo∣geniture extends in private Families amongst the Israelites to a double Portion, and in Succession to Kingdoms to the whole: For the words in Deut. are (A double Portion of all that he hath) and the words of Chro. are (The Kingdom he gave to Jehoram, because he was his first born.)

(6.) That the reason why a greater Portion is given to the eldest of what is Superalimentary, than to the younger Chil∣dren, is, That he is the Chief strength of the Family to defend

the Father when Aged, and the Children when left in Mino∣rity, and the Inheritance it self, when Invaded by Pretenders. The words therefore are (for he is the beginning of his strength, the Right of the first born is his.)

(7.) That the Bishop ought not be witness of the Filiation or Primogeniture of the Son.* 1.21 But the Matter being in the Israelites Countrey, the same ought to be testified by two or three witnesses, as Deut. 19.15. and more modestly by Fae∣minine witnesses, than Per Papas mares; as likewise appears by the Example, Gen. 38.27. And it came to pass in the time of her Travail, that behold Twins were in her womb. And it came to pass when she Travailed, that the one put out his hand, and the Mid∣wife took and bound upon his hand a Skarlet Thread, saying, This came out first; and it came to pass as he drew back his hand; that behold his Brother came out, and she said, How hast thou broken forth? This breach be upon thee; therefore his name was called Pharez. And afterward came out his Brother that had the Skarlet Thread upon his hand, and his name was called Zarah.

(8.) That the Bishop ought not to be Judge of the Filiation or Primogeniture, but the Father himself; for the words are (He shall acknowledge the Son of the hated for the first born) which is the Natural Father shall acknowledge or Cognosce him to be his first born.

(9.) That in Countries under Arbitrary Power, and the Regal Power not limited by Laws, both the Royal Issue and Nobles lye commonly under great Danger of being cut off by new Successors, unless they are of the true Religion, and fear God.

(10.) That such Successors are often set on to great Cruel∣ties by Idolatrous Wives, as appears in this Example of Jeho∣ram, who, as is mentioned in the Text, slew all his Brethren with the Sword, and divers also of the Princes of Israel: And he walked in the way of the Kings of Israel as did the house of Ahab: for the Daughter of Ahab was his Wife, and he did evil in the Sight of God.

(11.) That in such Countries where Religion and Laws bear not sway, the more Rich and Potent the younger Sons of Prin∣ces are made, the more danger they incur of losing all.

• (1) Be∣cause the Treasury of the Crown is thereby Exhausted and Im∣poverished; as here Jehosophat gave his younger Sons great

• gifts of Silver and Gold, and of Pretious things. The great value of which after his Death did but accelerate the Resump∣tion of them by him who succeeded in his Throne, and shewed the Truth of what is said by Solomon, Eccles. 5.18. There is a sore evil which I have seen under the Sun, namely Riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt.
• (2) Because great Military Power is commonly joyn'd with Treasure as here appears,* 1.22 Together with the same he gave them fenced Cities; both which many times make the Supreme fearful of such Power, not only too great to be subject, but greater than his own; whereas if they had been left what was Moderate below Envy and above Con∣tempt (as the younger Sons of the China Emperors are, and thereby enjoy more secure and happy fates than the Sons of the Grand Seignior, Persian, Negus and Mogul ever attain) they might probably have lived, and though their Brother Jehoram was wicked, never had his hands embrued in their Blood.

Of the General Custom of Nations of Succession to Kingdoms by Primogeniture, and of the Mischief and Civil Wars which have followed by Disinheriting the eldest Son.

Having shewn the Right of Primogeniture in Successions to Kingdoms from the Law of Nature and Scripture, the same likewise appears to be generally the Custom of all Nations, That the same Custom was amongst the Aegyptians as we has the Israelites, is inferred by Lyra from Exod. 12.29. And it came to pass that at Midnight the Lord smote all the first born of the Land of Aegypt, from the first born of Pharoah that sate on his Throne unto the first born of the Captive that was in the Dungeon. And that the same Custom continued in the times of the Pto∣lomies appears Justin 16. So was it amongst the Trojans, and Hus succeeded to Troyas, as Dares to Phrygius in Lib. De Ex∣cid. Tro. The same Custom of Succession to Kingdoms by Pri∣mogeniture was amongst the Persians, Syrians, Macedonians, Parthians, Cretans, Rhodians, Albans, Romans, Sicilians, Goths, Franks, Tartars, Turks, English, Scots, Hungarians, Spa∣niards, and French; and the mischiefs that have insued by disinheriting of Primogeniture, either wholly, or by Di∣vision of Succession into several Kingdoms have been In∣finite.

Amongst the Persians, Cyrus the younger Brother by the assistance of Parisatis the Queen Mother, contending for Suc∣cession against Artaxerxes the eldest, raised such Wars and drew in such Foreign Forces of Greeks as the same ceased not till himself was slain by the Army of Artaxerxes.

The Civil Wars between Hircamus the eldest, and Aristobulus, the younger Son could not be ceased till Pompey by the Roman Power restored the Kingdom to Hircanus the eldest.

* 1.23How many Patricides, or Matricides or Fratricides this hath caused appears, as to the first two by the Examples of Alphonsus the Tenth King of Castile, of Gabriel the younger Son of the Marquess of Salusse, who by assistance of his Mother, cast his elder Brother into Prison, pretending he was out of his Wits, who breaking out of Prison, recovered his Principality, and having chased out his Brother, Coupt up his Mother in the same Prison wherein she had before Coupt him.

The like appears in several Persians, Turks and Africans. And for Fratricides which it causeth, Bodin Lib. 6. cap. 5.735, 736. saith, Foolishly therefore do those Parents, who over∣comed with the flattery of their younger Sons, and disinheriting the elder of their Kingdom, have incensed their Children most cruelly to Murder one another so, as did the Father of Atreus and Thyestes, who willing to prefer the younger before the elder, as more sit to manage Affairs of State, so silled and foyled his House with many Tragedies.

And not to seek farther from home, we have seen all this Realm on sire with Civil Wars; for that Lewis the Devout, at the intreaty of his second Wife, had preferred Charles the Bald before Lothayr his elder Brother: wherefore Pope Pius the Second did wisely in Rejecting the Request of Charles the 7th, the French King desirous to have preferred Charles his younger Son before Lewis the Eleventh his elder Brother; howbeit that the King had Reason so to do, considering that Lewis had with∣out any just occasion twice taken Arms against him, so to have taken from him the Crown, and to have taken the Scepter out of his hand.

And as Bodin saith of France, he need not look far from home; so may we say of England, we need not look far from home, for the said Events of disinheriting Primogeniture. For what caused all those cruel Wars between the House of

York and Lancaster from Generation to Generation, whereby the English lost both all their Conquests and Hereditary Posses∣sions in France, and so many Princes of the Blood, and Nobles and Commons were slain, but that the Line of a younger Bro∣ther contended to be preferred before the Line of an elder? And have not as bad Effects happen'd when the Successions of Kingdoms have been joyn'd or divided to more Sons or Heirs than one?* 1.24

The Father of Jugurtha made him and his two Brothers Associates, but he killed his two Brothers, and took all himself.

Constantine divided the Empire to his three Sons, they de∣stroyed each other, till one had all. James King of Aragon appointed Peter his eldest Son to be King of Aragon, and James his younger Son to be King of Majorca; yet afterwards the el∣der Brother took the younger Prisoner, and in Prison starved him. So it befell also the Children of Botislaus the Second King of Polonia, who having divided the Kingdom unto his four Sons, and having left nothing unto his fifth, kindled such a fire of Sedition as could not be after quench't without much Blood of his Subjects. So William the Conqueror left the Dutchy of Normandy to Robert his eldest, and England to William Rufus, and his youngest Son Henry a Pension. Robert after the Death of Rufus raising a War to recover his Right of Primogeniture in England from his younger Brother, lost the Battel, was taken Prisoner by Henry, and deprived of his Sight, cast into Prison and there died miserably. It had been safe therefore for the Preservation of his House and Kingdom, to have left the Do∣minions intirely to the eldest, and to have left not one only, but both his younger Sons Pensions. A multitude of other Examples there are of the ill success where Primogeniture is deprived not only of the whole, but of any considerable-part or member of the Inheritance either in Land or Treasure; which appears in the forementioned example of the Treasure, and fenced Cities given to the younger Sons of Jehosophat, therefore destroyed by the eldest,* 1.25 2 Chro. 21.2, 3, 4. Which is to be intended only of Succession to Kingdoms. And as to private Families, both Equity and Policy is clean contrary, and that there ought not to be left above a Scripture double Portion to the eldest, where there are more than one; which is agree∣able with the Examples of most Nations.

* 1.26(21.) The Certificate Introduces foreign Laws, and destroys Magna Charta, and the Petition of Right.

The Foreign Laws it introduces on the Subjects as to Mar∣riage, Filiation, and Succession, and Religion, and Liberty, and Propriety all thereon depending, have been already men∣tioned, are the Imperial, and French, and of the Council of Trent. That by the Ceremony of a Priest in a Temple, the Adulterous Children of the Wife shall disinherit the Natural Children of the Husband. The Trent Law, That all Marria∣ges without that Ceremony shall be Null and void, and the Children Illegitimate. The French Foppery, That Natural Children shall not be Natural Children, Excommunication, Penance, Absolution, Commutation-Money, twice punishing for one Offence, and many other Popish foreign Laws; all which destroy Magna Charta, and the Petition of Right, and are inconsistent with the Protestant Religion, Liberty and Propriety.

* 1.27(22.) That the Certificate Episcopal Introducing such fo∣reign Laws incurr a Praemunire is proved before in the Case of Cardinal Woolsey. Lib. 1. cap. 5.37, 38.

* 1.28(23.) The Certificate if it imposes those Foreign Imperial, Papal, French or Trent Laws of Marriage or Filiation on the Succession of the Crown, or Certifie the King's eldest Son not to be Heir contrary to this Statute of 25 E. 3. incurrs the Pe∣nalty of High Treason.

* 1.29(24.) The Certificate though utterly false and unjust, is nei∣ther Traversable nor admits Probation to the Contrary, nor is under Appeal either of Fact or Law, nor is he bound to give any Reason of it; But,

Sie volo sic Jubeo, stat pro Ratione voluntas,

Of which see more at large, Lib. 2. p. 175, 176, 177, 178, 179.

(25.) The Certificate causeth all the mischiefs, which are before proved to be caused by Compulsion to Marry by the Ceremony of a Priest in a Temple, Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 192. Ʋs{que} ad 253.

As to the Objections therefore,

• (1) That the Lady Mother was not Married.
• (2) That she was not a Wife according to the Law of God.

Though as before it had been sufficient for me to deny the Sequel, That because the Lady Mother was not a Queen, was not Married by the Common Prayer-Book; was not Married or a Wife according to the Law of God, therefore the eldest Son is not within the Statute, in regard, as before's shewn, no Question can arise on the Statute whether the King or the Lady his Companion, or the Marriage were Lawful, seeing as before's shewn, the Statute intends and makes it sufficient to be De facto: And it is so dangerous to leave Successions to Kingdoms to Disputes of the Sword whether Lawful or Un∣lawful: And sufficient is already said to answer all Objections relating to the Lady Mother: yet Ex abundanti Cautelâ, against all shadow as well as substance of Objections, I shall likewise shew, That she was not only De Facto, but De Jure Married, and a Wife according to the Law of God.

But preparatory to the same, I shall first shew:

What is Marriage and Matrimony De Facto according to the Law of God.

First therefore as to the Etymology of the word Marriage, the same is derived à Marito & Maritus à Mari, in English a Male, and signifies no more than the Natural Conjunction of the Male with the Female, whether the same be Lawful or Un∣lawful in the Act of Generation. The Effect of the same ac∣cording to the words of Christ, is Mat. 19.5. They twain shall be one flesh. And that is effected in Unlawful as well as a Law∣ful Marriage, as saith Paul, 1 Cor. 6.16. Know ye not that he which is joyn'd with an Harlot is one Body? for two (saith he) shall be one flesh. And Lipsius Antiq. Lection. Lib. 2. c. 9. to the same effect saith, Nubendi verbum Antiquum Antiquitùs inter ea fuit, quae custos ille hortorum libentiùs quàm Virgines Vestae usurparent. Inde ••esto Nupta verba obscaena & Petronio Nuptias facere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And though some make the Derivation of the word Nubo more modest, and to be from Nubes a cloud, be∣cause the Brides face was clouded or shadowed with an yellow Veil or Attire: yet this Ceremony of clouding or veiling, and

all other Ceremonies of Marriage were so appopriated by use to the Priests and Temples of the Garden God, That not only the word Nubere, but all other words signifying a Publick Ce∣remonial Marriage by a Priest in a Temple, were esteem'd Obscene.

Of this see more Albericus Gentilis, De Nuptiis Lib. 2. c. 3. & Fermandius de Cordova in Didascaliâ Multiplici, c. 39. & Ter∣tullianum ad Ʋxorem, Lib. 1. c 5. & Adversus Hermogenem c. 1. And so doth M. Selden De Jure Nat. & Gent. Lib. 5. c. 4. p. 573. observe that amongst the Latines Nubere & Nuptiae, though sometimes used for the Ceremony of Marriage; yet 'tis Originally used for Carnal Knowledge it self, as in Plautus.

Meretrix. Laena.

M. At satiùs fuerat viro dare Nuptum potius. L. Etiam Haec quidem Ecastor quotidiè viro nubit, nupsitque ho∣die; Nubet mox noctu, Nunquam ego hanc viduam cubere scivi; Nam si haec non nubit lugubri mihi fame familia perit.

M. Better her you did marry. L. Marry true, She did, and Day and Night doth marry new; For if she married not, my Family With cruel hunger must soon starve and die.

This is unlawful Marriage, and too many of such Marria∣ges there are.

Matrimony as is already before shewn, cannot be without a Mother, and a Mother cannot be without a Child; Matrimony therefore de Facto is Marriage whether lawful or unlawful con∣summate by the Birth of a Child.

What is Marriage and Matrimony De Jure, according to the Law of God.

Having shewn what is not and what is Marriage and Matri∣mony De Facto, I shall next that is Marriage and Matri∣mony De Jure, according to the Law of God; that is to say, according to the Moral Law of God. For Marriages fatal,

such of which the Poet speaks Fiunt Connubia fato, are not the intended subject here. But as a farther Preparatory, before I come to prove this Thesis, I must likewise lay down as Fun∣damentals to proceed on; The Laws of Nations, Gentiles and Jews, and the Laws of God; as declar'd in the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New.

Of three kinds of Marriages amongst the Romans, and three kinds amongst the Hebrews.

That Marriage by Carnal knowledge between Persons not Prohibited, is Lawful without Ceremonies, not only by the Law of God, but by the Laws of all Nations, except such as have faln under the slavery of Popes and Bishops; and par∣ticularly by the Roman Law, as appears by Godwyn's Antiquities, Lib. 2. cap. 20. p: 69. Who says amongst the Romans Marriage was made, and a Woman became a Man's Lawful Wife three manner of ways,

• 1. Ʋsu.
• 2. Confarriatione.
• 3. Coemptione.

The first, by Use or Customary Copulation for the time of one year. The second, by Confarriation or eating a piece of Barly Cake between them before a Pontiff or chief Bishop. The third, by buying one another with a piece of Money. The two later are Fictions of Marriage and Fopperies: But as to the first, which is a true and Lawful Marriage, if between Per∣sons not Prohibited, it was held by the Roman Lawyers, if a Woman lived with a Man at Bed and Board the space of a year, she being not absent from him three Nights in the year; this was so strong a Marriage that Propriety was got in such a Woman by Prescription; if one year were a Prescription without a Priest or Temple, and without Confarriation or Emption, much more must many years, yea the whole life, a Woman till she died. The Law of the Hebrews was stronger, for with the Romans there needed many Copulations, but amongst the Hebrews only one was a perfect Marriage; as ap∣pears by Maimonides, who saith, The Hebrews had likewise three ways of Marriage, or making a Woman their Lawful Wife,* 1.30 Coemptione, Instrumentis, Copulatione,

• 1. Buying with a piece of Money.
• 2. Drawing and signing Marriage Writings between them.
• 3. Copulation.

Either of which singly, and without any Ceremony was esteem'd amongst them between

persons not Prohibited, a Lawful and valid Marriage. And Selden De jure Nat. & Gent. Lib. 5. c. 4. p. 572. Translates out of the same Maimonides, That Ante Legem Datam (Mosaicam) si foeminae in publico occurrisset vir, & tam haec quàm ille in Matri∣monium consensisset, eam is Domum deducebat, & remotis Arbitris cum eâ concumbebat, at{que} ita ei siebat ea Ʋxor, seu foemina ejus siebat. Before the Law given (saith he) to Moses, if a Man had met a Woman in Publick, and both he and she agreed to Marry, he lead her to his House, and when no witnesses saw them he lay with her in private, and so she was thereby made his Wife, or which is the same, his Woman. And that this amongst the Ebrews was a Lawful Marriage without any wit∣nesses or Ceremony as well after as before, the Law of Moses appears by the Scripture it self, and the very Books of Moses: Of which take the Texts in order as follows:

Gen. c. 2.18. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him an Help meet for him.

Gen. 1.27. So God created man in his own Image, in the Image of God created he him, Male and Female created he them. And God blessed them, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the Earth.

Gen. 2.24. A man shall leave his Father and Mother, and cleave unto his Female, and they two shall be one flesh.

Gen. 4.1. And Adam knew Eve his Female, and she Conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

Gen. cap. 5.1. This is the Book of the Generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, In the likeness of God created he him. Male and Female created he them and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day that they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a Son in his own likeness after his name, and called his name Seth.

Gen. c. 6.1. And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the Earth, and Daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men, That they were fair, and they took them females of all which they chose. And Vers. 4. There were Giants in the Earth in those days, and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare Children unto them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of Renown; Of this Vid. Lib. 2.150.

Gen. 16.3. And Sarai Abrams Wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt Ten years in the Land of Canaan and gave her to her Husband Abram to be his Wife, and he went in unto Hagar, and she Conceived. And Vers. 15. And Hagar bare Abram a Son, and Abram called his Son's name which Hagar bare him, Ismael,

Gen. 38.8. Go in to thy Brother's Wife, and Marry her.

Exod. 21.3. If he were married, his Wife must go out with him.

Numb. 12.1. Because of the Ethiopian woman he had Mar∣ried.

1 Chron. 2.21. And afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the Father of Gilead, whom he married when he was Threescore years old, and she bare him Shegub.

Isa. 62.5. For as a young man marries a Virgin; so shall thy children marry thee.

Gen. 20.3. As Translated in Latin by Mr. Selden de Jur. Nat. & Gent. p. 573. God came to Abimilech in a dream by night, and said unto him, Behold thou shalt die because of the female whom thou hast taken, for her male hath lain with her.

Ex. 22.16. If a man intice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his Wife, if her Father utterly refuse to give her to him, he shall pay money, according to the Dowry of Virgins.

Deut. 22.28. If a man find a Damsel that is a Virgin which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lye with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto thee Damsels Father fifty shekels of Silver, and she shall be his Wife because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

Deut. 21.13. Concerning the Marriage of a Captive Wo∣man taken in Wars, it is said, Thou shalt go in unto her and be her Husband, and she shall be thy Wife.

Mat. 19.3. The Pharisees also came unto him tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his Wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning, made them Male and Female; and said, For this cause shall a man leave Fa∣ther and Mother, and shall cleave to his Female, and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What

therefore God hath joyned together, let no man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a Writing of Divorcement, and put her away? He saith to them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your Wives; but from the beginning it was not so.

Deut. 24.4. Her former Husband which sent her away, may not take her again to be his Wife after she is defiled.

1 Cor. 7.28. If thou marry thou hast not sinned, and if a Virgin marry, she hath not sinned.

1 Tim. c. 4.1. Now the Spirit speaketh expresly, That in the later times some shall depart from the Faith, Giving heed to sedu∣cing spirits and Doctrines of Devils speaking lies in Hypocrisie, hav∣ing their Consciences seared with an hot Iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats.

Mat. 19.9. According to the Original Greek is, Who∣soever shall put away his Woman, except it be for carnal Ʋnclean∣ness, and shall marry another, committeth Adultery.

1 Cor. c. 7.2. To avoid Fornication, Let every man have his own woman, and every woman have her own man: Let the man render unto the woman Due Benevolence, and likewise the woman to the man. The woman hath not Power over her omn Body but the man, and likewise also the man hath not Power of his own Body but the woman. And Vers. 9. It is better to marry than to burn.

1 Tim. 2.15. She shall be saved in Childbearing, if she continues in Faith, and Charity, and Holiness with Sobriety.

1 Tim. 5.14. I will therefore, That the younger woman marry, bear Children.

On these Foundations therefore premised, Of Acts of Par∣liaments, Laws of Nations, and above all, the Moral Law of God in Scriptures and in Nature, if the Lady Companion in this Statute as is said, Cant. 8.9. Be a wall, we will build upon her a Palace of Silver, and Prove,

That Carnal knowledge between persons not Prohibited by the Moral Law and Chastity and Childbirth of the Woman without Contract, Banns, Licence, Witnesses, Priests, Temples, or any other Ceremony is a Marriage and Ma∣trimony De Facto & De Jure Lawful, Holy and Indissolu∣ble, according to the Law of God.

• First, therefore granting there can be no Marriage or Matri∣mony De Jure, where there's none De Facto (for a Modus Entis cannot be without an Ens, an Accessary without a Principal, nor an Accident without a Substance) It is proved on what hath already been shewn, That here is a Marriage and a Matri∣mony De 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.* 1.31 The Major is proved 1 Tim. 4.1. Because all Hu∣mane Laws forbidding Marriages or Meats which are not for∣bidden 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 Ecclesia∣stical 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,* 1.32 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.* 1.33 Where no Law is, there is no Transgression.

(3.) What is declared no Sin by Scripture is lawful; but Mar∣riage 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 ••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 Prohi∣••ited is Lawful and not Prohibited; but Marriage and Matri∣mony between Persons not Prohibited is rewarded; Therefore ••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 Eng∣land; 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 Ar∣ticles; Therefore the present Marriage is acknowledged Law∣ful by the Church of England.

The Minor is proved thus,

All Marriage not Prohibited by the Law of God, is acknow∣ledged 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 Pra∣ctice 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 Legiti∣mation 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 men∣tioned,

• (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 Eng∣land, are two distinct things, and to use the words of the Article, As every Christian may Marry or not Marry accord∣ing 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 with∣out Ceremony, according to his Discretion where not Prohi∣bited 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 with∣out 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 Mo∣ses 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, Cove∣tousness or Ambition.

* 1.34(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 be∣tween 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 vers. 20. Thou knowest the Commandments. And Rom. 7.8. Sin taking occasion by the Commandment wrought in me all manner of Concupiscence, for without the Law Sin was dead. By which ap∣pears that where there's no Commandment, there's no occa∣sion for a Nitimur in Vetitum to kindle Concupiscence to Sin, nor much less can there be Sin it self: For where there's no Prohibition nor Command, there's no Law, and where no Law (as is already said) there's no Transgression.

* 1.35(3.) The Scripture teacheth, That men can be saved by no Law but the Law of God, nor by any Legislator or Judge but God; which is proved Jam. 4.12. There's one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy, who art thou that judgest thy Brother? And vers. 11. He that speaketh evil of his Brother, and judgeth his Brother, speaketh evil of the Law and judgeth the Law, but if thou judge the Law, thou art not a Doer of the Law, but a Judge. And Isa. 33.22. The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver. If therefore the Law of God is the only Law by which Men and Women are saved in Marriage, Matrimony and Child-bearing, as well as all other Acts of Humane life; and God is the only Legislator and Judge of them; then ought their Lawfulness without Ceremony to be judged only according to the Law of God, and where there's no Law of God Prohibiting Marriage without Ceremony, nor Commanding it with Ceremony, the

Law of God declares it Lawful without Ceremony; because nothing can be Lawful or Unlawful but in reference to the Commandments and Laws of God.

* 1.36(4.) The Scripture rejecteth all Ceremonies done without Commandment from God, Isa. 1.12. When ye come to appear before me who hath required this at your hands to tread my Courts; Bring no more vain Oblations, Incense is an abomina∣tion unto me, &c.

* 1.37(5.) The Scripture teacheth all Rites and Ceremonies to have been only Temporary till a Time of Reformation, and to be abolished by Christ, as Heb. 9.1. The first Covenant had Ceremonies. For the Original word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ought to be Translated Rites or Ceremonies, and not Ordinances or Laws, as the Latin Translation is, and appears to be intended and is so Expounded by the Text it self, Vers. 2, 3, 4. which names a Tabernacle, Candlestick, Table and Shewbread, Vayle, Gol∣den Censer, and Ark overlaid with Gold. And v. 9. Gifts and Sacrifices which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to Conscience. And vers. 10. Meats and Drinks, and divers washings and carnal Ceremonies imposed on them until the time of Reformation. All which are an Enumeration of what we call in English and should have been Translated, Ceremonies, and not Ordinances or Laws. As likewise Colo. 2.14. ought to have been Translated, Blotting out the hand-writing of Ceremo∣nies that was against, and which was contrary to us: And took it out of the way, nailing it to his Cross. And ought not to have been Translated Ordinances or Laws.* 1.38 For the Original words used in this Text, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The word Dogma is a Derivative from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies to Teach: which word Teach gives not Authority to be a Legislator, or to Command or give Ordinances or Laws; as Ex. 24.12. And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the Mount, and be there, and I will give thee Tables of Stone, and a Law and Command∣ments which I have written that thou mayest teach them. Here Moses hath no Authority to be a Legislator, nor to make a Law, or Commandments, or Ordinances, but only to teach those made by God. In like manner, Mat. 28.19. Christ saith to his Disciples, Go therefore and teach all Nations. And vers. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. So neither doth here the Authority of teach∣ing

make the Disciples either Legislators or Judges, nor give them Power to give Laws, Ordinances or Commandments to the Nations; but only to teach them the Commandments which Christ gave to the Teachers themselves.

If therefore the Original word Doceo gives no pretence to Translate what signifies only Teaching to be making Ordinan∣ces, much less doth the Derivative word Dogma, which accord∣ing to Isidore, Derivatur à Putando (i. e.) hoc puto esse verum, hoc puto esse bonum, is derived from thinking, that is to say, I think this to be true, I think this to be good. And is the Thought or Opinion of Doctors on a Law or Ordinance, much less pretence, I say, doth such Derivative give to call Thoughts and Opinions the Laws and Ordinances themselves: These Thoughts and Opinions then ought not to have been Transla∣ted Ordinances but Ceremonies, because Ceremonies have only Thoughts and Opinions of men, and no Law of God for them. And so doth the Text expound it self, that it intend∣eth not Ordinances but Ceremonies, as ver. 20. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world are ye subjects to Ceremonies (Touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish with the using) after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men? which things have in deed a shew of Wisdom in Will-worship.

So the Pope is but a Thinker of all his Ceremonies of Mar∣riage. And all his Ceremonies of that and the rest are but Thinkings (as the Bell tinketh,* 1.39 so the Fool thinketh) and hath taken so many first and second Thoughts on the tinking of this Silver Bell of his Profit, that he knows that if once the Truth of the Doctrine should be spread and believed, That Christ hath abolished all Ceremonies,* 1.40 it would ruin him and all other Popes who are Masters of them.

(6.) It being made the Express Command and Ordinance of God, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth. And 1 Tim. 5.14. That the younger women marry and bear Children; if the adding, or diminishing, or limiting of this Law or Com∣mandment of God by prescribing to them Papal or Episcopal Ceremonies should make them unlawful; then first would it be in the power of Popes and Bishops to make God's Commands things indifferent, which they might change or null, or they

might set all Carnal Copulation and Childbirth to Sale, by im∣posing such Ceremonies as none shall be able to pass without first giving notice to the Priest, and paying him what Fees he pleaseth, of which see more, Lib. 2. p. 96, 97. Secondly, this prescribing or Compulsion to Ceremonies in Marriage pu∣nisheth Lawfuld Childbirth in Mothers, and causeth infinite Murders of Children, which Vid. proved at large, Lib. 2. p. 234. to 240. and amount in effect to the wicked Law of Pharoah, which was so far from obliging the Conscience, that Moses his Parents are commended for not obeying the same, as appears Heb. 11.23. where it is said, By faith Moses when he was born was hid three months of his Parents, because they saw he was a proper Child, and they not afraid of the Kings Commandment. Therefore Marriage is Lawful without them.* 1.41 Thirdly, This Prescribing or Com∣pulsion of Ceremonies by men on Marriage and Matrimony commanded by the Moral Law of God, destroys and makes the same of no Effect, as appears Mark 7.13. For there the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is Translated Tradition; (making the Word of God of no effect by your Traditions) ought to have been Tran∣slated,* 1.42 making the Word of God of no effect by your Ceremony. For the word Dosis single, signifies a Giving, Delivery or Tra∣dition, and Paradosis a Praeter or Contradiction to the Law of God, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Contra Legem, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Contra Naturam. Imposing or Compulsion of Ceremonies of Mar∣riage on the Conscience, being a thing Praeter et Contra Legem Dei. And that the word Paradosis is intended here to be Cere∣mony, appears by the Text it self, vers. 8. Laying aside the Commandments of God, ye hold the Ceremonies of men, as the Bap∣tism of pots and cups; and ver. 4. as before mentioned of Brazen vessels and Tables, all which no man doubts to be Ceremonies of Men, and not Laws of God; which though used to an Inten∣tion of Religion or Justice, yet cannot make that Religious or Just which is not so by the Law of God: The Compulsion therefore to the Ceremonies making the Law of God of Mar∣riage to be of no effect; Marriage must be Lawful without them. Fourthly,* 1.43 Compulsion or Prohibition of Ceremonies in Reli∣gion, Justice, Marriage, and Matrimony, destroys the worship in Spirit and truth of God, and Truth, Nature, and Equity to∣wards men; therefore Religion, Justice, Marriage, and Matri∣mony are all Lawful without Ceremonies. As to Ceremonies

of Worship by a Priest in a Temple, See Lib. 2. p. 210, 211. As to Truth destroyed by them, See Lib. 2. p. 186. to 189. and p. 288. to 305. As to Nature destroyed, See Lib. 1.73. to 83. and Lib. 2. p. 154, 155, 156. As to Equity destroyed,* 1.44 See Lib. 2. p. 312. to 329. And hence is to be further noted, That seeing the Law of God doth neither command any Cere∣monies of Marriage, nor Prohibit all: No Marriage ought to be Judged unlawful which doth omit such Ceremonies not Commanded, or doth use such Ceremonies as are not Prohi∣bited; but every person ought to be left to his own Liberty of Conscience to omit such Ceremonies not Commanded, or to use such as are not Prohibited, as suits most with his Conscience and Convenience; the state whereof is best known to every man's self.

Concerning the Liberty of which private manner of Mar∣riage without Ceremonies or Witnesses; See Lib. 1.101. to 109. And concerning Ceremonies and Circumstances, and the Difference between them see more, Lib. 2. p. 189. to 192.

* 1.457. Ceremonies answer not the Lawful and Necessary ends for which God instituted Marriage by Carnal knowledge be∣tween Persons not Prohibited, Therefore Marriage by Carnal knowledge is lawful without them: As the Ends for which God instituted Marriage by Carnal knowledge was,

• (1) Gen. c. 2.18. It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a help meet for him.
• (2) Gen. cap. 1.27. Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.
• (3) 1 Cor. c. 7.2. To avoid Fornication, Let every man have his own woman, and every woman her own man:

What do Ceremonies (were the whole heap of them used through the whole world) Coacervated on two Persons signi∣fie to produce any of these Effects?

(3.) The Lawfulness of such Marriage by Carnal knowledge with∣out Ceremony appears by Express Command of Scripture.

* 1.46Where the Man is commanded by the Scripture to acknow∣ledge for his Wife, whatsoever Woman not Prohibited he Lies with, though without Ceremony, it is Lawful for such Woman to be his Wife, and the Marriage is Lawful without Ceremony; But the Man is commanded by Scripture to acknow∣ledge for his Wife whatsoever Woman not Prohibited he lies

with, though without Ceremonies; as Ex. 22.16. It is said, If a man entice a maid which is not betrothed and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife: If her Father utterly refuse to give her to him, he shall pay money, according to the Dowry of Vir∣gins. And Deut. 22.28. It is said, If a man find a Damsel that is a Virgin which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the Damsels Father fifty Shekels of Silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days. The same Law was at Athens, only instead of the Fifty Shekels, the Man was to pay the Virgins Father a Thou∣sand Drachms, and Marry her besides. Here are Lawful Mar∣riages on the Virgins part yet no Ceremony. And as for any Traditions or late Customs or Constitutions of Rabbi's con∣trary to these express Laws of Moses and Scripture they are not to be valued.* 1.47 The express Command being Deut. 12.32. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it, Thou shalt not add thereto nor Diminish from it. And as is said, Jer. 10.3. The Customes of the People are vain. And the observing the Com∣mandments of Men against the Law of God, being condemned by Christ, Mark 7.9. Ye reject the Commandments of God that ye may keep your own Traditions.

4. The Lawfulness of such Marriage by Carnal Knowledge between Persons not Prohibited without any Ceremony is acknowledged by Episcopal Translations themselves of Scriptures.

* 1.48As Gen. 38.8. It is said, Go in to thy Brother's wife and Marry her: Where the Hebrew word Bo signifies Ingredere ad; Go to bed to thy Brother's Wife; and 25 Deut. 5. The word is Jabo and Jabbein, derived from the same Root, signifies Lye with her; which they have Translated Marry her. And Exod. 21.3. If he were Married his Wife must go out with him: Where the Hebrew word Bagnal signifies one who lay with the Woman, and by a Metaphor Possessor, or Dominus Mulieris, which can be no other way but by lying with her. And this they have Translated, Married. Again, Isa. 62.5. It is said, As a young man marrieth a Virgin: there is the word Bagnal, which signi∣fies to Lye with a Woman, which they Translate Marrieth. And Deut. 21.13. It is said, Thou shalt go in unto her and be her

Husband, and she shall be thy Wife. In which there is both Bo and Bagnal in the signification before mentioned, which they have Translated, Go in unto her and be her Husband. And many other places in the Scripture they have Translated Lying with a woman though without Ceremony for Marriage; which they would have thought lawful: unless therefore Episcopal Tran∣slators will acknowledge that they have falsly Translated all the said places of Scripture, They cannot but likewise acknow∣ledge,* 1.49 That the first Lying with a Woman not Prohibited by the Law of God, though without Ceremony, is Law∣ful Marriage according to the Law of God, and their own Translation.

(5.) The Lawfulness of such Marriage by Carnal knowledge with∣out Ceremony between Persons not Prohibited, appears by Divers other Examples of Scripture.

Gen. 20.3. As it is Translated by Mr. Selden De Jur. Nat. & Gent. p. 573. But God came to Abimelech in a dream by Night, and said unto him, Behold thou shalt die for the woman which thou hast taken: for her man hath lain with her. And he accordingly expoundeth the same according to the Talmud Glosse: Non scriptum est, Nam uxor viri seu viri alterius foemina, sed verba illa, Ecce morieris, pronunciantur eò quòd Maritus concubucrit cum eâ, & non Ratione Sponsaliorum aut Deductionis in Thalmum. It is not written, For she is a mans Wife, or she is the Woman of ano∣ther man; but those words, Behold thou shalt die, are therefore pronounced because that her Man had lain with her, and not by reason of any Contract or Espousal or Ceremonial Conthala∣mation. Whence it is manifest, that contrary to the Papal and Episcopal Law by the Law of God and the Scripture, Con∣cubitus non Consensus facit Matrimonium, Carnal knowledge and not Contract, between Persons not Prohibited, make lawful Marriage, for Ratio Legis est Anima Legis. The reason given why she was another man's Wife, is because he had lain with her: of which may be seen more at large, Lib. 1. p. 83. to 87. And though as to the Practique, Selden in the same place makes a Distinction between the manner of the Marriage of the Hebrews before Moses his Law and After, and p. 574. useth these words, Ebraeis autem ipsis Ex jure suo sario & civili Con∣sensus

solus citra omnem Controversiam sufficiebat. That after the Law of Moses given amongst the Hebrews, without dispute their Law both Sacred and Civil was; That only Consent without Carnal knowledge was a sufficient Marriage; which is very strange should be affirmed by a Man so Learned. For though no man doubts their Civil Laws and Customs called Coemp∣tions and Covenants in Writing, Marriages, according to the vulgar Language; yet were they but Contracts and no Mar∣riage; neither doth or can Mr. Selden, or any other, instance one Sacred Law they had to do this, or to make buying and selling, or Covenants in writing Marriage, without Carnal knowledge. If he intends by Sacred, either the Law of God, or the Law of Moses,* 1.50 or the Law of Scripture: What do the Customs therefore of People, or of Rabbies, or of a Sanedrim signifie any more than the Canons of Popes against any of these? It being so fully already proved, Lib. 1. p. 2. c. 1. That Marriage, Filiation, Aliment and Succession, ought not to be judged by the very Laws of Moses himself, or the Customs of the Jews; but only by the Moral Law of God.

Exod. 21.7. It is said, If a man sell his daughter to be a maid servant, ver. 8. If she pleases not her Master who hath betrothed her to himself: then shall he let her be redeemed to sell her unto a strange Nation, he shall have no power seeing he hath dealt deceit∣fully with her. Ver. 10. If he take him another wife, her food, her rayment, and her Duty of Marriage shall he not diminish. On which Scripture may be observed;

• (1) Here is one buys a Maid of her Father with intention to lie with her.
• (2) She is very poor, and worse than a beggar; for she is a slave bought with his Money: whereas if she were a Beggar and free, she could set what price she pleased on Sale of her Liberty, and dispose it to what use she pleas'd.
• (3) Coemption or Buying was amongst the Jews a betrothing or espousing; especially if besides the price to the Father they gave the Woman a piece of Money likewise, though but a farthing; yea, though nothing was gi∣ven the Woman her self; but only the Price of Money, or any thing else valuable was given to the Father. This was a suffi∣cient betrothing and Espousal, as appears by the words of Da∣vid, 2 Sam. 3.14. And David sent messengers unto Ishbosheth Saul's Son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michol, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistins.
• (4) That amongst

• the Jews no Maid who was Poor and bought and taken by King or Subject to be lain with,* 1.51 needed to be Espoused with any Ceremony or Marriage-Covenants, or to have any Dower or Jointure setled upon her; but he who bought or took her might lawfully by the Jewish Law and Custom lye with her, without any of these; and the same was lawful Marriage.
• (5) That this Buyer having lain with her, desires for change to turn her off, and the same is called dealing Treacherously with her; which shews she is a lawful Wife without any Ceremony.
• (6) It is said, If he takes him another wife; her food, her rayment, and her Duty of Marriage shall he not diminish. By which appears, That this poor Maid and Slave, whom he, whether King or Subject hath once lain with, is his true and lawful Wife with∣out any Ceremony. For the Buyer or Taker cannot be said to take another Wife, unless the first was his Wife before; nei∣ther can he be said to owe a Marriage-Duty to any Woman, unless who was lawfully Married, and who was his lawful Wife, and so she is cleerly without any Ceremony. For neither amongst the Romans, Jews, and Turks, or any other Nations (not under Popes or Bishops are Ceremonies and Solemnities used in the Marriages of Slaves, but only of Free-women; nor can there be Covenants of Marriage, Dowers or Jointures given to Women who are Slaves, (where the Law of Slavery is not abolished, as it is amongst the greatest part of Chri∣stians) because a Woman who is a Slave is neither capable of the Right of Propriety or Action against her Husband, being her Lord and Master who bought her; yet is she capable to be his true and lawful Wife, and of the Right of Food, Rayment and Duty of Marriage from him.

Gen. 16.3. It is said, And Sarai Abrams wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian after Abram had dwelt ten years in the Land of Canaan, and gave her to her Husband Abram to be his Wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived. And Ver. 15. Hagar bare Abram a Son, and Abram call'd his Sons name Ismael which Hagar bare him. On which Text may likewise be observed,

(1.) That Hagar was Abram's Slave or Bondwoman.

(2.) That he got a Son by her without any Ceremonies and without Marriage-Covenants, Dower, or Jointure. For Cap. 21.14. He casts her out, and his Son with no more than a Wallet of Bread and a Bottle of Water on her shoulder, to wander in the wilderness of Bersheba.

(3.) That notwithstanding here was no Ceremony; yea, though there was what was worse, this Course Complement of Abram's casting her out of Doors; yet by his Lying with her and getting her with Child, the Scripture calls her his Wife; and many other places of Scripture there are, where the only Lying with a Virgin or Woman not Prohibited, whether bond or free, lawfully entitles her to be his Wife, and the same with∣out any Ceremony is a lawful Marriage.

(6.) The Holiness of such Marriage by Carnal knowledge without Ceremonies appears after.

* 1.52Ceremonies Prophane Marriage:

• (1.) By the unnecessary Publication of what ought to be kept secret; As by Diogenes Lying with a Woman in the Market-place, or the Jews lying with a Woman before two Witnesses.
• (2.) By using such Ceremonies as produce wantonness, as Lascivious Songs, Promiscuous Dancings, Excessive vanity of Apparel, publick Exposal of the Bride to view Bridals, and many others.
• (3.) By using such Ceremonies as are Ridiculous; of which there's before mention, Lib. 1. p. 4. and 127.
• (4.) By using such Ceremonies as are Idolatrous as Consecra∣tions of Brides at Altars or Idols.
• (5.) By using unnecessary Ceremonies derived from the Priests of Priapus and Venus, and other Pagan Priests, and of∣fensive to tender Consciences.
• (6.) By Compulsion of Ceremonies in Marriage on Tender Consciences not commanded by the Law of God. For though as is said,* 1.53 Rom. 14.14. Nothing is unclean of it self, yet as it follows in the same Verse, To him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean, and God's Ordinance of Mar∣riage thereby Prophaned; which is of it self and without them most Holy.

(7.) Of Chastity making Marriage Holy and Indissoluble.

When God hath joyned a Man a Woman, and they are made one Flesh, there needs no other Portion or Dowry to make the Marriage but Chastity:

Dos est magna Parentum Virtus, & metuens alterius viri Certo foedere Castitas.

* 1.54But the corrupt Popish Practique of Ceremonies in Mar∣riage, hath destroyed the Honour and Use of so great and rare a Virtue, and a Messalina if she is led to a Priest and Temple, shall be a holy Wife and a Lucretia, if she leads not the same Dance shall be a Prophane one, or none at all. But what this unclean Doctrine of such Doctors is, matters not: By the Scripture Chastity of the Woman and the Bed undefiled makes Marriage Holy and Honourable, Heb. 13.4. and Inchastity dissolves and makes it shameful, Levit. 20.10. Pro. 5.9. & 6.33. Mat. 19.9. And not the Ceremony of Priests or Tem∣ples; as to which Heavenly virtue we need cite no more excel∣lent Example than the Lady her self, before objected against by those who never imitated her in the same; against whose Chastity Fame it self dared not Lye.

Of the Indissolubleness of such Marriage without Ceremony Con∣summated by Carnal knowledge and Procreation of a Child.

It is not denied but that by the corrupt Practice of the Jews, Greeks, Romans, and other Nations, Men Divorced Women, and Women who were free and not slaves Divorced Men arbitrari∣ly at their pleasure, not only after Carnal knowledge, but after Childbirth, and many Children had; without cause or crime. But this is expresly forbidden by Christ, Mat. 19.6. They two are no more twain but one flesh, What therefore God hath joyn'd together, let no man put asunder.

That the Marriage intended by Christ to be Lawful and Indissolu∣ble, was only simple carnal knowledge without Ceremony between a man and a woman not Prohibited to marry by the Law of God.

(1.) Because at the time and place when and where Christ taught this Doctrine of the Lawfulness and Indissolubleness of Marriage in answer to the question concerning Divorce by the Pharisees to tempt him, Mat. 19.3. There was no other kind

of Marriage then known amongst the Jews but these three:

• (1) Copulatione.
• (2) Coemptione.
• (3) Instrumentis.

Nor amongst the Romans who ruled the Land, but these three:

• (1) Ʋsu.
• (2) Coemptione.
• (3) Confarriatione.

Now it is manifest Christ intended not Coemptione, Instrumentis, or Confarriatione; all which kinds are already before explained what they are. For first he intended only that kind of Marriage which maketh one flesh, as he expresly declareth, Vers. 4, 5, and 6. which is only Carnal knowledge. Therefore he intended not Coemption or Marriage Writings, or the Ceremony of Confarriation by eat∣ing a Barley Cake before a Priest in a Temple; for none of these make the Man and Woman one flesh. Secondly, Christ expresly declares Vers. 4. and 8. That he intends such a kind of Marriage as was from the beginning, that is, from the time of the Creation of Male and Female. Now it is clear that there was no kind of Marriage from the beginning but simple Carnal knowledge without Ceremony, and secret without Witness, except God only; and no such thing as Coemption or buying or selling Women for Money, without writing, or buying or selling them for Joyntures or Thirds by Indentures or Instru∣ments written, nor buying or selling them for Fees by the Priest for his Confarriations and other ridiculous Ceremonies. Third∣ly, Christ whipt all Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple, and intended they should not buy or sell there; much less did he intend they should buy or sell there God's holy Ordinance of Marriage. Fourthly, Christ abolished all Ceremonies, and taught the Worship of God ought to be in Spirit. And Fifthly, Christ never Instituted any Marriage by a Priest, nor did he or his Apostles ever Marry a Man and a Woman: he intended not therefore such kind of Marriage, which neither God insti∣tuted nor of which he from God gave either Precept or Exam∣ple. Sixthly, Christ only intended such Marriages, whereof according to God's Ordinance, the Poor might take equal be∣nefit with the Rich: For he saith, to the Poor the Gospel is preached, but the Poor can take no benefit of Coemptions or buying of Women for Money, or for Jointures or Thirds, nor are able to give Fees to Lawyers for Indentures, or to Priests for Ceremonies, or to buy Licenses or Gold Rings, or to pay so much as for Banns or Proclamations; Christ therefore never intended they should be Prohibited all Marriage, except it

were Coemptione, Instrumentis, or Confarriatione; he gave them therefore that Marriage which was Copulatione; otherwise they could have the benefit of no Marriage at all. Seventhly, 'Tis manifest that Christ makes the Marriage Copulatione to be the Ordinance of God which was from the beginning; for which a man should leave father and Mother, and should cleave to his Wife, and this was the Law of Moses, and the Law of the Ro∣mans, and Christ doth establish and confirm it by forbidding any Divorce except for Fornication, which in the Woman is Polyandry, and according to the Maxim of Nature, Ʋnumquod{que} dissolvitur eodem modo quo Conflatum est. As Carnal knowledge by a Woman with her Husband shall make Marriage; so Car∣nal knowledge with another Man, doth unmake and dissolve the Marriage. If therefore Marriage by Carnal knowledge only is, according to the Doctrine of Christ, a joyning toge∣ther by God and indissoluble, à Fortiore, Procreation of a Child between them, is a joyning together by God, and Indissoluble by Man, and even it is by the Light of Nature acknowledged, That Procreation of Children is a greater obligation than Copulation not fruitful.

Nascitur ad fructum Mulier, prolem{que} futuram.

Claud. in Eutrop.

—Tormentum ingens Nubentibus haeret, Quòd nequeant parere & partu retinere Maritos. Juv. Sat. 2.

Faemina cùm senuit, retinet Connubia partu, Ʋxorís{que} Decus, Matris Reverentia pensat. Nos Lucina fugit, nec pignor•• nitimur ull••. Claud. in Eutrop.

An Epithalamium on the Marriage of Nature intended by Christ, without a Priest or Temple.

BRazen was Venus when in Pride To Temples throng'd she led a Bride, Who with a blush Like Rosie bush First with one man in Woods did hide. There free from fascinating charms, And Hungry Wolves more cruel harms, The Lamb did play, And never stray From fold of her own Shepherds arms. Fair Chastity in Angels shape, The Nymphs there taught how to escape With pretty smiles, And witty wiles From every wanton Satyr's rape. The Turtle there in secret sate As sick of Love, as was her Mate, And still did moan To him alone; Nor from him fled until her Fate. The lesser Birds did sit and sing How these in prime the Queen and King Had been of May So sweet and Gay When it approached to the Spring.

There in the Royal Oak of Jove Princes did wed and Live and Love; And of Renown Without a Crown They Kingdoms had from God above. Fast by in Cottages of Reed The Subjects lay who were agreed. Their Love did bless With Happiness; Oh happy thrice they and their seed. No Mother there more fierce and wild Then Tyger kill'd her new born Child: Nor from it fly For Parish cry The Father did or was exil'd, The weeping Babe not babling Fame Dar'd illegitimate their Name, Or Punishment On Innocent To lay of Parents guilt or shame. Thus had the lovely Pairs at first, Had not the State of Man been curst In Eden's Bowers New drest with Flowers, Their own Fruit unforbidden nurst. Thus he did Marriage make divine, Who Water turned into Wine, And Heav'n to fill, Where is no ill With little Children did design. Till what was right was feign'd amiss, Ʋnless the Priest had the Tenth kiss, And fees beside To bless the Bride, Then lost they Innocence and bliss.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Original of Certificates of Marriage came not from Christ, but from the Priests of Pri∣apus, and the Devil.
• * 1.2

  The Original of Certificates of Filiation came from the Priests of Pri∣apus.
• * 1.3

  The Certifi∣cate of the Priest of Pria∣pus better than that of the Bishop.
• * 1.4

  The Priest fathered Men on the Gods.
• * 1.5

  Popery ruin'd if Episcopal Jurisdiction of Marriage were taken away.
• * 1.6

  Certificates of Bishops con∣demn Infants without hear∣ing. Condemn Children for the Sin of the Parents.
• * 1.7

  Certificate an Usurpation of Jurisdiction of Lay-fee and Free-holds.
• * 1.8

  Marriage and Filiation not to be submit∣ted to any Judges or Ar∣bitrators, ex∣cept the Par∣ties them∣selves, or God.
• * 1.9

  Bishop who certifies, igno∣rant both of Fact and Law.
• * 1.10

  Illegitimum Prohibitum, & illegitimum in se.
• * 1.11

  The state of the Question ought to be, whether Son or no Son, which is Mat∣ter of Fact; and not whether Legitimate or not Legiti∣mate, which is Matter in Law.
• * 1.12

  Certificate of the Bishop, Nonsense. Certificate of the Bishop Nulls all Mar∣riage Prohi∣bited contrary to the Law of England and Scotland.
• * 1.13

  Propriety in Parents and Children de∣stroyed by Bi∣shops Certifi∣cates.
• * 1.14

  Certificates of Bishops de∣prive Infants of Aliment, and destroy them.
• * 1.15

  The true Children are disinherited by the Adul∣terous on Certificates.
• * 1.16

  Bishops Certi∣ficates make adulterous Children ho∣norable, and true Children, base.
• * 1.17

  Certificates destroy Truth, and found on Fictions and Lies.
• * 1.18

  Bishops Certi∣ficates incon∣sistent with the right of Primogeni∣ture.
• * 1.19

  Jehosophat gave the King∣dom to his eldest Son, and Gifts to his younger.
• * 1.20

  Primogeniture to be in Mar∣riage, though without Cere∣monies.
• * 1.21

  Feminine Popes if any, and not Male, ought to make Certificates of Primogeni∣ture.
• * 1.22

  Excess of Treasure and fenced Cities left to young∣er Sons of Princes, com∣monly de∣stroys them.
• * 1.23

  Disinheriting the eldest Son causeth Patri∣cides, Matri∣cides, and Fra∣tricides.
• * 1.24

  Division of Kingdoms or part of them or of the Trea∣sure from the eldest to youn∣ger Sons, de∣structive to Kingdoms.
• * 1.25

  Primogeniture not to have the same Pre∣rogative in Private Fami∣lies as in King∣doms.
• * 1.26

  Certificates introduce fo∣rein Laws, and destroy the Laws of the Land.
• * 1.27

  Praemunire incurred by Certificates.
• * 1.28

  High Treason incurred by Certificates.
• * 1.29

  Certificates not to be tra∣versed or di∣puted, nor under Appeal.
• * 1.30

  No Priest ne∣cessary in any kind of Ebrew Marriage.
• * 1.31

  Prohibition of Marriage with∣out Ceremo∣ny not Prohi∣bited by the Law of God, is the Doctrine of Devils.
• * 1.32

  The final Cause of such Prohibitions, is only filthy Lucre of the Priests.
• * 1.33

  Where no Law, no Trans∣gression.
• * 1.34

  No Sin where no breach of a Command∣ment of God.
• * 1.35

  Salvation by no Legislator, Judge, or Law, but of God.
• * 1.36

  Ceremonies rejected by the Scripture.
• * 1.37

  Ceremonies false Transla∣ted Ordinan∣ces.
• * 1.38

  Mission to teach, is no Mission to make Ordi∣nances.
• * 1.39

  Ceremonies are Will-wor∣ship, and abo∣lished by Christ.
• * 1.40

  The Com∣mandments of God of Mar∣riage cannot be limited by or to the Ce∣remonies of men, because Marriage where com∣manded by God is not a thing indiffe∣rent.
• * 1.41

  Compulsion to Ceremonies makes the Law of God of Marriage of no effect.
• * 1.42

  Ceremonies false Transla∣ted Traditions
• * 1.43

  Compulsion to Ceremonies destroys Mar∣riage, Religi∣on, Justice, Truth, Equity, Natural Affe∣ction.
• * 1.44

  Prohibition of Ceremonies not Prohibited by God doth the same.
• * 1.45

  Ceremonies answer not the Ends of Marriage.
• * 1.46

  Carnal Know∣ledge without Ceremony commanded to be acknow∣ledge Mar∣riage by ex∣press Scripture.
• * 1.47

  Such Com∣mand of God not a thing in∣different to be added to or diminished from, by any Laws of Men.
• * 1.48

  Carnal Know∣ledge without Ceremony be∣tween Persons not Prohibit∣ed, acknow∣ledged Mar∣riage by Epis∣copal Transla∣tion of it so in the whole Scripture.
• * 1.49

  The first Car∣nal knowledge of a Woman not Prohibit∣ed, is Lawful Marriage of her.
• * 1.50

  No Law of God or of Mo∣ses, for any Jewish Cere∣monies in their Marria∣ges.
• * 1.51

  Amongst the Jews Carnal knowledge of a Maid that was poor, by King or Sub∣ject, was law∣ful Marriage, without E∣spousal, Con∣tract, or other Ceremony.
• * 1.52

  What kind of Ceremonies Prophane Marriage.
• * 1.53

  Compulsion of Ceremonies on Tender Consciences, Prophane Marriage.
• * 1.54

  Compulsion of Ceremonies destroy Cha∣stity.