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.

Objections first against the not being of the Kings Eldest Son within these Statutes, answered.

[Object.] Obj. 1. That the Lady his Mother was not a Queen, there∣fore the Kings Eldest Son is not within the Statute.

[Answ.] * 1.1Answ. To this the answer is easie and clear, that the word Madame sa Compaigne are falsly translated our Lady his Queen, and ought to have been translated our Lady his Companion, which is proved by the Reasons following.

• (1.) Because 'tis manifest sa Compaigne signifies not the word Queen in specie, but any Lady Companion in general.
• (2.) Because it is manifest the makers of this Act of Par∣liament intended not to restrain their several meaning onely to a Queen, for they knew Royne was French for Queen as well as Roy for King: and if they had intended so, could have more certainly and easily said, Compas le mort nostre Seignior le Roy & sa Royne, than Madame sa Compaigne.
• (3.) Because at the time of making this Statute the famous Black Prince being the Eldest Son to Edward III. was married to Joan Daughter to Edmund Earl of Kent, and had Issue by her Richard of Bourdeaux after King of England, and none doubts but it was the intention of the King Edward III. who passionately affected his Grandchild Richard, that in case the Princes Wife should happen to die in his life time, whereby she should not have been a Queen, but that notwithstanding if the Black Prince had happened to have survived him, which he did not, and been King, his Eldest Son Richard should have benefit, of this Statute.
• (4.) It would have been made doubtful by the Bishops who usurped then the Papal Supremacy over Princes, of giving or refusing to give them Coronation when they pleased, whether the Kings Wife should be titled Queen, if the Bishop refused

• her Coronation,* 1.2 as Ralph Archbishop of Canterbury did to Ade∣liza the second Wife of H. I. unless the Kings would suffer him to pull off the Crown first from the Kings head, and new Crown him, in acknowledgment that the Supremacy of the Coronation Office belonged to Ralph the Archbishop, Bak. Hist. 43. Touching which Office of Coronation of Kings and Queens, that it belongs to Parliaments, and not to Bishops; and that David himself was both crowned and anointed by his Parliament and not by the Priest, is shewn, lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 169, &c.
• (5.) * 1.3Because the Title of Queen was then under Envy, and doubtful whether not against the antient Law both of England and Scotland, the same not appearing to have been repealed by any Act of Parliament, Bak. Hist. fol. 6. saith a Law was made by the West Saxons, that no Wife of a King should be called a Queen: & fol. 8. that it was so rigorously observed that, when Ethelwolph had married Judith the Beautiful, Daughter of the Emperour Charles the Bald; in honour of whom, in his own Court he ever placed her in a Chair of State, with all other Majestical Complements of a Queen, contrary to the Law of the West Saxons, made to avoid the great Expence of Treasure incident to great Titles and Ceremonies, and against other in∣conveniences, and so much displeased his Lords thereby, that they were ready to have Deposed him, but were prevented by his death not long after. Buchanan Rev. Scot. 407. takes notice of this Law, and says, Saxones lege caverunt ne ulla deinceps Regis Ʋxor Regina vocaretur, aut in sede honoris in publico Regi assideret. And 406. mentions the like Law in Scotland; Quas Reginas alii suo quisque sermone nos Regum uxores appellamus, nec altioris fastigii nomen ullum in iis agnoscimus; voluerunt enim opi∣nor viri prudentes ut illae quoties mentionem sui fieri audirent, ex ad∣juncto viri nomine se viris obnoxias esse meminissent.
• (6.) The Statute by Compaigne intended Sociam Thalami non Throni. And in the same sense is the word Companion used in Scripture, Cant. 1.15. It is said, Behold thou art fair my Compa∣nion, thou art fair. And Mal. 2.14. Yet is she thy Companion, and the Wife of thy Covenant. In both which places the word Com∣panion signifies the Companion of the Bed, and not of the Throne

• ...

  Non bene conveniunt nec in una sede morantur Majest as & Amor— Nulla fides regni sociis, omnisque potestas Impatiens consortis erit.

Of the like false Translation of the Scriptures by the Bishops of the Hebrew words Shegal and Gibhira, into the English word Queen.

* 1.4Psal. 45.9. Is thus falsly translated, Ʋpon thy right hand did stand the Queen in Gold of Ophir. Whereas the Hebrew is only Shegal, which signifies no more than Conjux or Wife, from Shagal, Coivit, Concubuit, and is no more than a Woman that hath been lain with by her Husband. In like manner 1 King. 15, 13. & 2 King. 10.13. are false translated Queen, the He∣brew word being Gibhira, which signifies no more in French than Madame, as in the Statute; nor in Latin than Hera or Domina; nor in English than Lady or Mistress. And the An∣tient Hebrews, and many other Nations did no more allow the Title of Queen, except to a Queen Regnant, than as is al∣ready said did the Saxons or Scots; for Regina is derived à Re∣gendo, and is only proper to Gynarchies, and imports none but the Supreme Governess of a Kingdom, by which Title Queen Elizabeth was called. Neither had Saul or David any Queens, but onely Wives, nor Solomon himself in all his Royalty of his thousand Wives any Queen, for 700 are onely called in the Septuagint 1 King. 11.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is no more than Feminae Principes in Latine, and Chief Women in English. And the other 300 (which are falsly translated Concubines, as I have elsewhere at large shewed) are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifie no more in Latine than Juvenculae, and in English than the honest name of Young Women: Neither was he the Son of a Queen, for his Mother, wheresoever she is named, is onely called plain Bathsheba, as 1 King. 1.5. And Bathsheba went in un∣to the King into the Chamber, and the King was very old. And verse 28. Then King David answered and said, call me Bathsheba; and she came into the Kings presence, and stood before the King. And 1 Chron. 3.5. And these were born unto him in Jerusalem, Shi∣meah, and Shobah, and Nathan, and Solomon, four of Bathsheba the

Daughter of Ammiel. That the Bishops have likewise falsly translated all in the Scripture relating to Marriage and Filia∣tion, is proved before at full Lib. 2. p. 142. usque ad p. 162. And in other matters as is assirmed by that great Linguist Doctor Broughton,* 1.5 they have false translated the Old Testament in no less then 848. places.

Now that this Lady-Mother was Madame sa Compaigne, which are both the words and intention of the Statute, is so known as need not be proved by Witnesses. For she had the honour to be Primus Amor, the first Lady Companion of the Prince, the Raies of whose Favour cast upon her, made the Lustre of those Graces rarely conjoined in the same person, the more illustrious; for she was a Virgin, and not praeposses∣sed by another; She was a Protestant, and not a Papist; She was a Native, and not a Strange Woman; She was a Subject, and not Imperious. In her were conjoined Beauty with Cha∣stity, Greatness with Humility, Treasure with Frugality, Fide∣lity with Adversity. Though she did not reign with him to be called Queen, she suffered with him, and was partaker of all his troubles; no bloudy Wars, no Seas, no Foreign Countries could fright her from him. But as if the Soul of that sacred Queen Eleanor, the Companion of the famous Edward I. in his Wars to the Holy Land, had transmigrated into her Body, she led the Pilgrimage of her life with him whithersoever he tra∣velled; and though she had no Crown in her Life, she was faithful to Death and beyond Death, left him such a pleadge of affection as is hoped by Gods mercy will indear her memory to all Protestants in the three Kingdoms, which will evince to all except the Malicious, That she was Madame sa Compaigne, the Lady his Companion mentioned and intended in this Sta∣tute: which is sufficient, and as much as is necessary to be proved.

[Object. 2] Object. 2. That she was not married according to the Mass-Book, Common-Prayer, Book of Canons, or Ordinance of Par∣liament, or by a Priest in a Temple; therefore the Eldest Son is not within this Statute.

[Answ.] * 1.6Answ. 1. There is neither the word Marriage, Mass Book, Common-Prayer Book, Book of Cannons, or Ordinance of Parilament, Priest or Temple named in the Statute; therefore being not expressed, they are not to be intended in so wise a Statute which minded substance and not Ceremonies, and Safety of the Royal Blood and not Insecurity and Incertainty.

(2.) Admit the Statute had in express terms said our Lady his Companion married by the Mass-book, which was the Book then in Fashion, at time of this Statute, yet none will deny, but when by a succeeding Power this Mass-Book was abolished or changed,* 1.7 as in the time of H. 5. the Service Book of Pauls was changed into the Service Book of Salisbury, that none need to marry according to it. Then as to the Common-Prayer, and Book of Cannons at the time of the Princes taking his Lady Companion, it is known that both Mass-Book, Com∣mon Prayer Book, Book of Cannons, and all were abolished by the then Power of the Sword, and it might have been Death for a Prince to have married by a Book of Common-Prayer, or in Publick. Is any Protestant then so imprudent as to expect in such a time and place of War, and the Usurping Power pro∣vailing in their contrary Ordinances, and threatning death and destruction to all who opposed them, that such who were in those dangers, should publickly, and with Rites and Ceremo∣nies, by a Priest, Temple, and Altar, solemnize a Marriage? or can any be so sensless, as when in the time of King John, Pope Innocent,* 1.8 the French King, and English Bishops, conspired toge∣ther and the Pope Excommunicated and Interdicted the King and whole Kingdom of England for the space of six Years, three Months, and fourteen Days before the Interdiction could be bought off. Neither payment of vast sums of Money, and the laying down his Crown, Scepter, Mantle, Sword, and Ring at the feet of Pandolfus the Popes Legat, and making his King∣dom tributary to Rome, during all which time of Interdiction there was no Church open for Marriages or Burials, but People were buried like Dogs in Ditches; and where they married God knows. And in the latter times of Potentates of Interdi∣ction of the Common-Prayer Book, and Marriage by it, can any, I say, be so sensless as to censure in such a time those who

were excluded from all Mass-Books, Common-Prayer Books, Priests and Temples, if they make use of Gods Ordinance and not of the Priests, and married without them.

(3.) There is another Circumstance in this Case, which makes it both Unlawful and Impossible to question the Validity of this Marriage, because without Mass-Book or Common-Prayer, or Ordinance of Parliament; for the Lady Mother,* 1.9 who was the Royal first Companion, is now dead; And by Law of God and Man none ought to be Censured without hear∣ing, and answering for her self, which now is impossible; for who knowes, if Question'd while alive, What besides the ne∣cessities of War, she could have alledged both as to the Fact and Law; what Matrimonial Promises or Contracts Verbal or in Writing; what Matrimonial Trusts, what Witness, what Evi∣dence she could have produced: For which reason, even by our own Laws, as appears 39 E. 3.32. If a man Marry his own Sister, which is a very unlawful Incestuous Marriage, and contrary to the Law of God, and hath Issue by her, and she dyes, if not Ju∣dicially Questioned and Sentenced for it in her Life-time; the Legitimation of her Issue shall not be questioned after her death, because she was not Summon'd to answer while alive. Of which, see more before in the Preface. So Littleton himself, though he is much Devoted to the Service of the Laws and Religion of his Holy Father the Pope concerning Marriages, yet he con∣fesses, Sect. 399.340. That if the Legitimation of a Child is not question'd while alive, his Heir shall never be questioned after he is Dead. And if a man Marry his Sister, and hath Children by her, if one Parent dye, though Incest, the Children are Legitimate, 39 E. 3.32. But in this Case where there is no Incest, nor any other matter in the least, prohibited by the Law of God, nor pretence or colour of any but the omission of a Petty Ceremony of a Common-Prayer-Book, a human Law, and that in a time of War too, when abolished, to violate the Sanctuary of the Sepulcher and the Deceased, seems not only Unchristian but Barbarous. How unlawful the Desertion of a Virgin is while alive, hath been already shew, Lib. 1. p. 88. But far more unlawful is the Desertions of her Children after her Death. And how Unlawful Divorce of her is after Pro∣creation of a Child, hath been already shewn, Lib. 1. p. 94. But far more Unlawful is the Divorce of the Dead. Oh ye Romish

Monsters, ye are more Cruel than Death: for death it self Di∣vorceth not quoad praeterita,* 1.10 but only quoad futura. Death it self Nulls not, but only Dissolves the Marriage. No Dragon but that of the Seven Heads, hath a Retrospect in repeal of Lawes. No Wolves but those in Sheeps-clothing with their howles disturb the blessed Dead.

* 1.11(4.) By the Statute 12 Car. 2.33. It is Enacted, That all Marriages by pretence or colour of any Ordinance of Parlia∣ment since May, 1642. (which was during the Times of the War and Usurpation) shall be adjudged of the same force and effect, as if they had been solemnized according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, which is according to the Common Prayer-Book. This ACT therefore though it give and intend Right and Justice to those who had been in Hostility, and doth take away all Cavils and Scruples might after have arisen concerning the Ordinance, Marriage and Le∣gitimation and Succession of Children; Yet did it not intend such as were Friends should be left in a worse condition as to their Marriages and Children, than those to whom they had given the benefit of this Act; or that there should only a Balm be provided for the Wounds of one party, and those of the other, who were more necessitated to receive them, be left bleeding without any: for the Royal Party could then neither Marry by the Common Prayer-Books which the Sword had abolished, nor according to the Ordinance of Parliament, not daring to approach their Quarters,* 1.12 or to be publickly Banned at Church or Market-Cross; Especially Persons of Eminency to Expose themselves to such a Snare as might intrap them, and indanger their Lives. It was not therefore the Intention of the Protestants in this Parliament, That this Act of Confirmation of Marriages should have been partial, and only to Confirm one Party; but rather to have been as the Act of Confirmation of Judicial Proceedings made in the same Year was general to all Parties, and to have Confirmed all Marriages in general made since May, 1642. not contrary to the Moral Law of God, to be of the same force and effect as if they had been Solemnized ac∣cording to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, or the Common Prayer-Book. It is an old Rule, that Favores sunt ampliandi, Favours are to be inlarged, and not restrained;

and it might be happy for many Families who have Suffer'd for his Majestie in time of the Wars, if such a general Act of Con∣firmation of Marriages then made, not contrary to the Moral Law of God, were yet Enacted, and the Favour not Restrained only to Marriages made by Ordinance of Parliament: For as to those many Papists who had free Liberty to Live in the Par∣liament Quarters (when the Royal Party had not) took advan∣tage of, and first Married before Justices of Peace, and after by their own Priests: It is not Equal therefore, that Protestants, that could not have that Safety which Papists had, or if they could, thought it, perhaps, against their Conscience to Marry according to the Forms prescribed by Ordinance of Parliament, should be Excluded from all Favour or Excuse to the Marriages of themselves, and Successions of their Children, which is by this Act given to the Marriages and Children of these who were in Hostility, and of Papists themselves.

There was likewise another ACT made 29 Car. 2. 1677, for the Naturalizing of Children of his Majesty's English Sub∣jects born in Forreign Countreys during the Late Troubles, which was to them a Just and Necessary Right, though it had been so long delay'd, and was a Restitutio Naturalium, and no less; yea rather a more necessary Right, though it hath been longer delayed, were an Act of Legitimation of the Children of all Protestant Parents born between June 14. 1641. and March 24. 1660, who at the time of their begetting were not prohibited by the Moral Law of God to Contract Marriage, would be Restitutio Natalium;* 1.13 And be a great Relief to the Children of such Parents as Suffered for his Majestie in his Do∣minions, and are far more in number than such Children as happened to be born beyond Sea; there having been so many whose Necessities Disabled them to transport themselves from the Danger at home, yet could not avoid it by staying here, but living in fear of the power of the Sword, Dared neither to Marry by the Common Prayer-Book, because prohibited; nor by the Ordinances of Parliament, because by such Publication of themselves, they had been Exposed to have been seised on by their Enemies. So it seems either such Act of Legitimation, or the former Act of Confirmation of Marriages, will be Just and Necessary for the Suffering-Party not yet Relieved.

(5.) If Bishops acknowledg in deed, what they alledge in words,* 1.14 Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical in the King, then must they acknowledg Supremacy of Marriage to be in him, because they alledg Marriage to be a Cause Ecclesiastical, and they themselves De facto Exercise the supremacy of Ecclesiasti∣cal Jurisdiction in it; and if they give him Supremacy of Juris∣diction of Marriage in general, They much more give Supre∣macy of Jurisdiction of his own Marriage in particular: for, majus continet minus, Et cui licet quod majus est non aequum est quod minus non Licere. If therefore a King of England hath Supream Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of his own Marriage, and neither Pope nor Bishop can null or invalidate any Mariage of the King, his Predecessors, to Depose him from his Throne, nor any Marriage of his own to Dis-inherit his Lineal Heir from the Succession & Jus Coronae in the King relating to Marriage and Succession, as shall be after further shewn, is different from that of Subjects; and as is by the Bishops themselves affirmed Canon 2. The same Supremacy belongs to the King, which be∣longed to the godly Kings of the Jewes, who could thereby marry themselves without Priest or Bishop.

The matter therefore must come to this Push, If the Bishop acknowledg the King hath Supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of his own Marriage, and no longer under a Guardian of the Spiritualities, then must he acknowledg he may Exercise the Acts of such Supremacy; for, frustra est illa potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum: And if he will acknowledg the King to be Supreme Ordinary, as all the Common Law-Books do; then must he acknowledg he may Exercise all Acts of a Supreme Or∣dinary: But if he will not acknowledg him to have Ecclesiasti∣cal Supremacy, and to be Supreme Ordinary, and to have the same Supremacy the godly Kings of the Jewes had of their own Marriages; Then must the Bishop shew a sign of his Mission from God to Exercise Supremacy, and to be Supreme Ordinary over Marriages of Kings; which neither Pope nor Bishop nor Priest ever could or can do.

Now all the height of Ecclesiastical Supremacy of Marriage whereof human Power is Capable,* 1.15 is to Dispence with Malum Prohibitum, but not with Malum in se; Malum Prohibitum, is that which is Prohibited only by some positive Law of Man; Malum in se, is that which is Prohibited by the Moral Law of

God: As Prohibitions of Marriage without Banns, Licence, Ceremony, Common Prayer-Book, Priest or Temple, these make only Mala Prohibita, Because Prohibited only by the Po∣sitive Laws of Men, and not by the Moral Law of God; and, Ʋnumquod{que} Dissolvitu•• eodem modo quo conflatum est; All Lawes made of Marriage by men, may be again dispenced, changed, repealed and abrogated by men who have the Supremacy of Marriage. But Adultery, Fornication, Desertion of Virgins after Deslouring, Divorce of a Wife without cause, Abdica∣tion of a Natural Child without Crime, charging a Child on a wrong Father, charging adulterous or false Children on the Husband of a Woman Married by a Priest in a Temple, &c. These are Mala in se, Because prohibited by the Moral Law of God which is Eternal and Immutable, and cannot therefore be dispenced with or confirmed; but all Lawes, Customs, Ca∣nons, and Acts of Parliament Dispencing or Confirming any of these, are void. A King therefore who hath Supremacy Ecclesiastical, may Dispence with all Mala prohibita, if there were any in his own Marriage: He may Self-Marry himself,* 1.16 as the Kings of Israel and Judah did, without a Priest, Banns, Ly∣cence, Book of Cannons, Common Prayer-Book, Temple, or any Ceremony; And being Supreme Ordinary, as the Kings of Israel and Judah were, needs not the Bishops Certificate, but may Certifie his own Marriage according to the Moral Law of God. And this is clear and unanswerable by any who doth not deny the Supremacy Ecclesiastical.

(6.) As Supremacy in the Person of the King inables him to Dispence with and Confirm his own Marriage in manner before said; So, à fortiore, the Supremacy of this Statute made by the Supreme Legislative Power both of the King and Parlia∣ment united, can clear the Marriage therein intended from all the Mala Prohibita laid on it; for no Mala Prohibita could be laid on it but by some former Common-Law, Custom, Canon, or Statute-Law: But this Statute hath Supremacy of all those: for, Leges Posteriores, Priores contrarias abrogant; Latter Laws abrogate all former which are contrary: So all contrary Laws which were before of Marriage, Filiation, Heirship, Succession, and Certificates of Bishops contrary to the intention of this Statute, for the Safety of the Lady his Companion, and their

Eldest Son and Heir, are by the same Intention abolished.

(7.) As this Statute had Power to Enact what it Intended; So is it manifest,* 1.17 that it never intended to restrain the Com∣panion Royal to be one Married by the Mass-Book, or Book of Canons; or their Eldest Son and Heir to be only one so made by the Certificate of a Bishop: for Edward the Third, who was the Author of this Statute, was one of the most Wise Valiant Kings at that time in the World; And his Predecessors had been fresh in Memory too much turmoyl'd with the Bishop of Rome and their own Bishops; and John Stratford Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, sent himself, though in the Head of a Victorious Army in France, an Insolent Letter, wherein he charged him with Violation of the Rights of the Church and Magna Charta, and many other Matters, and threatned to Excommunicate all his Officers. Too great Affronts for so Great a Prince not to become sensible how dangerous It would be to suffer Bishops to have to do with the Marriages, Filiations and Successions of Kings, and thereby to put power into their hands, to Depose, and Dis-inherit his Successors when they pleased: and William Whickham Bishop of Winchester, who was Confessor to his Queen Philippa, and ingratiated himself by Alice Peirce the King's Concubine,* 1.18 for Money shewed after how ready they should be to Act such Feats for Alice Pierce against Sons of first Wives: for out of hatred to the Famous John of Gaunt King Edward's Fourth Son, for no other cause, but because he was a great Fa∣vourer of Wickliff's Doctrine, the Proto-Protestant of England, spread a false fame on him, That the Queen Philippa, one of the most Vertuous Wives that ever was, had confess'd to him at her Death, That he was not the King's Son; but that she, to please the King the more, who desired Sons above Daughters, she being Delivered of a Daughter, caused her Daughter to be se∣cretly conveyed away; and this John, the Son of a Flemish Priest, to be brought and put to Nurse instead of her, for the King's Son. A most Incredible Lie; but such a one as shews what Certificates Kings Sons may happen to have from Bishops for being Favourers of the Protestant Religion. It is not there∣fore to be imagined, that it was intended by this Statute in those times, the Bishops and their Mass-Books and Certificates should have any thing to do with the Lady Companion of the

King, or their Eldest Son. The King likewise then knew, that by the then Laws of the Land,* 1.19 he had in himself the Right of Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and that he was the Supreme Ordi∣nary of his own Marriage, and did never therefore intend to give away his own Prerogative to Pope or Bishop, who, being Supreme Ordinary, could Self-Marry himself, and without the Bishop Certifie his own Marriage.

(8.) Books of Canons, Common Prayer-Books, Banns, Ly∣censes, Priests, Temples and all other Ceremonies without which Marriage is forbidden, being only Mala Prohibita; and the Scripture prohibits the Prohibitions themselves of these Mala Prohibita to Marriage, and calls such Prohibitions, the Doctrine of Devils; which is already proved, Lib. 1. p. 52.

* 1.20(9.) Marriage without the Common Prayer-Book and Priest, being only Malum Prohibitum by the Law of Man, and the same Marriage being Bonum in se by the Moral Law of God; Ma∣lum Prohibitum by the Law of Man, cannot make that Malum in se, which is Bonum in se by the Law of God. As it was Bonum in se for Daniel to pray to God; though Darius, Dan. 6.7. by his Decree made it Malum Prohibitum to pray within Thirty Dayes, except to the King, (or if he had said, Except by the Book of Common-Prayer, or Book of Canons, it had been all one) And under a great Penalty of being cast into the Den of Lyons; yet notwithstanding this had not nor could make it Malum in se in Daniel to pray to God without the King, Com∣mon Prayer-book, or Book of Canons, within the Thirty Daies prohibited; much Less had it been a Malum in se for Darius himself who had the Supremacy notwithstanding this Ecclesiastical Law of his own whereby he Prohibited prayer, or if he had prohibited Marriage to his Subjects, to have Prayed or Marryed himself in the Manner himself, and not the Law of God, had Prohibited.

(10.) Priests use to Self-Sacrament themselves, though they have not Supremacy, without any other Priest. What hinders therefore why they may not Self-Marry themselves,* 1.21 seeing Popery it self could never pretend to Raise Marriage to a higher Pitch then a Sacrament.

(11.) If Priests may Self-Marry themselves, there is no Rea∣son why Lay-men should not be allowed the same Liberty of Conscience to Self-Marry themselves without a Priest.* 1.22

* 1.23(12.) Qui potest majus, potest minus; And that Act which doth perfect Marriage, is greater than any Act which doth only prepare or inchoat and leave it imperfect. Now it is not de∣nyed by the Popish Casuists and Schoolmen, and the Civilians and Canonists themselves, But carnal knowledg only perfects Marriage; if therefore a Lay-Man may self-Ly with his Wo∣man, which perfects Marriage without a Common-Prayer Book, or Book of Canons, after the Priest hath first had her before him by his Bell, Book, and Candle, why may not the poor Lay∣man save all his Money and Selfe Ring the Bell, Selfe take the Book, Selfe light the Candle, or Torch, Selfe contract himselfe, per verba de praesenti; And then Selfe lye with a Woman; or do it first, without acting all this impertinent Pagean∣try and Running Round about Church, unless they would bring in again the old Pagan way for the Priest likewise to Do the Act of Perfection of Marriage,* 1.24 as the Indian Priests, and too many of the Popish Priests do Ly with the Woman first, be∣fore the Husband.

(13.) It is very well known, that the Ottoman Emperours and Subjects of their Mighty Dominions, self-Marry them∣selves, according to the Moral Law of God, without Priest, Temple, Bell, Book, or Candle; yet to the shame of such as call themselves by the name of Christians, may it be said, Their Marriages are more Chast, their Filiation and Successions more Certain, and no such Adulteries, Fornications, Stewes, Bro∣thel-houses, and Poxes and Plagues, and other Mischiefs there∣by, as those who use all these, and all the Luxuriancy of Papal and Episcopal Ceremonies besides in their Marriages. And of the Mischiefs came to Solyman the Magnificent, by being sedu∣ced by Roxalana, to break the Custome of Emperours to Self∣marry themselves, to Marry her by a Priest, appears at large, Lib. 2. p. 245. &c.

[Object. 3] * 1.25 Object. 3. The Third Objection is, That though the Lady Mother was a Companion to the King, Yet she was not HIS Com∣panion,

which is the Article of Propriety required by the Statute.

Answ. To which is Answered, That if she had been the Wife of another man, or any other had had a Lawful Propriety in her, it is not denied but the Objection might have been ma∣terial; but here was the most Lawful way of Election of a Com∣panion, and acquiring Propriety in her, not only according to Gods Ordinance, but the Lawes of all Nations, (except the Pa∣pal and Episcopal) and not Impertinently, as expressed by the Poet,

Elige de vacuis quam non sibi vindicat alter; Si nescis Dominum res habet ista suum.

Take her that's free; if it thou knowest not, Think she some unknown Master then hath got.

Here was Possessio vacua, Virgo intacta, neither Party Prohibited by any Law of God to take or yield Possession, or acquire Pro∣priety one in another. All Lawyers which write de modis ac∣quirendi Dominij in a Wife and Children, though they lay it as a Fundamental, That Contract, Sponsions, Promises, yea, Buying and Selling it self only create an obligation, but Trans∣fer no Propriety without Tradition of Possession; according to the Old Verses,

Rem Domino vel non Domino vendente duòbus, In jute est potior, traditione prior.

And though acquisition of the possession of Women and Chil∣dren by Tradition or Seizure, or other wayes, without carnal knowledge and Generation, doth only acquire the Propriety of them as of Slaves or Servants, but not as of Wives or Children; yet they assirm, and the whole Scripture assirms with them, that carnal knowledge between per∣sons not prohibited by the Law of God, is an acqui∣sition of Propriety in the Woman, and generation an acquisition of Propriety in children. And that all Cere∣monies of acquiring Propriety in Wives, without carnal know∣ledge; and all Adoptions for acquiring Propriety in children, without genoration of them, are Fictions and Fopperies.

The Scripture therefore calls every woman Lawfully laien with by a Man his Wife; and every Son he begets, his Son, which gives a Propriety; of all which Texts of Scripture I shall speak more largely in answer to the next Objection.

[Object. 4] * 1.26Object. 4. That she was not Married according to the Law of God.

Answ. (1) Before the contrary is proved to this Negative, and the Truth shewen unanswerably that she was married ac∣cording to the Law of God; It will be necessary to prove by what Law, the Law of God concerning marriage ought not and ought to be Judged, whether it be the Law of God or no.

Secondly, By what Judge, Marriage ought not and ought to be Judged to be not according, or according to the Law of God.

As to the Law by which it ought not, it is clearly and fully already prov'd; therefore to avoid repetition, I refer the Reader to the former Books, Chapters, Pages here following quoted viz. That it ought not to be Judged.

• 1. By the Law of Moses and Customes of the Jewes, of which, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 2.
• 2. By the Laws and Customes of the Heathen Nations. Vide. Lib. 1. p. 10.
• 3. By the Laws Civil, Canon or Feudal. Vid. Lib. 1. p. 21.
• 4. By the Laws of Mahomet, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 26.
• 5. By Ecclesiastical Laws, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 31.
• 6. By such Laws of England Scotland or Ireland, as are Reli∣ques of Popery or contrary to the Laws of God, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 64. usque ad p. 125.
• 7. By Ceremonial Laws, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 127.

Of the Absurd and Ridiculous Ceremonies on which Priests would have Marriage, Filiation, Aliment and Succession to depend, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 127.

Of the Original of Compulsion to the Ceremonies of a Priest and Temple in Marriage, which came from the Priests of Priapus and Venus, Pagan Gods and Goddesses, Magicians, Aruspices, Astrologers, Daemons, with the Strumpets Theodora, Marozia and others, and Popes and Bishops their Chaplains, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 43.45.52.83. of Theodora and Morozia more, p. 79.

Of the sinal causes of Compulsion to the said Ceremony of a Priest and a Temple, viz. the Insatiable Lust, Covetous∣ness and Ambition of Priests, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 53.

Of the most Dismal Effects and Mischiefs insuing Compul∣sion of the Ceremony of a Priest and Temple in Mar∣riage, Vid. Lib. 2. p. 192. usque ad 250. et ultra.

Of certain other Mischiefs not before Recited.

* 1.27Other mischiefs not before recited, of Compulsion of the Ceremony of a Priest and Temple in Marriage, and the false naming that Marriage which is no Marriage; and false name∣ing that no Marriage, which is a Marriage; whereby they call Good Evil; and Evil Good; Light, Darkness; and Darkness Light; so that the whole Mystery of the Romish Antichrist depends on the Compulsion of this Ceremony to Marry, Bury and Pray by a Priest in a Temple.

* 1.28(1) Without this Ceremony they could not prohibit mar∣riage to their Clergy, which Militia Togata of theirs to keep unmarried, is one of the Arcana Imperij Papalis, and was first Decreed by Pope Nicholas the First. The sinal causes were,

• 1. That the Priests might have no Dependance or be un∣der command of the Lay-Lords, by reason of their Wives and Families; for whom, if they kept them, they would be necessi∣tated to provide Lay-Maintenance, the Spiritual being too short Commons for so many.
• 2. That what Wives and Children the Priests had, they might sit by other mens Fires, and be maintained at other mens Tables, and succeed to other mens Inheritances.
• 3. That the Priests might be the Richer and Abler to pay

• the more Tributes and Taxes to the Pope.
• 4. That they might be provoked to Lye with the more Lay∣mens Wives, and thereby fish out all the Secrets of their Hus∣bands for Intelligence to Lay their own Plots, and discover those against them in Auricular Confession.
• 5. That they might not be put to the usual Cost of Intelligence, which is commonly very Dear, but might by this way be had for nothing, and probably with Rewards to such Gallants.
• 6. That between the Woman and the Priest, they might Rob the Lay-man of his Goods, and share it between them.
• 7. That when the Lay-man was come to die, the Woman, to whom her Living man was more pleasant than her Dying, might persuade him to make the Priest Overseer of his Goods, and of the Children he had got for him; And to give Land to Pious (that is to say) Pontifical Uses.
• 8. That the Lay-men might not Lye with the Priests Wives, and return to them the Talio, to which end they made them∣selves Judges of the Causes of Divorce; And made strict Ca∣nons Prohibiting the Lay Divorce à Vinculo, for Adult'ry, and that they should give Surety and Bond, though Divorced à Mensâ & Thoro, while either was Living, never to Marry again; but the Priests might turn off their Courtesans, if they suspected a Lay-man had been with them, when they pleased.

So the Priest who was the Malefactor and Adulterer with the Lay-man's Wife, was Judge in his own Case of the Lay∣man's cause of Divorce, and would not allow it if he were within the four Seas; but none but himself was Judge of the cause of his Courtesans Divorce, which he may do Arbitrarily, and only for change at his pleasure. But this Prohibition of Marriage to the Clergy, nor the mischiefs thereof could not have been without Compulsion to the Ceremony of a Priest and a Temple in Marriage; nor could the Canon of Trent have found any other Ceremony by the omission of which to have made all other Marriages null and void, because no other Ceremony is in the Power of the Priest to compel men to, or can be Testified by him against those who omit it; nor can any other Ceremony be raised to so Luciferian an height, as to make a Ceremonial Law of Pope or Bishop, to over∣throw

a Marriage by the Moral Law of God. But if any Priest should take a Woman, and intend to make a Courtesan of her, yet get her with Child, And Liberty of Conscience were given to such as Marry, to use such Ceremony or not use it, then would this intended Courtesan deceive the Priest in his filthy bargain, to have her only as a Courtesan, and follow him as a Wife, according to the Moral Law of God, with her Children, and so spoil his Trade of Confessing other mens Wives in secret; and if he kept not at home only with her, perhaps penance him as bad as he penanceth others. For no other Ceremony, designation or mark of difference could have been put between a Woman got with Child by a Priest, and his Wife, but the omission of this Ceremony, which every Priest would omit of purpose to free himself from her and her Children when he pleased, though not the Lay∣men (the more beast he.)

(2) Without this Ceremony of a Priest and a Temple, they could not pretend to make Marriage a Sacrament; nor could the Pope pretend the Supreme Jurisdiction of Marriage, whereby he presumeth to Depose Kings, and Dispose of the Succession of Kingdoms.

(3) Without Compulsion to the Ceremony of a Priest or a Temple in Marriage, the Bishop could make no Certificate against any Marriage, according to the Moral Law of God, to be no Marriage.

(4) The Theodora's could not put in Adulterous Heirs into their Husband's Inheritance at their pleasure, while they are within the four Seas, if their Husbands had Liber∣ty of Conscience allowed to marry according to the Mo∣ral Law of God, without the Ceremony of a Priest and Temple.

(5) There could be no Transubstantiation of two Per∣sons into one Person, whereby all those mischiefs insue, men∣tion'd Lib. 1. p. 66. without the Ceremony of a Priest in a Temple.

Of the Law, by which the Law of God of Marriage, Filiation, Aliment and Succession ought to be judg'd.

* 1.29As to the true Law and Ordinance of Marriage, by which alone the same ought to be judged, It is likewise already clearly & ful∣ly proved to be the Moral Law of God; and therefore to avoid Repetition, I refer the Reader, if he please, to Lib. 1. c. 8. p. 130. and for the Tables of the Moral Law, Vid. Ib. p. 131.

Of the Tables wherein the Moral Law of Marriage, Filiation, Aliment and Succession is written, and the Witnesses and Judge thereof Commissioned by God and not by Man, Vid. ib. 31, 32.

Of the Judges by which Marriage, Filiation, Aliment and Suc∣cession ought not, and ought to be Judged.

* 1.30Having found the Law by which only we ought to Judge the Law of God of Marriage to be the Moral Law of God, we ought next to consider by what Judge it ought not, and ought to be Judged by the same Moral Law. There have been men∣tioned before, Lib. 2. c. 1. p. 137. Five Competitor Judges of Marriage, Filiation, Aliment and Succession.

• (1) The Bishop.
• (2) The Magistrate.
• (3) The Soldier.
• (4) The Parents.
• (5) The King and Parliament.

(1) And it hath been shewed, That the Bishop ought not to be Judge; with the several Exceptions against the Abuses of Judges in their forms of Procedure, both Ecclesiastical and Temporal; of which, vid. Lib. 2. cap. 1.

(2) That the Magistrate ought not to be Judge of Marriage, Filiation, Aliment and Succession, vid. Lib. 2. cap. 2.

(3) That the Soldier ought not to be Judge of Marriage, Filia∣tion, Aliment and Succession, vid. Lib. 2. cap. 3.

(4) That the Parents ought to be Judge in Reference to their private Patrimonies, vid. Lib. 2. cap. 4.

(5) That the King and Parliament ought to be Judge in reference to Publick Offices, and the Succession of the Crown, vid. Lib. 2. c. 5.

What is not Marriage by the Moral Law of God.

That neither Intent, Consent, Sponsion per verba de praesenti; nor such Sponsion by a Priest in a Temple without Carnal knowledge, are Marriage, but Mock Marriage, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 83, 84, 85, 86, 87.

What is not Matrimony by the Law of God.

The Civilians, Canonists, Common-Lawyers, Divines, Schoolmen and Casuists, are as much out in the word Matri∣mony, as they are in the word Marriage. And all the Kennels follow with full Crys the first who but opened his mouth, with∣out the least search further; and as they have thereby falsely made a Contract to Marry, to be the very Act of Marriage; So have they falsely made the Contract of Matrimony to be the very Act of Matrimony. And this Error they fell not into by Ignorance, but Fraud. And the Popish Priests first took the President from the Pagan. For without false naming what is not Mariage, to be Marriage; and what is Marriage,* 1.31 not to be Marriage; and what is not Matrimony, to be Matrimony; and what is Matrimony, not to be Matrimony; they could not have call'd Evil, Good; and Good, Evil; neither could they have perverted the Moral Law and Text of Scripture, to re∣ward Adult'ry and Fornication under the false Name of Mar∣riage and Matrimony; and punish Marriage and Matrimony, under the false Name of Adultery and Fornication, to their great Gains.

Matrimony, therefore, every one knows is derived from Matre, a Mother;* 1.32 and without a Mother there can be no Ma∣trimony: A Contract to make a Woman a Mother, is so far from the Act of Performance which is Matrimony, that it seems a Presumptuous and void Contract, because impossible to be performed by the Contractor; for though he may Contract to bye with a Woman, which is Marriage, and it may be in his Power to perform it, yet it is not in his Power to make her a Mother; for the conception and birth of a Child is a Miracle which none but God can do: and of this the Scripture is full,* 1.33 Psa. 127.3. Children are an Heritage of the Lord, and the fruit

of the womb is his reward. Psa. 139.14. I am fearfully and wonder∣fully made, which is the same with Miraculously made; and ver. 15. My substance was not hid from thee when I was made in secret: and ver. 16. Thine eyes did see my Substance; yet being unperfect and in thy book, all my members were written. And when all this is done, he saith further, Psa. 22.9. Thou art he that took me out of the womb. And we find Jacob was of the same mind; for when Rachel, Gen. 30.1. said unto Jacob, Give me Children, or else I die, ver. 2. Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb? whereby there was something else necessary to Ra∣chel's Matrimony, than a fruitless Marriage; and that Jacob though he Contracted to marry Rachel, Contracted not to make her a Mother. And till she conceived a Child, there was a Marriage, but no Matrimony.

The Objection was, She was not Married according to the Law of God, therefore the Eldest Son is not within the Statutes.

* 1.34Ans. (2) It were enough still to deny the Sequel,

• (1) Be∣cause the Letter of the Statute requires not a Lady Married or lawfully Married, or Married according to the Law of God; but only a Lady Companion.
• (2) Because it requires not a King De Jure, as appears, Coke 3 part fol. 7. nor a Lady Com∣panion De Jure, nor a Son De Jure; But only a King De Facto, and a Lady Companion De Facto, and a Son De Facto.

For though the Statute neither doubted King Edward to be a King De Jure, or, in English a Lawful King, as well as De Facto; nor his Lady Philippa, being one of the most virtuous Ladies in the world, to be his Lawful Lady Companion; yet should the Statute have said, To compass the Death of our Lawful Sovereign Lord the King, or of the Lady his Lawful Compa∣nion; it would have left Succession more doubtful than before. For there never was a Law of the Land,* 1.35 or Law of God, or Contract so clear, but Lawyers Ecclesiastical or Common for Money have raised Questions and Doubts in, where the word Lawful, or any word aequipollent or to that Effect is express'd: For first, when the word is not expressed, there can no Law be Implied or Intended to Judge Lawfulness by, but

the Moral Law of God. But when it is express'd, as in the words, Lawful Marriage, or, Lawfully begotten, they will ex∣pound them by Laws Papal and Episcopal, which are not the Laws of the Land; and by Laws making Mala prohibita, and not Mala in se, which are not the Laws of God; whereas, where it is not express'd, it can only be Expounded by the Mo∣ral Law of God, which is above all Humane Laws and Statutes. Secondly,* 1.36 Because an Act of Parliament may make the Issue of a Marriage, though unlawful and contrary to the Law of God, Heir to a Kingdom; As the Marriage of David to Ʋriah's Wife, accomplished by Adultery with her, and the Murder of her Husband, yet was Solomon Lawfully made Heir to succeed David. So Edward the Sixth succeeded to Henry 8th, yet was his Mother Married while Anne of Cleve, his former Wife, was alive. And that the unlawful Marriages of Parents ought not Illegitimate, or be an Impediment to the Succession of Children, is fully already proved, Lib. 1. p. 80. And to the same end the present Statute Enacts no more in general for the safety of the eldest Sons of all Kings, than the Famous Queen Elizabeth, 13 Eliz. 1. doth for her own Heirs in particular; by which Statute it is Enacted to be High Treason, To affirm that any ought to be Heir and Successor to the Queen,* 1.37 except the same be the natural Issue of Her Body. So the old Lesson of the Lawyers of the words, Lawfully begotten, is left out; yet no question that Pious Queen intended more Lawful Heirs, than they with their Indentures, and the Priests with their Banns or Benedictions used to make. (4) Because though Suc∣cessions to private Patrimonies may be held in suspence by Dis∣putes of lawful and unlawful, yet ought not Successions to King∣doms so to be, which many times not only the least Delay, but even the neglect of clearing all Doubts, and declaring the Suc∣cessor before-hand, destroys or involves in most bloody Civil Wars to be after destroyed. (5) Because as is before touched concerning the word Queen, no Penal Statute ought or can be Extended by Equity, nor any thing be made within an Act of Treason, but what is within the Letter of the same. But such Marriages or other Matters which are by any other Statute made High Treason, ought to be Expounded to be within that Statute within the Letter of which is so named or made; And not within the Intention of this Statute wherein it is not so

made. As by the said 13 Eliz. 1. It is made High Treason to affirm, That the Laws and Statutes do not bind the Succession of the Crown, that is Treason within the 13 Eliz. 1. But not within the 25 E. 3. for all which Reasons though as 'tis at first said, It were sufficient to deny the Sequel and say no more, yet that Malice it self may not have any pretence to Cavil, I hope by God's assistance, Briefly, Cleerly, and Unanswerably, when the next Objection is answered, to prove she was both De Facto and De Jure, Married according to the Law of God.

[Object. 5] * 1.38Obj. 5. The fifth Objection is, That the Lady Mother was no Wife according to the Law of God in Scripture.

The Reasons of this Objection are,

• (1) Because the Scripture calls a Woman taken without Ceremonies, only a Concubine, or half-Wife.
• (2) Because,* 1.39 The word Uxor, signifies only a Woman made a Wife by the Ceremony of Ʋnction of the Husbands Door-Posts, or some other Ceremony.

Ans. 1. Though it were sufficient to shew that there's no such word as Wife, Concubine or half-wife in the Statute; and what is not in the Letter of a Penal Law, cannot be supplied in the Intention, nor extended by Equity; and though it were sufficient to deny the Sequel, yet to display the more the falsity of the Allegations, I shall shew there are no such words in Scripture as alleadged. For the Scripture is falsely Translated by the Bishops, and there's no such word as Concubine different in Signification from a Wife in the whole Originals of the Old Testament or New. Neither is there any middle word between a Wife and a Whore; Neither is there any half-Wife, be∣tween a whole one, or None at all; Neither is there any indif∣ferent Wife, between a Lawful or Unlawful, though there may be between a good and a bad. Lastly, Neither is there any such Wife which can be Translated into the Latine word Ʋxor, so called quasi Ʋnctor, from the Pagan Ceremony of Unction of her Husbands Door Posts; or so called from any Episcopal Ceremony of a Priest and Temple.

* 1.40The word of the Hebrew Text which they have falsly Tran∣slated Concubine, is Pilegesh; which is derived from Palag Di∣visit, and Isha Foemina, and signifies no more than a Divided several, or in plainer English, Another Woman or Wife

added to one or more, which the Husband had before.

The Greek word in the Septuagint which they have Transla∣ted Concubine, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which hath a very innocent Significa∣tion, and signifies no more than Juvencula, a young Woman, or a young Wife, 1 Chro. 1.32. Keturah, is by the Septuagint rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which they have Translated Abra∣ham's Concubine; for which Reflection on Kiturah, they have no pretence or colour; for Abraham Married her not till Sarah was dead; the Marriage of Keturah therefore being Lawful and unblameable, she ought to have been Translated Abraham's young Wife, and not have been toucht with the ignominious and fictitious Name of Concubine. So ought they to have Tran∣slated the Levites Woman, Judges 19.1. Wife, and not Concu∣bine, or half-Wife; for ver. 3. they have Translated the Levite himself by the name of her Husband, and not her half-Husband; and ver. 9. They have Translated the Damosels Father to be his Father-in-Law, and not his half Father-in-Law. And by the same Reason they ought to have Translated her to be his Wife, and not what they would have to be, but his half-Wife; and ver. 2. They have Translated her to play the Whore, and and not half the Whore; and to run away,* 1.41 and not half run away; and though there was in Scripture Pilegesh foemina, or Ʋxor Divisa by a new Marriage; yet there never was any Ʋxor dimidiata or half-wife we hear of therein; until this Levite, cap. 19.29. took a Knife and cut his whole Wife into Twelve peices, and by all probability into two halves first, to make her run away from him after she was dead, further than ever she did while alive.

(2.) There's no middle word between a Wife, and Whore; for if a Woman is taken for life, she is a Wife; if only pro hâc vice; or for a lesser Term than life, she is a Whore; and there's no middle Station for the limits of a Wife between the first time of Marriage, and the end of Life.

(3.) It being shewn before, that Pilegesh signifies only ano∣ther Woman or Wife taken after the first, which they have false Translated Concubine; if therefore a second Woman or Wife is no Concubine, à fortiore the first can be none; and therefore Keturah is false Translated Concubine, who was a

third Wife; yet durst not the Pope and Bishops themselves Translate Sarah, who was Abraham's first Woman, Concubine, though she was according to Moses Law Incestuous, being Abra∣ham's Sister by the Father, (which Keturah was not) and though it be said, Deut. 27.22. Cursed be he that lyeth with his Sister the daughter of his Father; because if they had false Translated the first Woman Concubine, so gross a Repugnancy would have been laught at, and there would have been no foundation whereon to have forged their word Concubine, or Designation or mark, to difference it from such words as they must of force translate Wife.

(4.) There's no indifferent Wife between a Lawful and un∣lawful; for though a Lawful Wife is called a Wife, yet is not therefore an unlawful Wife call'd a Concubine, either in Scrip∣ture or our own Laws, as appears 1 Jac. cap. 11. The title of which Act is, That it shall be Felony to Marry a second Husband or Wife, the former being Living; which Act calls this highest sort of unlawful Wife, a Wife, though she be a Whore, and an A∣dulteress; and as there is no such word as Concubine in Scrip∣ture, so there's no such word in the Law of the Land. The Objection therefore is a Chimaera of a word and thing not truly in Rerum naturâ, much less in Scripture, but false Coined and false Translated.

(5.) There's no word in the Scripture which can be Transla∣ted as the Papal Translation is into the Latine word Ʋxor, so called quasi Ʋctor from the Pagan Ceremony of Unction of the Husbands Door-Post;* 1.42 nor can the same be Translated from the Papal Latine word Ʋxor, by the Bishops, into the English word Wife; nor any Woman be so called from Episcopal Ce∣remonies of a Priest in a Temple. It is to be here noted, That this Ceremony of Unction of the Door-Posts which was to be with Wolfs grease, and the Ceremonies of untying the Wo∣man's Girdle, and of stoutly eating and drinking by the Man, which the Priest persuaded the People to be so necessary to Marriage, and to the naming the Parties Man and Wife, (as the Bishops do now, the Priest and Temple and other Ceremo∣nies) That they worshipped four Goddesses or Daemonesses of purpose to praeside and give their Benediction to these Cere∣monies;

and no doubt they got Fees or Offerings for them all. The Goddesses names were Ʋnxia, Cinxia, Victua and Potua, as saith Arnobius, Contra Gent. Lib. 3. O l Egregia Numinum & singularis Interpretatio potestatum, nisi postes virorum adipali unguine oblinerentur à Sponsis, nisi Virginalia vincula jam ferventes Dissolverent at{que} imminentes Mariti, nisi potarent & manderent homines, Dij nomina non haberent. Oh excellent and singular in∣terpretation of the Gods and Powers above, unless the Door-Posts of the Men were well greased by the Woman; unless the hot and eager Husband tore off Mrs. Brides girdle; and eat and drank lustily, the Gods would have no Names, nor could the Wife get the name of a Wife. These are the Ceremonies of Rome Pagan, without which the Woman could not be called Ʋxor a Wife, and the same is done for no other end than filthy Lucre. Yet whom God hath joyned by his immutable Moral Law with a Husband, and hath given them Children, who are the Gift of God, and they have been both all their dayes like John and Elizabeth, Luk. 1.6. walking in all the Command∣ments and Ordinances of the Lord blameless, without the Epis∣copal Ordinances and Ceremonies of a Priest in a Temple, this Wife of God's making shall by him be call'd (though he false Translate Scripture for it) Concubine and Whore. And a Whore and Adulteress of the Bishops making, shall be call'd a Wife of God's making; of which Episcopal Abuses to get Mo∣ney, I shall only cite one Practique in Scotland, and after some others in England, Craig. Feudorum Fo. 230. saith, Memini Robertum Magistrum de Semphil, Patrem Roberti nunc Principem illius familiae, cùm ex concubinatu Joannae Hamiltoniae hunc ipsum filium suscepisset, & ei impensè faveret, in Articulo Mortis cù sibi decedendum videret, ad Aedem sacram se in Lecticâ deferri cura∣ret, ibi{que} nuptiis solemniter peractis cùm domum rediisset Octavo pòst die fatis concessisse. Ex quo subsequente Matrimonio licet in Lecto agritudinis in quo Decessit solemniter peracto, filius antea susceptus non minùs in Haereditate successit quàm si ex legitimo Matrimonio natus fuisset. I remember, that Robert the Master of Semphil, Father of Robert, now chief of that Family, when he had begot∣ten him by his Concubine Madam Joane Hamilton, and intirely loved him, He being at point of Death, when he saw himself past hopes, caused himself to be carried to the Holy Church in a Litter, and there the Ceremonies of Marriage being solemn∣ly

perform'd; when he was brought back again to his House, he died eight dayes after; from which subsequent Marriage al∣though in the bed of Sickness wherein he deceased, the Son begot before did as Lawfully succeed to the Inheritance, as if he had been begot in Lawful Matrimony. And why should not the Lady have been call'd Wife, but Concubine, and the Son have succeeded without so barbarous a Ceremony, as hurrying a Dying Man to a Priest and a Temple, when he was gasping for another world, to get a Wife in this; an Act more proper to hasten his Death and Burial, than Marriage, and to have been abhorred by all Dutiful Children, had they not been compell'd by the Tyranny of such Popish Ecclesiastical Laws, as to the Dishonour of the two so Renown'd Protestant Kingdoms in Great Britain are Tolerated to prey worse than Death on them and their Posterity.

But of the false Translations of Scripture by Bishops, in all other words related to Marriage, see more at large, Lib. 2. cap. 1. 142 ad 162.

Of certain differences between a Wife of the Bishop's making, and Wife of God's making; which make the first neither within the Law of God, nor the Statute.

There's no Protestant Nation in Christendom wherein the Jurisdiction usurped by Bishops, is so high and Extravagant in making other Mens Wives and Children for them, as in England.

(1.) The first difference between a Wife of the Bishop's ma∣king, and of God's making, is, The former lets herself to Hire to him who will give most Jointure, Dower or Thirds for her; but the latter doth neither buy nor sell her Husband, but he keeps his own, and she hers, both Money, Goods, and Lands. Concerning mercenary Marriages, Vid. Lib. 1. cap. 6.113. Ʋs{que} ad 118.

(2.) A Wife of the Bishops making, hath Power to Steal and Esloigne all her Husband's Substance, and to put it into the hands of his Enemies for her own use; and he can have no account against her, because, as is already shewn, Lib. 1. p. 70. The Bishop by his Sacrament of Marriage hath Transubstan∣tiated

two persons into one person: but the Wife of Gods making is under account; and nothing keeps a Steward Faith∣ful, but Account.

(3.) The Wife of the Bishops making, hath Power given her by the Benediction of a Priest in a Temple, if she is not able her self, to hire unknown persons with her Husbands Goods to Rob, Beat and Disseise her Husband, and Esloigne his Goods, and no remedy against her: But a Wife of Gods making, though she hath Gods Benediction, which is above the Priests, hath no such power, but there's remedy against her.

(4.) The Wife of the Bishops making, hath Power to lay all her secret and unknown debts, true and feigned, by her Confe∣derates, and as many as she will, on her husband, and to undo him, and no remedy against her.

(5.) The Wife of the Bishops making, hath Power by the Benediction of a Priest in a Temple, to commit as many Tres∣passes either with Tongue or hand, truly or by Confederacy with complices as often as she pleases, making her husband pay Damages till undone, and he hath no remedy.

(6.) A Wife of the Bishops making, hath full Power, by vir∣tue of the said Benediction, to hire Adulterers with her Hus∣bands Goods and Money to get Children to succeed to them, and he has no remedy.

* 1.43(7.) A Wife of the Bishops making, if she hath a Daughter by her Husband, and Elope and run away from him with ano∣ther man, and hath Issue by her New Companion the Adulte∣rer: her Eldest Son, this Son of the Adulterer, shall be Heir to the Husbands Inheritance, though he were the greatest Peer in the Land: Yea, though he had an Elder Daughter before of his own begetting by her; As appears 7 H. 4. fo. 9. Where the Case was, That Julian took to Husband John de C. in the County of York, and was Married at Fleetsham, and the said John had Issue by her W: After the said Julian Eloped and went into the County of N. and, it being not Felony in those daies, took to Husband W. B. and he had Issue by her W. her Eldest Son, who after sued to be Heir to John; and the true Heir of John objected against him the Elopement of his Mother ••••dian, and his being begotten by the Adulterer, and not by John.

On which Justice Rikhill gives Judgment, That if John were within the Four Seas at the time of the begetting of W. then W. was the Son and right Heir-Male of John.

* 1.44And of this he giveth a good Lusty Reason. For, saith he, who that Bulleth my Cow, the Calf is mine. And my Lord Coke, Com. 244, doth on the Margin refer to this Authority of Justice Rikhill, and agrees with him as right as a Gun; and adds over, That no Proof ought to be admitted to the contrary; and therein I think none will Envy Justice Rikhill or my Lord Coke, (who I think were within the Four Seas, and never out) to enjoy the Liberty of Conscience in disposing their own Goods how they please. But there appears no Reason why they should deny the same Liberty of Conscience to all the rest of their fellow Subjects who live within the same Four Seas, to dispose of their own Goods as they think Just; neither ought they by so un∣equal a Sentence to have given away the Successions of True and Lawful Heirs, without allowing them hearing or witnesses, to those who are false and adulterous. And therefore from such Wives of the Bishops making,* 1.45 and such Judges of Marriage, Filiation and Succession, of the same making, Libera nos Domine. Iniquum est aliquem haeredem invito à Principe dari. Craig. Fe••d. 267. much more must it be for a Judge or Bishop.

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.

* 1.46(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.

* 1.472. 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,* 1.48 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,* 1.49 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.* 1.50 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.

* 1.51(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.

* 1.52(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.

* 1.53(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?

* 1.54(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,* 1.55 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.

* 1.56(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.

* 1.57(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.

* 1.58(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.

* 1.59(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.

* 1.60(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.

* 1.61(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.

* 1.62(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.

* 1.63(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,* 1.64 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.

* 1.65(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.* 1.66 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,* 1.67 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.

* 1.68How 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?* 1.69

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,* 1.70 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.

* 1.71(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.

* 1.72(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.

* 1.73(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.

* 1.74(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,* 1.75 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.* 1.76 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,* 1.77 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.* 1.78 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.

* 1.79(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.

* 1.80(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.

* 1.81(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.

* 1.82(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.* 1.83 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,* 1.84 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,* 1.85 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.* 1.86 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,* 1.87 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,* 1.88 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,* 1.89 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.

* 1.907. 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.

* 1.91Where 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.* 1.92 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.

* 1.93As 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,* 1.94 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,* 1.95 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,* 1.96 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.

* 1.97Ceremonies 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,* 1.98 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.

* 1.99But 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.

Obj. 7. The eldest Son not Heir intended by the Statute.

* 1.100Answ. 1. This Objection is in its own Nature repugnant to it self, That the eldest Son and Heir in the Letter of the Sta∣tute, is not the Heir in the Intention.

(2.) Tis Protestatio contraria facto, and not only to the Fact of another, but to the Parties own-Fact; who Objects for the Popish Party who deny him to be Heir in their words, affirm him to be Heir by their Deeds and wicked Plots to kill him as Heir, that they may seize on his Inheritance, as is already shewn, Matth. 21.38. They said amongst themselves, This is the Heir, come let us seize on his Inheritance.

* 1.101(3.) The word Heir is the Genus, and eldest Son is the Dif∣ference. So the Heir intended by this Statute is not only de∣scribed, but perfectly defined and differenced from all other Species of Heirs; As there is Haeres Sanguinis, and Haeres Haere∣ditatis, there is Haeres factus, and Haeres Natus, Haeres de facto, and Haeres de Jure, Haeres verus, and Haeres fictitius, Haeres Astra∣rius, and Haeres Apparens. There is farther, the Heir by the Civil Law, who succeeds in Ʋniversum Jus Antecessoris, im∣moveable and moveable Possessions, and Obligations; There is the Hier by the Law of Scotland, and Customs in the North, who succeeds to Lands, Heirlooms, and Heretable Bonds; but not to other Moveables. There is the Heir by Custom, and the Heir by Law. There is Haeres ex provisione Legis, and Haeres ex provisione hominis. There is the Heir by Contract in∣ter viros, and Heir Testamentary and Heir Dative. There is Haeres Viventis, and Haeres Defuncti. There is the Heir in Gavelkind, and Heir in Burgh English. There is the Heir by the Ecclesiastical Law, and Heir by the Common Law, and Heir by the Statute Law. There is the true Heir, and Heir by the Certificate of the Bishop. There is the Heir per Jus Co∣ronae, and the Heir by the Law for Subjects. There is the Heir by the Ceremonial Laws of Men, and the Heir by the Moral Law of God: There is the Heir of the Husband, and the Heir of the Wife; Heir of the first, and Heir of the second Mar∣riage, and so many other Kinds there are of Heirs here not

named; as the old Rhyme, though made on another Subject, may be true enough applied to this:

Of Heirs there are as many Kinds, As Marriners have found out Winds.

And should all these Kinds of Heirs, the greatest part of whom were before this Statute, left unlimitted as to Supreme Successions, either at once or Successively in the Three King∣doms, bring their pretensions of Right to Tryal by Battels, though Papists would Rejoyce in such perpetual Tempests as they themselves had raised to Rent the Brittish Oak in pieces, yet no Protestant there would be who would not acknowledge it a great Providence of God, and Piety and Prudence in this Statute, which to prevent the Causes of so many Intestine Dis∣cords, hath restrained the manifold kinds of Heirs, to whom there can be but one at a time in the Three Kindoms who is the King's eldest Son, and Heir of his Blood.

* 1.102(4.) 'Tis manifest this Statute intended no kind of Heir but the eldest Son and Heir; First, Because the Natural affection of the Father directs his intention irresistably to his eldest Son. Secondly, Because his Wisdom and Self-Preservation leads to the eldest Son, who, as is before shewn, is above all other Children the chiefest Defence of the Father. Thirdly, Be∣cause the Black Prince, who was intended to have the benefit of this Statute, was the eldest Son and Heir of Edward the Third, the maker of this Statute.

* 1.103(5.) 'Tis manifest this Statute intended Haeres Sanguinis, and not Haeres haereditatis; Heir of Blood, and not Heir of Goods; and Haeres viventis, and not Haeres Defun••ti; Except before he is Born, and not after. And though John-an-Oaks, who hath been so long the Parret of Littleton and Coke's Law, will sto∣mach it very much to be taught a new Lesson; yet under his favour, his Tutors in these matters of Marriage, Filiation, and Succession, were very much Mistaken or Partial in this as other Matters, and many of them in the two former Books have been already shewn. And I shall, as to the two particu∣lars here mention'd, further shew, first therefore, That Haeres

Sanguinis, is intended in this Statute, and not Hares Haere∣ditatis.

(1.) Because Haeres Sanguinis, is Haeres designans; & Haeres Haereditatis, Haeres designatus, to be known by the other.

(2.) Because the words of the Statute are, our Lord the King, the Lady his Companion, or their Eldest Son and Heir: Now the Heir of the Inheritance of a Kingdom cannot be intended, Be∣cause he derives his Title to the same only from the King, and not from the Lady Companion, unless a Queen Regnant; there∣fore he cannot be the Heir of both of them, as he is Haeres He∣reditatis; but as he is Haeres Sanguinis, he is Heir of the Blood of both of them, which is the only Heir, intended by this Statute. Secondly, seeing the Heir of Blood, is in the Express words of the Statute: And no words at all of the Heir of the Inheritance, therefore the Heir of Inheritance ought not to be put in the intention, otherwise than as Haeres designatus, marked to be known, by the first knowing who is Haeres Sanguinis, because then a Penal Statute would be extended by Equity.

And as to the other Particular, It is manifest, That Haeres viventis is intended in this Statute, and not Haeres defuncti, ex∣cept before he is born, and not after. First, because the eldest Son who is Haeres Sanguinis, most times happens to be born in the life-time of his Father, and not to be a Rosthume, and, ad ea quae frequentius accidunt Jura adaptantur. Therefore Posthu∣mes, which do rarely happen to be eldest Sons, shall not be on∣ly intended to be within the Statute, and the eldest Son on whom the Royal Blood descended en ventre sa mere; And he was Heir to the same before he was born, be therefore excluded, because he is Haeres viventis to the same after he is born, and his Father died not before his Birth. Secondly, The words of the Statute, Restrain not the Heir to be, Haeres defuncti; before he is born, or after he is born; therefore to restrain by the intention of either, is to extend a Penal Statute by Equity; which ought not to be done. Thirdly, my Lord Coke himself, 3 part, fol. 9. in his Exposition on this Statute, says, That Heir, is here taken for Heir apparent, for he cannot be Heir in the life of the Father.* 1.104 It is a clear mistake; for first, an Heir apparent can only be of the King, but the Statute makes him Heir both to King and Lady, and the catch which they

have got of Haeres non est viventis, was never intended to be any other than Haeres Haereditatis, which kind of Heir is before un∣answerably Proved not to be intended within this Statute. And if it had, the Statute had served to little purpose to ascertain the Heir of the Crown, so many sorts of Laws and Customs pretending to be the Rule of Judgment of Haeres Haereditatis: but the eldest Son, who is Haeres Sanguinis, as is already shewn, can be but one in the Three Kingdoms; and that the King's eldest Son, who is Haeres Sanguinis, the Chief Heir of his Blood, by the Law of Nature, and not him who is made Haeres Haere∣ditatis by Papal and Episcopal Laws. When Theseus had occa∣sioned the Death of his Vertuous, Valiant and eldest Son Hippolitus, by the false Calumnies of Phaedra his Stepmother, he crys out,

O nimium Potens, Quanto Parentes Sanguinis vinclo tenes, Natura! quam te colimus inviti quoque! Occidere volui noxium, amissum fleo. Seneca in Hippol.

I cannot, oh too potent Nature shun The Bonds of blood 'twixt Father and a Son: His blood, his blood, I in my anger shed, For whom I now shed Tears when he is dead.

And did not David fall into a greater Passion of Love for Absolon, though the most Unnatural, Ingrateful, and Traite∣rous Son that ever was. 2 Sam. 18.32. And the King said unto Cushi, Is the young man Absolon safe? and Cushi answered, The enemies of my Lord the King, and all that Rise against thee to do the hurt, be as that young man is; And the King was much moved, and went up to the Chamber over the Gate and wept; and as he wept, thus he said, Oh my Son Absolon, would God I had died for thee, oh Ab∣solon, my Son, my Son. But what would David have done if Absolon had been a Loyal and Obedient Son. Oh! where he now only wished he had died once, he would then have cryed out and wished he had died twice for him.

(7.) All Heirs are either Lineal or Collateral, unless there∣fore one of these Kinds are intended, the Statute can intend

none at all;* 1.105 now that Collateral Heirs are not intended, is ex∣presly delivered by Coke, 3 Part. fol. 9. where he saith, if the Heir apparent to the Crown be a Collateral Heir apparent, he is not within this Statute as he saith, Roger Mortimer Earl of March, was Anno Dom. 1487. (11. R.) Proclaimed Heir appa∣rent Anno 39. H. 6. Richard Duke of York was likewise Pro∣claimed Heir apparent, so was John de la Poole, Earl of Lin∣coln, by R. 3. and Henry Marquess of Exceter by King Henry the Eight, but none of these or of the like are within this Sta∣tute, if only Lineal Heirs are within the Statute, there can be none but the eldest Son can be Heir intended, the eldest being expresly named Heir, and none besides named at all.

That to compass the Exile or Disinheriting of the King's eldest Son, is High Treason.

* 1.106First, Because the Exiling or Disinheriting the King's eldest Son indangers the King himself. Secondly, Because to compass the Exile, compasseth the Death of the eldest Son; by depriv∣ing him of the King's Protection, and exposing him to Poison or Assassination of his Enemies, and to compass to Disinherit him, is a manifest design to destroy him, without which his Inheritance cannot be taken from him; as Matth. 21.38. They said amongst themselves, this is the Heir, come let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance, And they caught him, and cast him out of the Vinyard, and slew him.

[Object. 8] Obj. 8. The Son of a King, born after he is King, is to be prefer'd in Succession before the Son of a King born, while he is Prince.

And of this there are many Examples, as Henry the First, being the youngest Son of William the Conqueror,* 1.107 standing in Competition for the Crown of England against Robert Duke of Normandy, his elder Brother, made this one of his Objections, That Robert was born when his Father was but a Duke, but Henry was born when his Father was a King; and therefore obtained the Kingdom against Robert his eldest Brother. And it is recited by Grot. de Jur. Bel. & Pac. p. 171. That the like passed in Persia, between Cyrus and Arsica; in Judea, between

Antipater the Son of Herod the Great, and his Brother; in Hungary, when Geissa obtained the Kingdom; in Germany, between Otto the First, and Henry, though not without Arms; and likewise the same Question was between Xerxes, and his Brother Atabarzanes, and between Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Cyrus, the Sons of Darius, and Parisatis Artaxerxes being the elder, but born during the Private fortune of Darius, and the like happened between Bajazet, and Zemez, contending for the Turkish Empire, and many others.

Answ. These were put to the Tryal of Battel, and for the greatest part the eldest Son had the Success; but if it had been otherwise, the Event of War is no Rule of Justice; and if it had been without War, yet where there is a standing Act of Parliament Judicandum est Legibus non Examplis. And this Act of Parliament was made to prevent the present, and all other. Accidents which might happen to disturb the Peace of Succession of the Kingdom, and raise Civil Wars, which it could not do without all other Sons and Heirs to the eldest Son, and there being no other Son mentioned in the Letter of the Statute but the eldest, and not a word of Distinction whe∣ther born before or after the Father's obtaining the Kingdom; Ʋbi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus; for then the same mischiefs would insue beforementioned of extending a Statute of Treason by Equity, which leaves Treason arbitra∣ry to every Judge who will assume to declare it beyond the Letter, and to insert as many kinds of Sons and Heirs as he pleased, which would make the Law, and all the Care and Wis∣dom of it in ascertaining the Son Heir to be of no Effect, and leave the Kingdom in a dangerous Condition, that every Prince Married in his Father's life-time, and having then some Chil∣dren, and after his Father's Death others, might occasion a Civil War, who should succeed to the Crown when he died.

[Object. 9] Obj. 9. The next Objection, That the King's eldest Son is not yet De∣clared Prince of Wales, or Prince of the Scots.

The Original of this Title used to be given to the eldest Sons of the Kings of England, was from Henry the Third, who

gave his eldest Son Edward (who was afterward King Edward the First) on his Marriage to Elianor the Daughter of Spain, amongst other Principalities in France, England, and Ireland, likewise that of Wales, Hinc natum ut deinceps unusquis{que} Rex qui secutus est filium majorem natu principem Walliae facere consuevit. And in continuance of this Custom, Anno 1610. Prince Henry the eldest Son of King James, was solemnly created Prince of Wales by his Father. As to the Title designing the Prince of Scotland to be next Successor, or Heir apparent, it seems to have been by their Investiture of Cumberland, for saith Bucha∣nan Rer. Scot. lib. 6. p. 175. That Constantine the Third in the Tenth year of his Reign Milcolumbo proximo Regis filio Cum∣briam donavit, qui honos velut Augurium & Argumentum erat eum proxime regnaturum, Ac deinceps in proximis aliquot Regibus id fu∣isse observaturum manifesta adversus veterem Comitiorum rationem fraude, quae omnem Liberorum susfragiorum vim prope tollerit, non mi∣nus quàm Coss••à Caesaribus Designatio. Constantine the Third in the Tenth year of his Reign gave Cumberland to Malcoli••, the Son of the last King, which Honour was as it were the Inauguration or Sign of him who was next to succeed in the Kingdom, and was after observed by some of the next Kings to that end, to take away by Fraud the free Election by Parliament, no less than did the Designations of the Consuls by the Caesars; and after p. 189. he sath, That Kenneth the Third, being King by Election of the People to make the Kingdom Hereditary to his own Son Malcolm, finding it an Impediment in his way, that his Brother Duffus his Son Malcolm Cumbriae tum praefectus erat, quam Regionem Scoti beneficio Regum Anglorum it a tenebant, ut Cumbriae Praefectura velut omen Regni esset, at{que} ita jam per aliquot aetates observatum erat, was then Governor of Cumberland, which Region the Scots held by Gift from the Kings of England, to that intent that the Presidentship of Cumberland should be for a Sign who should be next Successor to the Kingdom, and so for divers Ages the same hath accordingly been observed, he to in∣herit his own, Poisoned his Brother's Son, and p. 190. he saith, Milcolumbus regis filius in natura adhuc, ad rerum admi∣nistrationem aetate & Cumbriae praefectus et princeps Scotorum est Declaratus, quod nomen perinde est Scotis at{que} apud Gallos Delfinus, apud priores Romanorum Imperatores Caesar apud posterio res Rex Romanorum, quibus omnibus Successor superiori Magistratui dari

intelligitur. Malcolm the King's Son in an unripe Age for Pub∣lick Affairs, is declared President of Cumberland, and Prince of the Scots, which Name is with the Scots Equipollent to the Daul∣phin amongst the French, to Caesar amongst the Ancient Ro∣mans, and amongst the Modern to the King of the Romans; by all which Titles, the Successor to the Superiour Magistracy is understood, but notwithstanding for the most part this hath been the Custom, yet it hath been likewise often omitted, and Admit it had not, yet there being no Law requiring it, there is no pretence that such Omissions makes any incapacity in the Heir to succeed at Common Law, or to be within this Statute for the Statute making no Distinction between the King's eldest Son when made Prince of Wales, and when not, Ʋbi Lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere Debemus. Besides the King∣doms being now United, a Title common to both were more convenient than several Titles. The Roman Title Princeps Ju∣ventutis, extended to the whole Empire.

[Object. 10] The Objection of Illegitimation answered.

I think the Objector hath now spit his Venom,* 1.108 but let him take heed it doth not Poison himself; for first I answer it is al∣ready proved, That the Marriage of the Lady-Mother, was Lawful, Holy, and Indissolvable, according to both Precepts, and Example of Scripture; and that no Humane Power can Prohi∣bit such Marriages which the Law of God hath not Prohibited,* 1.109 and that Marriage is not a thing indifferent, but necessary, and Commanded by God; and therefore what are made Actus Le∣gitimi by God, non recipiunt modum aut Conditionem from Men, nor ought the Holy Ordinance of God be compelled to be pro∣phaned by Papal Ceremonies, and dare any then Illegitimate that Law of God by a Law Papal, or an Act of Parliament by a Law Episcopal, and vend such an Act as will hereafter be shewn to make it High Treason for any Subject to affirm the King's eldest Son Illegitimate; but before I proceed to that, I shall first prove the following Thesis.

* 1.110That not only by this Statute, but by the Law of God, the Law of Nations, and the Jus Coronae of Great Britain, Primo∣geniture in Succession hath been prefer'd, and such Issue ad∣judged

Legitimate, Though procreated of unlawful Marria∣ges and Persons Prohibited to Marry, but was never question'd by any Law (except that of Popes and Bishops) in the Issue of Persons not Prohibited by the Law of God to Marry.

Concerning Legitimation by the Law of God and Nature, there is more than enough already spoken, Lib. 1. p. 79. to 83. and several other places already mentioned, concerning the Laws, declared in Scriptures this Right of Primogeniture and Legitimation was always observed amongst the Kings of Israel and Judah,* 1.111 even in their most unlawful Marriages, and with∣out Ceremonies, with strange Women of foreign Nations, though expresly Prohibited to them by the Law of Moses, as appears by Maimonides, Godwyn's Jew. Antiq. Selden, and others, but as to the same to be as brief as possible, I shall only insist on one Example, though not a Prince yet a Patriarch amongst them. It is said, Gen. 29.16. Laban had two Daugh∣ters, the name of the Elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel, Leah was tender-eyed, but Rachel was beauti∣ful and well favoured. And Jacob loved Rachel and said, I will serve thee-seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter. And Laban said, It is better that I give her unto thee, then that I should give her to another man, abide with me. And Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed unto him but a few days; for the Love he had unto her. And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my Wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may Go in unto her. And Laban ga∣thered together all the men of the place, and made a feast, and it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her in unto him, and he went in unto her. Et Vers. 25. And it came to pass in the Morning, behold it was Leah. And he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? Did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me? Et Ver. 32. And Leah conceived and bare a Son, and she called his name Reuben. Gen. 49.3. Jacob saith, Reuben thou art my first born, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of Dignity, and the excellency of Power.

From whence may be observed, That if it were possible for any Objections to be of weight against the Right of Primoge∣niture and Legitimation in any, it might have been made against this of Reuben. For,

First, Here is no Intent nor Consent, no Contract, no Espou∣sal of Marriage by Jacob with Leah.

(2.) There is no Banns, no Leadings to Church, no Cere∣mony, no Joyning by the Priest, no Benediction by him of Ja∣cob and Leah.

(3.) What is worse than the want of all these;

Here is

• (1) a meer Cheat, a Woman that is hated in the dark clapt into the Bridegroom's Bed, instead of her that is be∣loved.
• (2) Here is the true Bride Robbed of her seven years expected Enjoyment, by a false.
• (3) Here is the Marriage-Covenant most perfidiously broken.
• (4) The Labourer is de∣frauded of his hire for seven years Labour.
• (5) Here is Adul∣tery and Incest committed by the eldest Sister, with the con∣tracted Husband of the younger Sister.
• (6) The elder Sister her self knows, and is accessary to all these Crimes; yet hath the Impudence to Rest all Night, Acting them in a stoln Bed, and to out-face them in the Light of the Rising Sun; for be∣hold in the Morning it was Leah, notwithstanding all which Reuben is not punished for the Crimes of Leah, nor doth he lose thereby the Right of his Primogeniture; but Jacob declares him as aforesaid, Gen. 49.3. Reuben thou art my first born, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of Dignity, and the excellency of Power.

And though he likewise express for the great Crime of Reuben himself, the forfeiture of his Birth-right, and that excellency which thereby belonged unto him, and saith, Vers. 4. Thou shalt not excel, because thou wentest up to thy Father's Bed, then defiled'st thou it: And the same is likewise declared, 1 Chron. cap. 5.1. Now the sons of Reuben, the first-born of Israel, (for he was the first-born;) But forasmuch as he defiled his fathers bed, his Birth-right was given unto the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel: Yet doth this prove the stronger, that notwith∣standing the unlawful Marriage and Crimes of Leah, his Mo∣ther, the Birth-right belonged unto him, till he forfeited the Priviledge of it, by so great a Crime, as he himself Committed,* 1.112 and notwithstanding he forfeited the Priviledge of his Birth-right; yet he forfeited not his Legitimation, but inherited an equal filial Portion with his younger Brethren, for Legitima∣tion is impossible to be forfeited, taken away, or destroyed;

unless it were possible to make the Son begot of such a Father, not to have been begotten by him; for if he was begot by him, Filiation includes Legitimation and Aliment sufficient if the Child want it, and the Father hath it in Possession, and Succes∣sion ought to be given him, though as to the Superalimentary Quantity of his Goods, the Father hath Liberty to dispose them or alienate them from Legitimate and Illegitimate alike; how he pleaseth for Filiation and Legitimation,* 1.113 are Jure natu∣rae, and Jura Sanguinis, and Jura naturae sunt immutabilia, and Jura Sanguinis nullo Jure Civili divini possunt; Upon the whole, I conclude, that were there no other Example but this, it ut∣terly overthrows all manner of Objections whatsoever can be invented against the Right of Primogeniture, and makes ridi∣culous all Popish Fictions of Illegitimation. The Marriages of the Kings of Judah and Israel, and all the Ebrews might be Copu∣latione without Ceremony, Godw. Antiq. & Selden.

As to the Laws of the other Nations, besides the Hebrews, first to touch on the Greeks;* 1.114 Eustatheus on Homer concerning Teucer, who was a Natural Son, affirms, That whosoever is born of a Prince is lawfully Born, and so Teucer was held in as great Esteem as any other, and injoyed his Inheritance; for as Servius saith in Greece, Consuetudinis Regiae fuit ut Legitimam Ʋxorem non habentes, aliquam licet Captivam tamen pro Legitima ha∣berent, ut Liberi Ex ipsanati succederent. The Common Law of Greece was, That if a King had not a Lawful Wife, any Wo∣man he had, a Captive Slave should be accounted Lawful, and his Children by her should be his Successors. So this was the Jus Coronae of Greece, though it was otherwise as to Succession, amongst the Subjects Children; for they had only a Filial Por∣tion of a Thousand Drachmae, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but not Illegitimated, or left without Portion.

Amongst the Roman Emperors, there was no such thing ever heard of as Illegitimation of the Emperors Children,* 1.115 till the Papal and Episcopal Laws overtopt the Imperial, nor any such thing ever heard of, except falsly Translated amongst the Kings of Israel or Judah, or in the whole Scripture, nor in the Otto∣man Empire, nor in any Nation, except where Popes and Bi∣shops have set their foot, and as to the Jus Coronae of Great Bri∣tain, as 'tis well known the same is necessarily in many things as to Succession different from the Common Law of Succession

to the Subject; So it is as well known, that neither the Romish nor Brittish Bishops have dared (though they have Usurped on the Subjects) to invade the Legitimation of the Crown in Great Britain, and if they have as in the famous Prince Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth, it hath been fruitless. First, Con∣stantine the Great was the Natural Son of Constantius Sorus, by Helena a Brittish Lady, who is called his Concubine, and whom (after the Birth of his eldest Son, the said Constantine) he repu∣diated, and after Married Theodora, the Daughter-in-Law of Maximinianus the Emperor; yet Constantius Clorus dying here in Britain, his eldest Son Constantine the Great, without Scru∣ple made by any, succeeded his Father in the Government of Britain, and all other Western Provinces belonging to his Fa∣ther's share of Empire in Scotland,* 1.116 Gillus Nothus succeeded to his Father Evenus, notwithstanding that false name of Nothus cast on him by the Romish Episcopal Laws, contrary to the Law of God, which Evenus was a Wife and a good Prince; yet he never contracted the Mother of his eldest Son Gillus by the Ce∣remonies of a Priest or Temple; yet was this in a time of Chri∣stianity, and not of Paganism, for Donald was the first Chri∣stian King of Scotland, Anno Domini 199. which was long be∣fore Gillus, Buch. Rer. Scot. 103. Et Skene in his Table of Kings. Robert the Second of Scotland,* 1.117 a good and peaceable Prince (for those Atticbules doth Skene in his Table of Kings give him) took to him according to the words of this Statute to be the Lady his Companion, Elizabeth More the Beautiful Daughter of Sir Adam More his Subject, without any Ceremo∣nies of Priest or Temple, and had Issue by her John, Robert, and Alexander; after he deserts Elizabeth, and Marries her to Giffard a Nobleman of Louthean: And by the Ceremonies of a Priest and a Temple, Marries Euphemia, the Daughter of Hugh Earl of Ross, and had Issue by her Walter after Earl of Jearne, David after Earl of Athol, and Euphemia after Married to James Douglas, after Euphemia the Queen dies, and much about the same time Gyford dies, King Robert resumes Elizabeth, and Marries her by the Ceremonies of a Priest and Temple; as ap∣pears by Buch. Rer. Scot. p. 107. where he saith, that after the Death of Euphemia, Robertus non tam impatientia Coelibatûs quam Amore filiorum ex Elizabetha Mora prius Genitorum ipsam Ʋxorem duxit, hanc enim eliganti forma Adami Mori illustris Equitis filiam

adhuc adolescen•• vehementer amarat; Ex ea{que} tres filios & duas filias susceperat, eam{que} Gifardo viro nobili in Lothiana curaverat collocandam; verum sub idem fere tempus Eufemia Regina & Gi∣fardo Elizabethae Marito Defunctis, Rex sene vetere consuetudine Morae inductus, sive (quod a multis traditur) ut filios quos ex ea genuerat Legitimos faceret, matrem eorum sibi Matrimonio junxit, filios statim divitiis & honoribus auxit, Johannes natu Maximus Carictae Robertus Tinchi•• Alexander Buchaniae Comites sunt facti, adjecta etiam Badenach, nec munificatione Contentus Comitiis ad Sco∣nam indictis obtinuit, ut praeteritis Eufemiae Liberis in Rege creando gradus aetatis observaretur. Whence may be observed,

• (1.) That the Sons of a Lady born before any Marriage of her with the Ceremonies of a Priest or Temple succeeded to the Crown of Scotland.
• (2.) That she was a Lady not Prohibited by the Law of God for the King to Marry.
• (3.) That she was the Daughter of a Subject.
• (4.) That the Subsequent Marriage by the Papal Law signified nothing, for no stress is laid on it but the Confir∣mation and Declaration of the Successors sought from the Parliament.
• (5.) Though there were other Sons born of Euphemia the Queen, who was Ceremoniously Married by a Priest in a Tem∣ple; yet the Parliament thought just to pass by her Sons, and to settle the Succession on the Sons of Elizabeth.

* 1.118Athelstan was the eldest Son of King Edward the Elder be∣fore the Conquest, by a Lady his Companion, to whom he was never Contracted by the Ceremonies of a Priest in a Temple (but a Lady not Prohibited by the Law of God) to have Mar∣ried; King Edward had after him five younger Sons by two Wives, whom he had Ceremoniously Married by a Priest in a Temple and died; after his Death, notwithstanding the fourth Son of King Edward by one of his Episcopal Wives, was left alive; and notwithstanding the Priests and others both in Eng∣land and Scotland, sought to dishonour him with the Name of Nothus; for by that name Buchanun Rerum. Scot. 175. Stiles him and says, Praerat omnibus Anglorum copiis Athelstanus Ed∣wardi Nothus, And in the same manner, other Writers; yet

was neither the name nor the thing any bar of his Succession to the Kingdom; but he was thereto prefer'd before his younger Brother Edmund, whom Papal Laws made Legitimate; and ac∣cordingly he was Crowned by Athelmus Arch-Bishop of Canter∣bury, at Kingston upon Thames: And proved after the most Heroick Victorious Prince that the English ever had before the Conquest; for he conquered both the Danes and Scots confede∣rated against him, and Subdued the whole Island.

* 1.119Ethestede, for her excellent Beauty sirnamed the White, was a Virgin and not Prohibited by Law of God for King Edgar to Marry; but he neglected or despised Pontifical Ceremonies, and begot on her, without them, his eldest Son Edward; for which Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury injoyned him seven years Pennance; which he underwent for the Fact.

After Edgar Married Elfrida, the only Daughter and Heiress of Ordganus, Duke of Devonshire, with the Ceremonies of the Church, and made her his Queen; and likewise Contracted with her, That her Children should be Heirs to the Crown, and had Issue by her two Sons, Edmund, who died young; and Ethelred, who survived him. Edgar dies,* 1.120 Queen Elfrid except∣ed against the Succession of Edward the eldest Son, That his Mother was no Queen, nor Wife Married according to the Ceremonies of the Church, and that he was therefore Illegiti∣mate; That she her self was King Edgar's Queen and Wife, whom he Married Solemnly according to the Rites and Cere∣monies of the Church; and that by his Marriage-Covenants he bound himself, That her Children by him should be Succes∣sors to the Kingdom; That therefore her Son was both the Legitimate Heir, and Heir by Covenant; and thereupon drew divers Lords to be of her Party; and the two Sons are both produced before the Council assembled to demand their Rights: But while the Council sate to Debate the same, Dun∣stan Archbishop of Canterbury came in with his Banner and Cross, and not staying for dispute of the Title, presented Prince Edward the eldest Son as next right Heir to the Crown, and their lawful King; and the Assembly consisting most of Clergy-Men, drew the Approbation of the Rest; whereupon Prince Edward was Admitted and Crowned King, being but Twelve years old, by Archbishop Dunstan at Kingston upon Thames, Anno Dom. 975. and so continued, till about Three

years and Six Months after, King Edward Hunting in the Isle of Purbeck, not far from Corf Castle, where his Mother-in-Law Queen Elfrid, with his Brother Ethelred were then Resid∣ing, he out of his Love to both, would needs go to visit them; where the cruel Step-mother out of Ambition to make her own Son King, caused one to Stab him in the Back with a Knife as he was Drinking a cup of Wine on Horseback, at his departing; who feeling himself hurt, set Spurs to his Horse, thinking thereby to get to his Company; but the wound being Mortal, and he fainting through loss of so much Blood, fell from his Horse, and one foot being intangled in his Stirrup, he was thereby ruefully dragged up and down; and lastly, left Dead at Corf Gate; in Commiseration of which untimely Death, he was ever afterward called Edward the Martyr. On which may be noted,

(1.) That notwithstanding the Mother of Edward was no Queen; Notwithstanding she was never Contracted nor Mar∣ried by the Rites and Ceremonies of the then Church; Not∣withstanding Elfrid was a Queen, and solemnly Married by all those Rites and Ceremonies; notwithstanding the Kingdom was by Marriage-Covenant setled on her Issue by King Edgar; Notwithstanding Ethelred appeared with a Company of Lords Competitors; Notwithstanding the accompanying of Edgar with Elfred, was through Romish Superstition, thought so un∣lawful as not to be Expiated under seven years Pennance; Yet the same Archbishop Dunstan, who imposed the same on the Father, laid none on the Son, but he and the Clergy declared him the Right and Lawful Heir; by which they did implicitly confess and acknowledge, That the Moral Law of God of Marriage, and not any Ceremonial Law of Man, is the immu∣table Law which ought to Govern the Succession of the Crown.

(2.) The opinion of the Possession of the Crown to purge all Treason from him who commits it, hath been a great incou∣ragement to the committing of the same.

(3.) That Princes disinheriting the Children of the first Wives, and entailing their Kingdoms to the Children of the Second, destroying thereby their own Houses.

(4.) That none are more Cruel to the Children of the first Mothers, than Step-mothers; which it seems makes all Poets so out of Charity with them, that they never mention them without some odious Epithet of Injustae, mala, dirae, ferae, terribiles Novercae, and defame them with Stabbing, Poisoning, and Witchcraft.

Pocula si quando Saevae infecere Novercae, Miscuerunt{que} herbas & non innoxia verba. Virg. Georg. 2.

When Cruel Step-mothers Poys'ning the Cup, Add Herbs and Spells for Right Heirs to drink up.

I find but one kind of Step-mother excepted by Horace, as not apt to be Guilty of these Practices, which is she that neither brings Portion, nor expects Jointure, particularly of the Getick Women; of whose Chastity and good Nature he thus writes:

Illic matre carentibus Privignis mulier temperat innocens, Nec dotata regit virum Conjux, nec infido fidit adultero: Dos est magna parentium Virtus & metuens alterius viri Certo foedere castitas, Et peccare nefas aut pretium mori.

The innocent and kind Step-mothers there, The Orphans Motherless to hurt forbear, And not with Portions o're their Husbands rant, Helpt by the Gay adulterous Gallant. Vertue is Portion great, and Chastity Strange man to touch, more fearing than to Die.

(5.) That where Marriage by the Ceremonial Laws of Men is preferr'd before a Marriage by the Moral Law of God, this makes way for all Murders by Step-mothers of the Children of

first Mothers; of which see likewise the Example of Roxalana, before related at large, Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 245.

* 1.121William the Conqueror was the Son of Rollo Duke of Nor∣mandy, by Arlotte a mean Woman, whom he made Sa Com∣paigne, or Sociam Thalami, without any Ceremonies of a Priest or Temple; she was a Person how mean soever, yet not Pro∣hibited by the Law of God for him to Marry, and though some slander her in hatred to her Son, as if by some Lightness of hers all such as were of that Trade were since called Harlots, from her name Arlotte; yet we find no proof of any Inchastity in her, only she could Dance Ala mede de France, and if they can prove she was Guilty of any worse, and were an Harlot, it only makes the President the stronger, that the Law and Cu∣stom at that time and Countrey was, that the Duke's eldest Son, though by a Woman taken without any Ceremony of a Priest or Temple, ought after the Death of the Duke succeed to the Dukedom, neither was this way any other Law or Custom than what is already shewn to have been amongst the Princes of the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and all other Na∣tions not inslaved by Superstition to receive the Forms of Mar∣riage, and acknowledge the Supreme Jurisdiction of them to be in the Bishop of Rome, or their own Prelates or Pontiffs; by which Examples it appears, That by the Brittish, Scottish, and Norman Laws, the eldest Sons of Kings by Women not Prohi∣bited to be Married by the Law of God, though not Joyned by a Priest in a Temple, or any other Episcopal Ceremony; yet by Right of Primogeniture, they succeeded in the Govern∣ments of their Fathers Dominions. It will be asked how then came the ancient Law of God and the Land to be changed con∣cerning these matters of Marriage, Filiation, and Succession, and the Jurisdiction to be got or pretended to be in Episcopal hands to Judge and Dispose of Marriage, Filiation, and Suc∣cessions both to the Crown, and Lay-Inheritances, according to Canonical Laws, and not the Laws of God nor the Land? To which is answered,* 1.122 That as to Normandy, and other the English Dominions after acquired in France, as Bodin says, fol. 741. Hugh Capet was the first that made a Law in France, That natural Sons, that is to say, such whose Parents were not Married by the Popish Ceremonies of a Priest in a Temple, should not be Heirs, nor succeed to the Kingdom. And at last

strain'd his Law to that Degree of unnatural Cruelty and Fol∣ly; that it was Enacted, That natural Children should not be accounted natural Children, which Nonsence in that time of Popery, was not only followed by the French, but imitated to get Money by the English and Scotish Ecclesiastical and Com∣mon Lawyers; who, as hath been already shewn would not admit natural Children to be Sib Kin of Consanguinity, nor Children to the Father who begot, or the Mother who bare them; as if it had been in the Power of Hugh Capet and them to overthrow or change the Laws of God and Nature.* 1.123 So likewise by a French Decree, as saith Everard, p. 24. All Children born in Marriages, not Blessed by a Romish Priest, are made incapable to succeed to the goods of Father or Mother: the Law of Capet was plotted by the French Bishops, to get themselves Supremacy of disposing the French Crown, which foundation of Power they commonly got from Usurpers to the intent that by their Ecclesiastical pretence of Authority, they might protect a false Title, and disinherit the true Heirs of the Blood. Heylin in his Geography, p. 186. saith, That Popes strengthen themselves by unlawful Marriages of Princes, and not by lawful; and p. 101.* 1.124 That Hugh Capet being a Prince of a strange Blood, was hoys••d up by the People to the Prejudice of Charles of Lorrain, the true Heir of France, as Brother to Lotherius, and Uncle to Lodovicus the last King of the Line of Pepin. And p. 129. he saith, The occasion why Capet was chosen, and Charles of Lorain refused was this, Charles Son to Lewis the Fourth King of France, being left to the courtesie of his Brother, and by him not regarded, was by Otho the Emperor invested in the Dutchy of Lorain, Anno 984. which containeth one Marquisate, five Earldoms, and divers Baronies. The eldest Son likewise of Lorain, is in∣titled Prince of Barry; for which cause that he received Lorain from the Emperor; Charles shewed himself so alienated from the French, and wedded to the Germans, that the French after the Death of his Cousin Lewis the First, rejected him, and chose Hugh Capet for their King. This Charles had one Son named Otho, and one Daughter called Hermingrade; from her descend∣ed Isabel Wife to Phillip the Second, uniting the Bloods of Pe∣pin and Capet, to the great content of her Grandchild St. Lewis, who being a Man of a very tender Conscience, is said never to

have Joyed in the Crown of France, till it was proved that by the Mothers side he was the right Heir of Charles of Lorain, whom Hugh Capet had so unjustly dispossessed.

* 1.125So it appears, this French Law against Natural Sons was made to disinherit the true Heirs of the Royal Blood of France, and to inherit the Certificate Heirs of the French Bishops; and the other French Law mentioned against all Succession of the Children whose Parents at their Marriage received not the Benediction of a Romish Priest was made on Design to disinherit all Protestant Children. The Law of Theodora against Natural Heirs, was to Disinherit the true, and Inherit adulterous Heirs. The Law of Trent nulling all Marriages without a Priest, and Witnesses, was to set to Sale Community of Women, to raise Rents out of Stews, to lay a Tribute on Marriage, and inslave the Successions of Kingdoms and private Patrimonies, to the will of Popes and Bishops. Are there any Degenerous English so much Frenchified, as will impose French Laws of Suc∣cession on the English Crown?* 1.126 Shall Hugh Capet's Laws dare to contend with this Law of Edward the Third, who beat and Conquered the greatest Navies and Armies of France; and in tryal by Battel at Cressey, proved his Right better to the Title of King of France, than the Heir of Capet his; and had the same Heir of Capet taken Prisoner in Battel by the Black Prince, the Heir of this Statute? Are there any so false Protestants as to introduce such Popish Laws as disinherit all Protestant Chil∣dren? Are there any so prophane Christians as will prefer the Ceremonial Laws of Men above the Moral Laws of God? It hath been shewn thus far by the Examples of so many Kings of this Island of Great Britain, that their Legitimation and Suc∣cession thereby to the Crown, were by the Moral Law of God, and not by the Ceremonial Laws of Romish or Brittish Bishops; and none dared in Great Britain, though they did in France, assume the Supremacy of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction above the Royal and Parliamentary in Declaring the Successors of the Crown; or if they did, they were overthrown in like manner, may it be said of all the Kings and Queens which succeeded, concerning whom any Question of Legitimation was raised; as for Example, John of Gaunt, the fourth Son of Edward the Third, because he was a great favourer of the Wicklenites, who were in those days most Zealous Protestants, was so hated by

the Bishops to whom the Doctrine of Wickliff was then terrible, that the then Bishop of Winchester,* 1.127 Confessor to his Mother Queen Phillippa, falsly slander'd him to make him Illegitimate; That he was the Son of a Flemming, and not of King Edward, though his Mother Queen Phillippa was the most virtuous Wife of a King that was then in the World, and to Illegitimate his Posterity by the Lady Katherine Swinford, who was a virtuous Lady, and not Prohibited by the Law of God to be Married; But yet never was Married to him by the Ceremony of a Priest or Temple, and by whom he had Issue John Duke of Somerset, Thomas Duke of Exceter, Henry Bishop of Winchester and Car∣dinal, and Joan a Daughter; which Daughter and all her Bre∣thren, were sirnamed Beaufort from Beaufort a Castle which he had in France, where they were all Born, and in regard there∣of bare the Portcullis of a Castle for the Cognizance of the Family; and these four Children, though they were Legiti∣mated by Act of Parliament in the Twentieth year of King Ri∣chard the Second, and made capable of all Dignities; yet by Episcopal Power there was inserted (Excepta dignitate Regali) which did as much as lay in an Exception so much Illegitimate them to the Crown, that Coke says, Part 4. fol. 37.* 1.128 The best Title of Henry the Seventh (who derived himself from John de Beaufort Duke of Somerset, Son of John of Gaunt by the Lady Katherine Swinford) was by Elizabeth his Wife eldest Daughter of Edward the Fourth; which Episcopal Opinion of his would not have been taken for Law, if he had lived in the time of H. 7. himself who notwithstanding this Episcopal Illegitimation, as∣sumed the Title of the House of Lanc••ster, as Legitimate by the Law of God,* 1.129 and descending from a Lady not Prohibited to have been Married to John of Gaunt, by the Law of God.

In like manner the Lady Elizabeth, eldest Daughter to King Edward the Fourth by the Lady Elizabeth Gray, from the House of York claims was declared Illegitimate by Richard the Third; because as was all••adged, E. 4. was praecontracted to the Lady Lucy, which Lady Elizabeth was her s••lf likewise first promised in Marriage to the Daulphin of France, before she was Mar∣ried to H. 7. yet was she Legitimate, and her Issue Legitimate by the Law of God, and succeeded United to the House of Lancaster to the Kingdom, according to the same Law.

The same hath been before mentioned of the Lady Elizabeth More, her Children by Robert the Second King of Scotland were Born before any Ceremonial Marriage of a Priest in a Temple; yet were they all Legitimate by the Moral Law of God,* 1.130 the eldest succeeded to the Crown. In like manner King Edward the Sixth was declared Illegitimate by the Pope, and the pretended Ecclesiastical Laws; but he was Legitimate by the Moral Law of God, and succeeded to the Crown accor∣dingly.

Lastly, Queen Elizabeth was not only declared Illegitimate, by the Pope, but by the Acts of Parliament of her own Father H. 8. which is above any Declaration or Proclamation of a Pri∣vy Council;* 1.131 yet no true Protestant doubts but she was Legiti∣mate by Moral Law of God, which is above all Laws, and hap∣pily succeeded to the Crown, according to the Law of God, to the Comfort of all Protestants.

From which Examples and Reasons appears the truth of the Thesis before laid down.

• (1.) That the Legitimation and Succession of Kings eldest Sons born of Women not Prohibited by the Moral Law of God, was never questioned by any Laws, except that of Popes and Bishops.
• (2.) That Legitimate and lawful Heirs may be Born of un∣lawful Marriages.
• (3.) That the Moral Law of God hath always been, and still is the greatest Security of Legitimation and Succession to the Crown of Great Britain, and ought to be prefer'd above all Ceremonial Laws of Men.
• (4.) Next to the Moral Law of God, the greatest Humane Security of Legitimation and Succession to the Crown, is either a general Act of Parliament, as this is constituting and ascer∣taining the Heir by a General or Special Distinction or De∣scription, or when any doubt or danger ariseth by Act of Par∣liament Declaratory of the Particular Successor or Name.

That 'tis High Treason by this Statute for any Subject to slander the King's eldest Son with Illegitimacy.

Though Papal and Episcopal Canons have made their ordi∣nary work to Illegitimate the most Sacred Persons of Prote∣stant Princes, who disdain to buy their Mercenary Dispensa∣tions, Faculties, Licences, and Pardons of Popes, or Bishops, and particularly the most Pious King Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth. And as is said, Jude 8. Defile the flesh, de∣spise Dominions, speak evil of Dignities; yet let them know, there is this Statute above all their Canons and Synods, will punish their wickedness if they presume to Illegitimate any King of England, or his eldest Son, it seems on these Reasons:

(1.) Because this compasseth the Death of the King himself, his Father, for who destroys the Kings Armies or Fleets which should defend him, compasses his Death; but Non legiones non classes aeque firma imperii Munimenta ac numeros Liberorum. Not Legions nor Fleets equally defend a Kingdom as Children; And above all Children, the eldest Son. All which is more authentically expressed by a great King and Souldier, Psa. 127.3. Lo Children are an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is his reward, as arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are the Children of the youth, happy is the man who hath his quiver full of them, they shall not be ashamed; but they shall speak with the Enemies in the Gate. And likewise as to the eldest Son, the Scripture it self magnifies him as an high defence to the Father, as Jacob expresseth of his, Gen. 49.3. My first-born, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of Dignity, and the excellency of Power. And who hath Vindicated His Maje∣stie's Honour and Safety in Wars abroad, and against Popish Plots, Assassinations, Pistols, Poniards, and Poisons at home with such Fidelity, Affection, Zeal, Constancy, Vigillancy, and Valour as his eldest Son? And doth he not then who com∣passeth his Death, compass the Death of the King himself? And doth not he who slanders him to be Illegitimate, com∣pass his Death?

(2.) Because this exposeth Majesty, and the eldest Son like∣wise to contempt, by depriving both of the hopes of a Lincal Successor. And this is complained of by no less a Prince than Alexander the Great, who chargeth his Army, as related in Curtius, p. 6. Orbitas mea quod sine Liberis sum spernitur; my being childless causeth your contempt of me; which want of Children inheritable, put him in the same condition of being despised, as was he who said, Isa. 56.3. I am a dry Tree: And the want of a Son capable to succeed him was the Ruine of so great a Monarch, his Mother, House and Empire, his Enemies Poisoning him in the flower of his Age securely, as knowing he could leave no Son of himself to revenge his Death.

(3.) Because who affirms the eldest Son Illegitimate, doth it to the intention to seize on his Inheritance, and who intend to seize on his Inheritance will compass his Death, as Matth. 21.38. They said amongst themselves, This is the heir, come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his Inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

A Comparison of the Popish Slanders of Illegitimation against Queen Elizabeth, and the King's eldest Son.

Queen Elizabeth was not only declared and proclaimed Ille∣gitimate by the Pope's Divinity, but the Popish Party so far misinformed her own Father H. 8. in Matters of Law, and over-wrought on the King as they compell'd him by weariness to rest on Implicit Faith in them, and to declare his own Daugh∣ter Illegitimate; an Error which not only he, but many other Princes have been the more easily drawn into, in regard by the Subtlety of Ecclesiastical and Temporal Lawyers, the Laws of Marriage, Filiation, Aliment, and Succession; and the Com∣ments on them have been increased to so huge heaps, and con∣fused Volumes, and so many Writers of contrary Religions and contrary Jurisdictions, have had their Power and Profit concerned in them, as is impossible for Princes (who have so many Affairs of State to look after besides) to Read them over as long as they live, and such faithful Protestant Sub∣jects as have indeavoured humbly to represent the truth, as to

the Law of God, and of the Land, have been by the same Po∣pish Party not only intercepted, and Prohibited to Write or Publish any thing against, but so much as to dispute the Romish as well as Turkish Alcoran of their Laws. One great Example of which appears in these two great Descendents of the Blood Royal, the Famous and Pious Queen Elizabeth, and the Va∣liant and Virtuous eldest Son of the King: To go on therefore in their Comparison of Suffering wrongfully.

• (1.) It may be observed, that Queen Elizabeth was a Prote∣stant; and so is the Kings eldest Son a Protestant.
• (2.) Her Prosecutors were Papists, so are the Prosecutors of the King's eldest Son Papists.
• (3.) Papists laid Plots to Assassinate and Poison Queen Eli∣zabeth; so have Papists laid Plots to Assassinate and Poison the King's eldest Son.
• (4.) The final Cause why Papists would have destroyed Queen Elizabeth, was to seize on her Inheritance; so the final Cause why Papists would destroy the King's eldest Son, is to seize on his Inheritance.
• (5.) Queen Elizabeth was Innocent; so is the King's eldest Son Innocent.
• (6.) Queen Elizabeth was deprived of the help of a Mother by her Death; so is the King's eldest Son deprived of the help of a Mother by her Death.
• (7.) Queen Elizabeth was deprived of the help of a Father by the unjust Prosecution of Papists; as appears 28 H. 8. cap. 7. by which Act she is declared Illegitimate to all intents and pur∣poses, and utterly foreclosed, excluded, and barred to Claim, Challenge or Demand any Inheritance, as lawful Heir to the King her Father: And it is further Enacted, That it shall be High Treason so much as to call the said Lady Elizabeth Legiti∣mate; yea, the Act of Parliament is so furious against the poor Innocent Lady, as if they desired to Destroy and Damn the Conscience of all good Protestants at once, with hers and her; They Enact further, That it shall be High Treason to believe (Oh miserable! Thought it self is made High Treason) the Marriage of the Lady Ann with the King her Father, to be good, lawful, or not void. Let it be left to Supreme Au∣thority to consider how far the Papists have endeavour'd

• to proceed in the same Nature against the King's eldest Son.
• (8.) Queen Elizabeth might say as David saith, Psal. 27.10. When my Father and my Mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up; So may the King's eldest Son say the same.
• (9.) Queen Elizabeth notwithstanding all this was Legiti∣mate and lawful Heir of Blood by the Moral Law of God, and the Protestant Religion; and so is Recognized and acknow∣ledged by Parliament, 1 Eliz. cap. 3. and accordingly God gave her the happy Succession to the Kingdom; So the King's eldest Son by the Moral Law of God and the Protestant Religion, is Legitimate, and the next Lineal and Lawful Heres Sanguinis, Heir of Blood; for Jus Sanguinis is the Law of God and Nature; and Jura Sanguinis (as hath already been said) Nullo Jure Civili divini possunt.
• (10.) It was the Interest of Queen Elizabeth when she ob∣tained the Lawful Power to Maintain and Defend the Moral Law of God, and the Protestant Religion; So will it be the Interest of the King's eldest Son to use what lawful Power God gives him to Maintain and Defend the Moral Law of God and the Protestant Religion against Popish Cere∣monial Laws, and Superstitious Religions.

A Comparison of the Popish Slanders of Illegitimation against King Edward the Sixth, Queen Elizabeth, and the King's eldest Son. And the Sons and Daughters of the whole Protestant Clergy.

This Slander against the Sons and Daughters of the Clergy could not have been raised without another Slander first raised against the Marriages of the Mothers—Both which are taken notice of by the Statute 5. & 6. E. 6. cap. 12. which Statute making first a recital of the Stat. 2. & 3. E. 6.21. of Repeal of all Laws of Man against the Marriage of the Clergy, pro∣ceeds in these words, viz. Yet since the making of the said Act divers evil-disposed Persons taking occasion of certain words and Sentences in the said Act comprized, have and do untruly and very Slanderously report of Priests Matrimony, saying, That the same Statute is but a Permission of Priests Matrimony, as Usury and other unlawful things be now permitted for the

eschewing of greater inconvenience and Evils; so that thereby the lawful Matrimony of Priests in the opinion of many, and the Children Procreate and Born in such lawful Matrimony, rather be of the greater number of the King's Subjects accoun∣ted as Bastards than Lawfully Born, to the great Slander, Peril, and Disherison of such Children, which untrue slanderous re∣port of Holy Matrimony doth not only redound to the high dishonour of Almighty God; but also to the King's Majesties dishonour, and the High Court of Parliament, and the Learned Clergy of this Realm; who have determined the same to be most lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation, as well by the Common consent as by the Subscription of their Hands; and that most of all is to be lamented through such uncomely Railings of Matrimony, and slanderous Reproaches of the Cler∣gy, the Word of God is not heard with Reverence, followed with Diligence, the Godly proceeding of the King's Majesty not received with due Obedience, &c.

* 1.132Provided always, That this Act, nor any thing therein con∣tained, shall extend to give Liberty to any Person to Marry without Asking in the Church, or without Ceremonies, ac∣cording to the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, nor shall make any such Matrimony already made, or hereafter to be made good, which are Prohibited by the Law of God for any other cause. The Protestant Clergy by these Acts thought themselves as secure as they do now. But Queen Mary immediatly on King Edward's Death repealed this Law, and made all the Married Clergy, their Wives, and Children, Rogues, Whores, and Bastards.

From whence may be observed, (1.) That a Marriage and Legitimation, which is lawful by the Law of God, may be wickedly Slandered by Papists, and by Papal and Episcopal Laws to be unlawful.

(2.) It hath been already shewn, that the Marriages of the Lady Mothers of King Edward the Sixth, and of Queen Eliza∣beth, and of the King's eldest Son, and the Legitimation of Children, were and are lawful by the Moral Law of God; but the same have been Slandered, and still are, by the virulent Tongues of Papists.

(3.) That these wicked Slanders of the Legitimation of the King's eldest Son, do produce not only the same evil Effects

which the Statute declares to insue from the Slander of the Legitimation of the Sons of the Clergy; but greater and more dangerous.

(4.) That the final Cause why the Papists and their Laws Slander the Legitimation of the King's eldest Son, and of all the Sons of the Protestant Clergy, is the same; which is be∣cause they would seize on their Inheritance or Estate, and di∣vide the Spoil amongst the Papists.

(5.) It is well known that the Inheritances and Estates of the Descendents of the Protestant Spirituallity and Clergy (in which Body are included all Spiritual Persons, Doctors of the Civil Law, exercising Spiritual Jurisdiction, Church-men, Ministers, all persons within Orders) are great and nume∣rous through the Three Kingdoms, who will all Suffer, if a relapse to Popery.

(6.) That their Wives and their Descendents which have Married, have been obnoxious ever since the Time of Refor∣mation; the first to Consiscation of their Dowers, Jointures, and Thirds; The other to Illegitimation, and thereon Con∣fiscation of their Inheritances, Lands and Goods. The Law which forbid the Clergy to Marry, was made by Pope Nicholas the First, to wicked intents, which have been before already shewn; the Clergy, and their Wives and Children, are like∣wise left obnoxious to the same by the Proviso mentioned, which requires Banns to make lawful the Marriage of the Clergy; but they usually have none, but are Married by Li∣cences, which makes them likewise obnoxious to the very Let∣ter of the Act; which if there should happen a Papist Succes∣sor, he may take advantage thereof without a Repeal, or Re∣peal the Act, and so take advantage either way, which he will. Let not the Protestant Clergy therefore, nor the Bishops be deceived, or vainly flatter themselves that they can compound or lay the Obligation of an Oath, or an Act of Parliament on a Papist Successor if any happen to be; nor think he will lose so infinite heaps of Treasures, as this point of the Marriage of the Clergy, and the Illegitimation of their Descendents, will by Confiscations of all the Jointures, Dowers, Thirds of all the Archbishops, Bishops, and inferiour Clergies Wives, and of the Successions of their Posterities in the Three Kingdoms, will bring into his Treasury; Therefore certainly if a Papist

Successor happen, there will be no living for a Married Clergy∣man in England, it will be Heresie sufficient to Burn him if he is Married, and a cause sufficient will be his Estate; and for Provision, his Wife must expect none; unless like the Indian Wife, she Burn with him, in hope to find it in another World.* 1.133 They need look no further for an Example than of Queen Mary; who was a Papist Successor to the Protestant Act of King Ed∣ward her Brother; who though he confirmed the Marriages of the Clergy, and the Legitimation of their Children by two Acts of Parliament, left in their highest Vigour and Power, and though she had solemnly promised the Protestants, without whose help, she had not probably come to the Throne, that they should injoy Liberty of Conscience; yet as soon as ever she obtained the Kingdom, she repealed her Brothers two Acts, and made Whores of the Wives, and Bastards of the Children of all the Protestant Clergy Married, Burnt them, and Con∣fiscated their Estates. And that Pious Martyr Archbishop Cranmer, who was Married, was Cruelly Burnt amongst the rest.

(7.) There is no way to preserve the Marriages and Legiti∣mations of the Protestant Clergy, & their Wives and Children, from the destruction of a Papist Successor; but to have Prote∣ction from a Protestant Successor of the Crown, and to cast off this Papal Doctrine of Ceremonial Marriage, and to teach the truth of Marriage according to the Moral Law of God, which is the true Jus Coronae, as hath been already shewn, and makes the eldest Son of a Protestant King, and himself a Prote∣stant to be of the same Interest with the Sons of a Protestant Clergy, and to ingage him by God's help to be his Instrument to defend them and the Protestant Religion, Liberty and Pro∣priety to the Glory of God, and Comfort of the People: Can therefore any of the Protestant Clergy be so imprudent as in their Doctrine to destroy the Holy, Just, True, Ancient, Eter∣nal, and Immutable Moral Law of God of Marriage and Legi∣timation, to bring in the Unclean, Adulterous, Spurious, Ille∣gitimate, Injust, Lying, Upstart, new-fangled, Ceremonial Laws of Priapusses and Popes; and not understand they there∣by Slander their own Mothers and Wives to be Whores, their Daughters to be Bastards, themselves and all their Sons, to be Sons of Whores and Bastards.

Can they be so inconsiderate, as to imagine that any Slander they shall raise against the Marriages of the Lady Mothers, of Queen Elizabeth, King Edward or the King's eldest Son, or the Legitimations of Queen Elizabeth her self, King Edward, or the King's eldest Son, or against the Jus Coronae, and this Act of Parliament of 25 E. 3. Cap. 2. De Productionibus, as not to understand the same Slanders Militate against the Marriages and Legitimations of themselves, their own Mothers, Wives, and Children; or not to know what pretence or Power they put into the hands of Popes and Bishops, to disinherit and dis∣pose of the Successors and Succession of the Crown, they give them a greater Power to disinherit and dispose at will of their own Inheritances, Wives, and Children, and by forsaking the Moral Law of God, of Marriages and Legitimations, and Ido∣zing the Ceremonial Laws, Papal or Episcopal, drive them∣selves into this inevitable Dilemma, either to fall into the hands of a Papist Successor, who will assuredly destroy all Married Priests and Ecclesiasticks, their Wives, and Children, and Succes∣sors, and make a prey of all they have, or to fall into hands of Justice, as the fruits of Folly and Treason, in slandering the right of a Protestant Successor.

Of the Insolent Absurdity of Popish Laws, disinheriting the Law∣ful Sons of Kings by the Law of God, and Inheriting the Bastards of Popes by the Law of the Devil.

The Scripture saith, Galat. 4.7. If a Son, then an Heir; that is to say, to the Father who begot him, and not to a Fictitious Father. But the Popish Law, or what is above it the Practique, saith, Let none be an Heir of a Marriage not Contracted by a Priest in a Temple, except a Bastard of a Pope; in which the Law of New Rome follows that of old Pagan Rome; which pro∣hibited some kind of Women to the Subjects; but gave Authori∣ty to Caesar to lye with what Women he would. And the like to the Romish false Prophet, is imitated by the false Prophet Maho∣met, who in his Alchoran prohibited divers Women to the people but counterfeits God, speaking to himself and saying, But as for thee, O Prophet, thou may'st Lye with what Women thou wilt. But in this the Pope goes beyond Mahomet; for the one Illegi∣timates no Children, nor disinherits them; but the other all

of Women not Churched, except his own. So Pope Paul the Fifth is related to have gotten out of his Leaden Bulls in a small time Twenty hundred Thousand Scutes of Gold, with all which he bought Lands for his Bastards, and Pope Sextus the Fifth, being himself the Son of a Swineheard created his Ba∣stard a Cardinal, and gave him Ten Thousand Crowns per An∣num Revenue, and besides Left at his Death Ten Millions of Treasure. Another Pope gave his Bastard the Kingdom of Sicily, and divers Principalities of Italy, and a vast heap of Treasure. Pope Alexander the Sixth intended likewise to have given his Bastard Son Caesar Borgia, a Kingdom (whom though the veriest Villain in the World) Matchiavel in his Treatise De Principe, proposeth as the only Example for Kings to imi∣tate. And by Probability a Kingdom he had obtained, had he not and his Father by the just Judgment of God, been Poi∣soned by the same invenomed Wine at a Banquet; which they had prepared for others. All Italy is already over-stocked, and the Principallities thereof, and of other Catholick Countries, in time likely to be the Inheritances of none but of the Bastards of Popes, and their Descendents Male or Female, under the Name of Nephews, and Neices, and by the Matches of Papal Descendents into Protestant Dominions, the like Evil may be justly feared, if not prevented; and what is worse, a per∣petuating thereby of their Superstition from Generation to Generation.

The Scripture likewise saith, Heb. 13.4. Marriage is honou∣rable in all, and the bed undefiled; but Whoremongers and Adulte∣rers God shall Judge: But the Popish Law saith, no Marriages are Honourable made by the Law of God, unless made by the Papal Laws, nor the Children; nor Chastity, nor the Bed un∣defiled, nor the Sons though of Kings, descending from the same, according to the Foundation of all Honour, the Immacu∣late Law of God. But the Bastards of Popes, such is the Im∣pudence of the Whore of Babylon, to Prohibit Honour to all except her self and her Brats. And as to these, Pope Eugenius the Second Usurped the Authority when he pleased to create them Kings, Dukes, Earls, and Knights, and hath plagued and incumbred the World with fictitious Titles of Honour; but he vouchsafes the lawful Sons of Kings no better Title than Base Sons, except they receive from him the mark of the Beast. This

is not strange that Swineheard Popes and their Trulls, should not only not disinherit nor degrade their own Blood, but extol the same above the Imperial: But 'tis strange that any Chri∣stian Emperors and Princes should have ever been so Pope or Priest-Ridden, or so far have suffer'd them to have set their foot on their Necks, as to Kick from their Heads the Crowns and Honours of them and their Sons, for the Bastards of Popes to inherit and to disinherit their own, for which not only his Holiness himself derides them, but they become a Derision to Jews, Turks, and all the World besides, none of them being so foolish to admit the Doctrine of Devils, of Prohibiting Mar∣riages not Prohibited by God amongst them, or Illegitimating the Children of such Marriages.

Lastly, It is already proved, That Carnal Knowledge, Cha∣stity, and Childbirth makes a Marriage, Lawful, Holy, and In∣dissoluble by the Law of God between all persons not prohi∣bited. And it is notorious, That Popes have kept openly their Whores and their Bastards, and Rule what they call their Holy Church by them. So did Theodora the Impudent Concubine of the Duke of Tuscany rule all Rome, and gave her Daughter Ma∣rozia, as wicked a Queen as her Mother to be Concubine to Pope Sergius the Third, of whom he begot him who was afterwards his Bastard Pope John the Twelfth, the Mother Marozia poi∣soned Pope Leo 6. and Pope Stephen 7. And got her Bastard Boy to be Pope John the Twelfth. Pope John the Thirteenth was deposed in Council, Anno 961; for abusing his Father's Concubines, for Gelding some Men, and putting out the Eyes of others, for Drinking a health to the Devil, &c. Pope Cle∣ment the Fifth was a Common Fornicator; and it is Notorious, That all Popes are Panders-General of all the Stews and Hou∣ses of Fornication in Rome, and fill their Treasuries with the hires of Whores. And are these fit Fellows to make Marriages Holy, or to make Laws to overthrow God's Holy Ordinance, and dispose thereby of the Succession of Protestant Kingdoms?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Statute false translated in the word Queen.
• * 1.2

  Ralph of Can∣terbury refu∣seth to Crown Adeliza Queen, unless he should first discrown the King.
• * 1.3

  The Law of Saxons and Scots that no Wife of a King should be called Queen.
• * 1.4

  Scripture false translated by Bishops in the word Queen.
• * 1.5

  Old Testa∣ment false translated by Bishops in 848. places. The Lady Mother of the Kings Eldest Son was Ma∣dame sa Com∣paigne inten∣ded in this Statute.
• * 1.6

  Marriage by the Common Prayer Book, not necessary within the Statute.
• * 1.7

  Marriage by the Common-Drayer-Book not necessary in time of War.
• * 1.8

  Marriage by the Common-Prayer Book not necessary in time of In∣terdiction, Papal or Po∣tentatical.
• * 1.9

  The Mother being dead, the Legitima∣tion of the Child not to be questioned.
• * 1.10

  Death a Di∣vorce, but no Dissolving of Marriage quoad praete∣rita.
• * 1.11

  Act of Con∣firmation of Marriage to persons in Hostility, by Ordiance of Parliament ought to have Confirmed Marriages of those who were not in Hostility.
• * 1.12

  Act confirm∣ing Marriage according to Ordinance of Parliament, ought to have Confirmed Marriage ac∣cording to the Ordinance of God.
• * 1.13

  Restitutio Na∣talium as ne∣cessary to the Relief of the Children of such as suffe∣red for his Majesty in his Dominions, as Restitutio Na∣turalium to such as were born beyond Sea.
• * 1.14

  Not necessary for a King to be Marryed by a Priest or Common-Prayer Book.
• * 1.15

  A. King may dispence with Malum Probi∣bitum in his own Marriage, but not with Malum in S••.
• * 1.16

  A King being Supreme Or∣dinary, may Marry himself without Cere∣monies, by the Law of the Land.
• * 1.17

  This Statute intended not that Marrlage or Filiation should be try∣ed by Certifi∣cate of the Bishop.
• * 1.18

  An incredible Lie by a Bi∣shop concern∣ing John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster. Tinsell's Hist. 78.
• * 1.19

  A King is Su∣preme Ordi∣nary of his own Marriage.
• * 1.20

  What is Borum in se by the Law of God, cannot be made Malum in se by the. Law of Man.
• * 1.21

  A Priest may self marry himself.
• * 1.22

  A Lay-man may self-mar∣ry himself.
• * 1.23

  As a King who is Su∣preme Ordi∣nary may Marry himself without Cere∣monies, by the Law of the Land: So the Subject may marry himself by the Law of God, which is above the Law of the Land.
• * 1.24

  The Kings of Israel and Ju∣dab, The Ottoman Emperours and Subjects Self-Marry themselves without a Priest.
• * 1.25

  Not HIS Companion.
• * 1.26

  Not Married according to the Law of God.
• * 1.27

  Of the damna∣ble Effects en∣suing Prohibi∣tions to Mar∣ry, and nul∣ling Marriage except by a Priest in a Temple, con∣trary to the Moral Law of God.
• * 1.28

  The wicked Causes of Pro∣hibiting the Clergy to Marry by this Ceremony of a Priest and Temple, and compelling the Laity.
• * 1.29

  Marriage ought to be judged by no Law ex∣cept the Mo∣ral Law of God, and the Moral Law by no Law but it self.
• * 1.30

  Marriage, Fi∣liation and Succession, ought to be judged by no Judges except the Parents or the King and Parliament.
• * 1.31

  Why Priests false named Marriage Ma∣trimony.
• * 1.32

  Matrimony none without a Child.
• * 1.33

  Birth of a Child the Act of God, and not of Man.
• * 1.34

  Statute re∣quires neither a King de Ju∣re, nor a Lady Companion de Jure, but only de Facto.
• * 1.35

  The word Lawful Incer∣tain and Liti∣gious.
• * 1.36

  A Lawful Suc∣cessor may be of an unlawful Marriage.
• * 1.37

  The Crown entailed to the Natural and not Lawful Issue of the Body of Queen Elizabeth.
• * 1.38

  No Wife, no uxor.
• * 1.39

  No Concubine or half-Wife, or uxor in Scripture.
• * 1.40

  Scripture fals∣ly Translated by Bishops in the word Con∣cubine.
• * 1.41

  No half-Wife in Scripture.
• * 1.42

  The Scripture Wife false Translated in∣to the Latine word uxor.
• * 1.43

  Adulteresses protected, and the Son of an Adulterer made Heir be∣fore the Law∣ful Child of the Husband by Episcopal Certificat.
• * 1.44

  The Calf his whose Cow is Bull'd by ano∣thers Bull.
• * 1.45

  Injust for a Prince, much more for a Judge or Bi∣shop to force an Heir on another.
• * 1.46

  The Original of Certificates of Marriage came not from Christ, but from the Priests of Pri∣apus, and the Devil.
• * 1.47

  The Original of Certificates of Filiation came from the Priests of Pri∣apus.
• * 1.48

  The Certifi∣cate of the Priest of Pria∣pus better than that of the Bishop.
• * 1.49

  The Priest fathered Men on the Gods.
• * 1.50

  Popery ruin'd if Episcopal Jurisdiction of Marriage were taken away.
• * 1.51

  Certificates of Bishops con∣demn Infants without hear∣ing. Condemn Children for the Sin of the Parents.
• * 1.52

  Certificate an Usurpation of Jurisdiction of Lay-fee and Free-holds.
• * 1.53

  Marriage and Filiation not to be submit∣ted to any Judges or Ar∣bitrators, ex∣cept the Par∣ties them∣selves, or God.
• * 1.54

  Bishop who certifies, igno∣rant both of Fact and Law.
• * 1.55

  Illegitimum Prohibitum, & illegitimum in se.
• * 1.56

  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.
• * 1.57

  Certificate of the Bishop, Nonsense. Certificate of the Bishop Nulls all Mar∣riage Prohi∣bited contrary to the Law of England and Scotland.
• * 1.58

  Propriety in Parents and Children de∣stroyed by Bi∣shops Certifi∣cates.
• * 1.59

  Certificates of Bishops de∣prive Infants of Aliment, and destroy them.
• * 1.60

  The true Children are disinherited by the Adul∣terous on Certificates.
• * 1.61

  Bishops Certi∣ficates make adulterous Children ho∣norable, and true Children, base.
• * 1.62

  Certificates destroy Truth, and found on Fictions and Lies.
• * 1.63

  Bishops Certi∣ficates incon∣sistent with the right of Primogeni∣ture.
• * 1.64

  Jehosophat gave the King∣dom to his eldest Son, and Gifts to his younger.
• * 1.65

  Primogeniture to be in Mar∣riage, though without Cere∣monies.
• * 1.66

  Feminine Popes if any, and not Male, ought to make Certificates of Primogeni∣ture.
• * 1.67

  Excess of Treasure and fenced Cities left to young∣er Sons of Princes, com∣monly de∣stroys them.
• * 1.68

  Disinheriting the eldest Son causeth Patri∣cides, Matri∣cides, and Fra∣tricides.
• * 1.69

  Division of Kingdoms or part of them or of the Trea∣sure from the eldest to youn∣ger Sons, de∣structive to Kingdoms.
• * 1.70

  Primogeniture not to have the same Pre∣rogative in Private Fami∣lies as in King∣doms.
• * 1.71

  Certificates introduce fo∣rein Laws, and destroy the Laws of the Land.
• * 1.72

  Praemunire incurred by Certificates.
• * 1.73

  High Treason incurred by Certificates.
• * 1.74

  Certificates not to be tra∣versed or di∣puted, nor under Appeal.
• * 1.75

  No Priest ne∣cessary in any kind of Ebrew Marriage.
• * 1.76

  Prohibition of Marriage with∣out Ceremo∣ny not Prohi∣bited by the Law of God, is the Doctrine of Devils.
• * 1.77

  The final Cause of such Prohibitions, is only filthy Lucre of the Priests.
• * 1.78

  Where no Law, no Trans∣gression.
• * 1.79

  No Sin where no breach of a Command∣ment of God.
• * 1.80

  Salvation by no Legislator, Judge, or Law, but of God.
• * 1.81

  Ceremonies rejected by the Scripture.
• * 1.82

  Ceremonies false Transla∣ted Ordinan∣ces.
• * 1.83

  Mission to teach, is no Mission to make Ordi∣nances.
• * 1.84

  Ceremonies are Will-wor∣ship, and abo∣lished by Christ.
• * 1.85

  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.
• * 1.86

  Compulsion to Ceremonies makes the Law of God of Marriage of no effect.
• * 1.87

  Ceremonies false Transla∣ted Traditions
• * 1.88

  Compulsion to Ceremonies destroys Mar∣riage, Religi∣on, Justice, Truth, Equity, Natural Affe∣ction.
• * 1.89

  Prohibition of Ceremonies not Prohibited by God doth the same.
• * 1.90

  Ceremonies answer not the Ends of Marriage.
• * 1.91

  Carnal Know∣ledge without Ceremony commanded to be acknow∣ledge Mar∣riage by ex∣press Scripture.
• * 1.92

  Such Com∣mand of God not a thing in∣different to be added to or diminished from, by any Laws of Men.
• * 1.93

  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.
• * 1.94

  The first Car∣nal knowledge of a Woman not Prohibit∣ed, is Lawful Marriage of her.
• * 1.95

  No Law of God or of Mo∣ses, for any Jewish Cere∣monies in their Marria∣ges.
• * 1.96

  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.
• * 1.97

  What kind of Ceremonies Prophane Marriage.
• * 1.98

  Compulsion of Ceremonies on Tender Consciences, Prophane Marriage.
• * 1.99

  Compulsion of Ceremonies destroy Cha∣stity.
• * 1.100

  Eldest Son not Heir.
• * 1.101

  A multitude of kinds of Heirs.
• * 1.102

  Eldest Son the only Heir in∣tended.
• * 1.103

  Haeres Sangui∣nis, & non Haereditatis intended.
• * 1.104

  Haeres viventis intended Hae∣res Sanguinis and not Haeres Haereditatis.
• * 1.105

  Collateral Heirs of the Crown not within this Statute.
• * 1.106

  To Exile or Disinherit the King's eldest Son, High Treason.
• * 1.107

  Born when a Prince, and born when a King.
• * 1.108

  Of Illegitima∣tion.
• * 1.109

  Marriage a thing not in∣different, not to be limited by the Laws of Men.
• * 1.110

  The eldest Son of a King of Great Britain Legitimate by his Birthright.
• * 1.111

  Primogeni∣ture succeeded amongst the Patriarchs, though no Marriage by a Priest in a Temple.
• * 1.112

  Legitimation impossible to be forfeited, or to be taken from the Child, or the Incidents to the same.
• * 1.113

  The Power of Alienation by the Father of the Goods, nei∣ther Legiti∣mates or Ille∣gitimates the Child.
• * 1.114

  Jus Coronae of Greece, as to Legitimation.
• * 1.115

  Jus Coronae of Great Britain as to Succes∣sion, differs from the Law of Succession as to Subjects.
• * 1.116

  Gillus Nothus.
• * 1.117

  Robert the Se∣cond of Scot∣land, Eliza∣beth More, and Eufemia.
• * 1.118

  Athelstanus No∣thus— Legitimate per Jus Coronae.
• * 1.119

  Edward the Son of Edgar, Legitimate per Jus Coronae.
• * 1.120

  Note, here are all the Obje∣ctions made against the succeeding to the Crown by Edward, which are now made, and more; for here is an Heir by Marriage-Covenant op∣posed against the Natural Heir.
• * 1.121

  William the Conqueror succeeded to his Natural Fathers Duke∣dom, his Mo∣ther never Married by a Priest in a Temple.
• * 1.122

  Hugh Capet an Usurper of the French Crown, to cur∣ry favour with the Pope, first disinherited natural Chil∣dren.
• * 1.123

  Prohibition of Marriage, Sans Ceremony, a French Toy to disinherit all Protestant Children.
• * 1.124

  Popes streng∣then them∣selves by un∣lawful Marria∣ges and Suc∣cessions of Princes, and not by lawful.
• * 1.125

  French and Popish Laws of Marriage, seek to destroy all English Heirs, and the Prote∣stant Religion.
• * 1.126

  Capet's Law not to be com∣pared with the Law of Edw. the 3d.
• * 1.127

  John of Gaunt, for favouring Protestants, falsly slandred by the Bishop of Winchester to be Illegiti∣mate.
• * 1.128

  Henry the 7th, d••riveth ••im∣sel•• from Ka∣therine Swin¦ford, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ma•…•…d by a Priest in a Temple.
• * 1.129

  Both York and Lancaster de∣rive the Lines from Persons slander'd to be Illegitimate by Laws of Men, but made Legitimate by the Law of God.
• * 1.130

  Edward the Sixth Illigiti∣mated by Pa∣pal Laws, but Legitimated by the Law of God.
• * 1.131

  Queen Eliza∣beth Illegiti∣mated by Pa∣pal Laws and Act of Parlia∣ment, but Le∣gitimated by the Law of God.
• * 1.132

  Banns requi∣red to the Marriage of the Clergy.
• * 1.133

  Queen Mary Illegitimated and Destroyed all the Wives and Children of the Prote∣stant Clergy, notwithstand∣ing they were Legitimated by Act of Par∣liament.