THE RIGHT OF PRIMOGENITURE, In Succession to the Kingdoms of ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, and IRELAND: AS DECLARED By the Statutes of 25 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 showing the Fatal Dangers of Neglecting the same.  
And when the Husbandmen saw the Son, they said amongst themselves, This is the Heir, come let us kill him, and seize on his Inheritance,  Matth. 21.38. 
London, Printed for the Author, 1681.   

THE PREFACE.  
Reader,  
THE General Question now in Agitation amongst the People is, Who is next Lawful Heir to the Crown? The Protestant saith, The King's  Son; The Papist, a Collateral Heir; The free Statesman, None at all.  
The Two incident Questions to the General and Principal, are not rightly stated; for they are not as they ought to be made, Whether here is a Lawful Marriage, or a Lawful Filiation: But whether there are Witnesses to prove the Papal and Episcopal Ceremonies of a Marriage and a Filiation, which false state the Case, and are nothing to the purpose. But we cannot come to the resolution, either of the Principal or Incidents false or true, before the Discussion of Two other Preparatory Questions.  

(1.) By what Law Marriage, Filiation, and Succession ought to be judged Lawful or Unlawful?  
(2.) By what Judge the same aught to be judged.   
As to which I have already proved at large in the First Book, That the same aught to be judged by no other Law than the Moral Law of God; And in the Second, That the same aught to be judged by no other Judge, than the King and Parliament. To avoid therefore vain Repetitions, I must desire to refer thee to the First and Second Books for thy full Satisfaction; and in this Third, shall only from the Two other Premises make this Conclusion, That the King's Eldest Son is the next undoubted Lawful Heir, both by the Law of God, and of the Land; wherein though I wave the false state of the Question▪ Whether Ceremony, or no Ceremony? and only insist on the true, Whether Lawful, or Unlawful yet I desire thou wilt accept these following Reasons for my Excuse.  

(1.) In reference to the Parties contending.  
(2.) The Laws by which they are to be judged.  
(3.) The Witnesses.  
(4.) The Court by which they are to be judged.   
As to the Parties contending: 

(1.) Because as to the Matter of Fact, Whether Ceremony or no Ceremony? I am altogether a Stranger, and know nothing of it; and if I did, yet all Council are Prohibited by the Law to speak to any Matter of Fact.  
(2.) This hinders not any others from using what Probation they shall please of Ceremonies; but all Advantages of the same are hereby to them saved by Protestation.  
(3.) This seeks not to hinder any from using what Ceremonies in their Marriages they please, which suit best with their Consciences and Conveniences; only that which is here affirmed, is the Lawfulness and Validity of the Marriages of such with whose Consciences or Conveniences such Ceremonies suit not, if they are made without them.  
(4.) No Liberty of Conscience, no not so much as of Opinion, is hereby precluded any man touching the Point in Question, nor is he hindered from opposing any thing here delivered; but if he differ, is invited to do it; so it be in Print with Name subscribed, whereby the same Liberty may be given to Reply.  
(5.) Because I writ to Protestants, and only desire to give Satisfaction to Conscience concerning Lawful and Unlawful before God, and not to Superstition concerning Ceremony and no Ceremony before the Bishop.  
(6.) It were more for the Safety and Interest of the Protestant Religion, that a Protestant Prince either waved his Legitimacy by the Papal and Episcopal Ceremonies and Law, or were totally Illegitimated by the same, as King Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth were, and as they did Claim his Legitimation and Title from the most Righteous, Sacred, and Immutable Moral Law of God, and the Law of the Land; and not from Pontifical Laws. To speak next in reference to the Laws by which Marriage and Filiation ought to be judged, which are the Laws of God, and of the Land agreeing with the same. I wave insisting on Ceremonies, 

(1.) Because those Laws Civil or Canon, of Emperors, Popes, Bishops, Synods, or Councils of Trent, or other Councils which Impose Ceremonies on Marriage, are neither the Laws of God, nor of the Land; but Usurpations: as I have already proved at large, Lib. 1. p. 43. Et Lib. 1. p. 31. Et Lib. 2. p. 182, 183.  
(2.) To set any value on the Ceremonies of those Laws were to give the Supremacy of the King and Parliament, and the Laws enacted by them concerning Marriage, Filiation, and Succession to Popes and Bishops, and their Canons; and thereby to give them power to Depose Kings, and give or sell the Successions of Kingdoms to whom they please.  
(3.) It is clearly and unanswerably proved in the following Discourse, That the Marriage now under consideration, was a Lawful, Holy, and Indissoluble Marriage by the Moral Law of God, as declared both in Nature and Scripture.      
To bring a Ceremonial Law therefore where the Moral is so clear, were to bring a Candle to give light to the Sun. Then next as to the Laws of the Land, The Marriage, Filiation, and Succession, are as clear by them as by the Law of God; As 

(1.) by this present Statute, 2. E. 3. cap. 2. of Treasons, as is proved at large, and all Objections answered in the following Discourse.  
(2.) By the Jus Coronae, which is the Common Law of the Land, whereby the Law of Succession to the Crown differs from that of Succession to Subjects, proved likewise as before.  
(3.) By the Law of Necessity, which is not only the Law of this, but of all Lands, and not only of Lands, but Seas: The time of this Marriage being alleged to be in a time of War, when the Ceremonies of the Common Prayer-Book and itself were abolished and prohibited by the Predominant Power of the Sword, and the place beyond Sea, and in Exile.  
(4.) By Presumptions, which as to Marriage, Filiation, and Legitimation, are the Law of the Land, Praesumptiones Juris & de Jure, for to speak truly, the same are impossible to be proved by Witnesses, or any other way than by Presumption, as is employed by the Common Rule, Filiatio non potest probari, and likewise more fully shown, Lib. 1. p. 104, 105.    
Now the Ground and usual Presumptions of Marriage and Legitimation by the Laws of the Land, and of the very Canon and Civil Laws themselves, Are 

(1.) Fame and Reputation of Marriage.  
(2.) Cohabitation.  
(3.) No lawful Impediment why the Parties should not Marry.  
(4.) Chastity and Children.  
(5.) Length of time, and no Judicial Questioning, and Sentence to the contrary while alive.  
(7.) Promise of Marriage.  
(8.) Acknowledgement by the Father of the Children, either by word or writing, or by giving them Aliment and Education, as Children.    
As to the First, Fame and Reputation, which are Voces & opinio Vulgi, are an usual Presumption of Marriage. As to the Second, The Cannon Law itself Jus Pontificium praesumit ex diuturna Cohabitatione filium esse Legitimum, Craig. Feud. 270. Cohabitation for any time is so high a Presumption of Marriage, as it Legitimates the Son. And amongst the Old Romans, one of their chief ways of Lawful Marriage, without Ceremony of Priest or Temple was Vsus, that is Cohabitation and Conjugal Society for the space of a year, and this was reputed so considerable a time, as it made a Marriage by Prescription. As to the Third, which is where there is no Lawful Impediment, nor the Parties are prohibited by the Law of God to Marry, this makes a presumption of Marriage; because it was no Sin for them by the Law of God to Marry. As to the Fourth cause of Presumption, which is Chastity and Children, where all the Circumstances concur of Lawful Marriage as Cohabitation, no Lawful Impediment, Chastity of the Lady, Children, and acknowledgement by the Father of the Children to be his; these are not only the strongest presumptions which can be made of a Lawful Marriage; but are of themselves, as is fully proved in the following Discourse without any Ceremony, a Marriage Lawful, Holy, and Indissoluble. As to the Fifth cause of presumption, which is no Judicial Questioning and Sentence against the Marriage in the space of Thirty years, in which time all Witnesses may be Dead, and Writings lost or burnt; the same is so high, as by the Laws of the Land, and of all Nations no proof ought to be admitted to the contrary, nor no questioning now to be permitted of the same; because it is beyond the time of Limitation of Actions, and the peace and security of all Families and Kingdoms must be destroyed, should Witnesses be required Thirty years after of all such Marriages as have not been Judicially questioned and sentenced in all that time. As to the Sixth cause of presumption, which is the Death of either Party without being Judicially questioned or sentenced while alive; This by the Law of God and of the Land, is so high a presumption for the Parents, and so necessary justice for the Children, That no Probation ought to be admitted to the contrary, nor ought or can the Legitimation of the Child be questioned after the Death of either Parent; yea, though the Marriage of the Parents were Unlawful, as if a man Marry his own Sister (which is a far more Unlawful Marriage, than to Marry without a Papal or Episcopal Ceremony) and have Issue by her, if she die before a Judicial hearing, and sentence passed against her; her Children are Inheritable, and their Legitimation can never be questioned; for she that is Deceased cannot be Summoned before any Humane Tribunal: And if Sentence should be there passed against her, she is condemned without Hearing; and therefore that the Children ought to be Legitimate and Inheritable, hath been resolved by the Parliament itself, as may appear Bro. Deraignement 5. Bro. Bastardy 23.44. 24 H. 8. 39 E. 3.32. And it is for the same reason very clear, That if Queen Katherine the Wife of H. 8. had died before Judicial Sentence passed against her, the Legitimation of his Daughter by her, who was afterwards, Queen Mary could never have been questioned; and should the Legitimation of the Royal Lines of England, Scotland, and Ireland, or any other Kingdom in the World, be permitted to be questioned after the Death of one or both of the Parents, It is impossible but all certainty and security of the Successions to them must be utterly destroyed. As to the Seventh cause of presumption, which is presumption of a Promise of Marriage, to show which, all the  circumstances concur, and though the ecclesiastics of Scotland keep the people under sufficient servility of their Ceremonies of Marriage; yet even thereby the Laws of the Land doth promise of Marriage without any Proclamation of Banns or other Ceremony, both Endow the Mother, and Legitimate the Children, as appears Craig. Feud. 269.270. As to the last Cause of Presumption, which is Filiation, not only the Civil Law, but the Law of God in the Scripture, Legitimates every Son, and makes him Heir to the Father who begot him, either of a Primogenial or Filial Portion, except of Inheritance entailed to a former Wife, as was that of Abraham to Sarah; and whether this Probation of Filiation is made by the Son or Father, as in the Civil Law is said, Filium alicujus se esse probans, videtur probare se esse Legitimum, § Et ib. ad Marg. de Adopt. who proves himself a Son to any, proves himself Legitimate. And by the same Law, such as are proved Children are Legitimated, though there were no Ceremonies of Marriage, Authen. Collation. 6. Novella 174. Tit. 3. quibus modis Natur. cap. primo Siquis 3530. And the Scripture is Positive in the point, Rom. 8.17. If Children, than Heirs. Et Gal. 4.7. If a Son, than an Heir. (5.) To return again to other Laws of the Land, besides those of Presumptions. It is not necessary to prove a Lawful Marriage by proving Ceremonies: But all Marriage is declared Lawful, whether with or without Ceremonies by the Doctrine of the Church of England, and the Law of the Land, which is not Prohibited by the Law of God; as appears by the 32 Art. of the 39 Articles, Roger's Articles, p. 185. 187, 188. as shown more at large in the Discourse following, and likewise in the Statute 32 H. 8. cap. 38. of Precontracts, wherein there is this Clause, And that no Reservation or Prohibition (God's Law except) shall Trouble or Impeach any Marriage without the Levitical Degrees: Whereby it is clear, that this Marriage being without the Levitical Degrees, and not Prohibited by the Law of God, ought not (by the express words of the Act of Parliament) to be troubled or impeached by any Humane Law whatsoever, Ecclesiastical or Temporal. Which said Act of Parliament, except as to matter of Precontracts, stands unrepealed to this Day, and of full force. And the Reasons of the said Act are expressed in the Preamble of the same, to be because the Usurped Power of the Bishop of Rome, hath always entangled and troubled the mere Jurisdiction and Regal Power of this Realm of England, and also unquieted much the Subjects of the same by his Usurped Power in them; and by making that Unlawful, which by God's Word is Lawful, both in Marriages and other things. (6.) They whom no Law of the Land makes Illegitimate, are Legitimate by the Law of the Land; But no Law of the Land either in England or Scotland, makes the Children either of Papist or Protestant born of Marriages not prohibited by the Law of God Illegitimate. Therefore all Children born of Marriages not prohibited by the Law of God, are Legitimate by the Law of the Land; for though some Penal Laws have been by Pontifical pretences procured, which have presumed too far to prohibit contrary to the Divine Ordinance, Marriages and Meats not prohibited by the Law of God; yet none but the Pope and Council of Trent, who in their Luciferian Pride pretend to power above God's Law, ever transgressed so far in these Kingdoms, as by such penal Laws to null or make void such Marriages, or to Illegitimate their Children, or though they imposed penalties on the Parents to impose any on the Children; as may appear by the Statutes 3 Jac. 5. for England, prohibiting Popish Recusants to Marry otherwise than by a Minister lawfully authorized in some open Church or Chappel, according to the Orders of the Church of England. And the Act Car. 1. Par. 2. Sess. 2. Act 8. fol. 88 for Scotland, prohibiting any to Marry in another Kingdom, without the Banns first proclaimed in Scotland. And that the Omission of Ceremonies contrary to a penal Law, neither Nulls the Marriage, nor Illegitimates the Issue; Vid. proved before, Lib. 1. p. 110, 111. (7.) Frustra probatur quod probatum non relevat. It were time misspent to prove Ceremonies, which when they are proved, prove nothing to the Matters in question, which are, a lawful Lady Companion, as intended by this Statute, and an eldest Son by her of the Blood of King Charles the Second, the rightful present Possessor of the Three Kingdoms, and of the Blood; and of his two special Predecessors King Edward the Third of England, and King Fergusius of Scotland; as to which Probation of the Ceremonies of a Marriage, proves nothing of the Truth or Lawfulness of the Marriage; for many Ladies have been Married with all the Ceremonies the Priest could lay on them; yet have their Marriages been utterly unlawful, and prohibited by the Law of God; nor do they prove the Truth or Lawfulness of the Lineal Blood, derived from the Possessors, or Predecessors. As for Example, The Kings of Sparta were to be of no other Blood but of the race of Hercules; these were Married with all the Ceremonies accustomed in that Kingdom; yet did not those Ceremonies preserve the Chastity of the Queen from being so over-familiar with Alcibiades, her Husband's ingrateful Guest, and whom he had hospitably entertained, when fled from his own Country of Athens; but he having got her with Child, boasted when he was gone from thence, that he had left Heirs of his Blood to the Kingdom of Lacedaemon. So Henry of Spain, Anno Dom. 1459. having Married his Queen with all the Ceremonies accustomed in that Kingdom, but being unable himself, persuaded her to be got with Child by Bertrand of Guttua; Joan thus gotten, is proclaimed Heir, but refused by the people. Bertrand is made Earl of Ledesma, and Duke of Alburquerk. Sp. Hist.  
Canutus the Dane, Married here in England, Algine who was Barren; she to oblige the love of her Husband, feigned herself with Child, and packed one that was Suppositions on her Husband. King Canutus was very joyful of his supposed Son, and called his Name Sweno, and after gave him the Kingdom of Norway.  
Philip the Second of Spain, was Ceremoniously Married to Queen Mary; for whose being with Child as was supposed, a Day of Public Thanksgiving was kept, and the Bells rang with Joy through all England; but as is said, King Philip was Jealous of the like Issue with Canutus; what had the proof of the Ceremonies of Marriage been to the purpose to prove Adulterous Children to be of the race of Hercules, or Henry; or such as had been Suppositions of the Danish or Spanish Races. (8.) It were a Dishonour to the Holy Protestant Religion, and the Professors thereof, to be able to Establish the Lawfulness and Validity of their Marriages, on no more Sacred Principles than Ceremonies of so unclean an Original, as Popes, Common Prostitutes, Magicians, Aruspices, Astrologers, Soothsayers, Priests of Priapus and Venus, Pagan Gods and Goddesses, and Daemons themselves, as is already proved, Lib. 1. p. 43, 44.51, 52. Then as to Witnesses, It were an unnecessary Tempting of God to cast what is not the cause of a single person, but of all the Protestants in the Three Kingdoms, on the hazard of such Witnesses as the Probation of Ceremonies Thirty years since, and in a Foreign Catholic Country will require; for it is certain, the Bishops and Magistrates of that Country are Papists, and therefore no equal Witnesses may be had thence, but such as may think it is Meritorious to overthrow the Protestants right or wrong; and the same Danger is of Witnesses at home, obnoxious to as great Temptations of Papists here, whose Religion is not to keep Faith with Heretics, as they call Protestants; whereby they may as is commonly practised, be corrupted with Money; either in a counterfeit manner to offer their Testimonies, and when they have Sworn to Recant and Reprobate themselves, whereby the Truth shall be betrayed; or a greater Number of false Witnesses be Suborned to Swear against the Truth, then may be got to Swear for it, whereby the Truth shall be destroyed, or such Judges may be, as will hear no Witnesses but such as are right for the turn, whereby the Truth will be suppressed; of which Popish practices too much hath appeared fresh before our Eyes in the Examination of the late Horrid Plot. Therefore no Prudence to give them opportunity to do the like, or worse, by joining Issue with them on the Impertinent point of Ceremonies of Marriage, wherein only they are able to corrupt Witnesses. But it is more secure to stand on the points of Substance of Marriage according to the Law of God, which are these, viz. Cohabitation, Conjugal Society, Chastity, Children, and acknowledgement of them by the Father to be his, of which God's Providence hath provided so many Witnesses as will be in vain for them to Suborn or Corrupt false Witnesses to the contrary. Besides, if Witnesses may be had yet alive after Thirty years' time; yet they may Die or be Poisoned, or otherwise made away when known, before they come to Hearing, or so terrified that they will not dare to testify the Truth; why then shall all be put in danger by Ceremony, when Substance, Places all in Security, and it were an injust thing Three Kingdoms should be hazarded on the Lives of two or three Witnesses. To speak at last in reference to the Judges and Court, by whom this Marriage ought to be judged, which ought to be only by the King and Parliament, both as to the Fact, and the Law; for as to both the same as alleged being made beyond Sea in a Foreign Catholic Country, not under the Jurisdiction of the King and Parliament, nor where his Writ runneth: The Archbishop of Canterbury cannot be sent unto to certify, because it was made Beyond-sea, the Foreign Catholic Bishop cannot be sent unto to certify, because he is out of the Jurisdiction. And besides, by Acts of Parliament all Foreign Certificates, and all other Foreign Acts of Jurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome, or any other Foreign Bishop ought not to be admitted here; besides no Foreign Witness can either be Summoned to appear here, or to be examined there. So as to the Fact of Ceremonies, were they never so many at the Marriage, they are impossible to be brought to an equal Trial or Probation here, and the Ceremony that 'twas in a Church consecrated by a Bishop; for as Coke says, no House can be a Church, without such Consecration, which is impossible to be Sworn by any Witness; For none but God can make place or time Holy, and not a Bishop; there remains therefore nothing which aught or can, as to the Fact of Marriage be proved here, but the Substance of Marriage, which is Cohabitation, Conjugal Society, Chastity and Children, which are Notorious, and need no Foreign Witnesses. Then as to to the Law of the Ceremonies, the Protestant Ceremonies of Marriage are by the Law in a Catholic Country Heresy, and forbidden. The Catholic Ceremonies are forbidden here. These Ceremonies therefore in a Foreign Marriage, can neither be judged here by the Law of the Catholic Country, because it concerns Inheritance which lies in England; nor by the Law of England, because the Fact was done in a Foreign County; it ought therefore only to be judged by the Moral Law of God which judgeth according to Substance, and not Ceremonies, and is the Universal Law of all Nations and Countries. 

(2.) It were impertinent to prove Ceremonies before a Parliament, because the same being a Court of Equity, aught to judge according to Trust and Intention of Marriage; though the Witness of Ceremonies are Dead, and Writings lost or burnt, whereby any verbal Promise, or Ceremonial form of Words cannot be proved.  
(3.) God forbidden the Representative of the People in Parliament, whom they have entrusted with all they have in Matters of such infinite weight, should be so Ludicrous as to cast away the safety of the King's Person, to Extinguish his Lineal Blood, to Destroy the Religion, Liberty, Propriety, and Lives of all his Protestant Subjects in the Three Kingdoms on such Toys, as that there are no Witnesses to be got to prove Ceremonies of Verba de Praesenti, or, With my Body I thee worship, or to Swear that the Ring was Gold and not Brass, or that it was put on the fourth Finger, and not on the fifth; or not on the Tumb, but on the Finger.  
(4.) It is impertinent to prove Ceremonies in a Court of Equity, especially in the Supreme Court of Equity, which a Parliament is, who ought to judge Right, Secundum aequum & Bonum, without any regard to Ceremonies, as to make Estates good without Livery of Seisin, Attornment, Enrolment, Fine, Common Recovery, or the like; so likewise ought they to judge without any regard of the Ceremonies and Formalities of Plead, according to the Truth and Merits of the Cause; yea, they ought not only to judge without; but contrary to all Ceremonies and Formalities, if they find them Estopples to Truth, and Bars to Equity; yea, contrary to the Law itself, if they find it Summum Jus.  
(5.) In this very point of Legitimation, the High Court of Parliament ought to judge according to Truth and Equity, though contrary to all Ecclesiastical Laws, and contrary to all Episcopal Certificates; as appears by Coke expressly, Part 4. fol. 36. where he saith, The Parliament may Bastard a Child that is by Law Legitimate, viz.    
Begotten by an Adulterer, the Husband being within the four Sees, as Rot. Parl. 5. Et 6 E. 6. in the Marquis of Winchester's Case; and may Legitimate one that is by Law Illegitimate, and born before Marriage. (that is, without the Ceremonies of Marriage.) And this may be done Absolutely, or with Exception; of which later way, take one Example for many. John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, had by Katherine Swinford, who was not Married with the Ceremony of a Priest and a Temple four Children, (Slandered in those Popish Times with the Name of Illegitimate) viz. Henry, John, Thomas, and Joan; and because they were Born at Beaufort in France, they were vulgarly called Henry de Beaufort, etc. After at a Parliament holden 20 R. 2. The King by Act of Parliament in the form of a Charter, doth Legitimate these three Sons, and Joan the Daughter, with an Exception, which is, Excepta dignitate Regali; which shows that the King and Parliament may when they please Legitimate according to the Moral Law of God, and not only without, but contrary to Ceremonies. And though they shall not, yet is the Legitimation by the Law of God above that of all Humane Laws. And though a Right thereby Dormit aliquando, yet Moritur nunquam, as appears in Henry the Seventh, who long after derived his Title from John de Beaufort Duke of Somerset, the second Son of John of Gaunt by Katherine Swinford, who was only Married according to the Moral Law of God, and without the Ceremonies of a Priest and a Temple, notwithstanding the Exception in the Act R. 2. (Excepta dignitate Regali) for what that Act denied him, a later Act gave him, and before he Married with the Lady Elizabeth, the Daughter of Edward the Fourth, and Heir of the House of York, the Crown was by Act of Parliament entailed to Henry the Seventh, and the Heirs of his Body, and indeed all Settlements of the Crown, by Act of Parliament, both in the House of York and Lancaster are in themselves Legitimations, without any naming the word where there hath been any Scruples concerning the same; and though there have been none, are the surest and most undisputable Titles of Successors, and of the greatest Advantage to the Possessors; which is visible in the Examples of the Kings of England and Scotland, the greatest part of whom have made use of Acts of Parliament, though their Titles have been unquestionable. Upon the whole, it seems not possible for any Title of Succession to be more clear both in Divinity, Law, and Equity, than the present, except by Act of Parliament, wherein the Person is particularly named; which is only wanting to make known to others what the same is already in itself: And to declare by a particular Act what is already declared by this General Act of E. 3. And all other the General Laws of God and the Land before mentioned.  
WILL. LAURENCE.   

THE CONTENTS OF The Third BOOK.  

CAP. I.  
THe words of the Statute 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus, as in the Original French. Page. 1.  
The Statute of Kenneth 3. and Malcolm Mackenneth 2. concerning the Succession to the Crown of Scotland, as related by Buchanan. Page. 2.  
Objections against these Statutes (made chief by Buchanan himself) and the Policy of them in making the Crown Hereditary to the Eldest Son answered. ibid.  
Objections against the being of the King's Eldest Son within the Statute of 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus. Page. 20.  
Obj. 1. That the Lady Mother was not a Queen. ibid. 

Answ. 1. The Statute is false Translated by the Lawyers, and the Scripture false Translated by the Bishops in the word Queen. ibid.  
Answ. 2. Proved that the Lady Mother was Madam sa Compaign, according to the Moral Law of God, which is all and more than is required to be proved by the Statute. ibid.    
Obj. 2. No Marriage according to the Mass-Book in the time of E. 3. nor by the Modern Common Prayer-Book, or Book of Canons. Page. 23. 

Answ. 1. No Marriage by any Book required by the Statute, but only a Lady Companion according to the Moral Law of God. Page. 24.  
Answ. 2. Marriage by the Common Prayer-Book, not Necessary in a time of War, when both Books of Common Prayer and of Canons were Prohibited and Abolished by the Power of the Sword. ibid.  
Answ. 3. The Legitimation of Children by the Law of God and of the Land, ought not to be questioned after the Death of either Parent, where not Judicially questioned and sentenced in their life-time, Vid. preface &. Page. 25.  
Answ. 4. Not Necessary for a King who is Supreme Ordinary to Marry by the Common Prayer Book or Book of Canons. Page. 26.  
Answ. 5. A King who is Supreme Ordinary may dispense with his own Canons, and with any thing that is only Malum Prohibitum in his own Marriage, but not with what is Malum in se, by the Moral Law of God. Page. 28.    
Obj. 3. The Lady Mother was not HIS Companion, which is the Article of Propriety required by the Statute. Page. 32. 

Answ. She was HIS, and he had the sole Propriety according to the Law of God and the Land. Page. 33.    
Obj. 4. There was no Marriage according to the Law of God. Page. 34. 

Answ. 1. Certain Preparatory Considerations are laid down (before the contrary is proved to this Negative) By what Law and what Judges shall be judged what is the Law of God, by which is after proved here was a Marriage according to the Law of God. ib.  
Answ. 2. Of the damnable Effects have followed by the Popish Prohibitions, and Nulling of all Marriage not made by a Priest in a Temple. Page. 35. 

What is not Marriage by the Moral Law of God. Page. 39  
What is not Matrimony by the Moral Law of God. ibid.    
Answ. 3. The Statute requires neither a King De Jure, nor a Lady Companion De Jure, nor a Son De Jure, but only De Facto; yet are they all here, both De Jure and De Facto, Page. 40. 

Dangerous to leave the Succession of a Kingdom on so incertain a word as Lawful; yet here both the King, the Lady Companion, and the Son are all Lawful. ibid.    
Answ. 4. A Lawful Successor may be of an unlawful. Marriage. Page. 41.    
Obj. 5. The Lady Mother was not a Wife according to the Scripture. Page. 42. 

Answ. 1. The Objection is false, and it is after proved she was a Wife according to the Scripture. ibid.  
Answ. 2. The Statute requires no Wife according to Scripture, but only a lawful Companion, yet was she both a Wife and a lawful Wife according to Scripture; as will hereafter be proved. Page. 43.  
Answ. 3. The Bishops have falsely Translated the Scripture in all words relating to Marriage. ibid. 

Of certain Differences between a Wife of the Bishop's making: and a Wife of God's making. Page. 46.      
Obj. 6. There is no Bishop's Certificate to testify the Marriage and Filiation. Page. 48. 

Answ. The Statute requires no Certificate of either. ibid. 

The Forms of Bishop's Certificates. Page. 49.  
Their Original came from the Priests of Priapus. Page. 50.  
Of the Damnable Mischiefs ensue from Trial of Marriage and Filiation by Bishop's Certificates. ibid.  
The Certificates of Bishops inconsistent with the Right of Primogeniture. Page. 58.  
Of the General Custom of Nations, of Successions to Kingdoms by Primogeniture, and of the Mischiefs and Civil Wars commonly follow the disinheriting of the Eldest Son. Page. 62.  
What is Marriage, and what Matrimony de Facto. Page. 66.  
What is Marriage De Jure according to the Law of God, and of the Nations. Page. 67.  
Of the three Lawful Marriages amongst the Romans. 

(1) Usu.  
(2) Confarreatione.  
(3) Coemptione. Page. 68    
Of the three Lawful Marriages amongst the Hebrews, 

(1) Copulatione.  
(2) Coemptione.  
(3) Instrumentis. ibid.    
That Carnal knowledge, Chastity, and Childbirth between a Man and a Woman not prohibited by the Moral Law to Marry makes a Marriage Lawful, Holy, and Indissoluble without Banns, Licence, Priest, Temple or any other Ceremony whatsoever. Page. 71.  
That the Marriage Coemptione, Confarreatione, or Instrumentis, was not intended by Christ, but only the Marriage Copulatione. Page. 86.  
An Epithalamium on the Marriage of Nature intended by Christ without a Priest or Temple. Page. 88      
Obj. 7. The King's  Son is not the Heir intended by the Statute. Page. 90. 

Answ. Proved he is the Heir both in the Letter and Intention of the Statute. ibid. 

That to compass the Exile or Disinheriting of the King's Eldest Son is High Treason. Page. 94.      
Obj. 8. By the Custom of Nations, the Succession goes not to the Eldest Son, born when the Father is only a Prince, but to a younger Son, born when he is a King. ibid. 

Answ. This Statute was made to prevent incertainty of this and other Customs, and prevent all Cavils and Contentions about Succession, by ascertaining the same to the Eldest Son. Page. 95.    
Obj. 9 The King's  Son is not yet declared Prince of Wales, or of the Scots. ibid. 

Answ. The Statute requires no such thing. Page. 97.    
Obj. 10. Illegitimacy deprives of the benefit of the Statute. ibid. 

Answ. This Statute declares every Eldest Son of a King Legitimate, and Heir to the Crown. ibid. 

The Eldest Son of a King of Great Britain is Legitimate by his Birthright, per Jus Coronae. ibid.  
Examples of the same Jus Coronae in other Nations. Page. 100  
Examples of the same Jus Coronae in the Eldest Sons and Daughters of the Kings of England and Scotland, who have thereby succeeded as Heirs to their Father's Kingdoms on Marriages, according to the Moral Law of God, without the Ceremonies of a Priest, or a Temple. Page. 102, 103.  
That 'tis High Treason for any Subject to slander the King's Eldest Son with Illegitimacy. Page. 111.  
A Comparison of the Popish slanders of Illegitimacy against Queen Elizabeth, and the King's  Son. Page. 112.  
A Comparison of the Popish slanders of Illegitimacy against King Edward the Sixth, Queen Elizabeth, the King's Eldest Son, and the Sons and Daughters of the whole Protestant Clergy. Page. 114.  
Of the insolent absurdity of Popish Laws, Disinheriting the Lawful Sons of Kings according to the Law of God, and inheriting the Bastards of Popes by the Law of the Devil. Page. 118.       

CAP. II.  
WHether necessary in the present juncture of Affairs for the King and Parliament to declare a Protestant Successor to the Three Kingdoms. Page. 121.  
Objections against it Answered.  
Obj. 1. Declaring a Protestant Successor by the King and Parliament, makes a Kingdom Elective and not Hereditary. ibid.  
Obj. 2. Acts of Precedent Parliaments cannot bind Subsequent from repeal. Page. 122.  
Obj. 3. Acts of Parliament cannot bind the Power of the Sword from cutting off those Acts by Conquest. Page. 123.  
Obj. 4. Declaring a Successor by Act of Parliament incites him to be disobedient and rebellious. ibid.  
Obj. 5. The Ottoman Emperors never declare a Successor. Page. 124.  
Obj. 6. Queen Elizabeth refused to Declare a Successor. Page. 127. 

Reasons for declaring a Protestant Successor, by the King and Parliament, with the Great Dangers ensue the neglect. Page. 132. 

1. Danger to the Conscience of the Prince. ibid.  
2. Danger by the incertainty of the Laws of Succession of the Crown. Page. 133.  
3. Danger of the Arbitrary disposing of the Crown by Rome or Canterbury. Page. 134.  
4. Danger of the Predominancy of Papal and Episcopal Laws of Marriage, Filiation, and Succession above the Moral Law of God, and the Laws of the Land. ibid.  
5. Danger to the King's Person, his Lineal Heirs and House. Page. 135.  
6. Danger of Lineal and Collateral Heirs to destroy one another. ibid.  
7. Danger if the King's Eldest Son should happen to die before his Father, leaving his Heir and younger Children in Minority. ibid.  
8. Danger of a Successor without Assent of the People. Page. 137.  
9 Danger of a Papist Successor. Page. 138. 

A Papist Successor more dangerous to Papists themselves, than a Protestant Successor. ibid.  
A Papist Successor or Male utterly Destructive to Protestants, and a Female doubly Destructive. Page. 160.    
10. Danger in regard of Foreign Princes. Page. 182.  
11. Danger of exposing Succession to Counterfeit Wills and Testaments. Page. 190.  
12. Danger of encouraging Usurpers. Page. 191.  
13. Danger in doubtful Titles of Interregnums. Page. 192.  
14. Danger of Cantonizing the Kingdoms. ibid.  
15. Danger of Exposing the Succession of the Kingdoms to Sale. Page. 193.  
16. Danger of Exposing the Succession of the Kingdoms to Conquest. Page. 197.        


LIB. III. CHAP. I.  
The words of the Statute 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus, as in the Original French.  
AUxint pur ceo que divers Opinions ont estre eins ceax heurs quel Case doit estre dit Treason et en quel nemy; le Roy a le request des Seigniors et Commons ad fait declarisment que ensuist; cestassavoire quant home fait compasser ou imaginer la Mort nostre Seignior le Roy, Madame sa compaigne ou de lour fits Eigne et Heir.  
The words as Translated by Pulton and Coke into English.  
WHereas divers Opinions have been before this time in what case Treason shall be said, and in what not; the King, at the request of the Lords and Commons, hath made a Declaration in the manner as hereafter followeth; That is to say, When a man doth Compass or Imagine the Death of our Lord the King, of our Lady his Queen, or of their Eldest Son and Heir.  
The Statutes of Kenneth the Third, and Malcolm Mackenneth the Second, as related by Buchanan, Lib. 6. Rer. Scot p. 191, & 196.  
Adjectae sunt & Aliae leges, ut quemadmodum Regi maximus natu filius in regnum Succederit, ita filio ante Patrem defuncto nepos avo subrogaretur.  
Englished.  
There were other Laws also added, That as the Eldest Son of the King should succeed to him in his Kingdom; So if such Son died before the Father, the Nephew should succeed in his stead to his Grandfather.  
Another Law of Scotland mentioned by Skene, Reg. Majest. Lib. 2. cap. 33. De Nepote ex Primogenito filio.  
Nepos ex filio Primogenito mortuo jure representationis succedit Avo suo, & filium postnatum Avi id est Auunculum suum excludit.  
Englished.  
The Eldest Son being dead before the Father, the Nephew by the Eldest Son shall in right of Representation Succeed to his Grandfather; and exclude any Younger Son of his Grandfather, that is to say, his Uncle.  
This Law of Scotland was taken out of Glanvil, Lib. 7. c. 3. which shows it is the unquestionable Law of England, as well as of Scotland; and likewise out of the Civil Law, L. 3. C. de suis & legit. Haered. l. Posthumorum. 13. H. de Injust. Testamento, etc. 33. ex l. 1. § 6. H. de Haered. Skene saith further, That of this Question between the Son of the Eldest Son, and the Uncle, Franciscus Vinius Treats at large, Lib. 3. Decisionum Decis. 501. and he allcadgeth, Alciat Cons. 101. & Bartol. in l. post fratres C. 1. de legit. haered. Bald. Salyc. & Doctores in l. si viva Mater C. de Bon. Pater.  
The Statute made 10 H. 7. in a Parliament of Ireland, called poinding's Law: The words of which are these,  
It is Enacted, That all Statutes late made within the Realm of England, concerning or belonging to the Common or Public Weal of the same, from henceforth be deemed Good and Effectual in the Law, and ever that be accepted, used and executed within this Land of Ireland, in all Points, and at all times requisite according to the Tenor and Effect of the same.  
Coke saith, 4 Part 351. That Hil. 10. Jac. Regis, it was resolved by the Two Chief Justices and Chief Baron, that this word (late) in the beginning of this Act, had the sense of (before) so that this Act extended to Magna Charta, and to all Acts of Parliament made in England before this Act of 10 H. 7. And by the same Reason extends to the Statute of 25 E. 3. cap. 2. De Proditionibus, on which this Discourse is founded; from whence will be after proved these Conclusions.  
Conclusion 1.  
This being granted, That if the Eldest Son had happened to Die in the Life of his Father, the Eldest Son of the Prince who died, should have Succeeded Jure Representationis of his own Father, as Heir Lineal to his Grandfather, and excluded the Grandfather's Younger Son, who is his Uncle, à fortiori, must it be granted, that if both Grandfather and Father die, the Eldest Son who is the Grandchild Surviving, he ought to exclude his Uncle; for he now comes in Jure proprio which is a greater Right than Jure representationis; and if the less Right exclude the Uncle, much more must the greater.  
Conclusion 2.  
When the Right of the Crown shall actual descend from the King in Possession, on the Eldest Son in Possession, who is the next Lineal Heir of his Blood, then is the Son Actually King both De Facto, and De Jure, as was his Father who died in Possession of the Kingdoms. And therefore all the forementioned Acts of Parliament, and Common Laws of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the Imperial Laws with them unanimously declare, It will be not only then High Treason to Compass the Death, Exile or Disinheriting of the King's Eldest Son, but whatsoever else is High Treason against a King, will be the same against him.  

Objections chief by Buchanan against these Statutes, and the Policy of them, making Kingdoms Hereditary to the Eldest Sons, Answered.  
Object. 
Who is best able to defend a Kingdom, should have it.  Object. 1. Salus Populi, is above all Statutes, and the Power of Kings and Parliaments themselves, and above all Acts of Parliament: Statutes therefore which Repeal the Ancient Fundamental Laws which were in Great Britain, of Election by Parliament, and in Ireland by the Custom of Tanistry of Succession of the Brother before the Son; such Statutes ought themselves to be repealed, and not to repeal those which are better; and it being most necessary pro salute Populi, that he who is best able to defend a Kingdom against Enemies Foreign and Native, and hath learned the same by Age and Experience, should succeed; which the Brother being more able and fit to do than the Son, ought, according to those Ancient and Necessary Customs, to succeed before the Son; which Custom as to Scotland is recited by Buchaman, Mos majorum qui è propinquis Regum defunctorum non proximos sed, maximè idoneos, eligerent, modo à Fergusio primo Scotorum Rege essent oriundi. The Custom of Scotland was, That the Parliament chose out of the Kindred of the King deceased, not the next, but the fittest, so as they were such as were descendants from Fergusius the first King of the Scots; and on this Custom Kenneth the Third, who was the Brother of King Duffus, was by Election of the Parliamem of Scotland preferred before Milcolumbus the Son of Duffus, though a Youth of great hopes; which Kenneth began his Reign Anno Dom. 970, and proved a most Valiant and Wife Prince, and repelled a Mighty Invasion of the Danes, whom he overthrew in a Battle with a great Slaughter of them: but the same Kenneth afterwards inflamed with Ambition, Covetousness, and Cruelty, secretly poisoned Milcolumbus the then Prince of Scotland, being the said Son of his Brother Duffus deccased, and with great dissimulation counterfeiting even Tears and great Grief for him, Convened a Parliament at Scone, whom partly by Terror, and partly by Deceit, he got to Abrogate the Law of Succession of Brothers before Sons, which had made him King, and been the Sanctuary of Public Safety, and Enacted a Law of Succession for his own private and not the Public Interest, clean contrary, viz. That the Kingdom should be from that time Hereditary in this manner; That his own Eldest Son should be Prince of Scotland. That when any King died, his Eldest Son should next succeed to the Crown; and if the Eldest died living his Father, the Nephew should succeed instead of his Son who died: And other Constitutions, as appears, Buchanan rer. Scotl. 190, 191. Who saith further, 
Kenneth making the Kingdom of Scotland Hereditary, tormented in Conscience.  Ita Rex per scelus posteris uti putabat regno stabilito, animum tamen suum confirmare non pot vit, etc. The King (saith he) having by so great a Wickedness established his Kingdom, as he thought, to his Posterity, he could not Establish his Mind; for although he courted all sorts of Men with the highest show of Love and Courtesy, and so managed the Affairs of the Kingdom, that there was nothing wanting which shown him not a good King; Yet his Mind perpetually disquieted with the conscience of his wicked fact, suffered him not to have any solid or sincere joy, but the thoughts of his foul Crime rushing into his memory, vexed him by Day and by Night, most horrible Dreams disturbed his rest; at length, whether truly (as some affirm) or whether his troubled thoughts made him so fancy what oftentimes happens to Guilty persons, a voice came from Heaven, by which he seemed in his sleep to be warned, Dost thou think the Murder of Milcolumbus, an Innocent Person, committed by thee most wickedly in Secret, is hid from me? or that I will any longer suffer it to pass without punishment? For already there are Plots laid by Treason, which thou shalt not escape, to take away thy Life; neither shalt thou (as thou thinkest) leave thy Kingdom Stable or Secure, but full of Tumults and Tempests to thy Posterity. With which fearful Dream the King being terrified, Early in the Morning he flies to the Bishops and Monks, and declares to them the Confusion of his Mind, and Anguish of his Conscience for his Crime; but they gave him no true Remedy from the Doctrine of Christ (for they had already degenerated from the Piety and Learning of the Ancient Professors); But advised those many absurdities Long since invented by wicked Persons for their own gains, and rashly believed of the Unlearned and Overcredulous, That he should enrich with Gifts the Holy Places and Temples, and should visit the Sepulchers of the Saints, kiss their Relics, redeem his Sins by Masses and Alms, and should have a greater Honour and Reverence for the Monks and Priests, than he had formerly used to have. Neither did he omit any of these Explations which he believed would help him: But he was notwithstanding after by appointment of Fenella, a Lady formerly Injured by him, and an Ambuscada of Horse laid for him, taken and killed, as Buchanan, p. 192. after the death of Kenneth, and this entail of the Crown to his Issue by the Murder of his Brother's Son. It appears, Buchan. rer. Scotl. lib. 6. p. 192, 193. That Constantinus the Son of Caten called Calvus, 
Constantine Calvus procures the Law of Kenneth to be repealed.  began to dispute much against the Injustice of this Law, to which they were circumvented by fear to assent; and thus he gins, Quid enim Stultius quam rem unam omnium maximam à prudentium censura & Suffragiis ad Arbitrium fortunae revocare, etc. What (saith he) is more foolish than to take away a matter of the greatest concern from the Votes of Wise Men in Parliament, and to cast it on the Wheel of Fortune; and that these should bind themselves to be ruled by a Child who hath the chance to be born, and who is ruled by some petty Woman, and drive away most Valiant Men from assistance in the Government? What if the Children of Kings should have any infirmity of Body or Mind, whereby they are utterly disabled to perform necessary Acts of Empire; what if Children should have possessed the Kingdom in such time when we fought with the Romans, Britons, Picts, English and Danes, not for the Kingdom, but for Life? or what can be said more Mad, than what God threatens to the Contumacious, that Children should reign over them, as the highest Calamity we should enact as a Law, on ourselves, and the greatest Threats of the Divine Prophets we should either contemn or run headlong into it of our own accord. Neither is there any truth in what the Flatterers of Kenneth boast, that by this means the Govetousness and Slaughters of Kindred are avoided. Neither are the Treacheries of Guardians less to be feared to the Children of Kings left in Minority, than of their Kindred; wherefore now the Tyrant being fallen who Ravished our Liberty, let us valiantly resume the same; and his Law Enacted by force, and assented to by fear, (if it be a Law, and not rather a selling us for Slaves) let us abrogate and repeal the same, and Restore again our Ancient Fundamental Laws, (which brought forth this Kingdom of nothing, and from so small beginnings not only advanced to such an height as is inferior to none of our Neighbours; but when cast down, hath again raised the same to its former Strength; and let us embrace the present opportunity while it offers itself; which if once Elapsed, we may in vain seek again. The People are by this persuaded; and the Twelfth day after the Funeral of Kenneth, he is chosen King Anno Domini, 994. And was after Slain in Battle in the Town of Vaumond in Louthian in the Second Year of his Reign. And though Milcolumbus or Malcolm the second Son of Kenneth the Third, who was so tormented in Conscience for Poisoning the first Son of his Brother Duffus, to get an Act to entail the Grown to his own Posterity, made no Conscience to kill Grinius, another Son of the same Duffus, in Battle; 
Malcolm Son of Kenneth revives and confirms the Law making the Kingdom hereditary.  and having by the Success gotten the Power of the Sword into his hand in the Same manner as his Father Kenneth had by force Enacted, again by force confirmed at the Same Scone, by Parliament, the Act of entail of the Crown to the Issue of Kenneth, Buchanan, 196. Yet doth Buchanan the same Historian, p. 200, & 201, censure this Act of changing the Ancient Law of Election by Parliament of the Brother or any other person more fit than the Son, to be Injust, Imprudent and Infortunate.  

Objections against the Reviver.  
1. Injust, 
1. Injustice.  Because, he saith, Italex enervat vires consilij publici, sine quo nullus Legitimus dominatus potest consistere. Such a Law enervates the Strength of Parliaments, without which no Lawful Government can be; for all Government is either by Conquest or Contract. As to Conquest, there is none demanded or acknowledged on Such a Title. As to Contract, there can be none without a Parliament, who are the Representative of the People to contract for them.  
2. Imprudent, 
●. Imprudence.  Because, Propinquorum in eos qui Regno potiuntur insidias, et Regnantium adversus eos, quos et natura, et lex voluit ●●ique esse Charissimos suspitiones nesarias, quas narrationis or do Exphrabit, tot priorum Seci●●orum clades cum illis collatae calamitatibus quae Alexandri tertij interitum sunt consecutae, Leves prae ijs & tolerabiles videri possunt. The Treacheries of Kindred against those who enjoy the Kingdom, and the wicked Suspicions of those who Reign against them, who by the Bonds of Nature and Law they ought to esteem most dear (as this discourse in order shall declare); And the Slaughters of so many former Ages compared with the Calamities which hereby followed the death of Alexander the Third, were light and tolerable.  
Note, Alexander the Third began his Reign Anno Domini 1649. he Married first Margaret Daughter to Henry the Third King of England, by whom he had Alexander, the Prince David, and Margaret who married Hangonamus, or, as some call him, Ericus, Son to Magnus 4th King of Norway, who bore him a Daughter commonly called the Maiden of Norway, 
The Maiden of Norway had United England and Scotland, if she had lived.  Skene. And concerning this Lady of Norway, saith Buchanan, Lib. 8. p. 241. Edvardus Anglorum Rex gnarus suae sororis neptem Regis Norvegiae filiam unam, Ex Alexandri posteris esse superstitem, Eandemque Regni Scotorum Legitimam Heredem, Legatos ad eam deposcendam filio suo in Scotiam misit, etc. Edward the First King of England knowing his Niece the Daughter of the King of Norway to be the only Remaining Issue of Alexander the Third, and Lawful Heir to the Crown of Scotland, he sent his Ambassadors into Scotland to ask her in Marriage for his Son: They when they Argued much in the Public Gonvention of the Public Benefit which would ensue such Marriage, they found the Minds of the Scots not Dis-inclined from that affinity; for Edward was a man of great Courage, and of great Power, and Ambition of greater. And the glory of his Valour in the Holy War while his Father was alive, and in Subduing Wales after his death, shone bright: Neither could they ever Remember the Scotish and English name to have been nearer Conjoined, than under the Last Kings; Neither could old Hostility be more Commodiously abolished, then if there were an Union made of both Nations upon Honest and Equal Conditions. The Marriage was therefore Readily Assented unto, and Conditions added by Mutual assent of both, That the Scots should so long use their own Laws and Magistrates, till such Children should be born of the same as were able to Reign: And if none should happen to be procreated, or being born, should die before their Lawful age; Then the Kingdom of Scotland should go to the next of the Blood-Royal. Things being thus Agreed, Michael, or as others mention, Daevid Wemes, and Michael Scot, two Knights of Fife, of great. Repute for their Prudence, with their Country in those Times, were sent Ambassadors to Norway; but they, because Margaret (for that was the Young Lady's Name) died before their Arrival, returned home sad and nothing done; by whose immature death there arose such Controversy as vehemently shook England, and almost destroyed the Name of the Scots. For to go on with the History as he and other Writers Relate it, not withstanding this new Act of entailing the Crown, 
Ten Competitors arose to the Crown of Scotland, notwithstanding the Act of Reviver making the same hereditary.  there arose Ten Competitors for the Succession, Erick King of Norway; Florence Earl of Holland; Robert Bruce Earl of Anandale; John de Balliol, Lord of Galloway; John de Hastings Lord of Abergaveny; John Cumyn, Lord of Badenair; Patrick de Dunbar, Earl of March; John de Vesey, Nicholas de Hues, William de Ross, All or the most part of them alleging themselves descended from David Earl of Huntingdon, Younger Brother to William King of Scots, and Great Uncle to the late King Alexander.  
But the Principal and most Potent Factions which contended, were that of Balyol and Bruce, On which, saith Sir Richard Baker, Hist. 96. broke out the Mortal Dissension between the Two Nations, which consumed more Christian Blood, and continued longer, 
And the Wars between the Factions of Balliol and Bruce.  than any Quarrel we read of ever did between any Two People in the World; for he that began it could not end it, but it lasted almost Three Hundred Years, and was never throughly abolished, till it pleased God to Unite the Discordant Blood of the Three Kingdoms in King James; Which Discords had never happened amongst these Ten Competitors, had not the Ancient Law of Electing by Parliaments the fittest of the Blood-Royal (whereby generally Brothers were Elected before Sons) been abolished. A very Imprudent way therefore is it to design for Public Peace, what Experience shows to have the greatest cause of perpetual Wars for so long a time as 300 years together.  
The like Civil Wars in England followed between York and Lancaster from Generation to Generation, and this Statute of Treason prevented not the same. 
The Civil Wars between York and Lancaster not prevented by the Statute making the Eldest Son Heir.  Another Imprudence, Buchanan mentions, p. 201.  Reges videlicet constituamus quibus alij Rectores praeficiendi, & in eorum potestatem universum tradamus populum, qui ipsi sui potestatem non habent, & qui aegre Regibus usu rerum peritis & prudentia praestantibus parent, poscimus ut qualibuscunque Regum umbris pareant. That we should constitute Kings to govern, who must have others set over them to govern themselves; and that we should deliver the whole People into their Power who have not power over themselves; and that we should require of such who will hardly obey the best Kings, and most Excellent in Experience and Wisdom to obey any shadows of Kings shall be set over them.  

Imprudence of attempts by such Acts to perpetuate a Name or Race.  Of a third Imprudence and Infortunateness incident in this to Princes themselves, he says, Quod autem privatunt ex hac Lege petunt Reges Emolumentum ut generis et nominis perpetuitatem inde sibi promittunt, id quam sit vanum et fallax, etc. That the private profit which Kings seek out of this Law, being the Perpetuity of their Race and Name, is very vain and deceitful, not only in manifold ancient Examples, but Nature itself may teach them, if they will consider with how many Laws and Rewards the Romans endeavoured to perpetuate the Famous Names of their Families, of whom there remains now not the least sign in the whole World conquered by them. And deservedly, I think, this happens to them who contend to give Eternity, which neither themselves have, nor can have, to a thing in its nature so flying and frail, and every moment obnoxious to all Casuality, as cannot be capable of Stability; And attempt the same by such a way as is most contrary to their design: for what is less faithful to Diuturnity then Tyranny? but to the same this new Law prepares the way, and a Tyrant is the universal mark of the hate of Mankind, for whom it is impossible to stand long; and when he falls, he draws the Ruin of his whole Family with him. This Endeavour of Foolish Men, the Deity seems to me, many times, to break with a Contemptuous stroke, and sometimes as a Competitor with him in Power to expose it to public derision: And I know not whether there can be any more fit or manifest Example of the Divine Pleasure than in him whom we now mention: 
Malcolm the Author of the Law of Succession of Eldest Sons, died without a Son.  For Milcolumbus who so much Laboured to confirm by Parliament a Law Enacted by his Father by force for the Succession of the Sons of Kings in their Father's room, left no Issue Male behind him. And as to his two Daughters, one of them called Beatrice, he matched to a Nobleman called Crinus, a Thane of the Western Isles, and a Chief of the other Thanes, whom that Age called an Athan. The other called Doaca, he matched to the Thane of Angus, by whom was begot Macbeth, of whom I shall speak further in his proper place, and indeed do we not find in all Ages the greatest Races sooner destroyed than the meaner: And if any have escaped the Tempest of Time, they have not been the Lofty Cedars, but the humble shrubs. Where are now all the Races of Giants of the Old World? Where are now the Races of the Egyptian Gods, who in the reputed forms of Men reigned on the Earth? Where is the Race of Nimrod the Founder of the Assyrian? Of Arbaces the Founder of the Median? Of Cyrus the Founder of the Persian Empire? 
The Crown endureth not to every Generation.  Is not the saying of Solomon true, Prov. 27.24. Riches are not for ever, and doth the Crown endure to every Generation?  
(2.) This new Law of entailing to Sons, though it may preserve the Counterfeit name, yet destroys the true Fame of the Father, which is called, 
Children of the same Name, destroy the Name of the Father.  Isa. 56.5. a Name better than of Sons and Daughters. As there were so many Pharaohs that the Chronologists are by the Ears and cannot agree which was the Pharaoh when Abraham went into Egypt, which was the Pharaoh Entertained Joseph, which was the Pharaoh commanded the Male Children to be destroyed; And which was the Pharaoh was drowned in the Sea. The like of the Dariusses, and of the Herod's, though they were but few, and many others.  
Many other Names and Races whereby there can be no Encouragement of Fame to Virtuous Actions for Public good; nor Discouragement to Vicious by Infamy, who are causes of Public Evils: whereas on the contrary, as is well observed by Sir Francis Bacon, Actions of the highest Fame, and of greatest Merit to the Public, have been done by the unmarried and Childless Men; yea we find this Vanity of entailing the Father's Name so much slighted by the great Nestorian Church in Persia, that if after Marriage a Male-Child were born, 
Father lost his Name to his Son in Persia.  the Father lost his own Name, and was called by the Name of his Eldest Son; as, if the Father's name was Moses, and the Son's name Joseph; the Father was no more called Moses, but Aben-Joseph; that is, the Father of Joseph. Heylin, 660.  
And we find though Darius destroyed Belshazzar the Son of the Conquering Nebuchadnezzer, and Cassander the Children and Mother of the Great Alexander, and Augustus destroyed Caesarian the Son of the Renowned Julius Caesar, whereby the Race of every one of these Conquerors became Extinguished soon after their death; yet we hear the Names of the Fathers resound to this Day more gloriously from the single Trumpet of Fame, than they could have done from the weak Cries of Infants in a Numerous Offspring, had they left a Posterity.  
(3.) It is said against this Law of entailing to Sons, That though the Royal Lines are not always so suddenly Extinguished, as in the Last Examples; Yet the Periods of them and their Heirs Male, and of Races and Kingdoms themselves are fatal, and, as some Politicians observe, terminate most with about the Term of about 500 Years many under; 
Imprudent to seek to perpetuate Races against Nature, Fate and Providence, which are irresistible.  few above. So in the Ancient Kingdom of the Egyptians, there were above Twenty Dynastyes, at the Period of every one of which, the Race of that King who began to Rule the Dynastye, Either Expired, or was Extinguished or Destroyed; and it is easy to see how many Races and Names of several Kings have in short time worn out and been changed to new, both in England, Scotland, France, Spain, etc. It is in vain therefore by human Laws to seek to resist the Decrees of God, and perpetuate a Race which God hath appointed to Determine, Seeing, as Solomon saith, Eccles. 9.11. The Race is not to the swift, nor the Battle to the strong; neither yet Bread to the wise, nor yet Riches to men of understanding, nor yet Favour to men of skill. And it is said, Dan. 4. The Most High Ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. Better therefore both to Princes and Subjects, is the Counsel of Christ, Matth. 6.33. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his Righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. Dan. 7.27. Whose Kingdom is an Everlasting Kingdom. And as is said, Psal. 16.11. In his Presence is fullness of Joy, at his Right Hand are Pleasures for evermore.  
Answ. 1 Answ. 1. As to the first Objection, That the Brother ought to be preferred before the Son, and Liberty left, according to ancient Custom, to the Parliament to Elect him, if he is Judged fittest for Succession; And that the Brother is always most fit and more for the Safety of the Kingdom, he being always of greater Age and Experience than the Son, who may chance to be a Child, and more need Tutors and Governors himself, than to Govern others. As to which part of the Reason of possibility of Minority in the Son, I answer, 

First, That à Posse ad esse non valet Argumentum. And with all due Honour had to the Age and Experience of others, the Eldest Son is here no Infant or Minor: But hath attained to a higher Maturity and Flower of Age and Strength, than Alexander the Great, who began at Twenty to Conquer the World; and hath shown already the Highest Proof of Valour in War, and Affection to Religion and Justice in Peace.  
Secondly, admit it should happen the Eldest Son to be an Infant or Minor, as the intention of this Statute is it may; which make it, notwithstanding his Infancy, Treason to Practise against him: And though an Eldest Son should be left at the Death of any King an Infant or Minor; yet by the Mercy of God, the Righteousness of the Title, and a standing Parliament During the Minority, The Infant and Kingdoms are as Safe, as if he were of full Age; And more. Safe than in the hand of a Collateral Heir of full Age, whose Guardianship is most dangerous to a Lineal Heir.    
Answ. 2 Answ. 2. As to the Reason, That it is more for the Fame of Virtue for the Father to have none of his name; Than to have his name Lost amongst a Multitude of the same names derived from him to numerous Posterity; I shall answer in the words of Buchanan, in another place on another dispute, p. 406. Quod si de honore unus Et non de omnium salute hic esset disputatio, Ego quoque facile ac Lubens ad eorum sententiam accederem; verum cum de eo Statuendum sit hodie quod omnium privatorum vitam Et fortunam, quod totius Regni incolumitatem complectitur; huic uni c●gitationi omnes Singulorum rationes concedere oportet.  
Answ. 3 Answ. 3. As to that Reason of the Objection, That Periods of Royal Races and Successions to Kingdoms are natural, in regard the subject matter is so frail as not to be Capable of Perpetuity; and fatal, in regard God hath appointed the same by an Immutable Decree; and Providential, in regard it is often likewise effected by a particular Providence: and seeing the Laws by which God Governs the World, 
God governs the World by the Laws of Nature, Fate and Providence.  are the Law of Nature, the Law of Fate, and the Law of Providence, quae supra nos nihil ad nos, they are irresistible, and all Human Laws to cause or avoid their effects, are in vain. To which is answered and gladly acknowledged, That God is pleased to Govern the World by all these Three Laws; First, the Law of Nature, which is his Decree of Subordination of Causes. Secondly, the Law of Fate, which is his Decree of Co-ordination of Causes to such Ends as to his Wisdom seem best. These two are the Greatest, Imperial and Immutable Law of the World; and against these it is not only folly and a Sin to make Common Laws or Acts of Parliament, 
Not lawful to pray against the Law of Nature or Fate.  but even to pray.  Desine fata Deum flecti sperare precando. 
Hope not from Prayers thou  
Thy Fate from God canst bow.  
Thirdly, The Law of Providence, which is the Regulation of Accidents which are neither Decreed nor Immutable. And this is the Law Paternal, 
Prayers not only Lawful but necessary in matters reserved to Providence.  by which he Governs all his Creatures sensible of Good and Evil. And as to this Law of Providence, human Laws, Endeavours and Prayers are not only Lawful in such as are Capable to Pray, but necessary to obtain the good, and to avert the evil; and both these are acknowledged by the Heathen Poets themselves, 
Sed satis est orasse Jovem qui donat et aufert,  
Det vitam Det opes aequum mî animum ipse parabo.  Hor. lib. 1. ad Lollium Epist. 
Flectitur Iratus voce Rogante Deus.  Ovid.  
But if we will take our Limitations of Prayer from Christians, they must have always these two, That they must be Lawful; that is, not contrary to any revealed Law or Will of God; and likewise be always with submission to his Secret Will.  

The Law Moral a Fourth Law by which God governs the World.  I Answer therefore, That though the Three Laws mentioned are great and wonderful Wages by which God governs the World in general, and Successions to Kingdoms in particular; yet they are not the only Laws by which he doth it; but there is a Fourth Law as great as any of the former, which is the Law Moral; the obligation of which is Reward and Punishment, which not Improperly may be called a Law Magistratical; for as God is the Supreme King and Father, so is he likewise Supreme Magistrate of the World, and beareth not the Sword in vain. And this Law may only be Exercised, and the Obligations thereof laid on the most Noble Subjects, who are so in Three respects: First, In regard of their Knowledge, as the Law Moral can only be Exercised over the Subjects Sensible and Intellectual; 
What Subjects liable to the Law Moral, and what not and what liable to the Laws of Nature, Fate and Providence.  whereas the Laws of Fate and Nature may be Exercised both over these, and over Subjects Ignorant, Insensible, Irrational, Foolish Madmen, and deprived of all Intellect alike. Secondly, in regard of their ability, as the Law Moral can be only Exercised on persons able to perform it; but the Laws of Nature, Fate and Providence, over Babes new born, Blind, Deaf, Dumb, Maimed, and the Dead themselves. Thirdly, in regard of Liberty, as the Law Moral can only be Exercised over free Agents; but the Laws of Nature, Fate and Providence may be Exercised over necessary Agents, forced Agents, Bondmen, Slaves, Captives, Prisoners and persons in Chains and Fetters.  
Though therefore all humane Actions are under one of these four Laws, & a Man is a necessary Agent as to the Law of Nature, and a forced Agent to the Law of Fate and Providence, and a free Agent as to the Moral Law; yet seeing he may be in many things Ignorant when he is Ruled by Nature, when by Fate, when by Providence, 
Not revealed to Man by which of these four Laws he doth Act in any particular Action.  and when by the Moral Law; and consequently it may be secret and not revealed unto him when he is a necessary agent, when a forced agent, and when a free agent; or in the more Common word, when his Will is free, and when Bond: In this Ignorance therefore of all the other Three Secret Laws, he ought to act according to the Moral Law which God hath revealed and promulgated always, and according to the other Three when God hath in particular Acts of his own, manifested his Will in them, as it is an Act of God, that an Eldest Son is born who is an Infant or Minor; And a Brother born who is a Major, and this Act of God is good and of great Mercy; but that on this Act of God Murder should be Committed, or Civil Wars be unjustly Raised, is Evil, and an Act of Man, and God is not the Author of this Sin: and though no humane Law could have caused or prevented this of the Infancy of a Son, or Majority of a Brother; yet may and aught human Laws prevent or punish the wicked acts of men which may ensue thereon in attempts to Murder either; and seeing God by his Moral Law hath Commanded Powers to be a Terror to Evil Doers, it is their Duty therefore (And if they neglect it, the bear the Sword in vain) to make Laws to prevent and punish them, and not to leave Infants and Subjects Exposed in such a Wilderness of Dangers as this is of Succession, because its possible Fate may destroy them, notwithstanding the greatest human care; and Providence may, without any such care taken at all, preserve them; Which Stoical and Epicuraean Follies of fata regunt homines, fatis agimur, Cedite fatis, or Res humanas ordine nullo fortuna regit, or vita regitur Fortuna non Sapientia, to Extend beyond their Bounds prescribed by God, or to all humane Actions because ordained and permitted in some, were like the Ridiculous Pagan Divinity derived from none but such Authors, Not to sow, because Fate may destroy the Harvest with it; and Providence may give an Harvest without it. Not to wear Arms in War, because Fate may destroy with them, and Providence may preserve without them: Not to do good Works, because if Predestinated to be Damned, thou shalt be Damned with them; And if Predestinated to be Saved, thou shalt be saved without them. I should not have thought this of Fate worth the objecting or answering, had I not found the same Actually pressed in the most Excellent Historian and Statist that ever writ in the Isle of Great Britain; for such was Buchanan, out of whom I have recited it.  
Answ. 4 
To the Objection of the Civil Wars between Balliol and Bruce, and York and Lancaster, notwithstanding the Succession of the Crown ascertained to the King's  Son.  Answ. 4. As to the Calamities of Civil Wars which followed between Balliol and Bruce in Scotland, and the Houses of York and Lancaster in England, notwithstanding the Laws in both Kingdoms making the Crown Hereditary to the Eldest Son; And that such Laws did not prevent the same: I Answer, first, As to Scotland, the effect of the Law of Primogeniture could not be expected, where there was no  Son surviving, nor on the Death of Margaret of Norway so much as an Heir Lineal Male or Female left; but if there had been an Eldest Son left, there is no appearance of any thing against it, but the Crown of Scotland had never Returned to the Line of the Earl of Huntingdon, but remained in the Line of King Alexander the Third, who was the last Possessor; which would have prevented all those Ten Competitors to claim from Huntingdon, and consequently the Wars between Balliol and Bruce. Then as to the Civil Wars in England, if Richard the Second had left a Son, there appears no probability that ever there had been a Civil War between York and Lancaster. Besides, if when there is an Eldest Son left, as was by Edward the Fourth, and an younger Son with him, and notwithstanding there followed a new Civil War between York and Lancaster in the Persons of Richard the Third, and Henry the Seventh, first though this Law of Primogeniture in Succession did not prevent it; And though the Law make it High Treason to Compass the death of the Eldest Son, yet could it not prevent the Murder of both the Sons. To which I answer, That it is not to be Imputed as a fault to the Statute or Law, that some wicked persons dare break it; but is notwithstanding of greater use as the Statutes which make it High Treason to Counterfeit the King's Seal, or to Clip Money, and Felony to Rob on the Highway; Though many have notwithstanding Counterfeited the Seal, Clipped Money, and Robbed on the Highway; yet are not these Statutes Useless, but a great Security to the People: for though there are now a few, if there were no such Statute at all, there would be multitudes of Malefactors.  

Richard the Third designing to Murder his Brother's Sons, first slandered them with Illegitimacy.  Besides, as to the Particular Instance of Edward the Fourth, it was his Inadvertency, and indeed Imprudence to Commit the Guardianship of his Son in Minority to his Brother, who thereupon forged Illegitimacy against them, and Murdered them; And it was done for want of such a Law of Succession, as was Enacted by Kenneth the Third, and Malcolme Mackenneth the Second in Scotland, which according to Buchanan, lib. 6. p. 191. was, 
A Guardian by the Law of Scotland to be Elected by Parliament during the Minority of the Prince.   Rege Impubere Tutor qui pro Rege esset interea Eligeretur vir prudentia & opibus insignis, qui ad quartodecimum usque Annum Regis nomine rem administraret. Ad id aetatis ubi Rex pervenerit ipsi sibi curatores Eligere posset. That the King being under the Age of Fourteen Years, Election should be made of a Guardian of great Estate and Wisdom, who should be his Regent in the mean while, and Administer his Affairs in the King's Name till he arrived at the Age of Fourteen; and when he came to that Age, he himself might choose his own Guardians: Which Election of a Guardian, must be intended to be by Parliament; for it appears by the words, That the Infant or Minor King must not, nor is able to choose himself, till he come to the Age of Fourteen. And it is contrary to Reason, that any other should be his own Judge to choose himself, to have to himself to his own use the Custody of the Person of the King, 
Dangerous to Commit the Guardianship of a Minor prince to the next Major.  in whom all his Subjects have an Interest. And it would be very Dangerous to the Infant, if he who is next Successor to the Crown, should get the Custody of the Heir into his hands. There is no Third Power can be therefore above Exception, who ought to choose the Guardian of an Infant King, but the Parliament; And accordingly we find it to be the constant Practice of that Kingdom, as appears, Buchanan, Lib. 19 p. 687. when it is said, Sed cum homines usu rerum Edocti Perspicerint vix fieri posse ut in tanta fortunae inconstantia non aliquando in pueros, aut alioqui Regno ineundo Impares haeredes, jus summi Magistratus inciderit, etc. But when taught by Experience, men saw that it could not be but in so great inconstancy of Fortune, but the Right of the Supreme Magistracy might fall amongst Children or other Heirs unfit to Govern a Kingdom, they Ordained, That in the mean time one should be Elected Regent who Excelled the rest in Estate and Counsel; 
Guardians chosen by Parliament, the only Security of Kings in Minority.  and our Ancestors following this way for the space of Six hundred Years, have transmitted thereby the Kingdom safe to Posterity. So Robert Bruce, being dead, Thomas Randolph Earl of Murray, and Donald Earl of Mar, Andrew Murray, John Randolph, Robert Stuart succeeded singly, and sometimes more number are by Parliament chosen into that place. So James II. being a child, Alexander Leviston being of no Kin, nor of the chief Rank of Nobility, but only a Knight, and of more repute for Prudence then Ancient Descent, was elected to be his Guardian. Neither can there be alleged any want of persons of the Royal Stock to have been the cause of such choice; for there was at that time John Kennedy chief of his Family, and King James his Nephew by his Sister, there were his Uncle's James Kennedy Archbishop of St. Andrews, Primate of the whole Kingdom in all kind of Virtue, and his Brother, born of the King's Aunt, Douglass Earl of Angus was not remote from the King's Blood; Archibald Earl of Douglas, in Power almost equal to the King, and superior to any of the rest; yet did none of these complain of any Injustice in the Parliament for making another choice; and not long after four Guardians were given to James III. not taken for the Kindred, but chosen by Parliament. It was but of late that John Duke of Albin was sent for by the Nobility out of France to moderate the Affairs of Scotland, James I. being then a child, and was confirmed by a public Act of Parliament. Neither was it done because he was next of Kin, for he had an Elder Brother called Alexander. But James I. being absent, Robert his Uncle ruled the Kingdom. And with what Right? Was he taken for nearness of Blood? No he was chosen by the People. Nor so neither. How then was he created? When Robert III was so sick in body and mind, that he was not able to discharge his Office, he made his Brother Robert his Viceroy, and commended his Children to him. So his Brother starved to death David his Eldest Son, and sought how to destroy likewise James his Younger, had he not escaped by slight. But he being now placed in possession of his Tyranny, and his Brother dead with grief, without Parliament or assent of the People he kept it, and by force left it to his Son Mordach, etc. Buchanan proceeds, p. 688. Quid enim minus justum esse poterat quam aetatem innoxiam atque infirmam ejus fidei committere, qui pupilli sibi crediti mortem semper expectat & optat? What can be more injust, then to commit the innocent and weak Age, to one who always hopes for, or wishes the death of the Pupil entrusted in his hands. And after he saith, Laodice the Queen of the Cappadoceans is related to have killed every one of her children as in order they arrived at fourteen years of age, to gain thereby a little more time to reign. If a Mother will destroy her Children to get the use of a little time, what shall we think, will their old Enemies dare, yea will they not dare to do, inflamed with the Brands of Covetousness, to cruelty against a Child hindering their hopes of a perpetual Kingdom? If this Example seems old and obscure, or far-fetched, I will add more clear and nearer home: For who is so ignorant of things so lately acted, as he knows not Galeacius Sfortia, though at man's Estate, though married, and the Son in Law of a Potent King, to be killed by Lodowick his Uncle? Or to whom are the Calamities unknown which ensued that cruel Parricide, the most beautiful Region of Italy brought almost to a Devastation, the Sfortian Family, 
The not abolishing Episcopal Laws which pretend to Illegitimate whom they please, the sense of the Murder of Edward V and his Brother.  so fruitful of valiant men, destroyed; Barbarians let into the most pleasant Country watered by Po. Against whose Rapine nothing was safe, against whose Cruelty nothing was secure. Who hath been born in the soil of Great Britain, and hath not heard of the cruel Murder by Richard III. King of England of the Sons of his Brother Edward IV? A great cause of the murder likewise of these Princes was, that Papal and Episcopal Laws were not abolished which pretend to illegitimate whom they please.  
Answ. 5 
Making a Kingdom hereditary to the eldest Son weakens not the Power of Parliaments.  And (5.) as to the Reason against these Statutes (which maketh the Crown hereditary to the eldest Son) that the same enervate the strength of Parliaments, and without a Contract made by every Prince with a Parliament, no Government can be just, in regard if he receives not the Kingdom by Contract, he assumes it by Conquest, which over a Free Nation is unjust. To which is answered, First that these Acts of Parliament of England, and Scotland, which entail the Crown to the Eldest Son, do no way weaken but confirm and establish the Power of Parliaments and Exercise of the same for the Public safety. (1) In regard the Entail being made to the Eldest Son by Act of Parliament, the same declares, that what is given by Act of Parliament, may be taken by Act of Parliament; and that every former Act enacted, may by a latter Act be repealed, according to the known Rule, Vnumquodque dissolvitur eodem modo quo conflatum est. Secondly according to the General Examples of Acts of Parliament, amongst which nothing is more common than for later Acts to change the Entails of the Crown made by former Acts. Thirdly, This Power of Parliaments is expressly declared by Act of Parl. 13 El. 1. still in force, by which it is enacted that to affirm that the Laws and Statutes do not bind the Right of the Crown, and the Descent, Limitation, Inheritance, and Governance thereof, is High Treason. Fourthly, All the Reason alleged of the Ancient Custom of New Election of the Successor (on every Descent) is only lest the Eldest Son should happen to be an Infant, or otherwise unfit for Government, that the Parliament might choose the fittest, which here is satisfied in the Eldest Son, who is above all exception known to be the fittest who can be chosen. Fifthly, though this reserve of Power remain naturally in Parliaments to repeal and change former Acts concerning Succession by new Acts when there is just and necessary cause, yet it is necessary likewise there should be a praevious Act to mark out the Heir in whose name the Parliament shall be called, to declare the Succession or Guardianship if he happen to be an Infant. And what if after a King happens to die there happen a Rebellion, or Invasion, which makes it impossible to assemble a Parliament, will it not be a great safety to the People, that a standing Act of Parliament hath before hand appointed the Successor to take care of the Kingdoms till he can call a Parliament to give their assistance therein. There is nothing therefore can be justly excepted against these two Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland for ascertaining by Law the Eldest Son to be Heir to the Crown. 
The excellency of the two said Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland, which ascertain the Succession of the Crown to the King's  Son.  But it were a great unthankfulness to the Providence of God to undervalue such Laws, whereby all Accidents are obviated, Questions and Doubts resolved, and Objections answered by so few words as two Lines in each, and the Peace of Succession preserved in Great Britain, for so many hundred years, which in other Empires and Kingdoms cannot be effected without those horrid Murders of Younger Brothers by Elder, or Elder Brothers by Younger; of lineal Heirs by collateral, or collateral Heirs by lineal; of Sons by Fathers, or of Fathers by Sons; (whereby Civil Wars, Devastations, and Ruins of Kingdoms have ensued: and that the want of such Statutes, or the Breach of them have been causes of these Evils, and Enjoyment of them hath been the Cure, will, I hope, appear in the Objections and Answers following.    

Objections first against the not being of the King's Eldest Son within these Statutes, answered.  

Object. Obj. 1. That the Lady his Mother was not a Queen, therefore the King's Eldest Son is not within the Statute.  
Answ. 
Statute false translated in the word Queen.  Answ. To this the answer is easy and clear, that the word Madame sa Compaigne are falsely translated our Lady his Queen, and aught 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 Parliament intended not to restrain their several meaning only 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, Compass le mort nostre Seignior le Roy & sa Royne, than Madam 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 Prince's 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 King's Wife should be titled Queen, if the Bishop refused her Coronation, 
Ralph of Canterbury refuseth to Crown Adeliza Queen, unless he should first discrown the King.  as Ralph Archbishop of Canterbury did to Adeliza the second Wife of H. I. unless the Kings would suffer him to pull off the Crown first from the King's head, and new Crown him, in acknowledgement 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 shown, lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 169, etc.  
(5.) 
The Law of Saxons and Scots that no Wife of a King should be called Queen.  Because the Title of Queen was then under Envy, and doubtful whether not against the ancient 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 Emperor Charles the Bald; in honour of whom, in his own Court he ever placed her in a Chair of State, with all other Majestical Compliments of a Queen, contrary to the Law of the West Saxons, made to avoid the great Expense of Treasure incident to great Titles and Ceremonies, and against other inconveniences, and so much displeased his Lords thereby, that they were ready to have Deposed him, but were prevented by his death not long after. Buchanan Rev. Scot 407. takes notice of this Law, and says, saxons lege caverunt ne ulla deinceps Regis Vxor Regina vocaretur, aut in sede honoris in publico Regi assideret. And 406. mentions the like Law in Scotland; Quas Reginas alii suo quisque sermone nos Regum uxores appellamus, nec altioris fastigii nomen ullum in iis agnoscimus; voluerunt enim opinor viri prudentes ut illae quoties mentionem sui fieri audirent, ex adjuncto viri nomine se viris obnoxias esse meminissent.  
(6.) The Statute by Compaigne intended Sociam Thalami non Throni. And in the same sense is the word Companion used in Scripture, Cant. 1.15. It is said, Behold thou art fair my Companion, thou art fair. And Mal. 2.14. Yet is she thy Companion, and the Wife of thy Covenant. In both which places the word Companion signifies the Companion of the Bed, and not of the Throne 
Non bene conveniunt nec in una sede morantur  
Majest as & Amor—  
Nulla fides regni sociis, omnisque potestas  
Impatiens consortis erit.    
Of the like false Translation of the Scriptures by the Bishops of the Hebrew words Shegal and Gibhira, into the English word Queen.  

Scripture false translated by Bishops in the word Queen.  Psal. 45.9. Is thus falsely translated, Upon thy right hand did stand the Queen in Gold of Ophir. Whereas the Hebrew is only Shegal, which signifies no more than Conjux or Wife, from Shagal, Coivit, Concubuit, and is no more than a Woman that hath been lain with by her Husband. In like manner 1 King. 15, 13. & 2 King. 10.13. are false translated Queen, the Hebrew word being Gibhira, which signifies no more in French than Madam, as in the Statute; nor in Latin than Hera or Domina; nor in English than Lady or Mistress. And the Ancient Hebrews, and many other Nations did no more allow the Title of Queen, except to a Queen Regnant, than as is already said did the Saxons or Scots; for Regina is derived à Regendo, and is only proper to Gynarchies, and imports none but the Supreme Governess of a Kingdom, by which Title Queen Elizabeth was called. Neither had Saul or David any Queens, but only Wives, nor Solomon himself in all his Royalty of his thousand Wives any Queen, for 700 are only called in the Septuagint 1 King. 11.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is no more than Feminae Principes in Latin, and Chief Women in English. And the other 300 (which are falsely translated Concubines, as I have elsewhere at large showed) are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signify no more in Latin 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 only called plain Bathsheba, as 1 King. 1.5. And Bathsheba went in unto the King into the Chamber, and the King was very old. And verse 28. Then King David answered and said, call me Bathsheba; and she came into the King's presence, and stood before the King. And 1 Chron. 3.5. And these were born unto him in Jerusalem, Shimeah, and Shobah, and Nathan, and Solomon, four of Bathsheba the Daughter of Ammiel. That the Bishops have likewise falsely translated all in the Scripture relating to Marriage and Filiation, is proved before at full Lib. 2. p. 142. usque ad p. 162. And in other matters as is affirmed by that great Linguist Doctor Broughton, 
Old Testament false translated by Bishops in 848. places. The Lady Mother of the King's Eldest Son was Madam sa Compaigne intended in this Statute.  they have false translated the Old Testament in no less than 848. places.  
Now that this Lady-Mother was Madam 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 Rays of whose Favour cast upon her, made the Lustre of those Graces rarely conjoined in the same person, the more illustrious; for she was a Virgin, and not praepossessed by another; She was a Protestant, and not a Papist; She was a Native, and not a Strange Woman; She was a Subject, and not Imperious. In her were conjoined Beauty with Chastity, Greatness with Humility, Treasure with Frugality, Fidelity with Adversity. Though she did not reign with him to be called Queen, she suffered with him, and was partaker of all his troubles; no bloody 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 traveled; and though she had no Crown in her Life, she was faithful to Death and beyond Death, left him such a pledge of affection as is hoped by God's mercy will endear her memory to all Protestants in the three Kingdoms, which will evince to all except the Malicious, That she was Madam sa Compaigne, the Lady his Companion mentioned and intended in this Statute: which is sufficient, and as much as is necessary to be proved.   

Object. 2 Object. 2. That she was not married according to the Mass-Book, Common-Prayer, Book of Canons, or Ordinance of Parliament, or by a Priest in a Temple; therefore the Eldest Son is not within this Statute.  
Answ. 
Marriage by the Common Prayer Book, not necessary within the Statute.  Answ. 1. There is neither the word Marriage, Mass Book, Common-Prayer Book, Book of Cannons, or Ordinance of Parilament, Priest or Temple named in the Statute; therefore being not expressed, they are not to be intended in so wise a Statute which minded substance and not Ceremonies, and Safety of the Royal Blood and not Insecurity and Incertainty.  
(2.) Admit the Statute had in express terms said our Lady his Companion married by the Mass-book, which was the Book then in Fashion, at time of this Statute, yet none will deny, but when by a succeeding Power this Mass-Book was abolished or changed, 
Marriage by the Common-Drayer-Book not necessary in time of War.  as in the time of H. 5. the Service Book of Paul's was changed into the Service Book of Salisbury, that none need to marry according to it. Then as to the Common-Prayer, and Book of Cannons at the time of the Princes taking his Lady Companion, it is known that both Mass-Book, Common Prayer Book, Book of Cannons, and all were abolished by the then Power of the Sword, and it might have been Death for a Prince to have married by a Book of Common-Prayer, or in Public. Is any Protestant than so imprudent as to expect in such a time and place of War, and the Usurping Power provailing in their contrary Ordinances, and threatening death and destruction to all who opposed them, that such who were in those dangers, should publicly, and with Rites and Ceremonies, by a Priest, Temple, and Altar, solemnize a Marriage? or can any be so senseless, as when in the time of King John, Pope Innocent, 
Marriage by the Common-Prayer Book not necessary in time of Interdiction, Papal or Potentatical.  the French King, and English Bishops, conspired together and the Pope Excommunicated and Interdicted the King and whole Kingdom of England for the space 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, Sceptre, Mantle, Sword, and Ring at the feet of Pandolfus the Pope's Legate, and making his Kingdom tributary to Rome, during all which time of Interdiction there was no Church open for Marriages or Burials, but People were buried like Dogs in Ditches; and where they married God knows. And in the latter times of Potentates of Interdiction of the Common-Prayer Book, and Marriage by it, can any, I say, be so senseless 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 God's Ordinance and not of the Priests, and married without them.  
(3.) There is another Circumstance in this Case, which makes it both Unlawful and Impossible to question the Validity of this Marriage, because without Mass-Book or Common-Prayer, or Ordinance of Parliament; for the Lady Mother, 
The Mother being dead, the Legitimation of the Child not to be questioned.  who was the Royal first Companion, is now dead; And by Law of God and Man none ought to be Censured without hearing, and answering for herself, which now is impossible; for who knows, if Questioned while alive, What besides the necessities of War, she could have alleged both as to the Fact and Law; what Matrimonial Promises or Contracts Verbal or in Writing; what Matrimonial Trusts, what Witness, what Evidence she could have produced: For which reason, even by our own Laws, as appears 39 E. 3.32. If a man Marry his own Sister, which is a very unlawful Incestuous Marriage, and contrary to the Law of God, and hath Issue by her, and she dies, if not Judicially Questioned and Sentenced for it in her Life-time; the Legitimation of her Issue shall not be questioned after her death, because she was not Summoned to answer while alive. Of which, see more before in the Preface. So Littleton himself, though he is much Devoted to the Service of the Laws and Religion of his Holy Father the Pope concerning Marriages, yet he confesses, Sect. 399.340. That if the Legitimation of a Child is not questioned 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 die, 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 Sepulchre and the Deceased, seems not only Unchristian but Barbarous. How unlawful the Desertion of a Virgin is while alive, hath been already show, Lib. 1. p. 88 But far more unlawful is the Desertions of her Children after her Death. And how Unlawful Divorce of her is after Procreation of a Child, hath been already shown, 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 itself Divorceth not quoad praeterita, 
Death a Divorce, but not Dissolving of Marriage quoad praeterita.  but only quoad futura. Death itself Nulls not, but only Dissolves the Marriage. No Dragon but that of the Seven Heads, hath a Retrospect in repeal of Laws. No Wolves but those in Sheepsclothing with their howls disturb the blessed Dead.  

Act of Confirmation of Marriage to persons in Hostility, by Ordiance of Parliament ought to have Confirmed Marriages of those who were not in Hostility.  (4.) By the Statute 12 Car. 2.33. It is Enacted, That all Marriages by pretence or colour of any Ordinance of Parliament since May, 1642. (which was during the Times of the War and Usurpation) shall be adjudged of the same force and effect, as if they had been solemnised 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 intent Right and Justice to those who had been in Hostility, and doth take away all Cavils and Scruples might after have arisen concerning the Ordinance, Marriage and Legitimation and Succession of Children; Yet did it not intent such as were Friends should be left in a worse condition as to their Marriages and Children, than those to whom they had given the benefit of this Act; or that there should only a Balm be provided for the Wounds of one party, and those of the other, who were more necessitated to receive them, be left bleeding without any: for the Royal Party could then neither Marry by the Common Prayer-Books which the Sword had abolished, nor according to the Ordinance of Parliament, not daring to approach their Quarters, 
Act confirming Marriage according to Ordinance of Parliament, aught to have Confirmed Marriage according to the Ordinance of God.  or to be publicly Banned at Church or Market-Cross; Especially Persons of Eminency to Expose themselves to such a Snare as might entrap them, and endanger 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 Proceed 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 Solemnised according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, or the Common Prayer-Book. It is an old Rule, that Favores sunt ampliandi, Favours are to be enlarged, and not restrained; and it might be happy for many Families who have Suffered for his Majesty in time of the Wars, if such a general Act of Confirmation of Marriages then made, not contrary to the Moral Law of God, were yet Enacted, and the Favour not Restrained only to Marriages made by Ordinance of Parliament: For as to those many Papists who had free Liberty to Live in the Parliament Quarters (when the Royal Party had not) took advantage of, and first Married before Justices of Peace, and after by their own Priests: It is not Equal therefore, that Protestants, that could not have that Safety which Papists had, or if they could, thought it, perhaps, against their Conscience to Marry according to the Forms prescribed by Ordinance of Parliament, should be Excluded from all Favour or Excuse to the Marriages of themselves, and Successions of their Children, which is by this Act given to the Marriages and Children of these who were in Hostility, and of Papists themselves.  
There was likewise another ACT made 29 Car. 2. 1677, for the Naturalising of Children of his Majesty's English Subjects born in Foreign Countries during the Late Troubles, which was to them a Just and Necessary Right, though it had been so long delayed, 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; 
Restitutio Natalium as necessary to the Relief of the Children of such as suffered for his Majesty in his Dominions, as Restitutio Naturalium to such as were born beyond Sea.  And be a great Relief to the Children of such Parents as Suffered for his Majesty in his Dominions, 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 seized 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 acknowledge in deed, what they allege in words, 
Not necessary for a King to be Married by a Priest or Common-Prayer Book.  Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical in the King, then must they acknowledge Supremacy of Marriage to be in him, because they allege Marriage to be a Cause Ecclesiastical, and they themselves De facto Exercise the supremacy of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in it; and if they give him Supremacy of Jurisdiction of Marriage in general, They much more give Supremacy 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 Supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of his own Marriage, and neither Pope nor Bishop can null or invalidate any Marriage of the King, his Predecessors, to Depose him from his Throne, nor any Marriage of his own to Disinherit his Lineal Heir from the Succession & Jus Coronae in the King relating to Marriage and Succession, as shall be after further shown, is different from that of Subjects; and as is by the Bishops themselves affirmed Canon 2. The same Supremacy belongs to the King, which belonged to the godly Kings of the Jews, who could thereby marry themselves without Priest or Bishop.  
The matter therefore must come to this Push, If the Bishop acknowledge the King hath Supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of his own Marriage, and no longer under a Guardian of the Spiritualities, then must he acknowledge he may Exercise the Acts of such Supremacy; for, frustra est illa potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum: And if he will acknowledge the King to be Supreme Ordinary, as all the Common Law-Books do; then must he acknowledge he may Exercise all Acts of a Supreme Ordinary: But if he will not acknowledge him to have Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and to be Supreme Ordinary, and to have the same Supremacy the godly Kings of the Jews had of their own Marriages; Then must the Bishop show 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, 
A. King may dispense with Malum Probibitum in his own Marriage, but not with Malum in S●.  is to Dispense 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 Positive Laws of Men, and not by the Moral Law of God; and, Vnumquodque Dissolvitu● eodem modo quo conflatum est; All Laws made of Marriage by men, may be again dispensed, 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, Abdication 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, etc. These are Mala in se, Because prohibited by the Moral Law of God which is Eternal and Immutable, and cannot therefore be dispensed with or confirmed; but all Laws, Customs, Canons, and Acts of Parliament Dispencing or Confirming any of these, are void. A King therefore who hath Supremacy Ecclesiastical, may Dispense with all Mala prohibita, if there were any in his own Marriage: He may Selfmarry himself, 
A King being Supreme Ordinary, may Marry himself without Ceremonies, by the Law of the Land.  as the Kings of Israel and Judah did, without a Priest, Banns, Licence, 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 Bishop's Certificate, but may Certify 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 Dispense 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 Parliament 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, 
This Statute intended not that Marrlage or Filiation should be tried by Certificate of the Bishop.  that it never intended to restrain the Companion 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 turmoiled with the Bishop of Rome and their own Bishops; and John Stratford Archbishop 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 threatened 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 Disinherit his Successors when they pleased: and William Whickham Bishop of Winchester, who was Confessor to his Queen Philippe, and ingratiated himself by Alice Pierce the King's Concubine, 
An incredible Lie by a Bishop concerning John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster. Tinsell's Hist. 78.  for Money shown 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 Favourer of Wickliff's Doctrine, the Proto-Protestant of England, spread a false fame on him, That the Queen Philippe, one of the most Virtuous Wives that ever was, had confessed 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 secretly 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 shows what Certificates Kings Sons may happen to have from Bishops for being Favourers of the Protestant Religion. It is not therefore 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  Son. The King likewise then knew, that by the then Laws of the Land, 
A King is Supreme Ordinary of his own Marriage.  he had in himself the Right of Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and that he was the Supreme Ordinary of his own Marriage, and did never therefore intent to give away his own Prerogative to Pope or Bishop, who, being Supreme Ordinary, could Selfmarry himself, and without the Bishop Certify his own Marriage.  
(8.) Books of Canons, Common Prayer-Books, Banns, Lycenses, 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.  

What is Borum in se by the Law of God, cannot be made Malum in se by the. Law of Man.  (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; Malum 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 Days, 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 Lions; yet notwithstanding this had not nor could make it Malum in se in Daniel to pray to God without the King, Common Prayer-book, or Book of Canons, within the Thirty Days 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 Married 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 Selfmarry themselves, 
A Priest may self marry himself.  seeing Popery itself could never pretend to Raise Marriage to a higher Pitch than a Sacrament.  
(11.) If Priests may Selfmarry themselves, there is no Reason why Laymen should not be allowed the same Liberty of Conscience to Selfmarry themselves without a Priest. 
A Layman may selfmarry himself.   

As a King who is Supreme Ordinary may Marry himself without Ceremonies, 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.  (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 denied by the Popish Casuists and Schoolmen, and the Civilians and Canonists themselves, But carnal knowledge only perfects Marriage; if therefore a Layman may self-Ly with his Woman, 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 Layman save all his Money and Self Ring the Bell, Self take the Book, Self light the Candle, or Torch, Self contract himself, per verba de praesenti; And then Self lie with a Woman; or do it first, without acting all this impertinent Pageantry 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, 
The Kings of Israel and Judab, The Ottoman Emperors and Subjects Selfmarry themselves without a Priest.  as the Indian Priests, and too many of the Popish Priests do  with the Woman first, before the Husband.  
(13.) It is very well known, that the Ottoman Emperors and Subjects of their Mighty Dominions, selfmarry themselves, 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 , their Filiation and Successions more Certain, and no such Adulteries, Fornications, Stews, Brothel-houses, and Pox and Plagues, and other Mischiefs thereby, 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 seduced by Roxalana, to break the Custom of Emperors to Selfmarry themselves, to Marry her by a Priest, appears at large, Lib. 2. p. 245. etc.   

Object. 3 
Not HIS Companion.  Object. 3. The Third Objection is, That though the Lady Mother was a Companion to the King, Yet she was not HIS Companion, 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 material; but here was the most Lawful way of Election of a Companion, and acquiring Propriety in her, not only according to God's Ordinance, but the Laws of all Nations, (except the Papal 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 than hath got.  Here was Possessio vacua, Virgo intacta, neither Party Prohibited by any Law of God to take or yield Possession, or acquire Propriety one in another. All Lawyers which writ de modis acquirendi Dominij in a Wife and Children, though they lay it as a Fundamental, That Contract, Sponsions, Promises, yea, Buying and Selling itself only create an obligation, but Transfer 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 Children by Tradition or Seizure, or other ways, 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 affirm, and the whole Scripture affirms with them, that carnal knowledge between persons not prohibited by the Law of God, is an acquisition of Propriety in the Woman, and generation an acquisition of Propriety in children. And that all Ceremonies of acquiring Propriety in Wives, without carnal knowledge; and all Adoptions for acquiring Propriety in children, without genoration of them, are Fictions and Fopperies. The Scripture therefore calls every woman Lawfully lain 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 
Not Married according to the Law of God.  Object. 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 shown unanswerably that she was married according to the Law of God; It will be necessary to prove by what Law, the Law of God concerning marriage ought not and aught to be Judged, whether it be the Law of God or no.  
Secondly, By what Judge, Marriage ought not and aught 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 proved; 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 Customs of the Jews, of which, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 2.  
2. By the Laws and Customs 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 Relics 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 final causes of Compulsion to the said Ceremony of a Priest and a Temple, viz. the Insatiable Lust, Covetousness and Ambition of Priests, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 53.  
Of the most Dismal Effects and Mischiefs ensuing Compulsion of the Ceremony of a Priest and Temple in Marriage, Vid. Lib. 2. p. 192. usque ad 250. et ultra.  
Of certain other Mischiefs not before Recited.  

Of the damnable Effects ensuing Prohibitions to Marry, and nulling Marriage except by a Priest in a Temple, contrary to the Moral Law of God.  Other 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 nameing 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.  

The wicked Causes of Prohibiting the Clergy to Marry by this Ceremony of a Priest and Temple, and compelling the Laity.  (1) Without this Ceremony they could not prohibit marriage 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 final causes were,  

1. That the Priests might have no Dependence or be under command of the Lay-Lords, by reason of their Wives and Families; for whom, if they kept them, they would be necessitated 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 men's Fires, and be maintained at other men's Tables, and succeed to other men's 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 Lie with the more laymen's Wives, and thereby fish out all the Secrets of their Husbands 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 Layman of his Goods, and share it between them.  
7. That when the Layman 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 Laymen might not Lie with the Priests Wives, and return to them the Talio, to which end they made themselves Judges of the Causes of Divorce; And made strict Canons Prohibiting the Lay Divorce à Vinculo, for adultery, 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 Layman 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 overthrow a Marriage by the Moral Law of God. But if any Priest should take a Woman, and intent 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, than 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 men's 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 Laymen (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 Liberty of Conscience allowed to marry according to the Moral Law of God, without the Ceremony of a Priest and Temple.  
(5) There could be no Transubstantiation of two Persons into one Person, whereby all those mischiefs ensue, mentioned 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 judged.  

Marriage ought to be judged by no Law except the Moral Law of God, and the Moral Law by no Law but itself.  As to the true Law and Ordinance of Marriage, by which alone the same aught to be judged, It is likewise already clearly & fully 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 Succession ought not, and aught to be Judged.  

Marriage, Filiation and Succession, aught to be judged by no Judges except the Parents or the King and Parliament.  Having 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 aught to be Judged by the same Moral Law. There have been mentioned 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 showed, 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, Filiation, 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 Public 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 Matrimony, as they are in the word Marriage. And all the Kennels follow with full Cries the first who but opened his mouth, without 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 Precedent from the Pagan. For without false naming what is not Marriage, to be Marriage; and what is Marriage, 
Why Priests false named Marriage Matrimony.  not to be Marriage; and what is not Matrimony, to be Matrimony; and what is Matrimony, not to be Matrimony; they could not have called Evil, Good; and Good, Evil; neither could they have perverted the Moral Law and Text of Scripture, to reward adultery and Fornication under the false Name of Marriage 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; 
Matrimony none without a Child.  and without a Mother there can be no Matrimony: 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 buy 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, 
Birth of a Child the Act of God, and not of Man.  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 wonderfully 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 Rachel'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.  

Statute requires neither a King de Jure, nor a Lady Companion de Jure, but only de Facto.  Ans. (2) It were enough still to deny the Sequel, 

(1) Because 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 Companion 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 Philippe, 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 Companion; it would have left Succession more doubtful than before. For there never was a Law of the Land, 
The word Lawful Incertain and Litigious.  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 expressed: 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 expressed, as in the words, Lawful Marriage, or, Lawfully begotten, they will expound 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 expressed, it can only be Expounded by the Moral Law of God, which is above all Humane Laws and Statutes. Secondly, 
A Lawful Successor may be of an unlawful Marriage.  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 Vriah'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 aught to be Heir and Successor to the Queen, 
The Crown entailed to the Natural and not Lawful Issue of the Body of Queen Elizabeth.  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 Successions to private Patrimonies may be held in suspense by Disputes of lawful and unlawful, yet ought not Successions to Kingdoms so to be, which many times not only the least Delay, but even the neglect of clearing all Doubts, and declaring the Successor beforehand, 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, aught 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 itself may not have any pretence to Cavil, I hope by God's assistance, Briefly, Clearly, 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 
No Wife, no uxor.  Obj. 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, 
No Concubine or half-Wife, or uxor in Scripture.  The word Uxor, signifies only a Woman made a Wife by the Ceremony of Unction of the Husband's Door-Posts, or some other Ceremony.    
Ans. 1. Though it were sufficient to show 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 show there are no such words in Scripture as alleged. 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, between a whole one, or None at all; Neither is there any indifferent 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 Latin word Vxor, so called quasi Vnctor, from the Pagan Ceremony of Unction of her Husband's Door Posts; or so called from any Episcopal Ceremony of a Priest and Temple.  

Scripture falsely Translated by Bishops in the word Concubine.  The word of the Hebrew Text which they have falsely Translated Concubine, is Pilegesh; which is derived from Palag Divisit, 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 Translated Concubine, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which hath a very innocent Signification, and signifies no more than Juvencula, a young Woman, or a young Wife, 1 Chro. 1.32. Keturah, is by the Septuagint rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they have Translated Abraham'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 touched with the ignominious and fictitious Name of Concubine. So ought they to have Translated the Levites Woman, Judges 19.1. Wife, and not Concubine, 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, 
No half-Wife in Scripture.  and not half run away; and though there was in Scripture Pilegesh foemina, or Vxor Divisa by a new Marriage; yet there never was any Vxor dimidiata or half-wife we hear of therein; until this Levite, cap. 19.29. took a Knife and cut his whole Wife into Twelve pieces, 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 shown before, that Pilegesh signifies only another 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 Abraham's Sister by the Father, (which Keturah was not) and though it be said, Deut. 27.22. Cursed be he that lieth 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 laughed 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 unlawful; for though a Lawful Wife is called a Wife, yet is not therefore an unlawful Wife called a Concubine, either in Scripture 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 Adulteress; and as there is no such word as Concubine in Scripture, 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 Translated as the Papal Translation is into the Latin word Vxor, so called quasi Vctor from the Pagan Ceremony of Unction of the Husband's Door-Post; 
The Scripture Wife false Translated into the Latin word uxor.  nor can the same be Translated from the Papal Latin word Vxor, by the Bishops, into the English word Wife; nor any Woman be so called from Episcopal Ceremonies 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 Wolf's grease, and the Ceremonies of untying the Woman'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 Ceremonies) That they worshipped four Goddesses or Daemonesses of purpose to praeside and give their Benediction to these Ceremonies; and no doubt they got Fees or Offerings for them all. The Goddesses names were Vnxia, 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 atque imminentes Mariti, nisi potarent & manderent homines, Dij nomina non haberent. Oh excellent and singular interpretation 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. Bride's 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 Vxor a Wife, and the same is done for no other end than filthy Lucre. Yet whom God hath joined 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 days like John and Elizabeth, Luk. 1.6. walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord blameless, without the Episcopal Ordinances and Ceremonies of a Priest in a Temple, this Wife of God's making shall by him be called (though he false Translate Scripture for it) Concubine and Whore. And a Whore and Adulteress of the Bishops making, shall be called a Wife of God's making; of which Episcopal Abuses to get Money, I shall only cite one Practic in Scotland, and after some others in England, Craig. Feudorum Fo. 230. saith, Memini Robertum Magistrum de Semphil, Patrem Roberti nunc Principem illius familiae, cùm ex concubinatu Joannae Hamiltoniae hunc ipsum filium suscepisset, & ei impensè faveret, in Articulo Mortis cù sibi decedendum videret, ad Aedem sacram se in Lecticâ deferri curaret, ibique nuptiis solemniter peractis cùm domum rediisset Octavo pòst die fatis concessisse. Ex quo subsequente Matrimonio licet in Lecto agritudinis in quo Decessit solemniter peracto, filius antea susceptus non minùs in Haereditate successit quàm si ex legitimo Matrimonio natus fuisset. I remember, that Robert the Master of Semphil, Father of Robert, now chief of that Family, when he had begotten him by his Concubine Madam Joan Hamilton, and entirely loved him, He being at point of Death, when he saw himself past hopes, caused himself to be carried to the Holy Church in a Litter, and there the Ceremonies of Marriage being solemnly performed; when he was brought back again to his House, he died eight days after; from which subsequent Marriage although in the bed of Sickness wherein he deceased, the Son begot before did as Lawfully succeed to the Inheritance, as if he had been begot in Lawful Matrimony. And why should not the Lady have been called 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 compelled by the Tyranny of such Popish Ecclesiastical Laws, as to the Dishonour of the two so Renowned Protestant Kingdoms in Great Britain are Tolerated to pray 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 men's Wives and Children for them, as in England.  
(1.) The first difference between a Wife of the Bishop's making, and of God's making, is, The former lets herself to Hire to him who will give most Jointure, Dower or Thirds for her; but the latter doth neither buy nor sell her Husband, but he keeps his own, and she hers, both Money, Goods, and Lands. Concerning mercenary Marriages, Vid. Lib. 1. cap. 6.113. Vsque ad 118.  
(2.) A Wife of the Bishops making, hath Power to Steal and Esloigne all her Husband's Substance, and to put it into the hands of his Enemies for her own use; and he can have no account against her, because, as is already shown, Lib. 1. p. 70. The Bishop by his Sacrament of Marriage hath Transubstantiated two persons into one person: but the Wife of Gods making is under account; and nothing keeps a Steward Faithful, but Account.  
(3.) The Wife of the Bishops making, hath Power given her by the Benediction of a Priest in a Temple, if she is not able herself, to hire unknown persons with her Husband's 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 God's Benediction, which is above the Priests, hath no such power, but there's remedy against her.  
(4.) The Wife of the Bishops making, hath Power to lay all her secret and unknown debts, true and feigned, by her Confederates, and as many as she will, on her husband, and to undo him, and no remedy against her.  
(5.) The Wife of the Bishops making, hath Power by the Benediction of a Priest in a Temple, to commit as many Trespasses either with Tongue or hand, truly or by Confederacy with complices as often as she pleases, making her husband pay Damages till undone, and he hath no remedy.  
(6.) A Wife of the Bishops making, hath full Power, by virtue of the said Benediction, to hire Adulterers with her Husband's Goods and Money to get Children to succeed to them, and he has no remedy.  

Adulteresses protected, and the Son of an Adulterer made Heir before the Lawful Child of the Husband by Episcopal Certificate.  (7.) A Wife of the Bishops making, if she hath a Daughter by her Husband, and Elope and run away from him with another man, and hath Issue by her New Companion the Adulterer: her Eldest Son, this Son of the Adulterer, shall be Heir to the Husband's 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 days, 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 Judgement, That if John were within the Four Seas at the time of the begetting of W. then W. was the Son and right Heir-Male of John.  

The Calf his whose Cow is Bulled by another's Bull.  And of this he giveth a good Lusty Reason. For, saith he, who that Bulleth my Cow, the Calf is mine. And my Lord Coke, Com. 244, doth on the Margin refer to this Authority of Justice Rikhill, and agrees with him as right as a Gun; and adds over, That no Proof ought to be admitted to the contrary; and therein I think none will Envy Justice Rikhill or my Lord Coke, (who I think were within the Four Seas, and never out) to enjoy the Liberty of Conscience in disposing their own Goods how they please. But there appears no Reason why they should deny the same Liberty of Conscience to all the rest of their fellow Subjects who live within the same Four Seas, to dispose of their own Goods as they think Just; neither ought they by so unequal a Sentence to have given away the Successions of True and Lawful Heirs, without allowing them hearing or witnesses, to those who are false and adulterous. And therefore from such Wives of the Bishops making, 
Injust for a Prince, much more for a Judge or Bishop to force an Heir on another.  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 Bishop's Certificate of the Marriage and Filiation.  
The Form of the Bishop's Certificate of Marriage.  
Cok. Lib. Intra. fo. 181. In Dower on a Nunquam fuit in legitimo Matrimonio copulata pleaded; A Writ is sent to the Bishop to Certify, who returns this Certificate, Et praedictus Episcopus per literas suas Patentes & Clausas &c. And the foresaid Bishop by his Letters Patents and Close hath Certified to the Justices here, That by virtue of the foresaid Writ to him directed, Convocating before him such of right as are to be Convocated, hath diligently Enquired and Certified the truth of the matter, That in the Chapel of B. in the County of G. in the Diocese 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 solemnised 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, clear and clean, as the Witnesses so sworn and examined believe.  
The Form of the Bishop's Certificate of Bastardy, Rast. Lib. Intra. 105. b.  
On a Plea of Bastardy pleaded, and a Writ to the Bishop to Certify, he makes a Return, Venerabilibus viris Justiciarijs in Brevi Regio praesentibus annex. specific. permissione Divinâ C. Episcopus etc. Certificamus quòd diligentem & solertem fieri fecimus Inquisitionem de materijs 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 predict ' R. B. in Brevi praedict' nominat' placitando allegavit, & non Legitimè prout predict ' N. A. J. & E. placitando allegarunt, & hoc idem nobis satis constat.  
We Certify, That we have made diligent and cunning Inquisition of the Matters contained 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 alleged, and not Legitimate as the said N. A. J. and E. have in Pleading alleged; and this appears clear enough to us.  
Having shown 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 mentioned 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 cunque 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, seeing 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 Archbishop to declare Kings or their Successors by Certificates under pain of Treason: for than 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 Edward the Third, the Author of this Statute (as hath been already shown) 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 ensue by them to the People, as well as to Princes.   
Of the Mischiefs that ensue of Bishop's Certificates of Marriage and Filiation, which Certify other kinds of Heirs than the Heir intended by this Statute.  

The Original of Certificates of Marriage came not from Christ, but from the Priests of Priapus, and the Devil.  (1.) The Original of Bishop's 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 themselves, 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 forbidden 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 & Europa; nec fas erat ullum Sacerdotem fiori qui Priapi sacris non crat initiatus. 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, Babylonians, 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 called 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 began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab, and they called the People to the sacrifice of their Gods, and the People did eat, and bowed down to their Gods, and Israel joined himself to Baal Peor. And in the Scripture, Idolatry is commonly called going a whoring after Idols, because the Priests made the Men and Women the baits to entice 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.  

The Original of Certificates of Filiation came from the Priests of Priapus.  2. The Original of Certificates by the Bishop or High Priests, of Filiation, began likewise from the Incertainty Children were cast into by these Promiscuous copulations at their Temples or Groves, or other Public Conventions by the Pander 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 entered to have paid them their fee. And when the Child got there, was grown to discretion to inquire who was his Father, his Mother, who had played 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 Certificate of the name of the Person or Persons were then entered together with her name in his Toll-Book. Which way of Certificate of Filiation by the Pagan Priest, 
The Certificate of the Priest of Priapus better than that of the Bishop.  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 entered 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 another, or the Woman being beforehand with Child by an Adulterer, 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, 
The Priest fathered Men on the Gods.  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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Mothered him on some Goddess or other, as Achilles on Thetis; Aeneas on Venus; Oedipus not knowing his Father whom he had slain, nor Mother, 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 Pagan's 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 Jurisdiction of Marriage and Filiation by this Power of making Certificates, are their Covetousness and Ambition, vid. at Large, Lib. 1. p. 53. ad 57 
Popery ruined if Episcopal Jurisdiction of Marriage were taken away.  And that the Pope were ruined if Episcopal Jurisdiction of Marriage and Filiation, and their Certificates should be taken away, Lib. 2. p. 184. It may be said therefore to Bishop's Certificates, as to the ends they designed them, according to the saying of Christ, Mat. 6.24. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.  

Certificates of Bishops condemn Infants without hearing. Condemn Children for the Sin of the Parents.  (4.) The Persons they make Certificates against being Infants, and not able to answer for themselves in Suits in the Episcopal Courts, are Condemned without Hearing.  
(5.) Infants are Condemned 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 Episcopal 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.  

Certificate an Usurpation of Jurisdiction of Lay-fee and Free-holds.  (7.) The Certificate indirectly passes judgement on Temporal Inheritance and Lay-fee, which is a mere Romish Usurpation assumed by the Bishops, which Bracton fo. 420. will not allow the Pope himself to have; for he says on a Certificate of Bastardy, Come Index Ecclesiasticus inquisitionem fecerit, non erit ab eo appellandum, etc. and his Reason he gives, Quia sic potest causam in insinitum protrahere, de Judice in Judicem usque ad Papam, & sic potest Papa de Laico feodo indirecte cognoscere. If therefore for the Pope to Sentence, or Certificate Bastardy, is indirectly to give Judgement of Lay-fee, is not such Certificate of a Bishop in Great Britain as indirect a passing of Judgement on Lay-fee, as is that of the Bishop of Rome. And do not Lay-fees lie 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 Contract; if by Conquest, 'tis probable they must put it to another Trial before any Romish Conquest will be granted; if by Contract, let them show ever any Act of Parliament made for the same, by assent of the House of Commons. And if it were possible to show any such, yet all Acts confirming Magna Charta, and likewise the Petition of Right, repeal it. For Liberty and Propriety cannot consist with the Certificates of Bishops.  

Marriage and Filiation not to be submitted to any Judges or Arbitrators, except the Parties themselves, or God.  (8.) Certificates of Marriage and Filiation, usurp the Power of Judgement 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 joined together. If this is true, (as none but stupidity itself 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 intent to fight against God himself?  

Bishop who certifies, ignorant both of Fact and Law.  (9) The Judge who makes the Certificate is totally Ignorant both of the Fact and Law: which see already proved, Lib. 2. p. 180.  
Herodotus tells of a Place in Lybia, where the Children of Women who were common, drew Lots before a Public Assembly (but whether the Assembly were Ecclesiastical, it doth not appear) of such whom their Mothers nominated; and whom the Lot fell on, what wise Children were these? They knew them to be their own Fathers as infallibly, no question, as if they had tried by the Witchcraft of a Seive and a pair of Shears, and equally with a Bishop's Certificate; only on the first they paid no Fees: The blind Goddess being always found so just, she will take none.  
(10.) The Case is false ●●ated, as the state of the Question which is made, is, Whether A fuit Legitimo Matrimonio copulata, when the intent is by the Bishop's 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, 
Illegitimum Prohibitum, & illegitimum in se.  and doth not say whether Illegitimum Prohibitum, or Illagitimum in se; each of which will fall under clean different Considerations one from another. And that to teach, that any Illegitimum Prohibitum in Marriage is unlawful, which is not Illegitimum in se, is the Doctrine of Devils, as is already proved, Lib. 1. p. 52.  

The state of the Question ought to be, whether Son or no Son, which is Matter of Fact; and not whether Legitimate or not Legitimate, which is Matter in Law.  (12.) The true state as to Filiation, being to be the question, Whether Son or no Son, 'tis false stated, and false named, Whether Bastard, or whether Legitimate or not Legitimate, where it hath been proved at large, Lib. 1.79. That there's no such word or thing as Legitimate or Illegitimate amongst the ancient Lawyers, or in Rerum naturâ, till Popery. And Lib. 2. p. 146. and 156. That there was no such word or thing as Bastard in the whole Scripture, or amongst the ancient Lawyers or Divines, until the Popes and Bishops falsely Translated the Scriptures. As to the word Mamzer, which signifies no more than Alienigena and Nothus, which signifies no more than Fictus, into the forementioned Scurrilous word of their own unclean Invention.  

Certificate of the Bishop, Nonsense. Certificate of the Bishop Nulls all Marriage Prohibited contrary to the Law of England and Scotland.  (13.) Their Certificate as to Marriage Per verba de Praesenti, is Nonsense; which see already proved, Lib. 1. p. 84.  
14. The Certificate distinguisheth not between Marriage Prohibited, and Null; but Nulls every Marriage Prohibited, and barbarously Illegitimates every Child born of the same, which is already proved, Lib. 1. p. 110. to be contrary to the Law of God, and the Law of England, and may likewise appear to be contrary to the Law of Scotland, by an Act of Parliament there made, Sess. 2. Par. 2. Car. 1. Act. 22. against Clandestine Marriage; which Act Prohibits and punisheth those who are Married without Banns, or by Josuits or Popish Priests, and lays Fines or every Nobleman, so offending, of Five Thousand Pounds; and on every Gentleman or Burgess, of one Thousand Marks; but neither English nor Scotch make such Prohibited Marriages void, nor Nulls them, nor Illegitimates their Children; neither can any Humane Law Null that Marriage which the Moral Law of God makes valid; nor separate those whom the same Law Prohibits not to Marry (though the Law of Man doth) when God hath joined them by Procreation and Birth of a Child.  

Propriety in Parents and Children destroyed by Bishop's Certificates.  (15.) The Episcopal Certificate destroys all Propriety the Father hath in his Children, and the Children have in their Father; For by the Law of God and Nature, there's no way of acquiring Propriety in Children but by begetting of them. This is Plain in the Scripture in all the Genealogies there mentioned. And in the Fact of Adultery of David with Vriah's Wife, where the Child who was begotten in Adultery, is plainly made by the Scripture the Child of David; though the Now Episcopal Certificate would make it the Child of Vriah.  
And worthily may such be said to be ignorant of all Laws of acquiring Propriety in Children, who pretend because the Propriety of another man's Lambs and Kids may by Contract of his own Wife be made his, therefore the Propriety of another man's Children may likewise by her Contract be made his; and because Quicquid plantatur, seritur, vel inaedificatur, omne solo cedit. And Judge Rikhill, as , will not only have the like accession of another man's Bull to his Cow to make the Calf to be his; but likewise to be his Cow, and himself to be not only the Owner, but the Father of such Calf. The Ignorance of all Law in Certificates therefore blindly subverts the Fundamental of all Acquisition of Propriety by the Father in begetting. No wonder if they destroy the Propriety of the Children in the Father, though begotten by him, and make them Nullius filii: and again forces a Child on him who is not the Father, to be his Heir whether he will or no, and robs him of his Inheritance, Neque enim aequum non consentienti haeredem alium dare. Craig. 267.  

Certificates of Bishops deprive Infants of Aliment, and destroy them.  (16.) The Certificate of the Bishop exposeth Infants to be destroyed, and deprives them of all Aliment from the Father, who begot them. For by making the Father who begot them, to have no Propriety in them, nor they in him, and the Children to be Nullius filii, all Obligation is taken off from the Father; and he's made worse than an Infidel not to provide for his own Children, either by Aliment while alive, or Succession after his death.  

The true Children are disinherited by the Adulterous on Certificates.  (17.) The Certificate starves and disinherits the true Children, 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 shown 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 giveth power to disinherit the right, and intrude Adulterous Heirs not only into private Families, but Kingdoms. Of which take a strange attempt emboldened on this absurd Popish Principle, That adulterous Children born within Matrimony, are inheritable to the Husband of the Adulteress, 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; Joan 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 Joan hath two Children more by another Minion; Alphonsus dieth; Isabel the King's Sister refuseth the Kingdom; she is declared Heir, and Marrieth Ferdinand of Arragon. Hist. Hisp.  
Anno 1474. Divers join for Joan with Alf. of Portugal, who meant to Marry her; But Anno 1480. she entereth into a Monastery, and Alf. of Portugal. Here Joan was born within Matrimony, and the Certificate of the Bishop, and the Doctrine of Judge Rikhil, if it had been sent for, would have made Joan Heir; but the very light of Nature taught the People, though in a Country 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.  

Bishop's Certificates make adulterous Children honourable, and true Children, base.  (18.) The Certificate slanders and dishonours the true, and makes honourable the false and Adulterous Children, as appears in the  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 easy 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 Revile, 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.  

Certificates destroy Truth, and found on Fictions and Lies.  (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 Vxor; That Verba De Praesenti, are Facta de praeterito & futuro; That Prohibited 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; Obligation is Propriety; and Promise is Gift.  
Si donare vocas, promittere, nec dare, Caiazzo,  
Vincam te donis, muneribúsque 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 bore 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 Transubstantiated 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 mere 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.  

Bishop's Certificates inconsistent with the right of Primogeniture.  (20.) The Certificate disinherits Primogeniture in Succession 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 falsely Translated, Si fuerit alicui duae Vxores) 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, 
Jehosophat gave the Kingdom to his eldest Son, and Gifts to his younger.  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 Jehosophat 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 strengthened 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 Families, 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 preferred in the Succession.  
(2.) Though the second Woman is an unlawful Woman: for here are the highest Circumstances which can make a Woman unlawful; for the first Woman is still alive, and hath 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 unlawful Woman hath an eldest Son; The Son of the second unlawful 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.  

Primogeniture to be in Marriage, though without Ceremonies.  (3.) Though there is no Ceremonial, but only the Moral Marriage, yet shall the eldest Son of the Moral Marriage inherit: 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 expressed 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 Primogeniture 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 Children, is, That he is the Chief strength of the Family to defend the Father when Aged, and the Children when left in Minority, and the Inheritance itself, 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. 
Feminine Popes if any, and not Male, aught to make Certificates of Primogeniture.  But the Matter being in the Israelites Country, the same aught to be testified by two or three witnesses, as Deut. 19.15. and more modestly by Feminine 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 Midwife took and bound upon his hand a Scarlet 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 Scarlet 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 lie 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 Cruelties by Idolatrous Wives, as appears in this Example of Jehoram, 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 Princes are made, the more danger they incur of losing all. 

(1) Because the Treasury of the Crown is thereby Exhausted and Impoverished; as here Jehosophat gave his younger Sons great gifts of Silver and Gold, and of Precious things. The great value of which after his Death did but accelerate the Resumption of them by him who succeeded in his Throne, and shown 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 joined with Treasure as here appears, 
Excess of Treasure and fenced Cities left to younger Sons of Princes, commonly destroys them.  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 Contempt (as the younger Sons of the China Emperors are, and thereby enjoy more secure and happy fates than the Sons of the Grand Signior, 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 shown 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 Egyptians 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 Egypt, from the first born of Pharaoh that sat 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 Ptolemy's appears Justin 16. So was it amongst the Trojans, and Hus succeeded to Troyas, as Dares to Phrygius in Lib. De Excid. Tro. The same Custom of Succession to Kingdoms by Primogeniture was amongst the Persians, Syrians, Macedonians, Parthians, Cretans, Rhodians, Albans, Romans, Sicilians, Goths, Franks, Tartars, Turks, English, Scots, Hungarians, Spaniards, and French; and the mischiefs that have ensued by disinheriting of Primogeniture, either wholly, or by Division of Succession into several Kingdoms have been Infinite.  
Amongst the Persians, Cyrus the younger Brother by the assistance of Parisatis the Queen Mother, contending for Succession 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.  

Disinheriting the eldest Son causeth Patricides, Matricides, and Fratricides.  How many Patricides, or Matricides or Fratricides this hath caused appears, as to the first two by the Examples of Alphonsus the Tenth King of Castille, of Gabriel the younger Son of the Marquis 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, Cooped up his Mother in the same Prison wherein she had before Cooped 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 overcomed 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 filled and foiled 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 entreaty 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 without any just occasion twice taken Arms against him, so to have taken from him the Crown, and to have taken the Sceptre 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 Possessions in France, and so many Princes of the Blood, and Nobles and Commons were slain, but that the Line of a younger Brother contended to be preferred before the Line of an elder? And have not as bad Effects happened when the Successions of Kingdoms have been joined or divided to more Sons or Heirs than one? 
Division of Kingdoms or part of them or of the Treasure from the eldest to younger Sons, destructive to Kingdoms.   
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 destroyed each other, till one had all. James King of Arragon appointed Peter his eldest Son to be King of Arragon, and James his younger Son to be King of Majorca; yet afterwards the elder 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 quenched without much Blood of his Subjects. So William the Conqueror left the Duchy 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 Battle, 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 Dominions entirely 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, 
Primogeniture not to have the same Prerogative in Private Families as in Kingdoms.  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 agreeable with the Examples of most Nations.  

Certificates introduce foreign Laws, and destroy the Laws of the Land.  (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 Marriage, Filiation, and Succession, and Religion, and Liberty, and Propriety all thereon depending, have been already mentioned, 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 Marriages 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.  

Praemunire incurred by Certificates.  (22.) That the Certificate Episcopal Introducing such foreign Laws incur a Praemunire is proved before in the Case of Cardinal Woolsey. Lib. 1. cap. 5.37, 38.  

High Treason incurred by Certificates.  (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 Certify the King's eldest Son not to be Heir contrary to this Statute of 25 E. 3. incurs the Penalty of High Treason.  

Certificates not to be traversed or diputed, nor under Appeal.  (24.) The Certificate though utterly false and unjust, is neither 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. Vsque 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 shown, no Question can arise on the Statute whether the King or the Lady his Companion, or the Marriage were Lawful, seeing as before's shown, 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 Unlawful: 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 show, 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 show:  
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 Unlawful in the Act of Generation. The Effect of the same according 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 Lawful Marriage, as saith Paul, 1 Cor. 6.16. Know ye not that he which is joined 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And though some make the Derivation of the word Nubo more modest, and to be from Nubes a cloud, because the Bride's 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 Public Ceremonial Marriage by a Priest in a Temple, were esteemed Obscene.  
Of this see more Albericus Gentilis, De Nuptiis Lib. 2. c. 3. & Fermandius de Cordova in Didascaliâ Multiplici, c. 39 & Tertullianum ad Vxorem, 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 Latins Nubere & Nuptiae, though sometimes used for the Ceremony of Marriage; yet 'tis Originally used for Carnal Knowledge itself, as in Plautus.  
Meretrix. Laena.  
M. At satiùs fuerat viro dare Nuptum potius. L. Etiam Haec quidem Ecastor quotidiè viro nubit, nupsitque hodie; 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 Marriages there are.  
Matrimony as is already before shown, cannot be without a Mother, and a Mother cannot be without a Child; Matrimony therefore de Facto is Marriage whether lawful or unlawful consummate by the Birth of a Child.  
What is Marriage and Matrimony De Jure, according to the Law of God.  
Having shown what is not and what is Marriage and Matrimony De Facto, I shall next that is Marriage and Matrimony 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 Fundamentals to proceed on; The Laws of Nations, Gentiles and Jews, and the Laws of God; as declared 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 fallen under the slavery of Popes and Bishops; and particularly 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. Vsu.  
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 Barley 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 Persons 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 appears by Maimonides, who saith, The Hebrews had likewise three ways of Marriage, or making a Woman their Lawful Wife, 
No Priest necessary in any kind of Hebrew Marriage.  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 esteemed 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 Matrimonium consensisset, eam is Domum deducebat, & remotis Arbitris cum eâ concumbebat, atque ita ei siebat ea Vxor, seu foemina ejus siebat. Before the Law given (saith he) to Moses, if a Man had met a Woman in Public, 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 witnesses or Ceremony as well after as before, the Law of Moses appears by the Scripture itself, 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 Abraham's Wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelled 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 bore Abram a Son, and Abram called his Son's name which Hagar bore him, Ishmael,  
Gen. 38.8. Go in to thy Brother's Wife, and Mary 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 Married.  
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 bore 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 entice 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 lie 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 Woman 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 Father 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 joined 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 expressly, That in the later times some shall departed from the Faith, Giving heed to seducing spirits and Doctrines of Devils speaking lies in Hypocrisy, having 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, Whosoever shall put away his Woman, except it be for carnal Uncleanness, 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 Parliaments, 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 Matrimony De Facto & De Jure Lawful, Holy and Indissoluble, according to the Law of God.  

First, therefore granting there can be no Marriage or Matrimony 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 shown, That here is a Marriage and a Matrimony 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. 
Prohibition of Marriage without Ceremony not Prohibited by the Law of God, is the Doctrine of Devils.  The Major is proved 1 Tim. 4.1. Because all Humane Laws forbidding Marriages or Meats which are not forbidden by the Moral Law of God, are declared to come from the Devil, and to be the Doctrine of Devils.  
And accordingly all Papal and Episcopal Laws, all Ecclesiastical Canon and Civil Laws, all Decrees of Councils of Trent, or any other Councils or Synods forbidding to Marry in any Circumstance or Ceremony not forbidden by the Law of God, came from the Devil, and are the Doctrine of Devils; which see proved, Lib. 1. p. 52. And that the final cause of such Prohibitions of Marriage without Pontifical Ceremonies, 
The final Cause of such Prohibitions, is only filthy Lucre of the Priests.  are only accumulation of Fees, and Ambition of Pontiffs and Bishops, Vid. Lib. 1. p. 55, 56, 57  
(2.) All Marriage and Matrimony is Lawful which is not a Sin or a Transgression; but such Marriage and Matrimony which are not Prohibited by the Law of God are no Sin or Transgression; Therefore they are Lawful. The Minor is proved 1 Joh. 3.4. Sin is the Transgression of the Law. And Rom. 4.15. 
Where no Law, no Transgression.  Where no Law is, there is no Transgression.  
(3.) What is declared no Sin by Scripture is lawful; but Marriage between persons not Prohibited, is declared no Sin by Scripture, therefore Lawful. The Minor is proved 1 Cor. 7.28. If thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a Virgin marry, she hath not sinned.  
(4.) What is commanded by Scripture is Lawful, and not Prohibited; But Marriage and Matrimony is commanded by Scripture to young Women, therefore Lawful. The Minor is proved, 1 Tim. 5.14. I will therefore the young women marry, bear Children.  
(5.) What is in Scripture commanded and blessed (between persons not Prohibited) is Lawful and not Prohibited: But Marriage and Matrimony by Carnal knowledge and multiplying Mankind is commanded and blessed in Scripture; Therefore Lawful. The Minor is proved, Gen. 1.27. Male and Female ●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 Prohibited is Lawful and not Prohibited; but Marriage and Matrimony between Persons not Prohibited is rewarded; Therefore lawful. The Minor is proved, 1 Tim. 2.15. She shall be saved in Childbearing; if she continue in Faith, and Charity, and Holiness with Sobriety.  
The Lawfulness of Marriage which is not Prohibited by the Law of God is acknowledged by the Church of England; Which I prove thus:  
All Marriage acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles, is acknowledged Lawful by the Church of England; but the present Marriage (whether there are any Witnesses alive or not to prove it Ceremonial) is acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles; Therefore the present Marriage is acknowledged Lawful by the Church of England.  
The Minor is proved thus,  
All Marriage not Prohibited by the Law of God, is acknowledged lawful by the 39 Articles: But the present Marriage is not Prohibited by the Law of God: Therefore the present Marriage is acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles.  
Though it is no ways necessary amongst so many clear and unanswerable Precepts and Examples of Scripture itself as are here cited establishing the Lawfulness of the present Marriage, to add the Humane Authority of the Church of England, or any other National Church, yet in regard the Bishops in their Practice and Certificates deny that Doctrine of the Lawfulness of Marriage, which they themselves acknowledge and pretend to establish in their own Book of Articles: To confute therefore those Certificates of theirs out of their own mouths, I have here inserted their own 32d Article, without which they are not able to secure the Lawfulness of their own Marriages, and Legitimation of their own Children against Papists, Ossens, Gnostics, Nicholaitans, Hermogenians, and other Heretics, but only on this Principle, That all Marriages not Prohibited by the Law of God are Lawful; as appears by the Article itself, made Anno Dom. 1562. in the Fourth year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Roger's Articles, p. 185, 187, 188. where is mentioned,  

(1.) That Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not Prohibited by God's Law to Marry, therefore it is Lawful for them to Marry.  
(2.) That it is Lawful for them and all other Christian men to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve best to Godliness.   
Whence will likewise follow, That the Doctrine of the Church of England, and the Ceremonies of the Church of England, are two distinct things, and to use the words of the Article, As every Christian may Marry or not Marry according to his Discretion, where not Prohibited by the Law of God; so he may Marry with or without Ceremonies where not Prohibited by the same Law of God: As Adam might have eaten of all the Fruits in Eden, with Ceremony or without Ceremony, according to his Discretion where not Prohibited by the Law of God. And I think no man will question this 32d Article not to be according to the Doctrine of the Church of England. And the same Article touching Marriage, is known to be the Doctrine of the Helvetian, Bohemian, Saxon, Suevian, and all the Reformed Churches. If therefore the Tree is Holy, the Fruit is Holy; if the Marriage is Lawful, the Son is Lawful. I have therefore proved him Lawful by Three unanswerable Laws. 

(1) The Act of Parliament of Treasons.  
(2) The Law of the Church of England.  
(3) The eternal and immutable Law of God in the Scriptures.    
(2.) The Lawfulness of such Marriage and Matrimony without Ceremony, appears in Respect of no Command of any Ceremony by the Law of God.  
(1.) There's no Commandment of any Ceremony in Marriage in the whole Scriptures, either Old Testament or New, of Moses or Christ, of Prophets or Apostles: but the same (as hath been already shown) have been invented by Priests of Priapus, Venus, Juno, Diana, Popes and Bishops either for Lust, Covetousness or Ambition.  

No Sin where no breach of a Commandment of God.  (2.) The Scripture makes nothing unlawful, nor Sin, but what is a breach of the Commandment of God, where there's no Commandment therefore of God of joining Ceremony with Marriage or Matrimony, Marriage and Matrimony between Persons not Prohibited is lawful without them. This is proved Luk. 18.18. And a certain Ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? The answer is 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 appears that where there's no Commandment, there's no occasion for a Nitimur in Vetitum to kindle Concupiscence to Sin, nor much less can there be Sin itself: For where there's no Prohibition nor Command, there's no Law, and where no Law (as is already said) there's no Transgression.  

Salvation by no Legislator, Judge, or Law, but of God.  (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 Childbearing, 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.  

Ceremonies rejected by the Scripture.  (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 abomination unto me, etc.  

Ceremonies false Translated Ordinances.  (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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aught 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 itself, Vers. 2, 3, 4. which names a Tabernacle, Candlestick, Table and Shewbread, Veil, Golden 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. aught to have been Translated, Blotting out the hand-writing of Ceremonies 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. 
Mission to teach, is no Mission to make Ordinances.  For the Original words used in this Text, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The word Dogma is a Derivative from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Commandments 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 teaching 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 Ordinances, much less doth the Derivative word Dogma, which according 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 than ought not to have been Translated 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 itself, that it intendeth 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 show of Wisdom in Will-worship.  
So the Pope is but a Thinker of all his Ceremonies of Marriage. And all his Ceremonies of that and the rest are but Think (as the Bell tinketh, 
Ceremonies are Will-worship, and abolished by Christ.  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, 
The Commandments of God of Marriage cannot be limited by or to the Ceremonies of men, because Marriage where commanded by God is not a thing indifferent.  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 Commandment 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 imposing 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 punisheth 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 Pharaoh, 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 King's Commandment. Therefore Marriage is Lawful without them. 
Compulsion to Ceremonies makes the Law of God of Marriage of no effect.  Thirdly, This Prescribing or Compulsion 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Translated Tradition; (making the Word of God of no effect by your Traditions) ought to have been Translated, 
Ceremonies false Translated Traditions  making the Word of God of no effect by your Ceremony. For the word Dosis single, signifies a Giving, Delivery or Tradition, and Paradosis a Praeter or Contradiction to the Law of God, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Contra Legem, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Contra Naturam. Imposing or Compulsion of Ceremonies of Marriage on the Conscience, being a thing Praeter et Contra Legem Dei. And that the word Paradosis is intended here to be Ceremony, appears by the Text itself, vers. 8. Laying aside the Commandments of God, ye hold the Ceremonies of men, as the Baptism 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 Intention 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 Marriage to be of no effect; Marriage must be Lawful without them. Fourthly, 
Compulsion to Ceremonies destroys Marriage, Religion, Justice, Truth, Equity, Natural Affection.  Compulsion or Prohibition of Ceremonies in Religion, Justice, Marriage, and Matrimony, destroys the worship in Spirit and truth of God, and Truth, Nature, and Equity towards men; therefore Religion, Justice, Marriage, and Matrimony 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, 
Prohibition of Ceremonies not Prohibited by God doth the same.  See Lib. 2. p. 312. to 329. And hence is to be further noted, That seeing the Law of God doth neither command any Ceremonies 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 Prohibited; 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 Marriage 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.  

Ceremonies answer not the Ends of Marriage.  7. Ceremonies answer not the Lawful and Necessary ends for which God instituted Marriage by Carnal knowledge between 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 signify to produce any of these Effects?  
(3.) The Lawfulness of such Marriage by Carnal knowledge without Ceremony appears by Express Command of Scripture.  

Carnal Knowledge without Ceremony commanded to be acknowledge Marriage by express Scripture.  Where the Man is commanded by the Scripture to acknowledge 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 acknowledge 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 Virgins. 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 Virgin's Father a Thousand Drachms, and Mary her besides. Here are Lawful Marriages on the Virgin's part yet no Ceremony. And as for any Traditions or late Customs or Constitutions of Rabbi's contrary to these express Laws of Moses and Scripture they are not to be valued. 
Such Command of God not a thing indifferent to be added to or diminished from, by any Laws of Men.  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 Customs of the People are vain. And the observing the Commandments 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.  

Carnal Knowledge without Ceremony between Persons not Prohibited, acknowledged Marriage by Episcopal Translation of it so in the whole Scripture.  As Gen. 38.8. It is said, Go in to thy Brother's wife and Mary her: Where the Hebrew word Bornwell 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 Lie with her; which they have Translated Mary 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 signifies to Lie 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 Bornwell 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 Translators will acknowledge that they have falsely Translated all the said places of Scripture, They cannot but likewise acknowledge, 
The first Carnal knowledge of a Woman not Prohibited, is Lawful Marriage of her.  That the first Lying with a Woman not Prohibited by the Law of God, though without Ceremony, is Lawful Marriage according to the Law of God, and their own Translation.  
(5.) The Lawfulness of such Marriage by Carnal knowledge without 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 Gloss: 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 man's Wife, or she is the Woman of another 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 Conthalamation. Whence it is manifest, that contrary to the Papal and Episcopal Law by the Law of God and the Scripture, Concubitus 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 Practic, 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 Consensus 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 Coemptions and Covenants in Writing, Marriages, according to the vulgar Language; yet were they but Contracts and no Marriage; 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, 
No Law of God or of Moses, for any Jewish Ceremonies in their Marriages.  or the Law of Scripture: What do the Customs therefore of People, or of Rabbis, or of a Sanedrim signify 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 deceitfully with her. Ver. 10. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, 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 pleased.  
(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 given the Woman herself; but only the Price of Money, or any thing else valuable was given to the Father. This was a sufficient betrothing and Espousal, as appears by the words of David, 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 Philistines.  
(4) That amongst the Jews no Maid who was Poor and bought and taken by King or Subject to be lain with, 
Amongst the Jews Carnal knowledge of a Maid that was poor, by King or Subject, was lawful Marriage, without Espousal, Contract, or other Ceremony.  needed to be Espoused with any Ceremony or Marriage-Covenants, or to have any Dower or Jointure settled upon her; but he who bought or took her might lawfully by the Jewish Law and Custom lie 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 shows she is a lawful Wife without any Ceremony.  
(6) It is said, If he takes him another wife; her food, her raiment, 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 without any Ceremony. For the Buyer or Taker cannot be said to take another Wife, unless the first was his Wife before; neither 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 clearly 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 Christians) 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, Raiment and Duty of Marriage from him.    
Gen. 16.3. It is said, And Sarai Abraham's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian after Abram had dwelled 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 called his Son's name Ishmael which Hagar bore him. On which Text may likewise be observed,  
(1.) That Hagar was Abrams 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 Compliment of Abrams 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 without any Ceremony is a lawful Marriage.  
(6.) The Holiness of such Marriage by Carnal knowledge without Ceremonies appears after.  

What kind of Ceremonies Profane Marriage.  Ceremonies Profane Marriage: 

(1.) By the unnecessary Publication of what ought to be kept secret; As by Diogenes Lying with a Woman in the Marketplace, or the Jews lying with a Woman before two Witnesses.  
(2.) By using such Ceremonies as produce wantonness, as Lascivious Songs, Promiscuous Dance, Excessive vanity of Apparel, public 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 Consecrations of Brides at Altars or Idols.  
(5.) By using unnecessary Ceremonies derived from the Priests of Priapus and Venus, and other Pagan Priests, and offensive 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, 
Compulsion of Ceremonies on Tender Consciences, Profane Marriage.  Rom. 14.14. Nothing is unclean of itself, 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 Marriage thereby Profaned; which is of itself and without them most Holy.    
(7.) Of Chastity making Marriage Holy and Indissoluble.  
When God hath joined a Man a Woman, and they are made one Flesh, there needs no other Portion or Dowry to make the Marriage but Chastity:  
Does est magna Parentum  
Virtus, & metuens alterius viri  
Certo foedere Castitas.  

Compulsion of Ceremonies destroy Chastity.  But the corrupt Popish Practic of Ceremonies in Marriage, 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 Profane 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 Temples; as to which Heavenly virtue we need cite no more excellent Example than the Lady herself, before objected against by those who never imitated her in the same; against whose Chastity Fame itself dared not Lye.  
Of the Indissolubleness of such Marriage without Ceremony Consummated 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 arbitrarily at their pleasure, not only after Carnal knowledge, but after Childbirth, and many Children had; without cause or crime. But this is expressly forbidden by Christ, Mat. 19.6. They two are no more twain but one flesh, What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.  
That the Marriage intended by Christ to be Lawful and Indissoluble, 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) Vsu.  
(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 expressly 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 eating a Barley Cake before a Priest in a Temple; for none of these make the Man and Woman one flesh. Secondly, Christ expressly 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 Jointures or Thirds by Indentures or Instruments written, nor buying or selling them for Fees by the Priest for his Confarriations and other ridiculous Ceremonies. Thirdly, Christ whipped all Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple, and intended they should not buy or sell there; much less did he intent 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 Mary a Man and a Woman: he intended not therefore such kind of Marriage, which neither God instituted nor of which he from God gave either Precept or Example. Sixthly, Christ only intended such Marriages, whereof according to God's Ordinance, the Poor might take equal benefit 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 Romans, 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, Vnumquodque dissolvitur eodem modo quo Conflatum est. As Carnal knowledge by a Woman with her Husband shall make Marriage; so Carnal 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 joining together by God and indissoluble, à Fortiore, Procreation of a Child between them, is a joining 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, prolemque futuram.  Claud. in Eutrop. 
— Tormentum ingens Nubentibus haeret,  
Quòd nequeant parere & partu retinere Maritos.  Juv. Sat. 2. 
Faemina cùm senuit, retinet Connubia partu,  
Vxorísque 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 thronged she led a Bride,  
Who with a blush  
Like Rosy bush  
First with one man in Woods did hid.  
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 Angel's 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 sat  
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 Tiger killed her new born Child:  
Nor from it fly  
For Parish cry  
The Father did or was exiled,  
The weeping Babe not babbling Fame  
Dared illegitimate their Name,  
Or Punishment  
On Innocent  
To lay of Parent's guilt or shame.  
Thus had the lovely Pairs at first,  
Had not the State of Man been cursed  
In Eden's Bowers  
New dressed with Flowers,  
Their own Fruit unforbidden nursed.  
Thus he did Marriage make divine,  
Who Water turned into Wine,  
And Heaven to fill,  
Where is no ill  
With little Children did design.  
Till what was right was feigned amiss,  
Unless 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.  

Eldest Son not Heir.  Answ. 1. This Objection is in its own Nature repugnant to itself, That the eldest Son and Heir in the Letter of the Statute, 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 shown, Matth. 21.38. They said amongst themselves, This is the Heir, come let us seize on his Inheritance.  

A multitude of kinds of Heirs.  (3.) The word Heir is the Genus, and eldest Son is the Difference. So the Heir intended by this Statute is not only described, but perfectly defined and differenced from all other Species of Heirs; As there is Haeres Sanguinis, and Haeres Haereditatis, there is Haeres factus, and Haeres Natus, Haeres de facto, and Haeres de Jure, Haeres verus, and Haeres fictitius, Haeres Astrarius, and Haeres Apparens. There is farther, the Heir by the Civil Law, who succeeds in Vniversum Jus Antecessoris,  and movable Possessions, and Obligations; There is the Higher by the Law of Scotland, and Customs in the North, who succeeds to Lands, Heirlooms, and Heretable Bonds; but not to other Movables. 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 inter 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 Coronae, 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 Marriage, and so many other Kind's 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 Kind's,  
As Mariners have found out Winds.  
And should all these Kind's of Heirs, the greatest part of whom were before this Statute, left unlimited as to Supreme Successions, either at once or Successively in the Three Kingdoms, bring their pretensions of Right to Trial by Battles, though Papists would Rejoice in such perpetual Tempests as they themselves had raised to Rent the British 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 Discords, hath restrained the manifold kinds of Heirs, to whom there can be but one at a time in the Three kingdoms who is the King's eldest Son, and Heir of his Blood.  

Eldest Son the only Heir intended.  (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 shown, is above all other Children the chiefest Defence of the Father. Thirdly, Because 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.  

Haeres Sanguinis, & non Haereditatis intended.  (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 Parrot of Littleton and Coke's Law, will stomach 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 shown. And I shall, as to the two particulars here mentioned, further show, first therefore, That Haeres Sanguinis, is intended in this Statute, and not Hares Haereditatis.  
(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, Because he derives his Title to the same only from the King, and not from the Lady Companion, unless a Queen Regnant; therefore he cannot be the Heir of both of them, as he is Haeres Hereditatis; 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, except 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 Posthumes, which do rarely happen to be eldest Sons, shall not be only 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. 
Haeres viventis intended Haeres Sanguinis and not Haeres Haereditatis.  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 unanswerably 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 Judgement of Haeres Haereditatis: but the eldest Son, who is Haeres Sanguinis, as is already shown, 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 Haereditatis by Papal and Episcopal Laws. When Theseus had occasioned the Death of his Virtuous, Valiant and eldest Son Hippolytus, by the false Calumnies of Phaedra his Stepmother, he cries 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 Absalon, though the most Unnatural, Ingrateful, and Traitorous Son that ever was. 2 Sam. 18.32. And the King said unto Cushi, Is the young man Absalon safe? and Cushis 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 Absalon, would God I had died for thee, oh Absalon, my Son, my Son. But what would David have done if Absalon had been a Loyal and Obedient Son. Oh! where he now only wished he had died once, he would then have cried out and wished he had died twice for him.  
(7.) All Heirs are either Lineal or Collateral, unless therefore one of these Kind's are intended, the Statute can intent none at all; 
Collateral Heirs of the Crown not within this Statute.  now that Collateral Heirs are not intended, is expressly 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 apparent Anno 39 H. 6. Richard Duke of York was likewise Proclaimed Heir apparent, so was John de la Poole, Earl of Lincoln, by R. 3. and Henry Marquis of Exeter by King Henry the Eight, but none of these or of the like are within this Statute, if only Lineal Heirs are within the Statute, there can be none but the eldest Son can be Heir intended, the eldest being expressly named Heir, and none besides named at all.  
That to compass the Exile or Disinheriting of the King's eldest Son, is High Treason.  

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

Object. 8 Obj. 8. The Son of a King, born after he is King, is to be preferred in Succession before the Son of a King born, while he is Prince.  
And of this there are many Examples, as Henry the First, being the youngest Son of William the Conqueror, 
Born when a Prince, and born when a King.  standing in Competition for the Crown of England against Robert Duke of Normandy, his elder Brother, made this one of his Objections, That Robert was born when his Father was but a Duke, but Henry was born when his Father was a King; and therefore obtained the Kingdom against Robert his eldest Brother. And it is recited by Grot. de Jur. Bel. & Pac. p. 171. That the like passed in Persia, between Cyrus and Arsica; in Judea, between Antipater the Son of Herod the Great, and his Brother; in Hungary, when Geissa obtained the Kingdom; in Germany, between Otto the First, and Henry, though not without Arms; and likewise the same Question was between Xerxes, and his Brother Atabarzanes, and between Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Cyrus, the Sons of Darius, and Parisatis Artaxerxes being the elder, but born during the Private fortune of Darius, and the like happened between Bajazet, and Zemez, contending for the Turkish Empire, and many others.  
Answ. These were put to the Trial of Battle, and for the greatest part the eldest Son had the Success; but if it had been otherwise, the Event of War is no Rule of Justice; and if it had been without War, yet where there is a standing Act of Parliament Judicandum est Legibus non Examplis. And this Act of Parliament was made to prevent the present, and all other. Accidents which might happen to disturb the Peace of Succession of the Kingdom, and raise Civil Wars, which it could not do without all other Sons and Heirs to the eldest Son, and there being no other Son mentioned in the Letter of the Statute but the eldest, and not a word of Distinction whether born before or after the Father's obtaining the Kingdom; Vbi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus; for then the same mischiefs would ensue beforementioned of extending a Statute of Treason by Equity, which leaves Treason arbitrary to every Judge who will assume to declare it beyond the Letter, and to insert as many kinds of Sons and Heirs as he pleased, which would make the Law, and all the Care and Wisdom of it in ascertaining the Son Heir to be of no Effect, and leave the Kingdom in a dangerous Condition, that every Prince Married in his Father's life-time, and having then some Children, and after his Father's Death others, might occasion a Civil War, who should succeed to the Crown when he died.   

Object. 9 Obj. 9 The next Objection, That the King's eldest Son is not yet Declared Prince of Wales, or Prince of the Scots.  
The Original of this Title used to be given to the eldest Sons of the Kings of England, was from Henry the Third, who gave his eldest Son Edward (who was afterward King Edward the First) on his Marriage to Elinor the Daughter of Spain, amongst other Principalities in France, England, and Ireland, likewise that of Wales, Hinc natum ut deinceps unusquisque Rex qui secutus est filium majorem natu principem Walliae facere consuevit. And in continuance of this Custom, Anno 1610. Prince Henry the eldest Son of King James, was solemnly created Prince of Wales by his Father. As to the Title designing the Prince of Scotland to be next Successor, or Heir apparent, it seems to have been by their Investiture of Cumberland, for saith Buchanan Rer. Scot lib. 6. p. 175. That Constantine the Third in the Tenth year of his Reign Milcolumbo proximo Regis filio Cumbriam donavit, qui honos velut Augurium & Argumentum erat eum proxime regnaturum, Ac deinceps in proximis aliquot Regibus id fuisse observaturum manifesta adversus veterem Comitiorum rationem fraud, quae omnem Liberorum susfragiorum vim prope tollerit, non minus 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 saith, 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 ita tenebant, ut Cumbriae Praefectura velut omen Regni esset, atque ita jam per aliquot aetates observatum erat, was then Governor of Cumberland, which Region the Scots held by Gift from the Kings of England, to that intent that the Presidentship of Cumberland should be for a Sign who should be next Successor to the Kingdom, and so for divers Ages the same hath accordingly been observed, he to inherit his own, Poisoned his Brother's Son, and p. 190. he saith, Milcolumbus regis filius in natura adhuc, ad rerum administrationem aetate & Cumbriae praefectus et princeps Scotorum est Declaratus, quod nomen perinde est Scotis atque apud Gallos Delfinus, apud priores Romanorum Imperatores Caesar apud posterio res Rex Romanorum, quibus omnibus Successor superiori Magistratui dari intelligitur. Malcolm the King's Son in an unripe Age for Public Affairs, is declared Precedent of Cumberland, and Prince of the Scots, which Name is with the Scots Equipollent to the Dauphin amongst the French, to Caesar amongst the Ancient Romans, and amongst the Modern to the King of the Romans; by all which Titles, the Successor to the Superior 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, Vbi Lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere Debemus. Besides the Kingdoms being now United, a Title common to both were more convenient than several Titles. The Roman Title Princeps Juventutis, extended to the whole Empire.   

Object. 10 The Objection of Illegitimation answered.  
I think the Objector hath now spit his Venom, 
Of Illegitimation.  but let him take heed it doth not Poison himself; for first I answer it is already 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 Prohibit such Marriages which the Law of God hath not Prohibited, 
Marriage a thing not indifferent, not to be limited by the Laws of Men.  and that Marriage is not a thing indifferent, but necessary, and Commanded by God; and therefore what are made Actus Legitimi by God, non recipiunt modum aut Conditionem from Men, nor ought the Holy Ordinance of God be compelled to be profaned 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 shown 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.  

The eldest Son of a King of Great Britain Legitimate by his Birthright.  That not only by this Statute, but by the Law of God, the Law of Nations, and the Jus Coronae of Great Britain, Primogeniture in Succession hath been preferred, and such Issue adjudged Legitimate, Though procreated of unlawful Marriages and Persons Prohibited to Marry, but was never questioned 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, 
Primogeniture succeeded amongst the Patriarches, though no Marriage by a Priest in a Temple.  even in their most unlawful Marriages, and without Ceremonies, with strange Women of foreign Nations, though expressly 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 Daughters, the name of the Elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel, Leah was tender-eyed, but Rachel was beautiful 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 gathered 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 bore 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 Primogeniture and Legitimation in any, it might have been made against this of Reuben. For,  
First, Here is no Intent nor Consent, no Contract, no Espousal of Marriage by Jacob with Leah.  
(2.) There is no Banns, no Leadings to Church, no Ceremony, no Joining by the Priest, no Benediction by him of Jacob and Leah.  
(3.) What is worse than the want of all these;  
Here is 

(1) a mere Cheat, a Woman that is hated in the dark clapped into the Bridegroom's Bed, instead of her that is beloved.  
(2) Here is the true Bride Rob of her seven years' expected Enjoyment, by a false.  
(3) Here is the Marriage-Covenant most perfidiously broken.  
(4) The Labourer is defrauded of his hire for seven years' Labour.  
(5) Here is Adultery and Incest committed by the eldest Sister, with the contracted Husband of the younger Sister.  
(6) The elder Sister herself knows, and is accessary to all these Crimes; yet hath the Impudence to Rest all Night, Acting them in a stolen Bed, and to outface them in the Light of the Rising Sun; for behold 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 Birthright, 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, than defiled'st thou it: And the same is likewise declared, 1 Chron. cap. 5.1. Now the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn;) But forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his Birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel: Yet doth this prove the stronger, that notwithstanding the unlawful Marriage and Crimes of Leah, his Mother, the Birthright belonged unto him, till he forfeited the Privilege of it, by so great a Crime, as he himself Committed, 
Legitimation impossible to be forfeited, or to be taken from the Child, or the Incidents to the same.  and notwithstanding he forfeited the Privilege of his Birthright; yet he forfeited not his Legitimation, but inherited an equal filial Portion with his younger Brethren, for Legitimation 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 Succession 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, 
The Power of Alienation by the Father of the Goods, neither Legitimates or Illegitimates the Child.  are Jure naturae, 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 utterly overthrows all manner of Objections whatsoever can be invented against the Right of Primogeniture, and makes ridiculous all Popish Fictions of Illegitimation. The Marriages of the Kings of Judah and Israel, and all the Ebrews might be Copulatione without Ceremony, Godw. Antiq. & Selden.  
As to the Laws of the other Nations, besides the Hebrews, first to touch on the Greeks; 
Jus Coronae of Greece, as to Legitimation.  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 enjoyed his Inheritance; for as Servius saith in Greece, Consuetudinis Regiae fuit ut Legitimam Vxorem non habentes, aliquam licet Captivam tamen pro Legitima haberent, ut Liberi Ex ipsanati succederent. The Common Law of Greece was, That if a King had not a Lawful Wife, any Woman 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 Subject's Children; for they had only a Filial Portion of a Thousand Drachmae, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but not Illegitimated, or left without Portion.  
Amongst the Roman Emperors, there was no such thing ever heard of as Illegitimation of the Emperor's Children, 
Jus Coronae of Great Britain as to Succession, differs from the Law of Succession as to Subjects.  till the Papal and Episcopal Laws overtopped the Imperial, nor any such thing ever heard of, except falsely Translated amongst the Kings of Israel or Judah, or in the whole Scripture, nor in the Ottoman Empire, nor in any Nation, except where Popes and Bishops have set their foot, and as to the Jus Coronae of Great Britain, 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 British 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, Constantine the Great was the Natural Son of Constantius Sorus, by Helena a British Lady, who is called his Concubine, and whom (after the Birth of his eldest Son, the said Constantine) he repudiated, 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 Scruple made by any, succeeded his Father in the Government of Britain, and all other Western Provinces belonging to his Father's share of Empire in Scotland, 
Gillus Nothus.  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 Ceremonies of a Priest or Temple; yet was this in a time of Christianity, and not of Paganism, for Donald was the first Christian King of Scotland, Anno Domini 199. which was long before Gillus, Buch. Rer. Scot 103. Et Skene in his Table of Kings. Robert the Second of Scotland, 
Robert the Second of Scotland, Elizabeth More, and Eufemia.  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 Ceremonies 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 appears 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 Vxorem duxit, hanc enim eliganti forma Adami Mori illustris Equitis filiam adhuc adolescen● vehementer amarat; Ex eaque tres filios & duas filias susceperat, eamque Gifardo viro nobili in Lothiana curaverat collocandam; verum sub idem fere tempus Eufemia Regina & Gifardo 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 Sconam 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 Confirmation 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 Temple; yet the Parliament thought just to pass by her Sons, and to settle the Succession on the Sons of Elizabeth.   

Athelstanus Nothus— Legitimate per Jus Coronae.  Athelstan was the eldest Son of King Edward the Elder before 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 Married; 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 England and Scotland, sought to dishonour him with the Name of Nothus; for by that name Buchanun Rerum. Scot 175. Styles him and says, Praerat omnibus Anglorum copiis Athelstanus Edwardi 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 preferred before his younger Brother Edmund, whom Papal Laws made Legitimate; and accordingly he was Crowned by Athelmus Archbishop of Canterbury, at Kingston upon Thames: And proved after the most Heroic Victorious Prince that the English ever had before the Conquest; for he conquered both the Danes and Scots confederated against him, and Subdued the whole Island.  

Edward the Son of Edgar, Legitimate per Jus Coronae.  Ethestede, for her excellent Beauty surnamed 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 enjoined him seven years' Penance; 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, 
Note, here are all the Objections made against the succeeding to the Crown by Edward, which are now made, and more; for here is an Heir by Marriage-Covenant opposed against the Natural Heir.  Queen Elfrid excepted 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 Illegitimate; That she herself was King Edgar's Queen and Wife, whom he Married Solemnly according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church; and that by his Marriage-Covenants he bond himself, That her Children by him should be Successors 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 sat to Debate the same, Dunstan 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 Clergymen, 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 Residing, he out of his Love to both, would needs go to visit them; where the cruel Stepmother 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 entangled 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 Married by the Rites and Ceremonies of the then Church; Notwithstanding Elfrid was a Queen, and solemnly Married by all those Rites and Ceremonies; notwithstanding the Kingdom was by Marriage-Covenant settled 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 unlawful as not to be Expiated under seven years' Penance; 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 immutable 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 encouragement to the committing of the same.  
(3.) That Prince's 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 Stepmother's; 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,  
Miscueruntque herbas & non innoxia verba.  Virg. Georg. 2. 
When Cruel Stepmother's Poisoning the Cup,  
Add Herbs and Spells for Right Heirs to drink up.  
I find but one kind of Stepmother 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:  
Does est magna parentium  
Virtus & metuens alterius viri  
Certo foedere castitas,  
Et peccare nefas aut pretium mori.  
The innocent and kind Stepmother's there,  
The Orphans Motherless to hurt forbear,  
And not with Portions o'er their Husbands rant,  
Helped by the Gay adulterous Gallant.  
Virtue 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 preferred before a Marriage by the Moral Law of God, this makes way for all Murders by Stepmother's of the Children of first Mothers; of which see likewise the Example of Roxalana, before related at large, Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 245.  

William the Conqueror succeeded to his Natural Father's Dukedom, his Mother never Married by a Priest in a Temple.  William the Conqueror was the Son of Rollo Duke of Normandy, by Arlotte a mean Woman, whom he made Sa Compaigne, or Sociam Thalami, without any Ceremonies of a Priest or Temple; she was a Person how mean soever, yet not Prohibited 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 meed de France, and if they can prove she was Guilty of any worse, and were an Harlot, it only makes the Precedent the stronger, that the Law and Custom at that time and Country was, that the Duke's eldest Son, though by a Woman taken without any Ceremony of a Priest or Temple, aught after the Death of the Duke succeed to the Dukedom, neither was this way any other Law or Custom than what is already shown to have been amongst the Princes of the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and all other Nations not enslaved by Superstition to receive the Forms of Marriage, 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 British, Scottish, and Norman Laws, the eldest Sons of Kings by Women not Prohibited to be Married by the Law of God, though not Joined by a Priest in a Temple, or any other Episcopal Ceremony; yet by Right of Primogeniture, they succeeded in the Governments of their Father's Dominions. It will be asked how then came the ancient Law of God and the Land to be changed concerning 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 Successions both to the Crown, and Lay-Inheritances, according to Canonical Laws, and not the Laws of God nor the Land? To which is answered, 
Hugh Capet an Usurper of the French Crown, to curry favour with the Pope, first disinherited natural Children.  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 strained his Law to that Degree of unnatural Cruelty and Folly; that it was Enacted, That natural Children should not be accounted natural Children, which Nonsense in that time of Popery, was not only followed by the French, but imitated to get Money by the English and Scotish Ecclesiastical and Common Lawyers; who, as hath been already shown would not admit natural Children to be Sib Kin of Consanguinity, nor Children to the Father who begot, or the Mother who bore them; as if it had been in the Power of Hugh Capet and them to overthrow or change the Laws of God and Nature. 
Prohibition of Marriage, Sans Ceremony, a French Toy to disinherit all Protestant Children.  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. 
Pope's strengthen themselves by unlawful Marriages and Successions of Princes, and not by lawful.  That Hugh Capet being a Prince of a strange Blood, was hoys●d up by the People to the Prejudice of Charles of Lorraine, 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 courtesy of his Brother, and by him not regarded, was by Otho the Emperor invested in the Duchy of Lorain, Anno 984. which containeth one Marquisate, five Earldoms, and divers Baronies. The eldest Son likewise of Lorain, is entitled Prince of Barry; for which cause that he received Lorain from the Emperor; Charles shown 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 descended Isabel Wife to Philip the Second, uniting the Bloods of Pepin 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 Mother's side he was the right Heir of Charles of Lorain, whom Hugh Capet had so unjustly dispossessed.  

French and Popish Laws of Marriage, seek to destroy all English Heirs, and the Protestant Religion.  So 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 enslave 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 Succession on the English Crown? 
Capet's Law not to be compared with the Law of Edw. the 3d.  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 trial by Battle 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 Battle 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 Children? Are there any so profane Christians as will prefer the Ceremonial Laws of Men above the Moral Laws of God? It hath been shown thus far by the Examples of so many Kings of this Island of Great Britain, that their Legitimation and Succession thereby to the Crown, were by the Moral Law of God, and not by the Ceremonial Laws of Romish or British 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, 
John of Gaunt, for favouring Protestants, falsely slandered by the Bishop of Winchester to be Illegitimate.  Confessor to his Mother Queen Phillippa, falsely slandered him to make him Illegitimate; That he was the Son of a Fleming, 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 Exeter, Henry Bishop of Winchester and Cardinal, and Joan a Daughter; which Daughter and all her Brethren, were surnamed Beaufort from Beaufort a Castle which he had in France, where they were all Born, and in regard thereof bare the Portcullis of a Castle for the Cognizance of the Family; and these four Children, though they were Legitimated by Act of Parliament in the Twentieth year of King Richard 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. 
Henry the 7th, d●riveth ●imsel● from Katherine Swinford, 〈◊〉 Ma●…d by a Priest in a Temple.  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, assumed the Title of the House of Lanc●ster, as Legitimate by the Law of God, 
Both York and Lancaster derive the Lines from Persons slandered to be Illegitimate by Laws of Men, but made Legitimate by the Law of God.  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 Grace, from the House of York claims was declared Illegitimate by Richard the Third; because as was alleged, E. 4. was praecontracted to the Lady Lucy, which Lady Elizabeth was her s●lf likewise first promised in Marriage to the Dauphin of France, before she was Married 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, 
Edward the Sixth Illigitimated by Papal Laws, but Legitimated by the Law of God.  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 accordingly.  
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 Privy Council; 
Queen Elizabeth Illegitimated by Papal Laws and Act of Parliament, but Legitimated by the Law of God.  yet no true Protestant doubts but she was Legitimate by Moral Law of God, which is above all Laws, and happily 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 King's 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 unlawful 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 aught to be preferred 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 ascertaining the Heir by a General or Special Distinction or Description, or when any doubt or danger ariseth by Act of Parliament 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 ordinary work to Illegitimate the most Sacred Persons of Protestant Princes, who disdain to buy their Mercenary Dispensations, Faculties, Licences, and Pardons of Popes, or Bishops, and particularly the most Pious King Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth. And as is said, Judas 8. Defile the flesh, despise 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 King's 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 Soldier, 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 itself magnifies him as an high defence to the Father, as Jacob expresseth of his, Gen. 49.3. My firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of Dignity, and the excellency of Power. And who hath Vindicated His majesty'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 compasseth his Death, compass the Death of the King himself? And doth not he who slanders him to be Illegitimate, compass his Death?  
(2.) Because this exposeth Majesty, and the eldest Son likewise 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 Ruin 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 intent 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 Illegitimate by the Pope's Divinity, but the Popish Party so far misinformed her own Father H. 8. in Matters of Law, and overwrought on the King as they compelled him by weariness to rest on Implicit Faith in them, and to declare his own Daughter 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 Comments on them have been increased to so huge heaps, and confused 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 Subjects as have endeavoured humbly to represent the truth, as to the Law of God, and of the Land, have been by the same Popish 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 Descendants of the Blood Royal, the Famous and Pious Queen Elizabeth, and the Valiant 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 Protestant; and so is the King's 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 Elizabeth; 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 purposes, 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 Legitimate; 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 itself 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 Authority to consider how far the Papists have endeavoured 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, than the Lord will take me up; So may the King's eldest Son say the same.  
(9) Queen Elizabeth notwithstanding all this was Legitimate and lawful Heir of Blood by the Moral Law of God, and the Protestant Religion; and so is Recognized and acknowledged 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 obtained 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 Ceremonial 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, proceeds 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 comprised, have and do untruly and very Slanderously report of Priest's Matrimony, saying, That the same Statute is but a Permission of Priest's 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 accounted as Bastards than Lawfully Born, to the great Slander, Peril, and Disherison of such Children, which untrue slanderous report of Holy Matrimony doth not only redound to the high dishonour of Almighty God; but also to the King's Majesty's 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 Rail of Matrimony, and slanderous Reproaches of the Clergy, the Word of God is not heard with Reverence, followed with Diligence, the Godly proceeding of the King's Majesty not received with due Obedience, etc.  

Banns required to the Marriage of the Clergy.  Provided always, That this Act, nor any thing therein contained, shall extend to give Liberty to any Person to Marry without Ask in the Church, or without Ceremonies, according to the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, nor shall make any such Matrimony already made, or hereafter to be made good, which are Prohibited by the Law of God for any other cause. The Protestant Clergy by these Acts thought themselves as secure as they do now. But Queen Mary immediately 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 shown, that the Marriages of the Lady Mothers of King Edward the Sixth, and of Queen Elizabeth, and of the King's eldest Son, and the Legitimation of Children, were and are lawful by the Moral Law of God; but the same have been Slandered, and still are, by the virulent Tongues of Papists.  
(3.) That these wicked Slanders of the Legitimation of the King's eldest Son, do produce not only the same evil Effects which the Statute declares to ensue from the Slander of the Legitimation of the Sons of the Clergy; but greater and more dangerous.  
(4.) That the final Cause why the Papists and their Laws Slander the Legitimation of the King's eldest Son, and of all the Sons of the Protestant Clergy, is the same; which is because they would seize on their Inheritance or Estate, and divide the Spoil amongst the Papists.  
(5.) It is well known that the Inheritances and Estates of the Descendants of the Protestant spirituality and Clergy (in which Body are included all Spiritual Persons, Doctors of the Civil Law, exercising Spiritual Jurisdiction, Churchmen, Ministers, all persons within Orders) are great and numerous through the Three Kingdoms, who will all Suffer, if a relapse to Popery.  
(6.) That their Wives and their Descendants which have Married, have been obnoxious ever since the Time of Reformation; the first to Consiscation of their Dowers, Jointures, and Thirds; The other to Illegitimation, and thereon Confiscation of their Inheritances, Lands and Goods. The Law which forbidden the Clergy to Marry, was made by Pope Nicholas the First, to wicked intents, which have been before already shown; the Clergy, and their Wives and Children, are likewise left obnoxious to the same by the Proviso mentioned, which requires Banns to make lawful the Marriage of the Clergy; but they usually have none, but are Married by Licences, which makes them likewise obnoxious to the very Letter of the Act; which if there should happen a Papist Successor, he may take advantage thereof without a Repeal, or Repeal the Act, and so take advantage either way, which he will. Let not the Protestant Clergy therefore, nor the Bishops be deceived, or vainly flatter themselves that they can compound or lay the Obligation of an Oath, or an Act of Parliament on a Papist Successor if any happen to be; nor think he will lose so infinite heaps of Treasures, as this point of the Marriage of the Clergy, and the Illegitimation of their Descendants, will by Confiscations of all the Jointures, Dowers, Thirds of all the Archbishops, Bishops, and inferior 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 Clergyman in England, it will be Heresy sufficient to Burn him if he is Married, and a cause sufficient will be his Estate; and for Provision, his Wife must expect none; unless like the Indian Wife, she Burn with him, in hope to find it in another World. 
Queen Marry Illegitimated and Destroyed all the Wives and Children of the Protestant Clergy, notwithstanding they were Legitimated by Act of Parliament.  They need look no further for an Example than of Queen Mary; who was a Papist Successor to the Protestant Act of King Edward her Brother; who though he confirmed the Marriages of the Clergy, and the Legitimation of their Children by two Acts of Parliament, left in their highest Vigour and Power, and though she had solemnly promised the Protestants, without whose help, she had not probably come to the Throne, that they should enjoy Liberty of Conscience; yet as soon as ever she obtained the Kingdom, she repealed her Brothers two Acts, and made Whores of the Wives, and Bastards of the Children of all the Protestant Clergy Married, Burnt them, and Confiscated their Estates. And that Pious Martyr Archbishop Cranmer, who was Married, was Cruelly Burnt amongst the rest.  
(7.) There is no way to preserve the Marriages and Legitimations of the Protestant Clergy, & their Wives and Children, from the destruction of a Papist Successor; but to have Protection from a Protestant Successor of the Crown, and to cast off this Papal Doctrine of Ceremonial Marriage, and to teach the truth of Marriage according to the Moral Law of God, which is the true Jus Coronae, as hath been already shown, and makes the eldest Son of a Protestant King, and himself a Protestant to be of the same Interest with the Sons of a Protestant Clergy, and to engage him by God's help to be his Instrument to defend them and the Protestant Religion, Liberty and Propriety to the Glory of God, and Comfort of the People: Can therefore any of the Protestant Clergy be so imprudent as in their Doctrine to destroy the Holy, Just, True, Ancient, Eternal, and Immutable Moral Law of God of Marriage and Legitimation, to bring in the Unclean, Adulterous, Spurious, Illegitimate, Injust, Lying, Upstart, new-fangled, Ceremonial Laws of Priapusses and Popes; and not understand they thereby Slander their own Mothers and Wives to be Whores, their Daughters to be Bastards, themselves and all their Sons, to be Sons of Whores and Bastards.  
Can they be so inconsiderate, as to imagine that any Slander they shall raise against the Marriages of the Lady Mothers, of Queen Elizabeth, King Edward or the King's eldest Son, or the Legitimations of Queen Elizabeth herself, 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 dispose 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 Idozing the Ceremonial Laws, Papal or Episcopal, drive themselves into this inevitable Dilemma, either to fall into the hands of a Papist Successor, who will assuredly destroy all Married Priests and ecclesiastics, their Wives, and Children, and Successors, 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 Lawful 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, than 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 Practic, 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 prohibited some kind of Women to the Subjects; but gave Authority to Caesar to lie with what Women he would. And the like to the Romish false Prophet, is imitated by the false Prophet Mahomet, who in his Koran prohibited divers Women to the people but counterfeits God, speaking to himself and saying, But as for thee, O Prophet, thou may'st Lie with what Women thou wilt. But in this the Pope goes beyond Mahomet; for the one Illegitimates 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 Swineherd created his Bastard a Cardinal, and gave him Ten Thousand Crowns per Annum 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 imitate. And by Probability a Kingdom he had obtained, had he not and his Father by the just Judgement of God, been Poisoned by the same envenomed Wine at a Banquet; which they had prepared for others. All Italy is already over-stocked, and the Principalities thereof, and of other Catholic Countries, in time likely to be the Inheritances of none but of the Bastards of Popes, and their Descendants Male or Female, under the Name of Nephews, and Neices, and by the Matches of Papal Descendants into Protestant Dominions, the like Evil may be justly feared, if not prevented; and what is worse, a perpetuating thereby of their Superstition from Generation to Generation.  
The Scripture likewise saith, Heb. 13.4. Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled; but Whoremongers and Adulterers 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 undefiled, nor the Sons though of Kings, descending from the same, according to the Foundation of all Honour, the Immaculate Law of God. But the Bastards of Popes, such is the Impudence of the Whore of Babylon, to Prohibit Honour to all except herself 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 encumbered 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 Swineherd 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 Christian Emperors and Princes should have ever been so Pope or Priestridden, or so far have suffered 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 Marriages not Prohibited by God amongst them, or Illegitimating the Children of such Marriages.  
Lastly, It is already proved, That Carnal Knowledge, Chastity, and Childbirth makes a Marriage, Lawful, Holy, and Indissoluble by the Law of God between all persons not prohibited. 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 Marozia, 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 poisoned 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, etc. Pope Clement the Fifth was a Common Fornicator; and it is Notorious, That all Popes are Panders-General of all the Stews and Houses 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?     

LIB. III. CHAP. II.  
Whether Necessary in the present Juncture of Affairs, for the King and Parliament to declare a Protestant Successor to the Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland?  
TO prepare which Question for the Consideration of Supreme Authority, it will be necessary first to recite the Objections which are made for the Negative; And then the Reasons which are brought for the Affirmative.  

Object. 1. Declaring a Successor by the King and Parliament, makes the Kingdom Elective, and not Hereditary.  
Answ. 'Tis acknowledged, if the Declaration were to be by the Parliament Sole without the King, it might possible make a Kingdom Elective; but where by Law the King hath a Negative, and the Declaration is not made without his Consent, it is otherwise; for it is sufficient to make a Kingdom Hereditary, if the Law make it descendible to the King's Heirs, in Case it be not otherwise by the King himself and Parliament actually disposed of, which is seldom done, and in Cases of Necessity. But yet are they not disabled of the Power to do it when they think necessary, as a private Inheritance doth not therefore cease to be Hereditary, because the Owner hath Power to Give, Sell, Alien, or otherwise dispose of it; 'tis sufficient if by Law it descend to his own Heirs, unless he Actually happen according to Law to dispose of it from them.   

Obj. 2. Declarations by Act of Parliament are in vain, Because Acts of Precedent Parliaments cannot bind the Power of a subsequent Parliament, which is shown by divers Examples. Cok. 4 Part. fol. 42. And Grotius speaks to the same intent, That King's Predecessors cannot bind King's Successors. Est autem causa Successionis non subjecta Regi nunc regnanti, quod inde apparet quod Rex nunc regnans nulla lege obligare potest Successorem: Successio enim Imperii non est de Jure Imperii, ac proinde mansit in statn naturali quo nulla erat Jurisdictio, Grot. de Jure Bell. & Pacis lib. 2. cap. 7. p. 171. That a cause of Succession is not subject to the King now Reigning, appears from this, that a King now Reigning can by no Law bind his Successor; for the Succession to Empire is not of the Right of Empire. But the same remains in the state of Nature, wherein there was no Jurisdiction.  
Answ. Though a King and Parliament present, by declaring a Successor, cannot bind a Parliament future, but they may again Repeal or Abrogate such present Act of Declaration; yet doth it not follow that the present Act of Declaration is vain, and of no use.  
For first, Then by the same Reason, it might be said that Magna Charta, and the Petition of Right, And all the Acts of Parliament we have are vain and of no use, because future Parliaments have Power to repeal them; notwithstanding which it is manifest such an Act of Declaration would be of great Use and Benefit.  
Secondly, An Act though repealable, is not vain, because such an Act cannot pass without the Major number of Votes, which will be an Encouragement to the major number to continue their endeavour to preserve; And a Discouragement to the minor part in another Parliament to attempt to repeal.  
Thirdly, Because succeeding Parliaments have a Reverence to preceding, and though they have Power to repeal, yet do they not use to repeal to the utmost of their Power, nor can a former Act be repealed but by another Parliament; which if a Protestant Successor is Declared, must be called by him, and he hath then a sufficient Legal Power to Exclude so far Papists from Elections of Members of Parliament, as probably they will have no Power to repeal former Protestant Acts.  
Fourthly, Subsequent Parliaments cannot repeal the Act of a Precedent quoad praeterita; for which reason the whole People will act with far greater Courage both in Peace and War, in Execution of whatsoever they have a standing Act of Parliament to protect them, than where there is none.  
Fifthly, Such an Act doth leave the Successor and his Parliament in a Posture and Possession of Arms Lawfully to defend his own Right and the Protestant Religion, both against Secret Massacres, and Open Rebellions and Invasions by Papists.   

Object. 3. Acts of Parliament cannot bind the Power of the Sword, or Armies in the Field.  
Answ. Though they cannot bind such as are Actually Convented without raising other Armies against them; 
Prevents, though it binds not the Power of the Sword.  yet they may take ways both to prevent their Convention, and to raise other Armies against them, if Convenient, and the Success must be left to God.   

Object. 4. That a Successor Declared, 
Declaring incites not a Lineal, but a Collateral Heir to Rebel: and, not an eldest Son, but a younger wrongfully present before him.  may prove Rebellious or Disobedient.  
Answ. This Objection is made, 28 H. 8. cap. 7. But it makes no Danger of it, except only in Case it should happen to be of a Collateral Heir, when the King should have no Lineal Heir of his Body. Concerning which Collateral Heir only, and not his Lineal, These are the words of the Statute by way of Petition from the Parliament to the King; And if your Grace afore it may be certainly known whether ye shall have Heirs or no, should suddenly name or declare any Person or Persons to succeed after your Decease, and for lack of Heirs of your Body lawfully begotten into the Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of this Realm, than it is to be doubted that such Persons that should be named might happen to take great heart and Courage, and by Presumption fall into inobedience and Rebellion; by Occasion of which Premises, great Divisions and Dissensions may be, and is very likely to Arise and Spring in this Realm, to the great Peril and Destruction of us Your Majesty's most humble and obedient Subjects, and of all our Posterities. Whereby it appears, This Statute is only afraid of Declaring Collateral Heirs, If there should be no Lineal Heir of the Body, or they should fail. In like manner Queen Elizabeth having no Lineal Heir of her Body, was afraid to declare the Collateral. But she declared the Natural Heirs of her Body should Succeed, as appears, 13 Eliz. 1. which are the next Lineal, and not Collateral Heirs. And the Example of Christian Princes in like manner hath been never to Scruple the Natural affection of their own Natural eldest Sons, to declare them Successor after their Death; for that gives them no Greater present Power than they had before. The Heir, as is said, Gal. 4.1. Differeth nothing from a Servant. So Edward the Third, did not doubt to Declare his Eldest Son, the Famous Black Prince, his Successor, by the General name of his Eldest Son in this Statute, nor likewise by making him Prince of Wales, to declare him by name his Heir Apparent and Successor; nor did he ever the less Trust him with the Command of great Armies in France, with whom he was Victorious; yet did the Son so declared never presume to any higher Title than Prince of Wales; nor Motto, than Ich Dien, I serve, as if he studied how to testify his Obedience to God and his Father, and to show that the Heir differeth nothing from a Servant. In like manner did the Old Roman Emperors declare their Eldest Sons Caesar's, and Principes Juventis. The Modern Emperors theirs Kings of the Romans. The Kings of England theirs Princes of Wales. The Kings of Scotland theirs Princes of the Scots. The French Kings theirs Dauphins; with so little doubt of Danger thereby, that they rather look on the same as the greatest Security of themselves, their Families and Kingdoms, to have their Eldest Sons declared Successors in their Life-time: but always as is said, this is true, only where the Eldest Sons are declared, and not where contrary to the order of Nature Younger Sons or Collateral Heirs are preferred before them, or to disherit them.   

Object. 5. The Ottoman Emperors never declare a Successor.  
Answ. They are ill Precedents to be followed; for the not declaring of a Successor, causeth all those Bloody Butcheries of Fathers of their own Sons; And Brothers one of another, and gives the Janissaries Power to sell the Empire to that Son or Brother who will give most Money for the same: which the Emperors would gladly reform if they were able, and declare their Successors as other Princes do, were they not overpowered by their own Slaves, as appears, Turk. Hist. 479. Selimus, 
The Ottoman Emperors why they declared no Successors.  a Younger Son of Bajazet the Second, was made by his Father Governor of the Kingdom of Trapezond, and Married without his Fathers liking the Daughter of Mahomates a mighty King of the Tartars, called Precopenses. Selimus, by the assistance of his Father-in-Law, provided a great Fleet and Army Pretending but not Intending War on Hungary: Bajazet receiving Advertisement of Selimus his Army, and that he had left Trapezond, and was come over into Europe; suspecting his Design, notwithstanding his Pretences to be against himself; yet not seeming to take notice thereof, sends Ambassadors to dissuade him from the Hungarian War, and to persuade him to return peaceably to his former Government; but without effect; for he continues his March onwards towards his Father. In the mean time, Bajazet moved the rather with the fear of Selimus, resolved on that which he had long time in his Mind deeply Considered, in regard he was aged and sickly, to resign the Empire to Achomates his eldest Son, and proposeth the same to the Soldiers; but they being Corrupted before with Money by Selimus, Cunningly seeming to commend Achomates; yet would neither yield that Bajazet should resign or nominate him for his Successor: And the chief Reasons they alleged were, That the same was neither according to the Custom of the Ottoman Kings, nor for the behoof of the Men of War, who should thereby be defrauded of the Rewards usually granted unto them during the time of vacancy of the Empire arising from the Spoil; taking of them who are of Religions different from the Turks; for it is a Custom, that immediately on the Death of the Turkish Emperors, all the Jews and Christians which dwell at Constantinople, Pera, Hadrianople, Thessalonica and Prusa; especially Merchants Exposed unto the Injuries of the Turks, are by the Janissaries, and other Soldiers of the Court, spoiled of all their Wares and Goods, and became unto them a Prey: neither will they give their Oath of Allegiance unto the new Emperor, until he grant them their Prey, and Swear by his Head to Pardon all their Outrages before Committed. When Bajazet saw his Men of War generally to oppose themselves against the Nomination of his Successor, he tried what Money would do with them; and promise them Five hundred Thousand Ducats, if they would stand favourable to Achomates, and accept him for their Sovereign, but he could not move them, for they assured themselves of greater Rewards in Pay and Plunder from Selimus. So with Grief and Patience he put up the Matter; hoping for a fit Opportunity to effect what he desired. Selimus in the mean time under divers pretences marcheth on towards his Father; and Corrupted the greatest part of his Council with Money and great Promises to betray him, and advance Selimus to the Empire, only Cherseogleson and old faithful Bassa, adviseth Bajazet to Chastise the Rebellion of his unnatural younger Son, and to give him Battle; wherein Selimus was overthrown, and the greatest part of his Army Slain. Achomates hearing of all the trouble had happened between his Father and Brother, Selimus writes to him, desiring him to dispatch his long Determined and Promised Resignation of the Empire. Bajazet of himself still continued desirous of the Translating the Empire to Achomates, and making no great Secret of it, Commanded Galleys to be provided to Transport Achomates for that end from Scutari, where he than was, to Constantinople, but the Bassa's and Soldier's Corrupted by Selymus' Money, would not suffer him; whereupon he writes to Achomates how the matter stood, and that he should therefore return from Scutari to his old Charge of Amasia, until he might with bounty win the Minds of the Soldiers and great Men, to effect his advancement with less Danger. Achomates thus deceived of his hopes, Complained of his Father how he had deceived him, and made him a Byword and Laughingstock to the World, and meditating either Revenge or Defence against his Brother, raiseth an Army, and on Contumacy when Commanded to Disband, is by the Incitation of Selimus with his Party proclaimed Traitor by his Father, and Bajazet is so overpersuaded by the Conspirators, That he sends home for his younger traitorous Son Selimus, Pardons him and makes him General of his Armies, against Achomates the elder Son. Selimus having received the Army, they Corrupted by him, Proclaim him Emperor. Selimus thereupon Poisons his Aged Father Bajazet, being almost Fourscore years of Age, and Murders his Brothers and Five of his eldest Brother's Sons. From whence may be observed.  

(1.) The Great Error of Bajazet, who gave his younger Son Selimus a Kingdom, and so great Power with it, that he was able to be a Competitor against his eldest Son, and to raise a Rebellion against himself; which is Inconsistent with the Right of Primogeniture, and Divides the Empire into many Empires.  
(2.) That Excessive Treasure given to a younger Brother, giveth him Power to Corrupt both the Council and Army of his Father, who gave it him.  
(3.) Bajazet by setting the younger Son in Contention with he eldest, he lost the Fidelity of both, and was destroyed between them.  
(4.) He did very imprudently to promise his eldest Son the Resignation of the Empire, and ought only to have declared him Successor after his Death; 
1 Bajazet by preferring his younger Son before his eldest, exposed him to be Murdered unless he took Arms in defence of his Life.  but more Imprudently to break his Promise to him, and thereby to Expose him a Public Laughingstock to the World, and a certain mark to be Murdered by his Brother Selimus, unless he took Arms in his own Defence to prevent it.  
(5.) That by probability, if he could have effected the Declaring of his eldest Son Successor, and given only Moderate Portions to his younger Sons, as the Chynoys and Aethiopians Emperors gives theirs, such miserable Murders might not have fallen on himself, his Sons and Nephews. The like Destruction is before observed to have fallen on the younger Sons of Jehosaphat, by his leaving them overmuch Treasures and fenced Cities, to the Diminution and Power of the eldest Son Jehoram, 2 Chron. 21.1, 2, 3, 4.    

Object. 6. Queen Elizabeth Refused to Declare a Successor.  
Osburne saith, 
Q. Eliz. why she refused to declare a Suocessor.  The proposing any thing of Declaring a Successor was so ingrateful to Queen Elizabeth, that the moving of the same cost Pigot and Wentmorth their Liberty, though they proposed it in Parliament, and others Dearer: what were her Reasons against it, may be partly drawn from Buchanan, Lib. 17. p. 603. who saith, on an Embassy sent from Scotland to her, to desire she would Declare Mary Queen of Scots Successor to the Kingdom of England; to which he saith, Queen Elizabeth, p. 606. answered to this Effect:  
There are many Reasons, saith she, draw me away from this Transaction.  
Primum quod non ignorem quam sit periculosum hanc movere camarimam ac jure mihi semper abstinuisse videor ne jus Regni in disceptationem vocarem: Toties enim jam Sermonibus multorum Jactata est Controversia de Matrimonio justo deque nothis & Legitimis Liberis, dum pro ingenio quisque aut huic aut illi parti studet, ut & ego ipsa hactenus ob has Disputationes ad nubendum suerim Cunctatior, etc.  
First, I am not Ignorant how dangerous it is to move this Contention, and I seem to myself most Justly to abstain from Calling a Kingdom in Possession into Dispute concerning the Right; for it is so often already Controverted what is Lawful Matrimony, who are Legitimate, and who are Illegitimate Children, according to every man's Opinion, and as he favours this or that Party, That I myself by Reason of these Disputes, have been hitherto more slow to Marry; once when I Publicly received the Crown, I was Married to my Kingdom, and as a pledge of which I always wear this Ring: And howsoever these Affairs stand, I will as long as I live be Queen of England; when I am dead, let who hath the best Right be my Successor. If your Queen is she, I will no way be against her; if another hath Right, I will not do him wrong: If there is a Law against your Queen, it is unknown to me; for I do not make willingly any curious Inquisition after this matter: But if there is any such Law, I took an Oath when I took the Kingdom, that I will not Change my Subjects Laws without their assent. But as to what you have alleged in the second place, That this Declaring a Successor will contract a straighter Friendship between us, I rather fear it will sow hatred; for do you think that I shall take any Delight to have my Funeral prepared always set before me? It is a Peculiar of Kings, that they have no friendly mind to Children, who by Birthright claim to be their Successors when they are dead. Of what mind was Charles the Seventh the French King, against Lewis the Eleventh, and he against Charles the Eighth, or Francis lately against Henry? Of what mind therefore is it likely I shall be against my Neighbour, when once Declared my Successor? To this may be added what I think of very great weight, I know the People's inconstancy; I know how full they are of the present state of things; I know what prying eyes they have into the next Successor; 
The Dangerous Rising Sun is only a younger Brother, or a Collateral Heir.  I know it is natural for more to adore the Rising than the Setting Sun; And, to omit other Examples, I have seen enough in my own Time, when my Sister Mary held the Kingdom, what Prayers and they make to see me set in her Throne? With what eagerness were my Concerns carried on; neither am Ignorant to undergo what dangers they would have hazarded, if I would have joined with them according to their desire: But now perhaps the same Men have not the same Mind towards me, Like Children who in sleep rejoice for Apples offered them in a Dream, and presently awaked in the Morning, when deceived in their hopes, Change their Joy into Weeping. So they who with great Good will applied to me while I was called Elizabeth; and if I beheld any with a more smiling Countenance, they forthwith thought with themselves, that as soon as I obtained the Kingdom, they should be rewarded rather according to the measure of their Desires, than of the good they had done me; but now when the Event answers not their Expectation, many of them would be ready to Change to any state of things, so they might but gain a better fortune: For no Riches of any Prince though never so great, are sufficient to satisfy the insatiable desires of Men. Now if the affections of our People will Languish, either for Moderate gifts, or any other Light cause, what will such Malevalents do, if they have a certain Successor, to whom to carry their grievances, or go themselves, when they are angry? In what Danger do you think I shall be near so Potent a Prince my Successor, to whom how much strength I add, so much I take from my own Security. This Danger by no Cautions or Bonds of Laws can be averted, neither will Princes who fail of their hopes of a Kingdom, easily contain themselves within the Bounds of Right and Equity. And for my own Part, if the world were certain of my Successor, I shall never think my Affairs in Safety.  
We see here the very Considerations we are now on, of Declaring a Successor, is in Debate by Ambassador between these two great Queens, Elizabeth of England, and Mary of Scotland. One the Head of the Protestants; the other of the Papists in their two Kingdoms. Queen Elizabeth was the Lineal Heir to the Kingdom of England to the last Possessor; Queen Mary derived herself to be the Collateral. Queen Elizabeth, as it is before mentioned, had been Declared Illegitimate by the Pope and Popish Laws and Canons, and by her own Father; And a Popish Act of Parliament she was not only Declared Illegitimate, but the Marriage of the Lady Ann her Mother to her Father, to be void; with the Penalty of High Treason, added on any who should affirm Contrary to the first, or believe Contrary to the latter.  
(1.) Therefore it is to be observed, That Queen Elizabeth being a Protestant, thought it not wise or safe to Declare a Papist for her Successor; yet she after Declared King James her Son, who was a Protestant, her Successor; and it pleased God to make him an Happy Instrument to Unite both Kingdoms in the Protestant Religion.  
(2.) That she being the Lineal Heir, thought it not wise or safe to Declare a Collateral Heir her Successor in her own Life-time. Therefore thought she had a great Affection to make King James, who was her Godson, her Successor; yet she forbore to Declare him so, till on her Deathbed she perceived herself past all hopes of having Lineal Heirs of her own Body; but while there was a possibility, she might, she Declared by 13 Eliz. 1. They should be her Successor, and Enacts a Penalty of High Treason against those who should affirm the contrary.  
(3.) That Queen Elizabeth doth not think it fit that her Legitimation should be Judged by Popish Laws, as she could expect no other would endeavour to be done, if she permitted a Contest between her and a Papist. What? Shall a Virgin Queen be Judged by Laws, which, as is already shown, came from the Priests of Priapus and Venus? Shall a Protestant Queen be Judged and Shot to Death by the Cannons and Constitutions of the Strumpets Theodora Marozia, and the Whore of Babylon? No, she was Judged Legitimate by the Holy Moral Law of God, and the Protestant Religion, to be Successor to her Natural Father; and though he forsook her, God took her up, and by his assistance the Gates of Hell were not able to prevail against the truth of the same: And let any Papist now, if he can, show any Reason or Scripture, why he should with foul mouth asperse the Legitimation of King Edward the Sixth, or Queen Elizabeth, or the King's Eldest Son; or why the latter ought not to be Successor as well as was the former; and Print the same with his Name subscribed: And no question there are Protestant's enough will answer him. Yea, 
The Interest of a Prince Legitimate by the Moral Law of God and the Protestant Religion, to maintain both against Popish Ceremony and Superstition.  let him prove, if he can, That 'tis not only the Greatest Honour to a Protestant Prince himself, but a great Mercy and Providence of God to a Protestant People, to offer them such a Prince whom he hath made Legitimate by his own Holy Law and the Protestant Religion, and permitted him to be Declared Illegitimate by the Papist unholy Law and Superstition, and thereby laid on him the highest Obligation of his own Interest to maintain the Holy Moral Law of God and Protestant Religion, against the Popish Ceremonial Laws and Superstition; and far worse it had been for the Protestants, if Queen Elizabeth had not been made Illegitimate by the Papists, then that she was.  
To Conclude, a full answer hath been therefore already given the Objection, That Queen Elizabeth never refused to Declare a Protestant and Lieal Successor, but only such as were either Papist or Collateral.  
Obj. 7. A Protestant Successor will not be equal to Papists, who are not only a Considerable, but a great and potent Party of the People of the Three Kingdoms.  
Answ. This is fully answered already before, Lib. 2. p. 401, 402, 403, etc. where it is shown to be the Interest of the Protestant Religion to abolish all Laws of Recusancy equally which are Penal to the Consciences either of Protestants or Papists, except as to Mass, Idols, and Popish Priests. This is likewise answered in the following Reasons, wherein it is shown, That not only Protestants, but Papists themselves (except Popish Priests) may hope for greater Security and Happiness from a Protestant Successor, than they ever had or 'tis possible for them to have from Papist Predecessors or Successors; to which I therefore desire to refer.  

Reasons for Declaring a Protestant Successor, by the King and Parliament.  
HAving answered all Objections against Declaring of a Protestant Successor, I shall now only add some few Reasons for the same, arising from the Great and manifold Dangers caused by the Neglect.  


1. Danger to the Conscience of a Prince.  (1.) The first Danger is to the Conscience of a Prince, when he shall give Account to God of the Neglect of so great a Duty to him, and so great a Trust reposed in him by the People; as to which, There is none doubts but every private Father is by his Duty to God bound, while it shall please God to lend him Life and Health, and before Death with a sudden Arrest hurry him hence, to give an account of his Stewardship, to make Provision according to his Power for the leaving his Family in Peace after his Decease; much more it is the Duty of all Princes who ought to be the Public Father of their Countries, who have so great Account to Give; not only for their own Families, but for Nations and Kingdoms, and all the Wars, Murders, Massacres and Devastations which by their default shall happen after their Death. To provide, while God gives them Life and Health, for prevention of such Calamities amongst their People, and for the Peace of Succession in the Government over them. And in the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 1. This great Trust Reposed in the King by the People, is expressed a Chief Consideration of Declaring a Successor; and settling the Succession of the Crown by King and Parliament, in these words in the Preamble of the Act, viz.  
Forasmuch as our most Dread Sovereign Lord the King, upon good and just Grounds and Causes, Intendeth by God's Grace to make a Voyage Royal in his most Royal Person into the Realm of France against his ancient Enemy the French King, his Highness most Prudently and Wisely Considering and Calling to his Remembrance how this Realm standeth at this present time in the Case of Succession, and poising and weighing further in himself the great Trust and Confidence that his Loving Subjects have had, and have in him, etc. And to the Intent his majesty's Disposition and Mind therein should be openly Declared and manifestly known and Notified, as well to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, as to all other his Loving and Obedient Subjects of this Realm, to the Intent of their Assent and Consent, might appear to Concur with thus far as followeth, of his majesty's Declaration in the behalf, and thereupon makes Provision for the Succession of the Crown in the same Act.  
In like manner it is provided by the Law of Persia, as saith Herod. Lib. 7. That whensoever the King goeth to War abroad, he ought first to Declare his Successor, that he may leave Peace at home.   


2. Danger by the incertainty of the Laws of Succession of the Crown.  (2.) The Danger caused by Incertainty of the Laws of Succession of the Crown, (and that this is a Great Danger, and necessary to be Remedied by a Declaration by King and Parliament) appears likewise by the Preamble of the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 22. in these words, viz.  
Wherefore we your said most humble and Obedient Subjects in this present Parliament Assembled, calling to our Remembrance the great Divisions which in time passed have been in this Realm, by reason of several Titles pretended to the Imperial Crown of the same, which sometime and for the most part ensued, by Reason of Ambiguity and Doubts, than not so perfectly Declared, but that men might upon froward intents, expound them to every man's sinister Appetite and Affection after their Sons, Contrary to the Right Legalty of the Succession and Posterity of the Lawful Kings and Emperors of this Realm, whereby hath ensued great Effusion and Destruction of man's Blood, as well of a great number of the Nobles, as of other Subjects, and especially Inheritors in the same, and the greatest occasion thereof, hath been because no perfect and substantial Provision in Law hath been made within this Realm of itself, when Doubts and Questions have been moved and proponed of the Certainty and Legalty of the Succession and Posterity of the Crown.  
By which Statute appears the Judgement of the King and Parliament to be, That the great incertainty of the Law in points of Succession of the Crown, was one great Cause of the great Mischiefs of effusion of Blood both of Nobles and Commons which ensued thereby, and the fittest Remedy to be the Declaration of the Successor incertain by the King and Parliament; which is accordingly therefore done in the same Statute. And it likewise appears that the same Doubt in Law was raised then as to Succession, which is now, Whether the King's Marriage and Issue by the Mother of Queen Elizabeth was Lawful and Legitimate, which is Declared by this Act of Parliament that it was. And H. there is first intendency there to Declared a Legitimation of the same Marriage with Queen Ann, the said Mother of Queen Elizabeth: And that all the Issue had and procreate, or to be had procreate (without saying Lawfully) between the King and Queen Ann, shall be his Lawful Children, and be Inheritable to the Crown; Then is the Crown Declared to be to the King for Life, and the Remainder to be to the first Son of his Highness of his said Lawful Wife Queen Ann begotten, and to the Heirs of the Body of the said first Son Lawfully begotten; and for default of such Issue, with divers Remainders over, and make it High Treason to slander the King's Marriage in prejudice of the Heirs of the same.   


3. Danger of Arbitrary disposing the Crown by Rome or Canterbury.  (3.) The other great Danger from the incertainty of the Laws of Succession, besides effusion of Blood, which is the Arbitrary disposing by Episcopal Sees whether of Rome or Canterbury, though only Rome named, unless a Successor is Declared by the King and Parliament, is likewise mentioned in the said Statute, 25 H. 8. cap. 22. in these words, viz. By Reason whereof the Bishop of Rome, and See Apostolic, Contrary to the great and inviolable Grants of Jurisdictions by God, immediately to Emperors, Kings and Princes in Succession to their Heirs, hath Presumed in time past to invest who should please them to Inherit in other men's Kingdoms and Dominions; which thing we your most humble Subjects both Spiritual and Temporal, do most Abhor and Detest.   


4. Danger of Predominancy of Papal and Episcopal Laws of Marrlage, above the Moral Law of God.  (4.) One great Cause of the incertainty of the Laws of Succession of the Crown, is, That Papal and Episcopal Ceremonial Laws of Marriage, Filiation and Succession, are tolerated in the Three Kingdoms, to Usurp a Predomination, not only over the Law of the Land, but the Moral Law of God: It is therefore necessary to avoid the Danger mentioned, to proceed from the incertainty caused by Papal and Episcopal Laws, That a Declaration by King and Parliament be, Who shall be Successor in Particular and by Name, which clears all Doubts, and is the highest Security under God, on which any Crown, or Succession to it, can depend.   


5. Danger to the King's Person, Line, and House.  (5.) The not Declaring a Successor, is Dangerous to the Person of the King and his House; of which we need not look on any other Example than Alexander the Great, of whom Justin, Lib. 15. relates, That he being desired to Declare a Successor, though he had a Son called Hercules, and though his Wife Roxana were Great with Child, yet would he Declare neither; but Willed, That he who was most worthy, should Succeed; which was the same in effect, as if he had Willed they should after his Death destroy one another with Civil Wars, and his own House amongst them; for so they did: And Cassander, one of his mean and not Chief Officers destroyed his Mother Olympias, and all his Kindred: Such was the Fate of so great a Monarch, who while alive thought the World too little; yet was he himself Poisoned, and when Dead, nor he, nor his Mother, nor his Children, nor any of his Kindred retained any Spot, but their Graves being all destroyed with him; of which there appears no second Cause, but his Neglect to Declare his Son Hercules his Successor, who might have been a Preservative to him, according to Tacitus, Pravas aliorum spes cohiberi si Successor non in incerto. The wicked hopes of Plots against the Possessor are Checked if the Successor is not incertain.   


6. Danger of Lineal and Collateral Heirs to destroy one another.  (6.) The Danger of the Lineal and Collateral Heirs destroying one another, doth cause all those Murders, Poisoning, Strangling, Burning out the Eyes, or perpetual Imprisonments of the Blood Royal of the Turkish, Persian, Aethiopian, and other Eastern Kings and Emperors, but that they have no Parliaments Elected by the people to Declare their Successor, and to Protect the Liberty, Propriety, and Lives of their younger Children by standing Laws; but on the Death of the old Emperor, the Election, or rather Sale of the Empire to the New, is left to the Lawless will of the Priest or Soldier.   

(7.) The Danger if the King's Eldest Son should die and leave Children in Minority of Guardians in Majority, of Contention for the Crown between Nephews and Uncles: This Danger is not so great in Scotland, as in England; for there, as hath been already said, as Buchanan mentions, their Ancient Act of Parliament Enacts,  quemadmodum Regi maximus Natu filius in Regnum Succederet, ita filio ante Patrem Defuncto Nepos avo subrogaretur: That as the Eldest Son of the King should Succeed to him in the Kingdom; so the Son being Dead before his Father, the Nephew should Succeed in his stead to his Grandfather. It hath been already before shown, how dangerous Guardians Uncles are to Nephews in Minority; and if in Majority, all Histories witness under how great incertainty the Law is in most Nations to determine the Question, (which ought to be preferred, the Uncle or Nephew in Succession to a Kingdom; that is to say, in such Kingdoms who have no Parliaments Elected by the People to establish the manner of Succession) And how great Wars and Devastations have been made between Nephews and Uncles on the incertainty of the Law of the Country in that point. And though in Succession to Common Inheritances in England, the Nephew is by Custom preferred Jure Representationis to the Uncle, and though my Lord Coke likewise in his Exposition on the said Statute of 25. E 3. cap. 2. Coke 3. Part. fol. 8. saith to be the Fitz-Eigne, the Eldest Son of the King within that Statute, it is not always necessary he should be his first begotten Son: for the Second after the Death of the first begotten without Issue is Fitz-Eigne, with the Statute Et sic de caeteris, which doth implicitly seem to affirm, That till the Issue of the Eldest Son fails, the second Son shall not Succeed by this Statute, which implicitly prefers the Nephews in Successions before the Uncle, but he showing no Authority therein, but his own, and that only implicit and not Express; and the Common Law and Customs of the Crown being very incertain, obscure, and as often broken as kept, when not Confirmed by Act of Parliament; And King Edward himself the Wife Author of this Act (when the Black Prince Died and left his Eldest Son Richard of Bindeax, who was after R. 2.) Doubting of the certainty of the Law, in the Point did, as the wisest way, procure Richard to be Declared Successor by Act of Parliament in his Life-time, to secure him against his Uncles.  

T●●●aw of E●… not clear in point of Succession of the Crown between Nephew and Uncle, where the Father dies before the Grandfather.  The certainty of the Law of England therefore may be not without Cause doubted in this Point of Succession between Nephew and Uncle, and Danger there may be, lest the incertainty of the same, give the same Pretences to create Civil Wars here, as it doth in other Countries, unless prevented by an Act of Parliament, as in Scotland,  filio ante patrem Defuncto Nepos Avo Subrogaretur.   


8. Danger without Assent of the People.  Danger if the Successor assume the Crown without the Assent of the People by their Representative in Parliament, the Right of a Successor is not here Disputed, nor the Law whether he is King before Coronation, or not until Contract with his Parliament, and Coronation received from them. Highest a Successor can say, is only as Paul saith, 1 Cor. 10.23. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: All things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Though the manner whereby a Successor ascends the Throne may be lawful, yet may it not be Expedient; neither may it Edify the Throne. H. 8. was a King of great Courage and Wisdom, and doubted not the Right of him and his Posterity to the Crown; Yea, though he had more than any other King, Power granted him by Act of Parliament, himself to Declare his own Successor, either by his Letters Patents or last Will; yet he shown therein his great Wisdom and Moderation, and would not do it without Assent of his Subjects; as appears in the already mentioned Statute 35 H. 8. cap. 1. in these words, viz.  
And albeit that the King's most Excellent Majesty, for default of such Heirs as are Inheritable by the said Act, might by the Authority of the said Act give and dispose the said Imperial Crown, and other the Premises by his Letters Patents under his Great Seal, or by his Last Will in Writing, Signed with his most gracious Hand, to any Person or Persons of such Estate therein as should please his Highness to Limit and Appoint. Yet to the Intent that his majesty's Disposition and Mind therein should be openly Declared, and Manifestly known and notified, as well to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, as to all other his Loving and Obedient Subjects of this his Realm, to the intent that their ASSENT and CONSENT might appear to Concur with thus far as followeth of his majesty's Declaration in this behalf.  
For so Wise a King well know, that let the Right of a Successor be what it will, yet if he lose the Love of his People, which cannot be obtained without their Assent and Consent, he loseth the Chief Defence under God, of that, and all other Right he hath; if therefore a Successor is Declared by Act of Parliament, so great a Danger is avoided of not having the Assent and Consent of his Subjects; seeing such an Act of Parliament cannot be without the Assent and Consent of the major part of the People included in the plurality of Votes of their Representative.   


9 Danger of assuming the Crown by a Papist.  The next great Danger is, The assuming of the Crown by Force by a Papist Successor; if not prevented by a Declaration of a Protestant Successor, by the King and Parliament.  
That a Papist Successor is most Dangerous to all laypapists themselves, and that they may Live far more Happy under a Protestant, than one of their own Religion.  

A Distinction ought to be made between laypapists and Papist Priests.  Both Religion, Justice, and Mercy, engage all those who are affected with the least of any of them, to put a great difference betwixt the Deceived, and Deceivers; and betwixt the Blind, and those who misled them to fall into the Ditch. A Distinction is therefore necessary to be made by all Protestants between the Lay Papist, and the Papist Priest; Mercy is to be shown the one, and Justice the other: And if this just Course had been used from the Beginning of the Reformation, that no Penal Statute had been made against the laypapists, but only against the Papist Priests; 
The Protestant cannot be secure, unless the Lay Papist be likewise secure from Penal Laws against Conscience.  No Bishop Bencroft under pretence of maintaining the Dominicans against the Jesuits, and Regulars against Seculars, had been able to maintain Legions of both in Secret to Destroy the Protestants in their own Land, nor under the blind name of Recusants, to turn the edge of all the Penal Laws pretending to be made against Papists, to cut off the Protestants. And the Sacrament of the Paschal Lamb to be a Destruction to the Israelites, and a Passover to the Egyptians; those Penal Laws being pursued with the highest Rigour against the Protestants, but came not near the Papists Dwellings; or if they did, they took more easy Pardons from the Exchequer, than from the Pope. So if the late Act concerning Oaths and Sacraments, had been Restrained only to Papists; Protestant's had not suffered in so high a Degree as now they do. But I pass from what is past, to what is future, to show what Mischiefs the Papists themselves are to expect from a Papist Successor, and what benefit from a Protestant.  
(1.) The first Mischiefs they will meet with in a Papist Successor, is a most miserable one; take what Covenant, what Vow, what Promise, what Oath they can from him, yea, an Hundred Oaths, his Conscience cannot be bound with any of them: and the Catholics themselves shall take as little hold of his Catholic Faith, as the most of those whom they think or call Heretics.  
As for Example: William the Conqueror was a Papist, and is mentioned Dan. Hist. 36. to get Assistance of the King of France (who was then young) in his Design for England, 
William the Conqueror a Papist King, forswore himself to Papist Subjects.  promised if he obtained the Kingdom, to hold it of him as he did his Duchy of Normandy, and do him Homage for it, which would add a great Honour to that Crown. Then was he be-before-hand with Pope Alexander, to make Religion give Reputation to his Pretended Right, he promised likewise to hold it of the Apostolic See, if he prevailed in his Enterprise, whereupon the Pope sent him a Banner of the Church, with an Agnus of Gold, and one of the hairs of Saint Peter: And he likewise by great Promises got his own Brother Odo Bishop of Baieux, to furnish him with Forty Ships for his Expedition. After William had with great difficulty got the Battle at Hastings, wherein King Herold happened to be killed with an Arrow in his Eye, some of his Nobility with all their Power strove to establish Edgar Atheling the next of the Royal Issue in his Right to the Crown; but the false Bishops rather bend to let in a Foreign Enemy, being fooled by him with fair Promises, than to assist the Native Prince; and by their Example drew in the Nobility to trust to his Personal Oath made at his Coronation, before the Altar of St. Peter to defend the Holy Church; that was the Papist Church and the Rectors, and to Govern the Universal People according to the Laws; but this Oath and his Promises, were as weak to bind him, as the single hair of St. Peter he had got from the Pope; for as soon as he had Established himself, he was not such a Fool to do Homage for England to the French King, nor to hold the same of the Apostolic See, nor to defend the Bishops and Abbots in their fat Bishoprics and Abbeys; but as Cambden saith, He made such clear work with them, that he did not leave one English Ecclesiastic whom he thrust not out of his place, and filled their Rooms with Erench Sr. john's.  
And for the English Nobility, he drove some to fly to Scotland, some to Norway, some to Hungary, and any other Places where they could be received, till in the end he had totally destroyed them, and filled their Places with French Contes; and to show himself no partial Dealer with those who would trust his word, he spared not his own Brother Odo, the Bishop of Baieux; but notwithstanding the Forty Ships with which he had Supplied him, on promise of better dealing, he seized and Confiscated all his Treasure which he had, which was very great, and hoarded up with an Intention to have bought the Papacy. And it is no wonder if mali Corvi malum ovum. And he practised the same deceit against themselves and their false Religion had taught him towards others; for let a Papist Prince swear never so many Oaths to Papists of his own Religion, and break them all, the same Religion fits him with Popes enough at his Elbow to Confess and Absolve him instantly, or if he doubts his Trencher-popes' cannot do it, he can have for Money his Unholiness himself to Absolve him from any Oath, Covenant, or League with any other Papist Prince, whether of Peace or War; and how many Examples are there of the same? And more easily can he do it with his own Subjects; as Dan. Hist. fol. 143.  

King John a Papist King, forswore himself to Papist Subjects; being Absolved from his Oath by the Pope.  King John for the Glory of God, and Emendation of the Kingdom in Parliament, makes Articles of Agreement between him and the Barons; wherein are Confirmed all the Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom, and Mutual Oaths taken on both sides by the King and Barons, in Solemn manner for the Observation of the same Articles. The King likewise sends his Letters Patents to all Sheriffs of the Kingdom to cause all Men of what degree soever within their several Shires to Swear to observe the Laws and Liberties thus granted by his Charter. There we see a Papist King agrees with Papist Subjects on Oath in the highest manner, and both the King and Barons, and the whole Body of the People of what degree soever, are solemnly Sworn before God. And the Laws and Liberties are likewise Confirmed by Act of Parliament.  
But the next News in the History we hear of is, He hath some Papist evil Councillors, who tell him he was now a King without a Kingdom, a Lord without a Dominion, and a Subject to his Subjects; whereon this Papist King sends to the Pope, and by Bribery he Absolves the King from his Oath, Nullifies the Act of Parliament, and Excommunicates the Lords. Now therefore let it be shown how these Papist Lords, being laid in the Pickle of Excommunication, and not having Personam standi in Judicio, could have done to have bound the Conscience of their Papist King, to have performed to them his Contract, Covenant, League, and Oath, or let it be no wonder if Protestants are very fearful to have a Successor of such a Religion; or if they think that these Lords had not been more happy if they had had a Protestant King, or of any Religion which would have bound his Conscience to have kept his Word, and much more his Oath to his Subjects.  
The Papist Lords grown Desperate of Right from their English Papist King, run into the other Extreme, and will Trust themselves to the Oath of a Foreign Papist King, seeing their own would not keep his, they send therefore over-Sea, and go in great haft to Lovys the French Kings Son, to Solicit him to take upon him the Crown of England, who is their tres humble Serviteur, and as ready to Swear to them, as they to him, 
A French Oath pretended surer than an English.  and to make wise to them, that a French Oath was surer than an English; over therefore he comes to England in Person, with as great a Fleet and Army as the Power of France could make on so likely hopes of a Conquest, encouraged by so great a Power of the English Barons, who called them in, and joined with them, and being Landed in Kent, in May, the Lords bring him to London, where he takes his Solemn Oath to Restore their Laws and Liberties, and recover their right for them. King John, who had first forsworn himself, was notwithstanding in the Field with another Army against King Lovys, but fell into a Fever and Died, or as some say, was poisoned; On his Death many of the English Lords hoping to find more Truth in the Son than in the Father, returned from Lovys to their Native King, and suddenly Crowned Henry the Third, the eldest Son of King John, being then but Nine years old, in a great Parliament Assembled at Gloucester, 28 Octob. by which Parliament his Tutelage by Reason of his Minority, was Committed to the Great Marshal William Earl of Pembroke, a Man Eminent both in Courage and Council.  
And it is likewise to be noted, That this Henry was begotten by King John of Isabel, the Daughter and Heir of Aymer Earl of Angloulesm, who was before the Marriage pre-contracted to Hugh le Brun Earl of March. 
The Mother of Henry the 3d. pre-contracted when King John Married her.  So if the World had been so much given to slander the Legitimation of the King's Eldest Son, as it is now, here had been a greater Exception against the Succession of the Crown to him than can be now in the least shadow pretended; for Isabel being pre-contracted to a former Man, was a Woman Prohibited by the Law of God to be Contracted or Married by another Man. Yet did neither this, nor his Minority, nor the amazing Danger of a Foreign Enemy Landed, assisted by the Native Nobles possessed of the Royal City, and entered into the Bowels of the Kingdom, Deter this Wise and Noble Parliament for making use of the Coronation of the King's Eldest Son, 
Coronation of the King's eldest Son, the best remedy against the Barons calling in the French.  as the best Remedy against it, and to Commit his Guardianship to a Person of Courage and Council; they Succeeded accordingly, for Lovys was beaten in a Battle at Lincoln by the Protector; and sending back for Recruits into France, which were with great Expedition there provided, and sent with a Mighty Fleet, which Fleet was likewise met and beaten by the English Fleet at Sea, and the Army therein Vanquished by God's great Providence; which News coming to the Ears of Lovys, made him hopeless of any longer Subsistance here with Safety, and thereupon makes a Composition for his passage home, abjures his Claim to the Kingdom, and returns to France; But if Lovys had prevailed here, wi●● Security had the English Nobles had in his French Oath, for within a little while after he had taken it, he made spoil and plunder of all he could lay hands on, 
Lovys a Papist King, breaks his French Oath to the Papist Subjects of England.  Friend or Foe; which made many of the English, he breaking his Oath to them, to think themselves disobliged thereby from the Oath they had given him, and to forsake his Party, and more would have forsaken him had it not been for shame of Inconstancy, and that he had their Hostages in France, whom he would have on their Revolt Destroyed. And to show his Intention of perfecting his Perjury to the height if he could have got Power, there was a constant Report and generally divulged concerning the Confession of the Viscount Melun, a Frenchman, who lying at the point of Death, touched with Compunction, is said to reveal the Intention and Vow of Lovys; which was not only to Destroy the English Nobility, but if he could the whole Nation. Dan. Hist. 148. The like Example is of the French Catholic, more properly Papist Faith to the Nobility and People of Scotland, Buchan. Rer. Scot Lib. 17. p. 156. where appears, The French Papists were called into Scotland by the Scotch Papists, to assist them against the Protestants there, on Mutual Agreement on Oaths between the Papist of both Nations; but when the French. Army came they spoiled alike both Papist and Protestant. And the French Garrison at Leith destroy all with Fire and Sword as far as they could reach. 
A French Papist King forsworn to the Papist Nobility of Scotland.  Clades autem Ex vastatione Agrorum non minus ad Papanos sine discrimine Scotorum Nobilitatem Extinguendam esse, in corum autem praediis mille Catraphractos Equites Gallos collocari posse, reliquam Multitudinem Servorum Loco habendam; id Consilium literis ejus ad Gallum interceptis divulgatum, mirum quantum Gallorum odium Jam aliis de Causis natum auxit. Ambianus autem Episcopus non modo Roman Cause minus aequos sed etiam Gallorum partibus minus quam ipse Censebat aequum addictos in dicta causa agere rapere truci dare jubebat.  
The Devastation of the Country about Leith by the French, fell no less on the Papist than Protestant. Labross advised that the whole Scottish Nobility was without any Difference made to be destroyed, and a Thousand French Barbed Horse to be planted on their Estates, and the rest of the Multitude to be kept for Slaves; which Council (his Letters being intercepted wherein he had sent the same to the French King) after it was divulged, 'tis wonderful how it increased the hatred against the French, which for other Causes was already sufficiently begun. The Bishop of Amiens likewise, without over hearing the Cause, Commanded not only those who favoured not the Romish Religion, but the French Cause, as much as he would have them to be pursued, taken by Force, and Killed.  

Henry the 3d. a Papist King, forsworn to Papist Subjects.  To return again to England, we left where King John having broken his Oath to the Nobility and Parliament being dead, the same Oath of preserving the Laws and Liberties was again obtained of his Son Henry the Third; who in the Baron's Wars wanting Money, a Tenth is granted him by the Clergy, and a Scutage by the Laity of Three Marks of every Knight's Fee; yet with this Agreement, That the often Confirmed Charter of Magna Charta, and Charta Forestae should be again Rectified, Confirmed and Sworn to; and that in the most Solemn and Ceremonial manner, as Religion or State could ever devise to do.  

The Solemn manner of giving his Oath by Henry the Third, to confirm his Subjects Liberties.  The King therefore with all the great Nobility of England, all the Bishops and Chief Prelates in their Pontificalibus, with burning Candles in their hands, assemble to hear and pronounce the Terrible Sentence of by-Excommunication against the Infringers of the Charters, and at the lighting of one of those Candles, the King having received one in his hand, gives it to a Prelate, who stood by saying, It becomes not me who am no Priest to hold this Candle, my heart shall be a greater Testimony; and withal laid his hand spread on his Breast the whole time the Sentence was Read, which was thus pronounced, Authoritate Dei Omnipotentis, etc. which done, he caused the Charter of King John his Father, granted by his free Consent to be likewise openly Read; in the end, having thrown away their Candles (which lay smoking on the ground) they cried out, So let them who incur this Sentence be extinct and stink in Hell. And the King with a loud voice said, As God me help, I will as I am a Man, a Christian, a Knight, a King Crowned and Anointed inviolably observe all these things; And therewithal the Bells rung out, and all the people shouted for Joy, Dan. Hist. 169. but his Oath came to nothing, 
Henry the 3d. secretly Absolved from his Oath to his Subjects by the Pope.  for he secretly sent to the Pope for his Absolution from them, and the Pope for Money by his Apostolic Sentence Absolves the King from his Oath to his Subjects, whence ensued great Wars and Miseries in the Land, Bac. Hist. 86. and though Magna Charta was in his time granted; yet he never kept it, but his whole Reign after, the same was a perpetual Contention by him to raise his Prerogative to an Arbitrary Power, Destructive to all Liberty and Propriety of his Subjects, which he had Confirmed to them by Oath, Charter, and Act of Parliament; and instead of ask a Dispensation of the Pope to Levy Taxes on the Subjects without their Consent in Parliament, he took the easier way, and dispensed with the Pope to Levy on them what he would, and give him a share. So the poor Subjects paid double, whereas if they had paid only to the Pope, or only to the King, they had only born a single burden; but now they Complained as the History mentioneth, 
Shepherd and Woolf confederated to share the Sheep.  That the Shepherd and the Wolf Confederated both to destroy the Sheep, and the Pope continually levied so many insupportable Taxes on them to maintain his Wars against the Emperor, that both Clergy and Laity addressed their heavy Complaints of him to the King himself; but the King was so far from relieving them, that he offered the Pope's Legate to deliver up to him the Chief Opposers, who now by the King's Animation grew more insolent to oppress them than before. Henry the 3d. being dead, his Son Edward the First Succeeded him; a King Renowned for his Valour and Wisdom against his Enemies, yet Dissensions with his Subjects hindered that Valour, and from extending themselves to that degree of Glory they might have otherwise arrived; neither is it only Valour and Wisdom, unless Justice is likewise joined, can make a People happy in their Prince, or himself happy in them. 
Edward the First, a Papist King forswore himself to his Papist Subjects.  He likewise took the same Oath for preservation of Laws and Liberties, as his Father and Grandfather had done; but whether seduced by their Example, or their Evil Counsellors, as he had imitated them in the taking; so likewise did he in the Violation of his Oath; for as his Father had done before him, notwithstanding his Oath and Complaints by his Subjects, of the Pope's oppressions, he and the Pope as his Father had done, like the Shepherd and the Wolf, agreed to divide the spoil of the Flock between them; the Pope therefore granted the King the Tenth of all the Churches of England, and the King grants the Pope to have the first fruits of those Churches, Dan. Hist. 202.  
This Edward likewise, after many Contests wanting Money in the 25th year of his Reign, called a Parliament, wherein with much ado he granted the Confirmation of the two Charters of Magna Charta, and Charta Forrestae, and that with the omission of the Clause of Salvo Jure Coronae Nostrae, such another Clause as is Aut per Legem terrae; which the King laboured much to have inserted; but the People would by no means agree; he therefore Confirmed them absolutely, and Enacts further, That All Arch-Bishops and Bishops shall Pronounce the Sentence of Excommunication against all those that by Word, Deed, or Counsel do contrary to the aforesaid Charters, or that in any Point break or undo the same; and that the said Curses be twice a year Denounced and Published by the Prelates aforesaid. And if the said Prelates, or any of them be Remiss in Denunciation of the said Sentences, the Archbishop of Canterbury and York for the time being, shall Compel and Distrain them to the Execution of their Duties in form aforesaid; as appears in the Statute 25 E. 1. cap. 4. And all this he confirms by Solemn Oath: What greater Security can be Invented? here is an Act of Parliament, Oath, Excommunication, Curses, 
Edward the First, for a furnish of Gold, absolved by the Pope from his Oath.  Archbishops, Bishops, Prelates, all engaged to see it performed; but to what purpose? King Edward sends a Furnish of Gold to the Pope for his Chamber, and he sends him back an Absolution from his Oath and Covenant with his Subjects, concerning the Charter of their Liberties, whereby they are all again broken by the King, and lost to the Subjects, Bak. Hist. 99  

Edward the Second, a papist King forswore himself to papist Subjects.  Edward the First being dead, (for the Pope's Absolution from his Oath could not keep him alive) Edward the Second Succeeds him, who not only took his Coronation Oath, and kept it not; but likewise before his Coronation, in Regard the Lords threatened they would hinder it, unless according to his Father's Will, who had Commanded him to Banish Pierce Gaveston, he would do the same; he Solemnly swore, That if they would not Dispute his Coronation, but rest quiet till the next Parliament, he would Banish him as they desired. And likewise after, in the Third year of his Reign, being further pressed and importuned, consented at last that the Parliament should draw Articles of Agreement between him and the People, of whatsoever was necessary for the good of the Kingdom, and he would ratify the same upon Oath; who thereupon Elected divers Choice Men, both of the Clergy, Nobility, and Commons, to Compose those Articles; which done, the Archbishop of Canterbury, with the rest of his Suffragans, solemnly pronounce the Sentence of Excommunication against all such who should Contradict those Articles which are there Publicly read, before the Barons and Commons of the Realm, in the Presence of the King, amongst which, the Observation and Execution of Magna Charta is required, with all other Ordinances, necessary for the Church and Kingdom: And that as the late King had done, all Strangers should be Banished the Court and Kingdom, and all Evil Counfellors removed. That the Business of the State should be treated of by the Counsel of the Clergy, and the Nobles. That the King should not begin any War, or go any way out of the Kingdom without the consent of the Common Council of the same, Dan. Hist. 205. which Articles and others, though they seemed harsh to the King; yet to avoid further Trouble, he yielded to them, and Ratified them on Oath; but especially to the Banishment of his Minion Pierce Gaveston, who being a Gascoigne was a Stranger, intended by the Articles to be Banished, 
Strangers, some to be Banished from Court.  though not under the same Suspicion as other French, their Countrymen, who have generally when entertained in Court by the English Kings, been Evil Councillors to them, to Imitate the French Arbitrary Power and Persidiousness over their Subjects, and to breed Division between the King and People, to prepare the Kingdom to be a Prey to their own French Masters, 
Stranger at Court Spies.  whose Leidger Spies and Intelligencers they hear, have usually been entertained at the Cost of the English Kings against themselves; none can therefore doubt but King Edward the First, the Father of this King Edward the Second, did Nobly and Wisely in Banishing all Strangers from his Court, and left the same Command on his Son. And more particularly concerning this Gaveston, though he not only broke in this the Command of his dead Father; but his Oath to his Loving Subjects, which was his Ruin; for his entertainment of French Counsels endamaged his English Subjects, and his nearest French Relation Isabel his own Queen perfidiously by the help of her Brother the French King, raised a Rebellion here of his own Subjects against him, which caused him to be Deposed from his Kingdom, and shortly after to be Murdered in an hideous manner in Barckly Castle.  
So here are four Kings, Great Grandfathor, Grandfather, Father and Son all Papists; all Confirming and Breaking Magna Charta, and their Oaths, and their Subjects to whom they have broken them have been all Papists, 
Magna Charta no less than Thirty times Sworn or confirmed, and forsworn or broken by Papist Kings to Papist Subjects.  and the same Papist Religion gives no Mutual obligation of an Oath, though to Men of the same Religion; Yea, this Magna Charta of Liberties hath been Thirty times Confirmed by King and Parliament, while the Papist Religion lasted; which shows the Oath hath been more than Thirty times broken, by some or other of their Papist Princes; for otherwise it would not need so many new Confirmations and Oaths. In the Protestant Religion it is held, That once forsworn, ever-forlorn; In the Papist it appears, he is not so thought, though Thirty times forsworn; but he may still swear and forswear, and begin again anew, as many times as he will; were it not therefore more secure for the Papist himself to Covenant with a Protestant Successor, who dares not break his Oath, lying under so great a Penalty of Conscience than with a Papist, who makes Perjury not to be Penal, and whose Religion itself teaches the wicked Doctrine of Lysander, that Children ought to be deceived with Promises, and Men with Oaths? for what Commerce or Humane Society can there be had with those who will keep neither? whether they be Kings or Subjects, or of what Degree or Religion soever they be?  
(2.) Seeing a Papist Successor can be obliged by no Contract or Oath, 
Only two ways of Succession, Contract or Conquest.  therefore he cannot Succeed by Contract. And if he Succeed not by Contract, than he will Succeed by Conquest; for there are but two ways of Succession, either by Contract, or by Conquest. And if he Succeed therefore by Conquest, such Power he will say 'tis Diis aequa Potestas, Deus est Imperator in Coelis, and Imperator est Deus in Terris Jure Divino, is above all Humane Laws; he will therefore be Lawless, and no Law shall be but his Will. But a Protestant Successor claims only to the Rule, according to Laws agreed and assented to by the Subjects themselves, by their Representative in Parliament. Can any Sober Papist deny it is not better to have his equal Laws, than as a Slave to be destroyed at Pleasure, by a cruel, unjust, and lawless Will, as they are generally by their Princes in all Catholic Countries?  

Further Examples of the Perfidiousness of Papist Princes to Papist Subjects.  

Henry the Fourth, a Papist King, forswore himself to papist Subjects.  HEnry the Fourth was a Papist, and a Violent Enemy against the Wicklenite Protestant's, yet perfidious to his own Papists too; as appears Truss. Hist. fo. 73. there are Articles made against him, and the first of them is, That when he returned from his Exilement, he made Faith only to Challenge and Recover his Inheritance and his Wives; and not to intermeddle with the King, nor with his Crown: by reason of which Oath, divers Loyal and good Subjects to King Richard resorted unto him, not having any Treasonable intent; but after when he saw his Powers so much increased that he might do what he pleased, he wickedly broke his Oath, and without any Right, or colour like Right, procured himself to be made and Crowned King.  
Another Article was, That no Justice could be expected from his hand; because that contrary to the Oath he had taken when he was Crowned he had by Letters sent into sundry Shires, thereby procured certain Burgesses of the Parliament, & Knights of the Shire to be Chosen, whom he knew would not fail to serve his turn, as occasion should be offered. Here we see is a Papist King, and Papist Subjects, and he takes an Oath to them concerning the greatest Liberty the Subjects can enjoy; which is, the free Election of their Representative in Parliament; yet this Papist King breaks this very. Oath, not only to his Papist Subjects, but to that very party who were of his own party, and Crowned him.  

Richard Duke of York, a papist Subject, forswore himself to Henry the Sixth, a papist King.  Henry the Sixth, and Richard Duke of York, were both Papists, and the Duke of York took his Oath of Allegiance to King Henry. After taking King Henry Prisoner, He Calleth a Parliament in the King's Name; by which Parliament terrified by the Duke's Sword, it was agreed and Enacted, That Henry during his Life should retain the Name and Honour of a King, and that the Duke of York should be proclaimed Heir Apparent to the Crown, and Protector to the King's Person, his Land, Dominions, and Country. And that if at any time King Henry's Friends, Allies, Favourites in his behalf, should attempt the Disannulling this Act, that then the Duke should have present possession of the Crown. No sooner was the Parliament Dissolved, but the Duke by virtue of his Protectorship, esteeming himself a King in Office and Power, though not in Name, dispatcheth Letters to the Queen, the Duke of Somerset, Exeter, and other Nobility, who were then in Scotland, with all speed to repair to his presence at London; they knowing their own Security, lay only in keeping out of his Power, marched towards him, but Guarded with an Army of Eighteen thousand Men, and met him at Wakefield, who had there but a small Army of Five thousand to oppose them, on whose Valour notwithstanding the Duke relying, and though advised by his Council to forbear Fight till his Son the Earl of March could bring up his Forces to join with him; yet the Pride of his former Victories make him deaf to good Advice; and therefore rashly joined 〈◊〉, whereby he hastened his own Destiny, and was Slain on the place, with Three thousand of his Men; after which Overthrow of the Father, his Son the Earl of March and his Confederates having overthrown the Queen's Army at the Battle of Mortimor's Cross, and fought the Battle of St. Alban, and the Earl of Warwick's Forces joined with him, is proclaimed King; but before he could be Crowned he was forced to Fight again with another Army, which King Henry had raised in the North; which Battle continued doubtful with eager Resolution on both Sides the space of Ten hours, whereby there were above Six and thirty thousand Men Slain, Bak. Hist. 203. But in the end, the Day fell to Edward, and the King flying to Barwick, and her Son to France, Edward is Crowned King; but after Disobliging the Earl of Warwick, he leaves Edward, and endeavours to restore again the Title of Henry the Sixth, and removes him out of the Tower, where he had been a Prisoner almost Nine years, and Restores him his Crown, and all Imperial Ornaments and Officers, and King Edward is proclaimed an Usurper, and all his partakers Traitors, which forced King Edward to fly to the Duke of Burgoign his Brother-in-Law, who had Married his Sister; but Warwick sending Forces over to Calais, to Infest the Dominions of Burgoign for Entertainment of Edward; Burgoign being sensible of the storm likely to fall on him, wisely so wrought, that he made a Truce with King Henry, 
The Duke of Burgoign a Papist Ally, forswore himself to Henry the Sixth, a Papist King.  and Ratisied it by Oath, that he would give no Aid to his Brother-in-Law Edward against him. Yet this Oath he immediately broke, and underhand furnished him with Eighteen tall Ships, Two thousand Dutchmen, and Fifteen thousand Florins of Gold. Here may be seen what little Trust can be had by an English Papist Prince to the Oath of a Foreign Papist Prince, though he pretend the common Obligation of the same Religion. See here the next Example, how little a Papist King can trust the Oath of a Papist Subject, or a Papist Subject him. After the Second Battle at St. Alban between the Queen and the Forces of Edward Earl of Marsh, the Nobles who in outward show before seemed for the King, withdrew themselves from Attending his Person, and the Lord Bonvile coming in a Complimental manner to the King, saying, It grieved him to leave his Majesty; 
Henry the Sixth a Papist King, broke his Promise to two Papist Subjects, to the loss of their lives.  but Necessity for the Safeguard of his Life enforced it: But at length he was importuned, and Sir Thomas Kyviel likewise by the King to stay, he passing his Royal Word that their stay should not endanger their Bodies; upon which promise they stayed, but to their cost, for such was the implacable Fury of the Queen, that hearing Baron Thorp was by the Commons Beheaded at Highgate, she the day after the Battle being Ash-Wednesday, caused both their Heads to be struck off at St. Alban. Truss. Hist. 172.  
If so Saintlike a Papist King, or his Queen for him, broke his word to those of his own Religion, what is to be expected from them who openly appear in the shape of the Father of Lies, and care not for Transforming so much as in show to Saint or Angel.  
As the Duke of Burgoign had contrary to his Oath aided Edward with a Fleet, Men, and Money against Henry the Sixth; so he himself coming over, and Landing at Ravenspur in Yorkshire, finding but cold Entertainment, and having marched to York, and finding as little Expression of Welcome, he fell on the old Popish shift of swearing and forswearing. 
Edward the Fourth, a Papist King forswore himself, though he took the Sacrament on it to Papist Subjects.   
He therefore swore deeply, and took the Sacrament upon it that he came not to disturb King Henry, but only to recover his own Inheritance, and for the more show thereof, he wore an Estritch Feather, Prince Edward's Livery; which Proposition seemed so reasonable, that many who resisted him before, were as ready to assist him now, both Sides seeking to make London their Friend; to which end, the Earl of Warwick sends to his Brother the Archbishop of York to Labour in it with the City, to continue their Fidelity to Henry their King; which he did accordingly, but could not get above Seven or Eight thousand Men, a small proportion to withstand King Edward. Comines and Bodin make the Reason why the Citizens were rather inclinable to bring Edward to be, because he owed the City great Debts; and if he should miss, they should lose their Debts. Others add another Reason to be, Because Edward had been kind to many of the Citizen's Wives, who importuned their Husbands to receive him; but whatever were the cause the Archbishop of York, so much doubted of the effect of their being Faithful, that he sent secretly to Edward, to desire him to receive King Henry into his Grace, which on promise of being Faithful thereafcer, he obtained; and thereupon the Archbishop delivered King Henry into King Edward's hands.  

Edward the Fourth contrary to his Promise, suffers Henry the Sixth to be Murdered.  So here Edward a Papist King, promiseth Henry a Papist King, on the greatest Consideration one King can give to another, the Delivery of his Person into his Competitors hands, that he will not hurt him in his Custody; yet after he Commands or Suffers him to be Murdered in the Tower by his Brother the Duke of Gloucester, where he was Imprisoned.  

A Papist Successor will give no Liberty of Conscience to Papist Subjects.  (3.) A Papist Successor will not give Papists themselves Liberty of Conscience, insomuch as a Thought. But will force the Conscience, either by Imprisonment, Inquisitions, Racks, or Tortures falsely to accuse itself, or by Compulsion to Oaths or External Forms and Ceremonies of Worship to betray itself to the Injust punishment of Penal Laws and Statutes. 
He will exercise the Cruelty of the Inquisition on Papists themselves.  How little the Papist Inquisition spare their own Papists, though they have not the least exception against them for their Religion, may in part appear by the following Story.  
Father Ephraim a Friar Capuchin, was Born at Anxerre in France, and was Brother of Monsieur Chateaude Boys, Councillor of the Parliament of Paris; Father Ephraim was Learned in the Languages, and of as great Diligence, Learning, Eloquence and blind Zeal in Preaching up the Papist Religion as the best of them. And to spread the same, he Traveled to the Indies, and was there entertained at Bagnabar by the Check, who had Married the eldest of the Princesses of Golconda, and he Promised to build him an House, and a Church, gave him an Ox, and two Men to carry him to Maslipatan, where he stayed to Embark for Pegu, according to the order of his Superiors; but finding no Vessel ready to set Sail, the English drew him to Madrespatan, where they have a Fort called St. George, and a General Factory for every thing that Concerns the Countries of Golconda, Pegu, and Bengala; they over-persuaded him that he might reap a fairer Harvest in this place, than in any other part of the Indies; to which end they built him a very neat House and a Church. Madrespatan is but half a League from St. Thomas, a Sea-Town on the Coast of Cormandel, where was a very great Trade, especially for Calecots, and a very great Number of Merchants and Workmen lived there, the greatest part whereof desired to Inhabit at Madrespatan with the English; but that there was no Place for them to Exercise their Religion. But when the English had Built a Church, and persuaded Father Ephraim to stay, many of the Portugueses quitted St. Thomas, by reason of the frequent Preaching of Father Ephraim, and his great Care as well of the Natives, as of the Portugals, and in regard he spoke both the English and Portugese Languages perfectly well, which caused so great Envy in the Clergy of St. Thomas Church, that they resolved to ruin him, and laid their Plot thus. The English and Portugueses being so near Neighbours, could not choose but have several Quarrels one with another; and still Father Ephraim who was in great Reputation with both, was applied to for Composing their Differences.  
Now one day, the Portugueses quarrelled on purpose with some English Mariners that were in St. Thomas Road, and the English came by the worst: The English Precedent resolving to have Satisfaction for the Injury, a War broke out between the two Nations, which had Ruined all the Trade of that Country, had not the Merchants on both side been very diligent to bring things to an Accommodation, not knowing any thing of the wicked contrivance of particular persons against Father Ephraim. All the Interposition of Merchants availed nothing, the Friar must be concerned in the Affair, he must be the Mediator to Act between Party and Party, which he readily accepted.  
But he was no sooner entered into St. Thomas, but he was seized by Ten or Twelve Officers of the Inquisition, who shipped him away in a Frigate that was bound at the same time for Goa. They fettered and manacled him, and kept him Two and twenty Days at Sea, before they would once let him put his foot on shore, though the best part of the Mariners, lay ashore every Night: When they came to Goa, they stayed till Night before they would Land Father Ephraim, to carry him to the Inquisition-House; for they were afraid if they should Land him in the Day, the People should know of it and Rise in Rescue of a Person who was in Veneration over all India.  
The News was presently spread abroad in all Parts, that Father Ephraim was in the Inquisition, which very much amazed all the Frenchmen; but he who was most surprised and troubled at it was Friar Zenon the Capuchin, who had been formerly Father Ephraim's Companion; who after he had consulted his Friends, resolved to go to Goa, though he were put into the Inquisition himself; for when a Man is once shut up there, if any one have the boldness to speak to the Inquisitor, or to any of his Counsel in his behalf, he is presently put into the Inquisition also, and accounted a greater Offender than the other; neither the Archbishop nor Viceroy themselves dare Interpose, though they are the only two Persons over whom the Inquisition hath no Power; for if they do any thing to offend them, they presently writ to the Inquisitor General and his Counsel in Portugal, and as the King and the Inquisitor General Commands, they either proceed against, or send these two great Persons into Portugal.  
Yet Father Ephraim Reports, These high and proud Inquisitors and their Counsel are very Ignorant Fellows, which he found when they put him to Question, and so saith he did not believe that any of them had ever read the Scripture; but the more fit they are to be the Butchers in these Bloody and Inhuman Cruelties they Practise. Monsieur de Chateau Des Boys, Father Ephraim's Brother complained to the Portugal Ambassador, who presently wrote to the King his Master to send a Positive Command by his first Ship thither, that Father Ephraim should be Discharged; The Pope himself also wrote, 
The Inquisition regards neither Pope nor King.  Declaring that he would Excommunicate all the Clergy of Goa, if they did not Set him at Liberty: But all this signified nothing, for still they kept Father Ephraim in such Duress in a blinded Dungeon, with a Window Barred with Iron but half a foot square, that he lost thereby the Sight of one of his Eyes. And if an Indian King had not relieved him more than the Pope or King of Portugal were able to do, he had been there Destroyed; for the King of Colconda, who was at Wars with the Raga of Carnatica, and his Army lay round about St. Thomas, on Complaint to him of the Injustice by the Inquisition to Father Ephraim, sent order to his General Mirgimola to lay Siege to the Town, and put all to Fire and Sword unless the Governor would make him a firm Promise that Father Ephraim should be set at Liberty within two Months; which so alarmed the Governor and Town, that they suddenly got him to be set at Liberty at Goa. Tavernier Lib. 1. Part 2. cap. 15. p. 85.  
If therefore the Pope and a Papist King, were not able, or dared not Protect one of their own Religion, and Orders against the Injustice of the Inquisition; much less will a Papist Successor be able to do it. And if both Pope and Papist King were not able to defend a Papist Priest, much less will they the Lay-Papist, as to whom they are so Terrible, that as is the common Story, One of the Lord Inquisitors having a mind to some pleasant Pears in a Countryman's Orchard, Sent to have him come to him, to buy or beg some of his Pears, which put the Man in such a fright, that he Digged up the Tree, Root and all, and carried the same with all the Fruit on it to his Lordship; and when he demanded the reason of that Unhusbandly action, he told him, He would never keep that thing in his House which should give any of their Lordships a further occasion to send for him.  
But it will be the Interest of a Protestant Successor, neither to punish Papist or Protestant for Conscience; neither to Compel Papist or Protestant to Faith, or form of Worship, nor to impose Penalties for Recusancy in either, 
Lay-Papist not to be debarred any thing a Protestant enjoys, excep Public Offices.  nor to debar the laypapists from any thing from whence the Protestants are not equally debarred, except Public Offices; of which the Reasons are at large shown before, Lib. 2. p. 401, 402, etc. for as to Idols and Mass, the Protestant ought to be debarred as well as the Papist.  
(4.) It is a great benefit to all laypapists to be protected and freed from the intolerable Exactions and Cheat of Money from them by their Priest, particularly for Offerings to Images, for Confessions, Penances, Absolutions, for Baptisms, Confirmations, Marriages, Extreme Unctions, Places of Burials, Dirges, Masses, Pardons, Redemption from Purgatory, all Inventions of their Priest to Cheat them, their Wives, Children, and Families from Generation to Generation, of what should pay their Debts, and find their Fatherless Children Food and Raiment; as likewise from all the Military and Civil Taxes, Tributes, and Payments they unknown to the Protestant, exact from them, and exhaust their Estates, all which a Protestant Successor will free them from; but a Papist will increase upon them.  
(5.) If a Papist Successor happen, all laypapists living within the four Sees, will be Compelled to prostitute their Wives and Daughters, to the Priest in Auricular Confessions, to have their Nakedness discovered, their Estates purloined, the Secrets of their Houses, and oftentimes their Lives betrayed to their Enemies, and they shall be compelled to submit to the false Certificate of the Insolent Priest to disinherit their True and Natural Children, and Heirs, and to appoint false and adulterous Heirs, and fils de Prestre to Succeed to their Inheritances, and no Probation shall be admitted to the Contrary, from which more than Pagan slavery, a Protestant Successor will free them; but never a Papist.  
(6.) If a Papist Successor happen, all laypapists shall Suffer for every one Offence two Punishments, and shall pay all Fees, Fines, Taxes, and Tributes double, one to the Pope and his Officers, the other to the King and his Officers; one to the Spiritual Court, another to the Temporal Court. It is said of the Ass in the Fable, That when he was let out of the Camp where his Master was, to Graze, he was admonished by his fellow Ass, not to go too near another Camp which was in sight of them, because that was the Enemies: To which the other answered, If the Enemy took him, he would lay no worse Burdens on him than his Master did; therefore it mattered not which he went nearest.  
A Lay-Papist therefore (though the pampered Papist Priest persuade him otherwise) would show less Discretion than that gross-headed Animal; should he not less fear to be in the Camp of a Protestant Successor, though the supposed Enemy, who would Load him but with half the Burden of his Master, than to be in the Camp of a Papist Successor, though his Master who will assuredly lay double the Punishment and double the Burden on him which a Protestant will do, whose Camp will be like the Camp of Alexander the Great, where the Persians found as courteous entertainment as the Macedonians. And he used to say, He would be the Common Father, and his Camp should be the Common City of the World.  

Dominicans and Jesuits.  (7.) If a Papist Successor happen, he will either favour the Jesuits and their followers, or the Dominicans and their followers; if he favour the Jesuits, the Dominicans will be ruined; if he favour the Dominicans, the Jesuits will be ruined; and so consequently the Lay-followers of both. Again, If a Papist Successor happen, 
Guelphs and Gibellins.  he will either favour the Guelphs or the Gibellins, the one being for the Papal, the other for the Regal Supremacy; if he favour the Guelphs, the Gibellins will be ruined; if he favour the Gibellins, the Guelphs will be ruined. Were not the Lay-Papist better have a Protestant Successor, who will free them from both these sorts of Botefe● Papist Priests, who set their own Papist Flock to tear one another, that they may pray on both? Were it not more wise for the Lay-Papist to do with their Guelphs and Gibellins as Bodin saith they did in all the Cities of Italy, where these two Factions raged? namely, to Elect Strangers for their Magistrates, Judges who were neither Guelphs nor Gibellins, of all which Miseries which will assuredly be imposed and continued on them by their Priests and Princes, whom no Covenant-Oath, or Sacred Obligation of Conscience can tie, if they happen to fall into the hands of a Papist Successor.  
Let all laypapists therefore but seriously consider if it be not more happy for them to be freed by a Protestant Successor, 
Lay-Papist to be Prohibited nothing, from whence a Protestant is not Prohibited, except Public Offices.  than enslaved to them by a Papist. Let them but consider, whether it is not better for them to be permitted to them by the Protestants, the same Liberty from all penal Laws, Taxes, Tributes, Oaths and Tests, as Protestants have themselves, than to have the same taken from both by a Papist Successor? It will be the Interest of a Protestant Successor to prohibit the Lay-papist no other Idols, no other Priests, no other Sacrifice, no other Offences, Recusancies, Crimes, Arms, Conventions, nor any thing else (except public Offices, which if really considered, are rather Burdens than Benefits in all respects, besides that of public Safety) than he prohibits equally his own Protestant Subjects. It will be the Interest of a Protestant Successor to Rule by Laws and Love; but a papist Successor will believe that it is his Interest to Rule by an Arbitrary power, and Fire and Sword.  
To Conclude, Let the Lay-papist but consider at what rate they themselves who were Papists were Ruled by H. 8. a Papist King, together with the Protestants, who hanged the one for not acknowledging him Supreme Head of the Church; and burned the other for not believing Transubstantiation; insomuch that a French Papist who came over hither and saw it, Cried out, Deus bone quomodo hic vivunt gentes, ubi suspenduntur Papistae & comburuntur Anti-Papistae? Good God (said he) what shift do people make to live here, where Papists are hanged, and Anti-papists burnt? And let them consider the more fresh example of Philip the Second of Spain, the Son-in-Law of H. 8. after his Death by Marriage with Queen Mary, for did he not Rule his Papists as well as Protestants Subjects in Holland and the United Provinces, after the same rate as H. 8. had done his here in England; for he first by Oath and Agreement, bound himself as well to his Papist as Protestant Subjects not to infringe their Laws and Liberties, nor to increase the ancient Number of their Bishops, which was but three: But he notwithstanding his Oath, endeavoured to bring in amongst them the Inquisition, increased the Number and Power of their Bishops, from three to seventeen, for every Province one, both of them destructive to their Consciences, Laws, Liberties, and Propriety, but being after a long War overthrown by the United Provinces, and their Confederates, he acknowledged them free and Sovereign States; whereby they recovered again their lost Liberties.  
And though as is noted by Sir William Temple in his Excellent Observation on the United Provinces, Cap. 5. p. 200. the Roman Catholic Religion was alone excepted by the States from the Common Protection of their Laws, making Men as they believed worse Subjects than the rest, by the acknowledging of a Foreign and Superior Jurisdiction; for so must all Spiritual Power needs be, as grounded on greater Hopes and Fears than any Civil, at least where the persuasions from Faith are as strong as from Sense; of which there are so many Testimonies Recorded by the Martyrdoms, Penalties, Conscientious Restraints and Severities suffered by infinite persons in all sorts of Religion; besides this Profession seemed still a Retainer of the Spanish Government, which was then the greatest Patron of it in the World. Yet was the Care of the States to give all Men ease in this point, who asked no more than to serve God, and save their own Souls, in their own way and forms; 
Of the great good Effects of not compelling Men to Faith or form of Worship in Holland.  which shows Protestants better than their words to Papists. That what was not provided for by the Constitutions of their Government, was so in a very great degree by the Connivance of their Officers, who upon certain constant Payments from every Family, suffer the exercise of the Roman Catholic Religion in their several Jurisdictions, as free and as easy, though not so cheap and avowed as the rest.  
This I suppose hath been the reason, that though those of this Profession are very numerous in the Country amongst the Peasants, and considerable in the Cities, and not admitted to any Public Charges; yet they seem to be a sound piece of the State, and fast-jointed with the rest: And have neither given any Disturbance to the Government, nor expressed any inclinations to a Change, or to any Foreign Powers, either upon the former Wars with Spain, or the latter Invasions of the Bishop of Munster: Of all other Religions every man enjoys the free exercise in his own Chamber, or in his own House unquestioned and unespied. And so far they appear to be free from all Penal Laws of Recusancy, and from all Penal Oaths, and Penal Tests to rack and punish the Conscience, That as the same Author farther mentions, p. 205 it is hardly to be imagined how all the Violence and Sharpness which accompanies the difference of Religion in other Countries, seem to be appeased and softened here by the general freedom which all Men enjoy, either by Allowance or Convenience; nor how Faction or Ambition are thereby disabled to colour Ambitious and Seditious Designs with pretences of Religion, which have cost the Christian World so much Blood, for this last Hundred and fifty years. No man can here Complain of Pressure in his Conscience of being forced to any public Profession of his private Faith, of being restrained of his own manner of Worship in his own House, or obliged to any other abroad; and whoever asks more in point of Religion, without the undisputed Evidence of a particular Mission from Heaven, may be justly suspected not to ask for God's sake, but his own; since pretending to Sovereignty instead of Liberty of Opinion, is pretending the same in Authority, to which consists chief in Opinion. Let here any Papist show a reason why in Holland Papists do not live more happily under Protestant Laws, 
Papists in Holland live more happily under Protestant Governors, than ever they did before under Papists.  and Protestant Governors, than they did there under King Philip, or here in England, under Hen. 8th. who were Papist Governors, and their Episcopal Jurisdiction; and then he may pretend a Papist Successor better than a Protestant.   

Of Destruction inevitable to Protestants, if the Assuming the Crown by a Papist Successor Male, is not prevented by the King and Parliament, by declaring a Protestant Successor.  
IT is already shown how dangerous a Papist Successor is to Papists themselves, though there were no other reason in it; but that 'tis impossible to lay any Obligation of Conscience on him, or of Promises, Covenants or Oaths: But if it be dangerous to Papists, it must needs be totally destructive to Protestants; if he will break Oaths to his own Papists, what will he do to those whom he calls Heretics and Protestants?  
The Doctrine of his Bishops and Priests is sufficiently known, that Fides non est servanda cum Haereticis, and the horrid Practics of that Diabolical Doctrine against Protestants, is fit to be writ in Blood than in Ink, and the number of Protestants destroyed by the Papists perjury are innumerable; and to touch farther on the same principles, it is to be noted, That the Pope and his Cardinals have this Proverb, Mercatorum est non Regum stare Juramentis. It is for Merchants and not for Kings to keep their Oaths. Pope Vrban the Second made an ungodly Decree, That an Oath is not to be kept with an Excommunicated person, Let all the Protestants of England consider by what Oath they think to bind a Papist Successor, who have stood Excommunicated by the Pope from Generation to Generation; an Oath on a Papist, is like a Collar on a Monkey, which they will as easily slip; which makes Pascentius scoff at the Invention of the Oath of Allegiance for Men of his Religion: All which shows that his Holiness, his Cardinals and Jesuits, are in the Judgement of the Judicious Poet all Atheists.  
Sunt qui in fortunae jam casibus omnia ponunt,  
Et nullo credunt mundum Rectore moveri  
Natura volvente vices & lucis & anni,  
Atque ideo intrepide quaecunque altaria tangunt.  
And these are the Men according to Aristophanes, Queis nec fides nec ulla firma Pactio est, Minthanes the Persian General charged the like on the Romans, that Romans promittere promtum est, promissis autem quamquam Juramento firmatis minime stare.  
Anno 1308. The Pope promised the French King Aid to obtain the Empire, but underhand writ and wrought all he could against him. Naucler Francis the First, the French King, bound himself by an Oath to the Emperor Charles the Fifth for performance of Articles; but for Money he easily obtained from Pope Clement the Seventh, an Absolution from his Oath. Sigismond the Emperor, having granted Letters of Safe Conduct unto John Hus, and Jerome of Prague, but by the Bishops of the Council of Constance, who decreed that no Faith was to be kept with Heretics, he was persuaded to break his Faith, and cruelly to Burn those Martyrs, after which time the said Emperor never prospered in any thing he took in hand, he died without Issue Male, and his Daughter's Son Ladislaus died also Childless, whereby in one Age his name was quite extinct, and his Empress became a dishonour to the Royal place she held, and God's Judgements justly followed him for his Perjury.  
Philip the Second of Spain, took an Oath when he came to the Government of the United Provinces, not to increase the ancient Number of their Bishops, who were then only Three, and not to change their Church and Laws from the state wherein he found them; but the Pope and the Spanish Bishops, ruled him to break his Oath, and to add Fourteen new Bishops to the Three old, to bring in the Inquisition amongst them, to cut off the Heads of the Protestant Nobles, and Massacre the Protestant People; in part of the Execution of which, the Duke of Alva going with an Army to Naerden in Holland, was peaceably admitted into the Town, and himself and his Soldiers feasted by the Burghers; after which, he commanded them and the rest of the Inhabitants, to go into a certain Chapel, where they should be made acquainted with such Laws as they were to be regulated by; but when they thus Assembled, he sent his Soldiers to Murder them without sparing any one. The Men were Massacred, the Women were first Ravished and then Murdered, the Children and Infants had their Throats cut. Clark's Martirol. 265. like those Heathen Cruelties described by Lucan.  
Nobilitas cum plebe perit, lateque vagatur  
Ensis, & à nullo revocatum est rectore ferrum.  
Stat cruor in Templis multaque rubentia caede  
Lubrica saxa madent, nulli sua profuit aetas;  
Non senis extremum piguit vergentibus annis  
Praecipitasse diem, nec primo in limine vitae  
Infantis miseri nascentia rumpere fata:  
Crimine quo parui caedem potuere mereri,  
Sed satis est jam posse mori.  
And will any Protestants be Self-Murderers, by committing themselves to the Oaths of such a Religion, to return home from Foreign Popish perfidiousness and Perjuries to those in Great Britain; 
Queen Marry of England, most Cruel and perfidious to Protestants.  there hath been but one Papist Successor in England since the Reformation, which was Queen Mary, and she promised but perfidiously, Liberty of Conscience to the Protestants, and used their help to obtain the Crown; which perhaps if they had not afforded her, she might have miss; but as soon as she became possessed of the Royal Power; how faithlesly she broke her promise to them, is well known, and with what Cruelty incited by the Bishop's prodigious in her Sex, she delighted to see them Burning with her own Eyes; and what a Tophet she made of the Land appears in the Acts and Monuments. What eyes can behold the fiery Pictures there, or read the bloody Characters of her Butcheries without tears? And she had increased the number of them to so many, as no Volume could have contained, had not God in his Mercy sortned those days. 
Queen Marry of Scotland, and her Agents there most perfidious and cruel to Protestants.  It is known likewise Queen Mary of Scotland likewise broke Promise and Oath, the Papist Faith, and Oaths were no better kept to Protestants in Scotland, than in England; of which I shall only mention one Example of Mr. George Wischard persecuted to Death by the Bloody Cardinal Beton, as is mentioned in Buchanan, Lib. 15. rer. Scot 536. and in the History of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland, p. 48, 
Mr. George Wischard a Protestant Minister, first endeavoured to be assassinated by Cardinal Beton.  etc. Mr. Wischard was a Diligent Preacher of the Gospel, and most acceptable to the people; for which reason Cardinal Beton prohibited him to Preach, and he not desisting, he corrupting with Money a desperate Priest named Sir John Weighton to kill the said Mr. Wischard; and upon a Day the Sermon ended, and the People departing, no man suspecting Danger; and therefore not heeding the said Mr. George the Priest that was corrupted, stood waiting at the foot of the Steps, his Gown lose, and his Dagger drawn in his Hand under his Gown; the said Mr. George marked him, and as he came near, he said My friend what would you do? and therewith he clapped his hand on the Priest's hand where the Dagger was, and took it from him; the Priest abashed fell down at his feet, and being heard by other Company, they cried out, Deliver the Traitor to us, or we will take him by force, and so they burst in at the Gate; but Mr. George took him in his Arms, and said, Whosoever troubles him, shall trouble me; for he hath hurt me in nothing, but hath done great Comfort to you and to me; to wit, he hath let us understand what we may fear, in time to come we will watch better.  
The Gentlemen of the West had written that Mr. George should meet them at Edinburgh; for they would require Disputation of the Bishops, and that he should be publicly heard, whereto he willingly agreed. 
He lays a Second Plot for the same.  The Cardinal dared not let it come to a public Dispute; therefore he Plots the second time to kill Mr. George, as the surest way to defend their Murdering Religion; and to that end he causeth a Letter to be Counterfeit in the Name of the Laird of Keimeir, Mr. Wischard's familiar Friend, which desires him with all possible diligence to come to him, for he was strucken with a sudden Sickness, and in the way lays an Ambush of Threescore Men, with Jacks and Spears to dispatch him; but this was likewise discovered, the Cardinal vexed to be twice thus disappointed in his wicked design, and got Intelligence that Mr. Wischard, lodged at the House of John Cockburne Laird of Ormeston Seven miles from Edinburgh, whereupon a Party of Horse was sent thither to demand Mr. George to be delivered them as a Prisoner, to be carried before the Assembly of Prelates at Edinburgh, the Laird made many Excuses and Spun out the time it being late, hoping to pass Mr. Wischard out at a private Postern to escape when dark, of which the Cardinal having notice by his Spies, came together which the Governor thither at an unseasonable hour of Night, and beset round all passages whereby none could escape; 
Mr. Wischard betrayed by trusting to the perfidious Faith of Earl Bothwell.  yet neither by Promises, Flatteries, or Threats could he get Mr. George delivered into his hands, till he called thither the Earl of Bothwell from his Country House which was near at hand, to whom it was agreed he should be delivered, on which the Earl gave his Solemn Faith, and Promised on his Honour, that he should be Safe; and that it should pass the Power of the Cardinal to do him any harm, and that neither the Governor or the Cardinal should have the Custody of him; but he would retain him in his own hands, and in his own House, till either he should make him free, or restore him to the same place whence he received him. But being Corrupted by the Cardinal's Gold, and by the Queen, he most perfidiously broke his Faith and Honour, and delivered him a Prisoner into the hands of his Enemies, the Prelates assembled at Edinburgh, who having got their long sought for prey, send him away to St. Andrews where the Cardinal had a Castle, as he thought Impregnable, where he was kept in hold in the Sea Tower of the same Castle, which was done in the end of January, Anno Dom. 1546. The Cardinal delayed no time, but caused all the Bishops, yea all the Clergymen who had any pre-eminence, to be called to St. Andrews against the Seven and Twentieth day of February, that Consultation might be had against this great Protestant, who had so dangerously shaken the Foundations of Babel, upon the last of February, was sent to the Prison, where Mr. George Wischard lay bound in Chains, the Dean of the Town, by Command of the Cardinal, to Summon him to be before the Judge the morrow following, to give account of his Seditious and Heretical Doctrine; upon the next morrow the Lord Cardinal caused his Servants to address themselves in their most Warlike Array, with Jack Knapscall, Splent, Spear and Axe; and when these armed Champions, marching in Warlike Order, had conveyed the Bishops into the Abbey Church, incontinently they sent for Mr. George, who was conveyed into the same by the Captain of the Castle, with the number of an Hundred Men addressed in manner aforesaid, like a Lamb lead to the Sacrifice.  
After a Sermon made by the Subprior, concerning Heresy, there stood up a Priest, who with great Revile in general, and at Random against Mr. George spat in his face, 
Mr. Wischard Appeals to an equal Judge.  and pressing him to answer, Mr. George appealed to be heard before an equal Judge. To whom the Priest replied, Is not my Lord Cardinal the second Person within the Realm, Chancellor of Scotland, Archbishop of St. Andrews, Bishop of Merepose, Commendator of Arbroth, Legatus Natus, Legatus a Latere; and so reciting as many Titles of his unworthy Honours as would have loaded an Horse. Is not he, quoth the Priest, an equal Judge? To which Mr. George answered, I desire the Word of God to be my Judge, 
Appeals to a Temporal Judge, but denied all.  The Temporal Estate with some of your Lordships to be mine Auditors, Because I am here my Lord Governors Prisoner. Whereupon the Scornful ecclesiastics who stood by mocked him saying, Such a Man, such a Judge; meaning the Nobles to be Heretics as well as he: Yet was there never a more just exception against a Judge, than that he is Judge in his own Case, and for his own Profit, for so appears all the 18 Articles they charge him with, to be no matters of Godliness; but only of gain to the Priest. They proceed next to the particular Articles against him.  

Articles of the Popish Charge against Mr. Wischard.  
ARTICLE I. THou false Heretic, Runagate, Traitor, and Thief, Deceiver of the People, despisest the Church, and in like case contemns my Lord Governor's Authority, and this we know of surety, that when thou Preachedst in Dundee, and was charged by my Lord Governor's Authority to desist: Nevertheless thou wouldst not obey, but perseveredst in the same; and therefore the Bishop of Breachen Cursed thee, and delivered thee into the Devil's hand, gave thee then Commandment that thou shouldst Preach no more; yet notwithstanding thou didst continued obstinately.  
ARTICLE II. Thou false Hertick didst say, That a Priest standing at the Altar saying Mass, is like a Fox wagging his Tail in July.  
ART. III. Thou false Heretic Preachedst against the Sacraments, saying, That there were not seven Sacraments.  
ART. iv Thou false Heretic hast openly taught, That Auricular Confession is not a Blessed Sacrament, and thou sayest, We should only confess us to God, and to no Priest.  
ART. V Thou false Heretic didst say, That it was necessary for every Man to know and understand his Baptism; which is contrary to General Councils, and the Statutes of holy Church.  
ART. VI Thou false Heretic, Traitor and Thief, Thou saidst that the Sacrament upon the Altar was but a piece of Bread, baken upon the Ashes, and no other thing else, and all that is there done, is but a Superstitious Rite, against the Commandment of God.  
ART. VII. Thou false Heretic didst say, That extreme Unction is not a Sacrament.  
ART. VIII. Thou false Heretic didst say, That Holy Water is not so good as wash and such like, thou contemnest Conjuring, and sayest that holy Churches cursing availeth nothing.  
ART. IX. Thou false Heretic and Runagate hast said, That every Man is a Priest; and likewise thou sayest, That the Pope hath no more Power than another Man.  
ART. X. Thou false Heretic saidst, That a Man had no free will, but was like to Stoics, who say, That it is not in Man's will to do any thing; but that all Desire and Concupiscence comes from God, whatsoever kind it be.   
This Charge he denied, That he taught Stoicism, or denied the Doctrine of free will.  

ART. XI. Thou false Heretic didst say, It's as lawful to eat flesh upon Friday, as on Sunday.  
ART. XII. Thou false Heretic didst say, That we should not pray unto Saints; but to God only, say whether thou hast said this or no, say shortly.  
ART. XIII. Thou false Heretic hast Preached plainly, That there is no Purgatory, and that it is a feigned thing after life to be punished in Purgatory.  
ART. XIV. Thou false Heretic hast taught plainly against the Vows of Monks, Friars, Nuns and Priests, saying, That whosoever was bound to such Vows, they vowed themselves to the state of Damnation. Moreover, That it was lawful for Priests to Marry Wives, and not to live sole.  
ART. XV. Thou false Heretic and Runagate sayest, Thou wilt not obey our General or Provincial Councils.  
ART. XVI. Thou false Heretic sayest, That it is vain to build to the Honour of God costly Churches, seeing God remaineth not in Churches made by men's hands, nor yet can God be in little space as betwixt the Priest's hands.  
ART. XVII. Thou false Heretic contemnest fasting, and sayest thou shouldst not fast.  
ART. XVIII. Thou false Heretic hast Preached openly, saying, That Souls of Men shall sleep to the latter day of Judgement, and shall not obtain life Immortal until the last day.   
He denied that he taught any such thing as the sleeping of the Soul.  
All which Articles, though an Equal Judge, a Copy of the Accusation, time to Deliberate, Friends, Books, and the Scripture itself unjustly kept from him, though mocked, baited, wearied, and kept bound in Iron, in the midst of a multitude of Enemies; yet he answered with such Patience and Power, that as is said of Stephen, Acts 6.10. They were not able to resist the Wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. 
Mr. Wischard Condemned by the Popish Bishops and Cardinal to be Burnt for an Heretic, in a Cruel manner.  But neither his Truth nor Innocency availed, the wicked Bishops condemned him to be Burnt for an Heretic, not having respect to the Judgement of God. And not long after, the Cardinal sent Two of his Hangmen to him in Prison, where he was spending his time in Prayer, one of whom put upon him a Coat of Black Linen Cloth, and the other tied about all Parts of his Body many little Bags of Gunpowder, and clothed with these Ornaments, they bring him out of his Lodgings, to an outer Room, near the Gate of the Castle, and there commanded him to stay till he was sent for: Then the Fire was made ready, and the Stake at the West end of the Castle near to the Priory, over against the place of Execution, the Castle Windows were hung with rich Hang, and Velvet Cushions, laid for the Cardinal and Prelates, who from thence did feed their Eyes with the Torments of this Innocent Man. The Cardinal dreading lest Mr. George should be taken away by his Friends, before had Commanded to bend all the Ordnance of the Castle right against the place of Execution, and Commanded all his Gunners to be ready, and stand beside their Guns, unto such time he was Burnt. All this being done, they bond Mr. Wischard's hands behind his Back, and with sound of Trumpets, led him forth with a Rope about his Neck, and an Iron Chain about his Middle, by Soldiers, to the place of their wicked and Cruel Execution, where scarce allowing him time to pray, the Trumpet sounding, he was tied to the Stake, and the Fire kindled; The Captain of the Castle, for the love he had to Mr. Wischard, drew so near the Fire to encourage him, that he was hurt by the Flame. To whom Mr. Wischard answered, The fire Torments my Body, but no way abates my Spirit. And then looking towards the Cardinal, said, He who in such state, from that High place, feedeth his eyes with my Torments, within few Days shall be Hanged out at the same Window, to be seen with as much Ignominy, as he now leaneth there in Pride. Then with this the Executioner drawing the Cord about his Neck, strangled him, and presently after, the Fire being very great, he was consumed to Ashes. Wherein contrary to the Custom of Scotland, 
Mr. Wischard Burnt alive, contrary to the Custom of Scotland.  who use not to Burn alive, but Strangle first, and Burn after when Dead; they extended the Cruelty of that Execution to two Deaths, Burning and Strangling. This was the Mercy of the Cardinal and Bishops. But Blood cries for Blood. And as Buchanan goes on, p. 540. Hac Sacerdotum supra modum Luxuriante Victoria, non promiscuum modo Vulgus sed plaerique genere & opibus illustres magis irritati quam fracti, rem cò sua segnitie rediisse indignabantur, ut praeceps aliquid cum periculo esset audendum, aut omne cum Ignominia foret patiendum. Jam etiam pluribus & apertiùs Erumpentibus vi doloris querelis, de Cardinale tollendo coire, & ad Libertatem recuperandam aut vitam projiciendam hortari. Quam enim spem dignitatis reliquam fore sub arrogantissimo Sacrisiculo, Eodemque Tyranno Saevissimoque, bello adversus deum hominesque suscepto, non inimicis modo id est qui aut rem haberent aut pietatem colerent; sed quocunque esset leviter offensus, eum velut pecus exhara suae libidini mactaret? Quin publicè Bellum &  & Externum alat, privatim meretricum amores Nuptiis copulet, nuptias Legitimas pro arbitrio Dirimat, Domi cum scortis volutetur; foris in Caede innoxiorum & sanguine debaccaretur. In this so over Luxuriant Victory of the Prelates not only the promiscuous Vulgar, but many Illustrious in Nobility and Wealth, more irritated than discouraged, began to disdain Affairs should run to that pass by their sloth, that either something must be desperately dared headlong, or they must Ignominiously suffer all that should be laid upon them. Now also many their Complaints by Violence of their Griefs more openly breaking out, concerning taking away of the Cardinal, met together and exhorted one another either to recover their Liberty, or lose their Lives. For what hope of Esteem could they ever have under a most Proud Priest, and Cruel Tyrant, who fight both against God and Men, drew not only his Enemies, whom he accounted all that were Rich or Religious, or any other who in the least manner displeased him, as Beasts from a Sty, to be Sacrificed to his Lust, who when he pleased raised publicly both Foreign and Civil Wars, privately Coupled Whores in Matrimony, and what was Lawful Marriage destroyed at pleasure, at home wallowed amongst Whores, and abroad in the Blood of Innocents'. Norman Lesly, the Son of the Earl of Rothes, having had a Quarrel with the Cardinal, concerning a Promise which the Cardinal had made and broke to him, resolved to be revenged, and entered into Confederacy with others to effect the same; and to that Intent, to prevent all Suspicion, rid himself with only Five Companions to St. Andrews, and lay at his usual Inn; there were only Ten more in the Town of the same Confederacy, who waited only for Notice from Norman, when they should join in the Attempt intended, with so small a Company, being in all but Sixteen, in a Town full of the Cardinal's Creatures, did he dare do such an Exploit as follows; and though many purposes were devised how the wicked Cardinal might have been taken away; yet all failed but this. The Cardinal with mighty Diligence fortified his Castle, and employed many Workmen therein; 
The Surprisal of Cardinal Beton's Castle.  on Saturday Morning the 29th of May, the Days in that Country being very long, Norman Lesly, John Lesly, William Kirkaldies', and others, were in sundry Companies in the Abbey Church-yard, not far distant from the Castle, when the Gates being open, and the Draw-bridge let down to receive Lymestones, and other things necessary for Building, William Kircaley with Six Persons getting entry, kept talk with the Porter, and asked if my Lord Cardinal were stirring, who answered No, which was true enough; for he had been busy with Mrs. Marion Ogleby that Night, who was espied to departed from him by a Privy Postern that Morning, which made the Cardinal sleep the longer. While William and the Porter talked, and his Servants looked to the work and workmen, Norman Lesly came in with his Company, and immediately came John Lesly somewhat rudely, and four Persons with him; the Porter fearing, would have Drawn the Bridge, but the said John being thereon stayed it, and kept in; And while the Porter made him for Defence, his Head was broken, the Keys taken from him, and he cast into the Ditch; and so that place was seized. The shout riseth, the Workmen to the Number of more than an Hundred ran off the Walls, and were without hurt put forth at the Wicket. The first thing that was done, William Kircaldy took the Guard of the Privy Postern, fearing lest the Fox should have escaped; then went the rest to the Gentleman's Chambers, and without violence done to any Man, put Fifty Persons more out at the Gate. The Number which did all this was but Sixteen Persons. The Cardinal wakened with the shouts, asked from his Window, what meant that noise? It is answered, That Norman Lesly had taken his Castle; which understood he ran to the Postern, but perceiving the Passage to be kept without, he returned quickly to his Chamber, took his two-handed Sword, and caused his Chamberlain to cast Chests, and other Impediments to the Door. In the mean time comes John Lesly to it, and bids open, but the Cardinal requiring first Conditions before he would open, and the Door being very strong, John Lesly cried, Fire, Fire, at which Call was brought to him a Chimney full of burning Coals; which being perceived, the Cardinal or the Chamberlain opened the Door it is incertain, and they without thereon rushing in, the Cardinal sat down in a Chair, and cried, I am a Priest, I am a Priest, you will not slay me. 
Cardinal Beton killed in revenge of Mr. Wischard.  Then the said John Lesly, according to former Vows he had made, struck first once or twice, and so did Peter, but James Melvin perceiving them both in Choler, withdrew them and said, This work and Judgement of God, although it be secret, it ought to be done with greater gravity. And presenting unto him the point of the Sword, said, Repent thee of thy former wicked Life; but especially of the shedding of blood of that notable Instrument of God Mr. George Wischard; which albeit the fire Consumed before Men, cries for Vengeance before God on thee. And we from God are sent to revenge him; for here before God I Protest, That neither hatred of thy Person, nor love of thy Riches, nor the fear of any Trouble thou couldst have done me in particular, moved or moveth me, to strike thee, but only because thou hast been an obstinate Enemy of Jesus Christ, his Holy Gospel; and so he struck him twice or thrice through with a Stog-Sword, and so he fell and never a word heard out of his mouth, but, I am a Priest, fie, fie, all is gone. While they were busied with the Cardinal, the Fray risen in the Town, the Provost Assembles the Commonalty, and comes to the House side crying, What have you done with my Lord Cardinal? Where is my Lord Gardinal? Have you slain my Lord Cardinal? They were first answered gently, Best it were for you to return to your own Houses, for the man you call, the Cardinal, hath received his Reward, and will trouble the World no more; But then more inragedly they cry, We shall never departed till we see him; on which, 
Shown dead from the place whence he had proudly viewed the burning of Mr. Wischard.  his Body is shown dead over the Wall, from the place, whence he had so proudly fed his Eyes with the burning of Mr. Wischard.  
So hear appears to the full the sad Story of a Pious Protestant Minister, betrayed by breach of the Faith of a perfidious Papist, to be miserably Burnt, and the Judgement of God on him who betrayed and Burnt him. And can any Protestant Minister, who is so truly in Heart as well as in Name; whoever reads the Persecutions under Emperors, and the Perfidious Murders by Popes and Papist Princes, give Faith again to a Papist Successor?  

Of the Cruelties of Popish Prelates against Protestants.  It would amaze the most barbarous Nations in the World, should they but hear of the Cruelties of Papist Priests towards Protestants; yea, those Indian and American Nations themselves, who are immediately governed by Apparitions or Oracles of the Devil, or Pontifical Magicians, inspired by him; for we do not hear in History that they burn alive any for difference in Religion, or difference in Conscience from themselves, nor put them to such Racks or Tortures, or to double Deaths of Strangling and Burning, or Strangling and Disemboweling; for the very Mexican Priests, 
They think one Death not sufficient unless it be double.  so abhorred for their Butcheries of Sacrificing their Enemies to the Sun, do only speedily cut open their Breasts, and neither Strangle nor Dismember them. The Persians in the height of their Empire, though in High Treason did only Strangle, and neither Burn, Disembowel, nor Dismember; as appears in the Example mentioned, Hist. Cap. 2.21. In those days when Mordecai sat in the King's Gate, Two of the King's Chamberlains, Bigthan, and Teresh of those who kept the Door, were wroth and sought to lay Hands on the King Ahasuerus, and the thing was known to Mordecai, who told it to Esther the Queen, and Esther, certified the King thereof in Mordecai's Name, and when Inquisition was made of the matter, it was found out; therefore they were both Hanged on a Tree. Et Cap. 7.10. Haman was Hanged on his own Gallows. So the Turk Strangles Offenders, so did the Jew, but neither Jew, Mahometan, or Pagan, Strangle and Burn, or Strangle and Disembowel, or Strangle and Dismember, or lay two kinds of Deaths on the same Person, at the same time; but those were Inventions of Papist Priests, though to the Dishonour of the Protestant Religion, in some of them their Example is too much followed; so that Papist Priests against Religion are worse than the Jew, Mahometan, Pagan, yea, than the very Indians and Americans, the Devil himself; for though it may be doubted whether he exceed them in good Nature, Truth, and Honesty; yet 'tis clear he doth in Wit, not to draw the Infamy of so much Cruelty and Perjury on his Kingdom, as they do on theirs.  

Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, was Cruelly Burnt by the Papist Prelates.  In the Time of Henry the Fifth, Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham was censured by the Bishops, at a Synod in London, for maintaining of Wickliff's Doctrine, which was the Protestant Religion; and after in a Synod at Rochester, was by the Archbishop, of Canterbury, pronounced to be an Heretic, and the same Archbishop, then Enacted by Decree, That the Scripture should not be Translated into English. But some mark it as a Judgement of God upon him, That his Tongue both the Root and Blade swollen so big, that he could not long speak the English Tongue with it, for the swelling hindered him from swallowing his meat; whereby he was at last starved, and miserably died.  
In the mean time, Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham presents his Belief to the King himself in Writing, who being then a Papist, and ruled by the Bishops, they supplying him with great Sums of Money, refused it, and suffered him to be Condemned for an Heretic, and Committed to the Tower of London, whence making an Escape, The King promised a Thousand Marks to any that should bring him; But the Protestant Doctrine of Wickliff, was then so much favoured by the People, that he continued 4 years after undiscovered, till at length being taken on the Borders of Wales, he was brought to London, where he was Drawn from the Tower to St. Giles' Fields, 
The Prelate's thought Phalaris Brazen Bull not sufficient Torment for a poor Protestant. Mrs. Anne Askew first racked, tortured, and her bones distorted, and then Burnt.  and there Hanged in a Chain by the Middle, and afterwards Consumed by Fire, the Gallows and all. Bak. Hist. 177.  
Another of the Followers of Wickliff, was Burnt by the Bishop's Sentence in Smithfield in an Iron Pipe or Butt; They thought Phalaris Brazen Bull not Torment enough for a poor Protestant.  
Mrs. Anne Askew a Protestant in the time of H. 8. was Condemned by the Bishops; see herein the Romish Episcopal Mercy, they caused her, one of that weak Sex, twice to be so miserably Racked and Tortured, that her Bones thereby was so disjointed, that she was not able to go to the place of Execution, in Smithfield, whither they had Condemned her, but they carried her thither in a Chair, and set her to the Stake, and cruelly Burnt her.  
Neither doth the Cruelty of these Monsters spare the Innocent Babes any more than the Mothers. 
A Babe Burnt with the Mother.  The Acts and Monuments relate of a poor Protestant Woman great with Child, whom the Bishop had Condemned to be Burnt for an Heretic, and whilst she was Burning in the violent Flames, the Child miraculously sprang from her beyond the Fire, and might have been saved, but the cruel Executioner threw it in again to be Burnt with the Mother.  

Double deaths.  Here we see the Romish Bull with his two-horned Mitre, gores with double Deaths; Mr. Wischard, with Burning and Strangling; Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, with Hanging in Chains and Burning; Mrs. Anne Askew, with Racking, worse than Death, and Burning; And this poor Woman, great with Child, to be Burnt once herself, and a second time in her Child.  

The Cruel Massacres of Protestants of Merindoll.  How miserably have our Neighbours, the French Protestants, suffered from Cruelty of their Bishops, Inciting the Temporal Sword against them in the Massacre of Merindoll. Anno 1545. the Instrument being Minier, the Precedent of the Council of Aix; for having Condemned this poor People of Heresy: He Mustered a small Army, and set Fire to their Villages; They of Merindoll, to avoid the Flame, with their Wives and Children fled into Woods, but were there Butchered or sent to the Galleys; One Boy they took, and placed him to a Tree, and shot him to Death with Calivers. 25 who had hid themselves in a Cave, were some Stifled, some Burned.  

Of Chabriers.  In Chabriers they so Inhumanely dealt with the young Wives and Maids, that most of them died-immediately after; the Men and Women they put to the Sword, 800 Men were Murdered in a Cave, and 40 Women put together in an old Barn, and Burned, Heylin Geogr. 79.  
Anno 1655. Emanuel Duke of Savoy, caused many Cruel Massacres and Outrages, to be Committed by his Soldiers on his Protestant Subjects, in the Valleys of Piedmont, 
Of Piedmont.  for which there were Days of Humiliation kept in England, and Collections of Money made for their Relief, Bak. Hist. 644. And can the Horrid and Perfidious Massacres in the late Civil Wars in Ireland be so soon forgot, wherein as estimated no less than Two hundred thousand English Protestants, 
Of Ireland.  Men and Women, and Children were destroyed, who lived with the Irish, not suspecting the Plots of the Popish Priests, under the Trust and Faith, of a Peace made with them, which was most Treasonably by them broken.  

Of the Parisian Massacre with the horrid Perjury of the French King.  The most Horrid and Hellish Parisian Massacre, of an Hundred thousand of his Protestant Subjects, Committed by that Popish and Perjured French King, Charles the Ninth, Anno Dom. 1572. is already mentioned, and the Inhuman barbarousness of the same before, Lib. 2. Ch. 1. p. 242, 243, 244. He Swore, and Damned himself; and Swore over and over again he would Inviolably keep the League and Peace he had made with his Protestant Subjects; but when he had got them thereby to be secure, and Trust themselves in his hands, Let any see who will but take the pains to read the forementioned History of that Massacre, how he used them, for trusting of him. Let any Papist Prince or Claimant to be a Papist Successor show by which of his Gods he will Swear, 
No Papist Successor can Swear deeper.  which Charles the Ninth did not Swear and Forswear himself by, That he will give Liberty of Conscience to his Protestant Subjects. And let such Protestant Subjects as are willing to have an Hundred thousand of them, their Wives and Children Butchered with Inhuman and Barbarous Tortures, while on trust of his Oath they put themselves into his Power, give Faith to Perjury; but let them Pardon their weaker Brethren, if they are afraid to bear them Company.  
Let Papist Priests transformed into Protestant Angels of Light, Preach up blind Obedience and implicit Faith to Perjury; But let them Excuse those sheep of their Flock who know the voice of the true Shepherd, if they hear a true Protestant Pastor in another Fold. Let the true Protestant Pastor hear likewise what is said, Ezckiel 32.2. When I bring the Sword upon a Land, if the People of the Land take a man of their Coast, and set him for their watchman, If when he seethe the Sword coming upon the Land, he blow the Trumpet, and warn the People; Then whosoever heareth the sound of the Trumpet, and takes not warning, if the Sword come and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the Trumpet, and took not warning, his blood shall be upon him: but he that taketh warning, shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the Sword come, and blow not the Trumpet, and the people be not warned: if the Sword come and take away a person from among them, he is taken away in iniquity: but his blood will I require at the watchman's hands. And do the true Protestant Pashor's Sheep, 
Protestant Ministers to give the People warning against Papist Successors, or their Blood will be required at their hands.  if it should happen the Sword of a Papist Successor should be coming on the Land to act over again in Great Britain all the Murders of Protestants by the two Maries, all the Fires and Tortures on such Pious Martyrs as have been in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, England, and Scotland; All the Massacres of Merindol, Chabriers, Ireland, Piedmont, and Paris; Do they think if they should not awake, nor blow the Trumpets, nor give the People warning of the Imminent Dangers appearing of the Discoveries of their Secret Plots shown by God himself; and of the Dangers and Destructions ensue thereby, that the blood of so many Thousand Innocents' shall not be required at the hand of the Watchmen? Will this be to follow the Precept of Christ? Matth. 10.16. Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Is this to be wise as Serpents, to suffer the old Romish Serpent to thrust in his head in a Papist Successor? will he not quickly get in his Body? will this be to follow the Precept of Christ? Matth. 4.7. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. To cast down all Protestants from the Pinnacles of the Temple into the fiery furnaces of Popish Priests, the incidents necessary of a Papist Successor, and without warrant to expect God will show Miracles to deliver them thence; is not this most presumptuous wickedness, and a tempting of God, when God shows lawful means by Declaring a Protestant Successor by Act of Parliament, to prevent any Papist Successor whatsoever, with all the Train of Appurtenances of Popish Priests, and fiery Furnaces at their Tails? Let it be considered what these Popish Priests will probably most do, as long as they have hopes to advance a Papist Successor, to bring in them and all their Instruments of Superstition and Engines of Cruelty with them; Have not their Plots and Practices already discovered what they have intended; To Pistol, Poison, or Stab the Protestant King, and his Protestant  Son; To make way for a Papist Successor. 
A Papist Successor will seize on all the Protestant Treasure, Arms, Fleets, Forts, etc.  And what would a Papist Successor do? He would first seize upon all the Protestant Treasuries and Treasure, then on all the Protestant Armouries, Arms and Magazines; on all the Protestant Forts, Citadels, and Castles; on the Protestant Navy, and Land Militia. It is wonderful what mighty strength of Foot and Horse Q. Mary kept for the Train in all the Counties of England and Wales, to Oppress the Protestants ten times more than what the Protestants now keep to defend themselves against Papists; as appears 4 & 5. P. & M. Cap. 2. in rastal's Statutes, 
The incredible Provision for Arms by Papists in Queen Mary's time.  where it is Enacted, That every Person having 400 l. per annum, or above; and under the value of a 1000 Marks, shall have, find, keep, sustain, and maintain two Horses, or one Horse, and one Gelding, able for Demy-Lances, with sufficient Furniture of Harness, Steel, Saddles, and Weapons for the same, and 4 Geldings able for Light-Horsemen, with sufficient Harness and Weapons for the same; and also 20 Corslets furnished, and 20 Almain Rivets furnished; and one Stead of Almain Rivets, 20 Coats of Plate Corslets or Brigandines furnished, 20 Pikes, 15 long Bows, 15 Sheefs of Arrows, 15 Steel Caps, or Skulls, 6 Harquebuses, and 6 Morions or Salads. So the Children of this World are in their Generation wiser than the Children of Light.  
Q. Marry a Papist Successor to K. Edward a Protestant, provided it seems the proportion of above ten to one more Arms to destroy Protestants, than her Protestant Successors have to defend them; for there is now but one Horse appointed for 500 l. per annum, whereas Q. Mary sets six Horses on 400 l. per annum; besides that Mass of Foot Arms appointed in the same Statute. And though 400 l. per annum might be in those times according to the intrinsic value of Silver, more than 500 l. now; yet the proportion of Horse and Foot laid on 400 l. Land then, 
If the Protestant yield or lose Possession of Treasure or Arms, or Offices to the Papists, 'tis not to be recovered again, without a Miracle.  seems ten times more than now.  
It is further to be Considered, That by God's Mercy the Protestant is as yet Possessor of the Treasure, Militia, and all Public. Offices; and the Protestants are by the same Mercy increased and multiplied, and grown far more numerous in Great Britain, and the same Mercy hath likewise given them Victories against Papists: The Protestants have by God's Providence a Protestant King the Rightful Possessor of the Crown, whom God grant long to live: And hopes of a Protestant Successor, the next Lineal right Heir of his Blood, according to the Moral Law of God, and the Law of the Land, and the Protestant Religion. And what is likewise a singular Mercy of God, derived from a Marriage by the Moral Law of God, and contrary, and, as is hoped, inconsistent with the Ceremonial Law of Marriage and Succession, Papal or Episcopal; and therefore of a contrary Interest to them.  
To yield therefore the right of the Law of God to the Law of Man, the right of a Lineal Heir to a Collateral, to yield the Possession of a great Number to a lesser Number, of a greater power to a lesser power, of a victorious Religion to a vanquished, of a protestant Successor to a papist Successor; were not only against all Piety, but Prudence; and all Laws either of Right or Possession.  

9 The Danger of seizing Offices by the Papist or his trusties in name of Protestants.  9 How great a plunge will it put the Protestants to, who is now in possession of all public Offices, if through neglect of barring his door of Possession by an Act of Parliament, declaring a Protestant Successor, a papist Successor seeing the door left open for him should slip in; and after he hath Treasure, and Arms, should likewise seize on the Power of public Offices; For than may he make Sheriffs of Counties Papists, Mayors of Cities and Towns Papists; He would make all the Military Officers by Land and Sea Papists, Then may he cause to be chosen the greatest part of Burgesses and Knights of Shires Papists; He may make Bishops Papists, all Preachers Papists, Lords of Parliaments Papists; He may make Judges on the Woolsacks Papists, for if the Successor be a Papist, as the Supreme Officer is, so will all Inferior Officers be Papists. He may then repeal all former Acts of Parliament made against Papists, vacate all Oaths taken against Papists. The Inquisition Office of Spiritual Courts, and Excommunicato Capiendoes is ready prepared for him, and he can as easily restore the Haeretico Comburendo Office again. Did not so weak an Instrument as a Woman, even Q. Mary herself do all this and more, when once she became a Papist Successor to a Protestant King; though he had confirmed the Protestant Religion as much as possible by Acts of Parliament? How much more is a Masculine Papist Successor then to be feared, whose Designs and Accomplishments are of higher and easier Achievements than any Feminine. When he sees all this done, and the Abomination of Desolation stand in the Holy place, what will then become of the miserable Protestant, when by his own Supine Negligence, he sees himself dispossessed of Treasure, Arms, Laws, and all these public Offices, and Officers, which should under God have protected him, and the Judgement of God come upon him, for his casting away all those Lawful means, vouchsafed him of prevention of so great a Judgement. Praestat therefore Cautela quam Medela, it were a presumptuous tempting of God, for the Protestant to deliver the possession of all his Treasure, Arms, and Offices to a Papist Successor, when God hath given him Lawful means to prevent the same; for when all these things are once delivered into the hands of a Papist Successor; though God should by a Miracle send again a Protestant Successor, how difficult and dangerous a matter it it would be to get again the power out of the Papist possession, appears by the Example of Queen Elizabeth herself. For when it pleased God, to give her the Kingdom, the Alteration of Religion, 
Q. Eliz. herself not able to restore the Protestant Religion by more than six Voices, after the Papists had got Possession. Queen Eliz. not able to remove what did Protestant's more harm than Images.  from Papist to Protestant in Parliament, was carried by no greater plurality, than only of six Voices, and the Protestant party, though with a Protestant Queen in the Head of them, was able at that time to Enact no more against Popery, than only two points, viz. The Abolishing of the Mass, and the Establishing the Liturgy in the English Tongue. After, Images were likewise removed out of Churches, and broken or burnt, Bak. Hist. 350. But the High places of the Inquisition in Spiritual Courts, The Excommunication, Capiendo's and Haeretico Cumburendo's; The Romish Altars, and Ceremonies, which did Protestant's more harm than Images, she was not able to move; the Sons of Zerujah, were too hard for her; so it was an easy matter for Queen Mary, who was a Papist Successor, to lose Calais to the French, 
The Possession of Calais once lost, could not be again recovered.  which was done by King Philip's drawing out the Strength of the English Garrison Soldiers, in his Wars against other Towns, and the neglect of the Queen's Council, to send Recruits, until too late; though they had notice of a Siege intended against them. The Town of Calais, which was first taken by Edward the Third, after Eleven months' Siege, was esteemed of so high Import, that on a Treaty of Marriage by King Edward, between his Nephew Richard of Bordeaux, and Mary a Daughter of Charles the French King; Charles made an offer to King Edward to leave him Fourteen hundred Towns, and Three thousand Fortresses in Aquitain, upon Condition he would render Calais, and all that he held in Picardy. But before any thing could be concluded, King Edward died; And the Lord de Cordes a French Lord, would commonly say, He would be content to lie in Hell seven years, so that Calais were in the French Possession, Bak. Hist. 240. But it seems since they got it in possession, some of them would be content to lie in Hell for ever, if Perjury will lay them there so long. For there being, Anno Dom. 1559. in the First year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, a Treaty of Peace between her and the French King, and Commissioners of both sides to that end appointed; and the Commissioners meeting accordingly, the Chief point in difference was the Restitution of Calais; for which the English Commissioners by the Queens Appointment offered to remit Two Millions of Crowns, that by just Account were due from France to England. At last on much Altercation, it was Concluded and Agreed, 
Perjury in the French King in not restoring Calais.  That Calais should remain in possession of the French for the term of Eight years, and those Expired, it should be delivered unto the English upon the forfeiture of Five hundred thousand Crowns, for which Hostages were given: But all this notwithstanding, though the Conditions were Sealed and Sworn to, and though Hostages were assigned to remain in England till one or other were performed; yet all was frustrate, and came to nothing, Bak. Hist. 351. So little Faith is there in the Oath of a Papist Prince.  
And the same Danger will be in the delivering the possessions of Garrisons & Forts in England to Papists, or Papist Successor, though on Conditions Sworn to by them, & the same difficulty, yea, impossibility for a Protestant Successor to recover again the Possession of Treasure, Arms, Offices, Religion, Liberty, Propriety, as it is of Life itself, when once left to a papist Successor, though he take an Oath to preserve all these: By which, and all former Examples appears, That a papist Successor, if he happen to be, is of great Danger and Mischief to all laypapists themselves; but totally and inevitably Destructive to all Protestants. See other Examples of Perjury by Popes, Bishops, and Papist Princes before, Lib. 2. p. 377.  
Of the Destruction double to Protestants, if the Crown happen to fall to a Papist Successor Female; and not prevented as before.  

Destruction double to Protestants in a Papist Successor Female.  It is before spoken of the Destruction inevitable, must follow to Protestants, if a Male Papist Successor happen. But if a Female happen, it must be doubly Destructive; for she will Marry a Foreign Papist Prince; so the Protestants will be left naked, and exposed to the rage and Cruelties, both of a Papist, and a Foreign Sword. Hath not God given us already warning, fresh in Memory in the late Examples of Queen Mary of England, and Queen Mary of Scotland; one of whom Married King Philip of Spain, the other was sold by Cardinal Beton, and Married to the French Dauphin? And did not God even by Miracle, though we most unthankfully so soon forget it, Catch this Island as a Brand kindled at both ends out of the Fire, 
Protestants barred of Succession to Papists by Salic Laws, yet are not Papists barred to succeed to Protestants.  and hath he in vain given Sense, and Reason, and Strength to the Dull Protestants, so far to tempt him, and provoke his Judgement, as to cast it thither again; while the busy Papist hath barred all his Doors of Succession with his Laws against Heretics, and his Salic Laws, to exclude alike both Female and Male Protestants?    

(10.) The next Danger is, If no Successor should be Declared by the King and Parliament in regard of Foreign Princes.  

10. Danger of Foreign Princes.  That Danger is likewise very well expressed in the Statute 25 H. 8. Cap. 22. To have been the cause of great Bloodshed in this Realm, and to be one of the Causes why the King desired to declare his Successor by Act of Parliament; as appears in these words, viz. And sometimes other Foreign Princes and Potentates of sundry Degrees, minding rather Dissensions and Discord ot continue in this Realm, to the utter Desolation thereof, than Charity, Equity, and Unity; have many times supported wrong Titles, whereby they might more easily and facilely, aspire to the Superiority of the same; The continuance and sufferance whereof deeply considered and pondered, were too Dangerous and Perilous to be suffered within this Realm any longer; and too much contrary to the Unity, Peace, and Tranquillity of the same; being greatly Reproachable and Dishonourable to the whole Realm.  
The not Declaring Edgar Atheling Successor by Act of Parliament in the Life of Edward the Confessor, 
William the Conqueror let in by not Declaring Edgar Atheling Successor.  let in the Foreign pretence of William the Conqueror; which if it had been done, 'tis probable that never any Norman Invador had dared to have set his foot on English Ground.  
So 'tis probable the King of Spain had never been able to have seized on the Crown of Portugal, had not the Superstitious Portuguese enslaved their Blood Royal, to be Judged by the Papal and Episcopal Laws of Marriage and Succession, contrary to the Moral Law of God, whereby they left it in the Power of Popes or Bishops; if the Spaniard, or any other Papist Prince, would give or promise them Money, to Legitimate, or Illegitimate whom they would, and sell the Succession to the Kingdom at what rate they pleased; 
Philip the Second of Spain, seized the Crown of Portugal, by the not Declaring Don Antonio Successor.  for as appears in that Judicious Author, though Anonymus who writes The interest of Princes, p. 95. The Case was this, Henry the Third Son of Emanuel, being according to the Papal Law, Heir to the Crown of Portugal, was accordingly Crowned Anno Dom. 1578. And being an Old Man, without Children, & sensible of the Disputes would arise after his Death about the Succession, erected a Judicature to hear and Determine the several Claims pretending to the same: Of which were Five, viz.  

1. Don Antonio Son of Lewis, second Son of Emanuel.  
2. Philip the Second King of Spain, Grandchild to Emanuel, by his eldest Daughter Isabel.  
3. Philibert Duke of Savoy, Grandchild to Emanuel, by his second Daughter Beatrix.  
4. Marry Duchess of Rarma, eldest Daughter of Edward youngest Son of Emanuel.  
5. Katherine. Duchess of Brigance, youngest Daughter of Edward, youngest Son of Emanuel.   
Of the Exceptions Declinatory Don Antonio might have made to this Judicatory.  
(1.) That 'twas no Convention of Estates Elected by the People.  
(2.) That the Judges were Elected by the King, who became thereby Judge in his own Case; for King Henry was only the third Son of Emanuel, whereas Antonio's Father Lewis was second Son to Emanuel; so he being Son of Henry's elder Brother, Henry would be adjudged to restore the Kingdom to him, if the Judges were equal, and not of Henry's choosing.  
(3.) That the Pope and Bishops were inequal Judges, they assuming the only Jurisdiction of Marriage and Succession, according to the Papal Laws, who take Bribes, and Sell the Successions of the Kingdom, and so become Judges in their own Causes; as 'tis well known in the Case of the Natural Son of Henry King of Castille, who bought a Legitimation of the Pope, and thereby excluded his Brother Peter born of a Canonical Marriage, after Peter had been admitted to the Throne, and acknowledged for King divers years.  
(4.) That Pope Julius the Third put forth a Decree against the Promotion of Bastards, without the Assent of Don Antonio, or the people of Portugal, he ought not to be Judged by the Law of a Foreign Prelate, who thereby makes himself a Judge in his own Case.  
The Reasons pretended why King Henry 's Judges Adjudged Don Antonio Illegitimate.  

1. Because he was a Bastard in Reputation, but what is this to the purpose? what the vulgar think, who are Educated, and blinded in Popish Superstition, and thereby neither understand what Legitimation, or Illegitimation means; Judges of Legitimation ought to be Wise men, and not Fools.  
2. Because when Pope Julius the Third, put forth a Decree against the Promotion of Bastards, Don Antonio sued to be exempted, and thereby owned his Bastardy; and what is it to the purpose what a Foreign Pope, who ought to have no Jurisdiction in Portugal Decrees there, without the Assent of the People? or what Antonio did terrified with the superstitious fear of his Excommunications?  
3. Because Lewis his Father declared him by his last Will and Testament his Bastard Son; To which it may be said, That it was Testamentum inofficiosum, against the Law of God, and against the Law of Nature, and void; and he himself was therein worse than an Infidel, to Illegitimate him, whom in the same Testament he acknowledges to be his Son.  
4. Because Lewis never acquainted any of his Friends with his Marriage, nor told his Brother Henry in his Sickness. To which it may be said, Marriage or no Marriage, is a Matter of Law, and not of Fact; and Lewis being a Papist, understood not what it was, but according to the Papist Laws, which are contrary to the Law of God: But 'tis manifest he acquainted his Friends, and Lewis himself, with what was Marriage and what was not; according to the Law of God, viz. Carnal Knowledge of the Mother, with whom he was not Prohibited to Marry by the Law of God, and begetting Don Antonio of her; besides Henry was no Competent witness in his own Case, of what his Brother told him or not.  
5. Because the witness brought to prove the Marriage of his Mother with his Father, Confessed they were suborned thereunto. To which may be said, These Witnesses prove themselves to be Witnesses Incompetent, and are of no value; for a suborned Witness will as well Swear false in his Recantation, as in his first Testimony; It being the common practice of wicked Persons to hire Knights of the Post, to testify at first, the same which true Witnesses or other Lawful Probation have proved; and after discover they were suborned, to draw Suspicion on the true Testimony. Too much of the same wicked practices, have been to dishonour the true Evidence, hath been given against the late Horrid Popish Plotters.   
The Reasons alleged by the other Pretenders to the Crown of Portugal.  

(1.) 
Grandchild by a Daughter, and great Grandchild by a Son. Cousin Germane of the first Degree by a Daughter, and of the Second by a Son.  The King of Spain, by his Learned Lawyers alleged against the Dukes of Parma and Brigance, that he was Grandchild to Emanuel; whereas the two Dukes were great grandchildren, and he was Cousin Germane of the first Degree to Henry the present King in Possession, whereas they were only Cousin Germans of the second Degree; and so the next Degree of Consanguinity was to be preferred before a more remote Degree, and this the Civilians pretended to be a strong Argument in their Law.  
(2.) That when John the Base Son of Pedro, was Crowned King of Portugal, it was to the Injury of the King of Castille, the right being in him, as having then Married Beatrix, the Legitimate Daughter and Heir of Ferdinando King of Portugal, Legitimate Son of Pedro, and Bastard Brother to Ferdinando Father to Beatrix.  
(3.) Because Portugal was given away by a former King of Castille, in Marriage with one of his Daughters, contrary to the Law of the Land.   

Son of the eldest Daughter of the Son, and Son of the eldest Daughter of the Father.  The Duke of Parma pleaded by Farneso Bishop of Parma, That being Son of the eldest Daughter of Edward fourth Son of Emanuel, he ought to be preferred before the King of Spain, being but Son of a Daughter of Emanuel; and therefore he deriving from the Male Line, aught to be preferred before him who derives only from the Female.  

Alien, and Native Born.  The Duke of Brigance pleaded his Cause himself, and against Spain alleged the same as Parma did, and to Bar Parma, who was descended from the eldest Daughter, as himself was from the younger; Pleaded that Parma was an Alien, because an Italian, and he a Natural-born Portuguese.  
The Duke of Savoy pleaded his Cause by Charles Renero, afterwards a Cardinal; but he being descended from a younger Daughter of Emanuel, as the King of Spain was from the eldest, he was presently excluded, as having no colour of Right.  
Besides these Pretenders, Queen Catherine of France would have put in her Claim, as descended by her Mother from Alphonse; but the Claim being groundless, they denied to receive it, and so the dispute remained between the King of Spain and the two Dukes of Parma, and Brigance; But King Henry dying while the business was in hot debate, and before he had decided the Controversy, the King of Spain making himself Judge in his own Case, 
King Philip Claimed his own Kingdoms from Natural Children, but would not allow it in others.  seized on the Kingdom; which he, his Son and Grandson enjoyed, near Threescore years after.  
Had Antonio been allowed equal Judges, or the Law of God been the Rule of their Judgement, or had he been allowed to have pleaded the Law of the Land, and Custom of both Portugal or Spain, for Natural Sons to succeed the Crown, he needed not have looked for more Examples of Natural Children, than those from whom King Philip himself derived his many Spanish Kingdoms; and according to the Customs of Portugal, 
Don Antonio a Natural Son, Crowned King of Portugal.  Don Antonio was on the Death of Henry chosen, and Crowned King of Portugal, at Lisbon their chief City, till Philip sent the Duke of Alva thither with a greater Army than the Portuguese had, put Don Antonio to flight, 
Overcome by Philip, flies to England.  whom the People had Elected King, and within Seventeen Days subdued all Portugal. Don Antonio thereon flies into England, where he is kindly received of Queen Elizabeth, as descended of English Blood, and of the House of Lancaster, and having entertained him here divers years, his Title of being right Heir to the Crown of Portugal, is so far approved by the Queen and Council, 
Queen Elizabeth approves his Title as right Heir to Portugal.  and the Protestant Doctrine, That she gave leave to Sir John Norris, and Sir Francis Drake, to undertake an Expedition at their own private Charges, requiring nothing of her, but a few Ships of War, who took along with them Don Antonio, the Heir of the Kingdom of Portugal, and of Soldiers Eleven Thousand, and of Seamen about Fifteen Hundred. And setting Sail from Plymouth the Fifth day of April, they arrived at the Groin of Galizia, whereof with great Valour they took first the Lower Town, and afterwards the Higher; and after Sailing towards Portugal, they met Robert Earl of Essex, who without the Queen's leave, had put to Sea; after two days they arrive at Penycha a Town of Portugal, which they took, and left the Castle to Don Antonio. And from thence they march by Land towards Lisbon, Threescore Miles off; the Foot Companies led by Norris, whom Drake promised to follow with the Fleet, being come to the West Suburbs of Lisbon, they found no body there, but a few poor disarmed Portugals, who cried out, God save King Antonio. The day following, the Spaniards made a Sally, in which Skirmish Bret, Caresly, and Car, three stout Commanders were Slain; yet did the Earl of Essex drive the Spaniards to the very Gates of the City. And now having tarried here two Days, and no likelihood of the Portugals revolting, which Don Antonio had hoped (but was not probable, that the strict hand of the King of Spain then in full Possession on them, should give them that Liberty) finding fresh Supplies to come into the Town, their own Army Sickly, Victuals and Powder failing, and what was most of all, Sir Francis Drake not bringing the great Ordnance, as he promised; They departed from the Suburbs of Lisbon towards Caseais, a little Town, at the Mouth of the River Tagus, which Town Drake had taken this mean while; who excused his not coming to Lisbon, by reason of the Flats he must have passed, and the Castle of St. Julian Fortified with Fifty Pieces of great Ordnance. Near this Place, they found Threescore Hulks of the Hans-Towns of Germany, Laden with Corn, and all manner of Munition, which they took, as good Prize towards their Charges, in regard the Queen had forbidden them to carry Victual and Munition to the Spaniard. From hence they sailed to Virgo, a Forlorn Town by the Sea side, and Pillaging all along that Quarter, returned for England, having lost in the Voyage Soldiers and Mariners about Six thousand; yet not so much by the Enemy, as eating strange Fruit, and Distemper of the Climate; on which I shall only further observe, That Kingdoms are not so easily got again, as they are lost, and that the Disinheriting of the Natural Heir of the Crown of Portugal, was the cause of the seizure, and Conquest by the Spaniard of that Kingdom.  
Foreign Princes, when the Successor is uncertain, will stir up so many antiquated Genealogies, 
Antiquated Genealogies used to be raked up by Foreign Princes.  that every one may pretend a right to the Crown, and it hath been already mentioned, that there were no less than Five or Six to the Crown of Portugal; no less than Ten Titles Foreign and Domestic in Scotland, in the time of Basiel and Bruce; and no less than Sixteen in England before the Death of Queen Elizabeth; and how far Papist Foreign Princes will go, when they have none nearer to draw Genealogies as high as the Man in the Moon, and when they have no substance to raise the Ghosts of Titles again from their old Purgatories, nor Kif nor Kin, to the last Possessors, appears by the next Example.  

Hacket endeavours to raise a Papist Title to the Crown.  Richard Hacket, was sent from the English Fugitives beyond Sea, in the Reign of Queen Eliz. to persuade Ferdinando Stanley E. of Derby, Son to Henry newly Deceased, to assume the Title of the Kingdom of England, by right of Descent from Mary Daughter to Henry the Seventh; and threatening him unless he undertook the Enterprise, and withal concealed him the Abettor, he should shortly die in a most wretched manner: But the Earl fearing a Trap was laid for him, revealed it, and Hacket was thereon Condemned, and Executed for Treason; but this Fellow's Threaten proved not vain four Months after; for then the Earl being in the Flower of his Age, was miserably Tormented, and Vomited Stuff of a dark rusty Colour, being thought to be Poisoned or Bewitched; There was found in his Chamber, a little Image of Wax, with Hairs of the Colour of his Hair, which some thought was done on purpose that men should not suspect him to be Poisoned; his Vomit so stained the Silver Andirons, that it could never be gotten out; and his Body though put in Cere-Cloths, and wrapped in Lead, did so stink and putrify, that for long time none could endure to come near where he was Buried, Bak. Hist. 402.  
When good Correspondence between Queen Elizabeth and King James of Scotland, gave the Papists small hopes that ever he would prove an Instrument to restore the Catholic Religion, they begun thereupon to bethink themselves of some English Papist that might succeed the Queen; but finding none of their own Sect a fit Person, they fixed their thoughts on the Earl of Essex, who always seemed a very moderate Man, and him they advised to have some right to the Crown, by Descent from Thomas of Woodstock, King Edward the Third's Son. But the English Fugitives were for the Infanta of Spain, 
English Fugitives seek to se● up a Title for the Infanta of Spain, and to exclude all Protestants from the Crown.  and desiring to set the King of Scots, and the Earl of Essex at odds, they set forth a Book which they Dedicated to Essex, under the Name of Doleman; but was written indeed by Parsons (Doleman's bitter Adversary) Cardinal Allen, and Francis Englefield; the Scope of which book was, to exclude from Succession all Persons whatsoever, and how near soever, unless they were Roman Catholics; contending farther for the Right of the Infanta of Spain, as being descended from Constance Daughter of William the Conqueror, 
Foreign Papist Princes will declare a Successor for the Protestants, if they shall not declare one for themselves. Protestant Princes Marrying foreign Papists, shall lose their own Kingdoms, but not gain theirs  from Eleanor Eldest Daughter to Henry the Second, Married to Alphonse the Ninth King of Castille, from Beatrix Daughter to King Henry the Third; so if the Protestants will not take the pains to declare a Successor for themselves, 'tis plain the Foreign Papist Princes, will declare one for them to the purpose; and first they declare for Religion, he ought not to be a Protestant, but a Catholic; Than for Blood, he ought not to be a British, but a Foreign Blood. And in all Countries the Pope's Laws shall be a Salic Law, to exclude Protestant Blood from Catholic Dominions, and to entitle Catholic Blood to Protestant Dominions, so as if Protestant Princes Mary with Catholics, they must play all against nothing. Most Excellent Nonsense in the Papist Law of Successions.   


11. Danger of Counterfeit Wills and Testaments.  It exposes Succession to Counterfeit Wills and Testaments.  
Though the Law is sufficiently clear, That Kingdoms which are Public Offices of Trust, are not devisable by last Will and Testament, as private Inheritances are; yet because the Papist Power of the Sword may pretend to any thing unless the Protestant Subjects have an Act of Parliament declaring a Protestant Successor, as a Shield under God to defend themselves against it, the same will be necessary to prevent even this Danger likewise. For what Monarch or Emperor is so great, as when sickness hath arrested and bound him with the fatal Cords of his Deathbed (where every Woman, every Priest, every Doctor are his Gaolers) can promise himself Liberty to make a free Will? Yea, that he shall not have less than a private Subject, when his Keepers shall make use of his own Public Name and Authority against himself, to exclude from him those faithful Friends, who will force their way through to relieve a private Person from those Furies of his Bed which Torment him: Or how can he promise himself, though he make his Will in his perfect Health, that as soon as he is dead it shall not be destroyed? For did not H. 8. use all the Caution possible to secure his Will after his Death? Had he not an Act of Parliament which gave him Power to Nominate Successors by his Will, and made it High Treason for any to prejudice the Titles of the Persons so Nominated? Did he not solemnly enrol it in Chancery? yet when before the Death of Queen Elizabeth, an inquisition was made after the Will of H. 8. to see whom he had Nominated to succeed, 
The Will of H. 8. stolen off the file where inroled.  in case she should happen to die without Issue, they found the same to be taken by Bribe, or Stolen off the Cursitors File by some who intended to advance their own Title; for there were Sixteen Titles then on foot, Osborn. Tit. Queen Eliz. 99  
Plotina the Empress, Wife of the Emperor Trajan who was with him at his Decease, 
Adrian got the Empire by a Counterfeit Will.  in regard she had a great favour for young Adrian, Plotted with him to help him to the Empire; and to that end, feigned that Trajan had adopted him for his Son, and shown a Counterfeit Instrument or Writing to ●●at Effect; which matter was so cunningly handled, that it took such effect as she desired. And the Army presently swore Obedience to Adrian, notwithstanding he was absent at Antioch in Syria, where he was left General, who being advertised thereof, and the Legions whereof he was General consenting thereto, he presently wrote to the Senate, entreating to be Confirmed in the Empire. And when the Senate had received his Letter, and understood what had passed, his Request was easily granted; for there was no denial by old Men to young Men when once they had given so great a share of the Sword as they had not retained a greater in their own hands, wherewith to recall the same when they thought good.  

William the Conqueror pretended a Will and Promise, and thereby excluded Edgar Atheling the right Heir.  William the Conqueror likewise pretended a Will and a Promise of the Kingdom of England from Edward the Confessor; which though Edward notwithstanding his Holiness had no Authority, or any thing to do, to give away from the Right Heir Edgar Atheling, nor to enslave the Land to a Foreigner; yet it's known how ill effect these Pretences had, and the same might have been prevented if Edgar had been declared Successor by Act of Parliament in the life-time of Edward.   

It incourages Usurpers.  
For the ascertaining the Heir by Supreme Authority, 
12. Danger of Encouraging Usurpers.  wherein both the Assent both of the King and People is included takes away, and the not ascertaining feeds Pretenders and their Parties with hopes. So Tacitus lib. 3. Annal. Sic Cohibere pravos aliorum spes rebatur, by declaring a Successor in certain, he thought the wicked hopes of others were Checked; and in another place, Plena Caesarum Domus, Juvenis filius, Nepotes adulti moram cupitis Sejani adferebant; his House full of Caesar's, his Son in Strength of Youth, his Nephews grown up, deterred the Ambition of Sejanus. And the best remedy King David used against Adonijah Proclaiming himself, was to Proclaim Solomon.   

In Titles Doubtful, 
13. Danger.  it leaves an Interregnum.  
The infinite mischiefs of Interregnums, either on doubtful Titles of Successions, or on doubtful Powers or Elections appearing in Histories, are too many to be here recited; and lest some should be so far deceived as to believe there can be no Interregnum by the Law of England, he is desired not to place his Faith in the Fictions of Lawyers, That the King never dies, and there is no Interregnum, lest if by not declaring a Successor in his Life-time, whom God grant long to live; the contrary Effects appear when it will be too late to provide a Remedy.   

It Cantons Kingdoms.  

14. Danger of Cantonizing Kingdoms.  For so writes Justin of Alexander the Great. Alexander rogatus quem Haeredem faceret Imperii, respondit dignissimum; qua voce veluti Bellicum inter Amicos cecinisset, aut malum discordia immisisset; ita omnes in aemulationem consurgunt, & ambitione vulgi tacitum favorem Militum. Alexander being asked whom he would make Successor to his Empire, answered, The most Worthy; By which, as though amongst his own Friends, he had sounded a Charge to Battle one against another, or had thrown the Apple of Discord amongst them, so did they rise together in Contention, and by courting the vulgar seek the secret favour of the Soldiers, and afterwards Cantoned out to themselves severally all the Provinces of the Empire. Ptolemy seized Egypt, and Cyrene, Laomedon Syria, Phylotus Cilicia, Pitho Media, Eumenes Capadocia, Antigonus Pamphilia, Licia and Phrigia major, Cassander Caria, Minander Pontus' and Phrigia minor, Leonatus Assyria, Seleucus Persis, Lysimachus Thrace, Antipater Macedonia. The other Parts of the Persian Empire being left in their hands, unto whom Alexander in his life-time had entrusted them. And the reason of this pulling to pieces of the Empire was, because as Curtius saith, Sine certo Regis Haerede, sine Haerede Regin' Publicas vires ad se quemque tracturum, without a declaring in certain of the Heir of the King, and of the Heir of the Kingdom, every one will catch what he can of the Public strength to himself, and to what purpose but to destroy himself by destroying the Public? For this Division continued not long, neither would it have done though they had been all Brothers; for every one thinks his share is not equal to his worth, when they have no public Judge to judge equally between them; and in the end, the greatest part of them by Mutual Wars destroyed one another, and left their shares for a prey to their Enemies. Clapmarius as to this Destruction ensuing the not declaring of a Successor, saith farther, Sumo hoc pro arcano Regio adversus Regni Proceres, ubi enim Successor in incertò est ibi facile ad pristinum statum relabitur, ut olim Caroli Magni stirpe sublata cum postremus Germanorum Rex Neminem adoptasset, Regnum momento Devolutum est ad quinquaginta quatuor Imperii Principes. Sic Longobardi Mortuo sine Legitimo haerede Cleophonio in Populi potestateni lapsi sunt. Et in Polonia post quam stirps Lechi defecisset Comitiis de Constituenda Republica habitis Regnum duodecim invaserunt Nobiles. Et rursum cum stirps Craeci defecisset ad eandem Oligarchiam eadem occasione reversi sunt. I take this for an Arcanum of Kings against their great Men; for where the Successor is not declared in certain, a Commonwealth doth easily relapse to its Original confusion. As when the Issue of Charles the Great failed, and the last Emperor of the Germans had Adopted no Successor, the Empire in a Moment fell into the hands of Four and fifty Princes of the Empire. So the Lombard's, Cleophonius their King being dead without Lawful Heir fell into the hands of the People. And in Poland after the Issue of Lechus failed, there being a Convention of Estates to constitute a Commonwealth, Twelve Nobles seized on the Kingdom. And again, when the Issue of Cracus failed, they fell back again on the same occasion into an Oligarchy.   

It Exposeth the Succession of Kingdoms to Sale.  

15. Danger of exposing the Succession to Sale.  Buch. Rer. Scot lib. 7. pag. 206. saith, Mackbethus ut Regnum male partum stabiliret, potentiores Magnis Largitionibus sibi conciliat, securus de Regis liberis ob aetatem, de vicinis Regibus ob Mutuas simultates, Potentioribus delenitis Populi favorem aequitate parare severitate retinere decrevit. 
Mischiefs of buying Crowns to Princes themselves.  Macbeth that he might Establish his illgot Kingdom, binds to himself the great Men by great Gifts, being at that time secure from the King's Children, in regard they were under Age, and from the Neighbouring Kings by their mutual Quarrels one with another, having obliged the great Ones, he resolved to catch the People with Equity, and to keep them with Severity. In the time of H. 3. Richard Earl of Cornwall begging the King's Brother, and Alphonsus King of Spain, 
Empire of Germany exposed to Sale to Richard Earl of Cornwall, and Alphonsus King of Spain.  were each Competitors to be elected to the Empire of Germany. And the Seven Electors were ready to elect him who would give most to Buy it. In the end Richard being in Person in Germany and nearest at hand, and his Money readiest; he is preferred by the Bishop of Ment●, the Bishop of Cologne, and the Palsegrave, whose Voices he is said to have bought; and was thereupon Crowned Emperor at Aquisgrave: And to reimburse himself of the great Sums he had disbursed, and to confirm his Estate, he was set on by his Salesmen and Courtiers, who expected likewise to have a share in Purchase. And proceeded in all Violent and Hostile manner against those who opposed his Election, and having consumed himself by excessive Gifts to Buy Suffrages and Assistants; and by this Prosecution he came to be again dispossessed and forsaken, and with the loss of his Money, and contracting Debts; besides, he was forced to return home to England to his Brother, who was then in War with his Nobles, 
Simony in Churches and Kingdoms, corrupts Religion and Justice in both.  Dan. Hist. 174. It were infinite to recite all the Buyers and Sellers of Successions to Kingdoms, there having rarely been any Age or Nation wherein the Simony of Churches and Kingdoms hath not been alike common, either by the Priest, Nobles, or Soldiers, and corrupted both the Divinity and Justice of both, except where an House of Commons hath had an hand in the Actual declaring the Successor; when therefore a Successor is not declared by Act of Parliament, but left to buy his Right, these horrible Mischiefs ensue. First, To the Prince himself. Secondly, To the People. As to the Prince himself, these Mischiefs ensue.  
(1.) If to buy a Kingdom he is known to give Donatives or Pensions, he raises a greater Party against him than he can oblige for him; for if he give a Donative or Pension to one, he can oblige only that one; but for him disobliges an hundred.  
(2.) No Person that receives a Bribe can be obliged by that Bribe, because what he doth is for Money, and not for Conscience; and if any offer him another Bribe, he will as readily be for the last giver, as he was for the first; for the first giver of Money cannot take his Gift from him again: And the Mercenary, if he hath but half so much giver by the second giver as the first, will think he shall be richer with a Gift and half, than only with a single Gift. Hence it is that,  
Perdurat non empta fides, nec Pectora merces Alligat.  Claudian. 
Bought Faith endures not, nor will hire bind  
The Traitor's heart, if greater hire he find.  
And the Roman Mercenaries who were corrupted with great Donatives by one Emperor, before he was scarce warm in his seat, used to kill him, and if a new offered another Donative, set up him for the like time, till another offered them a new Donative. And so they perpetually Murdered them from Generation to Generation. It's true, many good Princes have been compelled to buy their Rights; and better it were they did so, than the same should be taken from them by one that hath no Right; but this can only be understood where there is a Necessity, and no Remedy: But where God is pleased to offer a just King, and a just Parliament to Judge equally, there is no Necessity of using any unjust means, though to obtain Right.  
(3.) If a Prince buy not with ready Money, or Donatives given in Possession, but oblige himself in future Promises, if he obtain the Kingdom, the Mercenaries are so many who will expect to be promised, and their Nature so unsatiable, That no Prince can be so rich who is to obtain, nor can any Kingdom be so rich when it is obtained, as to be able to satisfy a small part of them, and who fail of their Expectation turn Enemies. As Rich. 3. promised the Duke of Buckingham, if he obtained the Kingdom, very great Rewards; but after he was King failed to perform the same, the Duke of Buckingham became his Mortal Enemy, and King Richard paid his Promises by cutting him off for Treason, when he had first ruined Richard, by laying the Plot for Henry the Seventh.  
(4.) If the Kingdoms are left exposed to Sale, a Papist Successor will be richer than a Protestant; and so carry it by Money, though not by Right.  

Impoverisheth the Prince.  (5.) It impoverisheth and weakens the Prince and his Posterity. So the Germane Emperors have impoverished and weakened themselves by giving away so many Royalties to 7 Electors to buy them in Elections; That the Electors are greater than they.  
The Mischiefs as to the People are.  

Mischiefs of buying Crowns to the Subject.  (1.) The Sale of the Successions of the Three Kingdoms, and buying of them Destroys all Religion and Justice among the People; for your Kingdom-Sellers usually receive a great share of their Money out of the Power, they Contract to have of the Sale of all Public Offices of Gain, both Ecclesiastical and Temporal; If therefore Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Persons buy their Offices, they will neither Form nor Preach any Divinity, but for Gain. If Temporal Judges, or other Judicial or Ministerial Officers buy their Offices, those who buy will sell, and take Bribes; and none shall have Justice unless he buys.  
In Turkey all the great Officers buy their Places of the Grand Signior, whereby they run themselves into great Debts; which they rake out again of the poor People, by all manner of Rapine and Oppression. And though the fame is of the Great Turk's great Severity on the Bribery of Judges; yet no Courts in the World are more corrupt for that Vice than they: For what colour can the Emperor have to punish those Thiefs to whom he himself is accessary, by selling their Licences to Rob at so dear a rate as he usually puts them to buy, and will afterward take the whole spoil if it grow to any bulk?  
(2.) The Exchequer will be engaged under unsupportable Debts, and charged with Pensions to a Multitude of Pretended Claimants of Promises, which will totally exhaust the Public Treasure, load the People with insupportable Burdens and Taxes, and destroy all the Military Defence of the Kingdoms by Sea and Land for want of Pay.  
(3.) Kingdom-Sellers will usually have Commissions to take all Penalties on the Penal Statutes, to Dispense and Pardon Offences against those Statutes, and to Pardon or make Composition for the Penalties, which Penal Statutes concerning both Religion, Justice, Trade, Military Affairs, and the whole Policy of the Kingdom will be totally subverted by Money, by such said Kingdom-Sellers.   

It Exposes the Kingdom to Conquest.  

16. Danger of exposing this Kingdom to Conquest.  For if a Successor is not declared by King and Parliament, a Multitude of Competitors may arise, and having no Judge of greater Power than themselves do try their right by Battle, and Civil Wars, wherein he who Joyns will declare himself a Conqueror; from which these two Mischiefs will arise.  
(1.) There cannot be a free Parliament, for the Sword will awe and overpower the Elections both of Burgesses and Knights; and when they come to sit, the greatest part of the Members will be Military Officers. The Conqueror will grant no Law except for Money, and the Army will have a Negative Vote on the Parliament.  
(2.) All the Nation, especially the Rich and Noble which happen to be of the side that is Vanquished, whether right or wrong, will be either Fined or Confiscated, and many of their lives taken by their own Brethren of the same Religion and Nation; and therefore it most concerns the Nobles, and not the Poor, to prevent Civil War, as is visible in all the Victories obtained between the Houses of York and Lancaster, wherein both Princes and Nobles destroyed one another, and set up their Heads upon Poles by turns. And it was the usual saying of Edward the Fourth in all the Battles he fought, Kill the Nobles, but save the People.  

Some further Examples of declaring Successors by Parliament.  Some further Examples of declaring Successors follow, besides what before mentioned; To this purpose of declaring a Successor by Parliament, Grot. de Jur. Bel. & Pac. 111. says, Sic Euphaes Rex Messeniis permisit dispicere quem ex Regali Aepitidarum genere Regnaret. Et de Xerxis & Artabarzanis Controversia Populus Cognovit. Et 179 sive in conventu ordinum ut factum in Anglia & Scotia, teste Cambdeno; sive per Delegatos ad id Negotium, ut factum in Aragonia, teste Mariana lib. 20. So King Euphaes permitted the Messenians to consider who ought to Reign of the Royal race of Epitidae. And the People of Persia had Conusans of the Controversy between Xerxes and Artabarzanes; Or the same is determined in Parliament, as Cambden testifies is done in England and Scotland, or by Delegates of the People as Mariana testifies lib. 20. was done in Arragon. So King Edward the Third, the Wise Author of this great Statute whereon this Discourse hath proceeded to prevent Civil Wars on any doubt arising on Succession to the Crown, not only declared his eldest Son by this Statute; but likewise he happening to Die in his Father's Life-time, caused (to prevent all farther Scruples) his Grandchild Richard of Bourdeaux, to be declared Successor by Act of Parliament.  

Moses Declares a Successor.  Moses being told that he should die, Numb. 27.15. desireth God to declare a Successor. And Moses spoke unto the Lord saying, Let the Lord the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a Man over the Congregation, which may go out before them, and which may go in before them; and which may send them out, and which may bring them in. That the Congregation of the Lord be not as sheep which have no shepherd. And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the Son of Nun, a Man in whom is the Spirit, and lay thine hand upon him, and set him before Eleazar the Priest, and before all the Congregation, and give him a Charge in their sight; and thou shalt put some of thine Honour upon him, that all the Congregation of the Children of Israel may be Obedient. And he shall stand before Eleazar the Priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the Judgement of Vrim before the Lord, at his word shall they go out, and at his word shall they come in, both he and all the Children of Israel with him, even all the Congregation. And Moses did as the Lord commanded him, he took Joshua and set him before Eleazar the Priest, and before all the Congregation; and he laid his hands on him, and gave him a Charge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses.  
Here appears that Joshua is declared Successor by Counsel from God by Moses, and the Priest, and the Assent of the People; and it's very likely, if a Successor had not been declared, the People would have fallen together by the Ears as soon as Moses had been Dead. And as is usual in all Armies divided, the Government by Military Elections, and recourse to the Sword to be Judge, whereby they had never Conquered the Canaanites, but the Canaanites them.—  

David Declares a Successor.  King David likewise to leave his House and Kingdom in Peace, and to prevent Civil Wars, declares Solomon his Successor, and Inaugurates him while he was yet alive, 1 Kings 1.32. And King David said, Call me Zadock the Priest, and Nathan the Prophet, and Benaiah the Son of Jehoiedah; and they came before the King, and the King said unto them, Take with you the servants of your Lord, and cause Solomon my Son to ride upon my own Mule, and bring him down to Gihen, and let Zadock the Priest and Nathan the Prophet anoint him there King over Israel, and blow ye the Trumpet and say, God save King Solomon, Than ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my Throne, for he shall be King in my stead. And I have appointed him to be Ruler over Israel, and over Judah. And Benaiah the Son of Jehoiedah answered the King and said, Amen. The Lord God of my Lord the King say so too; As the Lord hath been with my Lord the King, even so be he with Solomon, and make his Throne greater than the Throne of my Lord King David. So Zadock the Priest, and Nathan the Prophet, and Benaiah the Son of Jehoiedah, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites went down, and caused Solomon to ride on King David's Mule, and brought him to Gihen: And Zadock the Priest took an horn of oil out of the Tabernacle, and anointed Solomon; and all the People came up after him, and the People piped with Pipes, and rejoiced with great Joy; so that the Earth rend with the sound of them.      
FINIS.   

Erratas in Verse.  
LIb. 1. p. 131. line 5. for Moon read Morn, p. 135. l. 36. for lease r. cease, p. 223. l. 28. for I see r. is with me, p. 224. l. 9 for all r. such, p. 225. 3. 8. for thanks r. there, and in the same line after, for there r. and, l. 39 for lightnings r. lightning, p. 228. l. 5. add the word (next) before the word (expel) p. 392. l. 11. for who bourn would not? r. who bourn would? Lib. 2. p. 239. l. 31. for Mariners r. Mariner, l. 36. for why r. who, Lib. 3. p. 89. l. 8, for their r. them, l. 16. for not babbling r. no babbling.   

Erratas in Prose.  
COntents to the First Book relating to p. 88 for in vitam r. invitam non diserturum, Lib. 1. p. 88 l. 8. add invitam before deserturum, p. 90. l. 42. for invitum r. invitam deserturum, p. 1. l. 11. for or any Subject r. on any Subject, p. 4. l. 28. for Harecloth r. Hayrcloth, p. 17. l. 36. for women were divorced r. women did divorce, p. 23. l. 21. for Affinity r. Consanguinity, p. 43. l. 11. for Canon Law r. Common Law, p. 93. l. 27. for Common Law r. Canon Law, p. 106. l. 31. for pity relieve him r. pity to relieve him, p. 110. l. 40. for invitum fore Matrimonium r. Irritum fore Matrimonium, p. 132. l. 36. add and shall cleave to his wife, p. 180. l. 11. for established r. abolished, p. 180. l. 42. for Chancellors of State r. Councillors of State, p. 210. l. 20. for Sacrament r. Sacrifice, p. 215. l. 28. for Tyrant r. Pirate, p. 282. l. 23. for there were Judges r. and Judges, p. 120. l. 1. leave out no, l. for Secreta Fori r. Secreta Thori, p. 121. l. 25. for false r. and the false, p. 121. l. 43. for take off Exequenda officia Matrimonialia r. talk of Exequenda officia Matrimonialia, p. 257. l. 30. for thinks r. think, l. 27. for that binds r. binds, p. 265. l. 17. for Obligatio libelli r. Oblatio libelli, Lib. 3. Preface p. 10. l. 1. for Algine r. Algive. In the Contents relating to p. 160. for Successor or Male r. Successor Male, leaving out (or) p. 2. l. 16. for ever that be r. Over that be, p. 13. l. 10. for wages r. ways, p. 188. l. 25. for Basiel r. Baliol. In the Index see Bail, in line 36. for Canon-Law r. Common-Law.