HAD a Pamphlet of this Nature been writ by an avowed Debauchee, or a Play-house Beau, it had been no mat­ter of Surprize: But to have any thing Printed in Defence of Concubinage by a Batchelor of Divinity, and a Minister of the Church of England, may Justly astonish us. Such a thing might be accounted Natural, in a Priest of the Church of Rome, the Mother of Harlots, and of the Abominations of the Earth; but for a Minister of the Reformed Church to do so gross a thing, is altogether unsufferable.

Time was when the Reverend Mr. Johnson was degraded by those that called themselves the Church of England, because he maintain­ed the Doctrine of Self-defence against Ty­rants, or others; which is the Instinct of pure Nature: There's much more reason for [Page 2] the Governours of the Church to shew them­selves as zealous now in censuring Mr. Butler for writing in defence of Concubinage; which is one of the Effects of depraved Nature: And this I think they are the more concern'd to do, because in his Title-Page he endea­vours to make way for his Doctrine by the Authority of his Character.

It is certain this Author can find nothing either in the Articles, Homilies, or Canons of the Church of England, to defend his Prin­ciples or Practice; So that he cannot plead any Authority from her, whatever he may do from his being in Orders. Nor is that Venerable Society any thing oblig'd to him for the Character which he assumes to himself of being a Minister of the True Church of England; The Natural Consequence of which Expression is, That somewhere or other there is a False one. By some Hints in his Pamphlet, as, That he has been accused of being an Enemy to the Government; and that he is such an one as hath kept his Oaths to his hurt, &c. I presume he may be a Non-Juror; and if that be the Case, we know what he means by his True Church; and to say the Truth of them, such Parson, such People, was never more fitly applied. It has been observed all along since the Revolution, that most of the Whores are in King James's Interest, nor will it be any great Loss to King William, if this Advocate of Whoring be thrown into the Scale.

It's none of my business to enter upon the Merits of the Cause betwixt him and his Quondam Wife. It's probable enough, nay, certainly true, if we may believe his own word, that he and she both are guilty of such Iniquity as ought to be punish'd by the Judg­es; and in recommending his Book to the Care and Enquiry of the Bench, I Joyn cor­dially with the Grand Jury of London, who in this, and other Presentments, have behaved themselves as became good Men and Christi­ans.

Before I come to touch upon his Argu­ments in Defence of Concubinage, I find it ne­cessary to make some previous Remarks.

The first is, That our Author is not to be taken as an Indifferent Person or Judge in this Case, because it is his own Practice he de­fends; and the Depravation of Mankind is now so very great, that we shall have the most horrid Crimes, as Murder, Assassinati­on, and what not, defended by the Criminals who commit them.

The next is, That our Author, according to what is said of other Evil Men and Sedu­cers, waxes worse and worse; for in the be­ginning of his Book he seems only to vindi­cate his own particular Case, as having a de­serting Wife, and being under an Impossibili­ty of having Justice done him; and therefore he thought it lawful for him to go in to his Maid; But in the latter end of his Pamphlet he sets up for a General Concubinage, ev'n [Page 4] during the Life and Co-habitation of Lawful Wives.

These things being laid down as necessary to give the Reader a precaution as to what sort of an Author we have to deal with, I come now to consider his Arguments.

The First he offers is page 9. Viz. That he was guilty of no other, nor greater Fornication with his Maid, than Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, was guilty of, when purely for Issues sake, and not of any Lustful Concupiscence, he went in to Hagar, his Wifes Maid, or in to Ke­turah, his Concubine, in the Life-time of Sarah, his Wife. Now Abraham was not charged with any thing of Fornication in that Case, but ra­ther was acquitted by God Almighty, as purely and truly Innocent; but the Case of this Respond­ent is much easier than that of Abraham; foras­much as at the time aforesaid Abraham had a Wife then in his Bed with him, but this Respondent had no Wise.

ANSWER.

1. Our Author owns that Abraham did not go in to Hagar out of any Lustful Concupis­cence, but purely for Issues sake; but page 9. he says of himself, That he is one of those of whom our Saviour hath declared, All men cannot receive this saying, Matth. 19. 10. and of whom St. Paul hath deelared, 1 Cor. 8. 9. It is better to marry than to burn; and that he was not Na­turally [Page 5] endowed with the Gift of Continency from Heaven. Whence it follows, That our Au­thor by his own confession, went in to his Maid out of a Principle of Incontinence, and burning Lust.

2. This appears yet more plain: Whereas he owns, that Abraham went in to Hagar purely for Issues sake, he having none at that time; which was not our Author's Case; for he confesses, page 4. that he had Lawful Issue li­ving by his Wife; which demonstrates, Mr. Butler himself being Judge, that his Case and Abraham's were not the same.

3. Abraham took Hagar to Wife by Sarah's Consent; and tho not with the usual Solem­nity of Marriage, yet 'twas undoubtedly in a Publick manner; but Mr. Butler owns, page 18. that his Wife was so far from consenting to his taking of his Maid Mary Tomkins, that she gives it out as one cause of her deserting him.

4. It does not appear by any thing our Au­thor says, that his Marriage with Mary Tom­kins was any other than Congressus Furtivus, a Westminster Wedding: or Nuptiae Caninae, as St. Jerome calls it somewhere.

5. Mr. Butler's Instance of Abraham's going in to Keturah, during Sarahs Life, is false; for it appears that Sarah was then dead, Gen. 25. 1. and Hagar and her Son Ishmael were sent away before that by God's own appointment, Gen. 21. So that this Instance makes nothing at all for his purpose. But it looks very ill in a Di­vine, [Page 6] as Mr. Butler pretends to be, thus to mis-quote Scripture: It argues that he is glad of any covering, tho it were but of Fig-leaves to cover his Nakedness.

6. Mr. Butler cannot but know that P. Martyr, and other Commentators upon the Place, are of Opinion, that the Occasion of Sarah's giving this Advice, and of Abraham's accepting of it, was her own Barrenness, the advanced Age of 'em both, and fear that they should no otherwise have the Promised Seed, to which I hope our Author will not pretend there is any thing parallel in his Case.

7. Whereas he says that Abraham was not charged with any thing of Fornication in that Case, but rather was acquitted by God Al­mighty as truely and purely Innocent. It were to be wish'd he would produce some Scrip­ture for his Assertion; In my Opinion the Displeasure of God against this Practice of the Patriarch appears very plain, as has been observ'd by the Author of that useful Book, newly published, entituled, God's Judgments against Whoring; being an Essay towards a ge­neral History of it for above Five Thousand Years, Viz. That the Peace of Abraham' s Family was immediately broke, by Hagar' s despising her Mi­stress, as soon as she found her self pregnant with the Pro [...]ised Seed, as she vainly believ'd. Ʋp­on which Sarah upbraids Abraham, with the [...] she [...]er self was the occasion; [...] also punished for her unlawful Con­sent; [Page 7] first, by being severely dealt with by Sarah, and then by being thrust out of the Family, and expos'd to the World, and the cruel Neces­sity of seeing her Son die of Thirst as she appre­hended; and instead of his being the Promised Seed, she and he were both Ignominously thrust out from being Partakers of the Inheritance with Isaac.

8. Polygamy was at that time common in the World, so that Abraham's Practice ad­ministred no occasion of Scandal, whereas our Author well knew that his Concubinage with Mary Tomkins would unavoidably give Offence, upon which Consideration alone, he ought to have forborn it, if he had design'd to walk according to the Apostolical Rule, who had rather never eat Flesh while he liv'd, tho a thing lawful in it self, than of­fend a weak Brother.

9. His Argument to prove the Lawfulness of Abraham's Practice, because God did not charge him with any thing of Fornicati­on, is altogether inconcludent; for in the first place it is not a sufficient Ground for us positively to say that God did not re­prove him for it, because there's nothing of any such Reproof mentioned in the Scripture. Moses, the inspired Penman, is here giving us an Historical Account of Matter of Fact, and does not enter upon the Debate of the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of the thing. In the next place Mr. Butler may as well argue from the Practice of Jacob, which we find [Page 8] no where reproved by God that it is law­ful for a Man to marry two Sisters at one time, whereas all Divines allow, that this is forbidden, both by the Light of Nature and Revelation.

10. To answer once for all, Mr. Butler's Arguments from the Old-Testament for Po­ligamy or Concubinage. He cannot but know,

1. That Marriage was instituted at first by God, betwixt one Man and one Woman; so that to plead for a Necessity of more Husbands or Wives than one at a time, is in effect to arraign the Wisdom of the first Institutor, the All-wise God.

2. That when the old World was de­stroyed, and chiefly for Uncleanness amongst other Sins as appears by Gen. 6. 2. God appointed Noah and his three Sons, to take only one Wife each into the Ark with them, so that here God commanded the peopling of the World a second time by Marriage betwixt one Man and one Woman, without allowing Polygamy or Concubinage.

3. That the Text, Leviticus 18. 18. Neither shalt thou take a Wife to her Sister to vex her, to uncover her Nakedness, besides the other in her Life time. The best Divines do generally understand it to be meant of ha­ving two Wives together, first, because the Phrase is so used elsewhere, as Ezek. 1. 9. the Wings of the Beasts are said to touch a Woman to her Sister that is meet together, or touch one another; and so Exod. 26. 3. [Page 9] the five Curtains shall be coupled, the Woman to her Sister, that is, together. In the next place, because the Marriage of the Sister is by Analogy forbidden before v. 16. Thou shalt not uncover the Nakedness of thy Brothers Wife, it is thy Brothers Nakedness. Whence by Parity of Reason it was equally unlawful to uncover the Sisters Nakedness; so that this being provided for before, there was no need of repeating it here; thirdly, the Reason subjoyn'd, viz. to vex her, maketh against the Joint Marriage of any other, as well as of the Sister; for the common Ex­perience of all Ages teaches, that there was al­ways Jealousie and Contention betwixt Co­wives, as in the Instance of Sarah and Hagar, just now mentioned; and Annah and Penni­nah, the Wives of Elkanah, 1 Sam. 1. tho they were not Sisters: And Mr. Butler can prove it from his own Experience, that Mar­tha Perkins and Mary Tomkins, his two Wives, do vex one another, tho they be not Sisters.

4. As to his Instances of David and Solo­mon, and other Kings, who abounded in Wives and Concubines, they acted therein expresly contrary to the Law in that case, Deut. 17. 16. where it is said of the King, Neither shall he multiply Wives to himself. The Holy Ghost foreseeing that they who abound in Riches and Power, and especially Princes are more apt to exceed that way than others.

[Page 10]5. Mr. Butler has no doubt read, that Lo­rinus and others are of Opinion, That the Po­lygamy of the Fathers was dispens'd with per inspirationem internam by a secret Dispensati­on, which cannot, if it were true, justifie Con­cubinage under the New-Testament, from which nothing can be pleaded by any such Dispensation.

6. He must needs also know that it is the common Opinion of Protestant Divines, that it was not probable that God would dispense with a Publick Law by a Private Dispensa­tion, and therefore, tho he wink'd at those times of Ignorance, he gave no Allowance to any such Practice, as is plain from Malachi 2. 14. 15, 16. Where the Prophet tells the Children of Israel, That the Lord regarded not their Offering, because he had been Witness be­tween thee and the Wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, yet is she thy Companion, and the Wife of thy Covenant: And v. 15. he expostulates with them from the first Institution of Marriage thus: And did he make one? yet had he the residue of the Spirit, and wherefore one? because he sought a Godly Seed; therefore take heed to your Spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the Wife of his Youth;—and verse 16. he adds, For the Lord God of Israel saith that he hateth putting a­way. This Prophet liv'd as some think in the time of Artaxerxes, or Darius Longimanus; but however that is, this is plain, that as in the beginning of the Old-Testament, we [Page 11] have an Account that God at first instituted Marriage betwixt one Man and one Woman; so by this Prophet, who shuts up the Canon of the Old Testament, he expostulates with his People, for receding from the Primary Institution, which enervates all the Argu­ments that Mr. Butler hath brought from thence, in Defence of Concubinage:

But this is not the only Case, wherein our Author shews himself to be a loose Casuist; for Page 9. he tells us, That Incontinency in it self is no Sin, unless it be express'd in unlaw­ful uses; whereas the Apostie, 2 Tim. 3. 3. reckons Incontinent Men amongst Truce­breakers, False Accusers, Despisers of those that are Good, and such others as contribute to make up the Perillous Times, that are to come in the last days. Mr. Pool, in his Criticks on 1 Cor. 7. 5. quotes Tremellius, Pi­scator, Hammond, and Zegerus, as translating the word, rendred Incontinence (by our Translators) Concupiscence of the Flesh, and others of 'em render it Intemperance, which last Word is never taken but in an ill Sense. Tremellius from the Syriak translates it Impo­tentia, which signifies an unruly raging Lust which is certainly sinful; and such Mr. But­ler's Incontinence appears to have been, when he could not be without a Woman above a Year; one would have thought that a Di­vine, who enjoyns Fasting and Prayer to o­thers, shou'd rather have tried that Experi­ment upon himself, than have run the hazard [Page 12] of such Inconveniences, as the Titillation of the Flesh, has already brought upon him. The Apostle tells us, They that are Christ's, crucifie the Flesh with its Lusts and Affections, Gal. 5. 24. and in 1 Cor. 9. 17. that he kept his Body under, and brought it into Subjection, lest when he preach'd to others, he himself should be a Cast-away; but it seems Mr. Butler chose rather to make provision for the Flesh to fullsil the Lusts thereof. If he could not have his Wife he would have his Maid; and is not satisfied to break the Commandments himself, but teaches o­thers also to do so; and therefore deserves to be called the Least in the Kingdom of Heaven, ac­cording to our Saviour's threatning, Matth. 5. 19. and I doubt not but he knows what is meant thereby; viz. That he shall be account­ed unworthy to be reckoned among the Saints here or hereafter, if he don't break off from his sins by Repentance. Our Saviour, Matth. 5. 28. tells us, That they who Look on a Woman so as to Lust after her, are guilty of Adultery. And the Apostle Peter tells us of those that have Eyes full of Adultery, 2 Pet. 2. 14. Which demonstrate clearly enough, that Incontinen­cy, the Fountain whence Lustful Looks pro­ceed, is sinful in it self. Indeed the Natural Appetite of Generation, and multiplying our Species according to the Command of God, is not sinful in it self, so long as it is contain'd within due bounds; but when once it breaks over that, then it becomes Incontinence, and by consequence sinful. The Original Word, [Page 13] [...], translated Incontinent, denotes such, qui nec in bono nec in malo sibi constant, they can keep no bounds, but will either be over-much Righteous or over-much Wicked: So that it's plain, Incontinence, which Mr. Butler will have to be no sin, implies the Height of Pas­sion.

But it seems he thought himself concern'd, in point of Reputation, to maintain, that In­continence was no sin, because he owns himself to be guilty of it, page 9. Yet if he had but adverted to the saying of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 9. which he quotes in the same place, viz, They who cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn; he might easily have perceiv'd that Incontinence and burning are Synonymous Terms; for there burning is op­pos'd to Continency; the Holy Ghost telling us plainly, that they who cannot contain must burn, if they do not marry, and therefore provides Marriage as a proper Remedy against Incontinency; which if it were not a Distem­per, why should there be any Remedy provid­ed against it.

Here also I think fit to take notice of our Author's distorted Notion of Fornication, whereof he says, page 8. A man may be guilty by Excess of Carnal Ʋsage with his own Wife. That this Notion of Fornication is very gross and absurd, will appear from this one thing, that if a Man may be guilty of Fornication with his own Wife. then he may divorce her when he pleases for his own Crime; for our Saviour [Page 14] allows a man to put away his Wife in case of Fornication, without any Exception, whether it be with her Husband, or any other man, Matth. 5. 32. So that instead of a man's being guilty of Fornication with his own Wife, our Author should have said, of Excess in the use of the Marriage-bed; for tho Fornication is some­times us'd in Scripture to denote Uncleanness in general: yet according to the common ac­ceptation of the word, it denotes Uncleanness betwixt persons, that are not married to one another, as was usually practised in those For­nices, or Vaults under ground, at Rome and else where; whence the word Fornication was deriv'd. Of those Vaults Socrates, Lib. 5. cap. 18. gives us a particular account; viz. That they were Victualling-houses under ground, wherein the Romans prostituted Whores, until the Emperor Theodosius order'd them to be pulled down.

I come next to Mr. Butler's Case, as repre­sented by himself, page 9, &c. Viz. That his Wife denied him the use of her Marriage bed ob­stinately (tho she was often intreated to the con­trary) for above a Twelvemonth; and therefore he went in to his Maid. The Necessity he pre­tends he lay under was this, In the first place, he had not the Gift of Continency; then it was not convenient for him to marry another without a Lawful License from a Lawful Authority, be­cause of a Statute-Law in force: That in the time of this desertion, Popery had the Supream [Page 15] Seat: That there were high Commissioners super­ceeding all other Courts in Power, and Acting in favour of Persons Popishly inclin'd, and that his Wife having deserted him, because of his disin­heriting his Eldest Son for turning Papist; No sentence could be expected from them, according to the Justice of Holy writ, because Papists hold Mar­riage indissolvable, as being one of their seven Sacraments without a dispensation from the Pope. Thus Mr. Butler States his own Case.

In the next place, I shall give you hi [...] Wifes State of the Case, as represented in her Libel before the Honourable Court of Arches, and quoted by himself, p. 6. Viz. That about Ten Years since, John Butler being un­mindful of his Conjugal Vow committed, the foul Crime of Adultery, with his Servant Maid Mary Tomkins; and it being taken Notice of, that she was with Child by him, he and she went into Holland, where they liv'd Incontinently for about two Years, and there she brought forth a Bastard call'd Mary to the said John Butler, and p. 35. That they return'd to England, and Live to­gether in an Incontinent manner at Hammer­smith, and the said Mary hath had four other base born Children, begotten by the said John But­ler, who hath Lately turn'd his Wife Mary But­ler out of Doors, and left her destitute of ne­cessaries, &c.

Now any Man may see that there is a vast difference in the Cases, as they are Stated by Mr. Butler and his Wife.

It is also proper to observe here, that his Incontinence with Mary Tomkins is not the only Uncleanness which our Author stands charg'd with; for page 8. he owns, That his said Wife, and his two ungracious Sons, have fill'd the Countrey with many slanders and suspicious Reports, of matters said or done by him, above Twenty or Thirty Years since; and Answers thus, Concerning what kindnesses this Respondent might have shewed to particular Persons more then Or­dinary, he doth solemnly protest, that he never had Carnal Knowledge of any such Woman, for whose sake he was aspers'd.

Having thus laid down their mutual Accu­sations against one another, I shall first make some Remarks upon 'em, and then proceed to consider Mr. Butlers defence.

It's plain, that Mr. Butler owns himself to be Incontinent, and I think it will appear that he was so, to a scandalous excess from the Matter of Fact, as laid down by himself. For 1. He says, that he was deserted by a Wife, whom p. 3. he owns, That he did hear­tily Love, which one would think should have been sufficient of it self, to have restrain'd his Concupiscence for above one year at least, seeing most modest Men do in ordinary Ca­ses, think themselves obliged in Decency to stay so long unmarried after the Death of a Wife whom they Loved. Much more should an honest Man abstain for the sake of a be­loved Wife still alive.

[Page 17]2. He owns that he had two ungracious Sons, the Eldest of whom he disinherited be­cause of his turning Papist; this methinks to a Minister of the Gospel, should have been a Cause of Fasting and Prayer, and Mortifying of the Flesh. To be abandoned by a Loving Wife, afflicted by two ungracious Sons at the same time, and one of them turn'd Idolater, and running headlong to Damnation too: Any thing of a Christian would have seen the Hand of God, in all this, humbled themselves before him, afflicted their Souls by secret Fasting and Prayer, and have desir'd the Prayers of the Church, and their particular Christian Friends, in such a pungent Affli­ction.

If in such a Case the Devil had begun to tempt Mr. Butler, for his Incontinency, Why did he not bring his Body under Subjection by Fasting, Watching and Prayer, according to the Practice of the Apostle; who thereby got rid of that Thorn in the Flesh mentioned, 2 Cor. 1 [...]. 7. Which Mr. Butler knows many Commentators, and those, none of the least, Note, understand to have been Pruritus Car­nis, the Tickling of the Flesh, as Tremellius renders it from the Syriack. But it seems, our Author was in this Respect like the Pha­risees of Old, who would bind heavy bur­dens upon other Mens backs but would not touch them themselves with one of their Fin­gers. Mr. Butler could not but forsee that this Practice of going in to his Maid, which is [Page 18] unpresidented in this Nation, would admini­ster cause of Scandal; and this it became one of his Character to avoid above all Men; If his Maids Beauty tempted him, it was in his Power to have rid himself of that Tentation: But to be plain with him, his Case has all the suspicious Circumstances Imaginable, to make the World believe that he was Acted by down-Right Lust in this matter, and be­ing once engaged, now he would defend it, Answerable to the Practise of that Infamous German Enthusiast, John of Leyden, who be­ing observed to go into his Maids bed, did there­upon maintain the Doctrine of Poligamy; and the like unclean Practice engaged the false Pro­phet Mahomet, in the Defence of the like unclean Doctrine.

3. Mr. Butler owns, That his Wife and Sons accuse him of former Incontinency; and the Truth on't is, his Practice and Principles, both being considered, there's no great Reason to doubt, but their Accusation might be true. If he owns his Incontinency now when Aged, It's probable he was more so Twenty Years ago: If the desertion of a beloved Wife, the Rebellion and Apostacy of his Sons, the Common danger which all Men at that time thought impending over the Church, where­of he was a Minister, the Dignity of his Fun­ction, and the Scandal of the World could not keep him from his Maids Bed Ten Years ago, What can be thought sufficient to [Page 19] have restrain'd him from such like Practises Twenty Years ago?

4. If there was no such unlawful Dalliance betwixt Mr. Butler and his Maid, while his Wife Cohabited with him, It's much that his Maid was so soon brought over to receive another Womans Husband into her Bed, and indeed one would think that Mr. Butler at that time, should have had so much trouble upon him on the Account of his Wife and Children, &c. As above, that he should have had little Inclination or leasure for a New Courtship, if the Familiarity had not been Contracted before. So much for the Causes to suspect, that Mr. Butler was guilty of Scan­dalous Incontinence in this matter.

I come now to consider the pretended Ne­cessity he says he lay under. Durum telum Necessitas, Necessity is indeed an Irresistible Weapon, but many times we make a Necessity to our selves when God makes none, and such, I am affraid Mr. Butlers Necessity will be found.

His Necessity proceeded meerly from his Incontinence as he owns himself, but we hear nothing either of Spiritual or Temporal means us'd by him to remove this Inconti­nence; Had he fasted, watched, prayed, re­moved his Maid out of his sight, taken the advice of Physicians, open'd a Vein fre­quently, Bath'd in cold Water often, and been assiduous in the Work of his Calling as a Mi­nister, and yet found his Incontinence too [Page 20] hard for him after all, there would have been some justifiable Pretence for his Necessi­ty, but we find nothing of this done, and therefore the Necessity is of his own ma­king.

If Mr. Butler had found his Pruritus Carnis or Incontinence unconquerable, after the use of these, or such like Means as above-men­tioned, had it not been better for him to have reconciled his Wife to him, by restoring his Popish Son to the Right of Inheritance, which he pretends to be the cause of her deserting him, then to take his Maid into his Bed; The former he knows, no Body would have blam'd as Criminal, whereas he could not but know, that the latter would be accoun­ted Scandalous.

Or if this had not been Practicable, why did not he sue for a Divorce from his Wife upon those just suspicions of Incontinence, he charges her with by turns, p. 4. of his E­pistle to the Reader? &c. And likewise upon the Account of her Desertion which he so much insists upon? Had he done this in a Legal manner, and found all the Doors of ordinary Justice shut against him, then he might have had recourse to extraordinary Methods; But we don't find that he did any thing like it, so that his excuse of Poperies being possess'd of the Supreme Seat, and that the High Commissioners superseded all other Courts, and Acted in favour of Persons Popishly en­clin'd, is a meer Subterfuge, to cheat his own Con­science, [Page 21] and gull the World. This I am sure he will find a Dilemma, that had he endea­vour'd to reconcile his Wife, by restoring his Popish Son to his Right of Inheritance, he would have herein been favour'd by the Court, as he owns himself, and that he was willing to have retain'd his Wife, if she had been willing to have staid with him; he has declar'd it, when he says that he sol­licited her to his Bed for above a Twelve­month. But we don't so much as find that he made any Application to the Ordinary Courts in that Case, so that he Arraigns their Justice without having made Tryal of it. It's well enough known to the World that the then Archbishop of Canterbury, and se­veral other Bishops, did then oppose the Proceedings of the Court in Ecclesiastical Matters, such as the publishing of the Pro­clamation for Liberty of Conscience to Dis­senters, and turning out the Fellows of Colledges: So that Mr. Butler had no Rea­son to decline Application to the Court of Arches for Remedy in his Case; nor is there any Reason to think but the High-Com­mission Court, wherein there were three Bi­shops of the Church of England, might have done him Justice, if he had applied to them in a Case so plain, as he alledges his to have been.

But supposing that both those Courts had been over-ruled by the Influence of Father Peters, and others, who then govern'd at [Page 22] Whitehall, what hinder'd Mr. Butler from ta­king some of his Brethren of the Clergy, or other Credible Witnesses with him, Fi­nally, to exhort his Wife, and to declare to her, that if she did not return to her Duty, he would look upon their Marriage as Dissolv'd, and provide for himself accordingly. If she had, after all this, continued Obstinate, why might not Mr. Butler have taken his Maid with him, and before his Brethren of the Ministry, or some Justices of the Peace, de­clar'd, that his Wife had deserted him, with­out any Lawful Cause, and would not re­turn to her Duty; that he had applied to all the Ordinary Courts of Justice, but could have no Remedy; and therefore being under a Necessity, either of burning, or taking ano­ther Woman into his Bed, he was resolv'd to live with his Maid, as Man and Wife? Had Mr. Butler done so, and made it appear to the World, that his Wife had no just Cause to desert him, there are few Casuists so Rigid, as to have condemn'd him, either as a Con­cubinary or Adulterer; every Body would have excus'd the want of due Formalities in such a Case, and his Practice would have gi­ven no just Scandal to others, no more than did that of the Marquis of Vicum, which we shall have occasion to touch upon by and by. Mr. Butler owns that his Marriage with his Wife was not altogether formal, and yet he made no Scruple to take her to his Bed; and therefore we have no Reason to think [Page 23] that he should have scrupled the doing of this as abovesaid, had all things been fair and ho­nest; and if he had dreaded the anger of the Government, he might have retir'd to Holland as he did afterward. But instead of this, if we may believe his Wife, as quoted by him­self, p: 18. she accuses him of saying, That he had another Woman with Child, for which she relinquish'd him, and offers to prove his having said so.

These Circumstances are so scandalous, that it plainly appears the Matter ought to have been Examined by Judges Competent: but it would seem Mr. Butler, and his Maid were in too much haste for that, or indeed to stay in the Kingdom, seeing they went over to Holland, where she brought him forth a Daughter, as he owns himself.

I come next to consider Mr. Butler's Ar­guments for Defence of his Practice: 1. He quotes 1 Cor. 7. 15. where the Apostle says, But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart: A brother or a sister is not in bondage in such Cases. In this Case therefore, says Mr. Butler, a man's own Conscience was a good Judge, at least until contrary matters could be proved before ae Competent Judge, and the Testimony of Holy Writ was a sufficient Law for Conscience to be guided by, and this without the assistance of be­ing backt by Authority in a Case where an Au­thoritative sentence could not be had, as it was in St. Pauls time: Wherein the Magistracy be­ing altogether Paganish, no such sentence was [Page 24] required as needful; and as in the Marquess of Vicums Case, wherein the supreme Authority being Popish, he married again without such a sentence. 'Tis true indeed, he had a Sentence by Authority from the Syndick of Geneva, but that was as much as just nothing, for first, that Syn­dick had no Authority to summon his Wife to ap­pear at their Court, she being not under their Ju­risdiction, and secondly, being a lay Power set up of their own accord without Power from God, or his Word, had not so much Power as the Consci­ence of the Marquess himself.

To this I Answer. 1. That Mr. Butlers Case and that put by the Apostle are not a­like; the Apostle speaks of an Unbelievers deserting a Believer out of an hatred to Re­ligion; but Mr. Butlers Wife was of the same Religion with himself, so that he ought to have been backt with the Authority of the Church, whereof they were both Members before he had gone into his Maids Bed. This is the Opinion of Calvin and Sclaterus upon the place who say, Lex Christi de Christianae disciplinae Consortibus agit, quos propius Vinculum connectit, & apud quos si quod aberratum est, fa­cilis est sanatio per Ecclesiae Authoritatem, i. e. The Law of Christ speaks of those who are partakers of the Christian Discipline, and own'd by a nearer Tie, and who if they com­mit any Error, the cure is easy by the Autho­rity of the Church; but we don't find that Mr. Butler sought any such Remedy, but su­pinely neglected it under a pretence it could [Page 25] not be had. (2.) Mr. Butlers Case differs also in this, That we had Christian Magistrates, to whom he might have appeal'd in this Case, which it does not appear he did. Nor will it follow, that because the Apostle says the Believer was at Liberty in Case of the unbe­lievers deserting, that therefore they were at liberty to take another into their Bed, without acquainting both the Church and the Magistrate with it; It was a General Rule to all Christians, to give no Offence neither to Jew nor Gentile, nor to the Church of God, and therefore it is not supposeable, that Chri­stians were referred to the dictates of their own Private Conscience in the Case of Mar­riage after desertion, tho they might rest se­cure, and without any further trouble upon the Testimony of a good Conscience, as to the cause of desertion, viz. That it was from an hatred to their Religion, but Mr. Butler knows that his Wife accuses him of another Cause, Viz. The defiling of her Bed.

Then as to the Marquis of Vicums Case, it is also quite different; every one that knows the Story of the Famous Galeacius Caracciolus, knows that he fled out of Italy upon the Account of his Religion; that his Lady would neither follow him, nor admit him to her Bed, when by the Intercession of his Great Friends he procur'd leave to return for a time, her Priests having prevail'd with her to the contrary, so that he was forced to return without her, and lived several Years unmar­ried [Page 26] and unblameable at Geneva, without getting into any Womans Bed in little more than a Years time, and at last by the consent, not only of the Church of Geneva, but of o­ther Protestant Churches, and the approbati­on of the Supreme Government where he lived, he married a Godly Woman not in a private manner, but in the View of the World; for it's only the deeds of darkness that are afraid of the Light. As to Mr. Butlers falling foul upon the Government of Geneva, as having no Power from God and his Word, he only discovers that he is as bad a Politician as a Divine, and a Casuist of no Value. That little Common-wealth had al­ways, since any thing was known of the Hi­story of those Parts, a Supreme Government of her own, sometimes by a Count, and some­times under the Protection of the Emperor, and when the Empire was Distracted by In­testine Wars, she had Recourse to her own Bishops who were at that time Powerful, and their Bishops being embroil'd afterwards with the Counts of Savoy, she was forc'd to strug­gle with the succeeding Dukes of Savoy for her liberty, and by Allying her self with some of the Swiss Cantons, brought the said Dukes to Renounce their Pretensions and at last by the Reformation got Rid of the Yoke of her Bishops who oppos'd it; since which time the Soveraign Authority remains in her Magistrates and Senate, so that Mr. Butlers Reflection upon that Government, as wanting [Page 27] Power to Authorize the Marriage of the Marquis of Vicum, then their Subject, savours as much of the exploded Doctrine of Non­resistance, as his getting into his Maid's Bed savours of Incontinence; and there­fore what the Marquis of Vicum did in a Publick Manner, with the Consent of all the Protestant Churches in those Parts, and by the Authority of that which was, and is the Supreme Government, where he liv'd, is no Defence for Mr. Butler's Practice with­out the Knowledge or Consent of Church or State, or taking the Advice of his Bre­thren, the Clergy of his Diocess. It is also to be observ'd, that Mr. Butler discovers a very low Opinion of the Church, whereof he pretends to be a Minister, when he thought they would not have done him Justice, or at least declared that he had Justice on his side, had his Case appear'd so clear to them, as he al­ledges it is; but it's rather to be suppos'd that he distrusted his Cause, and therefore durst not Appeal to them.

I come next to consider his Quotations from Divines, &c. which may serve to amuse one at first View, but can never justifie him in the Thoughts of a Judicious Reader, they being all of them wrested, or nothing to his Purpose, or else directly against him.

The first he quotes is Diodati on 1 Cor. 7. 15. but that Author is against him, sor he speaks of a convenient time allow'd, and all possible and reasonable Remedies used to reduce the [Page 28] Unbelieving Deserter, before the Marriage can be dissolved; but Mrs. Butler was no Unbeliever, nor did Mr. Butler use all pos­sible and reasonable Remedies to reduce her; neither is the Case of her Desertion uncontrovertible; she alledges that she has Divorced her self, because of Mr. Butler's Adultery.

The next is Wollebius, Compend. Theolog. Cap. 11. Fol. 245. who only, Says that Adul­tery and malicious Desertion make a Di­vorce; but not one word of the Deserted Persons taking another Woman, without proving the Desertion, or asking the Consent of Church and State.

The third is Amandus Polanus, de Divortio, for which he assigns only two Causes, Viz. Adultery, and Unjust Desertion; but Mrs. Butler says she had just Cause. The last part of this Quotation is directly against Mr. Butler, viz. Sed si persona accusans hone­ste vixit & petit ferri sententiam pronuncietur hoc modo cum persona quae deliquit suo Scelere, dissolverit Conjugium, Jude [...] Authoritate Evan­gelii personam Innocentem Pronunciat esse Libe­ram. i. e. But if the Complainant or Ac­cuser have liv'd honestly, and demands Jugd­ment, let it be pronounced in this manner; seeing the offending Person hath dissolv'd the Marriage by her own Crime, the Judge, by the Authority of the Gospel, pronoun­ces the Innocent Person to be free, and expresly grants him Liberty, piously to [Page 29] Contract another Marriage, according to his own Conscience. Now it's plain that Mr. Butler is accus'd by his Wife of living dis­honestly; so that this Matter ought to have been clear'd, before the Judge could pro­nounce any such Sentence.

In the next place it is plain, that Aman­dus Polanus is of Opinion, That such a thing ought to be Judicially done, and in open Court, whereas there was no such Judg­ment demanded, nor Process made by Mr. Butler; so that here's his own Evidence turn'd upon him.

His Quotations from Musculus upon the 5th. of Matthew, where he assigns Adul­tery and Desertion, as the Causes of Divorce, are nothing to his Purpose; he does not say that the Matter ought not to be legally determin'd, or that the deserted Person may Marry again without such Determi­nation.

The passage of Ambrose on 1 Cor. 7. 5. is to the same purpose, and favours him not one whit.

The like, that of Bucanus, Institut. Theo­logiae. Nor is he any thing more favour'd by that Author, Locus 13. Sect. 29. where he says in answer to the Question, Quid si Magistratus officium Negligat. What if the Magistrate neglect his Duty? Valeat pre­ceptum Apostolicum ad Titum 3. 10. Hereti­cum hominem, Ergo & Atheum, Apostatum & Blasphemum, post una [...] & Alteram correctio­nem [Page 30] devita:] That is, let the Apostles com­mand to Titus take place, Cap. 5. 10. A Man that is an Heretick, Apostate, or A­theist, after the first and second Admoniti­on, reject or avoid; which Mr. Butler wick­edly and falsly translates, That if the Ma­gistrate neglect his Office, the Innocent Par­ty is free to Marry an Innocent Woman, without his Sentence, whereas Bucanus says only, That the Believer may as freely reject the deserting Ʋnbeliever in such a Case, as a Chri­an ought to do an Heretick; but suppose it were otherwise, he is still against Mr. But­ler, in that he supposes Application ought to be made to the Magistrate, who cannot properly be said to neglect what is never brought before him, as it is evident Mr. But­ler never did; for his Wife, and not he, is the Complainant.

His other Quotations are all to the same Purpose, not one of them speaks one word of allowing the Deserted Person to marry again, without Application made to a Competent Judge, which were, indeed, to subvert all Order and Government; for tho the Case be plain by the Law of God and Man, that a Murderer ought to be put to Death, and That an Adulterer may be divorced, and the Innocent Party lawfully marry again; yet no Man in his right Wit did ever allow, that a private Man, on his own Authority, should put a Murderer to Death, or Divorce his Wife, and marry another; for all the [Page 31] Laws of God and Men, tho never so posi­tive require a Legal and Publick Execution and due Enquiry into the Matter of Fact, so that what Mr. Butler advances, p. 17. That because the Text saith, If she will depart let her go, there needs no sentence of the Ma­gistrate in the Case, will conclude as much against the need of the Magistrates sentence in Case of Murder, because the Text says, Whoso­ever sheds Mans blood, by Man shall his blood be shed; And the like in all other Crimes. Otherwise according to this Principle, eve­ry Man may be Judge, Jury, and Execu­tioner in his own Case, which would im­mediately destroy all Humane Society; such are the profound Politicks of our Concu­binary Casuist, being directly contrary to the procedure of the Almighty himself, who tho our first Parents were convicted by his Omniscience and their our Consci­ence, yet He did not proceed to sentence against them, till the Matter was proved by their own Confession.

I come next to consider what our Au­thor offers in defence of that he calls, A Lawful Concubinage in a Case of a necessity, wherein Lawful Marriage conveniently or pos­sibly cannot be obtain'd.

If I had time to examine his Proposition Narrowly, it were no hard matter to prove it a Rhapsody of Contradictions or down­right Bulls; for there can be no such thing as a Lawful Concubinage, nor any case almost [Page 32] wherein Lawful arriage is not possible to be obtain'd; but I pass that at present, and come to his instance, by which he endea­vours to make Good this Monstrous Do­ctrine. The first is, that of himself, and his first Wife, Martha Perkins, who, p. 21. he says, liv'd almost Forty Years together in Concubinage. Now to Live in Concubinage with a Wife is at best but an Irish sort of English; but we shall let that alone and come to his Reason, which is, because they were not Married directly according to the Custom of the Church of England, the Minister having made some blunders and mistakes; And yet p. 4. he own'd that she was his Lawful Wife, so that here she's both a Law­ful Wife, and a Concubine at the same time: Then a little lower, because he would be sure to have Company enough, he says, That all those Thousands of Marriages that were made from the Rupture betwixt King Charles I. and his Parliament, to the time of Charles II's. Restoration, by Justices, Quakers, &c. Were all of them but meer Concubinage, and that those Marriages were as much illegal as those, without any Ceremony at all, till they were all made good by the Act of Indemnity of the 12th Car. 2. But then at the Foot of the Page he spoils all again, by saying, That according to the Holy Writ, there's no more Ceremony requir'd, but consent on both Parts, before Witness sufficient, and bedding together, according to Exod. 12. [Page 33] 26. I suppose he would have said, Deut: 22. 16.) Without any presence necessarily re­quir'd of either Magistrate or Priest. And so now he deals alike, both with his Brethren the Priests and the Justices of Peace, for there was neither t' one nor t' other present to see our Author go to Bed with his Maid, after Forty Years Concubinage with his Wife; So that he has spent a great deal of pains to prove that which no body ever doubted, that these Marriages may be good in the sight of God, that are not such according to the Laws of some Kings and Countreys. But the mystery lies in the Application and Consequence, Viz. That his Marriage, or rather Concubinage with his Maid, is Lawful in the sight of God, tho not according to the Laws of the Land. But now I must beg his leave to shew him the difference of the Case. At that time there was a Law, or at least a Power enjoining Marriages by Justices, &c. And forbidding Marriage ac­cording to the Book of Common Prayer, on pain of Forty Shillings for each offence, as he says, p. 2. and Mr. Butler is so good a Mini­ster of the True Church of England, that he asserts those Marriages by Justices may be good, setting aside the Statutes and Laws of this Realm. But there was no Power nor Law allowing Mr. Butler, or any Man to go to his Maids Bed and live with her as his Wife; (his other Wife being still alive) with­out application either to Magistracy or Mini­stry, [Page 34] or the Presence of any Witnesses for ought that appears. And because I perceive he is much for Clandestine Marriages, I must refer him to his dearly beloved Old-Testa­ment, where he will find Ruth, Chap. 4. Ver. 9. That Boaz's Marriage with Ruth was solemniz'd in the Presence of the Elders; who, together with the People, pray'd for a Blessing upon 'em; and Deut. 22. 16. he will also find that the Tryal of the Brides Virginity was to be made, by producing the Tokens of it before the Elders, which shews, that the Old-Testament Marriages were Pub­lick, and that the Solemnization and Dis­solution of them depended on the Autho­rity of the Magistrate, whereas Mr. Butler consulted them in neither Case.

Our Author in the next place, p. 22. al­ledges that God did plainly allow of a Lawful Concubinage, or Additional Wives for the Bed, for Issues sake; the Issue whereof are no where term'd Bastards, either in Old or New Testament, but upon all Occasions in case of Heirs Male, wanting by the proper Wife, the Sons of Concubinage be­came Heirs; thus Ishmael, Son of Abraham, by his Maid-Servant, should have been Heir, if Isaac had not been born of Sarah, Gen. 17. 18. And thus Rehoboam, Son of Solomon, by Naamah, a meer Concubine, was his Heir unto his Throne, for that he had no Son by hi [...] proper Wife; yea, tho Daughters he had seve­ral. And thus Jepthah, Son of Gilead, by a [Page 35] Stranger, or a meer Concubine, became the Prince of the People before any of his Brethren, born of the lawful Wife, because of his Abili­ties above any of 'em; Judges 11. 2. 11. which had he been a Bastard, could not have been; For a Bastard might not enter into any Office in the Church, to become so much as a Constable or Church warden, much less a King or a Judge, Deut. 23. 2. but was to remain a Slave, equal to the Gibeonites, a Hewer of Wood, and a Drawer of Water: And at this rate none were esteem'd Bastards, but Children, begotten in Adultery or Whoredome, of another Man's Wife, or of a Common Whore, and such could not inherit. Incest was a foul Sin, and yet the Children, born of Incest, did inherit, and were not reputed Bastards; as Pharez, Son of Judah, by his Son's Widow, and Janna, Son of Joseph Arses, by his Neece; Both which were Heirs in the Genealogy of our Saviour, and therefore no Bastards: But the Pope made Bastards of such, which by God's Laws are reputed well-born; and from the Pope our Sta­tute-Laws still keep up the Practise, declaring all Children to be Bastards which are born out of Marriage; so as Children begot out of Mar­riage, was a Sin against the King's Laws and Statutes, and yet no Sin against God's Law. These are our Author's own Words, because I would give him fair Play, and let his Arguments appear in their native Beau­ty and Strength.

I answer, Had God allowed of Additional Wives for Issue sake, we should have it some­where mention'd in Holy Writ, and let our Author produce a Text for it if he can. If God allow'd Additional Wives, how came it that he made but one for Adam, and that one too, we have God's own Word for it was a Meet-help, Gen. 18. 29. which could not be true, if more Wives than one were necessary for one Man. The Prophet Malachi, c. 2. 15. when he Expostulates with the People of Israel, for dealing treacherously with the Wife of their Youth, and reproves them for their Divorces, argues in the same manner, viz. Did he not make one, yet had he the Residue of the Spirit, and wherefore one? That he might seek a Godly Seed, therefore take heed to your Spirit, and let none deal treache­rously against the Wife of his Youth; which the Criticks Paraphrase or Interpret thus: An­non unam duntaxat Conjugem Adamo fecit, non plures uxores uni viro. Revocat hic Ju­daeos ad Puram conjugii Naturam & primam Institutionem: And again, Quamvis plures ani­mas creare possit quas inderet pluribus Mulieri­bus Adamo jungendis neque enim defecit eum in una Muliere Spiritus, id autem quum non fecerit Argumento hoc certe est, quod nolit uni viro plures uxores jungi. Quorsum autem unum, nempe unum illum hominem constantem ex viro & Muliere, hoc unice Scilicet agebat, ut habe­ret Legitimam Sobolem; Ostendit enim spurios [Page 37] fore qui ex Polygamia Naseentur, quia non Gig­nuntur Secundum Dei Institutionem. Attenti sitis igitur ad Cavendum ne perside agatis, vel Spiritu (hoc est animo) vestro, ne datam fidem primae uxori violetis alia superinducta, i. e. ‘Did he not make one Wife for Adam, and not divers Wives for one Man? Here he Recalls them to the pure Nature of Wedlock, and first Institution of Marriage. Altho he could have created more Souls, to put into more Women, to be joyn'd to Adam; for the Life that he breath'd into Eve, he could have breathed into more; but whereas he did not do so; It is certainly an Argu­ment, that he would not have one Man to have more Wives than one. And why did he make one, that is to say, one Man, consisting of Male and Female? On­ly for this end, that there might be a Lawful Off-spring; by which he shews, that the Children, born of Polygamy, should be spurious, because not begot according to the Institution of God. There­fore take heed, watch over your Spirits, that you don't so much, as in your Mind, violate the Troth, which you have pligh­ted to your first Wife, by bringing in another upon her.’ The Authors of this Exposition are Capellus, Calvin, Piscator, Lu­dovicus de Dieu, Menochius, Tarnovius, &c. as may be seen in Pool's Synopsis. So that [Page 38] here is the Prophet Malachi, and many Divines of great Note of an Opinion, con­trary to Mr. Butler, viz. that God never allowed Additional Wives, and always ac­counted the Children of Polygamy Spurious, or Bastards. And as for our Author's Distin­ction, p. 21. That every Man was to Marry but one Woman, who was to be Lady, or Dame of the Family; I have already shew'd him from Lev. 18. 18. That no Man was to take a Wife to her Sister (the Hebrew Phrase, for two Wives together) to vex her, to uncover her Nrkedness, besides the other in her Life time. Now the Reason of the Wifes be­ing vex'd, is plainly said to be the Unco­vering of the others Nakedness; and Mr. Butler knows by Experience, that the Un­covering of a Concubines Nakedness vexes his Wife; and therefore the Reason is as strong against Concubines, as if they were Ladies, or Dames of the Family, as well as she he calls the one Wife.

As to his Argument from Ishmael's be­ing to succeed Abraham, as his Heir, if Isaac had not been born: It's no Argument that God approv'd Concubinage, nor does our Author find any where that God had commanded that Ishmael should succeed in that Case; but it's plain that he was sent awa [...] by God's Order; that he should not partake of the Inheritance with Isaac, Gen. 21. 10 and 12. ver. compared, because he [Page 39] was the Son of a Bond-woman, so that this Instance makes against Mr. Butler.

Then as to Rehoboam, Mr. Butler owns that Solomon had no other Son; Besides, the Succession's being continued upon him, was by a special Decree, as appears, 1 Kin. 11. 35. To his Son will I give one Tribe, that David, my Servant, may have always a Light before me in Jerusalem: So that this is nothing to his Purpose. The Kindness was to David, and not to Rehoboam, as the Son of a Concubine; And here 'tis fit to take Notice that the Instance, of passing by Solomon's Daughters by his proper Wife, as Mr. Butler calls her, makes against his be­loved Doctrine of the Divine Right of a Lineal Succession.

Then, as to Jepthah's being a Judge, if our Author had but look'd to the second Verse of the 11th. Chapter of the Judges, he would find that his Brethren would al­low him no Part of the Inheritance, for that very Reason, because he was the Son of a strange Woman; which is plainly against Mr. Butler, and shews that the Sons of Concubines were not judged to have any Right of Inheritance. But that does not hin­der, but the People might chuse such an one for a Judge, Commander or General, in time of Distress, and Disorder, as the times of the Judges were; when every Man did what was Right in his own Eyes, there [Page 40] being at that time no King in Israel, Judg. 21. 25. Besides, our Author owns that Jep­thah was chosen Judge for his Abilities, and not because of his Birthright.

As to the Law mentioned, Deut. 23. 2. a Bastard shall not enter into the Congre­gation of the Lord; Commentators under­stand that to be meant by Children of a Common Whore. Whereas in these times of Ignorance, that God winked at, Concu­bines, were solemnly Married, and were accoun­ted a sort of Wives, and the Man's Proper­ty, to whom they were so Married; and that Jepthah's Mother was a privare Concubine, any Man, who will consult the Criticks, may find to have been the Opinion of Munste­rus and Cornelius a Lapide. But suppose it had been otherwise, tho God imposes a Law upon us, he imposes none upon himself, so that he may dispense with it when he pleases. And if he did so in this Case, and others of the like Nature, to let those un­happy Children see that he extended Mer­cy to them, notwithstanding the Sins of their Parents, that all such might not be driven to Despair of his Goodness; what says that in Excuse of Polygamy?—Our Author may as well defend Incest from this Topick, (which yet he owns to be a foul Crime) because, as he observes himself, Pha­rez, the Incestuous Son of Judah, by his Daughter-in-Law Tamar, succeeded as Heir [Page 41] to his Father, and is mention'd in our Sa­viour's Genealogy. Who dare or can li­mit the Holy One of Israel, who hath said, he will have Mercy, on whom he will have Mer­cy. Of this Opinion our Author may also find Peter Martyr, and Cornelius a Lapide; And as to Pharez and Janna, mention'd in our Saviour's Genealogy, Matth. 1. and Luk. 2. It may be solved the same way. God of his Soveraign Grace chuses and pu­rifies whom he pleases; nor is it any Im­putation upon our Saviour, that he was re­lated unto, as well as came to save the chief of Sinners. Non dedignatur Christus ex pecca­tricibus & Gentilibus nasci, say Lucas Brugensis Mal­donatus & Cajetan, quia venit ut utrasque salvaret, Christ did not disdain to derive his Pedigree from sinful Women and Gentiles, because he came into the World to save both of 'em. So that this makes nothing at all for our Author's Purpose, for the same Argument will conclude as strongly, that God approves Murder, Adultery, Incest, Common-Whores, and Heathenism; because Bathsheba, Thamar, Rachel, and Ruth, are mention'd in our Savi­our's Genealogy, Whereas it only shews the exceeding Riches of God's Grace, in exten­ding so much Compassion to the worst of Sin­ners. For, that Bathsheba was an Adultress, and became David's Wife, by Murder, is plain; that Thamar was an Incestuous Adul­tress, and her Children, Pharez and Zara, [Page 42] Bastards cannot be denied, and that Judah begot those Children upon her, as a Com­mon Harlot, is obvious to any one that Reads the Story; that Rahab was a Common Prosti­tute is no less known, and no Body can dis­pute that Ruth was a Moabitess; But of all these we may say with the Apostle, 1 Cor. 6. 9. Such they were once, but at last were washed, sanctified, and justified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

As to his unmannerly Reflection upon our Statute Laws, that declare all Children born out of Marriage to be Bastards, As if they were deriv'd from the Pope, Let the Govern­ment look to it; but this looks indeed like Mr. Butler's Politicks and Divinity. He might know that the Holy Scripture calls such Bastards, Deut. 23. 2. Quivis extra Legiti­mum, conjugium natus says, Gerundensis, any one born out of Lawful Marriage: And if it do not call the Children of Concubines by that Name, because of the Respect due to Mar­riage, tho unlawfully Contracted; It does not follow, but that in effect they really were such. And therefore our Law which admits of no Concubinage, has reason to call all Children begot out of Marriage Bastards, Whether ever the Pope had done so or not. Our Author knows, that the Scripture does not call Pharez and Zara Bastards, tho they really were so, as being not only Begot out of Lawful Wedlock, but in horrid Incest, where­as [Page 43] Judah thought he had to do with a Com­mon-Harlot. And therefore his Argument from the Scriptures, not calling every one in particular, Begot in Concubinage, or o­ther unlawful Manner Bastards, has no weight at all, especially seeing it is plain, that it calls all those Begot out of Wedlock in General, by that Name.

I come next to our Authors Historical In­stances, p. 23. and 24. The first is the Parlia­ment of Scotland' s Legitimation of the Sons of Robert Stuart, King of Scots, by Elizabeth Moor, his Concubine; and his being succeeded by John, the Eldest of those Sons by Concubi­nage, notwithstanding he had Two Sons by his Lawful Wife Eupham, Daughter to the Earl of Rosse, then living.

I answer, 1. The Practice of Scotland, or any other Nation in this Case, suppose it were true as our Author lays it down, Viz. That the Reasons moving them so to do, Were that she had been a true Wife to him, before God in all things, excepting the deficiency of the Rites and Ceremonies of Marriage, Is no Rule to us, nor cannot warrant out Conscienees. But our Author may please to know that there have been discoveries made since, which make it highly probable, that Robert Stuart was Mar­ried to Elizabeth Moor, whilst he was a pri­vate Man, tho he thought fit for Reasons of State to conceal it when he came to the Crown, and this is urg'd by Sir Geo. Macken­zie, [Page 44] and others, in Defence of the Royal Line of Scotland. But supposing it were not so, his Sons by Elizabeth Moor, were Legiti­mated by the Parliament of that Kingdom, which formerly was the Supreme Power of that Nation; and if we may believe their Histories, gave Laws to their Kings but re­ceiv'd none from them: So that they set up, Dethron'd, and Punish'd their Kings, as they thought fit. A plain instance of this, is that Letter to the Pope from the States of Scot­land, in the time of Edw. I. as is to be seen in Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation, Wherein they tell him that they had Dethron'd John Baliol, for such and such Causes, and cho­sen Robert Bruce, whom they would also De­throne if he committed the like Misdemeanours. They afterwards settled the Succession upon the said Bruces Brother and his Issue, failing the Kings own Male Issue, tho he had a Daughter then living, who was Mother to this very Robert Stuart; So that in those days they believ'd nothing of the Divine Right of He­reditary Lineal Succession. They afterwards made an Act in Robert Bruces time, that in Case of any dispute about the Succession, it should be decided by the Parliament, and the King of France by his League was oblig'd to assist him with Arms, to whom they adjudg'd the Crown. After King James the Third was slain in Bat­tle near Sterlin, the first Parliament held by his Son, enacted, That such as fell on the [Page 45] King's side, were Lawfully slain, as Enemies to the Publick, not so much as excepting him­self: And that those who fought against him, were no way Culpable. Nay, this present Parliament of Scotland declar'd, that the Late King James had forfeited their Crown, and did not trouble themselves to debate whether he had abdicated or not. So that to argue from an Act of Parliament in Scotland, relating to their Government, to a particu­lar Case, like that of our Authors, is to argue, de Genere in Genus, quite Forraign to his pur­pose; and shews him to be as Ignorant of the Laws of Argument, as undeserving of the Character of a true Church of England-Man, to take Presidents from a Countrey who al­ways had a Mortal hatred to passive obedi­ence: But besides in admitting the Scotish Race to this Crown; our Ancestors did not trouble themselves with the Question, whe­ther they were Lawfully begot or not? But whether King James I. was descended in the Eye of the Law from our Hen. VIIth? For if we may believe some of the Scotch Historians, there was Reason enough to question that Princes Birth, without going any further back. But it seems our Ancestors were as much refolv'd to have him for their King as the Protestant Scots were, of whom the Earl of Glencarn, then one of the chief, is quoted by some of their Writers for saying to his Mother, when she to avoid being Dethron'd, [Page 46] her self, gave plain enough hints that he was none of the most Lawful Issue, They knew that if his Stone Horse had begot him he should be King of Scots: They considered him as born in Lawful Wedlock, without troubling themselves to enquire whether he was Lawfully begot, and tho they knew, they had no great reason to ad­mire her Chastity, they knew also that she had too much Interest to say, that he was spurious to be believed. The same Answer is enough to his other Instances of William the Conqueror and Henry VIIth. Their Claims were Autho­riz'd by Parliaments, who in Extraordinary Cases must consult the Publick welfare (for Salus Populi suprema lex, is a Maxim that will hold Eternally true) and are not to be Go­verned by the Notions of Clergy-Men, no more then our Late Parliaments were by their false Notions of Passive obedience, when they settled the Crown upon King Wil­liam and Queen Mary, &c. Moreover, seeing this Law about the Imploying of Bastards in places of Authority was not giv'n to us, and also dispens'd with by the Jews, to whom it was giv'n, there's no Reason that any Chri­stian Nation should look upon themselves as oblig'd by it, when the welfare of the State does indispensibly require the setting up of such an one, so that all our Authors Argu­ments from hence to prove Concubinage Law­ful, vanish into smoak. Besides Bonfrerius and Oleaster are of Opinion, that it was For­raign Bastards, and not those of their own [Page 47] People that were here prohibited, because Pharez tho a Bastard was admitted into the Congregation, and Jepthah, &c. Made a Judge, and the Reason of the prohibition, Commen­tators think to be, that Bastards were Gene­rally accounted Vile in the Eyes of their own People, neglected in their Education, and so unfit for Government.

Our Authors next Argument, Of Priests Marriage being formerly cried down, but now accounted Lawful is nothing to the purpose; The Lawfulness of that was always clearly de­monstrable from the Scriptures, but so was not that of Concubinage.

Mr. Butler, P. 27. Says, I am of Opinion we may find some other matters still spoken against that, may upon serious consideration be found as Innocent and Holy as that (meaning Priests Marriage) is at this day, and among other things, I propose a Lawful Concubinage as in some Cases it may be required, and to this purpose it is Writ­ten in the New Testament, Heb. 13. 4. That Marriage is Honourable in all, and the Bed unde­filed, but Whoremongers and Adulterers God will Judge. Then he argues, that by Bed undefil'd is meant some other Bed different from the Mar­riage Bed, because the Word [...] is a Copulative, which Couples sentences of a distinct significati­on, for that which is the same thing in sense with that which went before needs no Bond of Copula­tion, for if the Author had intended one and the same thing, by these words he would have said Marriage (being) or which is a Bed undefil'd. I [Page 48] Answer, This Poor Man is put to miserable shifts, to lull his own Conscience asleep, and to gull those of others, 'twill grant him that [...] Couples sentences of different significati­ons here, and that Marriage and Bed undefil'd are different things, but how will that prove, that there's any other Bed betwixt a Man and a Woman undefil'd except the Marriage Bed? Is it not plain, that the Bed may be defil'd by Married Persons? Mrs. Butler says our Author defil'd her Bed while she was Married to him. So that tho Marriage be Honourable, that does not say, but Married Persons may Dishonour themselves by defiling the Marri­age Bed, which by God and Man is always accounted more Dishonourable then Fornica­tion betwixt Persons unmarried, and there­fore the Apostles sense is plain, Marriage is Honourable, and to keep the Marriage Bed unde­fil'd is Honourable, but those that commit Fornication, and those that Defile the Mar­riage bed by Adultery, God will Judge, That this is the plain meaning of the Text, may be evinc'd thus, the Apostle proposes Marriage as Honourable in opposition to Fornication, which is Leudness betwixt un­married Persons; therefore says the Apostle Marriage is Honourable, but God will Judge Fornicators. [...], that is says Grotius, Ve­nere utentes extra Conjugium, unmarried Per­sons who lie together, and the Bed undefil'd is Honourable, continues the Apostle, but God will Judge Adulterers; [...] That is, [Page 49] such as Defile the Marriage-Bed, unmar­ried Persons have none to Defile. Besides, there may be a Defiling of the Marriage Bed, even betwixt Married Persons, by Inconti­nence, and the Immoderate Use of it.

Mr. Butler owns P. 8. that he himself was guilty of Incontinence, with the Complainant Martha, whilest his Wife, which certainly was a Defiling of the Marriage Bed. Calvin says upon the place, Cubile Impollutum addi­tur ut Sciant conjugati non quidvis sibi Liceri, sed usum thori Legitimi debere esse Moderatum ne quid alienum a Conjugij pudore & Castimo­nia admittant. i. e. The Bed Undefiled is added, that married Persons may know that their Liberty is not boundless, but that the Use of the Lawful Bed ought to be moderate, lest they should commit something unbeco­ming the Modesty of Wedlock, or Chastity; and so if Mr. Butler went to Bed with his Wife, during his Incontinence, when he ought to have been at Prayers in the Church, or Visiting the Sick, &c. it was a thing unbe­coming Wedlock and Chastity; so that here he sees that Marriage and the Bed Unde­filed are things as much different, as Mr. Butler, the Husband of Martha Perkins, and Mr. Butler, not a Concubinary afterwards with Mary Tomkins, or any other Woman; or Mr. Butler in Bed with his Wife at Lawful Sea­sons, and Mr. Butler not in Bed with his Wife when he should be Visiting the Sick. Junius, [Page 50] Piscator, Gerundensis, Gataker, Menochius, Ti­rinus, and others, do all understand this Word Undefiled to be meant of the Mar­riage Bed tho some of 'em will have it to be Periphrastical, and others Preceptive; and Mr. Butler himself instances a Case, where­in he owns the Word Kai to be Exegetical, or Explanatory of the thing preceeding, viz. Ephes 1 3. Blessed be God, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; which the same Apostle writes, 2 Cor. 1. 3. Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in which the Particle, and is Exegetical.

But says Mr. Butler, p. 28. That if we read the Words thus; Marriage, ev'n the Bed unde­filed, is honourable: There will be a Riddle in the Case; for why did he make account that Mar­riage could not be honourable, unless it were a Bed undefiled? No, that could not be, for Mar­riage of it self is an honourable State, in all Cases and Persons. And again it would follow, that all Marriages are, even a Bed undefiled, which is not so; for there are very many Profane and Ʋnclean Marriages; and therefore the Holy Au­thor treats of a Bed undefiled, plainly distinct and different from a Marriage-Bed, that may truly be stiled a Lawful and Ʋndefiled Bed, &c.

This is a very odd way of arguing. I have shew'd that there's no necessity of reading the Words so, and that most Com­mentators take them to be spoke of the Mar­riage-Bed, but under different Considerati­ons, [Page 51] viz. as Defiled and Undefiled. Our Author also runs into Contradictions; for in one Line he says, Marriage is honourable in all Cases, even, tho the Bed be not Ʋndefiled; and in a few Lines after says, There are very many Prophane and Ʋnclean Marriages. Let him reconcile this if he can: As to his Q. if the Apostle did not account Marriage Honourable, unless it were a Bed Undefiled; it's downright Impertinent; Marriage is ap­pointed as a Remedy for keeping the Bed Undefiled: The Apostle's Meaning is plain enough, that Marriage was Honourable, but it was very Dishonourable in married Per­sons to Defile the Marriage-Bed, either by the Immoderate Use of it betwixt themselves, or by taking others into it. Calvin and others, I have quoted for the former, and for the latter, Gataker and others comment upon it thus: It is as much as if he should say, Tho­rus Maritalis, nulla contaminetur Macula, A­dulterii aut ullius peccati contra fidem conjuga­lem. i. e. Let not the Marriage-Bed be De­filed by any Spot, either of Adultery, or any other Crime against the Conjugal Vow. As to what our Author alledges, that there are many Prophane and Unclean Marriages, those are none of God's Appointment, and the Apostle treats here only of such: I do believe that his Marriage with Mary Tomkins is Prophane and Unclean, if it can be accoun­ted any Marriage at all; but to be plainer [Page 52] with him, there can be no such thing pro­perly speaking, as an Unclean Marriage, tho some Unclean Persons may perhaps marry only for Unclean Ends. Marriage is an Ho­ly Ordinance of God, and can never be Un­clean, tho many Unclean Practices may be covered under that Name; for every one that marries, does not marry in the Lord.

Having thus made it plain, that the Apo­stle speaks of the Marriage Bed only, our Author's Inference, that he speaks of a Law­ful and Ʋndefiled Bed, distinct from a Marriage Bed, falls to the Ground of Course.

Mr. Butler, P. 19. has Recourse to the Practice of the Hebrews, to whom this Epi­stle was writ, to prove this forc'd Commen­tary he puts upon the Text, for which he neither does nor can quote one Expositor; and therefore alledges, that because the He­brews always held a Bed of Concubinage to be Ʋndefiled and Honourable; that the Apostle must needs therefore mean Concubinage by a Bed Ʋndefiled. I answer, 1. That I have alrea­dy prov'd Concubinage among the Hebrews to have been contrary to the Divine Com­mand, tho Conniv'd at in those times of Ignorance: 2. That Concubinage could not be the Apostle's Meaning; for our Author himself will own that Marriage does also imply a Bed Undefiled, otherwise it could not be Honourable; so that it would be Nonsence for the Apostle to distinguish Con­cubinage [Page 53] from Marriage by the Words Bed Ʋndefiled, as if it were more properly so, than Marriage it self, which was of Divine Institution. 3. That the Apostle must not be suppos'd to Contradict his Master Je­sus Christ, who recall'd Marriage to its first Institution betwixt one Man and one Wo­man at a time, Matth. 19. 4, 5, 6. where he says, They twain (not they three, four, or five) shall be one Flesh; and instead of our Author's Assertion, that the Apostle ap­proves Concubinage, because he wrote to the Jews, it's more probable that he reproves it, as our Saviour did their Divorces, in the 19th. of Matthew, which Moses, because of the Hardness of their Hearts, had suffer'd, and they thereupon thought Lawful. But our Saviour tells them that from the begin­ning it was not so; and it's as plain, that Po­lygamy or Concubinage was not from the be­ginning, so that our Saviours' Argument concludes as strongly against those, as against the Divorces then in Use amongst the Jews.

Grotius says, That the Apostle here opposes himself to that Opinion, which many of the Jewish Rabbies maintain'd, viz. That it was no Crime to Lie with any Woman, tho not married to her, if she was not a Jewess, because they thought Moses's Law only restrain'd them as to such.—Therefore he advises them to take heed, lest there be any Fornicator amongst them, Heb. 12. 16. [Page 54] And in this Text proposes Marriage as a Remedy against Fornication, as has been said already.

This Answer of our Saviour, that Moses suffer'd such things, because of the Hardness of their Hearts, is sufficient to put an end to all those Cavils from the Old Testament Instances. The Jews were a stiff necked People, which is given them in many Pla­ces as their Character; and therefore Moses, by Divine Permission, suffer'd those things, tho he did not command them; He suffer'd them, to prevent greater Evils; lest they should have murder'd their Wives, or trea­ted them harshly: 2. They were suffer'd, as common Laws of Nations do allow, more than is allow'd by the Laws of Religion, as is clear from this Instance; that in all Christian Kingdoms there are Judges, con­stituted for deciding Differences betwixt Man and Man, of what Nature soever they may be, for preventing Oppression and In­justice; so that the Bench is open to trivial and frivolous Suits, as well as to those that are weighty and material; yet the Practice of such as go to Law upon every Occasion, is contrary to the Apostle's Command, and Christian Charity, as appears by 1 Cor. 1. 6. 3. They were suffer'd as a proper Punish­ment for their Wickedness; for it both ex­hausted their Bodies and Estates, and broke the Peace of their own Families, and engaged [Page 55] them in Discord with others. 4. This Peo­ple were given over to a Temporal Forni­cation, as the Papists are to a Spiritual For­nication: But our Saviour, the Second Adam, when he came to Redeem the World, re­stor'd Marriage again to its first Institution, as it was in the First Adam's time.

Mr. Butler P. 20. alledges, that God at­tested the Legitimacy of Ishmael' s Birth by the Blessing he gave him. Our Author, sure, knows it's a Maxim in Divinity, that we must mea­sure God's Will by his Word, and not by his Providence. The Wise Man tells us, that Outward Things happen alike to the Good, and to the Bad. The Text tells us that it was for Abraham's sake that God gave Ishmael Temporal Blessings, and so he bles­sed Esau for Isaac's sake; whence our Au­thor may as well conclude, that God ap­prov'd of that Prophane Person. ‘Besides, it's plain from the Text that Ishmael was an Accursed Persecutor, had his Hand against every Man, and every Man's Hand against him; his Posterity we find complain'd of Psalm 83. amongst other E­nemies of the People of God. And as the Author of the Book, call'd God's Judgments against Whoring, observes, so they have continued under several Deno­minations to this day; as Ishmaelites, Ha­garens, &c. of which latter Name being asham'd, as denoting their spurious Ori­ginal, [Page 56] they assum'd to themselves the Title of Saracens, as if they were Sarah's Off­spring; under which they were formidable to the Christian World for some Ages, and continue irreconcileable Enemies to the Christian Religion to this day, under the name of Arabians, Turks, &c. and are so addicted unto Uncleanness, that they place their chief Happiness here and here­after in the Enjoyment of their Sensual Pleasures.’ So far was Ishmael or his Poste­rity from being truly blessed; To that Book I refer our Author, where he will find an Ela­borate Account of the Punishments, inflicted upon the Patriarchs and others, for their Poligamy and Concubinage, which he will needs have to be a Bed Ʋndefiled.

Page 30. he says, God allow'd of David's Concubinage, because 2 Sam. 12. 8. God ex­postulating with David, because of his Adul­tery with Bathsheba, and the Murder of her Hus­band, says. And I gave thee thy Masters House, and thy Masters Wives into thy bosom.

I answer, God gave David the Possession of of all that was Saul's, to use Lawfully, but not to use Unlawfully, otherwise he must ap­prove of Incest, for it was not Lawful for any Man to have his Father-in-Law's Wise, nor does it appear that David made use of them as Wives. So God is said to give Da­vid's Concubines to Absalom, which will make him the Author of Incest, if giving [Page 57] do always signifie approving; but the mean­ing is no more then this, that he suffer'd Absa­lom to fall into that Tentation, and took his Restraining Grace from him, that so Da­vid's Sin might be punish'd by that of his Son. So God gave Saul into David's Hand, yet he himself own'd it was not Lawful for him to kill him. The word in the Original signifies any Women; as Junius, and Corne­lius a Lapide observe; so that it may be meant of Saul's Daughters that were David's Wives: Besides, its plain, if he had added Saul's Wives to those that he had before, he had transgressed the Law, Deut. 17. 17. against Kings multiplying Wives; which God would never have approved of. So that the meaning of that place seems to be no more, than that God amongst other things that were Saul's, gave him also his Wife's. But seeing it is doubtful our Author will find but little Stability in it for his Conscience to build upon. His Instance from Reh [...]boam's Succession in that same Page is answered al­ready, and for that from the Prophet Hosea's being order'd to take another Woman, his own being yet alive. Our Author cannot but know that Rivet, and other Interpre­ters, understand it to be Parabolical to re­present God's Love to an Adulterous an [...] Treacherous People: Or if otherwise, h [...] answers himself, when he says, it was by special Command from God, who may dis­pense [Page 58] with his own Law when he pleases.

His Instance of the Conception of our Saviour, p. 32. is Villainous and Blasphe­mous. God form'd Adam out of the Dust by his Omnipotence, and forms us in the Womb Mediante Generatione; and can his forming of our Saviour's Humane Nature there, without any such Medium, any way import a Violation of Virginity? Does not the immodest Man know, that this was altogether Miraculous, and Prophesied of before as such? Isaiah 7. 14. Can any Man not wholly bereft of Sense, or hardened in Impiety, compare this any way to a Bed out of Marriage? but this Mans Im­petuous Lust makes him flie on the Face of God himself.

Page 32. He will have our Saviour to ap­prove of a Bed out of Marriage as Undefiled, John 4. 10. because he blessed the Woman of Samaria and her Husband or Man, with whom she liv'd in Concubinage, without so much as reproving her for it, or order­ing her to discontinue her Course of Life; as our Saviour used to do in Sinful Cases; as John 8. 11. and 5. 14.

Answer. That Christ reprov'd her is ap­parent enough, when he told her, that he whom she then had was not her Husband; and it's plain from her own Words to her Neighbours, that she was touch'd with his Reproof, when she said to them, that he [Page 59] had told her all that ever she did in her Life, tho we hear of nothing else but this one matter. All Commentators agree that Christ's telling her, that he whom she had now was not her Husband, was a severe Re­proof and a Check to her, for mocking him in asking for Water to quench her Thirst, when he was speaking to her of Water from the Wells of Salvation, and also by endea­vouring to deceive him when she told him, that she had no Husband. By her Answer 'tis also plain that she confessed her Crime; I perceive says she, that thou art a Prophet, which was a direct owning of the Truth of what he said. Now her Crime according to Grotius and Lightfoot in Hora was, that she had Five Husbands, from whom she had di­vorc'd her self contrary to the Law of Moses, or had been Five times divorc'd for Adultery, and that she was truly touch'd with a sense of her sin appears, In that she was straight way Sollicitous to know, whether she Worship­ped God in a Right manner or not. If our Author consult Bucer, Calvin, and Melancton upon the place, he will find they were fully of this Opinion, that Christ by discoursing her, sought an opportunity to reprove her, and that it was not in sharper Terms, only ar­gues, that he was unwilling to break the bruised Reed. That the Woman was suf­ficiently sensible of her Faults, appears in this, that she took shame to her self by own­ing [Page 60] them before all her fellow Citizens, that she was a sincere believer, appears from her Zealous desire to have them made Partakers of the Grace of God, as well as her self, and that she broke off her impure Course of Life, is not to be questioned seeing it is cer­tain she had Faith, which is an Heart purify­ing Grace, but as to Her Husbands coming with her, receiving part of the Blessing, and having his Concubinage approv'd: It is only the Comment of our Concubinary Author, Our Saviour would never Contradict himself by Preaching another Doctrine to her, than he did in Mat. 19. And a [...]low her six Husbands at once when he recall'd Marriage there, to its first Institution betwixt one and one.

I come next to consider our Authors de­scription of a Whoremonger, p. 33. He is says he, such a wretch who tho allow'd to Marry, or to keep his Concubine, that is a Woman proper to himself provided he do not multiply Concubines, nor keep any Woman unlawfully Compassed unto any mans wrong, or to that Womans wrong, and useth her not meerly for his Lust, but out of a pure desire of an Holy Seed by her, yet not con­tented with that Lawful Liberty, chuseth rather to spend the Holy Seed of mankind upon Common Women, and thus exposeth his Seed to be murdered in the Body.

Answ. I observe, our Author distinguishes betwixt Marrying and Keeping a Concubine as different things, which plainly overthrows [Page 61] what he asserts, for our Saviour, Mat. 19. Speaks not one word of allowing a Concu­bine, but that they that cannot contain should Marry, v. 11. 12. The Apostle answerable to this, 1 Cor. 7. 2, 9. Proposes Marriage as a Remedy against Fornication and Incontinence, but speaks not one word of a Concubine, and from thence also it is plain, that by Whore­mongers the Apostle means such Persons as are not Married, and yet make use of Wo­men, else Marriage were no proper remedy for them, which perfectly destroys Mr. But­lers Concubinage, seeing the Apostle doth thereby Condemn all use of Women out of a Married State: As to what our Author says is allowed at Rome, and in some Reform'd States (tho there be none of the latter charg'd with any such thing but Holland) it's no warrant for any Mans Conscience

For the Sixty Sixth of those called the Apostolical Canons, Ordering that any Per­son who destour'd a Virgin, should either Marry her, or have no other Wife during her Life: It is nothing to his purpose, but rather against Poligamy and Concubinage.

As to his Instances of Constantinus Chlorus, and Constantine the Greats having Concubines, and being receiv'd by the Christians into pla­ces of Authority notwithstanding, It's Forreign to his purpose, the Christians were Subject to former Emperours who were the worst and lendest of Men, it not being i [...] [Page 62] their Power to hinder or advance them at that time, and whatever was the Practice of the Christians then: If they either commit­ted Fornication themselves, or Countenanc'd it in others; they did thereby Act contrary to the truly Apostolical Canons, Act. 15. Commanding them to abstain from Fornicati­on, and the repeated Injunctions of the Apo­stles to flee Fornication, which properly sig­nifies, as has been already prov'd, uncleanness us'd by unmarried Persons; and as for Adul­tery, or defiling the Marriage Bed, which the said Princes must have been guilty of, by their Concubinage, it's every where Con­demned by God and Man, tho the Christians in those times might perhaps neither have Power, nor think it prudent to quarrel with those Emperours that were but just then be­ginning to see the Dawn of the Gospel Light, which utterly Condemns all such things. Nor can our Author make it appear, but they re­prov'd them as well as one of our Bishops did Henry VIII. and yet the Protestants did not think fit, neither to quarrel with his own Title to the Crown, nor those of his Succes­sors; tho perhaps there might have been good Reason to Question Queen Marys Legit­timacy, and yet our Author knows that the Church of England neither approves of Con­cubinage, Incest, nor Adultery; So false and inconcludent is his Argument. Besides, our Author Conceals, that Constantius Chlorus was [Page 63] no declared Christian, tho a Great Favourer of 'em, and that he was forc'd to abandon Helena and Marry Theodora; Step Daughter to the Emperor Maximianus Hercules, who thereupon made him Caesar. Nor does he take any notice of Constantine the Greats be­ing Married very young to Minervina, when it is not certain that he made profession of the Christian Religion, nor yet when he Married Fausta Daughter to the Emperour Maximian, one of the Greatest haters of the Christians that ever was. Neither does he take no­tice of the Plague that this wretch'd Wo­man Fausta was to him, for being enamoured on his Son Crispus by Minervina and not ob­taining her end, she accus'd him of a design to Debauch her, for which his Father put him to Death, but understanding the False­hood of the Accusation afterwards, he put her to Death too so disastrous were the ef­fects of his Poligamy.

As to Valentinian, the Emperor he was pas­sionate in anger even to Madness, and proba­bly as Extravagant in his Amours, the Story is very well known, that his passion to see the Empire Insulted by such an ugly deform'd Barbarous People, as the Quadi made him fall into such a fit of anger as that it kill'd him, so that he is no very commendable Pat­tern to be followed. Neither does Mr. But­ler take any notice that God did not bless the Marriage of Valentinian, with Justina his [Page 64] Wifes Maid, for she became a Cursed Arrian and his Grandson Valentinian by Galla, her Daughter became a cruel Persecutor of the Orthodox. Valentinian did also make a Law in Imitation of his own Practice, as Mr. But­ler Writes in Defence of his, that any Man might Marry two Wives, but succeeding Emperors would not allow it, the Honour of being put into the Code. Nor do I be­lieve the Universities will Honour Mr. But­lers Pamphlet, with a place in any of their Libraries.

As to his false pretence of Concubinage, or Poligamies being allowed by the Primi­tive Church, it is so gross it needs no Con­futation. Any Man that has read the Apo­logies of Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen against Celsus, or any thing of Ec­clesiastical History will find the contrary, and for such as cannot have the opportunity of perusing those Authors themselves, I refer them to the Account of what they said on that Head given by the Author of Gods Judgments against Whoring at the End of that Book.

Our Authors last effort is, p. 34. Where he proposes, a Reformed Concubinage to these Realms, for preventing the Ruine of Royal No­ble and Generous Families, and as an honest help to destroy those foul and crying Sins of Whore­dom and Adultery, which Ruine Kingdoms as well as Families. His Arguments to back this [Page 65] Proposal are, that had it not been for Concubinage, King Solomon had utterly fail'd of that Royal Raco, whence Jesus Christ Lineally descended. That if Ale­xander the Scot had used a Concubin, an Heir of his Body might have prevented those dreadful Wars betwixt Bruce and Baliol for that Crown. That if Richard the II. had been allowed an Heir by a Concubine, the War betwixt the Houses of Lancaster and York had been preven­ted; which at last was not ended but by a Son, sprung from a Bed of Concubinage. He concludes thus; Happy was that Con­cubinage of Robert the II. of Scotland, which advised to by a Parliament of that Nation, gave Birth to that Family of the Stuarts, which have made both En­gland and Scotland exceeding happy; and being grafted into the Family of the Welch Teudors of the Royal Blood of England, another Family sprang from a Bed of Concubinage, are to this day reigning over both Kingdoms: Which, if so, let no Man by Corrupt and Ʋn­lawful Customs, go about to stain the Legitimacy of such a Race of Princes, [Page 66] as both England and Scotland have Reason to remember with Praise and Thanksgiving to God; especially for Charles the I. of Blessed and Never­dying Memory, the Gracious Gift of God, for whose blessed sake Good Things may justly be expected in time, both unto his Royal Race, and these his Kingdoms. And thus much may serve, in Vindication of this Respondent for Bedding with Mary Tomkins.

Our Author here, as every where else, hath discover'd himself to be a Physitian of no Value; for if they may be call'd so, who prescribe a Remedy worse than the Disease, then certainly he deserves that Title. Suffering is al­ways preferable to Sin; and it's bet­ter that Ten Thousand Families should be Extinguish'd, than that any one Man should run the risk of his Soul, to keep them up. Mr. Butler's Passion for Concubinage doth so effectually blind him, that he can't see an Inch b [...]fore his Nose; for had he but look'd into that very Instance of Robert Stuart's Concubinage, he might havd seen what [Page 67] Buchanan, the Scotch Historian, says concerning it, viz. Quae res postea tam numerosam familiam prope Extinxit, i. e. Which Affair had well-nigh extinguish'd that numerous Family afterward. And because our Author reckons this one of the happiest Instances that can be, to advance Concubinage. I shall trespass upon the Reader's Patience a little, to demonstrate the contrary.

In the first place, our Author asserts falsly, that this Concubinage was ad­vised by the Parliament, whereas it is plain, that if she was his Concubine at all, it was when a private Man: For Buchanan says he married her after Queen Eupham's Death; so that then she was no Concubine. In the next place he falsly belies the Family of the Stu­arts, in saying that this Concubinage gave Birth to them; for both Cambden and Buchanan derive their Original from Bancho Thane of Loqhuaber, of the Blood-Royal of Scotland; who being murder'd by Mackbeth, the Tyrant, about the Year of our Lord, 1050. his Son Fleanchus fled into North-Wales, where [Page 68] he married the Daughter of Griffith Lewellin, Prince of the Country, and by her had a Son, call'd Walter; who being a Valiant Man, and Favourite to King Malcolm III. that kill'd Mackbeth, he was (for defeating the Galloway. Re­bels, and killing their General,) created Lord Steward of Scotland, whence the Family took Sirname; and Robert, whom we now treat of, being Son to another Walter Stuart, by King Robert Bruce's Daughter, was the first of 'em, who enjoy'd the Crown: So that Mr. Butler wrongs the Royal Family, both as to the Honour of their Original, which was Lawful, and not Spurious; and also as to their Antiquity, by 320 Years, for so long had they been call'd by the Name of Stuart, before they came to the Crown.

But then, as to the Effects of this Concubinage, they were the most dire­ful that almost any History gives an Account of: For John, the Eldest Son, by Elizabeth Moor; who, when he came to the Crown, was call'd Robert the III. because of the Hatred the Scots [Page 69] had to the Name of John, on the Ac­count of John Baliol, who betray'd their Liberty to our Edward I. and the ill Fate of King John of France, and King John of England. This Robert, I say, had nothing of the Spirit of Govern­ment, so that he was tyranniz'd over by his Brother Robert, the second Son of Elizabeth Moor, who starved his eldest [...]on, Prince David, to Death, in the Castle of Falkland, and forc'd the younger, call'd James, (afterwards James the I. of Scotland) to flee the Kingdom, and he was taken by the En­glish, as bound to France. Alexander the youngest of Elizabeth Moor's Sons, was a bloody cruel Man; and besides other Inhumane Acts, burnt the fa­mous Cathedral of Elgin, the finest in all Scotland, because he could not find the Bishop of Murray, whom he design'd to have murder'd. And his Son Alexander was as barbarous as the Father; and Plunder'd and Murder'd his Neighbours. The Misfortune of Prince James afflicted his Father, King Robert, so sensibly, that he refused to [Page 70] be comforted, and starv'd himself to Death. After which, his Brother, the Inhumane Robert, Reign'd under the Title of Governour; and not only kept his Nephew, James, from the Crown, during his Life, but left the Government to his own Son Murdo, who also kept it in his own Hands; till being diso­blig'd by the Rebellious Temper of his own Sons, he summoned a Parliament, and by their Advice call'd home King James I. from England; who, after his Return, made a terrible Havock among the other Princes of the Blood; cut off Murdo Stuart, Duke of Albany, and his two Sons, and banished others of the Name. Upon which, James, Duke Murdo's youngest Son, surpriz'd and kill'd the King's Uncle, and fled into Ireland. The Historian observes, that all this Disorder and Discord in the Royal Family, was fomented by Walter, Earl of Athol, eldest Son to King Robert Stuart, by Queen Euphaim, his Lawful Wife, his Design being to have all the Posterity of Elizabeth Moor, the Con­cubine, extinguish'd, that so the Crown [Page 71] might devolve upon himself: which he thought might be easily effected, if he could but have got King James the I. taken off; which he likewise compas­sed, having procured him to be mur­ther'd in his Bed Chamber, as he lodg'd in the Dominicans Cloyster near Perth, on a Journey. Upon which, the No­bility assembling from all parts of the Kingdom, they pursued the Murde­rers with so much Vigor, that all the Conspirators were put to Death in 40 Days: And Walter, Earl of Athol, who was the Author of the Conspira­cy, and Robert Graham, who actually murder'd the King, were put to death in such a cruel manner, that the Reader will not think his time lost to peruse the Account of it, as follows. Walter's Execution took up three Days; on the first he was put into a Cart, to which there was an Engine fastned, that hoisted him up by Ropes and Pullies, and let him down again to the Ground, which rack'd and loosened all his Joints, and put him to incredible Pain; then he was set on a Pillory, with a Red-hot [Page 72] Iron Crown on his Head, and this Motto; The King of all Traytors, which was reckon'd the Accomplishment of what had been foretold him by Witches, whom he had Consulted to know whether he should come to the Crown or not, viz. That he should be crown'd in a great Concourse of People. The second Day he was bound upon a Hurdle, and dragg'd at a Horses Tail through Edin­burgh. On the third he was bound to a Plank, ript up alive, and had his Bow­els first, and afterwards his Heart thrown into the Fire; his Head was fixed on a Pole, and his Quarters distri­buted into the chief Towns of the Kingdom. Robert Graham, his Kins­man, was carried through the City in a Cart, with his Hand nail'd to a Gallows, the Executioner in the mean time run­ning burning Irons into all the fleshy Parts of his Body, and then he was quarter'd as the former, says Buchanan. All this was the effect of that Concubinage, which Mr. Butler tells us was so happy; so that instead of Concubinages prevent­ing the Ruine of Royal Families, I have [Page 73] his own Instance upon him, to prove, that it well nigh endanger'd the Ruin of our own Royal Family, which is the most antient in the Western World; or per­haps for what's known in the whole U­niverse. And so far is our Author's As­sertion from being true, that all Histo­ries, Sacred and Prophane, abound with Instances of Families and Nations being ruin'd by Concubinage, and other sorts of Whoredom. For the Proof of which, I must again refer the Reader to that Book call'd, God's Judgments upon Who­ring, where the Instances are none of 'em taken from Romances, as those in the Book, call'd, God's Revenge against Adultery and Murder; but from appro­ved Histories; and may be of very good use to be read by the Youth of this De­bauch'd Age.

His Proposal of Concubinage, as a Remedy against Whoredome and Adul­tery, is wholly ridiculous, and contrary to the Experience of all Eyes. The Jews were as guilty of those Crimes as any People in the World, notwithstand­ing their Use of Concubines. Nay, [Page 74] David himself, a Man according to God's own Heart, did not find this a sufficient Remedy. The Prophets are full of Complaints against the Jews, for assembling by Troops in the Harlot's Houses, and Neighing every one after his Neighbours Wife, Jer. Chapters 3. & 5. In his 23d. he complains, that the Land is full of Adultery; and it seems they had such Priests and Prophets too as Mr. Butler; for in the 14th. Verse he says, I have seen also in the Prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing; they com­mit Adultery, and walk in Lies; they strengthen also the Hands of the Evil Do­ers, that none of them doth return from his VVickedness: Exactly Mr. Butler's Practice. Solomon in the 7th. of the Proverbs, gives us a Parabolical Represen­tation of the Nightwalkers, and stroling Whoremongers & Whores of his time, tho there's no doubt but his Subject [...] indul­ged themselves in Herds of Concubines, according to his Example; yet he tells us, That at the Window of his House he look'd through his Casement, and beheld among the simple ones (Cause enough [Page 75] to make our witty Debauchees fall out with the Bible, to call them Simple­tons) a young Man, void of Ʋnderstan­ding, passing through the Street, near her Corner; and he went the way to her House in the twilight in the Evening, in the black and dark Night, and behold there met him a Woman, with the Attire of an Harlot, and subtil of Heart, so she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent Face said unto him, This day have I paid my Vows, (or I have just been at Church, and come from Pray­ers) therefore came I forth to meet thee diligently to seek thy Face, and I have found thee, &c. He goeth after her straightway, as an Ox goeth to the Slaughter, or as a Fool to the Correction of the Stocks, till a Dart strike through his Liver, &c.

So that Mr. Butler might as well have proposed the breaking down of Dikes and Banks, to prevent Inundati­ons, as Concubinage to prevent Whore­dom. The practice of all Nations where it is allow'd is sufficient to [Page 76] convince him of his Mistake. Who are more abominably Lustful than the Turks, and yet they allow Poligamy? and indeed the Reason is plain, why it should be so. There's too much Truth in our English Proverb, Once a Whore, and always a Whore, & it will hold as well of the other Sex. Let once a Man prove unfaithful to the Wife of his Youth, whom he married in the Vigor and Strength of Affection, it will be found that it is not one or two Concubines that shall serve him. We find by Di­vine Record, that it was so among the Israelites; and History and Experience shews, that it hath always been so a­mongst other Nations.

Our Author's Proposal is much like Lycurgus's Laws, that he proposed to the Spartans for a Community of Wo­men; which so long as they were ob­serv'd, says Plutarch in his Life, the Women were far from that Scandalous Liberty, that they were afterwards ac­cus'd of, and yet one of these Ordinan­ces was, That their Children should not be begot by the first Commers (that is [Page 77] their Husbands) but the best Men that could be found, as if there could be any thing more Scandalous: So that Mr. Butler's Proposal, if put in practice, would just save us from Whoredom and Adultery, as much as Lycurgus's Laws sav'd the Lacedemonians, of whom Geradas said, That it was as impossible to find an Adulterer in Sparta, as to find a Bull with a Neck so long, that he could stand on one side of a Mountain, and drink of a River on the other side, which could have no other Meaning, if Lycurgus's Laws were observ'd, than that Adulte­ry was so common among the Spartans, that it had lost its Name; and so they knew not what was call'd so.

There's no thinking Man but will easily be convinc'd, that the Natural Result of Concubinage must needs be Whoredom. All those who observe the Course of Nature in the Genera­tion and Production of Mankind, allow that the number of Males and Females born, is upon the Matter equal; and the same may be observ'd in our Weekly Bills. I shall only instance the General [Page 78] Bill for the Year 1697. wherein we find 8062 Males baptized, and but 7767 Females, so that the Majority on the side of the Males, is 255, to which we shall add 293 Women dead in Childbed, which is a Distemper Women are only obnoxious to, and being Natural and Constant, will go far towards a Ballance for the Numbers of Men slain now and then by War, especially if we consider that the Widows and Female Infants chiefly, of such as are slain in Battle, have their Lives many times shortned for want of one to take care of 'em; and by being expos'd to hard Labour, and shifts for a Livelihood. So that if Concubinage should be allow'd, it fol­lows of Necessity that all Men could not be supplied, which would certain­ly occasion their breaking in upon one anothers Properties, and abundance of Confusion and Blood-shed.

In the next place it infalliby hinders Propagation; for seeing the Numbers of Men and Women are upon the mat­ter equal by the Course of Nativity, it's an Evidence that the God of Na­ture [Page 79] design'd no more but one Wo­man for one Man at a time, that there were nothing to be said for it from the Scriptures. And that Concubinaries hinder Propagation; not only by En­grossing two, three, or more Women to themselves, by which they deprive other Men of having any, but also by being unable to perform Conjugal Du­ties to so many at a time, so that they lose their Teeming Season, is demon­strable thus; and we may appeal to common Experience for the Truth of it, viz. That when two Persons are married together of equal Years, and proportionable Strength, it's found that they are sufficient to satisfie one ano­ther, if Sickness or some other Acci­dent don't prevent it; and they are ge­nerally most prolifick, and their Chil­dren most robust and healthful; and therefore it were to be wish'd that Christian Magistrates and Nations con­cern'd themselves more to have good Laws made for encouraging Marriage, & preventing Matches of unsuitable Years; and finding some Expedient to obviate [Page 80] those Obstructions of Marriages, which are many times occasion'd by waiting for Matches of equal Quality and For­tune. If such a Method were taken, abundance of Uncleanness might be pre­vented, more People would be propaga­ted, and the Dishonour of Families of Quality provided against; which hap­pens but too too often, sometimes by Fornication, and sometimes by their Daughters throwing themselves away upon unworthy Fellows. Therefore it were Requisite there should be Laws made for bestowing young People in Marriage assoon as they come to be Mar­riageable, and likewise to provide against the general Uncleanness that reigns a­mongst Seamen.

But to return from this Digression, seeing Nature and Experience teaches us, that one Woman of proportionable Years is sufficient to satisfie a Man, it's impossible that one Man can ordinarily satisfie two or more Women, and by consequence lays them under Tentati­ons to satisfie themselves some other way, which it's evident they generally [Page 81] do, Nature it self teaches Men to ab­hor a Rival in the Marriage-Bed; and Solomon tells us, that Jealousie is the Rage of a Man, why then should we not think that it is the same with Wo­men? Scripture and History inform us that Co-wives, or Wives and Concu­bines, could never agree. Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Leah, Annah and Penninah, are Instances of it in Fami­lies, where the Fear of God prevail'd, and was carefully taught. Besides, it is impossible that a Man can love them equally, and the Party neglected will always be uneasie, which must una­voidably occasion continual Jars and Discords, both betwixt the different Wives, and the Off-spring of those Wives. Thus Leah complains that her Sister had bereft her of her Husband, and was forced to purchase his due Be­nevolence, with her Son's Mandrakes. And thus Joseph's Brethren could not endure him, because he was one of the Beloved Sons of the Beloved Wife. It's needless to instance in any more; we have just now seen a Contexture of [Page 82] Tragical Murders, &c: occasion'd by Concubinage in the Family of the Stuarts, and it's not many Years, since a Son of Concubinage of that same Family, cost this Kingdom abundance of Lives. Then certainly God nor Nature can never be the Authors or Institutors of Concubi­nage, which always was, and for ever must be attended, with such dismal Con­sequences.

It is also worth our Observation that Histories are full of Instances of Con­cubines, becoming enamour'don, or being defiled by the Sons of their own Hus­bands. Thus Bilhah by Judah, David's Concubines by Absalom, Fausta on Con­stantine the Great's Son, &c: the Rea­son of which is plain, that it being im­possible for one Man to satisfie the De­sires of many Women; they must ne­cessarily burn, and lay hold of every Opportunity, to quench their Flame, and many times commit Crimes against Nature, rather than not have it effect­ed.

It deserves likewise to be consider'd, that tho it obstructs Propagation in ge­neral, [Page 83] yet it many times increases parti­cular Families to that degree, that it is impossible for the Father to provide for them. And therefore if he be worse than an Infidel in the Apostle's Sense, who does not provide for his own Fa­mily, he must be doubly worse, who takes such a Course, as renders it im­possible for him to provide for them. And I suppose Mr. Butler is sensible e­nough of his Impoverishment, by his Poligamy, (which is the usual Reward of Whoredom) and needs not go out of his own Family, for Instances of Jarring Wives, and quarrelling Children, whom he has made himself uncapable to pro­vide for Yet so Kind and Good-na­tur'd a Man he is, that he proposes Concubinage, to prevent the Ruine of other Families, which has actually ruin'd his own. This is right Devil­like, who tempted our first Parents to do that which had ruin'd himself; and I must needs tell Mr. Butler, that in this he acts more like a Preacher of Sodo [...], than a Preacher of Righteousness.

Let us suppose that the Pious and Learned Statesmen of these Realms should follow his Advice, and get a Law enacted for Concubinage. We should quickly see such Pious Effects of his Pious Advice, as those I have alrea­dy mention'd, and many more; as Grave Matrons, who brought Estates to their Husbands, and have blessed them with a hopeful Off-spring, turn'd out of their Husband's Beds, and young sprightly Girls supplying their place; and so the good old Woman and her Off-spring must be neglected, and the young Con­cubine and her Bantlings dandled. O! what a wonderful Pious Harmony this would make in the Ears of the Nation! And I suppose that Mr. Butler would, in this Case, quickly have such another Peal rung in his Ears by Mary Tomkins, as now he has by Martha Perkins, and then he would think it a compleat Re­joynder to tell her, that he might as well hugg a young Wench, as old David hugg'd young Abishag. But I would have him to remember the Saying of his old Brother Lecher Ovid, Turpe Se­nilis [Page 85] Amor. I must beg the Reader's Pardon, for writing such Stuff, and de­sire them to consider what an Effronted Author I have to deal with, that dares to preach up Concubinage to three Nations, almost drown'd already by a Deluge of Uncleanness, let out upon them in the late Reigns.

I dare venture to say, that such Fa­thers as have given good Estates with their Daughters, would take it very un­kindly to have them turn'd out of their Beds, and their Grand-children expos'd to the World, to make room for their Maids, or any other Misses, and their Brats. I dare also presume that Pious Fathers would be very sorry to see their hopeful Sons, and Heirs to their Estates, betake themselves to Kennels of Con­cubines, and squander their Ancient Paternal Estates among a Spurious Off­spring. It's not to be doubted but Pi­ous Matrons would grieve at the Heart, to have their beloved Daughters exposed to the Inconvenience of having but an Husband by halves, and liable to be turn'd out by the next handsome Face. [Page 86] There's no question to be made but our Pious Statesmen would think it the greatest Calamity that could befall the Nation, to have its ancient Honour so much debased, as it must necessarily be by a Spurious Brood, and therefore none of 'em, I hope, will blame me for treat­ing Mr. Butler thus, seeing all these are the Natural Consequences of his Beastly Proposal.

And I am very well satisfied, that no Man, who has any Regard to the Chri­stian Religion, will think that such an Author ought to be treated softly, who throws so much Dirt upon our Blessed Saviour's Conception and Birth, as to compare it with any thing Humane, and to ask such Blasphemous Questions as those, P. 32. Whether God Almighty ever does any thing Ordinarily or Extra­ordinarily which he forbids us to do? or whe­ther our Saviour's Conception and Birth were stain'd with Fornication or In­continency, because perform'd out of Mar­riage? Such Questions from a Jew or a Turk might be expected; but out of the Mouth of a Preacher of the Gospel [Page 87] are unpardonable. Did not the Impu­dent Man know that our Saviour's Body was form'd by the Power of the Holy Ghost, in a Super-natural Manner, with­out any stain of Humane Corruption? Was there any thing in that which look'd like the Breach of Divine or Humane Law, as there is in the Case now in Question. I pray God that this Blasphemy may be forgiven him; but the thought is so Extravagant and Impi­ous; that it looks as if he were Judici­ally given up of God to the Lusts of his own Heart.

His Instance, that Solomon had fail'd of that Royal Race, whence our Blessed Saviour descended, had it not been for Concubinage, is much of the same Na­ture; does not our Author know, that he who was able of the Stones to raise up Children to Abraham, could have raised up a Seed to David without Con­cubinage? And that does not at all im­port any thing of God's allowing of Con­cubinage, more than he does of Adultery and Incest, which he hath expresly forbid, as I have shew'd already. But, [Page 88] besides, I shall turn his Instance against himself thus; That had not Solomon ex­hausted his Strength by Concubinage, he might have left Lawful Issue enough be­hind him, and therefore it was his Con­cubinage that endanger'd the failure of the Royal Line; And thus Saul had four Sons by Ahinoam one Wife, when Solomon of a Thousand Wives and Con­cubines had but one Son.

His Instance of Alexander, King of Scotland, is false; for he left a Grand­child behind him, who was Heiress to his Crown; but she dying before Mar­riage, the Competition betwixt the next Heirs happen'd, who would never have yielded to the Son of a Concubine. And the Parliament of Scotland afterwards found out a better and more honourable Expedient than Mr Butler's, viz. that any future Controversie about the Suc­cession should be determin'd by them­selves, as may be seen in Buchanan's History; and it is not very long since the Parliaments of both Nations had a blessed Opportunity of settling a dispu­ted Succession, without Mr. Butler's Ex­pedient.

Then as to his Instance of Richard the II. any Body that has read that Hi­story knows, that the War began in his own time; not because he wanted Issue, but because he unjustly seiz'd the Duke of Lancaster's Estate, and design'd to banish his Son for ever; who landed in England when Richard was in Ireland, and left the Duke of York, his Uncle, to govern in his Absence.

But the Nation was so much displeas'd with Richard, that the Duke of York was not able to resist the Duke of Lanca­ster, so that the Nation in Parliament charg'd Richard with the Breach of his Coronation Oath in 32 Articles, oblig'd him to resign the Crown to the Duke of Lancaster, who came to the Possession of the Throne that way, before Richard was murder'd. So that it was not his want of Issue which began that War, nor the want of Lineal Heirs, the Po­sterity of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, ha­ving a Right precedent to that of the Duke of Lancaster. But the Parliament laid their Claim aside, as in all probabi­lity they would have done that of his [Page 90] Son's, if he had left any, considering the prevailing Interest and Victorious Arms of the Duke of Lancaster; but Mr. Butler is much such another Hi­storian as he is a Divine. And now let him see to it whether he hath sufficiently vindicated his Bedding with Mary Tom­kins or Concubinage in general, by those or any other Instances.

But because Mr. Butler shall have all the fair Dealing imaginable, I shall take Notice of a Text, quoted by those of his Opinion, to prove their Point, which it's like he has forgot, viz. Deut. 21. 15. If a Man have two Wives, 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 was hated; He may not make the Son of the beloved first-born, before the Son of the hated, which is indeed first born. This I quote now, lest it should be applied by him or others afterwards against what I have already said; and the Answer is as follows.

1. Moses here acts the part of a Poli­tical Law-giver, but not of a Spiritual [Page 91] Doctor; And Poligamy being conniv'd at in the Jews at that time, He lays down Rules, to prevent Injustice to the Chil­dren of the least-beloved Wife.

2. It's plain from hence, that Poliga­my distracts the Affections of the Hus­band, and naturally occasions Injustice to some of his Offspring, which must needs cause Hatred, Contention, and all manner of Confusion in a Family, else Moses would not have here provi­ded against it.

3. That the Words, the Son of her that was hated, would seem to imply, that both the Wives were not alive to­gether; and then it makes nothing for Poligamy.

4. This cannot be supposed to be any thing at most but a meer Permission of the thing, because it is contrary to the Law against taking two Wives, Levit. 18. 18. which the Karaei or Jews that adhere to the Scriptures, understand to be clearly prohibited by that Text.

5. Our Saviour and his Apostles, Mat. 19. and 15 and 1 Cor. 6. 16. and 7. 2. which I have taken Notice of already, [Page 92] say, that Poligamy was forbidden; and seeing they say, Let every Man have his own Wife, and every Woman her own Husband, all that Liberty which was granted to, or assumed by the Patriarchs, is taken away.

6. The Chaldee Paraphrast understands that Text, Levit. 18. 18. to be against Poligamy, and says that was the Reason why Ruth's Kinsman, Ruth. 4. 6. refu­sed to marry Ruth, because he had a Wife before; and that to marry ano­ther would break the Peace of his Fami­ly, divide his Estate, and occasion Dis­cords amongst the Children of the two Wives.

7. It is not like, that God would al­low two Wives to the Israelites, by a Law, which some of the better Heathens disapprov'd, as may be seen in Phocylides and Euripides; and Dioclesian made a Law against it, as may be seen, Cod. Lib. 5. Tit. 5. Leg. 2.

8. Poligamy or Concubinage is against the Apostle's Prohibition of Married Persons defrauding one another, it being impossible for one Man ordinarily to sa­tisfie [Page 93] more than one Woman; so that to marry more than one, exposes them to the Danger of Satan's Tentation for their Incontinence; of which, Bilhah and David's Concubines, &c. are sad Instances.

9. The Apostle could not say, Let eve­ry Woman have her own or proper Husband [...] if he allowed. Con­cubinage, for then he should be common to two or more.

10. That which is made one Flesh with the Body, cannot be made a Mem­ber of another Body; therefore a Man who is one Flesh with his Wife, cannot be one Flesh also with another in a Law­ful Sense; for there can be no Union where there is a Division, as in this Case there must be.

11. If Concubinage were allow'd, Mar­riage could be no proper Resemblance of the Union betwixt Christ & his Church; for Christ has but one Church, whereas in that Case a Man should have more than one Wife.

Some again object, that seeing the A­postle prescribes, that he who was to be [Page 94] chosen Bishop, should be the Husband of one Wife, 1 Tim. 3. 2. Poligamy was al­lowed in others. To which 'tis answer'd that many of the Jews and Gentiles in those times had two Wives. And there­fore it's supposed they were tolerated to keep them during Life, or at least till they were confirm'd in the Faith; but it would have been scandalous to have had such for Ministers or Bishops.

2, The Law of Monogamy being re­viv'd by Christ, and Preach'd up by this same Apostle elsewhere, he cannot be imagin'd to allow it here.

3. Another Reason of this Injunction is suppos'd to be, that it would have been accounted scandalous in Christian Bishops, to come short of the Heathen Priests in Continency, who were for­bid to have two Wives, as may be seen in Plutarch, and other Authors.

4. It cannot be thought that any such thing was allow'd in the ancient Church, when to marry twice was by them so much scrupled, that some think the A­postle forbids such Persons here to be [...]hosen Bishops.

[Page 95]5. Beza on the Place tells us, that not only. Bigamy and Poligamy were forbid by the An­cient Canons, but likewise the Marriage of such Persons as had rashly divorc'd their Wives. And Dr. Hammond on the Place quotes Theophilact and Athenagoras for it; That Marriage after Divorce was forbidden to the Antient Christians. So falsly has Mr. Butler alledged the Customs of the Primitive Church, to defend his Practice.

I shall conclude with what Willet says on 1 Sam. 25. that if it seems strange that the Pa­triarchs should so long continue in an Error unreform'd; The like Instance is given, Nehem. 8. 17. where the People of Israel are said not to have kept the Feast of Tabernacles, from Joshua's time till then, by the space almost of 1000 Years. But tho God winked at those times of Ignorance, he now calleth all Men to repent; and the worst I wish Mr. Butler is, that he would glorifie God, by confessing his Sin, and taking Shame upon himself, and not add Fuel to those Flames of Uncleanness, which have well-nigh ruin'd the Nation already, and will bring down the Flames of Divine Vengeance upon us, if we don't Repent and Reform.