Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	king_n	parliament_n	writ_n	3,273	5	9.6734	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34208	Concubinage and poligamy disprov'd, or, The divine institution of marriage betwixt one man, and one woman only, asserted in answer to a book, writ by John Butler, B.D. for which he was presented as follows : We the grand jury, sworn to enquire for the body of the city of London, on Wednesday, the first day of December, 1697, present one John Butler, for writing and publishing a wicked pamphlet : wherein he maintains concubinage to be lawful, and which may prove very destructive to divers families, if not timely suppress'd.		1698 (1698)	Wing C5714; ESTC R1558	49,472	113

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 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. 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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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 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