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 Eum qui duas habet Vxores comitatur Infamia Legi Imperial Lib. 9. Tit. 9. Leg. 18. Jer. 23. 14. 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 doth râ—â—â—rn from his Wickedness Ver. 15. From the Prophets of Jerusalem is Prophaneness gone forth into all the Land LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane 1698. Price 1 s. THE Epistle Dedicatory TO John Butler B. D. Asserter of the Lawfuluess of Concubinage IT is now become usual for Authors to set off their Performances by dedicating them to Extraordinary Patrons and therefore I hope you will not blame me for Dedicating the following Sheets to your felf Your Book for any thing I know considering the Scope of it and the Function of the Author is unpresidented You have been at a great deal of Pains to write an Apology for the Modish Practice of keeping a Miss The prevalency of the Custom had already abated much of it's Odium so that there wanted nothing but your finishing Stroke to commend it to us from the Pulpit as Sacred and Holy which you have Generously done in your 34th Page c. But good Sir to which of the Saints will you turn or whom shall we follow as a Patron of your Reform'd Concubinage Adam neither had nor was allowed any Concubinc and the first that we find upon Divine Record to have been Guilty of Poligamy was Lamech one of Cain's Posterity I am afraid that the Holiness of the first Practitioner will scarcely be able to Hallow the Practice If we come to Abraham the Father of the Faithful we don't find that he made use of any Concubine till his Wife advis'd him to it and that she did not neither till she her self was past Childbearing by the Ordinary Course of Nature So that if we must be resiricted to the same Conditions the Gallants will scarcely thank you for your Kindness In the next place you leave us mightily in the Daâ—k not only as to the time when but likewise as to the Number of Concubines we may Lawfully 〈◊〉 We don't find that Abraham had above one at a time yet his Grandson Jacob had two or three Now pray Sir which of the two must be our Standard Or what is to be the Rule of the Reform'd Concubinage you propose Abraham and Jacob had the Consent of their Wives and the first of them sent away his Miss and kept his Wife But for you Sir if we may believe Martha Perkins you have sent away your Wife and kept your Miss Pardon me Sir if I take Miss and Concubine to be Synommous Terms for I am not Master of Logick enough to distinguish betwixt them according to your Description of the latter But the Liberty of Poligamy or Concubinage is not the only thing wherein you have vindicated the Original Right of Mankind You have put a Greater Obligation upon the Age still by making every man a Judg in his own Cause nay and an Executioner too for you have not only adjudg'd Martha Perkins to be an unjust Desertrice but have dispos'd of her Property at your own hand by taking Mary Tomkins into her Bed without Application either to Church or State or receiving any Approbation from them So that it 's no Fault of yours if all Mankind don't according to your Laudable Example shake off all Subjection to them and re-assume their Primitive Liberty But at the same time Sir how such Practises can agree with the Laws of God and the Laws of the Land to which you ought to conform your self as a Christian and a Subject you would do well to inform us You must not think to satisfie the Curiosity of this Age by referring us to the disputed Practises of the Patriarchs which were not founded on any Positive Command nor yet to some Instances of Concubinage found among Christians in Constantine's time or before nor to the advancement of the Issue of Concubines now and then to the Chief Seats of Civil Government Nay nor to God's making use of the Children of Concubinage sometimes to be Instruments of his Glory None of these are sufficient to satisfie our Reason and much less our Conscience which in matters of this Importance expects to be assur'd by Revelation God allow'd but one Wife to Adam when the World was to be Peopled at first nor any more but one Wife a peice to Noah and his Sons when it was to be Peopled a second time And the reason of this was as we are inform'd by Malachi Because he would have a Holy Seed which insinuates strongly That Concubinage is unholy Solomon tho Guiltiest of all Mankind yet durst not venture to teach the Lawfulness of Concubinage according to your Practice but tho he had been polluted thereby himself gives precepts full of purity to others advising Them to rejoyce with the Wife of their Youth and to let her Breasts satisfy them at all times Prov. 5. 15. Nor is there throughout the whole Scripture more Emphatical and Passionate Exhortations to beware of Strange Women and more Lively Descriptions of Whoredom and the danger of it then is to be found in the Book of the Proverbs The Pen-man having suffered Shipwrack on those Shelves himself was therefore the more fit to paint out the danger of them to others which he has accordingly done so far was he from recommending his own Practice to others as you do It is also certain that our Saviour and his Apostles have commanded that every Man should have his own Wife and every Woman her own Husband Nor is there the least Vestige of Concubinage to be found allowed in the New Testament So that it is exceeding strange that you should stretch your Commission and wrest Texts to teach us Concubinage especially when the Age has more need of a Curb than a Spur as to that matter But above all things in your Book those Blasphemous Reflections upon the Conception and Birth of our blessed Saviour choak me most Had you no other way to defend your own practice but by such profane Allusions Don't the Scriptures teach you That there is no such thing as Marrying and giving in Marriage in the Kingdom of Heaven Can there be any Analogy betwixt the blessed Virgins Immaculate and Wonderful Coneeption and the Pregnancy of others before Marriage Is there any similitude betwixt that which is done
be true You must also know that the Imperial Laws condemn Poligamy Lib. 9. Tit. 9. Leg. 18. Eum qui habet duas Uxores comitatur Infamia i. e. He is counted infamous that hath two Wives Dioclesian made a Law likewise against having of two Wives Cod. Lib. 5. Tit. 5. Leg. 2 And the Christian Emperors Theodosius Arcadius and Honorius would not suffer the Jews that lived in the Roman Empire to have many Wives as may be seen by their Laws Cod. de judaei Leg. So unjustly have you appealed to the Practice of the Antient Christians either Magistrates or Ministers as Patrons of Concubinage You know likewise that St. Hierome condemns Lamech as the first Qui unam costam distraxit in duas who made two Ribs of one Nor can it be unknown to you that Clergy-men committing Adultery were for ever removed from their Ministery Distinct 81. C. 11 12. That the Ancyran Synod imposed Seven Years Pennance upon the Adulterer and that the Council of Neocaesarea Decreed that if a Minister's Wife fell into Adultery he should dismiss her or else leave his Ministry and by the Eliberine Council he was denied for ever the Communion of the Church if he did not dismiss her and that it was likewise Decreed that the Adulterer should not be suffer'd to Marry with the Adultress yet you own that you had just Cause to suspect your Wife and can prove several suspicious Tokens of hâ—r Vnfaithfulness p. 18. and yet never offer'd to put her away And she accuses you of committing Adultery with her Maid before she left you and yet you took your Maid into her Bed without any Application either to Church or State notwithstanding the depending Controversies betwixt you and your Wife These are suspicious Tokens of an Inordinate Love for which had you but made use of the first and second Remedies prescribed by the Heathens viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abstinence and Time you had been in no danger of the third Remedy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Halter though it had been better you should have had a Mill-stone hang'd about your Neck and been thrown into the middle of the Sea than to have given such Offence as you have done to the Church of God Nor can you be ignorant neither that many satisfying Answers have been given to your Arguments from the Polygamy of the Patriarchs and Jews As 1. That if there had been any Relaxation of the Law of Monogamy instituted by God in Paradice it would have been by a written Law and Express Scripture 2. That if this had been allowed for Procreation it had been most Necessary to be granted unto Adam in the beginning of the World and to Noah in reviving and re-peopling the World And 3. That Polygamy or marrying of many Wives rendered Solomon unfit for Procreation as is evident by his small Posterity And 4. That the Law of Monogamy being revived by Christ and his Apostles and brought back to the first Institution was to take place not for the Time past but for the Time to come as all other positive Laws of Natione do So that though Polygamy might be then tolerated as an Infirmily for a time in those which were newly converted yet it cannot be so now I shall add that if the first institution of Marriage between one Man anâ— one Woman at a time be once broken there 's no other Limitation to be found in the Scriptures whence it follows that if more be allowed then one a Man may have as many as he pleases So that it will be hard to bring it to a Medium Some perhaps will plead for King Charles II's Number as a Standard and others it may be will be satisfied with no fewer than Solomon and so our Nobility and Gentry if your Project take place should have Kennels of Concubines as now they have of Hounds And what Inconveniences this might occasion you may know by your own Incontinence those Poor Women must loose their Youth and Teeming time without any hopes of having Nature satisfied For being another Mans Property no body else must meddle with them and so they must either burn and languish or commit Whoredom nay perhaps bestiality Their own Stallion for Husband he is not must speedily be either enfeebled or neglect some or all of them as we find in Ahasuerus who did not call for his Beautiful and Beloved Esther in Thirty Days together And the rest of his Concubines were never brought to him except he delighted in any of them and call'd her by Name yet they were shut up and kept close by the Keeper of the Women So that here was a Great Number of Females rendred useless for Propagation besides the Tentations they were exposed to of being base with Eunuchs and their own nearest Relations Now Sir pray consider whether these and the other Reasons that you will meet with in this Book be not much more solid against Concubinage than any that you have advanc'd for it And if your Conscience be convinced be not ashamed to Retract what you have so unadvisedly writ upon this Head St. Augustine who was much a Learneder Divine and better Man than you can pretend to be did not think it unbecoming him to Recant his Errors and to take shame to himself for his Youthful Lusts but Yours can scarcely pass under that denomination who went into your Maids Bed after having Lived Forty Years with a Wife Your Loose Book hath done a World of Mischief in the Nation and therefore it concerns you as you would have the pardon of God and his Church for the same to make your Confession and Recantation as publick as your Crime Which that you may do is the worst that the Author of this Book wishes you Concubinage Disproved c. 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 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
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 iâ— 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 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 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 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 Vnlawful Customs go about to stain the Legitimacy of such a Race of Princes as both England and Scotland have Reason to remember with Praise and Thanksgiving to God especially for Charles the I. of Blessed and Never-dying 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 bâ—fore his Nose for had he but look'd into that very Instance of Robert Stuart's Concubinage he might havd seen what 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 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 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 â—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 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 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 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 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 David
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 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 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 't was 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 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 Proâ—ised Seed as she vainly believ'd Vpon which Sarah upbraids Abraham with the 〈…〉 she â—er self was the occasion 〈…〉 also punished for her unlawful Consent 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
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 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 Vndefiled 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 Vndefiled and Honourable that the Apostle must needs therefore mean Concubinage by a Bed Vndefiled 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 from Marriage by the Words Bed Vndefiled 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. 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 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 they assum'd to themselves the Title of Saracens as if they were Sarah's Off-spring 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