Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	elder_a	king_n	son_n	7,329	5	5.5275	4	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

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 ●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

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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Vsage 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Twelve-month 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