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
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
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. 1â— 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
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 hiâ— 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
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
Women and by consequence lays them under Tentations to satisfie themselves some other way which it's evident they generally 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 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 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 Devil-like 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 Sodoâ— 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 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 Off-spring 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 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 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