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
Concubinage And that does not at all import any thing of God's allowing of Concubinage more than he does of Adultery and Incest which he hath expresly forbid as I have shew'd already But besides I shall turn his Instance against himself thus That had not Solomon exhausted his Strength by Concubinage he might have left Lawful Issue enough behind him and therefore it was his Concubinage that endanger'd the failure of the Royal Line And thus Saul had four Sons by Ahinoam one Wife when Solomon of a Thousand Wives and Concubines had but one Son His Instance of Alexander King of Scotland is false for he left a Grandchild behind him who was Heiress to his Crown but she dying before Marriage the Competition betwixt the next Heirs happen'd who would never have yielded to the Son of a Concubine And the Parliament of Scotland afterwards found out a better and more honourable Expedient than Mr Butler's viz. that any future Controversie about the Succession should be determin'd by themselves as may be seen in Buchanan's History and it is not very long since the Parliaments of both Nations had a blessed Opportunity of settling a disputed Succession without Mr. Butler's Expedient Then as to his Instance of Richard the II. any Body that has read that History knows that the War began in his own time not because he wanted Issue but because he unjustly seiz'd the Duke of Lancaster's Estate and design'd to banish his Son for ever who landed in England when Richard was in Ireland and left the Duke of York his Uncle to govern in his Absence But the Nation was so much displeas'd with Richard that the Duke of York was not able to resist the Duke of Lancaster so that the Nation in Parliament charg'd Richard with the Breach of his Coronation Oath in 32 Articles oblig'd him to resign the Crown to the Duke of Lancaster who came to the Possession of the Throne that way before Richard was murder'd So that it was not his want of Issue which began that War nor the want of Lineal Heirs the Posterity of Lionel Duke of Clarence having a Right precedent to that of the Duke of Lancaster But the Parliament laid their Claim aside as in all probability they would have done that of his Son 's if he had left any considering the prevailing Interest and Victorious Arms of the Duke of Lancaster but Mr. Butler is much such another Historian as he is a Divine And now let him see to it whether he hath sufficiently vindicated his Bedding with Mary Tomkins or Concubinage in general by those or any other Instances But because Mr. Butler shall have all the fair Dealing imaginable I shall take Notice of a Text quoted by those of his Opinion to prove their Point which it's like he has forgot viz. Deut. 21. 15. If a Man have two Wives one beloved and another hated and they have born him Children both the beloved and the hated and if the first-born Son be hers that was hated He may not make the Son of the beloved first-born before the Son of the hated which is indeed first born This I quote now lest it should be applied by him or others afterwards against what I have already said and the Answer is as follows 1. Moses here acts the part of a Political Law-giver but not of a Spiritual Doctor And Poligamy being conniv'd at in the Jews at that time He lays down Rules to prevent Injustice to the Children of the least-beloved Wife 2. It 's plain from hence that Poligamy distracts the Affections of the Husband and naturally occasions Injustice to some of his Offspring which must needs cause Hatred Contention and all manner of Confusion in a Family else Moses would not have here provided against it 3. That the Words the Son of her that was hated would seem to imply that both the Wives were not alive together and then it makes nothing for Poligamy 4. This cannot be supposed to be any thing at most but a meer Permission of the thing because it is contrary to the Law against taking two Wives Levit. 18. 18. which the Karaei or Jews that adhere to the Scriptures understand to be clearly prohibited by that Text. 5. Our Saviour and his Apostles Mat. 19. and 15 and 1 Cor. 6. 16. and 7. 2. which I have taken Notice of already say that Poligamy was forbidden and seeing they say Let every Man have his own Wife and every Woman her own Husband all that Liberty which was granted to or assumed by the Patriarchs is taken away 6. The Chaldee Paraphrast understands that Text Levit. 18. 18. to be against Poligamy and says that was the Reason why Ruth's Kinsman Ruth 4. 6. refused to marry Ruth because he had a Wife before and that to marry another would break the Peace of his Family divide his Estate and occasion Discords amongst the Children of the two Wives 7. It is not like that God would allow two Wives to the Israelites by a Law which some of the better Heathens disapprov'd as may be seen in Phocylides and Euripides and Dioclesian made a Law against it as may be seen Cod. Lib. 5. Tit. 5. Leg. 2. 8. Poligamy or Concubinage is against the Apostle's Prohibition of Married Persons defrauding one another it being impossible for one Man ordinarily to satisfie more than one Woman so that to marry more than one exposes them to the Danger of Satan's Tentation for their Incontinence of which Bilhah and David's Concubines c. are sad Instances 9. The Apostle could not say Let every Woman have her own or proper Husband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he allowed Concubinage for then he should be common to two or more 10. That which is made one Flesh with the Body cannot be made a Member of another Body therefore a Man who is one Flesh with his Wife cannot be one Flesh also with another in a Lawful Sense for there can be no Union where there is a Division as in this Case there must be 11. If Concubinage were allow'd Marriage could be no proper Resemblance of the Union betwixt Christ his Church for Christ has but one Church whereas in that Case a Man should have more than one Wife Some again object that seeing the Apostle prescribes that he who was to be chosen Bishop should be the Husband of one Wife 1 Tim. 3. 2. Poligamy was allowed in others To which 't is answer'd that many of the Jews and Gentiles in those times had two Wives And therefore it 's supposed they were tolerated to keep them during Life or at least till they were confirm'd in the Faith but it would have been scandalous to have had such for Ministers or Bishops 2 The Law of Monogamy being reviv'd by Christ and Preach'd up by this same Apostle elsewhere he cannot be imagin'd to allow it here 3. Another Reason of this Injunction is suppos'd to be that it would have been accounted scandalous in Christian Bishops to come short of the Heathen Priests in Continency who were forbid to have two Wives as may be seen in Plutarch and other Authors 4. It cannot be thought that any such thing was allow'd in the ancient Church when to marry twice was by them so much scrupled that some think the Apostle forbids such Persons here to be â—hosen Bishops 5. Beza on the Place tells us that not only Bigamy and Poligamy were forbid by the Ancient Canons but likewise the Marriage of such Persons as had rashly divorc'd their Wives And Dr. Hammond on the Place quotes Theophilact and Athenagoras for it That Marriage after Divorce was forbidden to the Antient Christians So falsly has Mr. Butler alledged the Customs of the Primitive Church to defend his Practice I shall conclude with what Willet says on 1 Sam. 25. that if it seems strange that the Patriarchs should so long continue in an Error unreform'd The like Instance is given Nehem. 8. 17. where the People of Israel are said not to have kept the Feast of Tabernacles from Joshua's time till then by the space almost of 1000 Years But tho God winked at those times of Ignorance he now calleth all Men to repent and the worst I wish Mr. Butler is that he would glorifie God by confessing his Sin and taking Shame upon himself and not add Fuel to those Flames of Uncleanness which have well-nigh ruin'd the Nation already and will bring down the Flames of Divine Vengeance upon us if we don't Repent and Reform FINIS ADVERTISEMENTS 1. GOD's Judgments against Whoring Being an Essay to a General History of it from the Creation of the World to the Reign of Augustulus which according to common Computation is 5190 Years and from thence down to the present Year 1697. Being a Collection of the most Remarkable Instances of Uncleanness that are to be found in Sacred or Prophane History during that time with Observations thereon Pr. 3s 6d 2. The Secrer History of White-Hall from the Restoration of King Charles II. down to the Abdication of the late King James Writ at the Request of a Noble Lord and Convey'd to him in Letters by late Secretary Interpreter to the Marquis of Louvois who by that Means had the Perusal of all the Private Minutes between England and France for many Years The whole consisting of Secret Memoirs which have hitherto lain conceal'd as not being discoverable by any other Hand Published from the Original Papers by D. Jones Gent. Price 5s 3. By the same Author A Continuation of the Secret History of White-Hall from the Abdication of the late King James in 1688. to the year 1696. Together with the Tragical History of the Stuarts from the first Rise of that Family in the Year 1068. down to the Death of her Late Majesty Queen Mary of Blessed Memory Price 5s All Sold by R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane
at that time common in the World so that Abraham's Practice administred no occasion of Scandal whereas our Author well knew that his Concubinage with Mary Tomkins would unavoidably give Offence upon which Consideration alone he ought to have forborn it if he had design'd to walk according to the Apostolical Rule who had rather never eat Flesh while he liv'd tho a thing lawful in it self than offend a weak Brother 9. His Argument to prove the Lawfulness of Abraham's Practice because God did not charge him with any thing of Fornication is altogether inconcludent for in the first place it is not a sufficient Ground for us positively to say that God did not reprove him for it because there 's nothing of any such Reproof mentioned in the Scripture Moses the inspired Penman is here giving us an Historical Account of Matter of Fact and does not enter upon the Debate of the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of the thing In the next place Mr. Butler may as well argue from the Practice of Jacob which we find no where reproved by God that it is lawful for a Man to marry two Sisters at one time whereas all Divines allow that this is forbidden both by the Light of Nature and Revelation 10. To answer once for all Mr. Butler's Arguments from the Old-Testament for Poligamy or Concubinage He cannot but know 1. That Marriage was instituted at first by God betwixt one Man and one Woman so that to plead for a Necessity of more Husbands or Wives than one at a time is in effect to arraign the Wisdom of the first Institutor the All-wise God 2. That when the old World was destroyed and chiefly for Uncleanness amongst other Sins as appears by Gen. 6. 2. God appointed Noah and his three Sons to take only one Wife each into the Ark with them so that here God commanded the peopling of the World a second time by Marriage betwixt one Man and one Woman without allowing Polygamy or Concubinage 3. That the Text Leviticus 18. 18. Neither shalt thou take a Wife to her Sister to vex her to uncover her Nakedness besides the other in her Life time The best Divines do generally understand it to be meant of having two Wives together first because the Phrase is so used elsewhere as Ezek. 1. 9. the Wings of the Beasts are said to touch a Woman to her Sister that is meet together or touch one another and so Exod. 26. 3. the five Curtains shall be coupled the Woman to her Sister that is together In the next place because the Marriage of the Sister is by Analogy forbidden before v. 16. Thou shalt not uncover the Nakedness of thy Brothers Wife it is thy Brothers Nakedness Whence by Parity of Reason it was equally unlawful to uncover the Sisters Nakedness so that this being provided for before there was no need of repeating it here thirdly the Reason subjoyn'd viz. to vex her maketh against the Joint Marriage of any other as well as of the Sister for the common Experience of all Ages teaches that there was always Jealousie and Contention betwixt Co-wives as in the Instance of Sarah and Hagar just now mentioned and Annah and Penninah the Wives of Elkanah 1 Sam. 1. tho they were not Sisters And Mr. Butler can prove it from his own Experience that Martha Perkins and Mary Tomkins his two Wives do vex one another tho they be not Sisters 4. As to his Instances of David and Solomon and other Kings who abounded in Wives and Concubines they acted therein expresly contrary to the Law in that case Deut. 17. 16. where it is said of the King Neither shall he multiply Wives to himself The Holy Ghost foreseeing that they who abound in Riches and Power and especially Princes are more apt to exceed that way than others 5. Mr. Butler has no doubt read that Lorinus and others are of Opinion That the Polygamy of the Fathers was dispens'd with per inspirationem internam by a secret Dispensation which cannot if it were true justifie Concubinage under the New-Testament from which nothing can be pleaded by any such Dispensation 6. He must needs also know that it is the common Opinion of Protestant Divines that it was not probable that God would dispense with a Publick Law by a Private Dispensation and therefore tho he wink'd at those times of Ignorance he gave no Allowance to any such Practice as is plain from Malachi 2. 14. 15 16. Where the Prophet tells the Children of Israel That the Lord regarded not their Offering because he had been Witness between thee and the Wife of thy youth against whom thou hast dealt treacherously yet is she thy Companion and the Wife of thy Covenant And v. 15. he expostulates with them from the first Institution of Marriage thus And did he make one yet had he the residue of the Spirit and wherefore one because he sought a Godly Seed therefore take heed to your Spirit and let none deal treacherously against the Wife of his Youth and verse 16. he adds For the Lord God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away This Prophet liv'd as some think in the time of Artaxerxes or Darius Longimanus but however that is this is plain that as in the beginning of the Old-Testament we have an Account that God at first instituted Marriage betwixt one Man and one Woman so by this Prophet who shuts up the Canon of the Old Testament he expostulates with his People for receding from the Primary Institution which enervates all the Arguments that Mr. Butler hath brought from thence in Defence of Concubinage But this is not the only Case wherein our Author shews himself to be a loose Casuist for Page 9. he tells us That Incontinency in it self is no Sin unless it be express'd in unlawful uses whereas the Apostie 2 Tim. 3. 3. reckons Incontinent Men amongst Truce-breakers False Accusers Despisers of those that are Good and such others as contribute to make up the Perillous Times that are to come in the last days Mr. Pool in his Criticks on 1 Cor. 7. 5. quotes Tremellius Piscator Hammond and Zegerus as translating the word rendred Incontinence by our Translators Concupiscence of the Flesh and others of 'em render it Intemperance which last Word is never taken but in an ill Sense Tremellius from the Syriak translates it Impotentia which signifies an unruly raging Lust which is certainly sinful and such Mr. Butler's Incontinence appears to have been when he could not be without a Woman above a Year one would have thought that a Divine who enjoyns Fasting and Prayer to others shou'd rather have tried that Experiment upon himself than have run the hazard of such Inconveniences as the Titillation of the Flesh has already brought upon him The Apostle tells us They that are Christ's crucifie the Flesh with its Lusts and Affections Gal. 5. 24. and in 1 Cor. 9. 17. that he kept his Body under and brought it into Subjection
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
he the Residue of the Spirit and wherefore one That he might seek a Godly Seed therefore take heed to your Spirit and let none deal treacherously against the Wife of his Youth which the Criticks Paraphrase or Interpret thus Annon unam duntaxat Conjugem Adamo fecit non plures uxores uni viro Revocat hic Judaeos ad Puram conjugii Naturam primam Institutionem And again Quamvis plures animas creare possit quas inderet pluribus Mulieribus Adamo jungendis neque enim defecit eum in una Muliere Spiritus id autem quum non fecerit Argumento hoc certe est quod nolit uni viro plures uxores jungi Quorsum autem unum nempe unum illum hominem constantem ex viro Muliere hoc unice Scilicet agebat ut haberet Legitimam Sobolem Ostendit enim spurios fore qui ex Polygamia Naseentur quia non Gignuntur Secundum Dei Institutionem Attenti sitis igitur ad Cavendum ne perside agatis vel Spiritu hoc est animo vestro ne datam fidem primae uxori violetis alia superinducta i. e. Did he not make one Wife for Adam and not divers Wives for one Man Here he Recalls them to the pure Nature of Wedlock and first Institution of Marriage Altho he could have created more Souls to put into more Women to be joyn'd to Adam for the Life that he breath'd into Eve he could have breathed into more but whereas he did not do so It is certainly an Argument that he would not have one Man to have more Wives than one And why did he make one that is to say one Man consisting of Male and Female Only for this end that there might be a Lawful Off-spring by which he shews that the Children born of Polygamy should be spurious because not begot according to the Institution of God Therefore take heed watch over your Spirits that you don't so much as in your Mind violate the Troth which you have plighted to your first Wife by bringing in another upon her The Authors of this Exposition are Capellus Calvin Piscator Ludovicus de Dieu Menochius Tarnovius c. as may be seen in Pool's Synopsis So that here is the Prophet Malachi and many Divines of great Note of an Opinion contrary to Mr. Butler viz. that God never allowed Additional Wives and always accounted the Children of Polygamy Spurious or Bastards And as for our Author's Distinction p. 21. That every Man was to Marry but one Woman who was to be Lady or Dame of the Family I have already shew'd him from Lev. 18. 18. That no Man was to take a Wife to her Sister the Hebrew Phrase for two Wives together to vex her to uncover her Nrkedness besides the other in her Life time Now the Reason of the Wifes being vex'd is plainly said to be the Uncovering of the others Nakedness and Mr. Butler knows by Experience that the Uncovering of a Concubines Nakedness vexes his Wife and therefore the Reason is as strong against Concubines as if they were Ladies or Dames of the Family as well as she he calls the one Wife As to his Argument from Ishmael's being to succeed Abraham as his Heir if Isaac had not been born It 's no Argument that God approv'd Concubinage nor does our Author find any where that God had commanded that Ishmael should succeed in that Case but it 's plain that he was sent awaâ— by God's Order that he should not partake of the Inheritance with Isaac Gen. 21. 10 and 12. ver compared because he was the Son of a Bond-woman so that this Instance makes against Mr. Butler Then as to Rehoboam Mr. Butler owns that Solomon had no other Son Besides the Succession's being continued upon him was by a special Decree as appears 1 Kin. 11. 35. To his Son will I give one Tribe that David my Servant may have always a Light before me in Jerusalem So that this is nothing to his Purpose The Kindness was to David and not to Rehoboam as the Son of a Concubine And here 't is fit to take Notice that the Instance of passing by Solomon's Daughters by his proper Wife as Mr. Butler calls her makes against his beloved Doctrine of the Divine Right of a Lineal Succession Then as to Jepthah's being a Judge if our Author had but look'd to the second Verse of the 11th Chapter of the Judges he would find that his Brethren would allow him no Part of the Inheritance for that very Reason because he was the Son of a strange Woman which is plainly against Mr. Butler and shews that the Sons of Concubines were not judged to have any Right of Inheritance But that does not hinder but the People might chuse such an one for a Judge Commander or General in time of Distress and Disorder as the times of the Judges were when every Man did what was Right in his own Eyes there being at that time no King in Israel Judg. 21. 25. Besides our Author owns that Jepthah was chosen Judge for his Abilities and not because of his Birthright As to the Law mentioned Deut. 23. 2. a Bastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord Commentators understand that to be meant by Children of a Common Whore Whereas in these times of Ignorance that God winked at Concubines were solemnly Married and were accounted a sort of Wives and the Man's Property to whom they were so Married and that Jepthah's Mother was a privare Concubine any Man who will consult the Criticks may find to have been the Opinion of Munsterus and Cornelius a Lapide But suppose it had been otherwise tho God imposes a Law upon us he imposes none upon himself so that he may dispense with it when he pleases And if he did so in this Case and others of the like Nature to let those unhappy Children see that he extended Mercy to them notwithstanding the Sins of their Parents that all such might not be driven to Despair of his Goodness what says that in Excuse of Polygamy Our Author may as well defend Incest from this Topick which yet he owns to be a foul Crime because as he observes himself Pharez the Incestuous Son of Judah by his Daughter-in-Law Tamar succeeded as Heir to his Father and is mention'd in our Saviour's Genealogy Who dare or can limit the Holy One of Israel who hath said he will have Mercy on whom he will have Mercy Of this Opinion our Author may also find Peter Martyr and Cornelius a Lapide And as to Pharez and Janna mention'd in our Saviour's Genealogy Matth. 1. and Luk. 2. It may be solved the same way God of his Soveraign Grace chuses and purifies whom he pleases nor is it any Imputation upon our Saviour that he was related unto as well as came to save the chief of Sinners Non dedignatur Christus ex peccatricibus Gentilibus nasci say Lucas Brugensis Maldonatus Cajetan quia venit
ut utrasque salvaret Christ did not disdain to derive his Pedigree from sinful Women and Gentiles because he came into the World to save both of ' em So that this makes nothing at all for our Author's Purpose for the same Argument will conclude as strongly that God approves Murder Adultery Incest Common-Whores and Heathenism because Bathsheba Thamar Rachel and Ruth are mention'd in our Saviour's Genealogy Whereas it only shews the exceeding Riches of God's Grace in extending so much Compassion to the worst of Sinners For that Bathsheba was an Adultress and became David's Wife by Murder is plain that Thamar was an Incestuous Adultress and her Children Pharez and Zara 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
Punishments inflicted upon the Patriarchs and others for their Poligamy and Concubinage which he will needs have to be a Bed Vndefiled Page 30. he says God allow'd of David's Concubinage because 2 Sam. 12. 8. God expostulating with David because of his Adultery with Bathsheba and the Murder of her Husband says And I gave thee thy Masters House and thy Masters Wives into thy bosom I answer God gave David the Possession of of all that was Saul's to use Lawfully but not to use Unlawfully otherwise he must approve of Incest for it was not Lawful for any Man to have his Father-in-Law's Wise nor does it appear that David made use of them as Wives So God is said to give David's Concubines to Absalom which will make him the Author of Incest if giving do always signifie approving but the meaning is no more then this that he suffer'd Absalom to fall into that Tentation and took his Restraining Grace from him that so David's Sin might be punish'd by that of his Son So God gave Saul into David's Hand yet he himself own'd it was not Lawful for him to kill him The word in the Original signifies any Women as Junius and Cornelius a Lapide observe so that it may be meant of Saul's Daughters that were David's Wives Besides its plain if he had added Saul's Wives to those that he had before he had transgressed the Law Deut. 17. 17. against Kings multiplying Wives which God would never have approved of So that the meaning of that place seems to be no more than that God amongst other things that were Saul's gave him also his Wife 's But seeing it is doubtful our Author will find but little Stability in it for his Conscience to build upon His Instance from Rehâ—boam's Succession in that same Page is answered already and for that from the Prophet Hosea's being order'd to take another Woman his own being yet alive Our Author cannot but know that Rivet and other Interpreters understand it to be Parabolical to represent God's Love to an Adulterous anâ— Treacherous People Or if otherwise hâ— answers himself when he says it was by special Command from God who may dispense with his own Law when he pleases His Instance of the Conception of our Saviour p. 32. is Villainous and Blasphemous God form'd Adam out of the Dust by his Omnipotence and forms us in the Womb Mediante Generatione and can his forming of our Saviour's Humane Nature there without any such Medium any way import a Violation of Virginity Does not the immodest Man know that this was altogether Miraculous and Prophesied of before as such Isaiah 7. 14. Can any Man not wholly bereft of Sense or hardened in Impiety compare this any way to a Bed out of Marriage but this Mans Impetuous Lust makes him flie on the Face of God himself Page 32. He will have our Saviour to approve of a Bed out of Marriage as Undefiled John 4. 10. because he blessed the Woman of Samaria and her Husband or Man with whom she liv'd in Concubinage without so much as reproving her for it or ordering her to discontinue her Course of Life as our Saviour used to do in Sinful Cases as John 8. 11. and 5. 14. Answer That Christ reprov'd her is apparent enough when he told her that he whom she then had was not her Husband and it 's plain from her own Words to her Neighbours that she was touch'd with his Reproof when she said to them that he had told her all that ever she did in her Life tho we hear of nothing else but this one matter All Commentators agree that Christ's telling her that he whom she had now was not her Husband was a severe Reproof and a Check to her for mocking him in asking for Water to quench her Thirst when he was speaking to her of Water from the Wells of Salvation and also by endeavouring to deceive him when she told him that she had no Husband By her Answer 't is also plain that she confessed her Crime I perceive says she that thou art a Prophet which was a direct owning of the Truth of what he said Now her Crime according to Grotius and Lightfoot in Hora was that she had Five Husbands from whom she had divorc'd her self contrary to the Law of Moses or had been Five times divorc'd for Adultery and that she was truly touch'd with a sense of her sin appears In that she was straight way Sollicitous to know whether she Worshipped God in a Right manner or not If our Author consult Bucer Calvin and Melancton upon the place he will find they were fully of this Opinion that Christ by discoursing her sought an opportunity to reprove her and that it was not in sharper Terms only argues that he was unwilling to break the bruised Reed That the Woman was sufficiently sensible of her Faults appears in this that she took shame to her self by owning them before all her fellow Citizens that she was a sincere believer appears from her Zealous desire to have them made Partakers of the Grace of God as well as her self and that she broke off her impure Course of Life is not to be questioned seeing it is certain she had Faith which is an Heart purifying Grace but as to Her Husbands coming with her receiving part of the Blessing and having his Concubinage approv'd It is only the Comment of our Concubinary Author Our Saviour would never Contradict himself by Preaching another Doctrine to her than he did in Mat. 19. And aâ—low her six Husbands at once when he recall'd Marriage there to its first Institution betwixt one and one I come next to consider our Authors description of a Whoremonger p. 33. He is says he such a wretch who tho allow'd to Marry or to keep his Concubine that is a Woman proper to himself provided he do not multiply Concubines nor keep any Woman unlawfully Compassed unto any mans wrong or to that Womans wrong and useth her not meerly for his Lust but out of a pure desire of an Holy Seed by her yet not contented with that Lawful Liberty chuseth rather to spend the Holy Seed of mankind upon Common Women and thus exposeth his Seed to be murdered in the Body Answ I observe our Author distinguishes betwixt Marrying and Keeping a Concubine as different things which plainly overthrows what he asserts for our Saviour Mat. 19. Speaks not one word of allowing a Concubine but that they that cannot contain should Marry v. 11. 12. The Apostle answerable to this 1 Cor. 7. 2 9. Proposes Marriage as a Remedy against Fornication and Incontinence but speaks not one word of a Concubine and from thence also it is plain that by Whoremongers the Apostle means such Persons as are not Married and yet make use of Women else Marriage were no proper remedy for them which perfectly destroys Mr. Butlers Concubinage seeing the Apostle doth thereby Condemn all use of Women out of a Married State As
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