THE TRUE STATE OF THE CASE OF John Butler, B. D.  
A Minister of the true Church of England: In Answer To the LIBEL of Martha his sometimes WIFE.  
Treating of a Marriage dissolved, and made NULL by desertion.  
AND OF a Lawful Concubinage in a CASE of Necessity: Wherein Lawful Marriage conveniently, or possibly cannot be obtained.  
Psal. VII. IX. O let the wickedness of the wicked come to one 〈◊〉 but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reigns.  
Pro. XXVIII. XXIV. Whoso robbeth his Father or his Mother, and saith, it is no transgression; the same is the companion of a destroyer.  
LONDON, Printed for the Author. 1697.   

TO THE READER.  
woe unto the world because of Offences, (saith our Saviour) Mat. 18. 7. But woe unto him especially by whom the offence cometh. Woe is an harsh word, and be speaks misery, and so much the worse, out of our Saviour's lips, because his words are never uttered in vain. That I am charged, and that deep and widely, with great offence, hurts me not so far as I am innocent: But woe be to him or her who is guilty, be the clamour most silent. Adultery is a foul crime, and Fornication, a dangerous sin; and both these are laid at my door. And the smart of this slander is so painful and sore upon me, that I feel it wherever I go: For many very good christians, and holy people mourn for me I find, as if I am so indeed. And two good men my Neighbours, and my brethren of the Clergy, supposing me to be so indeed; most kindly befriended me with a Brotherly reproof; for which as I had great reason, I was very thankful, and returned them my thanks in an answer as I thought meet: Unto which I had no reply. But others more barbarously have haged lying reports, and cherishing slanderous clamours, have increased the noise. In the mean time suspecting that there were snakes in the grass, I became patient with dumb silence, and saying to myself, that days would spoke, and years would teach Wisdom. Job 32. 〈◊〉. For though much was said, and more was thought, much noise, and little music, loud clamours, and small truth: Yet the testimony of my Conscience, concerning the sincerity of my Conversation towards God and man, administered joy and comfort to my Soul, in the midst of my wounded reputation, even as it were at the gates of death, 2 Cor. 1. 12. And yet after more than ten years waiting for a trial of truth, I found myself rendered a public shame, both among Clergy and Laity; being wounded at a distance by barking Curs, who keeping out of gunshot, wounded me in the dark, so as 'twas hard to say who hurt me: While to my face all men seemed strangers, as if nothing ill had been once thought or spoken against me. Hence was it trumpetted both in City and Country to the ruin of my reputation, That I am or was a man deprived and cast out of the ministry, and my benefice, for misdemeanours, and that I have two wives at once; am a whoremaster, a contentious man, a bankrupt, and a beggarly fellow, an enemy to the Government, and abundance of such like stuff, which was almost every titile false. The first man who did me the kindness to say thus to my face, was Mr. William Cuffe, my fellow prisoner in the common Goal at Northampton. And verily I believe this innocent man spoke as he really thought of me, being actuatedly my own most disobedient, and rebellious sons, to believe such lies, of me. And though he spoke with too much of keenness beyond what became a man of his function; having no proof of what he spoke, but out of bare hearsay, and common fame: Yet do I freely forgive his slanders. And I do heartily thank him, that he gave me this first occasion to vindicate myself. I have reason to believe, that the groundwork of all these slanders, was laid by a more designing head, than that poor man's shoulders were able to bear. No doubt but a Diabolikal malice was at bottom of all, and at first contrived, and started those false reports, which cherished by my two rebellious sons, whereof one was a professed Roman-Catholick, who by the principles of his religion was bound to seek all occasions he could imagine, with safety to his own person to destroy me, as one accursed by a papal decree, for anobstinate Haeretick; and for that reason I having disherited him of his Birthright as my eldest son: He became somuch the more embittered against me: Insomuch as his mother thereupon deserted my bed, joining issue with this rebellious and schismatical son of her delight, to divorce herself most obstinately, maliciously, and absolutely from our marriage bed, after we had lived together, much comfortably and happily for above thirty years as man and wife in holy wedlock. God is my witness how unapt I always was to harbour an ill opinion of this woman my sometimes, (as I verily thought) loving wife. For though there was just suspicion of her overmuch familiarity with other men, and of her want of love to myself; because of a purloining knack she had of private selling my goods, over and above her allowance, and by keeping up a private purse; and by a coldness of affection, in case of any difference with her intimates, or kindred, being all ways apt to take party against me. But espcially for that, when by means of adverse fortunes in the world, I was driven to lurk at some distance in remote places, for about three years' space, she never was the woman that gave me one visit, during that kind of restrained exile; no, though for near ten months of the said time I was a close prisoner in the Fleet: And for as many months before that, had not so much as once seen her face; and yet she knew well where I was, and wanted for no conveniency to come at me; and though I often importuned her by letters, yet she would not regard me, but seemed as if pleased with my absence, and as if at that time she had begun to desert me utterly. And yet after all these things, when the storm of my troubles was over, I came home to her and abode with her as formerly, as if she had never given me any occasion of offence. And at length when she did utterly deny any further duties to me in her marriage bed; yet still I used all possible means to reclaim her, for one whole year and more, until I found her past all hopes of reconciliation: And then I concluded with the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. 9 That seeing I could no longer contain, it was better to marry again than to burn, And now it is more than eleven years since she has thus deserted me, and yet now at length she chargeth me with Adultery, or Fornication, or Incontinency, or with all. And yet I thank God for it, who by his grace hath preserved me, that I never had carnal knowledge with any man's wife, before or since I knew her, And never had a child by any woman but herself until above one year after she utterly left me. And in attestation of these thing, and in vindication of my proceedings in the whole mater, I have written this ensuing treatise, in answer to her scandalous Libel. And in vindication of the Nullity of our marriage by her desertion of me, of the lawfulness of an honest Concubinage, in a case of necessity, where lawful marriage cannot conveniently, or possibly be enjoyed. Unto which discourse, I refer my readers, as to the malicious rebellions of both my sons, who were the chief incendiaries, unto all the Evil that their said mother hath acted against me. And yet I have great reason to imagine, that the green heads of these infernally inspired villains, had yet a deeper foundation than their own unripe pales to build upon. There was among my pretended intimate friends, a certain Divine of the Church of England as he pretended to be: And might a man of integrity be judged by his hat and gown, and girdle he was so cap-a-pee. Or might a man be distinguished by his graceful garb, a smooth tongue, affable discourse, and a courteous presence; he could not be otherwise. But when we approach so near a man as to find an Achitophel's head, Rabshakel's lips, and a Doegs hard heart, all met in the presence of a stubborn Jew: And a church-man's habit upon the body of a secretly resolved Papist; What can a man look for but a Beast out of a bottomless pit, throwing about his firebrands, arrows and death, and saying am not I in sport? What can a man expect otherwise, but infernally contrived mischiefs, which without the gracious help of God above cannot reasonably be prevented. I have received this sting at mine heart. And these humble papers are intended as an humble Antidote against the poison thereof: And the good God grant me his blessing therein according to my integrity. Let truth and righteousness ever flourish; but let lies and slanders of the ungodly always be detected, and come to nought. And the good Lord of his mercy justify the innocent, and let me ever escape the malicious Plots and Contrivances, of the venomous lips of Cham, Ham. And let not the innocent and godly sons of the pure church, who have kept promise, though to their hurt, be ensnared to believe the gilded lies of a false brother.  
Amen.   

The true STATE OF THE CASE BETWEEN JOHN BUTLER, Clerk, AND Martha sometime his Wife, in a Matter of Marriage, dissolved by Desertion. As it is now about to be Controverted in the Honourable Court of Arches, by a Libel brought by the said Martha against John, and the Allegation of the said John in Answer thereto, etc.  The Libel came to the Hands of this Respondent on the tenth Day of June 1697. and says as follows. 
IN Dei nomine, Amen. Coram vobis venerabili & egregio viro Georgio Oxenden, Legum Doctore almae curiae cantuar de Arcubus London: Officiali principali legitime constituto, vestrove Surro. aut alio Judice in hac parte competenti quocunque, pars discretae foeminae Marthae Butler uxoris Johannis Butler de Hammersmith in Com: Mid: cler contra & adversus dictum Johannem Butler ejus maritum paroch. de Hammersmith predict. ac Con. & adversus quemcunque alium five quoscunque alios per viam quaerelae ac vobis in hac parte querelando dicit allegat. & in hiis Scriptis injure proponit articulatim, pro ut sequitur, viz.  
Imprimis, That the said John Butler Clerk, and Martha Butler formerly Perkins, Daughter of one Isaac Perkins, being free from all Matrimonial Contracts, were on or about the seventh Day of May, which was in the Year of our Lord God 1651, joined together in holy Matrimony, by a Minister in holy Orders, in the Parish Church of Weedon in the County of Northampton, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England; and after such their Marriage, they did live or cohabit together as lawful Man and Wife, and for, and as lawful Man and Wife, they the said John Butler and Martha, were and still are commonly accounted, reputed, and taken to be; and the said Marriage hath been consummated by carnal copulation, and he the said John Butler hath had several children born on the body of the said Mar ha his Wife, four of which (to wit Simon, Alban, Annsusan, and Barbara) are now living, and were and are commonly accounted, reputed the lawful children of them the said John and Martha Butler his Wife; and the Marriage of the said John and Martha Butler doth appear to be entered in the Register-Book kept for marriages in the Parish Church of Weedon in the County of Northampton aforesaid. Hoc que fuit & est verum publicum notorium manifestum pariter ac famosum, ponit tamen de quolibet alio temporis spatio majori medio vel minori, & ponit conj. & divisim & de quolibet.  
Such is her first Article of her Libel. Unto which is answered by this Respondent, That it is not altogether True, being stuffed with several presumptions which cannot be proved, nor aptly be discovered.  
And first, As to the pretended Marriage this Respondent saith, That it was really his desire, that such a marriage might have been effected as in the Libel is pretended; but in the year above mentioned it was a time of Rebellion, and of great disorders both in Church and State, and the lawful way of solemn matrimony, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England was gainsaid, and ●●erly forbidden in those days, and forty shillings fine imposed on every Minister as should marry by the Common-Prayer Book and hence lawful Ministers in benefice durst not perform lawful marriage, under the pain of the said forty shillings 〈◊〉. Wherefore this Respondent being ill willing to submit unto a scismatical and new invented Form of Marrimony, was constrained to make use of a stranger that he never saw before nor since, who was a man out of benefice, and promised to marry us in due form in the Church, as in the Libel mentioned. And in presence of witnesses did begin to read the form of Marriage; but in the management, whether out of mistake or ignorance, or wilfulness, this Respondent cannot say; but so it was, That he neglected and utterly omitted to use that most essential part of the marriage, whereby this Respondent should have been betrothed to the said Martha the Complainant. And although this Respondent did whisper and correct him by making known his mistake; yet he amended it not, seeming as one confounded and in an amazement, insomuch that the company burst out into a loud laughter. So as he did not take this Respondent by the right Hand, nor cause him to take the said Martha by her right Hand, and to say after him saying, [I John take thee Martha to my wedded Wife, to have, and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy Ordinance, and thereto I plight thee my troth.] Which passage thus utterly omitted, and at that time not to be amended. Something was said of making us Man and Wife without it. And considering the rudeness of those times, and the difficulty of Marriage to be rightly obtained as the case stood: This Respondnt observing that the place was thin of witnesses; and those who were present not so sufficicatly read as to apprehend the deficiency, passed over the matter with silence, and did cohabit with the said Martha as his lawful wife; whence followed a common repute, That the said Martha was his wife lawfully married to him, and he had carnal copulation with her as with a wife, and did heartily love her, and owned her as his wife for many years, notwithstanding the defects in the solemnity of his marriage. And did humbly conceive as those times were managed That he was as well married by taking a woman into his bed without other ceremony, as if he had been married by the Directory then in use, or by the Justices; Forms of marriage. utterly illegal, tho' countenanced by the Rebellion. And since by the Act of Indemnity in the Reign of King Charles the TWO, this Respondent humbly conceives his defficient marriage is become as legal and good in law, as if it had been most truly solemnised. And he doth heartily consent hereby that she was his lawful wife, and that this Respondent had never denied her had not she cast off him.  
2ly As to the Marriage entered in the Register-book kept for Marriages at Weedon aforesaid, as is alleged. This Respondent doth farther say, That he hath seen such a pretended marriage entered in the said book, but withal, he utterly denies that it was lawfully and orderly Registered, either by the Minister that pretended to celebrate the Marriage, or by the Minister of that Church, or by the Clerk of the Parish: but was put in by some stealth, or hired to be done many years after: For that about five or six years after the pretended time of marriage, at what time the strange Minister that essayed to marry us was dead, this Respondent did purposely call for the said Register-Book, and did plainly see and find that no such Entrance was made, but afterwards upon a new search he plainly found that there was such a marriage set down; but than it was so as that it was plainly interlined, and written with a strange hand, divers from all the rest that were recorded therein.  
3ly. As to the Children which were had of the body of the said Martha the Complainant; this Respondent doth farther say, That out of his abundant love to the said Martha his pretended wife, he never doubted to own at all times the children by her brought forth, as his own natural and well begotten children; and doubts not but that all or most of them which are dead, were lawfully and well born, and likewise that the two surviving daughters were so. And altho' there have been suspicious carriages sufficient to provoke Jealousies, and giving just cause to recriminate the Libellatrice, and something thereof is mentioned in this Respondent's Alligation put into Court: Yet in this public Discourse this Respondent is willingly silent. Only as to the two Sons in the Libel mentioned, called Simon and Alban Butler; such has been their undutiful, disobedient, most abominably malicious. and Diabolically rebellious carriage towards a pretended Father, that no rational man can imagine, that truly natural and lawfully born children, can possibly degenerate so far as to be guilty of such monstrous language, and Infernal actions as these pretended sons have been guilty off against this Respondent. All neighbours can testify that this Respondent hath done his utmost duty by them, as a tender Father, to spare for no cost to his utmost ability, in contributing to their health and learning, and all holy nurture in the Lord. The youngest has enjoyed a fair portion under him, and might have been settled as heir of all that this Respondent is like to leave behind him, had he not burst out into inhuman rebellions and base ingratitude. The eldest had several years in his hands the management of this Respondent's whole estate, and did get or might have gotten a sufficient portion under him, until first running into intolerable debaucheries, and at last becoming a professed Roman-Catholick he caused himself to be discarded. The younger owes this Respondent at this Day 150 l. upon Account, and yet pretends by a kind of a cheat that he owes nothing. Both of them have used violence against this their pretended aged Father, have thrown him down by violence in his own house and rifled him; have cheated him, rob him, slandered, reproached, reviled and upbraided him at a strange rare, in presence of the Complainant Martha their Mother, who in many things was their Abettor: They have threatened him with sword in hand, swaggering over him in strange presumptuous postures: They have used all possible means to impoverish him, to ruin him, and to starve him, by abetting enemies to overthrow him, and have occasioned his imprisonment. And at this day by compliance with an horrid Extortioner that has a mortgage upon his inheritance, these sons together with the Complainant their Mother, are very unjustly in possession of the inheritance of this Respondent who is constrained to sue in Equity to gain his bread out of their rapacious teeth, while they use all possible means in these hard times, playing upon his wants to rob him of all he has, in order by Law to disable him from using a just defence. These humble complaints this poor Respondent hath uttered in the bitterness of his soul; upon the Words of a Priest, and of such a Priest as has kept his Oaths and Promises to his hurt; and God knows, who knows the secrets of all hearts, that he hath uttered no lie. And all who know him do know, and he presumes will testify to the integrity of his reputation. It is written Deut. 27. 16. Cursed be he that setteth light by his Father or Mother: It is God Almighty hath said it, and all the world are bound to say, Amen to it. Is this Respondent Father to these Brats? If so, How much good would their repentance avail him beyond their ruin? But he leaves them as to that matter to God the avenger, who knows all things. The same great God has determined it, Chap. 21. 21. That such wretches are to be Stoned to death with stones, that all Israel may hear and fear, and that no more such Presumption may be done again. And the Father a loan in this Case is to be the Witness. But alas! as times go, rude villains find more friends then innocent parents: God save all according to his just vengeance, Amen. But what shall be said? Are these children ill born Bastards? God knows! And if so, the fault is elsewhere, rather than with this Respondent. However they are plainly the Devils Brats, and none of God's Children according to the sense of the Apostle. ● John 3. 10, 11, 12. And thus they are Bastards of ungodliness, and the discreet Woman their Mother, as the Libel styles her, by taking share in their rebellions, cannot be thought so very faithful as is pretended. And now come we to the ●d. Article, which says,  
Item, That about 12, 11 or at least 10 Years since, one Mary Tomkins did live in the House with them the said John and Martha Butler as their Servant, and the said John Butler being unmindful of his conjugal vow, and seduced and instigated by the Devil, did about ten Years since commit the foul crime of Adultery, Fornication, or Incontinency with the said Mary Tomkins, his said Maid Servant, and it being taken notice of that she was with child by the said John Butler her Master, he the said John Butler and the said Mary Tomkins went into Holland or some other parts beyond the Seas, where they lived incontinently together for the space of two years or thereabouts, and the said Mary Tomkins had there a Bastard child born, and begot by the said John Butler, called by the Name of Mary, and for and as the base child begotten by the said John Butler, on the body of the said Mary Tomkins, the said child Mary was and is commonly accounted and reputed, and thereof there was a public Voice, Fame and Report. Ponit tamen de quolibet alio tempore spatio, etc. & ponit ut supra.  
Such is her second Article; whereof her first charge therein is, That one Mary Tomkins was a servant in the House of this Respondent; which be it true, yet what matters it to her purpose? Except it be to call this Respondent to remembrance, how that this Complainant before her pretended Marriage with this Respondent, was herself no better but a mere Maid-Servant in the house of his Grandmother in Law, who was then called Martha or Mat, and being sent out by her Mistress to wash Daglocks, or the befould locks of the sheep's ●ils, at a brook running by an open highway side, at which time this Respondent out of tender love grieved at her disparagement, gave a groat to a poor woman to wash in her stead, that she might be excused and she was so: She ought not therefore to have envied, that he who had so much love for herself a Maidservant, had some lawful kindness also for another of the same degree.  
2ly. To her second Charge, That this Respondent as one unmindful of his conjugal vow, and seduced and instigated by the Devil, did about ten years since commit the foul crime of Adultery with the said Mary Tompkins his maid-Servant. This Respondent farther saith, That this is a pernicious and slanderous lie, invented by the Complainant Martha herself at the insinuation and instigation of the Devil, and her foul mouthed sons. For as for mater of Adultery, it is a thing utterly inconsistent with her own charge. For the said Mary Tomkins being no man's wife, but a maid-servant, as her own self avers, and the said Respondent being no woman's husband as she also herself must needs know, unless of the said Mary Tomkins; with what face of impudence could she call it Adultery, had such a thing been done as she alleges? For the Complainant herself has so often confessed it that it is out of her power to deny it, how that above one year before, that ten years since, wberein she charges this Adultery to be done, she had clearly Divorced herself from this Respondent's bed by a malicious and obstinate Desertion, having utterly dissolved all bonds of wedlock between this Respondent and herself by her own Authority, by breaking her conjugal vows in wilfully denying the Duties of Marriage required in holy Writ. And yet farther to satisfy all the world how unjustly this Respondent is charged with this foul crime, he does hereby solemnly protest and declare, and does hereby offer himself-before this Honourable or any other Court, to take his Compurgatory Oath, That he never had to do in a carnal manner with any Man's Wife breathing. And that he never did deny Marriage Duty to the said Complainant his pretended wife, while she was his wife, and that he had no Hand of contrivance in putting her away from him, but that the separation which was made was perfectly and purely her own act, in a free pernicious and obstinate refusal of her Marriage Duty.  
3ly. As to the Fornication and Incontinency, wherewith this Respondent is charged; he farther saith, 1st as to Fornication, which is an heinous sin, whereby a man is guilty of carnal knowledge or uncleaness with any Woman, forbidden by God's Law, or by excess of carnal usage with his wife or any other lawful woman: He saith as to the last, he cannot deny but that he hath been guilty, and the first and greatest act of Fornication that his Conscience can charge against him was with this Complainant Martha while she was his wife. And that as for any other mater of Fornication this Respondent doth heartily protest in the presence of God, and is ready to take a Compurgatory Oath upon the same, at what time soever it shall be lawfully required, that during all the time before and after the day of his pretended Marriage with this Complainant about the Year 1651, unto one whole year and more after the time of Dissolution of the said Marriage, by means of the wilful, obstinate and malicious Desertion of this Complainant, he never had child by any other woman besides the Complainant herself, and never in all that space went unto any common whore. And though this Complainant and her two ungracious sons, have often upbraided, slandered, and reviled this Respondent, with most abusive raileries, and have filled the country with many slanders and suspicious reports of matters said or done above twenty or thirty years since, concerning what kindness this Respondent might have shown to particular persons more than ordinary; this Respondent doth solemnly protest and declare that he never had carnal Knowledge of any such woman, for whose sake he was aspersed, nor did he ever attempt or desire such a thing of any one of them so spoken off. And as for the said Mary Tomkins, this Respondent farther saith, That until utterly relinquished by his wife, and above one whole year after, she never had any child by him, nor was she with child by him: And after that time he was guilty of no other nor greater Fornication with her, than what our holy Father Abraham the Father of the faithful was guilty of, when purely for issue sake, and not of any lustful concupiscence, he went in to Hagar his Wife's Maid, or unto Keturah his concubine in the life time of Sarah his Wife. Now Abraham was not charged with any thing of Fornication in that case, but rather was acquitted by God Almighty as purely and truly Innocent, altho'he had done the very self same thing which this naughty woman chargeth against this Respondent for Adultery or Fornication; but the case of this Respondent is much easier than that of Abraham, forasmuch as at the time aforesaid Abraham had a wife then in his bed with him; but this Respondent had no wife, unless it may be esteemed that the said Mary Tomkins was his lawful and his only wife, according to the sense of holy writ.  
Lastly, as for Incontinency, which in its self is no sin, unless it be expressed in unlawful uses. This Respondent doth confess and allege, that he is one of those men, of whom our Saviour hath declared, saying, all Men cannot receive this Saying, Mat. 19, 10. And of whom St. Paul hath declared, Saying, They who cannot contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. 1. Cor. 7, 9 Now this Respondent being not naturally endowed with the gift of Continency from heaven, had licence by God's Law to marry. And being married his wife denied him her conjugal duty; that is, she did obstinately deny him the use of her marriage bed. In this case what should this Repondent do? To go in unto a Whore, he might not do. And to marry another wife, without a lawful licence from lawful Authority, it was not convenient because of a statute law in force, that under a severe penalty, no man might have two wives. And though in the truth of this case, it was not having of two wives, for that the marriage with the first was of course dissolved: Yet being under Judicature of others, who might censure according to their own sense; there was danger of being pinched by the Judge, though not by the law, and therefore it was an hazardous case. And in those days wherein this Desertion was made, Popery had possessed the supreme Seat, and there were high Commissioners superseeding all other courts in power, who acting in favour of persons Popishly inclined: No sentence could reasonably be expected according to the Justice of holy writ, wherein the Popish Doctrines clashed with the sense of the Reformed Church; they holding marriage indissoluble, as one of their seven Sacraments, without a Dispensation from the Pope: And these allowing a clear Dissolution thereof, in case of a Desertion, according to the Doctrine of St. Paul, in 1 Cor. 7, 15. In this Case therefore a Man's own Consoience was a good Judge in the case, at least until contrary matters could be proved before a competent Judge. And the testimony of holy writ was a sufficient law for Conscience to be guided by, and this without the assistance of being backed by Authority, in a case where an Authoritative sentence could not be had: As it was in St. Paul's time, wherein the Magistracy being altogether Paganish, no such sentence was required as needful. And as in the Marquis of Vicum's Case, wherein the supreme Authority being Popish he married again with out such a sentence. 'Tis true indeed he had a sentence by Authority from the Syndick of Geneva: But that was as much as just nothing, for that first that Syndick had no Authority to summon his wife to appear at their court, she being not under their Jurisdiction: And secondly being aLay-Power, set up of their own accord, without power from God, or his word, had not so much power as the one conscience of the Marquis himself. And now as the case stands, this Repondent humbly presumes, that the honourable Court of Arches, cannot and will not judicially reprove him, who hath acted nothing. but what is agreeable to holy writ, and a good conscience; and humbly prays that this Pernicious Complainant may be called in to swear this Alligation of this Complainant, and forasmuch as these secret dealings of the marriage bed being difficult and doubtful to be made plain by eye witnesses, that the said Complainant may be required to answer upon her oath; unto the charge of this Repondent whether or no she hath not thus 〈◊〉, maliciously and obstinately denied unto him this Respondent her conjugal duties, and that though she was often 〈◊〉 to the contrary, and all possible means were used, and that for above a twelvemonth, to wit, from the 12th of July 1686, unto the month of September 1687, but she would not yield unto him. And this in trust that upon her just confession and due proof hereof made, this Respondent may by lawful Sentence of the said honourable Court, be declared quit and free, and fully dissolved from all bands of marriage with this Complainant the said malicious Desertrice; in order that he may lawfully confirm that lawful marriage, which in part he hath entered into with another woman. For this Respondent humbly conceives that his first marriage with the Complainant being by her default absolutely dissolved, and it being utterly unlawful for him to go in unto a whore, that necessity required him who could not contain, and conveniently could not marry with safety, to take another woman as he did, after the manner of the faithful, and Holy Abraham, for issue's sake, and to marry her, as well as reasonably could be done. And whereas this Respondent has thus compurged himself, by his protestation of Innocency, and his readiness to make oath of the same, and there appearing none the least clear proof to the contrary; he humbly expects and hopes, that notwithstanding this impudent slander of this wicked woman the Complainant his pretended wife, against him, this honourable Court, and together therewith, the whole World will pronounce and think him clearly Innocent; and that not only from the foul crime of Adultery, but also from the heinous Sin of Fornication; and from all unlawful Incontinency. But before this Respondent concludes his full and perfect answer to this second Article of the Libel: He humbly thinks himself concerned, as he is a Divine in holy Priestly orders, to argue for the better satisfaction of this Honourable Court, and of all persons, Clergy and Laity, unto whose ear this Case may perhaps arrive; what is to be done, in this case of desertion, and what ought lawfully to be done in all respects. And that according to the Judgement of the ablest and best Divines, in all Christendom, and according to the Civil, and Canon Laws in these times of Reformation.  And first as to the true State of the Case of Desertion, whether made by the Man or the Wife. 
St. Paul saith, 1 Cor. 7. 15. If the Unbelieving depart, let him depart; a Brother or a Sister is not under bondage in such a case: But God hath called us to Peace.  
Next, Mr. John Diodali of Geneva, in his Annotations upon the place, writes thus; 1 Depart, i. e. be Divorced for hatred to the Religion, or Marrieth another: Or that all possible and reasonable remedies having been used, and a conve●●● time allotted for that purpose, the Unbelieving party cannot be induced to a due conjunction. A brother, namely the believing party, is loosed from the Bond, being thus forsaken by the unbelieving Party.  
Johannes Wollebius, Dr. Theologiae in Acad. Basil. in compendio Theologiae, Cap. XI. Fol. 245. 
Simply, Adultery, and malicious Desertion, do dissolve Marriage. Either of them do make a Divorce.  [Scribit ut sequitur,] viz. Simpliciter conjugio repugnant Adulterium & malitiosa Desertio Utrumque istórum parit divortium. [De desertione dicit.] 1 Cor. 7. 15. At si infidelis sese separet separatus esto, non est servituti subjectus Frater aut soror in hujusmodi casibus.  
Amandus' Polanus a Polansdorf Syntagmate Theologiae Christiana, Lib. X. Cap 55. 
Divorce is a lawful dissolution of the bonds of Marriage.  De Divortio conjugum. Scribit. ut sequitur, viz.  
Divortium est legitima conjugii solutio. 
The causes of it are two only; Adultery and Desertion. That is a malicious departure of one party from the other, either of hatred to Religion, or out of Levity or impatience of the restraints of marriage, or of any other unlawful Cause; refusing to perform marriage duties.   
Cause divortii duae sunt tantum: una Adulterium, altera Desertio, id est malitiosa alterius conjugis disccssio, nulla justa causa, sed vel odio verae religionis propter quam cum conjuge habitare recusat vel levitate, vel injusta patientia fraeni conjugalis, vel aliis non justis, & sufficientibus causis, 1 Cor. 7. 15.  
Inter has causas ea est differentia, quod Adulterium sit propria atque unica causa dimittendi conjugem adulterantem, atque in eo casu proprie conjunx innocens divortium facit, ac proinde aliquid agit, conjuge dimittendo. 
In Adultery the innocent Husband dismisses his Adulterate wife. But in Desertion the innocent Husband is passive, being deserted of his wife who leaves his bed.  In Desertione autem malitiosa & pertinaci conjunx innocens non agit, sed patitur, aliud enim est dimittere conjugem Adulterantem, aliud a conjuge ultro Discedente dimitti & deseri namqui a conjuge ex destinata malitia discedente deseritur, is patitur & non agit, non dimittit conjugem, sed animo retinet, & retinere cupit. Qua propter is maritus non potest dici secisse divortium contra christi verbum, quod, Mat. 5. 32. & Cap. 19 9 extat, qui injuriam hanc ab infideli patitur; & qui manet in vocatione sua quantum in ipso est, licet parte altera discedente. In procedendo, si non procedit reconciliatio, pars innocens non potest cogi ut recipiat ream.  
Sed si persona accusans honeste vixit, & petit ferri sententiam. Pronuncietur hoc modo: 
In the process, if no reconciliation be made before, the innocent ought not to be compelled to receive the guilty. But having lived honestly, the Judge ought to pronounce him quit of the first marriage, with free liberty to marry again.  Cum persona qkuae deliquit suo scelere dissolverit conjugium, judex authoritate Evangelii personam innocentem pronunciat esse liberam, & express ei concedit, ut pro sua conscientia pie contrahat aliud conjugium.  
Wolfgangus Musculus Dusanus in Come. in Mat. Evangel. Cap. v.  
Necesse est ut certas causas statuamus ob 
We must show the certain cause of Divorce by means whereof with a safe and quiet conscience a man may marry again; of this kind are two, Divorce of Adultery and Desertion.  quas liceat usurpare Divortium etiam coram Deo, salva conscientia & pacata.  
Hujus generis geminam invenio culpam per quam solvatur matrimonii vinculum. Una est quam dominus hic ponit, dicens nisi causa stupri, etc. Altera est, quam Apostolus assignat, 1 Cor. 7. 15. Cum dicit quod si incredulus discedit, descedat. Non est servituti subjectus frater aut soror in 
Christ does not say he who is deserted of his wife and marries again commits Adultery. But he who dismisses his wife does so; for she unfaithfully Divorceth herself, and therefore deserves no more Faith from her innocent Husband.  hujusmodi casu. Si infidelis cohabitare nolit aut reliqua conjugii jura Religionis causa recusarit. His inquit Apostolus servituti non est Subjectus. Quod ergo Christus non dicit, quisquis deseritur ab uxore sua quavis de causa & aliam ducit maechatur: sed quisquis repudiaverit uxorem suam quavis de causa, nihil ad eum pertinet; a quo uxor non dimittitur, nec ejicitur, sed illa sese ultro persida separat, & discedit, mariti fidem obnoxium sibi jam amplius non habet,  Ambrose apud Musculum in eod. loco. 
Locum hunc exponens Ambrosus dicit non debctur reverentia conjugii ei, qui horret authorem conjugii. Non est enim ratum Matrimonium 
St. Ambrose is positive, that who ever relinquisheth her Husband, has utterly dissolved the bonds of Matrimony, & that the relinquished Sins not in marrying another.  quod sine dei devotione est. Ac per hoc non est peccatum ei, qui dimittibur propter deum, si alii se junxerit. Contumelia enim Creatoris solvit jus matrimonii circa eum qui relinquitur, ne accusetur alii copulatus.  
Guiielmus Bucanus S. S. Theologiae in Acad. Lausannensi Doctissimus Professor in Institutis Theologiae, seu Loc. Com. Christianae religionis.  
Locus XIII. §. v. Quot modis Consumptum 
A perfect Marriage may be two ways dissolved. I when by Law it is in its self null or declared so to be.  Conjugium dirimitur? Duobus modis. I Cum id quod per se, & jure nullum est, pro nullo habetur, vel ipso jure nullum esse dectaratur.  
2. Cum conjugium quod ratum fuit & confirmatum, dirimitur legitimis de causis. 
II. When for lawful causes it is made null.   
§. XII. Anigitur possunt Legitimis conjugia dirimi?  
Posse, justis de causis, Deut. 24. 1. Et ex ipsius Christi verbis, Mat. 19 8, 9 
Our Saviour's sense in Mat. 19 8, 9 with St. Paul in 1 Cor. 7. 15, may be thus reconciled.   
§. XIX. [Qua ratione cum Christo est Reconciliandus Paulus qui 1 Cor. 7. 15. propter Desertionem divortium fieri possit, statuis inquiens, etc.]  
Christus loquitur de faciente divortium, seu de eo qui dimitit injust, de quo tantum interrogatus 
Christ treateth of one unjustly dismissing his wife, according to the question asked. St. Paul teacheth of one injustly dismissed of his wife, in answer to the Question asked him in case of an Infidel wife deserting: Whether a believing husband be so strictly tied up, that he cannot marry another Wife? To which he answers, That after all lawful means used to reclaim her, he may marry another wife.  fuit. Paulus vero de patient, seu de eo qui injuste dimittitur; qui interrogatus, an si infidelis fidelem deseret, fidelis teneretur sic astrictus infideli, ut ad secundas nuptias transire non posset? Respondet si infidelis discedat, personam desertam a servitute, idest a vinculo conjugii liber am esse, post quam scilicet omnia expertus fuerit, ut infidelem discedentem revocet ad officium. It a, quam Christus ostendit causam divortii faciendi; Paulus vero causam divortii patiendi, & liberationem obtinendi propter desertionem.  
§. XX. [Qualem intelligit Paulus Desertionem?]  
Hinc est quod magni nominis Theologi infidelitatem 
And the same learned Author says, that by an Infidel, St. Paul means every one who is a malicious and cause less desertrice; according to St. Paul's sense in 1 Tim. 5. 8.  illam de qua loquitur Paulus, revocent ad genus videlicet ad quamlibet malitiosam injustam & pertinacem discessionem, & desertionem; juxta illud, 1 Tim. 5. 8. [Qui suorum, maxim autem domesticorum our am non habet, fidem abnegavit, & infideli deterior est.] Et videtur etiam idem Apostolus cum dicit [non est servituti subjectus frater aut soror in ejus modi] paria peccata intelligere.  
§. XXIX. [Quid si magistratus officium negligat?]  
Valeat perceptum Apostolicum ad Titum. 3. 10. 
And he farther saith, that if the Magistrate neglect his Office; the innocent party is free to marry another Woman without his Sentence, and to reject his Infidel Wife, as freely as he may reject an Haeretick after once and twice admonition. Tit. 3. 10.  [Haereticum hominem, ergo & Atheum, Apostatum, & Blasphemum post unam & alteram correctionem devita.] Et dictum Christi Luk. 14. 26. [si quis venit ad me, & non odit patrem suum & matrem, & uxorem, etc. non est me dignus.] Et Mat. 18. 9 [Si oculus tuus scandalizat te erus eum.] Item, [Omnis qui reliquerit agrum, domum vel uxorem, etc. Centuplum accipiet, Mat. 19 29.]  
Stephanus Szegedinus Panonius in Theol. Sincerae locis Com. Tab. XI. De divortio scribit & de absentia conjugis.  
[Quid de voluntaria & affectata absentia statuendum?]  
Respondet Talis absentia pro desertione habenda 
This Author says, That an affected voluntary absence of either party is to be taken for a malicious Desertion.  est: Et est malitiosa.  
Tria trium clarorum virorum memorabilia dicta.  
Petri Mellii. In casu Criminis pro quo lex Dei hominem interfeci jubet, divortium permitti potest: Si aliter reconciliatio inter conjugales stabiliri neutiquam possit.  
Stephanus Szegedini. Ibi inter volentes Matrimonium solvi potest, ubi fines omnes conjugii impediti, ac sublati sunt preter adjutorium, quod etiam mendicis ipsis debetur.  
Alberti Bakonii melius est disitos Angelice, quam conjuncto Diabolice vivere: etiam eos quibus nulla ratio 
And that the unbeliever deserting, does absolutely dissolve the bonds of Marriage.  ad perpetuum suppetit divortium, & earatione pax magis colatur.  
Tab, III. Si Infidelis fidelem conjugem Relig. causa repudiat: fratrem vel Sororem, liberat a conjugii vinculo pertale repudium.  
Such (as by these Quotations does appear) are the Doctrines of all the most learned Divines of the Reformed Religion beyond seas, whether Lutherans or Calvinists. And our English Divines do agree with them therein. Thus the learned Dr. Hammond in his Annotations upon, 1 Cor. 7. 15. And so the Assembly of Divines upon the same; only as to marrying again after Desertion they do not so largely express their sense, as these others have done. Yet in his practical Carechism, the Doctor allows clearly Marrying again in case of malicious Desertion. Book 2. §7. And so Nicholas Bifield upon 1 Pet ' 3. 7. Also the learned Perkins, and divers others. Now as for the learning of the Civil Law, this Respondent cannot pretend to be so generally experienced: Yet in confidence, that Reformed Civilians do agree with our Divines, He shall only introduce one Quotation out of a very learned Doctor of the Laws, and of the Church and Kingdom of Denmark, Melchior Kling in his Learned readings upon the four Books of Institutions of Law, by the Emperuor Justinian, imprinted at Leyden in the year 1582. and Dedicated unto Christian K. of Denmark, which speaks as follows;  
Lib. I. Tit. X. de nuptiis Fol. 32, Num. 1. Jus novi testamenti habetur in eo quot ad 
This Learned Author shows, That the Law of the new Testament takes place before all Canon and Civil laws, and that by Authority of the new Testament without doubt. After Desertion the deserted is so free from the marriage with the Desertrice, that he may take another wife.  divortia attinet. Enumer antur enim duae causae divortii, Prima est Adul. de quo Mat. 19 secun. est si alter ex contrahentibus infidelis fuarit, & noluerit habitare cum fideli, sed discesserit permissum est fideli iterum nubere, 1 Cor. 7.  
Fol. 33. Numb. 5. Certum est quod jus novi Testamenti Canonibus non cedit: igitur jus novi Testamenti, incasibus in eo decisis simpliciter sine aliqua mutatione sive limitatione servandum sit. Et in hoc casu sine dubio pugnae jus canonicum cum jure novi Testamenti in multis. Item Utrum sola desertio conjugis sine Adulterio sit causa divortii, & utum post divortium innocenti liceat, altera perte vivente contrahere matrimonium? sed de his questionibus infra decemus.  
Fol. 34. Numb. 5. De divortio. Aut quaeras utrum Matrimonium propter Haeresim vel talem errorem, in totum possit dissolvi ita quod fidelis, altera vivente, habeat transitum ad secundas nuptias & hoc casu sine dubio, fidelis potest nubere.  
Now according to the sense of all these learned Divines, both at home and abroad; and the sense of the civil Laws, which as it shall seem by this one learned Doctor does agree with them in the same sense: It does appear that in case of a Desertion made by the wife, the marriage with that wife is clearly dissolved, she having divorced herself from her Husband's Bed; or rather as our English Divines term it, she hath clearly made Null and Void, by that act of Desertion that marriage which was between herself and her Husband: And that so, as by the holy word of God, the marriage is declared Null and Void in its self without any farther sentence of the Magistrate. For thus saith the Text, If she will depart, let her go; there needs no sentence of the Magistrate in the case, especially where on, Magistrate can be had in the case, or in a case where the Magistrate either will not Act, or at least will not make sentence, as the holy word requireth. For so saith the most Learned Bucanus; in such a Case after convenient admonition, and means used to reclaim such a Desertrice, and she will not be reclaimed: A good Husband may as freely and safely reject her Society, so as never more to have to do with her, as he may reject an Haeretick, so as never more to have to do with him, because he an is Haeretick; and this he may do without any sentence or leave had of the Magistrate. Tit. 3. 10. Nevertheless for the conveniency, and the well-being sake of the Case, the sentence of the Magistrate is thought meet to be procured, were it for nothing else, but to abide as a sure test that all matters in the case were rightly and truly acted. For otherwise the Desertrice, may return again, be it only to despite her wronged Husband, and denying the Desertion, may claim her old right anew. And besides there may be controversies about allowance of Maintenance, all which by ajust sentence may at once be stopped. Now this Respondent allegeth, that in his case with his deserting wife, there was no Authority but what at the highest was Popish, that he could any way appeal unto; and the ground of the Desertion being chiefly and only for does inheriting his eldest son, who had left his Father's religion to become a Roman-Catholick; he could expect no remedy but what would be superseded by the High-Commissioners, from whom he could expect no right done him against the concern and interest of Popery. 'Tis true indeed, that it was alleged, as if this Respondent should say, that he had another woman with child by him, at that time, forwhich cause his wife the Complainant pretended to have relinquished him: And she alleges she can prove such words uttered by him. Unto which he answers, that true it is he was in a great passion, because of his son tùrned Papist, and his wife violently siding with him, to excuse and justify him against this Respondent: And what words in the heat of passion were uttered by him, he does not perfectly remember; it is a mater on her part to be proved. But if some such like words dropped from him, he might be mistaken by the hearers, and misunderstood, or was it true that he said so, be sure it was not true that he said; and he is ready to make oath thereof when ever called there to, that there was no such thing done, at that time, nor ever before, nor of above a twelve month after, and there is no tract, or appearance, or testimony can be made of any such thing done as is pretended. But for a twelvemonth after her desertion begun, he did continually solicit her to be reclaimed, and she would not, though no sign nor token appeared, or was ever heard on, in all that time, of any Woman with Child by him. But this Respondent is able to make proof, by several suspicious tokens of her unsaithsulness, and by her taking part with her kindred and acquaintance against him, and by secret parloynings made of his goods, besides a constant allowance always made her; and by her affected and voluntary absence from him for a whole year and half together, and by continual and causeless quarrels against him, that it was a causeless contrived malicious and obstinate Desertion made against him, propagated and encouraged by her rebellious children. And now besides all these things it is now above eleven years since her Desertion first begun, and yet in all this time she hath made no complaint. Moreover this Respondent hath several times offered her to refer all matters in Difference with her, and offering to be concluded by reverend and holy Fathers in God the Bishops; and particularly by the late Bishop of Bath and Wells, unto whom she was contented to refer herself, and yet afterwards would not stand to it, nor to any other Bishop, until at this time, knowing this Respondent to be utterly destitute of maintenance, she sued out Process in this Honourable Court, verily thinking to destroy this Respondent, and to tread on him in his distress. And this notwithstanding he has been hitherto so kind to her, as to allow her maintenance all these years of his free good will, without any condition, until of late by means of false friends and mishaps of fortune, he wanted daily bread for his own relief, and could not allow her for want of wherewithal.  
And now having answered her scandalous Charge, this Respondent is ready to proceed to the mater of Fact. And farther saith, that the said Mary Tomkins together with this Respondent, and other Company, did go over into Holland, upon a very lawful and good Account, having a licence of Absence from his Dioe●●san, but not as an Adulterer, or Fornicator, or Incontinent, or for fear of any Discovery as this Complainant maliciously insinuateth. For this Respondent had a Cure at Delft in Holland, and lived there publicly, being employed to Preach untò the English and Scots in a public Church in Delft for most of the time he tarried there, and held correspondence with Alban this Complainants Son all the time, who from time to time sent Letters, and gave an account of his rents, and had a continual course of Letters from this Respondent. And there was no such thing as living incontinently with any woman, much lefs with the said Mary Tomkins. And the said Mary Tomkins had no Bastard Child born there, nither can any such thing be proved, nor was there any fame of any such thing, or any repute of a Bastard Child born there. But true it is that the said Mary Tomkins living there in Delft in good Repucation was delivered of a Daughter who was Baptised, and Named Mary, born on the 26th Day of June 1688. about nine years since. And of this child, this Respondent does confess, he is (as he verily believes) the true Father. And he humbly conceives it is a lawful anda well born 〈◊〉 For that being deserted of this Complainant, his pretended Wife, above two full years before this child was born, It was lawful for him to join himself, unto another woman, as by all the Testimonies aforesaid it does appear. And what ever child he had at this time, was no wrong to her who had utterly forsaken his bed. And this child being but newly Conceived at his coming away out of England, there could be no such thing as she maliciously in her Libel suggests,; that it was taken notice of, that the said Mary Tomkins was with child. Now true it is, that this Respondent was not married to the said Mary Tomkins, according to the customs of the Church of England, for reasons as aforesaid: And whereas many will be apt slanderously to charge this Respondent as one keeping a Concubine, or living in Concubinage with an unlawful woman: This Respondent humbly answers, that in a sense he is lawfully married to the said Mary Tomkins, and that his Children by her are lawfully born children, and no bastards.  

Of a lawful Concubinage in a Case of Necessity; wherein lawful Marriage conveniently or possibly cannot be obtained.  
ANd to this purpose he humbly conceives himself concerned to make it appear, according to Gods, Holy Word, and the English customs, and good Law of this Land, there is a sort of most lawful and necessary Concubinage, that in many cases cannot possibly be avoid. This first Wife this Complainant called Martha Butler, being never lawfully married to him this Respondent could not be his lawfully married wife; and yet both of us having done our true endeavours to be lawful man and wife, it was no fault of ours that we were not so; for as the time then reigned, few were or could be lawfully married. But we were in a fair way to be lawfully married, and had been so, had not the mistake of the Minister marrying, and unhappy accidents prevented us. Wherefore having done what we could do, who shall blame us that we lived almost forty years together in Concubinage, and were never truly married. Until by the Act of Indemnity at the coming in of King Charles the II. our marriage, and a thousand more unlawful marriages, were all made good in Law as if they had been the most regular marriages all of them, that ever were made by a Minister in holy Orders according to all the rites and ceremonies required by the Laws and customs of the Land. Now all these thousands of marriages, which were made by the Directory, and by Justices, and by Quakers, and many by taking one another's words, were all of them but mere Concubinages, and no more, but as if man and woman had gone to bed together, and begot children without any Ceremony at all. For our law calls all Bastards that are born out of marriage, and all Directory, and Justice marriages, were as much illegal, as those wihtout any ceremony at all, and were all equally fellows in Concubinage, until the said Act of Indemnity set all straight, and made all good. Now by the said Act of Indemnity of the XIIth of King Charles the II. it is expressed that any the Subjects of the said King, or the heirs or Executors of any of them, shall not be sued vexed or inquieted by or in behalf of the Kings, Majesty, his Heirs or Successors, in their bodies, goods, lands, or tenements, for any manner of mater, cause, contempt, misdeameaners, etc. Or any other thing suffered done, or committed, before the said 24th of June 1660, against his late Majesty, or that now is, his Crown Dignity. Prerogative, Laws, or Statutes; any Statute, Statutes, Laws, customs, or Usuages heretofore had, made or used, to the contrary in any wise not withstanding. And that all the said Subjects, etc. may plead this Act for their free pardon. Now setting aside Laws and Statues of this Realm, according to holy writ, there is no more ceremony required, but consent on both parts, before Witness sufficient, and beding together, according to Exod. 12, 26. without any presence nessarily required of either Magistrate or Priest. And though every one Man, was to marry but one woman, who was to be Lady or Dame of the Family, yet God did plainly allow of a lawful Concubinage, or addional wives for the bed, for Issue sake; the Issue whereof are no where termed Bastards, either in old or new Testament; but upon all occasions in case of heirs male wanting by the proper wife, the son 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 Soloman by Naamah a mere Concubine, was his Heir unto his Throne, for that he had no Son by his proper Wife: Yea though Daughters, he had several. And thus Jeph●bab Son of Gilead by a Stranger, or a mere Concubine, became the Prince of the People, before any of his brethren, Born of the lawful Wife, because of his Abilities above any of them. Judg. 11. ●, 2, and 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 a Churchwarden much less a King or 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 esteemed Bastards but children begotten in Adultery or whoredom, 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 Nice: Both which were Heirs in the Genealogy of our Saviour, and therefore no Bastards. But the Pope made Bastords of such, which by God's Law are reputed well born. And from the Pope, our Statute Laws still keep up the practice: Declaring all childerens to be bastards, which are born out of marriage. So as Childeren begotten out of marriage, was a sin against the King's Laws and Statutes and yet no sin against God's Law. Now it happened that betewen the year from Janu. 1. 1637 unto the 24 of June 1660. there were so many hundred thousand children born out of marriage, because of the true Laws of marriage put down, that there was no other remedy to heal so many disorders in marriages, by sinning against the King's Laws, but by an Act of Indemnity; and by that Act, all manner of sins against the King's Laws, in case of deficient marriage, except some exceptions in that Act expressed, whereof this is none. being pardoned. All sorts of coming together, by any single man and si, ngle woman, and not disallowed by God's Laws, and the children born of such a beding together, are made as lawful to all intents and purposes, as if they had been married in all things according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. And hence all manner of Concubinages between single persons during the time aforesaid were made good in Law, by a Statute-Law. And thus the marriage of this Respondent with this said Complainant, became a lawful marriage by Statute-Law, as well as by Gods Law. And so it was also of all other Concubinages of the same time, from 1637, unto June 1660. And the children of such a bed were lawful born children, and no bastards, but were and are to be taken, as the true and lawful Heirs unto their Father's Dignities and Estates in as much as if they had been born of lawful marriage. And now the second marriage of this Respondent with the said Mary Tomkins, being a lawful marriage according to God's word, barred of the benefit of the King's Laws only, because of dangerous inconveniences in the way. And being in the same state as all the Concubinages in the years aforesaid, laments only the want of the same remedy. And being a lawful marriage before God, pleads for its self as a lawful and innocent concubinage, though not a good marriage according to the King's Laws.  
2ly. This Respondent farther pleads, that though the Statute-Law of this Realm seem to condemn this his deficiency of marriage; yet the customs of the Kingdom do fully and plainly allow of it. For first whereas it appears by the Chronicles of Scotland that Robert Stuart the next Heir unto David then King of Scotland, as his eldest Sisters Son, lived with Elizabeth the daughter of Sir Adam Moor, as his Concubine out of marriage, and had by her three sons, John, Robert and Alexander; and afterwards the said Elizabeth still living, he Married with Euphame the Daughter of the Earl of Rosse, by whom he had two Sons, called David, and Walter. And after that being Crowned King, Euphame died, and he married his old Concubine Elizabeth: And being old he called a Parliament of Lord's Spiritual and Temporal, to advise him which son of right aught to inherit his Throne. And it was resolved for the eldest Son of the Concubine, before the sons of his married wife. For that she had been a true wife to him before God in all things, excepting the deficiency of the rites and ceremonies of marriage. This therefore was approved of by all the wisdom of the Realm to have been a lawful Concubinage. And insomuch as the Heirs of that Concubinage are without any gainsaying admitted also to inherit the Imperial Throne of this Realm; it is also become an allowed Custom in this Kingdom also, That the Heirs of a lawful Concubinage may inherit the Patrimony of their Parentage. Thus also in the case of William of Normandy, who was born out of marriage, who was admitted, and his Heirs after him, to enjoy the Imperial Throne of this Kingdom, and owned as a lawful King by all the Nobles and Bishops of this Realm. Henry the Seventh also of this Kingdom was admitted and allowed in several Parliaments, as the lawful Heir of John Duke of Lancaster; altho' he was the Grandchild of John Earl of Somerset, the Son of the said John Duke of Lancaster by Katherne Swinford his Concubine, born out of marriage; and as I take it, in the Life time of Constance his wife: And the Heirs of these Concubinages do continue unto this Day. Now have Parliaments admitted of such things as these as lawful and good Successions; and shall they not be called the Custom of England: And if lawful Customs, than Custom pleads to be of kin unto a Law; yea, though are the sametime it seems to clash with Law: But we must distinguish between matters of Concubinage; for tho' some of them may justly by Law be Condemned, yet some other of them in the mean while ought to have a despensation against the perils of the Law. And among others, this Case of the Respondent humbly begs a Reprieve, in as much as necessity for want of the Power of Continency requirs an honest company of some Bedfellows; but it may not be an Whore, and cannot with safety be a married wife according to the Laws of this Land, for want of an Authoritative Sentence to acquaint him of his former marriage, which when time was could not be gained; and thus between three dangerous Rocks necessity hath invited or rather thrust him into a bed of Concubinage; which is unto him in all points as it were a lawful marriage.  
But 3ly. This Respondent having made two such Marriages, and yet neither of them of choice as to the manner, but both of them of a sort of necessity, deficient of performance according to the good Laws of this Land, humble craves of the good Reader his patience, to hear out the justification of his Innocency in the last as well as in the first: And lest he may seem in the eyes of ignorant and scornful men more guilty of rashness and incontinence, than of honesty and innocency; he humbly prays it may be considered in the first place, How apt a thing it is that many innocent and holy doctrines may be generally cried down as gross Errors, which are quite otherwise? As for instance in the Case of Priest's Marriage, which is a matter wherein the Church is now perfectly satisfied, that it is both an Honourable and a truly holy practice; and yet it cannot be forgotten, how it was cried down in our grandfather's days as a most pernicious, Hellish, and an Abominable Sin. And as it was with Priest's Marriage, I am of opinion we may find some other matters still spoken against, that may upon serious consideration be found as innocent and holy as that is at this day. And among other things I propose a lawful Concubinage, as in some cases it may be required: And to this purpose it is written in the New-Testament, Heb. 13. 4. that Marriage is honourable in all, and the Bed undefiled: But Whoremongers and Adulterers God will Judge. Hence it follows without dispute, That Marriage in its self is an honourable state, and that the Bed undefiled is so too, and that in all things as in the case of marriage: But then upon inquiry, whether in this Text, by the Bed undefiled, is to be understood the self same thing with the Married Bed, or some other Bed plainly different and distinct therefrom, is a mater disputable still. And now the Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [and] or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is in the original, is a particle copulative, which couples words and sentences together; and these words and sentences ought properly in such a case of coupling together to be of a divers and dictinct signification; for that which is the same thing in sense with what went before, needs no bond of copulation, being naturally joined therewith: For in such a sense had this learned Author intended by these Words one and the same thing, he would have written saying, Marriage (being) a Bed undefiled, or (which is) or (if) a Bed undefiled is honourable; then had it been a plain case what he meant by his words: But as the words run in the text, Marriage (and) the Bed undefiled. This Bed undefiled according to plain grammatical construction, must be aptly significant of some certain Bed distinct from the Marriage Bed; or at least the words must start a Riddle hard to be understood: 'Tis true indeed, that the word (and) is sometimes read as a Particle Exegetical; as in Ephes. 1. 3. it is written, Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; which Sentence by the same Author is written, 2 Cor. 1. 3. Blessed be God even the Father, etc. In which places the words God, and Father of Jesus Christ, are plainly significant of the same Person, ' yet coupled together exegetically by the Particle (and) but that in this case, the word (and) couples not Persons, but Relations together; for what God is in himself unto all the world, is a distinct thing unto what he is unto Christ alone; and in this case the word (and) is used as it were not properly in its own natural sense, but is taken for the word (even) as the Author explains himself in another place, speaking to the same purpose; but in this case the words appear not in the same livery; for shall we read the words thus, Marriage even the Bed undefiled is honourable, yet still there will be a riddle in the case, as to the Author's meaning; for why did he make account that Marriage could not be honourable, unless it were a Bed undefiled? No, that could not be, for Marriage of its self is an honourable state in all cases and persons, whether it be Holy or Profane, whether it be among Jews, Christians, or Pagans; and therefore there needs not these words, [Even] the Bed undefiled, or [being] or [that is to say,] the Bed, etc. And again, would we read the words thus; then would it follow that all Marriages are even a Bed undefiled, which is not so: For that there are many very Profane and unclean Marriages made, whence follows therefore of necessity, that this learned and holy Author does in this place clearly treat of a Bed undefiled, as a Bed plainly different and distinct from the Marriage Bed, or of some Bed out of Marriage, that may be truly styled a lawful and undefiled Bed. And as so he seems to comprehend all those cases of difficient Marriages, between the year 1637, and 1660, in the Act of Indemnity aforesaid, intimating that in those Cases where the lawful ceremonies of Marriage could not aptly be had; yet those beds being honestly managed, and undefiled, were therefore beds in themselves lawful and honourable, if no such thing as the Act of Indemnity had come forth to confirm them: And thus by the same rule and reason, this Respondent pleads that his present beding with the said Mary Tomkins is a Bed undefiled, and therefore lawful and honourable, even as the Marriage Bed, being made at a time when lawful Marriage could not conveniently be had; for he having taken into his bed an honest woman and no whore, and this without offence to God or to any man breathing, and not for satisfaction of unclean Lust, but purely and truly to avoid Fornication, and to procure of her body an holy seed to be educated in the nurture of the Lord, in godliness and honesty, and true Religion: And the Children he hath by her do witness as much.  
But may not the true and proper Grammatical construction of the word be testimony sufficient of the true and proper meaning of the text, and of the holy Author thereon. Let us next examine the custom and practices of the persons concerned in the words, which must be a certain exposition what this Author meant by the bed undefiled he wrote of. Now the Author of this Epistle to the Hebrews, is commonly supposed to be St. Paul; some think it was rather St. Luke, and others say it was St. Barnabas: This Respondent is able to make appear that it was St. Barnabas; but these things need not here to be debated. That it was one of the three is mostly agreed, and who ever it was, besure he was a Christian Jew; and the Hebrews unto whom the Epistle was directed were also Christian Jews, which things must unavoidably be allowed to be true; and if so, than this bed undefiled must be necessarily understood as it was commonly esteemed among the Jews; For had their customs and practices been reprovable, this holy Author would have corrected them; but as he styles this bed undefiled, as an honourable state, even in the case of marriage: so a bed undefiled according the use and custom of the Jews at the time of this Epistle written, is to be an infalliable testimony in what sense these words are to be understood; and to this purpose we are to inquire into the custom of the Jews, first before, and 2ly after Christianity bore date: Now before Christianity it plainly appears, that the Jews had their Marriage beds. And there was always allowed among the ancient Hebrews also a bed of Concubinage, which was also held to be in itself a bed undefiled and honourable, and a lawful custom; and at this rate the Patriarch Abraham, a man without exception for holiness and honesty, had his married wife whose name was Sarah; and besides that wife he had his Concubines Hagar and Katurah in his waves life time, by both which he had issue, and that of a bed indefiled, and not at all tainted with the stains of Adultery or Fornication: For had not his son Isaac been born of Sarah his wife, his Son Ishmael by his bond maid had been his true and lawful heir, Gen. 17. 18. Which could not have been had he been born a bastard, as now a days such a child is reputed to be: But God Almighty so fully attested the Legitimacy of Ishmael's birth, by the blessing he gave him, as of a well born child, v. 20. Does God usually give his blessing to bastards, who are utterly barred thereof unto the tenth generation? Deut. 23. 2.  
After the same manner also King David had Michal his married wife; and she dead, he married Bathsheba his second wife; and besides these wives he had several other women who were called side wives, of whom he had lawful issue. And yet these secundary and inferior wives being none of them endowed were but mere Concubines; and yet those Concubines were so far from being reputed whores or unfaithful women, that God Almighty gave testimony to the contrary by styling them Concubines of God's own allowance, or proper gift, 2 Sam. 12. 8. Does God patronise Adultery or Fornication by allowing of such a Conoubinage to be a lawful and undefiled bed? Surely no; what God allows of therefore is no Sin.  
King Solomon had seven hundred wives, who were all king's daughters; and yet by them all had no male-child: For his true and lawful heir was Rehoboam his son, by Naamah an Ammonite his concubine, who was born before marriage and before he was king: And Solomon dead, this son of a concubine born before marriage, without contradiction, was accepted of by God and Man as Solomon's true lawful and proper heir, notwithstanding that he had daughters by his wife or wives, and had Nathan his royal brother, who or some of his issue were then living.  
Hosea the prophet had also a married wife, whose name was Gomer, and she yet living, by a special command from God, this Prophet did yet love another woman whom he married not, but took her unto him for a term of years, months and days, and 〈◊〉 with her as his 〈◊〉, having agreed with her for the term, to be a true wife unto him at a certain price of reward: And yet this was certainly a bed undefiled, obtained by a special appointment of the Lord, Host 3. 1, 2, 3, etc. Whence follows that in the Church of the Jews before Christ, there was a custom and practice of an honest sort of concubinage allowed by God's word, as an undefiled and honourable bed which cannot by any means be denied; tho' some Divines of good reputation are not willing to allow these things as well done.  
But after Christianity came in, and the Hebrew church became Christian, it remains yet to be debated whether this custom and practice continued also into Christ's time in full force and power as before, yea or not? Unto which question this Respondent says, he humbly conceives it does continue. For first he reckons that all lawful customs and practices once allowed of by God's, word and examples of holy Men, are not to cease until countermanded, or otherwise ordered, repealed, or abrogated by as good authority of God's word and good men, as at first gave them a being in the Church. And now to testify that there never was any such repeal or abrogation of those ancient customs and practices allowed before Christianty; this testimony of the Author to the Hebrews is mine evidence: For the bed undefiled and honourable which he treats of, being certainly to be understood of the ancient customs and practices of the said Hebrews, unto whom he writes, which being no where in God's word limited, repealed, or abrogated, or so much as once spoken against; he styles at the instant time of his Epistle written to be a bed undefiled and honourable. True it is indeed that those Hebrew customs do proceed farther than to a bare case of necessity, which this Respondent is not concerned to justify or to meddle with, excepting only thus far, That if ancient Concubinage be justifiable at large, how much more is it clearly justifiable a Concubinage in a case of necessity only. And thus far this Author to the Hebrews does plainly justify, that an honest woman taken into bed purely and truly to avoid fornication, and for propagating of an holy Seed, issue or offspring, though out of marriage in a case of necessity, may be a bed undefilled, lawful, virtuous and honourable, and quit and clear of all Adultery and Fornication, notwithstanding any papal decrees, Canon Laws or Statutes of any realm to the contrary whatsoever; and such saith this Respondent is the true state of his case.  
But yet to add still more light unto the sense of this holy Author to the Hebrews, this Respondent brings in the Evidence of the sacred birth of the ever blessed our Lord Jesus Christ for confirmation: Dareth any soul upon earth be so impudent as to defame the conception and birth of that most holy God Man, who was born without Sin, by saying that they were stained with Fornication or Incontinency, because performed out of marriage; and yet how shall any Man who stubbornly persists to deny all lawful Concubinage, make out such his sentiments without reflecting upon our Saviour's conception and birth? will such a Man think to be excused by alleging that this was an extraordinary work of God? This answer will slain his lips more and more instead of wiping his Mouth; for does God Almighty ever do any thing either ordinarily or extraordinarily which he forbids us to do? Should God himself do that thing which in us is called Adultery or Fornication, or any other Sin, he would cease to be God; for Fornication in its self is an unclean thing, and Adultery worse; and should God do one or the other, it would be doing an unclean thing, and to justify thatGod can do such a thing is blasphemy; and to say that a Bed out of marriage cannot be an undefiled, lawful and honourable bed is almost as bad: Let therefore those wise and good men who have inconsiderately condemned the ancient holy patriarches for their practices of Concubinage, as guilty of sins which God winked at in those days, bethink themselves anew, and perhaps they may be of another mind. Conclude we therefore that what God Almighty hath caused to come to pass, was in itself an honourable, lawful and holy thing; and what God accounts in its self to be good, neither Pope nor Parliament can make evil; what God hath proclaimed lawful and legitimate, it's past man's power and authority to make illegitimate or a Bastard seed.  
But this Respondent stops not here, for there is another material case, testified by our Saviour himself in the new testament, of a bed undefiled out of marriage; and this was the case of the woman of Samaria, (Joh, 4, 10, etc.) Of whom our Saviour well knowing that she lived as a wife with a man who was not her husband, and therefore in plain terms was his Concubine; yet unto this woman in the very state, without any condition made in the case of discontinuing her course of life, and without any the least reproof for the manner of life she lived: Our Saviour freely tendered her the water of life, or the thing signified by baptism, saying unto her positively, that had she known who he was she would have asked, and he would have given her of the water of life; and after this he did tell her who and what he was; and she hearing did believe what he said, and did ask for the water of life; and by consequence she had it: And our Saviour bade call her husband, whose Concbuine she was, and she left her waterpot and went to call him; and as it shall seem she brought him and many more neighbours with him, and he and thy were all or most of them partakers of the same blessing, as by the effect appears. Now saith this Respondent, had this state of Concubinage been an unclean thing, or an incontinent course of Life, as now a days it is reputed; this Concubine and her man that kept her, could not aptly have believed in Christ, and been partakers of the holy Ghost; as it appears they did, and were a Concubine, and yet endued with the holy Ghost; a Concubine keeper and yet sent for to partake of the water of Life, and yet neither he nor she at all reproved for the course of life they lived in, saying, Sin no more, As our Saviour in sinful cases was always wont to say (as Joh. 5. 14. and Ch. 8. 11.) Say we then, and let all candid hearted good men say with us, that the state of Concubinage in some cases at least, is an honest, a believing, and a saving state of life.  
And now having shown those two sorts of Beds which our Author to the Hebrews commends as Honourable; Next I come to treat of those he teaches to shun as dammable, and those are Whormongers, and Adulterers, whom God will Judge. The Whoremonger is such a wretch, who though allowed 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 man's wrong, or to that woman's wrong, and useth her not merely for his lust, in wantonness, or uncleanness, but our of a pure desire of an holy seed by her. Yet not contented with that lawful liberty of God allowed, chooseth rather to spend the holy seed of mankind upon common women, who sell their bodies to the use of every comer: And thus exposeth his seed to be murdered in the body, as whores use to do by their conceptions, or to become a Bastard Brood, of whom no man knows the true Father. And therefore the Mother of such is to be burned, but the Father God will Judge. This is a crying sin which God hates. And yet at Rome, and in some Reformed States, such whores are allowed and encouraged, while an honest Concubinage is esteemed the worst of whoredom. The second foul crime is Adultery, wherein a wicked man conceives more pleasure in another man's wife, then in an honest woman. Together with this sin are companions, the sin of Sodomy or uncleanness with mankind, the sin of Buggery or uncleanness with Beasts, the sin of Incest, the sin of lying with a woman during her uncleanness, and of giving seed to Moloch. Levit. 18. All these are great abominations, which defile the Land.  
And now having done with the testimony of holy writ, come we lastly to the practice of the Primitive times, next after the Apostolical Age: wherein we find that it was not, as it is now, holden in those days such an heinous crime, to have children born out of marriage, especially in case wherein marriage could not aptly be had. The first and most Ancient Laws or Canons we have of those days are those styled the Canons of the Apostles. Wherein it is noted that if a man go in unto a woman who is a virgin, and do in any wise deflower her, Be she poor or rich, that man is either to make her his wife, or else he is to have no wife so long as she Lives. This was the 66th of those Canons: And it was confirmed for Law at the 6th general Council holden at Constantinople. Now this Canon agrees nearly with the sense of holy Writ. In Exod. 21. 16, 17. And shows that in those times marriages were ordered mostly according to holy Writ: And Concubinage was in use as in the Ancient Jewish Church. For about the Year of Christ 300, Constantius Chlorus had to wife Helena the Mother of Constantine the Great, and in her Life time took into his bed Theodora the daughter of Maximian, by whom he had Sons called Constantius and Anniballinus, and Constantia his daughter. Now these three according to the Pope's Laws, and our present Laws, were esteemed base born: But in those days the Father of the Church received them becoming Christians, into places of Authority, never once scrupling that they were base born. Constantine also himself, the first Christian Emperor, had to wife Minervina his lawful wife, by whom he had issue Crispus Caesar his first born son; and also by Fausta his Concubine he had his sons Constantine, Constantinus, and Constans; which all three lived to be Christian Emperors, and yet were never any of them once questioned by any of the Bishops of those days, for base born or bastard Children. Also Valentinian, a very commendable and orthodox Christian Emperor, had Severa his lawful wife by whom he had issue, Gratianus his eldest Son; and Justina his concubine, by whom he had issue, Valentinian his younger Son. Him Gratinus succeeding died without issue, and Valintinian son of the concubine was called unto the throne, and was crowned by St. Ambrose, the Godly and good Bishop of Milan. And yet neither St. Ambrose, nor St. Augustine, nor any of the Bishops of that age did ever question the Emperor Valantinian the Father for keeping a concubine in his wife's life time, nor Valentinian the Son for being base born, and therefore unfit to reign, because born a bastard. For had the Bishop once questioned the mater. Theodosius the great, then reigning at Constantinople, could, and would have put him down, upon a word speaking of St. Ambrose.  
True it is indeed, that in the heat of zeal by good men in the Primitive times, Virginity was buoyed up a great rate; in pursuit of which, many holy Church customs became neglected, and in an heat were decried. And hence Priest's marriage began to be in disgrace, and at length was utterly thrust out; and hence concubinage also was spoken against. But this Respondent has not read of any process against concubinage as a criminal thing, until the Papacy of Rome being crowned heads, and became rampant, began to tyrannize at list. And the first that this Respondent found upon record, was the case of Lotharius king of North-France, who having a wife, kept a concubine in the IX Century, and was first admonished, and then excommunicated by Pope Hadrian the II. unto the ruin of that poor Prince. And since this beginning, the proud Popes have made Decrees and Canons as best served their own avarice, even as they listed; and darkened the brightness of the holy Gospel, out of all men's light in a manner; insomuch as in the days of Henry the VIII the King, Lords, and Commons assembled in Parliament unanimously complained of the Popish encroachments in the case of marriage, brought in for filthy lucre sake, which the Churchmen reaped thereby; by mean whereof so many ways were invented for bastardising of children, that without a licence of marriage from Rome, it was a difficult thing for a person of any quality to have a lawful born Heir. Whence in the XXXII year of Henry VIII. Chap. 38. a statute past, that all marriages shall be lawful which are not in Holy-writ forbidden: And in that statute the Beding of Women was stilled the Essence of Consummation of marriages: See we then whence came up this custom of making base born children contrary to God's word; not out of Holy-writ, nor lawful Church-canons, but out of the dregs and corrupt laws of the worst of Popish times. And yet since that statute, we are not yet come to rights, nor cleared enough of those old popish Corruptions.  
And this Respondent humbly conceives, with submission to the most Pious and Learned Statesmen of those Realms that were matters well weighed, the doctrine of a Reformed Concubinage, as it was used of old by the holy and good Patriarches, might be found to be of sacred and holy use, to prevent the ruin of Royal, Noble, and Generous Families, many of which have formerly Shipwrecked for want of a convenient remedy; and besides, it would prove an honest help to destroy those foul and crying sins of Whoredom and Adultery, which ruins Kingdoms as well as Families. Had it not been for this help of Concubinage, King Solomon had utterly failed of that Royal race, whence our Lord and blessed Saviour Jesus Christ lineally descended. Consider we how many kingdoms have been utterly ruined for want of an honest Concubinage to supply the defects of barren and unhappy marriages. Had Alexander Scot used a Concubine, an Heir of his body might have prevented those dreadful Wars which followed between the Families of Bruce and Baylid for compassing that Crown. And had Richard the IId of England been allowed an heir by a Concubine, the Wars of York and Lancaster had never harrassed this kingdom as they did; which at last was not ended but by a Son sprung from a bed of Concubinage: But happy was that Concubinage of Robert the TWO 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 Welsh Te●ther● thers of the Royal blood of England, another Family sprung from a bed of Concubinage, are to this day reigning over both kingdoms. Which if so, let no Man by corrupt and unlawful comstoms go about to slain the Legitimacy of such a race of Princes, as both England and Scotland have just cause to remember, with Praise and Thanksgiving to God, and especially for Charles the first 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, or bedding with Mary Tomkins, and in answer to her IId, Article. The third saith.  
III. Item. That the said John Butler after having lived with the said Mary Tomkins in the foul crime of Adultery, or Incontinency in Holland, or some other part beyond the Seas, as in the present Article is set forth, he the said John Butler with the said Mary Tomkins, returned into England, and bought or took a House at Hammersmith, in the county of Mids. where they continued to live in an Adulterous, Incontinant manner for many years together; and do still live and cohabit together as man and wife, and she the said Mary hath had four other base children born of her body, and begotten by the said John Butler one of which children is since dead, but the other three are still living, and are called by the name of John, George, and Butler, and for as and the natural children of the said Mary Tomkins, begotten by the said John Butler, they were and are commonly accounted, reputed and taken, and therefore as also of the said John Butler and Mary Tomkins, there living in Adulterous and Incontinent manner together in Hammersmith aforesaid, there was and is a public and notorious ponit tamen de quolibet alio temporis spa. & numero liberor. & ponit ut supra.  
Such is the third Article of her Label, which is forestalled by the Answer to the second, saving that this Respondent saith, he hath lived sometimes in Hammersmith, in good reputation with all good People in the Parish; who he supposes cannot give credit to the Lies and Scandals of this Article: And that she said Mary Tomkins doth cohabit with him there in good Reputation, by the name of Butler.  
IV. Item, That the said John Butler hath lately, to wit. withlast past turned the said Martha Butler his wife out of doors, and left her destitute of necessaries, whereby to support and maintain herself. Hocque fuit & est verum, &c, & ponit ut supra.  
Such is her IV Article; unto which this Respondent saith, it is a mere forgery of Lies, he having no such wife as Martha Butler? once he had such a Woman his wife, whom he never turned out of doors; but she lived with him while she would, and left him of herself, but lived upon his estate, eat and drank at his charge, and lived upon his means, and does so to this day, and was never denied support and maintenance, would she come where 'tis to be had.  
V. Item. That the said John Butler hath an estate to the value of 200 l. or at least 185 l. per ann. Hocque, etc. ponit tamen, etc. ponit ut supra.  
To which this Respondent answers, that once he had such an estate, but by the ill dealings of the said Complainant Martha, and her sons by confederacy with Nathaniel 〈◊〉 the mortgagee he is deprived at present of his whole estate by illegal and evil arts, and this Complainant and her Sons are in possesson thereof.  
VI Item. Quod praefat. Johanes' Butler suit & est paroch. de Hammersmith in Com. Mids. ac ratione literarum requi●, ab Ordinario loc●prius obtent. jurisdict. ●ujus cur● Notor. subditus & subject, & ponit ut supra.  
Hic Respondes de his nil intelligit.  
VII. Item. Quod de & super premissis, etc.  
Item. Quod praemissa, etc.  
Negat Respondens.   
FINIS.