Concubinage and Polygamy DISPROV'D: OR, THE Divine Institution of Marriage BETWIXT ONE MAN, AND One Woman only, ASSERTED.  
In Answer to a Book, writ by John Butler, B. D. for which he was presented as follows:  
We the Grand Jury, sworn to Inquire for the Body of the City of London, on Wednesday, the First Day of December, 1697. Present one John Butler, for Writing and Publishing a Wicked Pamphlet; wherein he maintains Concubinage to be Lawful, and which may prove very destructive to divers Families, if not timely Suppressed.  Eum qui duas habet Vxores comitatur Infamia, Legi Imperial. Lib. 9 Tit. 9 Leg. 18. Jer. 23. 14. I have seen also in the Prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing; they commit Adultery, and walk in Lies; they strengthen also the Hands of the Evil Doers, that none doth r●●●rn from his Wickedness. Ver. 15. From the Prophets of Jerusalem is Profaneness gone forth into all the Land. 
LONDON: Printed for R. Baldwin, in Warwick-Lane, 1698. Price 1 s.   

THE Epistle Dedicatory. TO John Butler, B. D. Asserter of the Lawfuluess of Concubinage.  
IT is now become usual for Authors to set off their Performances, by dedicating them to Extraordinary Patrons; and therefore I hope you will not blame me for Dedicating the following Sheets to your . Your Book, for any thing I know, considering the Scope of it, and the Function of the Author, is unpresidented. You have been at a great deal of Pains, to write an Apology for the Modish Practice of keeping a Miss. The prevalency of the Custom had already abated much of its Odium; so that there wanted nothing but your finishing Struck, to commend it to us from the Pulpit as Sacred and Holy, which you have Generously done in your 34th Page, etc. But, good Sir, to which of the Saints will you turn, or whom shall we follow as a Patron of your Reformed Concubinage? Adam neither had, nor was allowed any Concubinc; and the first that we find upon Divine Record to have been Guilty of Polygamy, was Lamech, one of Cain's Posterity. I am afraid that the Holiness of the first Practitioner will scarcely be able to Hollow the Practice. If we come to Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, we don't find that he made use of any Concubine till his Wife advised him to it; and that she did not neither, till she herself was past Childbearing, by the Ordinary Course of Nature. So that if we must be resiricted to the same Conditions, the Gallants will scarcely thank you for your Kindness.  
In the next place, you leave us mightily in the Da●k, not only as to the time when, but likewise as to the Number of Concubines we may Lawfully 〈◊〉. We don't find that Abraham had above one at a time, yet his Grandson Jacob had two or three: Now, pray, Sir, which of the two must be our Standard? Or what is to be the Rule of the Reformed Concubinage you propose? Abraham and Jacob had the Consent of their Wives, and the first of them sent away his Miss, and kept his Wife. But; for you, Sir, if we may believe Martha Perkins, you have sent away your Wife, and kept your Miss. Pardon me, Sir, if I take Miss and Concubine to be Synommous Terms; for I am not Master of Logic enough to distinguish betwixt them, according to your Description of the latter.  
But the Liberty of Polygamy, or Concubinage, is not the only thing wherein you have vindicated the Original Right of Mankind; You have put a Greater Obligation upon the Age still, by making every man a Judge in his own Cause; nay, and an Executioner too; for you have not only adjudged Martha Perkins to be an unjust Desertrice, but have disposed of her Property at your own hand, by taking Mary Tomkins into her Bed, without Application either to Church or State, or receiving any Approbation from them. So that it's no Fault of yours, if all Mankind don't, according to your Laudable Example, shake off all Subjection to them, and reassume their Primitive Liberty.  
But at the same time, Sir, how such Practices can agree with the Laws of God, and the Laws of the Land, to which you ought to conform yourself as a Christian, and a Subject, you would do well to inform us. You must not think to satisfy the Curiosity of this Age, by referring us to the disputed Practices of the Patriarches, which were not founded on any Positive Command, nor yet to some Instances of Concubinage found among Christians in Constantine's time, or before; nor to the advancement of the Issue of Concubines now and then to the Chief Seats of Civil Government; Nay, nor to God's making use of the Children of Concubinage sometimes to be Instruments of his Glory. None of these are sufficient to satisfy our Reason, and much less our Conscience, which in matters of this Importance, expects to be assured by Revelation.  
God allowed but one Wife to Adam when the World was to be Peopled at first; nor any more but one Wife a piece to Noah and his Sons, when it was to be Peopled a second time. And the reason of this was as we are informed by Malachi, Because he would have a Holy Seed, which insinuates strongly, That Concubinage is unholy. Solomon, though Guiltiest of all Mankind yet durst not venture to teach the Lawfulness of Concubinage according to your Practice; but though he had been polluted thereby himself, gives precepts full of purity to others, advising Them to rejoice with the Wife of their Youth, and to let her Breasts satisfy them at all times, Prov. 5. 15. Nor is there throughout the whole Scripture more Emphatical and Passionate Exhortations to beware of Strange Women, and more Lively Descriptions of Whoredom, and the danger of it, then is to be found in the Book of the Proverbs. The Penman having suffered Shipwreck on those Shelves himself, was therefore the more fit to paint out the danger of them to others, which he has accordingly done; so far was he from recommending his own Practice to others, as you do,  
It is also certain that our Saviour and his Apostles have commanded, that every Man should have his own Wife, and every Woman her own Husband. Nor is there the least Vestige of Concubinage to be found allowed in the New Testament. So that it is exceeding strange that you should stretch your Commission, and wrest Texts to teach us Concubinage, especially when the Age has more need of a Curb than a Spur as to that matter.  
But above all things in your Book, those Blasphemous Reflections upon the Conception and Birth of our blessed Saviour choke me most. Had you no other way to defend your own practice but by such profane Allusions? Don't the Scriptures teach you, That there is no such thing as Marrying and giving in Marriage in the Kingdom of Heaven? Can there be any Analogy betwixt the blessed Virgins Immaculate and Wonderful Coneeption, and the Pregnancy of others before Marriage? Is there any similitude betwixt that which is done by the Omnipotence of God, without any possible Concurrence of humane Corruption, and the practice of Concubinage? Really, Sir, this Notion appears to me so very foul and horrid, that I think there can be no better Advice given to you than that which the Apostle gave to Simon Magus, Acts 8. 22. Repent therefore of this thy Wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thy Heart may be forgiven thee. Had you taken heed unto yourself, and to your Doctrine, according to the Apostle's Advice to Timothy, you would never have been guilty of such a Practice, nor have advanced any such Principles.  
In the next place, Sir, let me ask you, What was it you saw in Concubinage, or what mighty Profit have you reaped thereby yourself, that you do with so much Zeal recommend it to others? Had you but looked into History, either Sacred or Profane, you would have found that the Natural Effects of it were, the breach of the Peace of Families, Quarrels, Murders, and all manner of Uncleanness. It had its rise from cain's Family, and you know that he was of that wicked one; Murder and Whoredom had both of ●●em their Original from the same vile Parent, and Uncleanness and Hatred of true Religion, have always since gone hand in hand, as you may see abundantly proved in the Book called, God's Judgement against Whoring.  
As to your own Family, You own that the Children of your first Marriage are Rebellious and Disobedient, that they have offered Violence to your own Person, and continue to oppress and slander you, that your first Wife hath deserted you, [as you say] because you disinherited her Eldest Son a Papist, and [as she says] because you had got your Maid with child beforehand, and you add that she and her Sons have unjustly possessed themselves of your Inheritance. These, and such as these, are the Blessed effects of your own Concubinage, and yet you are so good Natured as to recommend it to others. Let's suppose now your children by Mary Tomkins, come also to years of Maturity, will not they have the same Rancour against Martha Perkins and her Children, as she and hers have against them? Will not both Brood's be enraged to find their respective Mothers treated as an Harlot, and is not this the Natural Result of your Concubinage.  
Then as to the Opinion that the World entertains of you, It cannot be supposed to be very favourable. The worst of Men, abominate a Lewd Clergyman, and you own yourself that you are Accounted such an one, and let me tell you that your Defence will be far from healing your Reputation, there's no way left you for that, but to confess and forsake. You will not find that Men of Sense and Probity will take your Arguments as unanswerable; and though some of your Brethren you say, have given no reply to what you returned as an Answer to their Reproof, all others will not therefore think themselves obliged to keep silent. The Cause concerns the welfare of our Souls and bodies, Posterities and Families too much, to let you pass without a Public Answer, though hitherto you have escaped any Public Censure more than the Presentment of the Grand Jury; The Author of this Reply, has no Personal Acquaintance with you, nor pick against you, and if in some Places, you find that he hath treated you sharply, it's no more than what he thought the Cause required. It seemed indeed a sort of a Paradox to him, that a Man should pretend to so much Conscience of keeping an Oath to a Temporal Prince, from which his Abdication and the Causes of it, absolved him in the Opinion both of Church and State, and yet make no scruple of breaking his Marriage Vow to God and his Wife, by taking another into he● Bed before his Cause was heard and much less determined. That he himself should take upon him to be Judge in his own Cause, and yet not allow the Supreme Power of the Nation to be Judge in theirs against a Prince, whom he owns to have Acted Tyrannically, by erecting an High Commission Court to supersede the Proceed of all others, and to Act in favour of Persons Popishly Inclined. That Mr. Butler should allow Desertion in his own Wife, to be a sufficient Cause of Divorce, and of Marrying another, and yet scruple to own that Tyranny and Desertion, are not sufficient to dissolve the Contract betwixt King and People, and to justify their setting another upon the Throne; Says, that he is a very partial Casuist, and gives the Reader very much cause to suspect his sincerity.  
In the next place let me ask you, what mighty blessings they are which the Turks reap from their Polygamy? You cannot pretend that it hath increased their Offspring, and made them Populous. For daily experience teaches us, that▪ their Numbers are now very much exhausted; which is the Natural consequence of Polygamy at last, though it may prove otherwise for an Age or two at first. The reasons of this are obvious. For,  
1. Too much Venery consumes a Man's Bones and Flesh, and the Issue of such Consumptive and Incontinent Parents, will in time enfeeble the whole Nation.  
2. A Man's making use of more Wives than one at a time, occasions the Women to think that they ought to have the same Liberty; How many unhappy Instances does our own Nation afford of this, that the Man's going astray, hath made the Woman take that same Course, which all Men own to be destructive to Propagation, and must in time diminish the Number of People?  
3. When a Man hath such a Numerous Family as he cannot sufficiently provide for; then all of them come to be neglected, and to want the necessary conveniencies of Life, which shortens their Days, and Breeds Nasty and Contagious Distempers amongst them, as is evident from the frequent Plagues amongst the Turks, whereof this is assigned as one Principal Cause, and its apparent enough amongst the children of common Beggars, and the Poorest Sort, many of whom Perish by Nasty Diseases, which renders them Loathsome to the Eyes and Noses of those that walk the Streets.  
And if Polygamy were allowed in this Nation according to your Proposal, we should quickly find that our greatest Estates would be much too small to maintain the numerous Offspring of Persons of Quality, according to their Birth; so that they must quickly be reduced to Misery, and the Original Families suddenly perish. For the Children of one Wife would think they had as good right to be provided for out of their Father's Estates, as those of another; Which if they were, it would speedily dismember the largest Patrimonies that any of our Nobility enjoy and if they were not, it would occasion endless Quarrels and Murders betwixt Brethren and Sisters. If you had but looked into our ancient History, and considered what a Miserable, Brutish, and Defenceless People our Ancestors were, at the time of the Roman Invasion, when Polygamy was allowed amongst them, you would quickly find what I say to be true.  
You must also know, that the Imperial Laws condemn Polygamy, Lib. 9 Tit. 9 Leg. 18. Eum qui habet duas Uxores comitatur Infamia, i. e. He is counted infamous that hath two Wives. Dioclesian made a Law likewise against having of two Wives: Cod. Lib. 5. Tit. 5. Leg. 2 And the Christian Emperors, Theodosius, Arcadius, and Honorius, would not suffer the Jews that lived in the Roman Empire, to have many Wives, as may be seen by their Laws, Cod. de judaei. Leg. So unjustly have you appealed to the Practice of the Ancient Christians, either Magistrates or Ministers, as Patrons of Concubinage. You know likewise that St. Hierome condemns Lamech as the first, Qui unam costam distraxit in duas, who made two Ribs of one.  
Nor can it be unknown to you, that Clergymen committing Adultery, were for ever removed from their Ministry, Distinct. 81. C. 11, 12. That the Ancyran Synod imposed Seven Years Penance upon the Adulterer; and that the Council of Neocaesarea Decreed, that if a Minister's Wife fell into Adultery, he should dismiss her, or else leave his Ministry, and by the Eliberine Council he was denied for ever the Communion of the Church, if he did not dismiss her, and that it was likewise Decreed, that the Adulterer should not be suffered to Marry with the Adultress; yet you own that you had just Cause to suspect your Wife, and can prove several suspicious Tokens of h●r Unfaithfulness, p. 18. and yet never offered to put her away: And she accuses you of committing Adultery with her Maid before she left you, and yet you took your Maid into her Bed, without any Application either to Church or State, notwithstanding the depending Controversies betwixt you and your Wife. These are suspicious Tokens of an Inordinate Love; for which, had you but made use of the first and second Remedies prescribed by the Heathens, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abstinence and Time, you had been in no danger of the third Remedy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Halter, though it had been better you should have had a Millstone hanged about your Neck, and been thrown into the middle of the Sea, than to have given such Offence as you have done to the Church of God.  
Nor can you be ignorant neither, that many satisfying Answers have been given to your Arguments, from the Polygamy of the Patriarches and Jews: As 1. That if there had been any Relaxation of the Law of Monogamy, instituted by God in Paradise, it would have been by a written Law and Express Scripture. 2. That if this had been allowed for Procreation, it had been most Necessary to be granted unto Adam in the beginning of the World, and to Noah in reviving and repeopling the World. And 3. That Polygamy, or marrying of many Wives, rendered Solomon unfit for Procreation, as is evident by his small Posterity. And, 4. That the Law of Monogamy being revived by Christ and his Apostles, and brought back to the first Institution, was to take place, not for the Time past, but for the Time to come, as all other positive Laws of Natione do: So that though Polygamy might be then tolerated as an Infirmily, for a time, in those which were newly converted; yet it cannot be so now.  
I shall add that if the first institution of Marriage, between one Man an● one Woman at a time be once broken, there's no other Limitation to be found in the Scriptures; whence it follows, that if more be allowed then one, a Man may have as many as he pleases, So that it will be hard to bring it to a Medium. Some perhaps will plead for King Charles II's. Number as a Standard, and others it may be, will be satisfied with no fewer than Solomon, and so our Nobility and Gentry (if your Project take place) should have Kennels of Concubines, as now they have of Hounds. And what Inconveniences this might occasion, you may know by your own Incontinence, those Poor Women must lose their Youth, and Teeming time, without any hopes of having Nature satisfied; For being another Man's Property, no body else must meddle with them, and so they must either burn and languish, or commit Whoredom, nay, perhaps bestiality. Their own Stallion (for Husband he is not) must speedily be either enfeebled, or neglect some or all of them, as we find in Ahasuerus, who did not call for his Beautiful and Beloved Esther in Thirty Days together. And the rest of his Concubines were never brought to him except he delighted in any of them, and called her by Name, yet they were shut up and kept close by the Keeper of the Women. So that here was a Great Number of Females rendered useless for Propagation, besides the Tentations they were exposed to, of being base with Eunuches and their own nearest Relations.  
Now, Sir, pray consider whether these and the other Reasons that you will meet with in this Book, be not much more solid against Concubinage, than any that you have advanced for it. And if your Conscience be convinced, be not ashamed to Retract what you have so unadvisedly writ upon this Head. St. Augustine, who was much a Learneder Divine, and better Man than you can pretend to be, did not think it unbecoming him to Recant his Errors, and to take shame to himself for his Youthful Lusts; but Yours can scarcely pass under that denomination, who went into your Maid's Bed, after having Lived Forty Years with a Wife.  
Your Lose Book hath done a World of Mischief in the Nation; and therefore it concerns you, as you would have the pardon of God, and his Church for the same, to make your Confession and Recantation as public as your Crime; Which that you may do, is the worst that the Author of this Book wishes you.   

Concubinage Disproved, etc.  
HAD a Pamphlet of this Nature been writ by an avowed Debauchees, or a Playhouse Beau, it had been no matter of Surprise: But to have any thing Printed in Defence of Concubinage by a Bachelor of Divinity, and a Minister of the Church of England, may Justly astonish us. Such a thing might be accounted Natural, in a Priest of the Church of Rome, the Mother of Harlots, and of the Abominations of the Earth; but for a Minister of the Reformed Church to do so gross a thing, is altogether unsufferable.  
Time was when the Reverend Mr. Johnson was degraded by those that called themselves the Church of England, because he maintained the Doctrine of Self-defence against Tyrants, or others; which is the Instinct of pure Nature: There's much more reason for the Governors of the Church to show themselves as zealous now in censuring Mr. Butler for writing in defence of Concubinage; which is one of the Effects of depraved Nature: And this I think they are the more concerned to do, because in his Title-Page he endeavours to make way for his Doctrine by the Authority of his Character.  
It is certain this Author can find nothing either in the Articles, Homilies, or Canons of the Church of England, to defend his Principles or Practice; So that he cannot plead any Authority from her, whatever he may do from his being in Orders. Nor is that Venerable Society any thing obliged to him for the Character which he assumes to himself of being a Minister of the True Church of England; The Natural Consequence of which Expression is, That somewhere or other there is a False one. By some Hints in his Pamphlet, as, That he has been accused of being an Enemy to the Government; and that he is such an one as hath kept his Oaths to his hurt, etc. I presume he may be a Non-Juror; and if that be the Case, we know what he means by his True Church; and to say the Truth of them, such Parson, such People, was never more fitly applied. It has been observed all along since the Revolution, that most of the Whores are in King James' Interest, nor will it be any great Loss to King William, if this Advocate of Whoring be thrown into the Scale.  
It's none of my business to enter upon the Merits of the Cause betwixt him and his Quondam Wife. It's probable enough, nay, certainly true, if we may believe his own word, that he and she both are guilty of such Iniquity as aught to be punished by the Judges; and in recommending his Book to the Care and Enquiry of the Bench, I Join cordially with the Grand Jury of London, who in this, and other Presentments, have behaved themselves as became good Men and Christians.  
Before I come to touch upon his Arguments in Defence of Concubinage, I find it necessary to make some previous Remarks.  
The first is, That our Author is not to be taken as an Indifferent Person or Judge in this Case, because it is his own Practice he defends; and the Depravation of Mankind is now so very great, that we shall have the most horrid Crimes, as Murder, Assassination, and what not, defended by the Criminals who commit them.  
The next is, That our Author, according to what is said of other Evil Men and Seducers, waxes worse and worse; for in the beginning of his Book he seems only to vindicate his own particular Case, as having a deserting Wife, and being under an Impossibility of having Justice done him; and therefore he thought it lawful for him to go in to his Maid; But in the latter end of his Pamphlet he sets up for a General Concubinage, even during the Life and Co-habitation of Lawful Wives.  
These things being laid down as necessary to give the Reader a precaution as to what sort of an Author we have to deal with, I come now to consider his Arguments.  
The First he offers is page 9 Viz. That he was guilty of no other, nor greater Fornication with his Maid, than Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, was guilty of, when purely for Issues sake, and not of any Lustful Concupiscence, he went in to Hagar, his Wife's Maid, or in to Keturah, his Concubine, in the Life-time of Sarah, his Wife. Now Abraham was not charged with any thing of Fornication in that Case, but rather was acquitted by God Almighty, as purely and truly Innocent; but the Case of this Respondent is much easier than that of Abraham; forasmuch as at the time aforesaid Abraham had a Wife then in his Bed with him, but this Respondent had not Wise.  
ANSWER.  
1. Our Author owns that Abraham did not go in to Hagar out of any Lustful Concupiscence, but purely for Issues sake; but page 9 he says of himself, That he is one of those of whom our Saviour hath declared, All men cannot receive this saying, Matth. 19 10. and of whom St. Paul hath deelared, 1 Cor. 8. 9 It is better to marry than to burn; and that he was not Naturally endowed with the Gift of Continency from Heaven. Whence it follows, That our Author by his own confession, went in to his Maid out of a Principle of Incontinence, and burning Lust.  
2. This appears yet more plain: Whereas he owns, that Abraham went in to Hagar purely for Issues sake, he having none at that time; which was not our Author's Case; for he confesses, page 4. that he had Lawful Issue living by his Wife; which demonstrates, Mr. Butler himself being Judge, that his Case and Abraham's were not the same.  
3. Abraham took Hagar to Wife by Sarah's Consent; and though not with the usual Solemnity of Marriage, yet 'twas undoubtedly in a Public manner; but Mr. Butler owns, page 18. that his Wife was so far from consenting to his taking of his Maid Mary Tomkins, that she gives it out as one cause of her deserting him.  
4. It does not appear by any thing our Author says, that his Marriage with Mary Tomkins was any other than Congressus Furtivus, a Westminster Wedding: or Nuptiae Caninae, as St. Jerome calls it somewhere.  
5. Mr. Butler's Instance of Abraham's going in to Keturah, during Sarahs' Life, is false; for it appears that Sarah was then dead, Gen. 25. 1. and Hagar and her Son Ishmael were sent away before that by God's own appointment, Gen. 21. So that this Instance makes nothing at all for his purpose. But it looks very ill in a Divine, as Mr. Butler pretends to be, thus to mis-quote Scripture: It argues that he is glad of any covering, though it were but of Fig-leaves to cover his Nakedness.  
6. Mr. Butler cannot but know that P. Martyr, and other Commentators upon the Place, are of Opinion, that the Occasion of Sarah's giving this Advice, and of Abraham's accepting of it, was her own Barrenness, the advanced Age of 'em both, and fear that they should not otherwise have the Promised Seed, to which I hope our Author will not pretend there is any thing parallel in his Case.  
7. Whereas he says that Abraham was not charged with any thing of Fornication in that Case, but rather was acquitted by God Almighty as truly and purely Innocent. It were to be wished he would produce some Scripture for his Assertion; In my Opinion the Displeasure of God against this Practice of the Patriarch appears very plain, as has been observed by the Author of that useful Book, newly published, entitled, God's Judgements against Whoring; being an Essay towards a general History of it for above Five Thousand Years, Viz. That the Peace of Abraham ' s Family was immediately broke, by Hagar' s despising her Mistress, as soon as she found herself pregnant with the Promised Seed, as she vainly believed. Upon which Sarah upbraids Abraham, with the 〈…〉 she ●er self was the occasion; 〈…〉 also punished for her unlawful Consent; first, by being severely dealt with by Sarah, and then by being thrust out of the Family, and exposed to the World, and the cruel Necessity of seeing her Son die of Thirst as she apprehended; and instead of his being the Promised Seed, she and he were both Ignominously thrust out from being Partakers of the Inheritance with Isaac.  
8. Polygamy was at that time common in the World, so that Abraham's Practice administered 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 designed to walk according to the Apostolical Rule, who had rather never eat Flesh while he lived, though a thing lawful in itself, 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 not 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 Polygamy 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 Alwise God.  
2. That when the old World was destroyed, and chief 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 Brother's Wife, it is thy Brother's Nakedness. Whence by Parity of Reason it was equally unlawful to uncover the Sister's Nakedness; so that this being provided for before, there was no need of repeating it here; thirdly, the Reason subjoined, 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 Jealousy 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. though 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, though 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 expressly 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 dispensed with per inspirationem internam by a secret Dispensation, which cannot, if it were true, justify 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 Public Law by a Private Dispensation, and therefore, though he winked 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 lived 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 shows himself to be a lose Casuist; for Page 9 he tells us, That Incontinency in itself is no Sin, unless it be expressed 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 Perilous Times, that are to come in the last days. Mr. Pool, in his Critics on 1 Cor. 7. 5. quotes Tremellius, Piscator, Hammond, and Zegerus, as translating the word, rendered 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 enjoins Fasting and Prayer to others, should 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, crucify 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, lest when he preached to others, he himself should be a Castaway; but it seems Mr. Butler chose rather to make provision for the Flesh to fullsil the Lusts thereof. If he could not have his Wife he would have his Maid; and is not satisfied to break the Commandments himself, but teaches others also to do so; and therefore deserves to be called the Least in the Kingdom of Heaven, according to our Saviour's threatening, Matth. 5. 19 and I doubt not but he knows what is meant thereby; viz. That he shall be accounted unworthy to be reckoned among the Saints here or hereafter, if he don't break off from his sins by Repentance. Our Saviour, Matth. 5. 28. tells us, That they who Look on a Woman so as to Lust after her, are guilty of Adultery. And the Apostle Peter tells us of those that have Eyes full of Adultery, 2 Pet. 2. 14. Which demonstrate clearly enough, that Incontinency, the Fountain whence Lustful Looks proceed, is sinful in itself. Indeed the Natural Appetite of Generation, and multiplying our Species according to the Command of God, is not sinful in itself, so long as it is contained within due bounds; but when once it breaks over that, than it becomes Incontinence, and by consequence sinful. The Original Word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated Incontinent, denotes such, qui nec in bono nec in malo sibi constant, they can keep no bounds, but will either be overmuch Righteous or overmuch Wicked: So that it's plain, Incontinence, which Mr. Butler will have to be no sin, implies the Height of Passion.  
But it seems he thought himself concerned, in point of Reputation, to maintain, that Incontinence was no sin, because he owns himself to be guilty of it, page 9 Yet if he had but adverted to the saying of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 9 which he quotes in the same place, viz, They who cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn; he might easily have perceived that Incontinence and burning are Synonymous Terms; for there burning is opposed to Continency; the Holy Ghost telling us plainly, that they who cannot contain must burn, if they do not marry, and therefore provides Marriage as a proper Remedy against Incontinency; which if it were not a Distemper, why should there be any Remedy provided against it.  
Here also I think fit to take notice of our Author's distorted Notion of Fornication, whereof he says, page 8. A man may be guilty by Excess of Carnal Usage with his own Wife. That this Notion of Fornication is very gross and absurd, will appear from this one thing, that if a Man may be guilty of Fornication with his own Wife. than he may divorce her when he pleases for his own Crime; for our Saviour allows a man to put away his Wife in case of Fornication, without any Exception, whether it be with her Husband, or any other man, Matth. 5. 32. So that instead of a man's being guilty of Fornication with his own Wife, our Author should have said, of Excess in the use of the Marriagebed; for though Fornication is sometimes used in Scripture to denote Uncleanness in general: yet according to the common acceptation of the word, it denotes Uncleanness betwixt persons, that are not married to one another, as was usually practised in those Fornices, or Vaults under ground, at Rome and else where; whence the word Fornication was derived. Of those Vaults Socrates, Lib. 5. cap. 18. gives us a particular account; viz. That they were Victualling-houses under ground, wherein the Romans prostituted Whores, until the Emperor Theodosius ordered them to be pulled down.  
I come next to Mr. Butler's Case, as represented by himself, page 9, etc. Viz. That his Wife denied him the use of her Marriage bed obstinately (though she was often entreated to the contrary) for above a Twelvemonth; and therefore he went in to his Maid. The Necessity he pretends he lay under was this, In the first place, he had not the Gift of Continency; than it was not convenient for him to marry another without a Lawful Licence from a Lawful Authority, because of a Statute-Law in force: That in the time of this desertion, Popery had the Supreme Seat: That there were high Commissioners superseding all other Courts in Power, and Acting in favour of Persons Popishly inclined, and that his Wife having deserted him, because of his disinheriting his  Son for turning Papist; No sentence could be expected from them, according to the Justice of Holy writ, because Papists hold Marriage indissolvable, as being one of their seven Sacraments without a dispensation from the Pope. Thus Mr. Butler States his own Case.  
In the next place, I shall give you hi● Wife's State of the Case, as represented in her Libel before the Honourable Court of Arches, and quoted by himself, p. 6. Viz. That about Ten Years since, John Butler being unmindful of his Conjugal Vow committed, the foul Crime of Adultery, with his Servant Maid Mary Tomkins; and it being taken Notice of, that she was with Child by him, he and she went into Holland, where they lived Incontinently for about two Years, and there she brought forth a Bastard called Mary to the said John Butler, and p. 35. That they returned to England, and Live together in an Incontinent manner at Hammersmith, and the said Mary hath had four other base born Children, begotten by the said John Butler, who hath Lately turned his Wife Mary Butler out of Doors, and left her destitute of necessaries, etc.  
Now any Man may see that there is a vast difference in the Cases, as they are Stated by Mr. Butler and his Wife.  
It is also proper to observe here, that his Incontinence with Mary Tomkins is not the only Uncleanness which our Author stands charged with; for page 8. he owns, That his said Wife, and his two ungracious Sons, have filled the Country with many slanders and suspicious Reports, of matters said or done by him, above Twenty or Thirty Years since; and Answers thus, Concerning what kindnesses this Respondent might have showed to particular Persons more than Ordinary, he doth solemnly protest, that he never had Carnal Knowledge of any such Woman, for whose sake he was aspersed.  
Having thus laid down their mutual Accusations against one another, I shall first make some Remarks upon 'em, and then proceed to consider Mr. Butler's defence.  
It's plain, that Mr. Butler owns himself to be Incontinent, and I think it will appear that he was so, to a scandalous excess from the Matter of Fact, as laid down by himself. For 1. He says, that he was deserted by a Wife, whom p. 3. he owns, That he did hearty Love, which one would think should have been sufficient of itself, to have restrained his Concupiscence for above one year at least, seeing most modest Men do in ordinary Cases, think themselves obliged in Decency to stay so long unmarried after the Death of a Wife whom they Loved. Much more should an honest Man abstain for the sake of a beloved Wife still alive.  
2. He owns that he had two ungracious Sons, the Eldest of whom he disinherited because of his turning Papist; this methinks to a Minister of the Gospel, should have been a Cause of Fasting and Prayer, and Mortifying of the Flesh. To be abandoned by a Loving Wife, afflicted by two ungracious Sons at the same time, and one of them turned 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 desired the Prayers of the Church, and their particular Christian Friends, in such a pungent Affliction.  
If in such a Case the Devil had begun to tempt Mr. Butler, for his Incontinency, Why did he not bring his Body under Subjection by Fasting, Watching and Prayer, according to the Practice of the Apostle; who thereby got rid of that Thorn in the Flesh mentioned, 2 Cor. 1●. 7. Which Mr. Butler knows many Commentators, and those, none of the least, Note, understand to have been Pruritus Carnis, the Tickling of the Flesh, as Tremellius renders it from the Syriack. But it seems, our Author was in this Respect like the Pharisees of Old, who would bind heavy burdens upon other men's backs but would not touch them themselves with one of their Fingers. Mr. Butler could not but foresee 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 Maid's 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 downright Lust in this matter, and being once engaged, now he would defend it, Answerable to the Practice of that Infamous Germane Enthusiast, John of Leyden, who being observed to go into his Maid's bed, did thereupon maintain the Doctrine of Polygamy; 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 Apostasy 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 Maid's Bed Ten Years ago, What can be thought sufficient to have restrained him from such like Practices 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 Woman's 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, etc. As above, that he should have had little Inclination or leisure 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 ourselves when God makes none, and such, I am afraid Mr. Butler's Necessity will be found.  
His Necessity proceeded merely from his Incontinence as he owns himself, but we hear nothing either of Spiritual or Temporal means used by him to remove this Incontinence; Had he fasted, watched, prayed, removed his Maid out of his sight, taken the advice of Physicians, opened a Vein frequently, Bathed 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 , 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 blamed 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? etc. 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, than 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 possessed of the Supreme Seat, and that the High Commissioners superseded all other Courts, and Acted in favour of Persons Popishly inclined, is a mere Subterfuge, to cheat his own Conscience, and gull the World. This I am sure he will find a Dilemma, that had he endeavoured to reconcile his Wife, by restoring his Popish Son to his Right of Inheritance, he would have herein been favoured by the Court, as he owns himself, and that he was willing to have retained his Wife, if she had been willing to have stayed with him; he has declared it, when he says that he solicited her to his Bed for above a Twelvemonth. 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 Trial of it. It's well enough known to the World that the then Archbishop of Canterbury, and several other Bishops, did then oppose the Proceed 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 Colleges: 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 alleges his to have been.  
But supposing that both those Courts had been overruled by the Influence of Father Peter, and others, who then governed at Whitehall, what hindered Mr. Butler from taking some of his Brethren of the Clergy, or other Credible Witnesses with him, Finally, to exhort his Wife, and to declare to her, that if she did not return to her Duty, he would look upon their Marriage as Dissolved, and provide for himself accordingly. If she had, after all this, continued Obstinate, why might not Mr. Butler have taken his Maid with him, and before his Brethren of the Ministry, or some Justices of the Peace, declared, that his Wife had deserted him, without any Lawful Cause, and would not return to her Duty; that he had applied to all the Ordinary Courts of Justice, but could have no Remedy; and therefore being under a Necessity, either of burning, or taking another Woman into his Bed, he was resolved to live with his Maid, as Man and Wife? Had Mr. Butler done so, and made it appear to the World, that his Wife had no just Cause to desert him, there are few Casuists so Rigid, as to have condemned him, either as a Concubinary or Adulterer; every Body would have excused the want of due Formalities in such a Case, and his Practice would have given no just Scandal to others, no more than did that of the Marquis of Vicum, which we shall have occasion to touch upon by and by. Mr. Butler owns that his Marriage with his Wife was not altogether formal, and yet he made no Scruple to take her to his Bed; and therefore we have no Reason to think that he should have scrupled the doing of this as abovesaid, had all things been fair and honest; and if he had dreaded the anger of the Government, he might have retired to Holland as he did afterward. But instead of this, if we may believe his Wife, as quoted by himself, p: 18. she accuses him of saying, That he had another Woman with Child, for which she relinquished him, and offers to prove his having said so.  
These Circumstances are so scandalous, that it plainly appears the Matter ought to have been Examined by Judges Competent: but it would seem Mr. Butler, and his Maid were in too much haste for that, or indeed to stay in the Kingdom, seeing they went over to Holland, where she brought him forth a Daughter, as he owns himself.  
I come next to consider Mr. Butler's Arguments for Defence of his Practice: 1. He quotes 1 Cor. 7. 15. where the Apostle says, But if the unbelieving depart, let him departed: A brother or a sister is not in bondage in such Cases. In this Case therefore, says Mr. Butler, a man's own Conscience was a good Judge, at least until contrary matters could be proved before ae 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 Vicums Case, wherein the supreme Authority being Popish, he married again without 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 first, that Syndick had no Authority to summon his Wife to appear at their Court, she being not under their Jurisdiction, and secondly, being a lay Power set up of their own accord without Power from God, or his Word, had not so much Power as the Conscience of the Marquis himself.  
To this I Answer. 1. That Mr. Butler's Case and that put by the Apostle are not alike; the Apostle speaks of an Unbelievers deserting a Believer out of an hatred to Religion; but Mr. Butler's Wife was of the same Religion with himself, so that he ought to have been backed with the Authority of the Church, whereof they were both Members before he had gone into his Maids Bed. This is the Opinion of Calvin and Sclaterus upon the place who say, Lex Christi de Christianae disciplinae Consortibus agit, quos propius Vinculum connectit, & apud quos si quod aberratum est, facilis est sanatio per Ecclesiae Authoritatem, i. e. The Law of Christ speaks of those who are partakers of the Christian Discipline, and owned by a nearer Tie, and who if they commit any Error, the cure is easy by the Authority of the Church; but we don't find that Mr. Butler sought any such Remedy, but supinely neglected it under a pretence it could not be had. (2. Mr. Butler's Case differs also in this, That we had Christian Magistrates, to whom he might have appealed in this Case, which it does not appear he did. Nor will it follow, that because the Apostle says the Believer was at Liberty in Case of the unbelievers deserting, that therefore they were at liberty to take another into their Bed, without acquainting both the Church and the Magistrate with it; It was a General Rule to all Christians, to give no Offence neither to Jew nor Gentile, nor to the Church of God, and therefore it is not supposeable, that Christians were referred to the dictates of their own Private Conscience in the Case of Marriage after desertion, though they might rest secure, and without any further trouble upon the Testimony of a good Conscience, as to the cause of desertion, viz. That it was from an hatred to their Religion, but Mr. Butler knows that his Wife accuses him of another Cause, Viz. The defiling of her Bed.  
Then as to the Marquis of Vicums Case, it is also quite different; every one that knows the Story of the Famous Galeacius Caracciolus, knows that he fled out of Italy upon the Account of his Religion; that his Lady would neither follow him, nor admit him to her Bed, when by the Intercession of his Great Friends he procured leave to return for a time, her Priests having prevailed with her to the contrary, so that he was forced to return without her, and lived several Years unmarried and unblameable at Geneva, without getting into any Woman's Bed in little more than a Years time, and at last by the consent, not only of the Church of Geneva, but of other Protestant Churches, and the approbation of the Supreme Government where he lived, he married a Godly Woman not in a private manner, but in the View of the World; for it's only the deeds of darkness that are afraid of the Light. As to Mr. Butler's falling foul upon the Government of Geneva, as having no Power from God and his Word, he only discovers that he is as bad a Politician as a Divine, and a Casuist of no Value. That little Commonwealth had always, since any thing was known of the History of those Parts, a Supreme Government of her own, sometimes by a Count, and sometimes under the Protection of the Emperor, and when the Empire was Distracted by Intestine Wars, she had Recourse to her own Bishops who were at that time Powerful, and their Bishops being embroiled afterwards with the Counts of Savoy, she was forced to struggle with the succeeding Dukes of Savoy for her liberty, and by Allying herself with some of the Swiss Cantons, brought the said Dukes to Renounce their Pretensions and at last by the Reformation got Rid of the Yoke of her Bishops who opposed it; since which time the Sovereign Authority remains in her Magistrates and Senate, so that Mr. Butler's Reflection upon that Government, as wanting Power to Authorise the Marriage of the Marquis of Vicum, than their Subject, savours as much of the exploded Doctrine of Nonresistance, as his getting into his Maid's Bed savours of Incontinence; and therefore what the Marquis of Vicum did in a Public Manner, with the Consent of all the Protestant Churches in those Parts, and by the Authority of that which was, and is the Supreme Government, where he lived, is no Defence for Mr. Butler's Practice without the Knowledge or Consent of Church or State, or taking the Advice of his Brethren, the Clergy of his Diocese. It is also to be observed, that Mr. Butler discovers a very low Opinion of the Church, whereof he pretends to be a Minister, when he thought they would not have done him Justice, or at least declared that he had Justice on his side, had his Case appeared so clear to them, as he alleges it is; but it's rather to be supposed that he disinherited his Cause, and therefore durst not Appeal to them.  
I come next to consider his Quotations from Divines, etc. which may serve to amuse one at first View, but can never justify him in the Thoughts of a Judicious Reader, they being all of them wrested, or nothing to his Purpose, or else directly against him.  
The first he quotes is Diodati on 1 Cor. 7. 15. but that Author is against him, sor he speaks of a convenient time allowed, and all possible and reasonable Remedies used to reduce the Unbelieving Deserter, before the Marriage can be dissolved; but Mrs. Butler was no Unbeliever, nor did Mr. Butler use all possible and reasonable Remedies to reduce her; neither is the Case of her Desertion uncontrovertible; she alleges that she has Divorced herself, because of Mr. Butler's Adultery.  
The next is Wollebius, Compend. Theolog. Cap. 11. Fol. 245. who only, Says that Adultery and malicious Desertion make a Divorce; but not one word of the Deserted Persons taking another Woman, without proving the Desertion, or ask the Consent of Church and State.  
The third is Amandus Polanus, de Divortio, for which he assigns only two Causes, Viz. Adultery, and Unjust Desertion; but Mrs. Butler says she had just Cause. The last part of this Quotation is directly against Mr. Butler, viz. Sed si persona accusans honeste vixit & petit ferri sententiam pronuncietur hoc modo cum persona quae deliquit suo Scelere, dissolverit Conjugium, Jude● Authoritate Evangelii personam Innocentem Pronunciat esse Liberam. i e. But if the Complainant or Accuser have lived honestly, and demands Judgement, let it be pronounced in this manner; seeing the offending Person hath dissolved the Marriage by her own Crime, the Judge, by the Authority of the Gospel, pronounces the Innocent Person to be free, and expressly grants him Liberty, piously to Contract another Marriage, according to his own Conscience. Now it's plain that Mr. Butler is accused by his Wife of living dishonestly; so that this Matter ought to have been cleared, before the Judge could pronounce any such Sentence.  
In the next place it is plain, that Amandus Polanus is of Opinion, That such a thing ought to be Judicially done, and in open Court, whereas there was no such Judgement demanded, nor Process made by Mr. Butler; so that here's his own Evidence turned upon him.  
His Quotations from Musculus upon the 5th. of Matthew, where he assigns Adultery and Desertion, as the Causes of Divorce, are nothing to his Purpose; he does not say that the Matter ought not to be legally determined, or that the deserted Person may Marry again without such Determination.  
The passage of Ambrose on 1 Cor. 7. 5. is to the same purpose, and favours him not one whit.  
The like, that of Bucanus, Institut. Theologiae. Nor is he any thing more favoured by that Author, Locus 13. Sect. 29. where he says in answer to the Question, Quid si Magistratus officium Negligat. What if the Magistrate neglect his Duty? Valeat preceptum Apostolicum ad Titum 3. 10. Hereticum hominem, Ergo & Atheum, Apostatum & Blasphemum, post unau & Alteram correctionem devita:] That is, let the Apostles command to Titus take place, Cap. 5. 10. A Man that is an Heretic, Apostate, or Atheist, after the first and second Admonition, reject or avoid; which Mr. Butler wickedly and falsely translates, That if the Magistrate neglect his Office, the Innocent Party is free to Marry an Innocent Woman, without his Sentence, whereas Bucanus says only, That the Believer may as freely reject the deserting unbeliever in such a Case, as a Chrian ought to do an Heretic; but suppose it were otherwise, he is still against Mr. Butler, in that he supposes Application ought to be made to the Magistrate, who cannot properly be said to neglect what is never brought before him, as it is evident Mr. Butler never did; for his Wife, and not he, is the Complainant.  
His other Quotations are all to the same Purpose, not one of them speaks one word of allowing the Deserted Person to marry again, without Application made to a Competent Judge, which were, indeed, to subvert all Order and Government; for though the Case be plain by the Law of God and Man, that a Murderer ought to be put to Death, and That an Adulterer may be divorced, and the Innocent Party lawfully marry again; yet no Man in his right Wit did ever allow, that a private Man, on his own Authority, should put a Murderer to Death, or Divorce his Wife, and marry another; for all the Laws of God and Men, though never so positive require a Legal and Public Execution and due Enquiry into the Matter of Fact, so that what Mr. Butler advances, p. 17. That because the Text saith, If she will departed let her go, there needs no sentence of the Magistrate in the Case, will conclude as much against the need of the Magistrates sentence in Case of Murder, because the Text says, Whosoever sheds Man's blood, by Man shall his blood be shed; And the like in all other Crimes. Otherwise according to this Principle, every Man may be Judge, Jury, and Executioner in his own Case, which would immediately destroy all Humane Society; such are the profound Politics of our Concubinary Casuist, being directly contrary to the procedure of the Almighty himself, who though our first Parents were convicted by his Omniscience and their our Conscience, yet He did not proceed to sentence 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 obtained.  
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 obtained; 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, lived 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 owned 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, etc. Were all of them but mere 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 required, 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 required 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 the 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 Countries. 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, though not according to the Laws of the Land. But now I must beg his leave to show him the difference of the Case. At that time there was a Law, or at least a Power enjoining Marriages by Justices, etc. 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 Maid's 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 aught 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 solemnised in the Presence of the Elders; who, together with the People, prayed for a Blessing upon 'em; and Deut. 22. 16. he will also find that the Trial of the Bride's Virginity was to be made, by producing the Tokens of it before the Elders, which shows, that the Old-Testament Marriages were Public, and that the Solemnisation 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. alleges that God did plainly allow of a Lawful Concubinage, or Additional Wives for the Bed, for Issues sake; the Issue whereof are not where termed 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 mere Concubine, was his Heir unto his Throne, for that he had no Son by hi● proper Wife; yea, though Daughters he had several. And thus Jepthah, 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 '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 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 Niece; 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 wellborn; and from the Pope our Statute-Laws still keep up the Practice, 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 mentioned in Holy Writ, and let our Author produce a Text for it if he can. If God allowed 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 Critics Paraphrase or Interpret thus: Anon 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. Although he could have created more Souls, to put into more Women, to be joined to Adam; for the Life that he breathed 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 Offspring; by which he shows, 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, etc. 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 showed him from Leu. 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 Wife's being vexed, is plainly said to be the Uncovering of the others Nakedness; and Mr. Butler knows by Experience, that the Uncovering of a Concubine's 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 approved 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 awa● 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 Bondwoman, 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 'tis 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 looked 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 shows that the Sons of Concubines were not judged to have any Right of Inheritance. But that does not hinder, but the People might choose 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 Critics, may find to have been the Opinion of Munsterus and Cornelius a Lapide. But suppose it had been otherwise, though 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 mentioned 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, mentioned in our Saviour's Genealogy, Matth. 1. and Luk. 2. It may be solved the same way. God of his Sovereign Grace chooses 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 mentioned in our Saviour's Genealogy, Whereas it only shows 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 derived from the Pope, Let the Government look to it; but this looks indeed like Mr. Butler's Politics 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, though 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, though 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, though he thought fit for Reasons of State to conceal it when he came to the Crown, and this is urged 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 received none from them: So that they set up, dethroned, and Punished 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. Burnet's History of the Reformation, Wherein they tell him that they had dethroned John Balliol, 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, though he had a Daughter then living, who was Mother to this very Robert Stuart; So that in those days they believed 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 obliged to assist him with Arms, to whom they adjudged 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 Public, not so much as excepting himself: And that those who fought against him, were no way Culpable. Nay, this present Parliament of Scotland declared, 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 Foreign to his purpose; and shows him to be as Ignorant of the Laws of Argument, as undeserving of the Character of a true Church of England-Man, to take Precedents from a Country 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 Prince's Birth, without going any further back. But it seems our Ancestors were as much refolved to have him for their King as the Protestant Scots were, of whom the Earl of Glencarn, than one of the chief, is quoted by some of their Writers for saying to his Mother, when she to avoid being dethroned, herself, 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 inquire whether he was Lawfully begot, and though 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 Authorised by Parliaments, who in Extraordinary Cases must consult the Public welfare (for Salus Populi suprema lex, is a Maxim that will hold Eternally true) and are not to be Governed by the Notions of Clergymen, no more than our Late Parliaments were by their false Notions of Passive obedience, when they settled the Crown upon King William and Queen Mary, etc. Moreover, seeing this Law about the Employing of Bastards in places of Authority was not given to us, and also dispensed with by the Jews, to whom it was given, there's no Reason that any Christian Nation should look upon themselves as obliged by it, when the welfare of the State does indispensibly require the setting up of such an one, so that all our Author's Arguments from hence to prove Concubinage Lawful, vanish into smoke. Besides Bonfrerius and Oleaster are of Opinion, that it was Foreign Bastards, and not those of their own People that were here prohibited, because Pharez though a Bastard was admitted into the Congregation, and Jepthah, etc. Made a Judge, and the Reason of the prohibition, Commentators think to be, that Bastards were Generally accounted Vile in the Eyes of their own People, neglected in their Education, and so unfit for Government.  
Our Author's next Argument, Of Priest's Marriage being formerly cried down, but now accounted Lawful is nothing to the purpose; The Lawfulness of that was always clearly demonstrable from the Scriptures, but so was not that of Concubinage.  
Mr. Butler, P. 27. Says, 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 (meaning Priest's Marriage) 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. Then he argues, that by Bed undefiled is meant some other Bed different from the Marriage Bed, because the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Copulative, which Couples sentences of a distinct signification, for that which is the same thing in sense with that which went before needs no Bond of Copulation, for if the Author had intended one and the same thing, by these words he would have said Marriage (being) or which is a Bed undefiled. I Answer, This Poor Man is put to miserable shifts, to lull his own Conscience asleep, and to gull those of others, 'twill grant him that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Couples sentences of different significations here, and that Marriage and Bed undefiled are different things, but how will that prove, that there's any other Bed betwixt a Man and a Woman undefiled except the Marriage Bed? Is it not plain, that the Bed may be defiled by Married Persons? Mrs. Butler says our Author defiled her Bed while she was Married to him. So that though Marriage be Honourable, that does not say, but Married Persons may Dishonour themselves by defiling the Marriage Bed, which by God and Man is always accounted more Dishonourable than Fornication betwixt Persons unmarried, and therefore the Apostles sense is plain, Marriage is Honourable, and to keep the Marriage Bed undefiled is Honourable, but those that commit Fornication, and those that Defile the Marriage bed by Adultery, God will Judge, That this is the plain meaning of the Text, may be evinced thus, the Apostle proposes Marriage as Honourable in opposition to Fornication, which is Lewdness betwixt unmarried Persons; therefore says the Apostle Marriage is Honourable, but God will Judge Fornicators. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is says Grotius, Venere utentes extra Conjugium, unmarried Persons who lie together, and the Bed undefiled is Honourable, continues the Apostle, but God will Judge Adulterers; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is, such as Defile the Marriagebed, unmarried Persons have none to Defile. Besides, there may be a Defiling of the Marriage Bed, even betwixt Married Persons, by Incontinence, and the Immoderate Use of it.  
Mr. Butler owns P. 8. that he himself was guilty of Incontinence, with the Complainant Martha, whilst his Wife, which certainly was a Defiling of the Marriage Bed. Calvin says upon the place, Cubile Impollutum additur ut Sciant conjugati non quidvis sibi Liceri, sed usum thori Legitimi debere esse Moderatum ne quid alienum a Conjugij pudore & Castimonia admittant. i e. The Bed Undefiled is added, that married Persons may know that their Liberty is not boundless, but that the Use of the Lawful Bed ought to be moderate, lest they should commit something unbecoming the Modesty of Wedlock, or Chastity; and so if Mr. Butler went to Bed with his Wife, during his Incontinence, when he ought to have been at Prayers in the Church, or Visiting the Sick, etc. it was a thing unbecoming Wedlock and Chastity; so that here he sees that Marriage and the Bed Undefiled are things as much different, as Mr. Butler, the Husband of Martha Perkins, and Mr. Butler, not a Concubinary afterwards with Mary Tomkins, or any other Woman; or Mr. Butler in Bed with his Wife at Lawful Seasons, and Mr. Butler not in Bed with his Wife when he should be Visiting the Sick. Junius, Piscator, Gerundensis, Gataker, Menochius, Tirinus, and others, do all understand this Word Undefiled to be meant of the Marriage Bed though some of 'em will have it to be Periphrastical, and others Preceptive; and Mr. Butler himself instances a Case, wherein he owns the Word Kai to be Exegetical, or Explanatory of the thing preceding, viz. Ephes 1 3. Blessed be God, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; which the same Apostle writes, 2 Cor. 1. 3. Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in which the Particle, and is Exegetical.  
But says Mr. Butler, p. 28. That if we read the Words thus; Marriage, even the Bed undefiled, is honourable: There will be a Riddle in the Case; 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 itself is an honourable State, in all Cases and Persons. And again it would follow, that all Marriages are, even a Bed undefiled, which is not so; for there are very many Profane and  Marriages; and therefore the Holy Author treats of a Bed undefiled, plainly distinct and different from a Marriagebed, that may truly be styled a Lawful and Undefiled Bed, etc.  
This is a very odd way of arguing. I have showed that there's no necessity of reading the Words so, and that most Commentators take them to be spoke of the Marriagebed, but under different Considerations, viz. as Defiled and Undefiled. Our Author also runs into Contradictions; for in one Line he says, Marriage is honourable in all Cases, even, though the Bed be not Undefiled; and in a few Lines after says, There are very many Profane and  Marriages. Let him reconcile this if he can: As to his Q. if the Apostle did not account Marriage Honourable, unless it were a Bed Undefiled; it's downright Impertinent; Marriage is appointed as a Remedy for keeping the Bed Undefiled: The Apostle's Meaning is plain enough, that Marriage was Honourable, but it was very Dishonourable in married Persons to Defile the Marriagebed, either by the Immoderate Use of it betwixt themselves, or by taking others into it. Calvin and others, I have quoted for the former, and for the latter, Gataker and others comment upon it thus: It is as much as if he should say, Thorus Maritalis, nulla contaminetur Macula, Adulterii aut ullius peccati contra fidem conjugalem. i e. Let not the Marriagebed be Defiled by any Spot, either of Adultery, or any other Crime against the Conjugal Vow. As to what our Author alleges, that there are many Profane and Unclean Marriages, those are none of God's Appointment, and the Apostle treats here only of such: I do believe that his Marriage with Mary Tomkins is Profane and Unclean, if it can be accounted any Marriage at all; but to be plainer with him, there can be no such thing properly speaking, as an Unclean Marriage, though some Unclean Persons may perhaps marry only for Unclean Ends. Marriage is an Holy Ordinance of God, and can never be Unclean, though many Unclean Practices may be covered under that Name; for every one that marries, does not marry in the Lord.  
Having thus made it plain, that the Apostle speaks of the Marriage Bed only, our Author's Inference, that he speaks of a Lawful and Undefiled Bed, distinct from a Marriage Bed, falls to the Ground of Course.  
Mr. Butler, P. 19 has Recourse to the Practice of the Hebrews, to whom this Epistle was writ, to prove this forced Commentary he puts upon the Text, for which he neither does nor can quote one Expositor; and therefore alleges, that because the Hebrews always held a Bed of Concubinage to be Undefiled and Honourable; that the Apostle must needs therefore mean Concubinage by a Bed Undefiled. I answer, 1. That I have already proved Concubinage among the Hebrews to have been contrary to the Divine Command, though Connived at in those times of Ignorance: 2. That Concubinage could not be the Apostle's Meaning; for our Author himself will own that Marriage does also imply a Bed Undefiled, otherwise it could not be Honourable; so that it would be Nonsense for the Apostle to distinguish Concubinage from Marriage by the Words Bed Undefiled, as if it were more properly so, than Marriage itself, which was of Divine Institution. 3. That the Apostle must not be supposed to Contradict his Master Jesus Christ, who recalled Marriage to its first Institution betwixt one Man and one Woman at a time, Matth. 19 4, 5, 6. where he says, They twain (not they three, four, or five) shall be one Flesh; and instead of our Author's Assertion, that the Apostle approves Concubinage, because he wrote to the Jews, it's more probable that he reproves it, as our Saviour did their Divorces, in the 19th. of Matthew, which Moses, because of the Hardness of their Hearts, had suffered, and they thereupon thought Lawful. But our Saviour tells them that from the beginning it was not so; and it's as plain, that Polygamy or Concubinage was not from the beginning, so that our Saviour's ' Argument concludes as strongly against those, as against the Divorces then in Use amongst the Jews.  
Grotius says, That the Apostle here opposes himself to that Opinion, which many of the Jewish Rabbis maintained, viz. That it was no Crime to Lie with any Woman, though not married to her, if she was not a Jewess, because they thought Moses' Law only restrained them as to such.— Therefore he advises them to take heed, lest there be any Fornicator amongst them, Heb. 12. 16. And in this Text proposes Marriage as a Remedy against Fornication, as has been said already.  
This Answer of our Saviour, that Moses suffered such things, because of the Hardness of their Hearts, is sufficient to put an end to all those Cavils from the Old Testament Instances. The Jews were a stiff necked People, which is given them in many Places as their Character; and therefore Moses, by Divine Permission, suffered those things, though he did not command them; He suffered them, to prevent greater Evils; lest they should have murdered their Wives, or treated them harshly: 2. They were suffered, as common Laws of Nations do allow, more than is allowed by the Laws of Religion, as is clear from this Instance; that in all Christian Kingdoms there are Judges, constituted for deciding Differences betwixt Man and Man, of what Nature soever they may be, for preventing Oppression and Injustice; so that the Bench is open to trivial and frivolous Suits, as well as to those that are weighty and material; yet the Practice of such as go to Law upon every Occasion, is contrary to the Apostle's Command, and Christian Charity, as appears by 1 Cor. 1. 6. 3. They were suffered as a proper Punishment for their Wickedness; for it both exhausted their Bodies and Estates, and broke the Peace of their own Families, and engaged them in Discord with others. 4. This People were given over to a Temporal Fornication, as the Papists are to a Spiritual Fornication: But our Saviour, the Second Adam, when he came to Redeem the World, restored Marriage again to its first Institution, as it was in the First Adam's time.  
Mr. Butler P. 20. alleges, that God attested the Legitimacy of Ishmael ' s Birth by the Blessing he gave him. Our Author, sure, knows its a Maxim in Divinity, that we must measure God's Will by his Word, and not by his Providence. The Wise Man tells us, that Outward Things happen alike to the Good, and to the Bad. The Text tells us that it was for Abraham's sake that God gave Ishmael Temporal Blessings, and so he blessed Esau for Isaac's sake; whence our Author may as well conclude, that God approved of that Profane Person. Besides, it's plain from the Text that Ishmael was an Accursed Persecutor, had his Hand against every Man, and every Man's Hand against him; his Posterity we find complained of Psalm 83. amongst other Enemies of the People of God. And as the Author of the Book, called God's Judgements against Whoring, observes, so they have continued under several Denominations to this day; as Ishmaelites, Hagarens, etc. of which latter Name being ashamed, as denoting their spurious Original, they assumed to themselves the Title of Saracens, as if they were Sarah's Offspring; under which they were formidable to the Christian World for some Ages, and continue irreconcilable Enemies to the Christian Religion to this day, under the name of Arabians, Turks, etc. and are so addicted unto Uncleanness, that they place their chief Happiness here and hereafter in the Enjoyment of their Sensual Pleasures. So far was Ishmael or his Posterity from being truly blessed; To that Book I refer our Author, where he will find an Elaborate Account of the Punishments, inflicted upon the Patriarches and others, for their Polygamy and Concubinage, which he will needs have to be a Bed Undefiled.  
Page 30. he says, God allowed 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 Master's House, and thy Master's 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 Absalon, which will make him the Author of Incest, if giving do always signify approving; but the meaning is no more than this, that he suffered Absalon to fall into that Tentation, and took his Restraining Grace from him, that so David's Sin might be punished by that of his Son. So God gave Saul into David's Hand, yet he himself owned 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 Reh●boam's Succession in that same Page is answered already, and for that from the Prophet Hosea's being ordered 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 an● Treacherous People: Or if otherwise, h● 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 formed 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 Man's Impetuous Lust makes him fly 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 lived 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 reproved 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 touched with his Reproof, when she said to them, that he had told her all that ever she did in her Life, though 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 ask 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 'tis 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 divorced herself contrary to the Law of Moses, or had been Five times divorced for Adultery, and that she was truly touched with a sense of her sin appears, In that she was strait way Solicitous 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 herself 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 herself, 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 approved: 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 a●low her six Husbands at once when he recalled Marriage there, to its first Institution betwixt one and one.  
I come next to consider our Author's description of a Whoremonger, p. 33. He is says he, such a wretch who tho 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, but out of a pure desire of an Holy Seed by her, yet not contented with that Lawful Liberty, chooseth 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. Butler's Concubinage, seeing the Apostle doth thereby Condemn all use of Women out of a Married State: As to what our Author says is allowed at Rome, and in some Reformed States (though there be none of the latter charged with any such thing but Holland) it's not warrant for any Man's Conscience  
For the Sixty Sixth of those called the Apostolical Canons, Ordering that any Person who destoured a Virgin, should either Marry her, or have no other Wife during her Life: It is nothing to his purpose, but rather against Polygamy and Concubinage.  
As to his Instances of Constantinus Chlorus, and Constantine the Greats having Concubines, and being received by the Christians into places of Authority notwithstanding, It's Foreign to his purpose, the Christians were Subject to former Emperors who were the worst and lendest of Men, it not being i● their Power to hinder or advance them at that time, and whatever was the Practice of the Christians then: If they either committed Fornication themselves, or Countenanced it in others; they did thereby Act contrary to the truly Apostolical Canons, Act. 15. Commanding them to abstain from Fornication, and the repeated Injunctions of the Apostles to flee Fornication, which properly signifies, as has been already proved, uncleanness used by unmarried Persons; and as for Adultery, or defiling the Marriage Bed, which the said Princes must have been guilty of, by their Concubinage, it's every where Condemned by God and Man, though the Christians in those times might perhaps neither have Power, nor think it prudent to quarrel with those Emperors that were but just then beginning to see the Dawn of the Gospel Light, which utterly Condemns all such things. Nor can our Author make it appear, but they reproved them as well as one of our Bishops did Henry VIII. and yet the Protestants did not think fit, neither to quarrel with his own Title to the Crown, nor those of his Successors; though perhaps there might have been good Reason to Question Queen mary Legittimacy, and yet our Author knows that the Church of England neither approves of Concubinage, Incest, nor Adultery; So false and inconcludent is his Argument. Besides, our Author Conceals, that Constantius Chlorus was not declared Christian, though a Great Favourer of 'em, and that he was forced to abandon Helena and Marry Theodora; Step Daughter to the Emperor Maximianus Hercules, who thereupon made him Caesar. Nor does he take any notice of Constantine the Greats being Married very young to Minervina, when it is not certain that he made profession of the Christian Religion, nor yet when he Married Fausta Daughter to the Emperor Maximian, one of the Greatest haters of the Christians that ever was. Neither does he take notice of the Plague that this wretched Woman Fausta was to him, for being enamoured on his Son Crispus by Minervina and not obtaining her end, she accused him of a design to Debauch her, for which his Father put him to Death, but understanding the Falsehood of the Accusation afterwards, he put her to Death too so disastrous were the effects of his Polygamy.  
As to Valentinian, the Emperor he was passionate in anger even to Madness, and probably as Extravagant in his Amours, the Story is very well known, that his passion to see the Empire Insulted by such an ugly deformed Barbarous People, as the Quadi made him fall into such a fit of anger as that it killed him, so that he is no very commendable Pattern to be followed. Neither does Mr. Butler take any notice that God did not bless the Marriage of Valentinian, with Justina his Wife's Maid, for she became a Cursed Arrian and his Grandson Valentinian by Galla, her Daughter became a cruel Persecutor of the Orthodox. Valentinian did also make a Law in Imitation of his own Practice, as Mr. Butler Writes in Defence of his, that any Man might Marry two Wives, but succeeding Emperors would not allow it, the Honour of being put into the Code. Nor do I believe the Universities will Honour Mr. Butler's Pamphlet, with a place in any of their Libraries.  
As to his false pretence of Concubinage, or Poligamies being allowed by the Primitive Church, it is so gross it needs no Confutation. Any Man that has read the Apologies of Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen against Celsus, or any thing of Ecclesiastical History will find the contrary, and for such as cannot have the opportunity of perusing those Authors themselves, I refer them to the Account of what they said on that Head given by the Author of God's Judgements against Whoring at the End of that Book.  
Our Author's last effort is, p. 34. Where he proposes, a Reformed Concubinage to these Realms, for preventing the Ruin of Royal Noble and Generous Families, and as an honest help to destroy those foul and crying Sins of Whoredom and Adultery, which Ruin Kingdoms as well as Families. His Arguments to back this Proposal are, that had it not been for Concubinage, King Solomon had utterly failed of that Royal Raco, whence Jesus Christ Lineally descended. That if Alexander the Scot had used a Concubine, an Heir of his Body might have prevented those dreadful Wars betwixt Bruce and Balliol for that Crown. That if Richard the II. had been allowed an Heir by a Concubine, the War betwixt the Houses of Lancaster and York had been prevented; which at last was not ended but by a Son, sprung from a Bed of Concubinage. He concludes thus; Happy was that Concubinage of Robert the II. of Scotland, which advised to by a Parliament of that Nation, gave Birth to that Family of the Stuarts, which have made both England and Scotland exceeding happy; and being grafted into the Family of the Welsh Teudors of the Royal Blood of England, another Family sprang from a Bed of Concubinage, are to this day reigning over both Kingdoms: Which, if so, let no Man by Corrupt and Unlawful Customs, go about to slain the Legitimacy of such a Race of Princes, as both England and Scotland have Reason to remember with Praise and Thanksgiving to God; especially for Charles the I. of Blessed and Never-dying Memory, the Gracious Gift of God, for whose blessed sake Good Things may justly be expected in time, both unto his Royal Race, and these his Kingdoms. And thus much may serve, in Vindication of this Respondent for Bedding with Mary Tomkins.  
Our Author here, as every where else, hath discovered himself to be a Physician of no Value; for if they may be called so, who prescribe a Remedy worse than the Disease, then certainly he deserves that Title. Suffering is always preferable to Sin; and it's better that Ten Thousand Families should be Extinguished, than that any one Man should run the risk of his Soul, to keep them up. Mr. Butler's Passion for Concubinage doth so effectually blind him, that he can't see an Inch b●fore his Nose; for had he but looked into that very Instance of Robert Stuart's Concubinage, he might haud seen what Buchanan, the Scotch Historian, says concerning it, viz. Quae res postea tam numerosam familiam prope Extinxit, i. e. Which Affair had well-nigh extinguished 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 falsely, 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 falsely 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 murdered by Macbeth, 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, called Walter; who being a Valiant Man, and Favourite to King Malcolm III. that killed Macbeth, he was (for defeating the Galloway. Rebels, and killing their General,) created Lord Steward of Scotland, whence the Family took Surname; 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 enjoyed 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 called 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 called Robert the III. because of the Hatred the Scots had to the Name of John, on the Account of John Balliol, who betrayed 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 tyrannised over by his Brother Robert, the second Son of Elizabeth Moor, who starved his eldest ●on, Prince David, to Death, in the Castle of Falkland, and forced the younger, called 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 Inhuman Acts, burned the famous Cathedral of Elgin, the finest in all Scotland, because he could not find the Bishop of Murray, whom he designed to have murdered. And his Son Alexander was as barbarous as the Father; and Plundered and Murdered his Neighbours. The Misfortune of Prince James afflicted his Father, King Robert, so sensibly, that he refused to be comforted, and starved himself to Death. After which, his Brother, the Inhuman Robert, Reigned under the Title of Governor; 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 disobliged by the Rebellious Temper of his own Sons, he summoned a Parliament, and by their Advice called home King James I. from England; who, after his Return, made a terrible Havoc 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, surprised and killed 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, extinguished, 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 murdered in his Bed Chamber, as he lodged in the Dominicans Cloister near Perth, on a Journey. Upon which, the Nobility assembling from all parts of the Kingdom, they pursued the Murderers with so much Vigour, 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 murdered 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 fastened, that hoist him up by Ropes and Pulleys, and let him down again to the Ground, which racked 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 Traitors, which was reckoned 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 crowned in a great Concourse of People. The second Day he was bound upon a Hurdle, and dragged at a Horse's Tail through Edinburgh. On the third he was bound to a Plank, ripped 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 nailed to a Gallows, the Executioner in the mean time running burning Irons into all the fleshy Parts of his Body, and then he was quartered 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 Ruin of Royal Families, I have his own Instance upon him, to prove, that it well nigh endangered the Ruin of our own Royal Family, which is the most ancient 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 Profane, abound with Instances of Families and Nations being ruined by Concubinage, and other sorts of Whoredom. For the Proof of which, I must again refer the Reader to that Book called, God's Judgements upon Whoring, where the Instances are none of 'em taken from Romances, as those in the Book, called, 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 Debauched Age.  
His Proposal of Concubinage, as a Remedy against Whoredom 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 himself, a Man according to God's own Heart, did not find this a sufficient Remedy. The Prophets are full of Complaints against the Jews, for assembling by Troops in the Harlot's Houses, and Neighing every one after his Neighbour's Wife, Jer. Chapters 3. & 5. In his 23d. he complains, that the Land is full of Adultery; and it seems they had such Priests and Prophets too as Mr. Butler; for in the 14th. Verse he says, I have seen also in the Prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing; they commit Adultery, and walk in Lies; they strengthen also the Hands of the Evil Doers, that none of them doth return from his Wickedness: Exactly Mr. Butler's Practice. Solomon in the 7th. of the Proverbs, gives us a Parabolical Representation of the Nightwalkers, and stroling Whoremongers & Whores of his time, though there's no doubt but his Subjects indulged themselves in Herds of Concubines, according to his Example; yet he tells us, That at the Window of his House he looked through his Casement, and beheld among the simple ones (Cause enough to make our witty Debauchees fall out with the Bible, to call them Simpletons) a young Man, void of Understanding, passing through the Street, near her Corner; and he went the way to her House in the twilight in the Evening, in the black and dark Night, and behold there met him a Woman, with the Attire of an Harlot, and subtle of Heart, so she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent Face said unto him, This day have I paid my Vows, (or I have just been at Church, and come from Prayers) therefore came I forth to meet thee diligently to seek thy Face, and I have found thee, etc. He goeth after her straightway, as an Ox goeth to the Slaughter, or as a Fool to the Correction of the Stocks, till a Dart strike through his Liver, etc.  
So that Mr. Butler might as well have proposed the breaking down of Dikes and Banks, to prevent Inundations, as Concubinage to prevent Whoredom. The practice of all Nations where it is allowed is sufficient to convince him of his Mistake. Who are more abominably Lustful than the Turks, and yet they allow Polygamy? and indeed the Reason is plain, why it should be so. There's too much Truth in our English Proverb, Once a Whore, and always a Whore, & it will hold as well of the other Sex. Let once a Man prove unfaithful to the Wife of his Youth, whom he married in the Vigour and Strength of Affection, it will be found that it is not one or two Concubines that shall serve him. We find by Divine Record, that it was so among the Israelites; and History and Experience shows, that it hath always been so amongst other Nations.  
Our Author's Proposal is much like Lycurgus' Laws, that he proposed to the Spartans' for a Community of Women; which so long as they were observed, says Plutarch in his Life, the Women were far from that Scandalous Liberty, that they were afterwards accused of, and yet one of these Ordinances was, That their Children should not be begot by the first Comers (that is their Husbands) but the best Men that could be found, as if there could be any thing more Scandalous: So that Mr. Butler's Proposal, if put in practice, would just save us from Whoredom and Adultery, as much as Lycurgus' Laws saved the Lacedæmonians, of whom Geradas said, That it was as impossible to find an Adulterer in Sparta, as to find a Bull with a Neck so long, that he could stand on one side of a Mountain, and drink of a River on the other side, which could have no other Meaning, if Lycurgus' Laws were observed, than that Adultery was so common among the Spartans', that it had lost its Name; and so they knew not what was called so.  
There's no thinking Man but will easily be convinced, that the Natural Result of Concubinage must needs be Whoredom. All those who observe the Course of Nature in the Generation and Production of Mankind, allow that the number of Males and Females born, is upon the Matter equal; and the same may be observed in our Weekly Bills. I shall only instance the General Bill for the Year 1697. wherein we find 8062 Males baptised, and but 7767 Females, so that the Majority on the side of the Males, is 255, to which we shall add 293 Women dead in Childbed, which is a Distemper Women are only obnoxious to, and being Natural and Constant, will go far towards a Balance for the Numbers of Men slain now and then by War, especially if we consider that the Widows and Female Infants chief, of such as are slain in Battle, have their Lives many times shortened for want of one to take care of 'em; and by being exposed to hard Labour, and shifts for a Livelihood. So that if Concubinage should be allowed, it follows of Necessity that all Men could not be supplied, which would certainly occasion their breaking in upon one another's Properties, and abundance of Confusion and Bloodshed.  
In the next place it infallibly hinders Propagation; for seeing the Numbers of Men and Women are upon the matter equal by the Course of Nativity, it's an Evidence that the God of Nature designed no more but one Woman for one Man at a time, that there were nothing to be said for it from the Scriptures. And that Concubinaries hinder Propagation; not only by Engrossing two, three, or more Women to themselves, by which they deprive other Men of having any, but also by being unable to perform Conjugal Duties to so many at a time, so that they lose their Teeming Season, is demonstrable thus; and we may appeal to common Experience for the Truth of it, viz. That when two Persons are married together of equal Years, and proportionable Strength, it's found that they are sufficient to satisfy one another, if Sickness or some other Accident don't prevent it; and they are generally most prolific, and their Children most robust and healthful; and therefore it were to be wished that Christian Magistrates and Nations concerned themselves more to have good Laws made for encouraging Marriage, & preventing Matches of unsuitable Years; and finding some Expedient to obviate those Obstructions of Marriages, which are many times occasioned by waiting for Matches of equal Quality and Fortune. If such a Method were taken, abundance of Uncleanness might be prevented, more People would be propagated, and the Dishonour of Families of Quality provided against; which happens but too too often, sometimes by Fornication, and sometimes by their Daughters throwing themselves away upon unworthy Fellows. Therefore it were Requisite there should be Laws made for bestowing young People in Marriage assoon as they come to be Marriageable, and likewise to provide against the general Uncleanness that reigns amongst Seamen.  
But to return from this Digression, seeing Nature and Experience teaches us, that one Woman of proportionable Years is sufficient to satisfy a Man, it's impossible that one Man can ordinarily satisfy two or more Women, and by consequence lays them under Tentations to satisfy themselves some other way, which its evident they generally do, Nature itself teaches Men to abhor a Rival in the Marriagebed; and Solomon tells us, that Jealousy 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 prevailed, and was carefully taught. Besides, it is impossible that a Man can love them equally, and the Party neglected will always be uneasy, which must unavoidably occasion continual Jars and Discords, both betwixt the different Wives, and the Offspring 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: occasioned 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 Absalon, Fausta on Constantine the Great's Son, &c: the Reason of which is plain, that it being impossible for one Man to satisfy 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 considered, that though 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 Polygamy, (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-natured a Man he is, that he proposes Concubinage, to prevent the Ruin of other Families, which has actually ruined his own. This is right Devil-like, who tempted our first Parents to do that which had ruined himself; and I must needs tell Mr. Butler, that in this he acts more like a Preacher of Sodo●, 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 mentioned, and many more; as Grave Matrons, who brought Estates to their Husbands, and have blessed them with a hopeful Offspring, turned out of their Husband's Beds, and young sprightly Girls supplying their place; and so the good old Woman and her Offspring 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 complete rejoinder to tell her, that he might as well hug a young Wench, as old David hugged 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 drowned 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 turned out of their Beds, and their grandchildren exposed 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 Offspring. 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 turned 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 stained with Fornication or Incontinency, because performed 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 formed by the Power of the Holy Ghost, in a Supernatural Manner, without any stain of Humane Corruption? Was there any thing in that which looked 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 failed 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 expressly forbid, as I have showed 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 endangered 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 happened, 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 Controversy about the Succession should be determined 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 seized the Duke of Lancaster's Estate, and designed 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 displeased with Richard, that the Duke of York was not able to resist the Duke of Lancaster, so that the Nation in Parliament charged Richard with the Breach of his Coronation Oath in 32 Articles, obliged him to resign the Crown to the Duke of Lancaster, who came to the Possession of the Throne that way, before Richard was murdered. 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 its 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 firstborn Son be hers that was hated; He may not make the Son of the beloved firstborn, 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 Lawgiver, but not of a Spiritual Doctor; And Polygamy being connived 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 Polygamy 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 than it makes nothing for Polygamy.  
4. This cannot be supposed to be any thing at most but a mere 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 Polygamy 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 Patriarches, is taken away.  
6. The Chaldee Paraphrast understands that Text, Levit. 18. 18. to be against Polygamy, 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 disapproved, 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. Polygamy or Concubinage is against the Apostle's Prohibition of Married Persons defrauding one another, it being impossible for one Man ordinarily to satisfy 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, etc. are sad Instances.  
9 The Apostle could not say, Let every Woman have her own or proper Husband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he allowed. Concubinage, for than 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 allowed, 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. Polygamy was allowed in others. To which 'tis answered 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 confirmed in the Faith; but it would have been scandalous to have had such for Ministers or Bishops.  
2, The Law of Monogamy being revived by Christ, and Preached up by this same Apostle elsewhere, he cannot be imagined to allow it here.  
3. Another Reason of this Injunction is supposed 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 allowed 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 choose Bishops.  
5. Beza on the Place tells us, that not only. Bigamy and Polygamy were forbid by the Ancient Canons, but likewise the Marriage of such Persons as had rashly divorced their Wives. And Dr. Hammond on the Place quotes Theophilact and Athenagoras for it; That Marriage after Divorce was forbidden to the Ancient Christians. So falsely has Mr. Butler alleged 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 Patriarches should so long continue in an Error unreformed; 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 though 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 glorify 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 Judgements 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 Profane 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 Conveyed 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 concealed, 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.