Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	call_v	death_n	king_n	2,900	5	3.5769	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34208	Concubinage and poligamy disprov'd, or, The divine institution of marriage betwixt one man, and one woman only, asserted in answer to a book, writ by John Butler, B.D. for which he was presented as follows : We the grand jury, sworn to enquire for the body of the city of London, on Wednesday, the first day of December, 1697, present one John Butler, for writing and publishing a wicked pamphlet : wherein he maintains concubinage to be lawful, and which may prove very destructive to divers families, if not timely suppress'd.		1698 (1698)	Wing C5714; ESTC R1558	49,472	113

that numerous Family afterward And because our Author reckons this one of the happiest Instances that can be to advance Concubinage I shall trespass upon the Reader 's Patience a little to demonstrate the contrary In the first place our Author asserts falsly that this Concubinage was advised by the Parliament whereas it is plain that if she was his Concubine at all it was when a private Man For Buchanan says he married her after Queen Eupham's Death so that then she was no Concubine In the next place he falsly belies the Family of the Stuarts in saying that this Concubinage gave Birth to them for both Cambden and Buchanan derive their Original from Bancho Thane of Loqhuaber of the Blood-Royal of Scotland who being murder'd by Mackbeth the Tyrant about the Year of our Lord 1050. his Son Fleanchus fled into North-Wales where he married the Daughter of Griffith Lewellin Prince of the Country and by her had a Son call'd Walter who being a Valiant Man and Favourite to King Malcolm III. that kill'd Mackbeth he was for defeating the Galloway Rebels and killing their General created Lord Steward of Scotland whence the Family took Sirname and Robert whom we now treat of being Son to another Walter Stuart by King Robert Bruce's Daughter was the first of 'em who enjoy'd the Crown So that Mr. Butler wrongs the Royal Family both as to the Honour of their Original which was Lawful and not Spurious and also as to their Antiquity by 320 Years for so long had they been call'd by the Name of Stuart before they came to the Crown But then as to the Effects of this Concubinage they were the most direful that almost any History gives an Account of For John the Eldest Son by Elizabeth Moor who when he came to the Crown was call'd Robert the III. because of the Hatred the Scots had to the Name of John on the Account of John Baliol who betray'd their Liberty to our Edward I. and the ill Fate of King John of France and King John of England This Robert I say had nothing of the Spirit of Government so that he was tyranniz'd over by his Brother Robert the second Son of Elizabeth Moor who starved his eldest ●on Prince David to Death in the Castle of Falkland and forc'd the younger call'd James afterwards James the I. of Scotland to flee the Kingdom and he was taken by the English as bound to France Alexander the youngest of Elizabeth Moor's Sons was a bloody cruel Man and besides other Inhumane Acts burnt the famous Cathedral of Elgin the finest in all Scotland because he could not find the Bishop of Murray whom he design'd to have murder'd And his Son Alexander was as barbarous as the Father and Plunder'd and Murder'd his Neighbours The Misfortune of Prince James afflicted his Father King Robert so sensibly that he refused to be comforted and starv'd himself to Death After which his Brother the Inhumane Robert Reign'd under the Title of Governour and not only kept his Nephew James from the Crown during his Life but left the Government to his own Son Murdo who also kept it in his own Hands till being disoblig'd by the Rebellious Temper of his own Sons he summoned a Parliament and by their Advice call'd home King James I. from England who after his Return made a terrible Havock among the other Princes of the Blood cut off Murdo Stuart Duke of Albany and his two Sons and banished others of the Name Upon which James Duke Murdo's youngest Son surpriz'd and kill'd the King's Uncle and fled into Ireland The Historian observes that all this Disorder and Discord in the Royal Family was fomented by Walter Earl of Athol eldest Son to King Robert Stuart by Queen Euphaim his Lawful Wife his Design being to have all the Posterity of Elizabeth Moor the Concubine extinguish'd that so the Crown might devolve upon himself which he thought might be easily effected if he could but have got King James the I. taken off which he likewise compassed having procured him to be murther'd in his Bed Chamber as he lodg'd in the Dominicans Cloyster near Perth on a Journey Upon which the Nobility assembling from all parts of the Kingdom they pursued the Murderers with so much Vigor that all the Conspirators were put to Death in 40 Days And Walter Earl of Athol who was the Author of the Conspiracy and Robert Graham who actually murder'd the King were put to death in such a cruel manner that the Reader will not think his time lost to peruse the Account of it as follows Walter 's Execution took up three Days on the first he was put into a Cart to which there was an Engine fastned that hoisted him up by Ropes and Pullies and let him down again to the Ground which rack'd and loosened all his Joints and put him to incredible Pain then he was set on a Pillory with a Red-hot Iron Crown on his Head and this Motto The King of all Traytors which was reckon'd the Accomplishment of what had been foretold him by Witches whom he had Consulted to know whether he should come to the Crown or not viz. That he should be crown'd in a great Concourse of People The second Day he was bound upon a Hurdle and dragg'd at a Horses Tail through Edinburgh On the third he was bound to a Plank ript up alive and had his Bowels first and afterwards his Heart thrown into the Fire his Head was fixed on a Pole and his Quarters distributed into the chief Towns of the Kingdom Robert Graham his Kinsman was carried through the City in a Cart with his Hand nail'd to a Gallows the Executioner in the mean time running burning Irons into all the fleshy Parts of his Body and then he was quarter'd as the former says Buchanan All this was the effect of that Concubinage which Mr. Butler tells us was so happy so that instead of Concubinages preventing the Ruine of Royal Families I have his own Instance upon him to prove that it well nigh endanger'd the Ruin of our own Royal Family which is the most antient in the Western World or perhaps for what 's known in the whole Universe And so far is our Author's Assertion from being true that all Histories Sacred and Prophane abound with Instances of Families and Nations being ruin'd by Concubinage and other sorts of Whoredom For the Proof of which I must again refer the Reader to that Book call'd God's Judgments upon Whoring where the Instances are none of 'em taken from Romances as those in the Book call'd God's Revenge against Adultery and Murder but from approved Histories and may be of very good use to be read by the Youth of this Debauch'd Age. His Proposal of Concubinage as a Remedy against Whoredome and Adultery is wholly ridiculous and contrary to the Experience of all Eyes The Jews were as guilty of those Crimes as any People in the World notwithstanding their Use of Concubines Nay David

lest when he preach'd to others he himself should be a Cast-away but it seems Mr. Butler chose rather to make provision for the Flesh to fullsil the Lusts thereof If he could not have his Wife he would have his Maid and is not satisfied to break the Commandments himself but teaches others also to do so and therefore deserves to be called the Least in the Kingdom of Heaven according to our Saviour's threatning Matth. 5. 19. and I doubt not but he knows what is meant thereby viz. That he shall be accounted unworthy to be reckoned among the Saints here or hereafter if he don't break off from his sins by Repentance Our Saviour Matth. 5. 28. tells us That they who Look on a Woman so as to Lust after her are guilty of Adultery And the Apostle Peter tells us of those that have Eyes full of Adultery 2 Pet. 2. 14. Which demonstrate clearly enough that Incontinency the Fountain whence Lustful Looks proceed is sinful in it self Indeed the Natural Appetite of Generation and multiplying our Species according to the Command of God is not sinful in it self so long as it is contain'd within due bounds but when once it breaks over that then it becomes Incontinence and by consequence sinful The Original Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Incontinent denotes such qui nec in bono nec in malo sibi constant they can keep no bounds but will either be over-much Righteous or over-much Wicked So that it 's plain Incontinence which Mr. Butler will have to be no sin implies the Height of Passion But it seems he thought himself concern'd in point of Reputation to maintain that Incontinence was no sin because he owns himself to be guilty of it page 9. Yet if he had but adverted to the saying of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 9. which he quotes in the same place viz They who cannot contain let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn he might easily have perceiv'd that Incontinence and burning are Synonymous Terms for there burning is oppos'd to Continency the Holy Ghost telling us plainly that they who cannot contain must burn if they do not marry and therefore provides Marriage as a proper Remedy against Incontinency which if it were not a Distemper why should there be any Remedy provided against it Here also I think fit to take notice of our Author 's distorted Notion of Fornication whereof he says page 8. A man may be guilty by Excess of Carnal Vsage with his own Wife That this Notion of Fornication is very gross and absurd will appear from this one thing that if a Man may be guilty of Fornication with his own Wife then he may divorce her when he pleases for his own Crime for our Saviour allows a man to put away his Wife in case of Fornication without any Exception whether it be with her Husband or any other man Matth. 5. 32. So that instead of a man's being guilty of Fornication with his own Wife our Author should have said of Excess in the use of the Marriage-bed for tho Fornication is sometimes us'd in Scripture to denote Uncleanness in general yet according to the common acceptation of the word it denotes Uncleanness betwixt persons that are not married to one another as was usually practised in those Fornices or Vaults under ground at Rome and else where whence the word Fornication was deriv'd Of those Vaults Socrates Lib. 5. cap. 18. gives us a particular account viz. That they were Victualling-houses under ground wherein the Romans prostituted Whores until the Emperor Theodosius order'd them to be pulled down I come next to Mr. Butler's Case as represented by himself page 9 c. Viz. That his Wife denied him the use of her Marriage bed obstinately tho she was often intreated to the contrary for above a Twelvemonth and therefore he went in to his Maid The Necessity he pretends he lay under was this In the first place he had not the Gift of Continency then it was not convenient for him to marry another without a Lawful License from a Lawful Authority because of a Statute-Law in force That in the time of this desertion Popery had the Supream Seat That there were high Commissioners superceeding all other Courts in Power and Acting in favour of Persons Popishly inclin'd and that his Wife having deserted him because of his disinheriting his Eldest Son for turning Papist No sentence could be expected from them according to the Justice of Holy writ because Papists hold Marriage indissolvable as being one of their seven Sacraments without a dispensation from the Pope Thus Mr. Butler States his own Case In the next place I shall give you hi● Wifes State of the Case as represented in her Libel before the Honourable Court of Arches and quoted by himself p. 6. Viz. That about Ten Years since John Butler being unmindful of his Conjugal Vow committed the foul Crime of Adultery with his Servant Maid Mary Tomkins and it being taken Notice of that she was with Child by him he and she went into Holland where they liv'd Incontinently for about two Years and there she brought forth a Bastard call'd Mary to the said John Butler and p. 35. That they return'd to England and Live together in an Incontinent manner at Hammersmith and the said Mary hath had four other base born Children begotten by the said John Butler who hath Lately turn'd his Wife Mary Butler out of Doors and left her destitute of necessaries c. Now any Man may see that there is a vast difference in the Cases as they are Stated by Mr. Butler and his Wife It is also proper to observe here that his Incontinence with Mary Tomkins is not the only Uncleanness which our Author stands charg'd with for page 8. he owns That his said Wife and his two ungracious Sons have fill'd the Countrey with many slanders and suspicious Reports of matters said or done by him above Twenty or Thirty Years since and Answers thus Concerning what kindnesses this Respondent might have shewed to particular Persons more then Ordinary he doth solemnly protest that he never had Carnal Knowledge of any such Woman for whose sake he was aspers'd Having thus laid down their mutual Accusations against one another I shall first make some Remarks upon 'em and then proceed to consider Mr. Butlers defence It 's plain that Mr. Butler owns himself to be Incontinent and I think it will appear that he was so to a scandalous excess from the Matter of Fact as laid down by himself For 1. He says that he was deserted by a Wife whom p. 3. he owns That he did heartily Love which one would think should have been sufficient of it self to have restrain'd his Concupiscence for above one year at least seeing most modest Men do in ordinary Cases think themselves obliged in Decency to stay so long unmarried after the Death of a Wife whom they Loved Much more should an honest Man

ut utrasque salvaret Christ did not disdain to derive his Pedigree from sinful Women and Gentiles because he came into the World to save both of ' em So that this makes nothing at all for our Author's Purpose for the same Argument will conclude as strongly that God approves Murder Adultery Incest Common-Whores and Heathenism because Bathsheba Thamar Rachel and Ruth are mention'd in our Saviour's Genealogy Whereas it only shews the exceeding Riches of God's Grace in extending so much Compassion to the worst of Sinners For that Bathsheba was an Adultress and became David's Wife by Murder is plain that Thamar was an Incestuous Adultress and her Children Pharez and Zara Bastards cannot be denied and that Judah begot those Children upon her as a Common Harlot is obvious to any one that Reads the Story that Rahab was a Common Prostitute is no less known and no Body can dispute that Ruth was a Moabitess But of all these we may say with the Apostle 1 Cor. 6. 9. Such they were once but at last were washed sanctified and justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus As to his unmannerly Reflection upon our Statute Laws that declare all Children born out of Marriage to be Bastards As if they were deriv'd from the Pope Let the Government look to it but this looks indeed like Mr. Butler's Politicks and Divinity He might know that the Holy Scripture calls such Bastards Deut. 23. 2. Quivis extra Legitimum conjugium natus says Gerundensis any one born out of Lawful Marriage And if it do not call the Children of Concubines by that Name because of the Respect due to Marriage tho unlawfully Contracted It does not follow but that in effect they really were such And therefore our Law which admits of no Concubinage has reason to call all Children begot out of Marriage Bastards Whether ever the Pope had done so or not Our Author knows that the Scripture does not call Pharez and Zara Bastards tho they really were so as being not only Begot out of Lawful Wedlock but in horrid Incest whereas Judah thought he had to do with a Common-Harlot And therefore his Argument from the Scriptures not calling every one in particular Begot in Concubinage or other unlawful Manner Bastards has no weight at all especially seeing it is plain that it calls all those Begot out of Wedlock in General by that Name I come next to our Authors Historical Instances p. 23. and 24. The first is the Parliament of Scotland ' s Legitimation of the Sons of Robert Stuart King of Scots by Elizabeth Moor his Concubine and his being succeeded by John the Eldest of those Sons by Concubinage notwithstanding he had Two Sons by his Lawful Wife Eupham Daughter to the Earl of Rosse then living I answer 1. The Practice of Scotland or any other Nation in this Case suppose it were true as our Author lays it down Viz. That the Reasons moving them so to do Were that she had been a true Wife to him before God in all things excepting the deficiency of the Rites and Ceremonies of Marriage Is no Rule to us nor cannot warrant out Conscienees But our Author may please to know that there have been discoveries made since which make it highly probable that Robert Stuart was Married to Elizabeth Moor whilst he was a private Man tho he thought fit for Reasons of State to conceal it when he came to the Crown and this is urg'd by Sir Geo. Mackenzie and others in Defence of the Royal Line of Scotland But supposing it were not so his Sons by Elizabeth Moor were Legitimated by the Parliament of that Kingdom which formerly was the Supreme Power of that Nation and if we may believe their Histories gave Laws to their Kings but receiv'd none from them So that they set up Dethron'd and Punish'd their Kings as they thought fit A plain instance of this is that Letter to the Pope from the States of Scotland in the time of Edw. I. as is to be seen in Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation Wherein they tell him that they had Dethron'd John Baliol for such and such Causes and chosen Robert Bruce whom they would also Dethrone if he committed the like Misdemeanours They afterwards settled the Succession upon the said Bruces Brother and his Issue failing the Kings own Male Issue tho he had a Daughter then living who was Mother to this very Robert Stuart So that in those days they believ'd nothing of the Divine Right of Hereditary Lineal Succession They afterwards made an Act in Robert Bruces time that in Case of any dispute about the Succession it should be decided by the Parliament and the King of France by his League was oblig'd to assist him with Arms to whom they adjudg'd the Crown After King James the Third was slain in Battle near Sterlin the first Parliament held by his Son enacted That such as fell on the King's side were Lawfully slain as Enemies to the Publick not so much as excepting himself And that those who fought against him were no way Culpable Nay this present Parliament of Scotland declar'd that the Late King James had forfeited their Crown and did not trouble themselves to debate whether he had abdicated or not So that to argue from an Act of Parliament in Scotland relating to their Government to a particular Case like that of our Authors is to argue de Genere in Genus quite Forraign to his purpose and shews him to be as Ignorant of the Laws of Argument as undeserving of the Character of a true Church of England-Man to take Presidents from a Countrey who always had a Mortal hatred to passive obedience But besides in admitting the Scotish Race to this Crown our Ancestors did not trouble themselves with the Question whether they were Lawfully begot or not But whether King James I. was descended in the Eye of the Law from our Hen. VIIth For if we may believe some of the Scotch Historians there was Reason enough to question that Princes Birth without going any further back But it seems our Ancestors were as much refolv'd to have him for their King as the Protestant Scots were of whom the Earl of Glencarn then one of the chief is quoted by some of their Writers for saying to his Mother when she to avoid being Dethron'd her self gave plain enough hints that he was none of the most Lawful Issue They knew that if his Stone Horse had begot him he should be King of Scots They considered him as born in Lawful Wedlock without troubling themselves to enquire whether he was Lawfully begot and tho they knew they had no great reason to admire her Chastity they knew also that she had too much Interest to say that he was spurious to be believed The same Answer is enough to his other Instances of William the Conqueror and Henry VIIth Their Claims were Authoriz'd by Parliaments who in Extraordinary Cases must consult the Publick welfare for Salus

to what our Author says is allowed at Rome and in some Reform'd States tho there be none of the latter charg'd with any such thing but Holland it 's no warrant for any Mans Conscience For the Sixty Sixth of those called the Apostolical Canons Ordering that any Person who destour'd a Virgin should either Marry her or have no other Wife during her Life It is nothing to his purpose but rather against Poligamy and Concubinage As to his Instances of Constantinus Chlorus and Constantine the Greats having Concubines and being receiv'd by the Christians into places of Authority notwithstanding It 's Forreign to his purpose the Christians were Subject to former Emperours who were the worst and lendest of Men it not being 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 Countenanc'd it in others they did thereby Act contrary to the truly Apostolical Canons Act. 15. Commanding them to abstain from Fornication and the repeated Injunctions of the Apostles to flee Fornication which properly signifies as has been already prov'd uncleanness us'd by unmarried Persons and as for Adultery or defiling the Marriage Bed which the said Princes must have been guilty of by their Concubinage it 's every where Condemned by God and Man tho the Christians in those times might perhaps neither have Power nor think it prudent to quarrel with those Emperours that were but just then beginning to see the Dawn of the Gospel Light which utterly Condemns all such things Nor can our Author make it appear but they reprov'd them as well as one of our Bishops did Henry VIII and yet the Protestants did not think fit neither to quarrel with his own Title to the Crown nor those of his Successors tho perhaps there might have been good Reason to Question Queen Marys Legittimacy and yet our Author knows that the Church of England neither approves of Concubinage Incest nor Adultery So false and inconcludent is his Argument Besides our Author Conceals that Constantius Chlorus was no declared Christian tho a Great Favourer of 'em and that he was forc'd to abandon Helena and Marry Theodora Step Daughter to the Emperor Maximianus Hercules who thereupon made him Caesar Nor does he take any notice of Constantine the Greats being Married very young to Minervina when it is not certain that he made profession of the Christian Religion nor yet when he Married Fausta Daughter to the Emperour Maximian one of the Greatest haters of the Christians that ever was Neither does he take notice of the Plague that this wretch'd Woman Fausta was to him for being enamoured on his Son Crispus by Minervina and not obtaining her end she accus'd him of a design to Debauch her for which his Father put him to Death but understanding the Falsehood of the Accusation afterwards he put her to Death too so disastrous were the effects of his Poligamy As to Valentinian the Emperor he was passionate in anger even to Madness and probably as Extravagant in his Amours the Story is very well known that his passion to see the Empire Insulted by such an ugly deform'd Barbarous People as the Quadi made him fall into such a fit of anger as that it kill'd him so that he is no very commendable Pattern to be followed Neither does Mr. Butler take any notice that God did not bless the Marriage of Valentinian with Justina his Wifes Maid for she became a Cursed Arrian and his Grandson Valentinian by Galla her Daughter became a cruel Persecutor of the Orthodox Valentinian did also make a Law in Imitation of his own Practice as Mr. Butler Writes in Defence of his that any Man might Marry two Wives but succeeding Emperors would not allow it the Honour of being put into the Code Nor do I believe the Universities will Honour Mr. Butlers Pamphlet with a place in any of their Libraries As to his false pretence of Concubinage or Poligamies being allowed by the Primitive Church it is so gross it needs no Confutation Any Man that has read the Apologies of Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen against Celsus or any thing of Ecclesiastical History will find the contrary and for such as cannot have the opportunity of perusing those Authors themselves I refer them to the Account of what they said on that Head given by the Author of Gods Judgments against Whoring at the End of that Book Our Authors last effort is p. 34. Where he proposes a Reformed Concubinage to these Realms for preventing the Ruine of Royal Noble and Generous Families and as an honest help to destroy those foul and crying Sins of Whoredom and Adultery which Ruine Kingdoms as well as Families His Arguments to back this Proposal are that had it not been for Concubinage King Solomon had utterly fail'd of that Royal Raco whence Jesus Christ Lineally descended That if Alexander the Scot had used a Concubin an Heir of his Body might have prevented those dreadful Wars betwixt Bruce and Baliol for that Crown That if Richard the II. had been allowed an Heir by a Concubine the War betwixt the Houses of Lancaster and York had been prevented which at last was not ended but by a Son sprung from a Bed of Concubinage He concludes thus Happy was that Concubinage of Robert the II. of Scotland which advised to by a Parliament of that Nation gave Birth to that Family of the Stuarts which have made both England and Scotland exceeding happy and being grafted into the Family of the Welch Teudors of the Royal Blood of England another Family sprang from a Bed of Concubinage are to this day reigning over both Kingdoms Which if so let no Man by Corrupt and Vnlawful Customs go about to stain the Legitimacy of such a Race of Princes as both England and Scotland have Reason to remember with Praise and Thanksgiving to God especially for Charles the I. of Blessed and Never-dying Memory the Gracious Gift of God for whose blessed sake Good Things may justly be expected in time both unto his Royal Race and these his Kingdoms And thus much may serve in Vindication of this Respondent for Bedding with Mary Tomkins Our Author here as every where else hath discover'd himself to be a Physitian of no Value for if they may be call'd so who prescribe a Remedy worse than the Disease then certainly he deserves that Title Suffering is always preferable to Sin and it 's better that Ten Thousand Families should be Extinguish'd than that any one Man should run the risk of his Soul to keep them up Mr. Butler's Passion for Concubinage doth so effectually blind him that he can't see an Inch b●fore his Nose for had he but look'd into that very Instance of Robert Stuart's Concubinage he might havd seen what Buchanan the Scotch Historian says concerning it viz. Quae res postea tam numerosam familiam prope Extinxit i. e. Which Affair had well-nigh extinguish'd