THE SPECIAL DUTIES OF WIVES TO HUSBANDS.
THE wife that expecteth comfort in a husband, must make conscience of
all her own duty to her husband: for though it be his duty to be kind
and faithful to her, though she prove unkind and froward, yet, 1. Men
are frail, and apt to fail in such difficult duties as well as women.
2. And it is so ordered by God, that comfort and duty shall go
together, and you shall miss of comfort, if you cast off duty.
_Direct._ I. Be specially loving to your husbands: your natures
give you the advantage in this; and love feedeth love. This is your
special requital for all the troubles that your infirmities put them
to.
_Direct._ II. Live in a voluntary subjection and obedience to
them. If their softness or yieldingness cause them to relinquish their
authority; and for peace they are fain to let you have your wills; yet
remember that it is God that hath appointed them to be your heads and
governors. If they are so silly as to be unable, you should not have
chosen such to rule you as are unfit; but having chosen them, you must
assist them with your better understanding, in a submissive, and not a
ruling, masterly way. A servant that hath a foolish master, may help
him without becoming master. And do not deceive yourselves by giving
the bare titles of government to your husbands, when you must needs in
all things have your own wills; for this is but mockery, and not
obedience. To be subject and obedient, is to take the understanding
and will of another to govern you, before (though not without) your
own; and to make your understandings and wills to follow the conduct
of his that governeth you. Self-willedness is contrary to subjection
and obedience.
_Direct._ III. Learn of your husbands as your appointed teachers,
and be not self-conceited and wise in your own eyes, but ask of them
such instructions as your case requireth. 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, "Let
your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted to
them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also
saith the law: and if they will learn any thing, let them ask their
husbands at home." (Unless when the husband is so ignorant as to be
utterly unable: which is his sin and shame. For it is vain to ask that
of them which they know not.)
_Direct._ IV. Set yourselves seriously to amend all those faults
which they reprove in you. Do not take it ill to be reproved: swell
not against it, as if they did you harm or wrong: it is a very ill
sign to "hate reproof," Prov. xii. 1; x. 17; xv. 10, 31, 32; xvii. 10.
And what doth their government of you signify, if you will not amend
the faults that are reproved in you, but continue impenitent and
grudge at the reproof? It is a miserable folly to desire to be
flattered and soothed by any, but especially by one that is bound to
be faithful to you, and whose intimacy should make you as ready to
hear of your faults from him, as to be acquainted with them
yourselves; and especially when it concerneth the safety or benefit of
your souls.
_Direct._ V. Honour your husbands according to their superiority.
Behave not yourselves towards them with unreverence and contempt, in
titles, speeches, or any behaviour: if the worth of their persons
deserve not honour, yet their place deserveth it. Speak not of their
infirmities to others behind their backs; as some twattling gossips
use to do, that know not that their husbands' dishonour is their own,
and that to open it causelessly to others, is their double shame.
Those that silently hear you, will tell others behind your back, how
foolishly and shamefully you spake to them against your husbands. If
God have made your nearest friend an affliction to you, why should you
complain to one that is farther off? (Unless it be to some special,
prudent friend, in case of true necessity, for advice.)
_Direct._ VI. Live in a cheerful contentedness with your
condition; and take heed of an impatient, murmuring spirit. It is a
continual burden to a man to have an impatient, discontented wife.
Many a poor man can easily bear his poverty himself, that yet is not
able to bear his wife's impatience under it. To hear her night and day
complaining, and speaking distrustfully, and see her live
disquietedly, is far heavier than his poverty itself. If his wife
could bear it as patiently as he, it would be but light to him. Yea,
in case of suffering for righteousness' sake, the impatience of a wife
is a greater trial to a man than all the suffering itself; and many a
man that could easily have suffered the loss of his estate, or
banishment, or imprisonment for Christ, hath betrayed his conscience,
and yielded to sin, because his wife hath grieved him with impatiency,
and could not bear what he could bear. Whereas a contented, cheerful
wife doth help to make a man cheerful and contented in every state.
_Direct._ VII. In a special manner strive to subdue your
passions, and to speak and do all in meekness and sobriety. The rather
because that the weakness of your sex doth usually subject you more to
passions than men; and it is the common cause of the husband's
disquietness, and the calamity of your relation. It is the vexation
and sickness of your own minds; you find not yourselves at ease within
as long as you are passionate. And then it is the grief and
disquietness of your husbands: and being provoked by you, they provoke
you more; and so your disquietness increaseth, and your lives are made
a weary burden to you. By all means therefore keep down passion, and
keep a composed, patient mind.
_Direct._ VIII. Take heed of a proud and contentious disposition;
and maintain a humble, peaceable temper. Pride will make you turbulent
and unquiet with your husbands, and contentious with your neighbours:
it will make you foolish and ridiculous, in striving for honour and
precedency, and envying those that exceed you, or go before you. In a
word, it is the devil's sin, and would make you a shame and trouble to
the world. But humility is the health, the peace, and the ornament of
the soul. 1 Pet. iii. 4, "A meek and quiet spirit is in the sight of
God of great price." (Write those words in your bedchamber on the
walls where they may be daily before your eyes.) Col. iii. 12, "Put on
as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercy, kindness,
humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one another,
and forgiving one another." If this be the duty of all to one another;
much more of wives to husbands. 1 Pet. v. 5, "Yea, all of you be
subject one to another, and be clothed with humility; for God
resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." Proud women oft
ruin their husbands' estates, and quietness, and their own souls.
_Direct._ IX. Affect not a childish gaudiness of apparel, nor a
vain, or costly, or troublesome curiosity in any thing about you.
Uncleanness and nastiness is a fault, but very small in comparison of
this pride and curiosity. It dishonoureth your sex and selves to be so
childish, as to over-mind such toyish things. If you will needs be
proud, be proud of somewhat that is of worth and proper to a man: to
be proud of reason, or wisdom, or learning, or goodness, is bad
enough; but this is to be proud of something. But to be proud of
fashions and fine clothes, of spots and nakedness, of sumptuous
entertainments and neat rooms, is to be proud of your shame, and not
your virtue; and of that which you are not so much as commendable for.
And the cost, the time (oh precious time!) which themselves and their
servants must lay out, upon their dressings, entertainments, and other
curiosities, will be the shame and sorrow of their souls, whenever God
shall open their eyes, and make them know what time was worth, and
what greater matters they had to mind. If vain and empty persons like
yourselves, commend you for your bravery or curiosity, so will not any
judicious, sober person whose commendation is much worth. And yet I
must here with grief take notice, that when some few that in other
matters seem wise and religious, are themselves a little tainted with
this childish curiosity and pride, and let fall words of disparagement
against those whose dress, and dwellings, and entertainments, are not
so curious as their own; this proves the greatest maintainer of this
sin, and the most notable service to the devil: for then abundance
will plead this for this sinful curiosity and pride, and say, I shall
else be accounted base or sordid; even such and such will speak
against me. Take heed, if you will needs be such yourselves, that you
prate not against others that are not as vain and curious as you: for
the nature of man is more prone to pride and vanity, than to humility,
and the improvement of their time and cost in greater matters; and
while you think that you speak but against indecency, you become the
devil's preachers, and do him more service than you consider of. You
may as wisely speak against people for using to eat or drink too
little, when there is not one of a multitude that liveth not
ordinarily in excess; and so excess will get advantage by it.
_Direct._ X. Be specially careful in the government of your
tongues; and let your words be few, and well considered before you
speak them. A double diligence is needful in this, because it is the
most common miscarriage of your sex: a laxative, running tongue, is so
great a dishonour to you, that I never knew a woman very full of
words, but she was the pity of her friends, and the contempt of
others; who behind her back will make a scorn of her, and talk of her
as some crack-brained or half-witted person; yea, though your talk be
good, it will be tedious and contemptible, if it be thus poured out,
and be too cheap. Prov. x. 19, "In the multitude of words there
wanteth not sin, but he that refraineth his lips is wise." You must
answer in judgment for your "idle words," Matt. xii. 36. You will take
it ill to be accounted fools, and made the derision of those that talk
of you: judge by the Scripture what occasion you give them. Eccles. v.
3, 7, "A dream cometh by the multitude of business, and a fool's voice
is known by a multitude of words: in the multitude of dreams, and many
words, there are divers vanities." Eccles. x. 12-14, "The words of a
wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up
himself. The beginnings of the words of his mouth is foolishness; and
the end of his talk is mischievous madness: a fool also is full of
words." Whereas a woman that is cautelous and sparing of her words, is
commonly reverenced and supposed to be wise. So that if you had no
higher design in it, but merely to be well thought of, and honoured by
men, you can scarcely take a surer way, than to let your words be few
and weighty; though the avoiding of sin, and unquietness, should
prevail with you much more.
_Direct._ XI. Be willing and diligent in your proper part, of the
care and labour of the family. As the primary provision of maintenance
belongeth most to the husband, so the secondary provision within doors
belongeth specially to the wife. Read over and over the thirty-first
chapter of Proverbs. Especially the care of nursing your own children,
and teaching them, and watching over them when they are young; and
also watching over the family at home, when your husbands are abroad,
is your proper work.
[Sidenote: May a wife give without the husband's consent.]
_Direct._ XII. Dispose not of your husband's estate, without his
knowledge and consent. You are not only to consider, whether the work
be good that you lay it out upon, but what power you have to do it.
_Quest._ But may a woman give nothing, nor lay out nothing in the
house, without her husband's consent? _Answ._ 1. If she have his
general or implicit consent, it may suffice; that is, if he allow her
to follow her judgment; or, if he commit such a proportion to her
power, to do what she will with it. Or, if she know that, if he knew
it, he would not be against it. 2. Or, if the law, or his consent, do
give her any propriety in any part of his estate, or make her a
joint-proprietor, she may proportionably dispose of it in a necessary
case.[24] The husband is considerable, either as a proprietor, or as
her governor. As a proprietor, he only may dispose of the estate,
where he is the sole proprietor: but where consent or the law of the
land doth make the woman joint-proprietor, she is not disabled from
giving for want of a propriety. But then no law exempteth her from his
government; and therefore she is not to give any thing in a way of
disobedience, though it be her own: except when he forbiddeth that
which is her duty, or which he hath no power to forbid. So that in
case of joint-propriety she may give without him, so be it she exceed
not her proportion; and also if it be in a case of duty, where he may
not hinder her; as to save the lives of the poor in extreme necessity,
famine, or imprisonment, or the like. 3. But if the thing be wholly
her own, excepted from his propriety, and she be sole proprietor, then
she need not ask his consent at all, any other way than as he is her
guide, to direct her to the best way of disposing of it: which, if he
forbid her instead of directing her to it, she is not thereby
excusable before God, for the abusing of her trust and talents. 4. I
conceive that _ad aliquid_ as to certain absolutely necessary
uses, the very relation maketh the woman as a joint-proprietor:[25] as
if her husband will not allow her such food and raiment as is
necessary to preserve the lives and health of herself, and all her
children; she is bound to do it without or against his will, (if she
can, and if it be not to a greater hurt, and the estate be his own,
and he be able,) rather than let her children contract such diseases,
as apparently will follow to the hazard of their lives; yea, and to
save the life of another that in famine is ready to perish: for she
is not as a stranger to his estate. But out of these cases, if a wife
shall secretly waste or give, or lay it out on bravery, or vanity, or
set her wit against her husband's; and because she thinks him too
strait or penurious, therefore she will dispose of it without his
consent; this is thievery, disobedience, and injustice.
_Quest._ I. But as the case standeth with us in England, hath the
wife a joint-propriety, or not?
_Answ._ Three ways (at least) she may have a propriety. 1. By a
reserve of what was her own before; which (however some question it)
may in some cases be done in their agreement at marriage. 2. By the
law of the land. 3. By the husband's consent or donation. What the law
of the land saith in case, I leave to the lawyers; but it seemeth to
me, that his words at marriage, "With all my worldly goods I thee
endow," do signify his consent to make her a joint-proprietor: and his
consent is sufficient to the collation of a title to that which was
his own. Unless any can prove, that law or custom doth otherwise
expound the words, (as an empty formality,) and that at the contract,
this was or should be known to her to be the sense. And the laws
allowing the wife the third part upon death or separation, doth
intimate a joint-propriety before.
_Quest._ II. If the husband live upon unlawful gain, as cheating,
stealing, robbing by the high-way, &c. is not the wife guilty as a
joint-proprietor, in retaining such ill-gotten goods, if she know it?
And is she bound to accuse her husband, or to restore such goods?
_Answ._ Her duty is first to admonish her husband of his sin and
danger, and endeavour his repentance, in the mean time disclaiming all
consent and reception of the goods. And if she cannot prevail for his
repentance, restitution, and reformation, she hath a double duty to
perform; the one is to help them to their goods whom he hath injured
and robbed (by prudent and just means); the other is to prevent his
robbing of others for the time to come. But how these must be done is
the great difficulty.
1. If she foresee (or may do) that either by her husband's displeasure,
or by the cruel revenge of the injured party, the hurt of discovering
the fraud or robbery will be greater than the good, then I think that
she is not bound to discover it. But by some secret, indirect way, to
help the owner to his own; if it may be done without a greater hurt.
2. To prevent his sin and other men's future suffering by him, she
seemeth to me to be bound to reveal her husband's sinful purposes to
the magistrate, if she can no other way prevail with him to forbear.
My reasons are, because the keeping of God's law, and the law of the
land, and the public order and good, and the preventing of our
neighbours' hurt by robbery or fraud, and so the interest of honesty
and right, is of greater importance than any duty to her husband, or
preservation of her own peace, which seemeth to be against it. But
then I must suppose that she liveth under a magistrate, who will take
but a just revenge. For if she know the laws and magistrate to be so
unjust, as to punish a fault with death, which deserveth it not, she
is not to tell such a magistrate, but to preserve her neighbours'
safety by some other way of intimation.
If any one think that a wife may in no case accuse a husband, to the
hazard of his life or estate, let them, 1. Remember what God obliged
parents to do against the lives of incorrigible children, Deut. xxi. 2.
And that the honour of God, and the lives of our neighbours, should
be preferred before the life of one offender, and their estates before
his estate alone. 3. And that the light of reason telleth us, that a
wife is to reveal a treason against the king, which is plotted by a
husband; and therefore also the robbing of the king's treasury, or
deceiving him in any matter of great concernment. And therefore in due
proportion, the laws and common good, and our neighbours' welfare, are
to be preserved by us, though against the nearest relation; only all
due tenderness of the life and reputation of the husband is to be
preserved, in the manner of proceedings, as far as will stand with the
interest of justice, and the common good.
_Quest._ III. May the wife go hear sermons when the husband
forbiddeth her?
_Answ._ There are some sermons which must not be heard; there are
some sermons which may be heard, and must, when no greater matter doth
divert us; and there are some sermons which must be heard, whoever
shall forbid it. Those which must not be heard are such as are
heretical, (ordinarily,) and such as are superfluous, and at such
times when greater duties call us another way. Those which may be
heard, are either occasional sermons, or such lectures as are neither
of necessity to ourselves, nor yet to the owning of God and his public
worship. One that liveth where there are daily or hourly sermons, may
hear them as oft as suiteth with their condition, and their other
duties; but in this case, the command of a husband, with the
inconveniences that will follow disobeying him, may make it a duty to
forbear. But that we do sometimes publicly own God's worship and
church ordinances, and receive ministerial teaching for our
edification, is of double necessity; that we deny not God, and that we
betray not, or desert not, our own souls. And this is especially
necessary (ordinarily) on the Lord's days, which are appointed for
these necessary uses. And here the husband hath no power to forbid the
wife, nor should she (formally) obey his prohibition. But yet as
affirmatives bind not _ad semper_, and no duty is a duty at every
season; so it is possible that on the Lord's day it may extraordinarily
become a duty to forbear sermons or sacraments, or other public
worship. And when any greater duty calleth us away; as to quench a
fire; and to save men's lives; and to save our country from an enemy
in the time of war; and to save our own lives, (if we knew the
assembly would be assaulted,) or to preserve our liberty for greater
service. Christ set us to learn the meaning of this lesson, I will
have mercy and not sacrifice. In such a case also a mischief may be
avoided, even from a husband, by the omission of a duty at that time,
(when it would be no duty,) for this is but a transposition of it. But
this is but an act of prudent self-preservation, and not an act of
formal obedience.
_Quest._ IV. If a woman have a husband so incorrigible in vice,
as that by long trial she findeth that speaking against it maketh him
worse, and causeth him to abuse her, is she bound to continue her
dissuasion, or to forbear?
_Answ._ That is not here a duty which is not a means to do some
good; and that is no means which we know beforehand is like, if not
certain, to do no good, or to do more harm. We must not by weariness,
laziness, or censoriousness, take a case to be desperate, which is
not; nor must we so easily desist with so near a relation, as with a
stranger or a neighbour. But yet Christ's indulgence of not exposing
ourselves to be torn by dogs, and his word trodden in the dirt by
swine, doth extend to relations as well as others. But then you must
observe that she that is justly discouraged from sharp reproofs, may
yet have hope that gentle and humble persuasions may succeed. And she
that is discouraged from open, or frequent, or plain reproofs; may yet
have hope that secret, or more seldom, or more distant and general
admonitions may not be lost. And she that is discouraged from one way
of doing him good, may yet have many other ways (as to set some
minister whom he reverenceth to speak to him; to put some suitable
book into his hand, &c.) And she that is discouraged at the present,
ought not totally to despair, but may make some more attempts
hereafter; either in some sickness, or time of mortality, or danger,
or affliction, or when possibly time and consideration may have better
prepared him to hear. And in the mean time she is to continue all
conjugal affection and duty, and a convincing, winning course of life;
which may prove the most effectual reproof.
_Quest._ V. What should a woman do in controverted cases of
religion, when her judgment and her husband's differ?
_Answ._ 1. Some make a controversy of that which with all good
christians or sober persons should be past controversy; and some
controversies are indeed of real, if not insuperable difficulty. 2.
Some controversies are about important, necessary things, and some
about things of lesser moment. 3. Some are about mere opinion, or
other men's practice, and some about our own practice.
(1.) In all differences of judgment the wife must exercise such
self-suspicion, and modesty, and submission, as may signify her due
sense, both of the weakness of her sex, and of her subjection to her
husband. (2.) In things indifferent she must in practice obey her
husband; unless when any superior powers do forbid it, and that in
cases where their authority is greater. (3.) She may modestly give her
reasons of dissent. (4.) She must not turn it to an unpeaceable
quarrel, or matter of disaffection, or pretend any differences against
her conjugal duties. (5.) In dark and difficult cases she should not
be peremptory, and self-conceited, nor importunate; but if she have
faith (that is, some more knowledge than he) have it to herself, in
quietness and silence; and seek further information lest she err. (6.)
She must speak no untruth, nor commit any known sin, in obedience to
her husband's judgment. (7.) When she strongly suspecteth it to be
sin, she must not do it merely in obedience to him, but seek for
better satisfaction. For she is sure that he hath no power to force
her to sin; and therefore hath no more assurance of his power in that
point than she hath of the lawfulness of the thing. (8.) But if she
prove to be in the error, she will sin on either side, till she
recover. (9.) If a husband be in dangerous error, she must wisely, but
unweariedly, seek his reformation, by herself or others.
_Cases about Divorce and Separation._
_Quest._ I. Is it lawful for husband and wife to be long absent
from each other? and how long, and in what cases?
_Answ._ It is lawful to be absent either in the case of prayer,
which Paul mentioneth, or in case of the needful affairs of their
estates, so long as may be no danger to either of them as to mental or
corporal incontinency, nor to any other hurt, which will be greater
than the benefits of their absence, nor cause them to be guilty of the
neglect of any real duty. Therefore the cases of several persons do
much differ according to the different tempers of their minds, and
bodies, and affairs. He that hath a wife of a chaste, contented,
prudent temper, may stay many months or years in some cases, when, all
things considered, it tendeth to more good than hurt: as lawyers by
their callings are often necessitated to follow their callings at
terms and assizes; and merchants may he some years absent in some
weighty cases. But if you ask, whether the getting of money be a
sufficient cause? I answer, that it is sufficient to those whose
families must be so maintained, and their wives are easily continent,
and so the good of their gain is greater than any loss or danger that
cometh by it. But when covetousness puts them upon it needlessly, and
their wives cannot bear it, or in any case when the hurt that is like
to follow is greater than the good, it is unlawful.
_Quest._ II. May husband and wife be separated by the bare
command of princes, if they make a law that in certain cases they
shall part: as suppose it to ministers, judges, or soldiers?
_Answ._ You must distinguish between the bare command or law, and
the reasons and ends of that command: and so between a lawful command
and an unlawful. In some cases a prince may justly command a
separation for a time, or such as is like to prove for perpetuity, and
in some cases he may not. If a king command a separation without
sufficient cause, so that you have no motive but his authority, and
the question is, whether formally you are bound to obedience: I
answer, No; because what God hath joined no man hath power to put
asunder. Nor can either prince, pope, or prelate dispense with your
marriage covenant. In such a case it is as a private act, because God
hath given them no authority for it; and therefore their commands or
laws are nullities: only if a prince say, he that will be a judge or a
justice shall part with his wife, it is lawful to leave the office,
and so obey the law. But if he say to all ministers of the gospel, you
shall forsake your wives or your ministry, they should do neither,
because they are divinely obliged to both, and he hath no power to
forbid them, or to dispense with that obligation.
But it may fall out, that the ends of the command may be so great as
to make it lawful, and then it must be obeyed both formally for the
authority of the prince, and finally for the reasons of the thing. As
if the safety of the commonwealth should require, that married persons
be soldiers, and that they go far off; yea, though there be no
likelihood of returning to their families, and withal they cannot take
their wives with them, without detriment or danger to their service;
in this case men must obey the magistrate, and are called by God to
forsake their wives, as if it were by death. Nor is it any violation
of their marriage covenant, because that was intended or meant to
suppose the exception of any such call of God, which cannot be
resisted when it will make a separation.
_Quest._ III. May ministers leave their wives to go abroad to
preach the gospel?
_Answ._ If they can neither do God's work as well at home, nor
yet take their wives with them, nor be excused from doing that part of
service, by other men's doing it who have no such impediment; they may
and must leave their wives to do it. In this case, the interest of the
church, and of the souls of many, must overrule the interest of wife
and family. Those pastors who have fixed stations, must neither leave
flock nor family without necessity, or a clear call from God. But in
several cases a preacher may be necessitated to go abroad; as in case
of persecution at home, or of some necessity of foreign or remote
parts, which cannot be otherwise supplied; or when some door is opened
for the conversion of infidels, heretics, or idolaters, and none else
so fit to do that work, or none that will. In any such case, when the
cause of God in any part of the world _consideratis considerandis_
doth require his help, a minister must leave wife and family, yea,
and a particular flock, to do it. For our obligations are greatest to
the catholic church, and public good; and the greatest good must be
preferred. If a king command a subject to be an ambassador in the
remotest part of the world, and the public good withal requireth it,
if wife and children cannot be taken with him, they must be left
behind, and he must go. So must a consecrated minister of Christ for
the service of the church refuse all entanglements, which would more
hinder his work than the contrary benefits will countervail. And this
exception also was supposed in the marriage contract, that family
interests and comforts must give way to the public interest, and to
God's disposals.
And therefore it is, that ministers should not rashly venture upon
marriage, nor any woman that is wise venture to marry a minister, till
she is first well prepared for such accidents as may separate them for
a shorter or a longer time.
_Quest._ IV. May one leave a wife to save his life, in case of
personal persecution or danger?
_Answ._ Yes, if she cannot be taken with him; for the means which
are for the helps of life, do suppose the preservation of life itself:
if he live, he may further serve God, and possibly return to his wife
and family; but if he die, he is removed from them all.
_Quest._ V. May husband and wife part by mutual consent, if they
find it be for the good of both?
_Answ._ If you speak not of dissolving the bond of their
relations, but withdrawing as to cohabitation, I answer, 1. It is not
to be done upon passions and discontents, to feed and gratify each
other's vicious distempers or interest; for then both the consent and
the separation are their sins: but if really such an uncurable
unsuitableness be between them, as that their lives must needs be
miserable by their cohabitation, I know not but they may live asunder;
so be it, that (after all other means used in vain) they do it by
deliberate, free consent. But if one of them should by craft or
cruelty constrain the other to consent, it is unlawful to the
constrainer. Nor must impatience make either of them ungroundedly
despair of the cure of any unsuitableness which is really curable. But
many sad instances might be given, in which cohabitation may be a
constant calamity to both, and distance may be their relief, and
further them both in God's service, and in their corporal concernments.
Yet I say not that this is no sin; for their unsuitableness is their
sin: and God still obligeth them to lay down that sin which maketh
them unsuitable; and therefore doth not allow them to live asunder, it
being still their duty to live together in love and peace: and saying
they cannot, freeth them not from the duty. But yet that moral
impotency may make such a separation as aforesaid, to be a lesser sin
than their unpeaceable cohabitation.
_Quest._ VI. May not the relation itself be dissolved by mutual,
free consent, so that they may marry others?
_Answ._ As to the relation, they will still be related as those
that did covenant to live in conjugal society, and are still allowed
it and obliged to it, if the impediments were but removed; and it is
but the exercise which is hindered. And they may not consent to marry
others: 1. Because the contracted relation was for life, Rom. vii. 2,
and God's law accordingly obligeth them. Marriages _pro tempore_,
dissoluble by consent, are not of God's institution, but contrary to
it. 2. They know not but their impediments of cohabitation may be
removed. 3. If he that marrieth an innocent divorced woman commit
adultery, by parity of reason (with advantage) it will be so here. If
you say, what if either of them cannot contain? I answer, he that
will not take heed before, must be patient afterwards, and not make
advantage of his own folly, to the fulfilling of his lusts. If he will
do what he ought to do in the use of all means, he may live chastely.
And, 4. The public interest must overrule the private, and that which
would be unjust in private respects, may for public good become a
duty: it seemeth unjust here with us, that the innocent country should
repay every man his money, who between sun and sun is robbed on the
road; and yet because it will engage the country to watchfulness, it
is just, as for the common good: and he that consenteth to be a member
of a commonwealth, doth thereby consent to submit his own right to the
common interest. So here, if all should have leave to marry others
when they consent to part, it would bring utter confusion, and it
would encourage wicked men to abuse their wives, till they forced them
to consent. Therefore some must bear the trouble which their folly
hath brought on themselves, rather than the common order should be
confounded.
_Quest._ VII. Doth adultery dissolve the bond of marriage, or
not? Amesius saith it doth: Mr. Whateley having said so, afterward
recanted it by the persuasion of other divines.
_Answ._ The difference is only about the name, and not about the
matter itself. The reason which moved Dr. Ames is, because the injured
person is free; therefore not bound: therefore the bond is dissolved.
The reason which Mr. Whateley could not answer is, because it is not
fornication, but lawful, if they continue their conjugal familiarity
after adultery: therefore that bond is not dissolved. In all which it
is easy to perceive, that one of them taketh the word _vinculum_
or bond in one sense, that is, "for their covenant obligation to
continue their relation and mutual duties." And the other taketh it in
another sense, that is, "for the relation itself as by it they are
allowed conjugal familiarity, if the injured person will continue it."
The first _vinculum_ or bond is dissolved, the second is not. In
the matter we are agreed, that the injured man may put away an
adulterous wife (in a regular way) if he please; but withal that he
may continue the relation if he please. So that his continued consent
shall suffice to continue it a lawful relation and exercise; and his
will, on the contrary, shall suffice to dissolve the relation, and
disoblige him. (Saving the public order.)
_Quest._ VIII. But is not the injured party at all obliged to
separate, but left free?
_Answ._ Considering the thing simply in itself, he is wholly free
to do as he please. But for all that accidents or circumstances may
make it one man's duty to divorce, and another's duty to continue the
relation; according as it is like to do more good or hurt. Sometimes
it may be a duty to expose the sin to public shame, for the prevention
of it in others; and also to deliver oneself from a calamity. And
sometimes there may be so great repentance, and hope of better effects
by forgiving, that it may be a duty to forgive: and prudence must lay
one thing with another, to discern on which side the duty lieth.
_Quest._ IX. Is it only the privilege of the man, that he may put
away an adulterous wife? or also of the woman, to depart from an
adulterous husband? The reason of the doubt is, because Christ
mentioneth the man's power only, Matt. v. and xix.
_Answ._ 1. The reason why Christ speaketh only of the man's case
is, because he was occasioned only to restrain the vicious custom of
men's causeless putting away their wives; having no occasion to
restrain women from leaving their husbands. Men having the rule did
abuse it to the woman's injury; which Christ forbiddeth. And as it is
an act of power, it concerneth the man alone; but as it is an act of
liberty, it seemeth to me to be supposed, that the woman hath the same
freedom; seeing the covenant is violated to her wrong. And the apostle
in 1 Cor. vii. doth make the case of the man and of the woman to be
equal in the point of infidelity and desertion. I confess that it is
unsafe extending the sense of Scripture beyond the importance of the
words upon pretence of a parity of reason (as many of the perjured do
by Lev. xxx. in case of vows); lest man's deceitful wit should make a
law to itself as divine, upon pretence of interpreting God's laws: but
yet when the plain text doth speak but of one case, (that is, of men's
putting away their wives,) he that will thence gather an exclusion of
the woman's liberty, doth seem by addition to be the corrupter of the
law. And where the context plainly showeth a parity of reason, and
that reason is made the ground of the determination in the text, there
it is safe to expound the law extensively accordingly. Surely the
covenant of marriage hath its conditions on both parts: and some of
those conditions are necessary to the very being of the obligations,
though others are but needful to the well-being of the parties in that
state. And therefore though putting away be only the part of the
husband, as being the ruler, and usually the owner of the habitation,
yet departing may be the liberty of the wife. And I know no reason to
blame those countries, whose laws allow the wife to sue out a divorce,
as well as the husband.
_Quest._ X. May the husband put away the wife without the
magistrate, or the wife depart from the husband, without a public
legal divorce or license?
_Answ._ Where the laws of the land do take care for the prevention of
injuries, and make any determination in the case, (not contrary to the
law of God,) there it is a christian's duty to obey those laws:
therefore if you live under a law which forbiddeth any putting away or
departing, without public sentence or allowance, you may not do it
privately upon your own will. For the civil governors are to provide
against the private injuries of any of the subjects. And if persons
might put away or depart at pleasure, it would introduce both injury
and much weakness into the world. But where the laws of men do leave
persons to their liberty in this case, they need then to look no
further than to the laws of God alone. But usually the sentence of the
civil power is necessary only in case of appeal, or complaint of the
party injured; and a separation may be made without such a public
divorce, so that each party may make use of the magistrate to right
themselves if wronged. As, if the adultery be not openly known, and
the injuring party desire rather to be put away privily than publicly,
(as Joseph purposed to do by Mary,) I see not but it is lawful so to
do, in case that the law, or the necessity of making the offender an
example, require not the contrary, nor scandal or other accidents
forbid it not. See Grotius's learned notes on Matt. v. 31, 32, and on
Matt. xix. and 1 Cor. vii. about these questions.
_Quest._ XI. Is not the case of sodomy or buggery a ground for
warrantable divorce as well as adultery?
_Answ._ Yes, and seemeth to be included in the very word itself
in the text, Matt. v. 31, 32, which signifieth uncleanness; or at
least is fully implied in the reason of it. See Grotius ibid. also of
this.
_Quest._ XII. What if both parties commit adultery? may either of
them put away the other, or depart; or rather must they forgive each
other?
_Answ._ If they do it both at once, they do both forfeit the
liberty of seeking any compensation for the injury; because the injury
is equal (however some would give the advantage to the man): but if
one commit adultery first, and the other after; then either the last
offender knew of the first, or not. If not, then it seemeth all one as
if it had been done at once. But if yea, then they did it either on a
supposition of the dissolution of the matrimonial obligation, as being
loosed from the first adulterer, or else upon a purpose of continuing
in the first relation: in the latter case, it is still all one as if
it had been done by them at once, and it is a forfeiture of any
satisfaction: but in the former case, though the last adulterer did
sin, yet being before set at liberty, it doth not renew the
matrimonial obligation: but yet, if the first offender desire the
continuance of it, and the return of the first injured party; shame
and conscience of their own sin, will much rebuke them, if they plead
that injury for continuance of the separation.
_Quest._ XIII. But what if one do purposely commit adultery, to
be separated from the other?
_Answ._ It is in the other's power and choice, whether to be
divorced and depart, or not, as they find the good or evil consequents
preponderate.
_Quest._ XIV. Doth not infidelity dissolve the relation or
obligation; seeing there is no communion between light and darkness, a
believer and an infidel?
_Answ._ It maketh it unlawful for a believer to marry an infidel
(except in case of true necessity); because they can have no communion
in religion. But it nullifieth not a marriage already made, nor maketh
it lawful to depart or divorce; because they may have mere conjugal
communion still. As the apostle purposely determineth the case, in
1 Cor. vii.
_Quest._ XV. Doth not the desertion of one party disoblige the
other?
_Answ._ 1. It must be considered what is true desertion. 2.
Whether it be a desertion of the relation itself for continuance, or
only a temporary desertion of cohabitation, or congress. 3. What the
temper and state of the deserted party is. 1. It is sometimes easy,
and sometimes hard to discern which is the deserting party. If the
wife go away from the husband unwarrantably, though she require him to
follow her, and say that she doth not desert him, yet it may be taken
for a desertion, because it is the man who is to rule and choose the
habitation. But if the man go away, and the woman refuse to follow
him, it is not he that is therefore the deserter.
_Quest._ But what if the man have not sufficient cause to go
away, and the woman hath great and urgent reasons not to go? As
suppose that the man will go away in hatred of an able preacher, and
good company, and the woman if she follow him, must leave all those
helps, and go among ignorant, profane, heretical persons, or infidels;
which is the deserter then?
_Answ._ If she be one that is either like to do good to the
infidels, heretics, or bad persons whom they must converse with, she
may suppose that God calleth her to receive good by doing good; or if
she be a confirmed, well-settled christian, and not very like, either
by infection, or by want of helps, to be unsettled and miscarry, it
seemeth to me the safest way to follow her husband. She must lose
indeed God's public ordinances by following him: but it is not
imputable to her, as being out of her choice; and she must lose the
benefits and neglect the duties of the conjugal ordinance, if she do
not follow him. But if she be a person under such weaknesses, as make
her removal apparently dangerous as to her perseverance and salvation,
and her husband will by no means be prevailed with to change his mind,
the case then is very difficult, what is her duty, and who is the
deserter. Nay, if he did but lead her into a country where her life
were like to be taken away, (as under the Spanish Inquisition,) unless
her suffering were like to be as serviceable to Christ as her life.
Indeed these cases are so difficult, that I will not decide them; the
inconveniencies (or mischiefs rather) are great which way soever she
take: but I most incline to judge as followeth: viz. It is
considerable first, what marriage obligeth her to, simply of its own
nature; and what it may do next, by any superadded contract, or by the
law or custom of the land, or any other accident. As to the first, it
seemeth to me, that every one's obligation is so much first to God,
and then to their own souls and lives; that marriage as such, which is
for mutual help, as a means to higher ends, doth not oblige her to
forsake all the communion of saints, and the place or country where
God is lawfully worshipped, and to lose all the helps of public
worship, and to expose her soul both to spiritual famine and
infection, to the apparent hazard of her salvation (and perhaps bring
her children into the same misery); nor hath God given her husband any
power to do her so much wrong, nor is the marriage covenant to be
interpreted to intend it. But what any human law or contract, or other
accident which is of greater public consequence, may do more than
marriage of itself, is a distinct case which must have a particular
discussion.
_Quest._ But what if the husband would only have her follow him,
to the forsaking of her estate, and undoing herself and children in
the world (as in the case of Galeacius Carracciolus, Marquis of
Vicum); yea, and if it were without just cause?
_Answ._ If it be for greater spiritual gain, (as in his case,)
she is bound to follow him; but if it be apparently foolish, to the
undoing of her and her children without any cause, I see not that
marriage simply obligeth a woman so to follow a fool in beggary, or
out of a calling, or to her ruin. But if it be at all a controvertible
case, whether the cause be just or not, then the husband being
governor must be judge. The laws of the land are supposed to be just,
which allow a woman by trustees to secure some part of her former
estate from her husband's disposal; much more may she beforehand
secure herself and children from being ruined by his wilful folly: but
she can by no contract except herself from his true government.
Yet still she must consider, whether she can live continently in his
absence; otherwise the greatest sufferings must be endured, to avoid
incontinency.
2. Moreover, in all these cases, a temporary removal may be further
followed, than a perpetual transmigration, because it hath fewer evil
consequents.
And if either party renounce the relation itself, it is a fuller
desertion, and clearer discharge of the other party, than a mere
removal is.
_Quest._ XVI. What if a man or wife know that the other in hatred
doth really intend by poison, or other murder, to take away their
life? May they not depart?
_Answ._ They may not do it upon a groundless or rash surmise; nor
upon a danger which by other lawful means may be avoided (as by
vigilancy, or the magistrate, or especially by love and duty). But in
plain danger, which is not otherwise like to be avoided, I doubt not,
but it may be done, and ought. For it is a duty to preserve our own
lives as well as our neighbours'. And when marriage is contracted for
mutual help, it is naturally implied, that they shall have no power to
deprive one another of life (however some barbarous nations have given
men power of the lives of their wives). And killing is the grossest
kind of desertion, and a greater injury and violation of the marriage
covenant than adultery; and may be prevented by avoiding the
murderer's presence, if that way be necessary. None of the ends of
marriage can be attained, where the hatred is so great.
_Quest._ XVII. If there be but a fixed hatred of each other, is
it inconsistent with the ends of marriage? And is parting lawful in
such a case?
_Answ._ The injuring party is bound to love, and not to separate;
and can have no liberty by his or her sin. And to say, I cannot love,
or my wife or husband is not amiable, is no sufficient excuse; because
every person hath somewhat that is amiable, if it be but human nature;
and that should have been foreseen before your choice. And as it is no
excuse to a drunkard to say, I cannot leave my drink; so it is none to
an adulterer, or hater of another, to say, I cannot love them: for
that is but to say, I am so wicked that my heart or will is against my
duty. But the innocent party's case is harder (though commonly both
parties are faulty, and therefore both are obliged to return to love,
and not to separate). But if hatred proceed not to adultery, or
murder, or intolerable injuries, you must remember that marriage is
not a contract for years, but for life, and that it is possible that
hatred may be cured (how unlikely soever it may be). And therefore you
must do your duty, and wait, and pray, and strive by love and goodness
to recover love, and then stay to see what God will do; for mistakes
in your choice will not warrant a separation.
_Quest._ XVIII. What if a woman have a husband that will not
suffer her to read the Scriptures, nor go to God's worship public or
private, or that so beateth or abuseth her, as that it cannot be
expected that human nature should be in such a case kept fit for any
holy action; or if a man have a wife that will scold at him when he is
praying or instructing his family, and make it impossible to him to
serve God with freedom, or peace and comfort.
_Answ._ The woman must (at necessary seasons, though not when she
would) both read the Scriptures, and worship God, and suffer patiently
what is inflicted on her. Martyrdom may be as comfortably suffered
from a husband, as from a prince. But yet if neither her own love, and
duty, and patience, nor friends' persuasion, nor the magistrate's
justice, can free her from such inhuman cruelty, as quite disableth
her for her duty to God and man, I see not but she may depart from
such a tyrant. But the man hath more means to restrain his wife from
beating him, or doing such intolerable things; either by the
magistrate, or by denying her what else she might have, or by his own
violent restraining her, as belongeth to a conjugal ruler, and as
circumstances shall direct a prudent man. But yet in case that
unsuitableness or sin be so great, that after long trial there is no
likelihood of any other cohabitation, but what will tend to their
spiritual hurt and calamity, it is their lesser sin to live asunder by
mutual consent.
_Quest._ XIX. May one part from a husband or wife that hath the
leprosy, or that hath the French pox by their adulterous practices,
when the innocent person's life is endangered by it?
_Answ._ If it be an innocent person's disease, the other must
cohabit, and tenderly cherish and comfort the diseased; yea, so as
somewhat to hazard their own lives; but not so as apparently to cast
them away, upon a danger not like to be avoided, unless the other's
life or some greater good be like to be purchased by it.
But if it be the pox of an adulterer, the innocent party is at liberty
by the other's adultery; and the saving of their own lives, doth add
thereto. But without adultery, the disease alone will not excuse them
from cohabitation, though it may from congress.
_Quest._ XX. Who be they that may or may not marry again when
they are parted?
_Answ._ 1. They that are released by divorce upon the others'
adultery, sodomy, &c. may marry again. 2. The case of all the rest is
harder. They that part by consent, to avoid mutual hurt, may not marry
again; nor the party that departeth for self-preservation, or for the
preservation of estate, or children, or comforts, or for liberty of
worship, as aforesaid; because it is but an intermission of conjugal
fruition, and not a total dissolution of the relation; and the
innocent party must wait to see whether there be any hope of a return.
Yea, Christ seemeth to resolve it, Matt. v. 31, 32, that he is an
adulterer that marrieth the innocent party that is put away; because
the other living in adultery, their first contracted relation seemeth
to be still in being. But Grotius and some others think, that Christ
meaneth this only of the man that over-hastily marrieth the innocent
divorced woman, before it be seen whether he will repent and reassume
her; but how can that hold, if the husband after adultery free her?
May it not therefore be meant, that the woman must stay unmarried in
hope of his reconciliation, till such time as his adultery with his
next married wife doth disoblige her. But then it must be taken as a
law for christians; for the Jew that might have many wives,
disobligeth not one by taking another.
A short desertion must be endured in hope; but in case of a very long,
or total desertion or rejection, if the injured party should have an
untamable lust, the case is difficult. I think there are few but by
just means may abstain. But if there be any that cannot, (after all
means,) without such trouble as overthroweth their peace, and plainly
hazardeth their continence, I dare not say that marriage in that case
is unlawful to the innocent.
_Quest._ I. Is it lawful to suffer or tolerate, yea, or contribute to
the matter of known sin in a family, ordinarily, in wife, child, or
servant; and consequently in any other relations?
_Answ._ In this some lukewarm men are apt to run into the extreme
of remissness; and some unexperienced young men, that never had
families, into the extreme of censorious rigour, as not knowing what
they talk of.
1. It is not lawful either in family, commonwealth, church, or any
where, to allow of sin, nor to tolerate it, or leave it uncured, when
it is truly in our power to cure it. 2. So that all the question is,
when it is or is not in our power? Concerning which, I shall answer by
some instances.
I. It is not in our power to do that which we are naturally unable to
do. No law of God bindeth us to impossibilities. And natural impotency
here is found in these several cases. 1. When we are overmatched in
strength; when wife, children, or servants are too strong for the
master of the house, so that he cannot correct them, nor remove them.
A king is not bound to punish rebellious or offending subjects, when
they are too strong for him, and he is unable, either by their numbers
or other advantages. If a pastor censure an offender, and all the
church be against the censure, he cannot procure it executed, but must
acquiesce in having done his part, and leave their guilt upon
themselves.
2. When the thing to be done is an impossibility, at least moral. As
to hinder all the persons of a family, church, or kingdom from ever
sinning: it is not in their own power so far to reform themselves;
much less in a ruler so far to reform them: even as to ourselves,
perfection is but desired in this life, but not attained; much less
for others.
3. When the principal causes co-operate not with us, and we are but
subservient moral causes; we can but persuade men to repent, believe,
and love God and goodness. We cannot save men without and against
themselves. Their hearts are out of our reach; therefore in all these
cases we are naturally unable to hinder sin.
II. It is not in our power to do any thing which God forbiddeth us.
That which is sinful is to be accounted out of our power in this
sense. To cure the sin of a wife, by such cruelty or harshness as is
contrary to our conjugal relation and to the office of necessary love,
is out of our power, because forbidden, as contrary to our duty; and
so of other.
III. Those actions are out of our power, which are acts of higher
authority than we have. A subject cannot reform by such actions as are
proper to the sovereign, nor a layman by actions proper to the pastor,
for want of authority. So a schoolmaster cannot do that which is
proper to a patient; nor the master of a family that which is proper
to the magistrate (as to punish with death, &c.)
IV. We have not power to do that which a superior power forbiddeth us
(unless it be that which God indispensably commandeth us). The wife
may not correct a child or servant, or turn him away, when the husband
forbiddeth it. Nor the master of a family so punish a sin, as the king
and laws forbid on the account of the public interest.
V. We have not power to do that for the cure of sin, which is like to
do more hurt than good; yea, perhaps, to prove a pernicious mischief.
If my correcting a servant would make him kill me, or set my house on
fire, I may not do it. If my sharp reproof is like to do more hurt, or
less good, than milder dealing, if I have reason to believe that
correction will make a servant worse, I am not to use it; because we
have our power to edification, and not to destruction. God hath not
tied us just to speak such and such words, or to use this or that
correction, but to use reproofs and corrections only in that time,
measure, and manner as true reason telleth us is likest to attain
their end. To do it, if it would do never so much hurt, with a _fiat
justitia etsi peruit mundus_, is to be righteous over-much.
Yea, great and heinous sins may be endured in families sometimes, to
avoid a greater hurt, and because there is no other means to cure
them. For instance, a wife maybe guilty of notorious pride, and of
malignant deriding the exercises of religion, and of railing, lying,
slandering, backbiting, covetousness, swearing, cursing, &c. and the
husband be necessitated to bear it; not so far as not to reprove it,
but so far as not to correct her, much less cure her. Divines use to
say, that it is unlawful for a man to beat his wife: but the reason is
not, that he wanteth authority to do it; but, 1. Because he is by his
relation obliged to a life of love with her; and therefore must so
rule, as tendeth not to destroy love: and, 2. Because it may often do
otherwise more hurt to herself and the family, than good. It may make
her furious and desperate, and make her contemptible in the family,
and diminish the reverence of inferiors, both to wife and husband, for
living so uncomely a life.
_Quest._ But is there any case in which a man may silently bear
the sins of a wife, or other inferior, without reproof, or urging them
to amend?
_Answ._ Yes: in case, 1. That reproof hath been tried to the
utmost: 2. And it is most evident by full experience, that it is like
to do a great deal more hurt than good.
The rule given by Christ, extendeth as well to families, as to others;
not to cast pearls before swine, nor to give that which is holy to
dogs; because it is more to the discomposure of a man's own peace, to
have a wife turn again, and all to rend him, than a stranger. As the
church may cease admonishing a sinner, after a certain time of
obstinacy, when experience hath ended their present hopes of bringing
the person to repentance, and thereupon may excommunicate him; so a
husband may be brought to the same despair with a wife, and may be
disobliged from ordinary reproof, though the nearness of the relation
forbid him to eject her. And in such a case where the family and
neighbourhood know the intractableness and obstinacy of the wife, it
is no scandal, nor sign of approbation, or neglect of duty, for a man
to be silent at her sin; because they look upon her as at present
incorrigible by that means: and it is the sharpest reproof to such a
one, to be unreproved, and to be let alone in her sin; as it is God's
greatest judgment on a sinner, to leave him to himself, and say, Be
filthy still.
And there are some women whose fantasies and passions are naturally so
strong, as that it seemeth to me that in many cases they have not so
much as natural free will or power to restrain them; but if in all
other cases they acted as in some, I should take them for mere brutes,
that had no true reason; they seem naturally necessitated to do as
they do. I have known the long profession of piety, which in other
respects hath seemed sincere, to consist in a wife, with such
unmastered, furious passion, that she could not before strangers
forbear throwing what was in her hand in her husband's face, or
thrusting the burning candle into his face; and slandering him of the
filthiest sins; and when the passion was over, confess all to be
false, and her rage to be the reason of her speech and actions; and
the man, though a minister, of more than ordinary wit and strength,
yet fain to endure all without returns of violence till her death.
They that never knew such a case by trial, can tell how all might be
cured easily; but so cannot they that are put upon the cure.
And there are some other women of the same uncurable strength of
imagination and passion, who in other respects are very pious and
prudent too, and too wise and conscionable to wrong their husbands
with their hands or tongues, who yet are utterly unable to forbear any
injury of the highest nature to themselves; but are so utterly
impatient of being crossed of their wills, that it would in all
likelihood cast them into melancholy or madness, or some mortal
sickness: and no reason signifieth any thing to debate such passions.
In case of pride, or some sinful custom, they are not able to bear
reproof, and to be hindered in the sin, without apparent danger of
distraction or death. I suppose these cases are but few; but what to
do in such cases when they come, is the present question.
Nay, the question is yet harder, Whether to avoid such inconvenience,
one may contribute towards another's sin, by affording them the means
of committing it?
_Answ._ 1. No man may contribute to sin as sin, formally
considered. 2. No man may contribute to another's sin, for sinful
ends, nor in a manner forbidden and sinful in himself. 3. No man may
contribute to another's sin, when he is not naturally or morally
necessitated to it, but might forbear it.
But as it is consistent with the holiness of God to contribute those
natural and providential mercies, which he knoweth men will abuse to
sin, so is it in some cases with us his creatures to one another. God
giveth all men their lives and time, their reason and free will,
which he knoweth they will abuse to sin: he giveth them that meat, and
drink, and riches, and health, and vigour of senses, which are the
usual means of the sin and undoing of the world.
_Object._ But God is not under any law or obligation as we are.
_Answ._ His own perfection is above all law, and will not consist
with a consent or acting of any thing that is contrary to holiness and
perfection. But this I confess, that many things are contrary to the
order and duty of the creature, which are not contrary to the place
and perfection of the Creator.
1. When man doth generate man, he knowingly contributeth to a sinful
nature and life; for he knoweth that it is unavoidable, and that which
is born of the flesh is flesh.[26] And yet he sinneth not by so doing,
because he is not bound to prevent sin by the forbearance of
generation.
2. When one advanceth another to the office of magistracy, ministry,
&c. knowing that he will sin in it, he contributeth accidentally to
his sin; but so as he is not culpable for so doing.
3. A physician hath to do with a froward and intemperate patient, who
will please his appetite, or else if he be denied, his passion will
increase his disease and kill him. In this case he may lawfully say,
let him take a little, rather than kill him, though by so doing he
contribute to his sin; because it is but a not hindering that which he
cannot hinder without a greater evil. The sin is only his that
chooseth it.
And it is specially to be noted, that that which physically is a
positive act, and contributing to the matter of the sin, yet morally
is but a not hindering the sin by such a withholding of materials as
we are not obliged to withhold (which is the case also of God's
contributing to the matter of sin). If the physician in such a case,
or the parent of a sick and froward child, do actually give them that
which they sin in desiring, that giving is indeed such a furthering of
the sin as cannot be lawfully forborne, lest we do hurt; and therefore
is morally but a not hindering it, when we cannot hinder it.
4. If a man have a wife so proud that she will go mad, or disturb him
and his family by rage, if her pride be not gratified by some sinful
fashions, curiosities, or excesses, if he give her money or materials
to do it with, to prevent her distraction, it is but like the foresaid
case of the physician, or parents of a sick child.
In these cases I will give you a rule to walk by for yourselves, and a
caution how to judge of others.
1. Be sure that you leave nothing undone that you can lawfully do, for
the cure and prevention of others' sins; and that it be not for want
of zeal against sin, through indifference or slothfulness, that you
forbear to hinder it, but merely through disability. 2. See that in
comparing the evil that is like to follow the impedition, you do not
mistake, but be sure that it be indeed a greater evil which you avoid
by not hindering that particular sin. 3. See therefore that your own
carnal interest weigh not with you more than there is cause; and that
you account not mere fleshly suffering a greater evil than sin. 4. But
yet that dishonour which may be cast upon religion, and the good of
souls, which may be hindered by a bodily suffering, may come into the
comparison. 5. And your own duties to men's bodies (as to save men's
lives, or health, or peace) are to be numbered with spiritual things,
and the materials of a sin may in some cases be administered for the
discharge of such a duty. If you knew a man would die if you give him
not hot water, and he will be drunk if you do give it him; in this
case you do but your duty, and he commits the sin: you do that which
is good, and are not bound to forbear it, because he will turn it to
sin, unless you see that the hurt by that sin is like to be so great
(besides the sin itself) as to discharge you from the duty of doing
good.
2. As to others, (1.) Put them on to their duty and spare not. (2.)
But censure them not for the sins of their families, till you are
acquainted with all the case. It is usual with rash and carnal
censurers, to cry out of some godly ministers or gentlemen, that their
wives are as proud, and their children and servants as bad as others.
But are you sure that it is in their power to remedy it? Malice and
rashness judge at a distance of things which men understand not, and
sin in speaking against sin.
_Quest._ II. If a gentleman, e.g. of £500, or £1000, or £2000, or
£3000, per annum, could spare honestly half his yearly rents, for his
children and for charitable uses, and his wife be so proud and
prodigal, that she will waste it all in housekeeping and excesses, and
will rage, be unquiet, or go mad, if she be hindered, what is a man's
duty in such a case?
_Answ._ It is but an instance of the forementioned case, and
must thence be answered. 1. It is supposed that she is uncurable by
all wise and rational means of persuasion. 2. He is wisely to compare
the greatness of the evil that will come by crossing her, with the
good that may come by the improvement of his estate, and the
forbearance of those excesses. If her rage, or distraction, or
unquietness were like by any accident to do more hurt than his estate
may do good, he might take himself disabled from hindering the sin;
and though he give her the money which she mispendeth, it is not
sinning, but only not hindering sin when he is unable. 3. Ordinarily
some small or tolerable degree of sinful waste and excess may be
tolerated to avoid such mischiefs as else would follow; but not too
much. And though no just measure can be assigned, at what rate a man
may lawfully purchase his own peace, and consequently his liberty to
serve God, or at what rate he may save his wife from madness, or some
mortal mischiefs of her discontent, yet the case must be resolved by
such considerations; and a prudent man, that knoweth what is like to
be the consequent on both sides, may and must accordingly determine
it. 4. But ordinarily the life, health, or preservation of so proud,
luxurious, and passionate a woman, is not worth the saving at so dear
a rate, as the wasting of a considerable estate, which might be used
to relieve a multitude of the poor, and perhaps to save the lives of
many that are worthier to live. And, (1.) A man's duty to relieve the
poor and provide for his family is so great, (2.) And the account that
all men must give of the use of their talents is so strict, that it
must be a great reason indeed, that must allow him to give way to very
great wastefulness. And unless there be somewhat extraordinary in the
case, it were better deal with such a woman as a bedlam, and if she
will be mad, to use her as the mad are used, than for a steward of God
to suffer the devil to be served with his Master's goods.
Lastly, I must charge the reader to remember, that both these cases
are very rare; and it is but few women that are so liable to so great
mischiefs, which may not be prevented at cheaper rates; and therefore
that the indulgence given in these decisions, is nothing to the
greater part of men, nor is to be extended to ordinary cases. But
commonly men every where sin by omission of a stricter government of
their families, and by Eli's sinful indulgence and remissness; and
though a wife must be governed as a wife, and a child as a child, yet
all must be governed as well as servants. And though it may be truly
said, that a man cannot hinder that sin, which he cannot hinder but by
sin, or by contributing to a greater hurt, yet it is to be concluded,
that every man is bound to hinder sin whenever he is able lawfully to
hinder it.
And by the same measures, tolerations, or not hindering errors and
sins about religion in church and commonwealth, is to be judged of:
none must commit them or approve them; nor forbear any duty of their
own to cure them; but that is not a duty which is destructive, which
would be a duty when it were a means of edifying.
[24] See Dr. Gouge on Family Relations, who saith the most against
women's giving.
[25] 2 Sam. xxv. 18, 29, 30; Prov. xxxi. 11-13, 20; Hos. vi. 6; Matt.
ix. 13; xii. 7; 2 Kings iv. 9, 22.
[26] John iii. 6; Eph. ii. 2, 3.