Chapter IX: The Special Duties of Wives to Husbands (2)

_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.