A Christian Directory, Part 2: Christian Economics

by Richard Baxter

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.