“The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness… teachers of good things; that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
Titus 2:3-5
“Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that… while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”
1 Pet. 3:1-4
.
.
Subsection
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 7
Book 1
Quote 1
Historical 4
How Different from Men 2
How Far Wives are to Obey Husbands 6+
Women Working
Counsel to Pregnant & Young Mothers 2
Fashion 6
Corporal Discipline 5
Latin 1
.
Articles
1600’s
Baxter, Richard – A Breviate of the Life of Margaret… Wife of Richard Baxter (London, 1681)
Baxter was an English, congregationalist puritan. His wife took on numerous public labors in service of Christianity. Baxter here gives the life of his wife, and defends her Christian labors as an example to others. See the historical article on this subject by Osborne below.
.
1800’s
Alexander, Archibald – ‘Counsels to Christian Mothers’ no date or source info 27 paragraphs
Hodge, Charles – ‘Introduction’ to The Faithful Mother’s Reward: a Narrative of the Conversion and Happy Death of J.B., who Died in the Tenth Year of His Age (1853) 9 pp.
Miller, Samuel – ‘The Appropriate Duty & Ornament of the Female Sex, a Sermon on Acts 9:36-41’ in The Columbian Preacher (1808), p. 249 ff.
Smyth, Thomas – ‘The Sphere, Character & Destiny of Woman’ in Works, vol. 10 American, southern presbyterian
.
1900’s
Kayser, Phillip – ‘Mature Daughters: A Mentoring Checklist for Daughters & Young Women’ (2007)
Beeke, Joel – ‘The Creation of Woman’ no date 9 pp.
.
Book
1700’s
Mather, Cotton – Ornaments for the Daughters of Zion, or the Character & Happiness of a Virtuous Woman: in a Discourse which Directs the Female-Sex how to Express the Fear of God in Every Age & State of their Life & Obtain Both Temporal & Eternal Blessedness (Cambridge, 1692) 102 pp.
.
Quote
Quote
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), p. 69 rt col bot
“1. The wife by nature is the weaker vessel, and inferior to the man…
2. The wife is given as an help to the man…
3. Marital and husbandly power is natural, though it be not natural but from free election that Peter is Ana’s husband, and should have been, though man had never sinned…”
.
.
Historical
On the Post-Reformation
Articles
ed. Irwin, Joyce – ‘[Gisbert] Voetius on Women’ in Anna Marie van Schurman, Whether a Christian Woman Should be Educated and Other Writings from her Intellectual Circle (Univ. of Chicago, 1998), pp. 17-21
Osborne, Seth – ‘Margaret Baxter, Richard Baxter & the Defense of Women’s Public Role in Restoration England’ (2020) 25 pp.
“Restoration England [post-1660] witnessed a prolonged period of ecclesiastical persecution to stamp out religious nonconformists, but women responded to this suppression by stepping into more prominent and public roles… many nonconformist women earned the title of ‘nursing mothers’ through their public efforts to nurture and promote Protestant dissent in the face of fierce resistance…
Scholars have often depicted Margaret [Baxter] as a paragon of Puritan virtue who fulfilled the traditional role of a wife. However, such depictions underemphasize the controversial nature of Margaret’s agency in her own time. Like the ‘nursing mothers,’ her activities broke with established norms for women. Her efforts to aid her husband in composing religious literature, patronize the illegal ministry of non-conformist pastors, establish schools for religious education, and set up charities, all drew significant criticism, since they lay outside the ‘appropriate’ private sphere of a woman.
And yet Richard Baxter used his memorialization of her life (A breviate of the life of Margaret) to not only praise her public labors but also defend her against critics of her public role. By appealing to biblical examples of women who helped Paul in his ministry, he rebuked those who maligned her for not being content to stay at home. Thus, Margaret’s life does not simply shed additional light on how many women of the period achieved a greater space for female agency; rather, her memorialization in print provided English readers with a new, biblically defended image of how godly female piety could be fleshed out in the public realm.”
.
Quote
On the View of Andrew Rivet
Willem van Asselt in Theology of the French Reformed Churches (RHB, 2014), p. 268
“With Anna Maria van Schurman in Utrecht, renowned for her learning, he [Rivet] had a frequent correspondence on the question of whether Christian women ought to study arts and letters. He supported Schurman in her intellectual pursuits but saw her as an exception to the female norm.”
.
On the 1800’s
Article
Van Driel, Niels C. M. – 5. ’The Status of Women in Contemporary Society: Principles & Practice in Herman Bavinck’s Socio-Political Thought’ in ed. John Bolt, Five Studies in the Thought of Herman Bavinck, A Creator of Modern Dutch Theology (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2011), pp. 153-95
.
How Women are Different from Men
Quotes
Order of
Budziszewski
Hill
.
2000’s
J. Budziszewski
‘What makes Men Men?’ (2019) Budziszewski is a Thomist.
“Ethical philosophers and theologians generally use it [the term “nature”] to refer to what reflects the flourishing or proper development of creatures of our nature…
…
Women and the inclination to nurture
For the fact that most women are more nurturing than most men is much more than an accident. It arises from a genuine difference in the underlying reality, the difference between womanhood and manhood as such. This difference is so powerful that men and women are influenced by it even when they defy it. For example, we say women are more nurturing. Yet some young women conceal their pregnancies, give birth in secret, then do away with the babies. Nothing more opposed to nurturance could be imagined.
But wait: Consider the ways in which these young women do away with their babies. How often they place them in trash cans and dumpsters, still alive! Why don’t they just kill them? That is what a man usually does if he wants to do away with a child. Perhaps a young woman imagines her baby resting in the dumpster, quietly and painlessly slipping into a death that is something like sleep. Or perhaps she imagines a fairy tale ending in which some other woman finds her baby in the dumpster and brings him up as her own.
No, the act is not nurturing, but even so, the inclination to nurture hasn’t precisely been destroyed; under the influence of other strong motives, it has been perverted. I dare say that such data are not captured by our psychological instruments. It is not enough to count things with a survey. One must see with the eyes of the heart.
…
What are men and women for? In one respect they are for the same thing: Being rational, they are for the knowledge of the truth, especially the truth about God. But there is a difference. A man is a rational being of that sex whose members are potentially fathers, and a woman is a rational being of that sex whose members are potentiality mothers.
Potentiality for fatherhood and motherhood is at the bottom of manhood and womanhood
The idea of potentiality needs explanation, because potentiality is not the same thing as physical possibility. Consider a man who is infertile because of some disease. Although it is not physically possible for him to be a father, we should not say that he lacks the potentiality for fatherhood; as a man, he has the potentiality, but the disease has blocked its realization. It is just because he is a man, just because he is endowed with the potentiality for fatherhood, that the block to its physical realization is such an occasion for sorrow.
…
We can carry this line of reasoning still further. A potentiality is something like a calling. It wants, so to speak, to develop; it demands, so to speak, a response. It is like an arrow, notched in the string and aimed at the target, even if it never takes flight. It intimates an inbuilt meaning and expresses an inbuilt purpose, which cannot help but influence the mind and will of every person imbued with them.
Alice von Hildebrand has remarked that although not every woman is called to marry and bear physical children, ‘every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother.’
…
Obviously I cannot speak from inside experience of womanhood, because I am a man. Yet even a man can see that it is a very different thing to be a woman than to be a man. A man may deeply love his child, but he does not have a womb with which to carry the child in his body for nine months, or milk with which to nourish the child from his breasts. These experiences connect the mother with her child in an intimate, physical bond which we men can easily recognize, but which we cannot experience. In subtle ways they condition her emotional responses not only toward the child, but also toward herself and even toward everyone else.
They also make sense of certain other differences between men and women, differences for which each sex is sometimes wrongly criticized. For example, are women in general more protective of their bodies than men, and men less careful about their bodily safety than women? Of course they are. Women, who carry children, need to be more protective of their bodies. Men, to protect them, need to be less careful about their safety. It isn’t that men, by being men, are more virtuous, or that women, by being women, are more virtuous. However, their most typical temptations are somewhat different than those of the other sex, and although they can have all the same virtues, their virtues have different inflections. A man’s and a woman’s courage are not the same, but they are both courage.
The other sexual differences make sense in this light too. As Edith Stein reminds us, men are more prone to abstraction, and women more prone to focus on the concrete. Men don’t mind what is impersonal, but women are more attuned to the nuances of relationships. A man tends to be a specialist and single-tasker; he develops certain qualities to an unusually high pitch, using them to do things in the world. A woman tends to be a generalist and multitasker; she inclines to a more rounded development of her abilities, using them to nurture the life around her.
The woman’s potentiality for motherhood ties all her qualities together and makes sense of her contrast with men. Consider just that multitasking capacity. In view of what it takes to run a home, doesn’t it make sense for her to have it? A woman must be a center of peace for her family, even though a hundred things are happening at once. But a man is designed more for the protection of the hearth and the people who surround it than for their nurture.
In speaking of the hearth it may sound as though I am saying that women should never leave the kitchen. No. Although men gravitate to careers and women to motherhood, not all women will pursue an exclusively domestic life. Even so, the potentiality for motherhood explains why women who do pursue a career, and who have free choice of career, tend to choose careers that allow them to give first place to caring for their children. It also explains why they tend to choose careers that give greater scope to maternal qualities.
In fact, even when a well-balanced woman chooses a traditionally masculine career, she also tends to perform it in ways that give scope to maternal qualities. A male lawyer tends to focus on the properties of the task itself. This is worthy, but it is all too easy for him to lose sight of the humanity of his clients. Can he learn to remember their humanity? Of course he can, but he is more likely to need the reminder in the first place. A female lawyer may find the abstract quality of the law somewhat alienating, even though it is necessary. On the other hand, she is much less likely to forget that she is dealing with human beings…
Manhood in general is outward-directed, and womanhood inward-directed. This is no cliché; the distinction is quite subtle. Outward-directedness, for example, is not the same as other-directedness, for many men prefer dealing with things. Inward-directedness is not same as self-directedness, for the genius of women includes caring for the local circle…
In speaking of outward- and inward-directedness… It is a good thing that an unmarried man pursues the beloved, whereas an unmarried woman makes herself attractive to pursuit; it is a good thing that a husband protects the home, whereas a wife establishes it on the hearth; it is a good thing that a father represents the family and oversees it, whereas a mother conducts the family and manages it.
Although the directive geniuses of the father and the mother are not the same, both of them truly rule the home. We may compare the father with a king reigning over a commonwealth, the mother with a queen. These potent archetypes express different inflections of glory, nobility, and self-command. Men joke about their wives telling them what to do. The joke would have no point unless two things were true: On one hand, they would not want their wives to be kings; on the other hand, they know they are really queens…
In one of the letters of St. Paul to Timothy, we find him using a curious pair of words — a verb, proistemi [1 Tim. 3:4-5], for what a husband characteristically does, and a noun, oikodespotes [1 Tim. 5:14], for what a wife characteristically is. Both words indicate authority, but with a difference. The term used for the husband has a range of meanings that include standing before, presiding, superintending, protecting, maintaining, helping, succoring, and acting in the capacity of a patron — very much like a chairman of the board. But the term used for the woman means “ruler of the house” – literally, “despot of the house” — very much like the chief executive officer…
When all goes well, fathers and mothers also exemplify and specialize in different aspects of wisdom. A wise father teaches his wife and family that in order to love you must be strong; a wise mother teaches her husband and family that in order to be strong you must love. She knows that even boldness needs humility; he knows that even humility needs to be bold. He is an animate symbol to his children of that justice which is tempered by mercy, she a living emblem of that mercy which is tempered by justice. A wise father knows when to say, “ask your mother,” a wise mother when to say, “ask your father.” When they do this, they are not passing the buck, but sharing sovereignty. Each of them refracts a different hue from the glowing light of royalty…
May it be needless to say that mothers and fathers must also recover the conviction of their need for each other. They must do this not only for their own sakes, but for their young. Every child needs both kinds of love. It is not enough to provide an intermediate love that is half motherly and half fatherly, or an inconsistent love that is motherly at some times, fatherly at others. Nor is it enough to give one kind of love for real, while giving only a pretense or simulacrum of the other kind. Even though the two loves resemble each other, they are distinct, and neither can be imitated by anything else. Yes, it may be true heroism when through no fault of one’s own, a father or a mother raises a child all alone; yet it is better not to be alone. No woman can fully take the place of a father, any more than any man can substitute for a mother…
A woman may resist temptation, but a man thinks of making war against it. A woman may seek to reside in the citadel of virtue, but a man thinks of capturing it…
Once upon a time the differences between men and women were not thought so strange. We have a long quest and a difficult journey before we can speak of them again with ease and gaiety. There are so many sweet and lovely things that our ears can no longer hear without odium, so many blameless things that can hardly be discussed without scandal… And if I were to compound the offense by pointing out that every last one of us, both man and woman, is feminine with respect to God…”
.
Sarah E. Hill
“The XX Rules: Non-Negotiable Rules of Being Female” (2025) Hill is an “evolutionary psychologist”. These rules reflect biological data and are very helpful.
“1. We bear the greater costs of sex and reproduction
Females invest more biologically in reproduction, from egg production to pregnancy, birth, and lactation. This influences the design of our brain and body, even if we have no plans to have children. It shapes everything from our sexual psychology to the ways we compete.
2. Our hormones cycle
Our sex hormones don’t stay static—they ebb and flow across the menstrual cycle, life stages (puberty, pregnancy, postpartum, perimenopause), and in response to environmental cues. These fluctuations impact our metabolism, immune system, brain, behavior, and emotions.
3. We Are Most Powerful When in a State of Balance
The female body thrives on cycles of exertion and recovery. Whether it’s the menstrual cycle, exercise, cognition, or childbirth, we are wired to push and then restore. Chronic overdrive without repair leads to burnout and dysregulation.
4. Our Brains Are More Interconnected
Compared to males, female brains show more crosstalk between hemispheres and between emotion-processing and executive areas. This contributes to greater emotional awareness, verbal fluency, and intuitive social reasoning.
5. We’re an Immunological Powerhouse…but More Inflammatory
Estrogen ramps up immunological vigilance, giving us an edge in fighting infections. But this same immune sensitivity also makes us more prone to autoimmune and inflammatory conditions.
6. Our Physiology Prioritizes Safety and Energy Efficiency Above All Else
Evolution has wired the female body to conserve resources and protect reproductive capacity. Under stress, scarcity, or social threat, it downshifts fertility, libido, and energy output. It also makes it easier for us to gain weight, harder to lose it, and makes us more likely to experience anxiety when we’re not in relationships.
7. We Are Built to Evolve
Female brains undergo large-scale remodeling during puberty, pregnancy, postpartum, and menopause. These changes shift our priorities, cognition, and how we think, feel, and experience the world. Our brains adapt dramatically across life phases to meet new demands.
8. We’re Sensitive to the Social
Our neurobiology makes us especially attuned to relationships, belonging, and emotional safety. This isn’t fragility; it’s adaptation. Our HPA axis (stress axis) is more sensitive than men’s. The female brain evolved in tight social ecosystems where connection was survival and failure to form groups would have led to their demise.
9. We’ve Been Seen Before We’ve Been Heard
Because female fertility is transient and invisible, human cultures have long used appearance – youth, skin quality, body shape – as a proxy for a woman’s ability reproduce. This means that – as much as we might hate this to be true – women have evolved to monitor their appearance more vigilantly than men, and we’ve been taught to see our bodies through the eyes of others.
10. We Perceive More
Research finds that women have greater sensitivity to touch, smell, and pain. This reflects different thresholds for detecting threat or opportunity – useful in parenting, mate choice, and social contexts. Our sensory systems are finely tuned – and can become sometimes overloaded.
11. Our Design Is Not a Disorder
Being female isn’t a deviation from a male norm, it’s its own blueprint. When medicine ignores or pathologizes how we are built, it creates dysfunction and we think our body is the enemy. When we work with our biology instead of against it, we thrive.
…”
.
How Far Wives are to Obey Their Husbands
See also ‘How Far Commands of Authorities Bind the Conscience’ and
‘Rechabites bound by their Forefather?’.
.
Order of Contents
Westminster
Articles 2
Quotes 4
.
Westminster
Larger Catechism
“Q. 127. What is the honour that inferiors owe to their superiors?
A. The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart,[l] word,[m] and behaviour;[n] prayer and thanksgiving for them;[o] imitation of their virtues and graces;[p] willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels;[q] due submission to their corrections;[r] fidelity to,[s] defence,[t] and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places;[v] bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love,[w] that so they may be an honour to them and to their government.[x]
[l] Mal. 1:6. Lev. 19:3.
[m] Prov. 31:28. 1 Pet. 3:6.
[n] Lev. 19:32. 1 Kings 2:19.
[o] 1 Tim. 2:1,2.
[p] Heb. 13:7. Phil. 3:17.
[q] Eph. 6:1,2,5-7. 1 Pet. 2:13,14. Rom. 13:1-5. Heb. 13:17. Prov. 4:3,4. Prov. 23:22. Exod. 18:19,24.
[r] Heb. 12:9. 1 Pet. 2:18-20.
[s] Tit. 2:9,10.
[t] 1 Sam. 26:15,16. 2 Sam. 18:3. Esth. 6:2.
[v] Matt. 22:21. Rom. 13:6,7. 1 Tim. 5:17,18. Gal. 6:6. Gen. 45:11. Gen. 47:12.
[w] 1 Pet. 2:18. Prov. 23:22. Gen. 9:23.
[x] Ps. 127:3-5. Prov. 31:23
.
Q. 128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
A. The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them;[y] envying at,[z] contempt of,[a] and rebellion[b] against, their persons[c] and places,[d] in their lawful counsels,[e] commands, and corrections;[f] cursing, mocking,[g] and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonour to them and their government.[h]
[y] Matt. 15:4-6.
[z] Num. 11:28,29.
[a] 1 Sam. 8:7. Isa. 3:5.
[b] 2 Sam. 15:1-12.
[c] Exod. 21:15.
[d] 1 Sam. 10:27.
[e] 1 Sam. 2:25.
[f] Deut. 21:18-21.
[g] Prov. 30:11,17.
[h] Prov. 19:26“
.
Articles
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘What Dominion the Husband has over the Wife’ in ch. 8, ‘The Fifth Precept: of the Honoring of Superiors’ in The Common Places… (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 2, p. 379
.
2000’s
Evans, Keith – ‘Hyper-Headship in Marriage’ (2022) 9 paragraphs at Gentle Reformation
.
Order of Quotes
Gillespie
Dickson
Fergusson
Manton
.
1600’s
George Gillespie
English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, ch. 4, p. 49
“I have also proven before that human laws do not bind to obedience but only in this case, when the things which they prescribe do agree and serve to those things which God’s Law prescribes: so that as human laws they bind not, neither have they any force to bind, but only by participation with God’s Law.”
.
David Dickson
An Exposition of All St. Paul’s Epistles… (London, 1659), on Eph. 5, v. 24
“From these reasons he inferrs the conclusion: that it is necessary for the wife to be obedient to her husband in all things which hinder not her due subjection unto God and Christ.”
.
James Fergusson
A Brief Exposition of the Epistles of Paul… (London: T. Ward, 1841)
on Eph. 5:22, p. 242
“And thirdly, it must be only in things lawful, and no ways contrary to that submissive obedience which they owe to him [Christ].”
.
on Eph. 5:24, p. 243
“He adds, secondly, the extent of this subjection and obedience, even to all things: which is not to be understood of all things absolutely, and without exception, Acts 5:29, but all things lawful, godly, honest, and which are not forbidden in the word of God, even though they
cross the humor of the wives, and argue little discretion in the husband who commands them. Numb. 5:1-15, etc.; for nothing is excepted here but what is contrary to that subjection which is due to Him who has commanded
this subjection of wives to their husbands, as Paul comments upon an expression like to this, 1 Cor. 15:27.”
.
Thomas Manton
Sermons upon Eph. 5
sermon, 27, p. 439 on Eph. 5:22
“[2.] By fulfilling his commands in all things lawful, and not contrary to her duty to God: Titus 2:5, ‘ Let wives be obedient to their own husbands.'”
.
sermon 29, on Eph. 5:24
“2. The extent; unlimited, ‘In everything;’ that is, in everything that is lawful and belonging to her duty. Certainly those things which hinder our due subjection to God and Christ are excepted; as the apostle in another case, 1 Cor. 15:29, ‘When He hath put all things under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted that hath put all things under Him.’ There are cases excepted by a superior law. In Luke 14:26, it is said, ‘If a man hate not father and mother, wife and children, he cannot be my disciple.'”
.
“1. It is a righteous subjection, not a slavish, but so as that her authority may be kept up over her children and servants.”
.
On Women Working outside the Home for an Employer
Article
1900’s
Chaney, James M. – ‘The Woman Question’ in The Presbyterian Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 3 (Jan. 1904), pp. 390-403
This is a dialogue which delineates and contrasts views, and ultimately argues that necessity and the greater good, within natural limits, may override positive norms and laws. Chaney’s presentation is helpful in working through the issues.
.
Counsel to the Pregnant about to Give Birth
Article
1600’s
Mather, Cotton – Elizabeth in her Holy Retirement. An Essay to Prepare a Pious Woman for her Lying in, or Maxims & Methods of Piety to Direct & Support an Handmaid of the Lord who Expects a Time of Travail (Boston, 1710) 36 pp.
.
.
Counsel to Mothers regarding Day Care
Article
1500’s
Erasmus, Desiderius – ‘A Dialogue of a Woman in Child-Bed’ in Seven Dialogues… 5. is of Putting Forth Children to Nurse... (d. 1536; London, 1606) 25 pp.
It had become fashionable in Erasmus’s day for mothers to give their infants to wet-nurses to nurse for them. Erasmus, through this dialogue of two women, argues this is not natural or ideal for the baby’s development.
.
On Fashion
Order of Contents
Articles 5
Latin 1
.
Articles
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 2, 11. ‘Of Whoredom, Fornication & Adultery’
‘Of Garments & Apparel’ 506
‘Of Counterfeit & False Coloring’ 507
.
1600’s
Perkins, William – The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience… (Cambridge: Legat, 1606), bk. 3, ch. 4, section 2, ch. 4, section 3
Question 1, Whether ornaments of gold, silver, precious stones, silks and velvets, etc. may not lawfully be used?
Question 2, What is the right, lawful, and holy use of apparel
Sect. 1, In the right preparation of our apparel, two rules are propounded in Scripture for our direction
Sect. 2, The wearing and putting of it on
Hall, Thomas – ‘An Appendix containing Diverse Reasons & Arguments Against Painting, Spots, Naked Backs, Breasts, Arms, etc. Together with a Discovery of the Nakedness, Madness & Folly of the Adamites [Nudists] of our Time, a Refutation of All their Cavils, & Removing of All Those Fig-Leaves under which they would Hide Themselves’ in The Loathsomeness of Long Hair [for Men]… (London, 1654), pp. 98-123
Hall (1610–1665) was an English, presbyterian, puritan minister who was ejected at the Great Ejection of 1662.
Gauden, John – A Discourse of Auxiliary Beauty, or Artificial Handsomeness, in Point of Conscience between Two Ladies (Royston, 1656) 200 pp.
Gauden (1605-1662) was an Anglican bishop and argues for the lawfulness of make-up and other moderate and appropriate enhancements for beauty.
.
2000’s
Kayser, Phillip – ‘Aids to Beautification’ (Biblical Blueprints, 2009) 9 pp.
Kayser shows that adorning ourselves for the purpose of beauty, while it can be abused, is good, intended of God and Biblical. The short article has specific regard to jewelry, cosmetics and perfume.
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1667), vol. 4
27. Fourth: ‘On Luxury & Vanity in Clothes, Houses & Goods’ 403
28. pt. 2 417
29. Fifth: ‘On the Decoration of the Face & Hair’ 429
30. pt. 2 444
31. pt. 3 453-93
.
Whether Corporal Discipline of a Wife by a Husband may ever be Right?
On related subjects, see ‘May a Threat on One’s Life be Grounds for Divorce?’ and ‘Is Domestic Abuse Grounds for Divorce?’.
.
Order of Contents
No 3
Yes 1
.
No
Quotes
1500’s
Anglican Church
Second Book of Homilies, 18. ‘An Homiliy of the State of Matrimony’ in The Two Books of Homilies Appointed to be Read in Churches (Oxford, 1859), pp. 510-12
“For if we be bound to hold out our left cheek to strangers which will smite us on the right cheek: how much more ought we to suffer an extreme and unkind husband?
But yet I mean not that a man should beat his wife; God forbid that, for that is the greatest shame that can be, not so much to her that is beaten, as to him that does the deed. But if by such fortune thou chancest upon such an husband, take it not too heavily, but suppose thou, that thereby is laid up no small reward hereafter, and in this lifetime no small commendation to thee, if thou canst be quiet.
But yet to you that be men, thus I speak: Let there be none so grievous fault to compel you to beat your wives. But what say I, your wives? no, it is not to be born with that an honest man should lay hands on his maid servant to beat her. Wherefore if it be a great shame for a man to beat his bondservant, much more [of a] rebuke it is to lay violent hands upon his freewoman.
And this thing may be well understood by the laws which the Panims have made, which does discharge her any longer to dwell with such an husband, as unworthy to have any further company with her that does smite her. For it is an extreme point, thus so vilely to entreat her like a slave, that is fellow to thee of thy life, and so joined unto thee before time in the necessary matters of thy living. And therefore a man may well liken such a man (if he may be called a man, rather then a wild beast) to a killer of his father or his mother. And whereas we be commanded to forsake our father and mother, for our wife’s sake, and yet thereby do work them none injury, but do fulfill the Law of God…
Who can worthily express the inconvenience that is to see what weepings and walings be made in the open streets when neighbors run together to the house of so unruly an husband, as to a Bedlem man, who goes about to overturn all that he has at home? Who would not think that it were better for such a man to wish the ground to open, and swallow him in, than once ever after to be seen in the market?…
Understand that God has given thee children with her, and art made a father, and by such reason appease thyself. Doest thou not see the husbandmen what diligence they use to till that ground which once they have taken to farm, though it be never so full of faults? As for an example, though it be dry, though it brings forth weeds, though the soil cannot bear too much wet, yet he tills it, and so wins fruit thereof…
But thou peradventure wilt say that she is a wrathful woman, a drunkard, and beastly, without wit and reason. For this cause bewail her the more. Chase not in anger, but pray unto Almighty God. Let her be admonished and helped with good counsel, and do thou thy best endevor, that she may be delivered of all these affections.
But if thou shouldest beat her, thou shalt increase her evil affections: For frowardness and sharpness is not amended with frowardness, but with softness and gentleness. Furthermore, consider what reward thou shalt have at God’s hand: For where thou mightest beat her, and yet, for the respect of the fear of God, thou wilt abstain and bear patiently her great offences, the rather in respect of that Law which forbids that a man should cast out his wife what fault soever she be made the combred with, thou shalt have a very great reward, and before the receit of that reward, thou shalt feel many commodities. For by this meanes she shall bee more obedient, and thou for her sake shalt be made the more meek.”
.
1600’s
John Davenant
An Exposition of… Colossians tr. Josiah Allport (London: Hamilton, Adams, 1831), vol. 2, on Col. 3:19, pp. 167-68
“It is the height of this bitter tyranny to act cruelly towards the wife by stripes or blows, which we do not read that any one among the heathen did unless he was drunk or mad.
Hence the civil law [of England] permits the wife to avail herself of a divorce if she can prove that her husband has beaten her: and it gives as a reason that blows are foreign to a state of freedom, Cod. lib. 5, tit. 17, De repudiis and in Novell, Constit. 117. For no superiority whatever gives the power of coercing the inferior by blows.
If two persons enter into a league of friendship on the condition that the younger shall obey the elder, and be directed in all things by his wisdom and discretion; he is bound to obedience by virtue of this contract: but if he refuse to do that, he cannot be forced to his duty by blows. The same must be said with regard to the matrimonial contract: for in this the husband and wife agree to a certain amicable fellowship in life, so that the wife is to be subject to her husband and directed by him; but as a companion, not as a slave; by advice, not by stripes.
Aristotle gives this reason, because it is not ft to instil such fear into the wife, which may be injurious both to respect and love: but that servile fear which is instilled by blows is subversive of both.
Neither is it fit that anyone should exercise power over another by constraint supported by no law; but that power of chastising a wife by stripes is supported by no law either divine or human.
Finally add, that is not to be done which cannot be done without sin and what always derives its origin from this sin of bitterness. For although parents often chastise their children from love; yet both the experience and conscience of everyone will testify that no one proceeds to beat his wife except from anger, bitterness or hatred; all which are unlawful things and diametrically opposite to the matrimonial state. Therefore, let all bitterness be done away.”
.
Article
1600’s
Taylor, Jeremy – pp. 24-27 of The Marriage Ring (London: John Lane, 1907), pt. 2, on Eph. 5:33
.
Yes
Book
1600’s
à Vauts, Moses – The Husband’s Authority Unveiled: wherein it is Moderately Discussed whether it be Fit or Lawful for a Good Man to Beat his Bad Wife. Some Mysteries of Iniquity are likewise unmasked & a little unfolded. A Subject, to some, perhaps, as unwelcome as uncouth (London: T.N., 1650) 100 pp. ToC
.
Latin
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert
Select Theological Disputations, vol. 4 (Utrecht, 1667), 50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Decalogue’, ‘On the 5th Commandment’,
‘Of the mutual duties of husbands & wives’, p. 794
‘Of the order & duties of parents & children’, p. 794
‘Of stepfathers, stepmothers, stepchildren, fathers-in-law, a mother-in-law, son-in-laws, etc.’ 795
‘On adoption & the adopted’ 795
‘On legal tutors, guardians and writers of testaments’ 795
pt. 2, bk. 1, tract 4, ‘On Women’, pp. 179-212 in Ecclesiastical Politics, vol. 3 (Amsterdam, 1663-1676)
Ch. 1, Questions about the Status and Natural Condition of Women, p. 179
Section 1, p. 179
1st Question, ‘Whether a woman is a human? [Yes]’ p. 179, 6 reasons; on the term ‘Adam’, p. 180
2nd Question, ‘Whether a woman is an error of nature, an imperfect male, and is born by accident, and therefore is a deformity [monstrum]? [No]’, p. 181 3 reasons from Scripture, 5 from reason, p. 182
3rd Question, ‘Whether a woman actively concurs [in giving physical seed, or eggs] in the generation of offspring? [Yes]’ p. 183, 2 reasons from Scripture and others from reason, p. 184
4th Question, ‘Whether a female may truly mutate into a male [e.g. hermaphrodites at birth]?’ p. 184
5th Question, ‘Whether the man and woman [Adam & Eve] were created simultaneously; even their two persons having been conjoined together, but thereafter having been divided or separated by God? [No]’ p. 185
Some Romanists and Jews held to such. “…But this figment will vanish from reading the text…”
6th Question, ‘Whether the woman was created in the image of God? I respond: Yes.’, p. 185 3 reasons, Objection from 1 Cor. 11:7 is answered, p. 186
7th Question, ‘Whether the woman was brought forth on the 6th Day? [Yes]’, p. 186
“Thomas denies… But authors cited hold the opposite, and Lipomanus, Pererius, Marius, A Lapide in his commentary, Bonaventure (2, distinction 18, question 2), and us commonly in notes and commentaries.” 2 reasons, p. 187
1st & 2nd Objections, pp. 188-91, with responses
3rd Objection, p. 191, 2 responses
4th Objection, p. 192. 3 responses, pp. 193-4
5th Objection, p. 194 5 reasons, pp. 194-6
6th Objection, p. 196, 2 responses, an Instance with 2 responses, pp. 197-8
Ch. 2. Of Those Things which Pertain to the Secular & Political State of Women, p. 198
Section 1, p. 198
1st Question, ‘Whether women may be infereior in dignity to men? [Yes]’, p. 198
“I respond: Yes, from the affirmation and reasons brought by the Apostle in 1 Cor. 11 & 1 Tim. 2, which I will not repeat here. The same Nature speaks (as the apostle adduces on the question of the hair of the woman, 1 Cor. 11:13-15); and by natural law, inscribed on all hearts, either explicitly, or surely implicitly.’
2nd Question, ‘Whether women may be inferior to this extent, such that in the state of marriage they ought to be in subjection just as female-servants? I respond: No.’, p. 198
3rd Question, ‘Whether the superiority of a man over a wife may extend to striking [verbera] her?’, p. 199
“This question we have handled above, [vol. 2,] part 1, bk. 3, tract 1, section 3, ch. 3, [‘Of Repudiations & Divorces, by which things the Bond of Matrimony itself is Loosed’, Question 11, ‘Whether it may be allowed in marriage, or convenient, to chastise the wife with strikes?’, pp. 185-6] nor are we repeating it here.”
In Question 11 Voet cites numerous authors for it (including Alsted) and then others against it, including Gerhard and Beza. “Our opinion is No, including from the following [5] reasons…”
In the 3rd Question Voet cites numerous authors both for and against the practice, and then quotes Chrysostom at length, being strongly against it.
4th Question, ‘Whether a marriage may hold the right of life and slaughter with respect to the wife? I respond: No.’, p. 200
5th Question, ‘Whether women may or ought to exercise public command and rule? [Ordinarily no, except in extreme necessity]’, p. 201
6th Question, ‘Whether arms and wars ought to be borne by women? [We distinguish]’, p. 202
7th Question, ‘Whether studes of wisdom and literature may be convenient for women? [a qualified Yes]’, p. 202
8th Question, ‘Whether women ought to be externally distinguished from men, and in what way? [It ought to be distinguished…]’, pp. 205-6 3 conclusions
.
.
.
Related Pages