A Christian Directory, Part 2: Christian Economics. Baxter Richard
third chapter of Numbers enableth parents to disoblige a daughter that is in their house, from a vow made to God, so be it they disallow it at the first hearing. Hence there are two doubts arise: 1. Whether this power extend not to the disobliging of a promise or contract of matrimony. 2. Whether it extend not to a son as well as a daughter. And most expositors are for the affirmative of both cases. But I have showed you before that it is upon uncertain grounds: 1. It is uncertain whether God, who would thus give up his own right in case of vowing, will also give away the right of others, without their consent, in case of promises or contracts. And, 2. It is uncertain whether this be not an indulgence only of the weaker sex, seeing many words in the text seem plainly to intimate so much. And it is dangerous upon our own presumptions, to stretch God's laws to every thing we imagine there is the same reason for; seeing our imaginations may so easily be deceived; and God could have expressed such particulars if he would. And therefore (when there is not clear ground for our inferences in the text) it is but to say, Thus and thus should God have said, when we cannot say, Thus he hath said. We must not make laws under the pretence of expounding them: whatsoever God commandeth thee, take heed that thou do it: thou shalt add nothing thereto, nor take ought therefrom, Deut. xii. 32.
Quest. If the question therefore be not of the sinfulness, but the nullity of such promises of children, because of the dissent of parents, for my part I am not able to prove any such nullity. It is said, that they are not sui juris, their own, and therefore their promises are null: but if they have attained to years and use of discretion, they are naturally so far sui juris as to be capable of disposing even of their souls, and therefore of their fidelity. They can oblige themselves to God or man; though they are not so far sui juris as to be ungoverned: for so, no child, no subject, no man is sui juris; seeing all are under the government of God. And yet if a man promise to do a thing sinful, it is not a nullity, but a sin; not no promise, but a sinful promise. A nullity is, when the actus promittendi is reputative nullus vel non actus. And when no promise is made, then none can be broken.
Quest. But if the question be only how far such promises must be kept, I answer by summing up what I have said: 1. If the child had not the use of reason, the want of natural capacity proveth the promise null: here ignorantis non est consensus. 2. If he was at age and use of reason, then, 1. If the promising act only was sinful, (as before I said of vows,) the promise must be both repented of and kept. It must be repented of because it was a sin; it must be kept because it was a real promise, and the matter lawful. 2. If the promising act was not only a sin but a nullity (by any other reason) then it is no obligation. 3. If not only the promising act be sin, but also the matter promised, (as is marrying without parents' consent,) then it must be repented of, and not performed till it become lawful; because an oath or promise cannot bind a man to violate the laws of God.
Quest. But what if the parties be actually married without the parents' consent? must they live together, or be separated? Answ. 1. If marriage be consummated per carnalem concubitum, by the carnal knowledge of each other, I see no reason to imagine that parents can dissolve it, or prohibit their cohabitation: for the marriage (for aught I ever saw) is not proved a nullity, but only a sin, and their concubitus is not fornication; and parents cannot forbid husband and wife to live together: and in marriage they do (really though sinfully) forsake father and mother and cleave to each other, and so are now from under their government (though not disobliged from all obedience). 2. But if marriage be only by verbal conjunction, divines are disagreed what is to be done. Some think that it is no perfect marriage ante concubitum, and also that their conjunction hath but the nature of a promise (to be faithful to each other as husband and wife): and therefore the matter promised is unlawful till parents consent, and so not to be done. But I rather think (as most do) that it hath all that is essential to marriage ante concubitum; and that this marriage is more than a promise of fidelity de futuro, even an actual delivery of themselves to one another de præsenti also; and that the thing promised in marriage is lawful. For though it be a sin to marry without parents' consent, yet when that is past, it is lawful for married persons to come together though parents consent not; and therefore that such marriage is valid, and to be continued, though it was sinfully made.
3. A third sort that are not called of God to marry, are they that have absolutely vowed not to marry. Such may not marry, unless Providence disoblige them, by making it become an indispensable duty. And I can remember but two ways by which this may be done. 1. In case there be any of so strong lust, as no other lawful means but marriage can suffice to maintain their chastity. To such marriage is as great a duty, as to eat or drink, or cover one's nakedness, or to hinder another from uncleanness, or lying, or stealing, or the like. And if you should make a vow that you will never eat or drink, or that you will go naked, or that you will never hinder any one from uncleanness, lying, or stealing, it is unlawful to fulfil this vow. But all the doubt is, whether there be any such persons that cannot overcome or restrain their lust by any other lawful means. I suppose it is possible there may be such; but I believe it is not one of a hundred. If they will but practise the directions before given, part i. chap. viii. part v. tit. 1 and 2, I suppose their lust may be restrained: and if that prevail not, the help of a physician may: and if that prevail not, some think the help of a surgeon may be lawful, to keep a vow, in case it be not an apparent hazard of life. For Christ seemeth to allow of it, in mentioning it without reproof, Matt. xix. 12, if that text be to be understood of castration: but most expositors think it is meant only of a confirmed resolution of chastity: and ordinarily other means may make this needless: and if it be either needless or perilous, it is unlawful without doubt.
2. The second way by which God may dispense with a vow of chastity is, by making the marriage of a person become of apparent necessity to the public safety. And I am able to discern but one instance that will reach the case; and that is, if a king have vowed chastity, and in case he marry not, his next heir being a professed enemy of christianity, the religion, safety, and happiness of the whole nation, is apparently in danger to be overthrown. I think the case of such a king is like the case of a father that had vowed never to provide food or raiment for his children: or as if Ahab had vowed that no well should be digged in the land; and when the drought cometh, it is become necessary to the saving of the people's lives: or as if the ship-master should vow that the ship shall not be pumped; which when it leaketh doth become necessary to save their lives. In these cases God disobligeth you from your vow by a mutation of the matter; and a pastor may dispense with it declaratively. But for the pope or any mortal man to pretend to more, is impiety and deceit.
Quest. May the aged marry, that are frigid, impotent, and uncapable of procreation? Answ. Yes, God hath not forbidden them: and there are other lawful ends of marriage, as mutual help and comfort, &c. which may make it lawful.3
Direct. II. To restrain your inordinate forwardness to marriage, keep the ordinary inconveniencies of it in memory. Rush not into a state of life, the inconveniencies of which you never thought on. If you have a call to it, the knowledge of the difficulties and duties will be necessary to your preparation, and faithful undergoing them; if you have no call, this knowledge is necessary to keep you off. I shall first name the inconveniencies common to all, and then some that are proper to the ministers of the gospel, which have a greater reason to avoid a married life than other men have.
1. Marriage ordinarily plungeth men into excess of worldly cares; it multiplieth their business, and usually their wants. There are many things to mind and do; there are many to provide for. And many persons you will have to do with, who have all of them a selfish disposition and interest, and will judge of you but according as you fit their ends. And among many persons and businesses, some things will frequently fall cross: you must look for many rubs and disappointments. And your natures are not so strong, content, and patient, as to bear all these without molestation.
2. Your wants in a married state are hardlier supplied, than in a single life. You will want so many things which before you never wanted, and have so many to provide for and content, that all will seem little enough, if you had never so much. Then you will be often at your wit's end, taking thought for the future, what you shall eat, and what you shall drink, and wherewith shall you and yours be clothed.
3. Your
Wives are young men's mistresses, companions for the middle age, and old men's nurses. So that a man may have a quarrel to marry when he will. Lord Bacon, Essay.