I hope to begin a post here that I periodically update, of quotations from William Gouge's Of Domestical Duties. I am going to quote from this version primarily: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/gouge/Domestical%20Duties%20-%20William%20Gouge.pdf
The book has been said to have been as popular as Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Matthew Henry's commentaries in its heyday. Gouge was one of the chief members of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, which gave us the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. In short, the substance of what Gouge wrote was held by most all the Westminster Divines/Puritans on home and family life, regarding marriage, children, duties of husband to wife, wife to husband, children to parents, parents to children, and also servants and masters to one another.
Here is an extended quotation of Gouge that I will start with, and add to later. Enjoy.
"The third reason taken from an husband's resemblance unto Christ herein, addeth an edge unto that former reason: in being an head, he is like Christ. So as there is a kind of fellowship and co-partnership betwixt Christ and an husband: they are brethren in office, as two Kings of several places.
Object. There is no equality betwixt Christ the Lord from heaven, and an earthly husband: the disparity betwixt them is infinite.
Answ. Yet there may be similitude, resemblance, and fellowship: inequality is no hindrance to these. Two kings may be more different in estate than a subject and a King; yet those two Kings brethren and fellows in office. There may be a resemblance where there is no parity, and a likeness where there is no equality. The glorious and bright sun in the firmament, and a dim candle in an house, have a kind of fellowship, and the same office, which is to give light: yet there is no equality betwixt them. So then an husband resembleth not only the head of a natural body, but also the glorious image of Christ, and is that to his wife which Christ is to his Church.
To apply this point, mark how from it two positions [worthy to be noted] do arise.
1. Subjection is due to an husband as well as to Christ. I say not as great, because of the difference in glory: but as well, because of the likeness in office. A constable [though a poor mean man] must be obeyed as well as an high sheriff: A beggar's child must obey his father, as well as a King's child. Such wives therefore who are not subject, wrong their husbands, as well as they wrong Christ who are not subject to him.
2. They who by their subjection maintain the honour of their husband's place, maintain thereby the honour of Christ's place: and again by the rule of contraries, They who by refusing to be subject impeach the honour of their husband's place, im peach thereby the honour of Christ's place. The obedience of a poor man's child or servant justifieth that obedience which King's children and servants owe their father and sovereign: and so on the contrary, disobedience in mean ones, dishonoureth the place of great ones.
The argument of Memucan drawn from the greater to the less [in these works, Vashti the Queen hath not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and all the people (Esth 1:16)] may be applied from the less to the greater. Disobedient wives do wrong not only to their own particular husbands, but also to all heads, even to Christ the head of the Church.
If a natural body, and the Church were flexible, and could be seduced, and drawn to presume, and rebel against their heads, the ill example of wives were enough to move them thereunto, for, as much as in them lieth, they by example seduce them.
From the last forenamed positions [viz. that the obedience of a good wife maintaineth the honour of Christ's place, and on the contrary side that the disobedience of an ill wife impaireth the honour thereof] I may justly infer two other conclusions.
1. That Christ will assuredly reward the good subjection of good wives: for he hath said [and what he hath said he can and will perform] them that honour me will I honour.
2. That he will sorely revenge the rebellion of evil wives: for again he hath said, they that despise me, shall be despised (1 Sam 2:30). We know that fellows in office are ready to stand for the credit of one another's place, and to maintain the honour thereof: and that not without good reason: for thereby they maintain their own honour and credit. Wherefore as good wives may well expect a reward at Christ's hands, howsoever their husbands respect their obedience, whether well or ill: [a great encouragement for wives to perform their duties, though their husbands be never so ill] so evil wives have just cause to fear revenge at Christ's hand, howsoever their husbands bear with them. They who duly weigh this reason taken from that resemblance which is betwixt Christ and the Church, cannot but hold it to be a motive of great moment." Gouge, Domestical Duties
"Of an husband's superiority over a wife, to be acknowledged by the wife. (See Treatise 4, Sections 6, and 7.)
The subjection which is required of a wife to her husband implieth two things.
1. That she acknowledge her husband to be her superiour.
2. That she respect him as her superiour. That acknowledgement of the husband's superiority is twofold,
1. General of any husband.
2. Particular of her own husband.
The general is the ground of the particular: for till a wife be informed that an husband, by virtue of his place, is his wife's superiour, she will not be persuaded that her own husband is above her, or hath any authority over her.
First therefore concerning the general, I will lay down some evident and undeniable proofs, to show that an husband is his wife's superiour, and hath authority over her. The proofs are these following.
1. God of whom, the powers that be ordained, are (Rom 13:1), hath power to place his image in whom he will, and to whom God giveth superiority and authority, the same ought to be acknowledged to be due unto them. But God said of the man to the woman, he shall rule over thee (Gen 3:16).
2. Nature hath placed an eminency in the male over the female: so as where they are linked together in one yoke, it is given by nature that he should govern, she obey. This did the heathen by light of nature observe.
3. The titles and names, whereby an husband is set forth, do imply a superiority and authority in him, as Lord (1 Peter 3:6), Master (Esther), Guide (Prov 2:17), Head (1 Cor 2:3), image and glory of God (1 Cor 11:7).
4. The persons whom the husband by virtue of his place, and whom the wife by virtue of her place, represent, most evidently prove as much: for an husband representeth Christ, and a wife, the Church (Eph 5:23).
5. The circumstances noted by the Holy Ghost at the woman's creation imply no less, as that she was created after man, for man's good, and out of man's side (Gen 2:18, &c.).
6. The very attire which nature and custom of all times and places have taught women to put on, comfirmeth the same: as long hair, veils, and other coverings over the head: this and the former argument doth the Apostle himself use to this very purpose, (1 Cor 11:7, &c.).
The point then being so clear, wives ought in conscience to acknowledge as much: namely that an husband hath superiority and authority over a wife. The acknowledgement hereof is a main and principal duty, and a ground of all other duties.
Till a wife be fully instructed therein and truly persuaded thereof, no duty can be performed by her as it ought: for subjection hath relation to superiority and authority. The very notation of the word implieth as much.
How then can subjection be yielded, if husbands be not acknowledged superiours? It may be forced, as one King conquered in battle by another, may be compelled to yield homage to the conqueror, but yet because he still thinketh with himself, that he is no whit inferiour, he will hardly be brought willingly to yield a subject's duty to him, but rather expect a time when he may free himself and take revenge of the conqueror."
William Gouge, Of Domestical Duties
"4. Of a fond conceit that husband and wife are equal.
Contrary to the forenamed subjection is the opinion of many wives,
who think themselves every way as good as their husbands, and no
way inferiour to them.
The reason whereof seemeth to be that small inequality which is
betwixt the husband and the wife: for of all degrees wherein there is
any difference betwixt person and person, there is the least disparity
betwixt man and wife. Though the man be as the head, yet is the
woman as the heart, which is the most excellent part of the body next
the head, far more excellent than any other member under the head,
and almost equal to the head in many respects, and as necessary as
the head. As an evidence, that a wife is to man as the heart to the
head, she was at her first creation (Gen 2:21) taken out of the side of
man where his heart lieth; and though the woman was at first of the
man (1 Cor 11:12) created out of his side, yet is the man also by the
woman. Ever since the first creation man hath been born and
brought forth out of the woman's womb: so as neither the man is
without the woman, nor the woman without the man: yea, as the wife
hath not power of his own body, but he wife (1 Cor 7:4). They are
also heirs together of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). Besides, wives are
mothers of the same children, whereof their husbands are fathers
[for God said to both, multiply and increase- (Gen 1:28)] and
mistresses of the same servants whereof they are masters [for Sarah
is called mistress (Gen 16:4)] and in many other respects there is
common equity betwixt husbands and wives; whence many wives
gather that in all things there ought to be a mutual equality.
But from some particulars to infer a general is a very weak argument.
1. Doth it follow, that because in many things there is a common
equity betwixt Judges of Office, Justices of Peace, and
Constables of towns, that therefore there is in all things an
equality betwixt them?
2. In many things there is not a common equity: for the husband
may command his wife, but not she him.
3. Even in those things wherein there is a common equity, there is
not an equality: for the husband hath ever even in all things a
superiority: as if there be any difference even in the forenamed
instances, the husband must have the stronger: as in giving the
name of Rachel's youngest child, where the wife would have one
name, the husband another, that name which the husband gave,
stood (Gen 35:18).
Though there seem to be never so little disparity, yet God having so
expressly appointed subjection, it ought to be acknowledged: and
though husband and wife may mutually serve one another through
love: yet the Apostle suffereth not a woman to rule over a man. (See
Treatise 4, Section 9.)"
When the screeching harpie women that claim to be "Reformed" today gather their gaggle of girls against biblical truth and patriarchy, just start Gouge posting. That is, quote something by William Gouge on the duties of women to submit and be quiet, such as:
"Contrary is the stoutness of such wives as must have their own will, and do what they list, or else all shall be out of quiet. Their will must be done, they must rule and over-rule all, they must command not only children and servants, but husbands also, if at least the husband will be at peace. Look into families, observe the estate and condition of many of them, and then tell me if these things be not so. If an husband be a man of courage, and seek to stand upon his right, and maintain his authority by requiring obedience of his wife, strange it is to behold what an hurly burly she will make in the house: but if he be a milk-sop, and basely yield unto his wife, and suffer her to rule, then, it may be, there shall be some outward quiet. The ground hereof is an ambitious and proud humour in women, who must needs, rule, or else they think themselves slaves. But let them think as they list: assuredly herein they thwart God's ordinance, pervert the order of nature, deface the image of Christ, overthrow the ground of all duty, hinder the good of the family, become an ill pattern to children and servants, lay themselves open to Satan, and incur many other mischiefs which cannot but follow upon the violating of this main duty of Obedience, which if it be not performed, how can other duties be expected?"
Comments
Post a Comment