her, but dares not, because of his Vow. He supposeth the power of a Parent over his child to be such as that it was lawful for him to abdicate her for such a deliberate disobedience; and, if the Vow might justly be made, † it must be kept. The judgment of Sanderson, upon the Case thus stated was, it seems, originally given in the course of his Answer to a Letter from his friend Sheldon. SIR, In answer to yours this day sevennight received, I have not yet heard anything from or of Mr. Doddesworth, but have written again lately, not to him but to my son Henry, to inquire after him, and to acquaint him with your desire. I am glad to hear that Dr. H. H.‡ is able still to write. But, for my undertaking of any thing concerning the Schism, which either they of Rome charge upon us, or we upon the Presbyterians, besides my sloth and age, two invincible infirmities, I am extremely wearied with transcribing Sermons for the press, which taketh up, in a manner, all the time I can spare from visits, letters, and other daily emerging avocations; and shall have much ado for all that to make them ready in any reasonable time. 2°. I have not any of those books which should inform me in the Presbyterian mystery, to understand it right: such as Bishop Bancroft's Dangerous Positions, Bishop Bramham's § book, &c, and such as have been written by our late Presbyterians in England in their own justification, &c; which are all very needful to be perused for such an undertaking. 3°. I shall be necessitated, by occasion of the late Union in Worcestershire, to engage a little in that business as soon as *to be such as to abdicate' Qu. See Sermon xiv. ad Aulam, §. 6. tmade.' This word is not in the C.C.C. Transcript. Probably Henry Hammond. 6 § Bishop Tanner has written in the margin, Sic Orig.' The Book intended is, doubtless, Archbishop Bramhall's Fair Warning to take heed of the Scotish Discipline, as being of all others most injurious to the Civil Magistrate, most oppressive to the Subject, and most pernicious to both :' first published in 1649. 'Baxter and his brethren of Worcestershire formed a scheme upon such general principles as all good men were agreed in ;... and when he had drawn up Articles of Concord, he submitted them to the correction of Abp. Ussher and other Episcopal Divines, who agreed with him that no more discipline should be practised than the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Independent Divines agreed in.' Neal's History of the Puritans, ii. 432. The Articles were I can overcome what I am now sweating at: when it will be sufficient to declare my judgment of those ways, with the grounds thereof. As to the Case* in your Letter proposed, my opinion is, that notwithstanding Parents have a great power over their Children in the point of Marriage, and the disobedience of the Children† in proceeding to Marriage against the declared dissent of the Parents ‡ be a very high degree of disobedience, and therefore may justly § deserve a sharp punishment, and, as the circumstances may be, in some cases|| an utter desertion or abdication; yet such a Vow as in the Case proposed you mention could not be warrantably made, nor, being made,¶ though upon long and advised deliberation, can oblige,** if either the serious acknowledgement of the fault, and hearty repentance for the same ft by the offending party, well and sufficiently evidenced by the continuance of‡‡ an humble and pious aftercarriage, do merit the offending party's pardon, or the Child's extreme necessity require his relief. The reason is, for that no Vow ought to be made, neither being made can oblige, whereby the Vower is disabled from exercising any act of Justice or Charity, which, if that Vow were not, he were by the dictates of right Reason bound to perform. The omitting of such an act in such a case being a sin, the Vow cannot make it to be no sin: since in every Vow or Promise de futuro, though that exception §§ be not actually thought on by the Vower at the time of Vowing, yet the exception, |||| salvis Justitia et Charitate, is ever supposed ex Lege communi to have been intended. Added ¶¶ hereunto some other considerations: as that, though the disobedience of the Child be of a very high nature in itself, and therefore ought to have a proportionable measure of repentance, yet the strength of the temptation, by reason of the violence of the passion of Love, which young persons cannot so easily master, rendereth it more capable of pardon from the Parent upon repentance. As also that our Heavenly Father, whose example therein we are to follow,* doth receive us upon our repentance into favour and pardon, though we have sinned with a high hand and in a presumptuous manner against Him. Yet I think it would be convenient for the Father, in your† Case, not to relieve his Daughter too hastily, unless her great necessity otherwise require, and that but in a scant measure for a time, especially if she do not appear to be truly and throughly humbled for her past disobedience; but to order the dispensation of his charitable and § fatherly affection towards her in such sort, in order to her spiritual good, as that she may at once both || conceive some hope of pardon and reconciliation from her Father, and yet withal have a good sense and apprehension of some remainders of his just displeasure against her for that her disobedience. How far forth, or how long, and¶ in what degree, this course is to be held, prudence and charity, according to present circumstances and their variations from time to time, must determine. But for the Vow itself, I am clearly of opinion that it is to pass for a rash Vow, though made with never so great deliberation, if the forementioned exception or reservation were not intended by the parent when he made it; and if it were intended,** then the Daughter may be pardoned in Justice and relieved in Charity, and the Vow still be in force. So that, intended or not intended, the Vow cannot oblige to hinder the Parent either from pardoning the offence or relieving the necessity of his Daughter.†† My service remembered to you all, I rest THE CASE OF MARRYING WITH A RECUSANT. SIR, YOURS, of July the second, I yesterday, July the sixth, received. In answer to the contents whereof, desiring that my services may withal be most humbly presented to my very much honoured Lord, I return you what my present thoughts are concerning the particulars therein proposed. First,* for marrying a daughter to a professed Papist, considered in thesi, and as to the point of lawfulness only, I am so far from thinking the thing in itself to be simply and toto genere unlawful, that I dare not condemn the Marriage of a Christian with a Pagan,† much less with any other Christian, of how different persuasion soever, as simply evil and unlawful, inasmuch as there be cases + imaginable, wherein it may seem not only lawful, but expedient also, and, as the exigence of circumstances may be supposed, little less than necessary so to intermarry. But since things lawful in the general and in thesi may become, by reason of their inexpediency, unlawful pro hic et nunc, and in hypothesi, to particular persons; 12, 13. 30. But the Quaere is, whether a member of the true Church of God may marry a known Idolater. 10. God forbids it absolutely to the Jews, His Church in the Old Testament. Deut. vii. 3. 2o. Nehem. xiii. 24, &c, and Ezra x. 18 make them put away such wives. Ergo Vinculum non erat validum. 3°. St. Paul absolutely forbids it, 2 Cor. vi. 14-17. 4°. The Quaere then is, whether that which is by Divine Law absolutely forbidden be not toto genere and simply unlawful. But the marrying an Idolater (and Papists are such) is so forbidden. Ergo.... 6 cases' Dolben MS. Edd. 'causes.' and that the expediency or inexpediency of any action to be done is to be measured by the worthiness of the end, the conjuncture of present circumstances, and the probability of the good* or evil consequents and effects, prudentially laid together and weighed one against another, I conceive it altogether unsafe for a conscientious person, especially in a business of so great concernment as the marrying of a child, to proceed upon the general lawfulness of the thing, without due consideration of circumstances, and other requisites for the warranting of particular actions. Now, as for the Marriage of a daughter with one of so different persuasion in point of Religion as that they cannot join together in the same way of God's Worship, which is the case of a Protestant and a Papist, it is very rare to find such a concurrence of circumstances, as that a man can thence be clearly satisfied in his judgment, without just cause of doubting the contrary, that it can be expedient to conclude upon such a Marriage; and how dangerous a thing it is to do any thing with a doubting Conscience, we may learn from Rom. xiv. 23. For the evil consequents probably to ensue upon such Marriages are so many and great, that the conveniences which men may promise to themselves from the same, if they should answer expectation, as seldom they do to the full, laid in an equal balance thereagainst, would not turn the scale. And, in one respect, the danger is greater to marry with a Papist than with one of a worse Religion, for that the main principle† of his Religion, as a Papist, is more destructive of the comfort of a conjugal society, than are the principles of most heretics, yea, than those of Pagans, or Atheists. For, holding that there is no Salvability but in the Church, and that none is in the Church but such as acknowledge subjection to the See of Rome, it is not possible but that the Husband must needs conclude his Wife to be in the state of damnation so long as she continueth Protestant. Whence one of these two great inconveniences will unavoidably follow, that either he will use all endeavours, engines, and artifices, to draw her to the Church of Rome, (as indeed who can blame him for endeavouring to bring his *the good' Dolben MS. Previous Editions have not the Article. † 'main principle.' 'primarium dogma' Cambridge Version. 'for endeavouring.' These words, which seem necessary to complete |