Gouge

I've been reading Gouge's book "Of Domestical Duties." It's very good and for an old book (1600s) it's remarkably accessible. Unfortunately it's also difficult to get. There was a recent reprint but it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of $35.

And I must say that I've not been this engrossed in a book for quite some time. He has quite a few insightful things to say and the topics are varied enough to maintain my attention for quite a span. There were a couple of things in particular that I wanted to share.

First, I have a confession to make, if it wasn't already obvious. I'm a very non-traditional sort of guy in the sense that if a tradition seems to have no significance, I could care less about it. Like
throwing rice at weddings. I'm sure it must signify something like the desire that God shower His blessings of provision upon the new family but unless it's something like that, it seems silly.

And I still don't get the "something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue" tradition. Or throwing the garter. Why?!

Gouge related a history of the Romans when talking about how the man and wife were to
make a new family and each was to love their spouse and not let devotion to parents rob their spouse of that love. Apparently the Romans used to put a yellow veil on the bride (kind of like a
blindfold) and then spin her around a couple of times and carry her to their house so she didn't know the way back to her father's! I was amused but I think that it has more of a significance in a Christian context if one chose to see it that way. It's similar to the bride seeing the bridegroom waiting for her but seeing him dimly as through a veil, like we see Christ. When they are pronounced to be wedded, the veil is lifted and she sees clearly the face of the bridegroom and the wedding feast begins, similar to how we will have the veil lifted from
our eyes and shall be wedded to Christ.

Second, Gouge talked about the covenant before marriage, which though he didn't say was absolute, yet he said that there is example given from Scripture of betrothal that would be similar in a way to what we consider and engagement. Apparently in his day there was a custom of actually making a covenant before marriage that went like this:

The man would say:
"I, A take thee B to my espoused wife, and do faithfully promise to marry thee in time meet and convenient."

and the woman would say:
"I B take thee A to be my espoused husband, and do faithfully promise to yield to be married to thee in time meet and convenient."

He did make the good point that both could begin to more carefully prepare themselves for that marriage, knowing that they had made a promise to marry when the time came. I thought this was interesting. An engagement today, if properly done, signifies the same. Unfortunately many people treat it very much like they treat marriage: as being made null when I think it should be.

Third, Gouge pointed out that one good benefit of marriage is that the love of Christ is more fully demonstrated than to the unmarried. I thought this was very interesting too and deserved some more thought.

Fourth, he also made it clear, as I've often told my siblings, that one should take especial care to look after their own duties and not be scrutinizing the duties of their spouse. A husband is responsible for loving his wife, not for seeing that his wife reverences him, and a wife is responsible for reverencing her husband, not making sure her husband loves her. Sinful, fallen creatures often lose sight of their own duties and focus on the other's duties. Thank the Lord for godly marriages that are seasoned with humility!

Fifth, and this one I particularly liked. Gouge made the usual comparison of the husband to the head, and as the head is more exalted than the rest of the body, it should be treated with respect and should look after and cherish the rest of the body, giving it its protection. However, he also said that if the husband may be likened to the head, then perhaps the wife should be likened to the heart. As an example, he cited that woman was taken from the side of man, near his heart. This made me think a bit and compare:

The heart, metaphorically is more compassionate and sensitive than the head in being tender and caring and without the heart, the head could not survive. The heart needs the head to look after and protect it so that neither can say that they can do without the other. Both have their function to perform and though the head has more honour put upon it, that doesn't mean that it is more necessary or important than the heart.

So that's what I've been reading. It goes along nicely with the study on the Song of Solomon that has been occurring on Wednesday nights with the church. I've just finished the sections on who is eligible for marriage and an exposition of the relevant passage in Ephesians. Next I believe are the common duties between man and wife.