_Answ._ If it be for greater spiritual gain, (as in his case,) she is bound to follow him; but if it be apparently foolish, to the undoing of her and her children without any cause, I see not that marriage simply obligeth a woman so to follow a fool in beggary, or out of a calling, or to her ruin. But if it be at all a controvertible case, whether the cause be just or not, then the husband being governor must be judge. The laws of the land are supposed to be just, which allow a woman by trustees to secure some part of her former estate from her husband's disposal; much more may she beforehand secure herself and children from being ruined by his wilful folly: but she can by no contract except herself from his true government. Yet still she must consider, whether she can live continently in his absence; otherwise the greatest sufferings must be endured, to avoid incontinency. 2. Moreover, in all these cases, a temporary removal may be further followed, than a perpetual transmigration, because it hath fewer evil consequents. And if either party renounce the relation itself, it is a fuller desertion, and clearer discharge of the other party, than a mere removal is. _Quest._ XVI. What if a man or wife know that the other in hatred doth really intend by poison, or other murder, to take away their life? May they not depart? _Answ._ They may not do it upon a groundless or rash surmise; nor upon a danger which by other lawful means may be avoided (as by vigilancy, or the magistrate, or especially by love and duty). But in plain danger, which is not otherwise like to be avoided, I doubt not, but it may be done, and ought. For it is a duty to preserve our own lives as well as our neighbours'. And when marriage is contracted for mutual help, it is naturally implied, that they shall have no power to deprive one another of life (however some barbarous nations have given men power of the lives of their wives). And killing is the grossest kind of desertion, and a greater injury and violation of the marriage covenant than adultery; and may be prevented by avoiding the murderer's presence, if that way be necessary. None of the ends of marriage can be attained, where the hatred is so great. _Quest._ XVII. If there be but a fixed hatred of each other, is it inconsistent with the ends of marriage? And is parting lawful in such a case?