Skip to content ↓

The Puritans and Sex

I have unashamedly stolen this quote from my friend David. He shared it at his blog earlier this week and it struck me how so much of what we are sure we know about history is wrong. In fact, so much of what we know about life is wrong. We hear things and assume after a while that they are true but do not investigate for ourselves. Ask the average person what they know of Puritans, and what they know of the Puritans and sex, and I am quite convinced that they will tell you things that are just plain wrong. As this quote shows, the Puritans were hardly Puritanical when it came to their attitude toward sex.

Catholic doctrine had declared virginity superior to marriage; the Puritan reply was that marriage “is a state … Far more excellent than the condition of single life.” Many Catholic commentators claimed that sexual intercourse had been the resultof the Fall and did not occur in Paradise; the Puritan comeback was that marriage was ordained by God, “and that not in this sinful world, but in paradise, that most joyful garden of pleasure.”

Given the Catholic background against which they wrote and preached, the Puritans’ praise of marriage was at the same time an implicit endorsement of marital sex as good. They elaborated that point specifically and often. This becomes clearer once we are clued into the now-outdated terms by which they customarily referred to sexual intercourse: “matrimonial duty,” “cohabitation,” “act of matrimony,” and (especially) “due benevolence.”

Everywhere we turn in Puritan writing on the subject we find sex affirmed as good in principle. [William] Gouge referred to physical union as “one of the most proper and essential acts of marriage.” It was Milton’s opinion that the text “they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24) was included in the Bible

To justify and make legitimate the rites of the marriage bed; which was not unneedful, if for all this warrant they were suspected of pollution by some sects of philosophy and religions of old, and latelier among the Papists.

William Ames listed as one of the duties of marriage “mutual communication of bodies.”
So closely linked were the ideas of marriage and sex that the Puritans usually defined marriage partly in terms of sexual union. [William] Perkins defined marriage as “the lawful conjunction of the two married persons; that is, of one man and one woman into one flesh.” Another well-known definition was this: Marriage

Is a coupling together of two persons into one flesh, according to the ordinance of God… . By yoking, joining, or coupling is meant, not only outward dwelling together of the married folks … but also an uniform agreement of mind and a common participation of body and goods.

Married sex was not only legitimate in the Puritan view; it was meant to be exuberant. Gouge said that married couples should engage in sex “with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully.” An anonymous Puritan claimed that when two are made one by marriage they

May joyfully give due benevolence one to the other; as two musical instruments rightly fitted do make a most pleasant and sweet harmony in a well tuned consort.

Alexander Niccholes theorized that in marriage “thou not only unitest unto thyself a friend and comfort for society, but also a companion for pleasure.”

In this acceptance of physical sex, the Puritans once again rejected the asceticism and implicit dualism between sacred and secular that had governed Christian thinking for so long. In the Puritan view, God had given the physical world, including sex, for human welfare.


  • A La Carte (June 11)

    We lost the baby / The Bible is cessationist (and wondrous!) / Thinking about Eastern Orthodoxy: a primer for evangelicals / Virtue signalling in the church / What is God’s providence? / Restlessness / Kindle deals / and more.

  • Conform

    You Can Conform to Christ Even if You Don’t Conform to Me

    One of the aspects of the Christian faith that I find particularly perplexing is the freedom God gives his people to obey him in different or even opposite ways, so that one person’s obedience is another person’s disobedience. Even as two people take the same action, one might be obeying him and the other disobeying…

  • A La Carte (June 10)

    Does prayer make a difference? / Portrait of an abortionist / Pushing back against the black tax / Bring your whole self to work / Blessed are the weak / When service isn’t a transaction / A pastoral analogy / Bill C-9 will soon be law in Canada / and more.

  • A La Carte (June 9)

    Thawed embryos, reproductive rights, and the grey marshlands of ethical ennui / 14 World Cup stars who follow Jesus / The God of small churches / How a critical theorist influenced the sexualization of everything / When culture trumps strategy / Fasting and feasting / Kindle deals / and more.

  • Six Counsels for a Sending Church

    Sacrificial obedience to the One who sends is what it will take to reach every language. Join us October 14 to 16 in Dallas–Fort Worth for The Lord Who Sends as we reflect on God’s word and the lives of missionaries who followed the Great Commission.

  • The Two Kinds of Content You Consume

    The Two Kinds of Content You Consume

    At some point we all began to refer to articles and video as content. And today we are drowning in it! Here is a simple filter for telling content created to serve you apart from content created to serve its maker.