[print edition page number: 73]

Elizabeth Clinton

The Countess of Lincoln’s Nursery (1622)

Because it hath pleased God to bless me with many children, and so caused me to observe many things falling out to mothers and to their children, I thought good to open my mind concerning a special matter belonging to all child-bearing women seriously to consider of and, to manifest my mind the better, even to write of this matter so far as God shall please to direct me. In sum, the matter I mean: is the duty of nursing due by mothers to their own children?^[1]

In setting down whereof, I will first show that every woman ought to nurse her own child, and secondly I will endeavor to answer such objections as are used to be cast out against this duty to disgrace the same.

The first point is easily performed. For it is the express ordinance of God that mothers should nurse their own children, and being his ordinance they are bound to it in conscience. This should stop the mouths of all repliers, for “God is most wise,”^[2] and therefore must needs know what is fittest and best for us to do. And to prevent all foolish fears or shifts,^[3] we are given to understand that he is also “all sufficient,”^[4] and therefore infinitely able to bless his own ordinance and [74] to afford us means in ourselves (as continual experience confirmeth) toward the observance thereof.

If this (as it ought) be granted, then how venturous are those women that dare venture to do otherwise, and so to refuse, and by refusing to despise that order which the most wise and almighty God hath appointed, and instead thereof to choose their own pleasures? Oh what peace can there be to these women’s consciences, unless through the darkness of their understanding they judge it no disobedience?

And then they will drive me to prove that this nursing and nourishing of their own children in their own bosoms is God’s ordinance. They are very willful, or very ignorant, if they make a question of it. For it is proved sufficiently to be their duty both by God’s word, and also by his works.

By his word it is proved, first by examples, namely the example of Eve. For who suckled her sons Cain, Abel, Seth, etc. but her self?^[5] Which she did not only of mere necessity, because yet no other woman was created, but especially because she was their mother and so saw it was her duty and because she had a true natural affection, which moved her to do it gladly. Next, the example of Sarah, the wife of Abraham. For she both gave her son Isaac suck, as doing the duty commanded of God, and also took great comfort and delight therein, as in a duty well pleasing to herself, whence she spake of it as of an action worthy to be named in her holy rejoicing.^[6] Now if Sarah, so great a princess, did nurse her own child, why should any of us neglect to do the like, except (which God forbid) we think scorn to follow her, whose daughters it is our glory to be, and which we be only upon this condition: that we imitate her well-doing.^[7] Let us look therefore to our worthy pattern, noting withal that she put her self to this work when she was very old, ^[8] and so might the better have excused herself than we younger women can, being also more able to hire and keep a nurse than any [75] of us. But why is she not followed by most in the practice of this duty? Even because they want^[9] her virtue and piety. This want is the common hindrance to this point of the woman’s obedience, for this want makes them want love to God’s precepts, want love to his doctrine and, like step-mothers, want due love to their own children.

But now to another worthy example, namely that excellent woman Hannah, who having after much affliction of mind obtained a son of God, whom she vowed unto God. She did not put him to another to nurse, but nursed him her own self until she had weaned him and carried him to be consecrate unto the Lord. As well knowing that this duty of giving her child suck was so acceptable to God, as for the cause thereof she did not sin in staying with it at home from the yearly sacrifice.^[10] But now women, especially of any place,^[11] and of little grace, do not hold this duty acceptable to God because it is unacceptable to themselves, as if they would have the Lord to like and dislike according to their vain lusts.

To proceed, take notice of one example more, that is of the blessed Virgin: as her womb bore our blessed Savior, so her paps gave him suck.^[12] Now who shall deny the own mother’s suckling of their own children to be their duty, since every godly matron hath walked in these steps before them: Eve the mother of all the living; Sarah the mother of all the faithful; Hannah so graciously heard of God; Mary blessed among women and called blessed of all ages. And who can say but that the rest of holy women mentioned in the holy scriptures did the like, since no doubt that speech of that noble dame (saying, “who would have said to Abraham that Sarah should have given children suck?”)^[13] was taken from the ordinary custom of mothers in those less corrupted times.

And so much for proof of this office and duty to be God’s ordinance by his own word, according to the argument of examples. I hope I shall likewise prove it by the same word from plain precepts. First, from that precept which willeth [76] the younger women to marry and to bear children,^[14] that is, not only to bear them in the womb and to bring them forth, but also to bear them on their knee, in their arms, and at their breasts. For this bearing a little before is called nourishing, and bringing up, and to enforce it the better upon women’s consciences, it is numbered as the first of the good works for which godly women should be well reported of.^[15] And well it may be the first, because if holy minister or other Christians do hear of a good woman to be brought to bed,^[16] and her child to be living, their first question usually is whether she herself give it suck, yea or no? If the answer be she doth, then they commend her; if the answer be she doth not, then they are sorry for her.

And thus I come to a second precept. I pray you, who that judges aright doth not hold the suckling of her own child the part of a true mother, of an honest mother, of a just mother, of a sincere mother, of a mother worthy of love, of a mother deserving good report, of a virtuous mother, of a mother winning praise for it? All this is assented to by any of good understanding. Therefore this is also a precept, as for other duties, so for this of mothers to their children, which saith: whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things be worthy of love, whatsoever things be of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think of these things, these things do, and the God of peace shall be with you.^[17]

So far for my promise to prove by the word of God that it is his ordinance to women should nurse their own children; now I will endeavor to prove it by his works. First by his works of judgment: if it were not his ordinance for mothers to give their children suck, it were no judgment to bereave them of their milk, but it is specified to be a great judgment to bereave them hereof, and to give them dry breasts.^[18] Therefore it is to be gathered, even from hence, that it is his ordinance, since to deprive them of means to do it, is a punishment of them. [77]

I add to this the work that God worketh in the very nature of mothers, which proveth also that he hath ordained that they should nurse their own children. For by his secret operation, the mother’s affection is so knit by nature’s law to her tender babe, as she finds no power to deny to suckle it, no not when she is in hazard to lose her own life by attending on it, for in such a case it is not said, let the mother fly and leave her infant to the peril, as if she were dispensed with, but only it is said “woe to her,” as if she were to be pitied, that for nature to her child she must be unnatural to herself. Now, if any then being even at liberty and in peace with all plenty shall deny to give suck to their own children, they go against nature and show that God hath not done so much for them as to work any good, no not in their nature, but left them more savage than the dragons and as cruel to their little ones as the ostriches.^[19]

Now another work of God proving this point is the work of his provision, for every kind to be apt and able to nourish their own fruit. There is no beast that feeds their young with milk, but the Lord, even from the first ground of the order of nature, “Grow, and multiply,”^[20] hath provided it of milk to suckle their own young, which every beast take so naturally unto, as if another beast come toward their young to offer the office of a dam unto it, they show according to their fashion a plain dislike of it, as if nature did speak in them, and say it is contrary to God’s order in nature, commanding each kind to increase and multiply in their own bodies and by their own breasts, not to bring forth by one dam and to bring up by another. But it is his ordinance that every kind should both bring forth and also nurse its own fruit.

Much more should this work of God prevail to persuade women, made as man in the image of God,^[21] and therefore should be ashamed to be put to school to learn good nature of the unreasonable creature.^[22] In us also, as we know by experience, God provideth milk in our breasts against the time of our children’s birth, and this he hath done ever since it was said to us also, “Increase, and multiply,”^[23] so that this work of his provision showeth that he tieth^[24] us likewise [78] to nourish the children of our own womb, with our own breasts, even by the order of nature. Yea, it showeth that he so careth for and regardeth little children even from the womb that he would have them nursed by those that in all reason will look to them with the kindest affection, namely their mothers, and in giving them^[25] milk for it, he doth plainly tell them that he requires it.

Oh consider, how comes our milk? Is it not by the direct providence of God? Why provides he it, but for the child? The mothers then that refuse to nurse their own children, do they not despise God’s providence? Do they not deny God’s will? Do they not as it were say, “I see, O God, by the means thou hast put into to me, that thou wouldst have me nurse the child thou hast given me, but I will not do so much for thee.” Oh impious and impudent unthankfulness; yea monstrous unnaturalness, both to their own natural fruit borne so near their breasts and fed in their own wombs, and yet may not be suffered to suck their own milk.

And this unthankfulness and unnaturalness is oftener the sin of the higher and the richer sort than of the meaner and poorer,^[26] except^[27] some nice and proud idle dames, who will imitate their betters till they make their poor husbands beggars. And this is one hurt which the better rank do by their ill example egg and embolden the lower ones to follow them to their loss. Were it not better for us greater persons to keep God’s ordinance and then show the meaner their duty in our good example? I am sure we have more helps to perform it and have fewer probable reasons to allege against it, than women that live by hard labor and painful toil. If such mothers as refuse this office of love and of nature to their children should hereafter be refused, despised, and neglected of those their children, were they not justly requited according to their own unkind dealing? I might say more in handling this first point of my promise, but I leave the larger and learneder^[28] discourse hereof unto men of art and learning. Only I speak of so much as I read and know in my own experience, which if any of my sex and condition do receive good by, I am glad. If they scorn it, they shall have the reward of scorners. I write in modesty and can reap no disgrace by their immodest folly.

And so I come to the last part of my promise, which is to answer objections made by diverse^[29] against this duty of mothers to their children.

First it is objected that Rebecca had a nurse and that therefore her mother did not give her suck of her own breasts, and so good women in the first ages did [79] not hold them to this office of nursing their own children.^[30] To this I answer that if her mother had milk and health and yet did put this duty from her to another, it was her fault and so proveth nothing against me. But it is manifest that she that Rebecca calleth her nurse was called so either for that she most tended her while her mother suckled her, or for that she weaned her, or for that during her nonage^[31] and childhood, she did minister to her continually such good things as delighted and nourished her up. For to any one of these the name of a nurse is fitly given, whence a good wife is called her husband’s nurse. And that Rebecca’s nurse was only such a one appeareth because afterward she is not named a nurse, but a maid, saying: “Then Rebecca rose, and her maids.”^[32] Now, maids give not suck out of their breasts; never any virgin or honest maid gave suck but that blessed one^[33] from an extraordinary and blessed power.

Secondly, it is objected that it is troublesome, that it is noisome^[34] to one’s clothes, that it makes one look old, etc. All such reason are uncomely and unchristian to be objected, and therefore unworthy to be answered; they argue unmotherly affection, idleness, desire to have liberty to gad^[35] from home, pride, foolish fineness, lust, wantonness, etc., and the like evils. Ask Sarah, Hannah, the blessed Virgin, and any modest loving mother what trouble they accounted it to give their little ones suck. Behold most nursing mothers, and they be as clean and sweet in their clothes and carry their age and hold their beauty as well as those that suckle not, and most likely are they so to do because keeping God’s ordinance, they are sure of God’s blessing. And it hath been observed in some women that they grew more beautiful and better favored by very nursing their own children.

But there are some women that object fear,^[36] saying that they are so weak and so tender that they are afraid to venture to give their children suck, lest they endanger their health thereby. Of these, I demand why then they did venture to marry and so to bear children? And if they say they could not choose, and that they thought not that marriage would impair their health, I answer that for the same reasons they should set themselves to nurse their own children, because they should not choose but do what God would have them to do. And they should believe that this work will be for their health also, seeing it is ordinary [80] with the Lord to give good stomach,^[37] health, and strength to almost all mothers that take this pains with their children.

One answer more to all the objections that use to be made against giving children suck is this: that now the hardness to effect this matter is much removed by a late example of a tender young Lady, and you may all be encouraged to follow after in that wherein she hath gone before you, and so made the way more easy and more hopeful by that which she findeth possible and comfortable by God’s blessing, and no offence to her Lord nor her self.^[38] She might have had as many doubts and lets^[39] as any of you, but she was willing to try how God would enable her, and he hath given her good success, and I hope he will do to others that are willing to trust in God for his help.

Now if any reading these few lines return against me that it may be I myself have given my own children suck and therefore am bolder and more busy to meddle in urging this point, to the end to insult over and to make them to be blamed that have not done it, I answer, that whether I have or have not performed this my bounden duty, I will not deny to tell my own practice. I know and acknowledge that I should have done it, and having not done it, it was not for want of will in myself, but partly I was overruled by another authority, and partly deceived by some ill counsel, and partly I had not so well considered of my duty in this motherly office as since I did, when it was too late for me to put it in execution. Wherefore being pricked in heart for my undutifulness, this way I study to redeem by peace, first by repentance towards God, humbly and often craving his pardon for this my offence; secondly by studying how to show double love to my children, to make them amends for neglect of this part of love to them, when they should have hung on my breasts and have been nourished in mine own bosom; thirdly by doing my endeavor^[40] to prevent many Christian mothers from sinning in the same kind against our most loving and gracious God.

And for this cause I add unto my performed promise this short exhortation: namely, I beseech all godly women to remember how we elder ones are commanded to instruct the younger to love their children. Now, therefore, love them so as to do this office to them when they are born, more gladly for love’s sake than a stranger, who bore them not, shall do for lucre’s sake. Also I pray you to set no more so light by^[41] God’s blessing in your own breasts, which the Holy Spirit ranketh with other excellent blessings. If it be unlawful to trample under feet a cluster of grapes, in which a little wine is found, then how unlawful is it to destroy [81] and dry up those breasts in which your own child (and perhaps one of God’s very elect, to whom to be a nursing father is a King’s honor, and to whom to be a nursing mother is a Queen’s honor)^[42] might find food of sincere milk, even from God’s immediate providence, until it were fitter for stronger meat? I do know that the Lord may deny some women either to have any milk in their breasts at all, or to have any passage for their milk, or to have any health, or to have a right mind, and so they may be letted^[43] from this duty, by want, by sickness, by lunacy, etc. But I speak not to these; I speak to you, whose consciences witness against you that you cannot justly allege any of those impediments.

Do you submit yourselves to the pain and trouble of this ordinance of God? Trust not other women, whom wages hire to do it, better than yourselves, whom God and nature ties to do it. I have found by grievous experience such dissembling in nurses, pretending sufficiency of milk, when indeed they had too much scarcity; pretending willingness, towardness,^[44] wakefulness, when indeed they have been most willful, most froward,^[45] and most slothful, as I fear the death of one or two of my little babes came by the default^[46] of their nurses. Of all those which I had for eighteen children, I had but two which were thoroughly willing and careful; diverse have had their children miscarry^[47] in the nurse’s hands, and are such mothers (if it were by the nurse’s carelessness) guiltless? I know not how they should, since they will shut them out of the arms of nature and leave them to the will of a stranger, yea to one that will seem to estrange her self from her own child to give suck to the nurse-child.^[48] This she may fain^[49] to do upon a covetous composition,^[50] but she frets at it in her mind, if she have any natural affection.

Therefore, be no longer at the trouble and at the care to hire others to do your own work; be not so unnatural to thrust away your own children; be not so hardy^[51] as to venture^[52] a tender babe to a less tender heart; be not accessory to that disorder of causing a poorer woman to banish her own infant for the entertaining of a richer woman’s child, as it were bidding her unlove her own to love yours. We have followed Eve in transgression; let us follow her in obedience. [82] When God laid the sorrows of conception, of breeding, or bringing forth, and of bringing up her children upon her, and so upon us in her loins, did she reply any word against?^[53] Not a word. So I pray you all mine own daughters, and others that are still child-bearing, reply not against the duty of suckling them, when God hath sent you them.

Indeed I see some, if the weather be wet or cold, if the way be foul, if the Church be far off, I see they are so coy, so nice, so lukewarm,^[54] they will not take pains for their own souls. Alas, no marvel if these will not be at trouble and pain to nourish their children’s bodies! But fear God; be diligent to serve him; approve all his ordinances; seek to please him; account it no trouble or pain to do anything that hath the promise of his blessing; and then you will no doubt do this good, laudable, natural, loving duty to your children. If yet you be not satisfied, inquire not of such as refuse to do this; consult not with your own conceit;^[55] advise not with flatterers; but ask counsel of sincere and faithful preachers. If you be satisfied, then take this with you to make you do it cheerfully: think always that having the child at your breast and having it in your arms you have God’s blessing there. For children are God’s blessings. Think again how your babe crying for your breasts, sucking heartily the milk out of it, and growing by it, is the Lord’s own instruction every hour, every day that you are suckling it, instructing you to show that you are his new born babes, by your earnest desire after his word and the sincere doctrine therefore,^[56] and by your daily growing in grace and goodness thereby, so shall you reap pleasure and profit. Again, you may consider that when your child is at your breast, it is a fit occasion to move your heart to pray for a blessing upon that work and to give thanks for your child and for ability and freedom unto that which many a mother would have done and could not, who have tried and ventured their health and taken much pains, and yet have not obtained their desire. But they that are fitted^[57] every way for this commendable act have certainly great cause to be thankful, and I much desire that God may have glory and praise for every good work, and you much comfort, that do seek to honor God in all things. Amen.