§. 25. Of the law of a wiues vow. to Obiect. This reſtraint of wiues is only in the court of men.

§. 25. Of the law of a wiues vow.

A third reaſon is taken from the law of a wiues vow: whereby in generall is implied, that a wife might not make a vow

without her husbands conſent: whence it followeth as an argument taken from the greater to the leſſe, that ſhe may not diſpoſe the goods without his conſent. Yea, the Law further expreſly ſaith, that though ſhe hath vowed, yet her husband hath power to diſanull her vow. Note here, how the Lord will rather depart from his owne right (as I may ſo ſpeake) then haue that order which he hath appointed betwixt man and woman broken. The Lords right, was to haue what was vowed to him performed: the order which he appointed, was to haue the wife ſubiect to her husband: rather then the wife ſhould doe that which the husband would not haue done, the Lord remitted a wiues vow in caſe her husband would not conſent to haue it performed. Now then I demand, is the diſpoſing of goods a greater matter then the performing of a vow? or hath a wife in theſe dayes more libertie then in former? if ſhe haue, by what law? was there euer vnder the Law a ſtraiter charge laid vpon wiues then this, Let wiues be ſubiect to their husbands in euerie thing.

Obiect. That point of a womans ſubiection in performing her vow, is a particular ruled caſe: but not this of diſpoſing goods.

Anſw. The Scripture by particular Lawes and examples teacheth directions for other caſes like to them: and arguments drawne by iuſt and neceſſarie conſequence, are counted as ſound as expreſſe teſtimonies. Whereas it is ſaid, that this particular in queſtion is not expreſly decided, I take the reaſon thereof to be this, that in former times they ſo well marked the extent of the generall law of a wiues ſubiection, as they made no queſtion of doing this or other like things without their husbands conſent. Neither did good wiues take that libertie, neither had they any patrons of ſuch libertie.

2. Obiect. The caſe of a wiues diſpoſing goods is vnlike to that of vowes, becauſe vowes are voluntarie, but diſpoſing goods, as a worke of mercie, is neceſſarie.

Anſw. Though it were a voluntarie thing to make, or not to make a vow: yet a vow being made, it was not in the power of the partie that made it, not to performe it: it was a neceſſarie dutie to performe a vow, euen expreſly commanded. As

for the pretended worke of mercie, I will hereafter ſhew, that a wife is not neceſſarily tied thereunto.

§. 26. Of humane lawes which reſtraine wiues from diſpoſing goods, without or againſt their husbands conſent.

A fourth is taken from the lawes of men whereunto we are ſubiect, and which we muſt obey euen for conſcience ſake, ſo farre as they thwart not Gods Law, which in this caſe they doe not, as the reaſons before gathered out of Gods word doe ſhew.

Now our Law ſaith, that euerie gift, grant, or diſpoſition of goods, lands, or other thing whatſoeuer made by a woman couert, and all and euerie obligation and feoffment made by her, and recouerie ſuffered, if they be done without her huſbands conſent, are void. Yea, if ſhe doe wrong to another, ſhe hath not any thing to make ſatisfaction during couerture: either her husband muſt doe it, or by impriſonment of her perſon muſt it be done. And though ſhe haue inheritance of her owne, yet can ſhe not grant any annuitie out of it during her couerture, without her husband: if any deed be made to that purpoſe without his conſent, or in her name alone, it is void in law. Yea, if there be debate betweene the husband and his wife, whereby certaine lands of the husbands be aſſigned to the wife with his conſent, if out of ſuch lands ſhe grant an annuitie to a ſtranger, the grant is void. And if he couenant to giue her yeerely ſuch and ſuch apparell, ſhe cannot diſpoſe it as ſhe liſt without his conſent, but only vſe and weare it her ſelfe. Neither can ſhe leaſe her owne land for yeeres, for life, &c. if ſhe doe, it is void, and the Leſſee entring by force thereof, is a Diſſeiſor to the husband, and Treſpaſſor. And if ſhe ſell any thing, the ſale is void, except ſhe be a merchant, where by the cuſtome ſhe is enabled to merchandize. Finally, ſhe cannot make executors without the conſent of her huſband, nor a deuiſe, or will. If ſhe make a will, and thereby deuiſe her owne inheritance, and her husband die, and ſhe after die without any new publication of it, it is of no force, becauſe it was void at firſt. Theſe and many other like caſes which might be alleaged euidently ſhew that by law a wife hath not

power of her ſelfe, without her husband, to diſpoſe the common goods of the familie.

§. 27. Of the inconueniences which may follow vpon a wiues diſpoſing goods without or againſt her husbands conſent.

A fit reaſon may be taken from the miſchiefes which would fall out if this liberty were giuen vnto women: which are theſe that follow:

1. The eſtate of the family might be waſted before any redreſſe could be thought of: for if the wife may diſpoſe the goods without her husbands conſent, it muſt alſo be granted without his knowledge: for it is to be ſuppoſed that if he knew of the diſpoſing of that which he liketh not, he would hinder it: if without his knowledge, then may that which he thinketh to be remaining as a ſtocke for the family, be laid out by the wife, and nothing left: whereas if he knew of the ſpending of that ſtocke, it might be he would be more thrifty and ſparing in other expences.

Obiect. This liberty is not granted to wiues beyond their husbands ability.

Anſw. Wiues cannot alwaies know their husbands ability: for their husbands may be much indebted, and yet to maintaine his credit, whereby he hopeth to raiſe his eſtate, may allow liberall maintenance for his houſe, if thereupon his wife ſhall gather that he is very rich, and accordingly be very bountifull in her gifts, ſhe may ſoone goe beyond his ability, and ſo increaſe his debt, as he ſhall neuer be able to recouer himſelfe.

2. Perſons of contrary religions and diſpoſitions being out of the family, might be maintained by the goods of the ſame family: for if the husband were of one religion, and the wife of another, he without her knowledge might maintaine thoſe of his religion, and ſhe without his knowledge might maintaine them of her religion.

Obiect. This liberty of diſpoſing goods giuen to the wife is limited within the bounds of the houſhold of faith.

Anſw. If Diuines grant them this liberty, they will themſelues iudge and determine who be of the houſhold of faith:

Popiſh wiues will ſay (ſay we what we can to the contrary) that Ieſuites, Prieſts, and Friers, are of the houſhold of faith, principall members thereof.

3. Many iarres and contentions would thence ariſe betwixt husband and wife: for if a wife ſhall perſiſt to doe that which her husband will not conſent vnto, aſſuredly one of a thouſand will not well brooke it, but will rather ſeeke all the wayes he can to croſſe her; thinking himſelfe deſpiſed, if ſhe, whether he will or no, haue her minde.

Obiect. Wiues muſt vſe this libertie with all due reſpect vnto their husbands authoritie.

Anſw. If the husband peremptorily ſtand vpon his authoritie, and by all the faire meanes that can be vſed, will not yeeld this libertie, I know not what better reſpect ſhe can ſhew to this authoritie, then to forbeare and abſtaine from doing that which otherwiſe ſhe would moſt gladly doe: But if when it commeth to the vttermoſt point, and ſhe ſhall ſay it is her right, and if ſhe cannot haue his conſent, ſhe will doe it without his conſent, ſhe therein ſheweth no great reſpect.

Many other inconueniences might be reckoned vp, but I will not longer inſiſt on them, only from theſe let it be well conſidered, whether it were not better for a familie, that the huſband ſhould be bard from diſpoſing the goods without conſent of his wife (ſo as there might be according to the prouerbe, but one hand in the purſe) then both husband and wife to haue libertie to diſpoſe them without each others conſent.

§. 28. Of propertie in goods, whether it giue libertie to diſpoſe them as a wife will.

To iuſtifie a wiues libertie in diſpoſing the common goods of the family without her husbands conſent, it is ſaid, that ſhe hath a true right and propertie in thoſe goods.

1. Anſw. Though it were granted that a wife hath a true property in the goods, yet this concluſion would not follow thereupon, that ſhe hath power of her ſelfe to diſpoſe the goods without her husbands conſent: for the authoritie which God hath giuen an husband, and ſubiection which he hath laid on a wife, reſtraine her power and libertie in that

which is her owne: as for example, ſuppoſe that a woman at the time of her mariage haue a leaſe for yeeres, or the wardſhip of the body and lands of an infant, or haue it by gift or purchaſe after mariage, ſhe cannot giue it away whatſoeuer the extremitie be: but her husband may any time during couerture, diſpoſe of it: and ſuch his diſpoſition ſhall cut off the wiues intereſt. Or ſuppoſe that the only childe of her father be an inheretrix of land, and haue in her ſelfe (her father being dead) the full poſſeſſion thereof: or that a widow haue the right vnto, and poſſeſſion of her husbands eſtate, and thus poſſeſſed be maried to an husband, hath ſhe being a wife liberty to diſpoſe that eſtate which ſhe brought with her without or againſt her husbands conſent? I thinke none will ſay it. Sure I am that what ſhe giueth, lendeth, ſelleth, or otherwiſe diſpoſeth without his conſent, he if he will, may for his lifetime recouer againe: and yet no man will denie but that ſhe hath the trueſt intereſt and propertie in the forenamed lands and inheritance.

Obiect. May ſhe not as well diſpoſe of her owne inheritance, as of thoſe goods, or reuenues which her husband giueth her?

Anſw. No, for the gift of the husband is a generall conſent of his for her to diſpoſe that which is giuen her as ſhe ſeeth meet.

§. 29. Of the reaſons againſt a wiues propertie in the common goods of the family.

2. Anſw. It may ſafely be denied that a wife hath a propertie in the common goods of the family whereof ſhe is no heire, for property in goods is a ciuill matter, and to be limited according to the law of man vnder which we liue. Where the law, or cuſtome of the place, make all the children coheires, all haue an equall right to their ſeuerall parts: where the eldeſt only is made heire, he hath a right to all: where the youngeſt only is made heire, he hath a right to all: but neither the law of nations, nor of the land where we liue giue the wife a property. By the common law mariage is a gift of all the goods and chattels perſonall of the wife to her husband, ſo that no kinde of propertie in the ſame remaineth in her. And all

perſonall goods and chattels during mariage giuen to the wife are preſently ipſo facto transferred (as to the property of them) to the husband. So that by our law ſhe is ſo farre from gaining any property by her mariage in her husbands goods, as ſhe loſeth all the property ſhe formerly had in her owne goods. Yea her neceſſary apparell is not hers in property. While ſhe remaineth a wife ſhe is (to vſe the law-phraſe) vnder couert baron. She can neither let, ſell, alien, giue, nor otherwiſe of right make any thing away, no nor yet make a will ſo to diſpoſe any goods while her husband liueth without his conſent: which yet an husband may while his wife liueth, and that without or againſt her conſent.

Obiect. The law ſtates a wife in a great part of the husbands goods, prouiding for her iointer or thirds which the husband cannot make away without her conſent.

Anſw. This prouiſion is only for the time of her widowhood in caſe ſhe ouerliue him: but for the time that ſhe remaineth his wife he may make away all, and ſhe can recouer none, till he be dead.

Obiect. This reſtraint of wiues is only in the court of men.

Anſw. Seeing it is not againſt the law of God, it muſt alſo hold good in the court of Conſcience. Nay it is agreeable to the law of God and grounded thereupon.

For (to omit the proofes before alleaged) what might be the reaſon that the daughters of Zelophehad, who were heires to their father, were forbidden to mary out of their fathers tribe, and that a law was made that no daughters that poſſeſſed any inheritance ſhould mary out of their fathers tribe, but becauſe all that a woman had before mariage, paſſed vpon the husband and became his by vertue of mariage? This alſo for that purpoſe is by ſome not vnfitly, nor without probabilitie noted, that it is the common phraſe of Scripture to terme huſbands (but not wiues) rich, implying thereby that riches by a property appertaine to husbands: yea vſually in Scripture goods and lands are ſaid to be the husbands.

Obiect. The wiues of Iaakob doe terme the goods which their husbands had theirs, ſaying, the riches which God hath taken from our Father is OVRS, Gen. 31. 16.

Anſw. They vſe the word Ours in oppoſition to their fathers houſe, and in relation not to their perſons, but to their husbands family, and therefore they adde and our childrens: So as by that place no greater right can be proued for wiues, then for children. When the holy Ghoſt ſpeaketh of the ſame goods, he ſaith not in relation to husband and wiues both, their flockes, their ſubſtance, but only in relation to the huſband, his flockes, his ſubſtance. For as in mixture of wine and water, though the greater quantitie be water, yet we call the whole, wine: ſo in the common goods of the family, though the wife ſhould bring the greater part, we call all the husbands.