1. Obiect. Mariage giuing a wife right of her husbands body, doth much more of his goods. to §. 38. Of the

reſtraint of wiues about allowance for themſelues or families without their husbands conſent.

1. Obiect. Mariage giuing a wife right of her husbands body, doth much more of his goods.

Anſw. I denie the conſequence. For the vſe of the body is a proper act of the matrimoniall bond, wherein the difference betwixt ſuperioritie and ſubiection appeareth not: the wife hath as great a power ouer the husbands body as the husband ouer the wiues: which is not ſo in the goods: no one thing can be named, wherein the power and authoritie of the husband more conſiſteth, then in the goods.

2. Obiect. In the forme of mariage the man ſaith to his wife, with all my worldly goods I thee indow.

Anſw. 1. Thoſe words are to be taken of the vſe of his goods, and not of a property in them.

2. If an husband ſhall intend a property by them, that property which ſhe hath thereby, ſhe hath not by vertue of the generall law of mariage, but of his particualar free donation.

3. In all countries thoſe words are not vſed in the forme of mariage. If thoſe words giue the wife her property, then ſuch wiues as are maried without thoſe words vſed, haue no property: ſo as this cannot be a generall ground of liberty for all wiues.

3. Obiect. A wife hath as good an eſtate in her husbands

goods as the Church in Chriſts bloud: but there the Church hath a property.

Anſw. Neither of thoſe points can be proued. But if a wiues right in her husbands goods be as the Churches in Chriſts bloud, what is gotten thereby? The Church hath not power without or againſt Chriſts conſent to diſpoſe his bloud: The Church of Rome is counted a proud vſurping ſtrumpet for taking vpon her ſo to doe.

Queſt. Where then is the preferment of the wife aboue ſeruants and children, if ſhe haue not a property?

I anſwer, Much euery manner of way.

1. There is due to her a more free and plentifull vſe of all the goods, then vnto them.

2. By her place ſhe hath the ordering and diſpoſing of the goods allotted for the common vſe of the familie: as was before granted.

3. Her husband ought to giue her a portion to diſpoſe as ſhe ſhall ſee good, as we ſhall after ſhew, when we come to the husbands duties.

4. She is a ioint gouernour with her husband ouer the children and ſeruants, as was ſhewed before.

Againe I anſwer, that this argument might as well be alledged againſt that feare, ſubiection, and obedience which the Scripture expreſly requireth of wiues, and it might be demanded, if wiues muſt feare and obey their husbands and be ſubiect vnto them, where is their preferment aboue their children and ſeruants. But it hath beene ſhewed that though the ſame things for matter be required of wiues which are required of children and ſeruants, yet there is a great difference in the manner of performing them.

§. 32. Of examples and other reaſons alleadged for libertie of wiues to diſpoſe goods.

2. Abigails example is alleadged for a wiues libertie: and the example of the good houſe wife deſcribed by Salomon.

Anſw. 1. Abigails example was extraordinary; beſides, who can tell whether the heart of her husband ſo truſted not in her

as he referred the whole gouernment of the houſe to her, and ſo ſhe had a generall conſent for what ſhe did.

2. It is cleere that the other good-wife had her husbands conſent for what ſhe did: for beſides that it is ſaid the heart of her husband truſted in her, it is alſo ſaid, that he praiſed her. Therefore he was neither ignorant of that which ſhee did, nor vnwilling ſhe ſhould doe it: it was neither without nor againſt his conſent.

3. It is alleadged that wiues haue as great a care in getting goods, or in preſeruing them for the good of the familie: therefore it is iuſt and equall, that they ſhould haue a like power in diſpoſing them.

Anſw. Though queſtion may be made of the former part, at leaſt for the greater ſort and number of wiues, yet for anſwer to this reaſon I need not queſtion it; for the conſequence doth not follow, though that be granted. The right of diſpoſing goods doth not ſimply riſe from the care and paines of getting and preſeruing them: but from that order that the Lord hath beene pleaſed to ſet downe. A wiſe and induſtrious childe may be a meanes to raiſe and increaſe his fathers eſtate, when his father taketh little care and paines about it: yea a faithfull and wiſe ſteward or other ſeruant (as Iaakob and Ioſeph were) may doe much more by his paines and care in getting and preſeruing the goods of the familie, then his maſter: yet will it not thereupon follow, that ſuch a childe, or ſuch a ſeruant hath as great a right and power to diſpoſe ſuch goods as his father or his maſter.

4. The neere coniunction betwixt man and wife is alleaged: they are ſaid to be yoake-fellowes, and thence is inferred that they haue a like power in diſpoſing goods.

Anſw. They are yoak-fellowes in mutuall familiaritie, not in equall authoritie; and in relation to others as children and ſeruants, not in oppoſition each to other. In this reſpect ſhe is ſubiect, not equall. If therefore he will one thing, and ſhe another, ſhe may not thinke to haue an equall right and power, ſhe muſt giue place and yeeld.

§. 33. Of the

ſubiection of wiues in diſtributing goods to charitable vſes.

Some that grant that a wife is ſo ſubiected to her husband in a ciuill manner, as ſhe may not diſpoſe any part of his goods at her pleaſure to any ciuill vſe, denie this ſubiection to extend to giuing of almes, and ſuch like charitable vſes.

Before I come to determine this queſtion, let it be remembred, that it was before granted, that ordinarie dutie muſt giue place to extraordinarie need, ſo that releefe in preſent neceſſitie is not controuerted. Let it be alſo remembred that a wife may haue goods proper to her ſelfe, yea it ſhall be ſhewed that an husband ought according to his abilitie to commit ſomething to her diſcretion and diſpoſition: of theſe and ſuch like goods ſhe is as much bound as her husband to expend ſomething to charitable vſes: and (as God offereth occaſion) to reach forth her hand to the poore and needy.

Yea further let this be premiſed, that in caſe a wife be forbidden or reſtrained by her husband, ſhe ought to vſe all the good meanes ſhe can by her ſelfe and her friends to moue her husband to grant her ſome libertie, that ſhe may haue ſome triall of her mercifull and charitable diſpoſition: if herein ſhe cannot preuaile, then ſhe ought to make knowne vnto her husband ſuch perſons caſes as ſhe thinkes meet to be releeued, and vſe all the motiues ſhe can to perſwade him to afford them ſome releefe.

But put the caſe a wiſe, religious, mercifull wife, be maried to a couetous worldling, who though he haue wit, and vnderſtanding enough to manage ciuill affaires, and to prouide for the outward temporall eſtate of the houſe, yet hath no heart to releeue the poore, and is not only vnwilling himſelfe to doe good in that kinde, but will not ſuffer his wife to doe it, whether may a wife priuilie take of ſuch goods as he hath reſerued to his owne diſpoſing, and ſimply without any kinde of conſent diſtribute them to charitable vſes, or though he expreſly forbid her, yet directly againſt his conſent diſpoſe them?

With reuerend reſpect to better iudgements, I thinke ſhe may not (except before excepted.) For it being before proued in generall, that ſhe had no ſuch liberty in diſpoſing goods, I cannot ſee how this particular end of giuing almes can diſpence with her generall ſubiection in euery thing, except there were ſome particular warrant for it in Gods word.

§. 34. Of generall exhortations to works of mercy. How far they binde wiues.

Obiect. The many generall exhortations vnto workes of mercy, which without limitation to any particular perſons, are indefinitely directed to all, doe giue ſufficient warrant to wiues: ſuch as theſe, Giue almes.

Let vs doe good.

To diſtribute forget not, &c.

Anſw. All theſe are ſtrong motiues to prouoke wiues to be mercifull and charitable in ſuch things as they may, by any means with their husbands conſent, or in ſuch things as by their huſbands are giuen to them. Yea alſo they are ſtrong motiues to prouoke husbands to allow them liberty to giue almes. But in the caſe propounded they giue no liberty to wiues: for it is a ruled caſe laid downe by Chriſt himſelfe, that workes of charity muſt be done, and almes muſt be giuen of ſuch things as we haue, or which are in our power to giue. Now if the husband will not giue her that power, ſhe hath not power to giue, and ſo is excuſed. In this caſe her true will, and her faithfull and earneſt deſire ſhall be accepted for the deed, according to that which the Apoſtle ſaith, if there be firſt a willing minde, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. Many caſes may be giuen wherein inferiours are reſtrained from workes of mercy; as ſuppoſe a ſonne or ſeruant be deſirous to viſit one ſicke [gap]r in priſon, but his Parent or Maſter (though leaue be asked) will not ſuffer him, but charge him not to ſtirre out of doores, or [gap]o goe with him another way, ſhall this ſonne or ſeruant notwithſtanding that charge, doe that worke of mercy?

§. 35. Of obedience to an husband in ſuch things as he ſinfully forbiddeth.

Obiect. 2. This reſtraint is not in the Lord, but rather againſt him and his word, therefore a wife is not bound thereunto.

Anſw. Though the husband ſinne in reſtraining his wife, yet

ſhee in that reſtraint may obey, and that in the Lord: becauſe the Lord who hath commanded her to be ſubiect in euery thing, hath no where warranted her not to be ſubiect in this particular. It is expreſly ſaid in the law concerning a wiues vowes, that if her huſband breake them after he hath heard them, he ſhall beare her iniquity. Did not he then ſinne in reſtraining her, and was not ſhe guiltleſſe though ſhe yeelded to his reſtraint? The condition betwixt husbands and wiues in this caſe, is not vnlike the caſe betwixt other ſuperiours in authority, and their inferiours in ſubiection. But other inferiours may lawfully abſtaine from ſuch things as their gouernours doe ſinfully charge them to abſtaine from. For ſuppoſe a ſonne growen to be a man, liue in his fathers houſe at his fathers finding, and haue no ſet portion of his owne, and his father will not giue him leaue to beſtow any thing on charitable vſes, is he now bound to giue almes? ſhall the curſe be executed on him if he giue not? A croſſe indeed I acknowledge it to be, both to ſuch a ſonne, and alſo to a wife to be ſo reſtrained: but not a curſe or ſinne; the ſinne and curſe lieth on their head, who reſtraine them by vertue of their authority, wherein they abuſe their authority: as other gouernours may do and oft do, and yet neither liberty granted thereby to ſubiects, nor authority taken from gouernours. In this reſemblance betwixt a ſonne and a wife I deſire not to be miſtaken; for I alleadge it not to make the ſtate of a wife and a ſonne all one: but to ſhew that thoſe generall precepts of giuing almes, may haue their exceptions, as they which in particular handle that point, giue other examples. There muſt therefore be a further ground then the generall commandement of almes-giuing to proue the forenamed liberty of wiues.

§. 36. Of Zipporahs caſe in circumciſing her ſonne.

Obiect. 3. A wife was made to be an helpe to her husband: in thoſe things therefore wherein he faileth, ſhe muſt make ſupply, as Zipporah who performed a duty which belonged to her husband, and not vnto her.

Anſw. She may be an helpe in many other things, though this be out of her power: yea and in this alſo by counſell, perſwaſion, and other like meanes ſhe may be a great helpe. The caſe of Zipporah was extraordinary, and of an vrgent preſent neceſſity, euen to ſaue the life of her husband. Beſides, Moſes was of himſelfe

vnable to doe it, but willing that ſhe ſhould doe it. Now what is this to ordinarie caſes, and ſuch caſes as husbands are able enough themſelues to doe, but altogether vnwilling that it ſhould be done by their wiues?

But what if Zipporahs example herein be not warrantable? for it doth not appeare that it was ſimply approued of God: God doth oft remoue temporary iudgements for the very workes ſake that is done, though in the manner it be ſinfully done. Inſtance the repentance of Ahab, 1. King. 21. 29.

§. 37. Of the wife of Chuzas caſe in miniſtering to Chriſt.

4. Obiect. Ioanna the wife of Chuza, Herods ſteward, miniſtred vnto Chriſt of her ſubſtance without her husbands conſent.

Anſw. If this could be proued it were ſomewhat to the purpoſe; but this clauſe without her husbands conſent (wherein the maine ſtate of the queſtion conſiſteth) is not in the text, nor by any good probabilitie can be gathered out of it. All the ſhew of probabilitie that can be ſhewed for it is, that Ioanna is there ſaid to be the wife of Chuza, Herods ſteward. But to ſhew that that is nothing, let it be noted,

1. That phraſe doth not imply that Chuza was then liuing. It is ſaid that Dauid begat Salomon of the wife of Vriah, but Vriah was not then liuing: therefore the tranſlators for perſpicuitie ſake doe inſert theſe words (her that had beene) the wife of Vriah. So likewiſe Onan is commanded to goe in to his brothers wife, yet doth not this imply that his brother was then liuing.

Obiect. Why ſhould mention be made of Chuza, Herods ſteward, if he were not then liuing?

Anſw. To ſhew that Ioanna was a woman of great place, whereby this fruit of her faith in following Chriſt was the more commended. Thus in another kinde Matthew is intitled the Publican, after he had cleane relinquiſht that office, the more to commend his faith.

I doe not here directly affirme that Chuza was then dead, but for ought that this phraſe doth imply, he might be dead.

2. Some gather that this ſteward was that Ruler whoſe ſonne Chriſt healed, who thereupon beleeued with all his houſe.

Which if he were, then it cannot be doubted, but that his wife followed Chriſt with his good liking and conſent.

3. Chuza being Herods ſteward, and ſo a man of great place, and publike imploiment, might, if he were then liuing, depute the managing of all affaires at home to his wife, as the husband of the good wife commended by Salomon, and ſo ſhe might haue at leaſt a generall conſent.

I doe not certainly determine any of theſe expreſly to be ſo, I doe but note them as probabilities, yet ſuch as doe ſufficiently ouerthrow the ſurmiſed libertie of a wife in giuing almes without any conſent of her husband: for this of all other probabilities ſeemeth to be moſt improbable. Into my heart it can neuer enter to imagine that Chriſt would giue ſuch an occaſion of ſlander vnto his enemies, as to ſay he caried about with him other mens wiues, without or againſt the conſent of their husbands, and ſuffered them to ſpend the goods of their huſbands vpon him. I had much rather thinke that either ſuch women as followed him had no husbands liuing, or if they had, that they did that which they did with the conſent of their husbands.

§. 38. Of the

reſtraint of wiues about allowance for themſelues or families without their husbands conſent.

That which hath hitherto beene deliuered concerning a wiues ſubiection in diſpoſing goods, may alſo be applied to other things concerning her ſelfe, children, ſeruants, &c. whereof I will giue ſome examples.

A wife hath not power to appoint what ſhe liſt her ſelfe without or againſt her husbands conſent, either for her owne allowance, or for her family; ſhe muſt rather reſt ſatisfied with that which he appointeth: for he being the head, muſt haue the ouer-ruling ſtroake therein. Beſides he better knoweth what may be afforded.

Queſt. What if an husband make himſelfe poorer then he is: and the allowance which he appointeth be meaner then his meanes, and vnbeſeeming his place and ſtate?

Anſw. She ought, if poſſiby ſhe can by her owne inſtant perſwaſion, or any other faire meanes, moue him to that which tendeth to his honour and reputation: but if ſhe can

no way preuaile, her ſubiection requireth contentment and patience.