A Wife’s Not Going Against Her Husband’s Will (I)

Hitherto of a wiues reuerence, it followeth to ſpeake of her obedience: The firſt law that euer was giuen to woman ſince her fall, laid vpon her this dutie of Obedience to her husband, in theſe words,⁶³³ Thy deſire ſhall be to thine husband, and he ſhall rule ouer thee. How can an husband rule ouer a wife, if ſhe obey not him? The principall part of that ſubmiſſion which in this⁶³⁴ text, and in many other places is required of a wife, conſiſteth in obedience: and therefore it is expreſly commended vnto wiues in the example of Sarah who⁶³⁵ obeyed Abraham. Thus by Obedience doth the Church manifeſt her ſubiection to Chriſt.

1. 633. Gen. 3. 16. [moved in the edition]
2. 634. Epheſ. 5. 22.
3. 635. 1 Pet. 3. 6. ὑπήκουσε.

The place wherein God hath ſet an husband; namely, to be an⁶³⁶ head; the authoritie which he hath giuen vnto him, to be a⁶³⁷ Lord and⁶³⁸ Maſter; the duty which he requireth of him⁶³⁹ to rule, doe all require obedience of a wife. Is not obedience to be yeelded to an Head, Lord, and Maſter? Take away all authoritie from an husband, if ye exempt a wife from obedience.

1. 636. Epheſ. 5. 23. [moved in the edition]
2. 637. 1 Pet. 3. 6. [moved in the edition]
3. 638. Eſter 1. 17. [moved in the edition]
4. 639. Gen. 3. 16.

Contrary is the ſtoutneſſe of ſuch wiues as muſt haue their⁶⁴⁰ own will, and doe what they liſt, or elſe all ſhall be out of quiet. Their will muſt be done, they muſt rule and ouer-rule all, they muſt command not only children and ſeruants, but husbands alſo, if at leaſt the husband will be at peace. Looke into families, obſerue the eſtate and condition of many of them, and then tell me if theſe things be not ſo. If an husband be a man of courage, and ſeeke to ſtand vpon his right, and maintaine his authoritie by requiring obedience of his wife, ſtrange it is to behold what an hurly burly ſhe will make in the houſe: but if he be a milke-ſop, and baſely yeeld vnto his wife, and ſuffer her to rule, then, it may be, there ſhall be ſome outward quiet. The ground hereof is an ambitious and proud humour in p. 287 women, who muſt needs rule, or elſe they thinke themſelues ſlaues. But let them thinke as they liſt: aſſuredly herein they thwart Gods ordinance, peruert the order of nature, deface the image of Chriſt, ouerthrow the ground of all dutie, hinder the good of the family, become an ill patterne to children and ſeruants, lay themſelues open to Satan, and incurre many other miſchiefes which cannot but follow vpon the violating of this maine duty of Obedience, which if it be not performed, how can other duties be expected?

1. 640. Contrary to obedience, ſtoutneſſe.

A wiues obedience requireth Submiſſion.

Contentment.

Submiſſion in yeelding to her husbands minde and will.

⁶⁴¹ Contentment in reſting ſatisfied and content with his eſtate and abilitie.

1. 641. See §. 49. [moved in the edition]

That Submiſſion conſiſteth in two things.

Firſt, in abſtaining from doing things againſt her husbands minde.

Secondly, in doing what her husband requireth. The former of theſe requireth that a wife haue her husbands conſent for the things which ſhe doth. For the better cleering whereof we are to conſider,

1. What kinde of husbands they muſt be whoſe conſent is required.

2. How many waies his conſent may be giuen.

3. What are the things whereabout his conſent is to be expected.

For the firſt, as on the one ſide it oft falleth out that a wife,⁶⁴² prouident, and religious man is maried to a fooliſh woman, a very ideot, that hath no vnderſtanding, of whom there can be no queſtion, but that ſuch a wife is to doe nothing of her ſelfe, and of her owne head, but altogether to be ordered by her husband: So on the other ſide, it oft falleth out that a wiſe, vertuous, and gratious woman, is maried to an husband deſtitute⁶⁴³ of vnderſtanding, to a very naturall (as we ſay) or a frenzy man, or to one made very blockiſh, and ſtupid, vnfit to manage his affaires through ſome diſtemper, wound, or ſickneſle. p. 288 In ſuch a caſe the whole gouernment lieth vpon the wife, ſo as her husbands conſent is not to be expected.

1. 642. In two caſes a wife hath power to order things of her ſelfe, without her husbands conſent.
2. 643. 1 In caſe of her husbands impotency.

Queſt. What if the husband be a wicked and prophane man, and ſo blinded and ſtupified in his ſoule, doth not this ſpirituall blindneſſe and blockiſhneſe giue a religious wife as great libertie as naturall ſtupiditie?

Anſw. No verily: For S. Peter exhorteth faithfull wiues⁶⁴⁴ that were maried to Infidell husbands to be ſubiect to them, and that in feare.

1. 644. 1 Pet. 3. 1, 2.

The reaſon is cleare: For ſpirituall blindneſſe diſableth not from ciuill gouernment: indeed nothing that ſuch a man doth is acceptable to God, or auailable to his owne ſaluation; but yet it may be profitable to man: a wicked man may be prouident enough for wife, children, and whole family in outward temporall things.

Againe, it oft falleth out, that an husband is a long time⁶⁴⁵ farre off abſent from the houſe: ſometimes by reaſon of his calling, as an Ambaſſadour, Souldier, or Mariner; ſometimes alſo careleſly or wilfully neglecting houſe, goods, wife, children and all: and in his abſence hath left no order for the ordering of things at home: in this caſe alſo there is no queſtion, but that the wife hath power to diſpoſe matters without her husbands conſent: prouided that ſhe obſerue thoſe rules of Gods word concerning iuſtice, equitie, truth and mercie, which an husband in his diſpoſing of them ought to obſerue.

1. 645. In caſe of impoſſibilitie for her huſband to doe it.

The firſt of theſe caſes declareth an impotencie in the huſband: the other an impoſſibilitie for him to order matters: wherefore the wife being next to the husband, the power of ordering things is diuolued on her: ſhe is not bound to haue his conſent.

II. A conſent may be generall or particular. A generall⁶⁴⁶ conſent is giuen, when without diſtinct reſpect to this or that particular, libertie is granted to a wife by her husband to doe all things as ſeemeth good in her owne eyes.⁶⁴⁷ That excellent good wife, and notable good houſe-wife that is ſet forth by the Wiſe-man, had ſuch a conſent. For firſt, it is ſaid,⁶⁴⁸ The heart of her husband truſteth in her; and then it is inferred, that p. 289 ſhe ordereth all the things of the houſe, whereof many particulars are there ſpecified. Whence I gather, that her husband obſeruing her to be a godly, wiſe, faithfull, and induſtrious woman, gaue her power and liberty to doe in the houſe-hold affaires, what ſhe thought good, (he being a publike magiſtrate, for⁶⁴⁹ he was knowne in the gates, ſitting among the Elders of the land) and accordingly ſhe vſed her liberty.

1. 646. 1. A generall conſent.
2. 647. Prou. 31. 10, &c.
3. 648. Verſ. 11. [moved in the edition]
4. 649. Verſ. 23. [moved in the edition]

A particular conſent is that which is giuen to one or more particular⁶⁵⁰ things, as that conſent⁶⁵¹ which Abraham gaue to Sarah about Hagar; and⁶⁵² that which Elkanah gaue to Hanna about tarrying at home till her childe was weined.

1. 650. 2. A particular conſent.
2. 651. Gen. 16. 6.
3. 652. 1 Sam 1. 23.

This particular conſent may be expreſſed or implied. An expreſſed conſent is when the husband manifeſteth his good liking by word, writing, meſſage, or ſigne, and that whether his conſent be asked (as was noted in the example of Elkanah) or freely offered.

An implicit conſent, when by any probable coniecture it may be gathered that the husbands will is not againſt ſuch a thing,⁶⁵³ though he haue not manifeſted his minde concerning that very particular. This implicit conſent may be gathered either by his ſilence when he is preſent to ſee a thing done, or otherwiſe hath knowledge thereof: or elſe when he is abſent, by his former cariage or diſpoſition in other like caſes. The Scripture accounteth an husbands ſilence, when he knoweth a thing and may, but doth not forbid it, to be a conſent: as⁶⁵⁴ in the caſe of a wiues vow. For any thing we read to the contrary⁶⁵⁵ the Shunemite had no other conſent to prepare a chamber for the Prophet, and to goe vnto him, then her husbands ſilence, and not forbidding it when he knew it.

1. 653. 4. An implicit conſent,
2. 654. Num 30. 8.
3. 655. 2 King. 4. 10, 23.

As for the other kinde of implicit conſent, it may be ſet forth in this following inſtance: ſuppoſe a good wife hath an husband whom ſhe knoweth by his former cariage and diſpoſition to be a pittifull and charitable man, taking all occaſions to ſhew mercy, and in his abſence there falleth out a fit and needfull occaſion of ſhewing mercy; if ſhe take that occaſion to ſhew mercy, ſhe hath an implicit conſent, for ſhe may well thinke that if her husband knew it he would approue what ſhe doth. It is to be ſuppoſed that⁶⁵⁶ Annah vpon ſome ſuch ground vowed her childe to God. p. 290 For it is not likely that ſhe who would not tarry at home to weine her childe without her husbands conſent, would much leſſe vow him to the Lord (which was a farre greater matter) without ſome perſwaſion of her husbands good liking thereof. Now that a wife may ſhew ſhe dealeth vprightly in this caſe vpon a true perſwaſion of her heart concerning her husbands minde, ſhe ought (when conueniently ſhe can) to make known to her husband what ſhe hath done: as without all queſtion Annah did; and ſo much may be gathered out of theſe words which Elkanah vttered to Annah,⁶⁵⁷ the Lord eſtabliſh his word.

1. 656. 1 Sam. 1. 11. [moved in the edition]
2. 657. 1 Sam. 1. 23. [moved in the edition]

The things whereabout an husbands conſent is to be expected, are ſuch as he by vertue of his place and authoritie hath power to order: as for example, ordering and diſpoſing the goods, cattell, ſeruants, and children of the family, entertaining ſtrangers; yea, alſo ordering euen his wiues going abroad, and making of vowes, with the like: now then diſtinctly to lay downe a wiues dutie in this firſt branch of obedience, it is this:

A wife muſt doe nothing which appertaineth to her husband authoritie ſimply without, or directly againſt his conſent. Doe not theſe words of that old law (thy deſire ſhall be to thy husband)⁶⁵⁸ imply as much? I deny not but that there may be ſundry things proper and peculiar to a wife, wherein I will not reſtraine her libertie: and therefore I vſe this phraſe (which appertaineth to her husbands authoritie.) And I grant the forenamed generall and implicit conſent, to be a true conſent, ſo as there needeth not an expreſſe particular conſent for euery thing, and therefore I haue added theſe clauſes (ſimply without, or directly againſt conſent.)

1. 658. Gen. 3. 16.

That is done ſimply without conſent which is done without all warrant from the husband, and that ſo couertly as ſhe is afraid it ſhould come to his notice, imagining he would by no meanes like it: As Rahels taking her fathers idols without all⁶⁵⁹ conſent of Iaakob.

1. 659. Gen. 31. 32. [moved in the edition]

That is done directly againſt conſent which is expreſly forbidden and diſclaimed by the husband.

p. 291 But to deſcend to the particulars before mentioned: Firſt concerning the goods of the family: It is a queſtion controuerted whether the wife haue power to diſpoſe them without or againſt the husbands conſent.

Before I determine the queſtion, I thinke it needfull to declare, 1. What goods, 2. What occaſion of giuing the queſtion is about.

1. For the goods, ſome are proper and peculiar to the wife:⁶⁶⁰ others are common. Goods proper to the wife are ſuch as before mariage ſhe her ſelfe, or her friends except from the huſband to her ſole and proper vſe and diſpoſing, whereunto he alſo yeeldeth: or ſuch as after mariage he giueth vnto her to diſpoſe as ſhe pleaſe: ſuppoſe it be ſome rent, annuity, fees, vailes, or the like.

1. 660. Quaedam bona ſunt propria vxoris, vt ſunt bona paraphernalia. Greg. Sayr. Clau. reg. l. 9. c. 16.

Theſe kindes of goods are exempted out of the queſtion⁶⁶¹ in hand; the wife hath liberty to diſpoſe them as ſhe pleaſe without any further conſent then ſhe had by vertue of her hausbands former grant.

1. 661. Παράφερνα bona apud iuriſconſultos, dicuntur τὰ ἐξώπροικα (i.) quae ſponſa praeter dotem à parentibus pactam ſecum fert: vel (vt Sayrus loc. citat.) habet legata ei, ſeu donata.

To theſe I may referre other goods, but of another nature, namely ſuch as ſome friend of hers, ſuppoſe father, mother, brother, or any other, obſeruing her husband to be a very hard man, not allowing ſufficient for her ſelfe, much leſſe to diſtribute on charitable vſes, ſhall giue vnto her to diſpoſe as she pleaſe, charging her not to let her husband know thereof. How becauſe it is in the power of a free doner to order his gift as he pleaſe, and becauſe he ſo ordereth this gift as he will not haue her husband know of it, I doubt not but ſhe may of her ſelfe according to the doners minde without her huſbands conſent, diſpoſe ſuch goods. She is herein but as a feoffee in truſt.

Againe of common goods ſome are ſet forth by the huſband to be ſpent about the family, other he reſerueth for a stocke, or to lay forth as he himſelfe ſhall ſee occaſion.

Concerning thoſe which are ſet forth to be ſpent, I doubt not but the wife hath power to diſpoſe them; neither is ſhe bound to aske any further conſent of her husband. For it p. 292 is the wiues place and dutie to guide or gouerne the houſe,⁶⁶² by vertue whereof, prouiding ſufficiently for the family, ſhe may, as ſhe ſeeth good occaſion, of ſuch goods as are ſet apart to be ſpent, diſtribute to poore, or otherwiſe.

1. 662. 1 Tim. 5. 14. οἰκοδεσποτεῖν.

This I haue noted for ſuch tender conſciences as thinke they cannot giue a bit of bread, or ſcarp of meat to a poore body, or make a meſſe of broth or caudle for a ſicke body, except they firſt aske their husbands conſent.

Prouided that if her husband expreſly forbid this liberty, ſhe take it not except neceſſity require it.

But our queſtion is concerning ſuch goods as the husband hath not ſet apart, but reſerued to his owne diſpoſing.

II. For the occaſion of diſpoſing goods it may be ordinary or extraordinary. Extraordinary for the good of the husband himſelfe, and others in the family, or ſuch as are out of the family. If there fall out an extraordinary occaſion whereby the wife by diſpoſing the goods without or againſt the conſent of her husband may bring a great good to the family, or preuent and keepe a great miſchiefe from it, ſhe is not to ſtay for his conſent; inſtance the example of⁶⁶³ Abigail. Thus a faithfull prouident wife obſeruing her husband to riot, and to ſpend all he can get in carding, dicing, and drinking, may without his conſent lay vp what goods ſhe can for her husbands, her own, her childrens, and whole houſholds good. This is no part of diſobedience, but a point wherein ſhe may ſhew her ſelfe a great good helpe vnto her husband;⁶⁶⁴ for which end a wife was firſt made.

1. 663. 1 Sam. 25. 18. &c. [moved in the edition]
2. 664. Gen. 2. 18.

Concerning ſuch as are out of the family, if they be in great need, and require preſent releefe, though the wife know her husband to be ſo hard-hearted, as he will not ſuffer her to releeue ſuch an one, yet without his conſent ſhe may releeue him. The ground of this and other like caſes is that rule laid downe by the Prophets, and by Chriſt himſelfe, viz.⁶⁶⁵ I will haue mercie and not ſacrifice. If God in caſe of mercie diſpenſeth with a dutie due to himſelfe, will he not much more diſpenſe with a dutie due to an husband?

1. 665. Oſe. 6. 6. Mat 9. 13. & 12. 7. [moved in the edition]

Out of all theſe things thus premiſed I gather the true ſtate⁶⁶⁷ of the queſtion in controuerſie concerning the power of wiues in diſpoſing the goods of the family to be this,

1. 666. Treat. 4. §. 54. [moved in the edition]
2. 667. Non poteſt vxor ex bonis communibus occulte accipere ad donandum vel ad erogandum in alios vſus ſine expreſſa, aut praeſumpta ſaltem viri licentia. Greg. Sayr. loc. citat.

Whether a wife may priuily and ſimply without, or openly and directly againſt her husbands conſent diſtribute ſuch common goods of the family as her husband reſerueth to his owne diſpoſing, there being no extraordinary neceſſity?

The moſt ancient and common anſwer vnto this queſtion hath beene negatiue, namely, that a wife hath not power ſo to doe: whereunto I for my part ſubſcribe.

The ground of this anſwer is taken from that primary law of the wiues ſubiection,⁶⁶⁸ Thy deſire ſhall be vnto thine husband. How is her deſire ſubiect to her husband, if in the caſe propounded ſhe ſtand not vpon his conſent? It is further confirmed both by the⁶⁶⁹ forenamed, and alſo by all other proofes that might be produced out of the Scripture concerning the ſubiection of wiues vnto their husbands. If in ordering the goods of the family ſhe yeeld not ſubiection, wherein ſhall ſhe yeeld it?

1. 668. Gen. 3. 16. [moved in the edition]
2. 669. §. 17.

Againſt this ground-worke ſome obiect that⁶⁷⁰ the ſame law of ſubiection is impoſed vpon a younger brother in the very ſame words, and yet a younger brother was not therby bound⁶⁷¹ to haue his elder brothers conſent in diſpoſing his goods.

1. 670. Gen. 4. 7.
2. 671. How the law of ſubiection is applied to younger brothers.

Anſw. The law of the regality (as I may ſo ſpeake) and preheminency of the firſt borne was vnder thoſe words ordained: and therfore a younger brother was made a ſubiect to his elder, while he remained in the family, as a ſonne to the father. The elder brother was as a lord ouer his other brothers: whereupon when Iſaak conferred the right of the firſt borne vpon Iaakob (thinking he had beene his eldeſt ſonne Eſau) he vſed theſe words, Be lord ouer thy brethren, and let thy⁶⁷² mothers ſonnes bow downe to thee. Which being ſo, queſtionleſſe the younger brother might not ſimply without or directly againſt the elder brothers conſent diſpoſe the goods of the family: ſo as this obiection more ſtrongly eſtabliſheth the forenamed argument.

1. 672. Gen. 27. 29.

p. 294 Againe it is obiected that that old law is to be expounded of weighty matters.

Anſw. The Apoſtle who was guided by the ſpirit of the⁶⁷³ law-maker, extendeth that law to euery thing: But is not this matter of diſpoſing goods a weighty matter? The conſequences which I ſhall by and by note to follow hereupon will ſhew it to be a matter of moment.

1. 673. Eph. 5. 24. [moved in the edition]

As another reaſon may be alleged the Shunemites patterne who asked her husbands conſent before ſhe prepared the things that were thought meet for the Prophets entertainment: and before ſhe vſed the things which were meet for her iourney.

1. 674. 2 King. 4. 9, 22.

Anſw. This example being grounded vpon a law (as we ſhewed⁶⁷⁵ before) it doth not only declare what may be done, but alſo what ought to be done. And if a wife be bound to haue her husbands conſent for doing of a thing, by conſequence it followeth that ſhe is bound from doing it, without her huſbands conſent.

1. 675. §. 23.

2. Anſw. They that except againſt this reaſon taken from example, vſe themſelues the like reaſon in other points, as the examples of Abigail, Ioanna, and Suſanna for the contrarie.

2. Obiect. In the Shunemites example there was more then a mercifull releefe of the Prophet, namely bringing him into the houſe to diet and to lodge, wherein the husband muſt haue a chiefe ſtroake.

Anſw. The word of God maketh not that difference betwixt releeuing and entertaining: it extendeth a wiues ſubiection to euery thing: wherefore the husband hath a chiefe ſtroake as well in the one, as in the other.

A third reaſon is taken from the law of a wiues vow: whereby⁶⁷⁶ in generall is implied, that a wife might not make a vow p. 295 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,⁶⁷⁷ 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.

1. 676. Num. 30. 7. &c. [moved in the edition]
2. 677. Verſ. 13.

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 a⁶⁷⁸ neceſſarie dutie to performe a vow, euen expreſly commanded. As p. 296 for the pretended worke of mercie, I will⁶⁷⁹ hereafter ſhew, that a wife is not neceſſarily tied thereunto.

1. 678. Num. 30. 3. Deut. 23. 21. Eccleſ. 5. 4.
2. 679. §. 34.

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, that⁶⁸⁰ euerie gift, grant, or diſpoſition of goods, lands, or other thing whatſoeuer made by a woman⁶⁸¹ 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,⁶⁸² 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. And⁶⁸³ 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,⁶⁸⁴ 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. And⁶⁸⁵ 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.⁶⁸⁶ 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. And⁶⁸⁷ if ſhe ſell any thing, the ſale is void, except ſhe be a merchant, where by the cuſtome ſhe is enabled to merchandize. Finally,⁶⁸⁸ ſhe cannot make executors without the conſent of her huſband, nor a deuiſe, or will.⁶⁸⁹ 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 p. 297 power of her ſelfe, without her husband, to diſpoſe the common goods of the familie.

1. 680. 45. E. 3. Fitz. Couen. 18.
2. 681. 1. H. 5. 12. b. Perk. cap. de Grant. Nat. Breu. fol. 120. G.
3. 682. Nat. Breu. fol. 188. H.
4. 683. Perk. fol. 2. a.
5. 684. Perk. fol. 2. b.
6. 685. 27. H. 8. 27. p. 12.
7. 686. Perk. fol. 3. a.
8. 687. 21. H. 7. 18. p. 29. Nat. Breu. fol. 120 G.
9. 688. Ognels caſe, Coke Rep. 4. 3 3. Deu. 12.
10. 689. Plowd. Com 344. a. Bret and Rigdons caſe.

A fit reaſon may be taken from the miſchiefes which would⁶⁹⁰ fall out if this liberty were giuen vnto women: which are theſe that follow:

1. 690. 1. A mans eſtate may be waſted before he can tell how to redreſſe it.

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.

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 being⁶⁹¹ 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.

1. 691. 2. Profeſſors of contrarie religions may be ſuſtained by the goods of the ſame family.

Anſw. If Diuines grant them this liberty, they will themſelues iudge and determine who be of the houſhold of faith: p. 298 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 betwixt⁶⁹² 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.

1. 692. 3. Iars would ariſe betwixt man and wife.

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, but⁶⁹³ one hand in the purſe) then both husband and wife to haue libertie to diſpoſe them without each others conſent.

1. 693. Though ſhe had a proprietie, yet hath ſhe not thereupon libertie to diſpoſe the goods.

To iuſtifie a wiues libertie in diſpoſing the common goods⁶⁹⁴ of the family without her husbands conſent, it is ſaid, that ſhe hath a true right and propertie in thoſe goods.

1. 694. Licet vxor proprietatem habeat, adminiſtrationem tamen, & vſum. fructū bonorum viuente marito non habet. Greg. Sayr. clau. reg. lib. 9. cap. 16.

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 p. 299 which is her owne: as for example, ſuppoſe⁶⁹⁵ 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 or⁶⁹⁶ 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.

1. 695. See Doctr. & ſtud. fol. 13.
2. 696. Perk. plito. 560. 26. H. 8. 7. p. 1. Plowd. comment. 418. b.

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.

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.⁶⁹⁷ 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.⁶⁹⁸ And all p. 300 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. Yea⁶⁹⁹ her neceſſary apparell is not hers in property. While ſhe remaineth a wife ſhe is (to vſe the law-phraſe) vnder couert baron.⁷⁰⁰ 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.

1. 697. 12. H. 7. 22. Coke rep. 5. fo. 36. 28. H. 6. Dier fol. 6. plito. 5 Doct. & ſtud. fo. 13. Plowd. Comment. Bracebriges Caſe.
2. 698. 4. H. 6. 31.
3. 699. 18. E. 4. 11. p. 4
4. 700. See §. 26.

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.

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 huſbands⁷⁰¹ (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.

1. 701. Si quis abduxerit vxorem cum bonis familiae dicitur abducere vxorem cum bonis viri. Fitzherb. Nat. breutum fol. 89.

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.

p. 301 Anſw. They vſe the word Ours in oppoſition to their fathers houſe, and in relation not to their perſons, but to their⁷⁰² 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.

1. 702. Ut vinum temperatum licet maiori ex parte aquae conſtat, vinum appellamus: ſic cenſus quamuis plus contribuerit vxor, nuncupandus viri eſt. Plut. in praec. connub.

To proue a wiues property in the common goods of the family the reaſons following are alledged.

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.

1. 703. Cor. 7. 4.

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 p. 302 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.

I anſwer, Much euery manner of way.

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

1. 704. Treat. 4. §. 52. 54. [moved in the edition]

2. By her place ſhe hath the ordering and diſpoſing of the goods allotted for the common vſe of the familie: as was⁷⁰⁵ before granted.

1. 705. §. 21.

3. Her husband ought to giue her a portion to diſpoſe as ſhe ſhall ſee good,⁷⁰⁶ as we ſhall after ſhew, when we come to the husbands duties.

1. 706. Treat. 4. §. 54.

4. She is a ioint gouernour with her husband ouer the children and ſeruants, as was ſhewed⁷⁰⁷ before.

1. 707. §. 4.

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. But⁷⁰⁸ 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.

1. 708. §. 11.

2. Abigails example is alleadged for a wiues libertie: and⁷⁰⁹ the example of the good houſe wife deſcribed by Salomon.

1. 709. 2. Reaſon. Examples. 1 Sam. 25. 18. &c. Pro. 31. 11, &c.

Anſw. 1. Abigails example was extraordinary; beſides, who can tell whether the heart of her husband ſo truſted not in her p. 303 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 getting⁷¹⁰ 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.

1. 710. 3. Reaſon. Wiues haue a like care in getting goods.

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:⁷¹¹ they are ſaid to be yoake-fellowes, and thence is inferred that they haue a like power in diſpoſing goods.

1. 711. 4. Reaſon. Wiues are yoak-fellowes with their husbands.

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.