The Plea of the Poor, Treatise · Chapter 11
CHAP. 11. Whether it bee lawfull for the wife to giuegive almes without conſent of her husband.
Sect. 1. Certaine caſes in which it is lawfull for the wife to giuegive almes.
BVt now in the laſt place it may be demaunded, whether it be lawfull for wiues to giuegive almes, and to performe ſuch other workes of merciemercy without the conſent of their husbands; for that they may giuegive them with their conſent, either plainely expreſſed or ſecretly and implicitely intimated; there is no man maketh any queſtion. And it is agreed on by the moſt that ſhe may giuegive almes in diuers caſes, as firſt if the husband be a foole or mad man, and not able to manage his eſtate.
Secondly, when hee is farre abſent, ſo as his conſent cannot bee asked or obtained; eſpecially being perſwaded that if her husband were preſent hee would approue and like of her doings.
Thirdly, when as he hath committed the adminiſtration of his houſhould expences to the diſcretion of his wife.
Fourthly, when hauing a certaine allowance made vntounto her by her husband, ſhe ſpareth ſomwhat out of it, being leſſe liberall to her ſelfe, that ſhee may hauehave the more to beſtow in vertuous actions.
Fifthly, when ſhe or her friends for her, hauehave before mariage, ouer and aboue her dowrie reſerued ſomething to be at her diſpoſing.
Sixthly, when ſhe getteth ſome wealth by her owne proper labour, ſhe may diſpoſe of it to theſe good vſes, if at leaſt the lawes of the countrie be not againſt it.
Seuenthly, if the almes which ſhee giueth be but of ſmall value, as bread, drinke, caſt apparell, and ſuch like.
Eightly, if the husband be exceeding couetous, ſo that hauing much he will part with nothing; or (as I may adde) if he be ſo wicked and irreligious, that though he ſpend much vainely, yet he will not be drawne to doe any worke of merciemercy; or if he be content that ſome almes be giuen, yet he cannot indure that any ſhould be giuen vntounto thoſe that feare God, in reſpect of the hatred which he beareth vntounto them.
Laſtly, when it is the receiued cuſtome of the cuntry that wiues ſhould giuegive almes to the reliefe of the poore.
Sect. 2. Some thinke it vnlawfull for the wife to giuegive almes.
But howſoeuer almoſt all in the fiue firſt of theſe caſes or cautions doe well agree, yet about the foure laſt there is much queſtion. For ſome taking it that the proprietie of the goods is wholy in the husband; doe condemne it as no better then theft in the wife, if ſhe take vponupon her to giuegive leſſe or more by way of almes, without the conſent of her husband either expreſſed or ſecretly implyed. But this is an hard ſaying, and if it were true, I might (with better reaſon) ſay with the Diſciples, in another matter; If the caſe bee ſo betweene man and wife, then it were good for Math. 19. 10.woman not to marrie.
And therefore it ſhall not be amiſſe a little further to examine it, that as on the one ſide wiues may not be let looſe to licentious libertie, and vnlawfull liberalitie; ſo on the other ſide they may not hauehave their conſciences vniuſtly inſnared and intangled, nor be reſtrained of their right; for he that reſtraineth of lawfull libertie, openeth a gappe to lawleſſe licentiouſneſſe.
Sect. 3. That ſhe muſt indeauour to perſwade her husband to ioyne with her
Firſt then we thus farre agree with thoſe who oppoſe vsus in the reſt; that as God hath made them yoke-fellowes, ſo ſhee muſt indeauour by al meanes to worke and perſwade her husband in all chriſtian duties to draw together, that ioyning in the work they may not be ſeparated in the reward. And to this purpoſe ſhe is to vſe towards him all duetie, reſpect, and reuerence, all louing and ſweete behauiour, that gayning her huſbands heart, ſhe may moue him by louing her, to louelove all goodneſſe which ſhe imbraceth and practiſeth, for her ſake: and alſo to ſhew ſuch care and faithfulneſſe in preſeruing and increaſing his eſtate by good huſwiferie and painefull indeauours, that like the vertuous woman in the Prouerbs, the heart of her husband may ſafely truſt in her, Pro. 31. 11.Pro. 31. 11.
Sect. 4. The ſtate of the queſtion.
But what if notwithſtanding all this, her huſband being a right Nabal, that is, both a churle and foole, will neither himſelfe doe any workes of merciemercy, nor giuegive conſent that ſhee ſhall doe them? what if hee neglect almeſdeedes, either through couetouſneſſe and exceſſiue louelove of his goods, or wicked maliciouſneſſe and hatred of good deedes? may not the vertuous wife in this Cautions to be obſerued in her giuing almes. 1. That ſhe obſerue the former rules and giuegive diſcreetely.caſe doe thoſe good workes which he neglecteth or abhorreth? ſome ſay no, but (ſauing their better iudgements) I hold ſhe may, ſo that ſhe carefully obſerue theſe cautious. Firſt that ſhee giuegive with wiſedome and diſcretion, obſeruing the things of which we hauehave formerly ſpoken; but eſpecially her care muſt be that her gifts exceede not their owne abilitie, and ſo impaire and impoueriſh their eſtate; the which if it be vnknowne vntounto her, ſhe muſt giuegive but ſparinglie, and things of ſmall value; neither muſt ſhee vnderunder ſhew of giuing almes vndoe her husband, ſeeing it is ſaid of the vertuous woman, that ſhe will doe him good Pro. 31. 12.and not euill all the daies of her life. Now where this wiſdome and diſcretion is wanting, there the wife may not take vponupon her this duetie, which is better not done, then done fooliſhly and without diſcretion.
Sect. 5. Secondly, ſhe muſt giuegive with meekeneſſe and reuerence towards her huſband.
Secondly, ſhe muſt performe this duetie with all meekeneſſe and humilitie of ſpirit, with all reuerence and due reſpect vntounto her husbands authoritie, with acknowledgement of her ſubiection in all things lawfull, that hereby ſhe may winne him by her chriſtian cariage and conuerſation to a liking and allowance of her good works, yea alſo (if it be poſſible) to the practiſe and imitation of them, according to that, 1. Pet. 3. 1. Yee 1. Pet. 3. 1.wiues be in ſubiection to your owne husbands, that if they obey not the word, they alſo may without the word be wonne by the conuerſation of the wiues: to which purpoſe he further perſwadeth them to adorne themſelues with the ornament of a meeke and quiet ſpirit, which is in the ſight of God, of great price.
Sect. 6. Thirdly, ſhe muſt not giuegive her husband any cauſe of offence.
Thirdly, ſhe muſt in the manner of doing theſe good workes carefully auoide the giuing vntounto her husband any iuſt cauſe of offence; and not preſume to vſe any pride or arrogancie, ſtomacke and ſturdineſſe, inſolent and contemptuous behauiour, whereby ſhee ſhall more diſgrace her good deedes, then they can grace her. For the Apoſtle will in no caſe permit the woman to vſurpe authoritie ouer the man, 1. Tim. 2. 10. vntounto which 1. Tim. 2. 10.fault they are moſt ſubiect when they ſee their husbands defects, and know that truth and right is on their ſide; whereby oftentimes it commeth to paſſe, that they ſpoyle a good cauſe by ill handling; and are more blame-worthy in their manner of doing good, then their husbands are for neglecting the good it ſelfe. But of this all chriſtian women muſt take heede, ſeeing by ſuch behauiour they doe not onelyonly diſgrace themſelues and their profeſſion, but alſo for want of due obedience to their husbands, doe cauſe the word of God (which they take into their mouthes to defend their courſes) to bee blaſphemed, as it is Tit. 2. 5. whereas on the other ſide, if they performe Tit. 2. 5.theſe chriſtian duties with all due reuerence towards him whom God hath ſet ouer them, it will appeare that they doe them with a good conſcience and in obedience to God; and that the feare of their husbands would reſtraine them, if it were not ouer-maiſtred with a greater feare, euen the ſincere and true feare of almighty God.
Sect. 7. Fourthly, ſhe muſt not diſgrace her huſband by publiſhing his faults.
Laſtly, ſhe muſt take heede, that by reporting her owne good deedes, and her husbands backwardneſſe ſhe doe not diſgrace him; but ſhe muſt hide and couer his faults from al, ſauing thoſe who may helpe to better him, and pray vntounto God for his amendment; for a good wife will not lay the foundation of her owne credit in the ruins of her husbands honour, but knowing that it is no ſmall diſgrace to the moſt proper and beautifull body, to hauehave a deformed and miſhapen head, ſhe will hide it vnderunder the vaile of ſecrecie, or adorne and beautifie it with the moſt fauourable report that ſinceritie and truth can giuegive vntounto it; knowing that a vertuous woman is a crowne to her husband, but ſhe that maketh him aſhamed is rottenneſſe in his Pro 12. 4. 1. Iam. 25. 25.bones, as it is Pro. 12. 4. Wherein Abigail (though otherwiſe a vertuous woman) failed, excuſing her husband by diſcouering his folly.
Sect. 8. That it is lawful for the wife to giuegive almes theſe cautions being obſeru'd. Maine grounds laid for the determining of the queſtion.
Which cautions being obſerued I thinke it lawfull for the wife to giuegive almes, and performe all other workes of merciemercy, as well as the husband; the which becauſe it is controuerted, I will indeauour to proue. And for the better clearing of this point, two things are to bee premitted and examined, which being throughly knowne will giuegive ſufficient light for the determining of this queſtion; the firſt is the authoritie, ſuperioritie, and dominion of the husband ouer the wife, with all things elſe which they poſſeſſe; the ſecond is the communion betweene them both in reſpect of goods and perſons, the which are not to bee ſeuered in the conſideration of either of them; for the huſband is ſo to exerciſe his authoritie, as that hee doe not neglect the communion which is betweene him and his wife, and the wife is ſo to inioy her communion, as that ſhe doe not forget the authority of her husband.
Sect. 9. Of the ſuperiorite and authoritie of the huſband ouer the wife.
Concerning the former, it is to be acknowledged that the husband hath ſuperioritie and authoritie ouer his wife to rule and gouerne her as her head, and that ſhe as his inferiour is to ſubiect her ſelfe to his rule and gouernement; and it cannot be denyed but that alſo he hath chiefe dominion ouer all their goods, and power to rule and manage the maine eſtate. So the Apoſtle ſaith, that as the head of eueryevery man is Chriſt, ſo the head of woman is the man. 1. Cor. 11. 3. In regard whereof ſhe is in many places of Scripture inioyned to be ſubiect 1. Cor. 11. 3.vntounto her husband in all things; and the reaſon hereof is giuen, becauſe in the creation the man was not of the woman, but the woman of the man, neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 1. Cor. 11. 8. 9. and beſides, the 1. Cor. 11. 8. 9.man was not firſt deceiued, but the woman, and ſo was firſt in the tranſgreſsion, as it is 1. Tim. 2. 14. and 1. Tim. 2. 14.therefore it was a part of her puniſhment, that her will ſhould be to be ſubiect to her husband, and that he ſhould rule ouer her. Gen. 3. 16. In regard of Gen. 3. 1….which ſuperioritie it is not lawfull for the wife to take vponupon her the managing of her husbands maine eſtate, or to diſpoſe at her pleaſure of great and weighty matters, becauſe this is a royalty which belongeth to her ſuperiour and head, who is the chiefe ruler and king in the little commonwealth of the familie: howſoeuer euen in theſe things a wiſe and good husband will not neglect the aduice of his diſcreete wife, as being his moſt faithfull counſailour, and created of God purpoſely to this end that ſhee might be his helper.
Sect. 10. That the huſbands gouernment muſt be in the Lord.
But withall we muſt hold that the husbands gouernement and the wiues ſubiection muſt bee Col. 3. 18. Eph. 5. 22. 1. Cor. 11. 7.in the Lord, and as vntounto the Lord. For in this reſpect hath the husband authoritie ouer the wife, as bearing in himſelfe the image of God; and ſhe is to yeeld obedience vntounto him, as vntounto God in him, in all things which are honeſt, lawfull or indifferent. But if he commaundeth what God forbiddeth, or forbiddeth what God commandeth, he is not to be obeyed. As if hee ſhall forbid his wife to ſanctifie the ſabbath, to pray, heare the word, or to performe the workes of merciemercy which God inioyneth, becauſe herein he beareth not the image of God, commaunding as he commandeth, but the image of the diuell oppoſing againſt God, and croſſing that which he requireth. Againe, the Lord is our ſupreme ſoueraigne, and the husband but ſubordinate vntounto him as his deputie or leiuetenant, and therefore whilſt he houldeth his ſubordination vntounto Gods gouernement, the wife is to hold hers to him, becauſe ſo in obeying him, ſhe obeyeth God, but if he leaue his ſubordination and rebell againſt his ſoueraigne, ſhee is not to ioyne with him in this rebellion, but leauing her ſubordination vntounto him, as he hath left his vntounto God, ſhee is to diſobey him, that ſhee may yeelde obedience to the chiefe commander.
Sect. 11. Of the communion betweene man and wife.
The ſecond point to be conſidered is the communion which is between man and wife through the bond of mariage, which extendeth both vntounto their perſons and goods: the communion of perſons is ſo neere and indiſſoluable, that they are no more two, but one fleſh, in which regard they hauehave no more proprietie in themſelues, nor abſolute power of dipoſing their owne bodies, but either in other; according to that, 1. Cor. 7. 4. The wife 1. Cor. 7 4.hath not power ouer her owne body, but the husband, and likewiſe alſo the husband, hath not power ouer his owne body; but the wife. So alſo there is ſuch communion in their goods, that there is no abſolute proprietie in either of them, but it reſteth in them both; neither hauehave theſe words mine and thine any place betweene them, ſeeing they are but one fleſh, and one body, whereof the husband is the head. And howſoeuer maried perſons, ſpeaking of that which they poſſeſſe vntounto others, may ſay that this is mine to note proprietie, yet when they hauehave relation to one another, they imply this community, by ſaying theſe goods are ours; So Iacobs wiues ſpeaking of their goods, ſay that all the riches which God hath taken from our father, that Gen. 31▪ 16.is ours, though no part of it came by their dowry, but through the bleſſing of God vponupon their huſbands labours, onelyonly it was theirs through the communion of marriage. And this communion both of perſons and goods is ſignified, yea plainely expreſſed in our forme of marriage, both by the words and actions there vſed; the communion of perſons by ioyning of hands, and by thoſe words, with my body I thee worſhip, by which hee profeſſeth that he doth her honour in vouchſafing vntounto her the communion of his body, for it is the honour of a woman to hauehave an head and husband; the communion of goods, by giuing vntounto her a ring, and (as it was the practiſe heretofore) money or gold with it, as an earneſt of all the reſt, and by thoſe plaine words, with all my worldly goods I thee endow.
Sect. 12. How farre the communion in goods extendeth.
Yea will ſome ſay but this communion extendeth vntounto vſe onelyonly. I anſwere it is true, for what can be more required then vſe, where there is no proprietie, but that which is in them both? yea but (ſay they) the proprietie is in the husband, and for the common vſe which the wife hath in her husbands goods, it onelyonly extendeth to her meate, drinke, apparell, and ſuch neceſſaries as are fit for the maintenance of her perſon. The former hath ſome colour, becauſe the husband hath right to alienate and ſell houſe and land, yea An obiection that the huſband may diſpoſe of all at his pleaſure, anſwered.to giuegive all away if hee pleaſe without the wiues conſent, vnleſſe it be her ioynter or dowre. I anſwere that they may doe all this wiſely and diſcreetely for their owne good and of their wiues and children, by that authoritie and ſuperioritie which they hauehave ouer their wiues and goods, though they hauehave no proprietie in them more then they, becauſe the action beſt proceedeth from the predominant cauſe and chiefe agent; but if it be to the wiues hurt and preiudice, they abuſe their authoritie, and ſinne againſt their ſpouſe by infringing the communion; and as he who with riot, waſtfulneſſe, exceſſe and ill huſbandrie conſumeth and miſpendeth his eſtate, is a theefe to himſelfe, ſo alſo to his wife in that hee robbeth her of her right which by vertue of the communion of marriage belongeth to her. And therefore we reade that when Ananias (though he were but an hypocrite) ſold his poſſeſſion to relieue the neceſſitie of the Church, yet hee did not doe it without his wiues conſent, but they ioyned both together in the ſale, according to the cuſtome of thoſe times, Act. 5. 1. Now if any Act. 5. 1.will ſay that the husband hath more abſolute right among vsus to diſpoſe of al his goods and poſſeſſions at his owne pleaſure: to this I anſwere, that he hath it not by the law of God, but by the poſitiue lawes of men, and I diſpute not what a man may doe, in foro iudiciali, in the courts of men, but what he is bound to doe in foro conſcientia, in the court of conſcience.
Sect. 13. Another obiection anſwered.
Secondly, the proprietie of the husband hath ſome ſhew of reaſon ſeeing hee hath power by will to diſpoſe of his goods at his owne pleaſure. I anſwere that though he may make ſuch a will in his life, yet it is not to take effect till after his death, when the band of marriage is diſſolued, and the communion between them ceaſeth. Neither is it then lawfull to giuegive away all from his wife, but he is bound to leaue vntounto her a good part and ſhare, and a part alſo vntounto his children, the which generall rule of equitie, is by our law wiſely and equally determined to be a third part to either of them, another third onelyonly being left to his diſpoſing: wherein they are like vntounto partners who whileſt they continue together hauehave equall right to the whole eſtate, but take eueryevery one his ſhare when their partnerſhip being diſſolued they goe from one another.
Sect 14. That the wife hath communion in goods to al good vſes
To the other part of the obiection which reſtraineth the vſe onelyonly vntounto the meate, drinke, apparell and ſuch other corporall neceſſaries. I anſwere, that it beſeemeth not a chriſtian; for hauehave they power by vertue of this communion to diſpoſe of their goods for all vſes, ſauing doing good? may they imploy them at their pleaſure for the good of their bodies, and may no part be allowed vntounto them to diſpoſe of for the good of their ſoules? may they hauehave enough to pamper their bellies and adorne their backes, and to beſtow vponupon all vſes, which pride, pleaſure and vanitie will call neceſſary, and ſhall they hauehave no power to lay vp treaſures in heauen, nor to ſend ſome ſmall part of their wealth by the hands of the poore to thoſe eternall manſions, if their husbands do not giuegive allowance, who care not to hauehave any ſtore laid vp in that countrey, becauſe they meane neuer to trauaile thither? Let diuines then be aſhamed of making ſuch a limitation and reſtraint, which ſo much tendeth to Gods diſhonour in the neglect of charitable and chriſtian duties.
Sect. 15. The concluſiō of the former point.
Let this then be the concluſion of this point, that the chiefe authoritie ouer the perſon of the wife and their common eſtate is in the husband, and that the wife hath alſo communion with him in all he hath both in reſpect of proprietie and vſe taking it in the largeſt ſignification for all imployments which may bring good either to her ſoule or body; the which both of them are bound to further in one another by all good meanes, it being the moſt excellent and common dutie of marriage to aduance their mutuall good. And therefore the good woman of whom wee reade. 2. King. 4. 10. ioyneth both theſe together, 2. King. 4. 10.and maketh ſuite vntounto her husband in behalfe of the Prophet, to acknowledge his ſuperior authoritie; but yet attributeth a part of the action to be done vntounto her ſelfe, ſeeing it was to bee performed by thoſe goods, in which ſhe had communion with him; and this is the cauſe why ſhee ſaith not, I will make him a chamber, to infringe her husbands authoritie, nor doe you make him a chamber, to impaire her owne right, but, let vsus I pray thee make him a chamber. Neither let any man here ſay, that this maketh againſt mee, becauſe ſhee would not doe it of her ſelfe without her huſbands conſent; ſeeing no man euer dreamed that the wife ſhould take vponupon her ſo to doe, if ſhee can poſſibly by any good meanes obtaine her husbands allowance.
Sect. 16. The firſt reaſon. That all good workes are inioyned vntounto the wife as well as vntounto the husband.
And thus hauing vntyed the hardeſt knots in this controuerſie, and remoued the maine blocks which did lie in the way; the reaſons which may further be produced for the clearing of this point will finde a faire and eaſie entrance. And firſt, all good actions and workes of merciemercy are charged as well vponupon the wife as the husband, and where any commaundement requiring them is propounded, it extendeth as well to the woman as the man: as namely relieuing the poore, feeding the hungrie, viſiting the ſicke, cloathing the naked, & ſuch like, and therefore the wife is no leſſe bound to doe them than the husband, and liable to the ſame puniſhment if ſhe doe neglect them. yea not onelyonly theſe good workes are generally cōmanded to all mankinde but eſpecially to this ſexe, as appeareth. 1. Tim. 2. 10. where the Apoſtle 1. Tim. 2. 10.forbiddeth women brayded hayre, gold, pearle and coſtly array, and requireth that inſtead of them they ſhould (as becommeth women profeſsing godlineſſe) adorne themſelues with good works. Now if any ſay that they muſt doe workes of merciemercy out of that which is their owne, and not out of their husbands goods, to this I hauehave anſwered, that by the vertue of the communion of marriage, they hauehave to all good purpoſes the lawfull vſe of that which is in their poſſeſſion. And if they affirme that ſhee is inferiour to her husband and therefore muſt not doe any of theſe workes without his conſent: I anſwere, that as ſhee is inferiour to her husband, ſo both he and ſhe to the ſupreme ſoueraigne, and therefore though ſhee is to ſhew ſubiection and yeeld obedience to her husband in all things lawfull and indifferent, yet not where God commandeth the contrary, ſeeing here the Apoſtles rule taketh place, that it is better to obey God then man. For he is the chiefe Act. 5.Lord of all, and the husband but a ſteward and inferiour officer vnderunder him, to diſpoſe of his goods as he commaundeth, and to giuegive vntounto his fellow-ſeruants their portion which belongeth vntounto them: now if he neglect this duetie and conuert all to his owne vſe like a miſer, or miſpend his maiſters goods in exceſſe and riot, the wife who is ioyned in commiſſion with him as an inferiour officer is not to ioyne with him in theſe courſes and ſo make her ſelfe partaker of his ſinne and puniſhment, but to imploy that which is vnderunder her hand in her maiſters ſeruice, and to performe thoſe good duties to her fellow-ſeruants which he neglecteth.
Sect. 17. An obiection anſwered.
Yea but the husband hath ſuch authority ouer his wife, that though, in the time of the law ſhe ſhould make a vow vntounto God, to conſecrate any thing vntounto his ſeruice, it was in his power to diſanull and make it voide. To which I anſwere Num. 30.that vowes were either of things abſolutely commanded, or of things indifferent, either in their owne nature, or in reſpect of circumſtances; the former vowes are nothing elſe, but the renewing of the generall vow which we made vntounto God in baptiſme, as the Iewes in the ſacrament of circumciſion, and ſuch no power of man can make voide and diſanull. But theſe are improperly called vowes, being nothing elſe but duties which we are abſolutely bound to performe, & are not at all left at our choyſe. But the other ſort of vowes which are of things indifferent, at the pleaſure of the wife, may be made voide by the authoritie of the husband; and of theſe that place in the law is to be vnderſtood. For example if the wife vow unto God, that ſhe wil beſtow ſome part of her goods in doing works of mercy, the Husbands authoritie cannot make it voide, becauſe God himſelfe hath required it; but if ſhe vow that ſhe will giuegive ſuch and ſo great a ſumme to theſe vſes, the husband by his authority may diſanull it, when as it is more then his eſtate will well beare, or that it is otherwiſe vnfit in reſpect of other circumſtances, being wiſely and religiouſly conſidered.
Sect. 18. That works of mercy are commended in the wife as well as in the husband.
The ſecond reaſon is that almes-deeds and the workes of merciemercy are no leſſe commended in the Scriptures in the wife then in the husband; for as it is heere made a ſigne or propertie of a bleſſed man, that hee diſperſeth and giueth to the poore; ſo elſewhere of a vertuous and good woman. As Pro. 31. 20. She ſtretcheth out her hand to Pro. 31. 20.the poore, yea ſhe reacheth out her hand to the needie, by which phraſes of ſtretching and reachidg out the hand is ſignified, not onelyonly that ſhe giueth ſomewhat, but liberally, and to the vttermoſt of her abilitie. And not without good cauſe is it made a note of a gracious wife, becauſe almes deeds are ordinarily done out of houſhold ſtore and prouiſion, the adminiſtration and diſpoſing wherof doth more properly and immediately belong to the woman then to the man, as we may ſee by the current of that whole chapter. So the Apoſtle would hauehave the younger women to marry, beare children, and guide the houſe, 1. Tim. 5. 14. The which when the Husband alloweth, hee giueth honour to his wife; as the Apoſtle requireth 1. Pet. 3. 7. and contrariwiſe diſgraceth her when hee 1 Pet: 3. 7.turneth her out of this her office & viceregency. For as the man is the principall getter of the eſtate, and the bringer of it in, ſo the wiſe adminiſtration of it for the good of the husband and familie, belongeth vntounto the woman; not onelyonly by ſpeciall commiſſion from him for eueryevery action and imployment, but as ſhe is a Wife by vertue of her calling, place and office; if at leaſt ſhe be not limitted and reſtrained for her miſgouernment and want of diſcretion in abuſing and miſpending their eſtate, by the ſuperiour authority of her husband. And as in the common-wealth, the King, though he hath ſupreame authority ouer all, yet doth not take vponupon him to adminiſter all the affaires of the kingdome, but hath vnderunder him many inferiour officers, who by vertue of their place and office mannage great and weighty affaires without any ſpeciall commiſſion for particular actions; and although hee hath euer in his hand a ſuperiour power ouer them, to call them to account, and to turne them out of their offices, when they miſ-behaue themſelues, and abuſe his name and authoritie; yet ſo long as they holde their place and office, they may iuſtly execute the affaires and duties that belong vntounto it: ſo is it alſo in the little common-wealth of the houſe and family; for when the husband hath choſen a wife, the adminiſtration of houſhold affaires belongeth vntounto her by vertue of her place and calling, vnleſſe ſhe be ſuſpended from this power and liberty, for her vniuſt and vndiſcreete abuſing of it; and for the husband to intermeddle more then neceſſity requireth with her domeſticall buſineſſe, is as if a King would be Chancelour, Treaſurer, Cheife Iuſtice and all himſelfe, though hee had officers appoynted to all theſe places, which were but to ouerburthen himſelfe and abaſe his Royall condition, and alſo to wrong thoſe who are deputed to theſe offices, by diſtruſting cauſeleſly their fidelitie and ſufficiency.
Sect. 19. 3. Reaſon becauſe the wife is appointed by God to be an helper in all good things.
Thirdly, God the firſt Inſtituter of mariage, gaue the wife vntounto the husband, to bee, not his Gen: 2. 18.ſeruant, but his helper, counſeller and comforter. The which duties ſhe is bound to performe, not onelyonly in reſpect of temporall affaires, but alſo of thoſe things which appertaine to godlineſſe and euerlaſting happineſſe; and therefore if hee neglect religious and charitable duties, ſhee is not onelyonly bound to mooue and perſwade him vntounto them, but alſo, if hee ſtill neglect them, to doe them her ſelfe for him, leſt the ſinne and puniſhment lie not onelyonly vponupon him, but alſo vponupon her and the whole familie. For if Zeppora, performing Exod: 4. 25.a duty which belonged vntounto her husband, and not vntounto her, auerted Gods iudgements from him, the inflicting whereof was begun for his neglect; how much more may a good and vertuous wife doe the like, when her husband neglecteth theſe common duties which belong indifferently to them both?
Sect. 20. 4. Reaſon. That the wife ſhould be in a worſe condition than a ſeruant if ſhee might not giuegive almes.
Fourthly, if a wife had no libertie to doe theſe almes-deedes and workes of mercy without ſpeciall commiſſion from her husband, then were ſhe in as bad an eſtate as the baſeſt ſeruant, ſeeing they alſo may giuegive almes and doe theſe workes when they hauehave leaue from their maſters. Yea in truth the wiues ſeruitude ſhould be farre worſe than of the meaneſt ſeruant; for it is the moſt grieuous bondage, to bee bound from doing good, and reſtrayned from expreſſing our good will by our workes and actions; now the pooreſt ſeruants may according to their ſmal eſtate, giuegive almes and doe good, out of that which is their owne and earned by their painfull labours; and ſo though they giuegive little, yet giuing according to their abilitie, they may (like the poore widdow that caſt in her mites) be rich in good works, and richly rewarded in the life to come; whereas the wife though ſhee hauehave neuer ſo much vnderunder her hand, yet may giuegive nothing of it, nor hauehave any libertie without licence, to expreſſe the bounty of her heart in the outward action; or if ſhee doe (according to their conceipt) ſhee doth not therin a worke of mercy, but ſinneth, ſtealeth, and thereby maketh her-ſelfe lyable to Gods wrath and puniſhment. Neither will it helpe them to ſay that her eſtate is better, becauſe hauing more intereſt in her husbands louelove ſhee may obtaine his conſent, and ſo giuegive more liberally then a ſeruant, ſeeing this doth not make her bondage leſſe in it owne nature, but only lighter through her husbands louelove, neither is her chaine taken from her, but whereas before ſhee was (as is were) bound with it to a poſte, now ſhee walketh about with it in her husbands hand.
Sect. 21. 5 Reaſon. That the laſt ſentence ſhall be pronounced to wiues as well as husbands.
Fiftly, I would faine know if the ſentence of euerlaſting happineſſe will not equally and alike be pronounced at the latter day to the wiues as well as to the husbands, for their alike doing theſe workes of merciemercy; but according to their opinion the Iudge ſhould not ſay to many wiues, I was hungry and yee fed mee, I was thirſte and Matth: 25. 34.you gaue me drinke; but you would hauehave done theſe things if your husbands would hauehave ſuffred you, but yet neglected mee in my members though I was in great extremitie, becauſe you had not their conſent.
Sect. 22. The 6. reaſon grounded on examples, as 1. of Abigail, 1 Sam. 25.
Sixtly, the power of the wife to giuegive almes appeareth clearely by the examples of holy women in the ſcriptures; as of Abigail who (not only without the knowledge, but contrarie to the minde of her husband Naball, plainely expreſſed by his abſolute refuſall) gaue a great preſent to Dauid, and his followers for their reliefe. VntoUnto which it is anſwered, that Abigails example is no rule for other women; for then by the ſame reaſon it ſhould be lawfull to call their husbands fooles as ſhe did. But to this I reply, that we muſt diſtinguiſh betweene the infirmities ſhewed in the action, and the action it ſelfe; the infirmities and imperfections no man alloweth, but for the action it ſelfe it was good, and ſhee pronounced by holy Dauid bleſſed for it; yea he bleſſeth God as being the chiefe author who ſtirred her vp to the doing of this charitable action, v 32. Bleſſed be v. 32.the Lord God of Iſrael, who hath ſent thee to meete mee this day. Secondly, it is ſaid that Abigail was a wiſe and vertuous woman, and therefore might the better do it. And who giueth libertie vntounto any other but vntounto thoſe only, who are able to performe theſe actions vertuouſly and with ſome diſcretion? Thirdly, it is obiected that Naball was a churle and a foole, and therefore it was lawfull for his wife who was wiſer then he to diſpoſe of ſome part of his great eſtate. To which I reply that I giuegive no authoritie to wiues to giuegive againſt their husbands will, vnleſſe they be ſuch Naballs and wicked churles, who by no perſwaſions will be drawne to the doing of any good. Yea but he muſt be not only a churle, but alſo a foole ſuch as Naball was. To which I anſwer, that who ſo doth well conſider Naballs anſwer to Dauids meſſengers, and compareth it with Dauids preſent eſtate, who with his company liued, in the ſight of carnall men, like fugitiues and out-lawes; he will finde more wickedneſſe in it, then want of worldly wit. Wickednes I ſay, becauſe hee did not (like his wife) beleeue Gods promiſes made to Dauid concerning his eſtabliſhment in the kingdome, when as he ſaw him in this afflicted eſtate. Secondly, becauſe therein hee ſheweth his churliſhnes & auerſenes to any good, & particularly to releeue the diſtreſſed ſeruants of God, though he had abundance in his hands to beſtow ſuperfluouſly in riotous feaſting thoſe he fauoured. Thirdly, that he was more wicked then witleſſe, it appeareth by his ſeruants words to Abigail, v. 17. who ſaid that he was ſuch a wicked perſon or ſonne of Belial that no man durſt ſpeake to him, whereas folly in the maſter worketh rather contempt than feare in the hearts of ſeruants; and alſo by Abigail her words to Dauid, who ioyning his wickednes with his folly, ſheweth that his folly chiefly conſiſted in his wickedneſſe, & though he might hauehave worldly wit, yet he was deſtitute of true ſpirituall wiſdome, which chiefly conſiſteth in godlineſſe and in the feare of the Lord. Neither do we leaue libertie to wiues to perform theſe workes of mercy without the allowance of their husbands, vnles they be ſuch fooles, that is, ſuch carnall worldlings as will neither themſelues doe good, nor by their good wills ſuffer others; for though theſe be not fooles and mad-men, becauſe they hauehave the vſe of reaſon, yet are they fooliſh and mad in reſpect of chriſtianitie, ſeeing their reaſon is quite oppoſite and contrary to religion.
Sect. 23.
Another example hereof wee hauehave in thoſe godly women commended by S. Luke, namely The examples vrged which the Euangeliſt mentioneth. Luk: 8. 3.Ioanna the wife of Chuza Herods ſteward, Suſanna, and many others, who of their ſubſtance miniſtred vntounto our Sauiour Chriſt. For whereas ſome anſwer that it is likely that they did it with the allowance of their husbands, this conceit hath little ground; for it is not probable that a man ſo highly in fauour with Herod, would ſhew ſuch louelove to our Sauiour, whom his maſter contemned or rather hated. And ſecondly, if this good worke had beene done by the conſent of their husbands, it is likely that the Euangeliſt would hauehave aſcribed the action to them as the chiefe agents, and not to their wiues only, giuing them alone the praiſe of this charitable bounty.
Sect. 24. Laſt reaſon taken from the cuſtome of the Cuntrey.
The laſt reaſon to proue the lawfulnes of theſe charitable workes and almes-deeds done by wife and religious wiues, is the cuſtome of our countrey, which ordinarily authorizeth them to doe theſe workes, if their power be not iuſtly reſtrained by their husbands for their abuſing of it. In regard wherof there is no reaſon that any ſhould inſnare and trouble the conſciences of any vertuous wiues by perſwading them that theſe workes of mercy are not done lawfully by them, vnleſſe they hauehave ſpeciall commiſſion from their huſbands; ſeeing this chriſtian cuſtome ſufficiently authorizeth them, if they hauehave no lawfull reſtraint by their ſuperiour authoritie.
Sect. 25. Their obiectiō anſwered who ſay that this libertie granted to wiues is dangerous.
Yea but though this doctrine be true, yet it is dangerous to be publiſhed, ſeeing many vndiſcreete weomen will abuſe it, to the vndoing of their husbands and the ruining of their eſtates. To which I anſwere that it is but a carnall conceipt to dreame, that any euill can come by the diſcouerie of a religious truth, or though there ſhould, yet fiat iuſtitia & ruat coelum, let truth and right be maintained though the inconueniences which follow it be neuer ſo great. What if ſome abuſe their ſwordes, muſt therefore all men be diſarmed of their weapons? What though ſome abuſe their power and authoritie, muſt therefore all bee diſabled depoſed from their gouernment? what if the Goſpell it ſelfe which in it owne nature is the ſauour of life vntounto life, becommeth to ſome through their corruption the ſauor of death vntounto death, muſt therefore the mouthes of Gods Miniſters be ſtopped, and the preaching of the Goſpell be interdicted? and what though Chriſtian libertie and right being knowne vntounto wiues, ſome abuſe it through their impietie and indiſcretion, let the ſinne bee vponupon their heades who abuſe the truth of God, but let not for this thoſe which are diſcreet and vertuous be kept ignorant of their dutie, and hauehave their conſciences inſnared and burthened with that which is not ſinfull, but in bare conceit, yea in truth with that which is honeſt, charitable and commendable; ſeeing when they know their Chriſtian libertie, they will ſo much the more conſcionably and carefully, circumſpectly and diſcreetly vſe it, and not raſhly ruſh beyond their boundes. And as for others what great danger is there, leſt by vndiſcreet giuing they ſhould hurt and ruine their husbands eſtates; ſeeing they hauehave alwaies a ſuperiour authoritie in their hand to reſtraine their exceſſiue and vnlawfull liberalitie? or if any at all, yet how farre leſſe is the perill by teaching their libertie in the vſe of their goods for the doing of the workes of mercy, then for their diet and apparell? ſeeing whereas one man receiueth hurt in his eſtate by his wiues too much bountie toward the poore, and ſuch like workes of merciemercy, many hundreds are impoueriſhed by their too much daintineſſe and curioſity in furniſhing their table, and their exceſſiue coſtlineſſe and brauery of apparell. Howſoeuer it is, yet I am ſure no fooliſh wiues can iuſtly beare themſelues out by any thing before ſpoken in their vndiſcreet lauiſhnes: nor that any husbands who are vertuous and religious, wiſe and louing to their ſpouſes, hauehave any iuſt cauſe of complaining, ſeeing ſuch will goe with them in all good actions, yea alſo, before them in the light, of an holy & Chriſtian example and in that regard their wiues may not goe without them, but take their counſell in all workes of Chriſtian charity. Neither in truth hauehave any the leaſt colour to take exceptions, but vncharitable worldlings and churliſh Nabals, to whoſe wiues alone this libertie is giuen of doing workes of mercy without their allowance, becauſe their hearts are ſo wicked and wretched, that they will not bee perſwaded to ioyne with them in theſe charitable actions.