Of Domestical Duties, Treatise 3 · Section 29 – Section 41
§. 29. Of the reaſons againſt a wiues propertie in the common goods of the family.
2. Anſw. It may ſafely be denied that a wife hath a propertie in the common goods of the family whereof ſhe is no heire, for property in goods is a ciuill matter, and to be limited according to the law of man vnderunder which we liue. Where the law, or cuſtome of the place, make all the children coheires, all hauehave 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 giuegive the wife a property. a12. H. 7. 22. Coke rep. 5. fo. 36. 28. H. 6. Dier fol. 6. plito. 5 Doct. & ſtud. fo. 13. Plowd. Comment. Bracebriges Caſe.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. b4. H. 6. 31.And all perſonall goods and chattels during mariage giuen to the wife are preſently ipſo facto transferred (as to the property of them) to the husband. So that by our law ſhe is ſo farre from gaining any property by her mariage in her husbands goods, as ſhe loſeth all the property ſhe formerly had in her owne goods. Yea c18. E. 4. 11. p. 4her neceſſary apparell is not hers in property. While ſhe remaineth a wife ſhe is (to vſe the law-phraſe) vnderunder couert baron. dSee §. 26.She can neither let, ſell, alien, giuegive, nor otherwiſe of right make any thing away, no nor yet make a will ſo to diſpoſe any goods while her husband liueth without his conſent: which yet an husband may while his wife liueth, and that without or againſt her conſent.
Obiect. The law ſtates a wife in a great part of the husbands goods, prouiding for her iointer or thirds which the husband cannot make away without her conſent.
Anſw. This prouiſion is only for the time of her widowhood in caſe ſhe ouerliue him: but for the time that ſhe remaineth his wife he may make away all, and ſhe can recouer none, till he be dead.
Obiect. This reſtraint of wiues is only in the court of men.
Anſw. Seeing it is not againſt the law of God, it muſt alſo hold good in the court of Conſcience. Nay it is agreeable to the law of God and grounded thereupon.
For (to omit the proofes before alleaged) what might be the reaſon that the daughters of Zelophehad, who were heires to their father, were forbidden to mary out of their fathers tribe, and that a law was made that no daughters that poſſeſſed any inheritance ſhould mary out of their fathers tribe, but becauſe all that a woman had before mariage, paſſed vponupon the husband and became his by vertue of mariage? This alſo for that purpoſe is by ſome not vnfitly, nor without probabilitie noted, that it is the common phraſe of Scripture to terme huſbands Si quis abduxerit vxorem cum bonis familiae dicitur abducere vxorem cum bonis viri. Fitzherb. Nat. breutum fol. 89.(but not wiues) rich, implying thereby that riches by a property appertaine to husbands: yea vſually in Scripture goods and lands are ſaid to be the husbands.
Obiect. The wiues of Iaakob doe terme the goods which their husbands had theirs, ſaying, the riches which God hath taken from our Father is OVRS, Gen. 31. 16.
Anſw. They vſe the word Ours in oppoſition to their fathers houſe, and in relation not to their perſons, but to their Ut vinum temperatum licet maiori ex parte aquae conſtat, vinum appellamus: ſic cenſus quamuis plus contribuerit vxor, nuncupandus viri eſt. Plut. in praec. connub.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.
§. 30. Of anſwers to the reaſons for a wiues property.
To proue a wiues property in the common goods of the family the reaſons following are alledged.
1. Obiect. Mariage giuing a wife right of her husbands body, Cor. 7. 4.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 giuegive the wife her property, then ſuch wiues as are maried without thoſe words vſed, hauehave 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 vponupon her ſo to doe.
§. 31. Of the priuiledges of wiues aboue Children and ſeruants in and about the goods of the familie.
Queſt. Where then is the preferment of the wife aboue ſeruants and children, if ſhe hauehave not a property?
I anſwer, Much eueryevery manner of way.
1. aTreat. 4. §. 52. 54.There is due to her a more free and plentifull vſe of all the goods, then vntounto them.
2. By her place ſhe hath the ordering and diſpoſing of the goods allotted for the common vſe of the familie: as was b§. 21.before granted.
3. Her husband ought to giuegive her a portion to diſpoſe as ſhe ſhall ſee good, cTreat. 4. §. 54.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 d§. 4.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 vntounto them, where is their preferment aboue their children and ſeruants. But e§. 11.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 2. Reaſon. Examples. 1 Sam. 25. 18. &c. Pro. 31. 11, &c.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 hauehave as great a care in getting 3. Reaſon. Wiues hauehave a like care in getting goods.goods, or in preſeruing them for the good of the familie: therefore it is iuſt and equall, that they ſhould hauehave 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: 4. Reaſon. Wiues are yoak-fellowes with their husbands.they are ſaid to be yoake-fellowes, and thence is inferred that they hauehave 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 hauehave an equall right and power, ſhe muſt giuegive place and yeeld.
§. 33. Of the *Treat. 4. §. 54.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 a§ 22.ordinarie dutie muſt giuegive place to extraordinarie need, ſo that releefe in preſent neceſſitie is not controuerted. Let it be alſo remembred that b§. 21.a wife may hauehave goods proper to her ſelfe, yea cTreat. 4. §. 54.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) dPro. 31. 20.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 hauehave ſome triall of her mercifull and charitable diſpoſition: if herein ſhe cannot preuaile, then ſhe ought to make knowne vntounto 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 State of queſtion.to a couetous worldling, who though he hauehave 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 Non excuſ…bit bona intentio vxoris, etiamſi ea acciperet ad eleemoſynam faciendam. Greg. Sayr. clav. reg. lib. 9. cap. 16.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 eueryevery 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 vntounto workes of mercy, which without limitation to any particular perſons, are indefinitely directed to all, doe giuegive ſufficient warrant to wiues: ſuch as theſe, aLuke 11. 41.GiueGive almes. bGal. 6. 10.Let vsus doe good. cHeb. 13. 16.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 giuegive almes. But in the caſe propounded they giuegive 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 dLuke 11. 41. foreign.as we hauehave, or which are in our power to giuegive. Now if the husband will not giuegive her that power, ſhe hath not power to giuegive, and ſo is excuſed. Date quae habetis eleemoſynam Tertul. contr. Marcion. l. 4. 2 Cor. 8. 12.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 …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 …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 eueryevery 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. Numb. 30. 16.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 hauehave no ſet portion of his owne, and his father will not giuegive him leaue to beſtow any thing on charitable vſes, is he now bound to giuegive almes? ſhall the curſe be executed on him if he giuegive 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 hauehave their exceptions, as they which in particular handle that point, giuegive 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 Exod. 4. 25.husband, and not vntounto 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?Factum Zephorae ſingulare eſt, & extraordinarium, ne que conſtat illud ſimpliciter à Deo approbatum fuiſſe. Simler. in Exod. 4. Luke 8. 3.
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 vntounto 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 Matth. 1. 6. foreign.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 Gen. 38. 8.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 Matth. 10. 3. foreign.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 Chemnit. Harm. Euang. cap. 33. Ioh. 4. 53.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 Prou. 31. 11.husband of the good wife commended by Salomon, and ſo ſhe might hauehave 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 giuegive ſuch an occaſion of ſlander vntounto 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 vponupon 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 *Treat. 4. §. 18. 52.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 giuegive 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 hauehave 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.
§. 39. Of a wiues Treat 4. §. 18.ſubiection to her husband about children.
A wife may not ſimply without, or directly againſt her huſbands conſent, order and diſpoſe of the children in giuing them names, apparelling their bodies, appointing their callings, places of bringing vp, mariages, or portions.
1. For giuing names to children, beſides that it is throughout 1. Names.the Scripture for the moſt part enioyned to the husband, as to aGen. 17. 19.Abraham, to bLuk. 1. 13.Zacharias, and to others, and that accordingly husbands hauehave ordinarily done, as cGen. 5. 3.Adam, d29.Lamech, e& 21. 3.Abraham, and others. It is to be noted that when there was a difference betwixt the man and his wife in giuing a childes name, he giuing one name, ſhe another, the name which he gaue, ſtood; though fGen. 35. 18.Rachel named her youngeſt ſonne Benoni, yet Beniamin (which name Iaakob gaue) was the childes name. So alſo when gLuk. 1. 62.Elizabeth told her friends that her childes name muſt be Iohn, they would not reſt therein, till Zacharias had ratified that name. Yea though Ioſeph were but the ſuppoſed father of Ieſus, yet becauſe he was the huſband of Mary the mother of Ieſus, hMat. 1. 21.he had this honour giuen him, to giuegive the name vntounto her childe.
Whereas in Scripture it is ſometimes ſaid that the mothers named their children, as iGen. 29. 32.Leah, k& 30. 24.Rahel, and others, it is vponupon the forenamed ground to be ſuppoſed that they had their husbands conſent.
2. For appointing place and mariage it is noted that lGen. 27. 43, &c.Rebekah 2. Place and mariage.asked the conſent of her husband: though ſhe told her ſonne Iaakob that he ſhould goe to Haran to his vncle Laban to be there kept in ſafety from the fury of Eſau, yet ſhe would not ſend him till mGen. 28. 1, 2.Iſaak had giuen his conſent for his abode there, and taking a wife from thence.
3. For deputing vntounto a calling, it is noted of n1 Sam. 1. 11.Annah, that 3. Calling.though before her childe was borne ſhe had by ſolemne vow dedicated him to the Lord, yet when the childe was borne Verſ 22.ſhe asked her husbands conſent about it.4. Apparell.
4. That which is noted of p1 Sam. 2. 19.Annahs carrying a little coat to her ſonne yeare by yeare when ſhe went vp with her husband, ſheweth that ſhe did it not without her husbands conſent. Women are for the moſt part prone to pranke vp their children aboue their husbands place and calling, and therefore good reaſon that therein they ſhould be gouerned by their husbands.
Obiect.
What if husbands be more forward to hauehave their children attired vainly and vnſeemely, then wiues?
Anſw. A wife muſt doe what ſhe can to hinder it: if ſhe can no way preuaile with him, ſhe by reaſon of her ſubiection is much more excuſed, then he could be, if he would ſuffer his wife therein to hauehave her will.
5. The law that layeth the charge vponupon husbands to giuegive 5. Portions. Deut. 21. 15, &c.ſuch and ſuch portions to his children, and the anſwerable practiſe of husbands from time to time, ſhew that the wife of her ſelfe hath not power to order them.
§. 40. Of a wiues *Treat. 4. §. 18.ſubiection to her husband about ordering ſeruants and beaſts.
If wiues muſt hauehave their husbands conſent in ordering and diſpoſing of their children which come out of her wombe, much more of their ſeruants.
They may not take in, or thruſt out ſeruants againſt their husbands minde. In this point, as in many other, Sarah manifeſted her wiue-like obedience; in that aGen. 16. 5.ſhe would not deale roughly with her maid though ſhe were prouoked: much leſſe b& 21. 10.put her out of doores till ſhe had made the matter knowne to her husband. Though ſhe failed in the manner, yet in the thing it ſelfe ſhe is a good example. It is further noted and approued in the c2 King. 4. 22.Shunemite that ſhe asked her husbands conſent about ſending a ſeruant with her.
My meaning is not that ſuch wiues as hauehave ſeruants allowed them to attend vponupon them ſhould aske their husbands conſent whenſoeuer they hauehave occaſion to vſe them; for their husbands by allowing them men for their attendance manifeſt their will and conſent that they may vſe them as they ſee occaſion: but that they ſhould not vſe and imploy their ſeruants in ſuch things as they know their husbands would diſlike, except they can gaine their husbands conſent.
Againſt thoſe particulars of children and ſeruants it may be obiected, that wiues are parents of their children as well as husbands, and miſtreſſes of ſeruants as well as they maſters, and therefore hauehave altogether as great power ouer them as their husbands.
Anſw. Indeed if the authority of the husband come not betweene, that may be granted in relation betwixt her and them: but her power being ſubordinate to her husbands in relation to him ſhe hath not ſo great a power: the power of a wife that now we ſpeake of is directly in relation to her husband.
The like may be ſaid of their beaſts and cattell, a particular point noted alſo in the example of the Shunemite, who hauing occaſion to vſe a beaſt went to her husband, and ſaid, ſend I pray thee with me one of the aſſes.2 King. 4. 22.
§. 41. Of a wiues *Treat. 4. §. 18.ſubiection in entertaining ſtrangers iournying abroad, and making vowes.
If wiues may not at their pleaſure vſe the things appertaining to the houſe, much leſſe may they bring ſtrangers into the houſe and entertaine them without or againſt their huſbands conſent. The good Shunemite ſo often named as a preſident 2 King. 4. 10.for good wiues, firſt asked her husbands conſent, before ſhe lodged a Prophet of the Lord.
The ſame patterne is alſo commended vntounto wiues to moue them not to iourney abroad without their husbands conſent. For though that good wife had a very weighty and iuſt occaſion 2 King. 4. 22.to goe vntounto the Prophet, yet ſhe would not before ſhe knew her husbands minde.
As for a wiues power to make vowes, in that the law giueth an husband power to diſanull her vow when he knoweth it, it implieth that ſhe ought to hauehave his conſent in making it, if Num. 30. 9.at leaſt ſhe deſire to hauehave it eſtabliſhed, which ſhe ought to deſire, or elſe ſhe mocketh God.
I hauehave thought good to mention theſe particular points for illuſtration of a wiues ſubiection, becauſe they are all of them grounded on Gods word: many other might be added to them, but theſe are ſufficient.