Treatise 3: Of Wives' Particular Duties

§. 1. Of the general heads of this treatise.

Ephesians 5:22. Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands as to the Lord. Verse 23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and he is the Savior of the body. Verse 24. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives be subject to their husbands in every thing.

In the particular declaration of wives duties, the Apostle notes two points, 1. The duty required. 2. The reason to enforce it.

In setting forth the duty, he declares 1. The matter wherein it consists. 2. The manner how it is to be performed.

In the matter we may note, 1. The thing required, subjection. 2. The person whom it respects, their own husbands.

The manner respects, | 1. The quality | of that subjection. | 2. The extent | | |

To declare the quality of wives subjection to their husbands, two rules are set down.

1. That it be such a subjection, as should be performed to Christ.

2. That it be such a subjection as the Church performs to Christ.

The extent of wives subjection does stretch itself very far, even to all things.

The reason to enforce all these points is taken from that place of eminence and authority, wherein the husband is set above his wife: which is,

1. Propounded under the metaphor of an head (for the husband is the head of the wife.)

2. Amplified by that resemblance which therein he has to Christ.

In which resemblance two points are noted.

1. That the husband, by virtue of his place, carries the very image of Christ (even as Christ is the head of the Church.)

2. That the husband by virtue of his office is a protector of his wife (and he is the savior of the body.)

§. 2. Of a wives subjection in general.

The first point to be handled in the treatise of wives particular duties is the general matter of all (Subjection) under which all other particulars are comprised, for it has as large an extent as that honor which is required in the first commandment, being applied to wives. When first the Lord declared to woman her duty, he set it down under this phrase, Your desire shall be subject to your husband (Genesis 3:16).

Object. That was a punishment inflicted on her for her transgression?

Answer. And a law too, for trial of her obedience, which if it be not observed, her nature will be more depraved, and her fault more increased. Besides, we cannot but think that the woman was made before the fall, that the man might rule over her. Upon this ground the Prophets and Apostles have often urged the same. Sarah is commended for this, that she was subject to her husband (1 Peter 3:6). Hereby the Holy Spirit would teach wives, that subjection ought to be as salt to season every duty which they perform to their husband. Their very opinion, affection, speech, action, and all that concerns the husband, must savor of subjection. Contrary is the disposition of many wives, whom ambition has tainted and corrupted within and without: they cannot endure to hear of subjection: they imagine that they are made slaves thereby. But I hope partly by that which has been before delivered concerning those common duties which man and wife do mutually owe each to other, and partly by the particulars which under this general are comprised, but most especially by the duties which the husband in particular owes to his wife, it will evidently appear, that this subjection is no servitude. But were it more than it is, seeing God requires subjection of a wife to her husband, the wife is bound to yield it. And good reason it is that she who first drew man into sin, should be now subject to him, lest by the like womanish weakness she fall again.

§. 3. Of a husband's superiority over a wife, to be acknowledged by a wife.

The subjection which is required of a wife to her husband implies two things. 1. That she acknowledge her husband to be her superior. 2. That she respect him as her superior.

That acknowledgement of the husband's superiority is twofold, | 1. General of any husband. | 2. Particular of her own husband. | |

The general is the ground of the particular: for till a wife be informed that a husband, by virtue of his place, is his wife's superior, she will not be persuaded that her own husband is above her, or has any authority over her.

First therefore concerning the general, I will lay down some evident and undeniable proofs, to show that a husband is his wife's superior, and has authority over her. The proofs are these following.

1. God of whom, the powers that be ordained, are, has power to place his image in whom he will, and to whom God gives superiority and authority, the same ought to be acknowledged to be due to them. But God said of the man to the woman, he shall rule over you (Genesis 3:16).

2. Nature has placed an eminence in the male over the female: so as where they are linked together in one yoke, it is given by nature that he should govern, she obey. This did the heathen by light of nature observe.

3. The titles and names, whereby a husband is set forth, do imply a superiority and authority in him, as Lord (1 Peter 3:6), Master (Esther 1:17), Guide (Proverbs 2:17), Head (1 Corinthians 11:3), Image and glory of God (1 Corinthians 11:7).

4. The persons whom the husband by virtue of his place, and whom the wife by virtue of her place, represent, most evidently prove as much: for a husband represents Christ, and a wife, the Church (Ephesians 5:23).

5. The circumstances noted by the Holy Spirit at the woman's creation imply no less, as that she was created after man, for man's good, and out of man's side (Genesis 2:18, etc.)

6. The very attire which nature and custom of all times and places have taught women to put on, confirms the same: as long hair, veils, and other coverings over the head: this and the former argument does the Apostle himself use to this very purpose (1 Corinthians 11:7, etc.)

The point then being so clear, wives ought in conscience to acknowledge as much: namely that a husband has superiority and authority over a wife. The acknowledgement thereof is a main and principal duty, and a ground of all other duties. Till a wife be fully instructed therein and truly persuaded thereof, no duty can be performed by her as it ought: for subjection has relation to superiority and authority. The very notation of the word implies as much. How then can subjection be yielded, if husbands be not acknowledged superiors? It may be forced, as one King conquered in battle by another, may be compelled to yield homage to the conqueror, but yet because he still thinks with himself, that he is no way inferior, he will hardly be brought willingly to yield a subject's duty to him, but rather expect a time when he may free himself and take revenge of the conqueror.

Section 4. Of a fond conceit, that husband and wife are equal.

Contrary to the forenamed subjection is the opinion of many wives, who think themselves every way as good as their husbands, and no way inferior to them.

The reason thereof seems to be that small inequality which is between the husband and the wife: for of all degrees wherein there is any difference between person and person, there is the least disparity between man and wife. Though the man be as the head, yet is the woman as the heart, which is the most excellent part of the body next the head, far more excellent than any other member under the head, and almost equal to the head in many respects, and as necessary as the head. As an evidence, that a wife is to man as the heart to the head, she was at her first creation taken out of the side of man where his heart lies; and though the woman was at first of the man created out of his side, yet is the man also by the woman. Ever since the first creation man has been born and brought forth out of the woman's womb: so as neither the man is without the woman, nor the woman without the man: indeed, as the wife has not power of her own body, but the husband, so the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife. They are also heirs together of the grace of life. Besides, wives are mothers of the same children, of whom their husbands are fathers (for God said to both, multiply and increase) and mistresses of the same servants of whom they are masters (for Sarah is called mistress) and in many other respects there is a common equity between husbands and wives; from which many wives gather that in all things there ought to be a mutual equality.

But from some particulars to infer a general is a very weak argument.

1. Does it follow, that because in many things there is a common equity between Judges of Assize, Justices of peace, and Constables of towns, that therefore there is in all things an equality between them?

2. In many things there is not a common equity: for the husband may command his wife, but not she him.

3. Even in those things wherein there is a common equity, there is not an equality: for the husband has ever even in all things a superiority: as if there be any difference even in the forenamed instances, the husband must have the stroke: as in giving the name of Rachel's youngest child, where the wife would have one name, the husband another, that name which the husband gave, stood (Genesis 35:18).

Though there seem to be never so little disparity, yet God having so expressly appointed subjection, it ought to be acknowledged: and though husband and wife may mutually serve one another through love: yet the Apostle does not permit a woman to rule over the man.

Section 5. Of a wife's acknowledgement of her own husband's superiority.

The truth and life of that general acknowledgement of husbands' honor, consists in the particular application thereof to their own proper husbands.

The next duty therefore is, that wives acknowledge their own husbands, even those to whom by God's providence they are joined in marriage, to be worthy of a husband's honor, and to be their superior: this much the Apostle intends by that particle of restraint (own) which he uses very often: so likewise does Saint Peter, exhorting wives to be in subjection to their own husbands: and hereunto restraining the commendation of the ancient good wives, that they were in subjection to their own husbands.

Object. What if a man of mean place be married to a woman of eminent place, or a servant be married to his mistress, or an aged woman to a youth, must such a wife acknowledge such a husband her superior?

Answer. Indeed: for in giving herself to be his wife, and taking him to be her husband, she advances him above herself, and subjects herself to him. It matters nothing what either of them were before marriage: by virtue of the matrimonial bond the husband is made the head of his wife, though the husband were before marriage a very beggar, and of mean parentage, and the wife very wealthy and of a noble stock; or though he were her apprentice, or bondsman; which also holds in the case between an aged woman and a youth: for the Scripture has made no exception in any of those cases.

2. Object. But what if a man of lewd and beastly conditions, as a drunkard, a glutton, a profane swaggerer, an impious swearer, and blasphemer, be married to a wife, a sober, religious matron, must she account him her superior, and worthy of a husband's honor?

Answer. Surely she must. For the evil quality and disposition of his heart and life, does not deprive a man of that civil honor which God has given to him. Though a husband in regard of evil qualities may carry the image of the devil, yet in regard of his place and office he bears the image of God: so do Magistrates in the commonwealth, Ministers in the Church, parents and masters in the family. Note for our present purpose, the exhortation of Saint Peter to Christian wives which had unbelieving husbands, Be in subjection to them: let your conversation be in fear. If unbelievers do not carry the devil's image, and are not, so long as they are unbelievers, vassals of Satan, who are? Yet wives must be subject to them, and fear them.

Section 6. Of wives denying honor to their own husbands.

Contrary to that is a very perverse disposition in some wives, who think they could better subject themselves to any husband than their own. Though in general they acknowledge that a husband is his wife's superior, yet when the application comes to themselves they fail, and cannot be brought to yield that they are their husband's inferiors. This is a vice worse than the former. For to acknowledge no husband to be superior over his wife, but to think man and wife in all things equal, may proceed from ignorance of kind, and error of judgment. But for a wife who knows and acknowledges the general, that a husband is above his wife, to imagine that she herself is not inferior to her husband, arises from monstrous self-conceit, and intolerable arrogancy, as if she herself were above her own sex, and more than a woman.

Contrary also is the practice of such women as purposely marry men of far lower rank than themselves, for this very end, that they may rule over their own husbands: and of others who, being aged, for that end marry youths, if not very boys. A mind and practice very unseemly, and clearly warring against God's ordinance. But let them think of ruling what they will, the truth is that they make themselves subjects both by God's law and man's: of which subjection such wives do often feel the heaviest burden. Solomon notes this to be one of the things for which the earth is disquieted, when a servant reigns. Now when can a servant more domineer than when he has married his mistress? As for aged women who are married to youths, I may say (as in another case it was said) woe to you, O wife, whose husband is a child. Unmeet it is that an aged man should be married to a young maid, but much more unmeet for an aged woman to be married to a youth.

Section 7. Of a wife's inward fear of her husband.

Here we have treated of a wife's acknowledgment of her husband's superiority. It follows to speak of that answerable respect which she ought to bear towards him.

A wife-like respect of her husband consists in two points: 1. Reverence. 2. Obedience.

The reverence which she owes to him is 1. Inward. 2. Outward.

Inward reverence is an awful respect which a wife in her heart has of her husband, esteeming him worthy of all honor for his place and office's sake, because he is her husband. Doubtless Sarah had in her heart a reverent respect and honorable esteem of her husband, when being alone and thinking of him in her very thought she gave him this title Lord. This inward reverence the Scripture comprises under this word Fear: as where our Apostle says, Let the wife see that she fear her husband (Ephesians 5:33): and where Saint Peter exhorts wives to have their conversation in Fear (1 Peter 3:2). It is no slavish fear of her husband which ought to possess the heart of a wife, dreading blows, frowns, spiteful words, or the like; but such an awful respect of him as makes her (to use the Apostle's word) care how she may please him (1 Corinthians 7:34). This wife-like fear is manifested by two effects: one is joy, when she gives contentment to her husband, and observes him to be pleased with that which she does: the other is grief, when he is justly offended and grieved, especially with anything that she herself has done.

Unless this inward reverence and due respect of a husband be first placed in the heart of a wife, either no outward reverence and obedience will be performed at all, or if it be performed, it will be very unsound, only in show, hypocritical and deceitful: so that as good never a bit as never the better. For according to one's inward affection and disposition will the outward action and conversation be framed. Michal first despised David in her heart, and from there it followed that she uttered most unreverent and vile speeches of him, even to his face (2 Samuel 6:16). Therefore after the judgment of a wife is rightly informed of a husband's superiority, and her will persuaded to account her own husband her head and guide, it is very needful that her heart and affection be accordingly seasoned with the salt of good respect, and high esteem, which breeds fear: and that thus her heart may be seasoned, she ought often and seriously to meditate on his place and office, and on that honor which the Lord by virtue thereof has planted in him. And if he has gifts worthy of his place, as knowledge, wisdom, piety, temperance, love, and the like, she ought to take notice of that, and to think him worthy of double honor.

Section 8. Of a wife's base esteem of her husband.

Contrary to this inward reverence of the heart is a base and vile esteem which many have of their husbands, thinking no better of them than of other men; no, worse than of others; despising their husbands in their heart, like Michal, of whom we heard before. This, as it is in itself a vile vice, so is it a cause of many other vices, as of presumption, rebellion, and even of adultery itself many times: and it is also a main hindrance of all duty.

It commonly rises either from self-conceit (whereby wives overween their own gifts, thinking them so excellent that they need no guide or head, but are rather fit to guide and rule both their husband and all the household: of which proud and presumptuous spirit Jezebel seems to be, who with an audacious and impudent face said to Ahab her husband, Do you now govern the kingdom of Israel? Up, I will give you the vineyard of Naboth (1 Kings 21:7); so also all those wives who are noted to draw away their husbands' hearts from the Lord, as the wives of Solomon (1 Kings 11:4), Jehoram (2 Kings 8:18), and others: which they learned of their great-grandmother Eve (Genesis 3:6)) or else from some infirmities of mind or body, or of life, which they behold in their husbands (from which it comes to pass that many husbands who are highly honored and greatly accounted of by others are much despised by their wives, because their wives always conversing with them are privy to such infirmities as are concealed from others) or, which is worst of all, from unjust surmises and suspicions, suspecting many evil things of their husbands of which they are no way guilty, and misinterpreting and perverting things well done, as Michal perverted David's holy zeal (2 Samuel 6:20).

For the remedy of this enormous vice, wives ought first in regard of themselves to purge out of their hearts pride, and self-conceit, thinking humbly and lowly of themselves, and that even in regard of their sex and the weakness thereof: and if the Lord has endued them with any gift above the ordinary sort of women, to note well their own infirmities, and to lay them by their eminent gifts: thus by looking on their black feet, their proud-peacock-feathers may be cast down. Indeed also when they behold any infirmities in their husbands, they ought to reflect their eyes on their own infirmities, which it may be are even as many and as grievous, if not more in number, and more heinous in their nature and kind: at least let them consider that they are subject to the same, if God leave them to the sway of their own corruption.

Secondly, wives ought in regard of their husbands to surmise no evil whereof they have not sure proof and evidence: but rather interpret every thing in better part: and follow the rule of love, which bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. If they note any defects of nature, and deformity of body, or any enormous and notorious vices in their husband, then ought they to turn their eyes and thoughts from his person to his place, and from his vicious qualities to his honorable office (which is to be a husband) and this will abate that vile esteem which otherwise might be occasioned from the forenamed means.

§. 9. Of wife-like sobriety.

A wife's outward reverence towards her husband is a manifestation of her inward due respect of him. Now then seeing the intent of the heart, and inward disposition cannot be discerned by man simply in itself, that the husband may know his wife's good affection towards him, it is necessary that she manifest the same by her outward reverence.

A wife's outward reverence consists in her reverent | Gesture. | Speech. | |

For the first, that a reverent gesture and carriage of herself to her husband, and in her husband's presence, becomes a wife, was of old implied by the veil which the woman used to put on, when she was brought to her husband, as is noted in the example of Rebekah (Genesis 24:65): to which the Apostle alludes in these words, the woman ought to have power on her head (1 Corinthians 11:10). That cover on the woman's head, as in general it implied subjection, so in particular this kind of subjection, namely, a reverent carriage and gesture. But most expressly is this duty set down by Saint Peter who exhorts wives to order their conversation before their husbands, so as it be pure, with reverence (1 Peter 3:1).

This reverent conversation consists in a wife-like sobriety, mildness, courtesy, and modesty.

By sobriety I mean such a comely, grave, and gracious carriage, as gives evidence to the husband that his wife respects his place and the authority which God has given him. Sobriety in general is required of all women by reason of their sex; and surely it does well become them all: but much more does it become wives: most of all, in their husband's presence. The Apostle in particular enjoins it to Deacons' wives (1 Timothy 3:11), yet not so as proper to them, but in a further respect appertaining to them not only as wives, but as the wives of Deacons.

Contrary to this sobriety is lightness and wantonness: which vices in a wife, especially before her husband, argues little respect, if not a plain contempt of him.

Objection. Thus shall all delightful familiarity between husband and wife be taken away.

Answer. Though the forenamed sobriety be opposed to lightness and wantonness, yet not to matrimonial familiarity: which is so far permitted to man and wife, as if any other man and woman should so behave themselves one towards another as a husband and wife lawfully may, it might justly be counted lightness and sin: instance the example of Isaac and Rebekah, who so sported together, as Abimelech, knowing them to be such as feared God, gathered by that sporting that they were man and wife (Genesis 26:8-9): for he thought that otherwise they would not have been so familiar together.

This familiarity argues both liking and love: and shows that the man and wife delight in one another's person. But the lightness here condemned in a wife, is not so much a mutual familiarity with her husband by his good liking, as a wanton dallying with others to his grief and disgrace.

§. 10. Of wife-like mildness.

Mildness in a wife has respect also to the ordering of her countenance, gesture, and whole carriage before her husband, whereby she manifests a pleasantness to him, and a contentedness and willingness to be under him and ruled by him. Excellently is this set forth in the spouse of Christ whose eyes are said to be as doves' eyes, her lips to drop as honeycombs, and she herself every way pleasant: whereupon it is noted that she appeared to her husband as the bright morning, and that his heart was wounded with her (Song of Solomon 4; 6; 7). Assuredly the clear sky is not more pleasant in time of harvest, than a mild and amiable countenance and carriage of a wife in her husband's presence. And though her husband should be of a harsh and cruel disposition, yet by this means might he be made meek and gentle. For the keepers of lions are said to bring them to some tameness by handling them gently and speaking to them fairly.

Contrary to this mildness is a frowning brow, a lowering eye, a sullen look, a pouting lip, a swelling face, a deriding mouth, a scornful cast of the arms and hands, a disdainful turning of this side and that side of the body, and a fretful flinging out of her husband's presence: all which and other like contemptuous gestures are as thick clouds overspreading the heavens in a summer's day, which make it very uncomfortable. They often stir up much passion in the man, and bring much mischief upon the wife herself.

§. 11. Of wife-like courtesy and obeisance.

Courtesy is that virtue whereby a wife takes occasion to testify her acknowledgment of her husband's superiority by some outward obeisance to him. Rebekah, as soon as she saw Isaac, whom she had taken for her husband, alighted from her camel and came to him on foot, which was a kind of obeisance. This is not so to be taken as if no difference were to be made between the carriage of a servant, or child, and a wife: or as if a wife should bow at every word that she speaks to her husband. Though in the kind and extent of many duties the same things are required of wives which are required of children and servants, because God has made them all inferiors, and exacted subjection of all: yet in the manner and measure of many duties there is great difference: as in this, the obeisance of children and servants ought to be more submissive, and more frequent. Yet because God has placed authority in the husband over his wife, she is every way to testify her reverent respect of her husband, and therefore at some times, on some occasions (as when he is going on a journey for a time from her, or when he returns home again, or when she has a solemn and great suit to make to him, or when he offers a special and extraordinary favor to her, or (as I have observed such wives as know what befits their place, and are not ashamed to manifest as much) when she sits down or rises up from table) to declare her reverence by some obeisance. This cannot but much work on the heart of a good and kind husband, and make him the more to respect his wife, when he beholds this evidence of her respect to him. Indeed it cannot but be a good pattern to children and servants, and a motive to stir them up to yield all submissive obeisance both to her husband and to herself. For it may make them thus to reason with themselves, shall we scorn or think much to yield that to our father or master which our mother or mistress thinks not much to yield to her husband? Shall she bow to him, and shall not we much more bow to her? Thus a wife's honoring of her husband by yielding obeisance to him, makes both him and herself to be more honored of others.

Contrarily minded are they, who not only altogether omit this duty, but also gibe and scoff at the very hearing thereof, saying, thus wives shall be made no better than children or servants. But though scornful dames deride these outward evidences of their subjection, yet such wives as fear the Lord ought not to be hindered thereby from doing their duty: for by such evil examples they might be discouraged from every good duty. It is sufficient that such holy women as trusted in God so behaved themselves. But for this particular, we know that equals scorn not upon occasions to perform this kind of courtesy in making obeisance one to another: how much less ought wives, who are their husbands' inferiors?

Section 12. Of wife-like modesty in apparel.

Modesty pertaining to a wife is much manifested in her apparel. Saint Paul requires this modesty in general of all sorts of women: but Saint Peter presses it in particular upon wives. For as it well befits all women, so wives after a peculiar manner, namely, in attiring themselves, to respect rather their husband's place and state, than their own birth and parentage, but much rather than their own mind and humor. A wife's modesty therefore requires that her apparel be neither for costliness above her husband's ability, nor for elaborateness unbecoming his calling. As a poor man's wife must not seek costly apparel, so neither ministers', grave counselors', sage magistrates', nor conscientious professors' wives, hunt after new fashions, or attire themselves in light and garish apparel. It is a token of great reverence in a wife towards her husband, to have an eye to his place and state in her apparel.

On the contrary, such proud [reconstructed: dames] as must have their own will in their attire, and think it nothing pertains to their husbands to order them therein, who care not what their husband's ability, or what his place and calling be, they show little respect and reverence to their husbands. Such are they, who are in no way moved by their husband's example: but though the man's apparel be plain and grave, yet the wife's shall be costly and garish. Indeed many there be that stand in some more awe of their husband's sight, but show little more respect to him, who have their silken gowns, beaver hats, and other like attire not agreeable to their place and state, lie in the country, if they be of the city; or in the city, if they be of the country, in a friend's house where their husbands shall not know it, and when their husbands are not with them, wear them, and paint their faces, lay out their hair, and in every thing follow the fashion. What can they who behold this think, but that such a wife's care is more to please other light vain persons, than her grave, discreet husband: or that her husband can nothing at all prevail with her: which as it stains her own credit, so it leaves a blot of dishonor even upon him. If the care of a wife were to give evidence of the reverence which she bears to her husband, his desire and example would in this respect more prevail with her, than the humor of her own heart.

Section 13. Of a wife's reverent speech to her husband.

As by gesture, so by speech also, must a wife's reverence be manifested: this must be answerable to that. For by words as well as by deeds, the affection of the heart is manifested; out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A wife's reverence is manifested by her speech, both in her husband's presence, and also in his absence. For this end in his presence her words must be few, reverent, and meek. First, few: for the Apostle enjoins silence to wives in their husband's presence, and enforces that duty with a strong reason in these words: I permit not the woman to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence: the inference of the latter clause upon the former shows that he speaks not only of a woman's silence in the church, but also of a wife's silence before her husband: which is further cleared by another like place, where the same Apostle enjoins wives to learn of their husbands at home. The reason before mentioned for silence, on the one side implies a reverent subjection, as on the other side too much speech implies a usurpation of authority.

Objection: Then it seems a wife must be always mute before her husband.

Answ. No such matter: for silence in that place is not opposed to speech, as if she should not speak at all, but to loquacity, to talkativeness, to over-much tattling: her husband's presence must somewhat restrain her tongue, and so will her very silence testify a reverent respect. Otherwise silence, as it is opposed to speech, would imply stubbornness of stomach, and stubbornness of heart, which is an extreme contrary to loquacity. But the mean between both, is for a wife to be sparing in speech, to expect a fit time and just occasion of speech, to be willing to listen to the word of knowledge coming out of her husband's mouth. This argues reverence. Elihu manifested the reverent respect, which as a younger he bore to his elders, by forbearing to speak while they had anything to say. How much more ought wives in regard both of their sex and of their place?

Contrary is their practice, who must and will have all the chatter. If their husbands have begun to speak, their slippery tongues cannot wait till he has done: if (as very hastily and forward they are to speak) they do not prevent their husbands, they will surely take the tale out of his mouth before he has done. Thus they disgrace themselves, and dishonor their husbands.

§. 14. Of the titles which wives give their husbands.

As their words must be few, so those few words must be reverent and meek: both which are also implied under the aforementioned word silence: which in the original signifies also quietness.

Reverence has respect to the titles whereby a wife names her husband. Meekness to the manner of framing her speech to him.

For the titles which a wife in speaking to her husband, or naming him, gives to him, they must be such as signify superiority, and so savor of reverence. Such are the titles with which husbands are named in the Scripture; they are titles of honor. Such also are the titles which the Church (who by our Apostle is made a pattern for wives in all subjection) gives to her Spouse Christ Jesus, as may be gathered out of the Song of Songs. It is likely that Sarah did usually give this title Lord to her husband. For having occasion to think of him, presently this title Lord was in her heart: which would not so suddenly have risen up, if she had not ordinarily used it. According to the usual titles which we give to any, do we in our hearts name them, when we have occasion to think of them. Among all other titles the name husband, as it is the most usual, so it is the fittest and most fitting title. It intimates reverence, and savors not of niceness and singularity, as these titles, Head, Guide, Master, Man, and the like do: which though they be lawful titles, because the Scripture attributes them to husbands, and they signify superiority, yet because they are unusual and savor of singularity, they are not so fitting. Common use and practice has made the addition of the husband's surname to this title Master, more fitting.

Saint Peter by this argument proves that Sarah obeyed Abraham, because she called him Lord.

Contrary are those forms of address which argue equality or inferiority rather than superiority, as Brother, Cousin, Friend, Man, etc. If a stranger be in presence, how can he tell by this manner of address, that he whom you speak to is your husband? If he spy any matrimonial familiarity between you, what can he judge of it otherwise to be, but lightness and wantonness? Remember the fearful issue that had like to have fallen out by reason of such forms of address given by Sarah and Rebekah to their husbands. Not unlike to those are such as these, Sweet, Sweeting, Heart, Sweetheart, Love, Joy, Dear, etc. and such as these, Duck, Chick, Pigsnie, etc. and husbands' Christian names, as John, Thomas, William, Henry, etc. which if they be contracted (as many use to contract them thus, Jack, Tom, Will, Hall) they are much more unseemly: servants are usually so called.

But what may we say of those titles given to a husband by his wife, not seldom in passion, but usually in ordinary speech, which are not fit to be given to the basest men that be, as Grub, Rogue, and the like, which I am even ashamed to name, but that the sins of women are to be cast as dirt on their faces, that they may be the more ashamed?

Object. Many of the aforementioned titles are titles of amity and familiarity.

Answ. Subjection is that mark which wives are directed to aim at in their thoughts, words, deeds, and whole conversation toward their husband. Such tokens of familiarity as are not also tokens of subjection and reverence, are unbecoming a wife, because they swerve from that mark.

§. 15. Of wives' meekness in their speeches.

Meekness in a wife's manner of framing her speech to her husband, does also commend her reverent respect of him. This is a particular effect of that meek and quiet spirit which Saint Peter requires of wives; which duty he does strongly enforce by this weighty argument, which is before God a thing much set by. Is a wife's meekness much set by before God, and shall not wives hold it both a bound duty, and comely ornament, and grace to them? As the form of words which a wife uses in asking or answering questions, or any other kind of discourse which she holds with her husband, so her moderation in persisting, arguing and pressing matters, indeed and the mild composition of her countenance in speaking, declare her meekness. If she be desirous to obtain anything of him, fairly she must entreat it, as the Shunammite: If she would move him to perform a bound duty, mildly she must persuade him. If she would restrain and keep him from doing that which is evil, even that also she must do with some meekness, as Pilate's wife: If she have occasion to tell him of a fault, therein she ought to manifest humility and reverence, by observing a fit season, and doing it after a gentle manner as Abigail: who as she wisely behaved herself in this respect with her husband in observing a fit season, so also with David by intimating his fault to him, rather than plainly reproving him, when she said, It shall be no grief nor offense to my Lord, that he has not shed blood causelessly. This meekness requires also silence and patience, even when she is reproved.

Contrary is the waspish and shrewish disposition of many wives to their husbands, who care not how hastily and unadvisedly they speak to them, like Rachel; nor how angrily and chidingly, like Jezebel; nor how disdainfully, and spitefully, like Zipporah; nor how scoffingly, and frumpingly, like Michal; nor how reproachfully and disgracefully, like Job's wife. If they be reproved by their husbands, their husbands shall be reproached by them: and they are ready to answer again, not only word for word, but ten for one. Many wives by their shrewish speeches, show no more respect to their husbands, than to their servants, if so much. The least occasion moves them not only inwardly to be angry and fret against them, but also outwardly to manifest the same by chiding and brawling. The very object upon which many wives usually spit out their venomous words, is their husband; when their stomachs are full, they must needs ease them on their husbands: wherein their fault is doubled.

Let wives therefore learn first to moderate their passion, and then to keep in their tongues with bit and bridle, but most of all to take heed that their husbands taste not of the bitterness thereof, no not though they should by some oversight of their husbands be provoked. It is to be noted how Solomon calls the jars which are between man and wife, the contentions of a wife, whereby he intimates that she commonly is the cause thereof, either by provoking her husband, or not bearing with him.

§. 16. Of a wife's speech of her husband in his absence.

The reverence which a wife bears to her husband, must further be manifested by her speeches of him in his absence. So did Sarah manifest her reverence, and so must all such as desire to be accounted the daughters of Sarah. The Church speaking of her Spouse, does it with as great reverence, as if she had spoken to him. It was for honor and reverence sake, that the Virgin Mary called Joseph the Father of Jesus, when she spoke of him.

This shows that a wife's reverent speeches in presence of her husband and to his face, are not in flattery to please him and fawn upon him, but in sincerity to please God and perform her duty.

Contrary therefore to their duty deal they, who in presence can afford the fairest and meekest speeches that may be to their husbands face, but behind their backs speak most reproachfully of them.

§. 17. Of a wife's obedience in general.

Up to this point we have discussed a wife's reverence; it follows to speak of her obedience: the first law that ever was given to woman since her fall, laid upon her this duty of obedience to her husband, in these words, Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you. How can a husband rule over a wife, if she obeys him not? The principal part of that submission which in this text, and in many other places is required of a wife, consists in obedience: and therefore it is expressly commended to wives in the example of Sarah who obeyed Abraham. Thus by obedience does the Church manifest her subjection to Christ.

The place wherein God has set a husband; namely, to be a head; the authority which he has given to him, to be a lord and master; the duty which he requires of him to rule, all require obedience of a wife. Is not obedience to be yielded to a head, lord, and master? Take away all authority from a husband, if you exempt a wife from obedience.

Contrary is the stoutness of such wives as must have their own will, and do what they please, or else all shall be out of quiet. Their will must be done, they must rule and over-rule all, they must command not only children and servants, but husbands also, if at least the husband will be at peace. Look into families, observe the estate and condition of many of them, and then tell me if these things be not so. If a husband be a man of courage, and seek to stand upon his right, and maintain his authority by requiring obedience of his wife, strange it is to behold what a hurly-burly she will make in the house: but if he be a milksop, and basely yield to 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 humor in women, who must needs rule, or else they think themselves slaves. But let them think as they please: assuredly herein they thwart God's ordinance, pervert the order of nature, deface the image of Christ, overthrow the ground of all duty, hinder the good of the family, become an ill pattern to children and servants, lay themselves open to Satan, and incur many other mischiefs which cannot but follow upon the violating of this main duty of obedience, which if it be not performed, how can other duties be expected?

§. 18. Of the cases wherein a wife has power to order things of the house without her husband's consent.

A wife's obedience requires submission and contentment.

Submission in yielding to her husband's mind and will.

Contentment in resting satisfied and content with his estate and ability.

That submission consists in two things.

First, in abstaining from doing things against her husband's mind.

Secondly, in doing what her husband requires. The former of these requires that a wife have her husband's consent for the things which she does. For the better clarification of this we are to consider,

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

2. How many ways his consent may be given.

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

For the first, as on the one side it often falls out that a wife, provident, and religious man is married to a foolish woman, a very idiot, that has no understanding, of whom there can be no question, but that such a wife is to do nothing of herself, and of her own head, but altogether to be ordered by her husband: so on the other side, it often falls out that a wise, virtuous, and gracious woman, is married to a husband destitute of understanding, to a very natural (as we say) or a frenzy man, or to one made very blockish, and stupid, unfit to manage his affairs through some distemper, wound, or sickness. In such a case the whole government lies upon the wife, so as her husband's consent is not to be expected.

Question: What if the husband be a wicked and profane man, and so blinded and stupefied in his soul, does not this spiritual blindness and blockishness give a religious wife as great liberty as natural stupidity?

Answer: No, verily: for Saint Peter exhorts faithful wives that were married to infidel husbands to be subject to them, and that in fear.

The reason is clear: for spiritual blindness disables not from civil government: indeed nothing that such a man does is acceptable to God, or available to his own salvation; but yet it may be profitable to man: a wicked man may be provident enough for wife, children, and whole family in outward temporal things.

Again, it often falls out, that a husband is a long time far off absent from the house: sometimes by reason of his calling, as an Ambassador, Soldier, or Mariner; sometimes also carelessly or willfully neglecting house, goods, wife, children and all: and in his absence has left no order for the ordering of things at home: in this case also there is no question, but that the wife has power to dispose matters without her husband's consent: provided that she observe those rules of God's word concerning justice, equity, truth and mercy, which a husband in his disposing of them ought to observe.

The first of these cases declares an impotency in the husband: the other an impossibility for him to order matters: therefore the wife being next to the husband, the power of ordering things is devolved on her: she is not bound to have his consent.

§. 19. Of diverse kinds of consent.

2. A consent may be general or particular. A general consent is given, when without distinct respect to this or that particular, liberty is granted to a wife by her husband to do all things as seems good in her own eyes. That excellent good wife, and notable good housewife that is set forth by the Wise Man, had such a consent. For first, it is said, The heart of her husband trusts in her; and then it is inferred, that she orders all the things of the house, of which many particulars are there specified. From which I gather, that her husband observing her to be a godly, wise, faithful, and industrious woman, gave her power and liberty to do in the household affairs, what she thought good, (he being a public magistrate, for he was known in the gates, sitting among the Elders of the land) and accordingly she used her liberty.

A particular consent is that which is given to one or more particular things, as that consent which Abraham gave to Sarah about Hagar (Genesis 16:6); and that which Elkanah gave to Hannah about tarrying at home till her child was weaned (1 Samuel 1:23).

This particular consent may be expressed or implied. An expressed consent is when the husband manifests his good liking by word, writing, message, or sign, 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 conjecture it may be gathered that the husband's will is not against such a thing, though he has not manifested his mind 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 has knowledge thereof: or else when he is absent, by his former carriage or disposition in other like cases. The Scripture accounts a husband's silence, when he knows a thing and may, but does not forbid it, to be a consent: as in the case of a wife's vow (Numbers 30:8). For anything we read to the contrary, the Shunammite had no other consent to prepare a chamber for the Prophet, and to go to him, than her husband's silence, and not forbidding it when he knew it (2 Kings 4:10, 23).

As for the other kind of implicit consent, it may be set forth in this following instance: suppose a good wife has a husband whom she knows by his former carriage and disposition to be a pitiful and charitable man, taking all occasions to show mercy, and in his absence there falls out a fit and needful occasion of showing mercy; if she take that occasion to show mercy, she has an implicit consent, for she may well think that if her husband knew it he would approve what she does. It is to be supposed that Hannah upon some such ground vowed her child to God. For it is not likely that she who would not tarry at home to wean her child without her husband's consent, would much less vow him to the Lord (which was a far greater matter) without some persuasion of her husband's good liking thereof (1 Samuel 1:11). Now that a wife may show she deals uprightly in this case upon a true persuasion of her heart concerning her husband's mind, she ought (when conveniently she can) to make known to her husband what she has done: as without all question Hannah did; and so much may be gathered out of these words which Elkanah uttered to Hannah, "the Lord establish his word" (1 Samuel 1:23).

§. 20. Of the things about which a wife must have her husband's consent.

The things about which a husband's consent is to be expected, are such as he by virtue of his place and authority has power to order: as for example, ordering and disposing the goods, cattle, servants, and children of the family, entertaining strangers; indeed, also ordering even his wife's going abroad, and making of vows, with the like: now then distinctly to lay down a wife's duty in this first branch of obedience, it is this:

A wife must do nothing which appertains to her husband's authority simply without, or directly against his consent. Do not these words of that old law (your desire shall be to your husband) imply as much? I deny not but that there may be sundry things proper and peculiar to a wife, wherein I will not restrain her liberty: and therefore I use this phrase (which appertains to her husband's authority.) And I grant the forenamed general and implicit consent, to be a true consent, so as there need not an express particular consent for every thing, and therefore I have added these clauses (simply without, or directly against consent.) (Genesis 3:16)

That is done simply without consent which is done without all warrant from the husband, and that so covertly as she is afraid it should come to his notice, imagining he would by no means like it: as Rachel's taking her father's idols without all consent of Jacob (Genesis 31:32).

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

But to descend to the particulars before mentioned: First concerning the goods of the family: It is a question controverted whether the wife has power to dispose them without or against the husband's consent.

Before I determine the question, I think it needful to declare, 1. What goods, 2. What occasion of giving the question is about.

§. 21. Of the things which a wife may dispose without her husband's consent.

1. For the goods, some are proper and peculiar to the wife: others are common. Goods proper to the wife are such as before marriage she herself, or her friends except from the husband to her sole and proper use and disposing, to which he also yields: or such as after marriage he gives to her to dispose as she please: suppose it be some rent, annuity, fees, vails, or the like.

These kinds of goods are exempted out of the question in hand; the wife has liberty to dispose them as she pleases without any further consent than she had by virtue of her husband's former grant.

To these I may refer other goods, but of another nature, namely such as some friend of hers, suppose father, mother, brother, or any other, observing her husband to be a very hard man, not allowing sufficient for herself, much less to distribute on charitable uses, shall give to her to dispose as he pleases, charging her not to let her husband know thereof. Now because it is in the power of a free donor to order his gift as he pleases, and because he so orders this gift as he will not have her husband know of it, I doubt not but she may of herself according to the donor's mind without her husband's consent, dispose such goods. She is herein but as a feoffee in trust.

Again of common goods some are set forth by the husband to be spent about the family, other he reserves for a stock, or to lay forth as he himself shall see occasion.

Concerning those which are set forth to be spent, I doubt not but the wife has power to dispose them; neither is she bound to ask any further consent of her husband. For it is the wife's place and duty to guide or govern the house, by virtue of which, providing sufficiently for the family, she may, as she sees good occasion, of such goods as are set apart to be spent, distribute to poor, or otherwise.

This I have noted for such tender consciences as think they cannot give a bit of bread, or scrap of meat to a poor body, or make a mess of broth or caudle for a sick body, unless they first ask their husband's consent.

Provided that if her husband expressly forbids this liberty, she take it not except necessity require it.

But our question is concerning such goods as the husband has not set apart, but reserved to his own disposing.

§. 22. Of a wife's liberty in extraordinary matters.

2. For the occasion of disposing goods it may be ordinary or extraordinary. Extraordinary for the good of the husband himself, and others in the family, or such as are out of the family. If there falls 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 prevent and keep a great mischief from it, she is not to wait for his consent; instance the example of Abigail (1 Samuel 25:18). Thus a faithful provident wife observing her husband to riot, and to spend all he can get in carding, dicing, and drinking, may without his consent lay up what goods she can for her husband's, her own, her children's, and whole household's good. This is no part of disobedience, but a point wherein she may show herself a great good help to her husband; for which end a wife was first made (Genesis 2:18).

Concerning such as are out of the family, if they be in great need, and require present relief, though the wife knows her husband to be so hard-hearted, as he will not suffer her to relieve such a one, yet without his consent she may relieve him. The ground of this and other like cases is that rule laid down by the Prophets, and by Christ himself, namely I will have mercy and not sacrifice. If God in case of mercy dispenses with a duty due to himself, will he not much more dispense with a duty due to a husband (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7)?

§. 23. Of a wife's restraint in disposing goods without consent of her husband: and of the ground of that restraint.

Out of all these things thus premised I gather the true state of the question in controversy concerning the power of wives in disposing the goods of the family to be this,

Whether a wife may secretly and simply without, or openly and directly against her husband's consent distribute such common goods of the family as her husband reserves to his own disposing, there being no extraordinary necessity?

The most ancient and common answer to this question has been negative, namely, that a wife has not power so to do: to which I for my part subscribe.

The ground of this answer is taken from that primary law of the wife's subjection, "Your desire shall be to your husband." How is her desire subject to her husband, if in the case proposed she stands not upon his consent? It is further confirmed both by the forenamed, and also by all other proofs that might be produced out of the Scripture concerning the subjection of wives to their husbands (Genesis 3:16). If in ordering the goods of the family she yields not subjection, wherein shall she yield it?

Against this groundwork some object that the same law of subjection is imposed upon a younger brother in the very same words, and yet a younger brother was not thereby bound to have his elder brother's consent in disposing his goods (Genesis 4:7).

Answer. The law of the regality (as I may so speak) and preeminence of the firstborn was under those words ordained: and therefore a younger brother was made a subject to his elder, while he remained in the family, as a son to the father. The elder brother was as a lord over his other brothers: upon which when Isaac conferred the right of the firstborn upon Jacob (thinking he had been his eldest son Esau) he used these words, "Be lord over your brothers, and let your mother's sons bow down to you" (Genesis 27:29). Which being so, unquestionably the younger brother might not simply without or directly against the elder brother's consent dispose the goods of the family: so as this objection more strongly establishes the forenamed argument.

Again it is objected that that old law is to be expounded of weighty matters.

Answer. The apostle who was guided by the spirit of the lawmaker, extends that law to every thing (Ephesians 5:24): but is not this matter of disposing goods a weighty matter? The consequences which I shall by and by note to follow thereupon will show it to be a matter of moment.

§. 24. Of the example of the Shunemite in asking her husband's consent.

As another reason may be alleged the Shunemite's pattern who asked her husband's consent before she prepared the things that were thought fitting for the prophet's entertainment: and before she used the things which were fitting for her journey.

Objection. It is indeed commendable for wives to seek their husband's consent as she did, but where such consent cannot be had, it is not necessary.

Answer. This example being grounded upon a law (as we showed before) it does not only declare what may be done, but also what ought to be done. And if a wife be bound to have her husband's consent for doing of a thing, by consequence it follows that she is bound from doing it, without her husband's consent.

2. Answer. They that except against this reason taken from example, use themselves the like reason in other points, as the examples of Abigail, Joanna, and Susanna for the contrary.

2. Objection. In the Shunammite's example there was more than a merciful relief of the Prophet, namely bringing him into the house to diet and to lodge, wherein the husband must have a chief stroke.

Answer. The word of God makes not that difference between relieving and entertaining: it extends a wife's subjection to every thing: therefore the husband has a chief stroke as well in the one, as in the other.

§. 25. Of the law of a wife's vow.

A third reason is taken from the law of a wife's vow: whereby in general is implied, that a wife might not make a vow without her husband's consent: from where it follows as an argument taken from the greater to the less, that she may not dispose the goods without his consent. Indeed, the Law further expressly says, that though she has vowed, yet her husband has power to disannul her vow. Note here, how the Lord will rather depart from his own right (as I may so speak) than have that order which he has appointed between man and woman broken. The Lord's right, was to have what was vowed to him performed: the order which he appointed, was to have the wife subject to her husband: rather than the wife should do that which the husband would not have done, the Lord remitted a wife's vow in case her husband would not consent to have it performed. Now then I demand, is the disposing of goods a greater matter than the performing of a vow? Or has a wife in these days more liberty than in former? If she has, by what law? Was there ever under the Law a stricter charge laid upon wives than this, Let wives be subject to their husbands in every thing.

Objection. That point of a woman's subjection in performing her vow, is a particular ruled case: but not this of disposing goods.

Answer. The Scripture by particular laws and examples teaches directions for other cases like to them: and arguments drawn by just and necessary consequence, are counted as sound as express testimonies. Whereas it is said, that this particular in question is not expressly decided, I take the reason thereof to be this, that in former times they so well marked the extent of the general law of a wife's subjection, as they made no question of doing this or other like things without their husband's consent. Neither did good wives take that liberty, neither had they any patrons of such liberty.

2. Objection. The case of a wife's disposing goods is unlike to that of vows, because vows are voluntary, but disposing goods, as a work of mercy, is necessary.

Answer. Though it were a voluntary thing to make, or not to make a vow: yet a vow being made, it was not in the power of the party that made it, not to perform it: it was a necessary duty to perform a vow, even expressly commanded. As for the pretended work of mercy, I will hereafter show, that a wife is not necessarily tied to it.

§. 26. Of human laws which restrain wives from disposing goods, without or against their husband's consent.

A fourth is taken from the laws of men to which we are subject, and which we must obey even for conscience sake, so far as they thwart not God's Law, which in this case they do not, as the reasons before gathered out of God's word do show.

Now our Law says, that every gift, grant, or disposition of goods, lands, or other thing whatever made by a woman covert, and all and every obligation and feoffment made by her, and recovery suffered, if they be done without her husband's consent, are void. Indeed, if she does wrong to another, she has not any thing to make satisfaction during coverture: either her husband must do it, or by imprisonment of her person must it be done. And though she have inheritance of her own, yet can she not grant any annuity out of it during her coverture, without her husband: if any deed be made to that purpose without his consent, or in her name alone, it is void in law. Indeed, if there be debate between the husband and his wife, whereby certain lands of the husband's be assigned to the wife with his consent, if out of such lands she grant an annuity to a stranger, the grant is void. And if he covenant to give her yearly such and such apparel, she cannot dispose it as she likes without his consent, but only use and wear it herself. Neither can she lease her own land for years, for life, etc. if she does, it is void, and the Lessee entering by force thereof, is a Disseisor to the husband, and Trespasser. And if she sell any thing, the sale is void, except she be a merchant, where by the custom she is enabled to trade. Finally, she cannot make executors without the consent of her husband, nor a devise, or will. If she make a will, and thereby devise her own 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 alleged evidently show that by law a wife has not power of herself, without her husband, to dispose the common goods of the family.

§. 27. Of the inconveniences which may follow upon a wife's disposing goods without or against her husband's consent.

A fitting reason may be taken from the mischiefs which would fall out if this liberty were given to women: which are these that follow:

1. The estate of the family might be wasted before any redress could be thought of: for if the wife may dispose the goods without her husband's 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 does not like, he would hinder it: if without his knowledge, then may that which he thinks to be remaining as a stock for the family, be laid out by the wife, and nothing left: whereas if he knew of the spending of that stock, it might be he would be more thrifty and sparing in other expenses.

Objection. This liberty is not granted to wives beyond their husband's ability.

Answer. Wives cannot always know their husband's ability: for their husbands may be much indebted, and yet to maintain his credit, whereby he hopes to raise his estate, may allow liberal maintenance for his house, if thereupon his wife shall gather that he is very rich, and accordingly be very bountiful in her gifts, she may soon go beyond his ability, and so increase his debt, as he shall never be able to recover himself.

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

Objection. This liberty of disposing goods given to the wife is limited within the bounds of the household of faith.

Answer. If Divines grant them this liberty, they will themselves judge and determine who be of the household of faith: Popish wives will say (say we what we can to the contrary) that Jesuits, Priests, and Friars, are of the household of faith, principal members thereof.

3. Many jars and contentions would from there arise between husband and wife: for if a wife shall persist to do that which her husband will not consent to, assuredly one of a thousand will not well brook it, but will rather seek all the ways he can to cross her; thinking himself despised, if she, whether he will or no, have her mind.

Objection. Wives must use this liberty with all due respect to their husband's authority.

Answer. If the husband peremptorily stand upon his authority, and by all the fair means that can be used, will not yield this liberty, I know not what better respect she can show to this authority, than to forbear and abstain from doing that which otherwise she would most gladly do: But if when it comes to the uttermost point, and she shall say it is her right, and if she cannot have his consent, she will do it without his consent, she therein shows no great respect.

Many other inconveniences might be reckoned up, but I will not longer insist on them, only from these let it be well considered, whether it were not better for a family, that the husband should be barred from disposing the goods without consent of his wife (so as there might be according to the proverb, but one hand in the purse) than both husband and wife to have liberty to dispose them without each other's consent.

Section 28. Of property in goods, whether it give liberty to dispose them as a wife will.

To justify a wife's liberty in disposing the common goods of the family without her husband's consent, it is said, that she has a true right and property in those goods.

1. Answer. Though it were granted that a wife has a true property in the goods, yet this conclusion would not follow thereupon, that she has power of herself to dispose the goods without her husband's consent: for the authority which God has given a husband, and subjection which he has laid on a wife, restrain her power and liberty in that which is her own: as for example, suppose that a woman at the time of her marriage have a lease for years, or the wardship of the body and lands of an infant, or have it by gift or purchase after marriage, she cannot give it away whatever the extremity be: but her husband may any time during coverture, dispose of it: and such his disposition shall cut off the wife's interest. Or suppose that the only child of her father be an heiress of land, and have in herself (her father being dead) the full possession thereof: or that a widow have the right to, and possession of her husband's estate, and thus possessed be married to a husband, has she being a wife liberty to dispose that estate which she brought with her without or against her husband's consent? I think none will say it. Sure I am that what she gives, lends, sells, or otherwise disposes without his consent, he if he will, may for his lifetime recover again: and yet no man will deny but that she has the truest interest and property in the forenamed lands and inheritance.

Objection. May she not as well dispose of her own inheritance, as of those goods, or revenues which her husband gives her?

Answer. No, for the gift of the husband is a general consent of his for her to dispose that which is given her as she sees meet.

Section 29. Of the reasons against a wife's property in the common goods of the family.

2. Answer. It may safely be denied that a wife has a property in the common goods of the family whereof she is no heir, for property in goods is a civil matter, and to be limited according to the law of man under which we live. Where the law, or custom of the place, make all the children co-heirs, all have an equal right to their several parts: where the eldest only is made heir, he has a right to all: where the youngest only is made heir, he has a right to all: but neither the law of nations, nor of the land where we live give the wife a property. By the common law marriage is a gift of all the goods and chattels personal of the wife to her husband, so that no kind of property in the same remains in her. And all personal goods and chattels during marriage given 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 far from gaining any property by her marriage in her husband's goods, as she loses all the property she formerly had in her own goods. Indeed her necessary apparel is not hers in property. While she remains a wife she is (to use the law-phrase) under covert baron. She can neither let, sell, alienate, give, nor otherwise of right make anything away, no nor yet make a will so to dispose any goods while her husband lives without his consent: which yet a husband may while his wife lives, and that without or against her consent.

Objection. The law states a wife in a great part of the husband's goods, providing for her jointure or thirds which the husband cannot make away without her consent.

Answer. This provision is only for the time of her widowhood in case she outlive him: but for the time that she remains his wife he may make away all, and she can recover none, till he be dead.

Objection. This restraint of wives 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. In fact it is agreeable to the law of God and grounded thereupon.

For (to omit the proofs before alleged) what might be the reason that the daughters of Zelophehad, who were heirs to their father, were forbidden to marry out of their father's tribe, and that a law was made that no daughters that possessed any inheritance should marry out of their father's tribe, but because all that a woman had before marriage, passed upon the husband and became his by virtue of marriage? This also for that purpose is by some not unfitly, nor without probability noted, that it is the common phrase of Scripture to term husbands (but not wives) rich, implying thereby that riches by a property appertain to husbands: indeed usually in Scripture goods and lands are said to be the husband's.

Object. The wives of Jacob do term the goods which their husbands had theirs, saying, the riches which God has taken from our father is ours (Genesis 31:16).

Answ. They use the word ours in opposition to their father's house, and in relation not to their persons, but to their husband's family, and therefore they add and our children's: so as by that place no greater right can be proved for wives, than for children. When the Holy Ghost speaks of the same goods, he says not in relation to husband and wives both, their flocks, their substance, but only in relation to the husband, his flocks, his substance. For as in mixture of wine and water, though the greater quantity 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 husband's.

§. 30. Of answers to the reasons for a wife's property.

To prove a wife's property in the common goods of the family the reasons following are alleged.

1. Object. Marriage giving a wife right of her husband's body, does much more of his goods.

Answ. I deny the consequence. For the use of the body is a proper act of the matrimonial bond, wherein the difference between superiority and subjection appears not: the wife has as great a power over the husband's body as the husband over the wife's: which is not so in the goods: no one thing can be named, wherein the power and authority of the husband more consists, than in the goods.

2. Object. In the form of marriage the man says to his wife, with all my worldly goods I you endow.

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

2. If a husband shall intend a property by them, that property which she has thereby, she has not by virtue of the general law of marriage, but of his particular free donation.

3. In all countries those words are not used in the form of marriage. If those words give the wife her property, then such wives as are married without those words used, have no property: so as this cannot be a general ground of liberty for all wives.

3. Object. A wife has as good an estate in her husband's goods as the Church in Christ's blood: but there the Church has a property.

Answ. Neither of those points can be proved. But if a wife's right in her husband's goods be as the Church's in Christ's blood, what is gotten thereby? The Church has not power without or against Christ's consent to dispose his blood: the Church of Rome is counted a proud usurping strumpet for taking upon her so to do.

§. 31. Of the privileges of wives above children and servants in and about the goods of the family.

Quest. Where then is the preferment of the wife above servants and children, if she has not a property?

I answer, much every manner of way.

1. There is due to her a more free and plentiful use of all the goods, than to them.

2. By her place she has the ordering and disposing of the goods allotted for the common use of the family: as was before granted.

3. Her husband ought to give her a portion to dispose as she shall see good, as we shall after show, when we come to the husband's duties.

4. She is a joint governor with her husband over the children and servants, as was showed before.

Again I answer, that this argument might as well be alleged against that fear, subjection, and obedience which the Scripture expressly requires of wives, and it might be demanded, if wives must fear and obey their husbands and be subject to them, where is their preferment above their children and servants. But it has been showed that though the same things for matter be required of wives which are required of children and servants, yet there is a great difference in the manner of performing them.

§. 32. Of examples and other reasons alleged for liberty of wives to dispose goods.

2. Abigail's example is alleged for a wife's liberty: and the example of the good housewife described by Solomon (1 Samuel 25:18, Proverbs 31:11).

Answ. 1. Abigail's example was extraordinary; besides, who can tell whether the heart of her husband so trusted not in her as he referred the whole government of the house to her, and so she had a general consent for what she did.

2. It is clear that the other good-wife had her husband's 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 she did, nor unwilling she should do it: it was neither without nor against his consent.

3. It is alleged that wives have as great a care in getting goods, or in preserving them for the good of the family: therefore it is just and equal, that they should have 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 wives, yet for answer to this reason I need not question it; for the consequence does not follow, though that be granted. The right of disposing goods does not simply rise from the care and pains of getting and preserving them: but from that order that the Lord has been pleased to set down. A wise and industrious child may be a means to raise and increase his father's estate, when his father takes little care and pains about it: indeed a faithful and wise steward or other servant (as Jacob and Joseph were) may do much more by his pains and care in getting and preserving the goods of the family, than his master: yet will it not thereupon follow, that such a child, or such a servant has as great a right and power to dispose such goods as his father or his master.

4. The near conjunction between man and wife is alleged: they are said to be yoke-fellows, and from there is inferred that they have a like power in disposing goods.

Answer. They are yoke-fellows in mutual familiarity, not in equal authority; and in relation to others as children and servants, not in opposition each to other. In this respect she is subject, not equal. If therefore he will one thing, and she another, she may not think to have an equal right and power, she must give place and yield.

§. 33. Of the subjection of wives in distributing goods to charitable uses.

Some that grant that a wife is so subjected to her husband in a civil manner, as she may not dispose any part of his goods at her pleasure to any civil use, deny this subjection to extend to giving of alms, and such like charitable uses.

Before I come to determine this question, let it be remembered, that it was before granted, that ordinary duty must give place to extraordinary need, so that relief in present necessity is not controverted. Let it be also remembered that a wife may have goods proper to herself, indeed it shall be shown that a husband ought according to his ability 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 uses: and (as God offers occasion) to reach forth her hand to the poor and needy.

Indeed further let this be premised, that in case a wife be forbidden or restrained by her husband, she ought to use all the good means she can by herself and her friends to move her husband to grant her some liberty, that she may have some trial of her merciful and charitable disposition: if herein she cannot prevail, then she ought to make known to her husband such persons' cases as she thinks fit to be relieved, and use all the motives she can to persuade him to afford them some relief.

But consider the case: a wise, religious, merciful wife, be married to a covetous worldling, who though he have wit, and understanding enough to manage civil affairs, and to provide for the outward temporal estate of the house, yet has no heart to relieve the poor, and is not only unwilling himself to do good in that kind, but will not suffer his wife to do it — whether may a wife privately take of such goods as he has reserved to his own disposing, and simply without any kind of consent distribute them to charitable uses, or though he expressly forbid her, yet directly against his consent dispose them?

With reverent respect to better judgments, I think she may not (except as before excepted.) For it being before proved in general, that she had no such liberty in disposing goods, I cannot see how this particular end of giving alms can dispense with her general subjection in every thing, except there were some particular warrant for it in God's word.

§. 34. Of general exhortations to works of mercy. How far they bind wives.

Objection. The many general exhortations to works of mercy, which without limitation to any particular persons, are indefinitely directed to all, do give sufficient warrant to wives: such as these, Give alms. Let us do good. To distribute forget not, etc.

Answer. All these are strong motives to provoke wives to be merciful and charitable in such things as they may, by any means with their husbands' consent, or in such things as by their husbands are given to them. Indeed also they are strong motives to provoke husbands to allow them liberty to give alms. But in the case proposed they give no liberty to wives: for it is a ruled case laid down by Christ himself, that works of charity must be done, and alms must be given of such things as we have, or which are in our power to give. Now if the husband will not give her that power, she has not power to give, and so is excused. In this case her true will, and her faithful and earnest desire shall be accepted for the deed, according to that which the Apostle says, if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man has, and not according to that he has not. Many cases may be given wherein inferiors are restrained from works of mercy; as suppose a son or servant be desirous to visit one sick [reconstructed: or] in prison, but his parent or master (though leave be asked) will not suffer him, but charge him not to stir out of doors, or [reconstructed: to] go with him another way, shall this son or servant notwithstanding that charge, do that work of mercy?

§. 35. Of obedience to a husband in such things as he sinfully forbids.

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

Answer. Though the husband sins in restraining his wife, yet she in that restraint may obey, and that in the Lord: because the Lord who has commanded her to be subject in every thing, has nowhere warranted her not to be subject in this particular. It is expressly said in the law concerning a wife's vows, that if her husband break them after he has heard them, he shall bear her iniquity. Did not he then sin in restraining her, and was not she guiltless though she yielded to his restraint? The condition between husbands and wives in this case, is not unlike the case between other superiors in authority, and their inferiors in subjection. But other inferiors may lawfully abstain from such things as their governors do sinfully charge them to abstain from. For suppose a son grown to be a man, live in his father's house at his father's finding, and have no set portion of his own, and his father will not give him leave to bestow any thing on charitable uses, is he now bound to give alms? Shall the curse be executed on him if he give not? A cross indeed I acknowledge it to be, both to such a son, and also to a wife to be so restrained: but not a curse or sin; the sin and curse lies on their head, who restrain them by virtue of their authority, wherein they abuse their authority: as other governors may do and often do, and yet neither liberty granted thereby to subjects, nor authority taken from governors. In this resemblance between a son and a wife I desire not to be mistaken; for I allege it not to make the state of a wife and a son all one: but to show that those general precepts of giving alms, may have their exceptions, as they which in particular handle that point, give other examples. There must therefore be a further ground than the general commandment of alms-giving to prove the forenamed liberty of wives.

§. 36. Of Zipporah's case in circumcising her son.

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

Answer. She may be a help in many other things, though this be out of her power: indeed and in this also by counsel, persuasion, and other like means she may be a great help. The case of Zipporah was extraordinary, and of an urgent present necessity, even to save the life of her husband. Besides, Moses was of himself unable to do it, but willing that she should do it. Now what is this to ordinary cases, and such cases as husbands are able enough themselves to do, but altogether unwilling that it should be done by their wives?

But what if Zipporah's example herein be not warrantable? For it does not appear that it was simply approved of God: God does often remove temporary judgments for the very work's sake that is done, though in the manner it be sinfully done. Instance the repentance of Ahab (1 Kings 21:29).

§. 37. Of the wife of Chuza's case in ministering to Christ.

Objection 4. Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, ministered to Christ of her substance without her husband's consent.

Answer. If this could be proved it were somewhat to the purpose; but this clause without her husband's consent (wherein the main state of the question consists) is not in the text, nor by any good probability can be gathered out of it. All the show of probability that can be shown for it is, that Joanna is there said to be the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward. But to show that that is nothing, let it be noted,

1. That phrase does not imply that Chuza was then living. It is said that David fathered Solomon of the wife of Uriah, but Uriah was not then living: therefore the translators for clarity's sake do insert these words (her that had been) the wife of Uriah. So likewise Onan is commanded to go in to his brother's wife, yet does this not imply that his brother was then living.

Objection. Why should mention be made of Chuza, Herod's steward, if he were not then living?

Answer. To show that Joanna was a woman of great place, whereby this fruit of her faith in following Christ was the more commended. Thus in another kind Matthew is titled the publican, after he had completely relinquished that office, the more to commend his faith.

I do not here directly affirm that Chuza was then dead, but for anything that this phrase does imply, he might be dead.

2. Some gather that this steward was that ruler whose son Christ healed, who thereupon believed 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 Herod's steward, and so a man of great place, and public employment, might, if he were then living, depute the managing of all affairs at home to his wife, as the husband of the good wife commended by Solomon, and so she might have at least a general consent.

I do not certainly determine any of these expressly to be so, I do but note them as probabilities, yet such as do sufficiently overthrow the surmised liberty of a wife in giving alms without any consent of her husband: for this of all other probabilities seems to be most improbable. Into my heart it can never enter to imagine that Christ would give such an occasion of slander to his enemies, as to say he carried about with him other men's wives, without or against the consent of their husbands, and suffered them to spend the goods of their husbands upon him. I had much rather think that either such women as followed him had no husbands living, or if they had, that they did that which they did with the consent of their husbands.

§. 38. Of the restraint of wives about allowance for themselves or families without their husband's consent.

That which has hitherto been delivered concerning a wife's subjection in disposing goods, may also be applied to other things concerning herself, children, servants, etc., whereof I will give some examples.

A wife has not power to appoint what she likes for herself without or against her husband's consent, either for her own allowance, or for her family; she must rather rest satisfied with that which he appoints: for he being the head, must have the overruling stroke therein. Besides he better knows what may be afforded.

Question. What if a husband makes himself poorer than he is: and the allowance which he appoints be meaner than his means, and unbecoming his place and state?

Answer. She ought, if possibly she can by her own instant persuasion, or any other fair means, move him to that which tends to his honor and reputation: but if she can no way prevail, her subjection requires contentment and patience.

§. 39. Of a wife's subjection to her husband about children.

A wife may not simply without, or directly against her husband's consent, order and dispose of the children in giving them names, appareling their bodies, appointing their callings, places of bringing up, marriages, or portions.

1. For giving names to children, besides that it is throughout the Scripture for the most part enjoined to the husband, as to Abraham, to Zacharias, and to others, and that accordingly husbands have ordinarily done, as Adam, Lamech, Abraham, and others. It is to be noted that when there was a difference between the man and his wife in giving a child's name, he giving one name, she another, the name which he gave, stood; though Rachel named her youngest son Benoni, yet Benjamin (which name Jacob gave) was the child's name. So also when Elizabeth told her friends that her child's name must be John, they would not rest therein, till Zacharias had ratified that name. Indeed though Joseph were but the supposed father of Jesus, yet because he was the husband of Mary the mother of Jesus, he had this honor given him, to give the name to her child.

Whereas in Scripture it is sometimes said that the mothers named their children, as Leah, Rachel, and others, it is upon the aforementioned ground to be supposed that they had their husband's consent.

2. For appointing place and marriage it is noted that Rebekah asked the consent of her husband: though she told her son Jacob that he should go to Haran to his uncle Laban to be there kept in safety from the fury of Esau, yet she would not send him till Isaac had given his consent for his stay there, and taking a wife from there.

3. For deputing to a calling, it is noted of Hannah, that though before her child was born she had by solemn vow dedicated him to the Lord, yet when the child was born she asked her husband's consent about it.

4. That which is noted of Hannah's carrying a little coat to her son year by year when she went up with her husband, shows that she did it not without her husband's consent. Women are for the most part prone to prank up their children above their husband's place and calling, and therefore good reason that therein they should be governed by their husbands.

Object.

What if husbands be more forward to have their children attired vainly and unseemly, than wives?

Answer. A wife must do what she can to hinder it: if she can no way prevail with him, she by reason of her subjection is much more excused, than he could be, if he would suffer his wife therein to have her will.

5. The law that lays the charge upon husbands to give such and such portions to his children, and the answerable practice of husbands from time to time, show that the wife of herself has not power to order them.

§. 40. Of a wives' subjection to her husband about ordering servants and beasts.

If wives must have their husband's consent in ordering and disposing of their children which come out of her womb, much more of their servants.

They may not take in, or thrust out servants against their husband's mind. In this point, as in many other, Sarah manifested her wife-like obedience; in that she would not deal roughly with her maid though she were provoked: much less put her out of doors till she had made the matter known to her husband. Though she failed in the manner, yet in the thing itself she is a good example. It is further noted and approved in the Shunamite that she asked her husband's consent about sending a servant with her.

My meaning is not that such wives as have servants allowed them to attend upon them should ask their husband's consent whenever they have occasion to use them; for their husbands by allowing them men for their attendance manifest their will and consent that they may use them as they see occasion: but that they should not use and employ their servants in such things as they know their husbands would dislike, except they can gain their husband's consent.

Against those particulars of children and servants it may be objected, that wives are parents of their children as well as husbands, and mistresses of servants as well as they masters, and therefore have altogether as great power over them as their husbands.

Answer. Indeed if the authority of the husband come not between, that may be granted in relation between her and them: but her power being subordinate to her husband's in relation to him she has not so great a power: the power of a wife that now we speak of is directly in relation to her husband.

The like may be said of their beasts and cattle, a particular point noted also in the example of the Shunamite, who having occasion to use a beast went to her husband, and said, send I pray you with me one of the asses.

§. 41. Of a wives' subjection in entertaining strangers, journeying abroad, and making vows.

If wives may not at their pleasure use the things appertaining to the house, much less may they bring strangers into the house and entertain them without or against their husband's consent. The good Shunamite so often named as a precedent for good wives, first asked her husband's consent, before she lodged a Prophet of the Lord.

The same pattern is also commended to wives to move them not to journey abroad without their husband's consent. For though that good wife had a very weighty and just occasion to go to the Prophet, yet she would not before she knew her husband's mind.

As for a wife's power to make vows, in that the law gives a husband power to annul her vow when he knows it, it implies that she ought to have his consent in making it, if at least she desires to have it established, which she ought to desire, or else she mocks God.

I have thought good to mention these particular points for illustration of a wife's subjection, because they are all of them grounded on God's word: many other might be added to them, but these are sufficient.

§. 42. Of aberrations contrary to a wives' subjection in doing things without or against their husband's consent.

Now consider we the usual vices and aberrations contrary to those duties: the general sum of all is, for a wife to take on her to do what she pleases, whether her husband will or no, either not willing that he should know what she does, or not caring though it be against his mind and will. Of this sort are

1. Such as secretly take money out of their husband's closets, counters, or other like places where he lays it, never telling him of it, nor willing that he should know it: likewise such as after the like manner take ware out of the shop, corn out of the granary, sheep out of the flock, or any other goods to sell and make money of: or to give away, or otherwise to use so as their husbands shall never know, if they can hinder it. Such wives herein sin heinously, and that in many respects.

First they disobey the ordinance of God in a main branch of their particular calling, which is subjection.

2. They ill repay the care and pains which their husbands take for their good. Many such wives recompense evil for good, which is a devilish quality.

3. They are often a means to impair and impoverish their husband's estate.

4. They show themselves no better than pilfering thieves thereby. All that can be justly and truly said for their right in the common goods, cannot defend them from the guilt of theft: they are the more dangerous by how much the more they are trusted, and less suspected: and their act is so much the more heinous by how much the more dear their husbands ought to be to them.

5. They are a very ill example to other inferiors in the house, for seldom has a man a deceitful wife, but some of the children or servants, are made accessory thereto, being made her instruments to take the goods, and bestow them as she orders, and so are made unfaithful.

6. They make themselves slaves to their own children and servants, whom they dare not displease, lest they should tell what was done.

7. They teach their children and servants to be thieves: for besides that such as are used by their mistresses to purloin for them, are thereby made accessory to their sin, they will also purloin for themselves, when their mistresses shall not know. So as what with the wife's purloining one way, and the children's or servants' another way, a man's estate may be wasted as dew before the sun, and he not know which way.

2. Such as will have what allowance they think best for themselves and family, and scornfully say, They will not be at their husband's finding: they know best what allowance is fittest for the family, and that it shall have. Many will make their husband's ear tingle again, yes and make the whole house (if not the street also) ring of it, if they think their allowance is not answerable to the uttermost extent of their husband's estate. This impatience and insolence, as it crosses God's ordinance, so it makes both their lives uncomfortable.

3. Such as pamper, attire, or any way bring up their children otherwise than their husbands would, even to the grief and dishonor of their husbands: keeping them at home when their husbands, for their better education, would have them abroad: as these sin in hindering the good of their children, so also in not yielding to their husbands.

4. Such as will have their own will about servants, taking in, and putting out whom they please, and when they please: using some servants whom they find for their turn to the prejudice of their husbands: and carrying themselves so sharply and shrewishly to others that are for their husband's turn, as a good, trusty, faithful servant cannot long stay in the house.

5. Such as secretly lend out their husband's horses, or other like cattle, more respecting to pleasure a vain friend, than to please a good husband. This fault is so much the greater, when it is done to the damage and prejudice of the husband.

6. Such as are then most frolic and jolly, when their husbands are furthest off and cannot know it. Solomon sets it down as a note of a strumpet, then to trick up her house and to seek for guests, when her husband is gone a journey far off. Then ought she to be most solitary, and by abstaining from merry meetings, to show that there can be no greater damp to her mirth, than the absence of her husband.

7. Such as think their houses a prison to them, that cannot long stay at home: they think they have power to go when and where they will, and to stay out as long as they wish, think their husbands of it what they will. The Apostle lays down this as a mark of a wanton wife, and an idle housewife, being idle (says he) they go about from house to house: therefore in another place he exhorts them to be keepers at home. The Wise Man goes further, and makes this to be another note of a strumpet, that her feet cannot abide in the house: which we may see verified in the Levite's adulterous wife, whose fearful end was a stamp of God's judgment on such loose lewdness.

8. Such as care not how or what they bind themselves to without their husband's consent, or knowledge: Herein especially offend such as being seduced by Jesuits, Priests, or Friars, take the Sacrament, and thereupon by solemn vow and oath bind themselves never to read an English Bible, nor any Protestant's books, no nor to go to any of their Churches, or to hear any of their Sermons: and such most of all as enter into some Popish nunnery, and vow never to return to their husbands again.

Objection. Hannah vowed her child to God without her husband's consent, why may not they much more vow themselves to God?

Answer. Assuredly she was persuaded that her husband would not be against it, and so had an implicit consent: which may well be gathered, because afterwards she made it known to him, as both the name given to the child, and that speech of Hannah, I will bring him that he may appear before the Lord, and there abide forever, and the answer of her husband, The Lord establish his word, and his going up with her when he was dedicated to the Lord, do all show.

Thus far of the first branch of a wife's submission in abstaining from doing things without her husband's consent. The second follows, in doing the things which he requires.

§. 43. Of a wife's active Obedience.

It is a good proof and trial of a wife's obedience, to abstain from doing such things as otherwise she would do, if her husband's contrary will did not restrain her: but yet that is not sufficient, there must be an active, as well as a passive obedience yielded. That old Law before mentioned (your desire shall be subject to your husband, and he shall rule over you) implies so much also. If she refuses to do what he would have her do, her desire is not subject to him, but to herself, neither does he rule over her.

This active part of her obedience has respect

1. To his commandments, readily to do what he lawfully commands.

2. To his reproofs, carefully to redress what he justly blames.

For the first, so far ought a wife to be from thinking scorn to be commanded by her husband, that the very knowledge which by any means she has of her husband's mind and will, ought to have the force of a strict commandment with her. This readiness to obey is commended in the wives of Jacob, to whom when Jacob had declared what motives he had to depart from their father's house, intimating thereby that he meant to depart, and would have them to go with him, yet before he particularly expressed his will, they readily answered, Whatever God has said to you, do: whereby they gave him to understand that they were ready to yield to whatever he would have done (Genesis 31:16).

§. 44. Of a wife's willingness to dwell where her husband will.

To make this part of a wife's obedience somewhat more clear, I will exemplify it by two or three particular instances, recorded and approved in God's word.

The first is, that a wife ought to be willing to dwell where her husband will have her dwell.

The wives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, herein manifested their wife-like obedience: though their husbands brought them from their own country, and from their father's house, yet they refused not to go with them, but dwelt in a strange country, and that in tents.

Note in particular what Jacob's wives say to their husband in this case, Is there any portion or inheritance for us in our father's house? implying thereby, that seeing it was their husband's pleasure to be gone, they would not any longer stay in their father's house, to look for any more portion or inheritance there (Genesis 31:14).

These examples do further show that if a husband has just occasion to remove from one country to another, and in those countries from place to place, his wife ought to yield to go with him, if he requires it at her hands. Note what the Apostle says, have we not power to lead about a wife? That interrogation implies a strong asseveration. The husband then having power to lead about a wife from place to place, she ought to submit herself to that power. This clause (as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas) shows that this was not only a power which might be used, but which was used by husbands, and yielded to by wives (1 Corinthians 9:5).

Object: The forenamed examples are extraordinary, and that upon extraordinary occasions.

Answ. Yet they may be patterns for ordinary occasions which are lawful and warrantable. Was it not an extraordinary fact of Elijah to pray first that there might be no rain, and then again that there might be rain? Yet is this proposed as a general pattern to move us to pray for things lawful (James 5:17).

Now in laying down this duty I added the clause and caveat of just occasion, to meet both with such as upon discontent, or superstition, leave the land where the true Gospel is maintained and preached, and go into idolatrous places: and also with such wandering giddy heads as only to satisfy their own humor, and to see fashions, as we speak, can never rest in a place, but are continually removing from country to country, and from place to place. I think (to use the words of the Apostle) a wife is not under bondage in such cases (1 Corinthians 7:15).

But if a man be sent on an ambassage by his Prince, or country: or if a Preacher or Professor be called into another country, as Bucer and Peter Martyr were into England in King Edward's days (which to this day is usual in other countries) or if a man be adjudged to long imprisonment, and upon these and other like occasions shall require his wife to be with him, she ought in duty to yield to his demand.

Contrary is the mind and practice of many wives, who being affected and addicted to one place more than another, as to the place where they were bred and brought up, where their greatest, best, and most friends dwell, and where they have good acquaintance, refuse to go and dwell where their husbands' calling lies, though he require and desire them never so much. Thus many husbands are forced to their great damage for peace's sake to yield to their wives, and so either to relinquish their calling, or to have two houses; from where it follows that sometimes they must neglect their servants and calling, and sometimes be absent from their wives, if not from their children also. Some wives pretend that they cannot endure the smoke of the city, others that they cannot endure the air of the country: whereas indeed their own humor and conceit troubles them more than either city smoke or country air. I cannot call such the daughters of Sarah herein: they are not like those forenamed holy women that trusted in God, and were subject to their husbands (1 Peter 3:5-6), but rather like to that light housewife of the Levite, who would not dwell in her husband's house at mount Ephraim, but at her father's house in Bethlehem Judah (Judges 19:2). Such wives as I speak of, in matrimonial chastity may be more honest, but in wife-like subjection are little more dutiful. Let this be taken for a fault, and it will be the sooner amended.

Section 45: Of a wife's readiness to come to her husband when he requires it.

Another particular instance of a wife's readiness to yield to her husband's commandment is, to come to her husband when her husband requires it, either by calling her, or sending for her. The forenamed wives of Jacob being sent for to their husband in the field where he was, made no excuse, but came promptly (Genesis 31:4). So far ought wives herein to subject their wills to their husbands, that though it may seem to them some disparagement to come, yet if their husbands will have it so they must yield, otherwise they seem even to despise their husbands (Esther 1:17).

Contrary is Vashti-like stubbornness, when wives think and say, it is a servant's part to come when they are called or sent for, and they will never yield to be their husband's servants, to come at his command. By the same reason may all duties of subjection be rejected. But for this particular, let such stubborn dames note the outcome of Vashti's stubbornness. As many excuses might be alleged for her as I think for any: for first, she was royally descended, being the daughter of a King. Secondly, she was then among the honorable women of the kingdom. Thirdly, the King was in drink when he sent for her. Fourthly, he sent for her to show her beauty before multitudes of men, which was not seemly. But all these were not sufficient to excuse her fault, and free her from blame. First, though she were of royal parentage, yet she was a wife, and her husband sent for her. Secondly, being among the noble women of the kingdom, she should the rather have shown herself a pattern of subjection in this kind. Thirdly, though he were in drink, yet remained he a husband: and the thing which he commanded was not such but that she might have done it without sin. Fourthly, if she thought the thing unseemly, she should first have used all the fair means she could to have been spared; but if by all she could not have prevailed, then (the thing being not simply unlawful and a sin) she should have yielded (Esther 1:16, etc.).

Object: Her fault was not in that as a wife she came not to her husband, but in that as a subject she came not to her Sovereign.

Answ. Her fault was in both: and in the judgment passed against her, that former was most urged, namely that by her example all women might learn to despise their husbands (Esther 1:17).

2. Object: Her fact is so censured but by heathen men, that had no understanding of God's word.

Answ. 1. The holy Scripture by the several circumstances so distinctly noted intimates that her rebellious act was a notorious fault: and accordingly both judicious commenters, and also Preachers do tax her of sinful disobedience to her husband.

2. Though they were heathen, yet they showed what subjection is required of wives to their husbands by the very light of nature, whereby this sin is aggravated.

3. Abimelech was but a heathen man, yet his sentence concerning a woman's subjection in these words, he is to you a covering of the eyes, is taken to be judicious, and being approved by the Holy Spirit, to be a good proof (Genesis 20:16). As for that particular of Vashti, why is it so largely recorded in the Scripture but for instruction, and admonition to wives?

§. 46. Of a wife's readiness to do what her husband requires.

A third particular instance of a wife's readiness to yield to her husband's commandment is to perform whatever business he requires of her. When of a sudden there came three men to Abram, and he was desirous to entertain them, he bid his wife make ready quickly three measures of meal, etc., and she did it accordingly (Genesis 18:6). Jeroboam having a weighty occasion to send to Ahijah the Prophet, thought it meet to send by his wife; she accordingly (though a Queen) went: she did as her husband would have her (1 Kings 14:2, etc.).

Contrary is the humor of many wives who will not do anything upon command. If such a wife's husband being desirous to entertain a friend on the sudden, shall use Abram's phrase, make ready quickly, etc., she will say, let him come and do it himself, if he will have it so quickly done, I will not be his drudge: or if, having a matter of moment and secrecy, he will his wife herself to do it, she will reply, I am none of your servants; cannot you put it to one of them, or do it yourself? Yet will such wives be ready to command their husbands to do every trifle, and if he does not do it, they can reply, is this such a matter? and may not a wife speak to her husband? Were the point of obedience well learned, it would cast such wives into another mold.

These few particulars may serve for direction in many hundreds. I proceed to the other part of a wife's active obedience, which respects the reproofs of her husband.

§. 47. Of a wife's meek taking a reproof.

The husband having authority over his wife, by virtue thereof he has power, indeed it is his duty as there is needful cause to rebuke her: By just consequence therefore it follows, that it is her duty to yield obedience to it. Which ought the rather to be done because the chiefest trial of sound obedience lies herein. For nothing goes so much against one's stomach as reproof: she that yields when she is rebuked, will much more when she is entreated. This point of obedience is manifested two ways.

1. By meekness in taking a reproof.

2. By endeavor to redress what is justly reproved. The very point of obedience especially consists in this latter: the former is as a good preparative to it, without which it will hardly be done, at least not well done.

Meekness in this case is one of the most principal fruits of that meek and quiet spirit which Saint Peter commends to wives (1 Peter 3:4). However Rachel justly deserved blame for coming in a fuming chafe, and with an imperious command to her husband, yet in that she meekly took his sharp reproof (for she replied not against it, but meekly gave a direction for the better accomplishment of her desire) her example is commendable: commendable I say, not in the matter of her direction, but in her patient bearing of reproof (Genesis 30:1).

Much wisdom may be learned hereby: for when any meekly take a reproof, thereby they suppress their passion, and keep it from rising as a cloud before their understanding and darkening it, and so may they better judge of the matter reproved whether it be just or not: and whether it needs redress or not: of which they who are impatient of reproof, and fret and fume against it, cannot so well judge. The virgin Mary made good use of Christ's reproving her, and thereby learned and taught a good point of wisdom, namely so to refer our affairs to Christ as we expect his pleasure; and not prescribe time, means, manner, or any other like circumstances to him (John 2:4-5).

Question: What if the husband's reproof be bitter?

Answer: He in that forgets his place, yet on that account she must not forget her duty. If Jacob's reproof be well noted, we shall find it very tart, for it is expressly said that his anger was kindled against her (Genesis 30:2), so that he spoke in anger: the manner and form of his words being with an interrogation, and the matter also, am I in God's place, etc., declare tartness: yet (as was declared before) she showed meekness.

Question: What if his reproof be unjust?

2. Answer: Yet may not meekness be forgotten. In such a case a wife may make a just apology to clear her own innocence, and manifest her husband's error: but if he refuses to hear her, or will not believe her, then (as Saint Peter speaks in another case) she must endure grief for conscience toward God (1 Peter 2:19-20).

The two reasons which he there renders in that other case may not unfittingly be applied to this.

1. In general this is thank-worthy, it is a grace, a glory to her: a matter that deserves praise and commendation.

2. In particular it is acceptable to God: however their husbands may deal roughly and untowardly with them, yet God will graciously respect them, if they shall patiently in obedience to his ordinance bear their husbands' unjust reproofs.

3. I may add this reason also, that thus they shall show themselves good Christians indeed, in that they are not overcome of evil (Romans 12:21).

Contrary is their mind who by no means will brook a rebuke at their husbands' hands: it matters not whether it be just or unjust: if their husbands reprove them, they shall be sure to have the reproof rebounded back again upon their faces, and that with greater violence than ever it came from them. There be some that seem to be very good wives till they be tried by the touchstone of reproof: but then though the reproof be for matter most just, for manner most mild, and that in private between their husbands and themselves, yet they grow so impatient, or rather mad, as they forbear not to give their husbands the most scornful speeches that they can invent, using withal bitter imprecations and execrations, and threaten to drown or hang themselves if they be crossed of their wills. Indeed further, if wise husbands shall forbear them in their passion, and after it is allayed tell them how unbecoming their places they carried themselves, they will seek to justify themselves, and lay all the blame on their husbands for crossing them in their will: or if they cannot but see their fault, yet they will only say, it is my infirmity: but yet ever continue in that infirmity: and though they make show of fearing God, yet labor not to purge this corrupt humor out of their hearts. Hence is it for the most part that contentions arise between man and wife. If wives would learn in this point to be subject, many jars, which from time to time arise between them, would be allayed, if not prevented. Michal the wife of David (2 Samuel 6:20, etc.), and Job's wife (Job 2:10) (though they gave just occasion to be most sharply reproved, yet) shall rise up in judgment against these wives, because they were silent after they were reproved, and replied not. Solomon often titles such as cannot bear rebuke scorners: so as hereby wives show that they are very scornful (Proverbs 9:7-8).

Section 48. Of a wives' readiness to redress what her husband justly reproves in her.

A further degree of obedience in bearing reproof is, that a wife readily redress what is justly reproved by her husband: I say justly, because where no fault is, there needs no amendment: patience may be needful (as was before showed) but no repentance of that which is not amiss. But where anything is amiss, there must be a redress. Rachel did amiss in bringing idols into her husband's house: her husband in bidding her among others to put away their strange gods, reproved them all. Whereupon she with all the rest gave to him all their strange gods (Genesis 31:19; Genesis 35:2, 4). This was a good redress.

A reproof may be justly given either for a good duty omitted; or for an evil thing committed: and accordingly must the redress or amendment be. A duty formerly omitted must after the reproof be more carefully observed and performed, if it be a continual duty, and may be again performed: otherwise the redress is a testification of true sorrow for that fault. When an evil is committed, if any means can be used to make up the hurt, and redress the mischief that followed thereupon, it must be done: if not, sorrow as before, must be testified, and care taken that the same, or the like be not committed again.

As a good conscience requires as much of all Christians by whoever they be reproved, so the respect which a wife owes to a husband does after a special manner require it. Otherwise her fault is doubled, 1. by continuance in her sin;

2. by disobedience to her husband.

Contrary is their spirit who for reproof grow the worse: being like those scorners (of whom Solomon speaks) that hate those that reprove them (Proverbs 9:8). It is the speech of some wives, that if their husbands would let them alone they would do the better: but upon rebuke they will never amend: the more their husbands find fault, the more will they go on, in doing what they do. What other judgment can be given of such, than that which the wise man gives, there is more hope of a fool than of them (Proverbs 26:12).

Section 49. Of a wives' contentment with her husband's present estate. Of submission hitherto.

Contentment is also a part of obedience: it has respect to a man's outward estate and ability, in and with which a wife must rest satisfied and contented, whether it be high or low, great or mean, wealthy or needy, above, equal, or under that estate wherein she was before marriage: yes, though a man have been sometimes great in estate, yet, if he decay therein, and be brought to a mean estate, she ought to rest content. Thus much Job implies in his reply to his wife, saying, shall we receive good at the hand of God, and not receive evil? The evil he speaks of was the loss of his goods, servants, and children, together with other miseries that Satan through God's permission inflicted upon him: the receiving of evil which he speaks of was a resting content with it, and a patient bearing of it. Evil may be laid on any, and so they forced to bear it: but they only receive it, who are content with it. Now in that he uses the plural number (we) and speaking to his wife says (shall not we receive evil) he shows that his wife ought as well as he to have rested contented in that poor and miserable estate (Job 2:10).

1. Man and wife being one flesh, by virtue of their matrimonial union, both his advancement, and also his abasement is hers: as she rises with him, so she falls with him. Therefore as she is willing to be advanced with him, so she must be content to be abased with him.

2. If at the time of marriage her husband was of meaner estate than she, she voluntarily put herself into that mean estate: for a wife takes her husband (as he her) for better for worse, for richer for poorer. And shall she not be content with her own act? If after marriage his estate decay, and grow meaner than it was, she is to be persuaded that by God it was so ordered, and that God aimed at her humiliation as well as his: and thereupon she ought in her dutiful submission to God's overruling providence to be patient and content: this Job implies under this phrase, shall we not receive evil at the hand of God? and under this, The Lord takes away.

3. A wife's contentment is a great ease to her husband lying under a cross: and it makes the burden seem much lighter than otherwise it would, if at least he be a kind husband, and affected with his wife's passion, as he ought to be. For a loving husband in every distress is more perplexed for his wife, than for himself.

Section 50. Of wives' discontent at their husband's estate.

Contrary is the impatience, and discontent of wives at the meanness, and (as they think) baseness of their husband's estate: which is many ways manifested.

1. Some when they are married finding their husband's estate weaker than they imagined, repent their marriage, and stick not to tell their husbands, that if they had before known them to be no better men than they find them to be, they should have been no husbands for them. Wherein first they betray their foolish indiscretion by saying, when it is too late, if I had thought this; and withal they manifest their own rashness and unadvisedness, in that they gave their hands and plighted their troth to those whom they knew not. If they say, they were deceived by their friends whom they put in trust, I answer that marriage is too weighty a matter to be wholly referred over to the trust of friends: every one that yields to be married, ought well to know the party to whom in this case they yield: and above all they ought to seek direction, help, and blessing from God. If notwithstanding all the means which possibly they could use, they be deceived, they are to look to God, and to behold his providence therein: and duly to weigh whether the Lord has crossed their desire for their humiliation, or for trial of their patience, wisdom and other like graces, or else to wean them from some vain and worldly delights, to which they were too much addicted.

2. Others observing their husband's estate to be decayed and wasted, never search after the occasion, but lay all the blame upon their husbands, and with their discontented looks, passionate words, and impatient carriage, so vex their hearts, as they make the cross much more heavy than otherwise it could be. Though the estate should be overthrown by the unthriftiness of a husband, yet ought a wife to look to God's providence therein, as was noted before.

3. Others scorning to stoop, and to come down to their husband's present condition, through their pride and vainglory are a great means to make his estate much the worse: for they, so long as by any means they can get it, will not abate any thing of their brave apparel, dainty cheer, rich furniture, and other like things, which are causes of great expense to their husbands: hereby also it comes often to pass that husbands are thought to be wealthier than indeed they are, and so greater taxations and charges than they can bear are laid upon them for King, country, Church, Poor, and the like.

4. Others, through discontent lie long lazing in their beds, or idly sit still when they are up, and will not take any whit the more pains to raise up and increase their husband's estate: whereby God is provoked more and more to weaken their estates, that so he may the more punish such pride and laziness in wives.

§. 51. Of cases wherein a wife ought not to forbear what her husband forbids.

So much of the distinct branches of a wife's subjection. The limitation and manner of performing it next follows.

To know the limitation of a wife's obedience, and the manner how she ought to yield subjection to her husband, two things must be considered: 1. The place of a husband. 2. The place of a wife.

The husband's place is noted in this phrase, as to the Lord: whereby is shown that the husband even by virtue of his place is to his wife in Christ's stead: which is furthermore more plainly laid down in these words following, the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.

The wife's place is intimated in these words, as the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands: whereby it is clear that the obedience which a wife performs to her husband must be such an obedience as the Church performs to Christ.

From the place of a husband, I gather this general ground concerning a wife's subjection, that

Subjection must be yielded to the husband as to Christ, from which will follow two conclusions, one negative, which is this,

The wife must yield no other subjection to her husband than what may stand with her subjection to Christ.

The other affirmative, which is this,

The wife must subject herself to her husband in that manner that she would or should subject herself to Christ.

The former is a necessary condition required of all inferiors in their subjection, and obedience (as I showed before) much more in a wife's subjection to her husband, because there is of all unequals the least disparity between husbands and wives.

Hence for our present purpose, I gather these two other more particular conclusions, The first of which is this,

1. If God expressly commands the wife any duty, and her husband will not by any means give consent that she shall do it, but forbid her, she may and ought to do it without, or against his consent.

Two cautions are carefully to be observed about this conclusion:

1. That the wife be sure that God has commanded her that which she does without or against her husband's consent. If she doubts, then she must stay, and forbear till she gains his consent. When two opposite cases meet together, and the one be doubtful, the other plain and express: the doubtful case must give place to the more evident. Now the law of subjection is indefinite, your desire shall be subject to your husband; the extent of it is general, in every thing; the only reservation and exception is in the Lord; therefore if the wife be not sure that that which her husband forbids her is against the Lord, she must forbear to do it.

The second caution is that she use all good means she can to gain her husband's consent, before she does, even that which is commanded, against his consent. Thus shall she testify her subjection both to God and her husband. To God, in that nothing can keep her from doing his express commandment: she will rather offend her husband than God, when one of them must needs be offended. To her husband, in that she puts it to the uttermost push, and uses all the means she can to avoid his offense, in so much as he himself might see (if the god of this world blinded not his eyes) that the offense is no way given on her part, but merely taken on his.

For proof of this, it is without all contradiction true, that the wife is not bound to greater subjection to her husband than the subject is to the magistrate: but a subject ought not to forbear a bound duty commanded of God, because his governor forbids him. Instance the example of Daniel, who daily made his prayers to God, though the King had made a solemn decree that none should ask any petition of God or man within thirty days but of the king. Instance also the Apostles, who preached the Gospel, though they were expressly forbidden.

Though the Scripture be plentiful in affording examples of wives' subjection, yet it is very sparing in recording examples of those who in such warrantable cases refused to be subject, lest wives from there should take too great liberty.

Some are recorded, but such as are either extraordinary, or not every way justifiable. Abigail's example was extraordinary, and therefore not imitable but in such like extraordinary cases.

The example of Rebekah, which may seem somewhat more pertinent, is not every way to be justified. For though the thing which she intended were for the substance of it very good, and ought to have been done, namely the blessing of Jacob, (for God foreshowed that the blessing appertained to Jacob, in that he said, The elder shall serve the younger) yet because she put not her husband in mind of God's word, nor labored to persuade him to fulfill the same, but went about the matter deceitfully, she cannot therein be justified. But in the general this example shows that God's word must be yielded to rather than a husband's will.

For better application of this point I will lay down some particular instances agreeable to God's word. Suppose a wife well instructed in the true religion be married to an idolatrous or profane husband, and he without any just cause forbid her to go to the Church, especially on the Lord's days, to pray in English, to read the word, to teach her children the principles of religion, to restore that which she has unjustly and fraudulently gotten, with the like, she may, and must do them notwithstanding.

Objection. Why may not giving of alms be reckoned among these?

Answer. 1. Because the husband has a greater power over the goods, than over these things.

2. Because alms-giving is not simply commanded to all, but to such as have wherewithal to give: but these things are simply commanded to all.

§. 52. Of cases wherein a wife ought to forbear what her husband requires.

The other particular conclusion is this, that

If a husband require his wife to do that which God has forbidden she ought not to do it.

Two cautions like the former are likewise to be observed about this point.

First, that she be sure (being truly informed by God's word) that that which she refuses to do at her husband's command, is forbidden by God.

Secondly, that she first labor with all meekness and by all good means that she can to dissuade her husband from urging and pressing that upon her, which with a good conscience she cannot do.

A like proof may be brought for this as was for the former: for we know that a wife is not bound to greater subjection to her husband than a son is to a father: but a son may in the case proposed forbear to do that which his father requires and commands him to do: instance the approved example of Jonathan, who refused to bring David to Saul to be slain, though his father commanded him so to do (1 Samuel 20:31). I might also instance the same in Saul's subjects and servants, who refused to slay the priests of the Lord at his command (1 Samuel 22:17). Though a husband be not reckoned in particular among those to whom we are forbidden to hearken if they entice us to idolatry, yet by the rule of relation he is implied, and by just consequence gathered from this clause, your friend which is as your own soul (Deuteronomy 13:6); for who so dear as a husband?

To exemplify this in some particulars as I did the former, If a husband shall command his wife to go to Mass, to a stage play, to play at dice, to prostitute her body to uncleanness, to go garishly and whorishly attired, to sell by scant weights, short measures, or the like, she ought not to do so.

§. 53. Of wives' faults in showing more respect to their husbands than to God.

Contrary to this limitation is on the one side a fawning flattering disposition of such wives as seek to please their husbands, so as they care not to displease God, (Jezebel was such a one; to please her husband most lewdly she did practice Naboth's death) and on the other side a fainting timorous heart which makes them fear their husbands more than they fear God. Good Sarah, that worthy example of good wives in other things, somewhat failed herein. Did wives duly consider, and always remember that they have a husband (namely Christ) in heaven, as well as on earth, and that there is greater difference between that and this husband, than between heaven and earth, and that both in giving reward, and taking revenge, there is no comparison between them, their care of pleasing, or their fear of offending their husband in heaven would be much more than of pleasing, or offending their husband on earth: if anything were commanded or forbidden them by their husbands on earth against Christ, they would say, If I do this, or forbear that, I should work falsehood against my own soul; for nothing can be hidden from my husband in heaven: indeed I should herein obey Satan, rather than God.

§. 54. Of the manner of a wife's subjection to her husband.

The second general conclusion concerning the manner of a wife's subjection, which was gathered from the place of a husband, was this, that

The wife must subject herself to her husband in that manner, that she would or should subject herself to Christ. The particle 'As' in this clause (as to the Lord) imports so much.

This very conclusion is also inferred out of the place of a wife: In the same place that the Church is to Christ, a wife is to a husband: therefore such subjection as the Church yields to Christ, must a wife yield to her husband; which the very words of the Apostle do expressly affirm (Ephesians 5:24). Now we know that every Christian wife in her particular ought to yield that obedience to Christ which the Church in general does: therefore also she must yield such subjection to her husband as she should to Christ.

Question. What if a husband be an enemy of Christ? Must such subjection be yielded to an enemy of Christ as to Christ himself?

Answer: Indeed, because in his office he is in Christ's stead, though in his heart an enemy. In this case will the wisdom, patience, and obedience of a wife be best tried. It is noted of the Church, that she is a lily among thorns. She remains lily-like, white, soft, pleasant, amiable, though she be joined with thorns, which are scraggly, prickly, sharp — so a wife must be mild, meek, gentle, obedient, though she be matched with a crooked, perverse, profane, wicked husband: thus shall her virtue and grace shine forth the more clearly, even as the stars shine forth most brightly in the darkest night. Among wives Abigail deserves great praise, that forgot not her duty, though she were married to a churlish, covetous, drunken sot, a very Nabal in name and deed. As for those who take occasion from the wickedness of their husbands to neglect their duty, they add to their cross a curse: for a cross it is to have a bad husband, but to be a bad wife is a sin, which pulls down a curse. Let wives therefore remove their eyes from the disposition of their husband's person, to the condition of his place: and by virtue thereof, seeing he bears Christ's image, be subject to him as to Christ.

This general conclusion might be applied to the matter of subjection as well as to the manner, for the Church acknowledges Christ her superior, fears him inwardly, reverences him outwardly, obeys him also both by forbearing to do what he forbids, and also by doing what he commands, which points having been before distinctly and largely handled and applied to wives, I will not repeat them again. Therefore now to insist in the manner only, there are four virtues which are especially needful to this end, whereby the Church seasons her subjection to Christ, and wives also may and must season their subjection to their husbands.

These are the four:

1. Humility, 2. Sincerity, 3. Cheerfulness, 4. Constancy.

Section 55: Of wives' humility in every duty.

Humility is that grace that keeps one from thinking highly of himself above that which is meet: and in regard of that humble opinion which he has of himself makes him think reverently, and highly of others: so as if humility be placed in a wife's heart, it will make her think better of her husband than of herself, and so make her the more willing to yield all subjection to him. The Apostle requires it of all Christians as a general seasoning for all other duties: but in a particular manner is it needful for inferiors — most of all for wives, because there are many prerogatives belonging to their place, which may soon make them think they ought not to be subject, unless they be humbly minded. That the Church does season her subjection with this, is clear by the book of Canticles, where often she acknowledges her own lowliness, and the excellence of her spouse.

Therefore as the Church is humbly subject to Christ, so let wives be to their husbands.

Section 56: Of wives' pride.

Contrary is pride, which puffs up wives, and makes them think there is no reason they should be subject to husbands — they can rule themselves well enough, indeed and rule their husbands too, as well as their husbands rule them. No more pestilent vice for an inferior than this: it is the cause of all rebellion, disobedience, and disloyalty — only by pride comes contention.

Section 57: Of wives' sincerity in every duty.

2. Sincerity is that grace that makes one to be within, even in truth, what without he appears to be in show. This is that singleness of heart which is expressly required of servants, and may be applied to wives, for indeed it belongs to all sorts. Because it is only discerned by the Lord, who is the searcher of all hearts, it will move a wife to have an eye to him in all she does, and to endeavor to approve herself to him above all: therefore uprightness and walking before God are often joined together — he that is upright will assuredly walk before God, that is, endeavor to approve himself to God, as Noah did, and as God commanded Abraham to do.

Though there were no other motive in the world to move her to subjection, yet for conscience's sake to Christ she should yield it. Saint Peter testifies of holy women, that they trusted in God and were subject to their husbands: implying thereby, that their conscience toward God made them be subject to their husbands. Was not Sarah's subjection seasoned with sincerity, when within herself, in her heart she called her husband Lord?

There is great reason that wives should in sincerity subject themselves: for —

1. In their subjection even to their husbands they have to do with Christ, in whose room their husbands stand: so as, though their husbands who are but men, see only the face and outward behavior, yet Christ sees their heart and inward disposition — though their husbands see only the things which they do before their faces, and can hear only of such things as are done before others — yet Christ sees and knows the things that are done in the most secret places that can be, when no creature besides themselves is privy to them. Now let it be granted that in their outward conduct they give very good contentment to their husbands, and please them every way, yet if sincerity has been wanting, with what face can they appear before Christ? He will take quite another account of them: before Christ all their outward show will stand them in no stead at all.

2. In this lies a main difference between true, Christian, religious wives, and merely natural women: the latter may be subject for secondary reasons, as namely, that their husbands may the more love them, or live the more quietly and peaceably with them, or that they may the more readily obtain what they desire at their husbands' hands, or for fear of their husbands' displeasure and wrath, knowing him to be an angry, furious man, so as otherwise it might be worse with them — they might lack many needful things, or receive many sore blows if they were not subject. But the former have respect to Christ's ordinance, whereby their husbands are made their head, and to his word and will, whereby they are commanded subjection. Thus holy women subjected themselves; they cannot be holy that do not thus subject themselves: for this is a sweet perfume that sends forth a good savor into Christ's nostrils, and makes the things we do pleasant and acceptable to him.

3. The benefit of this virtue being planted in a wife's heart is very great, and that both to her husband, and also to herself.

To her husband, in that it will make her show her respect for him before others, behind his back, as well as before himself in his presence: and also will make her faithful to him, and careful to do his will wherever he be — with her, or away from her.

To herself, in that it will minister inward sweet comfort to her, though her husband should take no notice of her subjection, or misinterpret it, or ill requite it; for she might say as Hezekiah did, Remember, O Lord, how I have walked before you in truth, and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in your sight.

That the Church does season all her subjection with sincerity is clear, in that she is said to be all glorious within: (there is no glory within, without sincerity) and in that she is often said to seek him whom her soul loved: if her soul loved him, in sincerity of heart she was subject to him: Therefore as the Church is sincerely subject to Christ, so let wives be to their husbands.

§. 58. Of wives' complemental subjection.

Contrary to sincerity is dissimulation, and mere outward, complemental subjection: when a wife does even despise her husband in her heart, as Michal did David and yet carry a fair face before him, as that adulterous woman, who eats, and wipes her mouth, and says I have not committed iniquity. Solomon makes it a note of a lewd wife to flatter with her words. Though such a wife should perform all the duties named before, yet would those all be nothing to God, if they were done with a double heart, and not in singleness of heart. For as many outward imperfections are pardoned by God, where sincerity is, so no outward actions are accepted of him though they seem never so fair, where there is no sincerity.

§. 59. Of wives' cheerfulness in every duty.

3. Cheerfulness is more apparent than sincerity, and makes subjection the more pleasing not only to God, but also to man, who by the effects thereof may easily discern it.

For God, as he does himself all things willingly and cheerfully, so he expects that his children should therein follow him, and thereby show themselves his children. God loves a cheerful giver: not only a cheerful giver of alms, but of all duty to God and man.

For men, it makes them also much better accept any duty when they observe it to be done cheerfully: this did even ravish David with joy, to see his people offer their gifts willingly to the Lord: when a husband sees his wife willingly and cheerfully perform her duty, it cannot but raise up love in him. This cheerfulness is manifested by a ready, quick, and speedy performance of her duty. Sarah's readiness to obey shows that what she did, she did willingly.

That thus the Church subjects herself to Christ is evident by that which David says, They shall be willing in the day of your power. Therefore as the Church is cheerfully subject to Christ, so let wives be to their husbands.

§. 60. Of wives' sullen and forced obedience.

Contrary to this cheerfulness is the sullen disposition of some wives, who will indeed be subject to their husbands, and obey, but with such a lowering and sour countenance, with such pouting and muttering, as they grieve their husbands more in the manner, than they can be pleased with the thing itself that they do: herein they show themselves like to a cursed cow, which having given a fair soap of milk, casts all down with her heel, and so verify the proverb, A good never a whit as never the better. Such subjection is in truth no subjection, it can neither be acceptable to God, nor profitable to their husbands, nor comfortable to their own souls.

§. 61. Of wives' constancy in doing their duty.

4. Constancy is a virtue which makes all the rest perfect, and sets the crown upon them; without which they are all nothing. This is in those who after they have begun well, continue to do well to the end, and thereby reap the fruit of all. It has respect both to continuance without intermission, and also to perseverance without revolting, and giving clean over. So as it is not enough to be subject by starts and fits: one while yielding all good obedience, another while stout and rebellious: neither is it sufficient in former times to have been a good wife, and after prove bad: but there must be daily proceeding and holding on from time to time, so long as husband and wife live together. This grace was in her of whom it is said, She will do him good, and not evil all the days of her life. Such were all the holy wives commended in Scripture: among other particulars, mention is made of the wife of Phinehas, who on her death-bed showed the reverent good respect she bore to her husband, though he were a wicked and lewd man. This grace does the Church add to all her other virtues, she in all parts of her subjection remains constant, and faithful to the death, whereby it comes to pass, that at length she receives the reward of her holy obedience, which is full and perfect communion and fellowship with her spouse Christ Jesus in heaven. In regard of her unmovable constancy it is said, that the gates of hell shall never prevail against her. Therefore as the Church is constantly subject to Christ, so let wives be to their husbands.

§. 62. Of wives repenting their former goodness.

Contrary to this constancy is first intermission of duty, a returning to it, and a leaving it off by turns: like one that is sick of an ague, sometimes well, sometimes ill, one while hot, another while cold. That sometimes ceasing takes away all the virtue, grace and glory, from sometimes doing. Besides, it is twenty to one that through the corruption of nature, that diversity and intercourse of fits at length will cease, and end in the worse. It is very likely that Michal was such an one: for one while she showed herself so full of respect to David, as for his sake she incurred the King her father's displeasure: another while in her heart she despised him, and with her tongue taunted him.

Contrary also to the forenamed constancy is apostasy, that is, a clean relinquishing of the former good course, as if a wife repented of her former good beginning. Such an one is she that is said to forsake the guide of her youth, and forget the covenant of her God. For ought we read to the contrary, Job's wife was such an one. And such are many who in their younger years, while their religious parents lived (as Joash while old good Jehoiada lived) have behaved themselves very well like good dutiful wives, but being grown to older years, have grown also so stout and rebellious, as if they completely repented themselves of their former good beginning. This revolt arises sometimes from the evil counsel of wicked gossips, and sometimes from their own proud humor. I may say of these wives' subjection, as the Prophet says of the righteousness of revolters, their subjection shall not be remembered, but in their rebellion they shall die. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, let wives be to their husbands.

§. 63. Of the extent of a wife's obedience.

The extent of a wife's subjection (which remains now to be handled) is set down under these general terms (in everything) which are not so generally to be taken as if they admitted no restraint or limitation, for then would they contradict such cautions as these, in the fear of the Lord, as to the Lord, in the Lord. For man is so corrupt by nature, and of so perverse a disposition, that often he wills and commands that which is contrary to God's will and commandment: which when he does, that Christian principle laid down as a ruled case by the Apostle must take place, we ought rather to obey God than men.

Quest. Why then is this extent laid down in such general terms?

Answ. 1. To teach wives that it is not sufficient for them to obey their husbands in some things, as they themselves think fitting, but in all things whatever they be wherein the husband by virtue of his superiority and authority has power to command his wife. Thus this general extent excludes not God's will, but the wife's will. She may do nothing against God's will; but many things must she do against her own will if her husband require her.

2. To show that the husband's authority and power is very large: it has no restraint but God's contrary command, whereof if a wife be not assured, she must yield to her husband's will.

§. 64. Of a wife's laboring to bring her judgment to the bent of her husband's.

From that extent I gather these two conclusions:

1. A wife must labor to bring her judgment and will to her husband's.

2. Though in her judgment she cannot think that most appropriate which her husband requires, yet she must yield to it in practice.

In the former of these, I say not simply that a wife is bound to bring her judgment to the bent of her husband's; for he may be deceived in his judgment, and she may see his error, and then unless her understanding should be blinded, she cannot conceive that to be true which he judges so: but I speak of endeavor (when she has not sure and undeniable grounds to the contrary) to suspect her judgment when it is contrary to her husband's, and to think she may be in an error, and thereupon not be too peremptory and resolute in contradicting her husband's opinion. This submission even of her judgment respects not only things necessary, for which her husband has an express determinate warrant out of the Scripture, but also things doubtful and indifferent: for even so far does this clause (in everything) extend: and the subjection of a wife respects not her practice only, but her judgment and opinion also: which if she can bring to the lawfulness and appropriateness of that which her husband requires, she will much more cheerfully perform it. To this purpose (as I take it) may be applied that exhortation of the Apostle to women, that they learn in silence with all subjection: which though it be principally meant of learning in the Church, yet it excludes not her learning at home of her husband: for in the next words he adds, I suffer not a woman to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

§. 65. Of wives' overweening conceit of their own wisdom.

Contrary is the presumption of such wives as think themselves wiser than their husbands, and able better to judge matters than they can. I deny not but that a wife may have more understanding than her husband: for some men are very ignorant and blockish; and on the other side, some women well instructed, who thereby have attained to a great measure of knowledge, and discretion; but many though they have husbands of sufficient and good understanding, wise and discreet men, yet think that that which they have once conceived to be a truth, must needs be so: and such is their peremptoriness, that they will not be brought to think that they may err: but say they will never be brought to think otherwise than they do, though all the husbands in the world should be of another opinion: not much unlike to the wise man's fool, who thinks himself wiser than seven men that can render a reason.

§. 66. Of a wife's yielding to her husband in such things as she thinks not to be the most appropriate.

The latter conclusion concerning a wife's yielding in practice to that which her husband requires, though she cannot bring her judgment to think as he does about the appropriateness of it, has respect to indifferent things, namely, to such as are neither in their particulars commanded, nor forbidden by God: as the outward affairs of the house, ordering it, disposing goods, entertaining guests, etc.

Quest. May she not reason with her husband about such matters as she thinks inappropriate, and labor to persuade her husband not to persist in the pressing thereof, indeed endeavor to bring her husband to see the inappropriateness (as she thinks) of that which she sees?

Answ. With modesty, humility, and reverence, she may so do: and he ought to hearken to her, as the husband of the Shunammite did (2 Kings 4:23-24), but yet, if notwithstanding all that she can say, he persist in his resolution, and will have it done, she must yield.

First, her subjection is most manifested in such cases: herein she apparently shows, that what she does, she does in respect of her husband's place, and power: were it not for that, she would not do it. Other things are not so evident proofs of her subjection to her husband: for if he command her to do that which God has expressly commanded, and so she ought to do it, whether her husband commanded it or no, it may be thought she does it on God's command, and not on her husband's. If her husband command her to do that which God has expressly forbidden, then ought she by no means to yield to it: if she does, it may rather be termed a joint conspiracy of husband and wife together against God's will (as Saint Peter said to Sapphira the wife of Ananias, How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?) than subjection to the image of God in her husband.

Secondly, her yielding in indifferent things tends much to the peace of the family, as subjects yielding to their magistrates in such cases makes much to the peace of the commonwealth. For in differences and dissensions one side must yield, or else great mischief is like to follow: now of the two, who should yield but the inferior?

§. 67. Of wives making their own will their law.

Contrary is the custom of many wives, who never will do any more than they themselves think meet, though their husbands require it never so much: surely they come far short of this apostolic extent (in every thing) though in their own eyes they may seem to be very much subject. But when wives will no further be subject, than their own judgments, wills and affections concur with their husbands, what can be thought but that they are subject rather to their own wills, than to the will of their husbands? Many such wives, from the least difference in judgment and opinion, even in the smallest matters, take occasion to refuse subjection, and think they have warrant enough so to do: from where oftentimes there arises much contention, the fault whereof lies especially on the wives' neck, though the occasion may arise from the husband: and I think that wives themselves would so judge of the like cases between them and their children.

§. 68. Of care in choosing such husbands as wives may without grief be subject to.

Object. If the case be such between man and wife, it is not good to marry.

Answer. This is no good inference; for all the seeming hardness of a wife's case is in the lewdness of a husband, who abuses his place and power: and not in that subjection which is required by God. For if a husband carry himself to his wife as God requires, she will find her yoke to be easy, and her subjection a great benefit even to herself. Therefore I would exhort parties that are unmarried, whether maidens or widows, to be very careful in their choice of husbands: and in their choice to respect above all, their good qualities and conditions, therein bearing the image of Christ, as well as in their office, and authority: so as their wives may with joy and comfort, not with grief and anguish, be subject to them: then will subjection prove a vexation, when the husband is an ignorant, profane, idolatrous, worldly, wicked man: wives of such husbands are often brought into many straits. You widows and maidens who are free, be not too free and forward in giving your consent to whom you know not: among other motives, often think of this point of subjection, to which all wives are bound: this I say, both of the several branches, and also of the extent thereof. After you are married it is in vain to think of freedom from subjection. By taking husbands, and giving yourselves to be wives, you bind yourselves to the law of the man, as long as he lives. Then as you desire to be accepted of God, and to find mercy and comfort from him, you must bear this yoke, however heavy and grievous it may seem to be.

§. 69. Of the reasons to move wives to do their duties.

So far of wives' duties: The reasons noted by the Apostle to enforce those duties now follow. They are laid down in these words.

Ephesians 5:22 — As to the Lord.

Verse 23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and he is the Savior of the body.

Verse 24. Therefore as the Church is subject, etc.

The main ground of all the reasons which the Apostle here intimates, is taken from the place wherein God has set a husband, which is first by consequence implied in these words, as to the Lord: and then more plainly and directly expressed in these, the husband is the head of the wife. The particle prefixed before these words (for) being a causal conjunction, does show, that they are here set down as a reason, which is first propounded under a metaphor (head) and then amplified by that resemblance which a husband has therein to Christ (even as Christ, etc.) which resemblance is further commended by the virtue and benefit that proceeds from the headship of Christ properly, and of a husband also by consequence, in these words (and is the Savior of the body.) Upon a husband's resemblance to Christ, he infers that a wife should have a resemblance to the Church, and so concludes, Therefore as the Church is in subjection to Christ, so let wives be to their husbands.

Out of the forenamed ground of a wife's subjection, and the several amplifications thereof, and the inference thereupon made, five several and distinct reasons may be gathered to enforce a wife's subjection to her husband.

The first is taken from a husband's place: he is in the Lord's stead to his wife (as to the Lord.)

The second from his office: he is a head to his wife.

The [reconstructed: third] from the image he bears, or from the resemblance between him and Christ (even as Christ etc.)

The fourth from the benefit that his wife receives from him (he is the Savior etc.)

The fifth from the example and pattern of the Church (as the Church is in subjection, etc.)

§ 70. Of a husband's place.

The place wherein God has set a husband as it serves to direct a wife in the manner of her subjection, of which I have spoken before, so also it serves to move a wife to yield such subjection as is required: which will evidently appear by these two conclusions following from there.

1. A wife by subjecting herself to her husband, therein is subject to Christ.

2. A wife by refusing to be subject to her husband, therein refuses to be subject to Christ.

That these two conclusions are rightly and justly gathered from the forenamed ground I prove by like conclusions which the Holy Spirit infers upon the like ground. It is evident that Christ Jesus, even incarnate and made flesh, was in the room and stead of his father, whereupon Christ said to Philip that desired to see the father, he that has seen me has seen the father: now mark what Christ then infers both on the one side (he that receives me receives him that sent me) and on the other (he that honors not the Son, honors not the father that sent him.) It is also evident that ministers of the Gospel stand in the room and stead of Christ: for thus says the Apostle of himself and other ministers, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead, etc. Now mark again the conclusions inferred thereupon by Christ, on the one side, he that hears you, hears me, and on the other, he that despises you, despises me. On this ground it was that God said to Samuel concerning the people that rejected his government, they have not cast you away, but they have cast me away.

To apply this reason, I hope such wives as live under the Gospel have so much religion and piety in them as to acknowledge, it becomes them well to be subject to the Lord Christ Jesus: here then learn one especial and principal part of subjection to Christ, which is to be subject to your husbands: thus shall you show yourselves to be the wives of the Lord Christ, as the Apostle says of obedient servants, they are the servants of God.

Again I hope none are so void of all religion and piety as to refuse to be subject to Christ: here then take notice, that if willfully you refuse to be subject to your husbands, you willfully refuse to be subject to Christ: fitly on this ground may I apply that to wives, which the Apostle speaks of subjects, whoever resists the power and authority of a husband, resists the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment.

A strong motive is this first motive. If it were duly considered by wives, they would more readily, and cheerfully be subject, than many are; they would not so lightly think of their husbands' place, nor so reproachfully speak against God's ministers who plainly declare their duty to them, as many do.

Section 71: Of a husband's office.

The second reason is like to this taken from a husband's office, he is the wife's head: which is also urged to this very purpose in other places.

This metaphor shows that to his wife he is as the head of a natural body, both more eminent in place, and also more excellent in dignity: by virtue of both which, he is a ruler and governor of his wife. Nature teaches us that this is true of the head of a natural body: and the Apostle by entitling a husband, a head, teaches us that it is as true of a husband: from where it follows, that it stands with common equity, and with the light of nature, that the wife should be subject to her husband. This argument does the Apostle in plain terms urge in another place, saying, does not nature teach you, etc.

Go therefore, O wives, to the school of nature, look upon the outward parts and members of your bodies. Do they desire to be above the head? Are they loath to be subject to the head? Let your soul then learn of your body. Were it not monstrous for the side to be advanced above the head? If the body should not be subject to the head, would not destruction follow upon head, body, and all the parts thereof? As monstrous, and much more monstrous is it for a wife to be above her husband: and as great, yes and greater disturbance and ruin would fall on that family. The order which God has set therein would be clean overthrown thereby: and they that overthrow it would show themselves opponents of God's wisdom in establishing order. This reason drawn from nature is of force to move very pagans, and savages to yield subjection, how much more Christian wives, it being also agreeable to God's word, and ratified thereby?

Section 72: Of the resemblance between Christ and a husband.

The third reason taken from a husband's resemblance to Christ herein, adds an edge to that former reason: in being a head, he is like Christ. So as there is a kind of fellowship and co-partnership between Christ, and a husband: they are brethren in office, as two kings of several places.

Objection: There is no equality between Christ the Lord from heaven, and an earthly husband: the disparity between them is infinite.

Answer: Yet there may be similitude, resemblance, and fellowship: inequality is no hindrance to these. Two kings may be more different in estate than a subject and a king; yet those two kings brethren and fellows in office. There may be a resemblance where there is no parity, and a likeness where there is no equality. The glorious and bright sun in the firmament, and a dim candle in a house, have a kind of fellowship, and the same office, which is to give light: yet there is no equality between them. So then a husband resembles not only the head of a natural body, but also the glorious image of Christ, and is that to his wife which Christ is to his Church.

To apply this point, mark how from it two positions (worthy to be noted) arise.

1. Subjection is due to a husband as well as to Christ.

I say not as great, because of the difference in glory: but as well, because of the likeness in office. A constable (though a poor mean man) must be obeyed as well as a high sheriff: a beggar's child must obey his father, as well as a king's child. Such wives therefore who are not subject, wrong their husbands, as well as they wrong Christ who are not subject to him.

2. They who by their subjection maintain the honor of their husbands' place, maintain thereby the honor of Christ's place: and again by the rule of contraries, they who by refusing to be subject impeach the honor of their husbands' place, impeach thereby the honor of Christ's place.

The obedience of a poor man's child or servant justifies that obedience which kings' children and servants owe their father and sovereign: and so on the contrary, disobedience in mean ones, dishonors the place of great ones.

The argument of Memucan drawn from the greater to the less (in these words, Vashty the Queen has not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and all the people) may be applied from the less to the greater (Esther 1:16). Disobedient wives do wrong not only to their own particular husbands, but also to all heads, even to Christ the head of the Church.

If a natural body, and the Church were flexible, and could be seduced, and drawn to presume, and rebel against their heads, the ill example of wives were enough to move them to it, for, as much as in them lies, they by example seduce them.

From the last forenamed positions (namely, that the obedience of a good wife maintains the honor of Christ's place, and on the contrary side that the disobedience of an ill wife impairs the honor thereof) I may justly infer two other conclusions.

1. That Christ will assuredly reward the good subjection of good wives: for he has said (and what he has said he can and will perform) those who honor me I will honor.

2. That he will sorely revenge the rebellion of evil wives: for again he has said, they that despise me, shall be despised.

We know that fellows in office are ready to stand for the credit of one another's place, and to maintain the honor thereof: and that not without good reason: for thereby they maintain their own honor and credit (1 Samuel 2:30).

Therefore as good wives may well expect a reward at Christ's hands, however their husbands respect their obedience, whether well or ill: (a great encouragement for wives to perform their duties, though their husbands be never so ill) so evil wives have just cause to fear revenge at Christ's hand, however their husbands bear with them.

They who duly weigh this reason taken from that resemblance which is between Christ and the Church, cannot but hold it to be a motive of great moment.

§. 73. Of the benefit which a wife has by a husband.

The fourth reason taken from the benefit which a wife receives from her husband, does yet further press the point in hand. Though Christ be properly the Savior of the body, yet even here a husband carries a resemblance of Christ, and is after a manner a Savior: for by virtue of his place and office he is on the one side her protector, to defend her from hurt, and preserve her from danger; and on the other side, a provider of all needful and necessary things for her: in which respect she is taken from her parents and friends, and wholly committed to him: (as Jacob's wives said, Have we any more portion or inheritance in our father's house?) indeed she herself, and all she has is given to him: and he again communicates whatever he has to her good, and for her use. David compares a wife to a vine, in relation to her husband: intimating thereby, that by him she is raised to that height of honor she has, as a vine by the tree, or frame near to which it is planted. By his honor is she dignified, by his wealth is she enriched. He is, under God, all in all to her; in the family he is a king to govern and aid her, a priest to pray with her and for her, a prophet to teach and instruct her. As the head is placed in the highest place over the body, and understanding placed in it, to govern, direct, protect, and every way seek the good of the body, and as Christ is united to the Church as a spouse, and made her head, that she might be saved, maintained, and provided for by him; so for this end was a husband placed in his place of superiority; and his authority was committed to him, to be a Savior of his wife (Genesis 31:14; Psalm 128:3). Therefore if none of the former motives prevail with wives, and move them to be subject to their husbands, yet ought this.

For from this reason flow these two conclusions. 1. The subjection required of a wife is for her own good. 2. In refusing to obey she shows herself both ungrateful to her husband, and also injurious to herself.

That her subjection is for her own good, is evident by this end for which a husband is made a head, to be a Savior: not to puff him up, to make him insult and tyrannize over his wife. So as if she be subject to him, she may reap much good from him. As the Church is wisely governed, and safely protected by subjecting herself to her head Christ Jesus; and as the body partakes of much good, and is preserved from much evil by subjecting itself to the head, so if a wife be subject to her husband, she will fare much the better thereby, all the ease, profit, and benefit thereof will be hers. If therefore she tends to her own good, this is a way and means ordained of God for this end; let her seek it.

If notwithstanding this she refuse to be subject to her husband, does she not (as we say) stand in her own light? She being by her sex the weaker, and the more unable to help herself, if she shall reject this good help which God has provided for her, is she not most injurious to her own self? And considering the care and pains her husband undergoes for her sake, is it not most unnatural and monstrous ingratitude, inwardly to despise, or outwardly to scorn such a head? No better testimony of a grateful heart can be given by a wife to her husband, than cheerful and ready subjection: and no greater ingratitude can be shown, than rebellion, and disdain. Now among vices ingratitude is one of the most odious to God and man: so as both to avoid the black spot of ingratitude, and to carry away the name of gratefulness, ought wives to be subject.

§. 74. Of the example of the Church set before wives.

The last reason taken from the example of the Church is also of good force to persuade wives to subjection. Example more prevails with many than precept. If any example may be of force, then this most of all: for it is not the example of one only, but of many; not of many ignorant and wicked persons, but of understanding, wise, holy and righteous persons, even all the saints that ever were, are, or shall be: for the Church comprises all under it, even that whole society of saints, who are chosen of God in his eternal counsel, redeemed of Christ by his precious blood, and effectually called by the Gospel of salvation, God's Spirit working inwardly and powerfully upon them, those very souls of just and perfect men now triumphing in heaven, not excepted. Note how this Church is described in verses 26 and 27. Let this example therefore be often thought of: it will never repent any to follow it: for it treads the only right path to eternal glory, to which they shall assuredly come that follow it.

But to show the force of this reason a little more distinctly, note these two conclusions following from it.

1. Wives are as much bound to be subject to their husbands, as the Church to Christ. Else why should this example be thus set before them, and pressed upon them? Why are husbands set in Christ's stead, and resembled to him?

2. A wife's subjection to her husband, answerable to the Church's subjection to Christ, is an evidence that she is of the Church, guided by the same Spirit that the Church is. For it cannot be performed by the power of nature, it is a supernatural work, and so an evidence of the Spirit.

Therefore, O Christian wives, as your husbands by their place resemble Christ, so do you by your practice resemble the Church. Of the two this is the more commendable: for that is a dignity, this a virtue: but true virtue is much more glorious than any dignity can be.

These reasons being well weighed, and the force of them all joined together, they cannot but work on the stoutest stomach that is: therefore if this point of subjection seems to be too bitter a pill to be well digested, let it be sweetened with the syrup of these reasons, and it will much better be swallowed, and have the more wholesome effect.