Answ. Though the husband sin in restraining his wife, yet ⟨p. 306⟩she in that restraint may obey, and that in the Lord: because the Lord who hath commanded her to be subject in every thing, hath no where warranted her not to be subject in this particular. It is expressly said in the law concerning a wives vows, that if her husband break them after he hath heard them, he shall bear her iniquity. 1Did not he then sin in restraining her, and was not she guiltless though she yielded to his restraint? The condition betwixt husbands and wives in this case, is not unlike the case betwixt 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 fathers house at his fathers 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 lieth on their head, who restrain them by virtue of their authority, wherein they abuse their authority: as other governors may do and oft do, and yet neither liberty granted thereby to subjects, nor authority taken from governors. In this resemblance betwixt 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 then the general commandment of alms-giving to prove the forenamed liberty of wives.
Answ. Though the husband sinne in restraining his wife, yet ⟨p. 306⟩shee in that restraint may obey, and that in the Lord: because the Lord who hath commanded her to be subiect in euery thing, hath no where warranted her not to be subiect in this particular. It is expresly said in the law concerning a wiues vowes, that if her husband breake them after he hath heard them, he shall beare her iniquity. 1Did not he then sinne in restraining her, and was not she guiltlesse though she yeelded to his restraint? The condition betwixt husbands and wiues in this case, is not vnlike the case betwixt other superiours in authority, and their inferiours in subiection. But other inferiours may lawfully abstaine from such things as their gouernours doe sinfully charge them to abstaine from. For suppose a sonne growen to be a man, liue in his fathers house at his fathers finding, and haue no set portion of his owne, and his father will not giue him leaue to bestow any thing on charitable vses, is he now bound to giue almes? shall the curse be executed on him if he giue not? A crosse indeed I acknowledge it to be, both to such a sonne, and also to a wife to be so restrained: but not a curse or sinne; the sinne and curse lieth on their head, who restraine them by vertue of their authority, wherein they abuse their authority: as other gouernours may do and oft do, and yet neither liberty granted thereby to subiects, nor authority taken from gouernours. In this resemblance betwixt a sonne and a wife I desire not to be mistaken; for I alleadge it not to make the state of a wife and a sonne all one: but to shew that those generall precepts of giuing almes, may haue their exceptions, as they which in particular handle that point, giue other examples. There must therefore be a further ground then the generall commandement of almes-giuing to proue the forenamed liberty of wiues.
- 1Numb. 30. 16.
