Justice vindicated from the false fucus [i.e. focus] put upon it, by [brace] Thomas White gent., Mr. Thomas Hobbs, and Hugo Grotius as also elements of power & subjection, wherein is demonstrated the cause of all humane, Christian, and legal society : and as a previous introduction to these, is shewed, the method by which men must necessarily attain arts & sciences / by Roger Coke.

CHAP. VII. The Husbands Power.

1. THe Husbands power doth not arise ex concubitu; for then a man hath power over all the women which he hath, or shall have known, which is absurd; besides, one woman known by several men, should be alike subject to them all, which is impossible.

2. The Husbands power does not arise from his Wifes being a part of his family; for any part of the family, may become no part of the family; but the Wife can never be out of the power of her Husband, therefore the Husbands power does not arise from the Wifes being a part of his family.

3. The Husbands power does not arise from the Wifes submission or subjecting herself to her Husband, for that is but an act of her will, & unum∣quodque

dissolvi potest eo ligamine quo ligatum est; and therefore by an act of her will, she may when she list set herself free.

4. It does not arise from the Husbands accepting of the Wifes will; for that makes the Husband obedient to his Wife; obedience being no other thing, but the accepting the will of another, which is unnatural.

5. The Husbands power does arise from the law of God or Nature, by * 1.1 the conjunction of Man and Wife in wedlock: For these two individual persons, by the law of God, are made one mystical person, of which the Husband is head; and the head is the directive and ruling part of the body, therefore the Husband is the director and ruler of his Wife.

Object. But if the Law of Nature, by Marriage, gives the Husband a power or right of command over the Wife; why may it not be, that God by the Civil pact might give a Prince or Court a right of command over those Men who made it?

Answ. I answer, That first a Similitude proves nothing. Secondly, The cases are nothing alike: For, Marriage was an institution of God in Paradise; and the power of the Husband over the Wife, being due by the Law of Nature, hath been ever since attributed by Mankind to the Husband; yet so, that after the death of the Husband, the Wife becomes free from such subjection, until by Marriage she again subjects herself. In none of these respects does this hold in the Civil pact; for no such thing was ever in∣stituted by God, nor any such thing ever constituted or done by Man, but only a Chimera invented by capricious men, to palliate sedition. Nor did ever any man become free from subjection to Supreme powers, by the death of him or them to whom they made their subjection by virtue of the Civil pact: Nor was it ever known in the world, that Men were free before they made their Civil pact, as Women are before they marry.

6. God gives a power to the Husband without restriction, viz. Thy * 1.2 desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, Gen. 3. 16. And therefore the Husbands power over the wife is without restriction, and by consequence the Husband hath power over the life of his Wife. Antiently among the Gaules, this power was not restrained. The Romilian Law restrained the Hus∣bands * 1.3 power to put his Wife to death, for four causes only. This power was used by the West-Indians, before they were subdued by the Spaniard; and is generally among the Idolaters and Mahumetans. But the exercise of the Fathers and Husbands power of life and death over their Children and Wives, is restrained not by any law of God (that I know of) but by the Temporal laws; and yet no wrong done to the Fathers or Husbands neither: For, though their Children and Wives be in their power by the law of Nature, yet by the law of Nature are they in the power of their Soveraign, and subject unto him: And though the Fathers and Husbands power be from the law of Nature, yet the exercise of it is humane, politick, and vo∣luntary; and the exercise of all Subjects voluntary actions, may be restrain∣ed and determined by him, who hath the supreme power; therefore the Fathers and Husbands exercising their power over their Children and Wives, may be restrained by him who commands by the highest right, which is the King. But supposing the Husbands and Fathers power to be from the law of Nature, and Regal power but a politick and invented thing, and made only by the will of Man; it were then a violence upon the law of Nature, that any thing which hath no origination but from the inventi∣ons

and wills of Men, should restrain the exercise of that power which God hath given Fathers and Husbands by the law of Nature.

7. The Husband being the head of the Wife, she is in all respects of law * 1.4 deemed civiliter mortua, nor can take or purchase any thing during the cover∣ture; but whatsoever is given to the Wife, is ex facto the Husbands. Yet Marriage being a Sacrament by the institution of our Saviour, and Ephes. 5. 25, 32. a Mystery of Christ and his Church, and so the cognisance thereof due to the Ecclesiastical power; the Church, upon the penalty of Ecclesi∣astical censure, may compell the Husband to allow his Wife Alimony, if without sufficient cause he shall refuse to cohabit with her.

8. If Poligamy had not been lawful before our Saviour Christs time, * 1.5 then had our Saviour been illegitimate, being descended of Bathsheba, when David had many other wives. Nor can the argument drawn from the ne∣cessity of propagating Mankind, take place when David reigned; for there never was in so small a Continent so great a number of people, as the Isra∣elites were when David reigned, as appears by the Number which Joab took, and for which David was punished with so great a pestilence.

If it were, before the divine law of our Saviour, lawful every where for * 1.6 Men to have many Wives; I do wonder why Mr. Hobbs, cap. 17. art. 8. de Cive, says, That our Saviour made no laws but the institution of the Sacra∣ments, which are Baptism and the Eucharist: And if Matrimony be a Civil institution, as he affirms, then Poligamy is lawful for all Christians who are in subjection to the Turks, &c. where by the Temporal laws it is permitted; and the Kingdom of Congo rejected Christianity for no other reason, but because they were not allowed plurality of wives, which Mr. Hobbs could easily have dispenced with. I do challenge Mr. Hobbs to shew any one instance, where ever in the Christian world (before all things ran riot here in England since 1642.) the Temporal power took cognisance of Marriage.

9. Matrimony is the act of two free persons (viz. neither precon∣tracted * 1.7 nor married, nor within the degrees prohibited by God, Levit. 18.) of different sexes, capable of performing the end of marriage, mutually taking one another for Husband and Wife: I N. take thee D. to be my wedded Wife; I D. take thee N. to be my wedded Husband. But this must be done publiquely, and Banns of both parts publiquely pronounced three Holidays, or a Licence procured from the Ordinary for dispensation, with all the rites and solemnities injoined by the Church, or else the Church takes no cogni∣sance of it.

10. Where the Matrimony is subsequent to the allegation, there the * 1.8 Vinculum is dissoluble: As if one man marries another mans Wife, or a Hus∣band, his Wife living, marries another; or if the parties contracting or marrying, be within the degrees forbidden by God; or if either party were * 1.9 precontracted, or frigid; these necessarily preceding the Matrimony, do dissolve the bond: But where the matter or allegation is subsequent to the Matrimony, there the bond of Matrimony cannot be dissolved, but only a Divorce upon just cause is grantable to separate the Complainant à mensa & à thoro. The reason why in this latter case the Matrimony cannot be dissolved; is, because Marriage being an institution of God, it is in the cause superior to any Humane law or act, and so by consequence cannot by them be dissolved. And indeed, in proper speaking, where the Matrimony

is subsequent, it is rather not done, then dissolvible, the persons marrying being personae incapaces for such an action.

11. The Holy Ghost, Ephes. 5. 25, &c. shews the duty of Husbands: * 1.10 And Cato (though no lover of women) did think it sacrilege in the Husband to strike his wife, Plut. vita Caton. cens. No question, the right and careful education of Children, is the onely means by which Parents may hope to have any comfort of them here or hereafter; for, Train a child in the way when he is young, and he will not depart from it when he is old, says the Preacher. Nor can Parents expect to have their Children virtuous, if they be vitious themselves; for, with what face can any Father condemn his Child for any thing which he allows in himself? Besides, there is nothing ill, which natu∣rally Youth doth not more suddenly apprehend then Men; therefore,

Maxima debetur puero reverentia, si quid * 1.11 Turpe paras.—

And ill habits are soon gotten by Children (if they be not carefully ob∣served and restrained) and hardly, if possibly left when they are Men.

Notes

• * 1.1

  From whence the Husbands power doth arise.
• * 1.2

  The Husband hath jus vitae & necis over his Wife.
• * 1.3

  Caesar lib. 3. de bel. Gal.
• * 1.4

  The Wife has nothing pro∣per against her Husband.
• * 1.5

  Poligamy was lawful before our Saviour,
• * 1.6

  Annot.
• * 1.7

  What Matri∣mony is.
• * 1.8

  Whether Ma∣trimony be dissolvible.
• * 1.9

  Lev 18.
• * 1.10

  The duty of Fathers and Husbands,
• * 1.11

  Juveval.