only the first begotten or eldest son living for he calleth Esau a prophane person because for a dish of meat he sold his first birth-rights and in his dreadful denouncement against unnatural and neglectful Parents 1 Tim. 5. which is that they are worse then Infidels He sayes in the same chapter Seniorem ne increpaveris Do not disrespect thy elder c. giving a fine and full instruction thereby who it is that should be the right heir or chief Lord and master of the Family But here it may be some will object that this Law was only spoken to the Jews and therefore did only concern the Jews they may as well say that the holy Tables of the Law did only concern the Jews for they also were deliver'd to the Jews and surely I cannot conceive what can be more moral and necessary then that there should be a chief son or heir amongst our children and generally known by a native and undoubted right for there must necessarily be an order and subordination in all things and what can be more natural and just then that Parents should be bound to relieve and provide for their children And had this Law only concerned the Jews wouâ—d S. Paul have commended Seniority and condemned Esau for selling his birthright and would the ancient Fathers who are the best of humane testimony as S. Chrysostome in his fift Sermon against Julian and S. Jerom in his Epistle to Onogron and upon the 49. Gen. with divers others would they have averred that the first born or eldest sons are more honourable then other children and that the right of inheritance is only due to the first begotten or eldest son living and had this Law only bound the Jews would it have been denounced from the immediate mouth of God himself and delivered in these words a perpetual Law as the Lord commanded Moses But there is a plainer Precept Deut. 21 and these are the divine words If a man have two wives one beloved and the other hated and they have both children by him If the first son be hers that was hated he may not make the son of the beloved the first born and prefer him before the son of the hated but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first born by giving him a double portion of all that he hath for he is the beginning of his strength the right of the first born is his Now though the litteral expression be that eldest sons are to have a double part of the estate and the other part to be divided amongst the children equally as well sons as daughters we are to consider that the son here mentioned is an unbeloved son or the son of a wife not beloved which doth utterly exclude the affection and free will of Parents in disposing of the estate at their pleasure and it is not here said nor any where else through the Divine Writ that we are to give but a double part or portion to our eldest sons for the practise of the Israelites was much otherwise the fathers and their eldest sons after them being as Kings and Priests in their own houses Neither are we to believe that we may lawfully and religiously so do for so we shall condemn the justice of the Cannon and Civil Laws and our Common Laws and all other good Laws which as I have already showed do all concur with the Divine Laws to erect an impregnable right of inheritance in eldest sons And we shall condemn the general practise of all good Parents who usually leave the greatest part of their estates to their eldest sons which general consent and custome can proceed from no other cause or ground then from the instinct of nature and consequently from the Will Providence and Ordinance of God himself but that which is most observable and considerable is that God giveth no long blessing to any other course of inheritance Whence we may collect how odious a crime and how great an injury it is to disinherit a rightful heir and it is no lesse for he that would dispalce the right heir from the due of his birthright and such a right as is enacted by God himself establish'd by all good Laws and generally practis'd by all good Parents he is no pidler for he strikes at the root and doth what he can to overthrow all Laws and order and bring into the world a Chaos of confusion Mistake me not I do not conceive nor dare not say that the rights of eldest sons are so absolute as that they will brook no exception for the great Law or Precept Matth. Upon which all the rest have their main dependance which is to love and honour God above all things doth abrogate and disanul as we piously believe all the other Precepts which do not concur with the love and honour of God And whereas we are commanded to honour our Parents and the words are absolute yet if Parents should be Idolators or Blasphemers or Atheists or Infidels or which as bad as any of these unnatural I cannot conceive but that children are freely discharged from their obligation of honouring such Parents for how can we love and honour God if we love and honour Gods greatest enemies So on the contrary side if eldest sons be Atheists or Infidels or extreamly and desperately vicious there is no question but that their fathers may lawfully and religiously disinherit them for they are so unworthy to inherit that they are not worthy to live To conclude good Reader if what I have here delivered may redound to thy benefit and better instruction for which it was intended I shall rejoyce in my labours I will give God the praise FINIS
may see how unnatural and unreasonable his pretended free power of Parents is I pray you consider a little tell me whether any thing can be more unprobable then that a father should be more free and absolute then Adam was when he was in Paradise and in the state of Innocency for Adam was under a command or Law but the Apologer would make fathers lawless Stat pro ratione voluntas And what I pray you can be more reasonable and necessary then that there should be a chief son or heir amongst our children for there must necessarily be an order and subordination in all things otherwise there will be a confusion in all things and what follows confusion may easily be conceived in any understanding for it is indeed the mark of hell or rather hell it self where no good order but an everlasting horrour doth inhabitate Job 10. And it is no less necessary for the preservation of peace and concord amongst Brethren that this cbief son or heir should be generally known by a native natural and undoubted right for otherwise all the other sons would malign and envy that son who should be preferred to the inheritance unless the son so preferred had an undoubted and native right thereunto and had his right also confirmed as is now in the case of eldest sons by the generall practise of all good Parents which general consent and practice can proceed from no other cause or ground then from the instinct of nature and consequently from the will providence and ordinance of Almighty God Proof out of the Common Law and Civil Law for the younger brothers right THat divine precepts are not so absolutely binding but that they may in some cases lawfully be broken for though the commandement is Thou shalt not steal nor Thou shalt not kill yet one may in extream want of food steal or violently take from another man and may lawfully kill any man in defence of his own life and goods so though there were a divine precept as there is none that eldest sons should inherit it could not intend that such eldest sons who are natural fools or madmen should inherit Answ It is true that natural fools and madmen though eldest sons do not deserve to inherit but what doth this make against the rights of eldest sons who are no fools or madmen Surely it concerns the pretended free power of Parents as much as the disinheritance of eldest sons for if the father according to the Apologer turn idiot or madman the Apologer will not deny but that he is made thereby incapable of the management and disposure of his estate Proof 7. That if the effect of eldership were such by the Law of God as some passionately defend that is that the whole inheritance should of right pertain to the eldest son then it followeth by good consequence that there should nor ever could have been but one temporal Lord of all the world for of necessity Adams inheritance should have gone still to the next in blood Answ It is absurd and no consequence at all that there should be any such temporal Lord for the eldest son is not to inherit all the estate but only the greatest part of it fathers being to provide for all their children and the Apologer knows though Adam had the whole world to himself before he had his wife and children who were partners with him by a coequal right though he had a kind of superiority and soveraignty over them yet he had it not by way of inheritance Proof 8. That it was never yet averred by any sound divine Philosopher or Lawyer that nature makes immediately heirs but men They talk idlely who say that God and nature make heirs upon which ground our Common Lawyers say that no heirs are born but men and Law make them Answ It is more then the Apologer or any man can prove that eldest sons are not born heirs eldest sons as soon as born are heirs apparent by the laws King James was born a King and crowned in his cradle and is there a native and natural right in Kings and not in others howsoever it cannot be denied but that Esau had a native and therefore a natural right as appears by the word Birthright and the Apologer cannot but know that it is God only who gives and makes heirs which heirs are the eldest sons as plainly appears by his divine precepts Deuternom 21. c. Proof 9. That God requiring obedience of children to Parents promised a reward saying Honour thy father and mother that thy dayes may be long in the land which the Lord shall give thee which surely was not spoken to one but to all the sons of men for with God there is no exception of persons but as a just and pious father he gives to every one according to his deserts terram autem dedit filiis hominum Answ I know not what the Apologer should intend hereby unless he would have it thought that as all children are equally commanded to honour their Parents so all children who equally honour their Parents should be equally rewarded by their Parents though the Laws both divine and humane give a superiour right of inheritance to eldest sons and concerning his terram dedit I know what he should mean thereby unless he would have every man to be thought an unnatural tyrant and an usurper who hath a particular and proper estate unto himself because the words are terram dedit filiis hominum God gave the whole earth to the sons of men that is not to any one in particular but to all in general You may see here how bold he is with the Laws for he strikes at the very root of them and you may see what a boundless and liberal mind he hath for he would have every man a freeholder and no less then the whole world his inheritance But Mr. Apologer if this should be so what would become of your pretended free power of Parents for they would have nothing to dispose of Proof 10. That there is no divine precept that eldest sons should inherit that it is well known to all Divines that holy Writ hath not prescribed any direct form to the children of God whereby they are bound in conscience to dispose of their lands and goods but hath absolutely left them to the customes of their countrey where any act of that kind shall be executed that there is neither in Scripture nor in any other written Law under Heaven any command to restrain the fathers power but rather the contrary Answ The Apologer cannot but know that there are diverse plain and divine precepts concerning the inheritance of eldest sons one of which he himself doth often cite but never fully relate and these are the divine words if a man have two wives one beloved and the other hated and they have born him children both the beloved and hated and if the first born be hers that was hated then shall it be when he maketh
would have it suppos'd because eldest sons inherit but it is rather the meer act and ordinance of God for it is only God who gives children and if there be no children the Family must needs extinguish and we find in Mr. Camden and in our ancient records and deeds of conveyance that many hundreds of names of noble and ancient Gentry are either lost for want of children or by marrying of the heirs general and the Apologer knows that the Civil wars treasons manslaughters felonies and the like have been the ruine of many noble houses which could not have been prevented with all the Apologers natural reason or by any free power or care of fathers Proof 23. That it is far from the Law of Nature or Paternal piety the father dying intestate the eldest son to become Lord Paramount of the estate and not to be bound by Law to provide for brother or sister but at his own good liking aliud tempus alios mores postulat when we have a wiser age we shall have better customes and men both of learning and virtue have broke this custome upon good considerations and just causes not upon spleen by leaving their fortunes to strangers or to a lustful issue as some have done Answ The Apologer cannot be ignorant that if the father dies intestate which the Laws suppose he will not do being so much bound in conscience to provide for all his children our Courts of equity do rectifie and regulate the Laws in such cases and the Civil Laws as sayes he ordain that every son and daughter shall have a legitimate or childs part whether the father dies intestate or no. And surely I cannot think but the Law does well in leaving such a large and absolute right in eldest sons for were the estate as the Apologer would have it to be equally divided amongst all the children and the Lawyers and Neighbours should be called upon to make the division every of the children would think his own part least and trouble the Courts for a new and better division until they had divided and brought the estate to nothing But I pray you mark the uprightnesse of the man it is he sayes against natural reason and paternal piety that eldest sons should inherit the estate but he no where sayes that it is against natural reason and paternal piety for fathers to disinherit their lawful children and give their estates to strangers and Bastards Nay he seems to incourage them what he can for they shall sayes he not want presidents nor do any more then others have done before them and will do after them Proof 24. That it is against natural reason which is the grandmother of all Laws that the temperate should be subject to the intemperate the sober and wise to fools and franticks That servitude proceeds not from the Law of Nature but from Nature corrupted That it is against natural equity and against Nature her self that men should be subject to beasts or insensible creatures whereupon Aristotle disputing the nature of rule and subjection saith that none are born slaves but such as Nature hath abridged of the use of reason who being truly slaves are utterly unfit to govern upon which ground the same great Philosopher prefers that form of policy where the wisest and best are admitted to the mannage of state affairs and therefore if it be Natures intent as it is to make all mankind reasonable how reasonable is it that they who are unreasonable ought to be deprived of all right and claim to any thing more then to sustain nature and debarred all superiority or seniority which by Law or custome might otherwise have faln on them because according to divine ahd humane Laws man ought not to be govern'd by beast such as Idiots and Franticks seem to be Answ Here is a note beyond Elah but he cannot want his answer for he hath it already the effect of all this fair flourish being but this that such eldest sons or any sons who are natural fools and mad-men or extreamly and desperately vitious are not fit nor worthy to inherit But I know not what the Apologer should mean by his alledging Aristotle that none are born slaves but such as nature hath abridged of the use of reason and that servitude proceeds not from the Law of Nature but from Nature corrupted if by the word servitude he means subjection he grosly errs for it as natural for a son to obey his father as it is natural and pious for a father to relieve to instruct and govern his son but the words slave and slavery are of so ill a sound and bad a sence that as no man is born a slave so no man methinks should either be or be made a slave Natural subjection does well both in son and subject but slavery is unnatural and monstrous both in him that forcibly and undeservedly inflicts it and in him that suffers it unlesse it be for the cause of religion and then it is an honour But sayes he it is against natural reason which is the grandmother of all Laws that the temperate should be subject to the intemperate the wise to the foolish and therefore in natural reason that son who is the wisest and worthiest ought to be heir if it so please the father for he is Lord paramount and he must be the Oracle But Mr. Apologer what if this your Oracle the father which is no very strange thing should be foolish for fools can get children as well as wise men there is little difference betwixt either of them that way Suppose I say that the father himself be foolish why what if he be may the Apologer answer fools are Christians as well as other folks and he may by chance for all that make as good a choice of an heir as a wiser man and this answer of his would be as solid and as much weighty as any other authority or reason he hath yet alledged for his pretended free power of Parents or against the rights of eldest sons Proof 25. That it is no sin nor offence for a father who hath estate in Fee simple to disinherit his eldest son or any of his sons for he hath a lawful power so to do Ergo fathers may with a good conscience Answ It is a hard matter to perswade some men what is sin our precise Separatists and new Anglians will acknowledge no sin but infidelity and some others there are of the Diabolical Sect of ede bibe lude who think there is no sin at all but the Apologer is none of these for he honestly sayes Natura Divinitatis fulgor that Nature is a bright beam or shining lamp of the Divinity and he sayes also Omne peccatum est Divinitati injuria that every sin is a wrong or an affront to God himself And what can be more against Nature then that a father should disinherit his own flesh and blood which are his children and give his estate to
fathers power and intention to punish his son the people might without more inquiry stone to death so evil a deserving child which being well considered my hope is that it will never hereafter seem unlawful or against conscience that a father should disinherit his eldest or any of his sons for the cause only of unthriftinesse and riot Answ It is they say a shame to bely the devil then much more to bely Gods chosen people for had the Israelites been so much merciless as the Apologer would make them would Moses himself and from the immediate mouth of God himself would he have said Deut. 8. that as a father disciplineth his children so doth God discipline his people and would the royal Prophet who was a man according to Gods own heart would he have said Psal 102. and 118. that the mercies of God are infinite and far above all his works and that as a father hath compassion of his children so hath God compassion of them that fear him And would he have done so to his traiterous and inhumane son Absolon whose villanies were so transcendent that they have out gone all example Would he have pardoned and compassionated such a son and wished he could have died for him if the Law and practise of the Israelites had been put to death their riotous and unthrifty children which are offences so mean that in respect of Absalons inhumanities they deserve no mention It is true the Jews had a power permitted them to bring their riotous and rebellious sons to the Seniors of the city and to the place of judgement but these Senators were not to take the bare word of the father and so to proceed to judgement for what can be more unnatural and impious then that a person accused should not be heard speak and that Judges upon a bare allegation without and examination or proof should immediately give sentence of death And surely we may well believe that this Law was only permitted the Jews as was their Law of divorce Matth. 19. or rather that it was made in terrorem for terrour and not for execution for the words are that all Israel hearing it might be afraid and we find not that any son meerly for his riot and obstinacy to his father and by the procurement of his father did ever yet suffer death And we may piously believe that our blessed Saviour had himself some reference to this stoning Law when he said speaking to the Jews Matth. 7. Luke 11. Which of you is it of whom if his child shall ask bread will he reach him a stone Which of you is it as if that Divine mouth should say is there any such man amongst you or if there be such a man what man is he or is he or may he be called a man who can find in his heart to reach stones wherewith to kill his own children And concerning his inference that fathers have a free power to disinherit their eldest sons for unthriftiness and riot because by this Law Deut. 21. the Jews had a free power over their childrens lives and the greater includes the lesse his reason is to as much purpose as his was who being asked whether great heads or little heads had the more wit made answer little heads because omne majus continet in se minus meaning Omne majus caput continet in se minus ingenim For the Apologer cannot but know that disinheriting and putting to death are two distinct things and if they be unjustly done it is hard to say whether is the greater injustice or wrong for it is said Ecccl. 34. He that taketh away his neighbours living killeth him And surely it is much more foul and sinful for a father to disinherit and undo his children then for one neighbour to defraud and undo another and especially to disinherit his eldest son whom the Laws both divine and humane have made the heir or the chief Lord and Governour of the family Proof 29. That because examples in all controversies of fact are the best fortifications I will therefore in illustration of the premises add some few to the former drawn as well from royal presidents by whose patterns totus componitur orbis as from inferiour persons whose qualities best fit the condition of our present subject and if Kingdomes and Commonwealths have favour'd it then certainly by all arguments à majori ad minus it may much rather be done and ought to be suffered in private Families The offering of Abel was better accepted of God then the offering of Cain Japhet the youngest son of Noah had Europe allotted to him for his inheritance which in all arts and uses of life far excels Affrick and Asia and all the rest of the earth Answ Examples are indeed the light and life of natural reason experientia docet hath ever been and will ever be the most sure rule of rational judgement And surely Mr. Apologer your examples will want both in weight and number if you will go that way to work for your younger brothers we shall be able to out-vy you at a thousand to one The sacrifice of Abel sayes he was better accepted of God then the sacrifice of Cain he confesses that it is not fit to urge this and I confesse it is to no purpose for it concerns neither inheriting nor disinheriting there being then and for many ages after as himself sayes no ptoprieties or estates in the world at all And concerning Japhets large portion which was no lesse then Europe for so sayes he all authentique Histories do witness he will have much ado to get any man of authentique reason to believe him for he must first prove whether Europe were then known by that name or no and whethet it was then so divided and bounded as now it is as also which of his sons had America It may be he will say the eldest son which if he had having a third part of the world beside whereof Europe is the least and therefore the fittest for the youngest son he had no reason to find fault with his father for next to Adam and Noah he was the greatest Monarch for territory and one of the least for dominion or people that the world ever had Proof 30. That the disinheritance of Ismael the eldest son of Abraham and of Reuben the eldest son of Jacob are invincible arguments of a Fathers free power Answ It is true that Ismael who was the eldest son did not inherit and the reason was because he was begotten on a handmaid and not on a wife and if the Apologer would make this an invincible argument as he calls it of a fathers free power he must get new Laws made and remove lawful issues to make room for bastards though Ismael as the Law then was is not to be reputed illegitimate Reuben did deservedly forfeit his birth-right for he dishonoured his fathers bed which had he not done he had not been disinherited for his father termed him
who should be preferred to the inheritance unlesse the son so preferred had a native natural and undoubted right thereunto and that there were also a general practise of all good Parents concurring as it is in the case of eldest sons to confirm it and and this appears by dayly and infinite presidents some whereof the Apologer himself recites as that of Chosroes King of Persia Leir King of Brittain and that great example so much urged by him of the disinherited Esau For Esau though he sold his brother the Birthright and volenti non fit injuria yet being disinherited he purposed to kill his said brother and doubtless had done it if Jacob had not fled and banished himself for many years from his own father and countrey or rather indeed if God himself had not relented and mollified the obdurate and resolved heart of this fierce and offended brother And if Esau would for this have killed his own brother and a good brother who never wronged him in this or any thing else for Esau had before freely and willingly sold him the birthright how much more willingly and readily would he have revenged himself upon others nothing ally'd unto him who should have procured his disinheritance which is indeed the greatest injury that can be done to man in this world for our estate and birthright is as our life and whosoever takes away the one doth endeavour as much as in him lies to kill the other nay he doth kill and more then kill the other for it is said Eccl. 34. and 40. He that taketh away his neighbours living killeth him and that it is better to dy then to want You may see here how much the Apologer doth err in his zealous care which as a Patriot he bears to the glory and good of Gentlemens houses by alledging that that for a reason or cause of their preservation which would be their undoubted overthrow That indeed which doth most preserve a Family are these two things The first is children and chiefly good children and if there be no children the other collateral heirs who are the next in blood whom the divine and all good humane Laws have ordained to inherit The second is lands and goods well gotten or honestly descended and as honestly imploy'd during the possessours life and so to descend again in that right way of inheritance which God hath commanded and all good Laws establish'd and it cannot be doubted but that the blessing of God will accompany so good endeavours for it is promised Psal 1.24.91.101.127 c. that the just shall be as an everlasting foundation and shall not be removed That he shall spring as a green leaf and his house be permanent whereas after a while the sinner shall not be and thou maist look his place but thou shalt not find it The free power of Parents FAthers are so far from being such such absolute Lords and masters of their estates and children as the Apologer pretends that they are not so much as quarter masters of themselves for sayes an Apostle Rom. 14. No man is born to himself and the very Heathens say Cic. de offic Partem patria partem parentes our Parents and our countrey which is also our Parent do claim a great part of us and can we think there is nothing due to our children are we commanded Matth. 2. and 5. Luke 6.1 Pet. 2. To love our neighbours as our selves nay even to love our enemies and to do good to them that hate and hurt us and hath a father such free and absolute power over his estate and children that he may lawfully disinherit his children and give his estate to strangers or to whom he will and if a father be so far from being master of himself that his countrey Parents kinred friends neighbours nay every man who is a member with him of the same Commonwealth hath some right unto him or a part in him how can any man be so shameless to say or so foolish to think that a father or any man whosoever can be an absolute master of his estate when he is not so much as quarter master of himself And concerning that absolute and monstrous power of Parents in disposing of the estate at their pleasure The Apologer sayes that many ages were numbred from the worlds beginning before any man laid any proper claim to any thing as due to himself alone and he sayes also that with God there is no exception of persons and that God gave the whole earth to the sons of men terram autem dedit filiis hominum that is not to any one in particular but to all in general by which reasons and grounds there is not any man can absolutely say this is mine or that is mine by the Laws of God and Nature But have men therefore no right at all to their lands and goods Yes doubtless but it is a conditional not an absolute right for sayes the Apologer a Family is a civil society yea the only Commonwealth which God and Nature first ordained from which all Societies Republiques and Species of Regiment took their Original and it is true for there can be no doubt but that the first Commonwealths were at the first but so many great Families and that all Commonwealths sprung first from Families and when there was a Common-wealth establish'd or rather begun and a proportion of lands allotted to every one in particular they then bound themselves by Laws which Laws they enacted by an unanimous consent amongst themselves for the quiet enjoying and well ordering of such their particular estates for their peaceable and amicable living one with another for punishment of transgressors or repelling unjust violence amongst themselves and for their general defence against forraign invasion or for what else soever that shall make most for the general good alwayes including an inviolable right and power in the Republique or General state according to necessity of times and occasions to alter some of the said Laws as also to dispose and command as they found cause every mans person and every mans particular estate And this the Apologer acknowledges though it be against his free power saying the world of men is grown to that greatnesse that it is necessary one general father or politick head should be in a kingdom or state which may justly abate a fathers free power all fathers being children to the father of their countrey their Lord and King under God And the Apologer knows that fathers are so far from being such absolute Lords and masters of their estates that if a father or any man else do wilfully fling away some of his money or other his goods into the Sea or into any place where it cannot be had again he shall be begg'd for an Ideot and have his estate taken from him and he gives this reason and as good a reason as can be given interest Reipublicae it belongs to the Commonwealth that men so dispose of their estates as
shall make most for the good of the Common-wealth And can there be a worse prodigal then a prodigal father for he falsifies the trust which the Commonwealth our general Parent doth repose in him by wasting those his lands and goods wherewith he should relieve and provide for his children which was the greatest if not the only cause for which lands were at first given and are now permitted to be enjoy'd for only upon children dependeth the whole frame and propagation of mankind and upon the care and love of Parents in the good instructing of their children and in the relieving and providing for their children dependeth the civil order and Society of mankind And children have a native and as we may well call it a divine right to their fathers lands and goods in his life time for sayes the Apologer the prodigal son being weary of his fathers house came to his father and boldly said Pater dae mihi portionem Give me that portion of goods which belongs to me and the words following are pater divisit and the father gave him his portion and he sayes also that fathers are bound by the Civil Law to leave every one of their children a legitimate or childs part and if they be bound how can they be said to be free But should I here recount the many and great obligations wherewith we are bound in our Christian duty or charity towards our neighbours or Christian brother Qui habet duas turnīcas det non habenti qui habet escas similiter faciat Luke 6. He that hath two coats let him give one of them to him that hath none and he that hath meat to spare let him do the same And especially the infinite obligations wherewith we are bound to our children for sayes an Apostle 1 Tim. 5. Whosoever provides not for his family then much more he that provides not for his children doth deny the faith and is worse then an Infidel These things well considered it will easily appear to any pious understanding that the private or self-interest which any man hath in his estate is so small a thing that it may be compared unto an attome in the Sun for indeed we have no estates all which we can properly call our own that which we call an estate we hold it but at the courtesie and permission of others and should imploy it to the benefit of others and we are at the most but stewards of it for a while and like stewards must account unto a farthing Matth. 5. And concerning the large Soveraignty of Parents over their children there is no question but that fathers are as far from being absolute Lords and masters of their children as they are from being absolute Lords and masters of their estates of which I will only give two reasons The first reason is that children are the tender plants of the Commonwealth and that Parents are intrusted by the Common-wealth with the good education of their children which is a thing of that high and necessary consequence that it is in effect the cyment or bond which ties and holds together the whole frame and body of mankind The consideration whereof moved the wise Lacedemonians to make this brave and pious answer to Antipater who demanded many of their children in hostage for they said as Plutarch relates it that they would first chuse to die before they would yield him their children fearing their children would be corrupted and spoiled in their education nay they had Laws to punish such Parents whose children were ill condition'd or wicked supposing it proceeded for want of good care in their education and they had cause for sayes the wise Charron there cannot come so much evil to a Commonwealth by the ingratitude of children towards their Parents as by the carelesnesse of Parents in the instruction of their children So that upon the matter children are but the Pupils of the Commonwealth and Parents their Tutours and this the Apologer acknowledges though it be as much against his pretended free power as can be saying that all fathers are children to the father of their countrey and that a father is not only bound to nourish his children in his life but by Natures Law must provide to his power that they live in his life and after his death to the honour of God the service of their Countrey and comfort of their family which were the only ends for which God created man a civil or rational creature But there is another reason and that transcends this as far as heaven doth earth for our children are not only our children but the children also and creatures of God adorned by him with the same faculties of Soul and Body as their Parents are and so become both our brothers and children for we have all one father which is in heaven Matth. 6. Luke 11. Certainly there cannot any thing be more consolable unto a truly religious heart then seriously to contemplate the infinite goodnesse of God as also to consider in what a sweet manner it hath pleased even God himself to treat with his dear creature Man All his wayes saith the royal Psalmist Psal 24. are mercy and truth and saith the Divine Majesty himself Deut. 8. I will be a father unto you and you shall be my sons and daughters and how often are we called children throughout the whole current of the Divine Word nay we are called 1 Cor. 6. the temples of the holy Ghost that is the Pallace or Court-Royal of God himself for such indeed is every pious soul and can it be supposed that God who only giveth children and calleth them his children and the temples of his holy Spirit would give any other power to Parents over their children but as governours under him to instruct and if need be gently to correct them for we had no sooner a Law from the Omnipotent hand but Parents were commanded Deut. 6.2 to teach that Law diligently to their children and so diligently that they were to speak of it as they sat in their house as they walked by the way when they lay down and when they rose up that is at all times and upon all occasions and if they are any way negligent herein or in the due relieving or providing for their children an Apostle tells them 1. Tim. 5. That they have denied the faith and are worse then Infidels So that if we either consider the great duties which we ow unto our general father the Commonwealth unto whom we are but Feoffees in trust of our estates and children or chiefly those infinite duties which we ow unto our heavenly father we shall find our selves so much inferiour to the Apologers pretended free power that no man of any common understanding unless he will accuse himself for an Atheist or most grosse Ideot can think himself an absolute Lord or master either of himself his estate or children The Rights of eldest Sons THe Apologer hath done what he
strangers and what can be a greater affront to God then that a father should disaffect and reject his children whom God hath not only given him but given them for his honour for it is said Eccl. 3. and Prov. 17. that fathers are honoured in their children and that the Crown or glory of old men are their childrens children The Apologer sayes that it is a monstrous immanity in any man not to have care to preserve his Species that is not to have care to preserve and provide for his children and can it be a monstrous immanity and not a sin he also sayes that every act in it self or by circumstance evil is before God and man a sin and no way to be executed by a Christian That an act of it self lawful done against Law is sin and that no Law is valid where the thing it self is unlawful and a sin and is it not then a sin to disinherit an eldest son unto whom the Laws both Divine and humane give the right of inheritance and which we also see confirmed by the general practise of all good Parents Proof 26. That we cannot in conscience sell or give a weapon to one whom we know intends to murder Excommunications are imposed on them who sell armours or weapons to Turks The rule of conscience not only commands a man to use well those fortunes which God hath bestowed on him but forbids him either for affection or gain to part with them to others who will abuse them lest he partake of others sin which a Parent may do after his death who parts from his estate to a desperate unthrift Answ It is true that if we can assuredly know that our goods will be spent to the dishonour of God the harm of the Commonwealth or to the hurt or wrong of any man we are neither to sell nor give them to such persons as will so use them and if an heir be desperately vitious there is no question but his father may lawfully and religiously disinherit him but how can a desperate sinner or unthrift be known We are divinely commanded not to judge any man Rom. 14. which is so to judge him but by Gods grace he may be otherwise and be hereafter a glorious Saint in heaven when he that judgeth him for ought as he knows or can know may himself be an abhorred reprobate qui stat videat ne cadat he who presumes most of his sure footing is in most danger of falling And though a son be vitious and an unthrift doth it necessarily follow that he that is once an unthrift musty alwayes be so We have daily experience to the contrary many unthrifts prove the best husbands for such men commonly run out of one extream into another and from prodigallity fall to penury But if the eldest son be a natural fool or mad man he is not capable to mannage the estate or if according to the Apologer he turns Turk and tramples upon all Laws divine and humane I will say with the Apologer that he is so unfit to inherit that he is not worthy to live but I cannot conceive how in conscience an eldest son can be disinherited meerly for his unthriftinesse for we may so estate our land and yet suffer him and his heirs to inherit that it shall not be in his power to hurt or to overthrow his family Proof 27. That if in conscience the whole inheritance of the father is to come without controul to the eldest son then must it of necessity be inferred that the father without his consent cannot give to pious uses or set out for his other children after his death So that if God should blesse a father with many children and crosse him with as many misfortunes his other children and all his other charitable intentions should be provided for only at his sons or heirs courtesie for thereupon all donations to pious uses and to younger brothers for their portions may be called in question Answ Eldest sons are not to inherit all the estate but only the greatest part of it fathers being to provide for all their children And I deny not but that every man is bound in his Christian duty to do what good he well can to his neighbour or Christian brother for sayes an Apostle Rom. 14. No man is born to himself and the Apologer hath a good saying Da quae non potes retinere ut consequaris ea quae non potes amittere Give of those things which thou canst not keep that thou maist gain such things as cannot be taken from thee But Mr. Apologer I must tell you charity begins at home Proximus quisque sibi we must first look upon our selves and children and then upon our neighbour or Christian brother but I 'le come nearer to you put the case that a father were to make the Church or Commonwealth or children his heir which of all these may he the more lawfully do The Apologer it may be would be on the Commonwealths side for then the estate would be divided and he might chance to have a share amongst the rest but I must ever be on the childrens part and will give a plain Text for it S. Paul in his fifth Epistle to Timothy saith that he who hath not care to provide for his family doth deny the faith and is worse then an Infidel but it is no where said that he who hath not care to build Churches Colledges and Hospitals doth deny the faith and is worse then an Infidel Proof 28. That it plainly appears out of the sacred Text it self that fathers had a power amongst the Jews to cause their children for riot disorder and unthriftinesse to be stoned to death Ergo they had power to disinherit for the greater ever includes the lesse and that I may not seem to speak without book I will set down Moses words which are as follow If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son that will not obey the command of his father and being chastised shall be unreclaimable they shall apprehend and bring him to the Seniors of the city and to the place of justice and shall say to them This our son is incorrigible and disobedient contemns or monitions abandons himself to riotous excess and is a drunkard The citizens shall then overwhelm him with stones and he shall die That you may take evil from among you and that all Israel hearing it may fear Deut. 21. Whence we may collect how odious a crime unthriftinesse riot was among the people of God and what ample power the father had to punish the same in his child for if we observe well the manner of the processe between the father and the child in this case we shall find that the father was witnesse accuser and judge of his own cause for we read not that the Senators of the city did give sentence or further examined the proofs of the fathers accusation but their presence giving as it were allowance to a