it is alledged to as little purpose as the other for neither Bruce nor Roderic did disinherit their eldest sons but gave them a better and greater part then unto the rest and surely no man can think they did well to make such divisions because their actions did not prosper but now God be thanked they are again reunited into one glorious Monarchy and may they ever so continue as long as the world shall continue in the Koyal Line of our Gracious Soveraign who is descended to his Imperial Diadem by the most noble and only rightful way of inheritance which is from the next of blood to the next of blood or from one eldest son unto another Proof 35. That there is a Law or custome in Ireland called Tanistrie by which the land and Chiefty of a name after the Predecessours death is not awarded to the eldest son but to the worthiest the judgment whereof is left to the people and such Tennants as have interest and right of suffrage as Alexander the great though as 't is apparent in the Macchabees very falsly said to have left his Empire And that the tenure or custome of Gavell kind allows every son to have an equal share in the estate Answ It is marvel that the Apologer will acknowledge the Book of the Machabees to be Apocrypha because it seems to make something for his pretended free power of Parents and it is marvel he doth not condemn this Irish custome to be Apocrypha for there is nothing can make more against his power because upon the matter the futhers authority and the fortunes of the family are in the power of the Tennants he sayes that all customes which are against Law are void by the civil Law and he knows also that a great part of this prople are still called the wild Irish and surely such customes are fitter for wild Savages then for civil Christians And concerning the tenure or custome of Gavell kind it is true that it gives an equal share of the estate to every son but as I take it this custome was chiefly and I think only in Kent and the Apologer grants that some have altred it in their private Families by Act of Parliament and doubtless the cause hath been for the preservation of their Families which by such divisions could not chuse but come in short time to nothing and level the best and greatest of our Gentry to the degree of the meanest Vulgars Proof 36. That Briand Lyle or Fitzt earl Lord of Abergavenny having two sons both leaprous built for them a Lazaretto or Spittle and gave to Miles Earl of Hereford the greater part of his Patrimony from his children Jane daughter of Hugh Courtney and heir to her Mother wife of Nicholas Lord Carew disinherited her eldest son Thomas quoniam minus reverenter matrem haberet and parted her lands which were goodly among her three younger sons of whom are spâ—…ng three worshipful Families of the Carews called Haccomb Ancony and Bury So that God by the success crowned the fact and confirmed the lawfulnesse of partage Answ The Lord Abergavenny did well in giving away a great part of his lands away from his two sons for a Spittle was more fit for such sons then an inheritance yet he left them a great part of his lands and doubtless would have left them all had they not been leprous and unfit And the Lady Carew did well in giving her lands to her younger sons her eldest son being heir to his father and having as may be thought a sufficient competency of estate but the true cause was because he was undutiful which had he not been it is likely she had given him the greatest part if not all of her inherited lands And you know Mr. Apologer there is a different case betwixt an eldest son who inherits an estate from his father and a daughter who is an inheritrix for the son is to do that which hath been done to him and as he received an inheritance from his father because he was the eldest son so is he bound conscience not to disinherit his eldest son because he would have been loth to have been disinherited himself and that which we would not that others should do to us we are not to do to any other Matth 7. Luke 6. This is the very corner stone as I may well call it of the Law of Nature and of the Law of Grace especially for so much as concerns morality and distributive justice but women who are no fit presidents for men have a greater freedome then men in this case for they inherit by way of Parcenary and every daughter hath an equal share in the estate though the eldest by reason of her Seniority hath the priviledge to chuse first and an inheritrix hath the name of her Family extinct in her self and therefore may at her pleasure disperse her lands amongst her sons the better to preserve the memory of her self and Ancestours from whom she is descended and no marvel though God did bless with good successe the good acts of this Lady for she did both justly and wisely But who hath known an estate long prosper where a dutiful and deserving eldest son was disinherited by his father I must confesse I never did such unrightful and lawlesse heirs may be likened to the Bastard plants which the Wise man speaks of Wisd 3. and 4. that cannot take deep root nor lay sure foundation So that all these examples by the Apologer alledged are like his other arguments they either make against himself or serve to no purpose To the Reader I Have here answered as well as I can all the Apologers proofs and reasons on the behalf of his younger Brothers and I confess that according to the best of my poor judgement I have not found any one firm or sinewy argument which may satisfie any reasonable understanding in proof of his so absolute a free power of Parents or against the impregnable rights and prerogatives of eldest sons But I must not usurp upon anothers right the censure belongs to the impartial and judicious Reader unto whom I humbly commend it THE Second Part Wherein is Treated of The preservation of Families The free power of Parents The Rights of eldest sons Printed for H. Fletcher 1548. The preservation of Families ELder Brothers sayes the Apologer either seated in their fathers wealth or possessions or having more then hopes to enjoy their fortunes do sometimes love truly neither themselves nor any body else but abusing that which indeed might gain the love of God and man and easily maintain their hereditary honour lose themselves in vanity and most idle courses yea in their fathers lives so strangely carry themselves presuming rather on precedence of birth then worth as though the Law of God and Nature and all other Cannon Civil and National Laws and constitutions and customes sprung from them could not either in reason or religion bar them of that which they expect or
can to prove that eldest sons have no more right to inherit then other sons all is as pleases the father for he is the supream and absolute Lord of the estate and may lawfully and religiously dispose thereof at his pleasure He tells us that he never read any Authour of this Subject and why then should he so much presume of his self-sufficiency and extraordinary spirit that he should think he may deserve credit himself telling us that he is the singularis homo the only man who first disputed hereof or ever brought the matter in question Marry I 'll tell you but then you must take his own words for it he sayes that he believes he hath spoken according to dialectical reason and that there hath been nothing spoken of it heretofore truly which reason hath not dictated to all Authours pens and you shall now see what a messe of reason he doth serve in for his purpose He sayes in his Epistle that there is a natural reverence due unto the eldest sons from their younger brothers he sayes that it was the use of the Israelites to prefer their eldest sons to the better part of their possessions and that it is now the more general practise of Christian Parents to leave either all or the most part of their lands to their eldest sons and he honestly gives these two reasons why it should so be The first is because there is a natural reverence due unto the elder brothers The second is because this custome had its original from the imitation of Princes and for the preservation of Families and that an equal division of the lands and goods amongst all the children will bring an estate to nothing or to so little that it may be compared unto an attome in the Sun He sayes that at first fathers and then first born after them were as Kings and Priests in their own houses He sayes that our Common Laws give the right of inheritance to eldest sons He cites a Divine Precept Deut. 21. which plainly proves the rights of eldest sons He sayes that we find in holy Writ great respect was had of the first begotten and a blessing was held to come to Parents thereby You may see here how sufficiently the Apologer hath argued on the behalf of his younger brothers for I know not what he can say more that can more advance the rights of eldest sons But leaving the Apologer I will a little more dilate my self not so much in proof as in illustration of the premises The very vegetables and unreasonable creatures are no mean arguments of the excellency of Primogeniture How grateful to the Planter and indeed how much more vigorous and excellent are the first fruits of plants more then other productions and how fully do the first fruits of a new broken up ground content and satisfie the longing hopes of the honest husbandman and after some few crops how poorly doth the same earth discharge it self of its burthens and this was the reason why the first fruites were in the old Law reserved for the most sacred uses and so it was meet for God who is the giver of all good things should be served with the best of those things which himself hath given The very beasts and birds do no lesse declare the excellency of Primogeniture for it is generally observed that the Parent birds do use to feed their young ones as their young ones are in seniority yielding as it were a kind of right or a natural and lawful precedence unto the eldest and the very nest gull or the youngest of the young feathered creatures doth plainly demonstrate how much more perfect and excellent the senior birds are above their younger Salvianus lib. 4. de gubern Dei Aristotle and divers others do make excellent Discourses concerning the seeming prudence and piety of the Storks and Bees and shall the Bees yield to order and have a Commonwealth amongst them and shall ' the reasonable creature called Man be more unreasonable then they and have no rule or order of inheritance in their own Families but at the fathers affection and will They also deliver that the young of all creatures do observe a kind of reverence and obedience to their elder young and that the eldest young doth use to suck at the uppermost teat and the younger young will not so much as presume to usurp upon the rights of the eldest nor their Parents suffer it These things if rightly weighed are of no mean consideration concerning the excellency of Primogeniture and consequently of the rights and prerogatives of eldest sons and the saying of Job chap. 12. is no insufficient answer to any one who would disparage the rights of eldest sons Interrogato jumenta ask the beasts and they will teach you But that which is most considerable next to the Divine Precepts is the sacred esteem of Primogeniture amongst the elected people of God for with them as appears Exod. 13. and 34. Numb 38. c. the first born of the very beasts were exempted from work and fathers and their first born after them were as Kings and Priests in their own houses And it hath pleased the Divine Majesty to the infinite glory of Primogeniture to sanctifie unto himself all the first born of the male-kind calling them his and to call his Church triumphant the Church of the first born Hebr. 12. Nay even to call his Divine self who hath been from all eternity unbegotten his first begotten son Coloss 3. But these are no precepts that fathers should endow their eldest sons with the greatest part of the estate It is true yet are they good motives great instructions and may be taken for no lesse then precepts in any pious understanding for we are to elect and love whom God electeth and loveth and since it hath pleased God to elect and prefer our eldest sons in a higher degree of excellency then any other our children we are therefore to elect and prefer our eldest sons in a higher degree of inheritance then any other our children And can it be suppos'd that God would leave us in suspence concerning so high a point as is inheritance which is indeed the main ground and foundation of all humane Laws and therefore it hath pleased the Divine Majesty to impose this his great command upon his elected people which was that if any one of them died without a son his inheritance should go to his daughters and if he had no daughters to his brethren and if he had no brethren to his fathers brethren c. and that this should be a perpetual Law as the Lord commanded Moses Numb 27. By which it is evident that one son in particular and not sons in general ought to be heir and be endowed with the prime Blessing or Patrimony unto which accordeth an Apostle saying Gal. 4. as long as the heir is a little one he differeth nothing from a servant though he be Lord of all and the Apostle meant
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
Law against elder brothers and indeed against all children for fathers may as he sayes do what they will with their own for so the Laws permit I might here answer him with his own two sayings that Laws without reason are no Laws at all and that extream Law is extream injury but he shall have a fair answer and I hope a full one It is well known that it is impossible for any Law though there were a thousand Solons to compose it and the wisdome of a Solomon to assist them that could prevent all inconveniencies and those are the best Laws politick that prevent most And I am so far from thinking the Laws to be faulty herein that I must ever approve the goodness and wisdome of them in allowing Parents so absolute a soveraignty over their estates and children for it is most necessary and just that Parents should have this free power permitted them because it is a great means to keep their sons in a due obedience and make them strive by a noble emulation who should best deserve their fathers love And the Apologer knows that usury is permitted by the Laws and usury as himself sayes is as grievous a sin in the eye of Heaven as theft is and he may as soon prove that usury or theft is lawful as he can prove that an eldest son who is wise and dutiful may lawfully and religiously be disinherited for he cannot deny but that the intention justice and equity of the Law is that eldest sons should inherit so that upon the matter fathers are but Feoffees in trust of their estates and children and this great power is only lent them to prevent inconveniences Proof 18. That the Common Laws are of most force to sway the point in question which I have therefore purposely reserved to treat on in the last place That by the Common Laws a man may give his lands in Fee either by deed in his life or will at his death to any of his sons yea to a stranger without rendring a reason why he doth so That it is no offence to part an inheritance amongst children or to disinherit an eldest son upon just and evident cause of incapacity if it be done according to course of Law Answ If the Apologer supposes by his just and evident cause of incapacity that the eldest son be a natural fool or madman we will not much dispute the matter but if he means as he every where pretends that the want of the fathers affection and will is a just and evident cause of incapacity he is in a gross and shameful errour and I cannot but marvel why the Apologer should so much urge the authority and force of our Laws on the behalf of his younger Brothers for there is nothing so sacred in our Laws as are the rights and priviledges of Primogeniture or eldership old Bracton and divers others of our greatest Lawyers do plainly aver and prove that our Laws are herein divinely grounded and they give their Text Numb 27. A perpetual Law as the Lord commanded Moses And though the eldest son should be a natural fool or madman yet if the father do not otherwise dispose of the estate in his life time and it may be a question whether he may lawfully and religiously so do for it would be a wrong to all the succeeding posterity yet this natural fool or madman and his eldest son after him or the next in blood who should succed him is by the power and ordinance of our Laws to inherit And such is the indulgence of our Laws towards eldest sons and their rights that the Law takes even natural fools and mad-men if eldest sons into its bosome and protection and the estates are preserved that they may run in the right course of inheritance which is to the next in blood or from one eldest son unto another And surely Mr. Apologer I know not why you should be much commended for your integrity in perswading Parents that all is well done which is done by the power and permission of the Laws if you had aimed as you say in your Epistle at the general good of great Brittain you would have told Parents what they might lawfully do and not what they could do but suppose there were so absolute a power in Parents as you would have them believe what would your younger brothers get thereby for whom you apologize why forsooth nothing at all but what pleases the Parental Monarch for fathers may give their lands and goods to a stranger or to whom they will with rendring a reason why they do so I would fain know whether any thing can be more inhumane and monstrous and whether there was ever such a desperate John an oaks as this wild man for though he would a little hide himself under the words of a just and evident cause of incapacity yet he confidently avers or seems to infer it that it is a sufficient warrant for any mans conscience to do as the Laws shall enable him currat lex valeat quantum valere potest Proof 29. That though the use and custome be that eldest sons inherit yet the breach of this custome is no sin for it is such a customs which rather invites then commands or binds that customes against Law are void by the Civil Law and that it was never yet heard that custome was of such force that it should be deem'd a sin not to follow a custome especially when the Law is more pious and natural then the custome is Answ It is true that no good Christian ought to observe any bad custome and no custome is to be kept which is against the Laws if the Law be more pious and natural then the custome is but that it is against Law and Christian piety for eldest sons who are wise and honest to inherit the greatest part of their fathers estates or that a father may lawfully and religiously disinherit such a son I cannot think him a wise or honest man who can believe it And whereas the Apologer sayes that it is but by way of custome that eldest sons inherit he cannot but know that next to the Divine commands there is not any thing can more bind the conscience or more satisfie and settle the judgement then a general practise or custome if the custome be good and just as it is in this case of inheritance And he knows also that our Laws are divided into three parts Statute Law Common Law and Custome Law and Custome is a second Nature the Apologer sayes that it is the more general practise or custome for eldest sons to inherit and how can we better repose our consciences and judgements then in a general practise or custome and how can any man think otherwise but that Parents do thus and have done thus even from all antiquity moved only by right reason and out of conscience in obedience to to the Laws Proof Of the Law of Nature THat many younger brothers and sifters for
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
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