proceed upon a just Cause For be it which is true enough that such Curses are not lightly to be us'd be it that generally they are not suitable either to the Tenderness of a Father or the Spirit of the Gospel which will render them so much the more unlikely to have effect yet as it is evident from St. Paul's denouncing a Curse against Simon Magus and Alexander the Coppersmith that Superiours are not wholly forbid the use of them so that it is not improper for Fathers towards their disobedient Children their being a kind of Gods to us may serve for abundant evidence But then if we add thereto Noah's cursing the Posterity of Cham for making a mock of his Nakedness and that Effect which it had upon them in after-times if we moreover reflect * Jer. Taylor Duct Dubit l. 3. c. 5. Rule 1. upon the sad Examples which Heathen Stories have represented to us in the Children of Oedipus Amintor and Theseus who grew miserable upon their Fathers Curses lastly if we add that the same thing was observ'd by the Jews one of whom even the Son of Sirach observes that the Curse of the Mother rooteth out Foundations Ecclus. 3.10 so we shall not need to doubt of the Effect of their Curses and therefore neither of their being the Object of our Fear For if as the Greek Poet observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Curses of Parents are grievous upon the Earth we have reason enough to fear lest their Curses should sometime fall upon our Heads The onely thing worthy our farther inquiry is how this Fear of ours ought to be express'd which is in short by our carefulness to please them in all things For as by so doing we shall best declare the Fear we have of them Fear naturally prompting Men to seek the Favour of those they have such an apprehension of so we shall thereby secure our selves from the Effects of their Displeasure and which is more to be dreaded from the Effects of that of God From the Duty of Fear pass we to that of Love which we shall find to be no less incumbent upon us than the former as because our Saviour hath reduc'd the Whole of the Law to Love so because our Parents are of all others the justest Object of it Witness the extraordinary Love they have naturally for us their many and weighty and constant Demonstrations of it their taking care of us when we are not able to provide for themselves their continuing that care over us even when we are their furnishing us from time to time with all things necessary for our Temporal Happiness their instilling into our Minds what may make for our Eternal one their bearing with the weakness and peevishness of our Infancy and Childhood their enduring with much long-suffering the disobedience and stubbornness of our riper Years lastly their perpetual fears lest any Evil should betide us their frequent and importunate Prayers to avert any Evil from us For as out of the Bowels of a Parent such a Love will hardly be met with though you should search for it even in the most tender and affectionate ones whence it is that God to commend the Love he hath to us doth for the most part assume to himself the Person of a Father so for a recompence in the same as St. Paul speaks it is but requisite that our Hearts should be equally enlarged and express it self in the same or the like Instances that is to say in providing for them when they are not able to provide for themselves in endeavouring to lessen their Care and Trouble when they in some measure are in bearing with the weaknesses and peevishness of their declining Years in doing what in us lies either to remove or abate them in furnishing them when they lie upon their Sick-beds with our Assistance and Comfort in supplying the defects of our Endeavours by begging the Aid of the Divine lastly in giving them the satisfaction of seeing their Care and Labour successfully employ'd whilst they behold those for whom they have thus labour'd travelling equally for their Happiness and reflecting back upon them that kindly Heat which they sometime gave So doing we shall at the same time give a proof both of our Love and of our Honour pay them the Affection which is due to the Bowels of a Father and a Mother and the Respect which belongs to their Authority Now though if we look no further than the Person of our Parents what hath been already said concerning their Fear and Love and Honour will comprehend within the compass of it the whole of our Duty to them yet because a Man may be lov'd and honour'd in his Relations and Dependents as well as in his own proper Person and in like manner hated and despis'd hence it comes to pass that to complete our Duty we are to extend our Love and Honour unto them according as their several Relations do exact The sequel whereof will be 1. The paying Honour unto those which stand upon the same Level with our Parents Thus for instance though an Uncle or an Aunt can claim no Reverence or Love by vertue of the Letter of this Commandment yet inasmuch as they are the Brothers and Sisters of my Father or Mother and the Sons and Daughters of the same Common Parents if I either love or honour my Parents or theirs I must afford these a portion of it because of their near Relation In like manner though a Mother-in-law can claim no Reverence or Love of her self because none of the Stock from whence I came yet a Regard is due to her as being made one with him whom this Commandment requires me to revere Which Particular I the rather observe because contrary to all right those are usually both hated and despis'd For how can he honour his Father who despises the one half of him yea such a one as by the Laws of God and Man is become one Person with him 2. Again As Love and Honour is due to those who stand upon the same Level with my Parents by reason of their Proximity to them so an Affection though not an Honour is due from us to our Brethren and Sisters because descended from the same Common Parents and no less the Object of their Love To whom therefore as it concerns me to shew my self affectionate if I would oblige my Parents so if I shew my self churlish to them I wound my Parents Bowels through their Sides if those Parents be yet alive but if they be not their Honour 3. It is to be observ'd thirdly as the result of the foremention'd Principle That though the same Love be not due to Cousins and other remoter Kindred that is to Brethren and Sisters yet there is a Love due to them by reason of those Common Grandfathers and Great-grandfathers from whom both they and we are descended For inasmuch as they though at a greater distance contributed to our Being and consequently
Children so it may not obscurely be collected from God's extending this Threat of his no further than to the third and fourth Generation those being Generations which the Parents may live to see and therein their own Bowels as the Apostle calls those that descend from our Loyns tortur'd for their Impiety against their Maker Though supposing that they should not yet if they have any thing of natural Affection in them they very thoughts that so it shall be with their Posterity cannot but stagger them in their Impiety how strongly soever they may be tempted to it it being not a little Evil to die with an apprehension of our Posterities becoming miserable through our procurement Now though this be true and in part also satisfactory because the Punishment is properly the Parents the Calamity of the Child being made use of onely to punish the Parent by yet because it is evident that such Inflictions cannot happen but by the Calamity of the Child as it is no less from the phrase of God's visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children that the Calamity of the Child must happen by the procurement of the Parent therefore to shew the full importance of this Commination of the Almighty as well as its freedom from involving the Child in the Punishment of the Parents Sin it will be requisite to affirm in the second place That when he threatens to visit the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children his meaning is not onely that God will punish the Fathers in them but that in order to that end he will make the Children miserable and that too for the sake of the Fathers Impieties But yet so that if those Children tread not in their Fathers steps they shall be free from the Effects of it of which there is a sufficient presumption from Ezek. 18.14 and so on or that that Calamity of the Children shall turn to their spiritual and eternal advantage for so St. Paul tells us that all things shall to them that love God Rom. 8.28 or that if the Children tread in their Fathers steps or be any other way Irreligious yet they shall not be punish'd even by occasion of their Fathers Sins but for their own and according to the demerit of them Which will at the same time both shew how God visits the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children and how far that Visitation of his is from making the Child bear the Punishment of the Fathers Sin A familiar Instance will clear my Sense in the second of the Particulars before-mention'd and together with it the uprightness of God's Proceedings For let us suppose as we very well may having oftentimes observ'd it let us suppose I say a fond Mother punish'd in the Sickliness of that Son toward whom she hath shew'd an immoderate affection her love to him transporting her into the neglect of her other Children or any other sinful action Here I say it is manifest supposing the Child also to be pious and no way to desire or approve of such an unreasonable fondness that the Child becometh miserable by the procurement of the Mother or if you had rather I should speak in the Language of Moses here that her iniquity is visited upon him But yet so that that Calamity of the Childs is in respect of him no Punishment but on the contrary a signal advantage God Almighty having promis'd that all things shall work together for good to them that love him and if so this Calamity also By means of which at the same time he punisheth the Mother yet he onely afflicts the Child or rather out of her Punishment procures a great Advantage to him which is so far from being an act of Injustice that it is an act of Grace and Mercy to him But let us suppose as in the third Instance that the Child whose Calamity God maketh use of for the punishment of the Parents treads in their steps or at least is irreligious another way in which case the Calamity inflicted cannot but be look'd upon as a Punishment yea even to that Child on whom it is so yet even so a way may be found out to verifie God's Threat of visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children without granting them to suffer the Punishment of their Parents Sins For as that Threat can no way be verified without affirming the Punishment of the Child to befal it by the Iniquity of the Parents so that may well enough be affirm'd without granting the Child to bear the Punishment of his Parents Sins it being enough to the verifying of the former and indeed as much as is consistent with Justice that the Rebellious Son by occasion of his Fathers Sins is punish'd for his own for which but for his Fathers Sins he had either escap'd unpunish'd or not been punish'd after that manner wherein he is For it is in this Particular as * Sand. third Sermon on 3 King 21.25 sect 24. one hath happily compar'd it as it is with a Man who having contracted many vicious and malignant Humors happens to ride abroad in wet Weather and taketh cold falleth thereby into a shaking first and anon into a dangerous and lasting Fever For as there the Parties malignant Humors were the true Cause and Root of his Distemper and his taking cold the Occasion onely of its breaking out so the Personal Sins of the Son are the Cause of his Punishment the Fathers the Occasion onely of the inflicting it which is far from inferring God's making one Man to bear the Punishment of another Man's Transgression This importing no more than that by occasion of the Fathers Sins the Son may be sometime punish'd according to the demerit of his own In the mean time we may see with how little reason some have condemn'd that Prayer of our Church which agreeably to the Doctrine of this Commandment teacheth us to beg of God not to remember the offences of our forefathers For though those Offences shall never be charg'd upon us yet they may be a Motive to God to punish us for smaller ones of our own which is that which is here meant by visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation 2. What is meant by visiting the Sins or Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children hath been at large declar'd together with the Justice of God's Proceedings in it Enquire we now as our proposed Method obligeth us what appearance there is of God's executing this Threat upon the Children of evil Parents and particularly upon those of Idolatrous ones For the resolution whereof I will take this Threat of the Almighty asunder and shew the Completion of it in every Particular thereof Now that God doth often visit the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children which is the first of those things which are affirm'd the Scripture will afford many signal Instances whereof the first that I shall alledge is that of Samuel 2 Sam. 12.18 In
Parents That even Deceased Parents ought to have all those Honours of which they are capable in that State which also are there enumerated Whether any Regard be due to their past Advices and Commands which also is answered and our Regard limited to such Commands wherein the Honour of our Parents is concern'd or such as enjoyn few things and easie of practice The like Regard not due to those Commands which relate peculiarly to the Child or to such as enjoyn things many and burdensom The Case of the Rechabites propos'd and consider'd That Children cannot be altogether free from the Obligation of any Honour so long as their Parents are alive because their Parents are as much such at one time as at another All the Exemption that they can plead is either in the Manner or the Measure the Exemptions in both which are exemplified and prov'd That those Exemptions arise from a straiter or more important Obligation and therefore are no farther pleadable against the Honour of a Parent than those Obligations shall be found to contravene it Of the Fear of Parents what the Ground of that Fear is and how it ought to be express'd A brief Account in passing of the Dreadfulness and Efficacy of their Curses What Obligation we also have to love our Parents and how that Love of ours is to be express'd That our Honour or Fear or Love of our Parents is not to terminate in their Persons because a Parent may be honour'd or fear'd or lov'd in others as well as in himself as on the other side so disregarded and hated The Consequences whereof are 1. The paying Honour to them that stand upon the same Level with our Parents and particularly to Vncles Aunts and Mothers-in-law 2. The shewing Affection to those who do alike descend from their Loins as Brothers and Sisters 3. The affording it though not in an equal degree to Cousins and other remoter Kindred because issuing from the same Grandfathers and Grandmothers As also 4. To those Friends or Servants they set a value on 3. HAVING in the foregoing Discourses establish'd the Grounds and shewn the several Kinds of that Honour we are to exhibit the Method before laid down prompts us to inquire with what variety it is to be given to either Parent For though as Grotius hath observ'd * Explic. Decalog Leges à viris factae ferme solis consulunt patribus ut Persica memorata Aristoteli Romana descripta in Digestis ac Institutionibus Graecis etiam Philosophic Epicteto primum deinde Simplicio memorata neque minùs Philoni Judaeo libro de legatione the Laws made by Men provide mostly if not onely for the Honour of the Father yet the Commandment we have now before us makes the Mother also the Object of it And not without Reason if we consider that the Mother hath a great share in the begetting a far greater share than the Father in the first Education and if not an equal yet a considerable part in the succeeding one Taking it therefore for granted that the Mother ought to have a share in it we will inquire whether Honour be to be exhibited to both alike or if not with what proportion to each That it is not to be exhibited to both alike we need no other Argument than that it impossible it should be For the Father and the Mother drawing different ways it is impossible they should be both comply'd with and therefore either both to be disobey'd which were a strange way of honouring our Parents or one of them of necessity to be preferr'd The onely Question therefore is which ought to be preferr'd and how A Modern Writer * Hobbes Leviath ch 20. of our Nation whether out of his kindness to the Female Sex or rather to new and uncouth Opinions prefers the Mother because of the surer side and possibly not without reason if there were any such Natural State as he though groundlesly fancies But as in reputation of Law both Parents are alike certain and therefore that Suggestion of his of no force in the present Affair so God himself in the very Beginning subjected even the Mother to the Father and thereby plainly shew'd that he ought to be preferr'd There being no doubt as that Author himself afterwards acknowledges that he who is Head even of the Mother is to a far greater purpose than she the Head also of her Child If it be sometime otherwise as for example when the Mother is a Princess and the Husband a Subject yet is not that so much because she is a Mother in which respect she is Inferiour but because she hath over and above the addition of the Regal Power One onely Case remains to wit Where the Father is Heathen and the Mother Christian which of the two ought to be preferr'd But as in Civil Matters there is no doubt the Father ought because Christianity doth rather confirm than destroy the several States and Conditions in which it found us at our Conversion so if in Religious Matters the Mother be preferr'd as for example in the Educating her Child in Christianity it is by the Prerogative of God and Christ * Vid. Taylor Duct Dubit l. 3. c. 5. Rule 4. who is the Head of the Church to which all Earthly Powers are to yield It being thus evident that generally the Father ought to be preferr'd we are in the next place to inquire after what manner that is to be done In answer to which I say first That it ought not to be done to the contempt of the Mother For both of them being by Natures Law and God's to be the Object of our Honour neither is to be despis'd yea though one of them and particularly the Father should be so wicked as to oblige the Son to it I say secondly That so far as they may be both honour'd so far there is no doubt they ought to be both of them being Sharers in the begetting of us and in like manner in our Education I say thirdly That so far as our outward Behaviour can declare it they are both to have an equal share of it because the Father is honour'd in the honour of the Mother as the Mother again in the honour of the Father Only as the Father ought to have the precedency as being but due to him for the Order wherein he stands so where they command different things there is no doubt those of the Father ought to be preferr'd as because for the most part the most capable of judging what is fit so because the head of the other Parent Only a good Child will so far take care to honour both as never to despise either and at the same time he prefers the commands of his Father shew by his humble and modest behaviour to his Mother that he does it not in the least wise to aggrieve her 4. The fourth Question follows to wit whether or no and how far a Child may be freed from
exception must be look'd upon as trivial in respect of that Gospel state under which we are the Law of that both remitting us to what Marriage was from the beginning and adding its own suffrage to it I will conclude this particular with that of Malachy because standing as it were in the confines of the Law and Gospel 'T is in the 2. Chapter of his Prophesies Vers 14. and so on Where having alledg'd against the Jews Gods regarding not their Offering nor receiving it with good will at their hands he not only assigns for the reason of it their dealing treacherously with the Wife of their Youth but combates that with this following Argument For did not he even God make one yea though he had the residue of the Spirit that is to say as Drusius glosses on the words did he not make one Male and one Female and when he had done so make them one flesh yea though if he had pleased as wanting not breath to animate them he might have made and given more Wives to our Father Adam And wherefore one as the Prophet there goes on but that he might seek a godly seed that is to say as the forequoted Drusius glosseth it that from that one flesh into which those two were combin'd a lawful progeny might descend The second Law of Marriage relating to the persons is that those between whom it is contracted be not too near of kin to each other For the understanding whereof we will first of all entreat of such as are to one another in the place of Parents and Children As if a Father for example should marry his Daughter or his Sons or Daughters Daughter or a Mother her Son or her Sons or Daughters Son For that such Matches are unlawful even by the Law of Nature is evident from hence that they destroy that reverence which we have before shewn to be due from their Children to them Thus for instance When a Mother marries her own Son or Grand-son from whom by the Laws of Nature there is the highest reverence due inasmuch as by vertue of her marriage she subjects her self to him she leaves no place for that reverence which was before due unto her as a Mother And though the like seem not to happen where a Father marries his Daughter or Grand-daughter because he who was before Superiour continues so still inasmuch as he is the head of her whom he so takes unto his Wife yet doth it in part destroy that reverence which was due unto him as a Father Because though as Husband he be still head of his Child yet he is not in the same measure as a Father because Marriage induceth a kind of parity between those who enter themselves into that State The same is to be said in some measure where the Son marries his Fathers Wife or the Niece and Nephew their Uncle and Aunt because as was heretofore shewn they are unto the former in the place of Parents and consequently must needs loose the reverence of such by being assum'd into such a State as induceth such a Society that excludes it Whence it is that we find St. Paul not only declaiming against that person who had Married his Fathers Wife and representing it as a Fornication that was not so much as named among the Gentiles but in prosecution of that power wherewith he was arm'd to chastise Offenders commanding the Church of the Corinthians to cut him off from their Society and so deliver him into the power of Satan for his Chastisement 1 Cor. 5.1 5. As for those other degrees whether of Consanguinity or Affinity that are forbidden in the 18th of Leviticus such as are the Marrying of a whole or half Sister a Brothers Wife or a former Wives Daughter which are all besides those before mention'd that are expresly forbidden by it though the two former at least have not the same exception to be made against them inasmuch as they seem to contain nothing contrary to natural equity yet because they are forbidden by that Law of God which our Saviour professeth to have come not to destroy but to fulfil and that too as appears by his injunction concerning divorces in the business of Marriage and because the ground of the prohibition is not peculiar to the Jewish Policy or Religion but the nearness of Kindred which holds as much among us as among them Lastly because if such Marriages were permitted there might be danger of Fornication by reason of the free and perpetual converse that such Persons have with each other therefore I think no man of Conscience but must account such Marriages as unlawful to him as if the prohibition thereof had been entred into the Christian Law But other degrees than those or at least such as are in the same order with them as the Law of God condemns not so neither doth our Church or State do and therefore they who keep within those bounds are so far secure from offending as to that Marriage which they contract One onely thing would be added concerning marrying the Brothers Wife because it relates to a famous instance of one of our own Kings and that is that as the Law of Moses did not only permit but command the taking of the Brothers Wife where there was no Child left behind so it seems hard to suppose among Christians that it should not be lawful to do the like where not onely the case is the same as to that particular but as it was in the forementioned instance it was inconvenient to the Kingdom to let the Brothers Wifes Dowry either be spent out of it or at least go away from the Crown The third Law of Marriage relating to the Persons that enter into it is that they be of years sufficient to understand the nature of that compact which they make and to estimate the humour of those Persons with whom they are to associate lest otherwise that which was intended for a help prove a snare and an incumbrance and Marriage become not only a yoak but an insupportable one Whence it is that though Custom and the Laws do sometime give way to the joyning of Children in Marriage especially of the Nobler sort yet the same Laws give leave to the Persons afterwards to rescind their formmer Contract if they find not themselves in a disposition to confirm it Add hereunto hability of Body where there is a desire and expectation of Children and a freedom of consent in those that are so to be conjoin'd Which latter is the rather to be inculcated because of those fatal inconveniencies which arise from constrained Matches it being very rare to find a tolerable accord in those Matches to which young Persons are rather compell'd than invited But of all the qualifications relating to the Married persons the want whereof doth not null the Contract between them I think there is none more considerable than that they who Marry be so far at least of one perswasion in Religion that
as on the other side that Piety which he promiseth to reward by the love of God and the keeping of his commandments which is no less comprehensive than the former Yet as it is but reasonable to understand both the Promise and the Threat with a more particular relation to the observing or not observing of that Commandment to which they are affix'd so there was reason enough to express that Observance or Nonobservance by the loving or hating of the Almighty For God assuming to himself the Person of an Husband to his People as the stiling of himself a jealous God shews it was but agreeable to that Married Estate to which he alludeth that he should express the Fidelity of his Spouse to him by that Love which is the ground of it as on the other side her going a whoring after Images by the hatred of himself because it is from the loathing those Companions which they have assum'd that adulterous Women seek out to themselves new and forbidden Loves Forasmuch therefore as both the Threat and the Promise though in appearance of a greater extent do yet if not onely yet in a more peculiar manner belong to the Violators or Observers of this Commandment I shall not onely deem this to be the most proper place of handling them but consider them more particularly with reference to this Commandment to which they are affixed by the Almighty Having given an account in my last of the Jealousie of the Almighty so far as that is useful to shew the nature of the Crime here forbidden we are now to consider it with reference to that Penalty which it prompted the Lawgiver to denounce For my more orderly explication whereof I will inquire 1. What is here meant by visiting the Sins or Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children And 2. What appearance there is of God's executing this Threat upon the Children of evil Parents and particularly upon those of Idolatrous ones 1. Now lest any should imagine that when God threatens to visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children his intention is to make one Man suffer the Punishment of anothers Sin I think it not amiss to admonish in the first place That that is so far from being any part of his intention that it is perfectly inconsistent with his own Declaration elsewhere and indeed with the Justice of his Nature as having not onely declar'd his dislike of that peevish Proverb That the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge but moreover affirm'd in express terms Ezek. 18.20 That the soul that sinneth it shall die that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son in fine that the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked upon him Than which what could be said with greater evidence and conviction to remove all suspicion of God's making one Man to bear the Punishment of anothers Sins Though setting aside that Declaration the sole Justice of God would oblige us to an abhorrence of all such Surmises For what I beseech you makes any Punishment just that is inflicted either by God or Man Is it any other than a Right in the Judge to punish and an Obligation in the Criminal to suffer And if so is it not alike evident that it can be no way consistent with God's Justice to make one Man bear the Punishment of anothers Sin For as no one can have a Right to punish where a Fault did not precede and therefore neither to extend it where that Fault doth not because as to any other it is as if there had been no Fault at all so neither can any Man be under an obligation to Punishment who was not some way or other Partaker of the Sin that caus'd it because that Obligation ariseth from demerit which we have already suppos'd to be the peculiar of another And indeed however some Actions of God seem to proclaim the contrary and particularly his imputing to us the Sins of our first Parents and laying on Christ the Iniquities of us all yet neither do the one nor the other contradict it in the least if they be seriously and warily considered Not the former because the same Scriptures which affirm that God imputeth to us the Iniquities of our First Parents do also assure us as I shall shew more largely hereafter * Explication of the Doctrine of the Sacraments and particularly of that of Baptism that we all offended in him and consequently that God doth not so much impute to us their Sin as our own As neither the latter because Christ voluntarily undertook the suffering of that Punishment which our Sins had deserved from the Almighty After which to lay upon Christ the Iniquities of us all was not so much to make him suffer for others Sins as for those which he made his own by taking the burthen of them upon himself Whence it is that St. Paul tells us 2 Cor. 5.21 That God made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him It being thus evident That God neither doth nor can make one Man bear the Punishment of anothers Sin and consequently that that cannot be thought to be the importance of the Threat here us'd it remains that we pitch upon such a sense of God's visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children as doth not imply any thing of that nature In order whereunto it will not a little conduce to affirm what I shall by and by shew hath sufficient warrant in the Commination That when God either threatens or actually visits the Sins of the Fathers upon the Children it is not so much his intention to make them bear the Iniquity of their Fathers as to punish their Fathers in them as he sometimes doth in their Houses or Estates or whatsoever else they place their Happiness in By which means God doth not so much make the Children suffer the Punishment of their Fathers Sins as make the Fathers suffer for their own through the sides of those Children whom he afflicts Now that this is the intention of the Almighty in such kind of Comminations and particularly in that which is the Subject of my Discourse is evident from the end of all such Comminations and a particular Passage in this For the design of them being manifestly to deter Men from those Crimes to which these Comminations are affix'd to make those Comminations of any force they must consequently be thought to bring some Evil to that Criminal against whom they shall be found to be denounc'd No Man and much less a sinful one being like to be reclaim'd by those Evils in which he himself shall not have the greatest share From whence as it will follow That the principal Design of the Almighty was to let those Idolatrous Persons know that he meant to punish them in their
Creatures to witness to the sincerity of his Intentions which he himself is perswaded of not to have the least sense of any thing Nay would not the so doing give Men cause to suspect that he himself was as stupid as they It is true indeed we read in Genesis of Jacob and Laban's rearing a Pillar and heap of Stones for a Witness of the League between them Gen. 31.48 Nay we read further which is of more consideration of Laban's addressing himself to them after this manner This heap be witness and this pillar be witness that I will not pass over this heap to thee and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar to me for harm vers 52. of that Chapter But as the meaning thereof can be no other than that they should serve for a Memorial of the League then made which is quite different from the business of an Oath so that Laban had no other intention may appear from his own Words immediately before it For if saith he vers 50. thou shalt afflict my daughters or if thou shalt take other wives beside my daughters no man is with us see God is witness betwixt me and thee Which Words do not onely shew him to refer the Matter to the Testimony of God but so as to exclude all other Witnesses because professing to refer it unto God for that there was no other to attest it I conclude therefore That where there is mention of a Creature in an Oath the design thereof is not in the least to call that Creature to witness but God to whom it doth belong Which as it is no way like the swearing by the Saints departed who are presum'd by the Papists to have knowledge of what we swear so shews the swearing by Heaven or the like according as was before understood to have nothing at all of unlawfulness in it because not so much the Term of our Oaths or That we swear by as the Adjuncts of it and onely inserted in it to represent the more strongly to our minds the Majesty of that God by whom we swear or our own extreme danger in case we falsifie in them And accordingly as in the Old Testament we find Jacob * Gen. 31.53 swearing by the fear of his Fahter Isaac and Elisha †2 Kings 2.2 by the life of his master so ‖ Apol. cap 32. Sed juramus sicut non per Genios Caesarum ita per salutem eorum quae est auguslior omnibus Geniis Tertullian tells us of the Christians of his time and such too as would rather die than swear by the Genius of the Emperour because apprehended by them to be an Heathenish Deity that they would not refuse to swear by the safety of their Lord which was more August than all Genii The result of the Premises is this That as it is not lawful to make a Creature the Term of our Oath because so giving Divine Honour to them so it is not unlawful to make mention of them in our Oath when they are represented as Adjuncts of the Deity or devoted unto God as Pledges of the Truth of what we affirm III. The Order of my Discourse now leads me to inquire Whether the Magistrate may not exact an Oath of his Subjects A Question to be wondred at if it had not been also made a Question Whether there ought to be any Magistrates or those Magistrates ought to be obey'd For 1. First Whereas other Acts of Adoration by how much the more voluntary they are the more acceptable they are to the Divine Majesty an Oath on the contrary requires something of a necessity to make it onely lawful and how much more then to make it acceptable to the Divine Majesty And accordingly as it is a Proverb * Andrew's Determin Theolog de jure-jurando 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks That Oaths and War are evil when spontaneous and onely good when they are extorted from us so that Proverb of theirs stands confirm'd as to an Oath by the Veneration we ought to have for it and the end for which it is given For Scripture and Reason requiring that Oaths should not be lightly us'd and the end thereof being for the satisfaction of those to whom it is given it follows that they become good onely when they are extorted from us by the hardness of those Mens belief whose satisfaction is intended in them If therefore an Oath become so much the more legitimate by being extorted if it may be extorted from us by the incredulity of the Party to whom we give it how much more when there is just cause for it by the Command of the Magistrate to whom God hath commanded every Soul to submit it self 2. My second Argument for the lawfulness of the Magistrates exacting an Oath shall be taken from the Practice of Holy Men toward those who were subject to their Commands and that too where there was less Authority to constrain For thus Abraham made his Servant swear that he would not take a wife unto his son of the daughters of the Canaanites but of his own Kindred and Country Gen. 24.3 4. and Jacob made his Son Joseph swear that he would carry his body out of Egypt and bury him in the Burying-place of his Fathers Gen. 47.29 and so on In fine thus Jacob made Esau swear to part with his birthright Gen. 25.33 Now if as Bishop Andrews * Determinat Theolog. supra citat well argues it were lawful for the Master to put his Servant to an Oath as it was to Abraham if to a Father toward his Son as in the case of Jacob and Joseph if to a Brother over a Brother as to the same Jacob over Esau how much more shall it be lawful for him to require an Oath of his Subjects whose Empire is more excellent than all other Empires To all which if we add 3. In the third place the necessity there is of his so doing in order to the Security of himself and the Commonwealth so no doubt can remain of the Power of the Magistrate to exact and consequently of the Subjects Duty to comply with his Commands For is it any thing less than necessary to the Security of the Magistrate to require an Oath of Allegiance to himself when Men through the pride and perverseness of their Nature are so hardly brought to afford it Especially when in his Honour and Security the Security of the Common-wealth is bound up neither can that be safe unless his Person and Authority be preserv'd inviolate The same is to be said of that other sort of Oaths which the Magistrate tenders to decide Controversies between Man and Man For being it is for the Interest yea Being of the Commonwealth that Controversies be determin'd being as I have before shewn those are not to be determin'd without an Oath it remains That either the Magistrate is not furnish'd with full Power to determine Controversies between Man
required to give honour as well as to Kings and Princes that maintenance which we afford them being not like other Gifts the results of a voluntary Bounty but a Tribute which we owe them and an Acknowledgment of our Obligations to them It being but just as Hierocles * Loco prius citato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks that Parents should make use of those whom they have begotten and bred up From that first instance pass we to another which will yet more fully evidence the propriety of this Notion of Honour and that is the large Pensions which Kings bestow upon their Subjects in consideration of some signal Service they have done them For these are so far from being a dishonour to the parties that have them that on the contrary they are a credit because marks of his Esteem by whom they are bestowed Whence it is that among the Latins they had the Title of Honoraria as if you should say The honourable gifts But such will our Liberality to our Parents prove if it be in some measure answerable to the many Obligations they have laid upon us For thereby we shall declare we give them not as Alms but as a mark of that esteem we have for them Our Liberality to our Parents will prove yet more an Honour if it be transmitted to them with that respect which is due from a Child unto his Parents For so doing be the Gift never so small it will be lookt upon as an honourable maintenance and be an instance of our esteem as well as of our Love and Tenderness And I cannot but upon this Occasion call to mind some custom of the Spaniards * See Howels Letters Vol. 1. Sect. 3. Lett. 31. who however a proud Nation otherwise do in this give a great testimony of their Humility it being reported of them that when they give an Alms they pull off their Hats and put it into the Beggars hands with a great deal of Humility For whatever may be due from us toward indigent Persons this is but due from us to our Parents and we cannot hope our Liberality will be accepted if we consult not their reputation in it because obliged as well to honour as relieve them Next to the administring to our Parents wants place we the ministring to them in their weaknesses according as Hierocles * Loco supra citato doth for so doing we shall yet more declare the honour we have for them and consequently our observation of this Commandment It being far more irksom to part with our ease than wealth to lend them our personal Services than some of the good things we enjoy And indeed as whosoever shall consider the Care and Pains of a Father the Fears and sleepless Nights and homely Offices of a Mother as I say whosoever shall consider these things will not think much to minister to them in the meanest employments which their several Infirmities may exact so I know not whether it be possible to give them a greater testimony of our Honour or requite that Care and Pains towards us For by thus ministring to them by our personal Services we do in a manner out-do our selves and shew our selves not their Children but their Servants The only thing wanting to make us completely such is that love draws us to it and that we embrace as well as submit to the Employment That known story of Aeneas shall put a period to this Argument because a noble Instance of his Piety For when others after the Destruction of Troy took care to rescue other things this man took up his Houshold-gods first and after that his aged Father upon his shoulders By which last as well as by the former as he very well deserv'd the Title of Pius which is given him by the Prince of Poets so he therein acted the part rather of a Father than of a Son because carrying him who was now become a Child as he had been before borne himself 2. But beside such Actions of ours as minister directly and immediately to the honour of our Parents such as are especially those before remembred there are other that minister to it indirectly and by consequence that is to say as instances of our Compliance with their Will Of which sort are all those that are done with their consent in compliance with their advice or in obedience to their commands whatsoever is so done being a manifest acknowledgment of their Authority with whom we do so comply The only difficulty is how far we are bound to comply with our Parents in each of these which accordingly I come now to consider And first of all If the question be concerning the consent of Parents which is the first of the Instances before remembred so I shall not doubt to affirm that it ought to be had in the principal Actions of our Life Among which I reckon particularly Childrens disposing of themselves in Marriage or entring into any lasting course of Life That the consent of Parents is generally necessary in the former may appear not only from hence that Children are not sui juris but those in whose power they are but also from the power which God hath given them over their Children as to this particular affair witness the Scriptures prescribing Rules for Parents taking Daughters unto their Sons and again for giving their Daughters in Marriage unto others as you may see Exod. 34.16 and 1 Cor. 7.38 For the Scripture there and elsewhere attributing the Marriing of Sons and Daughters to the act of their respective Parents supposeth them as to that particular to be more in their Parents power than their own and consequently their Consent at least to be requisite to the making of it Generally speaking therefore there is no doubt the Consent of Parents is necessary to be had to make the Marriage lawful before God Then and then only may it be wanting when the Child is in imminent danger of falling into sin without it in which case though the Consent of Parents may and ought to be sought yet it is not necessary to be obtain'd From the Consent of Parents in Marriage pass we to the necessity of it toward the taking any lasting Course of Life which we shall find to stand upon as firm Grounds as the other For the Son till freed by the Father being more the Fathers than his own he is in reason to be dispos'd of by him to whom he doth so belong or at least not without his Consent If the Son do at any time fall into his own disposal as I will not say but sometimes he may it must be when the Father takes no care at all of him which is a kind of emancipation of him From the Consent of Parents pass we to their Advice and consider what Regard is due to it in our several Actions where again we are to consider whether the Father intends it onely as an Advice and leaves it to the liberty of his
Son either to follow it or not or whether or no for Loves sake he chuses to express his Will in the form of one as St. Paul did his to Philemon in the form of an Entreaty If the latter of these be it there is no doubt it is not onely obligatory but much more obligatory than any Command For beside that it hath in effect the nature of a Command it hath over and above the addition of the Parents Kindness which cannot be resisted without a great Ingratitude The Case is somewhat different and our Obligation also if he who doth advise leaves it to the liberty of his Child either to follow it or not For in such a Case there is no doubt if our own Reason leads us otherwise it is lawful for us to depart from it This onely would be added That as we are to receive it with respect and to shew some kind of unwillingness even in our departing from it so we are not to depart from it where we have not a considerable Reason to the contrary and such as may absolve us before God and all disinteress'd Persons for not adhering to it For though an Advice have not the nature of a Command and therefore neither the departure from it the nature of Disobedience yet the neglect of it where there is not a weighty Reason to the contrary hath the nature of a Disrespect which is equally a breach of this Commandment The third and last Rule follows even the Command of our Parents which is much more cogent than the other this being a Natural Effect of that Authority they have over us and therefore not to be despis'd without a manifest violation of their Honour And accordingly as among the Jews Disobedience to them was punish'd with Death as a kind of abdication of their Parents so the Scriptures of the New Testament represent it among those things that are worthy of death as you may see Rom. 1.30 32. The onely thing of difficulty is how far our Obedience is to extend which accordingly I come now to consider For the resolution whereof the first thing I shall offer is That it ought not to extend to those things that are forbidden by a Power Superiour to that of our Parents For the Ground of Obedience being the Authority of him that commands it is in reason where it cannot be given to more to be given unto him where is the greatest Authority to require it But from hence it will follow first That we are not to obey our Parents in things before forbidden by God God being not onely Superiour to all other Powers but the Fountain and Author of them Whence it is that though St. Paul in one place exhort Children to be obedient to their Parents in every thing Col. 3.20 yet as he assigns for the Reason of it its being well-pleasing to the Lord which shews that it was not to extend to things of a contrary nature so elsewhere * Ephes 6.1 he limits it to Obedience in the Lord that is to say so far as our Obedience to him is consistent with it It will in like manner follow secondly That we are not to obey our Parents in things forbidden us by the Magistrate For though his Authority be not like that of God yet it is superiour to theirs as having by the command of God the Souls even of Parents subject to it But beside that Obedience to Parents is to cease there where either God or the Magistrate have laid a Prohibition it is also to be suppos'd not to be requir'd where the thing under command carries an invincible Antipathy to our Inclinations Thus for example if a Father offer such an Husband to his Daughter whom though she has endeavour'd yet she can by no means bring her self to like of in this case there is no doubt she is not oblig'd to marry him how strongly soever her Father enjoyns it on her It being not to be thought that where the Children themselves have not power over their own Affections the Parents of the Children should Lastly As our Obedience is not to be thought to be requir'd where the thing under command carries an invincible Antipathy to our Inclinations so neither where it is greatly dishonourable to the Child upon whom the Command is impos'd Thus for example If a Father for the hope of Lucre or any such like cause command his Son to marry a Person who is of an ill Fame or to enter into some Trade that is infinitely below his Quality as for example if a Person of Noble Rank should command his Son to be a Cobler In these and other the like Cases there is no doubt he may refuse that which is so impos'd upon him because the Son where the Father's Ability will suffice hath a Natural Right to be bred up in some measure answerably to that Condition wherein he was born Care onely would be taken that as we pretend not such a disparity where in truth there is no other but what our Pride and Self-conceit makes so in this and all other Refusals of Obedience we proceed with Modesty and Humility and rather seem to decline the Task that is impos'd upon us than contemptuously reject it But as other Carriage than this is not consistent with that Honour which we owe to the Authors of our Being so other Commands than those before-remembred we cannot think it lawful to disobey if we consider that the Apostle enjoyns us to be obedient to our Parents in all things 4. One onely thing remains to fill up the measure of that Honour which we have said to be due from us to our Parents and that is that we express our Esteem of them by submission to their Chastisements as well as by yielding Obedience to their Commands But because that will fall in more pertinently hereafter when I come to entreat of the Chastisements of a Father I will defer the prosecution of it till then contenting my self at present with that of the Son of Sirach * Ecclus. 3.8 as it lies in the Vulgar Latin Honour thy father and thy mother in work in word and in all patience that a blessing may come upon thee from them PART III. With what variety the Honour here requir'd is to be given to either Parent Where the giving the Father the priority in our Honour and when they draw different ways the obeying him against the Mother is asserted against Mr. Hobbes and his Objection answered The Honour of our Parents otherwise equal The Case of a Mother who is either a Princess or a Christian when the Father is either a Subject or Heathen propos'd and stated A Caution against despising our Mother even when we depart from her Advice or Command and with what Humility and Modesty that is to be done Inquiry is also made whether or no and how far a Child may be freed from the Obligation of Honour which is consider'd with relation both to Deceased and Living
the obligation of Honour For the resolution whereof I will consider the Child 1. As bereft of his Parents by death and 2. As having them still living And first of all if the Question be concerning deceased Parents who may seem and no doubt have the least tye upon their Children so I shall not stick to affirm that they ought to have all that honour of which they are capable in that state Not only the Law of Gratitude so requiring but the Honour of Almighty God whose Instruments they were and to whom they live though they be dead to us Of this nature is the bestowing upon them a Funeral answerable to their Condition speaking honourably of their Persons and Actions in fine esteeming those persons for whom they had a regard and especially such as they upon their Death-beds commended to ours for as these are no other than their Relation and our Gratitude doth require so they are such of which they are equally capable as when alive The only difficulty is what regard is due to those Advices or Commands which they laid upon us when alive For as on the one side it may seem unreasonable that the Fathers authority on Earth should abide after he himself hath no further place on it so on the other side it hath been observ'd that God hath strangely blasted those Children who have gone contrary to the Commands of their deceased Parents and as strangely blessed those who have been obedient to them witness for the latter that known story of the Rechabites who are not only commended by the Almighty for abstaining from Wine and dwelling in Tents in obedience to their Ancestor Jonadab's command but promised moreover that their Generations should abide Jer. 35.14.19 For the reconciling of which two so as neither to depress the authority of the Son who succeeds into the Fathers Rights nor yet to despise the Authority even of a deceased Father I will first of all distinguish between such commands wherein the Father's honour is concern'd and such as relate peculiarly to the Son Now in the former of these it is especially wherein a Father is to be heeded because he hath an equal concernment in them Thus for Example if as it sometime happens a * Fullers Worthies Hertfordshire Speaking of the Horseys observes that one of them disobeying such a command of his Father prospered no whit the better for it not one Foot of Land in Hertfordshire now remaining to his Posterity Father should command his Son if need were rather to sell an Estate that came to him by others than that which came to him by descent from himself in such a case I should not doubt the Son were oblig'd to observe his command and rather sell any thing than that his Patrimony because by selling the latter he should do dishonour to his Family and therein in particular to his Father from whom it immediately descended In like manner if a Father should charge his Son not to marry into a Family which hath been at enmity with himself in this case I do no way doubt but the Son is bound up to observe the Commands of his Father because as the matter of it hath nothing of evil in it so the acting contrary thereto unless where there is a great necessity would be a dishonour to his Father inasmuch as it may give that Family occasion to triumph over the memory of him whom they before hated I say not the same of that command which the Father of Hannibal laid upon him with an Oath to prosecute the Romans his Enemies with an immortal hatred For though it be not unlawful to avoid an intimate alliance with some persons yet it is both inhumane and unchristian to prosecute any person with an irreconcileable hatred and therefore no fit matter for a Son's obedience But let us suppose the command laid upon the Son relate to his person only which is the other member of the distinction as for Example not to be a Bishop a Priest or a Magistrate in which case though a pious Son will be well advised before he transgress it and consider what reason his Father might have so to advise or command him yet he will not suffer himself to be so far over born by it as to neglect his own Reason and great Conveniencies For as a Learned man * Tayl. Ductor Dubit Book 3. Chap. 5. Rul 6. hath well observ'd in those things wherein a man 's own meer Interest is concern'd his own Understanding must be his guide and his Will his Ruler For he alone does lie at Stake whether it be good or bad and it is not reasonable that he should govern who neither gets nor looses nor knows Again the things that are commanded those I mean that relate to the Sons person only are either few and easie of practice or many and burthensome If the things commanded be either few or easie of practice or both they cannot be omitted without a dishonour to our Parents whose memory we will not gratifie in so small a matter But if they be many and burthensom the omission thereof is not to be looked upon as a dishonour to them but as a just compliance with our own reasonable Conveniencies The only thing that will give us any trouble is the Instance of the Rechabites who may seem to have had no very easie load imposed upon them But beside that the story is only mentioned on the By by which means we cannot so easily judge of the intentention of Jonadab in it beside secondly That it is not improbable it was enjoined in order to Religion which if it were will determine such lasting commands to the things of Religion only it is apparent enough they did not think themselves so ty'd but when there was a just cause such as the fear of the Chaldeans they dispens'd with their own dwelling in Tents which was one of the things enjoin'd them And indeed as it will become Children not lightly to depart from their deceased Fathers commands lest they be thought to have a less regard for them than they should So it will no less become Parents when they extend their Authority beyond their own time to see that the things they impose be neither many nor unreasonable as remembring that after their decease they are at their own disposal for the main and have reason enough for the most part to guide them in the management thereof From the honour of deceased Parents pass we to that of those that are alive and consider whether or no and how far Children may be freed from it In answer whereunto I say first that they can never be absolutely freed from any of the kinds of Honour before remembred Because our Parents are as much such in our riper years as in our greener when we are departed out of their Houses as whilst we continued in them And indeed as no question hath been made of that part of honour which is usually stil'd Reverence
that is to say of thinking honourably of and expressing it in our words and gestures as moreover no question hath or can be made of that part of Honour which hath the name of Piety because Children must generally be supposed both to be of years and of a distinct Family before they can be in a capacity to relieve their Parents so as little question would be made of Obedience if men did but consider that the principal ground of it doth always abide for it being alike true at all times that the one is thy Father that begot thee and the other thy Mother that conceiv'd thee it must be alike true because that is the ground of thy Obedience that thou art always to give obedience to their commands If therefore Children be at any time free from the tie of Honour it must be as to the manner or measure which accordingly I come now to consider Thus for instance Though Reverence be always due from us to our Parents and accordingly hath by good Children been always paid to them yet there is no necessity it should be express'd after the same manner by one of full age as by one who is still under Pupillage because the same gestures become not one of full age that are suitable enough to the tenderness of the other Whence it is that though Children in their minority are always bare before their Parents yet those of Riper age have by a general custom which must be judge of matters of this nature been indulg'd a greater liberty as to that particular even by the consent of Parents themselves In like manner that I may instance in the measure Though Children dwelling in their Parents houses and under their power be to yield Obedience to all their commands and particularly those that concern the Family whereof they are Members whence it is that we find the Father in the Parable Mat. 21.28 commanding his Sons to go and work in his Vineyard yet there is not the same tie upon those that are sent out of it that have a Wife and Family of their own to provide for that are delivered over to the tuition of other persons or in fine have any publick charge upon them Not upon those that are sent out of the Family because as sent out with their leave so of necessity to intend their own proper Affairs Not upon those Children that have a Wife and Family of their own to provide for because beside the foremention'd reason by the command of God himself to forsake Father and Mother and cleave unto their Wives Gen. 2.24 The same is to be said much more of Daughters when Married because not only equally oblig'd to cleave to their Husbands but also subjected to their commands Whence it is that when Pharaoh's Daughter was brought to be a Wife to Solomon we find her exhorted to forget her own people and her Fathers house and to look upon and worship Solomon as her Lord Psal 45.10 11. But neither thirdly is there the same tie upon Children that are subjected to the Tuition of others as to those that are under their Fathers roof and power as will appear if we consider them as made Servants to another or pass'd over into another Family by Adoption for being by the Parents consent subjected to other Masters or Fathers they are now no more theirs who gave them Being but those Masters or adopted Fathers to whom they are so transferr'd This only would be added That as the Children spoken of in the former Instances are only free from their Fathers commands by means of those new Relations they have contracted so they are consequently no farther free from yielding Obedience to their Fathers commands than the necessity of serving those Relations doth exact And therefore if a Son or Daughter that is sent abroad to intend their own Affairs or one that is entred into Marriage or made a Servant or a Son and Daughter by Adoption if I say any of these have opportunity and power to serve their natural Parents there is no doubt they ought to do so no less than those who continue under their Roof For the exception of their obedience being only in regard to those new Relations they have contracted according to that known Rule of the Lawyers Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis it must strengthen the tie of Obedience where those Relations do no way hinder The only Children to be accounted for are such as have a publick charge upon them whether in the Church or in the State For though Children are not to enter into these without the consent of their Parents if under their Fathers Tuition or at least not without the call of their and their Fathers Superiours yet being entred they are in reason to prefer the discharge of their Place before any Commands of their Father the Private Good being in reason to yield to the Publick the Commands of Parents to those of Kings and Princes Onely as if the Child can without the neglect or debasement of his Charge fulfil his Fathers Commands there is no doubt he is oblig'd so to do so there is so much of Authority in the Name of a Father that no Dignity whatsoever will make a good Son forget it where it is not contrary to a more important Concern 5. The Duty of Honour being thus explain'd and shewn in what manner and measure it is incumbent upon Children it may not be amiss to subjoyn somewhat concerning Fear and Love which I have said to be also a part of their Duty Onely because they are rather Accessaries than Principal parts of Childrens Duties I will be so much the shorter in describing the Obligation they have upon them That we are to fear our Father and Mother the Scripture hath told us Lev. 19.3 and not without cause if we consider either that it is a part of Honour or that there is in Parents a just Object of it For as Fear is a confession of the Power of those whom we have such an apprehension of so there is Power enough in Parents to excite that Passion in us and make us as well to dread as esteem them Of this nature is first the Power of Chastisement whether as to the Body or Possessions of the Son For as I shall afterwards shew that Parents have Authority to inflict either so Experience makes it evident that they want not Power especially as to the latter Chastisement it being ordinarily in the power of Parents to withhold their Possessions from such as are disobedient to them But of all the things we are to fear in a Parent there is certainly nothing more requiring it than the Power they have with God to procure a greater Punishment of our Disobedience than they themselves are able to inflict For though as the Scripture speaks the Curse causeless shall not come yet both Reason and Experience warrant us to believe that the Curses of Parents shall not be without effect where they
as in their own possessions For by how much greater their obligation thereto was so much the more reproachful must be the violation of it and though it could be supposed possible to bear up against the reproaches of a stranger yet it will be a hard matter certainly to hear a Son and that justly cursing his Father for giveing him a Being which hath only helped to make him Eternally miserable 3. To the Institution of Children in Life and Manners subjoin we the chastizing of them for so both the necessities of Children and the Scriptures require there being no Children so towardly which may not stand in need of it nor any other thing more enjoyn'd upon Parents when they do Of which beside the many Precepts that the Scriptures afford us and particularly the Proverbs of Solomon * Prov. 13.24.19.18.22.15.23.13 that of the ‖ Heb. 12.8 Author to the Hebrews If ye be without chastisement whereof all are partakers then are ye Bastards and not Sons may serve for an abundant evidence For well may that be look'd upon as a duty of a Parent to his Child the omission whereof must put the Child into the number of Illegitimate ones The only thing of difficulty in this affair is to what evils it may extend what ought to be the measures of the inflicting of those which it doth and what submission is due from Children to them And first of all If the question be concerning the Evils to which a Fathers chastisement may extend so I shall not doubt to affirm first that it ought not to go so far as the taking away the Life of the offending Son For though Fathers anciently had power of Life and Death yet it was then only when they were also Princes which Authority being now vested in other hands the power of Life and Death must be supposed to pass over to them and consequently not now to belong to Fathers The same is to be said of taking away a Limb however no doubt anciently in the power of Fathers For beside that this would be an entrenchment upon the Prerogatives of Princes to whom by the Institution of God the Sword of Justice is committed it is neither agreeable with the nature of a Father which is kind and affectionate nor with those bounds which the Apostle hath set to a Fathers chastisement there being no doubt such an Evil would rather exasperate Children against their persons than prompt them to yeild them a more ready obedience to their commands The same is to be said Thirdly of cutting off an offending Son from any Right in his Fathers Estate that is to say not only from being his Heir but from enjoying any part of his Possessions For however such Actions as these may well suit with the Authority of Kings yet not with that of Fathers which is an Authority mixt with Clemency and designs not so much the execution of Vengeance as the reclaiming of the Offender Lastly though it may be suitable enough to the Authority of Princes to set a lasting note of Infamy upon the Disobedient yet it is no way agreeable to that of Parents because though allowed to chastise yet not to provoke their Children which such a Brand would infallibly do But other Chastisements than these as I see no reason to forbid Parents provided they be us'd with moderation so the Charge of Chastising being general it is in reason to extend to all those Evils which there is not some peculiar Reason to restrain Parents from especially when it is certain they have the power of Corporal Punishment * See the places before-quoted out of the Proverbs which is the highest they are in a Capacity to inflict This onely would be added That in the inflicting of Corporal Punishments respect ought to be had to the Age of the Party chastis'd For though as was but now said Corporal Punishments are within the power of Parents if we consider it in the full Latitude thereof yet they are not to be inflicted upon Children of full age or at least not in that manner in which they may be upon younger Children such Chastisements by the reproachfulness thereof being more likely to provoke Persons of Years to shew themselves undutiful than incline them to yield a more ready Obedience to their Commands Having thus shewn to what Evils the Power of Paternal Chastisement doth extend inquire we in the next place into the measure of inflicting them For the resolution whereof I observe in the general That consideration ought to be had of the Quality of the Offence of the Strength of the Offender and of the Relation of the Chastiser He that chastiseth his Child beyond the merit of his Offence being certainly unjust he that chastiseth him beyond his Strength cruel he that doth beyond the measures of a Father unnatural But because it may be still inquir'd when the Chastisement is within the aforesaid limits that is to say within the Quality of the Offence the Strength of the Offender and the Measures of a Father I think it not amiss for the farther elucidation of this Affair to say somewhat to each of these For the first of these to wit when the Chastisement is within the Quality of the Offence much must be left to the Conscience of the Chastiser because of the variety of Circumstances wherewith they may be attended Onely that I may not leave it altogether uncertain I will subjoyn this general Rule which may serve for a competent Direction in it that is to say That consideration be had of the Contumacy of the Offender and the general Custom of Parents For as one and the same Crime may admit of Degrees according to the Degrees of Contumacy wherewith it is committed so what Chastisement is due to each will be best judg'd of by the general Custom of Christian Parents a general Custom being for the most part the result of an approved Reason and therefore no unfit Rule for particular Persons to proceed by From the Quality of the Offence pass we to the Strength of the Offender which will minister less Matter for our Inquiry For as it will be easie for Parents upon the knowledge they have of their Childrens Constitutions to discern what they will be able to bear so that and that onely is to be concluded to be within their Strength which does not disable them from the performance of those several Offices which Nature or Religion does exact The onely thing requiring a more accurate Examination is What are the Measures of a Father which are in short these two First and chiefly the Reformation of the Party chastis'd and secondly the deterring his other Children from the like Offences For as it is evident from the * Prov. 13.24 But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes Heb. 12.6 7. Scripture that the Parents Love of the Child is the most proper Ground of Chastisement so the Places before-quoted out of the Proverbs shew the Reformation
his Finger Whereupon striking the Earth with his Hand he us'd that out of Niobe I come why do you call me and accordingly went and strangled himself or as Menagius observes out of Lucian pin'd himself to death But who save a Stoick could think so small a matter a just Ground of making away ones self Or what may be look'd upon as a disgust of the Divine Providence if such a kind of departure is not But with much more reason did Marcus Antoninus †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2 sect 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though a Stoick and one who in several places * Lib. 3. sect 1. lib. 5. sect 29. propugns the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 represent it as a part of Philosophy to receive all Accidents whatsoever as coming from him from whom we our selves do and Job interrogate his querulous Wife Shall we receive good at the hand of God and shall we not receive evil chap. 10.20 For beside the Ingratitude which the contrary Practice involves it is a manifest reluctancy to the Dispensations of his Providence to whose Will the Authority he hath over us obligeth us to submit our selves What should I tell you of the many Precepts Christianity suggests concerning the bearing of Evils and Afflictions For as those Precepts are no less obliging to us than the Laws of Reason and Nature so they require us rather to maintain than quit our Station to bear up against Evils than endeavour to withdraw our selves from them The same is to be said of Self-murther's opposition to the Divine Providence if you consider it as to that distrust of it which it involves For as it is apparent enough that one great occasion of Self-murther is Mens despair of a recovery from those Evils they labour under so by that despair of theirs they manifestly call in question if not the Justice yet at least the Goodness of the Divine Providence For what cause can there be of despair where that hath a place in our Belief or what necessity of making an escape at that door * Arrian in Epict. li. 1. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Self-murther opens and which the Stoicks do so often point us to Especially when beside the Goodness of the Divine Nature we have the assurance of his Promise that he will make another way for us to escape For thus after St. Paul had told his Corinthians that no temptation had taken them but such as was common to man he subjoyns in the very next Words But God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able but will with the temptation also make a way to escape that ye may be able to bear it whether it be by lessening of that Burthen under which you groan or giving you proportionable Strength to bear it 1 Cor. 10.13 And though after I have thus shewn the unlawfulness of Self-murther no necessity lies upon me to consider of that Magnanimity which it is thought by some to involve it being rather to be consider'd as St. Augustine ‖ De civit Dei l. 1. c 22. insinuates whether a thing be well done than whether it be done magnanimously with soundness of Wisdom than with greatness of Spirit Yet as many things appear otherwise than they will be found to be if they be examin'd as they ought so as the same Father * Aug. loco citato Quanquam si rationem diligentiùs consulas nec ipsa quidem animi magnitudo reclè nominatur ubi quisque non valendo tolerare vel quaeque aspera vel aliena peccata seipsum interemerit Magis enim mens infirma deprehenditur quae ferre non potest vel duram sui corporis servitutem vel stultam vulgi opinionem Majorque animus merito dicendus est qui vitam aerumnosam magis potest ferre quà m fugere humanum judicium maximè vulgare quod plerumque caligine erroris involvitur praeconscientiae luce ac puritate contemnere Rebus in angustis facile est contemnere vitam Fortiter ille facit qui miser esse potest Martial Epigr. l. 11. ep 57. observes if we look more narrowly into this we shall find it rather to be poorness than greatness of Spirit to lay violent Hands upon our selves to avoid the pressure of Afflictions or other Mens Offences That Mind being to be look'd upon as infirm which cannot bear the hard Servitude of its Body or the foolish Opinion of the Vulgar as on the contrary that truly great which can rather bear than fly a miserable Life and prefer the Light and Purity of its own Conscience before the Opinion of the Common sort which is for the most part clouded with Errour And though the Roman Stories are full of the Commendations of Cato and Lucretia the former whereof kill'd himself that he might not fall into Caesar's Power the latter that she might not be thought in the least to have approv'd of that Rape which was committed upon her yet as there wanted †Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 1. cap. 23. not those of Cato's own Friends who disswaded him from the Attempt as a sign rather of a weak than a strong Mind so he himself †Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 1. cap. 23. gave sufficient Indications of it by advising his Son to live and to hope well of the Mercy of the Emperour For if as the same Father †Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 1. cap. 23. observes he had thought it any thing of turpitude to live under the Power of the Emperour why did he not rather compel or at least advise his Son to fall under the same Fate with himself especially when as Ludovicus Vives ‖ Not. ad loc praed observes no Perswasions of Cato could make his Son leave him before his Death The like Judgment is to be made in the Opinion of the same Father * De Civit at Dei l. 1. c. 19. of that no less celebrated Fact of Lucretia it being a weak bashfulness so to fear the ill Opinion of Men as to run upon an evil Action to avoid it especially when we have the Testimony of our own Conscience and both the Inspection and Approbation of God to support us Of the Criminalness of Self-murther what hath been said may suffice Proceed we to inquire whether all killing our selves be such Where first of all I shall make no scruple to grant that all such killing of our selves is so where we have not a Call from God to it Because as was before said we are his and not our own and therefore not to depart from those Stations wherein he hath plac'd us without his leave The onely difficulty is whether we can have any Call to it beside what God's usual Messengers of Death give which yet is not so much a Call as a Compulsion because forcing us from these our Earthly Tabernacles For the solution whereof not to bring