NOT many Moneths since be­ing invited by a deare Friend of mine to a solemne Feast, made by him to many of his well-deseruing Friends, it was my fortune at that Meeting to acquaint my selfe with many Gentlemen of no meane discourse: Whereby I fea­sted as well my Vnderstanding with their pleasant [Page 2] Societie, as my Tast with the variety of most excel­lent Meats.

With what our senses were delighted, I let passe to recompt, since neither profit, pleasure, nor praise can arise thereof, either to the Writer or Reader. Onely my intent is, to make my Reader acquain­ted, what accident caused mee to write this small Treatise, and emboldned me to publish the same to the common view of this all-reprehending Age. In which neuerthelesse I rather hope for Allowance, then in any sort feare Displeasure.

For though my subject bee New, yet I hope it shall want at the first rather Age, and Strength, which growes by yeares; then probable Argu­ments, yea forcible Reasons to defend it selfe. As for Friends, I trust, it will finde some, and peradven­ture more then Enimies, if it deserue well. For, as younger Brothers be more in number then Elder, so are they generally more free in bestowing their deserued Loue. For Want breeding Vnderstan­ding, makes them know and prize their FriendsSome frends sticke closer then a Bro­ther, Prov. 18.1.24. according to their Worth. Whereas the Elder, either seated in his Fathers Wealth or Possessions, with more then hopes to enjoy their Fortunes, doe sometimes neither loue truly themselues, nor any man else; but abusing that which indeed might gain the loue of God and Man, & easily maintaine their hereditary Honour, loose themselues in Vanity & most idle courses; yea in their Fathers liues, so strangely carry themselues (presuming rather on precedence of Birth, then Worth) as though the Law [Page 3] of God, of Nature, and all other Canon, Civill, & Nationall Lawes, Constitutions, and Customes sprung from them, could not either in Reason or Religion barre them of that which they expect; or giue to a well-deseruing younger brother any littleThe harsh and malevo­lent dispositi­on of some El­der Brothers, is graphically delineated by our Saviour in the Parable, Luc. 15.28. [See vers. 32. the Fathers Apology for the younger.] hope lawfully to share with them the least part of their Fathers Inheritance: much lesse to expect an Elder Brothers Fortunes: or on any termes, or for any cause, by a Fathers favour, to steppe before them.

Which Argument among many others, was then handled by the Company pro and contra so doubtfully, that it gaue mee occasion to write this present Discourse concerning the free power of some Fathers. Wherein I intend not to displease or inconciliate Elder Brothers; no not them, who not inheriting their Fathers Vertues, striue not to maintaine their Ancestors Honour, in preseruing their Noble NamesAmongst all Gods tempo­porall bles­sings promi­sed as Re­wards to his faithfull ser­vants, I finde none greater in holy Writ, thē the sprea­ding of their Family. So God to Abraham, I will make of thee a mighty people. What God prizes as so great a guerdon to his best Favorites, shall Vnworthy Man esteeme a Trifle? Car­penter. Achitophel. part. 3. and Familes, by which as a reward to their Vertues and Trauels, Men haue al­waies laboured to liue to all succeeding Ages, in their Posterity.

But my intent is to shew, how Opinion and Incon­sideration make oft-times the Wise to bee scrupu­lous, and through superstitious Zeale, not onely to feare to doe that which Reason may or might haue commanded; but in their erroneous Iudgements rashly to condemne other mens Acts as vnlawfull [Page 4] and irreligious, which according to Reason and Religion haue beene done and ratified; vsing them­selues THAT CVSTOME for the overthrow of their Families, which was indeed only deuised for their preservation; and being hoodwinkt with false conceipts, doe wittingly leaue that, which they and their Ancestors had gotten, as the reward in this life of their vertues, to be the future Fuell of all inordinate Desires & Bestiall sensuality, which in their providence they could willingly otherwise haue disposed of.

All which I doubt not but to make cleare to the impartiall Reader: prouing by the Law of God & Man, that a Fathers freedome is such, that hee may Lawfully and Religiously giue his Lands & Goods, or other his Fortunes, to any of his Children, for the preseruation of his Name, and comfort of his Posterity, without all scruple, as right Reason, or the better Deserts of a Sonne shall perswade him, void of all tendernesse or blindnesse of Affection, which oftentimes leads a Fathers Will, & corrupts his Vnderstanding: so as he be true Lord thereof, not tied by consideration of Mony receaued, or Contract made by Marriage of his Sonne, which may alter the case, and make the Sonne Lord, and the Father to haue but the vse only during his life, as all our common Lawiers well know. In which case, we also haue experience, that our Law per­mits many times to alter the Title, and to vndoe what by former times was held not to bee control­led. But of this point I will not treat. Only I meane [Page 5] to argue, whether a Father possessed in Fee-Taile, may in law and equitie, vpon the former conside­rations, make any child which hee hath, his Heire, leauing to the rest a competency; and doe an Act which according to Equity & Religion may stand good and valuable.

In this my present Discourse let not any expect many Quotations of Authors; for I never read any of this subject. What I bare away of my friends Conference, I will set downe; and what other Rea­sons my vnderstanding shall afford; which I hope shall proue so Demonstratiue, that they shall bee of Authority sufficiētTis one thing, to con­vince an error: another, to make men forsake it: A third, to win them to the truth. vid. pag. 117.2. part of divine Essence & Attributes; by Reverend D. Iackson, worthily honord with the Elogie of an Incomparable wri­ter; by M. Pinke of pious memory. See his Triall of synceritie: serm. 4. p. 57. to satisfy any Reader; or incite some better Penne to treat of the same more large­ly and substantially; and lastly and chiefly, to cleare some of my Worthy Friends from those imputa­tions, which I finde the Ignorant to lay vpon them. Which done, I shall thinke my Time and Paines well imploied.

SUch are the wise and temperate Workes of Nature,Natura, Di­vinitatis ful­gor, Valles. de sa [...]. phil. c. 1. p, 22. that nothing is done by her rashly or vnadvisedly. For though in the Infancie [Page 6] of the World, shee had an invincible power to produce all effects which then had their Originall in her: yet, being studious to please Man-kinde not only with variety, but also with raritie, shee succes­siuely discouers & daily discloses to the searching Wits of the World her Secrets, as Time and Place either hath or doth daily beget Occasion; still as it were keeping in store her heauenly Treasure, till Mans necessitie best moues her Liberalitie.

For what can the Wit of man devise, or what doth Time or Art make known which good is; that Nature, from the first time shee beganne to worke, hath not in her (though to her selfe only knowne) the ground thereof, either to produce the particu­lar or generall effect, which wisely shee left to bee tempered, according as the Reason of Man (whose glory she pretends) should thinke fittest to giue the Forme, as Time, Place, and the nature of the Thing should require?

For though Marriage, as it is a conjunction of Man and Woman, containing an inseparable socie­tie of life, be of Nature it selfe, and had its Origi­nall in the state of Innocence, which (as Divines & Canonists hold) was vndoubtedly ordained for Issues sake, whereby a Lineall succession was also intended: yet, vntill necessity enforced Man to make Division of the Blessings of God & Nature, the Claimes and Rights which follow Lineall suc­cession to Inheritance, were not discouered. For all communicable things being common amongst Men, many Ages were numbred from the Worlds [Page 7] beginning, before any man laid proper claime to a­ny thing, as due to himselfe alone. Whereby it well appeares, that hereditary succession, or Title to a Parents Lands or Goods, could not then be in vse, or so much as thought of.

This, I perswade my selfe, was the Law of Na­ture vndepraved. Which I incline my Will the sooner to credit, because I find that all sorts of peo­ple, as well Christians as others, who haue perfe­ction in Naturall society, or a perfect and Religious life in a Naturall and worldly conversation of Mē, haue and doe daily imbrace this naturall andSee Acts 2.44. bles­sed Community.

Which happy Law of Nature (as I haue said) for many ages endured, & without doubt had lon­ger continued, had not sinne (which breakes all vni­on, and depraues all Naturall perfection) gotten such dominion in the minds of Men, that in Natu­rall Equity all things could not longer bee vsed in common.

For as some being possest with an insatiate de­sire to get, rule, and raigne; sought the oppression of others, by taking from thē that freedome which Nature had giuen them: So others giuen to sensua­lity and idlenesse, sought to liue of other mens la­bours; whereas by Natures lawes every one ought to liue by his proper industry, within the rules of Iustice and Honesty. Wherevpon naturall Reason persuaded, that all things being divided, every Man should know his owne: otherwise, no peace or con­cord could be maintained in Humane society. For [Page 8] all things being common, the way lay open to eve­ry man at his pleasure to abuse others, & as it were to rob them of God his Blessing.

Herevpon, Aristotle judged the Division of all worldly Goods, to haue been agreeable to the law of Nature, which the precept of our Decalogue seemes to approue, Thou shalt not steale. For the Law of God is never contrary to the Law of Nature: neither doth Nature ever contrary it selfe, though some may perhaps thinke that herein she hath. For albeit at the Creation of all things to­gether with Man in the state of Grace, a fraternall and amicable Community was intended: yet was it not so absolutely resolued of by Nature, but that by Necessity (I meane by the fall of Man from Gods Grace) she did dispense with this Law, and left free to Mans choice to embrace, vpon her war­rant, either the One or the Other, as best might fit the Time, Place, and Natures of Men, which ever since the World began, haue giuen occasion of ma­king of all Lawes.

Whereby we see, that though Nature giue the grounds to Lawes, yet Mans vnderstanding still giues the particular Forme. For Nature creating Man, gaue to him those worldly blessings to vse well, with Warrant either to hold them in Com­mon, or in Proper, as reason from time to time could best persuade his Will.

But, when Reason and Will had agreed, that it was fit that every Man should enioy his Part in Proper; Nature moued Man further, and told him, [Page 9] that now he might lawfully think on his successi­on; and not only liue in his species, but breath, as it were, to the Worlds end, in a lineall Posterity by honorable Deeds and Vertuous Acts; with which Desire, Nature, as a wise mother, so inflamed Man (her Noblest Child) after his Fall from Grace, that some Men by Natures light only, haue done Acts almost aboue Nature; and none haue hardly beene so base, but desirous to liue, and leaue an honorable memory behind them.

Which that they may the better doe, Nature hath not only giuen them power to leaue their wel­gotten Wealth, but in a manner their habituallThey which are descended of ancient Nobility, haue in them an implanted compleat Ge­nerosity (or vertuous Dis­position) [...]. Dio Cas. Hist. Ro. l. 44. ex Orat. M. Antonii. Vertues to their Issue; in which, this worldly Ho­nor (the Soules worldly life, and Vertue's tempo­rall Reward) may liue free from all-killing Time. Yet, did shee not then by any Command, leaue it to any one in particular, but giuing a generall sugge­stion of the Fitnesse of the Thing, left the Forme to their best Discretion. For had shee not done so, all Nations had beene tied to obserue one Forme, in leauing their goods and Fortunes to their Poste­rities; for Nature being One, without change to all, of necessity prescribes no binding Rule to any in particular, but to all in generall; no man being able to say; This, Natures Law commands me to doe, & yet binds not any other to doe the like. Which is evident in the Matter of Succession,Consule Cla­riss. V. D. Zouch, de Iu­re Feudali. p. 18. &. 21. or Claimes of Inheritance; no one Country obseruing the Forme held by another; or tying it selfe without controll to obserue its owne, as I shall hereafter declare.

[Page 10]For albeit (as I haue said) the Conjunction of Man and Woman (which we call Matrimony) to­gether with the Desire of Issue, be of Nature, from whence also are sprung not onely a Division of the Goods and Fortunes of this World, but also a laudable Desire to preserue a Family and Name, by the ordination of Heires to well-gotten Posses­sions; yet did Nature never set down as a Law, that those Fortunes should be left to the Elder Brother or Younger, or to any One in particular; or to All; but to whom the Father, being true and free Lord thereof, should best devise by Will guided by Rea­son. For it was never yet averred by any sound Di­vine, Philosopher, or Lawyer, that Nature makes immediatly Heires, but Men, whom the positiue Lawes of every Country ordaine by that Forme and Power of Law, where such an Act should bee done. And this is (I presume) without controll, what the Law of Nature commanded touching the Matter in Question. Next, let vs see, what the Lawes of God doe command.

IF Nature, being taken for the principal & all-pro­ducing Cause of the whole Frame of the Vni­verse, [Page 11] with all Creatures therein, being nothing else but the working Will of the Highest and first Mo­ver (as Divines & Philosophers hold) then surely must Natures Law bee his Will, which hee cannot contradict or counter-mand, except hee should bee contrary to Himselfe, which he cannot. For, what is in God, is God, therefore Constant and Immu­table. Out of which Principle, it is easily proued, that if the Law of God teach that which the Law of Nature hath ordained, the Right of Inheritance cannot be tied to any other person or persons, then to those which the Fathers Will approues, accor­ding to the Power giuen him, by the Lawes of Na­tions where he liues. Which Power deriued from Natures Law, cannot erre from the Law of God. For whosoever shall consider but of Gods Com­mandements giuen to Man, shall well find, that God thereby hath still seconded his former Ordinances giuen by Nature. For so long as Man-kinde liued in a sort, after the Innocence which Gods Grace in his first Creation had wrought in him, God gaue him no other Law: But when as by sinne those sparks which remained after his Fall, were quite extinguished; he gaue him New Lawes, yet agree­able to Nature.

As for example in our present Affaires: When Man had made by Natures privilege partition of Gods and Natures Blessings, then God said to his People by the mouth of Moses, Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbours house, his Wife, his Ox, his Asse, or any thing that is his. As also, [Page 12] Thou shalt not kill. Which with all other his Com­mandements teaching what sinne is, are agreeable to the Law of Nature, yet are dispensed withall, as farre as the Lawes of Nature euer permitted. For, though that the expresse Command of God bee, thou shalt not couet any thing that is thy Neigh­bours, nor kill; yet, in some Cases, Both may law­fully be done. The one, in extreame Want of pre­sent Food: the other, in defence of Life & Goods; In which, the Law of God, is good by the Origi­nall Law of Nature, which made All for the suste­nance of Man; and gaue leaue to defend Life with with the losse of anothers Blood, yea Life, if other­wise it cannot be. Vpon which Ground, I argue thus.

Suppose the Law of God did at this present command (which indeed it doth not) that the In­heritance should be left to any one particular Per­son, and namely to the Elder-Brother, yet in some Cases it would not binde the Father to obserue it. For as in the former Commandements, vpon some considerations the Commandement may bee dis­pens'd withall, so in this. For it is not sufficient to be the Elder-Brother, or the neerest in Blood to gaine an Inheritance in the Case which I haue now proposed; for other Circumstances must concurre, which if they be wanting, bare propinquity or an­cienty of Blood may iustly be rejected: & he that is second, third, fourth, fift, or last, may lawfully be preferred before the First, and this, by all Law, Divine and Humane, and by all Reason, Consci­ence, [Page 13] and Custome of Nations Christian.

For if it should happen that the next in Blood, should be a Naturall Foole, or a Mad-man, or be­ing taken by the Turkes or Moores in his Infancy, and educated in their Religion, would maintaine the same: or if any other such Accident, ministring cause of iust Exception should fall out; is it likely that any Law would allow, that such a man should be admitted to the Inheritance? Wherefore how idly should they talke, that would haue it to bee his Birth-right, or that God & Nature had made him Heire; since neither God nor Nature doth imme­diatly make Heires, as before is declared. Vpon which Ground, our Common Lawyers say, that No Heires are borne, but Men and Law make them.

I confesse, that in Holy Writ, greatIn allusion hereto, the Church Tri­umphant is stiled, The Church of the First-borne. Heb. 12.23. Respect is had of the first-begotten, and a Blessing is held to come to Parents thereby. But this Blessing I pre­suppose to bee, that thereby the Feare of sterility was taken away, which in the Old Law was held to be a great Punishment of God; & in respect there­of, Parents had of themselues, and by the Nationall Lawes & Customes, a great Regard of their First-begotten, and preferd them to the better part of their Possessions: yet, not by any Command from God, as a Precept to binde his Elect people vnder paine of sinne. For had any such Law bound them vnder such a Penalty; then should it binde all Chri­stians now, on the same Conditions. But we see it by Generall Practise of all Countries to be other­wise. [Page 14] Therefore it followes directly, that it was not Gods Command, but a Nationall Law. For God both is, and ever was One, without change to all his People, & so ever were & will be his Laws Positiue, made for them that truly worship him.

The Claime which Esau made to his Birth-right was not by the Law of God, as some ignorantly af­firme, but by the Lawes of his Country. For, should the Divine Law haue commanded it, it had been sinne in his Mother and Brother, by Cunning to haue got it from him. Neither could the Father or the State wherein they liued, vpon no just cause knowne but to God alone, without sinne haue set­led the same vpon his Brother Iacob, as it was, and as it may seeme,Iacob praela­tione divinâ & primogeni­turam & be­nedictionem promeruit (Ita Eximius Prae­sul. D. Episc. Cicestr. Ap­parat. I.) by allowance from God, and as it may bee judged by the successe. Whereby it is thought, that God ordained it, as a Punishment of the One, and Blessing of the Other: which by the permission of sinne to bee committed, God never doth.

Neither did the Nationall Law or Custome of the Iewes (as it is said) absolutely command the Father to leaue to his first begotten, all, or the grea­test part of his Goods and Fortunes. But in case he died, not disposing thereof by Act in his Life, or Will at his death, then the CustomeViz. Groun­ded on the Right of Pri­mogeniture. See Deut. 21.17. and the Geneva note there. of the Nati­on, laid a double Portion on the Eldest or First-be­got, providing for the rest proportionally.

By all which you may collect, that neither the Law of God or Man, in this case, commanded that Esau should haue the Inheritance; but Power to do [Page 15] the contrary, was giuen to the Father in his Life­time, even by the Law it selfe. For many Divines hold that Esau selling his Birth-right (as it is ter­med) sold not Goods, or Lands, but his Claime of beingAt first, Fa­thers & their first borne af­ter thē, were both Kings & Priests in their owne houses: but in Moses daies, this Preroga­tiue of Pri­mogeniture ceased: Aaron and his Pro­geny being in­vested in the Priesthood, & Moses being as King. Deut 33.5. (As ju­dicious Mr. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron. Lib. 1. c. 1) High Priest after his Father, which by Cu­stome was to come to him being his Fathers Eldest Sonne. For which Dignity God seeing him vnfit, permitted him to passe away his Right in his Fa­thers life, as we read in Holy Writ, and which God seemed to approue. And thus I hope this Objecti­on is answered.

Further, if it were true, that the effect of Eldership were such by the Law of God, as some passionate­ly defend, that is, that the whole Inheritance should of Right pertaine to the Eldest; then sure it follow­eth by good Consequence, that there should, nor ever could, haue beene but one Temporall Lord of all the World. For of Necessity Adams Inheritance should haue gone still to the next in Blood: which how absurd it is, let all men judge.

Moreover, we read, that Noe hauing three Sons, and the whole world to leaue vnto them, gaue it not All to the Eldest, but equally divided it among them & their Posterity, as all Authentike Histories doe witnesse.

Againe, God requiring Obedience of Children to Parents, promised a Reward, saying, Honor thy Father and thy Mother, that thy Daies may bee long in the Land which the Lord shall giue thee; Which surely was not spoken to one, but to all the Children of men. For with God there is no Excep­tion [Page 16] of Persons, but as a just and pious Father, hee giues every one according to his Deserts. Terram autem dedit filiis hominum.

We read also in Holy Writ, how the Prodigall Sonne being weary of his Fathers house,Luk. 15.12. came to him and boldly said, Pater, da mihi portionem sub­stantiae meae quae me contingit: This child of which the Gospell speakes, was the younger Brother: yet you see how boldly he said: Giue me that Portion of Goods which belongs to me. By which words it is evident, that a Division or Partitiō of a Fathers Fortunes was thenAs is fur­ther eviden­ced Luk. 12.13. where our Saviour was willed by One, to re­quire his Bro­ther to divide the Inheritāce with him. Which was the suit of a younger Bro­ther (aggree­ved at the churlish Ini­quity of his Elder.) The Iudgement of that Illustri­ous & Religi­ous Divine, M. Iohn Ha [...] the most ex­quisite Illu­strator of Chrysostome, publisht by the Right Noble Knight Sir Henry Savile, [...] in Glory. in vse: and that any child as well younger as elder had power by law to demand his Legitimate, or Childs part, according to the na­ture of the Civill and Canon Law, as you haue heard. For the words following in the sacred Text are these, Et divisit substantiam illis. And hee divi­ded vnto them his Living. Thus wee see, that the privilege of Eldership was then excluded; which now in our Country by Custome only, is gotten to be of such Force.

But it may be objected, that this was a Parable only (as indeed it was) and cannot bee alleaged as Law. True it is; yet it cannot be denied, but that all Similies, Parables, or Examples, which ever were alleaged by the wise and learned to represent the Truth, haue euer beene deriued from the custome and nature of Things, according to the knowne Truth in that time, and place, and to those persons to whom the Speech or Discourse is directed. And shall we thinke that our Saviour Christ being Wis­dome [Page 17] and Truth it selfe, treating of so important an Affaire, as he did then in the Gospell, would vse an vnknowne Discourse, or striue to make the Truth appeare to our weake Vnderstanding by a Parable which in Equity could not bee true? No surely. For it appeares by Solomon his succeeding his Father David, that David had power by the Lawes of God and Man, to giue his Kingdome to the worthiest; which hee deeming to be Solomon, gaue to him his Kingdome, though hee was the youngest Sonne.

Neither was there any just exception made a­gainst Adonias his Eldest Brother, or against some other of his Brethren, why they should be disinhe­rited by their Father David contrary to the com­mon practise of those Times in setling Inheritan­ces. But the onely knowne reason of this Act in Scripture, was Davids Promise,1. Kings. 1. made to Solomons Mother, together with her great Entreaty made to David to performe it. Which surely he would not not haue done, had he not found a lawfull Power in himselfe, to haue executed the same.

Lastly, it is invincibly proued out of the Booke of Iob, who was contemporary with Moses (by at­testation of judicious Theologians) that there was in those Times and Countries no such Law or Cu­stome, that the Eldest should play at Sweep-stake, and all the rest be left to the foure Windes: for it is expresly recorded in the last Chapter, and the 15 Verse; that Iob gaue his Daughters, Inheritance among their Brethren: Iob. 42.15. Which comes home to the [Page 18] point in Question, and irrepliably evinces a Fathers Power and Right to make such a Partition of his Estate among his Children, as vpon emergent occa­sion, he shall judge expedient.

And thus much concerning what may bee said out of Scripture, or Law of God, in our present Question.

HAuing now declared what the Laws of God and Nature determine of our present Question: we intend to exa­mine in breefe, what is commanded by the Law of Man, as well Civill, of other Nations; as Common, of our owne Coun­try. And first concerning the Civill Law.

Though all Law, which ever had but the Name or Credit of Law, doth surely deriue her Originall from the Law of Nature, wherevpon Cicero many hundred yeares since said, that the Ground of all Law-making, is to be taken from the chiefe Law, which was made before any Law was written, or City builded: yet doe they differ much in Forme. For as it is no Law, but Tyranny, which wholy dis­agrees with the Law of Nature, as Aristotle saith: [Page 19] so if it agree in All with the Law of Nature, with­out limitation or difference, it must of Force be the very Law of Nature it selfe; and not the Law of Man. Which surely is nothing else, then a Temper or Forme of Equity drawne by right Reason from the Grounds of Natures Laws; according as Time, Place, and the Natures of Men either gaue, or shall giue Occasion. For though new Lawes bee daily made of new and seuerall Accidents; yet all are a­greeable to the old and ancient Grounds of Reason in Nature, the Grand-Mother of all Law. Where­fore hauing before specified what the Law of Na­ture is touching the Point in Question, I shall now declare, what Temper or Forme hath thereto beene added by the Civill Lawyer.

After that Man-kinde was inforced (yet by Na­tures Warrant) to make (as I haue said) a partition of the Blessings of God and Nature: and that Men were possest by the same Right of Goods & Lands which they desir'd to leaue to Posterity; Law-ma­kers, and in particular, the Civilian, devised by little and little certaine Formes of Inheritance, and or­dination of Heires, at first somewhat rigorous, gi­ving to Parents power of Life & Death ouer their Children, and a free disposition of all their For­tunes to any one of them in his life: but dying inte­state, then all which was the Fathers, to be equally divided among the Children, as well daughters as sonnes. Which Constitution was afterward vpon good grounds altered: the Father being bound to leaue every child a Portiō, which the Civilian cals a [Page 20] Legitimate, Others a Patrimony; which at first, was the eight part of the Fathers substance, equally to be divided (as hath beene said:) which after a while seeming litle, the Law commanded that the Fourth part should be left without Controll: except vpon just cause the Testator did disinherite him or them who by course of Law were to succeed him: stil vp­holding the former Lawes, that as well daughters as sonnes, should equally succeed their Parents dy­ing intestate; Herein assigning fourteene causes why an Heire might lawfully be disinherited.

Many hundred yeares passed frō the establishing of the Civill Law, before it was ordained by force of Law, that Parents should leaue a Childs part (as it is now called) or that they could not disinherit, without expressing the cause thereof in their last Will: yet, in all this Time, nor till this present Day, the Privilege of engrossing all by Primogeniture was not once heard of, or at lestwise not admitted, but rather excluded; as by many Text in the same Law it well appeares: The End of the Imperiall or Roman Civill Law, being only to maintaine Mo­rall Iustice in three short Precepts; Liue honestly. Hurt no Man. Giue every one his owne. So that hee who obserues these three, fulfills this Law, yea the Law of Nature, whence this Law is deriued. Now, if any Brother can proue, that his Father either in his life by Deed, or by Will at his Death, disposing of his Goods and Lands no otherwise then I haue declar'd, doth no act against these three; why should he not content himselfe, either with the Fruits of his [Page 21] Fathers loue, or his owne Deserts what ever they bee.

True it is, that in Naturall Iustice, children du­ring their Fathers life, haue Ius ad rem, not Ius in re to a Fathers Goods: Wherevpon the Law calleth them quasi bonorum Patris Dominos. Which their Right only takes effect after their Fathers Death. For during life, he hath power to alter, alien, sell, & giue, as it shall please him, according to forme of Law: but being dead without Will, or disposition thereof, they fall vpon his children, according to the Law of Nations. This Law embraceth a two­fold Iustice, the one in Exchange, the other in Di­stribution. The first hath not to doe with our cause: The otherThis war­rants not the injurious Ab­dication of vnnatural Pa­rents; (irre­mediable by the common Law: as is al­so the oppres­sion of Or­phans by lewd Step-fathers and sharking Executors.) See D. Rid­leys View (re­publisht by a learned Stu­dent of the Royall Col­lege of Christ Church Ox­on.) part. 4. Sect. 1. & 2. rather commends then condemnes a Father, who vpon good Occasion, that is, for the bad Demerits of his Eldest Sonne, and for the pre­servation of his Family, shall giue or convey his Lands or Goods to the Younger. For the Nature of distributiue Iustice, is not only to giue proporti­onally to the well-deseruing: but also to forbeare to place Benefits vpon any one who shall abuse them: or vse thē to any other end, then to that good for which they were lent, and hee shall leaue them. And this is Ius suum vnicui (que) tribuere. For no man can giue or sell his Goods to an evill end, or to any one, who he assures himselfe, will vse them to the Dishonour of God, or the Wrong of those who shall liue with him, or by him: whereof I will treat more in the seventh Chapter; being then to handle, what a Father may in Conscience doe or not doe, [Page 22] in our present Question, with sinne & without sin. And thus much of the Civill and Canon Lawyers Averment of an Elder Brothers Right to his Fa­thers Fortunes.

I Haue purposely reserued to treat of the Lawes of our Country in the last place, because (I assure my selfe) they are of most force to sway the Point in question. For many things may be permitted by the Lawes of God and Na­ture, and yet contrarily prohibited, or practised by course of Law, in severall States of the World, as the Law-makers and Customes of Countries allow or command. I confesse, the generall practise of our Time among Parents, is to leaue either All or most part of their Lands to their Eldest Sonne. This que­stionlesse (as hath beene said) was first devised in former Ages, for the preservation of a Family, and to raise One who might bee a Comfort to his Bro­thers, Sisters, and Family, and in whom his Proge­nitors Vertues might liue to the World. And I wil not deny, but the Partition of Lands, may reduce in [Page 23] the end, a goodly Estate to Nothing, or to so litle, as it may be like an Atome in the Sun; yet I finde in Naturall Reason, that, ex nihilo nihil fit, or at lest, that

But if Men faile of those happy Ends,Cessante rati­one, cessat Lex, to which this generall Custome should guid, then could I wish, that they would not vse That for their Destructi­on, which was meant for their Preservation. For who sees not, in these our Times, many vnbridled youths so violently carried away with the humour of spending, that they neglect Brother and Sister; yea, bring to extreame misery their Naturall Mo­thers after their Fathers Death, by their vnthrifti­nesse. What help for this hath Law left vnto vs? No meanes to bridle these vnruly Colts, if they be­come Heires according to the custome of our Time? No truly. For some starting-hole will bee found, to vnty the Knot which a Fathers care once tied. How then? Must many a hopefull and well-deseruing Brother and Sister, bee left to the Mercy of this Whirlewinde? There is no Necessity. For our Law hath giuen Power to a Father, and Free-will to dispose of his Owne, according as Reason shall guid his Will, without all obligation to his Heire. Besides, this Custome takes place only after a Fathers Death, if hee dispose not what is his, by Deed in life, or by Will at his Death. But lest my Words bee more generally taken, then they are meant; I meane those Fathers, who are possest of [Page 24] their Lands in Fee, or Fee-taile: that is, are absolute of themselues, and haue not vpon good Considera­tion convaied their Lands from themselues. For all our Lawyers agree, that such Parents may alien, sell, and giue, by power of our Law, their Lands to whom they will, without respect of Person or El­dership.

But may some say, the Custome is otherwise, & this Custome is a Law. True, it is the Custome: But let vs see, whether it binde sub peccato, or as a Custome, which rather invites then commands. There was never any Command to tye a Father vnder a Penalty which admits no limitation; but it was euer left indifferent, and then only to take place where former Provision according to course of Law is not made. Then surely a Parent is free from this devouring Custome, and may considerately prevent what Evill it may bring to his posterity: yea, Reason commands it should be so. For, Inter­est Reip. vt quilibet re suâ benè vtatur: It concernes the publike State that Men be Good Husbands; saith the Ciuill Law. For if a Man can neither sell, nor set, much lesse can hee giue any thing to another, which he thinkes in his Conscience, will vse it to the Dishonour of God, and the Ruine of himselfe, or others.

Divines hold, that it is not lawfull to sell or let a house to any that hee thinkes assuredly will make thereof a Stewes; or to sell, giue, or lend a Weapon to a man who intends therewith to doe murther. Excommunications are imposed on them, who sell [Page 25] Armes Offensiue, or Defensiue to Turks, though they bee not assured, they will vse them against Christians.

Thus, we see, the Rule of Conscience, not onely commands a man to vse wel those Fortunes which God hath bestowed on him; but forbids him, ei­ther vpon Affection, or Gaine, to part with them to others who will abuse them, lest hee partake of o­thers sinne: which a Parent may doe after death, who leaues his Lands to a desperate Vnthrift. But, what Religion and Conscience commands, shall be declared in the following Chapter. In which, vpon Principles drawne from the former Conclusions, shall be argued, what sinne may bee contracted by the parting an Estate among Sonnes, or by disinhe­riting an Eldest son vpon just Cause; & to whom the Father is onely tied by the Custome of the the Countrey, without Obligation of Promise, or Contract in Marriage, which may alter the Case.

THE Right of these insociable Inhe­ritors, of which wee now treat, may grow (as I conceaue) from three Ti­tles or Claimes, which they may pre­tend to a Fathers Inheritance, and whereby it may be deemed (as they thinke) sinne in a Father, vpon what Desert soeuer, to barre them of the said Right. These three Titles, are Purchase, Custome, and Entaile. Of each seuerally. And of the first, which is Purchase. Surely in the Iudgement of the Good & Learned, there is no question in Law, or Conscience, but that a sonne joyned Purchaser with his Father, hath Ius in re, and by Equity must, surviuing his Father, inherite such Lands as were purchased in their Names.

Now of the other two, though it be as cleere as Noone-light, that a Lord in Fee-simple, or Tenent in Taile, may sel, or giue by course of our common Law, at his pleasure all such Lands held by him, in that kind, according to those formes of Law, which the learned in our Lawes haue, and can set downe: [Page 27] yet there seems to arise a great Difficulty, how such an Act or Acts may in Conscience be executed. I haue heard some say, in this our Case, summum Ius, summa injuria.

Of these Points therefore I will speake (Salvo meliori judicio) what may in Conscience, vpō good and just Occasion giuen by the Sonne to his Fa­ther, bee put in Execution. It is well knowne to all Divines (as I haue said) that Holy Writ hath not prescribed any direct or precise Forme 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 Country, where any Act of that kinde shall be ex­ecuted; only as confirming all Formes of Devises which by publike Consent, and Authority, either haue, or shall in rightfull manner bee devised or or­dained.

Out of this Ground and others prementioned, let vs examine, whether a Father parting his For­tunes by Power of Law, and on just Cause; shall do a wrongfull and sinfull Act, as some would make it. I confesse, that every Act in it selfe, or by cir­cumstance evill, and which vpon no occasion can be justified, is both before God and Man, sinne, and by no meanes to be executed by a Christian. But that the parting of an Inheritance, or Disinheriting of an Eldest Sonne, vpon just, and evident cause of incapacity, & according to Course of Law, is an Act of that Nature, doth not appeare. For I finde not, that either the Law of Nature or Grace, nor yet [Page 28] the Lawes of Man, Common, Civill, or Canon, ever for bad such Acts, whereby sinne may bee im­puted to those who doe them on good Considera­tions. Sure I am that the Canon and Civill Law are so farre from forbidding them, that they com­mand, as a Thing in Equity, the Father either to di­vide his Inheritance, or allow him according to his Affection, to giue to one more then to another: yet with this Proviso, that hee who hath the lest, haue hisOr lawfull Portion: See pag. 61. of Dr Ridleys View illustrated by the judicious­ly [...]e [...]ined Mr Gregory. Childs part; which the Law doth also assigne, except on just desert he disinherit any one: which at this day may, yea must bee by Will, with the cause of Disinherison therein specified. Of which Causes the Imperiall Lawes haue set downe foure­teene, as may well appeare to them who are desi­rous to vnderstand more thereof. So it is evident, that by these two Lawes, no sinne can grow vpon such Acts, being done vpon their Warrant, and vp­on on such Consideration, as is formerly deliuered.

As for the Common Lawes of our Realme, sure it is, they allow no lesse, and with a greater Privi­lege. For a Man may by this Law, giue his Lands held in Fee, either by Deed in his life, or by Will at his death, to any of his Children; yea to a stranger, without rendring a Reason why he doth so. True it is, that a Father not disposing thereof in such sort, Custome giues the whole Estate to the Eldest: yet in some part of our Countrey, the youngest Bro­ther, by custome is to haue the Land, held by some kind of Tenure, if the Father in his life-time dis­pose not thereof.

[Page 29]As yet therefore I cannot see, how any sinne is committed, or contracted by the former Acts, being neither done against the Law of God or Man, as we haue proued: vnlesse it should be said to bee sin, not to leaue it to the Power of a Custome: which cannot be, except the former Law shall bee proued not to be of Force, and not to be executed; which can no way be done: Though I must confesse, that the Custome of leauing the Child-estate to the El­dest sonne, hath of latter Times beene much imbra­ced by our Gentry, for the preservation of their Families, for which it was invented. For the Times haue so ruled, that Men of sort, being either idle, or not possest with a couetous Humour, haue conten­ted themselues with their Fathers Fortunes, and prefer'd their younger sonnes by those meanes which the Times did afford: namely, by many commendable Courses; as either by service of Spi­rituall and Ecclesiasticall Persons, whereby many were raised: or by professing a spirituall Life, wher­by the younger Brother hath oft-times in Honour stept before the Elder. But this manner of Life, is not so gratefull to our English Gentlemens Na­tures, as anciently it hath beene.

‘The Trade of the Merchant, the Military pro­fession, the Courtiers life, advanced many more, then now they doe; and lastly, Elder Brothers in former Ages were (generally) of better Temper in spending: and if they had no humour to get, yet had they a care to keepe what was left them: and ever held themselues bound by Religion to [Page 30] provide for their younger Brothers and Sisters left to their Dispose, which now is far otherwise. For some Elder Brothers are found to spend more in a yeare idly, then would prefer or main­taine a whole Family Nobly: and to suffer their Brothers & Sisters to shift, which as these Times shape, is often-times to liue either lewdly, or most miserably: Strenue esurire. being forced either to forget their good Education, or to lay aside all Badges of Gentry; who otherwise with some reasonable helpes, might doe God, their Country, and Fa­mily much Honour.’

Since we haue gone so farre, let vs see, on what Ground this Custome first hath risen. Surely for the maintenance of a Family, yet led with an Am­bitiō at the Example of Princes, who finding some difficulties in the admitting of many to a Gouern­ment, and feeling what Inconveniences the parting of an Estate, brought; devised that One should go­verne: sometime the Worthiest, sometime the El­dest was Elected, according as the Order was a­greed vpon, and yet the other Brothers were main­tained like Princes. And this Custome also among them hath beene broken, without Imputation of sinne: For to goe no further then our late Times: 'tis well knowne, that Ferdinand (Charles the fift his Brother) being setled in the Empire, divided his Estate. To Maximilian his Eldest sonne, he left the Empire, with Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia. To Charles his second sonne, Stiria, Carinthia, and o­ther Dominions. And to Ferdinand the youngest, [Page 31] he gaue the Earledome of Tyroll. All which, if in his life-time hee had not disposed, had come to the Eldest. Also Philip the second, late King of Spaine, gaue to his Daughter the 17 Provinces, which were of Right to haue descended to his sonne after his Death, if otherwise he had not disposed in his life. And this was adjudged lawfull by Graue Divines, otherwise surely they would never haue done it.

But doth this Custome in meaner Degrees work that Effect which it hath done in them? No truly. For as we haue proued, it is rather the Overthrow then the Preservation of many Families. Let vs see withall, whether Families flourished not as much, and more then now they doe, before this Custome was receaued.

Livy saith, that three hundred of the Fabij, Vna dies Fa­bios ad bellum miserat omnes Ovid. Fast. all of one Name and Family, issued out of Rome Gates at one time, on their owne Cost, for Defense of their City: which was done, before this Custome was dream'd of.

In Scotland three hundred of the Name and Fa­mily of Frasers, Gentlemen, were at one Time slaine in Fight by their Enemies Neighbours: and 140 Gentlemen of one Name in Yorkshiere, wai­ted on their chiefe or principal Man of their House, at that time High Sheriffe. In other Countries, ma­ny Noble Families from the Romans downeward, haue continued where this Custome hath beene deemed vnjust, as by their Laws is manifest: wher­as in our Country, in these our Times, if there bee one Family in a Shire, which is of three hundred [Page 32] yeares continuance, very many others are scarse of fiue Descents in a Blood.

Why should our Age then, seeing the Fruit of this Custome to be so small, embrace it with such Zeale as to deeme the Breach thereof, being war­ranted for Good and Iust by the Law of God, Na­ture, and Man, to be a sinne? Is it held both lawfull and expedient (in some Countries) for the preser­vation of a Family, that Degrees of Kindred should be dispensed with to marry, contrary to Ecclesiasti­call Canons and the Generall Practise: and can it be lawfull before God and Man, for the preservati­on of our Goods, to venture our Liues, and to kill a Theefe, who shall assault vs, and that perhaps for a Trifle; and yet that for preservation of our whole Estate, and perpetuity of a Family, it shall bee repu­ted sinne, to breake a bare Custome, vnder no Pe­nalty Obligatory, yea alwaies allowed by Law? Never was it heard, that a CustomeCustomes a­gainst Lawes, are void by the Civill Law. was of such force, to abrogate a Law so farre, that it should bee deem'd a sinne to follow the said Law, though it haue Power to dispense with the Law, which other­wise to infringe, were sinne: especially when as the the Law is both more pious and more naturall then the Custome is. For how farre is it from the Law of Nature, and from the Practise of Paternall Pie­ty, the Father dying intestate, the Eldest sonne to become Lord Paramount of all his Fathers Lands, & not to be bound by Law to provide for Brother or Sister, but at his owne good liking? Aliud Tem­pus, alios mores postulat. Men of Vertue, Men of [Page 33] Learning & Vertue, both now and in former Ages, in this our Countrey, haue brok this Custome,This Cu­stome is con­trary to the iudgement & practise of the Primitiue Church: as is cleare in Sal­vianus; who intimateth, that aequa haereditatis portio was vsually left by Christian Parents to their Children, and that to doe otherwise, were Grosse Iniquity: Ad Eccles. Cath: pag: 422. 425. Edit: Oxon: Floruit: Ao 480. as the World knows, vpon good Consideration, & just Causes; not vpon spleene, or false suppositions persuaded to leaue their Fortunes to Strangers, or to a lustfull Issue, as some haue done.

HAving treated largely, and (as I pre­sume) proued sufficiently, that Lands held in Fee-simple, may either bee parted, or vpon just Cause wholly gi­ven away to a younger Sonne: I in­tend now to speake of the lawfull Freedome of a Father in like sort, and on the same causes, moued to dispose of his Lands entailed: of which there seemes more Doubt then of the former.

Every humane Act, which of it selfe is not for­bidden by the Law of God or Nature, is to bee judged Good or Evill, Lawfull or Vnlawfull, ei­ther by the Lawes of the place where the Act is done, or by Intention of him who shall doe the Act. For as the Divine Law cōmands somethings [Page 34] to be done, and other things to bee avoided, vnder paine of sinne: so the third sort of Actions are left free (by the said Authority) from sinne; except the Law of Man prohibite thē, & so make them sin: or else evill Intention make them (being of themselues lawfull) to be a sinne, and vnlawfull; according to that Principle of Morall Philosophy, Finis specifi­cat āctum. For as an Act of it selfe lawfull, done a­gainst Law is Sinne: so a good Act commanded by Law, yet done with an evill intention, may be sinne.

From these Grounds, let vs see, whether the Common Law of our Country, and the Intention of a Father (which are to bee the Iudges of our Cause) can allow the cutting off an Entaile, the par­ting of an Inheritance, or (vpon proportionable cause) the disinheriting of a Son. First it is cleere, that the Act, of it selfe, by Law may be done: But whether such an Act bee summum Ius, which may be summa injuria, that is the Doubt. What shall be the Triall? By other Lawes, it is either made lawfull, or left indifferent. Our Law which makes this Tye, giues leaue to vndoe it without a­ny exception. Ergo, to a good End, and vpon just Cause, it may be done. It will bee replied, that the Eldest sonne, during this Entaile, is quasi Dominus: Yet, hauing neither Dominium directum, nor indire­ctum, he, during his Fathers life, hath onely Ius ad Rem, and not in Re: Whereby no change is forbid­den to be made by the Father, according to the Forme of the Law vnder which he liueth, and by which, the sonne is to make claime, if the Father [Page 35] create no new Estate in his life. For it is lawfull for every Man to dispose of his Owne, as far as the Law shall permit him, if it bee not forbidden by some other Law: but such an Act is not forbidden by any other Law, Ergo 'tis lawfull, and no sinne.

But it may bee said, that the Intention of him who entaild the Land, was, that it should not be vn­tied, or the state changed. I answer: No Act done by law, can be free from Change, further or longer, then the Law that made it a binding Act, shall al­low. And it is well knowne to the learned in our Lawes, that every Mans Intention is to be constru­ed according to Law, by which, his Act and Inten­tions are directed. Wherevpon, Civilians say in like Cases, Valeat quantum valere potest. Neither is it thought, that any man who convaieth his Lands by Entaile, can intend an Act beyond Law, or de­sire that his sonne whom he makes Tenent entaile (as our Lawyers terme him) shall in no Case, no not for the preservation of his Family, or Releefe of many other of his Children, haue power to cut of this Entaile, and to be able to alien, sell, or giue his Lands, as Reason, Law, and Religion shall per­mit. For it may be judged, that hee who doth an Act to a good End, as namely to preserue his Fa­mily, will alwaies assent to another Act, which shall with better assurance then his owne, strengthen his Intendment.

To the former Considerations wee may adde, what Inconveniences may follow this Generall Position. For if in conscience the whole Inheri­tance [Page 36] of the Father, is to come without controle to the Eldest sonne, then must it of necessity bee infer­red, that the Father, without his Consent,Agens per medium, est minus efficax in agendo. cannot giue to piousDa quae nō potes retinere, vt consequaris ca quae non potes amitte­re. Vses, or set out for the Advancemēt of his other Children any thing after his Death. So that if God should blesse a Father with many chil­dren, and crosse him with as many Misfortunes; his other Children, and all other his charitable Intenti­ons should be provided for only at his Sonne's or Heire's curtesy. Which howPedissequa enim plerum (que) novi honoris, est Arrogan­tia Salv. Ep. 2. absurd it is, all men know. For herevpon all Donations to pious Vses, and to younger Brothers for their preferment, may be called in Question.

It is an ordinary thing in these our Times, when the Land is left to the Heire Generall, to alter the Estate, if the Land so cōvaied shal come to Daugh­ters, and to leaue it to a BrothersHebrewes call a Male-Child Zacar, a memoriall: because the Fathers me­mory is pre­seru'd in the Sonne, See 2. Sam. 18.18 Sonne, or some other of the same Name (though peradventure many Degrees remoued) for preservation of the Name and Family. If this may bee deemed lawfull, and no sinne, being done against a well deseruing Child, for whom, Nature and her Deserts plead her worthy to be her Fathers Heire: then without all compare, if the preservation of a Name and Fa­mily, may justly be labour'd for, according to Pow­er giuen by Law of God and Man; the same may be lawfully acted, against a debauched Heire, who in any reasonable Mans Iudgement, is likely in his shrowd to bury the Memory of all his Ancestors Vertues, which should liue in him, and his Proge­ny, as his Progenitors did in theirs.

[Page 37]It is neither new, nor strange, in the Practise of our Times, in Causes of this Nature, to overthrow intended Perpetuities, and by Act of Parliament to giue leaue vpon some good considerations to sell lands, which otherwise by no Lawes can bee sold from the Heire, the Father being but Tenent onely for terme of life. Which surely by no Power vn­der God could be done, were the Thing in it selfe, vnlawfull and sinne; forSee Salvian ad Ecc. Cath. l. 4. Omne peccatum est Divi­nitatis injuria: Whence may bee argued à Fortiori; If power may be giuen to a Father being Tenent for Terme of life, to sell his Sonnes lands, only to pay his owne Debts (peradventure idly made) though it be to the Overthrow, or extreame Diminution of his Family; because Naturall Equity doth will, that every one should be relieued with his Owne, (for so it may bee deemed, though in loue to his Child he hath passed the Estate, yet ought hee to be therewith preserued from Thraldome in his Ne­cessity:) Which if it be so, (as confessedly it is) how reasonable a thing, yea how commendable, and far So Salvia­nus: Non iniu­stè testator sa­piens non re­linquit, quod haeres impius non meretur. Ad Ecc. Cath. l. 3. from sinne is it, for a Father truely Lord of his owne, without all Tie of Law, Divine, or Humane (as I haue proued) to dispose his Lands, to the Honour of God and Comfort of his Family, to a Younger Sonne, when in all probability, the Elder will neither vse it to the One nor the Other, but ra­ther, to wallow in Riot and Sensuality.

HAuing vpon good Consideration en­larged my selfe beyond my first in­tention, I haue resolu'd, vnder my Readers Favour, & on the precedent Principles, to Argue one Question more, for the accomplishment of this Discourse: viz: Whether a Father may disinherit his Eldest Son or Heire at Common Law, for such an Vnthriftinesse, as in most mens Viz: Groun­ded on the con­currence of great and vi­olent Presum­ptions. Iudgements, is like to bee the Ruine of his Family?

Though many foule sinnes, besides the Abuse of Gods Blessings, bee concomitant to vnthriftinesse, yet because they are not apparent to the World (& de absconditis non judicat Praetor) I will briefly ar­gue, Whether in Reason, or Conscience, a desperate Vnthrift may be disinherited.

It is well knowne to all the Wise & Temperate, whose Iudgements Passion doth not ouer-sway, how great an Enemy Prodigality or Vnthriftinesse is to all manner of Goodnesse: and how cunningly she not only hinders the Increase of all Vertues in those in whom she raignes: but also vnjustly oft­times cuts off the vertuous reward of many a wor­thy Predecessour; yea, giues occasion to the Evill to detract, to the Good to suspect their Deserts. All [Page 39] which, how great a Wrong it is to a Noble Fami­ly, I leaue to the indifferent Reader to censure. I will not deny but there may bee many sinnes in a Man, which in the sight of God, and iudgement of Men, of themselues are more haynous, and deserue a farre greater Damnation then Prodigality doth:Those sinnes more punisha­ble, which are more offensiue to common So­ciety; though lesse heinous in their par [...]u­lar nature. yet are sinnes in this World to bee punisht, not as they are in themselues, but as by Circūstances they are offensiue to the Society, Peace, and Honour of Man-kind, which God and Nature, ever as the Re­ward to all Morall Vertues, and as the cheefe End of Mans Life, intended. For otherwise, Vsury, De­traction, Forgery, Adultery, Fornication, Swearing and Drunkennesse, with many more, which are as greevous offences in the Eye of Heaven as Theft, should be punisht with Death, as Theft is. But since they offend not so much the Peace of a publike Weale (at which the Civill Magistrate aymes) as Theft doth; they are not censur'd with such seuere Punishment as it is. All which shewes directly, that Offences by Circumstance are made in a Civill Society against which they are committed, either greater or lesser; and are accordingly to be punisht: and no lesse doth the Reason & right Rule of State command.

Out of which Grounds it is evident, that all Formes of Goverment doe most punish that Offen­der, who directly or indirectly seekes to disturbe the Peace, or overthrow the Liberty, or disgrace the Dignity of the State where he liues: yet many greater Offences then these may be committed, as [Page 40] Incest, and Apostasy, which are not so sharply pu­nisht by the Civill Magistrate. For every one to whom God hath giuen power on Earth, doth chief­ly seeke the End, for which his Power from aboue, is giuen to him; and doth censure and punish in the highest Degree, those Offenses, which tend to the Overthrow of a well-setled State, by good & law­full Power confirmed.

Now to descend from these Premisses to the Point in Controversy, and to apply what hath been said, to our purpose. It is well knowne to the World, that a Family is a Civill Society, yea the only Common-Weale which God & Nature first ordained; from which, all Societies, Republikes, & Species of Regiment tooke their Originall. For the maintenance of which Society, there is no Questi­on, but God hath giuen manyFathers of Families had power to blesse, curse, disinherit and punish with death; as ap­peares by the Examples of of Noë to­wards Cham, Abraham to­wards Hagar and Ismael, Iacob towards Simeon [...] Le­vi, and of Iu­da towards Thamar. Gen. 38.24. See Mr. God­win, vbi supra Privileges to a Fa­ther, as well to reward the well-deseruing, as to pu­nish an evill child or member of his Body: not only by depriuing them of their expected Fortunes; but by cutting them off from his Body, either by Abdi­cation or Exile, or Death it selfe. For it is cleere by the Civll Law, that a Father had for many yeares, not only free Power to disinherit, but also Power of Life and Death over his Children, who should greivously offend him or his, liuing vnder his Ci­vill Government. But since that Things vnknowne are growne out of Vse, and may seeme as well in­credible, as strange, I cannot in prudence passe ouer the Matter in Question so lightly, as that it may bee worthily subiect to sharp Censure, or rashly bran­ded [Page 41] with the Marke of Vntruth.

Therefore laying aside the Testimony of the old Romane Lawes, in the case of a Fathers Soveraigne Power over the life of his child, given to him by theCap. 3. Dio. Halicar. l. 2. Antiq. Twelue Tables, where it is written: Pater fami­liâs habeat jus vitae: yea, —ter (que) filium venundandi potestatem; I will breefly and effectually proue out of the Sacred Text it selfe, what I affirme. There then it plainely appeares, that Fathers had Power among the Iewes, to cause their children for Riot, Disorder, or Vnthriftinesse, to be ston'd to Death: Ergo, power to disinherit: For the Greater ever in­cludes the Lesse. Not to seeme to speake without Booke, it shall not bee amisse to set downe Moses words, which are as follow.

If a Man haue a stubborne and rebellious sonne, that will not obey the Command of his Father or Mother: Deut. 21.18. and being chastised, shall be vnreclaimable; they shall apprehend and bring him to the Seniors of that City, and to the place of Iustice: and they shall say to them: This our sonne is incorrigible and disobedient, con­temnes our Monitions, abandons himselfe to riotous Excesse, and is a Drunkard. The Citizens shall then overwhelme him Stoning was appointed a Death for Blasphemy & Idolatry: which (by cō ­currence in this case) ar­gues how ex­ecrable a Crime Diso­bedience to Parents is in Gods sight. with Stones, and he shall dye; that yee may take Evill from among you, and that all Isra­el hearing it, may feare.

Whence we may collect, how odious a Crime Vnthriftinesse was among the People of God; and what ample Power the Father had to punish the same in his Child. For if we obserue well the Man­ner of the Processe betweene the Father and the [Page 42] Child, in this Case, wee shall finde that the Father was Accuser, Witnesse, and as it were Iudge of his owne Cause. For we read not that the Senators of the City did giue sentence, or further examined the Proofes of the Fathers Accusation: but their Presence giuing as it were Allowance to a Fathers Power, and Intention to punish his Sonne, the Peo­ple might without more Enquiry, stone to Death so evill a deseruing Child. Which being well con­sider'd, my Hope is, that it will never hereafter seeme vnlawfull, though somewhat strange, that a Father should disinherit his Eldest, or any other sonne of his, for the Cause only of Unthriftines.

And although the World of Men is growne to that Greatnesse, that it is necessary, One Generall Father, or Politike Head should be in a Kingdome, or State, which may justly abridge some of these Privileges, and abate a Fathers Power (all Fathers being Children to the Father of their Countrey, their Lord and King, vnder God) yet the Power to advance and maintaine a Family by good and law­full Meanes, is still both allowable and commenda­ble in a Parent; who may from time to time re­ward according to distributiue Iustice, all those which liue vnder him, by leauing his Fortunes to them, as in Iustice they shall deserue, and Law shall allow. So that, there is no Question, but hee may still disinherit, according to the power of that Law vnder which he liues. For no other Ty is ouer him: God and NatureThe Law of Nature, or (as Civilians stile A) of Nations [on which a Fathers Ple­nary Power is founded] is by S Paul expresly ter­med The Law of God. Rom. 1.31. allowing that, at this day, & for ever, which once they gaue vnto him. Which Au­thority [Page 43] he not only may, but ought also to execute, as farre as the Law of Man shall permit: otherwise he shall erre in his Paternall Iustice.

For a Father is not only to beget and nourish his Children in his life, but by Natures law must pro­vide to his Power, that they liue both in his life & 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 Civill and rationall Creature. All which, if it shall assuredly bee thought by a Father, that any Child of his will wholly neglect, or rather execute the contrary; then no questiō, a Father is not bound to leaue him any more then shall honestly suffice the Necessities of Nature. For (as before is said) no Man may giue or lend his Goods to any one, who will in all Mens Iudgements assuredly abuse them.

But let vs see, whether a desperate Vnthrift may be arraigned, and adjudged Guilty of these Accusa­tions. Surely, it is cleere, that all vnthriftyTo play a­way our Prae­decessors la­bours; is a greater disho­nour, then to pisse on our parents a­shes [...] raze their monu­ments. Carp. Achitoph. p. 3. cour­ses are displeasing to God, and contrary to to his Honour. And how can hee bee able to serue his Country, who in short time will not bee able to serue himselfe with Necessaries wherewith to liue, but must of force bee maintained like a Drone in a Common Wealth, out of others Labours. As for his Family, what greater Discomfort can it haue then an absolute Overthrow? Whereby, the No­ble Acts and Honour gotten to it by vertuous Pre­decessors, are buried in Oblivion; and the present & future Hopes of all worldly and lawfull Honours [Page 44] (Vertues temporall Reward) are quite taken away. And shall not ALL THIS deserue Disinherison? Can there bee a greater sinne committed against the Honour and Essence of a Family, as it is a Fa­mily,The life and soule of a Fa­mily. then to be spoil'd of its Honour, and Life it selfe? ‘For in these our Times, well gotten Goods, and vsed as they ought, are the onely Soule, by which a Family, and all the vertuous Acts which it hath done, may liue.’

Since therefore so great a mischiefe is sought & aim'd at in this sinne, surely according to the pro­portion of distributiue Iustice, the greatest punish­ment is in Equity due to the same, according to the reason of the Precept, Ius summum vnicui (que) tribue­re. Nature teacheth the silly Bees in their Com­mon Wealth to doe to death their Drones, who liue of others Labours: and shall it bee thought vnlaw­full for a Father, so to punish an incorrigible Un­thrift, who will not only liue of others Labours, but also subvert the honourable Endeavours of his Noble Ancestors?

Thus if Sonnes may be deemed, and doomed by the offended, hauing power to doe both, according as the Offence done against them shall (by circum­stance) be of Quality (as we haue proued they may and ought) then certainely it is lawfull for a Fa­ther so to doe, as I haue formerly demonstrated.

But because Examples in all Controversies of Fact, are the best Fortifications; I will, in illustration of the Premisses, adde some few to the former, drawne as well from Royall Precedents (by whose [Page 45] Patternes —totus componitur Orbis) as from inferi­our Persons, whose Qualities best fit the condition of our present subject. And if Kingdomes & Com­mon Weales haue fauour'd it, then certainely, by all Arguments à majori ad minus, it may much ra­ther be done, and ought to bee suffered in private Families.

IT is not fit perhaps to vrge the better Acceptance with God of Abels Of­fering aboue Cain's the Elder Bro­ther;Temporis prae­lationem tulit improbitas: Dignitatis praerogativā Virtus. Philo. de Caino & Abele. Abel. Iaphet. but that Estate which Abel had in Adams Patrimony. Nor will I reinforce Iaphets share in his Fathers Right to the whole World, though hee being the youngest Son of three, had Europe for his Inheritance, which in all Arts, and Vses of Life, farre excells Africk, Asia, and all the rest of the Earth. Whereas, according to the pretenses of those customary challenges, Sem should either haue had all, or beene Sove­raigne Lord of all, and Cham and Iaphet with their Posterity, but Farmers, or Free-holders vnder him.

I will not also (as if there were penury of Re­semblances) produce againe Esau's Disinherison, though thatIn this case God said ex­presly, The Elder shall serue the yoū ­ger. See Gen. 25.23. and Mal 1.3. (with the Ge­neva Note there.) were enough for our present purpose. [Page 46] For, had it beene Sinne (which neither Scripture, nor Iosephus in his Antiquities saith) the Mother could not haue procured it, God would not haue prosper'd it; nor Iacob himselfe, being a good man, haue accepted it, nor Esau (whose anger Iacob fea­red) haue left it vnrevenged. Neither is there in Scripture, nor in any written Law vnder Heaven, a­ny Command to restraine the Fathers Power, but rather the contrary. For such is the Law of Na­ture, that they who are ex aequo one Mans Children, should, if not ex aequo, yet not ex iniquo, bee proui­ded for.

Against which Partiality, the Imperiall Lawes admit so forcible a Remedy, vnder the Title of an inofficious Testament, as it shall inable the younger Child, to a certaine proportion of estate, whether the deceased Father would or no; if hee had no just reason for omission, or disavowment in his last Will.Ruben. See Gen. 49.4. & 1. Chro. 5.1. Ephraim. The Example certainely of the same holy Patriark, Iacob, in depriving his eldest son Ruben of the dignity of Birth-right (for his enormous of­fence) and in preferring Ephraim before Manasses, the younger sonne before the Elder, being his Grand-children, against the setGen. 48.18. Purpose of Ioseph their Father, seemes vnanswerable on behalfe ofGrandfa­thers are vsu­ally called Fa­thers in Scri­pture; special­ly in respect of such as in­herit after them. Parents Power for transferring, or distributing their Blessings. Of which it may be verified: Qui prior in Benedictione, est potior in Iure.

Of Solomon I haue spoken before, who was not Davids Eldest, but Adonias, after Absalon was slaine: as David himselfe was not the Eldest sonne [Page 47] of Iesse his Father, but the yongest, and yetSee 1. Chro 28.4. chosen by God (who sees not as Man doth, for with him is no respect of Persons) to gouerne Israel, though he was not set before his Brothers in the private Inhe­ritance of the Family. And in the Gospell it is ap­parent by the Parable of the Workmen, who came at vnequall houres into the Vine-yard, and yet had equall Wages, that First and Last are to him alike; who though he created Things in number, Weight, and Measure, yet hee squares not his Favours by priority of Being,Witnesse Ismael disin­herited, and Isaak (the younger) pre­ferr'd by Gods Award. See Gen. 21.12. where ver. 10. & 11. it is cleare, that Abraham had (otherwise) divided his in­heritance be­twixt them. [Can the World yeeld a better Prece­dent?] N.B. but of well-deseruing.

Augustus Caesar, the most Illustrious of all the first Emperours, setled the Imperiall succession, not vpon his only Grand-child Agrippa Posthumus, the sonne of his daughter and sole Heire, the Lady Iu­lia, though Tacitus saith, he was nullius flagitij com­pertus (then what, if he had indeed beene a notori­ous Vnthrift?) but vpon Tiberius, Tiberius. a stranger in Blood, and his sonne by no other, but by a Civill Title of Adoption, because he reputed him farre the fitter to governe.

Chosroes King of Persia, Medarses. made Medarses his yon­ger sonne, Consort in his Empire, leauing out his Eldest Sinochius.

But to omit forraine Examples (for Brevity sake) wherewith (of all Times and Places) Books are full: In our Country we might alleage the Fact of Brutus, the Protoparent of our Nation,Brutus. who di­vided Albion (afterward call'd Britaine) to his three sonnes, leauing only the bestEngland. Portion to Locrinus, anciently called Loegria; Albania (now Scotland) [Page 48] to Albanact; and Cambria, or Wales, to Camber.

Leir, long after, knewe he had so much Power in himselfe as a Father, even against the Evidence of his owne Act of Partition, by the Originall Law of Nature; as for the Ingratitude of his owne Chil­dren,Cordeilla. to conferre the Kingdome wholly vpon his younger Child Cordeilla, in prejudice of his Grand-sonnes, Morgan and Cunedage, borne of his Eldest daughters.

I know some will giue no credence to Brutus Story, which in this case they might with the more Reason doe, if the ancient Weale, or British Cu­stome, were not responsible in the Practise thereof, to that Act of Brutus. Roderik. For, not only King Roderik divided his Kingdome of Wales to his three sonnes, (according to that distinction of the Country into North-Wales, South-Wales, and Powisland) but O­thers since haue done the like among them.

As for Brutus History, as it hath some Enemies, so also hath it many Friends, and those of Eminent Worth and Esteeme. Henry Archdeacon of Hun­tington, Matthew of Westminster, & others among the Ancient. Of latter Times, S^r Iohn Price, Willi­am Lambert, Humfrey Lloyd, D^r White of Basing­stoke, Count Palatine in right of the Civill Law Chaire (an Honour due to the just Number of yeares by him passed) and innumerable others. A­boue all the rest, Edward the first, King of England, with all the Earles and Barons of this Realme, by their Authentike Deed or Instrument, confirmed in Parliament. But to proceed.

[Page 49]They who knowe the old Fashions of Ireland, either by Tradition, or by printed Statutes of that Nation, can testify of their most ancient Tenure, or Fundamentall Custome, which there is called Ta­nistry. By which,Irish Tanistry the Land and Cheefty of a Name, after the Predecessors Death, is not awar­ded to the Eldest sonne, but to the Worthiest (if I mis-remember not) the Iudgement whereof is left to the People, and such Tenents as haue Interest & Right of Suffrage: (as Alexander the Great, though as 'tis apparent in the Maccabees, 1. Macc. 1.7. very falsely is said to haue left his Empire.) And the Custome of e­quall shares may be in other places also, which ne­ver borrowed their equall Partitions from Gavel-kinde: A Custome, I grant, which some haue lately alter'd in their private Families by Parliament.

To omit a Number of vnexceptionable Prece­dents and forraine Examples; If All must necessari­ly haue gone to One, how came it then to passe, that in this Kingdome, there were at one time, so many Great and Honourable Families of one Blood, dis­joyn'd in their seats, and distinguished in their Ar­mories, by different Arguments? Or, who is so meanely seene in our Antiquities and Stories, as not to knowe it was so? And that many renowned Houses (to speake as de magis notis) Plantagenets, Sundry great Families of one Blood at a Time. Mortimers, Beaufords, Beauchamps, Dela-Poles, Nevils, Graies, and the like, haue growne and flou­risht out of one common common Ancestor? It can never be refelled.

Of Disinherisons in Worthy Families, M^r [Page 50] William Camden Clarenceaux King of Armes (the singular Ornament of England) giues vs two Emi­nent Examples. (And who is he, that remembers not one or other, in his owne Knowledge, or Ac­quaintance?)

Carew [...]. Iane, Daughter of Hugh Courtney, and Heire to her Mother, wife of Nicolas Lord Carew, disinheri­ted her Eldest sonne Thomas, cùm minùs reveren­ter matrem haberet, for his irreverent Demeanour; and parted her Lands (which were goodly) among her three younger sonnes: of whom are sprung three severall Worshipfull Houses of the Carewes; called Haccombe, Anthony, and Bury. So that God by the successe crowned the Fact, and confirm'd the Lawfulnesse of Partage.

And this is the first of M^r Camdens Examples.

The other is this. Bryand Lyle, or Fitz-Earle, Lord of Abergevenny, Brientius de Insula. hauing two sonnes, both Le­prous, built for them a LaZaretto or Spittall: and gaue to Miles Earle of Hereford farre the greatest part of his Patrimony from his Children. The One of these Examples is in the Description of Devon­shire; and this other in Monmouthshire. And this may suffice for clearing the former Document (the subiect of this Whole Discourse) by Exemplifica­tion.

LET vs now look into the Nature of Equity, and examine whether in Na­turall Reason (which is the Law of all Lawes) the Temperate ought to be subject to Intemperate: (I mean, within the Verge of private Families.) Fooles and Frantiks, to whom no Law imputesƲoluntas crimê non ha­bet, vbi furore peccatur. Salvian. Sinne, are not punisht for Theft or Murther, or for any other Of­fense which they doe, being mad, or vnreasonable. And though humanely they cannot offend; yet, in THIS SORT according to Equity, they may be punished. The Reason is: All Law being groū ­ded on Naturall Equity (otherwise it is no Law) doth not only punish Offenses committed; but also prevents Offenses which may be done, by rationall or irrationall Creatures. And since Fooles and Madmen cannot offend to be punisht, or by punish­ment be reform'd; and yet they with whom they liue, shall inevitably be offended, if not overthrown by them hauingNothing more dange­rous then ar­med Madnes. power, (as namely Brothers, Si­sters, and their whole Family put in danger of ex­treame Misery and Ruine) the Law according to all NATVRALL EQVITIE takes all Power from them.

[Page 52]I haue inserted this clause [according to Naturall Equity] for, that it is against Nature, that Men should be subject to Beasts, or insensible Creatures. Whervpon Aristotle disputing the Nature of Rule and Subjection, saith: that None are borneServitude proceeds not from the Law of Nature, but from Na­ture corrupted See Mr Dow­nings Dis­course of the State Eccle­siast p. 68. slaues, but such as Nature hath abridged of the Vse of Reason, who being truly slaues, are vtterly vnfit to gouerne. Upon which Ground, the same Great Philosopher, prefers that Forme of Politie, where the Wisest and Best are admitted to the Manage of State-Affaires: (as at this day is most conspicuous, in the Blessed RaigneConsule Plausus & Ʋita Illustris­simi Equitis, D. Henrici Worton; Viti omnium lite­ratum, lingua­rum, ac Virtu­tum laude florentissimi. and Regiment of our Most Gracious and Glorious SOVERAIGNE; whom God preserue.)

But it may be said, What is all this to our Pur­pose? Yes: thus farre it may bee well applied: If Natures Intent to make all Man-kind, Reasonable, according to their Species, being hindred by some inevitable Accident, shall so blemish and maime Those, in whom such Defect and Naturall Weak­nesse shall be found that They (according to Di­vine and Humane Law) may and ought to bee de­priued of all Right and Claime to any Thing, (more, then to sustaine Nature) and debarred from all Superiority and Seniority, which by Law or Custome might otherwise haue falne on them; (be­cause, according to Naturall and Divine Equity, MAN ought not to bee gouern'd by BEASTS; such as Idiots and Frantiks seeme to be:)

If This bee so, as according to Natures Rule it cannot bee otherwise, what punishment shall wee [Page 53] thinke due to That Reasonable Creature, The Prodi­gals Chara­cter. See more of this Subject, in that Reve­rend and Illu­strious Au­thor Demo­critus Iunior. Part. 1. Sect. 2. Memb. 3. sub­sect. 13. borne in a Civill Society of Men, to whom Nature hath not beene a Step-dam in bestowing her Blessings; and whose Name, and Family hath beene ennobled & enriched by the Vertue and Industry of many Worthy Predecessors; who shall through Disor­der, and inordinate Desires, habituated in him by Custome and Evill Conversation, become an Vn­reasonable and vnmeasurable sinfull and shamefull Creature, a debauchedThe Civill Law appoints Curators for Prodigals (as for Madmen) and Guardi­ans likewise of their E­states: the Want where­of, is the Ru­ine of many great Houses in England. See D. Ridley, vbi sup. p. 268 where hee notes a Defect in our Lawes, which haue no provisionall order therein. Bedlem, a wild American, a wilfull and most intolerable Madman, a Thing vn­worthy the Name of Man; a Prodigall shall I say, or a PRODIGIE? who contrary to all Rule, Law, or Order of the most Barbarous Society of Men, takes away (by his outragious Impiety) the Soule (as I said before) of all his Ancestors; who being dead, yet long might liue in theirImmortali­tatem spondet [Deus Abra­hae] cum Ge­nus promittit. Ambros. Ariotous heire a Civill Monster. Posterity: and consumes the Womb of his Family (Viper-like) wherein he was borne: and without all Remem­brance of his obligement to the Dead (whom, as having his Being from them, he ought to honour) or Respect to the Living (to whom hee should bee a Comfort) devoures in some sort, them of his owne Species, Society, and Blood: All which, the Cani­bals doe not: For though they feed on their Species, which are Men like Themselues; yet they hunt af­ter Strangers, and nourish themselues with Others Flesh, obseruing still some Lawe of Society a­mong Themselues, which our CIVILL MON­STER doth not. For he, contrary to all Course of Nature, sucks oftimes the Blood of his nearest and [Page 54] dearest Friends: namely his Children, Brothers, and Sisters: yea, some of these furious Fiends haue brought their all-tender-hearted Parents to the Greatest of all Woes, Beggery in their old Age. And all this, to maintaine by Force, or Fraud, a damned Crew of Roring Divels in the shapes of Men. Of eich of whom, we may say, dividually;

And of the whole Mad-cap. Fraternity (for they will needs beFratres in malo: or fra­terrimi (as was said of Friers.) Sworne Brothers)

But to returne, from the pursuit of these Salvages. Nature hath given, yea shee hath so strongly inha­bituated a laudable Desire in all Creatures toSalvianus excellently demonstrates this in Bees. De guber Dei l. 4. p. 120. pre­serue their Species; that directly or indirectly to at­tempt the Contrary, were more then Monstrous Immanity. Families, be they Princely, Noble, Gen­tile, or Vulgar, are in a sort particular Kinds, or Spe­cies allow'd of by Natures Law to bee raised,Totus nam (que) mundus, & totum huma­num genus, pignus est cre­atoris sui. Sal­vian. vbi sup. and maintain'd, vnder, or in their cheefe Genus, Mankind Vniversall: which to defeat or overthrow, by irre­gular, extravagant, and exorbitant Courses, let the Philosopher, either Naturall or Morall; the Lawier either Civill or Canon; the Divine, Schoolman, or Casuist; judge how punishable.

[Page 55]Morall Law-makers in ancient Times praeter­mitted to make Lawes against Offenders of this na­ture. Being asked Why? They answer'd: That no Man could be so impiously ingrate, or inhumane. Whereby is evidenced, how transcendently hay­nous the Offense was adjudged by them, and how severe Punishment (were they to make Lawes in these our corrupt Times) they would prescribe for such Cardinall Criminalls.

Thus much for the Ventilation of the present Point in Question. In the arguing whereof, if what I write in defense of Younger Brothers (as here the Case is put) I seeme to haue receau'd Ex tra­duce, rather then Ex certâ scientiâ, the wiser sort will (I hope) not blame mee. For my Intent was onely, (as at first I promised) to set downe a Ta­ble-Discourse, and not a Controversy discust in Schooles. If I haue spoken according to Dialecti­call Reason (as I beleeue) then may I safely thinke, that my Discourse is arm'd with strong Au­thority. For what hath beene spoken heretofore truely, which Reason hath not dictated to allSalvianus in this Case may speake for All: Nam [...] omnes admodum filij membra parentum esse videantur, non putandi sunt tamen membra eorum esse à quibus affectu caeperint discrepare: quia morum degenerantium pravitate pereunt in talibus beneficia naturae: Though all Sonnes be equally Mem­bers (or Portions) of their Parents, yet are not They so to be reputed, that shall by [...] Courses wilfully dismember themselues from them: for, degenerate Conditi­ons tender such Children vnworthy of the Benefits of Nature. Salvian de gubern. Dei. lib. 3^o. Au­thors Pennes? If therefore I were able to cite a [Page 56] Thousand Great Authors for what I haue said, yet All would amount to no more, but that which Naturall Reason hath, or may teach daily. All which, with my Selfe, I intrust to the gentle and equall Censure of my Courteous Reader.