Treatise 5: Duties of Children

§. 1. Of the general heads of children's duties.

Ephesians 6: 1. Children obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2. Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise.) 3. That it may be well with you: and you may live long on the earth.

The second couple in a family are parents and children.

In laying down their duties, the Apostle begins with children: his direction, and instigation to them is laid down in the three first verses of the sixth chapter: in which 1. He declares their duty. 2. He adds reasons to enforce the same.

In laying down their duty he notes three points. 1. In what it consists (obey, honor). 2. To whom it is to be performed (your parents). 3. After what manner it is to be done (in the Lord).

The reasons used by the Apostle are four. 1. The place of parents (in the Lord). 2. The equity of the thing (this is right). 3. The charge of God (Honor your father, etc.). 4. The reward promised (That it may go well, etc.)

Under this word (obey) which the Apostle uses, and that word (honor) which the law uses, are all those duties comprised, which anywhere throughout the whole Scripture are enjoined to children.

We will therefore set them down in some order, and handle them distinctly one after another. 1. The fountain of children's duties is to be searched out. 2. The streams that flow from there are to be observed.

The fountain is an inward disposition of the heart compounded of love and fear.

The streams issuing from there extend to parents, both while they are living, and also when they are dead.

Children's duties which are to be performed to their parents while they live, have respect to their | Authority. | Necessity. | |

The authority of parents requires of children | Reverence. | Obedience. | |

Their necessity requires recompense.

The duties which children owe to their parents deceased, respect their | Body. | Credit. | |

Their body with decency must be buried.

Their credit with honor must be maintained.

§. 2. Of children's love to their parents.

I make the fountain of children's duties to be a mixed and compound disposition, in respect of that authority and affection which is mixed together in parents. The authority of parents requires fear in children: and their affection, love. So entire and so ardent is parents' affection towards their children, as it would make children too bold and insolent if there were not authority mixed therewith to work fear: and so supreme and absolute is their authority over them, as it would make children like slaves to dread their parents, if a fatherly affection were not tempered therewith to breed love. But both these joined together make a very good composition: love like sugar sweetens fear, and fear like salt seasons love: and thus, to join them both together, it is a loving-fear, or a fearing-love, which is the ground of children's duties.

Where Christ forbids an excessive love in children to their parents, he implies that parents are a fit object for children to love (so as their love be well moderated:) indeed he implies that it is an affection even by nature engrafted in children to love their parents. Joseph is commended to children as a worthy pattern in loving his father, and that from his youth till the decease of his father: in testimony of which in his younger years he brought to his father the evil report of his brothers, whereby he incurred their envy and hatred, which he would never have done, if he had not loved his father: and having been long absent from his father, when by God's providence there was offered an occasion for him to meet with his brothers, one of his first questions to them was about their father: and hearing that he was living, he thought it not enough to send him food for his need, but must also needs see his face, and have him dwell with him: and while his father was in the way he went out to meet him, and at first sight fell on his neck, and wept a good while (a token of great affection.)

That love which naturally parents bear to their children, ought in equity to breed in children a love to their parents. For love deserves love: and most unworthy are they to be loved, who cannot love again. The love of parents above all others is to be answered with love on children's part to the uttermost of their power, because it is free, great, and constant.

Besides, there is a necessity of love in children to their parents, lest for want thereof, their subjection (which of all others ought to be most free) should turn into slavish servitude.

This ought children the rather to labor after, because by nature they are nothing so prone to love their parents, as their parents are to love them. Love is weighty, and, as weighty things, it descends. Children therefore with conscience of duty must labor to make supply of this defect, and help nature by grace. I deny not but naturally there is in children a greater love to their parents, than to others: yet in comparison of the heat of parents' love to them, their love to their parents is but cold. Therefore as the heat of the Sun shining much and long on a stone wall, draws a reflection of heat from that wall: so the hot beams of parents' love, which with fervency and constancy is cast on children, ought to provoke and stir up children to send forth a reflection of love on their parents.

Two extremes are contrary to this affection of love.

One is want of natural affection, which is a vice most odious and abominable in all, but most of all in children. The Apostle reckons this among the most heinous vices that be.

The other is hatred and contempt of parents: a vice more than monstrous, and unnatural. From there comes mocking and cursing of parents, of which we shall afterwards hear.

§. 3. Of a child's fear of his parent.

To the aforementioned duty of love, must fear be added, which is a child's awful respect of his parent.

This awful respect arises from an honorable esteem which a child in his judgment and opinion has of his parent, as he is his parent; and from it proceeds on the one side, a desire and endeavor in all things to please the parent, and on the other side a loathing to offend him.

In this respect the fear of a child is opposed to the fear of a slave. For a child's fear being mixed with love, has respect to the offence which a parent may take; but a slave's fear, which is ordinarily mixed with hatred, has respect to nothing but the punishment which his master may inflict upon him. The aforementioned fear is so proper to children, as that awful respect which the saints bear to God, is called a filial or child-like fear.

This fear in a child is an especial branch of that honor which the law requires of children to their parents: and it is in express terms enjoined to children by the law. That phrase which God uses of Miriam (If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days?) shows that there ought to be such a fear of the parent in a child's heart, as should work shame in it when the parent is offended.

A worthy pattern we have hereof in Jacob, who was loath to gain the blessing with offense of his father.

This fear keeps love in compass: and restrains a child from overmuch sauciness, and malapertness.

And it is a cause of a child's reverent and dutiful carriage to his parent. For as the heart is affected the carriage will be ordered.

Contrary to this is that light, or (which is more abominable) that base and vile esteem of parents, which is in the heart of many children: especially if parents be poor, of low degree, unlearned, ignorant, or subject to any infirmities. It cannot be but that Ham had too light, if not a base esteem of his father, when he derided him. A true filial fear would have restrained him from that extreme.

Therefore to breed and cherish this fear, and to prevent or redress the contrary extreme, let children well inform themselves of their parents' place and authority, how they are in God's stead, and a means under God of their children's being: children have received their very substance from the substance of their parents. In which respect though they should seem contemptible to others, yet not to their children.

Thus much of a child's inward disposition towards his parent. The manifestation thereof must be by his outward carriage: and that in two things; Reverence, and Obedience: both which respect a parent's authority.

Section 4. Of a child's Reverence in refraining speech before his parent, and in hearkening to his parent.

The outward reverence which children owe to their parents consists partly in their speech, partly in their carriage.

Their speech both to and of their parents must savor reverence.

To their parents in presence.

Of their parents in absence.

In presence, by refraining their speech, and well framing it.

For refraining speech two virtues are requisite: Silence, and Patience.

Silence in forbearing to speak, and in breaking off speech.

Patience in hearkening to their parents.

The two branches of silence, in forbearing to speak (especially when parents are speaking, or till parents give leave to their children to speak,) and in breaking off speech, when parents come into the place where children are speaking, are tokens of great reverence. Thus children testify that there are some in place whom they much respect and honor. Job does thus set forth the respect which Princes and others did bear to him in his prosperity: The Princes (says he) refrained talking, and laid their hand upon their mouth, the Nobles held their peace, etc. Namely, while he was in presence, or while he spoke. The like may be said of children's patience in enduring their parents' speech; which Job also notes in these words, To me men gave ear, and waited, and kept silence (Job 29:9-10). Though parents in their speech seem to be long and tedious, yet must children endure it.

And it is very needful that patience be added to silence, because many parents in tender love of their children, and earnest desire of their good, think they can never speak enough in instructing and admonishing them. The many exhortations given in Scripture to children to hear, hearken, give ear, give heed, mark, and observe the words of their parents, do imply the aforementioned silence and patience: for they who ought to be swift to hear must be slow to speak (Genesis 49:2; Proverbs 1:8; 4:1; 7:1; James 1:19). I deny not but much more is intended under those phrases, namely, obedience: yet must these also be presupposed: for he that will not in silence patiently hearken to his parents while they speak, will much less obey what they say.

Contrary to silence is sauciness (as we speak) and overmuch boldness in children, when, without due respect of their parents' presence, they will be prating of this thing or that thing: insomuch as if strangers should come into the room where such children are, they would not think that their parents were in presence; or if they knew it, they might well think that such children bear little respect to their parents.

Contrary to patience in hearing, is fretting and murmuring against parents (if at least their speech be any whit long) and flinging or slinking away before they have done. These faults are the greater, if children by their loquacity, or impatience hinder or interrupt their parents' speech when they are giving any admonition or instruction: for thus they show both too light a respect of their parents: and also too little regard of the means of their own good.

Section 5. Of a child's reverent framing his speech to his parent.

A child's reverence in well framing his speech to his parents may many ways be manifested, as follows.

1. By giving to them reverent and honorable titles. No title can be more honorable than that which is most proper and usual, Father to the one parent, and Mother to the other. God takes the title Father to himself, as a title of great dignity.

Objection. This title is so proper to God, as we are to call none on earth Father.

Answer. This is not simply to be taken of the title itself, but of the mind of him that gives or affects that title.

If it be affected or given to obscure God's Fatherhood, or to make a man a Father of himself without dependence on God, or reference to him, who is properly the father of all, it is an impious and sacrilegious title. But otherwise lawful and warrantable.

In Scripture the title Father is given to all degrees of dignities among men, as to Kings, Captains, and other chief Governors, to Priests, Prophets, Apostles, and other Ministers. In the fifth commandment all superiors are comprised under it, therefore Father is a title of great honor: and by the rule of relation Mother is a title of as great honor to the female sex. Religious and dutiful children have ever used to give those titles to their parents. My Father, says Isaac to Abraham, and Jacob to Isaac. My Mother, says Solomon to Bathsheba (1 Kings 2:20). I find also the title of Sir or Lord, used: a title of honor (1 Samuel 24:12; 2 Kings 5:13; Judges 18:19; 2 Kings 6:21; 1 Corinthians 4:15; 1 Timothy 5:1; Genesis 22:7; Genesis 27:18; Matthew 21:30; Genesis 31:35).

2. By using few words before their parents: and those few not without just occasion, being first spoken to by their parents, or having leave of them, or making known to them needful matter: at least not against their parents' liking, as their parents should be offended thereby. And if they observe their parents to be unwilling to hear them speak any more of such and such a matter, then they ought to lay their hands upon their mouths, as Isaac (Genesis 22:7) and Jacob (Genesis 27:12). This is a token of great respect.

3. By meek and humble speeches. Such was the speech of Jonathan the natural son of Saul, and of David his son in law, wherewith he was much contented, and his wrath pacified.

4. By observing a fit opportunity: as when parents are not seriously busied, or in company, or in passion. When Saul was out of passion, how well did he accept Jonathan's apology for David? But in his passion, how ill did he take it? This wise observing of fit opportunity shows great reverence.

5. By a present, ready, willing, pleasing answer, when by their parents they shall be spoken to. Eli was as a father to Samuel: therefore when Samuel thought that Eli called him, he presently and readily answered, Here am I: and when Eli was insistent to know what the Lord had said to him, Samuel told him every bit, and held nothing from him. The younger son (noted in the parable) showed a son-like reverence in giving a willing and ready answer to his father, though he failed in his obedience, by not performing what he promised.

Section 6. Of the vices in children contrary to the forenamed reverence in speech.

Contrary to those branches of reverence in speech are,

1. Pride: when children scorn to give the title of Father, or Mother, to their parents. This is the mind of many who have gotten more wealth or honor, than ever their parents had. In public especially such children most refuse to give those titles. Solomon was not so minded. He being a great king, sitting upon his throne, in sight and hearing of all his people that were about him, called Bathsheba Mother.

If children had that regard to the honor of their parents which they should, they being themselves in places of honor and dignity, would the rather openly call their parents Father and Mother, that they might be known to be the father and mother of so eminent a person.

2. Loquacity, and too much importunity, or rather impudency in speech, when children having to do with their parents, can never have done (as we speak) but must needs use matters to the very uttermost. Many parents are often much provoked hereby. It matters not that the child have the right, especially in a matter of no great consequence. For reverence sake the child must forbear, at least for a time. And if the matter of difference be weighty, as in points of religion, the child must either take some other opportunity of better informing his parent, or else get some other wise friend to do it.

3. Stoutness, when children answer their parents as if they were their equals: giving word for word. It does as ill become children to answer again, as servants (to whom the Apostle has expressly forbidden it, Titus 2:9). Both law and nature forbid children to be provoked to this, by anything that their parents say or do; how great then is their fault who give scornful and stout words to their parents when they are no way provoked, as the elder son noted in the parable, and the elder brother of the prodigal child?

4. Indiscretion, when children have no respect to any time, business, or temper, of their parents in speaking to them, and so, much provoke them. It is laid down as a caution to parents, that they provoke not their children to wrath. How much more must children observe that caution?

5. Stubbornness, when children pout, lower, swell, and give no answer at all to their parents. This is too common a fault in children, and many parents are much offended and grieved at it. We heard before of a child-like silence which was very commendable, and a token of great reverence; but this is worthy of much blame, a token of great undutifulness; and carefully to be avoided, as that to be practiced.

Section 7. Of children's reverend speeches of their parents.

So true and entire ought that reverend respect to be which children bear to their parents, as their speech not only to them before their faces, but also of them behind their backs, must [reconstructed: be] so framed both for matter and manner, when they have any occasion to fall into speech of their parents, as all that hear them may note them to bear a reverend respect to their parents.

As a general direction for the better performing of this duty, let children speak nothing of their parents that they would be loath should come to their parents' ear. More particularly, let them speak of those things which most tend to their commendation, that so (as Christ said of his father) they may honor their parents. Let other things be buried in silence so much as in them lies. And if others speak of matters disgraceful to their parents, let them interpret in the better sense things doubtful, and, so far as they may, extenuate things evident, and sharply reprove them that slander their parents. This is that blessing which children owe to their parents, for neglecting whereof the wise man taxes children saying, There is a generation that does not bless their mother.

Contrary to that kind of blessing is discovering of parents' infirmities, noted in cursed Ham, and broaching untruths of them, noted in impious Absalom, and mocking and cursing them expressly condemned. The reward of which is by God's law death: indeed a shameful and ignominious death, for the ravens of the valley shall pluck out his eyes, and the young eagles shall eat it: which phrase sets forth the end of a notorious malefactor that is hanged.

Section 8. Of a child's reverend conduct toward his parent.

As the speech, so the conduct of children towards their parents must be seasoned with reverence: for 1. This is a fruit, and proof of filial fear as well as that. 2. Of the two, this is the surer evidence: for actions are better signs of the disposition of the heart than words. 3. Fair words joined with contrary deeds, cannot but be accounted merely complimentary and hypocritical. 4. Where there is a contrariety between words and deeds, the one will be a witness against the other, and that man's condemnation the greater.

Therefore let all reverence be manifested in children's behavior to their parents, and that in these and such like instances.

1. If a parent is coming to a child, and the child observes it, let him hasten to meet his parent: so did Joseph to his father, and Solomon to his mother. Which two examples are the rather to be noted, because both were in eminent place: one a great governor, the other a king.

2. Let such child-like obeisance be performed as becomes the age and sex, either in going to, remaining before, or going from a parent: as uncovering the head, bending the knee, bowing the body, standing up, with the like. The two forenamed eminent persons, Joseph and Solomon, bowed, the one to his father, the other to his mother.

3. Let the countenance, and gesture of the body be so soberly and modestly ordered in the presence of the parent, as may argue due respect.

4. Let the upper place, and hand be given to parents: and if occasionally a child be above his parent, let him come below him. For that is a manifest token of inferiority and subjection. What makes men to strive for the upper hand, but because they would be accounted better than those with whom they strive? But that ought not to be the mind of children to their parents.

Quest. What if children be in estate more wealthy, or honorable than their parents, are they then to give the hand to them?

Answ. No honor is comparable to the dignity of fatherhood: it gives a greater eminence to the parent over his child, than any other honor can to the child over his parent. I grant that a child may by some office, and outward dignity be so advanced above his father, as other men may more honor and reverence the child, and give the upper place to him: and for order's sake the child may and ought to take it in company: but when they are alone, the child must rather reverence the father.

5. According to the custom of the time and place in which they live, let children ask their parents' blessing.

§. 9. Of children's asking their parents' blessing, whether it be lawful or no.

Some doubt is made of this duty both in regard of the thing itself, and also of the gesture of kneeling used in the performance thereof: I will therefore distinctly prove both.

For the thing, it is noted of Jacob that he carried savory meat to his father, that he might bless him: and of Joseph, that he went to his father, and carried his two sons with him, that his father might bless both him and them: for which end the twelve sons of Jacob assembled to their father.

Objection. These were extraordinary examples: the Patriarchs were endued with the spirit of prophecy, whereby they revealed to their children what their estate should be in the times to come: for knowledge of which their children came to them.

1. Answ. Their blessings were more than predictions of things to come: they were confirmations and assurances to the children that God would indeed perform that blessing which their parents had pronounced. For they sustained a double person: the person of a Prophet, and of a father; as prophets they foretold things to come: as fathers they obtained the blessings pronounced, and an assurance thereof to their children, and that by faith and prayer.

2. Answ. Though all parents cannot with such an extraordinary spirit assure to their children any distinct particular blessing, yet the faithful prayer of parents is an especially, and ordinary means to obtain a blessing from God upon their children: and that because of God's promise which extends itself not only to faithful parents, but also to their seed. Therefore as the children of the patriarchs came to their fathers to be assured of some extraordinary blessing, so may other children go to their parents as a means to obtain an ordinary blessing. It is noted of Elijah that by an extraordinary spirit in prayer he obtained extraordinary matters: Yet the Apostle sets forth that example to all Christians as a motive to stir them up in faith to pray for ordinary blessings. But for further clearing of this point, note the phrase used in the fifth commandment as a reason to move children to honor their parents: this it is word for word, That they may prolong your days, etc. How can parents prolong their children's days, but by begging that blessing of God? The prayers then of parents are a great blessing to children, and children ought to seek this blessing of their parents.

Objection. If parents be wicked, their prayer is abomination: what blessing then can children look for from wicked parents?

Answ. Though God hears not wicked parents in love and goodness to themselves, yet for the good of their children he may and will hear them: and that the rather to maintain a reverent respect of parents in the heart of their children. For asking a blessing is an acknowledgement of superiority and authority, according to that of the Apostle, The less is blessed of the greater.

Concerning the gesture of kneeling, it is answerable to the gesture which of old was used by God's people in like case: of Joseph it is said that he bowed down himself with his face to the earth.

Objection. Kneeling is a gesture proper to God's worship.

Answ. It is not so proper, but that it may be used in civil cases: else Christ would have reproved the young man for kneeling before him as well as for calling him good: for he conceived Christ to be but a mere man, and the worship he did him was but civil.

It is not simply the gesture, but the occasion of the gesture, the mind of him that performs it, and the end for which he performs it that makes it divine, or civil. Cornelius fell down before Peter with conceit of some divine excellency in him, and was not allowed: his manner of worshiping was divine. The jailer fell down before Paul and Silas in acknowledgement of some outward eminence in them, and was not reproved: his manner of worshiping was merely civil. The same gesture may be performed to different persons with a different respect. A child may kneel to his parent, and to the king. Yet it follows not that he makes his parent a king. Neither will it follow that by kneeling to his parent he makes him a God, because men kneel to God.

§. 10. Of the vices contrary to children's reverent gesture towards their parents.

Contrary to the forenamed branches of reverent gesture, are,

1. Rudeness and unmannerliness, when children know not how to put difference between their parents and strangers, but can suffer their parents to come to them, and they abide in their place and not stir to meet them.

2. Disdainful stateliness, when they think much to stand bare-headed any while in their parents' presence. It falls out many times, that when parents and children are together before their betters, they will show more reverence than these: for the father will stand, and be uncovered, when the son sits down and puts on his hat, upon conceit that his father does more reverence than is meet: but if it were so, yet the son for the father's sake should stoop somewhat the lower.

3. Wantonness and boldness, when children are over-familiar with their parents: toying and giggling upon every light occasion. This kind of carriage cannot but much tend to the disgrace and dishonor of parents. For what can they who behold it think, but that such children have been too much cockered and ill nurtured?

4. Ambition, when children are so ambitiously desirous of place, especially in company, as rather than be under some whom they suppose to be at least their equals, they will be above their parents. This oft falls out, when parents being of a lowly mind, give place to such as their children, being of a lofty mind, think meaner than themselves. Now rather than they will be under their inferiors (as they suppose) they will be above their parents. A point of great insolence. Such ought to be the respect of a child to his parent, as he should debase himself below those that are his inferiors, rather than exalt himself above his parent. As with other men, for peace sake, in many cases, a man must depart from his right; so especially with his parent, in case of superiority. Would not everyone that knows what honor a child owes to a father, condemn that child's ambition, that should so stand upon the place and hand, as to take them of his parent?

5. An over-nice and erroneous opinion of those, who think it unfit for any child to ask their parents' blessing. Their own conceit more sways them, than the continually approved practice of God's people in all ages: not unlike him whom Solomon says to be wiser in his own conceit, than seven men that can render a reason (Proverbs 26:16). Others, though they do not so generally disallow this duty, yet they think it meet only for young children: not considering of what years, stature, and state, Joseph was, when he performed it.

As for those, who think it not unlawful, yet carelessly neglect it, they little consider the benefit of a parent's blessing. Profane Esau shall another day rise up in judgment against them. He begged and begged again and again, and that with a loud cry and salt tears, a blessing of his father (Genesis 27:34; Hebrews 12:17).

Thus much of children's reverence. Their obedience follows.

§. 11. Of children's obedience.

The obedience of children does most prove the authority of parents, and is the surest evidence of the honor a child gives to his parent: therefore is it by name in the text expressed, and all other duties are comprised under it. Reverence without obedience is a mere mockage, nothing at all acceptable. Of the two, a child were better fail in the former: instance the parable of the two sons. Reverence in comparison of obedience is but a complemental honor. Obedience is a true real honor; the surest trial of a dutiful child. Obedience is a duty so proper to children, as the Apostle applies it to them as a proper attribute, saying, as obedient children fashion not, &c. The example of Christ is herein set before us as a pattern: he was subject to his parents. Solomon counts the neglect thereof a despising of a parent.

Contrary is disobedience and rebellion: the greatest impeachment of parents' authority that can be. For to what end is authority over those who resist it, and rebel against it? The Apostle reckons disobedient children among the lewdest persons that be: and sets forth their disobedience by a metaphor taken from untamed, head-strong beasts, that will not be brought under the yoke: the word therefore is not unfitly translated unruly: and it is somewhat answerable to a Hebrew phrase given to disobedient children, namely, sons of Belial, which is according to the notation as much as sons without profit; or, as some will have it, sons without yoke, that is, such children, as refusing to be in subjection to parents, are no way profitable, but work much mischief, and cause great grief. The punishment which by God's law was appointed to disobedient and rebellious children, was a public shameful death.

§. 12. Of children's forbearing to do things without consent of parents.

That children may the better know their duty in this respect, I will distinctly set forth, both the parts, and also the extent of a child's obedience: 1. Wherein it consists. 2. How far it extends.

The general parts wherein it consists are two:

1. A forbearance from doing things without consent of parents.

2. A performance of such things as parents will have done.

The former of these is a duty to which children are [reconstructed: most] bound while they are under their parents' government. For that time the consent of parents is not only meet, but necessary: and that for these reasons.

1. Children are as the goods of their parents, wholly in their power, to be ordered and disposed by them. On this ground Satan having all that Job had put into his hand, took liberty over his children as well as over his goods and chattel.

2. Children while they be under government, (even the eldest that are heirs) differ nothing from servants.

3. By God's law given to the Jews, parents had power to sell their children.

4. Parents had power to annul such things as children had done. Instance the case of a vow made to God, which was one of the most inviolable things that one could do.

Contrary is the opinion and practice of many, who hold parents' consent at the most but a matter of convenience: that it is good, if children will, to have their parents' consent: if they have it not, the matter is not great: their contracts or other things which they do, are as firm, and good, without, as with their consents. If this were so, wherein is the authority of a parent more than of a wise experienced friend? It is meet, and good to have such an one's consent.

But that the power of parents, and duty of children in this point, may the better be seen, I will exemplify it in five particular cases. 1. Entering into a calling. 2. Making marriage. 3. Disposing of goods. 4. Ordering apparel. 5. Making vows.

§. 13. Of consent of parents for children's entering into a calling.

That children ought to have the consent of their parents in making choice of their calling, and not place themselves as they please, is evident by the approved practice of the saints recorded in God's word. Jacob was sent by his parents to Laban to be educated under him. David was appointed by his father to keep sheep: when Saul was desirous to have David attend upon him, he sent to Jesse, David's father, for him. In that Jesse was so careful to send provision to his three eldest sons that followed Saul to the war, we may well think, that they went to the war with his consent. It is noted of Jonadab, that he appointed his sons to dwell in tents, and that accordingly they did so, and are commended and rewarded for this their obedience. It is collected both by ancient and later divines, that our Lord Jesus Christ [reconstructed: in] his younger years, before he began to exercise his public ministry, occupied himself in his father's trade: and that this was the thing wherein he manifested his subjection to his parents. This collection is made by comparing Luke 2:51 (where his subjection is noted) with Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55, where he is called the Carpenter, and the Carpenter's son.

Equity requires that parents should have a hand in placing forth their children, because they brought them forth into the world, and brought them up with much care, pains, and charge, while they were young, and till they were fit for a calling.

Besides, God has laid it as a charge upon parents, that they should see their children well trained up: great reason therefore that parents' consent be had in setting forth children to a calling.

§14. Of the unlawfulness of children's entering into religious orders without consent of parents.

Contrary is the opinion of Papists, who say, that children may enter into religious orders, not only without consent, but also against the mind and good liking of their parents. Whereby they [reconstructed: do] not only patronize apparent disobedience in children, against the express word of God; but also disable children from helping their parents in case of necessity: for both which Christ rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees in a like case.

Objection: Papists do grant that if parents be in such necessity, as they cannot live without their children's help, their children may not by entering into any religious order forsake their parents. For they are bound by the law of God to succor their parents.

Answer 1: This caution has been extorted from them by evidence of argument taken from God's word, and pressed by their adversaries.

2. It touches not the principal argument taken from God's precept, which they make of none effect by this their tradition.

3. Though parents be not at that present, when children first enter into their religious order, in such extreme need, yet they may be afterwards. But after that children are once entered, they hold it utterly unlawful that children for any necessity of the parent, should attend upon them for their succor.

Objection: Children being entered into religious orders may help them, as becomes religious persons, by their prayers to God.

Answer 1: This is exactly the Pharisees' Corban, whereof Christ makes mention (Mark 7:11), and whereby he notably discovers the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who made pretense of religion an hindrance to that obedience which God required of children.

2. To pray for that which a man does not endeavor to do, when he may do it, is a plain mocking of God.

The arguments which they allege for confirmation of their erroneous opinion, are taken from extraordinary examples, or from mystical resemblances, as 1. Abraham's leaving his father's house. 2. Levi's speech of his father and mother, who said, I have not seen him. 3. The advice given to the royal Queen, Forget your father's house. 4. The trial of our love of Christ by loving him more than father or mother. 5. Christ's forbidding one that followed him to go and bury his father.

Answer 1: For Abraham's example, 1. it cannot be proved that he left his father's house without the consent of his father. 2. He was then married, and so of another house. 3. He had an express particular charge of God to leave his father's house, even as he had to sacrifice his son (Genesis 12:1). Except the like charge can be shown, his example makes nothing to the purpose.

2. For Levi's speech, 1. It was noted by Moses in relation to a particular zealous fact of the Levites in executing the vengeance of the Lord, and so to be reckoned among such extraordinary things as are not exemplary (Exodus 32:26, etc.). 2. That which moved the Levites to make no difference between their parents and others, was the Lord's cause: their parents and kindred as well as others had notoriously sinned against God, and in that respect the Levites took no notice of them (Exodus 32:27). But they are not such parents which Papists teach children to forsake, but any parents. Now what consequence is this; Some children have been God's ministers in executing just punishment on their wicked parents, therefore children may enter into such places as shall exempt them from helping any parents, though well deserving? 3. The Levites had an express charge for that which they did: but that which Papists infer from their example does make the commandment of God of none effect (Matthew 15:6).

3. For the advice to the Queen, 1. It is mystically to be taken. 2. If it should be literally taken, it is to be taken as given to her after marriage, when she was out of her parents' government (Psalm 45:10). 3. It has relation to the law of marriage (Genesis 2:24), and implies not a simple forsaking of parents, but a preferring of a husband before them.

4. For the loving of father and mother more than Christ, 1. It does not necessarily imply a forsaking of our parents: for we may love Christ more than them, and yet perform duty to them. 2. If they be forsaken, it must be in opposition to Christ, that either Christ or they must be forsaken, in that if we cling to them they will draw us from Christ.

5. For Christ's forbidding one that followed him to go and bury his father: 1. It was because of an extraordinary calling which he had. 2. It is set down as a pattern to ministers, to show that they should especially attend upon their proper function, and leave other secular matters to be performed by such as can perform them well enough. To apply it to children's forsaking of parents, is to pervert the sense of it.

Thus we see to how little purpose the forenamed arguments are alleged to prove that erroneous opinion of children's entering into religious orders without their parents' consent. I might further show how irreligious their pretended religious orders be, and so show how unlawful it is to enter into them, even with consent of parents: but that makes nothing to the point in hand.

Section 15. Of the unlawfulness of children's traveling, and binding themselves apprentices without consent of parents.

Contrary also to the forenamed part of children's obedience, is the practice of such children as travel, and seek their fortunes (as they speak) without consent of parents, like the Prodigal child, if not worse: for it is likely that he forced from his father a general consent, in that he obtained of him his portion of goods (Luke 15:12, etc.). These usually bring great grief to their parents, and many times make them fear more than is cause, as old Jacob feared, when he knew not what was become of his son (Genesis 37:35).

Among those aberrations may be reckoned a custom in this land more usual than lawful, for children to bind themselves apprentices without consent of parents: to which fault they who take indentures of such children, or otherwise covenant with them without knowledge of their parents' consent, make themselves accessory.

Section 16. Of parents' consent to the marriage of their children.

That children ought to have their parents' consent to their marriage is without all question evident.

1. God himself has given us herein a pattern: He first brought the woman to the man (Genesis 2:22), whereby he would show that he who gave a being to the woman, had a right to dispose her in marriage: which right parents now have: for from them under God, children receive their being. In this case parents stand in God's room, and are as it were God's hand to join their children in marriage.

2. God has given express laws concerning this point. To omit that general moral law, Honor your father and your mother (which, as it is the ground of all other duties pertaining to children, so of this also) the authority and charge which God by his law (Deuteronomy 7:3) has laid upon parents, to give their daughters to husbands, and to take wives for their sons, has the force of a law to bind children from taking wives or husbands, without or against their parents' consent. This law was not proper to the Jews only; but as a branch of the moral law it is pressed upon Christians (1 Corinthians 7:36-37).

To this may be added the judicial law (if it be to be accounted merely judicial) of a parent's power in giving his daughter, or refusing to give her in marriage to him that had deflowered her (Exodus 22:17).

3. Answerable to the law has been the practice of God's saints recorded and approved in Scripture. Isaac married the wife which his father provided (Genesis 24:67). Jacob both obeyed his father in going to Laban's house for a wife (Genesis 28:2), and also when he came to Laban asked his daughter of him (Genesis 29:18, etc.).

Though Samson saw a daughter of the Philistines which pleased him well, yet would he not marry her before he had his parents' consent (Judges 14:2).

4. These words of Tamar (2 Samuel 13:13), "Speak to the King" (who was her father,) "for he will not withhold you from me," show that children were not accustomed to be married without consent of parents: which is further confirmed by this oath of the Israelites, "There shall not any of us give his daughter to Benjamin to wife" (Judges 21:1).

5. The ancient fathers of the Church have in their ages taught children this duty, and pronounced marriages of children without consent of parents, to be unlawful.

6. The very heathen have observed the equity hereof. Though Shechem loved Dinah, and had deflowered her, yet would he not marry her without the consent of his and her father (Genesis 34:3, etc.). Ishmael had learned as much either by the instruction he had received out of Abraham's house, or else by the light of nature; for he stood to the choice which his mother made for him (Genesis 21:21).

7. Though Papists in other cases make the authority of parents to be of no effect, yet in this case they count it utterly unlawful for children to marry without or against their parents' consent: and have thereupon made canons against it.

8. The law of nature and nations, the civil and canon law, the common and statute law of our land, all manner of law is agreeable to God's law in this point.

9. It has been a custom in all Christian churches throughout all ages, for the parent, or some in the parent's room, to give the bride to the bridegroom at the time of the marriage: whereby the parents' consent is openly manifested.

10. Many divines of good note and name have judged such marriages as have been made simply without, or directly against parents' consent (especially if parents have just cause of exception against those marriages) to be of no force till the parent be brought to ratify them: and in many churches upon due examination of the matter, they use to account them as no marriages. Experience has manifested the boldness of many children in setting light by their parents' consent in those places where marriages once consummated are ratified, and made indissoluble, though they have been made simply without or directly against parents' consent. Many children think, though it be unlawfully done, yet being done it shall stand. Therefore if they doubt of their parents' consent, they will cast how to get their marriage consummated, so as their parents may not know of it to hinder it before it is done: and after it is done, impudently resolve to bear out as well as they can, the storm of their parents' displeasure. To prevent such contempt of the power of parents, and to establish that authority which God has given them over their children, marriages without or against parents' consent as aforesaid, are in many churches made void.

Section 17. Of the equity of the point, and reasons why children should have their parents' consent to their marriage.

1. By marriage children are put from their parents: for man must leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife (Genesis 2:24). Is it not then great reason that they from whom children had their being, and by whom they have been maintained and trained up till the time of their marriage, should have notice of that kind of leaving them, and consent to that?

2. A parent's power by the marriage of his child is passed over to the husband or wife of the child. And shall such a power be taken away without consent of parent?

3. Children for the most part being headstrong and rash for want of experience; and seeking more to satisfy their present carnal desire, than to provide a good lasting help for themselves: but parents by the instinct of nature loving their children as well as children love themselves, and having by much experience better understanding of a fitting help, and better able to use their discerning gift in this case, because it is not their own case, and yet the case of one whom they love as themselves, and to whom they wish as much good as to themselves; is it not fitting even for the child's good, that in a matter of such moment as marriage, the parent should have a stroke?

§. 18. Of a child's carriage in case a parent provides an unfit mate or none at all.

Quest. What if parents urge their children to marry such as they cannot affect and love: must children therein against their mind and liking yield obedience?

Answ. If there be no just exception against the party commended, they ought with the uttermost of their power to endeavor to bring their affection to the bent of their parents' will: and as a help thereunto, be persuaded that their parents are as careful of their good as they themselves are, and wiser than themselves: indeed above all they ought to make instant prayer to God (in whose hand man's heart is to turn it wherever he will) that he would be pleased to alter the course of their affection, and to settle it on the party whom their parent has chosen for them; if at least they see no just cause to the contrary. But if notwithstanding all the means that they can use, they still find their heart altogether averse, they may in a reverent manner entreat their parent to forbear to press that match, and to think of some other.

2. Quest. What if the parent be negligent, and in due time provide no fit match, may not the child provide one for himself?

Answ. A parent's negligence is not a sufficient pretext to make a child cast off that subjection which he owes to his parent. Yet I deny not but that a child knowing where a fit match is to be had, may make known as much to his parent (as Samson did) and crave both his consent and help thereunto. And if his parent give no ear to his humble suit, he may use the mediation of his kindred or other friends. Indeed if necessity require that the child be married, and his parent add willfulness to negligence, and will not be moved at all, neither by the humble suit of his child, nor by the earnest solicitation of any friends, means may be made to the Magistrate (who is in God's place over the parent as well as over the child, and ought to afford relief to the child) and what the Magistrate does in that case is as good a warrant to the child as if the parent had done it.

The like means may be used if a parent be an idolater, heretic, or atheist, and will not yield that his child be married to any but to one of his own profession and disposition.

§. 19. Of the sin of children in marrying without their parents' consent.

Contrary is the mind and practice of such children as over lightly esteeming their parents' power, take matches of their own choice: and that sometimes secretly without giving any notice at all to their parents: and sometimes most rebelliously against their parents' mind and charge: not much unlike those who in the old world are condemned for taking wives of all that they chose (which was one branch of that wickedness for which the world was drowned) or rather like Esau who took such wives as proved a grief to his parents. What blessing can be expected to fall upon such marriages? Or rather what curse may not be feared to follow them? God's law is transgressed thereby: his image in parents despised, that which is more proper to them than any goods; or fraudulently, or violently taken from them: their souls grieved thereat: and they often provoked to cast off their children, and curse their marriages. Now God's curse does often follow the just curse of a parent.

§. 20. Of objections for children's marrying without parents' consent, answered.

1. Objection. Though Jacob married one wife according to his parents' direction, yet he married other three (at least the two maids) without their consent.

1. Answ. Jacob's example in marrying more wives than one is not justifiable.

2. Answ. Jacob had a general consent of his parents to take a wife of the daughters of Laban: if therefore his marrying of two wives had been lawful, neither this nor that daughter had been taken without all consent of his parents. As for the two maids of whom he had children, neither of them was his wife: for long after they had children they are called his maids, and distinguished from his wives.

2. Objection. Servants may marry without their master's consent: why then not children without their parents?

1. Answ. It is not lawful for servants so to do while the [reconstructed: state] of their covenant lasts.

2. Answ. Though the servitude of a servant be greater [reconstructed: than] that of a child, yet a parent has in many respects a greater [reconstructed: power] over his child, than a master over his servant. The [reconstructed: power] which a master has is by a mutual covenant between him and his servant, and by the voluntary subjection of a [reconstructed: servant] to his master. But the power of a parent is by the bond of nature, in that a child has his being from his parents. [reconstructed: Besides], this subjection of a child to his parents in case of marriage, is not for servitude but for the good of the child.

3. Objection. Children marry for themselves and not for their parents, why then should parents' consent be so much stood upon?

1. Answ. Though they marry not for their parents, yet they marry from their parents: by marriage they are freed from the power of their parents.

2. Answ. Children are not their own: they are the inheritance of the Lord: the Lord has given them to parents as an inheritance: a child therefore may no more marry for himself without consent of parents, than alienate his parents' goods for himself.

§. 21. Of stealing children from parents for marriage sake.

To the aforementioned sin, and to the vengeance thereof, do they make themselves accessory, who fraudulently allure, or violently take away children to marry them otherwise than their parents would. This is a worse kind of felony than stealing away the goods of a man. For children are much more properly a man's own, than his goods: and dearer to him than any goods can be: indeed and so much more highly to be esteemed, by how much reasonable creatures are to be preferred before senseless, and sensual things. Our statute law expressly condemns this, and imposes a severe punishment on such as shall offend therein. And justly do such offenders deserve to be severely punished, both in regard of the heinousness of the sin, and also in regard of the many mischiefs which follow thereon, as, Alienation of parents' affection from their children, Disinheriting heirs, Enmity between the friends of each party so married, Litigious suits in law, Ruin of families, and (if the personages, whose children are married without their parents' consent, be great and noble) Disturbance of whole towns, cities, and nations. Consider the destruction of the Shechemites (Genesis 34). This is said to have been the cause of the ten years' war between the Grecians and Trojans, and of the ruin of Troy.

§. 22. Of ministers' sin in marrying children without parents' consent.

Such ministers also as through carelessness, not taking due account of the parties whom they marry, whether they have their parents' consent or no; or through bribery, being hired by reward, do marry such children as they know have not their parents' consent; do in a high degree make themselves accessory to the aforementioned sin. Their act is as bad as the act of the principals themselves. Their solemnization of such marriages emboldens both the parties that are so married, and also all the persons that are present thereat. They highly dishonor God's holy ordinance, in that bearing the person of God they say of such as God has forbidden to be so joined together, Those whom God has joined together let no man put asunder. If ministers had not their hand in such unlawful marriages, they could not be made: for our Church ratifies no marriage but what is made by a minister. Therefore some minister or other is guilty of this foul sin, whenever any child is married without consent of parents. Well therefore does our Church (to prevent this sin) expressly forbid ministers to marry any without parents' consent: and inflict a severe censure on them that shall offend therein.

§. 23. Of children's forbearing to dispose any of their parents' goods without consent.

A third branch of the subjection of children in forbearing to do anything without their parents' consent, is about their parents' goods.

That children though living in their parents' house, ought not without their parents' consent to dispose their goods, is evident by the extent of their obedience, in all things.

In that Isaac was pleased to send Jacob to Padan Aram without any great provision, it seems that Jacob made conscience of taking anything privately, but went as his father sent him with his staff. And the apology which he made to Laban his father-in-law concerning things taken away, shows that he held it unlawful for children privately to convey away their parents' goods. What is my trespass? what is my sin? (says he) what have you found of all my household stuff?

Does he not hereby imply, that if Laban's daughters had taken away any of their father's goods, it had been a trespass and sin?

The Apostle says of the heir (who of all the children may seem to have the greatest right) that as long as he is a child (that is, under the government of his parents) he differs nothing from a servant, though he be Lord of all. If he differ not from a servant, what right can he have at his pleasure to dispose his parents' goods? Has a servant any such right?

It is very requisite that children herein should be tied to their parents' consent, both for the good of parents, and of children themselves.

Of parents, that they may know what they have, or have not, and accordingly order their expenses. How can parents tell what they have, if children privately without their knowledge purloin and dispose their goods?

Of children, that their lavish humor might by this means be restrained: (for youth is much prone beyond moderation to spend, if it has wherewithal) and that their parents may the better lay up for them.

§. 24. Of the sin of children in purloining and wasting their parents' goods.

Contrary is both the opinion and practice of many children.

For opinion, many think and say, that whatever is their parents', is theirs also: and thereupon being through the watchful eye and provident care of their parents restrained from overlavish spending, or from laying out anything with their own hands, they murmur against that restraint.

Knowledge and persuasion of their subjection in this case, would be a good means to suppress that repining humor.

For practice,

1. Some privately take away and purloin what goods, money, wares or anything else they can come by of their parents. This the Holy Spirit accounts plain theft: for Rachel having privately taken away her father's idols, the Scripture says that she stole them.

To this end do they make themselves accessory, who counsel and encourage children so to do: as many busybodies, and deceitful persons advise daughters, when God has taken away their mothers, to take away linen, and other like household stuff from their father, pretending that their father may marry another wife, who will carry all away: and upon like pretense also persuade sons when their fathers die, to convey away what they can from their mother. But such pretenses are no sufficient warrant to children to deceive their parents. It were better for children to be deprived of their parents' goods, than to enjoy them with such deceit: for they will be like that bread which is sweet to a man, and afterward his mouth is filled with gravel.

2. Others riotously spend their portion, like the prodigal child, and run into debt, and so make their parents either to pay it, or to leave them to the law. Many Scholars at the Universities, Gentlemen at Inns of Court, and such children as are somewhat liberally trained up in their parents', or other friends' houses, do much offend herein. Little does this excess and riot differ from the aforementioned kind of theft: and ordinarily it brings as many mischiefs as that does.

Some also are so ungracious and ungrateful, that being come to years, and their parents grown old, they seek to defeat their parents of all they have, and to bring their parents under them, to be ordered by them: laboring to get possession of all before their parents are dead, or before they are willing to resign any such right to their children. Such were Absalom, and Adonijah. How highly displeasing such practices are to God, the vengeance which fell upon the heads of those two brothers in evil, traitorous, and disloyal children, does show.

All such children as seek after the forenamed, or any other like means to defraud their parents, do very ill repay their parents' care over them, and more like barbarians than Christians, recompense evil for good: they often bring poverty and ignominy upon their parents and themselves: they are worse than other thieves, because they are more dearly accounted of, and more freely trusted: indeed they are a very bad example to servants in the house, or subjects in the commonwealth.

§. 25. Of children's contentedness to be appareled after their parents' mind and liking.

A fourth branch of the foresaid subjection of children is about their apparel, that it be no other than may stand with their parents' good liking. It is noted that Israel made Joseph a coat — does not the particular mentioning of that circumstance show that parents must have the ordering of their children's apparel? Which is also intimated in the reason given of Tamar's garment of diverse colors, namely because with such garments were the kings' daughters, that were virgins, appareled. And whereas Rebekah had the keeping of her son Esau's clothes, it appears that his clothes were to the mind of his parents: else he would have hid them from them: for further confirmation of which it is noted that his apparel was pleasing to his father.

Contrary is the vainglorious humor of many children, who to the grief and discredit of their parents, apparel themselves both against the mind, and also above the ability, and unbecoming the place and calling of their parents. Among others, many ministers' children bring much discredit on their parents hereby. Let all such proud youths note how the Lord has threatened to visit even kings' children that are clothed with strange apparel.

§. 26. Of children's forbearing to bind themselves to do anything against their parents' consent.

The fifth and last branch with which I will exemplify the forenamed subjection of children, shall be that which is expressly noted in the law, namely a child's binding of itself by a vow.

The law gives the parent power to annul his child's vow. It is therefore a child's duty to abstain from vowing without his parents' consent.

Contrary are such vows as Papists allure children to make, namely, vows of continence, perpetual virginity, regular obedience, voluntary poverty, with the like.

Though by these they are not drawn to forsake their parents (which before we proved to be utterly unlawful:) and though these in their nature were lawful (which they are not, because they are against God's law and ordinance, and against Christian liberty, and savor too rankly of Judaism, indeed of a worse superstition,) yet without parents' consent might they not be made.

As unlawful are oaths, and other like means, whereby children bind themselves to the performance of such indifferent things, as their parents are not willing they should do. What does this but bring a snare upon the consciences of children, and cause a necessity of breaking one of God's commandments? Either the third, in breaking their vow or oath; or the fifth, in disobeying their parents.

§. 27. Of children's active obedience.

The affirmative and active part of a child's obedience, consists in yielding himself pliable to his parents' will; which must be added to the forenamed negative and passive part of obedience in forbearing to do things without consent of parents, for manifestation of a true child-like affection and disposition toward the parent. Passive obedience may arise from mere sullenness, and stoutness of stomach. For there are many who will forbear to do this or that without consent of parents, because they are loath to ask their consent: they had rather have their own wills crossed in the things they desire, than be made subject to their parents' will. What does this argue, but a stout stomach, and a disdainful heart? Besides, to forbear the doing of an unlawful thing, is but to abstain from evil. But it is required of Christians to do that which is good, as well as to abstain from that which is evil. This is what is commended in Jacob: he did not only forbear to take such a wife as would be a grief to his parents (wherein his brother Esau had offended) but also obeyed his parents in taking such a wife as they willed him to take.

This general point we will exemplify in four particular instances, namely, in a child's obedience to his parents' commandments, instructions, reproofs, corrections.

§. 28. Of children's obedience to their parents' commandments.

Whatever lawful commandments parents give to their children, they must be ready to the uttermost of their power to obey. Obey your parents, says the Apostle to children (Ephesians 6:1).

Parents, by virtue of their place, have power and authority to command: children therefore must obey, or else that power is to no purpose.

To demonstrate this by some particulars:

If a parent calls his child, or sends for him, he must readily come, indeed though he does not know the occasion. Eli was in place of a parent to Samuel, upon which the child supposing that Eli called him, ran to him once, and again and again. David when he was sent for by his father out of the field to be anointed King, did not know the occasion, yet came. The twelve sons of Jacob, though men grown, yet called for by their father, assembled themselves together before him.

If a parent is disposed to send his child anywhere, or on any errand, though it be far off, and may seem somewhat troublesome, yet he ought to go, and do it. The forenamed example of Jacob, the example also of Joseph (being sent to see whether it were well with his brothers) and of the ten sons of Jacob (being sent by their father into Egypt,) and of David (sent to visit his brothers in the host) are in this case commended by the Holy Spirit. Of David it is noted, that he arose up early and went as Jesse had commanded him: which sets forth his ready obedience.

If a parent requires his child to attend upon him, he must also do that. When Abraham was going up to the top of Moriah his will was that his servants should tarry behind, and that his son Isaac should attend him, and carry the wood for the sacrifice, and accordingly Isaac obeyed.

4. If a parent enjoin any task, or commit any business to his child, he ought faithfully to perform it. This kind of faithful obedience is commended in Joseph, in the Rechabites, and in David, with many others. Joseph, by reason of his great place, might not go out of Egypt, yet to perform that which his father enjoined him, he asked leave. The Rechabites were tempted to break their fathers' charge, yet they would not. David when he was sent by his father, from the sheep which were committed to his custody, was careful to leave them with a keeper: and again, when a bear at one time, and a lion at another came to the flock, he put his life in hazard to preserve the flock: all these circumstances are thus noted, to set forth the great care that these children had to discharge that charge which their parents had committed to them.

§. 29. Of children's disobedience to their parents' commandments.

Contrary is a rebellious disposition in children, manifested by these and such like practices,

1. By refusing to be at their parents' call; or coming (as we speak) at leisure, and making their parents wait for them.

2. By a lazy, sluggish pretending of vain and frivolous excuses, when their parents would send them on an errand, like that sluggard, who says, A lion is without, I shall be slain in the streets. Such pretenses are as vinegar to the teeth, and smoke to the eyes.

3. By scorning to wait on their parents; and in that respect they will slink out of doors, and absent themselves, when they imagine their parents will use their service in that kind: they indeed will not be their parents' servants: and impious conceit.

4. By refusing to do what their parents enjoin them to do, and require at their hands, like the younger son, that went not to work in the vineyard at his father's command. Such children for the most part offend herein, as through pride think the business enjoined to them too mean, and base to do. Had David, or the daughters of Reguel been of this mind, the one would not have returned to his father's sheep, after he was anointed to be King over Israel, and after he had been called to the Court; and the other would not have watered their father's sheep, especially among such rude and boisterous clowns, as without all respect to their place and sex, would drive them away.

§. 30. Of children's obedience to their parents' instruction.

2. Such wholesome instructions as parents give their children for the well ordering of their carriage, children ought conscientiously to obey: a point which Solomon much presses: My son, says he, hear the instruction of your father, and do not forsake the law of your [reconstructed: mother], etc. And to move children the rather to do so, he sets before them his own example, showing that he required no more of them than himself had performed. Moses, though grown to years, and a prince among his people, testified his obedience to his father-in-law hereby.

1. Parents have an express commandment to instruct their children (as we shall later show.) Great reason therefore that their children hear and obey them therein. The good instructions of any one are to be regarded, much more of parents.

2. Great wisdom may be attained thereby: for the desire that parents have of their children's good, makes them give the best directions they can to them, even what themselves have learned of others, or observed by their own experience: in this respect, Solomon styles him a wise son that obeys the instruction of his father: and resembles the fruit and benefit thereof, to a comely ornament, to chains, and bracelets, and to a crown of glory.

3. Much joy and comfort is brought to parents by seeing their children observe their instruction: for a wise son makes a glad father. Now this is a thing which children ought to aim at, to rejoice their parents' heart. Esau is taxed for grieving his parents.

Contrary is their proud and foolish humor, who think they need no instruction, their parents are too jealous of them, they are wise enough of themselves; if their parents would but let them alone, they should do better: thus they show themselves impious against God, rebellious against their parents, and injurious to themselves. Such were Eli's, and Lot's sons. Now note the vengeance that fell upon them.

§. 31. Of children's patience to their parents' reproof.

3. The obedience of children must further extend itself to their parents' reproof: and that by patient bearing all manner of reproofs, and by amending what is justly reproved. That shame, whereof the Lord speaks, which should be in a child, when her father has spit in her face, that is, by some outward sign manifested his anger, implies a child's patient bearing of a parent's reproof. This patience in a child must be manifested to his parent, whether his reproof be mild or bitter, just or unjust. In this respect a child must more consider the person who reproves, than the matter or manner of the reproof. Jacob's reproof of Joseph, for his dreams which came of God, was unjust: the manner of uttering it, with many short pauses, and that interrogatively, implies some tartness: yet such was his patience, as we read not of one discontented word that he gave. But most memorable is the patience of Jonathan in this kind. His father Saul's reproof of him was directly unjust, and out of measure bitter: yet with what patience did he bear it? All that he replied was to make some little apology for David: he replied nothing against his father's opprobrious speeches.

Great wisdom may be learned by this patience: for so may a child better judge of his parent's reproof, whether it be just or no. Though it be unjust, yet thereby may he observe what is displeasing to his parents: at least he may observe his parent's infirmity, and so know the better how to carry himself towards them.

Contrary is the practice of such children, as upon every reproof of their parents are ready to answer again. Our parents are wayward, say they, who can bear them? If none else could bear them, yet should children: for parents ordinarily bear such waywardness, and untowardness at their children's hands, especially while they are young, as none else would or could.

Quest. If a parent be mistaken in a matter, and unjustly reprove his child, may the child make no answer?

Answ. Yes, he may, so he do it mildly, reverently, and seasonably: not too peremptorily crossing or thwarting his parent.

Objection. Christ took up his mother very roundly for reproving him unjustly.

Answ. Christ as God-man was greater than his mother, and in that respect with authority blamed her for her unjust reproof. The Virgin Mary was not ignorant thereof, and therefore was silent.

§. 32. Of children's readiness to amend what is justly reproved by their parents.

If a child be justly for his fault reproved by his parents, both conscience toward God, and obedience to his parent, requires that he readily redress that which is amiss. Unless amendment of the thing justly reproved be added to patient bearing of reproof, that patience can be no better accounted of, than dissimulation, and plain mockery. When the father-in-law of Moses told him, that what he did was not well, he forthwith amended it.

But contrarily many lewd and ungracious children continue to go on in their wicked courses, though their parents again and again rebuke them for it. Just was Eli's reproof of his children, but yet no amendment followed. Now note the inference made thereupon by the Holy Ghost, They obeyed not the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them: whereby is implied, that to despise the just reproof of parents is an evident sign, and forerunner of God's heavy judgment. Solomon calls the child which will hear no rebuke, a Scorner, which notes out a most obstinate sinner that cannot be reclaimed, and in that respect is scorned of the Lord.

§. 33. Of Children's submission to their parents correction.

4. Correction is a real reproof, a reproof in the highest degree, even the severest kind of reproof: so as by subjection hereunto great trial of obedience is made. By the same means must a child's submission to his parent in this kind of reproof be manifested, as in the former: namely,

1. By bearing patiently the correction which his parent shall give him.

2. By amending readily that for which he is justly corrected.

The former of these is noted by the Apostle as a ruled case, a matter not to be denied, in these words, We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence. One special part of this reverence is a patient suffering: therefore he infers thereupon, ought we not to be in subjection? etc.

The latter is set forth by Solomon under an effect which follows upon the performance thereof: for having advised a parent to correct his child, he adds this reason, He shall give you rest, indeed he shall give delight to your soul: how can this rest, and delight be given, but by the child's amendment of that for which he is corrected? A parent takes no delight in the pain, and smart of his child, but in the fruit that follows thereupon. As a child's transgression is a grief, and vexation to the parent, so his amendment causes rest and delight. Now this effect follows not simply upon correction, but upon the good use thereof which is made by the child. It lies therefore in the child, and so lies upon him as a duty, to give this rest and delight to his parent by amending the fault for which he is corrected, as he brought grief to him by provoking him to use correction. Thus shall neither parent repent the inflicting, nor the child repent the enduring of correction.

That a child may attain to this degree of obedience, he must duly consider both the cause whereby his parent is moved to correct him, and also the end which he aims at therein. The cause is the love he bears to his child. The end which he aims at, is his child's good. If these motives work not obedience, what can?

§. 34. Of refusing, or abusing correction.

Contrary is disdain on the one side, and obstinacy on the other. Disdain, when children scorn to be corrected by their parents: and in that respect when by all the means they can use, they cannot avoid it, they will mutter and murmur, fret and fume, rage and rave against their parents, and despise and hate them for it. Obstinacy, when they will be no whit bettered thereby, but still run on in their lewd courses, and rather become the worse for being corrected. This may be counted the highest pitch of a child's rebellion: for this is the last means which a parent can use to reclaim his child from desperate courses. If this prevails not, the law of God requires, that a parent should give up his child into the hand of the magistrate, that he may be put to death.

Up to this point, of the distinct branches of children's obedience.

The extent of it follows.

§. 35. Of children's conforming their judgments to their parents.

The extent of children's obedience is only implied in this epistle to the Ephesians, but it is expressed (Colossians 3:20) in these words, Children obey your parents IN ALL THINGS. A large extent, but not simply to be taken without any limitation: for the Apostle himself notes a restraint in these words, In the Lord. So far forth as children transgress not any of God's commandments in obeying their parents, they ought to obey. This is to obey in all things, in the Lord.

The extent of children's duties being the very same that was of wives' duties: and the restraint also the same, that order which was there observed shall here also be kept. Only other proofs more pertinent to children's place, shall be brought to confirm those general propositions which may be applied to any inferiors. Many general reasons there alleged for proof of the propositions shall here be omitted. Therefore compare this place with that.

Thus we see that parents' authority is very large: there is no restraint of it but God's contrary command, whereof a child must be assured, if he refuse to obey his parent in any thing.

It is not enough for a child to say I have thus long, and in thus many things obeyed my parent, I hope in some things if I have my own will, I may be excused. No: All things comprise more than many things. Therefore many are not enough. And though God's will be exempted, yet is not your own will exempted: though you may do nothing against God's will, yet you ought to do many things against your own will, if it be contrary to your parents'.

Two things are to be labored after by children for attaining to this extent of obedience in all things.

1. They must labor to bring their judgment and will to the bent of their parents: to think that meet and convenient for them to do which their parents will have them do. Though Isaac thought it somewhat strange that he should carry wood up to a hill to offer sacrifice where was nothing for a burnt offering, yet it being the will of his father that he should do so, he thought it suitable enough for him to do so.

This subjection of judgment and will is to be yielded in all the particular cases of obedience which were before proposed, as in their calling, marriage, apparel, allowance, etc. So as children are to think that kind of calling, that particular match, that apparel, and that allowance to be most suitable for them, which their parents think suitable.

If the judgment be persuaded of the fitness of a thing, and the will inwardly brought to yield to it, outward obedience will more readily and cheerfully be yielded to it.

Contrary is the overweening conceit which many children have of their own judgment and will, who think they can better discern what is fit and fitting for themselves, than their parents. They imagine their parents to be too strict and precise, or too suspicious and jealous, or too covetous and worldly. This makes them take what callings, what matches, what apparel, what allowance they think best; from where many mischiefs arise, which would all easily be avoided, if they would lay down that presumptuous conceit, and labor to observe the forenamed direction.

§. 36. Of children's yielding to practice at their parents' command, such things as in their judgments they cannot think very fitting.

2. Though children cannot in their judgments think that which their parents require to be the fittest and most fitting, yet being pressed to it by the peremptory command of their parents, in practice they ought to yield to it, saying to their parents as Peter to the Lord, "Nevertheless at your word I will do this." Thus did Jacob yield to Rebekah: he thought by doing that which his mother told him, he should seem a [reconstructed: mocker] to his father, yet she urging him, he did it.

Quest.

May not a child, yielding better reason than his parent, refuse to do what he thinks unfit, or at least [reconstructed: forbear] to do what he is commanded, till he be better informed of the fitness thereof?

Answ. With reverence and humility he may render his reason why he thinks it not fitting, and desire his parent not to urge it upon him.

(This did Judah one of the sons of Jacob, and is not blamed for it:) and parents ought in such a case to yield to their children (as Jacob did.) But yet if in things indifferent, parents be otherwise minded than their children, and will have their children yield to them, they must yield.

For, 1. In indifferent things the command of a parent is a warrant to the child, by reason of this extent (all things:) so as the parent may sin in commanding that, in doing of which the child may not sin. Who can clear Rebekah of sin in commanding Jacob to deceive his father? Yet I take it, that Jacob cannot justly be blamed for obeying.

2. Children do thus manifest a high esteem of their parents, and very great respect towards them: they show how desirous they are to please them, and how fearful to offend them. When the will of parent and child consent, there is no such trial.

3. By this means peace and love is better preserved between parent and child: a parent's anger is stopped, the effects thereof avoided, and many other mischiefs prevented, which oft fall out when inferiors refuse to yield to their superiors who have authority over them.

Contrary is their preposterous peremptoriness who will do nothing against their own mind and will, though their parents require it never so much. This phrase (If you will not send, we will not go down) which Judah used to his father, though in a good cause, was too peremptory for a child. They who obstinately refuse to do those things which are against their own mind, must needs come short of this extent, "Obey in all things." Indeed they show that what they do is rather for their own sakes because they like it, than for their parents' sake. What obedience then may that be thought to be? Yet this is all the obedience which many children will yield. If they think not that which their parents require to be fit, no fair nor foul means shall move them to do it; by which many children do much provoke their parents. Let such children know, that it is every way more safe for them at the instant command of their parent to do that which they conceive to be unfit, than peremptorily to disobey their parents, which is more than unfit, even unlawful.

§. 37. Of the restraint of children's obedience.

The restraint of children's obedience is expressed in this clause, "in the Lord:" which phrase affords a necessary limitation in obeying their parents, who are but parents of our flesh, men and women, subject to err in their commandments, and to require such sinful things as their children may not with a good conscience perform. The limitation then which the forenamed clause (in the Lord) affords, is this:

Children must perform no other obedience to their parents, than may stand with their obedience to God. The reasons rendered by the Apostle prove as much: "This is right, this is well-pleasing to the Lord." But to obey parents against the Lord is neither right nor well-pleasing to the Lord (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20).

If therefore parents command their children to do anything which the Lord has forbidden them, they ought not to do it. On this ground did Michal well in suffering her husband David to escape out of the hands of Saul her father. I justify not her manner of carrying the matter, with untruths, and false tales; but her refusing to yield to her father's mind and will is justifiable, and that in two respects (1 Samuel 19:11).

1. In that the difference was between her husband and father. Now by God's law a wife is to yield to her husband rather than to her father (Genesis 2:24 and 3:16).

2. Because she knew her father sought to slay him: if then she had delivered him into the hands of her father, she had made herself accessory to murder. In this latter respect [reconstructed: Jonathan] also did well in refusing to fetch David at his father's command (1 Samuel 20:31-32).

Thus if a father command his child to go to Mass, to forswear himself, to marry an idolater, to steal, to lie, or to commit any other sin forbidden by God, the child ought not to obey: those things cannot be done in the Lord.

Again if parents forbid their children the doing of any necessary duty commanded of God, the child ought to do it notwithstanding the parents' prohibition. We may well think that Ahaz who set himself so violently to deface the holy things of God, to profane his ordinances, and to shut up the doors of God's house, gave strict charge to his son that he should not repair them again; yet Hezekiah as soon as he had power did repair all (2 Chronicles 29:3).

If a parent forbid his child to go to the Protestant churches, to hear a sermon, to pray in a known tongue, to give just weight, and measure, to speak the truth when he is called to witness it, with the like; he must be of Daniel's mind, and notwithstanding that prohibition, do the things which God requires (Daniel 6:10).

§. 38. Of children's sin in yielding to their parents against God.

Contrary to this limitation is on the one side a flattering eye-service in many children, who care not what they do, be it good or evil, lawful or unlawful, so they may please their parents thereby: and on the other side a slavish fearfulness, which makes them so to dread their parents as they fear not God at all: they will rather choose to sin and so provoke God's wrath, than do anything whereby their parents' wrath may be provoked. It is a brand set upon evil kings that they walked in the ways of their fathers, and mothers: and did wickedly as they counseled them. Therefore the following and obeying of their parents in evil was so far from extenuating their sin, as it did rather aggravate the same. The preferring of father and mother before the Lord Christ shows that such a child is not worthy of Christ: in comparison of Christ, father and mother must be hated. But that undue and unchristian-like respect of parents above Christ, is it that makes so many young Papists, young swaggerers, swearers, liars, deceitful persons, and lewd livers.

For avoiding the two forenamed extremes let your heart be filled with a true fear of God, and also consider the difference between our earthly parents and our heavenly Father. They are but parents of our flesh, he is the Father of spirits. They can but touch the body, he can cast body and soul into hell. They are but a while over us, he forever. Their authority is subordinate to his, his supreme and absolute of itself. They can give but a light temporary reward; he, an eternal weight of glory. They cannot shelter us from his wrath, he can from theirs.

Hitherto of such duties of children as respect their parents' authority, such as respect their necessity follow.

§. 39. Of Children's Recompense.

The general head to which all the duties which children owe to their parents in regard of their necessity, is in one word recompense, which is a duty whereby children endeavor as much as in them lies, to repay what they can for their parents' kindness, care, and cost towards them, and that in way of thankfulness; which makes a child think he cannot do too much for his parent, and well may he think so, for a parent does much more for his child before it is able to do for itself, than the child possibly can do for the parent. So as if the parents' authority were laid aside, yet the law of equity requires this duty of recompense: so also does the law of piety and charity. Therefore of all other duties this is most due. It is in express terms given in charge to children by the Apostle, who wills them to learn to requite their parents.

Contrary is neglect of parents in their need, which is more than monstrous ingratitude. As all ingratitude is odious to God and man, so this most of all, and yet very many are guilty thereof. In them the proverb is verified that love is weighty. For it is the property of weighty things to fall down apace, but to ascend slowly, and that not without some violence. Thus love from the parent to the child falls down apace, but it hardly ascends from children to parents. In which respect another proverb says, One father will better nourish nine children, than nine children one father. Many children in his kind do no more for their parents, than for strangers. They either consider not how much their parents have done for them; or else they conceive that what their parents did, was of mere duty, and needs no recompense. Fie upon such barbarous and inhumane children!

§. 40. Of Infirmities to Which Parents Are Subject.

The rule of the forenamed recompense is on the one side the parents' necessity, and on the other, the child's ability. So as in every thing wherein a parent needs his child's help, the child to his power must afford his best help. Beyond one's power nothing can be expected.

A parent's necessity may be through natural infirmities or casual extremities.

Natural infirmities are inward or outward.

Inward infirmities are weakness of judgment, slipperiness of memory, violence of passion with the like; from where proceed perverseness, testiness, suspiciousness, jealousy, fear, grief, etc.

Outward infirmities are such as arise from some instant temptation, as were Noah's and Lot's drunkenness; Lot's and David's uncleanness; Abraham's and Isaac's dissimulation; Jacob's and David's excessive lamentation, etc.

Some of these latter, which may seem most heinous and odious sins, are then to be accounted infirmities, when they who commit them make not a sport of them, nor delight to live and lie in them, as swine to wallow and lie in the mire: but only at some times, through some temptation, as it were unawares, fall into them; and after they are committed they are themselves more ashamed of them, and more grieved for them, than any other that see them, or hear of them.

In regard of the natural infirmities of parents, the duty of children is both to bear with them, and also to cover them so far as they can.

§. 41. Of Children's Bearing with Their Parents' Infirmities.

Children bear with their parents' infirmities when they do not the less reverently esteem their place, or person, nor perform the less duty to them because of their infirmities.

This is the first particular branch of recompense. For children in their younger and weaker years are subject to many infirmities: if parents had the less respected them for their infirmities, and from there had taken occasion to neglect them, and would not have borne with them, surely they could not have been so well brought up. That great patience, long-suffering, and much forbearance which parents have showed towards their children, requires that children in way of recompense show the like to their parents as occasion is offered. It was a great infirmity in Isaac to prefer Esau a profane child, before Jacob a religious child, especially against God's express word concerning Jacob; yet Jacob respected not his father a whit the less for it, as appears by his fear to offend him, and by his readiness to obey him. Jacob's unjust reproof of Joseph was no small infirmity, and yet how much Joseph reverenced and every way respected his father the history following shows. Saul's infirmities were far more and much greater than any of theirs, yet what duty and faithfulness did Jonathan his son perform to him, even to their deaths? for he died with him.

We have herein the pattern of Christ himself: how great infirmity did his mother betray, when over-rashly she rebuked him being about a good work, a bounden duty, his Father's business? Yet immediately thereupon it is noted that he went down with his parents, and was subject to them: which manifests the honor he gave to his mother, notwithstanding her infirmity.

Contrary to this duty do they, who take occasion from their parents' infirmities to think basely of their person and their place, and thereupon grow careless in duty, either refusing to do any duty at all, or else doing it carelessly, grudgingly, disdainfully, and scornfully. Absalom made a supposed infirmity of his father the ground of his rebellion. Had his pretense been true, yet had it not been a sufficient cause for him to disgrace, and rise against his father, as he did. The law that threatens God's vengeance against such children as mock at their father, or despise to obey their mother, makes no exception of parents' infirmities.

Section 42: Of children covering their parents' infirmities.

Children cover their parents' infirmities both by passing by them (as we speak) and taking no notice of them, and also by concealing them from others as much as they can. The Scripture notes it to be a property of love to cover a multitude of sins: now in whom should love abound, if not in children? And who should more manifest this property of love than children?

Of passing by and concealing from others a parent's infirmity, we have a worthy pattern in Shem and Japheth: when Noah their father being drunken lay uncovered in the midst of his tent, they went backward (that they might not themselves see their father's infirmity) and covered his nakedness (that others might not see it.) The blessing which upon this occasion was then promised to them and their posterity, shows how acceptable this duty was to God.

Contrary was Ham's practice, who discovered, and made known his father's nakedness. The curse thereupon denounced against him, shows how odious that sin was to God. Too many there be of Ham's cursed brood, who blaze abroad their parents' infirmities, and make such things known of them, as otherwise would not be known: whereby they bring much dishonor and shame upon their parents (which can be no honor to the children,) and with it a curse from their parents on themselves, which the heathen accounted very dreadful.

More contrary was Absalom's practice, who raised a most malicious slander of his father, and thereby alienated his subjects' hearts from him. Too many Absalom-like seek to raise a supposed reputation and honor to themselves by vilifying and disgracing their parents: but let them note Absalom's end. Assuredly, if they hold on in that course, the like, or a worse, shall be their end.

Section 43: Of children bearing with their parents' casual necessities.

Casual extremities, are all manner of crosses which by the providence of God are laid upon a man: whether upon his body, as blindness, lameness, sickness, etc. or on his person, as captivity, banishment, imprisonment, etc. or on his estate, as poverty, penury, etc. In all these, children must bear with their parents, as in the forenamed infirmities; neither less reverently esteem of them, nor perform the less duty because of them. These are such necessities, as are not sinful in themselves; and therefore in regard of these, parents are much more to be borne with. Though Isaac were blind, yet did not Jacob a whit the less respect him. Though Naomi were poor, yet Ruth her daughter in law continued to do a child's duty and service to her.

Contrary is the unnatural disposition of such children, as take occasion from these casual necessities of their parents to despise them. God has made an express law against despising those who are by any outward defects impotent, as deaf, blind, etc. If no person may despise another, for these, much less children their parents. They are worse than Ham that do so, and may look for a heavier curse.

Section 44: Of children relieving their parents according to their need.

Besides bearing with parents' necessities, in such cases as parents stand in need of their children's relief and succor, they must afford it them. In sickness they must visit them, as Joseph visited his father. In time of mourning, they must comfort them, as the children of Jacob. In want, they must provide things needful for them, as the sons of Jacob, who went up to buy food for their father; and as Joseph, who sent for Jacob into Egypt, and there nourished him. It is noted of Ruth, that she did not only glean for her mother a poor woman, but also reserved some of that food which was given to herself to eat, for her. In time of danger they must do what they can for their protection and preservation, as David had in this respect an especial care of his father and mother. Yea, if God be pleased to take children out of this world before their parents, and their parents be succorless, they must take what order they can for the well-being of their parents after their own departure, as Christ, who commended his mother to his disciple John a little before his death. These and such like duties are particular branches of recompense, and are all comprised under that requital, which the Apostle requires of children: And they are but a small part of requital of all the pains, care, and charges, that parents have been at with their children. Indeed, this only thing, that parents have brought forth children into the world, can children never sufficiently requite. Nature has taught thus much, not only to heathen men, but also to the unreasonable creatures. Among other unreasonable creatures, the example of the Stork is worthy to be noted: for it is recorded of that kind, that when the dams are old, the young ones feed them; and when through age, they are ready to faint in their flying, the young ones will help; and when they are past flying, the young ones carry them on their backs. The Greek name of a Stork is taken from that word, which signifies, to requite a parent's kindness: or else this word is taken from that name: they are both of the same notation.

Contrary is the opinion of Pharisees, who thought that children by consecrating their substance to the Temple, might be freed from this duty of recompense to parents, which is the mystery of that Hebrew word Corban. They made a mere pretext of piety to God, a cause of manifest impiety against parents. Christ gives this verdict of them, that they make the word of God of none effect. Papists are of the same opinion, and so under the same censure.

Contrary also is their practice, who having the goods of this world, suffer their parents to want. Saint John says, that the love of God dwells not in him, who shuts up his compassion from his brother in that case; how then can it dwell in such a child? Not they only who suffer their parents to starve, offend in this extreme, but they also who suffer them to live poorly, and basely, when themselves Dives-like fare delicately, and go gorgeously attired every day.

In a higher degree do they offend, who bring their parents to such extremities, as to poverty by their lavish spending; to prison by importuning them to be their sureties; to excessive grief by their mischievous practices, as the sons of Jacob.

But what shall we say of such graceless children, as dare strike their parents? God's law accounts such a child unworthy of life, and adjudges him to death.

In fact, what may be said of father-killers, and mother-killers? There was of old no particular law made against them, because it is supposed that no child can be so unnatural and inhuman. In imitation of this, Solon, that wise lawmaker among the pagans, made no law against them: and his reason being asked, he answered that he thought no child would commit such a deed.

When afterwards such inhuman impiety was manifested in the world, the Civil Law ordained this punishment: If any shall kill his parent, let him not be put to the sword, nor fire, nor any other usual punishment; but let him be sewed in a sack with a dog, and a cock, and a viper, and an ape, and cast into the nearest sea, or river; that while life is in him, he may begin to lack all use of the elements, and be deprived, while he lives, of the air, and when he is dead, of the earth.

This sin having been committed among the pagans, the Apostle reckons it up among other most notorious and barbarous sins (1 Timothy 1:9). As murder is one of those sins which the earth can least bear, and which cries loudest to heaven for vengeance, so among the several kinds of murder, this is the most unsupportable, and crying.

Thus much of the duties of children, which they are to perform while their parents live. It remains to speak of those which they are to perform when their parents are dead.

§. 45. Of children's care to bury their parents being dead.

The duties which children owe to their parents after they are dead concern the [reconstructed: body and credit] of their deceased parent.

It is the duty of children to bring the bodies of their parents deceased, with such decency and honor, as may be answerable to the place and reputation wherein they lived.

So as both the thing itself, and the manner of doing it, is to be observed.

The thing itself, namely burial of the corpse of such as are deceased, has ever been in use in God's Church: and it has been used as a means to maintain our hope of the resurrection of our bodies. Many of the pagans, who never dreamed of the resurrection, were accustomed to burn the dead bodies of their friends: other pagans learned this manner of burial from the Church, though they knew not the mystery of it. It is more clear than needs to be proved, that God's people, from the beginning of the world, have performed this duty of burial to their friends; but it is not pertinent to the point in hand, to insist on the general: that it belongs especially to children to procure this duty to be performed, is now the point to be proved, which is readily done by the approved examples of Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and others expressly recorded in Scripture.

And great reason there is for it: for

1. It is a testimony of great love and good respect to the party deceased. Now who should manifest more love, and greater respect than a child?

2. It is a kind of blessing, promised by God to his saints, to be buried: as on the other side, it is a curse threatened against obstinate sinners, not to be buried. In this respect, David blesses the men of Jabesh Gilead for burying Saul, and acknowledges it a kindness done to Saul. Now who ought rather to procure a blessing, and do a kindness to parents, than children, who are often blessed through their parents' means?

3. It being a great deformity to have a man's corpse lie above ground (for no carcass will be more loathsome than a man's if it lie unburied) children, who are most bound to cover their parents' deformity, are in this respect bound to bury their corpse.

Contrary is their practice whose minds are so set on their parents' goods, as they completely neglect their bodies. So soon as their parents' breath is out of their body, they so busy themselves about the things which they have left behind them, as their corpse is ready to stink before care is taken for the burial of it. Indeed, some will purposely keep their parents' corpse above ground till they be exceeding offensive, for receiving some revenues, or debts, or other accounts, which must be paid before the corpse is buried. If their corpse must needs for some time be kept above ground, let them be embalmed, or so used as they may not smell. They who are careless of this, show that they respect their parents' wealth more than their person and honor.

In which respect they also heinously transgress, who are so greedy of their parents' estate, as they must needs prevent his departure, and like Adonijah enter on their father's estate, and take possession of his goods before breath is out of his body: whereby they do often cause great disquietness to him that would depart in peace.

Again, others bearing an inward grudge and secret hatred against a brother, or other kinsman, whom their parent entirely loved, and in that respect dared not meddle with him in their parents' lifetime, so soon as their parent is dead, pick a quarrel with the party hated, and so disturb and hinder their parents' funeral. Such a plot Esau intended: but God defeated it, whereby it appears that God is displeased with it.

§. 46. Of the decency with which children ought to see their parents buried.

The manner after which children ought to see their parents buried, must be with such decency as is agreeable to the commendable custom of the country and Church where their parents die, and with such honor as is in some measure answerable to the estate, and place of their parents while they lived (at least if it be not above the means that the parent has left, or above the ability of the child that makes the solemnity). Joseph was a great Governor in Egypt, by reason of which his father when he came there was highly accounted of: accordingly with great honor did he carry him to his grave.

There are two extremes contrary to the forenamed decency and honor. One is an overlavish and prodigal sumptuousness and solemnity at their parents' funeral, far above the estate, and far beyond the means which the parent has left, and far also above the estate and ability of the child himself. Some by the needless solemnity of their parents' funeral are so far cast into debt, as they are never able to recover themselves again, and so bring more dishonor to their parents by the weakness of their child's estate, than honor by the solemnity of the funeral: there may be great honor, and much decency in a funeral, where there is not extraordinary charges: instance Stephen's funeral.

The other extreme is too base and private a manner of burying their parents, much unbeseeming both their parents and their own estate, and means; which arises from a mixture of pride, and covetousness possessing their hearts. Pride makes them have no solemnity at all, because covetousness will not suffer them to exceed in their solemnity. Hence it comes to pass that they choose out strange places where neither their parents or selves are known, and the dead of the night that none may spy them; and appoint an uncertain time, that no friend may accompany them. God often meets with such proud, covetous children in their kind, and causes them with like dishonor to be brought to their graves.

Section 47: Of children's paying their parents' debts after their death.

As children must have respect to the body of their parents deceased, so also to their credit and name, which is a thing of greater account, and honor: a thing wherein they may bring a kind of blessing to their parents and make them live after their death.

Parents themselves cannot do anything when they are dead to preserve the same: children therefore being the living image of their parents must endeavor to do it.

Three things there be which children must make conscience of, even in regard of their deceased parents' credit, and reputation; one, to pay their debts: another, to suppress ill rumors: a third, to imitate their good example.

1. If the estate of parents, their goods or lands come to their children, their duty is to pay their debts, so far as they can: especially if by law those debts may be recovered at their hands. For what law may force others to do in equity and justice, conscience must move good children to do in charity, and recompense to their parents. The Holy Ghost makes it a note of a wicked man to borrow and not to pay. Therefore to wipe away that blot from the name of a parent deceased, children must be ready in this kind to do what the parent himself, if he were living, would, or should do. Indeed if children of themselves be well able, though their parents left not sufficient to pay all their debts, they ought to pay them. Herein especially a childlike affection is manifested to the parent.

Contrary is their practice who strive to get all they can of their parents, and yet make no conscience of paying any debts at all, unless law force them thereto. What they do in this case cannot be thought to be done for their parents' sake, but rather for their own sake. Many so little respect their parents' credit in this kind, as they privily convey away and utterly conceal much of their parents' estate, on purpose to defeat creditors: which as it is a part of apparent injustice, so it is a cause of opening the mouths of men against their parents, to their discredit and shame.

Section 48: Of children's suppressing evil reports against their parents deceased.

The direction given before concerning children's speech of their parents behind their backs, may fitly be applied also to the care which children ought to have of the speeches and reports which are made of their parents after their departure. It follows as from the less to the greater, that what children do for their parents' credit in absence behind their backs, they must much more do when they are dead: for then there is no hope, no possibility that parents should do anything to right their own wrong in that kind: it lies therefore upon children to do it.

Do not they do clean contrary, who take occasion from the departure of their parents, both to open their ears to receive any ill reports of them, and also to open their mouths to speak ill of them: then blazing abroad all their infirmities, and stretching their ill reports of their parents beyond the limits of truth. Ill birds they are that so betray their own nest. They know that their parents being dead can have no notice thereof: whereby they show what little piety to God or parent is in their heart. But there is an ever-living, all-seeing, and all-knowing Father that takes notice of all: who beside other vengeance will cause such measure to be measured out to them, as they measure to their parents. There is no one thing wherein this proverb, (With what measure you measure it shall be measured to you again) is more often verified than in children's ingratitude to their parents. All ages have given many instances thereof. (The very heathen observed it.) Which shows God's great indignation against it.

Section 49: Of children's imitating their parents' good example.

If parents have been persons of good conduct in their lifetime, as religious toward God, just in their dealings with men, merciful to such as stood in need of their help, doing much good in their place, and so ended their days with much credit; it is an especial means to maintain and continue this their credit, for children to walk in their steps, and to endeavor to be like them.

Thus is a blessed memory of their parents kept fresh and green (as we speak) though their bodies be rotten. For when they who knew the parents behold the like good qualities and actions in their children, they will thereby be put in mind of the parties deceased, and say, Oh how such parents yet live! behold a lively, and living image of them. Thus did Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah and such like good kings which came of the stock and lineage of David, keep the memory of their father David, fresh, fair, and flourishing (long after his body was rotten) as is evident by these and such like phrases, He walked in the ordinances of David his father: he walked in all the ways of David his father: he did that which was right as David his father, etc. There can be no better monument of a parent's piety, honesty, and virtue, than a child's lively representation of the same. Therefore as a motive to stir up children to walk in the good ways of their parents, God has promised to show mercy to thousands of them that love him and keep his commandments, that is, such as having religious and righteous parents walk in their steps.

Contrary are both those that are unlike good parents, and those that are like evil parents. The former sort do much impeach and dishonor the reputation of their parents, as Rehoboam, who by his foolish, rigorous, and unjust carriage, made the people speak contemptuously of David.

The latter sort continue in memory the evil name, and the shame of their parents, and cause them to stink more and more: as the sons and successors of Jeroboam, who following his idolatrous course, made it the more remembered, and caused this blur to remain in his style from age to age, Jeroboam which made Israel to sin.

As they stop the current, and hinder the passage of the blessing of righteous parents: so these propagate, and open a way for the curse of unrighteous parents.

§. 50. Of the superstitious duty enjoined by Papists to children after their parents' decease.

To the two forenamed duties of burying the corpse, and preserving the credit of parents, Papists add a third, and Heathen a fourth, of which neither are warrantable by God's word, but directly contrary to it.

That which Papists add is, that children after their parents' death ought to procure Diriges, Masses, Pardons, Releases, and such like toys for them, and make continual prayers to free them out of Purgatory, and bring them to rest in heaven: of the vanity of these prayers, and folly of the other toys I have elsewhere spoken.

The Scripture expressly teaches that after death the soul goes to the place appointed for it, of endless bliss or woe: so as there is no means of altering the one, or helping forward the other.

§. 51. Of the unlawfulness of children's seeking to revenge their parents' wrongs.

That which Heathen add, is, that children after their parents' death revenge such wrongs as have been done to them in their lifetime. And they press this so far upon children, as they frighten them with their parents' ghost, saying, that if they neglect to revenge their parents' wrongs, their ghost will follow them, and not suffer them to live in quiet, but molest them continually. This conceit arises from the corruption of nature, which is exceeding prone to revenge: but it is expressly forbidden in Scripture, in these and such prohibitions, Resist not evil, Recompense to no man evil for evil, Avenge not ourselves, etc. Yet some in justification thereof allege David's charge to Solomon of taking vengeance on Joab and Shimei, after his death.

Answer: The charge which David gave, and Solomon's execution thereof, was no matter of private revenge, but only a lawful execution of justice which children may and ought to do. Just reasons there were to move David to put off the execution of justice upon the one and the other so long. Joab was too mighty to have execution done on him in David's time: and Shimei's offense was committed in the time of David's humiliation, which made him swear that he would not himself take vengeance of him. Besides, Solomon executed justice on the one and the other, not for the wrongs they did to his father, but for other crimes which they committed in his time: only their former offenses were remembered to aggravate the matter.

Thus far of children's duties. The manner of performing them follows to be declared.

§. 52. Of the manner of performing children's duties.

That clause which noted out the limitation of children's duties, affords also an excellent direction for the manner of performing them. It is this, in the Lord: that is, children must so perform their duty to their parents as they would or should perform it to the Lord.

More particularly it implies these six points:

1. That their duties be performed in conscience, or for conscience sake, which is all one as for the Lord's sake: for the Lord only is Judge of the conscience and has power over it. Thus must subjects perform duty to magistrates: much more children to parents. The reason which the Apostle renders in these words, This is well-pleasing to the Lord, shows that children in obeying their parents must labor to approve themselves to God.

2. Their duties must be in sincerity, which is when children pretend in show to do no more than in truth and heart they mean: Whatever you do, do it heartily as to the Lord, says the Apostle. Parents use to deal with none more heartily than with their children: accordingly must children deal with parents.

3. They must be performed cheerfully, with a willing and ready mind: for the Lord loves cheerfulness. Herein lies a main difference between a filial and servile, a childlike and slavelike obedience.

4. They must be performed reverently as to them which bear the image of God. Hereof we spoke before.

5. They must so be performed, as in performing them no sin be committed against God. Hereof also we spoke before.

6. Constancy must be added to all other virtues. For as the Lord himself is constant in all his ways and works, so he expects that children should be in the duties which he requires at their hands. He that begins well, and holds not on, loses all the glory of his good beginning.

If the examples of all good children commended in Scripture be well weighed, we shall find their duties, so far forth as they were acceptable to God, performed after the aforesaid manner, in all the branches thereof.

§. 53. Of the aberrations of children in the manner of their obedience.

Contrary are these aberrations.

1. When children perform their duties on by-respects: for fear of parents' wrath, and the punishment following thereon: for hope and expectation of greater portion and allowance: upon instant persuasion of friends, with the like: these respects simply in themselves are not for the Lord.

2. When they perform them only outwardly in show, complimentarily while parents are in presence, or may know thereof. This is not with respect to God who searches the heart.

3. When they perform them grudgingly, mutteringly, disdainfully: as if their parents' authority were a usurped power and not given them of God. Is this in the Lord?

4. When they perform them rudely and unmannerly: this shows they consider not the glory of God's image shining in their parents.

5. When they care not how they sin against God, so they may please their parents.

6. When, as if they repented of what they have well done, they refuse to do any more duty to their parents. They grow weary, thinking that God has laid too heavy a burden upon them. Many show themselves more dutiful in their youth than in their riper years. That which makes children weary in doing duty, is commonly the great and long need of their parents, as long sickness, long impotence, long poverty, with the like. It appears that such children look only on their parents as men, which, as they imagine, can never recompense their pains and cost: they look not to God who is able abundantly to recompense all. These therefore perform not their duty in the Lord.

§. 54. Of the equal respect that children are to bear to both parents.

As the distinct duties of children have been set forth, so I think it requisite to declare distinctly who the parties be to whom those duties are to be performed. These principally are the natural parents, both Father and Mother. Secondarily such as are in the place of parents.

The first point then to be noted is, that children bear an equal respect to both their natural parents, and perform duty to both alike. The law expressly mentions both, Honor your Father and your Mother. Well may we think that there was some just and urgent cause, that the law which so briefly under as few words as well could be, comprises exceeding much matter, should expressly mention father and mother, when as there is one word, parent, which includes both. Now what other reason can be rendered than the point in hand?

It is worthy to be noted, how the Apostle contents not himself to have named parents, which implies both, but also annexes the express words of the law, which in particular sets down, father and mother. It is expressly set down of Jacob that he obeyed his father and his mother (Genesis 28:7). Among other penmen of Scripture Solomon expressly mentions both father and mother, even almost twenty several times in Proverbs.

Many reasons there be to enforce this point.

1. Both parents are under God alike means of their children's being. Children come out of the substance of both alike.

2. The care and pains of both for the good of the children is very great: I know not of whether the greater. The mother's pains and care in bringing forth the child is indeed the greater, and it may be also the greater in bringing up the child, especially while it is young, at least if she give it suck herself: yet afterwards the father's exceeds in providing fit calling, sufficient means of maintenance, indeed and portion or inheritance for it, and that after he himself is dead. Thus one way or other the child is equally bound to both: and accordingly God's law makes no difference between them.

Object. The wife is subject to her husband: therefore a child ought to prefer his father before his mother.

Answer. Though there be a difference between father and mother in relation of one to another, yet in relation to their children they are both as one, and have a like authority over them. Now children are not to look to that difference that is between their parents in that mutual relation that is between husband and wife, but to that authority which both parents have over their children: and so to carry an equal respect to both.

2. Object. What if the fathers and mothers disposition be contrary: and the one command what the other forbids.

Answer. The thing commanded or forbidden must be observed: if it be about a thing simply good or evil, lawful, or unlawful, then the parent which would have the thing lawful to be done, or unlawful to be forborne (though it be the mother) must be obeyed: for in this case she is backed with God's authority. But if the matter be merely indifferent, then I doubt not but the father must be obeyed: yet so as the child no way show any contempt to his mother, but with all reverence and humility make it known to her that it is best both for herself and himself, that his father be obeyed. But if the father's contrary authority be not interposed, or if the father be dead, then is a mother as simply and absolutely to be obeyed in all things, as a father.

§. 55. Of pretenses alleged to obey father rather than mother.

Contrary on the one side is their childish fondness who so wholly respect their mother, and seek to please her, as they little regard their father, unless through fear they be forced to do so: and on the other side, their scornful spirit who only bear respect to their father, and altogether neglect their mother, if not despise her. For the most part, of the two, the mother is less regarded. The reasons of which I take to be these following, to which I will annex particular means to remove the seeming force of those reasons, as antidotes or remedies to them.

1. The mother by reason of her sex is commonly the weaker, and subject to more infirmities.

Answer. Children ought rather to look upon their mother's place and authority, than their person and infirmity: so these would no whit impair their respect of the other.

2. The mother is more indulgent and tender to her children: and uses more familiarity towards them: now familiarity breeds contempt.

Answer. This is the abuse of familiarity: love should breed love: and love must be ordered according to the condition of the parties loving, and loved. As children with one eye behold the affection of the mother, so with another they should behold God's image in the mother; and then (that which is noted as the ground of all children's duty) a loving-fear would be wrought in their heart, which would cast out all contempt.

3. The mother has not that power to reward or revenge that a father has.

Answer. 1. This is not to obey in the Lord. No outward respect should move the child to obey his parents so much as conscience toward God. If children duly considered God, how he has made no difference, but commanded them to obey both alike, and how he is able abundantly to reward, and severely to revenge, that reason would be no reason.

4. The mother is subject to the father.

Answer. This was removed before.

As a general answer to these and all other such pretenses as can be alleged, let it be noted that the Lord does not only in express terms charge children to fear their mother, but also (the more to press this point) sometime sets the mother in the first place, thus; You shall fear every man his mother, and his father: which is not so to be taken as if the mother of the two were the more excellent (in this respect the father for the most part is first named) but because it is the truest trial of a child's subjection to be subject to his mother. He that willingly and conscientiously subjects himself to her, who is in relation to her husband the inferior, in sex the weaker, in condition subject to more infirmities, in her affections less moderate, in power less able to reward, or to punish, will much rather (no doubt) subject himself to his father (Leviticus 19:3).

§. 56. Of the difference of children's subjection to natural parents, and to such as only are in the place of parents.

Beside natural parents, there are others by God so set over children, as they owe in conscience child-like duty to them. These in general are such as are in the place of parents, and so perform, or at least ought to perform, the duty of parents to children.

They are of two sorts.

1. Such as are joined to a natural parent in marriage, commonly called Step-fathers, and step-mothers, or fathers in law, and mothers in law.

2. Such as have the government and tuition of children committed to them, commonly called Guardians, Tutors, Governors: indeed also foster-fathers, and foster-mothers.

Quest. Is the same duty in every respect due to those who are in place of parents, as to natural parents themselves?

Answ. Not so. There is such a prerogative appertaining to natural parents from whom children have received their being, that many things wherein children by an absolute necessity are bound to them, are bound to the other who are but in place of parents, only by the law of honesty, of fitness and convenience. From where it comes to pass that such things as being done by children rebelliously without, or against the consent of natural parents prove mere nullities, will stand in force though they be done without or against the consent of such as are only in the place of parents: instance contracts made about goods, lands and such other things as parents retain a right in: to which many good Divines add contracts of marriage, of calling and the like.

Yet notwithstanding seeing in conscience we are bound to those things which the law of honesty, and convenience requires (for whatever things are honest, just, and of good report, are to be done) great is that duty which children owe to those who are in place of parents.

§. 57. Of children's subjection to fathers and mothers in law.

Fathers and mothers in law are to be ranked in the first degree of those who are in the place of natural parents. Very good proof there is in Scripture for children's subjection to them. The respect which Moses bore to his father in law, and Ruth to her mother in law, and Christ himself to his supposed father, are commended for this very purpose. Subjection is noted in Christ's example: Reverence in Moses: Recompense in Ruth's.

The marriage bond makes man and wife one flesh: whereupon the natural parent that marries another, makes that other one with him, and in that respect is as a parent to the children, and by them ought to be accounted so.

The law of God makes it plain [reconstructed: it is unlawful] for a son to uncover the shame of his mother in law, or for a father in law to uncover the shame of his daughter in law. Whereby it appears that fathers and mothers in law, are by God's law in the very place and stead of natural parents to their children, and accordingly as natural parents are to be honored.

Besides it is a great honor which a child does to his natural father or mother to respect such as they have made one flesh with themselves, as they do their own parent. So as to honor a father, or mother in law, is to honor a natural parent.

Contrary is the mind and carriage of most children. Very few bear a reverent, dutiful, and child-like respect to stepfathers, and step-mothers: but for the most part despise them in heart, grumble at them in speech, and are very undutiful in their behavior: from where it comes to pass that they bring much grief to their natural parent, and oft cause much discord and dissension between their natural, and step-parent being herein set on work by Satan, who labors what he can to disunite those whom God has nearly united together and made one flesh. Lamentable experience shows that the second, third, or any after-marriages are seldom so comfortable and peaceable as the first: especially if either the one, or other, or both have children. The cause thereof, for the most part, is in children, who brook not fathers or mothers in law.

Object. Nature cannot so well brook a step-parent, as a natural parent.

Answ. 1. If not so well, yet despise them not: there is a difference between extremes.

2. Conscience and religion ought to alter corrupt nature. Look to God's ordinance: and let God's fear possess your heart, that that may bring you to do what nature cannot.

2. Object. Fathers and Mothers in law seldom respect their husbands or wives' former children.

Answ. This objection more befits the mouth of a barbarian than a Christian. The Gospel teaches to be subject not only to the good and gentle, but also to the perverse: and not to be overcome of evil, but to overcome evil with goodness.

The Scripture reckons such as rise up against their parents in law, among such as rise up against their natural parents: showing thereby that the impiety of those, is as blame-worthy, as the impiety of these.

§. 58. Of children's subjection to Guardians, Tutors, &c.

For children's subjection to Governors, Guardians, and Tutors, the Apostle says that a child is under them. If by the law children are under them, they ought in equity to be subject to them. It is expressly noted of Esther, even after the King had chosen her for his wife, that she did the commandment of Mordecai (who was as a Guardian to her) like as when she was brought up with him. A memorable pattern for this purpose. What pretences might she have made to have cast off all manner of subjection? Mordecai was but her cousin: she was now advanced above him: a wife she was, and so subject to her husband: indeed a King's wife, and so herself a Queen: yet she was subject, and her subjection commended. We read that the children of the Prophets much respected Elisha, did reverence to him, and were obedient to him, because he was as a father and tutor to them: in which respect also Elisha was as a child subject to Elijah, whom he called father.

Guardians, Tutors, and such like overseers of children, have a parent's charge laid upon them, as we shall after show: great reason therefore that child-like duty should be yielded to them. Their honor must be answerable to their charge and care.

Contrary is the conceit of many lawless children, whose parents being dead, or they being sent and placed abroad out of the government of their parents, think they are clean free from all government, and may live as they list. Their practice being correspondent to this opinion, they run into all riot, and in time bring themselves to utter ruin. It is the overthrow of many children, that they regard not their Guardians, Tutors, and Governors: and God in judgment brings many such refractory children to some fearful and shameful end or other. Let children therefore be wise, and not take too much liberty to themselves.

Thus far have been handled the duties of children in their several kinds, the manner of performing them, and the parties to whom they are to be performed. It remains to speak of the reasons which the Apostle alleges to enforce those duties.

§. 59. Of the place of parents, by which children ought to be moved to obey them.

The reasons which the Apostle uses to move children to perform their duty are four: The first is taken from the place of the parent. The second from the equity of the thing. The third from God's express charge. The fourth from God's promise.

1. The place of a parent is noted forth by this phrase, IN THE LORD: which as it affords a limitation, and gives a direction to children, so it adds a spur to them, to stir them up to perform their duty: for it shows that parents are to their children in the Lord's stead: as an evidence thereof has God communicated to them this glorious and honorable title (FATHER) which is proper and peculiar to himself. Now then parents being to their children in God's stead, and by virtue of their place bearing God's image, children in obeying their parents, obey God; in refusing to obey them, refuse to obey God. A strong motive is this first motive. For who is so void of religion, but will think it most fitting, that God should be honored? Or who so impious, as to refuse to yield duty to God? Here then children may learn in one main point how to honor the Lord, and show themselves children of God. And let them hereby know, that disobedient and undutiable children, that resist the authority of parents, resist the ordinance of God, and receive to themselves damnation.

Section 60. Of the equity whereby children should be moved to obey their parents.

2. The second reason in these words, for this is right, though it be not of greater force, yet is it more plainly and expressly noted to be a reason, as the causal particle (for) prefixed before it, shows. It is a general reason drawn from common equity; a reason which may move all sorts, even Infidels and Pagans: therefore much more Christians.

In saying, It is right, he implies three things.

1. That it is agreeable to all law. To the law of God, which is the fountain of equity. To the law of Nature, which proceeds from there. And to the law of Nations, which is answerable in many respects. The forenamed proofs out of God's word, show it to be agreeable to God's law. The precepts which heathen men have given of this point, show it to be agreeable to the law of nature. And the many Constitutions of Law-makers, in all ages, show it to be agreeable to the law of nations.

2. That the place of parents requires as much. For RIGHT requires that every one have his own, that which is his due. It being therefore right, that children obey their parents, that duty is due to them.

3. That parents deserve as much: for right presupposes desert. That which is done of right, is done by way of recompense. The cause of this desert, is the love which parents bear to children, the pain, pains, care, and cost they have been at, in bringing them forth, and bringing them up.

These things being implied under right, note what follows from the force of this reason,

1. Disobedient and undutiable children, transgress against God's law, against common equity of all nations, and against the light of nature: so as they are unworthy of the name of Christians, they are worse than Infidels, indeed worse than the brute beasts.

2. They have no respect to the place of their parents, they disgrace the image of God, which their parents by virtue of their place carry, and they disturb that seemly order and degree, which God has set among men.

3. They ill repay their parents' care and pains for their good, and show themselves both ungrateful and unnatural: which are two most monstrous and odious sins.

Section 61. Of God's accepting children's obedience.

The forenamed reason is by this same Apostle in another place thus set down, This is well-pleasing to the Lord. By comparing that place with my text, I observe, that

What is right is well-pleasing to the Lord. And again, What is well-pleasing to the Lord is right.

These two propositions, are (as we speak in Schools) convertible and reciprocal; either of them true of the other every way. Therefore the Apostle, in another place, joins them both together. For having exhorted children to recompense their parents, he says, That is good and acceptable before God. Good or honest is in effect the same as right.

This shows, that dutiful children, as they do that which is good, or honest, and right to their parents; so also therein they highly please God: so as they may be sure not to lose thereby. At God's hand they shall receive a reward, though their parents should little regard their dutifulness. Thus God dealt with Jacob. His father-in-law ill repaid his faithfulness: but God looked upon him, and abundantly recompensed all his pains.

This shows again, that undutiable children, as they do not that which is right, but rather wrong to their parents; so they highly displease God: they may be sure therefore not to escape unpunished, though their parents, through over-much indulgence, should let them alone: instance the two impious children of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas: and the two rebellious children of David, Absalom, and Adonijah.

This therefore adds force to the second reason, and moves children to do right to their parents, by obeying them, as they respect God, his good pleasure, or displeasure: as they look for recompense, or fear vengeance from him.

Section 62. Of God's charge, how inviolable a bond it is to tie children to obey their parents.

3. The third drawn from God's charge is not only in express terms noted, but for more weight the very words of the moral law are quoted (Honor your father and your mother:) and it is added, that this is a commandment, indeed the first commandment, and that with promise, all which is for amplification of the point.

Here then consider we: 1. The reason itself. 2. The amplification thereof.

From the reason that it is God's charge, I gather these three points.

1. That it is no arbitrary matter left to children's discretion whether they will obey their parents or not: but a matter to which in conscience they are bound, even as they owe allegiance to God himself the great law-giver: so as in neglecting duty to parents, children sin even against God himself: for the same God who has commanded us to honor himself, has commanded us to honor father and mother.

2. That this is a perpetual and a general law: a law to which all children of all times, places, sexes, estates and degrees always have been, still are, and ever shall be bound. For the moral law is of that extent: it is general for all persons: perpetual for all times. Therefore no children may think to be exempted from it.

Question: What if children are grown to years, and not under their parents' government?

There may be some difference both in some parts of subjection, and also in the manner of subjection between such children as remain under their parents' government, and such as are freed from it: but yet so long as a child has a parent, of whatever age or estate he be, he owes an honor to his parent. Joseph when he was a great Governor of Egypt, a man grown, having wife and children, yet performed the honor of reverence, obedience, and recompense to his father. Solomon when he was in a higher place than Joseph, even an absolute King, did the honor of reverence to his mother.

3. That no man can give children any dispensation, or exemption from their duty to parents. If any may, he must be either the law-maker himself, or one greater than he, one that has power over him. Now God is the author and giver of that law; God spoke all these words (Exodus 20:1), etc. But is any greater than God? Has any power over him? Who then can dispense with children in this kind?

Hence then I infer these two conclusions.

1. That the Pope's dispensation is nothing worth: they who make it to be of force, must make him greater than God, which is a horrible blasphemy.

2. Though parents themselves should not exact duty of their children, yet children were bound to perform duty to them, because of God's charge. To this therefore are children to look. This shows that there is no less pain hanging over the heads of the transgressors of this charge, than the curse of the law, eternal condemnation.

§. 63. Of the title first given to the fifth commandment.

In the amplification of the aforementioned reason, the Apostle styles the commandment of honoring parents the first with promise, as to show that it is the first which has a particular promise annexed to it; so it is the first that God gave of any duty to be performed to man. The very order of the decalogue manifests the truth hereof. The reason is clear: honor due to parents is the ground of all the duties required in the second table: for if duty be not performed to such as we are bound to by some peculiar bond, may we think that it will be performed to such as we are bound to at large? Now of all to whom we are first and most bound, and to whom we owe our first duty, our parents are the persons. They therefore who are rebellious against their parents, and refuse to do their duty to them, will hardly perform duty to any other. Little hope that a disobedient child will prove a profitable member in Church or commonwealth. Absalom, who was a rebellious child, proved but a traiterous subject: and [reconstructed: Hophni] and Phinehas that refused to hearken to the voice of their father, proved but sacrilegious Priests. Therefore if any precept of the second table be conscientiously to be observed (as all are, for the same law-maker gave all, and Christ has said that the second table is like the first (Matthew 22:39)) then is this of honoring father and mother, among the rest, and above the rest to be observed, at least if difference of observing any may be made.

But this particle (first) being set down, not simply but with a connection of promise with it (The first with promise) we are duly to consider the promise thereof: from where a fourth reason arises.

§. 64. Of God's promise moving children to obey their parents.

The fourth reason taken from God's promise, is both generally propounded and particularly exemplified. Propounded in this clause (first with promise). Exemplified in the third verse.

For the General: God's promise made to the performance of any duty, cannot but be a strong motive to stir us up to perform it. Men hereby do stir up, and provoke one another to perform anything. Thus Kings when they would eagerly have their subjects do this or that, promise such and such rewards to them: thus masters incite their servants, parents their children, and one man another. If the promises of men encourage us to perform the things which they give us in charge, how much more ought the promise of God? Men [reconstructed: are] deceitful, and may deal doubly, pretending one thing with their mouths, and intending another with their heart, [reconstructed: and] never mean to perform what they promise: but God is faithful and true: his words are as deeds: his promises as performances; so as he never makes show of more than he means [reconstructed: to] perform. Again, man's power is limited; though he truly [reconstructed: intend] what he promises, yet in the performance he may fail [reconstructed: either] in that he knew not his own power, but thought when [reconstructed: he] made the promise he could have done more than in the [reconstructed: event] he finds he can do; or in that he is afterwards by some occasion hindered, or disabled. But God's power cannot be so [reconstructed: strained], or hindered. Besides, men may be taken away before [reconstructed: the time] of performing their promise is come: but God ever [reconstructed: lives], and changes not. If then man's promises be any motive to anything, much more God's who ever remains the same. Between God and man there is no proportion, no [reconstructed: comparison].

This motive does exceedingly commend God's fatherly indulgence towards us, and the earnest desire he has of our good. For he has such power and authority over all his creatures, that the very knowledge of his will ought to provoke them to perform any duty which he shall command: and if they obey not, he might presently execute vengeance upon them. But considering that we are his children, and need many allurements to draw us on by little and little, he accordingly deals with us. He stands not wholly and only upon his authority, but adds promises thereto: (for this is a commandment with promise.) If notwithstanding all this, children refuse to obey their parents, may not the Lord justly expostulate the matter with them, as sometimes in another case he did with the Israelites, and say, Judge between me and these children: what could I have done more that I have not done? I gave them an express charge to honor their parents: I laid it down in the first place as a main and principal charge: to encourage them to keep it, I added a promise of good to redound to themselves: what could I do more? Do not they justly deserve vengeance that regard none of these? Thus, in that this is a commandment with promise, we see how children disobedient to their parents are both rebellious against God in regard of the commandment which they transgress, and injurious to themselves in regard of the promise which they make to be void and of no effect. Of this particular promise see more in the first treatise, §. 97, 98, etc.