§. 57. Of childrens ſubiection to fathers and mothers in law. to §. 63. Of the title FIRST giuen to the fift commandement.

§. 57. Of childrens ſubiection 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 naturall parents. Very good proofe there is in Scripture for childrens ſubiection to them. The reſpect which Moſes beare to his father in law, and Ruth to her mother in law, and Chriſt himſelfe to his ſuppoſed father, are commended for this very purpoſe. Subiection is noted in Chriſts example: Reuerence in Moſes: Recompence in Ruths.

The mariage bond maketh man and wife one fleſh: whereupon the naturall parent that marieth another, maketh 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 maketh it plaine in[gap]ſt for a ſonne to vncouer

the ſhame of his mother in law, or for a father in law to vncouer the ſhame of his daughter in law. Whereby it appeareth that fathers and mothers in law, are by Gods law in the very place and ſteed of naturall parents to their children, and accordingly as naturall parents are to be honoured.

Beſides it is a great honour which a childe doth to his naturall father or mother to reſpect ſuch as they haue made one fleſh with themſelues, as they doe their owne parent. So as to honour a father, or mother in law, is to honour a naturall parent.

Contrary is the minde and cariage of moſt children. Very few beare a reuerend, dutifull, 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 vndutifull in their behauiour: whence it commeth to paſſe that they bring much griefe to their naturall parent, and oft cauſe much diſcord and diſſention betwixt their naturall, and step-parent[gap] being herein ſet on worke by Satan, who laboureth what he can to diſunite thoſe whom God hath neerely vnited together and made one fleſh. Lamentable experience ſheweth that the ſecond, third, or any after-mariages are ſeldome ſo comfortable and peaceable as the firſt: eſpecially if either the one, or other,

or both haue children. The cauſe thereof, for the moſt part, is in children, who brooke not fathers or mothers in law.

Obiect. Nature cannot ſo well brooke a ſtep-parent, as a naturall parent.

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

2. Conſcience and religion ought to alter corrupt nature. Looke to Gods ordinance: and let Gods feare poſſeſſe thine heart, that that may bring thee to doe what nature cannot.

2. Obiect. Fathers and Mothers in law ſeldome reſpect their husbands or wiues former children.

Anſw. This obiection more beſeemeth the mouth of a barbarian then a Chriſtian. The Goſpell teacheth to be ſubiect not

only to the good and gentle, but alſo to the froward: and not to be ouercome of euill, but to ouercome euill with goodneſſe.

The Scripture reckoneth ſuch as riſe vp againſt their parents in law, among ſuch as riſe vp againſt their naturall parents: ſhewing thereby that the impietie of thoſe, is as blame-worthy, as the impietie of theſe.

§. 58. Of childrens ſubiection to Guardians, Tutors, &c.

For childrens ſubiection to Gouernours, Guardians, and Tutors, the Apoſtle ſaith that a childe is vnder them. If by the law children are vnder them, they ought in equitie to be ſubiect to them. It is expreſly noted of Esther, euen after the King had choſen her for his wife, that ſhe did the commandement of Mordecai (who was as a Guardian to her) like as when ſhe was brought vp with him. A memorable patterne for this purpoſe. What pretences might ſhe haue made to haue caſt off all manner of ſubiection? Mordecai was but her coſen: ſhe was now aduanced aboue him: a wife ſhe was, and ſo ſubiect to her husband: yea a Kings wife, and ſo her ſelfe a Queene: yet ſhe was ſubiect, and her ſubiection commended. We reade that the children of the Prophets much reſpected Eliſha, did reuerence to him, and were obedient to him, becauſe he was as a father and tutor vnto them: in which reſpect alſo Eliſha was as a childe ſubiect to Eliah, whom he called father.

Guardians, Tutors, and ſuch like ouer-ſeers of children, haue a parents charge laid vpon them, as we ſhall after ſhew: great reaſon

therefore that child-like dutie ſhould be yeelded to them. Their honour muſt be anſwerable to their charge and care.

Contrary is the conceit of many lawleſſe children, whoſe parents being dead, or they being ſent and placed abroad out of the gouernment of their parents, thinke they are cleane free from all gouernment, and may liue as they liſt. Their practiſe being correſpondent to this opinion, they runne into all riot, and in time bring themſelues to vtter ruine. It is the ouerthrow of many children, that they regard not their Guardians, Tutors, and Gouernours: and God in iudgement bringeth many ſuch refractarie children to ſome fearefull & ſhamefull end or other. Let children therefore be wiſe, and not take too much libertie to themſelues.

Thus farre haue beene handled the duties of children in their ſeuerall kindes, the manner of performing them, and the parties to whom they are to be performed. It remaineth to ſpeake of the reaſons which the Apoſtle alledgeth to inforce thoſe duties.

§. 59. Of the place of parents, whereby children ought to be moued to obey them.

The reaſons which the Apoſtle vſeth to moue children to performe their dutie are foure:

• The firſt is taken from the place of the parent.

• The ſecond from the equitie of the thing.

• The third from Gods expreſſe charge.

• The fourth from Gods promiſe.

I. The place of a parent is noted forth by this phraſe, IN THE LORD: which as it affordeth a limitation, and giueth a direction to children, ſo it addeth a ſpur vnto them, to ſtirre them vp to performe their dutie: for it ſheweth that parents are to then children in the Lords ſteed: as an euidence thereof hath God communicated to them this glorious and honourable title (FATHER) which is proper and peculiar to himſelfe. Now then parents being to their children in Gods ſteed, and by vertue of their place bearing Gods image, children in obeying their parents, obey God; in refuſing to obey them, refuſe to obey God. A ſtrong motiue is this firſt motiue. For who is ſo void of religion, but will thinke it moſt meet, that God ſhould be honoured? or

who ſo impious, as to refuſe to yeeld dutie to God? Here then children may learne in one maine point how to honour the Lord, & ſhew themſelues children of God. And let them here by know, that diſobedient and vndutifull children, that reſiſt the authoritie of parents, reſist the ordinance of God, and receiue to themſelues

damnation.

§. 60. Of the equitie whereby children ſhould be moued to obey their parents.

II. The ſecond reaſon in theſe words, for this is right, though it be not of greater force, yet is it more plainly and expreſly noted to be a reaſon, as the cauſall particle (for) prefixed before it, ſheweth. It is a generall reaſon drawne from common equitie; a reaſon which may moue all ſorts, euen Infidels and Pagans: therefore much more Chriſtians.

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

1. That it is agreeable to all law. To the law of God, which is the fountaine of equitie. To the law of Nature, which proceeds from thence. And to the law of Nations, which is anſwerable in many reſpects. The forenamed proofes out of Gods word, ſhew it to be agreeable to Gods law. The precepts which heathen men haue giuen of this point, ſhew it to be agreeable to the law of nature. And the many Conſtitutions of Law-makers, in all ages, ſhew it to be agreeable to the law of nations.

2. That the place of parents requireth as much. For RIGHT requireth that euery one haue his owne, that which is his due. It being therefore right, that children obey their parents, that dutie [gap]s due to them.

3. That parents deſerue as much: for right preſuppoſeth de [gap]ert. That which is done of right, is done by way of recompence. The cauſe of this deſert, is the loue which parents beare to children, the paine, paines, care, and coſt they haue beene at, in bringing them forth, and bringing them vp.

Theſe things being implied vnder right, note what followeth [gap]rom the force of this reaſon,

1. Diſobedient and vndutifull children, tranſgreſſe againſt Gods law, againſt common equitie of all nations, and againſt light [gap]f nature: ſo as they are vnworthy of the name of Chriſtians, [gap]hey are worſe then Infidels, yea worſe then the brute beaſts.

2. They haue no reſpect to the place of their parents, they diſgrace the image of God, which their parents by vertue of their place carrie, and they diſturbe that comely order and degree, which God hath ſet among men.

3. They ill repay their parents care and paines for their good, and ſhew themſelues both vngratefull and vnnaturall: which are two moſt monſtrous and odious ſinnes.

§. 61. Of Gods accepting childrens obedience.

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

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

Theſe two propoſitions, are (as we ſpeake in Schooles) conuertible and reciprocall; either of them true of the other euery way. Wherefore the Apoſtle, in another place, ioyneth them both together. For hauing exhorted children to recompence their parents, he ſaith, That is good and acceptable before God.

Good or honeſt is in effect the ſame that right.

This ſheweth, that dutifull children, as they doe that which is good, or honeſt, and right vnto their parents; ſo alſo therein they highly pleaſe God: ſo as they may be ſure not to loſe thereby. At Gods hand they ſhall receiue a reward, though their parents ſhould little regard their dutifulneſſe. Thus God dealt with Iaakob. His father in law ill repaid his faithfulneſſe: but God looked vpon him, and abundantly recompenced all his paines.

This ſheweth againe, that vndutifull children, as they doe not that which is right, but rather wrong vnto their parents; ſo they highly diſpleaſe God: they may be ſure therefore not to eſcape vnpuniſhed, though their parents, through ouer-much indulgencie, ſhould let them alone: inſtance the two impious children of Elie, Hophni and Phinehas: and the two rebellious children of Dauid, Abſolom, and Adoniah.

This therefore addeth force to the ſecond reaſon, and moueth children to doe right to their parents, by obeying them, as they reſpect God, his good pleaſure, or diſpleaſure: as they looke for recompence, or feare vengeance from him.

§. 62. Of Gods charge, how inuiolable a bond it is to tie children to obey their parents.

III. The third drawne from Gods charge is not only in expreſſe termes noted, but for more weight the very words of the morall law are quoted (Honour thy father and thy mother:) and it is added, that this is a commandement, yea the firſt commandement, and that with promiſe, all which is for amplification of the point.

Here then conſider we 1. The reaſon it ſelfe.

2. The amplification thereof.

From the reaſon that it is Gods charge, I gather theſe three points.

1. That it is no arbitrary matter left to childrens diſcretion whether they will obey their parents or no: but a matter whereunto in conſcience they are bound, euen as they owe alleageance to God himſelfe the great law-giuer: ſo as in neglecting dutie to parents, children ſinne euen againſt God himſelfe: for the ſame God who hath commanded vs to honour himſelfe, hath commanded vs to honour father and mother.

2. That this is a perpetuall and a generall law: a law whereunto all children of all times, places, ſexes, eſtates and degrees alwaies haue beene, ſtill are, and euer ſhall be bound. For the morall law is of that extent: it is generall for all perſons: perpetuall for all times. Therefore no children may thinke to be exempted from it.

Queſt. What if children be growne to yeeres, and not vnder their parents gouernment?

Anſw. There may be ſome difference both in ſome parts of ſubiection, and alſo in the manner of ſubiection betwixt ſuch children as remaine vnder their parents gouernment, and ſuch as are freed from it: but yet ſo long as a childe hath a parent, of what age or eſtate ſo euer he be, he oweth an honour vnto his parent. Ioſeph when he was a great Gouernour of Egypt, a man growne, hauing wife and children, yet performed the honour of reuerence, obedience, and recompence vnto his father. Salomon when he was in an higher place then Ioſeph, euen an abſolute King, did the honour of Reuerence to his mother.

3. That no man can giue children any diſpenſation, or ex

emption from their dutie to parents. If any may, he muſt be either the law-maker himſelfe, or one greater then he, one that hath power ouer him. Now God is the author and giuer of that law, God ſpake all theſe words, &c. But is any greater then God? hath any power ouer him? Who then can diſpence with children in this kinde?

Hence then I inferre theſe two concluſions.

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

2. Though parents themſelues ſhould not exact dutie of their children, yet children were bound to performe dutie to them, becauſe of Gods charge. To this therefore are children to looke. This ſheweth that there is no leſſe paine hanging ouer the heads of the tranſgreſſors of this charge, then the curſe of the law, eternall condemnation.

§. 63. Of the title FIRST giuen to the fift commandement.

In the amplification of the forenamed reaſon, the Apoſtle ſtileth the commandement of honouring parents the firſt with promiſe, as to ſhew that it is the firſt which hath a particular promiſe annexed to it; ſo it is the firſt that God gaue of any dutie to be performed vnto man. The very order of the decalogue manifeſteth the truth hereof. The reaſon is cleere: Honour due to parents is the ground of all the duties required in the ſecond table: for if dutie be not performed to ſuch as we are bound vnto by ſome peculiar bond, may we thinke that it will be performed to ſuch as we are bound vnto at large? Now of all to whom we are firſt and moſt bound, and to whom we owe our firſt dutie, our parents are the perſons. They therefore who are rebellious againſt their parents, and refuſe to doe their dutie to them, will hardly performe dutie to any other. Little hope that a diſobedient childe will proue a profitable member in Church or common-wealth. Abſolom, who was a rebellious childe, proued but a traiterous ſubiect: and Hoph[gap] and Phineas that refuſed to hearken to the voice of their father, proued but ſacrilegious Prieſts. Wherefore if any precept of the ſecond table be conſcionably to be obſerued (as all are, for the ſame law-maker gaue all, and Chriſt hath ſaid that

the ſecond table is like the firſt) then is this of honouring father

and mother, among the reſt, and aboue the reſt to be obſerued, at leaſt if difference of obſeruing any may be made,

But this particle (firſt) being ſet downe, not ſimply but with a connexion of promiſe with it (The firſt with promiſe) we are duly to conſider the promiſe thereof: whence a fourth reaſon ariſeth.