¶ To the most reverend Father in God, TOBY by divine providence Archbishop of YORK, Primate and Metropolitan, of England, etc.  
MY Most reverend good Lord, The late experience of some defections and revolts in children of lewd behaviour, which have contemptuously profaned all obedience to parents, together with some desire of mine own, to retain the wavering dispositions of others, which may be in like jeopardy to be abused hereafter, have put me into a business would God so helpful for them, as necessary for the time, I mean this English translation, of a most excestent Latin Original. It treateth for the honourable maintenance of parent's authority, and was compiled some five and twenty years since by the famous French Civilian Petrus Aerodius, in purpose to reclaim his son Renatus, who at that time, being under age, and without his father's leave had betaken himself to the jesuits, company. Doubtless, the good parents grief for an injury of such heinous quality, (if he may be heard speaking out of the tender bowels of his affection,) is ever within measure though it be excessive, just, though past hope of recovery. A son, nay the eldest son, the first fruits of his strength, so fair a bud, to be stripped from his natural bark perforce, and inoculated in a stock of astrange kind, would abate the imputation of being censured passionate without a cause: every man, to my thinking, upon the supposal of such a person, being apt to acknowledge so much in himself, and that in the Poet's phrase, Huic uniforsan poteram succumbere culpae, The dignity of the discourse, needs no enlargement by a preface, for (if too much incredulity overween not my judgement) the most censorious Critic, if he find patience to peruse it in the native edition, will in mere justice commend most, or allow all. The style is close wrought, and full of stuff, the choice of his words apt and frugal, the sentences deep and ponderous, the shafts of his arguments, drawn by a strong arm up to the head, the novelty of examples delightful, the authorities venerable, yet infinitely various, his dealing fair and fatherlike, contending, rather for truth than conquest. Now might I take so much presumption upon me, as to hope of some degree of your Graces good acceptance, (to whom especially, for discourse or title it is most properly belonging) I would farther allege for myself, that I have often seen my worthy predecessor M. Doctor Gentilis, his majesties professor for the Civil laws, reading me some Lectures, and teaching me how to offend in this kind, whom I ever found of this opinion, that his excellent Lucubrations never prospered better than when they received lustre from your Grace's judicious confirmation: to whom, as he was very much obliged, so was he not sparing rather by preventing occasion than by taking it, thankfully to report the same. And lastly because the age wherein we live, is so much visited with an Epidemial distemper of disobedience, the cure would be sought for at their hands, who by reason of their eminent place of practice, best know (out of their great learning) to apply sovereign antidotes against such malignant qualities: and if that will not work, then me thinks Lucius Brutus his severity well allayed would not come out of season, that derobed himself of all respects of a father, that he might the better act the part of a Consul, exuit patrem ut Consulem ageret. For such austerity in parents many times proves pity, and is powerful, to make obedience where it finds none. A reformation of so general importance that every man may be said to have a part in it, though he can challenge no property, because quoth commune est meum est, and (without peradventure) an undutiful son so reclaimed to his natural obedience is that common bonum.  
Your Graces in all humble service to be commanded, JOHN BUDDEN.   

¶ The Author to the Reader.  
Having for three whole years together, made continual inquiry after my eldest son, and that to small purpose, (for he is among the jesuits) I am now determined to present that to public view, which otherwise I should have sequestered to private use. I treat with him as with an offender, that contemptuously refuseth to make his appearance, and as a man should do with a runaway, that is, by writ of outlarie, and proclamation of rebellion. Therefore I beseech thee good Reader, if this expostulation and complaint of mine appear unto thee altogether causeless, and if it happily so fall out, that thou meet with this poor youth, thus esloigned and seduced from me, be a meanes, that he may sometimes peruse this small treatise: then if he find himself resolved, to be at his own reins, and disposing, I pass not, father or not father, whether he so take me or so refuse me. From Angiers 1589 in October.   

A DISCOURSE for Parent's honour, and Authority over their Children.  
WHat is the reason that the famous Doctor Gregory Nazianzene in his oration Apologetical which he made to the people saith, that there is a great deal more in the authority appertaining to parents which is given them from almighty God, than in that which hath been established by men, either in their written laws, or long continued customs? Is it so that this one commandment Honour thy Father and thy Mother commands more with children, than that hideous thunderclap of disinheriting them, invented by the Grecians, or then the commission of life and death, which though it be detestable in nature, yet was it our own French law, and in use likewise with many other nations beside; or then those three solemn alienations, whereby children were freed from their parent's subjection, and so many countersales, which made them bond again: devices (as it is well known) of the Roman policy? Should the son been found disobedient to his Father, by these laws, the father did right himself, and was both accuser, witness and judge. Moreover the execution of punishments, whereunto he might sentence them, were of such nature, as the very representation of them to their memories (they were so bloody & cruel) might presently deter from attempting or entertaining the least breach of their bounden duty: but on God's part, a bare commandment only is sufficient: be the child dutiful, there's a reward for him; be he obstinate, there's no punishment inflicted. And yet we say, that laws prevail more when they be penal, then when they simply do but will and require, and that authority is more awful, which is properly our own, and exercised in our own name and right, than that forsooth which is indented with covenants, and taken upon courtesy from an other.  
Now sir, how wrought that same sovereign fatherly authority, I mean that which issued from the provision of man, and not from the sacred constitution of God? why it wrought thus much, that this private discipline, did sometimes far exceed the public, insomuch, that wherein the Magistrates immediate authority seemed feeble and in a manner maimed, there the domestic discipline (being appealed unto as to an higher jurisdiction) gave present help and assistance; that is to say, parents were able to do more with their children, than law or legion, or Dictator himself. Cn. Martius Coriolanus marched forth with a dangerous army, against his country, breathing forth nothing but ruin and vastation, whomade him to disarm himself, forsake his ensigns, & leave the command of the field but Veturia only? He that neither yielded to Senators sent unto him, nor Magistrates, nor priests, yielded to his mother. He that neither the Majesty of the Empire, nor any touch of religion could cause once to retire, did soon relent at the name of his mother.  
Cn. Servilius, L. Sergius, M. Papirius, being Tribunes together, and in like authority, which was also Consular, were vehement competitors, which of them should be general in the war against the Lucani: every one was for himself: and thereupon despised the charge of the City as an office altogether thankless and base: the Senators beheld the contention with astonishment, Dictator was there none, that by strong hand might order these factious Tribunes, saith Q. Servilius, nay sigh there is no respect hereby carried to your own rank and quality, nor duty to the estate of this common wealth, my fathlery authority shall soon dispatch this controversy. I tell you, my son without drawing of any lots for the matter, shall bide at home, and govern the City. And what did the Father of C. Flaminius' tribune of the common people, which enacted the law about the partage of some french grounds, by the poll, the Senate was against it, his colleagues mainly opposed him, which he set light by, an army was mustered against him (in case he should persist in that opinion (but that daunted him nothing, his father, even as he was in the place to have proclaimed his new made Law, seizes upon him: how was it now with my young master? down comes he from his chair of estate, and this brave gallant that before set at nought all the majesty, authority and prerogative of his country, is now subdued at a poor private man's check, and as M. Valerius storieth it in his fift book, was not so much as once blamed for it, by the least muttering of the sessions so disappointed and broken up. How then is it possible, but that in the point of parent's authority, there should be more force in man's law than in the bare and simple precept as it was delivered from God by Moses, especially if that be true which Halicarnassus reporteth that contempt, impiety, murdering of parents, were therefore ordinary monsters among the Greeks', but exceeding scarce and seldom to be found in Rome, because the authority which those ancient Law makers Charondas Pittacus and Solon, assigned to parents, was a mild and feeble regiment contrariwise that which Romulus gave, was absolute, full, and without limitation, whence it came to pass that in all the large territory of the Roman Empire, hardly will you meet with one Malleolus that is, such a desperate ruffian as butchered his own mother?  
What then may we say of this divine commandment established (as we see) neither by threat of abdication, nor loss of life? here is only commanded that which honesty and good conscience persuades unto. Nor let any man think that it is a good answer to the objection to say that Moses Law, aswell as any other law, did not only sharply censure parricide, but even every dishonest and idle speech uttered by a son, for we entreat not, what authority a public magistrate hath, neither of a judicial proceeding held in consistories, and common Assizes, we talk of that which may be exercised at our home dwellings, in our own private households, which fathers, not officers, by virtue of their office, challenge over their children, that is to say without appeal to any higher bench, without assistance of any other judges office? For so it is, he that punisheth by the help of another, doth in deed not punish but complain. But yet over and above all that which we have already objected against S. Gregory, it falls so short that parents by this heavenly oracle have any more dominion over their children, than either by these, or other human laws, that in truth they cannot be said, to have received thence any one jot of power or authority. For let a son be negligent in performing of that one command, honour thy father, what may the father do in such a case? It is true, it allures him with reward, that is, with a prosperous and a long life, but it puts over no punishment into the father's hands, no none at all. As though in so doing, somewhat would be found, which nature of herself could not well abide. Did Moses then mistake, and when he delivered God's laws was he somewhat more careless in this point which concerns Fathers? A sin it is so to say; for this authority of parents, which we seek after, was for precedency of time far more ancient than the commandment itself, which is demonstratively, proved by this very instance that God almighty, would never have commanded Abraham to have sacrificed his son Isaac, if he had had no commission of life and death over him. Would God have enjoined it, would the father have executed it, would neighbours and strangers have endured it, which in no case at no time, by no law a father might be able to justify? beside they that lived long before Moses, would never have busied themselves so much in matching of their children in wedlock: for that was a matter resting in their choice, not in the choice of the parties contracting marriage, which sin of theirs was cause of the universal deluge) nor would the children been so eager in pursuit of their parent's blessing: and what shall we say more? surely the bare inditement brought in by the father to the Magistrate, would never have served for a sufficient evidence against an undutiful child, if even in those days, the power of a father and his domestic discipline had not been very transcendent. What shall we say then? Did God by his latter law repeal the former and confine this duty to an inhibition of words alone? If the case were so, what then might we say for Nazianzene? Without doubt something might be spoken for him, and very much, were it not, that the very self same Christian Religion, which in a manner we received from him, did in some sort now cross the good Christian Bishops assertion. For this authority of parents (if there be any such thing extant) is so far revolted from that which was ordained and established by God, by nature, by the Law of nations, and Law positive, and that forsooth upon no other occasion (but that we (I cannot tell how) sever this filial duty from religion) that among Christians now a days to be a Father, is nothing else but so to be termed, the duty is gone though the name continue. Can Christian religion then, and Gods heavenly commandment, which Saint Gregory so highly commendeth, maintain the home discipline, if Christians be the men which especially overthrow it? But before we pass any further in the discourse, let us satisfy this great Divine, and then consider, whether it be true, that now a days there is any authority left us over our children or no, and if it be any, and yet but of very small esteem, whether notwithstanding it be such, or so much, as should be exposed to all contempt and wrong. Certain it is, that the outrageous cruelty which the ancient Lawmakers devised to improve the power of parents withal, was but a cast of policy, that so in regard thereof, either out of pure constraint, or of a ready mind, children might conform themselves to better behaviour, and at no hand be withdrawn from that reverent obeisance, which natural affection (and no law nor ordinance of man) taught them, as they were sucking of their mother's breasts. They in their wisdom knew right well, that youth was so prone to riot and lust, so arrogant and lascivious in behaviour, so hard to be tamed and managed, that they concluded it to be a case of mere necessity by way of enacting such terrible punishments, to renew and repair that, which was so far corrupted and depraved from natures primitive institution; that as in old time they kept debtor to their word by tearing their limbs in sunder, & drawing blood from them, & the like, so the very show and representation of such horrible tortures and martyrdoms which parents might inflict upon their children, might lesson them obedience and bear them down, if they should ever attempt or undertake any thing that passed not first by their allowance and leave, by whom they lived, & had their education: but yet thereby no check was given to natural affection, for it was to be intended that although parents might be so tender of their children's good as to enter into such severe terms of consultation for them, yet the lawmakers never dreamt it would once so happen, which they permitted: that is, that a son might be sold by the father for a bondslave, disinherited, and then killed. Or if perchance it might so fall out, that it should be upon such as had worthily deserved it, and with such circumstantial considerations, that justice herself, should sne have given judgement could neither have said better, or done more uprightly. But God almighty handles matters otherwise, that which he commands is plainly set down, not with fetches and devices. For he needs no compass or prefacing to persuade that to be just and good which he once requires, he is so essentially good of himself, and hath such a prerogative of justice and equity consubstantial to him as his bare command necessarily enforceth our precise obedience. Religion keeps men more in awe, than fear: for were the son lose or dishonest, of conversation, and for that cause oftentimes turned out of doors, nay last refused of the parents for their child, because no gentle means prevailed aught with him? Why if once he were converted to christianity presently (saith Septimius) he became to live in good order, and good counsel regaind him to duty and obedience. Doubtless though God unto these laws of men and nature inserted also his heavenly behest, yet did he nothing thereby prejudice those former laws; he commanded obedience, but never abrogated any part of their authority. Nay long time after Christ's passion, the commission of life and death which parents might exercise upon their children, was still currant amongst Christians, and though the more ancient of them reproved some things amongst the Pagans, as the murdering of young infants, the bloody fencing of sword players, yet against that terrible authority of parents they spoke not a word. And howsoever God in bare terms pronounced this Commandment, honour thy father and thy mother, yet notwithstanding for two reasons especially it far exceeds the laws of men. The one is, because what he commands is constant and perpetual, but our laws be mutable and repealeable: if anything please us to day, to morrow we are out of love with it: a pattern whereof we may see in that very law which Romulus ordained. For at first without all exception or bar, it was free for a father to put his child to death. Afterwards it might not be done but upon the assistance and advice of others, than the cause must be heard judicially: lastly the magistrate might decide it, but no private jurisdiction, nay in conclusion that rigorous law, utterly vanished and became void: the other is, because if the injunction of a Consul be greater, than the Praetors and the praetors greater than an order of the Edilis, it will necessarily follow, in good proportion, that the law of God is to be preferred before any ordinance of man whatsoever. And why so? because men in their wisdoms may err, and thereupon be of mean reputation by reason of such escapes & over sights, as saith the same Tertullian. In God there is no such matter; so then S. Gregory who understood this well enough, and was of opinion that this precept of our Lord God should be left at large, and never concluded by any limitation, (when he had forsaken the world, against the will and express commandment of his father, and had betaken himself to a monastery, and had refused a Bishopric which before was his fathers, yet at length he began to be touched with a sense of inward regreeting: and can I (saith he) be undutiful and disobedient unto so good a father, and be blameless; can I endure to be accused for a stubborn and contemptuous son, to be guilty of violating and distaining my natural obedience unto my father? and thereupon leaving the solitary life, he gets him home, accepts the sea and Bishopric which had been before his fathers: and all this do I (saith he) more for God almighty's commandement sake, than for any fear of mortal men: therefore now good father, I pray give me your blessing. And in this sense (you see) may S. Gregory be well understood. For even S. Chrysostome in his eleventh book against such as discommend the monastical life, writes in this manner: Thy son loves and observes, and honours thee, not because the law of nature enjoins him so to do, but much more for that in so doing he may testify his duty to the commandments of almighty God, for whose love he hath perfectly despised and relinquished all the world. But if notwithstanding all this, it be true, that now a days there be no trace left of this fatherly power which we so much hunt after, and if this home bred authority be scarce remaining in shadow or show among us, how may S. Gregory be then defended? the power of life and death long since hath been discontinued by an immemorial custom to the contrary (as before we mentioned) you cannot pawn or sell your son, much ado you will have to disinherit him. If he get any thing it is for himself, his father hath no part nor property in it, he will serve his father with process, he will indite him at the common Assize without ask him any leave. And in a word such is the religion now adays, such is the Church's tradition (as men say) that let the son entet into any kind of life, be married, be a monk, or so forth, all this may he do in spite of his father's teeth, and absolutely against his will. How then (good father Nazianzene) or wherein stands that sanction so much enforced by God and nature, honour thy father. What didst thou see in that authority royal, and pre-eminence of parents when thou upon a timorous scrupulosity of conscience durst not once so much as to trespass against it. If in the cases before mentioned our children may disobey their parents, and yet not be punshed by them, put me some cases out of the old law, why they should not now enjoy the like liberty? or what be the principal points of this domestic monarchy, which the christian religion, doth yet retain and defend for lawful? can it be possible, that heathen parents have punished even to the pit of hell a shameless and ungracious son (so far were they in love with the children's obedience) it is a matter spoken of that father which (as Pausanius relateth it in his tenth book) Polignotus drew in a picture of hell taking pains to be his own sons hangman for a special prank of undutifulness, that he had played him in his life time: And have christians on the contrary invented cases, to authorize unnatural impiety and breach of duty against parents? can it be possible (as saith Theophilus in his third book to Eutol.) that Plato's law for the community of wives, was principally upon that point disliked, because the danger might be, that the son might sometime honour him that was not his father, and upon ignorance at another time might also do him no reverence, who was his father indeed, (a reverence nevertheless so due by the rules of the law of nations, and in such order marshaled by them, that (as Pomponius testifieth) it is to be ranged in the second place, first God, after him our parents, and then our country) and should we under colour of religion in that one point principally offend. First and foremost, therefore we will speak thus much in general (as men do use to sell wares in gross that the position and assertion is very sottish and impious, because the government of parents, is weakened and rebated in some points, and circled within an order, that, Ergo there is no such matter at all remaining, because the pre-eminence of parents is abrogated, (to speak in the Roman dialect) ergo it must follow there is no duty no natural reverence at all left unto them. Then descending to particular duties, we will take a view, whether every one of them be so important, as that of pure necessity parents ought to be obeyed in special or no? Which will be soon found if we take some farther view, and make a choir, what that was which the ancients did so exactly require of their children when they passed over such a large jurisdiction and power unto the parents; the case is clear, that they did it not therefore, that parents should be as magistrates to their children, and so administer justice at home to every one that their children had offended, again as the Praetor did in the Court of the common pleas, nor that there should be one authority public, another private and domestic. For if the crime were public, and committed without the verge of the father's house, the officer was to order it. Nor is it a good conclusion, the child hath offended, therefore he must have no other judge but his father. Indeed it is true that there were such fathers in times passed at Rome, and likewise amongst other nations (whereof we have written in the sixth book of our reports, the seventh Chapter) that by virtue of such fatherly authority, would take cognisance of such crimes as their children had offended in abroad; as Cassius, Manlius Torquatus, C. Flaminius and some others besides,) so then this was no occasion, that gave such a prerogative to the power of parents, but that rather which Halicarnasseus in the life of Romulus allegeth, that when children did perceive, how they were awed at home and that their subjection under their private parents, was much more strict than under the public Magistrate, (for they are commanded first to yield obedience to their parents, after that to their country) that the Prince himself might scarce do any thing without judicial proceeding. But the father might do every thing at his own will & pleasure (for so speaks Aristotle in his politics) they might learn to be more dutiful to do nothing without line and level, that is, without express commandment and injunction from their parents, might neither will, nor nil ought, save that which proceeded first from their parent's pleasure and by his allowance. In a word, that as the bit, spur, and switch, makes the horse obedient to his rider, so the fear of so great chastisements might enforce the sons conformity to his father, as to a demie God on earth, and sole founder of his being And surely, had our forefathers meant no other thing hereby then to put a snaffle into youths mouth, to restrain them from such vices as nature is prone unto, why then they would have determined this their authority, at some certain time or age of the son, upon some certain office or honour, that might have befallen, or some condition and estate of life whereunto they might possibly be advanced. But the son, were he never so old, bare he never so great office, yea had it been the high Priesthood, was ever notwithstanding under his father's check. And what think you was the issue thereof? marry sir, whatsoever the father had once determined concerning his children, to what kind of life soever he had bound them, yea and though it had been to the cart and plough, as L. Manlius did use his son, why by reason of so eminent a power, against which there was no help, no remedy to be had, he must of necessity rest content. Hence it was that all the sons negotiations had such dependence on the father's will, as you see counterpaines have, that must accord with their originals, or rivers have, that must be fed from their fountains head. And though (put case) the son swerving some deal from this course of duty, as being stubborn and past all shame, found his penalty thereupon executed, sometime with more rigour, sometimes with more clemency, though the father by the ordinances of some countries might sentence his son to death, by others complain of him to the magistrate, and only give in evidence against him ●ay though by long prescription these domestic censures have been altogether disused. For to small purpose is their instance, and (God knows it is a poor one) that allege why but young children be still yet under their parent's correction: it will be no good inference to conclude that therefore it is not now any longer just and reasonable because law had once determined it to be so; it will be no good inference to conclude, that the law and edict of all nations, which decrees an absolute obedience to parents, is now clearly vanished and out of use. Laws be laws still, though they be not penal, though there be no loss of life nor forfeiture of goods ensuing: as for example, adultery though there be small ado made about it, now adays, yet in its own nature, it is always foul and dishonest. If either by negligence or conivencie it be not sharply punished, the law notwithstanding is still chaste and honourable which forbids it. And so the law for children's obedience, is ever right & convenient, though many times no penalty ensue This is evident specially out of Moses. it is true, he would not that a father should put his child to death with his own hands, but rather seek for it by petition from the magistrate, and so have it executed, and that also without any other inquest, or evidence, than at the father's suit: from whence it is more than probably collected, that in the common wealth of the jews the father had a sovereign authority, in cases of life and death, for although by this order of Moses, it were somewhat stayed from speedy execution, yet the matter is plain, that it is easier for me to be a petitioner that another man should be executed and die, than that I should be his executioner with mine own hands. But howsoever, I would feign know and learn, why and for what offence a father might indite his son, by this Hebrew Lawmakers decree, that upon such conviction he might be presently stoned to death. Was it because he was a murderer a Church-robber, a traitor, a thief, a fornicator, or an usual offendor against the peace of the King, his crown and dignity? Let us hear his own words delivered to this purpose:  
If any man have a son that is stubborn and disobedient, which will not hearken to the voice of his father, nor the voice of his mother, and they have chastised him and he would not obey them.  
Then shall his father and his mother take him, and bring him out unto the Elders of his City, and unto the gate of the place where he dwelleth:  
And shall say unto the Elders of his City, this our son is stubborn and disobedient, and he will not obey our admonition, he is a robber, and a drunkard.  
Then all the men of the City shall stone him with stones unto death.  
I pray what manner of offences be there herein mentioned? be they not trespasses against parents, private misdemeanours and domestical, hatched within doors, not acted in public view? certainly as by order of military discipline contempt in a soldier is a crime very capital, because there is nothing so far endangers the state of an army, as one mutinously disposed, so by the same correspondency of reason, it is fit and requisite that all persons belonging to my charge, as my servants, my children, my wife, my cattle, all should be at my beck, all should be under my conduct as the chief general, all should be actuated by my motion, as having surrendered the interest of their liberty into my plenary disposition and authority. Aelianus tells us a story of one Rhaco Mardus, who having brought his son Cartomes like a prisoner with his arms fast pinacled into the presence of King Artaxerxes to receive judgement of death, upon suggestion that he was a graceless desperate castaway, and grew to be very earnest to that point, why (saith the King of Persia) canst thou endure to behold thy sons life taken from him? his answer was, I have in my garden a lettuce rudely overgrown with leaves, and though they be limbs of the body, yet do I now and then crop off and prune some of the bitter stalks, and such as may be spared: What doth my lettuce think you die for grief upon the matter, or doth it mourn, because there is a limb or two lopped off? nay, it flourisheth the better and such a maim makes him eat a great deal the sweeter. In like manner may it please (you O King) to deem of me, for albeit I shall see and behold the death of this wretched varlet that hurts and annoys my household, corrupts, by his stubborn and lewd example his poor young brethren, I will nevertheless be still of the opinion to speed the better by it, yea and rather thrive by such a maim than any ways be endamaged by it, and this is suitable to that of M●s●s and Halicarnasseus. But that I may the better prove this point, how is it that this question, namely whether a son, in some case may lawfully disobey his father, first stepping aside out of private men's houses, entered into the public schools of the university, to be disputed and questioned there, and after to be decided finally at the seat of judgement, but that it was never in man's memory heard of before, nay the contrary was ever held for certain and true, that such a question would never have been propounded? when Danaus' much against his will, had matched his fifty daughters to Egisthus his grandchilds, and had charged the young virgins that on the marriage day every one should murder her husband with such a sword, as to that end he had given them, (the just like tale may you read in Chalcondilas, of a Physician of Florence that commanded his daughter to poison Lantislaus King of Naples the first night they should lie together) every one did as their father had enjoined them excepting only Hypermnestra which saved her husband Lynceus his life. But what followed hereupon? these murderous parricides were so far from being brought, to answer the law and plead not guilty for the matter, or that their obedience herein was deemed culpable, that contrariwise Hypermnestra, for that she had not performed her father's behest, was thereupon publicly arraigned, and much ado to be freed at the common Assis●s, so that in point of obedience unto parents no exception would be taken, to have denied them or to have doubled with them had utterly been unlawful. The truth is, freed she was, but the verdict was brought in upon even voices, with such demurring, and so much hazard of life, (the record is famously known by her own letter in Ovid) that as though she had escaped some dangerous shipwreck, she built a Temple unto Venus and Diana, and hung up a table in memorial of her delivery. How then should that domestic duty be blemished or broken, when children though they had offended in obeying, their obedience notwithstanding, was unto them their chiefest commendation, their refusal a crime utterly unpardonable. That great Oracle of the Law Ulpian holds this opinion, that he may not properly be said, to have any will of his own that lives under command of a father or master, and well worthy is he of pardon (as he thinks) in this case, that pretends necessary obedience for his excuse. 
L. 11. F. de his qui notantur infamia.  And question less Tiberius was of the same mind, that a son might by no means refuse the command of his father. But howsoever, it hath been always held (saith Gellius) be the thing honest which is commanded, or be it indifferent, the obedience thereunto aught to be absolute. Be it dishonest and against good manners, yet the care must be nevertheless such so not to obey, as that it be done with a modest and lowly behaviour, notwitha vain of tart reprehension, or refusal, or the least show of dislike. Respite the doing of it for a time or put it off handsomely, rather than refuse to do it, let there appear a maidenly bashfulness in a constant denial, and let the son discover some zeal that he would fain obey his father, when he obeyeth him not. As Agesilaus did, who when his father charged him that he should give a sentence against law, marry father saith he I well remember, that long since you willed me to be ever for the law, I will therefore at this time not do that which you command me now, but that which was your pleasure I should have done long ago. And as Acrotatus did, of whom when his parents required some thing unjustly he denied it honestly in this manner: I know you would have me to do that which is honest and just, for so you bred me up (I thank you) I will therefore do that which you once willed me to do, but that which you now command, I may not. He that should openly gainsay and arrogantly oppose himself against his father, should prove no better than a malapert wicked ungracious imp. Even in a good cause, a sons speech towards his parents should be humble and reverent, (as Saluianus saith) for how else should that be true, which our forefathers were wont proverbially to speak, a man may wrong his duty, by the cast of his countenance, if by any law in the world a sons disobedience were maintainable. Should the person of an Ambassador be sacred, and inviolable, among enemies, and must you spare to use the least word of disgrace against him? and would you have the master of a family entertain, and harbour within his own walls, under the roof of his own house, one authorized to be his controller, his checkmate, nay his professed mortal enemy? but why bestow we so much time, and proof about this position? forsooth to this end, to make good the devise and plot of this domestic authority, that in case children should object or pretend aught against it, all passages of contradicting or questioning might hereby be prevented: for it is an obligation wherein we are bound to nature, and the condition is that we be eversubiect to our parents It is holy and acceptable, not only before God, but even amongst men, that children should be obedient unto their parents in singleness of heart and without all malice, as saith Theophilus to Eutolicus. And whereas almighty God added nothing besides the bare and simple commandment to threaten the offendor, he did it upon this reason, that he thought it sufficient for him briefly to comprise that, which otherwise was natural among all men and notoriously known in their conscience well enough to be a true, unchangeable, & perpetual notion. To the intent therefore, that we may show that this authority of parents' streams forth from nature's spring tell me, is there any reason to be given, that a woman should be more in subjection to a man than a child is to his parents? why; but a woman in respect of the sole infirmity of her sex is subject to a man, and there is no other reason but the son owes him double service, the one in respect of disparity of years, between them, the other in respect of his father's goodness towards him. But grant there be no fee of duty to be acknowledged: for the first, which is odds of age, and when once they come to strength and full years, in God's name cancel that obligation; (and yet Aristotle will tell you, that such prerogatives of advantage can never be determined) I would feign know of what sort you take this last to be. I mean a parent's bounty, and whether that may expire by any age or time: 'tis a doctrine of natural reason, that we are bound to requite them which have been good unto us: for in this point none can be of a contrary opinion to Ulpian, (and as it is fairly delivered by Philo,) the unthankful man sins against humanity, if according to the means of his ability, he require not kindly a benefit received; nay, not to return one good turn for another, in the sense of Saint Ambrose, is little better than wilful murder. Well then, but there is no greater obligation, than that which is due from children to their parents, after God they be our Gods; that we are, that we live, and move, 'tis the bounteous gift of our dear parents, and such a gift as may admit no manner of recompense, for it can never be possible, that the son should beget his Father: now concerning the mother's tender care and diligence, what think you of the sweet food wherewith she nurses her poor infant? what think you of those pretty lovely injuries which the innocent Babe many times doth to his mother? as soon as he is thirsty, the mother's dug is ready to give him drink; and before they breed teeth, they meet that with their lips, which needs no chewing; as he speaks, that is the supposed author of Saint Ieromes epistle, De honour and is parentibus, for the honouring of parents; and he adds moreover, that for this cause parents ought to be dearly esteemed of their children, because they can never be repaired by any other; for when once the law of all flesh hath taken them out of this world, a man shall never be able to find another father or mother; then what a devilish ingratitude were it (as that other Plato saith right well;) If we for great matters cannot find in our hearts to bestow small trifles? for many benefits a few poor retributions? whatsoever to the uttermost of our power we should render to them of what value were it; what scale would it bear being compared with this light which we see, this education which we have, this Country which we enjoy, this native Country wherein we live, those large possessions from Fathers and Grandfathers, lineally descended upon us, which must maintain us & ours: for all these we are tenants in fee, and hold them from our parent's donation. (Let Seneca speak his pleasure to the contrary, he speaks but like a disputer;) but what saith the great Doctor Origen, who when he speaks well, no man speaks better: he in his eleventh Homily upon Leviticus, writes in this wise: The name of a father is a great mystery, the name of a mother is a concealed reverence, God is thy spiritual father, and heavenly jerusalem is thy mother. First, God thy father that created thy soul, and therehence it is said, I have begotten sons and exalted them; secondly, thy bodily father, is thy father, by whose means thou wast borne and begotten in the flesh, and camest into this world, that bore thee in his loins. Now then, because the name of a father is so sacred and venerable, therefore whosoever shall curse his father, shall die the death. In like sort must we imagine of our mothers also, by whose labour & care we were borne, and bred up, wherefore as the Apostle saith, thou oughtest to be reciprocally thankful to thy parents, for if thou dishonour thy carnal father, his contempt reflecteth upon thy spiritual father, and if thou injury thy mother, that injury redoundeth to the heavenly jerusalem, therefore at no hand must we be at variance, or contestation with our parents, no not so much as in word. He is thy father, she is thy mother, let them in God's name do and say as they please, they know well enough what is fitting to be done. As for us be we never so obsequious and dutiful to them, yet shall we come short, of that full measure of thankfulness, which we own them, for our birth, for our bearing, for the fruition of this glorious sweet light which we behold, for our food, and lastly for the course of institution (perhaps as it may so fall out) in some of those learned and liberal sciences, nay oftentimes they be the cause, that we come to the knowledge of God, that we frequent his Church and hear the word of his heavenly law. Now if this instinct which proceeds from God and nature, and this kind retaliation of benefits be found even in senseless and bruit beasts, than should man, whom the graces have fostered, to whom curtelie and good manners is hereditary, be worse than a lion, a Stork, a pard? for of the piety of Storks and Swallows, S. Ambrose speaks excellently in his fift book of the Exam●ron the sixteenth and seventeenth Chapters, and if so be (as Epictetus will have it) that nature is not over curious, of what quality or condition thy father be, be he good or bad, base or honourable, he is still thy father, the obligation which thou interest into by being his son can never become void Can then any doubt be made, whether his will and commandment be in all cases to be fulfilled? the very person of parents and patrons should be always religiously honoured, and observed of the son and the freed man, as Ulpian the father of the Law hath adjudged it. But put case that the son should object that, which Diogenes sometimes did object to Zeno. That children were nothing beholding to their parents for their begetting, because that proceeded rather from a passion of pleasure and sense than from any sound love or good affection. He that employs himself about the begetting of children lest of all intends that which he goes about, he heeds not procreation, but the satisfying of his own appetite and voluptuous desire. Indeed this were well spoken for a Cynic, and well said to turn away the imputation from bruit beasts and put it upon men; yet even very beasts when by course of nature and season of the year, they couple together for breed, do it more to rear their young than for any rage of sensual appetite, (as Athenagoras thinks) 'ttwere Well, if there were no odds between their copulation and our marriages, if matrimony proceeded wholly from the law of nature, taught in general to all living creatures, not from the law of nations peculiar only to men of reason: or that now it were no longer held for a matter of high mystery amongst us christians, but of shame and dishonour: not a league of love to live together in the estate of holy wedlock, but some partnership, or conspiracy rather to the satisfying of brutish lust, and carnality. But such men's judgements concerning marriage, comes either from ignorance, as not knowing what it means, or from some tedious discontent, which they find in living single. But Socrates in Zenophon hath given Diogenes his answer in this point to the full. For (saith he) why should men marry, if children were begotten to satisfy sensuality: cannot the fire of lust be quenched except ye first must needs marry? but now, in that we are content to undertake the yoke of marriage, (which I must needs say lies heavy upon some of us) we do it to multiply the world by propagation of children. For were it otherwise, we would never be so curious about the matter, I warrant you, to inquire of what age she was whom we meant to marry, of what house she came, what good conditions she had, we would never be so careful, for the education of our children borne under that marriage, give them such means for their institution, take so much deliberation for their matching afterwards, if lust and pleasure had been our only ends and respects. Far more divine was that conceit of Philo in a dialogue of his concerning marriage, who expresseth himself thus, Parents when they beget children, be deputy officers, and vicegerents under God, both serve and be subordinate for procreation, the one frames the body, the other works the soul: and therefore Ignatius writing to the Philadelphians termeth parents' fellow labourers with God, in which sense man is the lively image, and counterfeit of God, as Clemens Alexandrinus reporteth in his eleventh book of Institutions. Therefore neglect one, neglect both: condemn the underworkman, and set at nought the master workman himself. Nay saith Philo, they be not workmen, they be even Gods amongst us, and when they beget their children, they represent one God, that is from all eternity not begotten. The difference is, God is the creator universal, man the individual, God of all creatures, man of his children only: whereupon it followeth, in his opinion necessarily, that he must needs be implous, against the invisible, and incomprehensible God, that is careless in performing all good offices, and duties to these inferior Gods our parents, that live amongst us, be ever in our eye, and in our familiar acquaintance. The very same witnesseth S. john in his first epistle and fourth Chapter, If any man say, I love God, and hate his brother, he is a liar, for how can he that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, love God whom he hath not seen? for love God and the sparks of love will be kindled towards your neighbour: love your neighbour and then your love to God ward will be in a burning fire, as Gregory the great speaketh in the seventh of his Morals, the tenth Chapter Nay besides all this, Moses that gave laws to the jews, in delivering his holy ordinances, marshalleth the honour due unto God in the first table, but repeating afterwards in Leviticus the very same precepts, he gins with the honour due unto parents, requiring us to yield them honour and obedience: afterwards in a second place he commands the same for God, as who should say, they be both Gods alike and the definitions are but one in sense and signification, he that honours his father and mother, honours God, and he that honours God, by an infallible consequence, honoureth his parents also. Most certain it is, that when Zenocrates the Philosopher, wrote; that the Athenians kept most religiously in their Temple of Eleusis, three fundamental precepts, whereunto their use was to reduce all such laws as ever Treptolemus had made for them: the first gins with parents, (as S. Jerome testifieth writing against jovinian) saying honour thy parents, worship thy God, abstain from flesh meat. And that most divine Plato, who may truly be styled another Moses, after that he had written many things concerning God, why saith he, these be no laws, but the preambles and prefaces to such laws, as we intent to make for the honour of parents. Mark, how he that says the father must be worshipped deduceth his premises from God himself. What an holy speech was this in comparison of that of Telencer, who though he knew the nature of this duty well enough, being on a time demanded why the young men of Lacedaemon rose up, and gave place to their ancients, made this answer, that being trained up so in civility towards strangers, they might be more apt to honour their parents also? Tertullian in his book of prayer, is verily of the opinion that the name of a father is a name of reverence and authority, and he which should attempt to take away duty from children, or government from parents, or upon partiality lean more to the one than the other, he in so doing, should take away both, and rob parents of that pre-eminence which the Laws of God, nature, and men have ever invested them with. So than if we must still continue this duty towards our parents, ever be heedful to observe and keep it, why may we not conclude the same for parent's authority over us, in this manner. Children must always honour their parents, ergo parents must ever command their children. These sweet loving affections were both jointly worshipped in one oratory by the old Romans, and in my fancy should not now be sequestered from being mutually dependent one to the other. For my better proof herein, I would pray leave a little to examine an argument of Tertullians', and to consider the necessity of his illation whereby he will demonstrate Christ to be God, yet not God the father, but God the son. I am not come saith Christ to do mine own will, but the fathers that sent me, this did he ever fulfil even to his death. Hereupon he infers the conclusion ergo he was not the father but the son. Now sir, how could this argument follow if the sons will should be distinct or any other, than the fathers will? what majesty or honour were there added unto God, in calling him a father (we have no name else whereby to know or express him) if there were no proper or natural signification for the name to this purpose? if there were no more difference betwixt parents & children, but a nominal distinction, and the diversity to rest only in name, but no title of authority or jurisdiction? but now a days where can you find any other difference for fathers at this time to emancipate or enfranchize their children, is held not necessary If my son could speak as soon as he were borne, I think this would be his language, Sir I acknowledge you thus far forth for my father, as to give me maintenance and bring me up. I came a free man into the world and if I live but one twelve or fourteen years to an end, I hope to sue out my livery for my wardship. If I can but keep my hands from doing violence to your person, I am sure though in other matters I prove respective or undutiful, no man will much complain of me. The power and authority of you parents is clean reversed, and abrogated. Now should you threaten him with some curse or revenge that would follow upon this contempt, this answer would be, 'tis a long while ere that comes Sir, and I shall lose nothing by the forbearance. But if so be this thorough persuasion did sink into men's hearts, that he that offended his father offended God, that to be excluded from the father's presence, were above all other punishments the chiefest, in brief, if the son could be made to to understand how dreadful the bitter curse of a father were (whereof we may chance to speak somewhat more at large hereafter,) why these might be sufficient props to defend and keep up, this excellent fabric of rule and authority which in these days is so much ruinated and decayed. But now (such is our corruption) all this will not serve the turn, that ancient severity of the Romans would better prevail with them, that is, they should never be brought to anieiudiciall trial for the matter, but be condemned and never heard speak, which is a course of proceeding that Halicarnesseus and Quintilian oftentimes mention. And why? because a commonwealth is nothing else but a body incorporate of so many private families, and so founded & begun by parents, that as (me thinks the resemblance were not much unfit) to term a family the nurse, the womb, and the root of a common wealth: contrariwise a common wealth, a swarm, or colony deduced from a private family. He therefore that will govern a common wealth in good fashion, and banish all lose & dissolute behaviour thence and all crimes and exorbitant offences, let him look first to good order at home. If he can make them lowly, sober, and dutiful within doors, they will come into the world, so nurtured, so taught, so affected, well may they change their homes, they will be sure never to leave their old manners. Contrariwise, let him look carelessly to it, let him but once suffer the reins to be at liberty, presently shall you see treasons, murders, rapes, adulteries, gush out in large swelling streams, and surround the countrrie. And this is the cause (if I be not mistaken) why in ancient time they appropriated to private families peculiar gods, taking it for good policy, to countenance the infirmity of domestical jurisdiction, with the authority of divine religion, that both these two like mighty cable anchors, might hold them in all tempest fast to their obedience. That even as the tender infant, led and guided by the little finger, is able afterwards of himself to walk without a guide; so coming to man's estate, the means of this private education, might awe and order him in the Common wealth, to carry a due respect to the Magistrate, but not to dread his person, as having the sword borne before him to grace his office withal, not to terrify well-doers. But verily in mine opinion there can be nothing more absurd or incongruous, than once to think that Religion is any way assistant to this good order; for (if it be true, which before I touched) certes Christian Religion as it is used, doth more suppress and pull down, than either establish or set up this authority of parents: and there is nothing so much withdraws our children from duty and obedience as those two precepts of the first and second Table, which now a days men make mere contradictories, Honour God, and honour thy parents. It's a marvelous matter, that whereas ever heretofore these two commandments, held good correspondency with each other, and might both be fulfilled together, they should now be termed opposite, and so repugnant one to the other, that he which fulfilles the one, must of necessity break the other. But whence come these strange & new-found problems? Marry Sir I will tell you, even from the disputes of our ancient Philosophers that wrangled about this question, whether at all times, and in all matters, we ought to obey our Father's commandments? for as there have been some that handled this question just as Bias did the question of sacrilege; there is no body, saith Bias, that is sacrilegious, for if some God or other be resiant in every place of the world, then doth a thief convey nothing out of one hallowed place, which he carrieth not into some other hallowed place; so have some of our Philosophers used the like subtlety in treating the matter of this power of parents. There is no necessity (say they) why you should obey your parents: for either they command that which is just, and we must do it, not because they command it, but because it is just; or else they command that which is unlawful, and we may not do it, not because they command it, but because it is unlawful. Whereupon the conclusion follows, ergo there is no obedience due to them at all; yea but Gellius replies, the Dilemme is not perfect, for that some things are of a neuter and indifferent nature, wherein we must obey them absolutely, and some things are in their own nature good, and honest which we are the more bound to do, because they command them. Some distinguish otherwise; in some cases we must obey, in others we may not. For, what if my father should command me to plot treason against my Country, to murder my mother, to kill my Prince, or facts of the like detestable and impious nature. Right so, whilst the School Divines began to argue, whether one might serve God and man, or whether God were to be served before father (as though there were any question to be made of it, but God must, without all exception be obeyed, when the matter commanded tends to impiety) they fell fowl upon the same tenants, with the Philosophers, which were very uncertain, idle, and blasphemous. In good south, I hate not the person of any man that makes difference betwixt honest and unhonest, lawful and unlawful, nor yet them neither, which make some things neuter and indifferent. The opinion in some sort is to be excused: but without doubt, the safer way had been, never to have stirred in the matter, that is, if they had not revolted from those men's judgements, which held the question affirmatively, and without distinction, that parents in all things were to be obeyed. For say it be true, which by a cavilling distinction they have put upon us, yet to my thinking they have no sound footing to stand upon for it: and to speak my opinion, the determination of such questions is exceeding dangerous. How much more cautelous and circumspect then was Philo, writing upon the decalogue, when treating of the two first commandments of the two Tables, he saith (as his manner is to do all things) most divinely: they that leaving all other affairs of the world, bestow themselves wholly upon contemplation, or they that abandoning all devotion, apply themselves to action wholly to observe their parent's disposition, conforming themselves respectively to live in the world, as though they would be taken apart, either for God's servants in the one, or men's friends and followers in the other: I tell you these men's virtues are but perfect by the halves: nay, he that offends against either party offends against both. Doubtless some such matters there be which will never be drawn to any manner of mediocrity or indifferency, but presently they do some harm or other: for do but shake them a little, & they stagger presently; bring them to the touch, you will find they cannot endure the trial. These diminutive questions be like fine cates, for as the more dainty and delicate they be, do sooner putrefy and corrupt in the stomach, so these if they be too much minced and refined, they mar the general tenant which is defended of all men. Whether the Bishop of Rome be above or under a general Council, whether the Emperor be above the people, whether democracy be better than monarchy, whether in religion contrariety of sects may be tolerated, at first sight, they be set forth with a marvelous fair show, but if you mark them well, there is poison served in, when you come to the reckoning. For upon these and such other like disputes, every day ensue, schisms, seditions, civil wars, & this question now in handling, is much after the same sort. For he that once made but a doubt whether the duty and respect which we own to our parents were to bind us for term of life, and not rather of Turuus his opinion maintained against Tarqvinius) that there was no such summary proceeding, as when father and son were parties, where the issue was soon tried, if he be undutiful, far him well, and all ill luck go with him. Make but the least breach into the fort of natural duty, ye shall presently see how he falls to railing, and reviling, to stabbing, nay to murdering of it. And so having begun with his father, he is like enough to finish it with insurrection against his Prince. This than was ever a main determination, amongst the ancient philosophers, that obedience in all things was precisely to be yielded unto, when our parents required it. Or put case, any inconvenience should happen thereupon, better were it to admit the proposition, in terms of largest extent, than out of any private or particular case to argue against a common and received opinion, and to determine it accordingly, either in schools, consistories, or pulpits. And this doth Cicero wifely observe in his book of offices, ye shall not find anre such question in all his book: he was ever resolute and confident upon the point, that children must not be their parent's master, nor subjects their Princes, nor scholars their teachers, nor servants their Lords: not, but that sometimes they far surpass them for wit and pregnant discourse, but that it cannot be avoided but that injuries and contempts will be offered, when such comparison and opposition of persons is once endured. Let authority be once disgraced, and farewell authority. When in a great session of the Centumuiri holden at Rome, Accia Variola, went about to disprove the will of her father, which sometimes had borne the office of a Praetor there, for that he had bequeathed unreasonable legacies to her stepmother, there came to the hearing of the cause so many fathers together with their children, upon a fear and expectation of which side the fathers or the daughters, the sentence should pass, that the judges (as Pliny reports) like wise men left the matter as they found it. For no other occasion than this, lest peradventure if judgement had been given for the daughter, other children by her example might in time presume to contest with their parents. But to come nearer to the matter, in these like questions, I would feign learn whom we should follow, profane Philosophers, or the blessed Apostle Saint Paul who in his Epistle to the Colossians, adviceth thus, Children obey your parents in all things, for this is pleasing with God, where when he expressly setteth down in all things, hath he not utterly excluded, those two parts of the distinction, In some things you must obey; in some things you may choose whether you will obey or no? and the conclusion withal, we be not bound to obey? nay but why did God the father of all parents, forbidden Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, but that he would try whether Adam would obey him in all things or no, as saith Theophilus to Eutol? nor is the objection worth the standing upon: why but what if the father should command any treasonable practice or attempt against the estate? because here is a case put which never happens at the hundreds end, or so seldom, that it would be passed over in silence, and never more looked after. Nay contrary wise, (as I should think) the presumption is strong and holds for the father, what manner a man soever he be; good or bad that he will never command his son, that which he in his conscience knows to be fowl and dishonest. Yea let the mother be never so lasciviously given, yet will she train up her daughter in chaste and virtuous demeanour. Moreover, he that argues this act of a father's command makes that a reason for his allegation, which is mainly against all reason, that is, he supposes old men doting fools, and young men grave counsellors: he makes the son judge whether the father's actions be lawful or against law, good in their own nature, or by his construction and surmise. And all this can never agree to discretion, and honesty. For so he sows matter of question and debate, where indeed the only virtue should be (the virtue so highly esteemed of the noble Lacedæmonians) to yield obedience and that readily. But because error is grown potent, and hath given such a deep wound as the scar will hardly be covered over, let us a little by the way consider what were those neuter and indifferent things which Gellius speaketh of? to my remembrance they be these, as if (saith he) thy father bid thee to be a soldier, to till his land, to be an officer, to be an advocate, to marry a wife, to go upon his errand, come when thou art sent for, and such like, which in themselves be neither good nor bad, but as the intent is and manner of doing them, so may they merit blame or commendation. For if the father should charge me to marry a wife that were infamous, past all shame, or disparagious for any enormous crime, if he would have me plead Catiline or Bibulus, or Clodius his cause, than were his commandment herein not indifferent because here is a troop of dishonesty one upon the neck of another. So that if his pleasure were to enjoin me such actions, the question were at an end, how far forth I should obey him: were it not that the thing which Gellius plainly pronounceth for indifferent, as to marry a wife, to enter into this or that kind of life, now adays are taught to be of such nature, that consent & authority of father is nothing thought of or respected in them: my son may marry, may be a Church man, may be a monk, not only without my leave, but spite of my teeth though I do expressly forbid him, and that which all Universities, all Consistories, all opinions, of learned men, without any interruption or impediment have ever permitted in favour of natural duty, that do these men, under pretence of faith and religion, utterly reverse and disannul. But our ensuing discourse shall specially in this place be confined within the compass of religious vows, wherein I must have leave to tell thee, that either thou art in fault that without any privity or consent of mine betookest thyself thus to the jesuits order; or I am to be blamed that notwithstanding holy Church affords thee such a liberty, grieve and take on for the same. For as concerning the argument of marriage & the freedom thereof, whether parents have any voice in their children's bestowing, our countryman Paquerius hath written so learnedly thereof in his Epistles, as who should but offer to add one line, to that which he hath written of that subject, might rather prejudice his own judgement, than any way the picture drawn by the pencil of so curious a workman. I must needs confess that the determination of the Bishops assembled in the Council of Trent makes much for my contryman his purpose, that although clandestine contracts, made without the parents advise and leave) stand for good marriage till the Church disallow them, yet nevertheless for many weighty and important considerations, the Church thought it best altogether to interdict and disavow them. It seems she would have a reservation in herself to determine the controversy, and not permit it over to the arbitrement of parents, whether such marriages were good and according to law, or contrarily void and of none effect. I must likewise grant that sundry constitutions enacted heretofore by many of our christian Princes in their Diets and Parliaments, are pregnant for his purpose, namely that such matches are no better than a rape and no marriage at all, or if it be, they take order to undo the marriage knot with the point of an imperial sword. Yet for all that which Paquerius hath written about the question, I would pray leave to add two notable precedents, not with that self conceit or arrogancy, as though I meant to confirm or confute aught about the contract of maiarge, which either the Church or our most illustrious Princes have been pleased hitherto in their excellent wisdoms to determine, but that our children might hereby know and be well instructed, that all that is according to law, is not therefore by and by according to honesty, lest perhaps that contempt and neglect which now they measure unto us, be afterwards by a just sentence of revenge written in heaven, measured by their children unto them also. The one example is of Rebecca, and the woman of Timnath, both which although God had appointed the one for Samson, and the other for Isaac, yet it pleased him notwithstanding that these marriages should first be made by the advise and liking of their parents, that Rebecca should be demanded of Bathuel, of the mother, and of the Uncle, yet so, as Abraham the father must give charge about the message, and not the son Isaac, thou shalt be discharged from my oath, saith Abraham to his servant, if thou go unto my country and to my kinsfolk, and they shall not give her unto thee. The Angel of the Lord made way to these marriages, but their parents contracted them; The other example is of Tertullian in a treatise written to his wife: Oh how shall I be able (saith he) worthily to describe and set forth the blessed estate of that couple, whom the Church hath joined together, prayer and thanksgiving have confirmed, angels in heaven proclaimed, and the father in earth approved, for even here in the world children may not marry without their parent's consent and approbation, either in respect of due solemnity or force of law. Doubtless his meaning hereby was, that marriage among Christians had better success and prosperity when first it was approved by almighty God, as having in this world the consent of parents, and in that other the consent of our father which is in heaven. The same opinion was maintained by Soterus living under the reign of the Emperor Commodus, as also averred by Evaristus and S. Ambrose. Proceed we then in God's name and let us now discourse of religious vows, not questioning their validity, nor the perfection of the religious or lay life, which of them both is better nor any such matters. But whether children be at their own liberty and pleasure to conceive and make solemn profession of a vow, if the father be not acquainted first with it, or else if he disclaim it; as also whether without him a son may enter into the Ecclesiastical vocation, and the father must not present him before he be admitted to holy orders. Hereof I say we will presume to entreat so far forth as a mean Civilian may have good leave, either to know or take in hand, such secret mysteries of your profession. And if the whole faculty of Divines, or those seducers of yours, have any thing else in store, to give me satisfaction in my question, let me understand of it as soon as may be possible, that so for mine own part I may set down, and rest contented by their resolution. But for you sir, I would have you to lurk no longer in corners, but make your personal appearance to the summons, and be not afraid boldly to chant that high sentence of S. Jerome, against them, which in a depraved sense they have perhaps trumpt in thy way: Cruelty in such a case is your only piety.  
First then let it be considered how paynim people observed their vows. For though they were far wide of the true worship of God, yet in their religion, they left out nothing which might any way make, either for the honour, maintenance, or enlargement of it, nay it were hard to say, whether therein they surpassed not us Christians. True it is, that these paynim were not very scrupulous to offer either themselves or their goods to Idols, nor was it very material with them why and wherefore they made such rash vows. Nevertheless, this was ever a disputable question among them, whether the vow were of any validity, without the father's consent and authority. Most certain it is that in the matter of sacrificing the children the parents were to offer them to the sacrifice, the case is clear out of Tertullian in his Apologeticus, whereas saith he, Saturn never used to spare either his own children or other men's, but indifferently devoured both; thereupon such as were parents offered their sons and daughters to be his sacrifices, and willingly exposed them to him, nay they would fawn and flatter the poor innocents, to the intent, that they should not howl & cry, when they were to be sacrificed which you may likewise read in Plutarch in his book which he entitles Of Superstition, towards the end: but say, there were no parents living to give up their children to this devilish abomination? what was to be done in such a case? It's well enough known, that the Priest had no such power or authority, to take whom he pleased for the sacrifice. This was a special prerogative reserved for the Magistrate (and more than this came to) he chose out the virgin by lot, which was appointed to be sacrificed, that so the Gods might seem to be at their own choice for the oblation, and not at the Priest's devotion, and on whomsoever the lot fell, she was to be offered, as you may read in Homer of Iphigenia Agamemnon's daughter, in Pansanias, of Lyciscus and Aristodemus their daughters, in Plutarch of Smincheus his daughter, whom the Dolphins safely set a shore, with her sweet heart Eualus. Hence come those themes usual & frequent in declamations. A virgin sacrificed to the pestilence. A son that is disinherited, to be offered for sacrifice. A sister living infamously to be sacrificed. Which sort of Rhetorical exercise, partly you may read in Quintilian, (an Author by me first restored to his integrity) partly in Calphurnius, for whom the learned Pitheus did as much; but in all these and the like, it would be noted, that should the son or daughter voluntarily offer themselves, their parents are ever opposed as meet and able persons in law to except against them. For no man would have admitted such a bar (I promise you) I think scarce among boys in the School, if children might have been permitted to sacrifice themselves. And hence it cometh (as you may read it in Philostratus) that Meneceus Creon's son, upon an answer of Tiresias the Prophet, sacrificed himself without his father's privity, which otherwise meant to hinder him from such a purpose. But most memorable is that which is written by Plutarch in his book of Superstition, that if a man had not any children of his own, the fashion was to buy them of some poor people: but in that case, it might not serve the turn to have him present, and consenting, that made sale of his child, it was beside requisite that the natural mother, should come forth, either to testify her willingness, that her son should die in that manner, or to forbid the sacrifice. Virgil in the eleventh of his Aencidos glanceth at such like sacrifices, when he brings in Metabus, drenching of his daughter Camilla in the river Amasenus, and thus bespeaking: 
Fair Queen of the springing woods, chaste Lady Diana,  
Here to thy service I do vow Camilla my daughter.  Upon which place, Servius his note is good. 'twas well said, the father himself vowed her: for that none but fathers had their children under such bonds of obedience. And Plutarch in his book of Isis and Osiris, talks to Clea the Nun, in a Phrase of the like strain: Even since thou wast a child, thy parents dedicated thee to the service of the Goddess Osiris. And thus much in brief for the Grecians.  
Now to come to our Ancestors, among the Gauls (as it is yet with us) there were three estates and orders among them: the Druidet were the men of most principal mark and esteem, and were so highly reputed of, and had such large privileges, by reason of their sacred ministries, and their interpretations of doubtful questions in religion, that well was he that could be of their company, to be enrolled and professed in their rule. What? but might children so do without their paparents liking? No forsooth, as you may well understand by Caesar his own relation, some (saith he) be alured with great rewards, some out of a voluntary disposition enfrock themselves into the Religion; some their parents send thither, and some their kinsfolk. Such were Voluntaries, as were at their own disposing, such as were sent thither, lived under awe and charge of parents or guardian. The Romans have a title in their book of Digests, De Pollicitationibus, of Promises, in them there is special mention made of such promises, as either we make solemnly to God, or to our Country: but if a son living in subjection to his Father, should make any such promise, it were nothing worth, and this, Ulpian out of his learning delivers unto us for law. Men that be Masters of families after they come to be of full age, are bound by their vow and solemn promise: but as for a son during his minormity, or a bondslave whilst he is a villain, neither of them can bind themselves by their vow without the fathers or Lords authority. Indeed he that is a master of a family after the death of the ancestor, must necessarily be of full age, to make his vow good, but let the son be never so old, and make a vow, be it not ratified first by the father's approbation, it is utterly void and of no effect in law: and the case is the same, though he have a stock of money or any patrimony of his own, to employ and occupy for his preferment: the vow notwithstanding all this is of no force or obligation in law. And what may the reason hereof be? because he that is not his own man, can neither come in bond himself, nor statute out any thing that he hath. Moreover he that hath right and interest to any thing, cannot lose it but by some fact of his own. And therefore a son living in subjection under his father, howbeit he might be termed to do a godly and religious act by vowing and promising that which is none of his own, yet were the act (though to never so religious use) no better than plain theft and pillage: first in vowing his patrimony, and substance, because the father hath a property in it, then in vowing his person which is a matter in deed of greater consequence, because he is no free man to this intent, absolutely to dispose of himself: and the parents by such a consecration should wrongfully be deprived of the heir of the house, the hope of their lineage, and the propagation both of their name and family, and lastly of all such goods and chattels, which being purchased by the child, were after him, to revert unto the father's possession, so that for justifying of the sons vow, the consent and allowance of the father was essentially necessary. Very favourable is that interpretation which makes for religion, (we doubt not) yet withal not to be racked to so high a strain, as thereby to neglect all due and laudable solemnities, for that were the next way rather to profane religion, than to advance it. Our father and our country have each one as much authority as the other (let that be granted) yet (as Livy storieth it) when P. Cornelius Scipio was Praetor in Spain, and had upon the great jeopardy of a battle, promised solemn plays and shows, after the victory was obtained, made afterwards suit to the Senate for some alotment of money out of the treasury to that use, their answer was, that his vow bond not the Senate of Rome and therefore he should make plays and shows in God's name, at his own charge, and upon his own purse, or with such spoils and booties as he had taken in the war. Now may a son do that with his father's goods, and that without ask him any leave, which the greatest officer in Rome could not do without the Senate's warrant? if you tell me, that thevestall virgins might bestow themselves against their father's will, because they were said to be taken, not to be chosen, and that therefore the high Priest, did not receive them as presented by their parents, but took them away perforce; such kind of reasoning, from the nature of the word, will stand them in small stead: for this solemnity or phrase of speech which the Bishop used, I take thee Amy, is so far from implying, that there was any unwillingness or violence in the action, that it makes most especially for that purpose which we maintain. Surely there was no taking without some giving, and in this sense the high priest, took her that was dedicated to Vesta, but by your leave she was first given and presented by her father. Whence Metabus in Virgil infers, Take here thy servant Goddess chaste. but Gellius clears the point in his first book: therefore it seems to be said, that the maiden is taken because (saith he) the high Priest taking her by the hand, lead her away as a captive from her father under whose obedience she lived: and some few words before that, having recited the ancient solemnity of the Papian law, which enacted choice and lot as fittest means to be used in the admission of any person unto religion. At this time, saith he, if any man of credit or worship, come to the high Priest, and offer his daughter to be a Nun, the profession is as lawful, as if all the ceremonies had been performed, which the Papian law requires. And it was a matter of such necessity, that the daughter should be offered by the parents, that if she were an orphan fatherless and motherless, she was reputed uneligible for that religion. The same may be said, if either she herself were emancipated, and set at liberty by her father, and in the life time of the father, became subject to the power of her grandfather, she was to be refused and put by, as a person uneligible: and why so, might not her grandfather present her? might not her guardian? might not her overseer? if she were at her own disposing, might she not vow and offer up herself? Labeo Antistius will tell you she might not, because a girl under six, or above ten could not be received into the order. Why but might not any other present her? no, there was none so fit, and without all exception for the purpose, as her own father. If any else had done it, there must have been some ordinary hearing and debating of the matter, but had the father done it, it was thought needless and unnecessary. For as when a natural father, will adopt his natural and base borne child, to be his lawful son, the adoption will hold upon any terms, so it is in point of consecration; let but the father tender his child to religion, and there is nothing else expected For what if the daughter, upon some dislike or other would leave Vesta's cloister, and lay it to her grandfather or guardians charge, that they had no such authority or commission, to make her change her estate and manner of living, that this power belongs only to him that hath power of her life and death, that is, her father, as Seneca tells me? For the grandfather had nothing to do with it: surely he that makes a poor young girl enter into an order of religion, that lived before in the world at large, doth in manner execute her alive, and make her a banished woman in her own country: and therefore not without good cause, the father alone was put in trust with this high authority. For as for the chief Priests authority & usurped right, were it not first given & taken by the father's leave and permission, it was judged to all intents and purposes clearly void in law. Now should it be urged, why but this which you speak of, was of use only in vest all Nuns, and that principally by reason of their minority, when they were professed Nuns, this objection is easily answered and the contrary opinion clearly evicted by Gellius his own words which be these, Many be of opinion that only virgins should be taken after this fashion, to orders of religion, nay but even jupiters' Priests, the Bishops, the soothsayers, were to be taken and admitted in the self same fashion. And certain it is, that male children in their parent's life time, were so taken. Do we not read in Dion, that when the great controversy was about Cornelius Spinter his admission into the Chapter of the high Priests, though Faustus were both his kinsman and an high Priest, likewise in the College, that the natural and adoptive fathers did both join in this, to make good their presentation for their son and not the son for himself? questionless it is, that children could not exempt themselves from filial obedience, had not the father first allowed them the liberty, which needed never to have been granted them, if they might have made vows at their own pleasure, and without their father's consent. But that I may come by little and little to times of christianity, (for perchance these heathenish examples, can do little good with you) I pray you, as you think, what law or custom had the jews for their precedent in this case? first, it is not said any where in express terms to the son, Leave father and mother, but with this proviso, that he should cleave to his wife. If any thing be otherwise spoken it is by way of advice, and may not pass upon trust without stricter examination, as it shall else where be declared more at large. In deed in case of marriage there is an absolute commandment penned, without all limitation, to renounce all natural affection and duty, but in other cases it is done with so many cautels and deliberations, that in my judgement it were better still to keep on the high road way, than to journey by coasting. But whatsoever it be, that Adam in that place speaks of the relinquishment of our parents, doth the argument thereupon conclude, that the knot of wedlock, is of more force and power then the bond of filial duty? nay verily, for this proceeds and springs from nature, and (which is more) from our own individual and personal subsistence: that other, from a desire to propagate a mutual society and conversation amongst men. And whereas, a man and his wife be accounted as it were for one person, this is in the intent and imagination of the law, and therefore we see them easily to be parted again, as Anastasius speaketh in the tenth book of his commentaries upon the Hexameron. But the son is altogether bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, he is one and the self same person with his father, a parcel of the self same substance, and (as I may so say) a very piece carved out of his body and soul: whence it follows, that come what can come, a son must ever be a son: Disinherit him, turn him into the wide world to shift for himself, sell him, leave him to his own liberty, suffer him to be adopted into another family, still nature holds her own, blood and kindred will never be altered Before the Emperor Constantine's days, had the father unnaturally forsaken and cast off his daughter, yet might she not marry an husband without his consent But a man might be rid of his wife (God he knows) many ways: by the sentence of a judge in Court, by madness (such a law the Emperor Leo made) by a separation from bed and board, by bondage and lastly by divorce: but in children the case is admirable: that, though the principal obligation be extinguished, (as say I am divorced from my wife) yet the accessory holds, that is, children which be wedlocks pledges, though their mother be not my wife, yet are they my children: they be mortgaged by nature, and so must they ever continue. But if the case stand so, then why doth a son forsake father and mother to cleave unto his wife? why doth he forsake the greater commandment, and betake him to the less? because in this case, the parents underhand be willing hereunto, as in a desire to have the world peopled, by propagation of children, so to maintain a lineal succession in posterity, and the inheritance ever to descend upon the grandchild after the death of the son and heir. And yet to keep house with a wife, in any construction, is this, to leave or abandon one's father? nay herein consists their principal duty and obedience. And if they marry, and keep house together and so deduct as it were new Colonies, all is done with leave, and reference to their parents. And for my part, I would feign know, how it can in any sense be construed that for a man to marry a wife is to forsake and relinquish his father and mother, whereas children though they be married never so often, are not thereby exempted from obedience, and though they be eftsoons man and wife, yet be they still in subjection to their father? and marriage changes not the laws of nature, and civility? But be it as it may be, almighty God calling to his remembrance the law which first he established in paradise, added also this heavenly divine commandment to Adam's sentence, that whether children marry or not marry his oracle should continue without all exception and instance to the contrary, honour thy father and thy mother: yea and that in more precise and determinate manner of speech than if he should have said obey father or mother, for obedience is contained in honour, and he that is not bound to obey, must nevertheless be bound to honour. For example's sake, if by extremity and rigour of law, you may marry or profess yourself a monk, against my will, and that such a vow and marriage, is in a sort justifiable and good, yet should you notwithstanding even by force of that commandment come and ask me first leave, and crave mine advise in the matter, which though it be no obedience in your part yet it is mine honour. lastly you should have showed me, what moved you to this or that course of life, whether your own natural propension, and deliberate inclination, or some strange circumvention & foreign persuasion? But let that duty and custom be omitted, and let the act nevertheless, be accounted as lawful as is any, yet where is the honour which God hath prescribed? where is that reverence and duty, which humanity bindeth you unto? if it be done only but for solemnity, why then you must know that solemnity gives the essence to the act. Let us proceed. It is storied by Marius' Victor that famous orator of Marseiles in his third title of his Commentary upon Genesis, that God commanded not Abraham (albeit from his youth up he worshipped the true God with all his soul, and abhorred gentilism) to leave his country, and that wicked land and polluted house, before that he saw, that after his father's death, he might without offence keep that commandment, which he had given him. What shall we say then? that the jesuits have greater command over thee, than God had over Abraham: he was 75. year old, and his parents were dead, before God commanded him that he should leave his country, and go up unto the land of Canaan, & dost thou which art yet but 16. years old, myself and thy mother yet living, forsake me & thy country, because the jesuits bid thee? if thou dost it for the keeping of another's vow, yet that duty which both by the law of God and nature, thou owest me is greater. But Marius of Marseiles (for your learning) lived in the time of Theodosius and Valence the Emperors, and the jesuits were not heard of: there were no such creatures, till the reign of Francis the first our King. Moreover why did God command the same Abraham, to sacrifice unto him his own son, and to be the Priest himself, but because he thought the counsel of the fathers was expedient to be used in every cause, that concerned their children? if it had been all one unto God, who had offered up Isacke unto him, and if the sacrifice should have been as grateful and acceptable unto him being offered by another man as by the hands of his own father, why surely he would have commanded this office to some other, rather than to his father Abraham. For religion is not the holier or the more sanctified because it is joined with parricide. what then? God would have Isaac offered up unto him. But because this oblation was to proceed from his father, he commanded him to do it, who by reason of his fatherly authority, could not offend in slaying him. A father is not guilty of parricide, saith Aelius Martianus the great counsellor at the Civil law. If thou wilt say that in Isaac & Samuel the cause, why it was necessary that their parents should offer them to the Lord, was by reason of their minority, in regard they were young & under age: why the daughter of jephthe for certain was sacrificed by her father (as was Praxithea by Erictheus, and Calpurnia, by her father Marius) after the Cimbrian war, when she was fit for marriage. Moreover what might be objected against Eliseus? he being called to the office of a Prophet (which was a regular and strict kind of life, as appeared both by their unction mantel and abstinence) albeit he was an elder in years and called thereunto by the Prophet Elias, and that by a special command from God, made this answer, I pray thee let me go kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow, thou. The kiss was the father's benediction, & the leave was that which he desired so much of the Prophet, to take before his departure? what said Elias? Go and return, for what was my duty, I have done unto thee. As if he should have said, that which remaineth to be done, belongeth to thy parents. For although God expressly commanded me, that I should anoint thee to be a Prophet, in my room, after me, yet how could this be done, if these second Gods our parents, should have gain said it? therefore afterwards when the Prophet had cast his mantel on him, forthwith Elizeus left his plough, and followed Elias. But he departed not from his father, before he had first taken his leave of him. Certain it is, that in the time of the old law personal vows were ransomed by money, and the vows of the Nazarites endured but for a time. But in the thirtieth Chapter of Numbers, it is so manifestly set down what ought to be observed concerning the daughter, that it were shame for a man to vouch any thing to the contrary. If a woman (saith Moses) vow a vow, and bind herself with an oath, being in her father's house, her vow shall stand, except she hath done it, against her father's consent. But lest her youth might be pretended for an excuse, the same is written of a wife also, whether she as yet remain in her father's house, or whether she be brought unto her husbands, her vow should not stand, if her husband consented not unto it. Moses excepted none besides a woman divorced, or a widow; whence was this? because God's power was lessened, by reason the fathers or husband's consent, concurred with his? surely no. But because those very powers which they have, are from God, and by establishing theirs, he confirmeth his own. But those exceptions of widowhood or matrimony vere not necessary in a son; For as soon as he was out of his father's command there was no doubt, if he were at man's state, but he might lawfully bind himself with any of those vows, which were admitted in the old law. For except it were with the vow of fasting or abstinence from meats, they scarce bound themselves with any other. But a woman (as at Rome) was in perpetual wardship sometimes of her father, sometimes of her husband, and sometimes also of her brother, if her father died before she was married. Wherefore if the woman voweda vow, there the lawgiver you may see) was more cautelous and difficult. But of the son so long as he remained in his father's house, who ever doubted in that case, but that he was of the same condition with his sister? vowed he the gift of any piece of money? why it was another's money? vowed he his own person? why he had no right to it? that was subject unto another. How then could he, which was not at his own disposal, bind himself and wrong his father, who had all dominion and rule over him. It will not be well, to say that there was more duty expected from women than from men. For tell me, why did those ancient lawyers so much vary in the question, whether the sons of a furious and phranticke man might contract marriage, and yet did all agree that the daughter might. Why did they make such doubt of the son? was it not because he was the pillar and prop of the family? in him was the hope of their posterity? from him was expected the continuance of their stock, and on him depended the line of their pedigree? therefore it is requisite that greater care be had, that he be not disparaged in his match, of whom more reverence, more respect, and more obedience is required. If he enter into new alliance, if he make his father a grandfather, and beget an heir for him, ought not all this to be done with more advice, and circumspection than ordinary. And was it not also, because age in a son did not so importune and call for marriage, but in a daughter it did even enforce and hasten it before her time? A son, albeit he stayed till his father were perfectly recovered, and well in his wits, there was no inconvenience befell, for thereby his judgement was ripened, and he proved the worthier man after, (and I may tell you) good behaviour is as necessary at home as abroad, if old Cato may be believed. But a daughter may be the worse, if she stay beyond her time. And that did Phalaris once tell Claeneta that for the same reason, she should not defer the marriage of her daughter that was twenty years old in any case, because her father Philodamus was absent in a foreign country. For he was traveled farther, than that her daughter might conveniently expect his return home. But concerning a son percase he would have altered his opinion. It followeth therefore that what Moses did forbid in a daughter, he would have much more forbidden in a son likewise.  
But you think it long perchance ere I come to the times of christianity, you do well. For that is the point of the card whereunto all our courses should be intended and directed. Christian religion (you will say) otherwise determines of children's duty. Let us see then whether Christ came to destroy it, or to perfect it, corrupt & mar all good manners, by abrogating God his father's precepts to teach children contempt and stubborn behaviour, or rather whether it were not laid as an imputation upon him, to the end it might be believed, that he did deface all respect of amity and allegiance, to rend in sunder all dutiful affection, and make heartburning and discord between the father and his children, as saith Saint Ambrose writing upon Saint Luke? We will therefore begin with Christ himself, and afterward come unto the Church, where if your more refined Divines have anything for me, that is in truth more learned and witty, let it have the victory: for albeit we are all Christians, yet all of us are not interpreters of the faith: therefore all such Disputes of greater mystery, we leave to deep Divines; and will content ourselves with such as are obvious and trivial. Christ was twelve years old (Luke 2.24.) when he went up to jerusalem with Mary and joseph, but forsook them at their departure, therefore they returned back to jerusalem to seek him, and it came to pass, that three days after they found him in the Temple sitting among the Doctors; to whom Mary said; Son why hast thou thus dealt with us? thy Father and I have sought thee with heavy hearts. He answered somewhat obscurely; but yet (if I am not deceived) no less fitly for the mitigation of their sorrow, (than thou supposest that thou hast done for the appeasing of mine anger) viz. That it is better to obey God than men. Yet he returned and went down with his parents, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them, saith Luke in his Gospel, did he ever afterwards forsake them? no not until the time of his passion. But I pray thee, let us hear farther, what Bernard the Abbot saith. Although Mary and joseph understood Christ's words (for it is likely they did) because he thus bespoke them, Knew you not that I must go about my Father's business? yet notwithstanding they would not be quiet, saith he in his 19 Sermon on Solomon, but would have him obedient unto them: therefore all the rest of his time, he ever afterwards followed them. Now, from whom may we draw a better pattern of obedience and duty towards parents for children, than from Christ. Learn (saith S. Ambrose upon these words) what thou owest to thy parents, when thou readest that a son was never contrary to his father, either in fulfilling his will, performing his duty, or observing his opportunity. Thou owest to thy mother the hazarding of her chastity, the loss of her Virginity, her peril in thy birth, her tedious sorrows, her continual troubles (who, wretched as she is) is then in greatest danger, when she hath the fruition of her desires, and brought forth the son of her desire: for albeit she is free from the sorrow in his birth; yet is she not free from the fear of his death. What need I speak of those Fathers, which are so provident for their children's good? or of the riches which they have so multiplied and laid up for them? or of being so wary husbands for their children's thrift? might not this goodness of theirs at the least, challenge some tribute of obedience? The same Author in his first book de Virginibus, saith, how sweet a pledge is that which hath its beginning in peril, and its ending in peril, which first is a grief unto parents before it can be a pleasure unto them? The Master disdained not (saith Bernard) to follow his Disciples, nor God to follow men, nor the word and wisdom itself to follow a Carpenter and his wife: and yet joseph was not properly his father. jesus fulfilled the will both of his heavenly and earthly father, teaching us thereby that nothing hinders, but that they may be both obeyed at once, and that it is not necessary, that one should be neglected for the other. justin Martyr out of this place in his 136. question, handles some other questions also very wisely, (as he useth to do all.) If it be forbidden by God's holy Scripture, to contemn our parents, (saith he) and if he who doth that which is forbidden, is to be termed a sinner; how cometh it to pass that our Lord jesus Christ in many places despised his parents, and yet nevertheless is said to be without sin? For at the marriage of Cana he checked his mother, saying: Woman what have I to do with thee? And when his mother would feign have seen him, he called those his mother and his brethren, that did the will of God: Furthermore, when it was said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck: he replied, yea blessed are they that obey the will of God. All which words are thought to be spoken of him in some contempt of his mother; because whereas she was properly called blessed; others in opposition of her by him, were termed blessed also. But now since this most holy Virgin was chosen for the conception and birth of our Saviour Christ, how came it to passs, that she was accounted unworthy to be called blessed? Here justin Martyr maketh this answer. These words (what have I to do with thee?) were not spoken by way of obiurgation, but as if he should have said in other terms; I am not such a one as have undertaken the care of wine, which is spent in marriages; yet notwithstanding if your desire be that there be no want of wine, bid the servants do whatsoever I shall say unto you, and you shall easily perceive there shall be no want of Wine; which as he spoke, so it fell out. Therefore it is not likely that he did check his mother in words, that did so much honour her in deeds. As for other places Christ spoke not so, as if he would deprive her of that honour, which was due unto a mother; but he taught her how she was entitled to true blessedness. For if he that heareth the word of God, and keepeth it be Christ's brother, sister and mother; and Christ's mother hath done both these, than it is clear, that Mary in this respect ought rather to be called blessed. And because God chose not an ordinary woman to be the mother of Christ, but such a one that was 〈◊〉 other the most excellent in perfection and virtues, therefore Christ would that his mother should be most commended for that virtue, which gave her pre-eminence above all women, that a Virgin should become his mother. Moreover Luke the Evangelist testifieth, that Christ never did any thing in contempt or disgrace of his parents, when he saith, He went down with joseph and Mary to jerusalem, and was obedient to them, even to his death: And so also saith S. Augustine interpreting these words in his book, De Sancta Virginit. Now Christ after that he began to preach to the people, and withal perceived that the Scribes and pharisees did err most grossly in this commandment, whereof we treat, and retorted the same against their parents, under this colour, that forsooth they might perform any thing else in stead of their bounden duty, so they did that which they thought to be as just and holy, said, Why do you transgress the law of God by your tradition? for God hath said, Honour thy father and mother, and he that curseth father or mother let him die the death: but ye say, Whosoever shall say unto his father or mother, by the gift that is offered by me thou mayest have profit, though he honour not his Father and Mother, he shall be safe. O ye hypocrites, ye worship God in vain, preferring man's precepts before Gods. Why spoke Christ this so severely? was it because the pharisees so greatly abused those offerings, and that sacred treasure which they called Corban? or was it because those oblations, which were destinated unto the Temple, were by them misapplied to themselves, and to their own lusts, and not unto God? surely no, for than he would have noted only their luxury and abuse. But he checked the priests because they made comparison of precepts, and preferred their own (which were otherwise good) before Gods. And because they took occasion by their gift, howsoever holy to contemn their domestic rites and laws of piety, and that bond of natural duty which is more ancient than any whatsoever. And yet there is somewhat more in it, than so: For the first commandment, that you stand so much upon, and the fifth you so lightly regard, are both God's commandments, they both issue from the same Author, and the same Lawmaker. It is necessary therefore that either the one hinder the other, or that the latter be abrogated by the former (which is against all law that ever I could read) or else that both of them be kept, as well the first pertaining unto God, as the fifth pertaining unto parents. But the truth is, that some precepts are immutable, and they are (sayeth Hildebert in his last Epistle) such as the eternal decree of God hath established. Of which sort (saith the Archbishop of Towers) are these, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and thy neighbour as thyself. And honour thy Father and thy mother, and such like: Other precepts are mutable, which the eternal Law of God hath not decreed, but the wisdom and policy of some later wits have invented for some convenience and use, & not so principally tending to salvation. And of this sort it is to be a jesuite; Certain I am, that the law, whereby thou standest bound unto me, is perpetual, and unchangeable. But what if here we be bold to say, that God himself is less solicitous for his own honour, than for our parent's honour? And therefore of those two commandments, the latter in a sort is to be preferred before the former. And shall yet these pharisees please thee more than Christ? It was not without a mystery, that God gave those commandments concerning his own honour simply, without imposition of punishment, if any broke them, or proposal of reward if any kept them: but when he gave this commandment concerning our duty towards our parents, he added this clause, that thy days may be long upon earth. For albeit hereby it be clearly evident, that nature cannot suffer, that he should live long upon the earth, that respects not these of whom he hath received life, nor endure that it should go well with him any where, that will hide himself for no other end, but that he may not show himself grateful unto them that with so great care and trouble after they had given him life, have nourished and sustained him; yet that which we so principally intend, appears from thence. For he saith that he is full of jealousy, if a man worship strange and false gods; but if he worship his parents, God is so far from envying it, that by all means possible, he wills and command's it, & that with such a reward, which of mankind is most desired. Why presseth he all these things so earnestly? because when parents, these second gods are honoured, whom he so much acceptes, and so well accounteth of, whatsoever is done unto them, he taketh it done unto himself: but if any duty be left undone unto them, let us worship him in the best manner we can devise, yet doth it not excuse us. And perhaps this may be the reason, that God (if I may so speak) is not so hard to please in that honour and worship which we own unto him, as every man is curious in the duty, which is to be done unto him. God is reverenced as sufficiently as he would be, if every one according to his sex, age, and quality do honour him as he is able. For it is not the Ecclesiastical dignity that makes a Christian, saith Jerome. One man in the Church is an eye, another the tongue, another the hand, and another the foot or the ear. In whatsoever vocation a man be, if therein he serve God as he is able, he pleaseth God exceeding well. For God exacteth not the same obedience of all. But in man it is far otherwise, except his son be obedient and dutiful at his beck, and at his service, when he shall think fit, he is by no means contented. Neither is it much material, of what condition both of them are, for whosoever is a father, is a father in the same proportion, and whosoever is a son, is a son in the same degree. Therefore that we may honour our parents without exception, and beyond that voluntary obedience, which we ought to show them, the Lord saith, this I will, this I command and for this duty I prolong thy years, that thou mayest perform it always. What then? if Christ did justly and deservedly reprehend those jewish Priests, dost thou think (especially seeing both of us profess one Religion) that thou being my son shouldest addict thyself to some certain College, Rule or Society, (which say it be lawful and holy, yet is it but the invention of men) and thereupon contemn and despise me thy father (a sin which God and Nature hath forbidden thee?) Excepting that worship, which we own unto our God, (such as is adoration and invocation.) What is there in religion itself, more religious and more divine, than to honour and reverence our parents? Sacrifice is a holy work, yet Christ (as you may see) less esteemeth it than the duty and obedience of children. It is a holy and religious work for a man to devote himself unto the Church, Ministry and service of the brethren. Nevertheless S: Paul commands in his first Epistle to Timothy 5. Chapter, and 4. verse: If widows have children or nephews, let them learn first to show godliness to their own house, and to recompense their parents, for that is honest and acceptable before God. Certainly, if we ought to choose any to that Ministry, he or she ought to be chosen, who are well reported of for their good works, and they are of this kind, if shse hath nourished her children, etc. Would Paul have prescribed this so earnestly, except he himself being the author had well perceived that there were some private and domestical duties, which of necessity were to be preferred before all other though sacred and public? the truth is, that these latter proceed from those former. For when the question is of moral and natural institution, Christians differ in nothing from Pagans. He that lives contrary to Nature, keeps not God's commandments, as Nilus saith in his institution to certain Monks. And as Athenagoras in his Apology for Christians observes, that God moves not man to those things which are against Nature. And therefore Saint Paul spoke nothing, but that which Socrates had spoke before him in Zenophon, & which the Athenians had long before thought upon and provided for in their laws. If any one be disobedient to his parents (saith he in his 2. book de fact. & dict. Socrat.) let him be uncapable of all Magistracy. For how can he offer pure Sacrifice or sit well at the stern of the commonwealth, if he be a bad liver at home, and if he be unkind, unnatural and injurious to the people of his own house? As for the laws of the Athenians, you shall find them in Aeschines against Timarchus, & in Plutarch in the life of Aeschines: but what saith Saint Paul? he as if he were in some emulation with Socrates saith; If there be any of you that provideth not for his own, namely for them of his own household, he denieth the faith, and is worse than an Infidel. Now see what conjecture may be gathered of thee to the contrary. Certainly (say they) he cannot choose but of necessity be most obedient to the general, Provincial, Presbyters, who so resolutely contemns his Father, and so courageously renounceth him for a stranger and a Publican. See (my good son) how far thou art diverted from the way of the Lord, & how exceedingly thou art estranged from his commandments, although thou arrogantly thinkest, that thou dost know and understand them better, than all thy fathers and thy forefathers did, yea better than Christ himself. Without doubt a father and a mother are not to be compared with God, yet are they to be beloved with God, saith Tertullian against the Gnostickes. And in his book of Chastity he saith, you may know by the placing of every commandment, the manner: by the order, the state, and by the end the reward: therefore he which honoureth not his father and mother, is worse than an adulterer, worse than a murderer, and worse than a thief. But I had rather compare virtues with virtues, than vices with vices. what is so good a work in the Church as to give legacies to charitable uses. And yet saith S. Augustine, whosoever will disinherit his son, and make the Church his heir, let him seek one that will accept it, truly he shall not find that Austin will be his heir, and by God's grace he shall find no man will be. And in his 119. Epistle unto Ecdicias; doth he not reprehend her, because she vowed continency not acquainting her husband first with it? and when he had afterward consented unto her vow, doth he not blame her because she took upon her the habit of a Nun, against his will? and did he not reprove her because she gave her goods to two poor Monks, when she had a son living on whom she might have bestowed them? which I speak not (saith he) as though I thought that if any of us should be ill spoken of and scandalised for our good works, therefore we should desist from doing them, but because in every society the respect we bear to our kindred ought to be one, and the respect we show to strangers, another, the condition of a christian is one, and the condition of an infidel another, the duty of parents to their children one, and the duty of children to their parents another. Writ therefore unto him a letter of satisfaction and ask him pardon (saith he to Eridicea) because thou hast sinned against him, and disposed of thy goods after thy pleasure, without his advise, and contrary to his will: not that it repenteth thee, that thou didst bestow thy goods on the poor but because thou wert unwilling that he should have any share or part in so charitable a work. Is not the fact memorable, which is recorded of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, who restored a deed of gift he had received of a father that then had no children, unto him again, when afterwards he had children? For it is not likely nor to be presumed in any case that he had rather have another man to be his heir, than his own son; See here a far better judgement of filial duty, than that which those upstart pharisees put upon thee, viz. That there is neither sacrifice nor vow, nor any oblation that is to be preferred before the obedience which God commands unto children. But let us proceed and try by examples borrowed from him, that is both God and man, whether it be true that a man which is desirous to take the ministry, or to lead a monastical life, may renounce all kind of obedience, and that it is to no purpose for him to ask his father's consent and judgement in taking those orders upon him or no? I pray thee whom did Christ call to be his Apostles? called he such a one as thou art a young boy? and tell me if they left their ships, their nets, and all their tackling to follow Christ, did they for all that leave their parents? or if they left them did they leave them without leave? yea, which is more, did they that were husbands put away their wives, or did they which were fathers, for that cause forsake their children? Certain it is that james and john were above 25. years old, when they departed from their father. But did they further to show their more impudency in departing, leave judea and travail into Italy, Lorraine, or Spain? or else because themselves were Christians, could they not endure to look upon their fathers? or was his presence, speech, or conversation, irksome unto them? Had they done so, they should have done otherwise than their Lord and Master had done before, who (as I said) never went from Mary and joseph. But that I may demonstrate unto thee, that they went not out of their country, or father's houses, until such time as after Christ's passion, they were to go into the whole world, and that albeit after their calling, they accompanied Christ, yet nevertheless they were conversant at home, & dwelled with their parents; It is written that jesus came to the house of Peter and Andrew, where when he saw their mother in law sick of an ague, he cured her, and forthwith she ministered to him and to his disciples. Therefore to follow Christ was not to forsake one's friends, his parents, his wife, his children, or his household, yea (which is more) james and john, albeit they were grown in years, would not have followed Christ, if Zebedeus their father had not consented thereunto. For seeing they were together, with their father, when Christ bade them follow him, it cannot be but that either Zebedeus did express his consent in words, or imply it by holding his peace. But tell me whether thou thinkest all vocations be of one kind, as well they that proceed expressly from God's immediate will, as they whereunto the Church calleth us? God knoweth directly and changeth the hearts of men, therefore he is not deceived. But men in their elections do only conjecture and guess, wherefore they oftentimes exceedingly err? for to be a man and subject to error be terms convertible: as to be God and not to be subject to error. what then? why we had need use all diligence and be very wary, in these vocations so that no solemnity be passed over especially the consent & good leave of our parents. If I should allege that place unto thee, where Christ said unto his Apostles. Suffer little ones to come unto me, thou wouldst say, that there he speaketh of such as are young in age. And in very deed you shall find in the Gospel that these little ones were brought unto Christ, and that they came not of their own accord unto him, therefore he said not, Come unto me, but suffer them to come, and again forbidden them not, to teach that the calling of little ones, as well as their Baptism did depend both, upon their father's tutors and curators suit and promise made for them. But whereas it was said over and above, forbidden them not, that was not spoken to their parents but to the disciples, that found fault with such as brought them unto Christ: and this without doubt is spoken of such as are in their minority. But that which was before alleged, makes no distinction at all of any age. It is written to all in general terms, Honour your parents, I know when the son is once come to five and twenty, that then his father's approbation, yea his dissimulation, and which is more, his very silence, (such as was that of Zebedeus) goeth for his consent. But yet that, such as it is, is very requisite. Neither canst thou departed from thy father or mother if they be unwilling. What said I? from thy parents? I say thou canst not go from thy brethren or thy kindred (for S. Paul speaks generally of the whole family) but thou must perforce sin against God and be guilty of a cruel and faithless conscience. But I suppose there is a text alleged thee to the contrary, that when one of Christ's disciples desired him, that he would permit him to go and bury his father, before that he followed him, jesus replied unto him, Fellow me and suffer the dead to bury their dead, whereupon they dispute thus: Burial is a very religious and holy duty, especially if it be done to a man's father. But Christ nevertheless willeth us rather to attend him, than the burial of our parents. Again, laymen are accounted as dead men, for they which are so hampered and entangled in the pleasures of this world, that they cannot swim out of them, may justly be esteemed for drowned and dead men. Hence saith S. Paul, The widow that liveth in pleasure, is dead while she liveth. 1. Timoth. 5.6. The clergy men on the contrary may properly be said to live: For they are the part and portion of the living God, therefore well may he be said to abstain from the dead, who hath left his father and his mother to follow Christ (that is as they make it) to be a jesuit. Very acutely collected, Sir, but we have our answer in a readiness for you. First it followeth not, that whatsoever was pronounced of Christ must forthwith necessarily be applied to the Clergy, and all such at have betaken themselves to a regular course of life. Indeed all his doctrine was delivered over unto them, but not all power, saith Tertullian, in his book of Chastity. And verily it is one thing, to embrace Christ and another thing to follow, so many orders of monks as be now adays; yea though there were small odds between them and those of whom Dorotheus spoke of old. secondly, when the father of that disciple was once dead, that exact reverence which perhaps he pretended to Christ, ceased, and was no longer to be performed. For it was certain that he was then no longer a son. lastly, the Lord commanded not that the burial should be wholly omitted, but that it should be procured to be done by some other, and whosover that was, he was said to celebrate his father's funeral, in regard that we commonly call all those, which are departed out of this life before us, our fathers or forefathers. The charge and cost of funerals is a public business, saith Papinian the sanctuary of the law, whence also justinian in his 43. and 59 Novel manifestly showeth, that in Constantinople the charge and expenses of funerals was wont to be defrayed out of the public treasury. Why therefore should this celebration hinder the disciple from following Christ, since that it might be done as well by another as by himself. But yet there is great difference whether children destitute their parents in malice or pure simplicity. This exposition will serve thee against all these arguments wherewith they have beguiled thee. If thy parents be dead, that is if they be jews. if Idolaters, if Pagans, if Infidels, & if the son contrariwise be a christian, if a Catholic, and the father would bury this his son with him, that is, command him to commit idolatry, leave this father and follow me (saith Christ) let the dead bury this dead. That these words ought so to be taken, and understood, is clear bothout of S. Ambrose, when he saith, The son is not dissuaded from his duty towards his fathers, but a believer is severed from the fellowship of an unbeliever. And also out of S. Austin as well in that one book of observations on S. Matthew, as in his first book to Marcellian concerning the Baptism of children. Canst thou therefore persuade any man that the jesuits only live the best kind of life, and that we miserable christians, because we are of the laity must be reputed for dead and buried. S. Hierome writing unto Furia thinketh far otherwise: whosoever believeth in Christ (saith he) liveth. And Tertullian in his book, de carne Christi, doth not therefore rank Martion among those that were dead, because he was not a Monk or an Hermit, but because whilst he was an heretic, he was not truly and properly a good christian. But we fathers, poor men though we be, even we are believers we are called the sons of God, his friends, his brethren, and coheirs with him, and we also are made partakers through him of the holy Ghost. As many as have a true faith, and lead an upright life, yea although they work not miracles, nor cast out devils, yet they are holy, saith S. Hierome in his 59 Homily. But if you pretend the same, yea, if thou boast of greater things than these, why this also is our benefit, this also is our advantage. For if you ask any of us Christians of what religion we are, every of us being taught by you, can make you this answer: of the same religion, whereof our fathers and ancestors were. There was no oath more inviolable, than that which we swore by our father's faith, saith Philo, who borrowed this sentence of an ancient Philosopher: therefore why thou shouldst so excredinglie despise us, now there is no reason: or if thou wilt needs contemn us, do it then, when we can expect nothing from thy hands but our burial. You shall have in this case if not the meaning, yet the words of Christ to his Disciples, when our Saviour Christ said unto him follow me, he well knew that his father was now dead, saith the same S. Ambrose in this very place. But I believe the text in S. Matthewes Gospel hath most seduced thee. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me: And again in S. Luke, if any man cometh unto me and hateth not his father and his mother, his wife and his children, his brethren and his sisters, yea and his own soul, he cannot be my disciple. These and such like places seem to yield thee great and forcible arguments for thy defence: but since those reasons and authorities, which we have already brought to the contrary, be as pregnant and forcible to all intents, it had been your course to infer, that surely these latter places do require some farther exposition and declaration, lest God should seem to be contrary, or to contradict himself. For, I pray you, tell me, what manner of doctrine is this, or what kind of religion may this be called, which teacheth, that a man of necessity must hate his father, and his mother, his wife, and his children, his brethren and his sisters, yea his own dear soul also that will be Christ's disciple, if we should stick unto the words and not stand unto the meaning? for if he that should hate his father, must therefore be a good disciple, doubtless he that should well beat him, were worthy to be a patriarch, and he that should kill him, might exceedingly well deserve to be a Pope. See how many absurdities and mischiefs, would arise from these words, not ill conceived, but il understood. So S. Chrysostome in his 36. homily, upon S. Matthews Gospel, he did not absolutely command thee, to make invective speeches, against thy familiar friends and acquaintance, for that were an action savouring of indiscretion, and might procure harm. But look how much any other desires to have thee love him more than me, hate him, saith he, so much the more. I confess then that we ought rather to love God than our parents: and that is the lesson which Solomon teacheth us, begin your love with me, as Origen witnesseth. Which is also spoken by S. Ambrose on S. Luke, if men ought to perform duty to their parents, how much more than ought they to render their most bounden duty, to the creator and maker of their parents, in yielding him always thanks, that gave them parents. But I am much mistaken if the consequence hold, ergo, it is more blessed, to become a Franciscan Friar, or a jesuit, than either to love or reverence thy father. For christian religion is grounded especially upon faith, but doth not depend, upon this or that particular order of religion. Nay I may further tell you may a general Council have been summoned, that never confirmed or approved these orders. And if (put case) it be a degree of more perfection to be a Clergy man than a lay man, I think it must not be inferred, ergo, a son need not refrain any stubborn undutiful or ungodly behaviour to his parents, if he intent to be a Priest rather than a lay man. God hath no where (that I can find) laid any such precise commandment, on either of us both to be Priests, his especial charge to thee wards, is that thou shouldst do me honour, by all means. Hast thou then wilfully done me this open wrong? thy sin is of so heinous a nature, that God's curse & man's  upon thee for it. For I tell thee son it is a matter of mere indifferency to be one of the jesuits company. A man may be a good christian, and walk in the way of Christ, which is the path to everlasting life, and yet never turn jesuit for the matter. And therefore it ill became thee to put by an act of absolute necessity, for a project of thine own private fancy, & voluntary concept, as S. Thomas very wisely informeth thee. I pray thee tell me, if there were two ways to follow Christ in, and the one were so fair and plain, that thou mightst love me, and thy saviour Christ also, the other so stony and craggy that unless thou didst perfectly hate me, it were impossible for thee to love him, which of these ways wouldst thou rather choose? but (O son) S. Matthew and S. Luke are so clear in this point, that there is not so much as the least letter which may cast thee into any such labyrinth, or intricate maze. Read these Evangelists and read them from the beginning to the end, thou shalt find it delivered, that if question be of undergoing martyrdom for Christ (which they call to carry the cross and follow him) and these two should be in terms of opposition, To deny God before men, or to honour and love one's father, it is far better to hate father, yea to hate himself and his own foul, than once to distrust the promises of his sweet Saviour Christ. So than if I should have persuaded thee to abjure the Christian baptism, whereunto I first brought thee, and might well enough have been thy Bishop in it, had I advised thee to cast away that most precious pearl, which S. john the Apostle gave him that told him where he might find the wolvish God, that had year by year had 12. young children offered up unto him for sacrifice, had I requested thee to renege Christianity, to entertain Mahometisme, Atheism, or heresy (I may not have thee tell me now with Saluianus, that such a time may happen, wherein some thing that is not God ought to be preferred before God) then mightst thou by virtue of this scripture, in these cases have lawfully refused to do me such duty, and reverence, as appertaineth to a father: and Saturus, or the worthy Lady Victoria, would have been good precedents for thy imitation (of whom Victor the Bishop reporteth in his first book De persecutione Vandalica, that they had rather be held from their children, parted from their husbands, deprived of all their worldly wealth, than by any seducements whatsoever, become Arrians. In such a case it would have been good for thee, to have been without father or mother like Melchisedech, who was therefore said to be without both, because he was a devout holy man, though his parents were wicked, and cruel Canaanites. Heathen people love their native country exceedingly, and none can have any part in their love but their parents. Now we (saith Pontius, S. Cyprians Deacon) we detest and abhor our very parents, when once they go about to persuade us for any thing against our God. But sith we are both good christians and catholics, who should prevail more with thee than myself, that have done more for thee than all the world beside? if any father might be justly despised of his child, abused and wronged by him, choked with that text in Leviticus (I am ignorant, I know you not) certainly it were such a father, as should dedicate his children to strange Gods, or advow them to the worship of the molten Calf, according to that of Moses, (let thy hand be upon them and power forth their blood which would seduce thee from the truth) in which place notwithstanstanding, maybe observed as also out of the 32. of Exodus; that although Moses in this case, allows of parricide, yet he exemplifieth it in the wife, in the son, in the brother, in the sister, in the kinsman and friend, he makes no mention at all of the father. So sacred, venerable, and inviolable is that name of a father, nothing may lawfully be attempted against a father. Read the Epistle of Moses, Maximus, Nicostratus, Rufinus, and other Confessors (it is the 77) to Cyprian, thou shalt find these words understood in this sense; peruse likewise Chrisostome in his 65. homily upon S. Matthew, where he expounds them. These words (saith he) to my understanding, closely do betoken persecutions. For many sons have been drawn to wicked courses by their parents, many husbands by their wives, which whensoever they attempt, let them neither be respected for wives, nor parents. And the author which wrote on the same Evangelist in his 27 homily. It is not to be believed (saith he) that God which commanded thee to honour thy father and mother, would bid thee forsake father and mother: if therefore thou hast an unbelieving father, continue thy obedience to him for in so doing, thou shalt receive the reward of thy duty, and contrariwise he shall find the condemnation of his infidelity. And therefore our Saviour said not he that loveth his father is not worthy of me, but he that loveth his father or mother, more than me, is not worthy of me. For as to love our parents after God it is duty, so to honour them more than God, is plain impiety. If therefore (he repeats it again) thou hast an unbelieving father, still obey him, but if he would have thee swallowed into the gulf of infidelity, love God more than thy father, for he is the father not of the soul, but of thy body only. Howsoever yet, he doth not require that the son upon any such occasion, should desert him by his bodily presence, but by dissenting from him in point of religion. Mark how these words of the old law, these men, saith the Lord, have kept my commandments, which have said unto father and mother we know you not) are expounded by Philostratus sometimes Bishop of Brixia, and S. Augustine's ancient in his book of heresies. You are not to understand hereby, to condemn your father, for begetting you, but to condemn the gross impiety of your father that would misled you. And this was the opinion of Salonius Bishop of Vienna, writing upon Ecclesiastes. For the profession of our faith in Christ, we must contemn, yea and hate, father and mother, and all our kindred, when they be any stops or impediments unto us, in the way of the Lord: as we read that the holy Martyrs, many times did: whence it is that S. Austin in his sermons, saith, these words, seem to encourage men to martyrdom. Finally, Christ jesus himself being ready to give up the ghost (to speak in the words of Arnold the Abbot) that he might superlativelie commend this noble and great article of the second table, Honour thy father and thy mother, and that by all the bonds and leagues of piety, doth give & bequeath it to his mother the blessed virgin, (woman behold thy son) and to his best beloved disciple S. john, (behold thy mother). And that S. john was likewise of his master's mind, Prochirus relateth Chap. 21. for having baptised Chrysippa in the Island Pathmos, and she would thereupon in all speed leave her unbelieving husband, S. john told her, no, that is by no means to be permitted, for God hath not sent me to separate man & wife, I have no such commission, & therefore return in peace to your own house. For if it were lawful, that a woman might separate herself from her husband, yet were it not expedient (saith Austen in his book De Adulterinis coniugijs) to Pollentius. Now if it should be said, that in these days there be no martyrdoms, and therefore the former exposition will not now hold: then Gregory the great in his 37. homily De Diversis evangelii lectionibus, will give this interpretation, that the place is to bemeant of concupiscence, and carnal affections. For than saith he, we truly hate our own soul, when we repose not ourselves on carnal desires, when we subdue our inordinate appetite, and strive against our delicious pleasures. Yea but the jesuits buzz into thy ears, that 'ttwere better for thee to spurn and trample thy Father under thy feet than to be without a cowl. Well, than I would feign know for my better learning, whether S. john Chrysostom attained to the true sense of these words, of S. Matthew and S. Luke, (now we are come to be tried by God & the Church) when in his first book de Sacerdotio, he reports of himself (and so doth Leo the Emperor report of him in a certain panegyric oration) that having finished the course of his studies in the University of Athens he returned to Antioch, and there through the often admonitions of one Basilius (for it was not Basil the great, if we may take Simeon Metaphrastes his word.) had a great longing to have been a monk, who hindered him from his course of devotion, for he was pitifully perplexed a long while? It was no conceit of nonage, he was then 25. years old, and was a pleader in the Court: 'ttwas no respect of reverence to his father (for he was departed out of the world:) 'twas not that his resolution was somewhat staggered by the remembrance of his old friends and fellows, for he more regarded Basile then them all? how then, where was the impediment? it was observance to his poor mother: for when she set upon me with this speech, O son I was a fresh young beautiful widow, when I refused the proffers of a second marriage, thereby to enable myself to do thee the more good, and then (alas poor child) when thou wast a small infant, all my care was, that thou mightest have plentiful means for thy education and preferment; And now in lieu of all these my kindnesses, in stead of all those thanks and comforts which so many benefits might challenge from thee, canst thou find in thy heart to forsake me now? to contemn and disdain me now? make me twice a widow? and waken my time of mourning which was now laid asleep? why tell me (good son) didst thou ever lack any thing that I could help thee to? did I ever wrong thee in all my life? If thou wilt needs enter into a monastery, why first see me honestly buried in my grave? Hark: dost thou not hear the voice of the Lord crying aloud [son honour thy mother Authusam.] Surely he performs fair obedience to God's commandments, that by such demeanour grieves his mother: O son hadst thou done for me all that possibly a son can do for his mother, yet hast thou paid me nothing for my manifold sorrows, for my throbs in childbed, which for thy dear sake I so patiently endured, for my pains in bearing thee, for the sustenance which I gave thee, when I stroked my breasts into thy lips, with the true affection of a most natural mother! What have I for my hunger and fasting which I sustained for thee, when I refrained to eat any thing that might hurt thee, and drink any thing that might mar my milk. If I kept fast, it was for thee, if I did eat, it was for thee, If I refused any meat, it was for thee, if I accepted of any meat it was for thee, and many a night I have watched for thee, and many a bitter tear have I shed for thee, and dost thou now utterly forsake me? I could hold out no longer (saith he) but forthwith yielded, as being strongly overcome with a reverent respect to so good a mother. And thereupon he makes his excuse to Basilius, and in despite of all these arguments (which have been forcibly bend and discharged against thee) choose rather to continue with his mother, than to abide in a monastery. He himself writing afterwards to Basilius, useth these words: I confess I have broken my promise, for when I left Athens, & such familiar acquaintance as I had in that university, my purpose was to have addicted myself wholly to your company, and with you to have spent my days in contemplation. But I have broken my word and that not upon any wilful disposition (I would have you so to understand me) but, for that one law hath more prevailed with me than another, I mean that law which requires dutiful obedience unto parents, more than the sociable Law of friendship and good fellowship. Now parallel thyself with S. Chrysostome. When thou wast yet in thy nonage, all thy contriving was, how to be a jesuite; fatherless, I am sure thou wast not, except thou wilt say thou wert fatherless in this sense, that thou hadst a Father, but such a one as thou didst not care for: nor motherless, for, that thou hadst a most kind and loving gentlewoman to thy mother. How was it then? that neither thy father's authority, nor thy mother's tender love and affection might ought prevail with thee in not attempting any thing without their approbation and advice. Thou hast shunned their presence, wandered up and down the world like a vagabond, and for three whole years together concealed thyself, after such a manner of insolent indignity and arrogancy, that in all that long time, thou hast neither vouchsafed to write me one letter, nor send me so much as one word how I might know to find thee out, either in France, Lorryne, or Spain. Perhaps, you stood in some fear that your Mother Hortensia should affront you with such an encounter as this. Why son, if God should have called away thy Father (which I hope never to see) what stay should I have found in the world after him? Thy brethren, alas poor souls they be too young. And what hope could I have had from them, that have thee for a pattern of disobedience? No doubt God is much bound unto you for your good service done unto him, that in a jealous comparison thereof, cannot endure any commerce or correspondency with your parents? no not so much as for the return of a few letters? If this you have done upon some nice conceit, that they respect you too too near, because you are of their blood, and alliance, yet remember withal they be good Christian folk, not pagans, and that this tender affection of theirs proceeds rather from a fear of thy well doing, than from any doubt which they can possibly make of the articles of their Christian faith and religion. It was not without good cause (I perceive now) that good Veturia refused utterly to be employed in embassage to Martius Cariolanus her son. For what saith she, shall I get at his hands? what shall all my little nephews get, when he that hath lived in banishment for 4. years together, in all that while never sent me so much as one letter? hath quite forgotten his kindred, as well as his native country, which (might I speak like a mother) most uncourteously and undeservedly condemned him. She notwithstanding all this, embarked herself in the message, and forced him to come in, by no other stratagem of war than the name of a mother. What thinkest thou? art thou more religious than S. Chrysostome, more hard hearted than was Coriolanus? yet he came to meet his mother half way, thou fliest from thine, and eschewest her very presence. What? fearest thou to write unto me? in God's name write, writ without date of day or year. Indeed if S. Basil be your countenance for this irreligious devotion, the imputation were the less, and the fault more excusable on you part, I must needs grant.  
But (I fear me) that we have little advantaged our cause all this while by quoting of so many ancient Fathers, except it be, the filling up of a long empty catalogue with names. Our best way therefore in my judgement to deal with thee, will be with some records and precedents of antiquity. And whereas S. Chrysostome hath written some books, against such as discommend the monastical life, & hath given counsel to parents to take some care that their children be trained up in such speculations, rather than to make them swordmen or of the long rob, his intent is thereby in preferring that kind of life before any other, to advise men rather to bestow their children in a course of religion, than a secular employment; but not to make them in any sort disobedient to their friends, and in despite of them to abandon cities, and inhabit vast mountainous deserts, nay he wills them after some time spent, after they have been well seasoned in Christianity, to repair home again to their parents. Which makes me to think that the Monks of that world, were not termers for life in their monastery, as now they use to be, but at courtesy to return home when they list. Again read the same S. Chrysostome in his books de providentia, there you shall observe how he spends himself in comforting Stagyrius the Monk, who was therefore vexed with a devil, because that contrary to the advice of his Father, he had cast himself into a cloister, and whom for that cause, he terms an intruding Friar. But Stagyrius was then of ripe years and his father had not expressly forbid him that calling, only he counseled him otherwise. S. Austin himself and S. Ambrose in his first book, De Virginibus, towards the end, proves that parents should not hinder a daughter from consecrating herself to theseruice of the Church, but yet withal so, that a Father may (if his pleasure be) peremptorily to forbid it. And doth not Saint Austin in his 109 and 110. epistle to Ecdicia plainly say, that she had made a deed of gift of her son in her life time, whereby to kill him, in that his father was not first made acquainted therewith, what course of life upon more maturity and discretion he afterwards might follow, to be either a Monk a Priest, or a married man: therefore till he came to such an age, his father's voice and consent was absolutely necessary thereunto: but the conclusion of all is, that the son borne in lawful and holy Wedlock is more to be in subjection to the Father than to the mother. And therefore he cannot be denied him wheresoever he be, when once he is lawfully demanded. The same Father in his 233. Epistle to Benenatus, doth not he write of a certain girl, that as the report went, would feign have been a Nun, how he consulted about the matter with Felix her Aunt's Husband, and that otherwise he neither could nor would have given way unto it. What would his opinion have been (think you) of her mother, whose direction and will in bestowing of her daughter, was ever to be preferred before all others? Without doubt if the mother's interest be so much, the father's is a great deal more, and so great as he would not have much demurred, whether the son were under years or above, for such a question would never have been proposed. Lastly, I appeal to thy conscience (good Father Saluianus) wast thou a stranger to this new Church discipline, when thou tookest such extraordinary pains to Hepatius and Quieta, that they would please to excuse that action of their daughter Palladia, for that she was converted from Paganism to Christianity, without their privity? do I say her action? nay to excuse thine own, that after the birth of thy daughter Auspiciola, refrainedst the company of thine own wife, the better to give thyself to fasting and prayer, having no warrant so to do from thy father in laws permission. When they betrothed Palladia to thee, they gave her to a Christian husband, and thereby sufficiently expressed their consent that she likewise for her behalf should become a Christian. Yea and certain it is, that a little after this blessed match, thy wives parents that so dearly affected their daughter, became Christians also. Howsoever than they might have taken it ill at thy hands, that undertookest this without their special leave, (for what hope could they conceive of any grandchild to be borne under that marriage, where the man and wife lived a part?) what reproach was it unto them, that in a matter of such weighty importance they should not be worthy so much as to be looked after? If they for such an insignious contempt done unto them should have said unto thee, Sirrah, pack out of our sight, and writ letters upon letters as long as thou list, and it be seven years together thou shalt receive not one line from us in way of answer, (and yet I must have told you that Palladia now after the enter-marriage, belonged not to her Father but to her husband's disposition) couldst thou in defence of thyself have said, that it was a point of fervent zeal to Godwards, first to hate and set at nought thy Father? Oh, but read his epistles, and read them over, thou wilt tell me another tale: there is nothing but bitter tears, pitiful suits: and begging pardons, although saith he, for my part, I do not well know how, or wherein I have offended them. Now upon these premises, see how I could conclude against thee: I have written many letters to thee, but never received any one for answer back again. Thou art not yet come to years of discretion, thou hast entered into a vow, (I will not say of chastity but of single life,) and never told me of it. Poor soul, how couldst thou make any vow at that years? thou canst not defend thyself and say, why but Father, I had your consent, though you did not openly express it. For thou knowest well enough that I did mainly withstand it: in a word whereas thou hast revolted to the jesuits company, 'tis not paganism that thou hast forsaken: but the holy fellowship and Communion of thy Christian brethren. Why then dost thou not upon thy bare knees ask me forgiveness, thou hast more reason so to do, son, than ever Saluianus had: for he in humility acknowledged his offence, but thou canst not be brought to confess thine. Now I pray thee, son, bethink thyself how grievously this holy man would have been affrighted with the remorse of his disobedience, if he had offered such wrong, I will not say to Idolatrous parents, such as they were, but to believing, whereas he takes on so much, for being the occasion of their heaviness, which were yet infidels, and not his parents by birth, but by affinity only, and thought himself no good Christian, for not honouring them, as God's commandment would have enjoined to honour his natural parents, that is, without distinction of being good or bad, jew or Gentile, faithful or unbeliever.  
Doubtless he took this lesson out of Aristaeus, where King Ptolemy ask one of the 72. interpreters, how he might be kind and thankful to his parents, received this answer, that the next way was, never to grieve or molest them. Or else he had read the description of the last judgement in the Poet where they are ranked among the damned ghosts by Sibyila, 
That do forsake their aged Sires, and care not to reward  
Their parents which did foster them, or spitefully refuse  
To do them service at their need, or them with soornes abuse.   
Certain it is, that Bishop Faustus in his first book De libero arbitrio, and the twelfth chapter, interpreting those words in the Gospel, Let us nowfeast and be merry, for this my son was dead and is alive, lost and now is found, expounds the loss to be his departure from his father: he was not lost in person (saith he) but he that forsook his father, and by such his contempt was no better than a dead man, by a dutiful desire that he had to come home to his father, was again revived, and restored to life. For as it was a sin in him, to travail into a far country, out of his kind father's presence, so was it a point of his good nature and duty, resolutely to change his course, and to return with tears to his father's merciful embracements.  
And now I take it to be high time, to cease to instance any farther by example, and directly pass over to the decrees and Canons of the Church, least happily it be replied, that all which is hitherto alleged, is but for particular ends, and not sufficient to prove the general assertion. For albeit, I must ingenuously confess, an Idolatrous father may be destituted and forsaken by his son, if he should offer upon violence to compel him to Paganism (as Theodoret hath it it his third book and fourteen and 22. Chapters, and Chrysostome in his second book, against such as discommend the retired and solitary life) yet if there be no compulsion used, I can show you general and provincial Counsels both, which have ordained, that neither the father may forsake the son, nor the son the father, nor the wife her husband, nor the servant his master, for this cause only, that they differ in religion. Sir it is not your Friar's cowl, nor Monk's habit, nor any order of knighthood, that ye can enter into, shall ever be able to raz or blot out, that fast tie and obligation, which in this case, God and men have interchangeably sealed and delivered the one to the other It is a fashion well becoming Barbarians and heretics (so saith Bishop Victor in his first book De persecutione Vandalica) to separate husbands from their wives, or children from their parents. And when Valentinian the Emperor like a most glorious Prince, had authorized the profession of Christian religion, and the city of Carthage, whence by reason of Arrianisme it was for a season exiled, the first work that the Bishop did, was, that all marriages should hold though the parties were of different religion, and parents should have their children again, that the Arrians had forcibly taken from them.  
So then to begin our relation with the story of a slave. If he would fall off from his master because he was a Gentile or a jew, might not the favour of liberty, but especially of religion, plead his excuse? the Canons, which be termed the Canons of the Apostles, flatly say no. If servants be promoted to holy orders without their master's consent, ipso facto, their masters may challenge them back again for slaves, (it is to be found in the 81. Chapter, But if any person of servile condition be worthy the degree of holy orders (as was One simus and the master yield thereunto) after they be enfranchised and made free men, it may be done. The Council of Gangrene which was held An. 324 and somewhat after the Nicene, forbids it likewise, saying: Let him be accursed whosoever he be that shall seduce another man's servant to be undutiful to his master under colour or occasion of his religion, and doth not rather teach him to serve him with an honest heart and all due observance, that so he may be a free man of Christ, (as Ignatius supplies it) let him be accursed. Certain it is, that this is to be meant of the slaves of heathen, and the religion there mentioned is to be intended of the Christian. But in the Council held at Orleans under King Childebert, there is a great deal more: for over and beside that it disavows the voluntary oblation of a slave to the service of the Church, without his master's knowledge, it lays a penalty upon the Bishop that so admits him: to wit, that in six months after, he is not to celebrate. justinian in his 123. novel Constitution, appointed a certain time, wherein the master was to recover his slave from the Church, but Leo the 9 made an act, that the challenge should still hold and be perpetual. Yea but if you say the case is altered, in a Monk, for his estate being regular, is more to be privileged than a secular priest. Charlemmaine (as it should appear by a certain constitution of his) is of a contrary opinion. Let no man, saith he, entice another man's slave, to become a Priest or a Monk, without leave and licence of his master (you may read the Act in the 20. and 27. Chapter. The primitive Church observed as much, not that she thought God was any way dishonoured by the ministery of a poor slave, (for with God all men are alike) how then? Tertullian against the heretic Martion will give you the reason. Saith he, what action is there more unjust, wrongful, and wicked than so to demerit my servant, with your kindness, as that never afterwards he shall live to do me any more service? another man shall lay claim to him, and let me have any suit in law, he shall produce him for a witness against me, and that (which of all bad is the worst) even then, and at that time, whilst he lives in my house with me, lives upon my allowance, trembles and quakes under the stripes of my rod. A wise man should be as sparing to do another man's wife, his slave, free man, or any under his charge, any courtesy extraordinary, as to procure them any harm. For a man cannot possibly inveigle or allure any of them, but withal of necessity he must bereave them particularly of that love and truth which in conscience the wife should bear to her husband, the slave to his master, the freeman to his patron, and lastly the subject to his sovereign. And no doubt by God's grace, but he that lives in subjection to another man's rules, in that course of obedience, may be partaker of eternal bliss: whereas he that spurns and murmurs in that he is called to be a servant, should I say, divorceth himself from the religion & faith of Christ, nay maliciously reneges it, which consists wholly in love and obedience, except there be some such action enjoined, which is directly opposite to piety. And so writes S. Chrysostome in his 35 homily upon those words of S. Paul, Children obey your parents in all things.  
Now concerning wives (for that is our next passage) ye find it thus decreed, Let neither Bishop, Priest or Deacon, put away his wife, under colour of religion: if he do, let him be excommunicated, and if he so continue, let him be degraded. The same Canon is thus transcribed into Gratians decree, at the 28. distinction, whosoever shall teach that a Priest upon pretence of religion, may refuse his wife, let him be accursed. And the Fathers assembled in the Council of Gangrene published this decree, that whosoever should put a difference between a married or unmarried Priest, as though his marriage disabled him from administering the holy communion, and for that cause refuseth to communicate with him, let him be accursed. And a little after: Whosoever shall condemn marriage, or think that a faithful devout woman, cohabiting with her husband, is therefore judicially to be indicted, as if, forsooth, the married couple could not possibly enter into the kingdom of heaven, let him be accursed. What canst thou say for thyself to the contrary? dost thou not find by these laws, that as well she is to be reputed for an excommunicate person, which upon pretence of living continent, lives a part from her husband, and refrains his bed, as they, which stand so highly upon commendation of chastity, (and because they would be termed abstinent) do vilify and disgrace the holy estate of wedlock?  
Now concerning parents and children, their obligation, as well as their relation, is mutual. Therefore the Synod saith thus much first of parents: Whosoever shall forsake his own children, & shall not bring them up, as it is the part of a father, and give them not things necessary, but under pretence of living continently, thinks they may be forlorn let him be accursed. Son, thou never foundest me yet defective in any one point, that a kind father should do for his child, which if I had I must have been extremely negligent, and so reputed in the judgement of Ptolemy. I have maintained, cherished, and taught thee: for Greek and Latin, I dare be bold to say, thou hast been instructed, so far forth, as was fitting for a young gentleman, Thy good uncle Monsieur james Aerodius the precedent, and myself, have made it our eager contention (as indeed we exceed both in our love and affection, towards thee) that thou shouldst fail of nothing that might be any way devised meet for any excellent purpose, that so finding the course whereunto thou wast most inclined, we might in time accordingly dispose of thee, (which Nazianzene saith was the fashion among the Athenians) or that thou mightest dispose of thyself, in case we were dead before, and thou come to full age. And have we this fair recompense for all our love and kindness to be forsaken by thee now, & not thought good enough to be spoken unto at thy departure. It is reported in S. Hieromes Epistles, that the holy matron Paula left both town and children, excepting only her young daughter Eustochia, whom she took in her company with her to Bethleem, upon a resolution there to live retired. But I must tell you, all these children (beside Toxotius) were come to years, and he was not left unprovided neither, for the mother made him, and his sister Rufina, that was marriageable, her sole executors, and gave them all that she had, and appointed them guardians to oversee them. And the like story you may read in Paulinus in his 10. Epistle to Severus, how he commends exceedingly the holy woman Melania, that having buried her husband, and being the mother of one little boy, left him behind her, sailed to jerusalem, and there betook herself to a life of more perfection. But she left him (which likewise would be observed,) exceeding rich, she left him kin, and allied to all the great men of Rome.  
But now that I may have a saying to thee, come on sir, stand near, and hearken to the doom which shall be pronounced against thee, and bethink thyself, who shall give thee absolution from the curse of the foresaid Synod, whereunto without doubt thou art notoriously liable. If any son (saith the 16. Canon) shall forsake their parents, especially such as are believers, taking occasion by pretence of religion, and shall not yield them more duty and reverence in that respect, let them be accursed. Now I pray thee, tell me truly did they conceal this Council from thee? I verily believe they did. I cannot be persuaded that thy judgement is so erroneous as to imagine that a son may do more against his father, than a slave against his master: as to imagine that it were a grievous sin for a father (not to provide for his children) and but a peccadilio in a son to stand out undutiful, despiteful, and contemptuous against his parents. See, the Council makes no distinction of believing parents or unbelieving, of children's minority or their fulage. But peradventure, they will privily whisper, and tell thee that this Council was but to hold for a time, not to continue. To this I answer, that the reverend fathers of the Church, for a long time after, approved that Synod, as you may find it recorded in the fifth general Council of Constantinople, and so did Gratian also in his Decrees: for to what purpose else did he incorporate it among them? lastly, that answer might stand for good, if the Council of Gangrene had intended their Canon against desertion of heathen parents only: for whereas Gentilism was then in more request and sway than Christianity, the greater care was to be taken for it, that they should not loathe our Christian religion too much (as possibly they would) and not unlike, but at that time, the Church might directly inhibit the believing man to forsake his unbelieving wife, unless in point of violence forced to paganism and Idolatry. But sure it is, that the councils meaning never was that Children should forsake their parents, because they were Christians, for it saith in express words: [Let children reverence their parents, if for no other end, yet for this, because they are Christians], a reason (as I conceive) that will ever hold for Christians: for Vigoreus, a writer of our time, cities the same Synod to this very purpose. But it will not be amiss in my opinion, to set down the cause and occasion of the summoning of this Synod. It was not because Pagan parents did make it their complaint of grievance, that their children did abandon and forsake them, the cause was clean contrary, which was, that they which were Christians left them which were of their own profession, and religion, malapert and saucy sons and trespass so against their parents, as thou hast lately done against me: marry, the difference if any be, is this, that they in former time, affected a true monastical retired life, and thou according to the fashion of the time, dost affect a profession barely consisting in an habit of apparel, and formality of words: they crucified the world to the flesh, and the flesh to the world, but men of your coat save half the labour; and crucify the world only. From whence then comes such a corruption in this discipline? I will tell you. About the time that some newe fangled fellows sprung up in the Church, and termed themselves Anchorites, Eremites or Monks, there steps me up one Eustatius, who led by an inconsiderate zeal, began wheresoever he came, to thunder out those glorious magnificent words written in the Gospel, [that they were unworthy of Christ, that loved Father or mother more than Christ,] and thereupon to infer that all things in the world are to be contemned and set at nought: as house, posisessions, parents, children, brethren, yea (and to make short work,) all the universal world, the better to live in some solitary hermitage, under some rule, and in some company severed and shut from all men. And why so think you? because it was nothing worth to be a Christian, except you had been also of the order of Eustatius. But what was the issue of this Doctrine? Sir this, that the wife would leave her husband, and be his wife: the servant his master, and he his servant: the parents their children, and they their parents: that Christians set light by marriage, and all duty else, which every man owes unto his country: that religion, which was wont to keep all in good order, was now become ringleader to all confusion and disorder. Lastly, that the Gentiles might well say (and Zozimus by name) The Christians be barren & unfruitful in all affairs of duty, which is a speech that Tertullian in his apologeticus, holds to be the most disgraceful & scandalous that over yet was uttered against Christians. But the sectaries of Eustatius rejoinde, why but this desertion is, because we would be the freer for the service of God. But the Fathers assembled in Council, condemn this fair occasion, and proved full & whole, that it was an act far more Christianlike and Religious, to worship and love our parents, (for that is the commandment of God) than so to serve God, as thereby to despise the parents, a thing which he utterly forbids. For God and parents may well be honoured together, but no man living can truly worship God without he honour his parents also. Thereupon this new founder Eustatius, shortly after changed his copy, and came to be a Bishop in the Church, and not a cloisterer. And that this was the true occasion of assembling that Council the very letter of that Council, as also Socrates, Sozomen, Isidor and Gratian in his 16. and 30. Distinct. do apparently testify. How now sir? Will so many and so weighty authorities do no good with you? for (I thank you) you have been bold to set my authority at nought? or are you eftsoons persuaded, that should I afford my consent never so much, you could not yet be a true and absolute jesuite? peradventure you are yet some what graveled in this doubt? so then let us take some view of that which they allege unto you out of S. Hierome, and withal consider, whether there be any cloister Divinity, or new found Gospel lately sprung up among them, to repeal these ancient Canons and decrees of the Church, which you in your brave ruff do so lightly esteem of. It may not be denied, but that S. Hierome writing to Heliodorus in commendation of a solitary life, useth these words [should thy little nephew hang fast clasping about thy neck: & thy mother with her tresses dishevelled about her ears renting & tearing her garments, discover those paps which gave thee suck: should thy father that begat thee lie down before thee in the way: pass over thy father, and trample him under thy feet, shed not a tear, but with an heroical resolution, fly towering up in high speed to the standard of thy saviours cross. Savage cruelty in such a case is your only pity. Doubtless, here is a right noble sentence and well becoming the high spirit of so excellent a Father in the Church: but before I clear the point, & show in what meaning this was spoken, wherein S. Hierome (as it should seem by this) makes such cheap reputation of parent's authority, and in so doing dishonours the chastity of all natural kindness: I would feign see that passage in him, concerning parents obedience, (it is in his Epistle de vitando suspecto contubernio) reconciled to this. There you shall read him thus, Father and Mother, saith he, are names of duty, words of respect, bonds of nature, and under God, the second truce and league of our love. It is none of your commendation to say you love them not, it is a notorious sin in you, if you hate them. Our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ was subject to his parents. He reverenced that mother to whom he was father, loved that nurse; whom he fostered, and forgot not that womb where he was conceived, nor those arms that so oft bore him. You will perhaps reply and say, but here lies the exception, when a son living under the government of his Father is once resolutely determined to go into a monastery, why then he may be bold to forbear all show of duty, and pass neither for good nature nor good manners. Then cruelty in that case may be interpreted mercy; incluilitie, good conditions; contempt obedience. But think not (good son) though S. Hierome used such a fair colourable speech to Heliodorus that if he should have dealt in earnest with him, he would have advised him, to ben so behaved, as his words do imply. God forbidden that S. Hierome should ever be taken for principal or accessary in parricide: that for the same very cause that Aeneas was surnamed the pious (as Virgil in all places styles him) 
Amids the scorching flames, and thousand shot of darts  
I rescued mine aged Sire, and made these shoulders bow  
To guard him from the enemy's troup.  For an action directly contrary, a Christian man should go about to merit, the same surname & appellation: or that S. Hierome by any means, should rather propose wicked Tullia for an instance of piety, that road in her coach over her father's coarse, than devout Aeneas, for an imitation to Heliodorus. Yea though he might purchase thereby all the kingdoms and signories of the world, or all the vast territories of hell, where ghosts Lord it, as paynim suppose: or lastly, that who so professed himself a Monk in such a scornful fashion to his parents, should be better thought of than Cleobis and Piton, that drew their aged mother in a litter, (to a place where she was to sacrifice) in stead of a pair of co●tch-horses. Or those brethren, which for they rescued their impotent parents, from the rage of a tempestuos fire, the people of Catanna, in a reverence of their devotion, called by no other name than the godlie-childrens. Certainly it is so far from S. Hieromes meaning to have his words perverted & drawn to the maintenance of such a barbarous crucity and impity, as that when he spoke this to Heliodorus, neither his Father or mother were then living: so that the inference is impossible that had his Father & mother forbade him to have been an Eremite in the wilderness of Syria, he would have gone over them, and stamped them under his feet. What then may S. Hieromes meaning be? why this: After Heliodorus had long time been a soldier in the wars, and dealt much in negotiating of state matters, growing into some years, and having no issue, (as we told you before) he bad farewell to the world, and in S. Hieromes company which was his puysne, vowed a solitary and retired life, and to that end they both entered into a monastery, lived there long time together, at last Heli●dorus had a great longing to see how his only sister, and her young son did: and there (lo) did he alter his former resolution, for there he betakes himself to the Church, and in stead of being a Monk, becomes a Clergy man. This was the time without all peradventure, when S. Hierome wrought these matters in commendation of the monastical life, being for years but a stripling, and almost a very boy, (as he speaks of himself in another place,) and coming fresh from the university, than he useth these flourishing speeches unto him, alluding from his secular to the heavenly warfare, interlacing withal such strong motives, and persuasions as friends use often to their friends, all to this purpose in effect, that whereas we are commanded to be eunuchs for Christ's sake, to put the very eyes out of our head if they offend, to leave and forsake all that we have in this present world, as if the case were desperate for a rich man ever to come to heaven, (a point whereof S. Austen discourses excellently in his 89. epistle to Hilarius) not to be careful for to morrow, to turn thy left cheek to him that smites thee on the right, and many more sayings of the like nature, which were they literally understood and not spiritually, without question, would fill the Church full with heresies, and yet concerning worldly wealth doth not S. Austen in an Epistle to Bonifacius tell us, a valiant Christian minded man should not be puffed up if he have it, nor be dejected if he lose it? was not Leontius a Bishop of Laodicea, condemned of the Church for dismembering himself? whereupon Anastasius a Bishop of Nice in his 73. and 79 question saith, what is meant by this Gospel, (if thy right eye offend thee, or thy right hand, cut it off from thee) Christ meant it not of our bodily parts and members, (God forbidden) but of our friends, and kinsfolk, for he slanders God's workmanship, that dismembers himself? And even S. Hierome himself, hath he not written so many things in that strain of vehemency for commendation of virginity and single life, that he seems in a manner to disallow and condemn all marriage? yet questionless he never meant it. For were it so that he spoke as he thought, and persuaded Heliodorus rather to make his way over his father's body, than to forsake that blissful estate (which as it seems in your conceit) the cloister affords, why then would he prefer Priesthood before it? indeed he confesseth that Heliodorus answer, may serve any other man's turn else, but cannot serve his own, who having professed in precise terms, the active life, might not without blame, renounce his former profession, and betake himself to an order of higher perfection, as namely Priesthood. Indeed he describes the good and happy estate of them that live in monasteries, and likewise how perilous and subject to all manner of temptations, their condition is, that live at large in the world and saith he was a glad man, to see him come up so high, but very fearful to think of his fall. So that he blames not Heliodorus, for leaving his cloister, nor his enterings into Priesthood, nay he persuades him not directly, to forsake the one, and return to the other. But because first he revolted from being a soldier, to become a Monk, and afterwards grew weary of his cowl, abjuring the profession which he undertook in S. Ieromes company, his endeavour is now by these forcible reasons, or rather rhetoric schemes and colours, to draw him back again into his monastery. And as for these words of the Gospel (he that loveth father or mother more than me) I pray mark whether Heliodorus answered S. Hierom well, that they were to be understood in case of martyrdom, or whether S. Hieromes reply to this answer, be sufficient. But be it as it may be, that no man should stand to too stiffly upon the authority of that speech, which is not altogether so true, as neat and elegant, observing more his words, than his meaning, for an upshopt of all, when he came to riper years, he recants that opinion, in an epistle written to Nepotian, who by this time also, was both in years and discretion grown to be a man. And as concerning such arguments, as he had proposed to Heliodorus, he saith he did it as a young man, after the fashion of the schools, when the fire of his study and learning in Rhetoric was not clean beat out of him for verily at that time, a man might freely enter into a monastery, and when him list leave him. And then the question was idle, whether a man might follow this course of life, without his parents liking, because then there was no such obligation by vows as now a days there is, and had a man misliked of his profession, his punishment was none other but the imputation of lightness and inconstancy, which is evident out of S. Augustine's epistle to his friend Boniface. The profession of being a Monk in those days was nothing else but the meditation, and exercise of the ancient, free, and truly christian manner of living. And therefore in this pretence, they might with much more honesty lose themselves from their kindred, and alliance. So then let no man father it upon S. Hierome, which makes nothing for his purpose. Indeed he went about to solicit some of his fellows, to enter into this kind of life with him, but every one liked it not, and among others Pa●●machius that was his chiefest friend, had least fancy unto it. For his desire was rather to live married than to be tied to such strict rules of religion. Only Bonosius followed him, and professed himself a Monk, not passing for mother, brother, or sisters, yet still respecting his father. Nay even S. Hierome himself, after he had been an Hermit for some time, returned back again to Rome. S. Austin indeed in his 76. Epistle, is not throughlie resolved in this point, whether a Monk forsaking his cel, might afterwards be in holy orders. Therefore bethink now with thyself, and consider it well, whether that assertion of S. Hieromes can be thy just excuse, I say whether it can be any just excuse, for thee that art not yet five and twenty years of age, that hast a father and mother yet living, that never madest any vow to the jesuits before hand, that art not hereupon either to renege Paganism, or to secure thyself from persecution, or to wander into vast and uncouth wildernesses, and there to continue, but to be entertained into as delicate and pleasant places and cities, as the worlds yield any, that hast an abbey for thy prison, and a good town for thy paradise. But make of S. Hieromes speech what can be made, make him of what age thou wilt, when he wrote this Epistle, if notwithstanding all this, the name of such a great workman so deeply with you, why may you not for your satisfaction herein parallel Heliodorus example with him? why not the example of Letus (especially if that be S. Austius epistle which is written unto him:) who having vowed a religious life, and that not in his minority but at man's estate, upon the sole discontent and grief which he conceived afterwards, because he had neglected the duty to his mother, in not making her acquainted with this vow, returned fairly home again to his country, which before in the hot zeal he bore to a religious life, he had abandoned. Why may you not oppose S. john Chrysostom's example. these men were never for all this, either the less holy, or worse Christians, most certain it is there is nothing can be a bar to a godly life. You may not plead pretence that you are married, that you are a father of children, that you are a soldier, a merchant, an artificer, a servant, a rich man, a beggar, (for so speaks S. Chrysostome in a certain marriage sermon.) I tell you one that dwells in the City, may come very near to a Monk's devotion, & a married man, that lives at home, may say his prayers, and fast, and be penitent for his sins, as the same Father also affirms in another place. Now that you may not thwart me, and say, that such precedents were proper only for the primitive Church, and that the comparison stood then betwixt gentilism and Christianity, betwixt a religious life in a cloister, and an upright godly life abroad in the world, when this controversy was treated of. I will produce you that very age wherein S. Bernard lived, and lastly to leave you without all scruple of doubt, I will answer an objection, which is made out of the Emperor justinian's constitution, which in some men's conceit, is very strong for the liberty of children, in dedicating themselves to the service of the Church, without their parents leave, to the intent, that having throughlie considered what can be alleged of both sides, thou thyself mayst be judge, and pronounce the sentence, whether this fact of thine which thou hast thus committed against me, be to be termed a fact of honest behaviour, or contrariwise altogether of unrespective demeanour. Here then the question consists generally between Catholics, nay in a far more narrow compass, than Catholics, it consists between monks: that holy Abbot had a nephew whose name was Robert, his father purposed to make him a Monk of the order of Cluniacenses, but he dying before his son was tendered, Robert professed himself a Cisterian Monk, and S. Bernard himself adopted him thereunto. Soon after this, certain Monks of the order of Cluniacenses, seduced the poor youth, and drew him from that Abbey to their own. Hear then began the brige between the two regulars. S. Bernard was the first man that accused this their fact, and said it was done by mere seducement and enueagling of the youth, in that they had used fraud, flattery, and crafty conveyance, to effect this their purpose. For they that should seduce his nephew, first attempted it by a novice of their order, after that by a Monk that was better able, lastly by one of their greatest Priors, amongst them. Then he laid to their charge, forcible intrusion, in that they had hurt the porters of the Celestina, and so rescued young Robert out of his cloister, as if they would have broken a gail. Without acquainting either the superior of the order withal, or the Abbot, or his uncle S. Bernard, now I pray thee tell me whether thy case and this be all one, first, because one that was penitentiary and Confessor there, buzzed this into thine ear, and after him, another that was master of the chamber, came and told thee that there was no estate of men so blessed, as the Regular was, and lastly the provincial of the order came, & said, that among all the regular, there was none comparable with your society, as being called after the name of jesus: but mark what S. Bernard alleages, and that will sufficiently refute and condemn your so highly magnified vocation and inspiration: there was no suit (saith he made for his admission by his parents, which the rule expressly enjoineth.) as though he should have said, albeit his Father when he was alive did much wish to have his son of the order of Cluniacensis, but being prevented by death never lived to see his desire fulfilled, and the common rule expressly requires, that he that will enter into a monastery, must be offered unto it first, by his parents, in the view and presence of some witnesses (for that is also in the rule) this wants in his profession, to your order of Cluniacensis: but these provisions, were not necessary or requisite, for his admission to the Cistertians, because than he was past his nonage, and was at his own choice and bestowing. Why then (exclaims the good Abbot) why then have you robbed me of my nephew? why have you bereft me of my joy? Why have ye taken away the fruit of my spirit, and the one half of my poor soul? might he not have been saved with me, if he had continued with me? O nephew saith he, the vizard of holiness hath beguiled thee, the pretence of religion hath seduced thee, the authority of the Ancients hath undone thee. Now surely if the good Abbot inveigh so bitterly against these monks, that thereupon he calls them ravening wolves, what might be fit for me to do against these jesuits that have robbed me in my life time of my son, in such an unworthy fashion? and when I challenge him, they deny him treacherously? peradventure they took some compassion of thee, as the monks did of young Robert. peradventure thou hadst been in state of damnation, if thou hadst remained with thy Christian Catholic parents, thy Uncles and Aunts, Brothers and Sisters. But if the bare changing of one monastery for another, was of such fearful sequel, that the poor soul was in danger of being damned for it (for so thinks S. Bernard) what will betide thee, that treadest under thy feet and in such a presumptuous insolent manner, spurnest at, not God almighty's commandments alone, but also the decrees and canons of our reverend prelate's and pastors? & why forsooth? not to change thy religion but thy habit, not the Church, but thy rank and order in the Church. Pray let me tell you what Vigorous once wrote in a sermon of his, which he made of S. Martin, it is written to us French men, you shall never find him vary in opinion from the ancient and most sanctified Church government: his words be these. S. Martin was a novice in the Christian religion, and not admitted into the congregation by the Sacrament of Baptism, and albeit he dwelled with his parents which were gentiles, yet did he perform all good offices unto them as became a Christian: (for the Law of God doth not acquit that obligation, wherein a son is bound to his Father, or a servant to his master. And surely the Church never taught Martin to be a rebel against his parents, but rather in all things to yield them due obedience and respect, so God were not offended.) Whereupon by reason of such reverent conformity unto his parents command he got this grant from them, that considering for what vocation he was most fit and addressed unto that they would be pleased to bestow him in, for questionless the son is not left to any such liberty, as either to marry or betake himself to any sort of living, without his Father's approbation, I say unto any sort of life, here's no limitation [except he will be a monk]. And now that we pass not over justinian the Emperor, grant him to be of the opinion, that for a son to vow a monastical life without his Father's consent, was neither a sin of ingratitude, nor any cause able in law to disinherit him. Doth it therefore follow that because it is no such heinous offence as parricide or incest, therefore it is no offence? or it deserves not disinheriting, therefore must it pass without all correction, or if it be no sin is it therefore no fault? Why I tell you, a son might not marry without his father's leave, put case he had married, there was no law could extend so far as to disinherit him, unless his wife were some lewd and infamous person: will your inference hereupon be, that therefore he offended not his father in marrying against his will, this is a notorious nonsequitur. And now sir, I tell you for your learning, let justinian speak or think as pleaseth him, all the Emperors before him made this case a matter of disinheriting: ask you me what warrant I have for it? marry sir this, because he professeth in this one point, to correct the ancient Civil Law, and this I tell you withal, that take all those Emperors together, especially those that were Christian Emperors, and I trust their joint authorities shall sway more, than justinian's alone: who in all likelihood might have as good leave, to err therein, as he did mistake in the matter of divorce, & in participating with the heresy of Eutiches. But certain it is that in the end of that constitution, [which is an act for bondmen coming to Christianity,] whereas justinian takes away the penalty of disinheriting, it is to be understood of such children of the Gentiles, as entering into holy orders, or monastical profession, were therefore emancipated in case they were sons, or ipso facto enfranchised, if they were bondmen. For had the act been general, comprising all, or more special extending only to the children of Christians, it is not to be presumed, but that he would have used some distinction, concerning their age, that thus betook themselves either to holy orders, or monastical profession; and have said, before fourteen years be complete there's a nullity if a man profess: after fourteen, there is none, the vow holds, and there is no danger of being disinherited for the matter. So then justinian's constitution (in the titles of Bishops and Clergy men) is in this sense to be understood, that whereas the cause of our Christian religion is to all intents much more favourable, than Pagan Idolatry, therefore Pagans children, lived they under their parent's verge and jurisdiction, or lived they without it, both the one and the other might vow and profess religion, without pain or peril of being disinherited, (the form whereof is described by Theodoret in his two and twentieth chapter:) and so might the bondmen of infidels be enfranchised, and in am of such manumission the church to yield no ransom back again unto their former masters as it was enacted before justinian's time, (the like provision is made also by Gregory the first in his second book, and 78. epistle; if a Christian maiden would become a Convert in any house of religion, against her masters leave) whereupon the close of the constitution follows in this manner, and thus much hath our Imperial majesty been pleased to ordain and decree in contemplation of God's cause and the enlargement of Christian Religion. And if it be lastly replied, yea but justinian made the same Law even for Christians also in 123. novel constitution, and one of the last Paragraphs there: Probable it is, and in all likelihood to intended, that the case in most men's opinions would have been hardly thought of, for one to be disinherited because he was a monk, for in so being, he still notwithstanding continued Say, and entered not into holy orders, He succeeded his father by inheritance, his goods escheated not to the Abbey, he kept himself still master of his own, (as it is evident out of the 239. epistle of S. Austin to Alipius (and as I said before) it rested in their own free choice whether they would still continue in their monastery, or forsake it. But when once vows of poverty and single life, came to be in request, it had been very idle, for the parents to have disinherited them, that ipso facto by their entrance into the monastery disinherited themselves, there was then no farther controversy to be made of the matter, but whether the profession would hold good against the Father's consent. Doth all this displease you sir, and stick you yet so close to justinian? To encounter him, I oppose the sixth general Council of Constantinople, I oppose that great Canon of the Church in both which the heavy sentence of excommunication which the Council of Gangrene pronounceth against all such kind of offenders, is again renewed & confirmed. But in a word to this foreign Emperor, (whose laws have no authority to bind us) I oppose the most excellent and flourishing Princes of our own native country, the decrees & constitutions of our French Church, the most common and received opinions of all men, and the book cases as they were debated and determined in the court of Parliament. Charles the great, with the advice and consent of his Lords spiritual and temporal enacted sundry laws about Church matters (my Author for that which I deliver is Ansegistus) amongst the rest, these be some in the fift book, and 95. Chapter.  
Now concerning boys and young maidens it is flatly forbidden that either the one should be clipped, or the other veiled, without leave of their parents. And whosoever shall attempt aught against this act, shall be liable to that fine and amercement which is mentioned in some of the branches of our temporal laws, and in deed the fine in that Salic law is under the title of them which either kill or clip young boys or maiden children. Where it would be principally noted, that in the intent of the law, it is absolutely all one, to kill our children and to match them to a monastery against their parents liking. For I pray tell me, is it not a kind of murder so to tyrannize over them, that now they must become aliens to their own parents, no kin to their kinsfolk? must die intestate, leave no issue, keep no company, must never see them so long as life lasteth, as though they were dead men, and out of mind? I ever before this thought that the Fabian law had only taken order with these purloining companions and manstealers. But now I find that this great Emperor hath brought them within compass of the Cornelian law, and made them murderers. So then to sum up all in a word, what manner of reproof is this, what a strange kind of challenge, that such holy and blessed men forsooth our Saviour Christ should not only deem hypocrites, the Church accursed miscreants, the law manstealers, S. Bernard wolves, but the Emperor should brand them also for murderers? Look to it in time Sirrah, and look to it, that such and the like enormeous crimes do not turn you and your mates one day out of this country and all the king's dominions, for some such kind of spiritual murder, as hereafter you are very like to have a hand in. And now let us take a short view, of that which remains whether there be any such statute at this time in force, as was that of Charles the great. Charles the ninth a Prince of famous memory in a Parliament holden at Orleans, the 19 article, makes this order, that no parents, guardians, or kinsmen, man or woman, should suffer either their children or their wards to enter into any monastical profession, unless the one first, were going into five and twenty, the other into twenty. And if any were professed before such times, the parties so professed might nevertheless have power and interest to make and declare their last wills and Testaments (ever with this proviso) that they bequeathed nothing therein to their monastery, any former law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. This constitution is of larger extent, than the Council of Mentz in their 16. and 20. question, the third and seventh Chapters. For in case any man before such age should have shaved his crown, the intendment of the law is, that it was done in fraud and covin altogether, and to satisfy the monks hungry covetous humour. Furthermore it is so short of permitting children before that age, to enter into religion without parents leave and liking, that it expressly forbiddeth parents, guardians, or kinsmen, to give any such leave. Now if reports and book cases can do any good with you, see here is the judgement of a parliament assembled both of Lay and Ecclesiastical persons as it was punctually given in thy very case, by name (a case peradventure, which the jesuits of purpose have concealed from thee) and it is this, that whereas Petrus Aerodius justice of the Pleas of the Crown hath put in a bill of complaint against his young son Renate by the jesuits fraudulently seduced and purloined from him, and whereas the Rector and Precedent of Clerement College have been cited and brought personally into the Court about the matter, it is therefore ordered and thought good by the Court at the motion of Faius the King's Attorney general, that Aerodius shall have a commission granted unto him to inquire and make search after his stolen son, (for had they not stood upon the negative in pleading not guilty, the decree would have been that they must have lain fast by it till they had rendered thee openly in Court) in the mean while the Court doth straightly forbid that ought be done to the prejudice of this their order, and that the jesuits entertain him not into their society as they will answer to the contrary, and that no excuse of ignorance may be herein pretended by the brethren of that company, they charge and require with all that they of Clerimont College certify so much unto their several companies wheresover. Given at the Parliament the 20. of May. 1586. Happily you shall also in time read, what the states of France assembled at Blois have humbly besought his majesty now our king, Henry the third in this very business, and what he will conclude thereupon after his brother the king deceased. I am sure in the Interim his pleasure was that the Pope should be certified thus much, that whereas all good men were much offended herewith, his holiness would set to his helping hand, that it might be reform and redressed. Now sir what can you answer to all these reasons? all these laws and precedents? If for this offence of thine, or rather thy seducers offence (to whom indeed it is more proper) I have been grieved, am I grieved (thinkest thou) without cause? or is it natural affection, flesh & blood that makes me beyond measure passionate? or is it my gross ignorance that knows not in the matter of religion what appertains to piety, honesty, or any duty else of great importance. I trust you are informed and thoroughly resolved by this time, that be the religious life good and commendable in itself, or neuter and indifferent, it ill beseemed you, (son) in making choice of either so contemptuously to have neglected me. For were it indifferent there's a necessity would have forced you to obedience, but had it been good and commendable, it would never have proved the worse for my approbation. Indeed if none could be sound now a days, that would offer their children to the Church's service, and if it were absolutely necessary that young men should minister in the Church, in God's name then let religion be privileged to rob and steal our children from us (as thou wast from me) it skills not much by force or policy: but whereas there is such a number of Churches and Abbeys, can any man say, that there is not plenty enough to supply such places but if (and speak what may be spoken for the contrary) the vow which children make, be good & justifiable, without the parents leave, yet, me seems somewhat should be left unto their disposition, wherein they should bear some stroke, as peradventure; to make choice of one Abbey before an other, for their children to be professed in; and if there be no remedy but that parents must besosleightly put by, when the question stands betwixt them and religion, yet me thinks 'ttwere well, that some few relics should still remain of that ancient duty & reverence, which God & nature prescribed for parents. But the case is far otherwise now, for it comes so short to the business in hand, that parents in any law, should be relinquished and destituted of their children, that even they which have written in an high style for commendation of the solitary life (as most monks have done) confess that children may be dismissed out of their cloister, and disclaim their vow, to be attendant on their parents. And that this vow is of a greater obligation, and much more ancient for continuance, than any other vow whatsoever, it may be proved out of S. Gregory Nazianzene, for he being sent for to come home from his monastery by his Father, because he was now grown old, and not able to follow suits in law, which came thick upon him by reason of a public charge wherein he bare office, and having lost also his other son Caesarius, forsook his Covent, made speed to return to his Father Gregory, and his mother Nonna, which then to their farther grief, had buried their daughter Gorgonia: the same appears in like manner out of Heliodor of whom we spoke before, who left to be an Eremite, and left S. Hieromes company, to assist and help, not his Father, but his sister and nephew. S. Austin holds the same opinion or whosoever be the Author ad fratres in Eremo; and will have no man enforced to return back again to his monastery, except his Father be dead first. S. Hierome in an Epistle to Fabiola, speaks of this kind of desertion, where he saith, how many monks have been cause of destroying their own souls, in compassionating the estate of their Fathers and Mothers? in which words he doth not simply condemn such desertion, so it be without fraud, to do true service to their parents, but his meaning is, that many monks pretending such manner of excuses, do thereby hazard the utter undoing of their own souls. Wherefore put case I had been content and willing to have made thee a jesuite, couldst thou yet find in thy heart, now at this time especially, to leave me, and live apart from me? couldst thou hold it for a religious course, to lurk in a Cell, (nay a Jail for that is Baccharius' word for a monastery) where thou mightest sleep in a whole skin at pleasure, and understand of our civil broils or rather lawless open robberies, that ruin and lay waste thy flourishing native country? nay couldst thou forbear, to repair home with all speed possible, to be helpful, attendant and serviceable unto us, to allay and mitigate the surpassing sorrow, whereof every good man's heart is sensible in this our country's combustion? But perhaps they detain thee by violence; Well, be it so, for I am more prone to think so, then to imagine thou art clean past all sense of humanity, all good nature & gentry, chiefly at this time & season, when Princes join issue in arms, not for matter of religion, but for a sovereign monarchy? but laying aside all prerogative of antiquity in our present question (if you be so pleased) let us argue the matter by reason a while: whereas it is so that you account marriage for a Sacrament and for precedence in time, the first that ever was ordained in this world, how happens it, that you give it no better entertainment amongst you? doth it not necessarily follow, that Church and commonwealth both must partake evident loss, when either it is so profanely polluted, or not set by? when it is bereft of the fruit of marriage, which are children, robbed of those sweet love pledges? when you untie that knot, which is knit faster, than any knot that fire and water, bed and board, or plighting of troth, did ever tie? Why, who will take any pains to bring up his children, if after all his care taken, and costs bestowed, when all is done, they must be another man's children, and not the fathers? If by direct authority or indeed rather by a kind of mahometical immanity, they be hauled and lugd away from their parents? if as soon as our wives be brought to bed, and delivered, the shaveling that first can seize upon our child must have him for his pains? he that robs a father of his child, a foster father of his foster son, or a master of his man, in the opinion of Tertullian writing against Martion, commits an act of impiety against God, sins against the parent, wrongs the foster father, and trespasses against the master. To take away filial obedience, and duty to parents, is to grub up nature by the root, to windshake all that commerce and society, which is between man & man, even from the very ground plot, and foundation. Obedience saith S. Cyprian in his book of the abuses of the world, is the mother of all government, then farewell all government when parents cannot be obeyed. And because parity in honour and estate breeds quarrels and contention, therefore hath God made many forms of government, many of subjection. As husband and wife, father and son, old and young, bond and free, Prince and subject, master and scholar, as S. Chrysostome speaks in his Epistle to the Romans, take away these subordinations, and there is no company or society of men can possibly continue. Nay the conclusion cannot be gainsaid, do but once prove disobedient to parents, and presently you fall down headlong into Atheism, or heresy, as it is delivered with common consent, by all sorts of men, as well Christians as heathen; and by name, by Plutarch in his book de fraterna amicitia, and by the author of a late discourse. But it were better to hear the Authors in their own words. There is no man saith Plutarch, who though he think otherwise in his conscience, would not affirm and in words maintain that the Gods ought to be worshipped in the first place, our parents next to them, and that in so large an extent, that nothing can be so acceptable to the Gods as when they see children repaying some usury for their parent's bounty, whereas they be not able to pay the principal. Contrariwise that there is no argument so pregnant, to convince them of Atheism, as by despising their parents, and trespassing never so slightly against them. The other utters himself thus; What makes young men now a days so soon turn schismatics? why saith he, they do not honour their parents, as they ought to do, as if he should have said, it is no great wonder if they forsake the faith and religion of their forefathers, when they once take a taste of contempt and disobedience against their natural parents. Good God, if such disloyal behaviour might either be endured or commended, what? aught this to be a time for such toleration? to be a place? where there is scarce to be found any one, who by some means or other claims not an immunity, from doing his duty to God, or the king, or the Magistrate, or lastly to his Elders? why but all these pre-eminences are to be found in a father, all these relations of duty in a son. Is it then honest and convenient for me, to show any countenance to him that besides his graceless neglect: of me, is so ungrateful and irreverent? In the latter days (as S. Paul writeth to Timothy) there shall come perilous times, men shall be lovers of themselves, blasphemers, disobedient to fathers and mother's ungrateful, without natural affection. Shouldst thou now reply and say, why but good father, after I am once professed into religion, I will honour you a great deal the more, I will esteem of you much more highly than before? I tell thee again, duty can never spring from disobedience. Besides all this, I would feign know what colour can be given, why those grand school men, as Scotus, Durandus, Aquinas, Paludanus, Dominicus Soto, and many more, should enter into such serious and deep disputes, whether the children of infidels might lawfully be baptised against their parents will, Thomas absolutely holds that they may not, and says that the Church never permitted such a baptism, (not Pope Silvester to Constantine the great, nor S. Ambrose to Theodosius) And yet to make no question of maintaining this doctrine, that our children may bind themselves by a religious vow, though the father never so much protest against it. Doubtless if the parents be christians, the general tenant is, that they may be forcibly compelled, to initiate their children in the same religion: but if it be but a particular rule or covent of Regulars, than they hold they may not, for that is left to their own discretions. As for example, they say, that to be baptised in the faith of Christ it is sufficient for any: but to be of Dominickes or S. Augustine's order, it is not necessary. But were a man jew or Gentile, Saint Thomas peremptorily denies, that either in case he be of full age, he should be violently constrained, or being under years, his parents should be forced to yield their consent to his baptism. And the Toletane Council, whereof you shall find Record in Gratians decrees, at the five and fortieth distinction, in the chapter of the jews. And Gregory the great, writing to Virgilius and Theodorus, Bishops of France, in his five and fortieth Epistle; If you list (saith he) you may speak him fairelye, and ask him whether he likes better, to live in a cloister, then in the world at large. But I pray you tell me, is it force or fair dealing when such a promise as this hath been extorted from him (as to say I will be a monk) afterwards to keep him a close prisoner, or to lead and drive him up and down, to the intent he shall never light upon his father or any one of his kin, which might perchance divert him from that resolution, which was put upon him before he came to years, or in the prime of his youth when (as Cicero saith) counsel and discretion is at the weakest? What sir, are you become an other Hercules Prodicus, that must forsooth by and by be wise, as soon as you are eighteen? what, is there no other course to be held, for the furnishing of Churches and monasteries, but that children do presently abjure their parent's sight and company, as if they were banished persons? the Church of God never allowed of this course, but in the children of the jews, which was to this end, that having been once voluntarily Christened; they might not afterwards relapse into their parents errors. And so it is in the Canon. But for one Christian brother to suspect or distrust an other, in such a case as this, of infidelity or judaisme, what manner of strange Gospel were this? how can any man make this good, that whereas by the discipline of the Church, Priests may not bless the married couple, if they be not given by their parents, a Bishop of one Diocese may not give orders to one of another Diocese, without the leave of his Diocesan: A Clerk that is a foreigner may not be entertained to serve any where, without letters dimissoryes, or a certificate from him that made him: but our sons and our daughters may make vows, which shall be admitted & accepted of, though there beno giving no commending of them, no approaching of them? yet the vow must still be observed. And now at length to conclude all this discourse, whatsoever hath been hitherto alleged against thee, reckon thou of it at thy pleasure, make as light account of my fatherly authority as thou wilt, or rather as they please to command thee to make, with whom thou livest in so blessed and deifying an estate, yet such as be well borne, not of base kind, will be of a different opinion from thee, and think it built upon four main columns. The principal pillar which bears up the fabric, is the indignation of the living God, that esteems a wrong done to parents as done to himself. How ill is the report of him that forsaketh his Father (saith the Preacher,) and accursed of God that is bitter to his mother? The second is the judgement of banishment, which the Father pronounceth against him for his undutifulness. Depart from me, come no more in my sight: for albeit, (as it should appear) thou hast but a very mean conceit of it, yet very certain it is, that God's severity is then greatest, when a Father will not vouchsafe to see his child, a Prince not deign to look upon his subject, nor admit them unto their presence, which ought to be most gladsome & cheerful to them. I said God's severity was then greatest, for is it not so that everlasting damnation of body and soul consisteth only in the deprivation of God's blessed vision, and God's blessed 〈◊〉 the wages and reward that man, can 〈◊〉 for from God? And men use to be must severe likewise in this kind. For David punished Absalon so. Whereupon, after two years space continued in this disgrace, oh (saith he) if my Father be yet mindful of mine iniquity, good ●oab, be thou a suitor for me rather that he will kill me? And did not Ma●lius Torquatus proceed in the self same manner against junius Syllarius of whom the Macedonians complained of for bribery and extortion. Because thou hast not (saith he) demeaned thyself so in thy office, as thy worthy Ancestors have done before thee, therefore I forbidden thee from henceforth ever to approach unto my pre●●●● surely he was not able to endure the 〈◊〉, he slew himself. The like is reported of Marcus Scaurus, that when his son returned dishonourably out of the field, sent him this message, since I hear you are turned base coward, let me never see you more. The message delivered, he fell upon his sword with more valour and resolution than ever before he had used against the enemy. And Augustus Caesar, when one Tarrius his son was convented before him for the like offen●●, gave this judgement, that he was punished with a witness, whom the Father would not endure once to look upon. Plato yields an excellent reason, if there be no shrines in the Temple so beautiful in the eye of the children to look on as the portraiture of the Gods, no treasure so precious at home, as their aged and impotent parents, what worse punishment can you devise against them, than so to doom them, as to deprive them of their presence, that be the patron gods of their family, & never to be suffered, to touch or to kiss them more. If banishment seem only in this respect, a punishment intolerable, because it deprives us of beholding certain fair buildings, and tomb stones, which we term monuments, what then may we think of such a punishment as whereby we shall be bard, of their sweet company that erected such sumptuous buildings for us, nay erected us? that would possess no more than what they might leave after their death to us their children. Now concerning the King, Augustus Caesar's example is at hand to prove it, who upon a revenge to punish the Athenians chose rather to arrive at the Island Aegina which was much out of his way, than (as he thought) to do them so much honour as to be seen at Athens. The like example have we in Marcus Antonius the Philosopher that travailing by Antiochia would not be entreated to come into the City, because they took part with Auidius. Fresh also is the example of Charles the eight our French king, who coming with his army back from the expedition of Naples, and rendering his devout thanks to God at S. Denis for the victory, would not so much as endure to come at Paris, because they aided him not in his journey for the wars. The third sort of animadversion which parents, ever had, and ever shall have, (as saith S. Ambrose in that one book of his which he entitles de benedictionibus patriarcharum,) is that blessing which they give to their kind and dutiful children, and that curse which they denounce against unnatural and disobedient ones. The father's blessing (as Elias the Cretian speaketh) is the wages of obedience, and therefore S. Gregory that had been dutiful to his father, desires not that he would give him his blessing, but that he would pay it him for his service. But be it that thou value it not at any such high rate as jacob, or joseph, or Nazianzene, yet I would wish thee stand in fear of the curse. Remember Noah's sons, think on that which is written in Deuteronomy and is second in order of the Comminations: Cursed is he that honoureth not his father and mother and all the people shall say Amen. Meditate of that which is written in the third of Ecclesiasticus, the blessing of the father establisheth the houses of their children, but the curse of the mother roots up the foundations: all which you shall find in Antiochus who was himself a Monk, in his 108. Homily. Look upon that in Homer his 2. Odissea, where Telemachus stands fearful to cast his mother out of doors, because of her curse. Call to thy remembrance that which is written by Plato, in the eleventh book of his Laws, how that all those imprecations of Oedipus, Amynter, and Theseus uttered against their children, were entertained and ratified in heaven, oh there is nothing in the word saith he so pernicious to a child, as the curse of his father! Lastly bethink thou of that which is in Suidas of Leontius a Bishop of Tripoli, whose prayer God almighty heard, and that was, that his son might rather die, than that he should see him live a graceless & dissolute life. The last remedy that parents may use in this case, is the help of the judge who upon complaint made, severely censures or imprisons the offenders, and gives such judgement against them, as the parents do require. For so Alexander the Emperor answered one that made the like petition. All hard measure, and rigour would be used towards a saucy and malapert son, though should a stranger so offend, the offence I grant were not so heinous. And what is the reason? marry sir, that children might not so much as conceive, that there was any thing in the world more sacred or inviolable than their parents. It is storied in the French Chronicles in the reign of King Lewis, that Steven Boley Provost of Paris, caused one to be hanged, for no other reason, but that his mother had complained of him, that do what she could do, he would never leave filching and stealing. To conclude then, that may be spoken to you which jerom hath in his book de honorandis parentibus, you that will be fathers hereafter, you must honour your fathers, and love your mothers with a tender affection, that your wives after you be married may deserve to be mothers also. It remains therefore that if you have a purpose to free thyself from these punishments, which as thou seest all laws do inflict upon a disobedient son, and if this discourse of mine, work so well with thee that thou come to thyself again, if there be any goodness in thee, bethink thee of thy duty in God's name, presently and out of hand thus do, fulfil Christ's parable in me, let us make good cheer my friends and be merry, for this my son was dead and is alive, lost and now is found. The Church hath her arms always open, to embrace the penitent soul (it is true) yet this merciful disposition they first learned from parents. Before thou canst cry, I will hear thee, come then and we will be friends, return unto me and all shall be well: and now will I use the like words to thee as S. Bernard did to his nephew: Against all due proceeding of law, I, that have been wronged, do yet withdrawn mine action, I have been offended and despised, yet sue I unto the scorner, I have been injuriously dealt withal, yet I offer amends unto him that did me the wrong, and in few words, I seek unto him that first should have besought me. Or to use the speech of Caesarius, in his 30. homily, he that is the judge entreats to pardon the prisoner: but if they buzz into thy head that when thou shalt once be five and twenty years old, then mayst thou be at thy own disposition, and after that age who can challenge thee for thy disobedience. I tell thee son, and tell thee again, though natural duty, can neither be dayde nor yard, nor determined by age, or eldership, nay the more years the more duty, (whereupon Plato used more severity to one of thirty, then to one under five and twenty, for being undutiful to his father, (I tell thee I say, hadst thou been with me, and so continued to the term of lawful age, by that time, in likelihood I might have yielded somewhat unto thee, especially if I had seen a suitable disposition in thee for that kind of life, whereunto thou wast addicted. But now the case is far otherwise, for as a woman child under the age of twelve being forced and abused, by any man, and she after the rape committed abide with the ravisher, can not be said all that while to be of years, and there's annullity in the marriage, if any such be contracted between them, as it hath been decreed in the Council of Trent: so what age soever thou comest to in that place, where thou art kept prisoner much against my will, think not that any such advantage accrues thereby, but may be void, and frustrate, to the intent either of law or religion, notwithstanding all your prescription. Would you have a reason? why sir, because the jesuits seduced thee, and still detain thee, with an evil conscience, and a scandalous example. The excuse will not serve to say, the action was the holy ghosts, for surely the holy Ghost hath no hand in a sinful action. As stolen goods till they come home to the true owner, be still felonious, so be the never so old, and continue with them never so long, thou shalt never be better than felons goods. Is there any tells thee the contrary? tell him again, and say that Plato said it, Sir you are much scanted in the faculties and power of your understanding: For there is neither God nor good man were he well in his wits, that would enueagle any man's child to be undutiful to his parents.  
FINIS.