AN APOLOGY FOR A YOUNGER BROTHER OR A DISCOURSE PROVING that PARENTS may dispose of their Estates to which of their Children they please.  
By I. A.  
Written for the general good of this Kingdom.  
OXFORD, Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD for Edward Forrest, 1641.   

TO ALL FATHERS AND SONS OF WORTHY FAMILIES Whom Virtue, Birth, and Learning have justly styled GENTLEMEN, Health, Happiness, and Increase of the best Knowledge.  
AS in the Front of this brief Discourse, there is (Right Worthy Gentlemen) already delivered unto you some light of that which concerns the Quality, Reason, and Scope thereof: so do I here sincerely profess, that I did not privately write it at First but for private satisfaction; neither do I now make it public, but with due relation to the general good of Great Britain, and for the exercise of Honourable Spirits, in this our much-speaking and paradoxical age.  
Not upon the least presumption of a selfe-sufficiency, to confront thereby any received custone (if any such be) nor to diminish the natural reverence due by Younger brothers to to their Elder; not to enkindle Emulations in Families nor to innovate any thing to the prejudice of public or private quiet (which none I hope will be so ill affected as to suppose,) neither mine in offensive zeal for Younger Brothers (amongst whom I am ranked one) nor the absolute consent of Imperial and Ecclesiastical Laws (which I having a little studied do not a little respect) nor the particular honour I bear to the usages in this point, of our ancient Britons (from whom I am decended) nor desire to maintain and justify an act in this kind, done by a friend (whom I must ever reverence) nor yet the hope of bettering my private fortunes (which moves men much in these our times) hath drawn me to this Undertaking: but principally (as before is somewhat touched) the singular respect which (as a Patriot) I bear to the glory, and good of gentlemen's houses, whose best original, surest means of maintenance, and principal Ornament is Virtue,, or force of Mind: The want whereof, is a common cause of Ruin. The free power therefore of You who are Fathers, is here in some special cases argued and defended, to give you occasion thereby to consider with the clearer Eyesight, for the establishment and continuance of Families. Here also the natural Rights of us that are Children be so discoursed and discussed, as that We younger Brothers may have caves and courage, to endeavour by virtuous means, to make ourselves (without the least wrong to any) capable (if need shall be) of the chiefest uses. And Both, and All are so handled, as that no offence can reasonably arise in any respect: much less, for that the whole is conceived and written in nature only of an Essay or Problem, to which I bind no man to afford more belief, than himself hath liking of: being free to refute the whole, or any part at his pleasure, as he feels himself able and disposed.  
If I may seem to some, to have handled this Subject with more earnestness and Acrimony than they think expedient: let them be plealed to weigh the Decorum of Disputes, which is principally herein observed: their nature absolutely requiring quickness and vehemency, on whether side soever.  
As for the remedies of Evils, by way of enacting Laws, that is the proper office of Magistrates, and Courts of public Counsel: nevertheless to speak and treat of them (under the favour and correction of Superiors, to whom I do always very dutifully submit) is a thing which may well belong to every man. But, for those grave and Learned Censors, to home I may seem to have bestowed my pains in very needless Arguments, because no less than I myself, they hold the case (as here it is put) to be most clear and out of controversy: to such I answer, that I writ it not for them, unless perhaps to confirm their judgements; but for others, who are not altogether so principled or persuaded. Nor to any, as to prescribe, or bind further than their own consciences shall think good. For that were fare too peremptory  
Finally, nothing being here defended but by Authority, Reason and Example; nor any person taxed, nor particular personal Vices; if neverthelsse I have not performed my part in the work so well as I desire, or as the Cause deserves (which I fear I have not) yet my hope is (Right Worthy Fathers and Worthy Sons of Right Worthy Families) that for my honest meaning, and good Intntentions sake, you will ever conceive well of, and take in your special Protection,  
Your unfeigned Wellwisher, J. A.   

THE CONTENTS  
CHAP. 1. 
The occasions and scope of this Appoligie; to prove that Fathers may in some cases dispose their Estates to which of their Sons shall reasonably please etc. and that to be lawful by the law of God, of Nature, and of Nations.  CHAP. 2. 
That the grounds of good Constitutions being in Nature, yet she neither before nor after the law of Propriety established, did command, that all should I'll left to any one more than to another.  CHAP. 3. 
That the breach of some written Laws of God, upon warrant of the primary Law of Nature, is without siinne: & that therefore, there can be no such Right in primogeniture, which is not in the Father's power to avoid, though there were a precept to the contrary, as there is not.  CHAP. 4. 
That Nation's beginning to devise sundry Forms of settling Inheritances, the Romans especially therein respected the free power of Fathers: the right of Children to their Father's estates, beginning only at their Father's death.  CHAP. 5. 
That the present custom in our Country of giving All, or almost All to the Eldest, was never so begun, that it meant to exclude just Remedies for such Evils, as should grow out of the abuse of that Custom, when it may make Fathers guilty of their Son's faults, and of their Families ruins.  CHAP, 6. 
That it is no offence before God, for a Father being Tenent in Fee-simple, to disinherit the Eldest, or to parcel his estate upon cause: and that extreme vices of Heirs Apparent, together with the fewer means which younger Brothers have now to live on, then heretofore; cryeth out against the contrary opinion.  CHAP. 7. 
That Father's being Tenants in Fee-tail, may likewise without scruple of Conscience, discontinue the State-taile upon cause; and devise the same at their reasonable pleasure.  CHAP. 8. 
That Unthriftiness is one known name of many hidden sins; and is alone a sufficient cause of disinherison; proved by the Law of God and Man.  CHAP. 9 
The main points of the Premises exemplified indivers particular Facts, as well of Princes, as of private persons.  CHAP. 10. 
That the Law of Natural Equity & Reason confirm Disinherison: and that the riotous lives of Elder Brothers deserve that vehement Increpation with which the Author closeth up this Treatise.    

THE YOVNGER BROTHER HIS APOLOGY. CHAP. 1.  
The occasion of writing this Apology, is to prove that Fathers may in some cases dispose their worldly Estates to which of their Sons shall reasonably please, etc. for so much thereof as they will; & that to be lawful by the Law of God, of Nature, and of Nations.  
NOT many Months since being invited by a dear Friend of mine to a solemn Feast, made by him to many of his well-deserving Friends, it was my fortune at that Meeting to acquaint myself with many Gentlemen of no mean discourse: Whereby I feasted as well my Understanding with their pleasant Society, as my Taste with the variety of most excellent Meats.  
With what our senses were delighted, I let pass to recount, since neither profit, pleasure, nor praise can arise thereof, either to the Writer or Reader. Only my intent is, to make my Reader acquainted, what accident caused me to write this small Treatise, and emboldened me to publish the same to the common view of this all-reprehending Age. In which nevertheless I rather hope for Allowance, then in any sort fear Displeasure.  
For though my subject be New, yet I hope it shall want at the first rather Age, and Strength, which grows by years; then probable Arguments, yea forcible Reasons to defend itself. As for Friends, I trust, it will find some, and peradventure more than Enemies, if it deserve well. For, as younger Brothers be more in number then Elder, so are they generally more free in bestowing their deserved Love.. For Want breeding Understanding, makes them know and prise their Friends 
† Some friends stick closer than a Brother, Prov. 18.1.24.  according to their Worth. Whereas the Elder, either seated in his Father's Wealth or Possessions, with more than hopes to enjoy their Fortunes, do sometimes neither love truly themselves, nor any man else; but abusing that which indeed might gain the love of God and Man, & easily maintain their hereditary Honour, lose themselves in Vanity & most idle courses; yea in their Father's lives, so strangely carry themselves (presuming rather on precedence of Birth, then Worth) as though the Law of God, of Nature, and all other Canon, Civil, & Nationall Laws, Constitutions, and Customs sprung from them, could not either in Reason or Religion bar them of that which they expect; or give to a well-deserving younger brother any little 
* The harsh and malevolent disposition of some Elder Brothers, is graphically delineated by our Saviour in the Parable, Luc. 15.28. [See vers. 32. the Father's Apology for the younger.]  hope lawfully to share with them the least part of their Father's Inheritance: much less to expect an Elder Brother's Fortunes: or on any terms, or for any cause, by a Father's favour, to step before them.  
Which Argument among many others, was then handled by the Company pro and contra so doubtfully, that it gave me occasion to write this present Discourse concerning the free power of some Fathers. Wherein I intent not to displease or inconciliate Elder Brothers; no not them, who not inheriting their Father's Virtues, strive not to maintain their Ancestors Honour, in preserving their Noble Names 
* Amongst all Gods tempoporall blessings promised as Rewards to his faithful servants, I find none greater in holy Writ, then the spreading of their Family. So God to Abraham, I will make of thee a mighty people. What God prizes as so great a guerdon to his best Favourites, shall Unworthy Man esteem a Trifle? Carpenter. Achitophel. part. 3.  and Families, by which as a reward to their Virtues and Travels, Men have always laboured to live to all succeeding Ages, in their Posterity.  
But my intent is to show, how Opinion and Inconsideration make ofttimes the Wise to be scrupulous, and through superstitious Zeal, not only to fear to do that which Reason may or might have commanded; but in their erroneous judgements rashly to condemn other men's Acts as unlawful and irreligious, which according to Reason and Religion have been done and ratified; using themselves THAT CUSTOM for the overthrow of their Families, which was indeed only devised for their preservation; and being hoodwinked with false conceits, do wittingly leave that, which they and their Ancestors had gotten, as the reward in this life of their virtues, to be the future Fuel of all inordinate Desires & Bestial sensuality, which in their providence they could willingly otherwise have disposed of.  
All which I doubt not but to make clear to the impartial Reader: proving by the Law of God & Man, that a Father's freedom is such, that he may Lawfully and Religiously give his Lands & Goods, or other his Fortunes, to any of his Children, for the preservation of his Name, and comfort of his Posterity, without all scruple, as right Reason, or the better Deserts of a Son shall persuade him, void of all tenderness or blindness of Affection, which oftentimes leads a Father's Will, & corrupts his Understanding: so as he be true Lord thereof, not tied by consideration of Money received, or Contract made by Marriage of his Son, which may alter the case, and make the Son Lord, and the Father to have but the use only during his life, as all our common Lawyers well know. In which case, we also have experience, that our Law permits many times to alter the Title, and to undo what by former times was held not to be controlled. But of this point I will not treat. Only I mean to argue, whether a Father possessed in Fee-tail, may in law and equity, upon the former considerations, make any child which he hath, his Heir, leaving to the rest a competency; and do an Act which according to Equity & Religion may stand good and valuable.  
In this my present Discourse let not any expect many Quotations of Authors; for I never read any of this subject. What I bore away of my friend's Conference, I will set down; and what other Reasons my understanding shall afford; which I hope shall prove so Demonstrative, that they shall be of Authority sufficient 
* 'tis one thing, to convince an error: another, to make men forsake it: A third, to win them to the truth. vid. pag. 117.2. part of divine Essence & Attributes; by Reverend D. jackson, worthily honoured with the Elegy of an Incomparable writer; by M. Pink of pious memory. See his Trial of sincerity: serm. 4. p. 57  to satisfy any Reader; or incite some better Pen to treat of the same more largely and substantially; and lastly and chief, to clear some of my Worthy Friends from those imputations, which I find the Ignorant to lay upon them. Which done, I shall think my Time and Paines well employed.   

CHAP. 2.  
That the grounds of all good Constitutions being in Nature, yet she, neither before, nor after the Law of Propriety established, did command, that All should be left to any one, more than to another.  
SUch are the wise and temperate Works of Nature, 
† Natura, Divinitatis fulgor, Valles. de sa●. phillip c. 1. p, 22.  that nothing is done by her rashly or unadvisedly. For though in the Infancy of the World, she had an invincible power to produce all effects which then had their Original in her: yet, being studious to please Mankind not only with variety, but also with rarity, she successively discovers & daily discloses to the searching Wits of the World her Secrets, as Time and Place either hath or doth daily beget Occasion; still as it were keeping in store her heavenly Treasure, till Man's necessity best moves her Liberality.  
For what can the Wit of man devise, or what doth Time or Art make known which good is; that Nature, from the first time she began to work, hath not in her (though to herself only known) the ground thereof, either to produce the particular or general effect, which wisely she left to be tempered, according as the Reason of Man (whose glory she pretends) should think fittest to give the Form, as Time, Place, and the nature of the Thing should require?  
For though Marriage, as it is a conjunction of Man and Woman, containing an inseparable society of life, be of Nature itself, and had its Original in the state of Innocence, which (as Divines & Canonists hold) was undoubtedly ordained for Issues sake, whereby a Lineal succession was also intended: yet, until necessity enforced Man to make Division of the Blessings of God & Nature, the Claims and Rights which follow Lineal succession to Inheritance, were not discovered. For all communicable things being common amongst Men, many Ages were numbered from the World's beginning, before any man laid proper claim to any thing, as due to himself alone. Whereby it well appears, that hereditary succession, or Title to a Parent's Lands or Goods, could not then be in use, or so much as thought of.  
This, I persuade myself, was the Law of Nature undepraved. Which I incline my Will the sooner to credit, because I find that all sorts of people, as well Christians as others, who have perfection in Natural society, or a perfect and Religious life in a Natural and worldly conversation of Men, have and do daily embrace this natural and 
† See Acts 2.44.  blessed Community.  
Which happy Law of Nature (as I have said) for many ages endured, & without doubt had longer continued, had not sin (which breaks all union, and depraves all Natural perfection) gotten such dominion in the minds of Men, that in Natural Equity all things could not longer be used in common.  
For as some being possessed with an insatiate desire to get, rule, and reign; sought the oppression of others, by taking from them that freedom which Nature had given them: So others given to sensuality and idleness, sought to live of other men's labours; whereas by Nature's laws every one ought to live by his proper industry, within the rules of justice and Honesty. Whereupon natural Reason persuaded, that all things being divided, every Man should know his own: otherwise, no peace or concord could be maintained in Humane society. For all things being common, the way lay open to every man at his pleasure to abuse others, & as it were to rob them of God his Blessing.  
Hereupon, Aristotle judged the Division of all worldly Goods, to have been agreeable to the law of Nature, which the precept of our Decalogue seems to approve, Thou shalt not steal. For the Law of God is never contrary to the Law of Nature: neither doth Nature ever contrary itself, though some may perhaps think that herein she hath. For albeit at the Creation of all things together with Man in the state of Grace, a fraternal and amicable Community was intended: yet was it not so absolutely resolved of by Nature, but that by Necessity (I mean by the fall of Man from God's Grace) she did dispense with this Law, and left free to Man's choice to embrace, upon her warrant, either the One or the Other, as best might fit the Time, Place, and Natures of Men, which ever since the World began, have given occasion of making of all Laws.  
Whereby we see, that though Nature give the grounds to Laws, yet Man's understanding still gives the particular Form. For Nature creating Man, gave to him those worldly blessings to use well, with Warrant either to hold them in Common, or in Proper, as reason from time to time could best persuade his Will.  
But, when Reason and Will had agreed, that it was fit that every Man should enjoy his Part in Proper; Nature moved Man further, and told him, that now he might lawfully think on his succession; and not only live in his species, but breath, as it were, to the World's end, in a lineal Posterity by honourable Deeds and Virtuous Acts; with which Desire, Nature, as a wise mother, so inflamed Man (her Noblest Child) after his Fall from Grace, that some Men by Nature's light only, have done Acts almost above Nature; and none have hardly been so base, but desirous to live, and leave an honourable memory behind them.  
Which that they may the better do, Nature hath not only given them power to leave their welgotten Wealth, but in a manner their habitual 
* They which are descended of ancient Nobility, have in them an implanted complete Generosity (or virtuous Disposition) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dio Cas. Hist. Ro. l. 44. ex Orat. M. Antonii.  Virtues to their Issue; in which, this worldly Honour (the Souls worldly life, and virtue's temporal Reward) may live free from all-killing Time. Yet, did she not then by any Command, leave it to any one in particular, but giving a general suggestion of the Fitness of the Thing, left the Form to their best Discretion. For had she not done so, all Nations had been tied to observe one Form, in leaving their goods and Fortunes to their Posterities; for Nature being One, without change to all, of necessity prescribes no binding Rule to any in particular, but to all in general; no man being able to say; This, Nature's Law commands me to do, & yet binds not any other to do the like. Which is evident in the Matter of Succession, 
Consul Clariss. V D. Zouch, de jure Feudali. p. 18. &. 21.  or Claims of Inheritance; no one Country observing the Form held by another; or tying itself without control to observe its own, as I shall hereafter declare.  
For albeit (as I have said) the Conjunction of Man and Woman (which we call Matrimony) together with the Desire of Issue, be of Nature, from whence also are sprung not only a Division of the Goods and Fortunes of this World, but also a laudable Desire to preserve a Family and Name, by the ordination of Heirs to well-gotten Possessions; yet did Nature never set down as a Law, that those Fortunes should be left to the Elder Brother or Younger, or to any One in particular; or to All; but to whom the Father, being true and free Lord thereof, should best devise by Will guided by Reason. For it was never yet averred by any sound Divine, Philosopher, or Lawyer, that Nature makes immediately Heirs, but Men, whom the positive Laws of every Country ordain by that Form and Power of Law, where such an Act should be done. And this is (I presume) without control, what the Law of Nature commanded touching the Matter in Question. Next, let us see, what the Laws of God do command.   

CHAP. 3.  
That the breach of some written Laws of God, upon warrant of the primary Law of Nature, is without sin: & that therefore, there can be no such Right in Primogeniture, which is not in the Father's power to avoid, though there were a precept to the contrary, as there is not.  
IF Nature, being taken for the principal & all-producing Cause of the whole Frame of the Universe, with all Creatures therein, being nothing else but the working Will of the Highest and first Mover (as Divines & Philosophers hold) then surely must Natures Law be his Will, which he cannot contradict or countermand, except he should be contrary to Himself, which he cannot. For, what is in God, is God, therefore Constant and Immutable. Out of which Principle, it is easily proved, that if the Law of God teach that which the Law of Nature hath ordained, the Right of Inheritance cannot be tied to any other person or persons, then to those which the Father's Will approves, according to the Power given him, by the Laws of Nations where he life's. Which Power derived from Nature's Law, cannot err from the Law of God. For whosoever shall consider but of God's Commandments given to Man, shall well find, that God thereby hath still seconded his former Ordinances given by Nature. For so long as Mankind lived in a sort, after the Innocence which Gods Grace in his first Creation had wrought in him, God gave him no other Law: But when as by sin those sparks which remained after his Fall, were quite extinguished; he gave him New Laws, yet agreeable to Nature.  
As for example in our present Affairs: When Man had made by Nature's privilege partition of Gods and Nature's Blessings, than God said to his People by the mouth of Moses, Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbour's house, his Wife, his Ox, his Ass, or any thing that is his. As also, Thou shalt not kill. Which with all other his Commandments teaching what sin is, are agreeable to the Law of Nature, yet are dispensed withal, as fare as the Laws of Nature ever permitted. For, though that the express Command of God be, thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy Neighbours, nor kill; yet, in some Cases, Both may lawfully be done. The one, in extreme Want of present Food: the other, in defence of Life & Goods; In which, the Law of God, is good by the Original Law of Nature, which made All for the sustenance of Man; and gave leave to defend Life with with the loss of another's Blood, yea Life, if otherwise it cannot be. Upon which Ground, I argue thus.  
Suppose the Law of God did at this present command (which indeed it doth not) that the Inheritance should be left to any one particular Person, and namely to the Elder-Brother, yet in some Cases it would not bind the Father to observe it. For as in the former Commandments, upon some considerations the Commandment may be dispensed withal, so in this. For it is not sufficient to be the Elder-Brother, or the nearest in Blood to gain an Inheritance in the Case which I have now proposed; for other Circumstances must concur, which if they be wanting, bare propinquity or ancienty of Blood may justly be rejected: & he that is second, third, fourth, fift, or last, may lawfully be preferred before the First, and this, by all Law, Divine and Humane, and by all Reason, Conscience, and Custom of Nations Christian.  
For if it should happen that the next in Blood, should be a Natural Fool, or a Madman, or being taken by the Turks or Moors in his Infancy, and educated in their Religion, would maintain the same: or if any other such Accident, ministering cause of just Exception should fall out; is it likely that any Law would allow, that such a man should be admitted to the Inheritance? Wherefore how idly should they talk, that would have it to be his Birthright, or that God & Nature had made him Heir; since neither God nor Nature doth immediately make Heirs, as before is declared. Upon which Ground, our Common Lawyers say, that No Heirs are borne, but Men and Law make them.  
I confess, that in Holy Writ, great 
* In allusion hereto, the Church Triumphant is styled, The Church of the Firstborn. Heb. 12.23.  Respect is had of the first-begotten, and a Blessing is held to come to Parents thereby. But this Blessing I presuppose to be, that thereby the Fear of sterility was taken away, which in the Old Law was held to be a great Punishment of God; & in respect thereof, Parents had of themselves, and by the Nationall Laws & Customs, a great Regard of their First-begotten, and preferred them to the better part of their Possessions: yet, not by any Command from God, as a Precept to bind his Elect people under pain of sin. For had any such Law bound them under such a Penalty; then should it bind all Christians now, on the same Conditions. But we see it by General Practise of all Countries to be otherwise. Therefore it follows directly, that it was not God's Command, but a Nationall Law. For God both is, and ever was One, without change to all his People, & so ever were & will be his Laws Positive, made for them that truly worship him.  
The Claim which Esau made to his Birthright was not by the Law of God, as some ignorantly affirm, but by the Laws of his Country. For, should the Divine Law have commanded it, it had been sin in his Mother and Brother, by Cunning to have got it from him. Neither could the Father or the State wherein they lived, upon no just cause known but to God alone, without sin have settled the same upon his Brother jacob, as it was, and as it may seem, 
jacob praelatione divinâ & primogenituram & benedictionem promeruit (Ita Eximius Praesul. D. Episc. Cicestr. Apparat. I.)  by allowance from God, and as it may be judged by the success. Whereby it is thought, that God ordained it, as a Punishment of the One, and Blessing of the Other: which by the permission of sin to be committed, God never doth.  
Neither did the Nationall Law or Custom of the jews (as it is said) absolutely command the Father to leave to his first begotten, all, or the greatest part of his Goods and Fortunes. But in case he died, not disposing thereof by Act in his Life, or Will at his death, than the Custom 
† Viz. Grounded on the Right of Primogeniture. See Deut. 21.17. and the Geneva note there.  of the Nation, laid a double Portion on the Eldest or First-begot, providing for the rest proportionally.  
By all which you may collect, that neither the Law of God or Man, in this case, commanded that Esau should have the Inheritance; but Power to do the contrary, was given to the Father in his Life-time, even by the Law itself. For many Divines hold that Esau selling his Birthright (as it is termed) sold not Goods, or Lands, but his Claim of being 
* At first, Fathers & their first borne after them, were both Kings & Priests in their own houses: but in Moses days, this Prerogative of Primogeniture ceased: Aaron and his Progeny being invested in the Priesthood, & Moses being as King. Deut 33.5. (As judicious Mr. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron. Lib. 1. c. 1)  High Priest after his Father, which by Custom was to come to him being his Father's Eldest Son. For which Dignity God seeing him unfit, permitted him to pass away his Right in his Father's life, as we read in Holy Writ, and which God seemed to approve. And thus I hope this Objection is answered.  
Further, if it were true, that the effect of Eldership were such by the Law of God, as some passionately defend, that is, that the whole Inheritance should of Right pertain to the Eldest; then sure it followeth by good Consequence, that there should, nor ever could, have been but one Temporal Lord of all the World. For of Necessity Adam's Inheritance should have gone still to the next in Blood: which how absurd it is, let all men judge.  
Moreover, we read, that No having three Sons, and the whole world to leave unto them, gave it not All to the Eldest, but equally divided it among them & their Posterity, as all Authentic Histories do witness.  
Again, God requiring Obedience of Children to Parents, promised a Reward, saying, Honour thy Father and thy Mother, that thy Days may be long in the Land which the Lord shall give thee; Which surely was not spoken to one, but to all the Children of men. For with God there is no Exception of Persons, but as a just and pious Father, he gives every one according to his Deserts. Terram autem dedit filiis hominum.  
We read also in Holy Writ, how the Prodigal Son being weary of his Father's house, 
Luk. 15.12.  came to him and boldly said, Pater, da mihi portionem substantiae meae quae me contingit: This child of which the Gospel speaks, was the younger Brother: yet you see how boldly he said: Give me that Portion of Goods which belongs to me. By which words it is evident, that a Division or Partition of a Father's Fortunes was then 
* As is further evidenced Luk. 12.13. where our Saviour was willed by One, to require his Brother to divide the Inheritance with him. Which was the suit of a younger Brother (aggreeved at the churlish Iniquity of his Elder.) The judgement of that Illustrious & Religious Divine, M. john Ha●●● the most exquisite Illustrator of chrysostom, published by the Right Noble Knight Sir Henry Savile, 〈◊〉 in Glory.  in use: and that any child as well younger as elder had power by law to demand his Legitimate, or Child's part, according to the nature of the Civil and Canon Law, as you have heard. For the words following in the sacred Text are these, Et divisit substantiam illis. And he divided unto them his Living. Thus we see, that the privilege of Eldership was then excluded; which now in our Country by Custom only, is gotten to be of such Force.  
But it may be objected, that this was a Parable only (as indeed it was) and cannot be alleged as Law. True it is; yet it cannot be denied, but that all Similes, Parables, or Examples, which ever were alleged by the wise and learned to represent the Truth, have ever been derived from the custom and nature of Things, according to the known Truth in that time, and place, and to those persons to whom the Speech or Discourse is directed. And shall we think that our Saviour Christ being Wisdom and Truth itself, treating of so important an Affair, as he did then in the Gospel, would use an unknown Discourse, or strive to make the Truth appear to our weak Understanding by a Parable which in Equity could not be true? No surely. For it appears by Solomon his succeeding his Father David, that David had power by the Laws of God and Man, to give his Kingdom to the worthiest; which he deeming to be Solomon, gave to him his Kingdom, though he was the youngest Son.  
Neither was there any just exception made against Adonias his Eldest Brother, or against some other of his Brethren, why they should be disinherited by their Father David contrary to the common practice of those Times in settling Inheritances. But the only known reason of this Act in Scripture, was David's Promise, 
1. Kings. 1.  made to Solomon's Mother, together with her great Entreaty made to David to perform it. Which surely he would not not have done, had he not found a lawful Power in himself, to have executed the same.  
Lastly, it is invincibly proved out of the Book of job, who was contemporary with Moses (by attestation of judicious Theologians) that there was in those Times and Countries no such Law or Custom, that the Eldest should play at Sweepstake, and all the rest be left to the four Winds: for it is expressly recorded in the last Chapter, and the 15 Verse; that job gave his Daughters, Inheritance among their Brethren: 
job. 42.15.  Which comes home to the point in Question, and irrepliably evinces a Father's Power and Right to make such a Partition of his Estate among his Children, as upon emergent occasion, he shall judge expedient.  
And thus much concerning what may be said out of Scripture, or Law of God, in our present Question.   

CHAP. 4.  
That Nation's beginning to devise sundry Forms of settling Inheritances, the Romans especially therein respected the free power of Fathers: the right of Children to their Father's estates, beginning only at their Father's death.  
Having now declared what the Laws of God and Nature determine of our present Question: we intent to examine in brief, what is commanded by the Law of Man, as well Civil, of other Nations; as Common, of our own Country. And first concerning the Civil Law.  
Though all Law, which ever had but the Name or Credit of Law, doth surely derive her Original from the Law of Nature, whereupon Cicero many hundred years since said, that the Ground of all Law-making, is to be taken from the chief Law, which was made before any Law was written, or City builded: yet do they differ much in Form. For as it is no Law, but Tyranny, which wholly disagrees with the Law of Nature, as Aristotle saith: so if it agree in All with the Law of Nature, without limitation or difference, it must of Force be the very Law of Nature itself; and not the Law of Man. Which surely is nothing else, than a Temper or Form of Equity drawn by right Reason from the Grounds of Nature's Laws; according as Time, Place, and the Natures of Men either gave, or shall give Occasion. For though new Laws be daily made of new and several Accidents; yet all are agreeable to the old and ancient Grounds of Reason in Nature, the Grandmother of all Law. Wherefore having before specified what the Law of Nature is touching the Point in Question, I shall now declare, what Temper or Form hath thereto been added by the Civil Lawyer.  
After that Mankind was enforced (yet by Nature's Warrant) to make (as I have said) a partition of the Blessings of God and Nature: and that Men were possessed by the same Right of Goods & Lands which they desired to leave to Posterity; Lawmakers, and in particular, the Civilian, devised by little and little certain Forms of Inheritance, and ordination of Heirs, at first somewhat rigorous, giving to Parent's power of Life & Death over their Children, and a free disposition of all their Fortunes to any one of them in his life: but dying intestate, than all which was the Fathers, to be equally divided among the Children, as well daughters as sons. Which Constitution was afterward upon good grounds altered: the Father being bound to leave every child a Portion, which the Civilian calls a Legitimate, Others a Patrimony; which at first, was the eight part of the Father's substance, equally to be divided (as hath been said:) which after a while seeming little, the Law commanded that the Fourth part should be left without control: except upon just cause the Testator did disinherit him or them who by course of Law were to succeed him: still upholding the former Laws, that as well daughters as sons, should equally succeed their Parents dying intestate; Herein assigning fourteen causes why an Heir might lawfully be disinherited.  
Many hundred years passed from the establishing of the Civil Law, before it was ordained by force of Law, that Parents should leave a Child's part (as it is now called) or that they could not disinherit, without expressing the cause thereof in their last Will: yet, in all this Time, nor till this present Day, the Privilege of engrossing all by Primogeniture was not once heard of, or at lestwise not admitted, but rather excluded; as by many Text in the same Law it well appears: The End of the Imperial or Roman Civil Law, being only to maintain Moral justice in three short Precepts; Live honestly. Hurt not Man. Give every one his own. So that he who observes these three, fulfils this Law, yea the Law of Nature, whence this Law is derived. Now, if any Brother can prove, that his Father either in his life by Deed, or by Will at his Death, disposing of his Goods and Lands not otherwise then I have declared, doth no act against these three; why should he not content himself, either with the Fruits of his Father's love, or his own Deserts what ever they be.  
True it is, that in Natural justice, children during their Father's life, have Ius ad rem, not Ius in re to a Father's Goods: Whereupon the Law calleth them quasi bonorum Patris Dominos. Which their Right only takes effect after their Father's Death. For during life, he hath power to alter, alien, sell, & give, as it shall please him, according to form of Law: but being dead without Will, or disposition thereof, they fall upon his children, according to the Law of Nations. This Law embraceth a twofold justice, the one in Exchange, the other in Distribution. The first hath not to do with our cause: The other 
* This warrants not the injurious Abdication of unnatural Parents; (irremediable by the common Law: as is also the oppression of Orphans by lewd Step-fathers' and sharking Executors.) See D. Ridleys' View (republisht by a learned Student of the Royal College of Christ Church Oxon.) part. 4. Sect. 1. & 2.  rather commends than condemns a Father, who upon good Occasion, that is, for the bad Demerits of his Eldest Son, and for the preservation of his Family, shall give or convey his Lands or Goods to the Younger. For the Nature of distributive justice, is not only to give proportionally to the well-deserving: but also to forbear to place Benefits upon any one who shall abuse them: or use them to any other end, then to that good for which they were lent, and he shall leave them. And this is Ius suum unicuique tribuere. For no man can give or sell his Goods to an evil end, or to any one, who he assures himself, will use them to the Dishonour of God, or the Wrong of those who shall live with him, or by him: whereof I will treat more in the seventh Chapter; being then to handle, what a Father may in Conscience do or not do, in our present Question, with sin & without sin. And thus much of the Civil and Canon Lawyer's Averment of an Elder Brothers Right to his Father's Fortunes.   

CHAP. 5.  
That the present custom in our Country of giving All, or almost All to the Eldest, was never so begun, that it meant to exclude just Remedies for such Evils, as should grow out of the abuse of that Custom, when it may make Fathers guilty of their Son's faults, and of their Families ruins.  
I Have purposely reserved to treat of the Laws of our Country in the last place, because (I assure myself) they are of most force to sway the Point in question. For many things may be permitted by the Laws of God and Nature, and yet contrarily prohibited, or practised by course of Law, in several States of the World, as the Lawmakers and Customs of Countries allow or command. I confess, the general practice of our Time among Parents, is to leave either All or most part of their Lands to their Eldest Son. This questionless (as hath been said) was first devised in former Ages, for the preservation of a Family, and to raise One who might be a Comfort to his Brothers, Sisters, and Family, and in whom his Progenitors Virtues might live to the World. And I will not deny, but the Partition of Lands, may reduce in the end, a goodly Estate to Nothing, or to so little, as it may be like an Atom in the Sun; yet I find in Natural Reason, that, ex nihilo nihil fit, or at , that 
Haud facilè emergunt, quorum virtutibus obstat  
Res angusta domi.—  But if Men fail of those happy Ends, 
Cessante ratione, cessat Lex,  to which this general Custom should guide, than could I wish, that they would not use That for their Destruction, which was meant for their Preservation. For who sees not, in these our Times, many unbridled youths so violently carried away with the humour of spending, that they neglect Brother and Sister; yea, bring to extreme misery their Natural Mothers after their Father's Death, by their unthriftiness. What help for this hath Law left unto us? No means to bridle these unruly Colts, if they become Heirs according to the custom of our Time? No truly. For some starting-hole will be found, to untie the Knot which a Father's care once tied. How then? Must many a hopeful and well-deserving Brother and Sister, be left to the Mercy of this Whirlwind? There is no Necessity. For our Law hath given Power to a Father, and  to dispose of his Own, according as Reason shall guide his Will, without all obligation to his Heir. Besides, this Custom takes place only after a Father's Death, if he dispose not what is his, by Deed in life, or by Will at his Death. But lest my Words be more generally taken, than they are meant; I mean those Fathers, who are possessed of their Lands in Fee, or Fee-tail: that is, are absolute of themselves, and have not upon good Consideration conveyed their Lands from themselves. For all our Lawyers agree, that such Parents may alien, sell, and give, by power of our Law, their Lands to whom they will, without respect of Person or Eldership.  
But may some say, the Custom is otherwise, & this Custom is a Law. True, it is the Custom: But let us see, whether it bind sub peccato, or as a Custom, which rather invites than commands. There was never any Command to tie a Father under a Penalty which admits no limitation; but it was ever left indifferent, and then only to take place where former Provision according to course of Law is not made. Then surely a Parent is free from this devouring Custom, and may considerately prevent what Evil it may bring to his posterity: yea, Reason commands it should be so. For, Interest Reip. ut quilibet re suâ benè utatur: It concerns the public State that Men be Good Husbands; saith the Civil Law. For if a Man can neither sell, nor set, much less can he give any thing to another, which he thinks in his Conscience, will use it to the Dishonour of God, and the Ruin of himself, or others.  
Divines hold, that it is not lawful to sell or let a house to any that he thinks assuredly will make thereof a Stews; or to sell, give, or lend a Weapon to a man who intends therewith to do murder. Excommunications are imposed on them, who sell Arms Offensive, or Defensive to Turks, though they be not assured, they will use them against Christians.  
Thus, we see, the Rule of Conscience, not only commands a man to use well those Fortunes which God hath bestowed on him; but forbids him, either upon Affection, or Gain, to part with them to others who will abuse them, lest he partake of others sin: which a Parent may do after death, who leaves his Lands to a desperate Unthrift. But, what Religion and Conscience commands, shall be declared in the following Chapter. In which, upon Principles drawn from the former Conclusions, shall be argued, what sin may be contracted by the parting an Estate among Sons, or by disinheriting an  son upon just Cause; & to whom the Father is only tied by the Custom of the the Country, without Obligation of Promise, or Contract in Marriage, which may alter the Case.   

CHAP, 6.  
That it is no offence before God, for a Father being Tenent in Fee-simple, to disinherit the Eldest, or to parcel his estate upon cause: and that extreme vices of Heirs Apparent, together with the fewer means which younger Brothers have now to live on, then heretofore; cryeth out against the contrary opinion.  
THE Right of these insociable Inheritors, of which we now treat, may grow (as I conceive) from three Titles or Claims, which they may pretend to a Father's Inheritance, and whereby it may be deemed (as they think) sin in a Father, upon what Desert soever, to bar them of the said Right. These three Titles, are Purchase, Custom, and Entail. Of each severally. And of the first, which is Purchase. Surely in the judgement of the Good & Learned, there is no question in Law, or Conscience, but that a son joined Purchaser with his Father, hath Ius in re, and by Equity must, surviving his Father, inherit such Lands as were purchased in their Names.  
Now of the other two, though it be as clear as Noone-light, that a Lord in Fee-simple, or Tenent in Taile, may sell, or give by course of our common Law, at his pleasure all such Lands held by him, in that kind, according to those forms of Law, which the learned in our Laws have, and can set down: yet there seems to arise a great Difficulty, how such an Act or Acts may in Conscience be executed. I have heard some say, in this our Case, summum Ius, summa injuria.  
Of these Points therefore I will speak (Salvo meliori judicio) what may in Conscience, vpon good and just Occasion given by the Son to his Father, be put in Execution. It is well known to all Divines (as I have said) that Holy Writ hath not prescribed any direct or precise Form to the Children of God, whereby they are bound in Conscience to dispose of their Lands and Goods, but hath absolutely left them to the Customs of their Country, where any Act of that kind shall be executed; only as confirming all Forms of Devises which by public Consent, and Authority, either have, or shall in rightful manner be devised or ordained.  
Out of this Ground and others prementioned, let us examine, whether a Father parting his Fortunes by Power of Law, and on just Cause; shall do a wrongful and sinful Act, as some would make it. I confess, that every Act in itself, or by circumstance evil, and which upon no occasion can be justified, is both before God and Man, sin, and by no means to be executed by a Christian. But that the parting of an Inheritance, or Disinheriting of an Eldest Son, upon just, and evident cause of incapacity, & according to Course of Law, is an Act of that Nature, doth not appear. For I find not, that either the Law of Nature or Grace, nor yet the Laws of Man, Common, Civil, or Canon, ever for bad such Acts, whereby sin may be imputed to those who do them on good Considerations. Sure I am that the Canon and Civil Law are so fare from forbidding them, that they command, as a Thing in Equity, the Father either to divide his Inheritance, or allow him according to his Affection, to give to one more than to another: yet with this Proviso, that he who hath the jest, have his 
* Or lawful Portion: See pag. 61. of Dr Ridleys' View illustrated by the judiciously ●e●●ined Mr Gregory.  Child's part; which the Law doth also assign, except on just desert he disinherit any one: which at this day may, yea must be by Will, with the cause of Disinherison therein specified. Of which Causes the Imperial Laws have set down fourteen, as may well appear to them who are desirous to understand more thereof. So it is evident, that by these two Laws, no sin can grow upon such Acts, being done upon their Warrant, and upon on such Consideration, as is formerly delivered.  
As for the Common Laws of our Realm, sure it is, they allow no less, and with a greater Privilege. For a Man may by this Law, give his Lands held in Fee, either by Deed in his life, or by Will at his death, to any of his Children; yea to a stranger, without rendering a Reason why he doth so. True it is, that a Father not disposing thereof in such sort, Custom gives the whole Estate to the Eldest: yet in some part of our Country, the youngest Brother, by custom is to have the Land, held by some kind of Tenure, if the Father in his life-time dispose not thereof.  
As yet therefore I cannot see, how any sin is committed, or contracted by the former Acts, being neither done against the Law of God or Man, as we have proved: unless it should be said to be sin, not to leave it to the Power of a Custom: which cannot be, except the former Law shall be proved not to be of Force, and not to be executed; which can no way be done: Though I must confess, that the Custom of leaving the Child-estate to the Eldest son, hath of latter Times been much embraced by our Gentry, for the preservation of their Families, for which it was invented. For the Times have so ruled, that Men of sort, being either idle, or not possessed with a covetous Humour, have contented themselves with their Father's Fortunes, and preferred their younger sons by those means which the Times did afford: namely, by many commendable Courses; as either by service of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Persons, whereby many were raised: or by professing a spiritual Life, whereby the younger Brother hath ofttimes in Honour stepped before the Elder. But this manner of Life, is not so grateful to our English gentlemen's Natures, as anciently it hath been.  
The Trade of the Merchant, the Military profession, the Courtier's life, advanced many more, than now they do; and lastly, Elder Brothers in former Ages were (generally) of better Temper in spending: and if they had no humour to get, yet had they a care to keep what was left them: and ever held themselves bound by Religion to provide for their younger Brothers and Sisters left to their Dispose, which now is far otherwise. For some Elder Brothers are found to spend more in a year idly, than would prefer or maintain a whole Family Nobly: and to suffer their Brothers & Sisters to shift, which as these Time's shape, is oftentimes to live either lewdly, or most miserably: 
* Strenue esurire.  being forced either to forget their good Education, or to lay aside all Badges of Gentry; who otherwise with some reasonable helps, might do God, their Country, and Family much Honour.  
Since we have gone so fare, let us see, on what Ground this Custom first hath risen. Surely for the maintenance of a Family, yet led with an Ambition at the Example of Princes, who finding some difficulties in the admitting of many to a Government, and feeling what Inconveniences the parting of an Estate, brought; devised that One should govern: sometime the Worthiest, sometime the Eldest was Elected, according as the Order was agreed upon, and yet the other Brothers were maintained like Princes. And this Custom also among them hath been broken, without Imputation of sin: For to go no further than our late Times: 'tis well known, that Ferdinand (Charles the fift his Brother) being settled in the Empire, divided his Estate. To Maximilian his Eldest son, he left the Empire, with Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia. To Charles his second son, Stiria, Carinthia, and other Dominions. And to Ferdinand the youngest, he gave the Earldom of tyrol. All which, if in his life-time he had not disposed, had come to the Eldest. Also Philip the second, late King of Spain, gave to his Daughter the 17 Provinces, which were of Right to have descended to his son after his Death, if otherwise he had not disposed in his life. And this was adjudged lawful by Grave Divines, otherwise surely they would never have done it.  
But doth this Custom in meaner Degrees work that Effect which it hath done in them? No truly. For as we have proved, it is rather the Overthrow than the Preservation of many Families. Let us see withal, whether Families flourished not as much, and more than now they do, before this Custom was received.  
Livy saith, that three hundred of the Fabiuses, 
una dies Fabios ad bellum miserat omnes Ovid. Fast.  all of one Name and Family, issued out of Rome Gates at one time, on their own Cost, for Defense of their City: which was done, before this Custom was dreamed of.  
In Scotland three hundred of the Name and Family of fraser's, Gentlemen, were at one Time slain in Fight by their Enemy's Neighbours: and 140 Gentlemen of one Name in Yorkshiere, waited on their chief or principal Man of their House, at that time High Sheriff. In other Countries, many Noble Families from the Romans downward, have continued where this Custom hath been deemed , as by their Laws is manifest: whereas in our Country, in these our Times, if there be one Family in a Shire, which is of three hundred year's continuance, very many others are scarce of five Descents in a Blood.  
Why should our Age then, seeing the Fruit of this Custom to be so small, embrace it with such Zeal as to deem the Breach thereof, being warranted for Good and Just by the Law of God, Nature, and Man, to be a sin? Is it held both lawful and expedient (in some Countries) for the preservation of a Family, that Degrees of Kindred should be dispensed with to marry, contrary to Ecclesiastical Canons and the General Practice: and can it be lawful before God and Man, for the preservation of our Goods, to venture our Lives, and to kill a Thief, who shall assault us, and that perhaps for a Trifle; and yet that for preservation of our whole Estate, and perpetuity of a Family, it shall be reputed sin, to break a bare Custom, under no Penalty Obligatory, yea always allowed by Law? Never was it heard, that a Custom 
* Customs against Laws, are void by the Civil Law.  was of such force, to abrogate a Law so fare, that it should be deemed a sin to follow the said Law, though it have Power to dispense with the Law, which otherwise to infringe, were sin: especially when as the the Law is both more pious and more natural than the Custom is. For how fare is it from the Law of Nature, and from the Practice of Paternal Piety, the Father dying intestate, the Eldest son to become Lord Paramount of all his Father's Lands, & not to be bound by Law to provide for Brother or Sister, but at his own good liking? Aliud Tempus, alios mores postulat. Men of Virtue, Men of Learning & Virtue, both now and in former Ages, in this our Country, have broke this Custom, 
* This Custom is contrary to the judgement & practice of the Primitive Church: as is clear in Salvianus; who intimateth, that aequa haereditatis portio was usually left by Christian Parents to their Children, and that to do otherwise, were Gross Iniquity: Ad Eccles. Cath: pag: 422. 425. Edit: Oxon: Floruit: Ao 480.  as the World knows, upon good Consideration, & just Causes; not upon spleen, or false suppositions persuaded to leave their Fortunes to Strangers, or to a lustful Issue, as some have done.   

CHAP. 7.  
That Father's being Tenants in Fee-tail, may likewise without scruple of Conscience, discontinue the State-taile upon cause; and devise the same at their reasonable pleasure.  
HAving treated largely, and (as I presume) proved sufficiently, that Lands held in Fee-simple, may either be parted, or upon just Cause wholly given away to a younger Son: I intent now to speak of the lawful Freedom of a Father in like sort, and on the same causes, moved to dispose of his Lands entailed: of which there seems more Doubt than of the former.  
Every humane Act, which of itself is not forbidden by the Law of God or Nature, is to be judged Good or Evil, Lawful or Unlawful, either by the Laws of the place where the Act is done, or by Intention of him who shall do the Act. For as the Divine Law commands somethings to be done, and other things to be avoided, under pain of sin: so the third sort of Actions are left free (by the said Authority) from sin; except the Law of Man prohibit them, & so make them sin: or else evil Intention make them (being of themselves lawful) to be a sin, and unlawful; according to that Principle of Moral Philosophy, Finis specificat anctum. For as an Act of itself lawful, done against Law is Sin: so a good Act commanded by Law, yet done with an evil intention, may be sin.  
From these Grounds, let us see, whether the Common Law of our Country, and the Intention of a Father (which are to be the judges of our Cause) can allow the cutting off an Entail, the parting of an Inheritance, or (upon proportionable cause) the disinheriting of a Son. First it is clear, that the Act, of itself, by Law may be done: But whether such an Act be summum Ius, which may be summa injuria, that is the Doubt. What shall be the Trial? By other Laws, it is either made lawful, or left indifferent. Our Law which makes this Tie, giues leave to undo it without any exception. Ergo, to a good End, and upon just Cause, it may be done. It will be replied, that the Eldest son, during this Entail, is quasi Dominus: Yet, having neither Dominium directum, nor indirectum, he, during his Father's life, hath only Ius ad Rem, and not in Re: Whereby no change is forbidden to be made by the Father, according to the Form of the Law under which he liveth, and by which, the son is to make claim, if the Father create no new Estate in his life. For it is lawful for every Man to dispose of his Own, as far as the Law shall permit him, if it be not forbidden by some other Law: but such an Act is not forbidden by any other Law, Ergo 'tis lawful, and no sin.  
But it may be said, that the Intention of him who entailed the Land, was, that it should not be untied, or the state changed. I answer: No Act done by law, can be free from Change, further or longer, than the Law that made it a binding Act, shall allow. And it is well known to the learned in our Laws, that every Man's Intention is to be construed according to Law, by which, his Act and Intentions are directed. Whereupon, Civilians say in like Cases, Valeat quantum valere potest. Neither is it thought, that any man who convaieth his Lands by Entail, can intent an Act beyond Law, or desire that his son whom he makes Tenent entail (as our Lawyers term him) shall in no Case, no not for the preservation of his Family, or Relief of many other of his Children, have power to cut of this Entail, and to be able to alien, sell, or give his Lands, as Reason, Law, and Religion shall permit. For it may be judged, that he who doth an Act to a good End, as namely to preserve his Family, will always assent to another Act, which shall with better assurance than his own, strengthen his Intendment.  
To the former Considerations we may add, what Inconveniences may follow this General Position. For if in conscience the whole Inheritance of the Father, is to come without control to the Eldest son, then must it of necessity be inferred, that the Father, without his Consent, 
* Agens per medium, est minus efficax in agendo.  cannot give to pious 
* Da quae non potes retinere, ut consequaris ca quae non potes amittere.  Uses, or set out for the Advancement of his other Children any thing after his Death. So that if God should bless a Father with many children, and cross him with as many Misfortunes; his other Children, and all other his charitable Intentions should be provided for only at his son's or Heir's courtesy. Which how 
* Pedissequa enim plerumque novi honoris, est Arrogantia Salu. Ep. 2.  absurd it is, all men know. For hereupon all Donations to pious Uses, and to younger Brothers for their preferment, may be called in Question.  
It is an ordinary thing in these our Times, when the Land is left to the Heir General, to alter the Estate, if the Land so conveyed shall come to Daughters, and to leave it to a Brother's 
† Hebrews call a Malechild Zacar, a memorial: because the Father's memory is preserved in the Son, See 2. Sam. 18.18  Son, or some other of the same Name (though peradventure many Degrees removed) for preservation of the Name and Family. If this may be deemed lawful, and no sin, being done against a well deserving Child, for whom, Nature and her Deserts plead her worthy to be her Father's Heir: then without all compare, if the preservation of a Name and Family, may justly be laboured for, according to Power given by Law of God and Man; the same may be lawfully acted, against a debauched Heir, who in any reasonable Man's judgement, is likely in his  to bury the Memory of all his Ancestors Virtues, which should live in him, and his Progeny, as his Progenitors did in theirs.  
It is neither new, nor strange, in the Practice of our Times, in Causes of this Nature, to overthrow intended Perpetuities, and by Act of Parliament to give leave upon some good considerations to sell lands, which otherwise by no Laws can be sold from the Heir, the Father being but Tenent only for term of life. Which surely by no Power under God could be done, were the Thing in itself, unlawful and sin; for 
* See Salvian ad Ecc. Cath. l. 4.  Omne peccatum est Divinitatis injuria: Whence may be argued à Fortiori; If power may be given to a Father being Tenent for Term of life, to sell his Son's lands, only to pay his own Debts (peradventure idly made) though it be to the Overthrow, or extreme Diminution of his Family; because Natural Equity doth will, that every one should be relieved with his Own, (for so it may be deemed, though in love to his Child he hath passed the Estate, yet ought he to be therewith preserved from Thraldom in his Necessity:) Which if it be so, (as confessedly it is) how reasonable a thing, yea how commendable, and far 
† So Salvianus: Non iniustè testator sapiens non relinquit, quod haeres impius non meretur. Ad Ecc. Cath. l. 3.  from sin is it, for a Father truly Lord of his own, without all Tie of Law, Divine, or Humane (as I have proved) to dispose his Lands, to the Honour of God and Comfort of his Family, to a Younger Son, when in all probability, the Elder will neither use it to the One nor the Other, but rather, to wallow in Riot and Sensuality.   

CHAP. 8.  
That Unthriftiness is one known name of many hidden sins; and is alone a sufficient cause of disinherison; proved by the Law of God and Man.  
Having upon good Consideration enlarged myself beyond my first intention, I have resolved, under my Readers Favour, & on the precedent Principles, to Argue one Question more, for the accomplishment of this Discourse: viz: Whether a Father may disinherit his Eldest Son or Heir at Common Law, for such an Unthriftiness, as in most men's 
* Viz: Grounded on the concurrence of great and violent Presumptions.  judgements, is like to be the Ruin of his Family?  
Though many foul sins, besides the Abuse of God's Blessings, be concomitant to unthriftiness, yet because they are not apparent to the World (& de absconditis non judicat Praetor) I will briefly argue, Whether in Reason, or Conscience, a desperate Unthrift may be disinherited.  
It is well known to all the Wise & Temperate, whose judgements Passion doth not oversway, how great an Enemy Prodigality or Unthriftiness is to all manner of Goodness: and how cunningly she not only hinders the Increase of all Virtues in those in whom she reigns: but also unjustly ofttimes cuts off the virtuous reward of many a worthy Predecessor; yea, gives occasion to the Evil to detract, to the Good to suspect their Deserts. All which, how great a Wrong it is to a Noble Family, I leave to the indifferent Reader to censure. I will not deny but there may be many sins in a Man, which in the sight of God, and judgement of Men, of themselves are more heinous, and deserve a fare greater Damnation than Prodigality doth: 
Those sins more punishable, which are more offensive to common Society; though less heinous in their particular nature.  yet are sins in this World to be punished, not as they are in themselves, but as by Circunstances they are offensive to the Society, Peace, and Honour of Mankind, which God and Nature, ever as the Reward to all Moral Virtues, and as the chief End of Man's Life, intended. For otherwise, Usury, Detraction, Forgery, Adultery, Fornication, Swearing and Drunkenness, with many more, which are as grievous offences in the Eye of Heaven as Theft, should be punished with Death, as Theft is. But since they offend not so much the Peace of a public Weal (at which the Civil Magistrate aims) as Theft doth; they are not censured with such severe Punishment as it is. All which shows directly, that Offences by Circumstance are made in a Civil Society against which they are committed, either greater or lesser; and are accordingly to be punished: and no less doth the Reason & right Rule of State command.  
Out of which Grounds it is evident, that all Forms of Government do most punish that Offender, who directly or indirectly seeks to disturb the Peace, or overthrow the Liberty, or disgrace the Dignity of the State where he life's: yet many greater Offences than these may be committed, as Incest, and Apostasy, which are not so sharply punished by the Civil Magistrate. For every one to whom God hath given power on Earth, doth chief seek the End, for which his Power from above, is given to him; and doth censure and punish in the highest Degree, those Offences, which tend to the Overthrow of a well-setled State, by good & lawful Power confirmed.  
Now to descend from these Premises to the Point in Controversy, and to apply what hath been said, to our purpose. It is well known to the World, that a Family is a Civil Society, yea the only Commonweal which God & Nature first ordained; from which, all Societies, Republikes, & Species of Regiment took their Original. For the maintenance of which Society, there is no Question, but God hath given many 
* Fathers of Families had power to bless, curse, disinherit and punish with death; as appears by the Examples of of Noë towards Cham, Abraham towards Hagar and Ishmael, jacob towards Simeon 〈◊〉 Levi, and of juda towards Thamar. Gen. 38.24. See Mr. Godwin, ubi supra  Privileges to a Father, as well to reward the well-deserving, as to punish an evil child or member of his Body: not only by depriving them of their expected Fortunes; but by cutting them off from his Body, either by Abdication or Exile, or Death itself. For it is clear by the Ciull Law, that a Father had for many years, not only free Power to disinherit, but also Power of Life and Death over his Children, who should greivously offend him or his, living under his Civil Government. But since that Things unknown are grown out of Use, and may seem as well incredible, as strange, I cannot in prudence pass over the Matter in Question so lightly, as that it may be worthily subject to sharp Censure, or rashly branded with the Mark of Untruth.  
Therefore laying aside the Testimony of the old Roman Laws, in the case of a Father's Sovereign Power over the life of his child, given to him by the 
* Cap. 3. Dio. Halicar. l. 2. Antiq.  Twelve Tables, where it is written: Pater familiâs habeat jus vitae: yea,— terque filium venundandi potestatem; I will briefly and effectually prove out of the Sacred Text itself, what I affirm. There than it plainly appears, that Fathers had Power among the jews, to cause their children for Riot, Disorder, or Unthriftiness, to be stoned to Death: Ergo, power to disinherit: For the Greater ever includes the Less. Not to seem to speak without Book, it shall not be amiss to set down Moses words, which are as follow.  
If a Man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that will not obey the Command of his Father or Mother: 
Deut. 21.18.  and being chastised, shall be unreclaimable; they shall apprehend and bring him to the Seniors of that City, and to the place of justice: and they shall say to them: This our son is incorrigible and disobedient, contemns our Monitions, abandons himself to riotous Excess, and is a Drunkard. The Citizens shall then overwhelm him 
* Stoning was appointed a Death for Blasphemy & Idolatry: which (by concurrence in this case) argues how execrable a Crime Disobedience to Parents is in God's sight.  with Stones, and he shall die; that ye may take Evil from among you, and that all Israel hearing it, may fear.  
Whence we may collect, how odious a Crime Unthriftiness was among the People of God; and what ample Power the Father had to punish the same in his Child. For if we observe well the Manner of the Process between the Father and the Child, in this Case, we shall find that the Father was Accuser, Witness, and as it were judge of his own Cause. For we read not that the Senators of the City did give sentence, or further examined the Proofs of the Father's Accusation: but their Presence giving as it were Allowance to a Father's Power, and Intention to punish his Son, the People might without more Enquiry, stone to Death so evil a deserving Child. Which being well considered, my Hope is, that it will never hereafter seem unlawful, though somewhat strange, that a Father should disinherit his Eldest, or any other son of his, for the Cause only of Unthriftines.  
And although the World of Men is grown to that Greatness, that it is necessary, One General Father, or Politic Head should be in a Kingdom, or State, which may justly abridge some of these Privileges, and abate a Father's Power (all Father's being Children to the Father of their Country, their Lord and King, under God) yet the Power to advance and maintain a Family by good and lawful Means, is still both allowable and commendable in a Parent; who may from time to time reward according to distributive justice, all those which live under him, by leaving his Fortunes to them, as in justice they shall deserve, and Law shall allow. So that, there is no Question, but he may still disinherit, according to the power of that Law under which he life's. For no other Tie is over him: God and Nature 
* The Law of Nature, or (as Civilians style A) of Nations [on which a Father's Plenary Power is founded] is by S Paul expressly termed The Law of God. Rom. 1.31.  allowing that, at this day, & for ever, which once they gave unto him. Which Authority he not only may, but aught also to execute, as fare as the Law of Man shall permit: otherwise he shall err in his Paternal justice.  
For a Father is not only to beget and nourish his Children in his life, but by Nature's law must provide to his Power, that they live both in his life & after his death, to the honour of God, the service of their Country, and comfort of their Family: which were the only Ends for which God created Man a Civil and rational Creature. All which, if it shall assuredly be thought by a Father, that any Child of his will wholly neglect, or rather execute the contrary; then no question, a Father is not bound to leave him any more than shall honestly suffice the Necessities of Nature. For (as before is said) no Man may give or lend his Goods to any one, who will in all men's judgements assuredly abuse them.  
But let us see, whether a desperate Unthrift may be arraigned, and adjudged Guilty of these Accusations. Surely, it is clear, that all unthrifty 
* To play away our Praedecessors labours; is a greater dishonour, then to piss on our parents ashes 〈◊〉 raze their monuments. Carp. Achitoph. p. 3.  courses are displeasing to God, and contrary to to his Honour. And how can he be able to serve his Country, who in short time will not be able to serve himself with Necessaries wherewith to live, but must of force be maintained like a Drone in a Common Wealth, out of others Labours. As for his Family, what greater Discomfort can it have then an absolute Overthrow? Whereby, the Noble Acts and Honour gotten to it by virtuous Predecessors, are buried in Oblivion; and the present & future Hopes of all worldly and lawful Honours (Virtues temporal Reward) are quite taken away. And shall not ALL THIS deserve Disinherison? Can there be a greater sin committed against the Honour and Essence of a Family, as it is a Family, 
The life and soul of a Family.  then to be spoiled of its Honour, and Life itself? For in these our Times, well gotten Goods, and used as they ought, are the only Soul, by which a Family, and all the virtuous Acts which it hath done, may live.  
Since therefore so great a mischief is sought & aimed at in this sin, surely according to the proportion of distributive justice, the greatest punishment is in Equity due to the same, according to the reason of the Precept, Ius summum unicuique tribuere. Nature teacheth the silly Bees in their Common Wealth to do to death their Drones, who live of others Labours: and shall it be thought unlawful for a Father, so to punish an incorrigible Unthrift, who will not only live of others Labours, but also subvert the honourable Endeavours of his Noble Ancestors?  
Thus if Sons may be deemed, and doomed by the offended, having power to do both, according as the Offence done against them shall (by circumstance) be of Quality (as we have proved they may and aught) then certainly it is lawful for a Father so to do, as I have formerly demonstrated.  
But because Examples in all Controversies of Fact, are the best Fortifications; I will, in illustration of the Premises, add some few to the former, drawn as well from Royal Precedents (by whose Patterns— totus componitur Orbis) as from inferior Persons, whose Qualities best fit the condition of our present subject. And if Kingdoms & Common Weals have favoured it, then certainly, by all Arguments à majori ad minus, it may much rather be done, and aught to be suffered in private Families.   

CHAP. 9  
The main points of the Premises exemplified in divers particular Facts, as well of Princes, as of private Persons.  
IT is not fit perhaps to urge the better Acceptance with God of Abel's Offering above Cain's the Elder Brother; 
Temporis praelationem tulit improbitas: Dignitatis praerogativan Virtus. Philo. de Caino & Abele. Abel. japhet.  but that Estate which Abel had in Adam's Patrimony. Nor will I reinforce japhets' share in his Fathers Right to the whole World, though he being the youngest Son of three, had Europe for his Inheritance, which in all Arts, and Uses of Life, fare excels afric, Asia, and all the rest of the Earth. Whereas, according to the pretences of those customary challenges, Sem should either have had all, or been Sovereign Lord of all, and Cham and japhet with their Posterity, but Farmers, or Freeholders' under him.  
I will not also (as if there were penury of Resemblances) produce again Esau's Disinherison, though that 
* In this case God said expressly, The Elder shall serve the younger. See Gen. 25.23. and Malipiero 1.3. (with the Geneva Note there.)  were enough for our present purpose. For, had it been Sin (which neither Scripture, nor josephus in his Antiquities saith) the Mother could not have procured it, God would not have prospered it; nor jacob himself, being a good man, have accepted it, nor Esau (whose anger jacob feared) have left it unrevenged. Neither is there in Scripture, nor in any written Law under Heaven, any Command to restrain the Father's Power, but rather the contrary. For such is the Law of Nature, that they who are ex aequo one Man's Children, should, if not ex aequo, yet not ex iniquo, be provided for.  
Against which Partiality, the Imperial Laws admit so forcible a Remedy, under the Title of an inofficious Testament, as it shall enable the younger Child, to a certain proportion of estate, whether the deceased Father would or no; if he had no just reason for omission, or disavowment in his last Will. 
Reuben. See Gen. 49.4. & 1. Chro. 5.1. Ephraim.  The Example certainly of the same holy Patriarch, jacob, in depriving his eldest son Reuben of the dignity of Birthright (for his enormous offence) and in preferring Ephraim before Manasses, the younger son before the Elder, being his grandchildren, against the set 
* Gen. 48.18.  Purpose of joseph their Father, seems unanswerable on behalf of 
* Grandfathers are usually called Fathers in Scripture; specially in respect of such as inherit after them.  Parent's Power for transferring, or distributing their Blessings. Of which it may be verified: Qui prior in Benedictione, est potior in jure.  
Of Solomon I have spoken before, who was not David's , but Adonias, after Absalon was slain: as David himself was not the Eldest son of jesse his Father, but the youngest, and yet 
* See 1. Chro 28.4.  chosen by God (who sees not as Man doth, for with him is no respect of Persons) to govern Israel, though he was not set before his Brothers in the private Inheritance of the Family. And in the Gospel it is apparent by the Parable of the Workmen, who came at unequal hours into the Vine-yard, and yet had equal Wages, that First and Last are to him alike; who though he created Things in number, Weight, and Measure, yet he squares not his Favours by priority of Being, 
* Witness Ishmael disinherited, and Isaak (the younger) preferred by God's Award. See Gen. 21.12. where ver. 10. & 11. it is clear, that Abraham had (otherwise) divided his inheritance betwixt them. [Can the World yield a better Precedent?] N.B.  but of well-deserving.  
Augustus Caesar, the most Illustrious of all the first Emperors, settled the Imperial succession, not upon his only Grandchild Agrippa Posthumus, the son of his daughter and sole Heir, the Lady julia, though Tacitus saith, he was nullius flagitij compertus (than what, if he had indeed been a notorious Unthrift?) but upon Tiberius, 
Tiberius.  a stranger in Blood, and his son by no other, but by a Civil Title of Adoption, because he reputed him fare the fit to govern.  
Chosroes King of Persia, 
Medarses.  made Medarses his younger son, Consort in his Empire, leaving out his Eldest Sinochius.  
But to omit foreign Examples (for Brevity sake) wherewith (of all Times and Places) Books are full: In our Country we might allege the Fact of Brutus, the Protoparent of our Nation, 
Brutus.  who divided Albion (afterward called Britain) to his three sons, leaving only the best 
* England.  Portion to Locrine, anciently called Loegria; Albania (now Scotland) to Albanact; and Cambria, or Wales, to Camber.  
Leir, long after, known he had so much Power in himself as a Father, even against the Evidence of his own Act of Partition, by the Original Law of Nature; as for the Ingratitude of his own Children, 
Cordeilla.  to confer the Kingdom wholly upon his younger Child Cordeilla, in prejudice of his Grandsonnes, Morgan and Cunedage, borne of his Eldest daughters.  
I know some will give no credence to Brutus' Story, which in this case they might with the more Reason do, if the ancient Weal, or British Custom, were not responsible in the Practice thereof, to that Act of Brutus. 
Roderik.  For, not only King Roderik divided his Kingdom of Wales to his three sons, (according to that distinction of the Country into North-Wales, South-Wales, and Powisland) but Others since have done the like among them.  
As for Brutus' History, as it hath some Enemies, so also hath it many Friends, and those of Eminent Worth and Esteem. Henry Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Matthew of Westminster, & others among the Ancient. Of latter Times, Sr john Price, William Lambert, Humphrey Lloyd, Dr White of Basingstoke, Count Palatine in right of the Civil Law Chair (an Honour due to the just Number of years by him passed) and innumerable others. Above all the rest, Edward the first, King of England, with all the Earls and Barons of this Realm, by their Authentic Deed or Instrument, confirmed in Parliament. But to proceed.  
They who know the old Fashions of Ireland, either by Tradition, or by printed Statutes of that Nation, can testify of their most ancient Tenure, or Fundamental Custom, which there is called Tanistry. By which, 
Irish Tanistry  the Land and Cheefty of a Name, after the Predecessors Death, is not awarded to the Eldest son, but to the Worthiest (if I mis-remember not) the judgement whereof is left to the People, and such Tenants as have Interest & Right of Suffrage: (as Alexander the Great, though as 'tis apparent in the Maccabees, 
1. Macc. 1.7.  very falsely is said to have left his Empire.) And the Custom of equal shares may be in other places also, which never borrowed their equal Partitions from Gavelkinde: A Custom, I grant, which some have lately altered in their private Families by Parliament.  
To omit a Number of unexceptionable Precedents and foreign Examples; If All must necessarily have gone to One, how came it then to pass, that in this Kingdom, there were at one time, so many Great and Honourable Families of one Blood, disjoined in their seats, and distinguished in their Armouries, by different Arguments? Or, who is so meanly seen in our Antiquities and Stories, as not to know it was so? And that many renowned Houses (to speak as de magis notis) Plantagenets, 
Sundry great Families of one Blood at a Time.  Mortimers, Beauford's, Beauchamps, Dela-Poles, nevil's, Gray, and the like, have grown and flourished out of one common common Ancestor? It can never be refelled.  
Of Disinherisons in Worthy Families, Mr William Camden Clarenceaux King of Arms (the singular Ornament of England) gives us two Eminent Examples. (And who is he, that remembers not one or other, in his own Knowledge, or Acquaintance?)  

Carew●.  jane, Daughter of Hugh Courtney, and Heir to her Mother, wife of Nicolas Lord Carew, disinherited her Eldest son Thomas, cùm minùs reverenter matrem haberet, for his irreverent Demeanour; and parted her Lands (which were goodly) among her three younger sons: of whom are sprung three several Worshipful Houses of the Carewes; called Haccombe, Anthony, and Bury. So that God by the success crowned the Fact, and confirmed the Lawfulness of Partage.  
And this is the first of Mr Camden's Examples.  
The other is this. Bryand Lyle, or Fitz-Earle, Lord of Abergevenny, 
Brientius de Insula.  having two sons, both Leprous, built for them a LaZaretto or Spittall: and gave to Miles Earl of Hereford fare the greatest part of his Patrimony from his Children. The One of these Examples is in the Description of Devonshire; and this other in Monmouthshire. And this may suffice for clearing the former Document (the subject of this Whole Discourse) by Exemplification.   

CHAP. 10.  
That the Law of Natural Equity & Reason confirm just Disinherison: and that the riotous lives of Elder Brothers deserve that vehement Increpation with which the Author closeth up this Treatise.  
LET us now look into the Nature of Equity, and examine whether in Natural Reason (which is the Law of all Laws) the Temperate aught to be subject to Intemperate: (I mean, within the Verge of private Families.) Fools and Frantiks, to whom no Law imputes 
* Voluntas crimê non habet, ubi furore peccatur. Salvian.  Sin, are not punished for Theft or Murder, or for any other Offence which they do, being mad, or unreasonable. And though humanely they cannot offend; yet, in THIS SORT according to Equity, they may be punished. The Reason is: All Law being grounded on Natural Equity (otherwise it is no Law) doth not only punish Offences committed; but also prevents Offences which may be done, by rational or irrational Creatures. And since Fools and Madmen cannot offend to be punished, or by punishment be reformed; and yet they with whom they live, shall inevitably be offended, if not overthrown by them having 
* Nothing more dangerous than armed Madness.  power, (as namely Brothers, Sisters, and their whole Family put in danger of extreme Misery and Ruin) the Law according to all NATURAL EQVITIE takes all Power from them.  
I have inserted this clause [according to Natural Equity] for, that it is against Nature, that Men should be subject to Beasts, or insensible Creatures. Whereupon Aristotle disputing the Nature of Rule and Subjection, saith: that None are borne 
* Servitude proceeds not from the Law of Nature, but from Nature corrupted See Mr downing's Discourse of the State Ecclesiast p. 68  slaves, but such as Nature hath abridged of the Use of Reason, who being truly slaves, are utterly unfit to govern. Upon which Ground, the same Great Philosopher, prefers that Form of Polity, where the Wisest and Best are admitted to the Manage of State-affairs: (as at this day is most conspicuous, in the Blessed Reign 
* Consul Plausus & Vita Illustrissimi Equitis, D. Henrici Worton; Viti omnium literatum, linguarum, ac Virtutum laude florentissimi.  and Regiment of our Most Gracious and Glorious SOVEREIGN; whom God preserve.)  
But it may be said, What is all this to our Purpose? Yes: thus fare it may be well applied: If Nature's Intent to make all Mankind, Reasonable, according to their Species, being hindered by some inevitable Accident, shall so blemish and maim Those, in whom such Defect and Natural Weakness shall be found that They (according to Divine and Humane Law) may and aught to be deprived of all Right and Claim to any Thing, (more, then to sustain Nature) and debarred from all Superiority and Seniority, which by Law or Custom might otherwise have fall'n on them; (because, according to Natural and Divine Equity, MAN ought not to be governed by BEASTS; such as Idiots and Frantiks seem to be:)  
If This be so, as according to Nature's Rule it cannot be otherwise, what punishment shall we think due to That Reasonable Creature, 

The Prodigals Character.  
See more of this Subject, in that Reverend and Illustrious Author Democritus junior. Part. 1. Sect. 2. Memb. 3. subsect. 13.   borne in a Civil Society of Men, to whom Nature hath not been a Stepdame in bestowing her Blessings; and whose Name, and Family hath been ennobled & enriched by the Virtue and Industry of many Worthy Predecessors; who shall through Disorder, and inordinate Desires, habituated in him by Custom and Evil Conversation, become an Unreasonable and unmeasurable sinful and shameful Creature, a debauched 
* The Civil Law appoints Curators for Prodigals (as for Madmen) and Guardians likewise of their Estates: the Want whereof, is the Ruin of many great Houses in England. See D. Ridley, ubi sup. p. 268 where he notes a Defect in our Laws, which have no provisional order therein.  Bedlam, a wild American, a wilful and most intolerable Madman, a Thing unworthy the Name of Man; a Prodigal shall I say, or a PRODIGY? who contrary to all Rule, Law, or Order of the most Barbarous Society of Men, taketh away (by his outrageous Impiety) the Soul (as I said before) of all his Ancestors; who being dead, yet long might live in their 
* Immortalitatem spondet [Deus Abrahae] cum Genus promittit. Ambros. Ariotous heir a Civil Monster.  Posterity: and consumes the Womb of his Family (Viperlike) wherein he was borne: and without all Remembrance of his obligement to the Dead (whom, as having his Being from them, he ought to honour) or Respect to the Living (to whom he should be a Comfort) devours in some sort, them of his own Species, Society, and Blood: All which, the Cannibals do not: For though they feed on their Species, which are Men like Themselves; yet they hunt after Strangers, and nourish themselves with Others Flesh, observing still some Law of Society among Themselves, which our CIVIL MONSTER doth not. For he, contrary to all Course of Nature, sucks oftimes the Blood of his nearest and dearest Friends: namely his Children, Brothers, and Sisters: yea, some of these furious Fiends have brought their all-tender-hearted Parents to the Greatest of all Woes, Beggary in their old Age. And all this, to maintain by Force, or Fraud, a damned Crew of Roaring Devils in the shapes of Men. Of eich of whom, we may say, dividually; 
Tali Bacchus erat, tali Gargantua vultu;  
Tale triplex 
* Of the Family of the Treble-chins.  mentum Pantagruelis erat.  
So did old Bacchus, or Gargantua swell;  
And such a Bull-chin, was Pantagruell.  And of the whole Madcap. Fraternity (for they will needs be 
* Fratres in malo: or fraterrimi (as was said of Friars.)  Sworn Brothers) 
Pestis, quâ gelidum Boreae violentiùs Axem  
Nulla vel infecit, nulla vel inficiet:  
A greater Plague to this our Northern Clime  
Never yet came; nor can, in Aftertime.  But to return, from the pursuit of these Savages. Nature hath given, yea she hath so strongly inhabituated a laudable Desire in all Creatures to 
* Salvianus excellently demonstrates this in Bees. De guber Dei l. 4. p. 120.  preserve their Species; that directly or indirectly to attempt the Contrary, were more than Monstrous Immanity. Families, be they Princely, Noble, Gentile, or Vulgar, are in a sort particular Kind's, or Species allowed of by Nature's Law to be raised, 
Totus namque mundus, & totum humanum genus, pignus est creatoris sui. Salvian. ubi sup.  and maintained, under, or in their chief Genus, Mankind Universal: which to defeat or overthrow, by irregular, extravagant, and exorbitant Courses, let the Philosopher, either Natural or Moral; the Lawyer either Civil or Canon; the Divine, Schoolman, or Casuist; judge how punishable.  
Moral Lawmakers in ancient Times praetermitted to make Laws against Offenders of this nature. Being asked Why? They answered: That no Man could be so impiously ingrate, or inhuman. Whereby is evidenced, how transcendently heinous the Offence was adjudged by them, and how severe Punishment (were they to make Laws in these our corrupt Times) they would prescribe for such Cardinal criminals.  
Thus much for the Ventilation of the present Point in Question. In the arguing whereof, if what I writ in defence of Younger Brothers (as here the Case is put) I seem to have received Ex traduce, rather than Ex certâ scientiâ, the wiser sort will (I hope) not blame me. For my Intent was only, (as at first I promised) to set down a Table-Discourse, and not a Controversy discussed in Schools. If I have spoken according to dialectical Reason (as I believe) then may I safely think, that my Discourse is armed with strong Authority. For what hath been spoken heretofore truly, which Reason hath not dictated to all 
* Salvianus in this Case may speak for All: Name 〈◊〉 omnes admodum filij membra parentum esse videantur, non putandi sunt tamen membra eorum esse à quibus affectu caeperint discrepare: quia morum degenerantium pravitate pereunt in talibus beneficia naturae: Though all Sons be equally Members (or Portions) of their Parents, yet are not They so to be reputed, that shall by 〈◊〉 Courses wilfully dismember themselves from them: for, degenerate Conditions tender such Children unworthy of the Benefits of Nature. Salvian de gubern. Dei. lib. 3o.  Author's Pens? If therefore I were able to cite a Thousand Great Authors for what I have said, yet All would amount to no more, but that which Natural Reason hath, or may teach daily. All which, with myself, I intrust to the gentle and equal Censure of my Courteous Reader.  
FINIS.  
Implumis ales nunquam Coelum Omnivago penetret volatu. LAUS DEO ET IESV MEO.