Jus Fratrum, THE Law of Brethren. Touching the power of Parents, to dispose of their Estates to their Children, or to others. The Prerogative of the Eldest, and the Rights and Privileges of the younger Brothers. Showing the variety of Customs in several Counties, and the preservation of Families, collected out of the Common, Cannon, Civil, and Statute Laws of England.  
By John Page, late Master in Chancery, and Dr. of the Civil Law.  
LONDON, Printed by I. M. for Henry Fletcher, at the three gilt Cups, near to the West end of S. Paul's, 1658.   

To the Reader:  
DIscordia fratrum inter se Amarissima, woeful and long continued experience tells us with what bitterness enmity amongst brethren is carried on, if we cast the least glance of our eye amongst the many violent Lawsuits, daily prosecuted by brother against brother; so that we see the saying of the Poet, complaining of the Iron age, near two thousand years ago, verified in the superlative degree in our age, 
Concordia fratrum  
Rara est—  
Filius ante diem patris inquirit in annos.  Love amongst brethren (saith he) is rare to be found, and the son goes to the Oracle to inquire how long his father shall live, that he may inherit his estate.  
The eldest would have all to be his, and the younger thinks the elder hath too much; and while they strive who gets most use of his father's estate, commonly a third person carrles all from them both.  
This Treatise will discover the Rights of both Elder and Younger, if they will be contented with their portion, fully answering the Apologer, for the younger brother, or the younger brothers Plea. This book called the Apology or Plea for the younger brother (being a Treatise so entitled) was Printed at Oxford in the year 1636.  
Hereby brethren may learn to know their Right, and that being known and obtained, I could wish them to be therewith content, and observe the Apostles divine command, Let brotherly love continue.   

The father's power and Prerogative in disposing his estate.  
A Father's free power disputed, as that he may dispose of his Lands, or other his Fortunes; to his son, sons, or any of them, as right, reason, the Laws of God and man, the civil, cannon, and municipal Laws of this kingdom do command.  
2, I will prove by the Laws of God and man, that a father's freedom is such that he may lawfully and religiously, give his lands, or goods, or other his fortunes, to any of his children, for the preservation of his name, and comfort of his posterity: as right, reason, or the better deserts of a son, shall persuade him.  
3. Nature never set it down, as a Law, that the estate 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.  
4. Neither is there in Scripture, nor in any other 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.  
5. Children during their father's lives, have only jus ad rem, not jus 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, and give, as it shall please him.  
6. The Cannon, and civil Laws, give no precedency or superiority of right to eldest sons, but command it as a thing in equity, the father, either to divide his inheritance amongst his sons, or to give to one more than to another, as it shall please him; yet, with this proviso, that he who hath the least hath his child's part, except on just cause he disinherit him.  
7. The Common Laws of our Realm, allow every father to give his land in fee, either by deed in his life, or will at his death, to any of his children, yea, to a stranger, without rendering a reason why he doth so.  
8. The Imperial or Civil Laws, gave Parents at the first a power of life and death over their children; and the Jews had the same power given them by the divine Laws.   

An Advertisement to the Reader.  
YOu may see here, with what a merciless immanity, this wild Apologer falls upon elder Brothers; for no Laws, either divine or humane, allow them (as he says) any right of inheritance at all above other sons, nor any other sons can claim any thing of their Parents (as of right) but what is their Parent's pleasure to bestow of them: and daughters are in the same, or in a worse taking, for he infers, that they may lawfully be disinherited, and the estate conferred by the father (if he hath no sons) to any one of the same name, because the name of the family is extinct in the daughter, and the Hebrew word Zacar, which signifies a male child, doth signify also a memorial, because the father's memory is preserved, in the son, But this is not all, for it is not enough that Parents have a free power to make their children beggars, unless they have also a free power over their children's lives. It is strange that the Apologer, who pretends so much learning and honesty, should be so fair in his Epistle, and so fowl in his Treatise, (which thanks be to God) is no Gospel, for there he protests, that it was not upon any the least presumption of a selfsufficiency, to confront thereby any received custom; nor to diminish the natural reverence due by younger brothers to their eider, nor to enkindle emulation in families, nor to innovate any thing to the prejudice of public or private quiet, that he made public his Treatise; but his principal motive or aim was, the singular respect, which (as a Patriot) he bears to the glory of gentlemen's houses, and to the general good of great Britain; which, how well he hath performed, or whether he had any such intention or no, let any man judge who shall read his Treatise: And though he seems in some places, a little to confine the parental power, by saying, that Fathers are to dispose of their estates, as right reason, and the better deserts of a son shall persuade them, or chief for the preservation of their families, (which every wise, and good man, must and will have a care of) yet this is but a seeming restriction, for all is left to the fathers there's affection and will; and the eldest son hath no more right to inherit then the youngest, and either of them none at all, but at the courtesy of the Parental Monarch.  
As for his vain suppositions, that if the eldest son be a natural fool, or madman, or turns Turk, or be extremely and desperately vicious; they shall have no serious part of my Answer, because they are no material parts of the charge of his Tratise. The questions, upon which I shall chief ground my Answer, are these two:  
The first is, Whether eldest sons have a superior right, above other sons, to inherit the greatest part of the father's estate.  
The second is, Whether fathers may lawfully, and religiously give their lands and goods, to which of their children they please, or to whom they will: But, I will now take a view of his proofs, and be so bold as to examine his invincible reasons, and arguments, for so he calls them.   

The younger brothers Prerogative.  

Proof I. Out of the Law of Nature for the younger brother.  
THat all communicable things were common amongst men, for many ages after the Creation: in all which time, no man laid proper claim to any thing, as due to himself alone, whereby it well appears, that hereditary succession, or title to a father's lands, or goods, could not be then in use; or so much as thought of.  
Answer. It it more than the Apologer; or any man can prove, that all things were enjoyed in common, for so many ages as he surmises. But the contrary is manifest; for we find, that immediately after the Creation, and for many ages together, the generations of Seth and Cain, did neither communicate, nor so much as marry the one with the other; and it is not unprobable to think, that Cain and Abel, (the first Sons of our first Parents) as they had several vocation, so they had (as a curse for sin) a several propriety in their goods, because they agreed no better.  
But admit all things were enjoyed in common, for many ages after the Creation, what is this to purpose; for if there were no proprieties or estates, there could be no inheritance then in use; though (questionless) the right of inheritance was then in eldest sons, as now it is: unto whom (as the Apologer says) there is a natural reverence due from his younger brothers; and if there be a natural reverence due, there ought also to be a natural right to inherit the greatest part of the father's estate, for how else should that natural reverence be maintained, with such a due respect as it ought to be.  
Proof 2. 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 or worldly conversation of men, have, and do daily embrace, this natural and blessed community.  
Answ. This blessedness of community, which the Apologer so much contemplates, takes away his pretended free power of Parents, for if there were no estates, they would have nothing to dispose. And it is the Anabaptists and Eamelists so much admire, and profanely practice, for they enjoy all things in common, even as much as their wives, and in that are more beasts than many of the unreasonable creatures: for amongst many of them there is a kind of conjugal contract, and a constancy observed between the males and females. It is true, that all good Christians should so live, and love, and help one another, as though they enjoyed all things in common: But I would fain know, what other people besides Christians, the Apologer means, who have, and do, (as he says) daily embrace this blessed community, and in the way of a perfect and religious life.  
Proof 3. That the Law of God is never contrary to the Law of Nature, and that fathers have, by the Law of Nature, a free power to dispose of their estates and children.  
Answ. It is true, that there is no Law of God, against the Law of undepraved Nature, or as Nature was in her first purity; yet (as our nature now is) there are many things in the Law of God, which are seemingly against Nature, or merely preternatural as is the loving of our enemies, the doing of good to them that hate and hurt us, Matth. 5. Luke 6. 1 Pet. 2. But as there is no Law of God, contrary to the Law of Nature; so there can be no good or warrantable Law of Nature, which doth not agree with all the divine admonitions, and precepts, both of the Old and New Testament; and therefore the pretended free power of Parents, cannot be grounded upon the Law of Nature, for it is directly against the divine precepts, as appears, Numb. 27. Deut. 21.  
Proof 4. That the happy Law of Nature, which endured so many ages and, 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 men, 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 Law, 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.  
Answ. The Apologer is so transported, with the imagination of the happiness of community, that he flutters up and down, and even loses himself in impertinent discourses, to what he undertook to treat on. But admit sin were the cause of dividing lands, and making laws, he will not say (I hope) though he seems to infer it, that it is a sin to observe the laws, because sin was a cause of making laws.  
Proof 5. That Nature never set it down as a law, that the estate 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.  
Answ. Neither the Apologer, nor any man whosoever, can prove (or so much as make it probable) that Parents have that free and absolute power, by the Law of Nature, as is pretended; neither can they prove that the right of inheritance, in eldest sons, is not grounded upon the Law of Nature: But if the Apologer would have fathers to have that free power, by the Law of Nature, as is pretended, he must first prove how fathers are become the true and absolute Lords, and masters of their estates by the Laws of Nature: for it is absurd to say, that Nature gives a power to dispose of that which the herself gives not, and this is more, I believe, than the Apologer, or any man else can prove.  
It is true, that every man hath his several way of understanding, which is unto him, his natural reason, though the thing conceived be never so absurd and foolish. The Apologer says, that fathers have such a free power by the Law of Nature, and that eldest sons have no right of inheritance by the Law of Nature: and this is the dictamen of his nature, or his natural reason, for which he gives no reason, nor can allege any convincing or satisfying authority to prove it.  
And that you may see, how unnatural, and unreasonable, his pretended free power of Parents is, I pray you consider a little, & tell me whether any thing can be more unprobable, then that a father should be more free; and absolute than Adam was, when he was in Paradise, and in the state of Innocency: for Adam, was under a command or Law, but the Apologer would make father's lawless, Stat pro ratione voluntas.  
And what I pray you can be more reasonable and necessary, then that there should be a chief son, or heir, amongst our children: for there must necessarily be an order and subordination in all things, otherwise there will be a confusion in all things, and what follows confusion, may easily be conceived in any understanding, for it is indeed the mark of hell, or rather hell itself, where no good order, but an everlasting horror doth inhabitate, Job. 10.  
And it is no less necessary, for the preservation of peace and concord, amongst Brethren, that this cbief son or heir should be generally known, by a native, natural, and undoubted right; for otherwise, all the other sons would malign, and envy that son, who should be preferred to the inheritance, unless the son so preferred, had an undoubted and native right thereunto, and had his right also confirmed (as is now in the case of eldest sons) by the general practice of all good Parents, which general consent and practice, can proceed from no other cause or ground then from the instinct of nature, and consequently, from the will, providence, and ordinance of Almighty God.   

Proof out of the Common Law and Civil Law, for the younger brothers right.  
THat divine precepts are not so absolutely binding, but that they may in some cases lawfully be broken; for though the commandment is, Thou shalt not steal, nor, Thou shalt not kill; yet one may, in extreme want of food, steal, or violently take from another man, and may lawfully kill any man in defence of his own life, and goods: so though there were a divine precept (as there is none) that eldest sons should inherit, it could not intent that such eldest sons, who are natural fools, or madmen, should inherit.  
Answ. It is true, that natural fools and madmen (though eldest sons) do not deserve to inherit: but what doth this make against the rights of eldest sons, who are no fools or madmen. Surely it concerns the pretended free power of Parents, as much as the disinheritance of eldest sons: for if the father, (according to the Apologer) turn idiot, or madman, the Apologer will not deny, but that he is made thereby incapable of the management and disposure of his estate.  
Proof 7. That if 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 son, than 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.  
Answ. It is absurd, and no consequence at all, that there should be any such temporal Lord, for the eldest son is not to inherit all the estate, but only the greatest part of it, fathers being to provide for all their children; and the Apologer knows, though Adam had the whole world to himself before he had his wife and children (who were partners with him by a coequal right) though he had a kind of superiority and sovereignty over them) yet he had it not by way of inheritance.  
Proof 8. That it was never yet averred by any sound divine Philosopher, or Lawyer, that nature makes immediately heirs, but men: They talk idly who say, that God and nature make heirs, upon which ground our Common Lawyers say, that no heirs are born, but men and Law make them.  
Answ. It is more than the Apologer, or any man can prove, that eldest sons are not born heirs: eldest sons, as soon as born, are heirs apparent by the laws: King James was born a King, and crowned in his cradle, and is there a native and natural right in Kings, and not in others: howsoever it cannot be denied, but that Esau had a native, and therefore a natural right, as appears by the word Birthright: and the Apologer cannot but know, that it is God only, who gives and makes heirs, which heirs are the eldest sons, as plainly appears by his divine precepts, Deuternom. 21. etc.  
Proof 9 That God, requiring obedience of children to Parents, promised a reward; saying, Honour thy father and 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 sons of men, for with God there is no exception of persons, but as a just and pious father, he gives to every one according to his deserts, terram autem dedit filiis hominum.  
Answ. I know not what the Apologer should intent hereby, unless he would have it thought, that as all children are equally commanded to honour their Parents, so all children who equally honour their Parents, should be equally rewarded by their Parents, though the Laws, both divine, and humane, give a superior right of inheritance to eldest sons: and concerning his terram dedit, I know what he should mean thereby, unless he would have every man to be thought an unnatural tyrant, and an usurper. who hath a particular and proper estate unto himself, because the words are terram dedit filiis hominum, God gave the whole earth to the sons of men: that is, not to any one in particular, but to all in general. You may see here, how bold he is with the Laws, for he strikes at the very root of them; and you may see what a boundless and liberal mind he hath, for he would have every man a freeholder, and no less than the whole world his inheritance; But Mr. Apologer, if this should be so, what would become of your pretended free power of Parents, for they would have nothing to dispose of.  
Proof 10. That there is no divine precept, that eldest sons should inherit, that it is well known to all Divines, that holy Writ hath not prescribed any direct 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; that there is neither in Scripture, nor in any other written Law under Heaven, any command to restrain the father's power, but rather the contrary.  
Answ. The Apologer cannot but know, that there are divers plain, and divine precepts, concerning the inheritance of eldest sons, one of which he himself doth often cite, but never fully relate, and these are the divine words: if a man have two wives, one beloved, and the other hated; and they have born him children, both the beloved and hated, and if the first born be hers that was hated, then shall it be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn, and prefer him before the son of the hated, which is indeed the first born, but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated, the first born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the beginning of his strength, the right hand of the firstborn is his, Deut. 21. Parents therefore are not to think themselves so absolute, as that they may make choice of what heir they will, according as the wind of their affection shall blow; for affection is here excluded, we live under a Law grounded upon Divine Ordinances, which we are bound in conscience to observe, and inviolably keep: and though the letter of the law is, that eldest sons should have a double portion above their younger brothers; it is not where said, that eldest sons should have but a double portion, as though Parents should be concluded from giving them more: for so we should condemn our national Laws, and the general practice of all good Parents, who usually leave the greatest part of their estates to their eldest sons.  
But says the Apologer (or seems to infer it) neither this, nor any other divine precept, doth any way restrain a father's free power: for the words are, when he maketh, or is to make, his sons inherit: that is, when he is disposed, or minded so to do; and if he be not so minded, he may choose, for he hath a lawful power and freedom to do otherwise. But Mr. Apologer, shall I in answer propose a question to you, and concerning your own profession, (for they say, you are a learned Divine) suppose there were this saying in Scripture, that when a minister makes, or is to make his prayers or a Sermon, he is to demean himself in a zealous and sober manner; will you say that a minister, is not obliged at all, but may choose whether he will pray or preach, or demean himself soberly; indeed, I could wish (being yourself, as you say, a younger brother,) that you would demean yourself a little more soberly, and mannerly, towards elder Brothers, who are your masters; and not to question their ever yet undeniable rights, but rather to conform yourself to the admonition of the Apostle, Tit. 3. Stultas autem quoestiones & Geneologias, & pugnas legis devita, sunt enim inutiles & vanae.  
Preof. 11. That the prodigal son mentioned in the Gospel, Luke 15. being weary of his father's house, came to his father 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 goods was then 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 thd Civil and Cannon Laws; for the words following in the sacred Text are these, & 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.  
Answ. The parable of the Prodigal, so much advanced by the Apologer, makes nothing against the rights of eldest sons, for though the words are, & pater divisit, and the father divided; yet it was movable goods, or money, and not lands which he divided; and it cannot be understood that the father gave half the estate to the younger son; for than he should leave but one half for himself, his wife, and eldest son.  
But this parable clearly overthrows the pretended free power of Parents; for the prodigal demanded his portion of his father, as of right, (which the Apologer says, all children may do) and had it paid him.  
Proof 12. That 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 son should play at sweepstake, and all the rest left to the mercy of the four winds, for it is expressly recorded in the last chapter and fourteenth verse, that Job gave his daughter's inheritance among their brethren, which comes home to the point in question, and irrepliably evinces a father's power and right to make partition of his estate among his children.  
Answ. The Apologer says, he is now home to the point in question; but I know not what can be further off from the matter in question; if he be no better an archer, than an arguer, the safest place for a man to stand in when he shoots, would be at the mark, as Diogenes was said to do to, one who used to rove at random; for the question he is here come home to, is, that job gave some inheritance to all his sons and daughters; and he did well, and as all good Parents ought to do: for neither the Levitical law, nor any other good law, doth allow fathers to leave their whole estates to their eldest sons, but only the greatest part of it, for they are with job, to provide for all their children: this, I grant, is a question without question, but Mr. Apologer, if it please you to remember the main question, which appears in the mighty charge of your Treatise, is, whether eldest sons have a superior right to inherit above other sons, or rather have any right at all; and whether fathers may lawfully and religiously, give their lands, and goods, to which of their children they please, or to whom they will.    

The younger Brothers rights, by the Cannon and Civil Law.  

Proofs out of the Cannon and Civil Law.  
THat God in his commandments, did but second his former Ordinances given by nature; for so long as mankind lived, in a sort, after the innocency, 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, God gave him new Laws, yet agreeable to nature; and Laws, which ever had but the name and credit of Law, do derive their 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  
Answ. The Apologer, to gain the more credit, doth flyly cover himself with the Law of Nature; and would persuade his easy Readers, that all the Laws, he alleges, are grounded upon that Law. I deny not, but that the same was in the Law of Nature, as is delivered in the holy Tables of the Law; but neither the Apologer, nor any man can know, which were all the Laws of Nature, nor what Laws are grounded upon that primary Law; it is the duty of every good Christian, and good subject, to conform himself to the Laws he lives under; and not to wretch and stretch them to wicked ends, by their false constructions, nor yet too curiously to search into them, which is always an argument of a proud and rebellious spirit: So, that in all this fair flourish, the Apologer hath proved nothing to purpose, but only shown the antiquity of Cicero, who lived (he says) many hundred years ago.  
Proof 14. That by the Civil Law Parents had at first, a power of life and death given them over their children: and a free disposition of all their fortunes to any of them in his life, but if he died intestate, than the estate was to be divided among the children equally, as well sons as daughters.  
Answ. I might here answer him with his own two say, Cessante ratione, cessat lex, & summum jus, est summa injuria; and he also says, that it is no Law, but tyranny, which wholly disagrees with the Law of Nature, & what can be more against Nature and natural equity, than that Parents should have a power to destroy their own flesh and blood, which are their children: and he says, that these Laws were first invented and practised by the Romans when they were heathens, and he needs no other answer then this: that it was very heathenishly done of them; but why should the Apologer urge this, himself saying, that this Law was rigorous, and afterwards altered upon good grounds. And concerning the division of the estate equally amongst the children, for so, says he, the Civil Laws ordain; It is well known, that the practice is much otherwise where the Civil Laws are in most force; as in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, etc. for there the chief house and the greatest part of the inheritance is usually conferred upon the eldest son, and it is a Maxim amongst them, Seniores, honores, juniores labores; the Arts, Arms, A munities, and the more noble trades, as Merchandise, and the like, and not lands of inheritance are the more proper portions for younger brothers.  
Proof 15. That in natural justice, children, during their father's lives, have jus ad rem, not jus in re, to their 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, and 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; hat the Cannon and Civil Laws command it, as a thing in equity, the father either to divide his inheritance amongst his children, or allow his children according to his affection, by giving to one more than unto another, as it shall please him.  
Answ. The Apologer speeks generally, and citys neither authority nor Author, and so deserves to be neither credited nor answered; but I will not deal so unkindly with him. There is no question, but that children have not only jus ad rem, but jus in re, to their father's goods in his life time, as plainly appears, by the claim which Esau made, and by the parable of the prodigal; for the prodigal came to his father, and boldly said, Pater da mihi portionem, substantiae meae— give me that portion of goods which belongs to me; & pater divisit, and the father gave him his portion: and Esau came as boldly to his father, and demanded the due of his Birthright, because he was the eldest son.  
And for all the large sovereignty, which (as the Apologer says) the Civil Laws give Parents over the children, the Apologer confesseth, that fathers (unless they can give a just cause to the contrary) are bound by the Civil Laws, to leave every child a portion, called a Legitimate, or Patrimony, which makes clearly against his so absolute a power of Parents, for if they are bound, how can they be said to be free?  
Proof 16. That even to this present day, the engrossing all by primogeniture, hath not been so much as heard of, or at leastwise never admitted in the Civil Law, as by many Text in the same Law, it well appears.  
Answ. The Apologer is still upon his generalities, and gives neither reasons nor authority, but the best is we may believe him as we list; I confess that no good Law, either Civil or Cannon, or any other Law whatsoever, allows the engrossing all by Primogeniture; as that the eldest son should have all the estate, & the other children nothing; but it is false that there is no mention at all in the Civil Law of the rights of Primogeniture: for the great Lawyer Baldus, in his Book De justitia, & jure, faith, semper fuit, & semper erit, it always hath been, and always shall be, that the firstborn doth succeed and inherit.  
And the arcient Historian Herodotus, in his Polihim, thus saith, it is the general custom amongst all men, that the first born doth succeed and inherit. And if we will believe Sir John Heywood, a late, and learned Doctor of the same Laws; he tells us, that all the best, and most approved interpreters of the Civil, and Cannon Laws, do jointly hold, that Parents have no lawful power to invert, or pervert, the due course of inheritance, unless there be some such great cause, as was in the case of Reuben, and the word Senior (say they) which signifies priority of birth, is often times taken for Lord; and not without cause, for says on Apostle 1 Timoth. 5. Seniorem ne increpaveris, sed obs●cra ut patrem, Do not disrespect thy elder, but honour him and treat with him, as if he were thy father; and indeed the Senior, or eldest of our sons (as is manifest, Gen. 27.49. Gal. 4. etc.) is to be as a Lord over the rest of his brethren.  
But the Apologer it may be (being himself a Divine cannot relish any other authority, but from Divines; I will therefore, for his better instruction, and satisfaction (if it can be) present him with the opinions of two very authentic Divines, and of great antiquity S. chrysostom, and S. Jerom. S. chrysostom, in his fift Sermon against julian, saith, that the firstborn is is to be esteemed more honourable than the other children; and S. Jerom, in his Epistle to Onogron, and upon the 49. Gen. saith, that the right of inheritance is only due to the first begotten, or eldest son living.   

Proof out of the Common Law.  
THat our Common Laws give power to a father, and free will to dispose of his own, as far as reason shall guide his will, without all obligation to his heir; all Lawyers agree, that such Parents who have estates in Fee simple, may alien, sell, and give, by power of our Law, their lands to whom they will, without respect of person, or Eldership: for it is lawful for every man to dispose his own, as far as the Law shall permit him.  
Answ. You see here how the Apologer lays down the Law against elder brothers, and indeed against all children; for fathers may (as he says) do what they will with their own, for so the Laws permit. I might here answer him with his own two say; that Laws without reason are no Laws at all, and that extreme Law is extreme injury; but he shall have a fair answer, and I hope, a full one.  
It is well known, that it is impossible for any Law (though there were a thousand Solons to compose it, and the wisdom of a Solomon to assist them) that could prevent all inconveniencies, and those are the best Laws politic, that prevent most. And I am so far from thinking the Laws to be faulty herein, that I must ever approve the goodness and wisdom of them, in allowing Parents so absolute a sovereignty over their estates and children: for it is most necessary and just, that Parents should have this free power permitted them, because it is a great means to keep their sons in a due obedience, and make them strive, by a noble emulation, who should best deserve their father's love.  
And the Apologer knows that usury is permitted by the Laws, and usury (as himself says) is as grievous a sin in the eye of Heaven, as theft is; and he may as soon prove, that usury or theft is lawful, as he can prove, that an eldest son, who is wise and dutiful, may lawfully and religiously be disinherited; for he cannot deny, but that the intention, justice, and equity of the Law is, that eldest sons should inherit; so, that upon the matter, fathers are but Feoffees in trust of their estates and children, and this great power is only lent them to prevent inconveniences:  
Proof 18. That the Common Laws are of most force, to sway the point in question, which I have therefore purposely reserved to treat on in the last place. That by the Common Laws, a man may give his lands in Fee, either by deed in his life, or will at his death, to any of his sons; yea, to a stranger, without rendering a reason why he doth so: That it is no offence to part an inheritance amongst children, or to disinherit an eldest son, upon just and evident cause of incapacity, if it be done according to course of Law.  
Answ. If the Apologer supposes by his just and evident cause of incapacity, that the eldest son be a natural fool, or madman, we will not much dispute the matter; but if he means, as he every where pretends, that the want of the father's affection and will, is a just and evident cause of incapacity, he is in a gross and shameful error; and I cannot but marvel, why the Apologer should so much urge the authority and force of our Laws, on the behalf of his younger Brothers: for there is nothing so sacred in our Laws, as are the rights and privileges of Primogeniture or eldership: old Bracton, and divers others of our greatest Lawyers, do plainly aver, and prove, that our Laws are herein divinely grounded, and they give their Text, Numb. 27. A perpetual Law, as the Lord commanded Moses.  
And though the eldest son should be a natural fool, or madman; yet if the father do not otherwise dispose of the estate in his life time (and it may be a question whether he may lawfully and religiously so do, for it would be a wrong to all the succeeding posterity) yet this natural fool or madman, and his eldest son after him, or the next in blood who should succeed him, is by the power and ordinance of our Laws to inherit.  
And such is the indulgence of our Laws, towards eldest sons and their rights, that the Law takes even natural fools, and madmen, (if eldest sons) into its bosom and protection; and the estates are preserved that they may run in the right course of inheritance, which is, to the next in blood, or from one eldest son unto another. And surely Mr. Apologer, I know not why you should be much commended for your integrity, in persuading Parents, that all is well done which is done by the power and permission of the Laws; if you had aimed (as you say in your Epistle) at the general good of great Britain, you would have told Parents, what they might lawfully do, and not what they could do; but suppose there were so absolute a power in Parents as you would have them believe, what would your younger brothers get thereby, for whom you apologise: why forsooth, nothing at all, but what pleases the Parental Monarch, for fathers may give their lands, and goods, to a stranger, or to whom they will, with rendering a reason why they do so; I would fain know, whether any thing can be more inhuman and monstrous, and whether there was ever such a desperate John an oaks as this wild man: for though he would a little hid himself under the words of a just and evident cause of incapacity; yet he confidently avers, or seems to infer it, that it is a sufficient warrant for any man's conscience to do, as the Laws shall enable him; currat lex, valeat quantum valere potest.  
Proof 29. That though the use and custom be, that eldest sons inherit; yet the breach of this custom is no sin, for it is such a customs, which rather invites than commands or binds; that customs against Law are void by the Civil Law, and that it was never yet heard that custom was of such force, that it should be deemed a sin, not to follow a custom, especially when the Law is more pious and natural than the custom is.  
Answ. It is true, that no good Christian ought to observe any bad custom, and no custom is to be kept, which is against the Laws; if the Law be more pious and natural than the custom is; but that it is against Law and Christian piety for eldest sons, who are wise and honest, to inherit the greatest part of their father's estates, or that a father may lawfully, and religiously, disinherit such a son: I cannot think him a wise or honest man who can believe it.  
And whereas the Apologer says, that it is but by way of custom that eldest sons inherit; he cannot but know, that next to the Divine commands) there is not any thing can more bind the conscience, or more satisfy and settle the judgement, than a general practice or custom, if the custom be good and just, as it is in this case of inheritance.  
And he knows also, that our Laws are divided into three parts, Statute Law, Common Law, and Custom Law: and Custom is a second Nature: the Apologer says, that it is the more general practice, or custom, for eldest sons to inherit; and how can we better repose our consciences and judgements, then in a general practice, or custom; and how can any man think otherwise, but that Parents do thus, and have done thus, even from all antiquity, moved only by right reason, and out of conscience, in obedience to to the Laws.   

Proof. Of the Law of Nature.  
THat many younger brothers and sifters, for want of due means from their fathers and elder brothers, are forced to shift, which, as these times shape, is either to live lewdly, or miserable. That the trade of Merchandise, the Military profession, the Courtier's life, the service of Noble men, and the like; have advanced more in former times then now they do: and this kind of life, is not so grateful to our English gentlemen's natures, as anciently it hath been: Ergo, fathers are to allow, and leave more largely to their younger children.  
Answ. The Apologer having used the Laws at his pleasure, gins to tax the times: for, says he, younger brothers for want of means, are forced to live, either lewdly, or miserable, as the times shape. He next falls upon the Camp, Court, and City; for, says he, neither Merchandise, Soldiery, nor service of the King, will serve now adays to prefer, and help younger brothers; and he gives this reason, and very wisely, because such courses of life are not so grateful to our English gentlemen's natures, as anciently they have been; and younger brothers being careless to increase their small Patrimonies, by thrift, and honest industry, do by his own reasons deserve no Patrimony at all: for (says he) interest Reipublicae, ut quilibet re sua bene utatur, it concerns the Commonwealth, that men be good husbands, and employ their goods in such a manner as shall make most for the good of the Commonwealth.  
Yet I deny not, but that it is a great error in Parents who have great estates, to leave so little as they usually do to younger sons: for such younger sons, who have small Amunities, and have never been enured to labour, nor have any other means to get their living by, when their necessities make them say with the Steward, in Matth. I cannot dig, and I am ashamed to beg: it doth often force them to dishonest courses, and is a cause of numberless mischiefs; and no marvel, for it is a hell to the minds of most men to decline to more inferior courses, than those have been bred up with: and therefore it were much better that Parents themselves would have a better respect to their younger children, and not leave them (as too many do) to the courtesy of their eldest son, whom they endeavour to advance, by making the rest of their children beggars; or by leaving them so little, that they are not able to maintain the place and credit of their Birth. I hearty wish it were otherwise, and that Parents would be better advised: But Mr. Apologer, you are clean beside the matter in question, for you undertook to prove a father's free power, in disposing of the estate at his pleasure, and that eldest sons, have no superior right to inherit above other sons.  
Proof 21. That the custom of eldest sons to inherit, hath rather been the overthrow, than the preservation of Families: for, when such custom was not in use, we find in Livy, that three hundred of the Fabii, all of one name and Family, issued out of Rome gates, at one time, on their own cost, for the defence of their City, who were all slain: In Scotland also, three hundred of the name and Family of the Frazers, all Gentlemen, were at one time slain in fight by their enemies; and no less than an hundred and forty Gentlemen, of one name in Yorkshire, waited on the chief, or principal man of their house, at that time high Sheriff.  
Answ. It is true indeed, that the Fabii issue out of Rome gates, on their cost, and to their cost, for it cost them their lives, una dies Fabios, ad bellum miserat omnes, says Ovid: And if the Apologer would have it thought, that the custom was then to divide the estate amongst the sons equally, for the enlarging and preservation of Families; the best he can make of it, is, that it was but a heathenish custom, for the Romans were then heathens. And concerning his story of the Frazers, I know why he should make any mention of it, unless he would have his Reader to consider how much the Fabii and the Frazers did sympathise, because their names began both with a letter; as also, because they were both of a number, and both of a fortune, for they were all slain by their enemies: and the Yorkshire Sheriff (as himself says) was the chiefest or principal man of that House, that is, that he was of the eldest, or noblest House; and therefore by his own saying, there was no such custom then in use as he speaks of.  
Proof 22. That the custom of eldest sons to inherit, hath been in use but of late times; for how else could it come 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) Plantaginates, Mortimers, Beauford's, Beau●hamps, De la Poles, nevil's, Grays, and the like, have grown and flourished from one common Ancestor, it cannot be refelled. But in these our times, we find so great a decay of ancient families, that if there be one Family in a shire of three hundred years' continuance, very many others are scarce five descents in blood.  
Answ. The Apologer needs not think it so strange, that there should be so great a decay of Families, for being so well versed in History, as he would seem to be, he must needs know, that many great Nations and Peoples, are not only decayed, but have utterly lost their names: what I pray you is become of the twelve Tribes of Israel, who were a thousand times more glorious than then the Families he recites? and our very next neighbours the French, do not know where their German Ancestors called Franci did inhabit; only our Cambro-Britanni can derive their descent from the Moon, but other Nations are not so happy.  
And concerning those honourable names mentioned by the Apologer, as Plantaginets, Mortimers, Beauford's, &c. it cannot be thought (as the Apologer would have it) that the custom was then to divide the estate amongst the sons equally; for when a Family is gotten to an eminent height and power, it is an easy matter to advance younger sons, by making some of them Bishops (as the use than was) who should help the rest, or by preferring them to offices and employments of state; or by marrying them to heirs general, and we see at this ●… day, that the honourable name of Howard, is as largely spread into as many several branches, as any of the rest were then, and yet I never heard of any disinheritance practised by them, or that they used to make an equal division of the estate amongst their children.  
It is true, I think, that there are not many Families in one shire of three hundred years' descent, though (doubtless) some are of much greater continuance; but the cause is not (as the Apologer would have it supposed) because eldest sons inherit; but it is rather the mere act, and ordinance of God; for it is only God who gives children, and if there be no children, the Family must needs extinguish; and we find in Mr. Camden, and in our ancient records and deeds of conveyance, that many hundreds of names, of noble and ancient Gentry, are either lost for want of children; or by marrying of the heirs general, and the Apologer knows, that the Civil wars, treasons, manslaughters, felonies, and the like: have been the ruin of many noble houses, which could not have been prevented with all the Apologers natural reason; or by any free power, or care of fathers.  
Proof 23. That it is far from the Law of Nature, or Paternal piety; the father dying intestate, the eldest son to become Lord Paramount of the estate, and not to be bound by Law to provide for brother, or sister, but at his own good liking, aliud tempus alios mores postulat; when we have a wiser age, we shall have better customs: and men both of learning and virtue, have broke this custom upon good considerations, and just causes, not upon spleen, by leaving their fortunes to strangers, or to a lustful issue, as some have done.  
Answ. The Apologer cannot be ignorant, that if the father dies intestate (which the Laws suppose he will not do) being so much bound in conscience to provide for all his children) our Courts of equity do rectify, and regulate the Laws in such cases: and the Civil Laws (as says he) ordain, that every son and daughter, shall have a legitimate or child's part, whether the father dies intestate or no. And surely, I cannot think, but the Law does well, in leaving such a large and absolute right in eldest sons; for were the estate (as the Apologer would have it) to be equally divided amongst all the children, and the Lawyers and Neighbours should be called upon to make the division: every of the children would think his own part least, and trouble the Courts for a new and better division, until they had divided and brought the estate to nothing.  
But I pray you mark the uprightness of the man: it is, he says, against natural reason, and paternal piety, that eldest sons should inherit the estate; but he no where says, that it is against natural reason, and paternal piety, for fathers to disinherit their lawful children, and give their estates to strangers and Bastards: Nay, he seems to encourage them what he can; for they shall (says he) not want precedents, nor do any more than others have done before them, and will do after them.  
Proof 24. That it is against natural reason (which is the grandmother of all Laws) that the temperate should be subject to the intemperate, the sober and wise to fools and frantics: That servitude proceeds not from the Law of Nature, but from Nature corrupted: That it is against natural equity, and against Nature herself, that men should be subject to beasts, or insensible creatures: whereupon Aristotle disputing the nature of rule and subjection, saith, that none are born 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 policy, where the wisest, and best, are admitted to the manage of state affairs; and therefore if it be Nature's intent (as it is) to make all mankind reasonable: how reasonable is it, that they who are unreasonable aught to be deprived of all right, and claim to any thing (more than to sustain nature) and debarred all superiority, or seniority, which by Law, or custom, might otherwise have fallen on them; because according to divine and humane Laws, man ought not to be governed by beast, such as Idiots, and frantics seem to be.  
Answ. Here is a note beyond Elah, but he cannot want his answer, for he hath it already: the effect of all this fair flourish, being but this; that such eldest sons, or any sons, who are natural fools and madmen, or extremely and desperately vicious, are not fit nor worthy to inherit.  
But I know not what the Apologer should mean by his alleging Aristotle; that none are born slaves, but such as nature hath abridged of the use of reason; and that servitude proceeds not from the Law of Nature, but from Nature corrupted: if by the word servitude he means subjection, he grossly errs: for it as natural for a son to obey his father, as it is natural and pious for a father, to relieve, to instruct, and govern his son; but the words slave and slavery, are of so ill a sound, and bad a sense, that as no man is born a slave, so no man (methinks) should either be, or be made a slave. Natural subjection does well, both in son and subject; but slavery is unnatural, and monstrous, both in him that forcibly, and undeservedly, inflicts it; and in him that suffers it, unless it be for the cause of religion, and then it is an honour.  
But, says he, it is against natural reason (which is the grandmother of all Laws) that the temperate should be subject to the intemperate, the wise to the foolish: and therefore in natural reason, that son who is the wisest and worthiest ought too be heir, if it so please the father: for he is Lord paramount, and he must be the Oracle. But, Mr. Apologer, what if this your Oracle, the father (which is no very strange thing) should be foolish: for fools can get children as well as wise men; there is little difference betwixt either of them that way. Suppose, I say, that the father himself be foolish: why? what if he be? may the Apologer answer, fools are Christians as well as other folks; and he may (by chance) for all that, make as good a choice of an heir, as a wiser man; and this answer of his would be as solid, and as much weighty, as any other authority, or reason, he hath yet alleged, for his pretended free power of Parents, or against the rights of eldest sons.  
Proof 25. That it is no sin, nor offence for a father, who hath estate in Fee simple, to disinherit his eldest son, or any of his sons, for he hath a lawful power so to do: Ergo, fathers may with a good conscience.  
Answ. It is a hard matter to persuade some men what is sin: our precise Separatists, and new Anglians, will acknowledge no sin but infidelity: and some others there are of the Diabolical Sect, of ede, bibe, & lude. who think there is no sin at all: but the Apologer is none of these; for he honestly says, Natura Divinitatis fulgor, that Nature is a bright beam, or shining lamp of the Divinity: and he says also, Omne peccatum est Divinitati injuria; that every sin is a wrong, or an affront to God himself. And what can be more against Nature, then that a father should disinherit his own flesh and blood, which are his children, and give his estate to strangers: and what can be a greater affront to God, then that a father should disaffect and reject his children? whom God hath not only given him, but given them for his honour: for it is said, Eccl. 3. and Prov. 17. that fathers are honoured in their children. and that the Crown, or glory of old men, are their children's children.  
The Apologer says, that it is a monstrous immanity in any man, not to have care to preserve his Species, that is, not to have care to preserve, and provide for his children: and can it be a monstrous immanity, and not a sin? he also says, that every act in itself, or by circumstance, evil; is before God and man a sin, and no way to be executed by a Christian: That an act of itself lawful, done against Law, is sin; and that no Law is valid, where the thing itself is unlawful and a sin: and is it not then a sin to disinherit an eldest son, unto whom, the Laws, both Divine and humane, give the right of inheritance, and which we also see confirmed by the general practice of all good Parents.  
Proof 26. That we cannot in conscience sell, or give a weapon, to one whom we know intends to murder. Excommunications are imposed on them who sell armours or weapons to Turks. The rule of conscience, not only commands a man to use well those fortunes, which God hath bestowed on him; but forbids him, either for 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 his death, who parts from his estate, to a desperate unthrift.  
Answ. It is true, that if we can assuredly know, that our goods will be spent to the dishonour of God, the harm of the Commonwealth, or to the hurt, or wrong of any man, we are neither to sell nor give them to such persons as will so use them; and if an heir be desperately vicious, there is no question but his father may lawfully and religiously disinherit him; but how can a desperate sinner, or unthrift, be known? We are divinely commanded, not to judge any man, Rom. 14. which is so to judge him, but by God's grace he may be otherwise, and be hereafter a glorious Saint in heaven: when he that judgeth him (for aught as he knows, or can know) may himself be an abhorred reprobate; qui stat, videat ne cadat, he who presumes most of his sure footing, is in most danger of falling.  
And though a son be vicious and an unthrift, doth it necessarily follow, that he that is once an unthrift musty always be so: We have daily experience to the contrary; many unthrifts prove the best husbands, for such men commonly run out of one extreme into another, and from prodigality, fall to penury.  
But if the eldest son be a natural fool, or mad man, he is not capable to manage the estate; or, if (according to the Apologer) he turns Turk, and tramples upon all Laws, divine, and humane; I will say with the Apologer, that he is so unfit to inherit, that he is not worthy to live: but I cannot conceive how in conscience an eldest son can be disinherited, merely for his unthriftiness: for we may so estate our land (and yet suffer him and his heirs to inherit) that it shall not be in his power to hurt, or to overthrow his family.  
Proof 27. That 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, cannot give to pious uses, or set out for his other children 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 his other charitable intentions, should be provided for, only, at his sons or heirs courtesy: for thereupon all donations to pious uses, and to younger brothers for their portions, may be called in question.  
Answ. Elder sons are not to inherit all the estate, but only the greatest part of it, fathers being to provide for all their children. And I deny not, but that every man is bound in his Christian duty, to do what good he well can to his neighbour, or Christian brother: for says an Apostle, Rom. 14. No man is born to himself; and the Apologer hath a good saying, Da quae non potes retinere, ut consequaris ea quae non potes amittere. Give of those things which thou canst not keep, that thou mayst gain such things as cannot be taken from thee.  
But Mr. Apologer, I must tell you, charity gins at home: Proximus quisque sibi, we must first look upon ourselves and children, and then upon our neighbour, or Christian brother; but i'll come nearer to you: put the case, that a father were to make the Church, or Commonwealth, or children his heir; which of all these may he the more lawfully do?  
The Apologer it may be would be on the Commonwealths side, for then the estate would be divided, and he might chance to have a share amongst the rest; but I must ever be on the children's part, and will give a plain Text for it: S. Paul, in his fifth Epistle to Timothy, saith, that he who hath not care to provide for his family, doth deny the faith, and is worse than an Infidel; but it is not where said, that he who hath not care to build Churches, Colleges, and Hospitals, doth deny the faith, and is worse than an Infidel.  
Proof 28. That it plainly appears out of the sacred Text itself, that fathers had a power amongst the Jews, to cause their children, for riot, disorder, and unthriftiness, to be stoned to death: Ergo, they had power to disinherit, for the greater ever includes the less; and that I may not seem to speak without book, I will 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; and being chastised shall be unreclaimable, they shall apprehend and bring him to the Seniors of the city, and to the place of justice, and shall say to them, This our son is incorrigible, and disobedient: contemns or monitions, abandons himself to riotous excess, and is a drunkard. The citizens shall then overwhelm him with stones, and he shall die: That you may take evil from among you, and that all Israel hearing it may fear, Deut. 21.  
Whence we may collect how odious a crime unthriftiness, & riot, 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 witness, accuser, and 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 inquiry, stone to death, so evil a deserving child; which being well considered, my hope is, that it will never hereafter seem unlawful, or against conscience, that a father should disinherit his eldest, or any of his sons, for the cause only of unthriftiness and riot.  
Answ. It is (they say) a shame to belly the devil, then much more to belly Gods chosen people; for had the Israelites been so much merciless, as the Apologer would make them: would Moses himself (and from the immediate mouth of God himself) would he have said, Deut. 8. that as a father disciplineth his children, so doth God discipline his people: and would the royal Prophet (who was a man according to Gods own heart) would he have said, Psal. 102. and 118. that the mercies of God are infinite, and far above all his works: and that as a father hath compassion of his children, so hath God compassion of them that fear him.  
And would he have done so to his traitorous and inhuman son Absalon, whose villainies were so transcendent, that they have out gone all example. Would he have pardoned and compassionated such a son; and wished he could have died for him, if the Law and practice of the Israelites had been put to death their riotous and unthrifty children, which are offences so mean, that in respect of Absalon's inhumanities' they deserve no mention.  
It is true, the Jews had a power permitted them to bring their riotous and rebellious sons to the Seniors of the city, and to the place of judgement; but these Senators were not to take the bare word of the father, and so to proceed to judgement: for what can be more unnatural and impious, then that a person accused should not be heard speak: and that Judges, upon a bare allegation, without and examination or proof, should immediately give sentence of death.  
And surely, we may well believe, that this Law was only permitted the Jews (as was their Law of divorce, Matth. 19) or rather that it was made in terrorem, for terror, and not for execution; for the words are, that all Israel hearing it might be afraid; and we find not that any son, merely for his riot and obstinacy to his father, and by the procurement of his father, did ever yet suffer death.  
And we may piously believe, that our blessed Saviour had himself some reference to this stoning Law, when he said (speaking to the Jews) Matth. 7. Luke 11. Which of you is it? of whom, if his child shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone? Which of you is it? as if that Divine mouth should say, is there any such man amongst you? or, if there be such a man, what man is he? or is he, or may he be called a man? who can find in his heart to reach stones, wherewith to kill his own children.  
And concerning his inference, that fathers have a free power to disinherit their eldest sons for unthriftiness and riot; because by this Law, Deut. 21. the Jews had a free power over their children's lives, and the greater includes the less: his reason is to as much purpose, as his was, who being asked, whether great heads or little heads had the more wit; made answer little heads: because, omne majus continet in se minus: meaning, Omne majus caput continet, in se minus ingenim.  
For the Apologer cannot but know, that disinheriting, and putting to death, are two distinct things; and if they be unjustly done, it is hard to say whether is the greater injustice or wrong: for it is said, Ecccl. 34. He that taketh away his neighbours living, killeth him: And surely it is much more foul and sinful, for a father to disinherit and undo his children, then for one neighbour to defraud and undo another; and especially to disinherit his eldest son, whom the Laws, both divine and humane, have made the heir, or the chief Lord and Governor of the family.  
Proof 29. That because examples in all controversies of fact, are the best fortifications, I will therefore 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 and Commonwealths 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.  
The offering of Abel, was better accepted of God, than the offering of Cain. Japhet the youngest son of Noah, had Europe allotted to him for his inheritance, which in all arts and uses of life, far excels Africa and Asia, and all the rest of the earth.  
Answ. Examples are, indeed, the light and life of natural reason; experientia docet, hath ever been, and will ever be, the most sure rule of rational judgement. And surely, Mr. Apologer, your examples will want both in weight and number: if you will go that way to work for your younger brothers, we shall be able to outvie you, at a thousand to one.  
The sacrifice of Abel, says he, was better accepted of God, than the sacrifice of Cain: he confesses that it is not fit to urge this, and I confess it is to no purpose: for it concerns neither inheriting nor disinheriting, there being then, and for many ages after (as himself says) no ptoprieties, or estates in the world at all.  
And concerning Japhets large portion, which was no less than Europe; for so (says he) all authentic Histories do witness: he will have much ado, to get any man of authentic reason to believe him; for he must first prove, whether Europe were then known by that name or no; and whethet it was then so divided, and bounded, as now it is: as also, which of his sons had America. It may be he will say the eldest son, which if he had, having a third part of the world beside (whereof Europe is the least) and therefore the fittest for the youngest son: he had no reason to find fault with his father; for (next to Adam and Noah) he was the greatest Monarch for territory, and one of the least for dominion, or people, that the world ever had.  
Proof 30. That the disinheritance of Ishmael, the eldest son of Abraham, and of Reuben the eldest son of Jacob, are invincible arguments of a Father's free power.  
Answ. It is true, that Ishmael, who was the eldest son, did not inherit; and the reason was, because he was begotten on a handmaid, and not on a wife: and if the Apologer would make this an invincible argument (as he calls it) of a father's free power; he must get new Laws made, and remove lawful issues, to make room for bastards: though Ishmael, (as the Law then was) is not to be reputed illegitimate.  
Reuben did deservedly forfeit his birthright, for he dishonoured his father's bed; which had he not done, he had not been disinherited: for his father termed him, prior in donis, & mayor in imperio; as also, his dignity, his power, and his strength.  
Proof 31. That the examples of Esau and Jacob, and of Ephraim and Manasses, where the younger brothers were by divine election preferred before the elder, are unanswerable proofs of a father's freedom in disposing of his estate.  
Answ. These examples of Jacob and Ephraim, so much and often advanced by the Apologer, make more for the advantage of eldest sons, then for the pretended free power of Parents: for Esau demanded the prime blessing of his father (and his father intended to give him the blessing) because he was the eldest son: which his right, he freely and willingly (and volenti non fit injuria) had before sold to his brother.  
And when Jacob had put his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, intending to give him the prime blessing; their father Joseph was much troubled, that his father should do so unjust a thing; and thinking that Jacob was mistaken, by reason of his blindness, he endeavoured to remove his hand to the head of Manasses, saying, this is my eldest son, put therefore thy right hand upon his head; but Jacob refused saying, I know my son, I know: and therefore unless fathers can infallibly know the divine will, by divine revelation (as Jacob did) or have such as Jacob had, concerning his eldest son Reuben, they ought not to disinherit their eldest sons at all.  
To conclude, these examples so much urged by the Apologer, do plainly show an apparent and undeniable right, belonging to eldest sons: and make nothing at all for the pretended free power of Parents; but do, indeed, chief concern the divine providence, and eternal predestination, and did prefigure the conversion of our forefathers the Gentiles, according to the divine word, and divine Ordinance, Gen. 25. Malaoh. 1. The elder shall serve the younger: and will not the Apologer give God leave to dispose of his gifts and graces, as himself best pleases.  
Proof 32. That it appears by Solomon, his succeeding his father David, that David had power both of the Laws of God and man, to give his kingdom to the worthiest, which he deeming to be Solomon, did (upon the entreaty of his wife) give him the Kingdom, though he was the youngest son.  
Answ. The preferring of Solomon to the crown, doth no way impeach the rights of eldest sons: for as David was himself divinely chosen, being the youngest son; so we may assuredly believe that he elected Solomon, who was his youngest son, to succeed him, moved only (thereunto by divine revelation, for it cannot be thought (being as he was) a man according to Gods own heart) that he would otherwise have done it. And this good King had more reason, and more freedom to dispose of the Kingdom, than any other King hath since had: for there had been no succession of Kings before him to establish a right, nor any Laws made by the general votes of the people, to erect a course of inheritance, concerning the Crown; and David himself did not inherit, but was divinely elected and created King.  
But I would have the Apologer tell us, how many other Kings there were of Israel or Juda, who were younger brothers; and if he would make this an argument of disinheritance, he shall much abate his pretended free powers of fathers, and leave it in wives (for David was entreated by his wife) which will make more work for women, who are already too busy and such actions, and others that belong not to them.  
Proof 33. That Augustus Caesar did not settle the imperial succession upon his Grandson Agrippa Posthumus; but upon Tiberius, who was no kin to him; because he thought him more fit to govern. Chosros, King of Persia made Medarses his younger son consort with him in the Empire, leaving out Sinochius who was his eldest son.  
The Emperor Ferdinand left the Empire, with Austria and the Kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia, to Maximilian his eldest son: unto his second son Stiria and Carinthia; and to his third son, the Earldom of Tirol. Philip King of Spain, gave unto his daughter the seventeen Provinces.  
Answ. The Apologer, having done with his divine, and (as he calls them) invincible examples; bestows upon us some other precedents, as little invincible as the former, which also shall be answered.  
Augustus came in by conquest, and therefore might the better appoint his Successor; and he made so good a choice of one, that instead of Tiberius, Nero: he was for his intemperance called Biberius mero.  
Chosros, the Persian King, made his younger son consort with him in the Empire, but it cost him dear: for the people detesting so unjust an act, took arms against him, expelled both him and his usurping consort; and put the Sceptre into the hands of Sinochius, who was the eldest son.  
The Emperor Ferdinand did well, in leaving his younger sons so well; but he did better, in leaving his Kingdoms and Empire unto Maximilian his eldest son.  
And Philip King of Spain, rather lent then gave the seventeen Provinces unto his daughter, the late Arch Duchess; for she was not then likely to have children, being so far in years; and his gifts were no less prodigal than politic: for he gave her more than he had to give, or was able to keep.  
But doth this make any thing against the rights of eldest sons, or for the pretended free power of Parents: It is well known, that no hereditary King can (as merely of himself) disinherit his eldest son, the Prince; nor (as I have credibly heard) do any act, (as merely of himself) which can impeach the rights and prerogatives of the Crown: by which it is clearly evident, that eldest sons have the only right to inherit; and that fathers cannot have such a free power, that they may at their pleasure, lawfully, and religiously, disinherit them: for, Regis ad exemplum— Subjects should follow the examples of their Sovereigns.  
Proof 34. That our Proto-parent Brute, divided this Island amongst his three sons: Loegria, or England: to Locrine, Albania, or Scotland, to Albanact; and Cambria, or Wales, to Camber. King Leir gave his kingdom to his youngest daughter Cordeilla: and King Roderic divided Wales amongst his three sons, which divisions are still called to this day, North-Wales, South-Wales, and Powesland.  
Answ. The Apologer may do well to make it first appear there was such a man as that noble Trojan: The times are grown incredulous and critical, and bare words gain little credit; and our grand Historian, Mr. Camden, whom the Apologer terms the singular ornament of England, is almost an Infidel concerning this History.  
As for King Leir, the story declares that his elder daughters were rebellious and undutiful, and (as Rebels) were fit to be deposed and disinherited, and the story also tells, that the youngest daughter, who was the Queen, was a most infortunate Princess: for her Nephew Morgan, who was the eldest son of her eldest sister, took arms against her, discomfited her, and forced her to kill herself.  
And for the divisions of King Roderic, it is alleged to as little purpose as the other: for neither Bruce nor Roderic did disinherit their eldest sons; but gave them a better and greater part than unto the rest: and surely, no man can think they did well; to make such divisions, because their actions did not prosper; but now (God be thanked) they are again reunited into one glorious Monarchy; and may they ever so continue (as long as the world shall continue) in the Koyal Line of our Gracious Sovereign, who is descended to his Imperial Diadem, by the most noble, and only rightful way of inheritance: which is, from the next of blood, to the next of blood; or from one eldest son unto another.  
Proof 35. That there is a Law, or custom in Ireland, called tanistry: by which the land, and Chiefty of a name after the Predecessors death, is not awarded to the eldest son, but to the worthiest: the judgement whereof is left to the people, and such Tenants as have interest and right of suffrage; as Alexander the great (though as 'tis apparent in the Macchabees) very falsely said to have left his Empire: And that the tenure or custom of Gavell kind, allows every son to have an equal share in the estate.  
Answ. It is marvel that the Apologer will acknowledge the Book of the Maccabees to be Apocrypha, because it seems to make something for his pretended free power of Parents: and it is marvel he doth not condemn this Irish custom to be Apocrypha; for there is nothing can make more against his power, because upon the matter, the futhers' authority, and the fortunes of the family, are in the power of the Tenants: he says, that all customs which are against Law, are void by the civil Law; and he knows also, that a great part of this prople are still called the wild Irish; and surely, such customs are fit for wild Savages, then for civil Christians:  
And concerning the tenure, or custom of Gavell kind; it is true, that it gives an equal share of the estate to every son: but, as I take it, this custom was chief, and I think only, in Kent: and the Apologer grants, that some have altered it in their private Families, by Act of Parliament; and (doubtless) the cause hath been for the preservation of their Families, which, by such divisions, could not choose but come in short time to nothing; and levelly the best and greatest of our Gentry, to the degree of the meanest Vulgars'.  
Proof 36. That Briand Lyle, or Fitzt earl, Lord of Abergavenny, having two sons, both leprous, built for them a Lazaretto or Spittle; and gave to, Miles, Earl of Hereford, the greater part of his Patrimony from his children.  
Jane, daughter of Hugh Courtney, and heir to her Mother, wife of, Nicholas, Lord Carew, disinherited her eldest son Thomas; quoniam, minus reverenter matrem haberet: and parted her lands, which were goodly among her three younger sons, of whom are sp●…ng three worshipful Families of the carew's, called Haccomb, Ancony, and Bury: So, that God by the success crowned the fact, and confirmed the lawfulness of partage.  
Answ. The Lord Abergavenny did well in giving away a great part of his lands away from his two sons: for a Spittle was more fit for such sons than an inheritance; yet he left them a great part of his lands, and (doubtless) would have left them all, had they not been leprous and unfit.  
And the Lady Carew did well in giving her lands to her younger sons: her eldest son being heir to his father, and having (as may be thought) a sufficient competency of estate; but the true cause was, because he was undutiful, which had he not been, it is likely she had given him the greatest part, if not all of her inherited lands.  
And you know Mr. Apologer, there is a different case betwixt an eldest son, who inherits an estate from his father, and a daughter, who is an inheritrix: for the son is to do that which hath been done to him; and as he received an inheritance from his father, because he was the eldest son: so is he bound conscience not to disinherit his eldest son, because he would have been loath to have been disinherited himself; and that which we would not that others should do to us, we are not to do to any other, Matth: 7. Luke 6.  
This is the very corner stone (as I may well call it) of the Law of Nature, and of the Law of Grace: especially, for so much as concerns morality and distributive justice; but women (who are no fit precedents for men) have a greater freedom than men in this case: for they inherit by way of Parcenary, and every daughter hath an equal share in the estate, though the eldest, by reason of her Seniority, hath the privilege to choose first. and an inheritrix hath the name of her Family extinct in herself; and therefore may at her pleasure disperse her lands amongst her sons, the better to preserve the memory of herself, and Ancestors, from whom she is descended: and no marvel, though God did bless with good success the good acts of this Lady, for she did both justly and wisely.  
But who hath known an estate long prosper, where a dutiful and deserving eldest son was disinherited by his father; I must confess, I never did: such unrightful and lawless heirs, may be likened to the Bastard plants (which the Wise man speaks of, Wisd. 3. and 4.) that cannot take deep root, nor lay sure foundation: So that all these examples, by the Apologer alleged, are like his other arguments; they either make against himself, or serve to no purpose.    

To the Reader:  
I Have here answered (as well as I can) all the Apologers proofs and reasons, on the behalf of his younger Brothers; and I confess, that (according to the best of my poor judgement) I have not found any one firm, or sinewy argument, which may satisfy any reasonable understanding, in proof of his so absolute a free power of Parents; or against the impregnable rights and prerogatives of eldest sons.  
But I must not usurp upon another's right; the censure belongs to the impartial and judicious Reader, unto whom I humbly commend it.   

THE Second Part: Wherein is Treated of, The preservation of Families.  
The free power of Parents.  
The Rights of eldest sons.  
Printed for H. Fletcher, 1548.   

The preservation of Families.  
ELder Brothers (says the Apologer) either seated in their father's wealth, or possessions, or having more than hopes to enjoy their fortunes, do sometimes love truly neither themselves nor any body else, but abusing that, which indeed might gain the love of God and man, and easily maintain their hereditary honour, lose themselves in vanity and 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 and Nature, and all other Cannon, Civil, and National Laws, and 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 hope, lawfully to share with them, the least part of their father's inheritance.  
Their harsh and malevolent disposition, is graphically delineated by our Saviour, Luke 12. and 15. 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, aggrieved at the churlish iniquity of the elder.  
In former ages elder brothers were generally of better temper in spending, and if they had no humour to get, yet had they a care to keep that was left them, & 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 and sisters to shift, which (as these times shape) is oftentimes, to live either lewdly or miserably.  
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 and riot: and many a hopeful and well-deserving brother, is left to the mercy of this whirlwind.  
It is well known to all the wise and temperate, whose judgements passion doth not oversway, how great an enemy prodigality and unthriftiness is to all manner of goodness, and how cunningly she hinders the increase of all virtues, in those whom she reigns; for unthriftiness is one known name of many hidden sins.  
A debauched heir, wallowing in riot, 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; and it is no less dishonour to play away our Predecessors labours, then to piss in our Parents ashes, or raze their monuments.  
Surely it is clear, that all unthrifty courses are displeasing to God, and contrary 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 Commonwealth, out of others labour.  
And for his Family, what greater dishonour can it have, than an absolute overthrow; whereby the noble acts and honour gotten to it, by virtuous Predecessors, are buried in oblivion; and the present, and future hopes of all worldly and lawful honours (virtues temporal reward) are quite taken away.  
Can there a greater sin be committed against the honour and essence 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.  
Nature teacheth the silly Bees, in their Commonwealth, 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.  
To conclude, what punishment can be thought sufficient for that reasonable creature, born 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, and 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 Bedlam, a wild American, a most intolerable madman, a thing unworthy the name of a man; a prodigal shall I say, or a prodigy? who contrary to all rule or orders of the most barbarous society of men, takes away, by his outrageous impiety the soul, as I said, of all his Ancestors virtues, who being dead, yet long might live in their posterity, and consumes the womb of his family, (viper like) wherein he was born. And without all remembrance of his obligement to the dead (whom as having his being from he ought to honour) or respect to the living (to whom he should, be a comfort) devours in some fort, 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 amongst themselves, which our civil Monster doth not: for he contrary to all course of Nature, sucks oft times 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 Parents, to the greatest of all woes, beggary in their old age; and all this to maintain, by fraud or force, a damned crew of roaring devils, in the shapes of men, of each of whom, we may say dividually; 
Talis Bacchus erat, talis  
Gorgontua vultu;  
Tale triplex mentum,  
Pantagruelis erat.  
So did old Bacchus, and  
Gorgontua swell;  
And such a Bulchin was  
Pantagruel.   
And of the whole madcap, fraternity; for they will be sworn brothers, fraterimi aut fratres in malo, we may well say. 
Pestis, qua gelidum, Boreae,  
violentius axem;  
Nulla vel infecit nulla  
vel inficiet.  
A greater plague, to this  
our Northern clime;  
Never yet came nor can  
in after time.   
Moral Lawmakers, in ancient times pretermitted to make Laws against offenders of this Nature; and being asked why? they answered that no man could be so impiously ingrate, or inhuman; whereby it is evidenced how transcendently heinous the offence was adjuged by them, and how severe punishment (were they to make Laws in these our corrupt times) they would prescribe for such cardinal Criminals.   

To the Reader.  
I Have here collected the best fruits of the Apologers Treatise on the behalf of younger brothers; for indeed, I can find no other goodness in it, but only these bitter (though not unwholesome) invectives against unthriftiness and riot. And I could wish they had been expressed in a more clear and genuine manner; for he hath delivered them in such a ruffling way, as though he were to conjure the spirit of unthriftiness out of the Prodigal himself, when he was in the heat or midst of riots: But though they cannot so well charm and please the overcuriousnesse of some men's fancies, who can relish nothing, but pathetical and dainty deliveries: yet they may serve well enough to inform and satisfy the understanding and judgement; for they plainly and truly declare the infinite miseries and mischiefs, which are ever the inseparable concomitants of unthriftiness and riot.  
I need not say how much impertinent to the matter in question these invectives are: and how little the matter of unthriftiness would be amended, if younger brothers were to inherit. But though he chief personates elder brothers; the instruction may also serve for younger brothers, and all men who are prodigal: and especially prodigal fathers, whom he terms (and not unworthily) to be worse than Cannibals: and it is pity the Laws have no better execution, concerning this great and too general a vice: for, says he, the Civil Laws appoint Curatours for prodigals (as for madmen) and guardians likewise of their estates, the want whereof is the ruin of many great houses in England.   

The Apologers Epistle examined.  
THe Apologer says in his Epistle, that he published his said Treatise for the general good of great Britain; and out of a singular respect, which as a Patriot, he bears to gentlemen's houses: good motives, I confess, if his intention or performance had been accordng; but how can it be to the general good of great Britain; when eldest sons, who are a great part of Britain must suffer in it: for he would have it thought (and hath done what he can to prove it) that they have no more right to inherit then other sons: all is as pleases the father, for he is the free and absolute Lord of the estate, and may lawfully and religiously dispose thereof at his pleasure.  
But is this the way to preserve Families? it is (says he) the best and only way, especially, if fathers conform themselves to these two rules.  
The first rule or way is, that they divide the estate amongst the sons equally, according as the Civil Laws ordain, and as was the practice of the primitive Church.  
The other way or rule is (and this he thinks to be the more rational and better way) that the wisest and worthiest son doth inherit.  
As concerning the first, he needs no other confuting then his own words: for he says, I must confess, that the custom of leaving the child estate to the eldest son, hath of later times been much embraced by our gentry for the preservation of their Families, for which it was invented; and that they did this, led with an ambition at the example of Princes.  
And he also says, that the more general practice of our time among Parents is, to leave either all or most part of their estates unto their eldest sons: this (questionless 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 that the partition of lands, may reduce in the end, a goodly estate to nothing, or to so little, that it may be compared unto an atom in the Sun: and how I pray you can an estate be preserved it, will in time, and in a short time, bring it unto the degree of an atom.  
And concerning his other rule or way, which is, that the wisest and worthiest son should inherit; I deny not, but that wisdom is a great means to preserve a Family, and that wisest sons are the fittest to be employed in a Body politic, or state general: but it is not so fit that younger brothers, because they are a little wiser than their elder brothers, or because their fathers think them the wiser, should therefore inherit the greatest part of the father's estate, for it would be an apparent injustice, and wrong to the eldest son; unto whom the right of inheritance doth chiefly and only belong.  
But admit the wisest sons were to inherit; who I pray you should be the judge and chooser of these wise sons? Why? who, will the Apologer say, but they that got them, for they have a free and absolute power to dispose of the estate: but what if the father be not wise himself, or have not a wise son at all, both which do often happen: Why then, perhaps, will the Apologer say, that the Commonwealth is to inherit, for says he, interest Reipublicae, ut quilibet re sua bene utatur; it belongs to the Commonwealth that estates be managed in such a manner, as may make most for the good of the Commonwealth: it would require a volume to show all the absurdities and inconveniences which would necessarily arise out of this absolute power in Parents, but I will instance only two.  
The first inconvenience or mischief is, that were there such a power in Parents, to make choice of what heirs they would; and were accordingly fully persuaded that they might lawfully and religiously so do: they would not only be in danger to be blindly led by their own affections and will; but would lie open to the advantage of every cunning Sycophant, and ill-minded man, who under colour of friendship, would persuade them to effect some of their sons, and reject other some, and to give one son more than to another, that so they might fall into dissension and discord, which could to no other, than an utter subversion of the Family: for an house in itself divided cannot stand. And that which would most move these Sycophants and sowers of dissension, would be their own private ends, and self interest, a motive which bears too great a sway all the world over. But the greatest peril of Parents would arise from the sly practices of their wives, who would be sure to labour hard for the unworthiest son; for women's affections are commonly as blind as they are, and they use to swallow flatterers for friends: and if the wife be wanton (which is no great wonder now adays) she would be sure to endeavour what she could, to prefer such a son whom she thought her husband had least part in: and second wives (as having more cause than any other) would be sure to labour hard for their own children, without any respect to the rightful course of inheritance, or to their husbands other children by former wives; and there is no doubt to be made, but that all wives would be as busy this way as Bees, if their husbands should permit them; and their husbands could not hinder them, if they should have such a ground to work upon as is the pretended free power of Parents; for when there was no such thing dreamed of (as is that monstrous power) yet wives were then so bold to negotiate with their husbands of this matter, as in the examples of Sara, Rebecca, and Cethsabee, the wives of Abraham, Isaac, and David, but these wives were moved to do as they did, by divine revelation, and it pleased even God himself to make them his agents, and instruments of his divine Ordinances; but that which would most move most of our wives, would be a violent spleen, and blind affection, without any respect to justice or order, which could not choose but draw on an utter subversion of innumerable Families.  
The second inconvenience or mischief would be, that were there such a power in Parents, that they might lawfully and religiously make choice of what heir they would, there would be a perpetual diffention amongst the sons, and consequently, a confusion and overthrow of the Families: for every other of the sons would be sure to malign, and envy that son, who should be preferred to the inheritance, unless the son so preferred, had a native, natural, and undoubted right thereunto; and that there were also, a general practice of all good Parents, concurring (as it is in the case of eldest sons) to confirm it: and and this appears by daily and infinite precedents; some whereof the Apologer himself recites: as that of Chosroes King of Persia, Leir King of Britain, and that great example so much urged by him, of the disinherited Esau: For Esau, though he sold his brother the Birthright (and volenti non fit injuria) yet being disinherited, he purposed to kill his said brother, and (doubtless) had done it, if Jacob had not fled, and banished himself for many years, from his own father and country; or rather indeed, if God himself had not relented, and mollified the obdurate and resolved heart, of this fierce and offended brother: And if Esau, would for this have killed his own brother, and a good brother who never wronged him in this, or any thing else; for Esau had before freely and willingly sold him the birthright; how much more willingly and readily would he have revenged himself upon others nothing allied unto him, who should have procured his disinheritance, which is indeed the greatest injury that can be done to man in this world; for our estate and birthright is as our life, and whosoever takes away the one, doth endeavour (as much as in him lies) to kill the other; nay he doth kill, and more than kill the other, for it is said, Eccl. 34. and 40. He that taketh away his neighbours living killeth him; and that it is better to die then to want.  
You may see here, how much the Apologer doth err in his zealous care, which (as a Patriot) he bears to the glory and good of gentlemen's houses, by alleging, that that for a reason, or cause of their preservation, which would be their undoubted overthrow.  
That indeed which doth most preserve a Family, are these two things.  
The first is children, and chief good children, and if there be no children, the other collateral heirs, who are the next in blood, whom the divine, and all good humane Laws have ordained to inherit.  
The second is, lands and goods well gotten, or honestly descended, and as honestly employed, during the possessors life, and so to descend again in that right way of inheritance which God hath commanded, and all good Laws established: and it cannot be doubted, but that the blessing of God will accompany so good endeavours; for it is promised; Psal. 1.24.91.101.127, etc. that the just shall be as an everlasting foundation, and shall not be removed: That he shall spring as a green leaf, and his house be permanent: whereas after a while, the sinner shall not be, and thou mayst look his place, but thou shalt not find it.   

The free power of Parents.  
Father's are so far from being such such absolute Lords and masters of their estates and children (as the Apologer pretends) that they are not so much as quarter masters of themselves: for, says an Apostle, Rom. 14. No man is born to himself: and the very Heathens say, Cic. de offic. Partem patria, partem parents: our Parents and our country, which is also our Parent, do claim a great part of us; and can we think there is nothing due to our children? are we commanded, Matth. 2. and 5. Luke 6.1. Pet. 2. To love our neighbours as ourselves, nay even to love our enemies, and to do good to them that hate and hurt us; and hath a father such free and absolute power over his estate and children, that he may lawfully disinherit his children, and give his estate to strangers, or to whom he will, and if a father be so far from being master of himself, that his country, Parents, kindred, friends, neighbours; nay, every man who is a member with him of the same Commonwealth, hath some right unto him, or a part in him, how can any man be so shameless to say, or so foolish to think, that a father, or any man whosoever, can be an absolute master of his estate, when he is not so much as quarter master of himself.  
And concerning that absolute and monstrous power of Parents, in disposing of the estate at their pleasure: The Apologer says, that many ages were numbered from the world's beginning, before any man laid any proper claim to any thing, as due to himself alone; and he says also, that with God there is no exception of persons, and that God gave the whole earth to the sons of men: terram autem dedit filiis hominum: that is, not to any one in particular, but to all in general; by which reasons and grounds, there is not any man can absolutely say, this is mine, or that is mine, by the Laws of God and Nature.  
But have men therefore no right at all to their lands and goods? Yes (doubtless) but it is a conditional, not an absolute right: for says the Apologer, a Family is a civil society; yea the only Commonwealth, which God and Nature first ordained, from which, all Societies, Republics, and Species of Regiment, took their Original: and it is true, for there can be no doubt, but that the first Commonwealths, were at the first but so many great Families; and that all Commonwealths sprung first from Families: and when there was a Commonwealth established (or rather begun) and a proportion of lands allotted to every one in particular, they then bound themselves by Laws, which Laws they enacted by an unanimous consent amongst themselves, for the quiet enjoying, and well ordering of such their particular estates; for their peaceable and amicable living one with another: for punishment of transgressors, or repelling unjust violence amongst themselves, and for their general defence against foreign invasion, or for what else soever, that shall make most for the general good; always including an inviolable right and power in the Republic, or General state, according to necessity of times and occasions to alter some of the said Laws; as also, to dispose and command (as they found cause) every man's person, and every man's particular estate: And this the Apologer acknowledges (though it be against his free power) saying, 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 abate a father's free power, all father's being children to the father of their country, their Lord and King, under God.  
And the Apologer knows that fathers are so far from being such absolute Lords, and masters of their estates, that if a father, or any man else, do wilfully fling away some of his money, or other his goods, into the Sea, or into any place where it cannot be had again, he shall be begged for an Idiot, and have his estate taken from him: and he gives this reason, and as good a reason as can be given; interest Reipublicae— it belongs to the Commonwealth, that men so dispose of their estates, as shall make most for the good of the Commonwealth.  
And can there be a worse prodigal than a prodigal father? for he falsifies the trust which the Commonwealth (our general Parent) doth repose in him, by wasting those his lands and goods, wherewith he should relieve and provide for his children; which was the greatest, if not the only cause, for which lands were at first given, and are now permitted to be enjoyed: for only upon children dependeth the whole frame and propagation of mankind; and upon the care and love of Parents in the good instructing of their children, and in the relieving and providing for their children, dependeth the civil order and Society of mankind.  
And children have a native, and (as we may well call it) a divine right to their father's lands and goods in his life time: for, says the Apologer, the prodigal son being weary of his father's house, came to his father, and boldly said; Pater dae mihi portionem, Give me that portion of goods which belongs to me: and the words following are, & pater divisit, and the father gave him his portion; and he says also, that fathers are bound by the Civil Law, to leave every one of their children, a legitimate, or child's part; and if they be bound, how can they be said to be free? But should I here recount the many and great obligations wherewith we are bound, in our Christian duty, or charity, towards our neighbours or Christian brother: Qui habet duas turnincas det non habenti, & qui habet escas similiter faciat, Luke 6. He that hath two coats, let him give one of them to him that hath none, and he that hath meat to spare, let him do the same: And especially the infinite obligations wherewith we are bound to our children: for says an Apostle, 1 Tim. 5. Whosoever provides not for his family (than much more he that provides not for his children) doth deny the faith, and is worse than an Infidel. These things well considered, it will easily appear to any pious understanding, that the private, or self-interest, which any man hath in his estate, is so small a thing, that it may be compared unto an atom in the Sun: for indeed, we have no estates all which we can properly call our own; that which we call an estate, we hold it but at the courtesy and permission of others, and should employ it to the benefit of others; and we are at the most but stewards of it for a while, and (like stewards) must account unto a farthing, Matth. 5.  
And concerning the large Sovereignty of Parents over their children, there is no question but that fathers are as far from being absolute Lords and masters of their children, as they are from being absolute Lords and masters of their estates, of which I will only give two reasons.  
The first reason is, that children are the tender plants of the Commonwealth; and that Parents are entrusted, by the Commonwealth, with the good education of their children; which is a thing of that high and necessary consequence, that it is in effect the cement, or bond, which ties and holds together the whole frame and body of mankind. The consideration whereof, moved the wise, Lacedæmonians to make this brave and pious answer to Antipater, who demanded many of their children in hostage: for they said (as Plutarch relates it) that they would first choose to die, before they would yield him their children, fearing their children would be corrupted, and spoiled in their education: nay, they, had Laws to punish such Parents, whose children were ill conditioned or wicked, supposing it proceeded for want of good care in their education; and they had cause: for (says the wise Charron) there cannot come so much evil to a Commonwealth, by the ingratitude of children towards their Parents, as by the carelessness of Parents in the instruction of their children. So, that upon the matter, children are but the Pupils of the Commonwealth, and Parents their Tutors: and this the Apologer acknowledges, though it be as much against his pretended free power as can be, saying, that all fathers are children to the father of their country; and that a father is not only bound to nourish his children in his life, but by Nature's Law, must provide to his power, that they live in his life, and 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, or rational creature.  
But there is another reason, and that transcends this as far as heaven doth earth, for our children are not only our children, but the children also and creatures of God; adorned by him, with the same faculties of Soul and Body as their Parents are, and so become both our brothers and children; for we have all one father, which is in heaven▪ Matth. 6. Luke 11.  
Certainly, there cannot any thing be more consolable unto a truly religious heart then seriously to contemplate the infinite goodness of God; as also to consider, in what a sweet manner it hath pleased even God himself, to treat with his dear creature, Man. All his ways (saith the royal Psalmist, Psal. 24.) are mercy and truth; and saith the Divine Majesty himself, Deut. 8. I will be a father unto you, and you shall be my sons and daughters: and how often are we called children, throughout the whole current of the Divine Word; nay, we are called, 1 Cor. 6. the temples of the holy Ghost, that is, the Palace, or Court-Royal of God himself, for such indeed is every pious soul; and can it be supposed, that God, who only giveth children, and calleth them his children, and the temples of his holy Spirit, would give any other power to Parents over their children, but as governor's under him, to instruct: and, if need be, gently to correct them; for we had no sooner a Law from the Omnipotent hand; but Parents were commanded Deut. 6.2. to teach that Law diligently to their children, and so diligently; that they were to speak of it as they sat in their house, as they walked by the way, when they lay down, and when they risen up, that is at all times, and upon all occasions; and if they are any way negligent herein, or in the due relieving or providing for their children, an Apostle tells them, 1. Tim. 5. That they have denied the faith, and are worse than Infidels. So that if we either consider the great duties which we owe unto our general father the Commonwealth, unto whom we are but Feoffees in trust of our estates and children; or chief those infinite duties which we owe unto our heavenly father; we shall find ourselves so much inferior to the Apologers pretended free power, that no man of any common understanding (unless he will accuse himself for an Atheist, or most gross Idiot) can think himself an absolute Lord, or master, either of himself his estate or children.   

The Rights of eldest Sons.  
THe Apologer hath done what he can to prove that eldest sons have no more right to inherit then other sons: all is as pleases the father; for he is the supreme and absolute Lord of the estate, and may lawfully and religiously dispose thereof at his pleasure.  
He tells us, that he never read any Author of this Subject: and why then should he so much presume of his selfsufficiency, and extraordinary spirit, that he should think he may deserve credit, himself telling us, that he is the singularis homo, the only man who first disputed hereof, or ever brought the matter in question. Marry, I'll tell you, but than you must take his own words for it: he says, that he believes he hath spoken according to dialectical reason; and that there hath been nothing spoken of it heretofore truly, which reason hath not dictated to all Authors pens; and you shall now see what a mess of reason he doth serve in for his purpose.  
He says in his Epistle, that there is a natural reverence due unto the eldest sons, from their younger brothers: he says, that it was the use of the Israelites to prefer their eldest sons to the better part of their possessions; and that it is now the more general practice of Christian Parents, to leave either all, or the most part, of their lands to their eldest sons: and he honestly gives these two reasons, why it should so be.  
The first is, because there is a natural reverence due unto the elder brothers.  
The second is, because this custom had its original from the imitation of Princes, and for the preservation of Families, and that an equal division of the lands and goods amongst all the children; will bring an estate to nothing, or to so little, that it may be compared unto an atom in the Sun.  
He says, that at first, fathers and then first born after them, were as Kings and Priests in their own houses.  
He says, that our Common Laws give the right of inheritance to eldest sons.  
He citys a Divine Precept, Deut. 21. which plainly proves the rights of eldest sons.  
He says that we find in holy Writ, great respect was had of the first begotten, and a blessing was held to come to Parents thereby.  
You may see here, how sufficiently the Apologer hath argued on the behalf of his younger brothers; for I know not what he can say more, that can more advance the rights of eldest sons.  
But, leaving the Apologer, I will a little more dilate myself (not so much in proof) as in illustration of the premises.  
The very vegetables, and unreasonable creatures, are no mean arguments of the excellency of Primogeniture: How grateful to the Planter, and indeed, how much more vigorous and excellent are the first fruits of plants, more than other productions: and how fully do the first fruits of a new broken up ground, content and satisfy the longing hopes of the honest husbandman; and after some few crops, how poorly doth the same earth discharge itself of its burdens; and this was the reason why the first fruits, were in the old Law, reserved for the most sacred uses; and so it was meet▪ for God, who is the giver of all good things, should be served with the best of those things which himself hath given.  
The very beasts and birds do no less declare the excellency of Primogeniture: for it is generally observed, that the Parent birds do use to feed their young ones, as their young ones are in seniority; yielding, as it were, a kind of right, or a natural and lawful precedence unto the eldest; and the very nest gull, or the youngest of the young feathered creatures, doth plainly demonstrate, how much more perfect and excellent the signior birds are above their younger.  
Salvianus, lib. 4. the gubern. Dei, Aristotle, and divers others, do make excellent Discourses concerning the seeming prudence and piety of the Storks and Bees; and shall the Bees yield to order, and have a Commonwealth amongst them; and shall ' the reasonable creature called Man, be more unreasonable than they, and have no rule or order of inheritance in their own Families, but at the father's affection and will.  
They also deliver, that the young of all creatures do observe a kind of reverence, and obedience to their elder young: and that the eldest young doth use to suck at the uppermost teat, and the younger young will not so much as presume to usurp upon the rights of the eldest, nor their Parents suffer it.  
These things (if rightly weighed) are of no mean consideration, concerning the excellency of Primogeniture, and consequently of the rights and prerogatives of eldest sons; and the saying of Job, chap. 12. is no insufficient answer to any one, who would disparage the rights of eldest sons: Interrogato jumenta; ask the beasts and they will teach you.  
But that which is most considerable (next to the Divine Precepts) is the sacred esteem of Primogeniture, amongst the elected people of God: for with them, as appears, Exod. 13. and 34. Numb. 38. etc. the first born of the very beasts were exempted from work; and fathers, and their first born after them, were as Kings, and Priests in their own houses.  
And it hath pleased the Divine Majesty (to the infinite glory of Primogeniture) to sanctify unto himself all the first born of the male-kind, calling them his: and to call his Church triumphant▪ the Church of the first born, Hebr. 12. Nay even to call his Divine self (who hath been from all eternity, unbegotten) his first begotten son, Coloss. 3.  
But these are no precepts, that fathers should endow their eldest sons with the greatest part of the estate. It is true, yet are they good motives, & great instructions, and may be taken for no less than precepts in any pious understanding: for we are to elect and love, whom God electeth and loveth; and since it hath pleased God to elect and prefer our eldest sons, in a higher degree of excellency than any other our children; we are therefore to elect and prefer our eldest sons in a higher degree of inheritance than any other our children.  
And can it be supposed, that God would leave us in suspense, concerning so high a point as is inheritance; which is indeed the main ground and foundation of all humane Laws: and therefore it hath pleased the Divine Majesty, to impose this his great command upon his elected people; which was, that if any one of them died without a son, his inheritance should go to his daughters; and if he had no daughters, to his brethren: and if he had no brethren, to his father's brethren, etc. and that this should be a perpetual Law as the Lord commanded Moses, Numb. 27. By which it is evident, that one son in particular, and not sons in general, aught to be heir, and be endowed with the prime Blessing, or Patrimony: unto which accordeth an Apostle, saying, Gal. 4. as long as the heir is a little one, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be Lord of all, and the Apostle meant only the first begotten, or eldest son living: for he calleth Esau a profane person, because for a dish of meat he sold his first birthrights; and in his dreadful denouncement against unnatural and neglectful Parents, 1 Tim. 5. which is, that they are worse than Infidels. He says in the same chapter, Seniorem ne increpaveris— Do not disrespect thy elder, etc. giving a fine, and full instruction thereby, who it is that should be the right heir, or chief Lord and master of the Family.  
But here it may be some will object, that this Law was only spoken to the Jews, and therefore did only concern the Jews: they may as well say, that the holy Tables of the Law, did only concern the Jews; for they also were delivered to the Jews: and surely I cannot conceive what can be more moral and necessary, then that there should be a chief son, or heir, amongst our children and generally known, by a native and undoubted right: for there must necessarily be an order and subordination in all things; and what can be more natural and just, than that Parents should be bound to relieve and provide for their children: And had this Law only concerned the Jews, wou●d S. Paul have commended Seniority, and condemned Esau for selling his birthright: and would the ancient Fathers (who are the best of humane testimony) as S. chrysostom, in his fift Sermon against Julian; and S. Jerom, in his Epistle to Onogron, and upon the 49. Gen. (with divers others) would they have averred, that the first born, or eldest sons, are more honourable than other children; and that the right of inheritance, is only due to the first begotten, or eldest son living: and had this Law only bound the Jews, would it have been denounced from the immediate mouth of God himself; and delivered in these words, a perpetual Law, as the Lord commanded Moses.  
But there is a plainer Precept, Deut. 21, and these are the divine words,  
If a man have two wives, one beloved and the other hated, and they have both children by him. If the first son be hers that was hated, he may not make the son of the beloved the first born, and prefer him before the son of the hated; but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength, the right of the first born is his.  
Now though the literal expression be, that eldest sons are to have a double part of the estate, and the other part to be divided amongst the children equally, as well sons as daughters, we are to consider that the son here mentioned, is an unbeloved son, or the son of a wife not beloved, which doth utterly exclude the affection and free will of Parents, in disposing of the estate at their pleasure: and it is not here said, nor any where else, through the Divine Writ, that we are to give but a double part or portion to our eldest sons, for the practice of the Israelites was much otherwise: the fathers, and their eldest sons after them, being as Kings and Priests in their own houses: Neither are we to believe, that we may lawfully and religiously so do: for so, we shall condemn the justice of the Cannon and Civil Laws, and our Common Laws, and all other good Laws, which (as I have already showed) do all concur with the Divine Laws, to erect an impregnable right of inheritance in eldest sons. And we shall condemn the general practice of all good Parents, who usually leave the greatest part of their estates to their eldest sons: which general consent and custom, can proceed from no other cause or ground, then from the instinct of nature; and consequently, from the Will, Providence, and Ordinance of God himself; but that which is most observable and considerable, is, that God giveth no long blessing to any other course of inheritance: Whence we may collect, how odious a crime, and how great an injury it is to disinherit a rightful heir; and it is no less: for he that would dispalce the right heir from the due of his birthright; and such a right, as is enacted by God himself; established by all good Laws, and generally practised by all good Parents: he is no piddler, for he strikes at the root, and doth what he can to overthrow all Laws and order, and bring into the world a Chaos of confusion. Mistake me not, I do not conceive, nor dare not say, that the rights of eldest sons, are so absolute, as that they will brook no exception: for the great Law or Precept, Matth. Upon which all the rest have their main dependence, which is. to love and honour God above all things doth abrogate and disannul (as we piously believe) all the other Precepts, which do not concur with the love and honour of God. And whereas we are commanded to honour our Parents, and the words are absolute; yet if Parents should be Idolators, or Blasphemers, or Atheists, or Infidels, or (which as bad as any of these) unnatural: I cannot conceive, but that children are freely, discharged, from their obligation of honouring such Parents: for how can we love and honour God, if we love and honour God's greatest enemies. So on the contrary side, if eldest sons be Atheists, or Infidels, or extremely and desperately vicious; there is no question but that their fathers may lawfully and religiously disinherit them; for they are so unworthy to inherit, that they are not worthy to live.  
To conclude (good Reader) if what I have here delivered, may redound to thy benefit, and better instruction (for which it was intended) I shall rejoice in my labours, I will give God the praise.  
FINIS.