SOME

REMARKS

UPON THE

REASONS

WHY NO

CHRISTIAN PARENT

Can Consent that his

CHILDREN

Be brought up contrary to the

Judgment of his own Conscience, in Matters of Faith and Religion.

I.

T

HAT the Propofition propos'd to be prov'd, in the Terms wherein it is propos'd, is unquestionably True, That the Duties of Honour and Obedience from Children to their Parents, and of Care and Education in the true Worship of God from Parents to Children, are mutual.

2. That there feem to be yet fome Overfights in the Proof of it. For what is cited out of Timothy, That he who provides 1 Tim. 5. 8. not for his own, especially them of his own Houfe, is worse than an Infidel, is not much to the purpose. For it relates to Maintainance, not Education, and to the Duty of Children towards Parents, and not of Parents toward their Children; being pro

duced

duced to urge Children and Grand-Children, to Maintain their Poor Verfe 4. Mothers that were Widows, and not throw them on the Church.

Another Overfight is his naming Eleazar among the Anceftors of Eli, who yet was defcended from Aaron, not by Eleazar 1 Paral. 24. 3but by Ithamar. For Zadock was of Eleazar's Line, and Ahimetech one of the Pofterity of Eli, is faid exprefly to be of the Family of Ithamar.

3. That the Propofition reaches not to the present Cafe. It is uncontrovertible that Parents (i. e. both Parents concurring) are not to Confent that their Children be brought up contrary to the Judgment of their own Confcience, in Matters of Faith and Religion. But when Parents are Difagreeing in their Sentiments about Religion, the Matter is not uncontrovertible. The Mother's Confcience is concern'd about the Education of her Children as well as the Father's, and all that is faid in that Paper may Ring in her Ears as well as in his, if fhe be remifs. Timothy owed a deal for his Education to the Care of his Grand- 2 Tim. 1. 5. mother Lois and his Mother Eunice, who in bringing him up in a Religion different from his Father (for his Mother was a Jewels A&t. 16. 1. that believ'd, but his Father a Greek) juftifies the Grandfather's and the Mother's Endeavours in the prefent Cafe.

4. Suppofe the Scene laid in another Country, and the Cafe thus ftated, A Protestant Gentleman in France ftole away a Lady of a Popish Family, and Marry'd her without her Parents Confent. Muft not the Grandfather and Mother use their utmost Endeavours, that their Children may be Educated, not by the Father, but in the Mother's way? Would not the Chidren be taken away by force in that Country from the Protestant Parent? And if Confcience oblige Papists to fuch Methods where they have the Law on their fide; can Protestants be fuppos'd to have any Senfe of Confcience or Value for their Religi on, who fhould fit ftill in fuch a Cafe, and withstanding the fame Advantages of the Law, fuffer the Popish Father to Educate the Children in a Courfe (as they are verily perfwaded) of dangerous Errors?:

I am heartily Sorry the Cafe is fo Perplexing, in regard to the Confciences of both Parties; and should be Glad if the debating Matters of Controverfie between them, may produce an Expedient to mutual Satisfaction: Concluding in the mean time, That the Grandfather and the Mother are as much oblig'd in Confcience as the Father, to endeavour the Education of the Children in the True Worship of God.

A N

AN

APPENDIX

ΤΟ

H.NS. REMARKS

S'

UPON

T. B's. REASONS, &c.

INCE Mr. T. hath chofen T. B. to be the Guide of his Confcience, he ought in Faithfulness to State the Case right, which is not what a Father in Theft is bound to do, but what in Hypothefi he may do, all Circumftances duely confider'd, Take it

thus.

Mr. T.-hath Marry'd the Daughter of a Proteftant Gentleman against his Will, after he had declar'd to him, that he would never Confent to Marry her to a Papist. The Proteftant Father will not give her a Portion without his Compliance as to the Children's Education, being oblig'd in Confcience to do all he can in that Cafe, and the Gentleman's Estate may be much Prejudic'd for want of one. The Grandfather, if not Comply'd with, may and will Appeal to fuperiour Powers; and the Representation of his Cafe before them, may produce some Effects to the Prejudice of other Romanists, and awaken our Proteftant Governours to fuch Methods as are us'd in France against Protefants.

It is then incumbent on T. B. to tell the Gentleman what he may do in this Cafe, and this must be fairly answer'd according to my stating of it in my former Paper, if he intend to Direct, and not to Perplex both his Conscience, and his Affairs.

T. B's.

T. B's.

REPLY

I

TO

PAPER II

N Answer to Objections brought against the Reafons, why no Christian Parent can confent, that any of his Children be brought up contrary to the Judgment of his own Confcience in Matters of Faith and Religion.

1. The Objection against the Proof out of the 5th of the ift to Timothy, is of no force. For Care of their Families regards Parents more than Children, and what foregoes determines this Care to Widows, who have Children, and are order'd to Govern their Families, as is evident out of the Text.

2. The Objection against the Proof out of the 1ft of Kings, is of no force. For Eleazar was a Collateral Ancestor of Heli, tho' not a Progenitor, which no Body faid he ever was.

3. The Objection against a Parent, who is Supreme in his Family, is of no force. For neither Wife nor Grandfather are to anfwer for those, who are under another's Power, whom they have no right to controul or oppofe in the Government of those, who are under his Power, and whom he is oblig'd to Educate according to the Judgment of his Confcience in Matters of Faith and Religion, as is own'd.

PAPER III.

'N Anfwer to the Reasons I gave, why no Chriftian Parent. can confent, That his Children be Brought up contrary, to his own Judgment in Matters of Faith and Religion, its objected in a fecond Paper by H. N. That my Obligation was to have determin'd, not what a Father in Theft, or generally speaking is bound to do, but what in Hypothefi, or under the hard Circumftances, as is fpecify'd of hazarding temporal Damage, or Perfecution, he may do.

To which is reply'd, That the Law of God, which obliges Parents to Educate their Children according to the Judgment of their Confciences, being general, the Application of it to Particulars is eafy And as for the danger of temporal Damage or Perfecution, tho' we are not to run upon it Imprudently; yet if it follow from doing our Duty in complying with the Law of God, especially in fo important a Point as the laying of a true Foundation of Faith in the Souls of our Children, we are to fupport our felves with thefe well known Sentences: God is to be obey'd rather than Men: And happy are thofe who fuffer PerfeMatt. 5. 10.. cution for Juftice fake. But 'tis hop'd no true Friend, or charitable Chriftian will promote. the Damage or Perfecution of any Man for following the Dictates of a fincere Confcience.

A. 5. 29.

H. N'S