And what Wisdom would it have been after having begun with Widows, to have turn'd abruptly to Sons and Nephews, to have call'd their Mothers or Aunts Houfe theirs, and to have order'd them to Govern it, whom in another Place he charges to Obey Colof. 3. 20. their Parents in all Things?

There are two Things here commanded Widows by St. Paul; the first to Govern their Families, where T. B. interprets Evoße with the Vulgar, and the English Translation Printed by John Day 1574, and approv'd by Bishop Cranmer; the fecond to return the Kindaefs of their Parents: And H. N. enquires why T. B. render'd Evreßeiv by Praeffe, and why he makes use of returning Heathen Parents Kindness in their Faithlefs Education for an Inftance of Chriftian Widows Obligation of a like Return to their Children, in bringing them up in the true Worship of God; two Things T. B. never mention'd nor intended. They are therefore no more than two of H. N's. Jacks of Straw, which he pleases himself in Thrafhing to no purpose, as he thinks convenient to exprefs himself elsewhere without any occafion.

In fine, to fhew this ground lefs Exception is of no Service to him, does not he exprefly own that the Duties of Honour and Obedience from Children to Parents, and of Christian Care and Education from Parents to Children are mutual? Muft not he therefore likewife own that this Command of St. Paul wou'd concern Widow- Mothers even in that it concerns their Children, if his Suppolition were good; Correlatives neceffarily inferring one another, as he has confefs'd in this Particular, and as all must confefs, who know what Correlatives are?

2dly, H. N. Quarrels with T. B's. Expreffions of calling Heli's Great Uncle Eleazar, his Collateral Ancestor upon this Account, that 'tis fcarce allowable in Heraldry, because Great Uncles belong not to their Nephews Pedigree. To which is answer'd, That feveral Pedigrees which T. B. has lately feen, and thofe drawn by good Heralds are fufficient to convince him of the contrary. But if it were not fo, what Obligation have we in Explanatory Difcourfe of Scripture, to Tye our felves rigorously to Terms of Heraldry, any more than we have to express White, Red, and Black by Argent, Gules, and Sables?

As H. N. fays he would have paft by these two Mistakes (as he fondly would have them thought) had not T. B. vindicated them; fo T. B. would not have been fo large in his Vindication, had not he fear'd H. N. had trifled in thefe groundless Exceptions with Design to have withdrawn the Perfon, for whom these Things are written, from a due Consideration of St. Paul's heavy

Cen

Cenfure, upon careless and indifferent Parents, and of the terrible Example of the Punishment of them attended with the fad Threats of Difgrace and Infamy from an Infallible God.

3dly. H. N. feems to wonder, That T. B. makes (as he calls it) a bold Affertion, that neither Wife nor Father-in-Law have right to controul a Chriftian Parent in the Government of his Children within his Power, whom he's oblig'd to Educate according to the Judgment of his Confcience in Matters of Faith and Religion, without anfwering his Inftances of what was done in the particular of St. Timothy, and what's actually done in France. To which is anfwer'd, That T. B. thought he might fafely fuppofe that the common Principles of Chriftian Morality wou'd neither have been mif-understood nor dif-own'd by his Adverfary. But fince he finds his Miftake, he'll endeavour to make what according to them was plain enough in the Words of his Solution, yet plainer in this legal Syllogifm.

No Wife, or Father-in-Law have right to controul any Chriftian Parent, fo far as to make him Sin.

But if any Chriftian Parent omit the Education of his Children, under his Power, in Matters of Faith and Religion according to the Judgment of his Confcience, he Sins.

Therefore no Wife or Father-in-Law have right to controul any Christian Parent fo far as to make him omit the Education of his Children under his Power, in Matters of Faith and Religion according to the Judgment of his Confcience.

This Syllogifm being in Form, if the Premifes be true, the Confequence must not be deny'd. The Major Propofition is unquestionable, the Minor already granted by H. N. fo far at least that Chriftian Parents cannot without Sin omit the Education of their Children in the true Worship of God (which confifts in Faith and Religion) and furely he'll never pretend they have a more immediate and indifpenfible Rule for this, than their Confciences.

But because he seems to fancy Parities and Inftances more than Principles, and well-form'd Arguments, 'tis hop'd he'll allow T. B. to offer this one in his turn. Suppofe H. N. had marry'd a Catholick Gentleman's Daughter, would he let his Fatherin-Law controul him in the Education of his Children against his Confcience? Wou'd not he rather answer that his Father-in-Law had no right to controul his own Daughter in oppofition to her Husband's confcientious Will and Order, much lefs her Husband himself? And if his Wife fhou'd offer to controul him herein, wou'd not he answer that her Duty was Obedience, wherein the

might be fafer than in Tyrannizing over his Confcience, and driving him by the indifpenfable Rule of his Actions? Sure he wou'd not be fo irreligiously Uxorious as to neglect fuch an Anfwer, nor fo tamely Obedient as to be afraid of fuch a bold Af fertion as he calls T. B's.

Whether the French, or any other Nation have Arbitrarily en trench'd upon this Native Right, and done contrary to the first Principle of Charity, as they wou'd not be done by; or whether St. Timothy's Father judg'd his Wife's and Mother's Education good, or judging otherwife he neglected his Obligation, are Particulars which T. B. had no Reafon to trouble himself with, after having given unquestionable Principles to refolve them by. So that he was more Over-feen in fuppofing H. N. had Abilities to understand, and Sincerity to acknowledge fuch Principles, than in not troubling him with the Application of them, which it feems he too favourably judg'd him able, and fincere enough to have made himself.

3

H. N's.

H

IN

PAPER VIII.

E begins with a Vindication of his Citation out of Timothy, Tim. 5. 8. which I had affirmed to be meant of Children maintaining their Parents, and not of Parents Education of their Children This I prov'd from the fourth Verfe, the vulgar Version whereof on that Account comes to be contefted. I found Fault with it for rendring maravelwoar by Difcant, and ivreßeir by Regere. To Vindicate the former T. B. brings a learned Citation out of the Greek Grammar, to prove an Enaoge of number allowable in the Greek Tongue: Which Pains he might well have fpared fince our Difpute is not about the Propriety of St. Paul's Greek, but the Fidelity of the vulgar Verfion, which ought to have rendred the Verb Plural by difcant, as it is in the Greek. Whether is xúga,

might be fafer than in Tyrannizing over his Confcience, and driving him by the indifpenfable Rule of his Actions? Sure he wou'd not be fo irreligiously Uxorions as to neglect fuch an Anfwer, nor fo tamely Obedient as to be afraid of fuch a bold Affertion as he calls T. B's.

Whether the French, or any other Nation have Arbitrarily entrench'd upon this Native Right, and done contrary to the first Principle of Charity, as they wou'd not be done by; or whether St. Timothy's Father judg'd his Wife's and Mother's Education good, or judging otherwife he neglected his Obligation, are Particulars which T. B. had no Reafon to trouble himself with, after having given unquestionable Principles to refolve them by. So that he was more Over-feen in fuppofing H. N. had Abilities to understand, and Sincerity to acknowledge fuch Principles, than in not troubling him with the Application of them, which it feems he too favourably judg'd him able, and fincere enough to have made himself.