CHAPTER LVI – Q.6: Does self-denial require us to give more to godly strangers than to ungodly kindr
And for contracted relations, they are the express institution of God, so frequently owned by him in Scripture, and the duties of them so frequently commanded, that I will not trouble you with the recital of the passages. And as for the adversaries' objections, they are frivolous. The meaning of the apostle's words, "that we know no man after the flesh," I have told you before. The words of Christ to his mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4.) which they allege, are nothing for their wicked cause; they being no more but Christ's due reprehension of his mother's mistake, who would prescribe him the time and manner of doing miracles, and have him do them in a way of ostentation; which things did not belong to her, but to the Spirit of God, and the Lord himself. And whereas they allege that text, "that father, mother, brother, sisters, &c. are to be hated for Christ;" Luke 14:26. I answer, even as our own lives are to be hated, which are also numbered with them; that is, they must be all forsaken, rather than Christ should be forsaken; and therefore loved less than he, and but for his sake. If therefore this text require you not at all to cut your own throats, or some way kill yourselves, then it doth not require you to withdraw your due affections from natural or contracted relations. I must crave the reader's pardon that I trouble him with confuting such unnatural opinions, and desire him to believe that it is not before I am urged to it by the arguments of some deluded souls that are not unlikely to do hurt by them with some.
CHAPTER LVI
Or Relieving Strangers before Kindred?
Quest. 6. 'WHETHER self-denial require that we should relieve godly strangers, before our natural kindred, especially that are ungodly? Or that we love them better?'
Answ. 1. Where our natural kindred are as holy and needy as others, there is a double obligation on us, both natural and spiritual, to love and relieve them. 2. Where they are as holy as others, but less needy, there may lie a double obligation on us, to love them, and yet not to give to them. 3. If they be more needy, or as needy as others, though withal they be ungodly, we are not thereby excused from natural affections or charitable relief. 4. We must distinguish between children, or such kindred as nature casteth upon our care for provision, and such kindred as are by nature cast upon others. If parents were not obliged to relieve and provide for their own children, they would be exposed to misery, and man should be more unnatural than brutes. So that even when by ungodliness, they are less amiable than others, yet God hath bound men to provide for them more. 5. Natural love and spiritual are much different; you may have a stronger natural love to an ungodly child, than to a godly stranger, but you must have a spiritual love to that godly stranger, more than to your child; and that spiritual love must be (at least as to the rational and estimative part) much greater than the other natural love: and yet you may be bound to give more, where you are not bound to love more. For it is not love only that is the cause of giving; but we are God's stewards, and must dispose of what we have as he prescribeth us: and his standing law of nature for the preservation of mankind, is, that parents take care of their children, as such.
6. The will and service of God, being it that should dispose of all that we have, we must in all such doubts look to these two things for our
direction: First, to the particular precepts of the word; and there we find the foresaid duty of parents expressed, and withal the duty of relieving all that are needy, to our power: Secondly, to the general precept; and there we find, that we must honour God with our substance, and lay out all our talents to his service. And so the duty lieth plain before us. If you have a child that is wicked, yet as parents, provide him his daily bread; and leave him enough for daily bread, when you die. But more he should not have from me; but the rest
(had I ten thousand pounds a year) I would lay out that way my conscience told me may be most serviceable to God. For, 1. I am not bound to strengthen an enemy of Christ, and enable him to do the greater mischief. 2. Nor to cast away the mercies of God. 3. If the law required the parents to cause such a rebellious son to be put to death,
(Deut. 21:18.) then surely to provide him daily bread, is now as much as a parent is obliged to. And if it be an express command, "That he that will not labour, shall not eat," (2 Thess. 3:10.) such useless members forfeiting their very sustenance, then surely he that is such or worse, speeds fair if you leave him food and raiment. 4. And the great command of "doing all to God's glory," and "serving him with our substance," will not be obeyed, if you leave your riches and estates in the hands of such persons, merely because they are your children. No doubt but that is a selfish and unconscionable course, and the thing that sets up the ungodly to disturb the church, and lord it over the world, while parents furnish them with riches to do the devil eminent service with.
Object. 'But who knows but God may convert them?'
Answ. You cannot guide your actions by things unknown. You have no promise of their conversion; nor much probability, when they