But if he did this no otherwise, but that some Goods that should have descended unto him were given unto Melchizedek, it Argues him rather Superior unto him; for absolutely he that gives is Superior to him that receives, as it is in general a more Blessed thing to give than to receive. (4.) That which he proceeds upon, is a general Rule of his own framing, which is no way applicable unto this particular Case, as it is a particular Case. It is that, as Children Succeed into the room of their Parents as to their Goods, and after a sort represent them; so Parents before their Children come to Inherit do represent their Children, so as that they may be said in some sense to do what is done by their Parents. But this is a Rule made without any colour of Reason. For, (1.) I would know when this Representation and Concernment should expire, or whether it hold unto all Generations. If it hold for ever, then may we all be said in some sort to do what Adam did with his Goods and Lands before he died, and so of all our Intervenient Progenitors. If it do expire, and this Relation abideth only for a Season, I desire to know the Bounds of that Season. Aaron was the first of the House of Levi, who is intended in these words, and he was the seventh Generation from Abraham, in which time it is probable, if ever, this Right of Inheritance would expire. (2.) It is not true in any sense, in the very next Parents in most cases. For suppose a Parent be wicked and flagitious, and shall waste his Substance and Goods in Riotous living, in what sense shall his Son, suppose him a Person fearing God, be said so to have disposed of his Goods in him? (3.) The ⟨p. 152⟩Truth is, unless it be a subsequent Approbation of what our Progenitors have done, or by virtue of a Covenant whereby they and their Posterity were Obliged, which is the Case in hand, Children can in no sense be said to do, what their Progenitors have done in the Disposal of their Goods and Inheritances. Neither indeed will a subsequent Approbation give any Tolerable sense unto this Assertion, unless there be a Power of an effectual dissent in the Children also. If a Man give a part of his Estate to Found an Hospital, and leave the Care of it unto his Posterity, with this proviso, that if any of them saw just Cause for it, they should re-assume the State into their own Possession;
But if he did this no otherwise, but that some Goods that should have descended unto him were given unto Melchisedec, it Argues him rather Superiour unto him; for absolutely he that gives is Superiour to him that receives, as it is in general a more Blessed thing to give than to receive. (4.) That which he proceeds upon, is a general Rule of his own framing, which is no way applicable unto this particular Case, as it is a particular Case. It is that, as Children Succeed into the room of their Parents as to their Goods, and after a sort represent them; so Parents before their Children come to Inherit do represent their Children, so as that they may be said in some sence to do what is done by their Parents. But this is a Rule made without any colour of Reason. For, (1.) I would know when this Representation and Concernment should expire, or whether it hold unto all Generations. If it hold for ever, then may we all be said in some sort to do what Adam did with his Goods and Lands before he died, and so of all our Intervenient Progenitors. If it do expire, and this Relation abideth only for a Season, I desire to know the Bounds of that Season. Aaron was the first of the House of Levi, who is intended in these words, and he was the seventh Generation from Abraham, in which time it is probable, if ever, this Right of Inheritance would expire. (2.) It is not true in any sence, in the very next Parents in most cases. For suppose a Parent be wicked and flagitious, and shall waste his Substance and Goods in Riotous living, in what sence shall his Son, suppose him a Person fearing God, be said so to have disposed of his Goods in him? (3.) The ⟨p. 152⟩Truth is, unless it be a subsequent Approbation of what our Progenitors have done, or by virtue of a Covenant whereby they and their Posterity were Obliged, which is the Case in hand, Children can in no sence be said to do, what their Progenitors have done in the Disposal of their Goods and Inheritances. Neither indeed will a subsequent Approbation give any Tolerable sence unto this Assertion, unless there be a Power of an effectual dissent in the Children also. If a Man give a part of his Estate to Found an Hospital, and leave the Care of it unto his Posterity, with this proviso, that if any of them saw just Cause for it, they should re-assume the State into their own Possession;
