A careful and strict enquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that freedom of…

Further to illustrate this Matter.— If a Child has a most excellent Father, that has ever treated him with fatherly Kindness and Tenderness, and has every Way in the highest Degree merited his Love and dutiful Regard, being withal very wealthy; but the Son is of so vile a Disposition, that He inveterately •ates his Father; and yet, apprehending that his Hatred of Him is like to prove his Ruin, by bringing Him finally to Poverty and abject Circumstances, thro' his Father's disinheriting Him, or otherwise; which is exceeding cross to his Avarice and Ambition; He therefore wishes it were otherwise: but yet remaining under the invincible Power of his vile and malignant Disposition, He continues still in his settled Hatred of his Father. Now if such a Son's indirect Willingness to have Love and Honour towards his Father, at all acquits or excuses before God, for his failing of actually exercising these Dispositions towards Him which God requires, it must be on one of these two Accounts. (1.) Either that ⟨p. 173⟩it answers and fulfils the Command. But this it does not, by the Supposition; because the Thing commanded is Love and Honour to his worthy Parent. If the Command be proper and just, as is supposed, then it obliges to the Thing commanded; and so nothing else but that can answer the Obligation. Or, (2.) It must be at least because there is that Virtue or Goodness in his indirect Willingness, that is equivalent to the Virtue required; and so balances or countervails it, and makes up for the Want of it. But that also is contrary to the Supposition. The Willingness the Son has merely from a Regard to Money and Honour, has no Goodness in it, to countervail the Want of the pious filial Respect required.

Further to illustrate this Matter.— If a Child has a most excellent Father, that has ever treated him with fatherly Kindness and Tenderness, and has every Way in the highest Degree merited his Love and dutiful Regard, being withal very wealthy; but the Son is of so vile a Disposition, that He inveterately •ates his Father; and yet, apprehending that his Hatred of Him is like to prove his Ruin, by bringing Him finally to Poverty and abject Circumstances, thro' his Father's disinheriting Him, or otherwise; which is exceeding cross to his Avarice and Ambition; He therefore wishes it were otherwise: but yet remaining under the invincible Power of his vile and malignant Disposition, He continues still in his settled Hatred of his Father. Now if such a Son's indirect Willingness to have Love and Honour towards his Father, at all acquits or excuses before God, for his failing of actually exercising these Dispositions towards Him which God requires, it must be on one of these two Accounts. (1.) Either that