ver given happiness, but often hastened misery;
Enough hath never caused misery, but often quickened happiness;
Enough is less than thy thought, O pampered creature of society,
And he that hath more than enough, is a thief of the rights of
his brother!"

Parents should be impartial in the distribution of their patrimony among
their children. They should never give one more than another unless for
very plausible and Christian reasons, such as bad health, peculiar
circumstances, of want, &c. They should have no pets, no favorites among
them; and care more for one than for another, or indulge one more than
another. Neither should they withhold a dowry, from a child as a
punishment, unless his crime and character are of such an execrable nature
as to warrant the assurance that its bestowment would but enhance his
misery. Then indeed, it would be a blessing to withhold it. "A child's
vices may be of that sort," says Paley in his Philosophy, "and his vicious
habits so incorrigible, as to afford much the same reason for believing
that he will waste or misemploy the fortune put into his power, as if he
were mad or idiotish, in which, case a parent may treat him as a madman, or
an idiot; that is, may deem it sufficient to provide for his support by an
annuity equal to his wants and innocent enjoyments, and which he may be
restrained from alienating. This seems to be the only case in which a
disinherison, nearly absolute, is justifiable."

Neither should parents be capricious in the distribution of their property
among their children. They have no right to withhold a dowry from children
because they have married against their will, no more than they have a
right, for this reason, to disown, them. This would be distributing their
property upon the principle of revenge or reward. No parent has a right to
indulge a preference founded on such an unreasonable and criminal feeling
as revenge. Neither has he a right to distribute his property from
considerations of age, sex, merit, or situation. The idea of giving all to
the eldest son to perpetuate family wealth, and distinction; or of giving;
all to the sons, and withholding from the daughters; or of giving to those
children only who were more obsequious in their adherence to their parent's
tyrannical requisitions,--is unreasonable, unchristian, and against the
generous dictates of natural affection.

From this whole subject we may infer the infatuation of those parents who