Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A25740
|
An apology for a yovnger brother, or, A discovrse proving that parents may dispose of their estates to which of their children they please by I. A.
|
J. A. (John Ap Robert)
|
1641
(1641)
|
Wing A3592; ESTC R9194
|
34,253
|
68
|
but Power to do the contrary was giuen to the Father in his Life-time even by the Law it selfe For many Divines hold that Esau selling his Birth-right as it is termed sold not Goods or Lands but his Claime of being * At first Fathers their first borne after theÌ„ were both Kings Priests in their owne houses but in Moses daies this Prerogatiue of Primogeniture ceased Aaron and his Progeny being invested in the Priesthood Moses being as King Deut 33.5 As judicious Mr. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron Lib. 1. c. 1 High Priest after his Father which by Custome was to come to him being his Fathers Eldest Sonne For which Dignity God seeing him vnfit permitted him to passe away his Right in his Fathers life as we read in Holy Writ and which God seemed to approue And thus I hope this Objection is answered Further if it were true that the effect of Eldership were such by the Law of God as some passionately defend that is that the whole Inheritance should of Right pertaine to the Eldest then sure it followeth by good Consequence that there should nor ever could haue beene but one Temporall Lord of all the World For of Necessity Adams Inheritance should haue gone still to the next in Blood which how absurd it is let all men judge Moreover we read that Noe hauing three Sons and the whole world to leaue vnto them gaue it not All to the Eldest but equally divided it among them their Posterity as all Authentike Histories doe witnesse Againe God requiring Obedience of Children to Parents promised a Reward saying Honor thy Father and thy Mother that thy Daies may bee long in the Land which the Lord shall giue thee Which surely was not spoken to one but to all the Children of men For with God there is no Exception of Persons but as a just and pious Father hee giues every one according to his Deserts Terram autem dedit filiis hominum We read also in Holy Writ how the Prodigall Sonne being weary of his Fathers house Luk. 15.12 came to him and boldly said Pater da mihi portionem substantiae meae quae me contingit This child of which the Gospell speakes was the younger Brother yet you see how boldly he said Giue me that Portion of Goods which belongs to me By which words it is evident that a Division or PartitioÌ„ of a Fathers Fortunes was then * As is further evidenced Luk. 12.13 where our Saviour was willed by One to require his Brother to divide the InheritaÌ„ce with him Which was the suit of a younger Brother aggreeved at the churlish Iniquity of his Elder The Iudgement of that Illustrious Religious Divine M. Iohn Haâ—â—â— the most exquisite Illustrator of Chrysostome publisht by the Right Noble Knight Sir Henry Savile 〈◊〉 in Glory in vse and that any child as well younger as elder had power by law to demand his Legitimate or Childs part according to the nature of the Civill and Canon Law as you haue heard For the words following in the sacred Text are these Et divisit substantiam illis And hee divided vnto them his Living Thus wee see that the privilege of Eldership was then excluded which now in our Country by Custome only is gotten to be of such Force But it may be objected that this was a Parable only as indeed it was and cannot bee alleaged as Law True it is yet it cannot be denied but that all Similies Parables or Examples which ever were alleaged by the wise and learned to represent the Truth haue euer beene deriued from the custome and nature of Things according to the knowne Truth in that time and place and to those persons to whom the Speech or Discourse is directed And shall we thinke that our Saviour Christ being Wisdome and Truth it selfe treating of so important an Affaire as he did then in the Gospell would vse an vnknowne Discourse or striue to make the Truth appeare to our weake Vnderstanding by a Parable which in Equity could not bee true No surely For it appeares by Solomon his succeeding his Father David that David had power by the Lawes of God and Man to giue his Kingdome to the worthiest which hee deeming to be Solomon gaue to him his Kingdome though hee was the youngest Sonne Neither was there any just exception made against Adonias his Eldest Brother or against some other of his Brethren why they should be disinherited by their Father David contrary to the common practise of those Times in setling Inheritances But the onely knowne reason of this Act in Scripture was Davids Promise 1. Kings 1. made to Solomons Mother together with her great Entreaty made to David to performe it Which surely he would not not haue done had he not found a lawfull Power in himselfe to haue executed the same Lastly it is invincibly proued out of the Booke of Iob who was contemporary with Moses by attestation of judicious Theologians that there was in those Times and Countries no such Law or Custome that the Eldest should play at Sweep-stake and all the rest be left to the foure Windes for it is expresly recorded in the last Chapter and the 15 Verse that Iob gaue his Daughters Inheritance among their Brethren Iob. 42.15 Which comes home to the point in Question and irrepliably evinces a Fathers Power and Right to make such a Partition of his Estate among his Children as vpon emergent occasion he shall judge expedient And thus much concerning what may bee said out of Scripture or Law of God in our present Question CHAP. 4. That Nations beginning to devise sundry Formes of setling Inheritances the Romans especially therein respected the free power of Fathers the right of Children to their Fathers estates beginning onely at their Fathers death HAuing now declared what the Laws of God and Nature determine of our present Question we intend to examine in breefe what is commanded by the Law of Man as well Civill of other Nations as Common of our owne Country And first concerning the Civill Law Though all Law which ever had but the Name or Credit of Law doth surely deriue her Originall from the Law of Nature wherevpon Cicero many hundred yeares since said that the Ground of all Law-making is to be taken from the chiefe Law which was made before any Law was written or City builded yet doe they differ much in Forme For as it is no Law but Tyranny which wholy disagrees with the Law of Nature as Aristotle saith so if it agree in All with the Law of Nature without limitation or difference it must of Force be the very Law of Nature it selfe and not the Law of Man Which surely is nothing else then a Temper or Forme of Equity drawne by right Reason from the Grounds of Natures Laws according as Time Place and the Natures of Men either gaue or shall giue Occasion For though new Lawes bee daily made of new