Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
death_n adam_n sin_v world_n 4,494 5 5.2227 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A89519 Amicus reipublicæ. = The Common-Wealths friend or an exact and speedie course to justice and right, and for preventing and determining of tedious law-suits. With many other things very considerable for the good of the publick. All which are fully controverted and debated in law. By John March of Grayes-Inne, barister. March, John, 1612-1657. 1651 (1651) Wing M574; Thomason E1360_1; ESTC R202857 49,863 175

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Civil Law if we may believe Fortescue is more agreeable to the Word of God for he saith cap. 49. that the Civil Laws do judge open Theft to be satisfied by the recompence of four fold and private Theft by the recompence of double so not to suffer death by their Law I do not write this to incourage men in this heinous crime which is too too common in these times no far be it from me so to do for I know if there be not a severe Law against it there will be no injoying any thing that a man hath the Law of propertie will be of little force But that there may be some other way of punishment as by Banishment slavery or the like which may be as effectual to terrifie men keep them from it so that we do not take away the life of man over which there is no jurisdiction given in such case by God we having no precept rule or warrant for it And now to me the forfeiture and penaltie in such case is no less unreasonable is it not too much to lose the life and yet will not that satisfie but thereby also his bloud be corrupted and all his estate forfeited so that his issue is not inheritable to him nor to any other ancestor nor can this corruption of bloud it is so high be restored otherwise than by Act of Parliament And if he were Noble or Gentle before he and all his children and posteritie are by this made base and ignoble in respect of any Nobilitie or Gentrie which they had by their birth For my part I think there cannot be a more rigid and tyrannical Law in the world that the children should thus extreamly suffer for the crime and wickedness of the Father the innocent for the nocent It is true that as the Apostle saith Rom. 5. that by one man sin entered into the World and death by sin but he goes further and so death went over all men in whom all men have sinned We all sinned in Adam therefore no wonder if death fall upon all God hath the supream Soveraign power over all his creatures and so may inflict what punishment he pleaseth upon them for their sins who dares question it or say it is unjust and yet God deals not thus severely with man for in the 18. of Ezek. he reproveth the Israelites for using this Proverb The Fathers have eaten sowr grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge and saith they shall use it no more for that Soul that sinneth it shall die and after verse the 20. The same Soul that sinneth shall die the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father c. Thus you may see the great mercie of God whose greatest severity were but Justice Doth not this extreamly condemn the injustice of that Law which so severely punisheth the Children for the transgression of the Father a wicked Father may have a good Child and shall such a one be ruined through the wickedness of the Father his Estate wholly lost and not onely disinherited through his corruption of bloud as to his Fathers Estate but also made incapable of taking any thing by descent from any other Ancestor a more rigorous Law certainly was never made But I know it will be said that the reason of the severity of this Law is the more to deterre and affrighten men from this sin which is so frequent amongst us ut metus ad ●mnes paena ad paucos c. To this I answer that it is not Lawfull nor warrantable for men to make unjust and tyrannical Laws to keep men from sinning and to put them in execution punish the offending Father but not the innocent Children The custom of Gavel-kind is more reasonable for though the Father be hanged the Son shall inherit for the Custom is the Father to the bough the Son to the plough I shall conclude it with this that I hope one day to see this Custom become the Common-Law of England the next thing I have in consideration is touching the debts of Infants under the age of 21 years and therein I propose this question Whether it be a just and reasonable Law that Infants under the age of 21 years shall not be charged with their debts FIrst we are to know what the age of discretion is for Man or Woman What full age The age of discretion for a woman in judgement of our Law is 12. for a man 14. full age is 21. and under that age they are said to be Infants in Law and under that age they have not power to dispose of their Estates not are they liable to pay their own debts It is true that for necessaries as Cloaths Dyet Schooling the like they are liable but for those neither they cannot give a penal bond a Bill they may and it shall bind them In general an Infant may better his condition he can not make it worse this I confess to be Law yet it seems very hard to me that an Infant should not be liable to pay such debts as he shall ow for any thing had or received after the age of discretion especially when I consider what the Law is in other cases of Infancy By custom he may make a lease at his age of 15. and it shall bind him Cook upon Littleton fol. 45. b. Nay further by custom he may make a Feoffement at 15. years 5. H. 7. 41. 11. H. 4. 33. Now no custom is Lawfull that is not reasonable And yet further an Infant of the age of discretion nay under may suffer death for Murder or Theft nothing more common 3. H. 7. 12. an Infant betwixt 10. and 12. gave a man several wounds till he died and then he drew the body into the Corn for which he was convicted but it is true that judgement in that case was respited for his tender age but many Justices that he was worthy of death Note an Infant of 9. years killed another and it was adjudged that he should be hanged quia malitia supplet aetatem But execution was respited to have pardon see the Assises A Woman Infant within age killed her Mistris and was burnt for it see likewise the Assises Again an Infant shall not avoid a marriage at the age of discretion made and contracted by him Cook upon Litt. fol. 79. Now I argue thus if an Infant may do the greater why is it not reason that he should do the less If he may be chargeable for things of a much higher nature why not for those that are of a lower By custom he may sell his Estate By Law he may suffer death for Felony and may contract Matrimonie things of much greater consequence to himself why then in reason should he not be liable to the payment of his debts my Lord Gook saith that argumentum a majori ad minus an argument from the greater to the less is a good argument in Law Besides he is as much obliged in