Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
death_n die_v life_n time_n 18,635 5 3.9362 3 true
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
A20768 The yonger brother his apology by it selfe. Or A fathers free power disputed for the disposition of his lands, or other his fortunes to his sonne, sonnes, or any one of them: as right reason, the laws of God and nature, the ciuill, canon, and municipall lawes of this kingdome do command. By I. Ap-Robert Gent. J. A. (John Ap Robert) 1618 (1618) STC 715; ESTC S115725 30,207 72

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

heritance should be left to any one particuler person and namely to the elder Brother yet in some Cases it would not bynd the Father to obserue it For as in the former Cōmandements vpon some considerations the Cōmandement may be dispensed withall so in this For it is not sufficient to be the elder Brother or the nearest in bloud to gaine an inheritance in the Case which I haue now proposed for other circumstances must concurre which if they be wanting bare propinquity or ancienty of bloud may iustly be reiected and he that is second third fourth fifth or last may lwafully be preferred before the first and this by al law diuyne and humane and by all Reason Conscience and Custome of nations Christian For if it should fall out that the next in bloud should be a Naturall foole or a madman or being taken by the Turkes or Mores in his infancy and brought vp in their religion would maintaine the same or if any other such accident ministring cause of iust exception should fall out is it likely that any law would allow that such a man should be admitted to the inheritance Wherefore how idly should they talk that would haue that it was his birthright or that God and Nature had made him heire since that neither God nor Nature doth imediately make heires as I haue sayd before True it is that God and Nature makes men who by the mediation of the lawes and customes of nations may come to be heires Vpon which ground our cómon Lawyers say that no heyres are borne but men and law make them True it is that in holy Writ great respect is had of the first begotten a blessing is held to come to parents thereby But this blessing I presuppose to be that therby the feare of sterility was taken away which in the old Law was held to be a great punishment of God and in respect thereof parents had of themselues and by the nationall lawes and customs a great regard of their first begotten and preferred them to the better part of their possessions yet not by any commaund from God as a precept to bind his elect people vnder paine of sinne For had any such Law bound them vnder such a penalty then should it bynd all Christians now on the same conditions For we see it by generall practise of all countryes to be otherwise Therefore it followes directly that it was not Gods Comaundement but a Nationall Law For God both is and ever was one without chaunge to all his people and so euer were and wil be his Lawes positiue made for them that truely worship him The clayme which Esau made to his Birthright was not by the law of God as some ignorantly affirme but by the lawes of his country For should the law of God haue commaunded it it had bene sinne in his Mother and brother by cunning to haue gotten it from him Neither could the Father or the State wherin they liued vpon no iust cause knowne but to God alone without sinne haue setled the same vpon his Brother Iacob as it was and as it may seeme by allowance from God and as it may be iudged by the sucesse Whereby it is thought that God ordained it as a punishment of the one and blessing of the other which by the permission of sinne to be committed God doth neuer do Neither did the Nationall law or custome of the Iewes as it is said absolutly commaund the Father to leaue vnto his first begotten all or the greatest part of his goods and fortunes But if in case he died not disposing therof by act in his life or will at his death then the custome of the Nation layd a double portion on the eldest or first begotten prouiding for the rest proportionably By all which you may gather that neither the law of God or man in this case commaunded that Esau should haue the inheritance but power to do the contrary was giuen to the Father in his life tyme euen by the law it selfe For many Deuines hold that Esau selling his Birthright as it is termed sould not goods or lands but his clayme of being high Preist after his Father which by custome was to come to him being his Fathers eldest sonne Of which dignity God seing him vnfit permitted him to passeaway 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 thē sure it followeth by good consequēce that there should nor euer could haue bene but one temporall Lord of all the world For of necessity Adams inheritance should haue gone still to the next in bloud which how absurd it is let all men iudge Moreouer we read that Nöe hauing three sonnes and the whole world to leaue vnto them gaue it not all to the Eldest but equally deuided it among them and their posterity as all authenticall histories do witnes God requiring obedience of children to parents promised a reward saying Honour thy Father Mother that thy dayes may be long in the land which the Lord shall giue thee This 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 iust and pions Father he giues euery one according to his deserts Terram autem dedit filijs hominum We read also in holy writ how the prodigall child being weary or his Fathers house came vnto him and boldly sayd Pater da mihi portionem substantiae meae quae me contingit This child of which the Gospell speaks was the yoūger brother yet you see how boldly he sayd giue vnto me that portion of goods which belongs to me By which words it is euident that a diuision or partition of a Fathers fortunes was then in vse and that any child as well yoūger as elder had power by law to demaund his legitimate or childes part according to the Nature of the Ciuill and Canon Law as you haue heard For the words following in the text are these Et diuisit substantiam illis Thus we see that the priuiledge of Eldership was thē excluded which now in our countrey by custome onely is gotten to be of such force But it may be obiected that this was a parable onely as indeed it was and cannot be alledged as law True it is yet it cannot be denied but that all similies parables or examples which euer were alledged by the wise and learned to represent the truth haue euer bene deriued from the customes and nature of things according to the knowne truth in that tyme place and to those to whome the speach or discourse is directed And shall we think that our Sauiour Christ being wisdom and truth it selfe treating of so important an affaire
brothers right to his Fathers fortunes CHAP. V. That the present custome in our Cōntrey of giuing all or almost all to the Eldest was neuer so begun that it meant to exclude iust remedies for such euills as should growe out of the abuse of that custome when it may make Fathers guilty of their sonnes faults and of their families ruines I Haue of purpose reserued to treate of the lawes of our countrey in the last place because I assure my selfe that they are of most force to sway the matter in question For many things may be permitted by the lawes of God and Nature and yet they on the contrary are forbiden or practised by course of law in seuerall States of the world as the law-makers and the customes of the countries do allow or comaund I do confesse that the generall practise of our tyme among parents is to leaue either all or the most part of their lands to their eldest begotten sōne This without all question was as it hath bene said first deuised in former ages for the preseruation of a family and to raise some one who might be a comfort to his brothers sisters and family and in whom his progenitors vertues might line to the world Moreouer I will not deny but the partition of lands may bring in the end a goodly estate to nothing or to so little as it may be like an A tomie in the sunne yet I find in Naturall reason that ex nihilo nihil fit or at lest that Haud facilè emergunt quorum virtutibus obstat Res ang ista domi But if men do faile of those happy ends to which this generall custome should guide then would I wish that they would not vse that for their destruction which was meant for their preseruation For who doth not see in these our tymes may vnbridled youths to be so violently carried away with the humor of spending that they neglect brother and sister yea bring to extreame misery their Naturall Mothers after their Fathers death by their vnthristines What help for this hath law left vnto vs no means to put a bridle to these vnruly colts if they become heires according to the custome of our tyme no truely For some starting hole wil be found to vnty the knot which a Fathers care once tyed How then must many an hopefull and well-de seruing brother and sister be left to the mercy of this whirlwind There is no necessity in it For our law hath giuen power to a Father free will to dispose of his owne according as reason shall guide his will without all obligation to his heire Besides this custome takes place onely after a Fathers death if he dispose not of what is his by deed in life or by will at his death But least my words be more generally taken then they are meant I meane those Fathers who are possessed of their lands in fee or fee-tayle that is are absolute of themselues and haue not vpon good consideration conuaied their lands from themselues For all our lawyers do agree that such parents may alien sell and giue by power of our law their lands to whome they wil without respect of person or eldership But me thinks I heare one say that the custome is otherwise and that this custome is a law True it is the custome But let vs see whether it bindes sub peccato or as a custome which rather inuites then commaunds There neuer was any comaund to tye a Father vnder a penalty which admits no limitation but it was euer left indifferent and then only to take place where former prouision according to course of law is not made thé surely a parent is free from this deuouring custome and may in good consideration preuent what euill it may bring to his posterity yea reason comaunds it should be so For Interest reipublicae vt quilibet re sua bene vtatur as saith the ciuill law For if a man can ney ther sell nor set much lesse can hee giue any thing to another which he thinks in his conscience will vse it to the dishonour of God the ruine of himselfe or others Some Deuines hould that it is not lawfull to sell or let an house to any that he thinks assuredly would make thereof a stewes or to sel giue or lend a weapon to a man who intends therewith to do murder Excomunications are imposed on them who sell armes offensiue or defensiue to Turks though they be not assured that they will vse them against Christians Thus wee see the rule of conscience not onely to commaund a man to vse well those fortunes which God hath bestowed vpon him but forbids him either vpon affection or gaine to part with them to others who wil abuse them least he be partaker of others sinne which a parent may be after death who leaueth his lands to a desperate vnthrift But what religion and conscience doth commaund shal be declared in the following chapter In which vpon grounds drawne out of these former foure Chapters it shal be argued what sin may be contracted by the parting of an estate among sonns or by disinheriting of an eldest sonne vpon iust cause and vnto whom the Father is only tyed by the Custome of the Countrey without obligation of promise or contract in Marriage which may alter the Case CHAP. VI. That it is no offence before God for a Father being tenant in fee-simple to disinherit the eldest or to parcell his estate vpon cause that extreme vices of Heyres apparent togeather with the fewer meanes which younger Brothers haue now to liue on then heeretosore cryeth out against the contrary opinion THE right of these insociable inheritours of which wee now treat may grow as I magine out of three titles or claymes which they may pretend to a Fathers inheritance wherby it may be deemed as they think sinne in a Father vpon what desert soeuer to barre them of the faid right These three tytles are Purchase Custome and Entaile Of ech seuerally And of the first which is Purchase surely in the iudgment of the good and learned there is no question in law or conscience but that a Sonne ioyned Purchaser with his Father hath Ius in re and by equity must suruyuing his Father inherite such lands as were purchased in their names Now of the other two though it be as cleere as the noone light that a Lord in Fee simple or Tenant in taile may sell or giue by course of our Common law at his pleasure all such lauds held by him in that kind according to those formes of law which the learned in our lawes haue and can set downe yet there seemes to arise a great difficulty how such an act or acts may in cōscience be executed I haue heard some say in this our Case Summum ius summa iniuria Of these points therefore I will speake saluo meliori iudicio what may in Conscience vpon good and iust occasion giuen by the sonne to