Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	bind_v	law_n	obligation_n	1,168	5	9.4651	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90520	Jus fratrum, The law of brethren. Touching the power of parents, to dispose of their estates to their children, or to others. The prerogative of the eldest, and the rights and priviledges of the younger brothers. Shewing the variety of customes in several counties, and the preservation of families, collected out of the common, cannon, civil, and statute laws of England. / By John Page, late Master in Chancery, and Dr. of the Civil Law.	Page, John, LL.D.	1657 (1657)	Wing P164; Thomason E1669_3; ESTC R203096	43,631	124

shall make most for the good of the Common-wealth And can there be a worse prodigal then a prodigal father for he falsifies the trust which the Commonwealth our general Parent doth repose in him by wasting those his lands and goods wherewith he should relieve and provide for his children which was the greatest if not the only cause for which lands were at first given and are now permitted to be enjoy'd for only upon children dependeth the whole frame and propagation of mankind and upon the care and love of Parents in the good instructing of their children and in the relieving and providing for their children dependeth the civil order and Society of mankind And children have a native and as we may well call it a divine right to their fathers lands and goods in his life time for sayes the Apologer the prodigal son being weary of his fathers house came to his father and boldly said Pater dae mihi portionem Give me that portion of goods which belongs to me and the words following are pater divisit and the father gave him his portion and he sayes also that fathers are bound by the Civil Law to leave every one of their children a legitimate or childs part and if they be bound how can they be said to be free But should I here recount the many and great obligations wherewith we are bound in our Christian duty or charity towards our neighbours or Christian brother Qui habet duas turnīcas det non habenti qui habet escas similiter faciat Luke 6. He that hath two coats let him give one of them to him that hath none and he that hath meat to spare let him do the same And especially the infinite obligations wherewith we are bound to our children for sayes an Apostle 1 Tim. 5. Whosoever provides not for his family then much more he that provides not for his children doth deny the faith and is worse then an Infidel These things well considered it will easily appear to any pious understanding that the private or self-interest which any man hath in his estate is so small a thing that it may be compared unto an attome in the Sun for indeed we have no estates all which we can properly call our own that which we call an estate we hold it but at the courtesie and permission of others and should imploy it to the benefit of others and we are at the most but stewards of it for a while and like stewards must account unto a farthing Matth. 5. And concerning the large Soveraignty of Parents over their children there is no question but that fathers are as far from being absolute Lords and masters of their children as they are from being absolute Lords and masters of their estates of which I will only give two reasons The first reason is that children are the tender plants of the Commonwealth and that Parents are intrusted by the Common-wealth with the good education of their children which is a thing of that high and necessary consequence that it is in effect the cyment or bond which ties and holds together the whole frame and body of mankind The consideration whereof moved the wise Lacedemonians to make this brave and pious answer to Antipater who demanded many of their children in hostage for they said as Plutarch relates it that they would first chuse to die before they would yield him their children fearing their children would be corrupted and spoiled in their education nay they had Laws to punish such Parents whose children were ill condition'd or wicked supposing it proceeded for want of good care in their education and they had cause for sayes the wise Charron there cannot come so much evil to a Commonwealth by the ingratitude of children towards their Parents as by the carelesnesse of Parents in the instruction of their children So that upon the matter children are but the Pupils of the Commonwealth and Parents their Tutours and this the Apologer acknowledges though it be as much against his pretended free power as can be saying that all fathers are children to the father of their countrey and that a father is not only bound to nourish his children in his life but by Natures Law must provide to his power that they live in his life and after his death to the honour of God the service of their Countrey and comfort of their family which were the only ends for which God created man a civil or rational creature But there is another reason and that transcends this as far as heaven doth earth for our children are not only our children but the children also and creatures of God adorned by him with the same faculties of Soul and Body as their Parents are and so become both our brothers and children for we have all one father which is in heaven Matth. 6. Luke 11. Certainly there cannot any thing be more consolable unto a truly religious heart then seriously to contemplate the infinite goodnesse of God as also to consider in what a sweet manner it hath pleased even God himself to treat with his dear creature Man All his wayes saith the royal Psalmist Psal 24. are mercy and truth and saith the Divine Majesty himself Deut. 8. I will be a father unto you and you shall be my sons and daughters and how often are we called children throughout the whole current of the Divine Word nay we are called 1 Cor. 6. the temples of the holy Ghost that is the Pallace or Court-Royal of God himself for such indeed is every pious soul and can it be supposed that God who only giveth children and calleth them his children and the temples of his holy Spirit would give any other power to Parents over their children but as governours under him to instruct and if need be gently to correct them for we had no sooner a Law from the Omnipotent hand but Parents were commanded Deut. 6.2 to teach that Law diligently to their children and so diligently that they were to speak of it as they sat in their house as they walked by the way when they lay down and when they rose up that is at all times and upon all occasions and if they are any way negligent herein or in the due relieving or providing for their children an Apostle tells them 1. Tim. 5. That they have denied the faith and are worse then Infidels So that if we either consider the great duties which we ow unto our general father the Commonwealth unto whom we are but Feoffees in trust of our estates and children or chiefly those infinite duties which we ow unto our heavenly father we shall find our selves so much inferiour to the Apologers pretended free power that no man of any common understanding unless he will accuse himself for an Atheist or most grosse Ideot can think himself an absolute Lord or master either of himself his estate or children The Rights of eldest Sons THe Apologer hath done what he

strangers and what can be a greater affront to God then that a father should disaffect and reject his children whom God hath not only given him but given them for his honour for it is said Eccl. 3. and Prov. 17. that fathers are honoured in their children and that the Crown or glory of old men are their childrens children The Apologer sayes that it is a monstrous immanity in any man not to have care to preserve his Species that is not to have care to preserve and provide for his children and can it be a monstrous immanity and not a sin he also sayes that every act in it self or by circumstance evil is before God and man a sin and no way to be executed by a Christian That an act of it self lawful done against Law is sin and that no Law is valid where the thing it self is unlawful and a sin and is it not then a sin to disinherit an eldest son unto whom the Laws both Divine and humane give the right of inheritance and which we also see confirmed by the general practise of all good Parents Proof 26. That we cannot in conscience sell or give a weapon to one whom we know intends to murder Excommunications are imposed on them who sell armours or weapons to Turks The rule of conscience not only commands a man to use well those fortunes which God hath bestowed on him but forbids him either for affection or gain to part with them to others who will abuse them lest he partake of others sin which a Parent may do after his death who parts from his estate to a desperate unthrift Answ It is true that if we can assuredly know that our goods will be spent to the dishonour of God the harm of the Commonwealth or to the hurt or wrong of any man we are neither to sell nor give them to such persons as will so use them and if an heir be desperately vitious there is no question but his father may lawfully and religiously disinherit him but how can a desperate sinner or unthrift be known We are divinely commanded not to judge any man Rom. 14. which is so to judge him but by Gods grace he may be otherwise and be hereafter a glorious Saint in heaven when he that judgeth him for ought as he knows or can know may himself be an abhorred reprobate qui stat videat ne cadat he who presumes most of his sure footing is in most danger of falling And though a son be vitious and an unthrift doth it necessarily follow that he that is once an unthrift musty alwayes be so We have daily experience to the contrary many unthrifts prove the best husbands for such men commonly run out of one extream into another and from prodigallity fall to penury But if the eldest son be a natural fool or mad man he is not capable to mannage the estate or if according to the Apologer he turns Turk and tramples upon all Laws divine and humane I will say with the Apologer that he is so unfit to inherit that he is not worthy to live but I cannot conceive how in conscience an eldest son can be disinherited meerly for his unthriftinesse for we may so estate our land and yet suffer him and his heirs to inherit that it shall not be in his power to hurt or to overthrow his family Proof 27. That if in conscience the whole inheritance of the father is to come without controul to the eldest son then must it of necessity be inferred that the father without his consent cannot give to pious uses or set out for his other children after his death So that if God should blesse a father with many children and crosse him with as many misfortunes his other children and all his other charitable intentions should be provided for only at his sons or heirs courtesie for thereupon all donations to pious uses and to younger brothers for their portions may be called in question Answ Eldest sons are not to inherit all the estate but only the greatest part of it fathers being to provide for all their children And I deny not but that every man is bound in his Christian duty to do what good he well can to his neighbour or Christian brother for sayes an Apostle Rom. 14. No man is born to himself and the Apologer hath a good saying Da quae non potes retinere ut consequaris ea quae non potes amittere Give of those things which thou canst not keep that thou maist gain such things as cannot be taken from thee But Mr. Apologer I must tell you charity begins at home Proximus quisque sibi we must first look upon our selves and children and then upon our neighbour or Christian brother but I 'le come nearer to you put the case that a father were to make the Church or Commonwealth or children his heir which of all these may he the more lawfully do The Apologer it may be would be on the Commonwealths side for then the estate would be divided and he might chance to have a share amongst the rest but I must ever be on the childrens part and will give a plain Text for it S. Paul in his fifth Epistle to Timothy saith that he who hath not care to provide for his family doth deny the faith and is worse then an Infidel but it is no where said that he who hath not care to build Churches Colledges and Hospitals doth deny the faith and is worse then an Infidel Proof 28. That it plainly appears out of the sacred Text it self that fathers had a power amongst the Jews to cause their children for riot disorder and unthriftinesse to be stoned to death Ergo they had power to disinherit for the greater ever includes the lesse and that I may not seem to speak without book I will set down Moses words which are as follow If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son that will not obey the command of his father and being chastised shall be unreclaimable they shall apprehend and bring him to the Seniors of the city and to the place of justice and shall say to them This our son is incorrigible and disobedient contemns or monitions abandons himself to riotous excess and is a drunkard The citizens shall then overwhelm him with stones and he shall die That you may take evil from among you and that all Israel hearing it may fear Deut. 21. Whence we may collect how odious a crime unthriftinesse riot was among the people of God and what ample power the father had to punish the same in his child for if we observe well the manner of the processe between the father and the child in this case we shall find that the father was witnesse accuser and judge of his own cause for we read not that the Senators of the city did give sentence or further examined the proofs of the fathers accusation but their presence giving as it were allowance to a