Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	king_n	son_n	wales_n	4,447	5	10.4163	5	true

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

prior in donis maior in imperio as also his dignity his power and his strength Proof 31. That the examples of Esau and Jacob and of Ephraim and Manasses where the younger brothers were by divine election preferred before the elder are unanswerable proofs of a fathers freedome in disposing of his estate Answ These examples of Jacob and Ephraim so much and often advanced by the Apologer make more for the advantage of eldest sons then for the pretended free power of Parents for Esau demanded the prime blessing of his father and his father intended to give him the blessing because he was the eldest son which his right he freely and willingly and volenti non fit injuria had before sold to his brother And when Jacob had put his right hand upon the head of Ephraim intending to give him the prime blessing their father Joseph was much troubled that his father should do so unjust a thing and thinking that Jacob was mistaken by reason of his blindness he endeavoured to remove his hand to the head of Manasses saying this is my eldest son put therefore thy right hand upon his head but Jacob refused saying I know my son I know and therefore unless fathers can infallibly know the divine will by divine revelation as Jacob did or have such as Jacob had concerning his eldest son Ruben they ought not to disinherit their eldest sons at all To conclude these examples so much urged by the Apologer do plainly show an apparent and undeniable right belonging to eldest sons and make nothing at all for the pretended free power of Parents but do indeed chiefly concern the divine providence and eternal predestination and did prefigure the conversion of our forefathers the Gentiles according to the divine word and divine Ordinance Gen. 25. Malaoh 1. The elder shall serve the younger and will not the Apologer give God leave to dispose of his gifts and graces as himself best pleases Proof 32. That it appears by Solomon his succeeding his father David that David had power both of the Laws of God and man to give his kingdome to the worthiest which he deeming to be Solomon did upon the entreaty of his wife give him the Kingdome though he was the youngest son Answ The preferring of Solomon to the crown doth no way impeach the rights of eldest sons for as David was himself divinely chosen being the youngest son so we may assuredly believe that he elected Solomon who was his youngest son to succeed him moved only thereunto by divine revelation for it cannot be thought being as he was a man according to Gods own heart that he would otherwise have done it And this good King had more reason and more freedome to dispose of the Kingdome then any other King hath since had for there had been no succession of Kings before him to establish a right nor any Laws made by the general votes of the people to erect a course of inheritance concerning the Crown and David himself did not inherit but was divinely elected and created King But I would have the Apologer tell us how many other Kings there were of Israel or Juda who were younger brothers and if he would make this an argument of disinheritance he shall much abate his pretended free powers of fathers and leave it in wives for David was entreated by his wife which will make more work for women who are already too busie and such actions and others that belong not to them Proof 33. That Augustus Caesar did not settle the imperial succession upon his Grandson Agrippa Posthumus but upon Tiberius who was no kin to him because he thought him more fit to govern Chosros King of Persia made Medarses his younger son consort with him in the Empire leaving out Sinochius who was his eldest son The Emperour Ferdinand left the Empire with Austria and the Kingdomes of Hungary and Bohemia to Maximilian his eldest son unto his second son Stiria and Carinthia and to his third son the Earldome of Tirol Philip King of Spain gave unto his daughter the seventeen Provinces Answ The Apologer having done with his divine and as he calls them invincible examples bestows upon us some other presidents as little invincible as the former which also shall be answered Augustus came in by conquest and therefore might the better appoint his Successor and he made so good a choice of one that instead of Tiberius Nero he was for his intemperance called Biberius mero Chosros the Persian King made his younger son consort with him in the Empire but it cost him dear for the people detesting so unjust an act took arms against him expelled both him and his usurping consort and put the Scepter into the hands of Sinochius who was the eldest son The Emperour Ferdinand did well in leaving his younger sons so well but he did better in leaving his Kingdomes and Empire unto Maximilian his eldest son And Philip King of Spain rather lent then gave the seventeen Provinces unto his daughter the late Arch Dutchess for she was not then likely to have children being so far in years and his gifts were no lesse prodigal then politick for he gave her more then he had to give or was able to keep But doth this make any thing against the rights of eldest sons or for the pretended free power of Parents It is well known that no heriditary King can as meerly of himself disinherit his eldest son the Prince nor as I have credibly heard do any act as meerly of himself which can impeach the rights and prerogatives of the Crown by which it is clearly evident that eldest sons have the only right to inherit and that fathers cannot have such a free power that they may at their pleasure lawfully and religiously disinherit them for Regis ad exemplum Subjects should follow the examples of their Soveraigns Proof 34. That our Proto-parent Brute divided this Island amongst his three sons Loegria or England to Locrinus Albania or Scotland to Albanact and Cambria or Wales to Camber King Leir gave his kingdome to his youngest daughter Cordeilla and King Roderic divided Wales amongst his three sons which divisions are still called to this day north-North-Wales South-Wales and Powes-Land Answ The Apologer may do well to make it first appear there was such a man as that noble Trojan The times are grown incredulous and critical and bare words gain little credit and our grand Historian Mr. Camden whom the Apologer terms the singular ornament of England is almost an Infidel concerning this History As for King Leir the story declares that his elder daughters were rebellious and undutiful and as Rebels were fit to be deposed and disinherited and the story also tells that the youngest daughter who was the Queen was a most infortunate Princesse for her Nephew Morgan who was the eldest son of her eldest sister took arms against her discomfited her and forced her to kill her self And for the divisions of King Roderic