Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	earl_n	son_n	wife_n	10,391	5	6.4530	4	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

may see how unnatural and unreasonable his pretended free power of Parents is I pray you consider a little tell me whether any thing can be more unprobable then that a father should be more free and absolute then Adam was when he was in Paradise and in the state of Innocency for Adam was under a command or Law but the Apologer would make fathers lawless Stat pro ratione voluntas And what I pray you can be more reasonable and necessary then that there should be a chief son or heir amongst our children for there must necessarily be an order and subordination in all things otherwise there will be a confusion in all things and what follows confusion may easily be conceived in any understanding for it is indeed the mark of hell or rather hell it self where no good order but an everlasting horrour doth inhabitate Job 10. And it is no less necessary for the preservation of peace and concord amongst Brethren that this cbief son or heir should be generally known by a native natural and undoubted right for otherwise all the other sons would malign and envy that son who should be preferred to the inheritance unless the son so preferred had an undoubted and native right thereunto and had his right also confirmed as is now in the case of eldest sons by the generall practise of all good Parents which general consent and practice can proceed from no other cause or ground then from the instinct of nature and consequently from the will providence and ordinance of Almighty God Proof out of the Common Law and Civil Law for the younger brothers right THat divine precepts are not so absolutely binding but that they may in some cases lawfully be broken for though the commandement is Thou shalt not steal nor Thou shalt not kill yet one may in extream want of food steal or violently take from another man and may lawfully kill any man in defence of his own life and goods so though there were a divine precept as there is none that eldest sons should inherit it could not intend that such eldest sons who are natural fools or madmen should inherit Answ It is true that natural fools and madmen though eldest sons do not deserve to inherit but what doth this make against the rights of eldest sons who are no fools or madmen Surely it concerns the pretended free power of Parents as much as the disinheritance of eldest sons for if the father according to the Apologer turn idiot or madman the Apologer will not deny but that he is made thereby incapable of the management and disposure of his estate Proof 7. That if the effect of eldership were such by the Law of God as some passionately defend that is that the whole inheritance should of right pertain to the eldest son then it followeth by good consequence that there should nor ever could have been but one temporal Lord of all the world for of necessity Adams inheritance should have gone still to the next in blood Answ It is absurd and no consequence at all that there should be any such temporal Lord for the eldest son is not to inherit all the estate but only the greatest part of it fathers being to provide for all their children and the Apologer knows though Adam had the whole world to himself before he had his wife and children who were partners with him by a coequal right though he had a kind of superiority and soveraignty over them yet he had it not by way of inheritance Proof 8. That it was never yet averred by any sound divine Philosopher or Lawyer that nature makes immediately heirs but men They talk idlely who say that God and nature make heirs upon which ground our Common Lawyers say that no heirs are born but men and Law make them Answ It is more then the Apologer or any man can prove that eldest sons are not born heirs eldest sons as soon as born are heirs apparent by the laws King James was born a King and crowned in his cradle and is there a native and natural right in Kings and not in others howsoever it cannot be denied but that Esau had a native and therefore a natural right as appears by the word Birthright and the Apologer cannot but know that it is God only who gives and makes heirs which heirs are the eldest sons as plainly appears by his divine precepts Deuternom 21. c. Proof 9. That God requiring obedience of children to Parents promised a reward saying Honour thy father and mother that thy dayes may be long in the land which the Lord shall give thee which surely was not spoken to one but to all the sons of men for with God there is no exception of persons but as a just and pious father he gives to every one according to his deserts terram autem dedit filiis hominum Answ I know not what the Apologer should intend hereby unless he would have it thought that as all children are equally commanded to honour their Parents so all children who equally honour their Parents should be equally rewarded by their Parents though the Laws both divine and humane give a superiour right of inheritance to eldest sons and concerning his terram dedit I know what he should mean thereby unless he would have every man to be thought an unnatural tyrant and an usurper who hath a particular and proper estate unto himself because the words are terram dedit filiis hominum God gave the whole earth to the sons of men that is not to any one in particular but to all in general You may see here how bold he is with the Laws for he strikes at the very root of them and you may see what a boundless and liberal mind he hath for he would have every man a freeholder and no less then the whole world his inheritance But Mr. Apologer if this should be so what would become of your pretended free power of Parents for they would have nothing to dispose of Proof 10. That there is no divine precept that eldest sons should inherit that it is well known to all Divines that holy Writ hath not prescribed any direct form to the children of God whereby they are bound in conscience to dispose of their lands and goods but hath absolutely left them to the customes of their countrey where any act of that kind shall be executed that there is neither in Scripture nor in any other written Law under Heaven any command to restrain the fathers power but rather the contrary Answ The Apologer cannot but know that there are diverse plain and divine precepts concerning the inheritance of eldest sons one of which he himself doth often cite but never fully relate and these are the divine words if a man have two wives one beloved and the other hated and they have born him children both the beloved and hated and if the first born be hers that was hated then shall it be when he maketh

it is alledged to as little purpose as the other for neither Bruce nor Roderic did disinherit their eldest sons but gave them a better and greater part then unto the rest and surely no man can think they did well to make such divisions because their actions did not prosper but now God be thanked they are again reunited into one glorious Monarchy and may they ever so continue as long as the world shall continue in the Koyal Line of our Gracious Soveraign who is descended to his Imperial Diadem by the most noble and only rightful way of inheritance which is from the next of blood to the next of blood or from one eldest son unto another Proof 35. That there is a Law or custome in Ireland called Tanistrie by which the land and Chiefty of a name after the Predecessours death is not awarded to the eldest son but to the worthiest the judgment whereof is left to the people and such Tennants as have interest and right of suffrage as Alexander the great though as 't is apparent in the Macchabees very falsly said to have left his Empire And that the tenure or custome of Gavell kind allows every son to have an equal share in the estate Answ It is marvel that the Apologer will acknowledge the Book of the Machabees to be Apocrypha because it seems to make something for his pretended free power of Parents and it is marvel he doth not condemn this Irish custome to be Apocrypha for there is nothing can make more against his power because upon the matter the futhers authority and the fortunes of the family are in the power of the Tennants he sayes that all customes which are against Law are void by the civil Law and he knows also that a great part of this prople are still called the wild Irish and surely such customes are fitter for wild Savages then for civil Christians And concerning the tenure or custome of Gavell kind it is true that it gives an equal share of the estate to every son but as I take it this custome was chiefly and I think only in Kent and the Apologer grants that some have altred it in their private Families by Act of Parliament and doubtless the cause hath been for the preservation of their Families which by such divisions could not chuse but come in short time to nothing and level the best and greatest of our Gentry to the degree of the meanest Vulgars Proof 36. That Briand Lyle or Fitzt earl Lord of Abergavenny having two sons both leaprous built for them a Lazaretto or Spittle and gave to Miles Earl of Hereford the greater part of his Patrimony from his children Jane daughter of Hugh Courtney and heir to her Mother wife of Nicholas Lord Carew disinherited her eldest son Thomas quoniam minus reverenter matrem haberet and parted her lands which were goodly among her three younger sons of whom are sp●…ng three worshipful Families of the Carews called Haccomb Ancony and Bury So that God by the success crowned the fact and confirmed the lawfulnesse of partage Answ The Lord Abergavenny did well in giving away a great part of his lands away from his two sons for a Spittle was more fit for such sons then an inheritance yet he left them a great part of his lands and doubtless would have left them all had they not been leprous and unfit And the Lady Carew did well in giving her lands to her younger sons her eldest son being heir to his father and having as may be thought a sufficient competency of estate but the true cause was because he was undutiful which had he not been it is likely she had given him the greatest part if not all of her inherited lands And you know Mr. Apologer there is a different case betwixt an eldest son who inherits an estate from his father and a daughter who is an inheritrix for the son is to do that which hath been done to him and as he received an inheritance from his father because he was the eldest son so is he bound conscience not to disinherit his eldest son because he would have been loth to have been disinherited himself and that which we would not that others should do to us we are not to do to any other Matth 7. Luke 6. This is the very corner stone as I may well call it of the Law of Nature and of the Law of Grace especially for so much as concerns morality and distributive justice but women who are no fit presidents for men have a greater freedome then men in this case for they inherit by way of Parcenary and every daughter hath an equal share in the estate though the eldest by reason of her Seniority hath the priviledge to chuse first and an inheritrix hath the name of her Family extinct in her self and therefore may at her pleasure disperse her lands amongst her sons the better to preserve the memory of her self and Ancestours from whom she is descended and no marvel though God did bless with good successe the good acts of this Lady for she did both justly and wisely But who hath known an estate long prosper where a dutiful and deserving eldest son was disinherited by his father I must confesse I never did such unrightful and lawlesse heirs may be likened to the Bastard plants which the Wise man speaks of Wisd 3. and 4. that cannot take deep root nor lay sure foundation So that all these examples by the Apologer alledged are like his other arguments they either make against himself or serve to no purpose To the Reader I Have here answered as well as I can all the Apologers proofs and reasons on the behalf of his younger Brothers and I confess that according to the best of my poor judgement I have not found any one firm or sinewy argument which may satisfie any reasonable understanding in proof of his so absolute a free power of Parents or against the impregnable rights and prerogatives of eldest sons But I must not usurp upon anothers right the censure belongs to the impartial and judicious Reader unto whom I humbly commend it THE Second Part Wherein is Treated of The preservation of Families The free power of Parents The Rights of eldest sons Printed for H. Fletcher 1548. The preservation of Families ELder Brothers sayes the Apologer either seated in their fathers wealth or possessions or having more then hopes to enjoy their fortunes do sometimes love truly neither themselves nor any body else but abusing that which indeed might gain the love of God and man and easily maintain their hereditary honour lose themselves in vanity and most idle courses yea in their fathers lives so strangely carry themselves presuming rather on precedence of birth then worth as though the Law of God and Nature and all other Cannon Civil and National Laws and constitutions and customes sprung from them could not either in reason or religion bar them of that which they expect or

only the first begotten or eldest son living for he calleth Esau a prophane person because for a dish of meat he sold his first birth-rights and in his dreadful denouncement against unnatural and neglectful Parents 1 Tim. 5. which is that they are worse then Infidels He sayes in the same chapter Seniorem ne increpaveris Do not disrespect thy elder c. giving a fine and full instruction thereby who it is that should be the right heir or chief Lord and master of the Family But here it may be some will object that this Law was only spoken to the Jews and therefore did only concern the Jews they may as well say that the holy Tables of the Law did only concern the Jews for they also were deliver'd to the Jews and surely I cannot conceive what can be more moral and necessary then that there should be a chief son or heir amongst our children and generally known by a native and undoubted right for there must necessarily be an order and subordination in all things and what can be more natural and just then that Parents should be bound to relieve and provide for their children And had this Law only concerned the Jews wou●d S. Paul have commended Seniority and condemned Esau for selling his birthright and would the ancient Fathers who are the best of humane testimony as S. Chrysostome in his fift Sermon against Julian and S. Jerom in his Epistle to Onogron and upon the 49. Gen. with divers others would they have averred that the first born or eldest sons are more honourable then other children and that the right of inheritance is only due to the first begotten or eldest son living and had this Law only bound the Jews would it have been denounced from the immediate mouth of God himself and delivered in these words a perpetual Law as the Lord commanded Moses But there is a plainer Precept Deut. 21 and these are the divine words If a man have two wives one beloved and the other hated and they have both children by him If the first son be hers that was hated he may not make the son of the beloved the first born and prefer him before the son of the hated but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first born by giving him a double portion of all that he hath for he is the beginning of his strength the right of the first born is his Now though the litteral expression be that eldest sons are to have a double part of the estate and the other part to be divided amongst the children equally as well sons as daughters we are to consider that the son here mentioned is an unbeloved son or the son of a wife not beloved which doth utterly exclude the affection and free will of Parents in disposing of the estate at their pleasure and it is not here said nor any where else through the Divine Writ that we are to give but a double part or portion to our eldest sons for the practise of the Israelites was much otherwise the fathers and their eldest sons after them being as Kings and Priests in their own houses Neither are we to believe that we may lawfully and religiously so do for so we shall condemn the justice of the Cannon and Civil Laws and our Common Laws and all other good Laws which as I have already showed do all concur with the Divine Laws to erect an impregnable right of inheritance in eldest sons And we shall condemn the general practise of all good Parents who usually leave the greatest part of their estates to their eldest sons which general consent and custome can proceed from no other cause or ground then from the instinct of nature and consequently from the Will Providence and Ordinance of God himself but that which is most observable and considerable is that God giveth no long blessing to any other course of inheritance Whence we may collect how odious a crime and how great an injury it is to disinherit a rightful heir and it is no lesse for he that would dispalce the right heir from the due of his birthright and such a right as is enacted by God himself establish'd by all good Laws and generally practis'd by all good Parents he is no pidler for he strikes at the root and doth what he can to overthrow all Laws and order and bring into the world a Chaos of confusion Mistake me not I do not conceive nor dare not say that the rights of eldest sons are so absolute as that they will brook no exception for the great Law or Precept Matth. Upon which all the rest have their main dependance which is to love and honour God above all things doth abrogate and disanul as we piously believe all the other Precepts which do not concur with the love and honour of God And whereas we are commanded to honour our Parents and the words are absolute yet if Parents should be Idolators or Blasphemers or Atheists or Infidels or which as bad as any of these unnatural I cannot conceive but that children are freely discharged from their obligation of honouring such Parents for how can we love and honour God if we love and honour Gods greatest enemies So on the contrary side if eldest sons be Atheists or Infidels or extreamly and desperately vicious there is no question but that their fathers may lawfully and religiously disinherit them for they are so unworthy to inherit that they are not worthy to live To conclude good Reader if what I have here delivered may redound to thy benefit and better instruction for which it was intended I shall rejoyce in my labours I will give God the praise FINIS