Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	believe_v	divine_a	revelation_n	3,320	5	9.6030	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

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-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

upon which I shall chiefly ground my Answer are these two The first is Whether eldest sons have a superiour right above other sons to inherit the greatest part of the fathers estate The second is Whether fathers may lawfully and religiously give their lands and goods to which of their children they please or to whom they will But I will now take a view of his proofs and be so bold as to examine his invincible reasons and arguments for so he calls them The younger brothers Prerogative Proof I. Out of the Law of Nature for the younger brother THat all communicable things were common amongst men for many ages after the Creation in all which time no man laid proper claim to any thing as due to himself alone whereby it well appears that hereditary succession or title to a fathers lands or goods could not be then in use or so much as thought of Answer It ir more then the Apologer or any man can prove that all things were enjoyed in common for so many ages as he surmises But the contrary is manifest for we find that immediately after the Creation and for many ages together the generations of Seth and Cain did neither communicate nor so much as marry the one with the other and it is not unprobable to think that Cain and Abel the first Sons of our first Parents as they had several vocation so they had as a curse for sin a several propriety in their goods because they agreed no better But admit all things were enjoyed in common for many ages after the Creation what is this to purpose for if there were no proprieties or estates there could be no inheritance then in use though questionless the right of inheritance was then in eldest sons as now it is unto whom as the Apologer sayes there is a natural reverence due from his younger brothers and if there be a natural reverence due there ought also to be a natural right to inherit the greatest part of the fathers estate for how else should that natural reverence be maintained with such a due respect as it ought to be Proof 2. That all sorts of people as well Christians as others who have perfection in natural society or a perfect and religious life in a natural or wordly conversation of men have and do daily imbrace this natural and blessed community Answ This blessedness of community which the Apologer so much contemplates takes away his pretended free power of Parents for if there were no estates they would have nothing to dispose And it is the Anabaptists and Eamelists so much admire and prophanely practice for they enjoy all things in common even as much as their wives and in that are more beasts then many of the unreasonable creatures for amongst many of them there is a kind of conjugal contract and a constancy observed between the males and females It is true that all good Christians should so live and love and help one another as though they enjoy'd all things in common But I would fain know what other people besides Christians the Apologer means who have and do as he sayes daily imbrace this blessed community and in the way of a perfect and religious life Proof 3. That the Law of God is never contrary to the Law of Nature and that fathers have by the Law of Nature a free power to dispose of their estates and children Answ It is true that there is no Law of God against the Law of undepraved Nature or as Nature was in her first purity yet as our nature now is there are many things in the Law of God which are seemingly against Nature or meerly preternatural as is the loving of our enemies the doing of good to them that hate and hurt us Matth. 5. Luke 6. 1 Pet. 2. But as there is no Law of God contrary to the Law of Nature so there can be no good or warrantable Law of Nature which doth not agree with all the divine admonitions and precepts both of the Old and New Testament and therefore the pretended free power of Parents cannot be grounded upon the Law of Nature for it is directly against the divine precepts as appears Numb 27. Deut. 21. Proof 4. That the happy Law of Nature which indured so many ages and without doubt had longer continued had not sin which breaks all union and depraves all natural perfection gotten such dominion in the minds of men that in natural equity all things could not longer be used in common for as some men being possest with an insatiate desire to get rule and raign sought the oppression of others by taking from them that freedom which Nature had given them so others given to sensuality and idleness sought to live of other mens labours whereas by Natures Law every one ought to live by his proper industry within the rules of justice and honesty whereupon Natural reason perswaded that all things being divided every man should know his own otherwise no peace or concord could be maintained in humane society Answ The Apologer is so transported with the imagination of the happiness of community that he flutters up and down and even loses himself in impertinent discourses to what he undertook to treat on But admit sin were the cause of dividing lands and making laws he will not say I hope though he seems to infer it that it is a sin to observe the laws because sin was a cause of making laws Proof 5. That Nature never set it down as a law that the estate should be left to the elder brother or younger or to any one in particular or to all but to whom the father being true and free Lord thereof should best devise by will guided by reason Answ Neither the Apologer nor any man whosoever can prove or so much as make it probable that Parents have that free and absolute power by the Law of Nature as is pretended neither can they prove that the right of inheritance in eldest sons is not grounded upon the Law of Nature But if the Apologer would have fathers to have that free power by the Law of Nature as is pretended he must first prove how fathers are become the true and absolute Lords and masters of their estates by the Laws of Nature for it is absurd to say that Nature gives a power to dispose of that which the her self gives not and this is more I believe then the Apologer or any man else can prove It is true that every man hath his several way of understanding which is unto him his natural reason though the thing conceived be never so absurd and foolish The Apologer sayes that fathers have such a free power by the Law of Nature and that eldest sons have no right of inheritance by the Law of Nature and this is the dictamen of his nature or his natural reason for which he gives no reason nor can alledge any convincing or satisfying authority to prove it And that you

Law against elder brothers and indeed against all children for fathers may as he sayes do what they will with their own for so the Laws permit I might here answer him with his own two sayings that Laws without reason are no Laws at all and that extream Law is extream injury but he shall have a fair answer and I hope a full one It is well known that it is impossible for any Law though there were a thousand Solons to compose it and the wisdome of a Solomon to assist them that could prevent all inconveniencies and those are the best Laws politick that prevent most And I am so far from thinking the Laws to be faulty herein that I must ever approve the goodness and wisdome of them in allowing Parents so absolute a soveraignty over their estates and children for it is most necessary and just that Parents should have this free power permitted them because it is a great means to keep their sons in a due obedience and make them strive by a noble emulation who should best deserve their fathers love And the Apologer knows that usury is permitted by the Laws and usury as himself sayes is as grievous a sin in the eye of Heaven as theft is and he may as soon prove that usury or theft is lawful as he can prove that an eldest son who is wise and dutiful may lawfully and religiously be disinherited for he cannot deny but that the intention justice and equity of the Law is that eldest sons should inherit so that upon the matter fathers are but Feoffees in trust of their estates and children and this great power is only lent them to prevent inconveniences Proof 18. That the Common Laws are of most force to sway the point in question which I have therefore purposely reserved to treat on in the last place That by the Common Laws a man may give his lands in Fee either by deed in his life or will at his death to any of his sons yea to a stranger without rendring a reason why he doth so That it is no offence to part an inheritance amongst children or to disinherit an eldest son upon just and evident cause of incapacity if it be done according to course of Law Answ If the Apologer supposes by his just and evident cause of incapacity that the eldest son be a natural fool or madman we will not much dispute the matter but if he means as he every where pretends that the want of the fathers affection and will is a just and evident cause of incapacity he is in a gross and shameful errour and I cannot but marvel why the Apologer should so much urge the authority and force of our Laws on the behalf of his younger Brothers for there is nothing so sacred in our Laws as are the rights and priviledges of Primogeniture or eldership old Bracton and divers others of our greatest Lawyers do plainly aver and prove that our Laws are herein divinely grounded and they give their Text Numb 27. A perpetual Law as the Lord commanded Moses And though the eldest son should be a natural fool or madman yet if the father do not otherwise dispose of the estate in his life time and it may be a question whether he may lawfully and religiously so do for it would be a wrong to all the succeeding posterity yet this natural fool or madman and his eldest son after him or the next in blood who should succed him is by the power and ordinance of our Laws to inherit And such is the indulgence of our Laws towards eldest sons and their rights that the Law takes even natural fools and mad-men if eldest sons into its bosome and protection and the estates are preserved that they may run in the right course of inheritance which is to the next in blood or from one eldest son unto another And surely Mr. Apologer I know not why you should be much commended for your integrity in perswading Parents that all is well done which is done by the power and permission of the Laws if you had aimed as you say in your Epistle at the general good of great Brittain you would have told Parents what they might lawfully do and not what they could do but suppose there were so absolute a power in Parents as you would have them believe what would your younger brothers get thereby for whom you apologize why forsooth nothing at all but what pleases the Parental Monarch for fathers may give their lands and goods to a stranger or to whom they will with rendring a reason why they do so I would fain know whether any thing can be more inhumane and monstrous and whether there was ever such a desperate John an oaks as this wild man for though he would a little hide himself under the words of a just and evident cause of incapacity yet he confidently avers or seems to infer it that it is a sufficient warrant for any mans conscience to do as the Laws shall enable him currat lex valeat quantum valere potest Proof 29. That though the use and custome be that eldest sons inherit yet the breach of this custome is no sin for it is such a customs which rather invites then commands or binds that customes against Law are void by the Civil Law and that it was never yet heard that custome was of such force that it should be deem'd a sin not to follow a custome especially when the Law is more pious and natural then the custome is Answ It is true that no good Christian ought to observe any bad custome and no custome is to be kept which is against the Laws if the Law be more pious and natural then the custome is but that it is against Law and Christian piety for eldest sons who are wise and honest to inherit the greatest part of their fathers estates or that a father may lawfully and religiously disinherit such a son I cannot think him a wise or honest man who can believe it And whereas the Apologer sayes that it is but by way of custome that eldest sons inherit he cannot but know that next to the Divine commands there is not any thing can more bind the conscience or more satisfie and settle the judgement then a general practise or custome if the custome be good and just as it is in this case of inheritance And he knows also that our Laws are divided into three parts Statute Law Common Law and Custome Law and Custome is a second Nature the Apologer sayes that it is the more general practise or custome for eldest sons to inherit and how can we better repose our consciences and judgements then in a general practise or custome and how can any man think otherwise but that Parents do thus and have done thus even from all antiquity moved only by right reason and out of conscience in obedience to to the Laws Proof Of the Law of Nature THat many younger brothers and sifters for

can to prove that eldest sons have no more right to inherit then other sons all is as pleases the father for he is the supream and absolute Lord of the estate and may lawfully and religiously dispose thereof at his pleasure He tells us that he never read any Authour of this Subject and why then should he so much presume of his self-sufficiency and extraordinary spirit that he should think he may deserve credit himself telling us that he is the singularis homo the only man who first disputed hereof or ever brought the matter in question Marry I 'll tell you but then you must take his own words for it he sayes that he believes he hath spoken according to dialectical reason and that there hath been nothing spoken of it heretofore truly which reason hath not dictated to all Authours pens and you shall now see what a messe of reason he doth serve in for his purpose He sayes in his Epistle that there is a natural reverence due unto the eldest sons from their younger brothers he sayes that it was the use of the Israelites to prefer their eldest sons to the better part of their possessions and that it is now the more general practise of Christian Parents to leave either all or the most part of their lands to their eldest sons and he honestly gives these two reasons why it should so be The first is because there is a natural reverence due unto the elder brothers The second is because this custome had its original from the imitation of Princes and for the preservation of Families and that an equal division of the lands and goods amongst all the children will bring an estate to nothing or to so little that it may be compared unto an attome in the Sun He sayes that at first fathers and then first born after them were as Kings and Priests in their own houses He sayes that our Common Laws give the right of inheritance to eldest sons He cites a Divine Precept Deut. 21. which plainly proves the rights of eldest sons He sayes that we find in holy Writ great respect was had of the first begotten and a blessing was held to come to Parents thereby You may see here how sufficiently the Apologer hath argued on the behalf of his younger brothers for I know not what he can say more that can more advance the rights of eldest sons But leaving the Apologer I will a little more dilate my self not so much in proof as in illustration of the premises The very vegetables and unreasonable creatures are no mean arguments of the excellency of Primogeniture How grateful to the Planter and indeed how much more vigorous and excellent are the first fruits of plants more then other productions and how fully do the first fruits of a new broken up ground content and satisfie the longing hopes of the honest husbandman and after some few crops how poorly doth the same earth discharge it self of its burthens and this was the reason why the first fruites were in the old Law reserved for the most sacred uses and so it was meet for God who is the giver of all good things should be served with the best of those things which himself hath given The very beasts and birds do no lesse declare the excellency of Primogeniture for it is generally observed that the Parent birds do use to feed their young ones as their young ones are in seniority yielding as it were a kind of right or a natural and lawful precedence unto the eldest and the very nest gull or the youngest of the young feathered creatures doth plainly demonstrate how much more perfect and excellent the senior birds are above their younger Salvianus lib. 4. de gubern Dei Aristotle and divers others do make excellent Discourses concerning the seeming prudence and piety of the Storks and Bees and shall the Bees yield to order and have a Commonwealth amongst them and shall ' the reasonable creature called Man be more unreasonable then they and have no rule or order of inheritance in their own Families but at the fathers affection and will They also deliver that the young of all creatures do observe a kind of reverence and obedience to their elder young and that the eldest young doth use to suck at the uppermost teat and the younger young will not so much as presume to usurp upon the rights of the eldest nor their Parents suffer it These things if rightly weighed are of no mean consideration concerning the excellency of Primogeniture and consequently of the rights and prerogatives of eldest sons and the saying of Job chap. 12. is no insufficient answer to any one who would disparage the rights of eldest sons Interrogato jumenta ask the beasts and they will teach you But that which is most considerable next to the Divine Precepts is the sacred esteem of Primogeniture amongst the elected people of God for with them as appears Exod. 13. and 34. Numb 38. c. the first born of the very beasts were exempted from work and fathers and their first born after them were as Kings and Priests in their own houses And it hath pleased the Divine Majesty to the infinite glory of Primogeniture to sanctifie unto himself all the first born of the male-kind calling them his and to call his Church triumphant the Church of the first born Hebr. 12. Nay even to call his Divine self who hath been from all eternity unbegotten his first begotten son Coloss 3. But these are no precepts that fathers should endow their eldest sons with the greatest part of the estate It is true yet are they good motives great instructions and may be taken for no lesse then precepts in any pious understanding for we are to elect and love whom God electeth and loveth and since it hath pleased God to elect and prefer our eldest sons in a higher degree of excellency then any other our children we are therefore to elect and prefer our eldest sons in a higher degree of inheritance then any other our children And can it be suppos'd that God would leave us in suspence concerning so high a point as is inheritance which is indeed the main ground and foundation of all humane Laws and therefore it hath pleased the Divine Majesty to impose this his great command upon his elected people which was that if any one of them died without a son his inheritance should go to his daughters and if he had no daughters to his brethren and if he had no brethren to his fathers brethren c. and that this should be a perpetual Law as the Lord commanded Moses Numb 27. By which it is evident that one son in particular and not sons in general ought to be heir and be endowed with the prime Blessing or Patrimony unto which accordeth an Apostle saying Gal. 4. as long as the heir is a little one he differeth nothing from a servant though he be Lord of all and the Apostle meant