Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	child_n	great_a	parent_n	1,520	5	8.2359	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56187	Jus populi, or, A discourse wherein clear satisfaction is given as well concerning the right of subiects as the right of princes shewing how both are consistent and where they border one upon the other : as also, what there is divine and what there is humane in both and whether is of more value and extent.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.	1644 (1644)	Wing P403; ESTC R13068	55,808	73

is apparent that in the family the power of the Mother does participate with the power of the Father and by its mixture and co-ordination cannot but be some qualification to its rigour Secondly take children before they are of maturity and there needs no other Scepter but a twig to awe them and take them to be of full age and then they spread into families themselves and rise to the same command in their own houses as they were subject to in their fathers It were unjust also that Parents should claime any Jurisdiction to hold their children from marriage or to usurp so over them after marriage as they may not command in the same manner as they are or were themselves commanded Thirdly Nature with a very strong instinct breaks the force of Paternall empire by turning the current of affection rather from the father to the son than from the son to the father it rather makes the father which is the root convey sap to the son which is the branch than on the contrary and therefore the naturall end of the father is not his own good only but his whole families according to Aristotle whereas take him in the notion of a Master and so he regards his own good in the first place and his servants in the second only as it conduces to his Fourthly If Parents had an absolute jurisdiction over their Children even to life and death then Children which in the eye of Policie are sometimes many in number and of more publike value then their Parents might be opprest without all meanes of remedie and this may prove mischievous and unequall and not fit to be referred to Natures intention Fifthly In all Civill Countries where Government is established there are Lawes to over-rule Parents as well as Children and to provide for the safetie of Children as well as Parents And where no Government is yet established there is no president of such jurisdiction Upon the murther of Abel if the right of a Father had intitled Adam to the same power as the right of a Prince useth to doe Adam ought to have arraigned Cain at his Bar and to have required blood for blood But we do not find that Adam did claim any such power or sin in not claiming it We find rather that the whole stock of Mankinde then living were the Judges that Cain feared and there is reason why they should be more competent for such a tryall then the Father himselfe When there were no Kings no Judges in Israel the People by common consent did rise up to vindicate common trespasses and God so required it at their hands But if judgement should be left to Parents only much injustice might be expected from them which is not so much to be feared from the People not yet associated For the offence of the Son is either against the Father or some other If against the Father then is he Judge in his own case and that is dangerous the Father may be partiall to himselfe If against another then the Father is a stranger to the Plaintiffe not to the Defendant and that is more dangerous in regard that partialitie is more to be feared The Paternal right of Adam might better qualifie him for rule whilst he lived only amongst his own descendents than any other pretence could any other particular person amongst his descendents but it did only qualifie not actually constitute and since Adams death none but Noah could pretend to the same qualification The right of Fathers is now in all Fathers equall and if we doe not grant that it is now emerged or made subordinate in all great associated Bodies by that common authoritie which extends over all we must make it incompatible with Common Authoritie 'T is true Bodin is very zealous for Paternall empire and he conceives that the publique Courts of Justice would not be so full of suites if this Domesticall jurisdiction were not too far eclipsed thereby But 't is well answered That Bodin in this doth not aime at the totall cure of Contention in the State his only ambition is to ease the publique Courts and to fill private houses with more vexations and unnaturall contestations The Romane Law was very rigid against Children and Bodin supposes that Law was grounded upon the Law of Nature but we know it never was received in all Nations neither is it now in force almost in any Nation And whereas Bodin appeales to Gods law Deut. 21. we desire no better determination for the very words of the Law there give the definitive sentence to the Elders and the execution to the whole City the Parent hath no part but that of the Witnesse left to him neither indeed can any man be thought more unfit either to judge or to execute nay or to be a spectator of the rebellious executed Son than the Father himselfe Civilitie hath now so far prevailed even in the Imperiall Law it selfe that Parents may not causelesly abdicate or dis-inherit Children nor is that held a good Testament wherein the Sons name is totally omitted Nor if ingratitude or disobedience or any other cause be alleadged against the Son is the Father left solely to his own judgement in that cause We doe allow that Parents are gods to their Children and may challenge great pietie from them and that in nature their offices of kindnesse are of grace and not of duty whereas no office of the child is of grace but of meere duty Yet this destroyes not Law or the interposition of Publique Authoritie The Fathers right in the Son is not so great as is the Countries Cicero saith very well Patria una omnium charitates complectitur The Father therefore must not use his inferior right to the prejudice of a higher Nay the Father is not only restrained by Law from acts of injustice the same being in him more to be detested than in a stranger but he is of duty to perform all such pious offices also as the infirme condition of Children stand in continuall need of And this duty though the Child cannot challenge as proportionable to any merit in him yet the State shall injoyne as necessary and righteous and altogether indispensable Nay suppose our Crown escheated or suppose any body of men not yet associated yet still we maintain the Father not as animal sociatum but only as animal sociale owes a preservation of his Issue for the common good of Mankinde and cannot deny payment of the same without great injustice to humane nature We may conclude then that this Paternall rule being so far divided and limited in point of losse of life libertie or other properties wherein there is a rivaltie or concurrence of a common interest and so far clogged with pious duties and tender respects will be very unapt to lend any testimonie for rigorous boysterous prerogatives in Princes The next kind of Power visible in the World was Fraternall for the Father being dead the eldest Son is supposed by some