Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
father_n	die_v	issue_n	son_n	13,628	5	5.9273	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39852	A letter from a gentleman of quality in the country, to his friend, upon his being chosen a member to serve in the approaching Parliament, and desiring his advice being an argument relating to the point of succession to the Crown : shewing from Scripture, law, history, and reason, how improbable (if not impossible) it is to bar the next heir in the right line from the succession.	E. F.	1679 (1679)	Wing F14; ESTC R19698	29,065	21

of this Law And by virtue of this extravagant Power in case his three Children died without Issue as afterwards they did he bequeathed the Crown to the House of Suffolk being the younger House and in defiance of all Laws and Brotherly Affection disinherited and totally excluded the elder House of Scotland And therefore all those Niceties and Designs considered it is most plain King Henry was constrain'd to pray in Aid of the People to give some Colour at leastwise to all the Contradictions and Impossiblities And therefore I conceive that no Man of common Reason or that bears true Faith and Allegiance to His Majesty that now is or his Crown will draw Arguments from the three Statutes above mentioned to prove that the Parliament of England may exclude the next Heir of the Blood So that upon the whole matter of this first Objection it appears most plainly That the Princes which submitted and stoop'd to these tumultuous and Statute-Kingships either it was because they invaded and usurp'd the Crown contrary to the Laws Divine Natural and Humane or to give a colour and varnish to Contradictions and Impossibilities and private Intrigues and Designs And yet after all these popular Establishments though munited and fenc'd about with the highest Penalties and Oaths that mortal Men could devise yet could not in reality transfer the Right from the next Heir of the Blood that being a Dowry as I have said which God reserves to his own immediate Donation and hath plac'd above the reach of a mortal Arm. For though an Act of Parliament shall command me to say That an Ethiopian is White and that under the highest Oaths and Penalties or That an Ape is a Man yet notwithstanding the Ethiöpian can never in truth change his Skin or Complexion nor the Ape his Species and commence a Creature rational Ay but saith another Why may not the Crown be transfer'd from the next Heir of the Blood by Parliament as well as all other Inheritances and Possessions whatsoever in the Kingdom may from the Right Heir of the Subject I Answer there is no similitude between the Cases For 1. Private Men derive their Inheritances from their Ancestors but the next Heir of the Blood Royal derives not the Crown from his Predecessor or the People but immediately from God as I have prov'd at large in this Discourse And no Person or Community can give away or transfer a Thing which they never had vested in them either in Possession or so much as Right Secondly The Law of the Crown which yet is a principal part of the Common Law of England differs from the Law of the Subject in Point of Descents and therefore that may be Law in case of the Crown which is not in case of thē Subject of which I shall here give some Instances A Private Man being an Alien Born cannot by our Law inherit Land here But the Crown shall descend upon the next Heir of the Blood though an Alien as it happened many years ago in the case of King Henry the second who was an Alien born and begot of a Father who was also an Alien And the like happened not long since in the case of King James of ever blessed Memory If a King of England have three Daughters and dye the Crown shall descend upon the Eldest alone but in case of a Subject the Inheritance shall go to all three Daughters Co. 1. Inst 165. a 25 H. 8. cap. 22. circa medium If a Subject marry an Heiress and hath Issue by her a Son and the Wife dye the Husband shall enjoy the Wive's Lands during his Life but if a Man marry a Queen Regnant of England and hath Issue by her a Son or a Daughter and then she dyes here the Crown descends immediately upon the Issue which becomes King or Queen presently though the Father be alive as ought to have been in the Case of King Henry the Seventh and his Son Prince Henry as I have before observed and would have been in the Case of Philip that married Queen Mary if she had dyed having Issue Ellesmere's Postnati 36. Lord Bacon's H. 7. fol. 4. 121 217 231. So the half Blood is no Impediment to the Descent of the Lands of the Crown as it happened in the Cases of Edward the Sixth and the two Queens Mary and Elizabeth and yet in the Cases of Subjects it is clearly otherwise Plowd Com. 245. a. Co. 7. Rep. 12. v. Postnati Co. Inst 15. v. So likewise if the Right Heir of the Blood or the Father or Mother of the Right Heir from whom the Crown descends are attainted of High Treason by Parliament these Attainders yet are no Obstructions to the Descent of the Crown as it happened in the Cases of our King Edward the Fourth and his Father Richard Plantagenet Duke of York who were both attainted of High Treason by Act of Parliament As also in the Case of King James as it is related to his Mother Mary Queen of Scots who was attainted of High Treason and executed and yet the Commissioners and Judges that gave Sentence upon her set forth a public Declaration That the Attainder of the Mother did not at all derogate from the Right of her Son to the Crown of England But all Men know 't is otherwise in the Case of Subjects whose Descents are obstructed by the Attainders of their Ancestors I could be infinite in Cases of this Nature but by these few Instances wherein the Law for ought I know is no more alterable by Parliament than the Succession it doth plainly appear That there is no small difference in Point of Law between the Descents of the Crown and Private Inheritances And therefore though an Inheritance may thus be given away from a Subject yet it doth not in any wise follow that the Crown may be dispos'd from the next Heir The third and last Objection is founded upon the Statute of 13 o Eliz. cap. 1. wherein it is enacted That if any Person shall affirm That the Parliament of England hath not full Power to bind and govern the Crown in Point of Succession and Descent that such Person during the Queen's life shall be guilty of High Treason and after her Death shall forfeit his Goods and Chattels c. I Answer First it is to be observed That this Law was made in the time of a Queen whose Title to the Crown depended upon Statute-Law as appears by the very Act recognizing her Title to the Crown and this Act of 13 o was made in affirmance and vindication of such Title to the Crown by Statute and this is plain from the Body of the same Act wherein it is expresly Enacted That if any Person shall affirm That any Statute for recognizing the Right of the Crown of England to be lawful in the Royal Person of the said Queen is not or ought not to be for ever of sufficient force to bind all

contrariant to the Laws of God and Nature are ipso facto null and void So then I am here to prove two Things First That the Succession to the Crown is inseparably annexed to proximity of Blood by the Laws of God and Nature Secondly That Statute-Laws contrariant to those Laws are null and void That the Succession of the Crown by the Laws of God is inseparably annexed to proximity of Blood appears plainly by that Statute-Law or Statute of Judgment as it is there call'd which God himself with his own mouth pronounced for the ordering the Descent of Honors and Possessions Numb chap. 27. which are there by his immediate direction to be conferr'd by Birth-right and Propinquity of Blood and not by the Election or Discretion either of Moses their Supreme Magistrate or the Community of the People a part or both in conjunction And there Verses 9 and 10 it is expresly enjoyn'd by the same Divine Authority That if a Man have no Son or Daughter his Inheritance shall descend upon his Brother The preference likewise and prerogative of Primogeniture in point of Dignities and Possessions is of the same Divine Institution as appeareth in several places of the Holy Scriptures As where God said to Cain of his younger Brother Abel His desires shall be subject unto thee and thou shalt rule over him Again where he forbiddeth the Father to disinherit the First-born of his double Portion because by right of Birth it is due unto him And lastly where he maketh choice of the First-born to be sanctifi'd and consecrated to himself Consonant hereunto are the Suffrages of the Fathers and Doctors of the Civil or Imperial Law St. Hicrom writeth That a Kingdom is due unto the First-born St. Chrysostome saith The First-born is to be esteemed more Honourable than the rest Bodine the Great French Lawyer tells us That it is not enough that the Kingdom go in Succession but that it descend also upon the eldest issue Male where he is next of the Blood sic enim Ordo non tantùm Naturae Divinae Legis sed etiam omnium ubique Gentium postulat For so saith he not only the Law of God and Nature but also of all Nations doth require And Baldus a famous Doctor of the Civil Law saith semper fuit semper erit c. Always it hath been and always it shall be That the First-born and next of Blood succeedeth in the Kingdom Wherein he is followed with open Cry of all the choice Interpreters both of the Canon and Civil Law as namely Panormitanus Hostiensis Corsetta Alciat and innumerable others Now what hath been said here of Primogeniture in Point of Succession to the Crown is said likewise with equal consequence of proximity of Blood For by the Civil Law if a King have issue five Sons and the First-born die before the Succession fall or if he being possess'd of the Kingdom die without Heirs of his Body his right of Primogeniture devolveth unto the next in Blood and if he dyeth in like manner then unto the third and so likewise to the next in Order And herein Albericus a famous Doctor is most express in Point And Baldus saith That Succession hath reference to the time of Death and respecteth the Priority that is then extant And again He is not said the First-born in Law who dyeth before the Fee openeth but he who at that time is eldest in Life And of the same Opinion is Alciate for as Celsus saith primus is dicitur ante quem nemo sit He is first who hath none before him And herein the Common Law of this Nation accordeth with the Civil Law And therefore the second Son of the King of England after the Death of the First-born is eldest Son within the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. where it is enacted That it shall be high Treason for a Man to compass the Death of the King 's eldest Son and Heir c. So if the first Son dye in the Life time of the King his Father the second Son forthwith becomes Primogenitus or First-born within the Charter of King Edw. 3. for the Dutchy of Cornwal as it was resolved in the case of Prince Charles upon the Death of his elder Brother Prince Henry By which it appeareth that Proximity of Blood is ennobled with all the Prerogatives and Preferences of Primogeniture But leaving this way of arguing the Point to be farther illustrated and pursued by the Church-men and Civilians I shall for the most part derive my own Proofs thereof from the Authority of the Common and Statute-Laws of England from Records of Parliament and other Eruditions of that kind as best sorting with my Person and Profession and a Discourse of this nature First then it is most evident That all the Human Acts and Powers in the World cannot hinder the Descent of the Crown upon the next Heir of the Blood I do agree they may hinder the possession and enjoyment and so they have often done by open Hostilities and Violence but I say they cannot hinder the Descent And the reason is plain because this is a Dowry which the great King of Kings hath reserved to his own immediate Donation and hath plac'd above the reach of a mortal Arm and Mankind can no more hinder or intercept this Descent than it can the Influences of the Stars or the Heavens upon the sublunary World or beat down the Moon And this though perspicuous enough in it self I shall farther prove anon in my last Reason of this Point by irrefragable Authorities of the Common Law of England and in my Answer to the second Objection This being so I shall add That in the very moment of the Descent the Person on whom it descends by the Law of this Nation becomes compleat and absolute King to all intents and purposes And so it was expresly Resolv'd by all the Judges of England 1 o Jacobi Watson and Clarks Case And the same Person being thus compleat and absolute King by the said Descent I do then farther add That the Ligeance and Fidelity of the Subject is due to that person by the immutable Law of Nature And so it was solemnly adjudged by the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England in the Exchequer Chamber in the great Case of Calvin 6 Jacobi Coke's 7th Rep. 12. v. 13. a. c. 25. a. And herewith concurs the Principal Secretary or Amanuensis of Nature I mean Aristotle who writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Law of Nature the Father hath the Rule over his Children and the King over his Subjects And Seneca the Philosopher hath a saying not unlike Natura commenta est Regem Nature saith he did first find out a King And for this Reason it is that our Statute-Laws do so frequently stile the King our Natural Liege Lord and the People Natural