A09377:243
Christian economyChristian oeconomie
Christian economy: or, A short survey of the right manner of erecting and ordering a family according to the scriptures. First written in Latin by the author M. W. Perkins, and now set forth in the vulgar tongue, for more common use and benefit, by Tho. Pickering Bachelor of Divinity.Christian oeconomie: or, A short survey of the right manner of erecting and ordering a familie according to the scriptures. First written in Latine by the author M. W. Perkins, and now set forth in the vulgar tongue, for more common vse and benefit, by Tho. Pickering Bachelar of Diuinitie.
London: printed by Felix Kyngston, 1609
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The second argument is taken from the light of nature, and it is gathered by proportion on this manner: A son privily ⟨p. 91⟩alienateth and selleth away his fathers lands, either in whole or in part. The question is, whether this alienation be good in law, yea or no? Answer is, No. And why? Because the land did not belong to the son, but was part of his fathers substance. In like manner, a son alienates himself, and is betrothed to a woman, to marry her without his parents knowledge: Is this act of the son warrantable and sound? By no means; for the son in respect of his body, is part of the fathers goods, and may not be alienated from him without consent. A notable reason hereof we find in Job 1. For when God had given Satan power to destroy and spoil all Jobs goods, and whatsoever he had, the devil doth not only touch the wealth of Job, but his children also, as a part of his substance. In this respect the Jews were permitted by God to sell their children. Exodus 21. 7.
The second argument is taken from the light of nature, and it is gathered by proportion on this manner: A son priuilie ⟨p. 91⟩alienateth and selleth away his fathers lands, either in whole or in part. The question is, whether this alienation be good in law, yea or no? Answere is, No. And why? Because the land did not belong to the son, but was part of his fathers substance. In like manner, a son alienates himselfe, and is betrothed to a woman, to marrie her without his parents knowledge: Is this act of the son warrantable and sound? By no meanes; for the son in respect of his body, is part of the fathers goods, and may not be alienated from him without consent. A notable reason hereof we find in Iob 1. For when God had giuen Satan power to destroy and spoile all Iobs goods, and whatsoeuer he had, the diuell doth not only touch the wealth of Iob, but his children also, as a part of his substance. In this respect the Iewes were permitted by God to sell their children. Exodus 21. 7.