Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	woman_n	world_n	young_a	91	3	6.1185	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64083	Bibliotheca politica: or An enquiry into the ancient constitution of the English government both in respect to the just extent of regal power, and the rights and liberties of the subject. Wherein all the chief arguments, as well against, as for the late revolution, are impartially represented, and considered, in thirteen dialogues. Collected out of the best authors, as well antient as modern. To which is added an alphabetical index to the whole work.; Bibliotheca politica.	Tyrrell, James, 1642-1718.	1694 (1694)	Wing T3582; ESTC P6200	1,210,521	1,073

it would be left in her Power not only to govern her self but by marrying to chuse a King for her Subjects whom they do not approve of And therefore we read that in diverse of the Antient Kingdoms of the World Women were excluded from the Succession Nor are these the only questions that either might then or else have in latter Ages been started concerning Succession in Kingdoms and Principalities and have been the cause of great disputes between Pretenders to Crowns where a King Dies without Lawful Issue as whether a Grandson by a Younger Daughter shall inherit before a Grand-daughter by an Elder Daughter Whether the Elder Son by a Concubine before the Younger Son by a Wife From whence also will arise many Questions concerning Legitimation and what by the Laws of Nature is the difference betwixt a Wife and a Concubine All which can no ways be decided but by the Municipal or Positive Laws of those Kingdoms or Principalities It may further be enquired whether the eldest Son being a Fool or Madman shall inherit this Paternal Power before the Younger a Wise Man And what degree of ●olly or madness it must be that shall exclude him and who shall be the Judges of it Also whether the Son of a Fool so excluded for his Folly shall succeed before the Son of his Wiser Brother who last Reigned Who shall have the regal Power whilst a Widdow Queen is with Child by the Deceased King until she be brought to Bed These and many more such difficulties might be proposed about the Title of Succession and the Right of Inheritance to Kingdoms and that not as idle speculations but such as in History we shall frequently find examples of not only in our own but likewise other Kingdoms From all which we may gather that if the Laws of God or Nature had prescribed any set rules of Succession they would have gone farther than one or two cases as concerning the Succession of Elder Sons or Brothers where an Elder Son dies without Issue and would also have given certain infallible rules in all other Cases of Succession besides these and not have left it to the Will or particular Laws of diverse Nations to have established the succession so many several ways as I am able to shew have been practised in the World M. I must confess you have taken a great deal of pains to perplex the Succession to Adam which seems designed for nothing else but to make me believe that if Adam or any of his Sons were Kings or Princes it must have been by the Consent or Election of their Children or Descendants which is all one as to say that those Antient Princes derived their Titles from the Iudgment or Consent of the People the contrary to which is evident as well out of Sacred as Civil History F. Since you appeal to History to History you shall go and to let you see that I have not invented these doubts about Succession of my own Head and that there might have very well been a real dispute about the Succession to Adam in the Cases I have put may appear by the many disputes and quarrels that have been in several Nations concerning the Right of Succession between the Uncle and the Nephew of which Grotius is so sensible that he confesses in the latter end of the Chapter last cited that where it could not be decided by the Peoples Iudgment it was fain to be so by Civil Wars as well as private Combats and therefore he is forced ingenuously to confess that this hath been practised divers ways according to the different Laws and Customs of Nations and he gives us here a distinction between a direct Lineal Succession and a transversed and acknowledges that amongst the Germans as also the Goths and Vandales Nephews were not admitted to the Succession of the Crown before their Uncles the like may be said of the Saxons and Normans and therefore we find in our Antient English History that before the Conquest the Uncle if he were Older always enjoyed the Crown before the Nephew which I can more particularly shew you if you think fit to question it The like manner of succession was also amongst the Irish-Scotch for above 200 years after ●●rgus their first King The like Custom was also observed among the Irish as long as they had any Kings amongst them and is called the Law of Tanistry The same was also observed in the Kingdom of ●astile where after the death of Alphonso the fifth the States of that Kingdom admitted his Younger Son Sancho to be King putting by Ferdinand de la Cerda the Grand-Son to the late King by his Eldest Son tho' he had the Crown left him by his Grand-Father's Will So likewise in Sicily upon the Death of Charles the Second who left a Grand Son behind him by his Eldest Son as also a Younger Son named Robert between whom a difference arising concerning the Succession it being referred to Pope Clement V. He gave Judgment for Robert the Younger Son of Charles who was thereupon Crowned King of Sicily and for this reason it was that Earl Iohn Brother to King Richard the second was declared King of England by the Estates before Arthur Earl of Brittain Son of Ieoffrey the Elder Brother and Glanvil who was Lord Chief Justice under Henry the second in that little Treatise we have of his makes it a great question who should be preferred to an Inheritance the Uncle or Nephew But as for Daughters whether they shall inherit at all or not or at least be preferred before their Uncles is much more doubtfull since not only France but most of the Kingdoms of the East at this day from Turkey to Iapan do exclude Women from the Throne And it was likewise as much against the Grain of the Antient Northern Nations and hence it is that we find no mention of any Queen to have reigned amongst the Antient Germans or Irish-Scots and never but two among the English-Saxons and those by Murder or Usurpation and not by Election as they ought to have done And upon this Ground it was that the Nobility and People of England put by Maud the Emperess and preferred Stephen Earl of Blois to the Crown before her for tho' he derived his affinity to the Crown by a Woman yet as being a Man he thought himself to be preferred before her So likewise in the Kingdom of Aragon Mariana in his History tells us that Antiently the Brother of the King was to inherit before the Daughter examples may also be given of divers of the other instances but these may suffice M. I Pray give me leave to interrupt you a little for by these examples you would seem to infer that these Laws about setling the succession of Crowns in several Kingdoms depended upon the Will of the People whereas I may with better reason suppose that if such Laws and Alterations have been in such successions they were made by

appears that Adam had not only an absolute Power granted him by God over his Wife but all the posterity that should be born of her For in the first place it here appears that Eve was to yield an absolute subjection to her Husband who was to rule over her as her Lord from these Words and thy desire shall be subject to thy Husband as it is better exprest in the Margin and he shall rule over thee And if his Wife was thus to be subject to him then likewise by a party of reason all her Children were to be so too it being a maxime in the Law of Nature as well as in the Civil Law that Partus sequitur ventrem so that if Eve was to be absolutely subject to Adam the Issue by her must be so too as in the case of a Master of a she Slave not only the person of the Woman but all that are begotten of her either by her master or any other man are likewise his servants otherwise the Children would be in a better condition than their Mother for Adam having no Superiour but God both his Wife and Children must have been a like subject to him There is likewise another rule in the Civil Law which is a voice of Nature too quicquid ex me uxore mea nascitur in potestate mea est and tho this is true in some sense in all Fathers whatsoever yet it was so in a more superlative degree where the Father had no Superiour over him but God as Adam had not and farther it seems apparent to me from the very method that God us'd in Creating Mankind that Adam's Wife and Children should be subject to him for if Adam and Eve had been Created at once it could not have been known which of these two had the best right to command and which was to obey For Adam's strength or wit alone would not have given him any Authority over her and it might be that Eve was as strong and as wise as he or at least she mi●ht have thought her self so and if these two had differ'd and fought nought but the event could have declared which of them should have been Master So when they had Children born between them the Children could have told as little which of the Parents they should have obey'd in case they had differ'd in their commands so that it had been impossible this way that any Government could have been in the World But when God Created only one Man and out of him one Woman was made sure he had some great design in this for no other Creature was thus made at twice but Man Now St. Paul shews a reason for Gods acting thus when he says the Woman should not Teach nor usurp Authority over the Man c. And mark the reason for Adam was Created and then Eve So that in the Apostles Judgment this was one main cause why Adam should be Superiour to his Wife and all other Husbands to their Wives and in the Corinthians from the History of the Creation the same Apostle deduces two other Reasons for the Superiority of the Man over the Woman For says he the Man is not of the Woman but the Woman of the Man that is Eve was formed out of Adam neither was the Man Created for the Woman but the Woman for the Man So that you see here is Adam stated in a degree Superiority over his Wife before the Fall and immediately after it God again renewed Adam's Title when he told Eve as I have but now mention'd thy desire shall be subject to thy Husband and he shall rule ever thee now I so far agree with what you at first lay'd down that if the fall had not disordered her faculties and rendered her apt and prone to disobey her Husband this command need not have been given her but she would have known her duty from the order and end of the Creation without this explicite positive Command F. You have Sir taken a great deal of pains to prove that which I do not at all deny that as well before as after the Fall Adam and consequently all other Husbands and Fathers ought to be Superiour to their Wives and ●hildren and likewise Govern and Command them in all things relating to their own good and that of the Family as long as they continue Members of it nay that after Children are separated from their Fathers Family they still owe their Parents all the gratitude duty and respect imaginable but yet I deny that this power which Adam had over Eve and his Issue by her and all other Husbands have over their Wives and Children is a regal despotical power or any more than Conjugal in respect of his Wife and Paternal in respect of the Children nor is that filial reverence and obedience which Children yield their Fathers the same with that respect and duty which a Wife owes her Husband or the same with that servile subjection which slaves owe their Lord and Master neither is the duty of a Wife of the same kind with that which Sons pay their Fathers or Slaves their Lords nor did Sarah when she called Abraham Lord who was then Master of a separate Family and so subject to none ever suppose that her Husband had the same Authority over her as he had over Hagar her Bond-woman to sell her or turn her out of doors at his pleasure but to make it more apparent to you that this power granted to Adam over Eve was not regal nor despotical but only conjugal and for the well ordering of the Family where some one must command in chief and the rest obey to avoid confusion will appear first If you consider that this Subjection of Eve to Adam was not enjoyn'd till after the Fall and is part of Gods Judgments denounc'd against Her for tempting Her Husband to eat the forbidden Fruit and certainly included somewhat more than that Superiority which he had over her by his Creation or else God should not have made it any part of the Judgment denounc'd upon her If this submission she ow'd to her Husband before the Fall had been of the same Nature with that Subjection she was to be under after it which yet I take to be neither servile nor absolute but only a conjugal Obedience or Submission of her will to his in all things Relating to the Government of the Family and the carriage of her self though I do not deny but the Husband may sometimes restrain her by force in case she carries her self unchastly or indiscreetly to the loss of her Reputation and prejudice of his Interest when she will not be directed or advis'd by his persua●ion or commands which before the Fall when she was in a state of Innocency there was no need of since as your self grant before the Fall she know what was her duty and performed it without any force or 〈◊〉 c. And therefore that Text which

they had brought with them out of the Land of Egypt and had sold the People or their Children for slaves to the Neighbouring Nations to inrich himself and his Family do you believe that the Children of Israel had been Obliged to have Obeyed such a Leader and not have resisted him and his party if there had been occasion So likewise if Ioshua instead of Leading Gods People into the Holy Land had taken upon him notwithstanding Gods Commands to have carried them again into Egypt can you think they had been bound to Obey him and might not Lawfully have resisted him if he had gone about by the assistance of his Accomplices to force them to it For I doubt not but if these Substitutes had acted contrary to that Commission God had given them they were no longer to be look'd upon as Gods Vicegerents no more than the now Lieutenant of Ireland the Lord Tyrconnel ought to be Obeyed and not resisted if he should go about by Vertue of that Commission which the King hath conferred upon him and by the help of the Rebellious Irish in that Kingdom to murder all the Protestants and set up for himself So likewise all this strict Obedience and submission that was to be paid to the Sentence of the High-Priest or Iudge was only in Relation to God himself whose Sentence it was and who always Revealed his Will either to the Iudge by particular Inspiration or to the High-Priest by the Ephod or Urim and Thummim And therefore we read in Iudges that Deborah tho' a Woman yet being a Prophetess inspir'd by God judged Israel Now suppose that this Iudge or High-Priest neglecting like Balaam the Divine Inspiration and the Dictates of that Sacred Oracle had instead of a Righteous Iudgment given a Sentence in a Cause that had come before them whereby Idolatry or breach of some great Point of the Law of Moses had been established do you think that God ever intended that this Sentence should have been Obeyed under Pain of Death And therefore you may find in the 2d Book of Maccabees that when Iason and Menelaus had by Bribery obtained the High-Priesthood tho' it was then the Chief Authority under the Kings of Syria both in Ecclesiastical and Civil matters yet when they went about to undermine the Iewish Religion and seduce the People to Idolatry they are not at all look'd upon as High-Priests but are there called Ungodly Wretches doing nothing worthy of the High-Priesthood but having the fury of a Cruel Tyrant and of a Savage Beast and were so far from being at all Obeyed by the Iews that Iason Menelaus and Alcimus who were successively High-Priests in the room of Onias were as far as the People were able opposed by them till at last Iudas Maccabeus taking Arms against Alcimus the High-Priest restored by force the true Worship of God So that you see that the Obedience was not pay'd to the Person of the High-Priests only as such by vertue of this Precept in Deuteronomy but only as far as they observed the Law of Moses and gave sentence or Judgment in all matters according to it And therefore it is no good Argument of yours because the People were bound to obey their sentence in doubtful cases therefore they had an absolute irresistible Power to give what Iudgments they pleased and that the People were obliged to observe them under pain of Death and being Guilty of Rebellion For that had been to have given the High-Priests and Iudges a Power to have altered the true Worship of God when ever they pleased and to have introduced Idolatry in the Room of it So that I think none of these places will prove any more but that God and his Lieutenants were to be Obeyed and that it was Rebellion to resist them under the Iewish Government as long as they did not force the People to Idolatry which I do not at all deny M. Tho you labour to wave these examples and Precepts which I have now cited and will not take them for convincing yet let me tell you your exceptions against them only tend to prove that Idolatrous Kings might be resisted under the Iewish Law which is directly contrary to the Sacred History as I shall prove very clearly to you by these following Testimonies I shall make use of yet I think it is much more plain that when the Iews would have a King their Kings were to be invested with a Supream and irresistible Power for when they desired a King of Samuel they did not desire a meer nominal and titular King but a King to Iudg them and go in and out before them and fight their Battles that is a King who had the Supream and Soveraign Authority a King who should have all that Power of Government excepting the peculiar Acts of the Priestly Office which either their High-Priest or their Iudge had before And therefore when Samuel tells them what shall be the manner of their King tho what he says doth necessarily suppose the translation of the Soveraign and Irresistible Power to the Person of their King yet it doth not suppose that their King had any new Power given him more than what was ●●●●cised formerly by the Priest and Iudges He doth not deter them fr●● chusing a King because a King should have greater Power and ●e more uncontroulable and Irresistible than their other Rulers were for Samuel himself had before as Soveraign and Irresistible a Power as any King being the Supream Iudge of Israel whose sentence no Man could disobey or contradict but he incurred the penalty of Death according to the Mosa●cal Law But the reason why he distuades them from chusing a King was because the external Pomp and Magnificence of Kings was like to be very Chargeable and oppressive to them He 〈◊〉 your Sons and 〈◊〉 them for himself for his Chariots and to be his House Men and some shall ran before his Chariots And he will appoint him Captains over Thousands and Captains over Fifties and will set them to ear his Ground and to reap his Harvest And thus in several Particulars he shews them what burdens and exactions they will bring upon themselves by setting up a King which they were then free from and if any Prince should be excessive in such ●●●actions yet they had no way to help themselves they must not resist nor rebel against him nor expect that whatever inconvenience they might find in Kingly Government God would relieve and deliver them from it when once they had chosen a King Ye shall cry out in that day because of your King that you have chosen you and the Lord will not hear you in that day That is God will not alter the Government for you again how much soever you may complain of it This I say is a plain Proof that their Kings were to be invested with that Soveraign Power which must not be resisted tho' they oppress their Subjects