Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	know_v	reason_n	2,948	5	4.7939	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87135	Politicaster or, a comical discourse, in answer unto Mr. Wren's book, intituled, Monarchy asserted, against Mr. Harrington's Oceana. / By J.H.	Harrington, James, 1611-1677.	1659 (1659)	Wing H818A; Thomason E2112_2; ESTC R212655	19,838	56

by King Lords and Commons which is the more modern is so plain that you are put unto a shift who can say no more then that I make Janotti authour of the division of Prudence into ancient and modern How dare you you for your reputation do thus Mr. Wren while first by your own acknowledgment I infer this division from more ancient Authors as Thucydides and Florus and secondly my words relating unto Janotti do no where from him derive the division of Prudence into ancient and modern as to those terms upon which runneth your equivocation but fortifie this division of my own by the two periods of time by him observed and that are of like sense with these terms But Mr. Wren there was never the like of you VVhereas the Question by me proposed was VVhether Prudence be not rightly divided into ancient and modern you have conveyed it into a Question whether Monarchy be not a more ancient Government then a Commonwealth This have I hitherto not disputed as that which concerneth not the present Controversie but seeing it may be for your service I do flatly deny that Monarchy is the more ancient Government not that Mr. Hobbes holdeth Democracie to be of all Governments the first in order of time but first because upon the place where it is said That Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord it is resolved by Divines that Nimrod was the first Monarch Now Sir Nimrod began his reign about the One thousand eight hundredth year of the world whence I conclude thus Either the world had no Government till Nimrod or a Commonwealth may be above a thousand years elder then Monarchy Nay unless you can finde some Government that was neither a Common-wealth nor a Monarchy must have been no less I know what you will say That the Government till Nimrod was by fathers of families why so I hope you will yeild it was afterwards at least in the line of Shem. Now let us compute from Noah and consider in the posterity of Shem what judgment may be made of the Government by fathers of families or whether this were indeed as Divines affirm Monarchical or may not much rather be esteemed popular Noah had three Sons Shem Ham and Japhet of Shem by Arphaxad and others descended Reu of Reu Serug of Serug Nahor of Nahor Terah of Terah Abram of Abraham Isaac of Isaac Jacob and of Jacob descended the Commonwealth of Israel So much for the elder brother which was Shem. Now Sir for the second son of Noah that is Ham of Ham descended Cush and of Cush Nimrod by which plain it is at the first sight that the Commonwealth as to precedence in dignity is of the elder house and as to precedence in time unless you can shew the descendents of Shem to have been under Monarchy must also have been the more ancient Government that is if Government by fathers of families were popular Now as to this it is a tradition with the Rabbins that there were seven precepts delivered to the children of Noah 1. Concerning Judicatories 2. Concerning Blasphemy 3. Concerning perverse worship 4. Concerning uncovering of nakedness 5. Concerning the shedding of mans blood 6. Concerning rapine or theft 7. Concerning eating of things strangled or of a member torn from a living creature This tradition throughout the Jewish Government is undoubted for to such as held these precepts and no more they gave not onely as I may say toleration but allowed them to come so near unto the temple as the gates and called them Proselytes of the gates Nor do I think the proof in Scripture of these precepts though not set down together to be obscure as where it is said None of you shall approach to any that is near kin to him to uncover their nakedness for in all these the Nations that is the Canaanites are defiled which I cast out before you The Canaanites were descended from Ham and that in these words it must be implyed that they had violated the foregoing precepts is in my judgment evident seeing there is nothing in the Law of Nature why a man might not approach in this manner unto one that is near of kin to him Again that two other of these precepts were given by God unto Noah the Scripture is plain where he saith Flesh with the life thereof which is the blood thereof shall you not eat And whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed VVhence it must follow that either fathers of families were not subject unto this Law which because it is given generally and without any exception were absurd to think or else that during Patriarchal Government they subjected themselves unto some common Judicatories according unto the first of the seven precepts Of which saith Maimonides By this the sons of Noah constituted Judges in every City to judge of the other six precepts and to govern the people and the Gemara Babylonia saith That this was done after the manner that Moses commanded Judges to be set in the gates throughout the tribes By the advice of Jethro to Moses the like should have been the custome of the Midianites who as also the Gibeonites descended of the same line with the Monarchy of Nimrod and for ought perhaps to the contrary of as ancient standing were a Common-wealth But above all it should seem by some of the Rabbines that there was a Consistory or Senate instituted by Shem which was of use with his posterity Now if Patriarchal Government was exercised by or under the common Ligament of a Senate or Consistory then was the Government of the Patriarchs of a popular nature or a Commonwealth at least these Mr. Wren must be disproved by them who will have Monarchy out of all controversie to be the more ancient Government Good Sir I do not know nor do I think that this same way do you see of disputation hath any Predecessor VVhat do you tell me then that you have cause to think by the last or any Book of mine that my stores of Reason and Arguments are brought very low You see already that it is far otherwise Tell not me in this place that Doderus is as good a Book as the Bible nor let Divines for a thing that I know run here as they do from the Scripture unto Heathen Authors It is confest that Diodorus Siculus Aristotle Cicero Salust and Trogus say That in the beginning of things and of Nations the power was in Monarchs But then the Heathen Stories know nothing beyond Nimrod or his Successor Belus which is no excuse to you while the Scripture is so much a more ancient record much less to Divines at least such of them as preach against the squaring of Government according to the rule of Heathen Authors Mr. VVren to be plain there are of these that have a strange kinde of frowardness if a Commonwealth be described out of Heathen Authors they will

Mr. VVren though men will not so easily see it it is no otherwise in the politicks which are not to be erected upon phansie but upon the known course of Nature and therefore are not to be confuted by phansie but by the known course of Nature Remember Sir Anatomy is an Art but he that demonstrates by this Art demonstrates by Nature and is not to be contradicted by phansie but by demonstration out of Nature It is no otherwise in the Politicks These things therefore being duly considered I proceed VVhat always was so and still is so and not otherwise the same shall ever be so and not otherwise But where the Senate was upon Rotation and had not the ultimate result there was not any feud between the Senate and the people and where the Senate is upon Rotation and hath not the ultimate result there is no feud between the Senate and the people Therefore where the Senate shall be upon Rotation and not have the ultimate result there shall be no feud between the Senate and the people I know the humour of these times though any thing that will patch be now called prudence it will be known that what is after this manner undeniably deducible from the Major of these Propositions is Prudence or Policy and no other But Mr. VVren true it is that the demonstration given is but Hoti that is from the effect which though a certain effect imply a certain cause and come after that manner to be as good and undeniable a proof as the other demonstration yet because this is not so honourable an Argument as the other I shall now give you the same Dihoti or from the Cause Where the Senate hath no interest distinct or divided from the interest of the people there can be no feud between the Senate and the people But where the Senate is upon Rotation and hath not the ultimate result there the Senate can have no interest distinct or divided from the interest of the people Therefore where the Senate is upon Rotation and hath not the ultimate result there can be no feud between the Senate and the people Sir this I say is Dihoti and seeing it is a custome with you to give my things a turn over the tongue I am resolved hereafter to hoti 'em and dihoti 'em in such manner as shall make you take your teeth You will say that I am a Passionate Gentleman But what hath any man to do in this place to tell me of the seuds between the Senate and the people of Rome or those of the States in regulated or Gothick Monarchies did I ever undertake to hoti or dihoti any of these If they break loose let them look to that whom it concerneth Nevertheless I say that Laws whether in Commonweatlths or regulated Monarchies are made by consent of the Senate and the people or by consent of the States or Lords and Commons And I pray you Mr. Wren What is in your Allegation to confute this saying Your words are these If any one of these States have in case of difference a just power to force the obedience of the other it is all one as if they were private persons but if no one of them be acknowledged to have such power then it comes in case of disagreement to a State of War But doth this prove that in case of a Senate upon Rotation there may be feud between them and the people or that Laws in regulated Monarchie are not enacted by the Lords and Commons You might as well have argued thus Mr. Wren These same Lords and Commons have power enough to disagree or make Wars therefore they have no power to agree or to make Laws Or what doth this concern me But now for the Jig at parting Mr. Hobbes saith That Aristotle and Cicero wrote not the Rules of their Politicks from the principles of nature but transcribed them into their Books out of the practice of their own Commonwealths as Grammarians describe the Rules of Language out of the practice of the times Mr. VVren if I had answered Mr. Hobbes thus That the whole force of his Argument amounted but to this That because Grammarians describe the rules of Language out of the practice of the times therefore Aristotle and Cicero did so in their discourses of Government what would you have said But because Mr Hobbes doth not prove but illustrate what he saith by way of similitude therefore I answer him by way of similitude in this manner That for Mr. Hobbes to say Aristotle and Cicero wrote not the rules of their Politicks from the principles of Nature but transcribed them into their Books out of the practice of their own Commonwealths is as if a man should say of famous Harvey that he transcribed his Circulation of the blood not out of the principles of Nature but out of the Anatomy of this or that body Yet you answer me That the whole force of this Objection amounteth but to this That because Harvey in his Circulation hath followed the principles of Nature therefore Aristotle and Cicero have done so in their discourses of Government Mr. Wren I have complained of you for repeating me fraudulently but not so often as I might for whereas upon this occasion I told you That a similitude is brought for illustration or to shew how a thing is not to prove that it is so You repeat me thus Mr. Harrington assured me in his last Book that he produced this onely as a similitude and never intended that any man should look for Reason or Argument in it Sir though a similitude have not that proof in it which may draw a man yet it hath such inducement in it as may lead a man But why should I be troubled seeing in the close you heartily crave my pardon Good Mr. Wren abundantly enough Nay no more no more I beseech you Look you do what I can he will be making me reparation too Well then if it must be so what is it Why say you By way of reparation to Mr. Harrington I make here a solemn Declaration That for the future he shall have no cause to accuse for expecting Reason or Argument in any of his discourses O ingenuity he confesseth that he hath taken my similitude for an Argument my Goose for my Pig and the satisfaction promised comes to this that he will take my Arguments for Similitudes when he should be shooing my Goose he is soling my Pig for which he will make as ye shall find hereafter this amends that when he should be soling my Pig he will be shooing my Goose Mr. Wren good night The next is the Balance Gentlemen to morrow we play Hunks that bears thirty Dogs Hunks of the Bear-Garden to be feared if he come nigh one FINIS ERRATA PAge 31. for four hundred read four hundred thousand 36. for interroganto read interrogante W. p. 107. Hen. 7. pag. 188. De cor. polit. Gen. 10. 8. Gen. 11. Gen. 10. Gemara Babylonia ad tit. Sanhed rim Levit. 18. 6. 24. Gen. 9. W. Preface Pol. Lib. 3. Cap. 10 11 1 Chro. 13. Livy li 2. W. p. 171. W. p. 172. W p. 59. B. 1. c. 14. Ch. 16. Elements p 63. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}