Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	know_v	let_v	see_v	3,024	5	2.9158	3	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

undertake to prove that of Israel to have been a Government of King Lords and Commons And if a Commonwealth be out of this of Israel described unanswerably otherwise then they run to Aristotle Trogus the rest of the Heathens for the antiquity of Monarchy When none of this will do they fall flatly upon conjuring the people to take heed how they hearken unto men of wit reason or learning and not in any wise to be led but by grace and such grace onely as is without any mixture of wit reason or learning Mr. VVren I desire them but to tell us once what they mean by such grace as is without any mixture of wit reason or learning and you in the mean time to consider That Heathen Authors though they give Monarchy the precedence in time are very far from giving it the van in prudence Nay for this matter you will find them so much of one minde that we need hear no more of them then Aristotle who divides Monarchy into two kinds the One whereof he calleth Barbarous and in this he relates to your Nimrod or your Eastern Monarchs the Other Heroick in which he relates expresly to Principality in a Commonwealth and namely that of the Lacedemonian Kings Say you then To which giveth he the van in dignity to the Heroick or to the Barbarous prudence But it is no matter strike up and let us have the Rodomontado which it pleaseth you shall be of or belonging unto the present Scoene This say you for you may as well say it of this as of any thing else approaches very near unto raving and gives me cause to suspect I have taken a wrong course of curing Mr. Harrington's Political distempers For whereas I think to do it by giving him more light knowing men and known to be of the learnedst in this age are of opinion that I ought to have shut up the windows and so forth Now very passing good indeed-law Scoene 2. In answer to Chap 2. Whether a Commonwealth be rightly defined to be a Government of Laws and not of men and a Monarchy to be the Government of some man or few men and not of Laws THe readiest way Mr. VVren of dispatch with the present Question will be to shew how far you and I are at length agreed And we are agreed that Law proceeds from the will of man whether a Monarch or a People that this will must have a Mover and that this Mover is Interest Now Sir the interest of the people is one thing it is the publick interest and where the publick interest governeth it is a Government of Laws and not of men the interest of a King or of a party is another thing it is a private interest and where private interest governeth it is a Government of men and not of Laws What ayles ye If in England there have ever been any such thing as a Government of Laws was it not Magna Charta Well and have not our Kings broken Magna Charta some thirty times I beseech you Sir did the Law govern when the Law was broken Or was that a Government of men On the other side hath not Magna Charta been as often repaired by the people and the Law being so restored was it not a Government of Laws and not of men I think you are wilde Why have our Kings in so many Statutes or Oathes engaged themselves to govern by Law if there were not in Kings a capacity of governing otherwise And if so then by every one of those Oaths or Statutes it is agreed both by King and people that there is a Government by Laws and a Government by men VVhy goodness Mr. Wren is there not a Government of Men and a Government of Laws VVhere do you dwell Such as have laid people in Lavender for the late great Man and his Government it is now thought will be left unto the Law and her Government Come come Divines and Lawyers are indeed good men to help up a Prince at a dead lift but they are known well enough for they will no sooner have set him up then if he do not govern by their Laws they will be throwing sticks at him But do you hear if a Prince would be entirely freed of such danger let him get a Parliament of Mathematicians What Miracles hath Mr. Hobbes done in this kind and hovv many more are there vvill make you a King by Geometry But I shall at this time content my self Sir to let them pass and consider onely your grand Mathematical Demonstration vvith the nooks crooks angles and appurtenances of the same You Gentlemen of lovver forms be attentive it hath past the tryal and test of the Doctors Academy consisting of men knovvn to be of the learnedst of this age and the manner thereof is as follovveth To be plain and rouzing if the declared will of the supreme power be considered as the immediate cause of Government then a Monarchy is as much as a Commonwealth an Empire of Laws and not of men If we look farther back and consider the persons whose will is received as Law a Commonwealth is as much as a Monarchy an Empire of men and not of Laws Here Sir is your cast for the game novv Sir for your shout This is so manifest and yet Mr. Hartington so firmly resolved not to understand it that considering his temper I must needs applaud his resolution of having nothing to do with the Mathematicks for half this obstinacy would be enough to keep him from apprehending that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles Mr. VVren you spet crooked pins you should be exorcised For pray novv hear me did you ever see 'em chuse Knights of the shire those same people the high shoone as you call them expect not I conceive that Angels should come dovvn there to ride upon their shoulders Nor I doubt if the truth vvere knovvn do they greatly care for Saints they are most for men that drink vvell or at least for such as eat good meat in their houses Nor have I found by my reading that those same high shoone have at any time set the worthy Gentleman on foot and taken his Horse upon their backs by which it is manifest that they do not conceive their Laws to be made by any thing above the nature of man as Angels or below the nature of man as Horses Now Sir all you have proved by your wonderful Mathematicks is That Laws are neither made by Angels nor by Horses but by men therefore the high shoone are as good Mathematicians as your self The voyce of the people is as much the voyce of men as the voyce of a Prince is the voyce of a man and yet the voyce of the people is the Voyce of God which the voyce of a Prince is not no not as to Law-giving the voyce of the Prince who was a man after Gods own heart for thus David proposeth unto the Congregation

of Israel If it seem good unto you and that it be of the Lord our God let us bring the Ark to us David in matter of Law-giving maketh not himself but the people judge of what was of God and the Government of Laws saith Aristotle is the Government of God Mr. Wren were you contented to be no wiser then Titus Livius who in passing from the Government of the Romane Kings unto that of the Commonwealth hath this transition I come now unto the Empire of Laws more powerful then that of men some who conceive the said Titus to have done passing well would think you the better Politician for not taking the upper hand of him You will not finde that Augustus Caesar in whose time this Author wrote did set any Mr. Wren upon him which is a shrewd suspition that Princes in that age either wanted such a wit as you are or would scarce have thanked you for your subtil Argument somewhat too Mercurial to stay even in your own head For do not you your self say in another place That a Commonwealth having no eyes of her own as if this of all other were a mark of blindness is forced to resigne her self to the conduct of Laws What imply you in this less then that a Monarch is not forced to resigne himself unto the conduct of Laws or what less can follow from this confession of your ovvn then that a Commonvvealth is a Government of Lavvs and not of men and that a Monarchy is a Government of a man or some fevv men and not of Lavvs Nay Mr. Wren nor is it once that your minde mis-gives you for soon after you are at it again in shewing what you phansie befals a Commonwealth as she is a Government of Laws But now for joy let me my Cap up throw For one thing I have said is sense I trow Sir for this Rime I have some reason seeing in a Monarchy that the Laws being made according to the interest of one man or a few men must needs be more private and partial then suits with the nature of justice and in a Commonwealth that Laws being made by the whole people must come up to the publick interest which is common right and justice are Propositions which Mr. Wren can confess to have indeed some sense in them But this milk alas is kick'd down again while you add that they have not any more truth then those other which wanted sense Now this is a sad case yet such as you say will be apparent if we examine the different tempers of a single person and a multitude enacting Laws Are we no farther yet I verily believed that the different temper of a single person and of a popular assembly had been long since considered in the Propositions already granted in as much as the single person is tempered by a private the multitude by the publick interest which were heretofore by your self acknowledged to be the first movers of will and so the efficient causes of Law If your Mathematicks or what shall I call them would but hold to any thing we might have some end But for the discovery of these different tempers you forget all that is past and begin anew in this manner When a Monarch acts the Legislators part he ought to be so far from partiality or respecting his own private interest that he is then chiefly to direct his thoughts to the common good and take the largest prospect of publick utility in which his own is so eminently included This Proposition then of yours is opposed to mine or those in which you say there is some sense but no truth so in this both the sense and the truth should be apparent But Mr. Wren if I should say That the father of a family in giving rules to the same ought to be so far from respecting his private interest or the regard of keeping his whole estate and command unto himself and holding the servants that live upon him short or in necessity to obey him and work for him that he were to take a larger nay the largest prospect of what is the publick utility of the men that serve him which is to attain unto means whereby to live of themselves Should I say that a father of a family would find the common and natural interest of his servants which is to be free that wherein his own interest which is to have servants is eminently included I am confident you would neither allow this Assertion to be truth nor sense The like say I to your Monarchy whether it be by a single person or by a Nobility A Monarchy not keeping the people in servitude is no Monarchy therefore either servitude must be the interest of the people or the interest of the people is not that to which a Monarch ought chiefly to direct his thoughts Yet can you not believe that there are many examples to be produced of Princes who in enacting Laws have considered their own private personal interest You are costive of belief Mr. Wren consider the Turkish and Eastern Monarchies and shew me any one of their Laws from any other Principle It is true in Monarchies by a Nobility or by Parliaments Princes have not in enacting Laws been able to make so thorough work for which cause lest Laws so enacted should give check unto this private interest so essential to Monarchy they have still been breaking them But neither can you believe that Lavvs have been broken by any Prince seeing that in buying and selling and other private contracts Princes are content to tye themselves up to the same rules which they prescribe to others Rare A King that plays fair at Piquet can never break Magna Charta Caesar paid no less for an horse then another man therefore Caesar's Monarchy vvas a lawful purchase O but such Laws as upon that occasion were made by Caesar were necessary to attaining the ends of Government Good and so that which is necessary unto a private interest or a single person towards the attaining unto the ends of Government the same cometh up to the publick interest which is common right and justice Is this disputing Mr. Wren or is it fidling Yet again a Prince breaketh not the Law but for the publick tranquillity Wonderful not the Tinkers that fight but the Constable breaks the peace That the posse Comitatus is according unto the Laws or that there is a War in the Law for the maintenance of the publick peace I have heard but that the publick peace is in any case by the breach of the publick peace whereof the Laws onely are the bond to be defended in good earnest I have not formerly heard Yet take heed I pray On this side of yours there must be no fond imagination But on the other side say you there can be no fonder imagination then to think that in the Republick of Israel framed by God or Moses in the four hundred that judged Benjamin in

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}