<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>06-08-07</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Mona Logarbo</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>*Added TEMPHEAD, checked ID, and added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate.  
*Checked for GROUP tags. 
*Proofed title page(s). 
*Checked ^s.  
*Checked I / J.
*Checked oe for ae ligatures.
*Reviewed structure. 
*Checked placement and completeness of PBs.  
*Checked for duplicate pages. 
*Checked for missing pages. 
*Checked spacing of foreign GAPs.
*Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s,  --s, mdash;, q;s, Esabque;, frac;, and UNCLEARs. 
*Corrected $ by inserting the appropriate character. 
*Checked for amp;cs with incorrect spacing. 
*Checked for OPENERs, SALUTEs, CLOSERs, DATEs, DATELINEs, SIGNEDs, TRAILERs, 
BYLINEs, ARGUMENTs, EPIGRAPHs, etc.
*Checked for TABLEs and LISTs.
*Checked for LBs. 
*Checked for startqs, endqs and Qs. 
*Checked proofsheets and made corrections. 
DONE 06-08-07.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A87133">
<STC T="W">H814A</STC>
<STC T="T">E1017_13</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99862984</BIBNO>
<VID>168818</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="letter">
<PB N="1" REF="1" MS="y">
<HEAD>A LETTER UNTO Mr. Stubs In an&s;wer to his <HI>Oceana weighed,</HI> &amp;c.</HEAD>
<P>_SIR, to begin with the be&s;t piece of your work: your quotations in the title page &s;poiled with ill applica|tion, I &s;hall fir&s;t &s;et right. You &s;ee that all Councils, all things are up|on the <HI>Rota,</HI> upon the wheele: from that <HI>Rota</HI> onely which I &s;uppo&s;e you meane; what came forth, came forth unfoiled, and as it went in. We do not by this trial de&s;paire&punc; but with a little fen&s;e, the right in&s;titution of &s;uch a &s;ocietie may come to compare with Picadilly, play-hou&s;es, or hor&s;e-matches, but if the&s;e be yet pre|ferred, then indeed</P>
<P><PB N="2" REF="2">
<Q><L>&mdash;Amphora caepit</L>
<L>In&s;titui, currente <HI>Rota,</HI> cur urcens exit?</L></Q>
Thus applied there may be &s;en&s;e in this quotation: So for your other, had it been affixed unto your for|mer book, and applied to your &s;elf, or tho&s;e unto whom you wrote journey work for Oligarchy, it might have been well &s;aid as in <HI>A&s;inar:</HI></P>
<LG>
<L>&mdash;Nunc enim hic e&s;t</L>
<L>Negotio&s;us interdius: videlicet <HI>Polon</HI> est</L>
<L>Leges ut con&s;cribat, quibus &s;e populus <HI>non</HI> teneat <HI>Gerrae.</HI></L>
<L>Qui &s;e&s;e parere apparent hnjus legibus, profecto</L>
<L>Nunquam bonae frugi &s;tent.</L>
</LG>
<P>Thus taken you know it is true: And &s;o your Title page being in part rectified, I come</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>To your Preface.</HEAD>
<P>Mr. <HI>Harrington</HI> &s;aies, That without a national Reli|gion there can be no libertie of con&s;cience. And you an&s;wer, That in <HI>Athens</HI> and <HI>Rome</HI> there were National Religions; therefore in <HI>Athens</HI> and <HI>Rome</HI> there was no libertie of con&s;cience; which is &s;o much the more ab&s;urd in that you cite <HI>Petit:</HI> for confirmation of your con&s;equence, who affirms the contrary, and that by undeniable authorities, as may be &s;een in the &s;econd, third, and fourth pages of his di&s;cour&s;e upon the <HI>Attick</HI> Laws, the &s;um whereof amounts unto thus much, That albeit there were in <HI>Athens</HI> Laws for the National Religion, yet it by Law was in the <HI>Areopagites</HI> al&s;o to give liberty unto any other way of wor&s;hip, which li|berty &s;o given was Law, and became a mans right, whe|ther it were to a publick or private way of wor&s;hip in
<PB N="3" REF="2">
which manner it is affirmed &amp; proved by the &s;ame <HI>Petit,</HI> that into <HI>Athens,</HI> be&s;ides the National Religion of that Countrie, were introduced the Religions of almo&s;t e|very other countrie. The &s;ame he affirmeth of <HI>Rome,</HI> where notwith&s;tanding the National Religion therein e&s;tabli&s;hed by <HI>Romulus,</HI> it is vulgarly known that &s;carce any Countrie was &s;ubdued by them who&s;e Religion they did not in&s;ert into their own.</P>
<P>And where is your truth, who &s;ay, That Mr. <HI>Har|rington</HI> entertaines us with di&s;cour&s;e of <HI>Pauls</HI> trial at <HI>Athens.</HI> Where doth he &s;ay that <HI>Paul</HI> was tried there? or what &s;aith he of <HI>Pauls</HI> preaching there, other then is affirmed by other pens, as that particularly of <HI>Gro|tius?</HI> But out of this you fall merrily, as thus: Once up|on a time there was a man called <HI>William Thomas,</HI> there|fore <HI>William</HI> and <HI>Thomas</HI> mu&s;t for evermore be one and the &s;ame man.</P>
<P>This is your way of di&s;puting, which you carry on in like manner, for example thus.</P>
<P>Every man is to be taxed for that e&s;tate whereof he is not owner.</P>
<P>Now <HI>Oceana</HI> is an e&s;tate whereof Mr. <HI>Harrington</HI> is not owner.</P>
<P>Therefore <HI>Oceana</HI> is an e&s;tate for which we are to tax Mr. <HI>Harington.</HI></P>
<P>If the minor be denied, as that <HI>Oceana</HI> is an e&s;tate whereof Mr. <HI>Harington</HI> is not owner, your di&s;cour&s;e im|plies this or the like proof of it.</P>
<P>Where any one man and no other is the con&s;tant defender of one aud the &s;ame e&s;tate or propriety, that one and the &s;ame e&s;tate or proprietie is not his but &s;ome others.</P>
<P><PB N="4" REF="3">
But Mr. <HI>Harington</HI> and no other is the con&s;tant de|fender of <HI>Oceana.</HI></P>
<P>Therefore <HI>Oceana</HI> is no e&s;tate or propriety of Mr. <HI>Harringtons,</HI> but of &s;ome other. Now if it plea&s;e you</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>To the Body of your Work.</HEAD>
<P>Sir, to a man who pretends not to under&s;tand a lan|guage, it is no &s;hame not to under&s;tand that language: but it is a &s;hame to a man, and a Schollar who pretends to &s;en&s;e, not to under&s;tand &s;en&s;e. If I &s;hall make it plaine that in this point you come &s;hort, I &s;hall have vindicated the Greek of your Authours from your igno|rant application of the &s;ame, without troubling the Reader with any more languages then his mother tongue. You, in pretending to have found <HI>Oceana</HI> light, weigh only <HI>Sparta,</HI> nor that truly.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, Becau&s;e the Senate of <HI>Sparta</HI> was in&s;titu|ted by <HI>Lycurgus,</HI> you argue, That it was not in&s;titu|ted eligible by the people; whereas all Authors, par|ticularly <HI>Ari&s;totle, lib.</HI> 4. <HI>cap.</HI> 9. affirm, That the Magi&s;tracies in <HI>Sparta</HI> were all cho&s;en by the peo|ple, as that of <HI>Senator;</HI> or cho&s;en, and al&s;o born by the people, as that of <HI>Ephori.</HI></P>
<P>For the mi&s;takes you lay unto Mr. <HI>Harrington</HI> in the Greek, as, That the Tribes in <HI>Lacedemon</HI> were pre-ex|i&s;tent to the Oracle, what maketh that to the pur|po&s;e? And that the word <HI>Obae</HI> doth not &s;ignifie <HI>Linages,</HI> you will hardly per&s;wade, &s;eeing <HI>Aymiot,</HI> thought to be as good an Interpreter of the Greek as Mr. <HI>Stuls,</HI> in rendring the Oracle, hath the&s;e words, <HI>Aprez que tu auras divi&s;&eacute; le peuple en ligniees.</HI> But I will not trou|ble
<PB N="5" REF="3">
the Reader with forreign Languages; things in|di&s;putable &s;hall hereafter be brought for interpretati|on of the words you di&s;pute at a dear rate, giving &s;o much Greek for two pence as you have made not worth an half penny. Mr. <HI>Harrington</HI> &s;tates the Com|mon-wealth of <HI>Sparta,</HI> thus,</P>
<P>Lycurgus <HI>in&s;tituted a Senate eligible by the peo|ple for life, with right to debate and propo&s;e, and a popular A&s;&s;embly with power to re&s;olve. To which he adds the place in</HI> Plutarch. <HI>Lycurgus</HI> ha|ving thus tempered the form of this Common-wealth: it &s;eemed neverthele&s;s to them who came after, that the &s;mall number of thirty per&s;ons <HI>(and for life)</HI> whereof this Se|nate con&s;i&s;ted, was the cau&s;e of greater force and Authori|ty in the fame then was convenient; for which cau&s;e to hold in this &s;ame Senate, they <HI>(the people)</HI> gave them the Senate, <HI>(as Plato &s;aith)</HI> the curb, which was the Power and Autho|rity of the <HI>Ephori,</HI> Magi&s;trates created about&punc; one hun|dred and thirty years after the death of <HI>Lycurgus,</HI> in the time of King <HI>Theopompus,</HI> who to his wife reproaching him in di&s;dain, that he mu&s;t thus ba&s;ely leave his King|dom le&s;s unto his Succe&s;&s;ors, then he had received of his Predece&s;&s;ors; <HI>Made An&s;wer,</HI> That he &s;hould leave it grea|ter, in regard that it would be more firm and durable.</P>
<P>Hereby it is apparent, when the Senate upon the&s;e advantages of fewne&s;s, and for life, began to propo&s;e perver&s;ely unto the people, then the people began to <HI>add, dimini&s;h, pervert and evert what the Senate propo&s;ed,</HI> that is, they began (as in like ca&s;es is inavoidable) to debate. And the people thus taking upon them to de|bate, <HI>Polydorus</HI> and <HI>Theopompus</HI> being Kings, indeavour|ed to add unto the fundamental Lawe, <HI>That if the</HI>
<PB N="6" REF="4">
<HI>people did not determine well, then the Senators and the Kings &s;hould stop the procedure.</HI> Hereupon, for the de|fence of their fundamental Laws, the people erected the Court of the <HI>Ephori,</HI> con&s;i&s;ting of annual Magi|&s;trates cho&s;en by and out of them&s;elves, and with power to que&s;tion any of their Kings or Senators upon their lives, that &s;hould go about to pervert tho&s;e Laws. Thus by this patch of the <HI>Ephori,</HI> came that flaw in <HI>Sparta</HI> (wherewith Mr. <HI>Harrington</HI> for that rea&s;on propo&s;ing otherwi&s;e, is not concerned) to be amended. And this is the account he gives of that Common-wealth, which you, perverting the whole &s;tory, go a|bout to weigh otherwi&s;e.</P>
<P N="1">1. Inferring that the people were guilty of tho&s;e mi&s;carriages, which it is plain proceeded from the Senate, and were rectified by the people, in the in&s;titution of that <HI>Curb upon the Senate</HI> (as is plainly &s;hewn by <HI>Plutarch)</HI> in the in&s;titution of the <HI>Ephori.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. You infer from you know not what, that the Se|nate had a Negative Vote, and yet confe&s;&s;e that the people had no right to debate. Whereas to leave words or <HI>Canting,</HI> (for yonr Greek, as you u&s;e it, a|mounts to no more) and come as I &s;aid to the undenia|ble Te&s;timony of things or of &s;en&s;e. If the popular A&s;&s;embly had no right to debate, how &s;hould the Se|nate have a Negative? Or if the popular A&s;&s;embly had right to the re&s;ult only, then who but them&s;elves could have the Negative? <HI>Contra rationem nemo &s;obrius, contra experientiam nemo &s;anus.</HI> For that which you alledge out of <HI>Demo&s;thenes,</HI> as that he calleth the Senate of <HI>Sparta</HI> Lords of the people, it can (con&s;idering the nature of this Common-wealth, which <HI>I&s;ocrates</HI> to the <HI>Areopagites</HI>
<PB N="7" REF="4">
affirms to be popular) be no otherwi&s;e under&s;tood, then as they who have the like function, I mean of debat|ing and propo&s;ing unto the Parliament in <HI>Scotland,</HI> are called Lords of the Articles. Lord in this &s;en&s;e as you (in great letters &s;etting a mark upon your ignorance, aud not interpreting your text) would imply, doth not &s;ignifie <HI>Sovereign,</HI> for neither are the Lords of the Ar|ticles <HI>&s;overeign,</HI> nor doth <HI>Demo&s;thenes</HI> affirm that of the Senate of <HI>Sparta.</HI> But where the Propo&s;ers are few, and for life, as in <HI>Lacedemon;</HI> and as the greater No|bility or Officers in <HI>Scotland,</HI> they may in &s;ome &s;en&s;e be called Lords of the people, though not they, but the people have the re&s;ult.</P>
<P>To conclude, Mr. <HI>Harrington</HI> hath long &s;ince &s;hewed that among the Greeks, the words <HI>Oligarchy</HI> and <HI>Demo|cracy</HI> were under&s;tood in &s;uch manner, that where the popular A&s;&s;embly had the re&s;ult only, there the Com|mon-wealth was &s;ometimes called <HI>Oligarchy,</HI> e&s;pecial|ly if the propo&s;ing Coun&s;el con&s;i&s;ted of few, and for life, as in <HI>Sparta;</HI> and where the people had not only the re&s;ult but debate al&s;o, that was called <HI>Democracy,</HI> as in <HI>Athens.</HI> Hence that an Oligarchi&s;t in your &s;en&s;e, or one that hath endeavoured to make <HI>Helots</HI> and <HI>Gibe|onites,</HI> or &s;ervants of &s;uch as are now his Lords and Ma&s;ters, is no Ideot, there is no con&s;equence, even for what hath happened in our dayes. <HI>Quid verba audio, cum facta videam?</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<CLOSER><DATELINE><DATE><HI>March</HI> 6. 1659.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="colophon">
<P><HI>LONDON, printed for</HI> J. S. 1660.</P>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
