James Harrington, The Prerogative of Popular Government (1658)

James Harrington (1611–1677)  


Note: This is part of the Leveller Collection of Tracts and Pamphlets.



Bibliographical Information

ID Number

T.296 [1658.11.28] James Harrington, The Prerogative of Popular Government (1658).


This HTML version comes from the 1771 edtiion edited by John Toland: The Oceana and Other Works of James Harrington, with an Account of His Life by John Toland (London: Becket and Cadell, 1771).

Estimated date of publication

28. Nov. 1657.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT E.929 (28. Nov. 1657).

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

Table of Contents






The Former

Concerning the first Preliminary of Oceana, inlarg’d, interpreted, and vindicated from all such Mistakes or Slanders as have bin alleg’d against it under the Notion of Objections.

The Second

Concerning Ordination, against Dr. H. Hammond, Dr. L. Seaman, and the Authors they follow.

In which two Books is contain’d the whole Commonwealth of the Hebrews, or of Israel, Senat, People, and Magistracy, both as it stood in the Institution by Moses, and as it came to be form’d after the Captivity.

As also the different Policys introduc’d into the Church of Christ, during the Time of the Apostles.

Without Council Purposes are disappointed; but in the Multitude of Counsillors they are established.


La multitudine è piu Savia è piu costante ch’un Principe.



WHOSOEVER sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man. If this rule holds as well in shedding the blood of a Turk as of a Christian, then that wherin man is the image of God is REASON. Of all controversys those of the pen are the most honorable: for in those of force, there is more of the image of the beast, but in those of the pen there is more of the image of God. In the controversys of the sword, there is but too often no other reason than force; but the controversy of the pen has never any force but reason. Of all controversys of the pen next those of religion, those of government are the most honorable, and the most useful; the true end of each, tho in a different way, being that the will of God may be don in earth as it is in heaven. Of all controversys of government, those in the vindication of popular government are the most noble, as being that constitution alone, from whence all we have that is good is descended to us; and which, if it had not existed, mankind at this day had bin but a herd of beasts. The prerogative of popular government must either be in an ill hand, or else it is a game against which there is not a card in the whole pack; for we have the books of Moses, those of the Greecs and of the Romans, not to omit Machiavel, all for it. What have the asserters of monarchy; what can they have against us? a sword; but that rusts, or must have a scabbard; and the scabbard of this kind of sword is a good frame of government.

A MAN may be possest of a piece of ground by force, but to make use or profit of it, he must build upon it, and till it by reason; for whatever is not founded upon reason, cannot be permanent. In reason there are two parts, invention and judgment: as to the latter, in a multitude of counsillors (say both Solomon and Machiavel) there is strength. Nay as for judgment, there is not that order in art or nature that can compare with a popular assembly. THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE IS THE VOICE OF GOD. Hence it is that in all well-order’d policys the people have the ultimat result: but unless there be som other to invent, a popular assembly can be of no effect at all but confusion. Invention is a solitary thing. All the physicians in the world put together, invented not the circulation of the blood, nor can invent any such thing, tho in their own art; yet this was invented by one alone, and being invented is unanimously voted and embrac’d by the generality of physicians. The plow and wheels were at first, you must think, the invention of some rare artists; but who or what shall ever be able to tear the use of them from the people? hence, where government is at a loss, a sole legislator is of absolute necessity; nay where it is not at a loss, if well model’d as in Venice, the proposers, tho frequently changeable, as in that case is necessary, are very few, as the counsillors, the savi, the provosts. Wherever a commonwealth is thus propos’d to, the balance or popular assembly will do her duty to admiration, but till then never. Yet so it has bin with us of late years, that altho in royal authority there was no more than the right of proposing, and the king himself was to stand (legibus & consuetudinibus quas vulgus elegerit) to the result of the people, yet the popular council has bin put upon invention, and they that have bin the prevailing party have us’d means to keep the result to themselves, quite contrary to the nature of popular administration. Let one speak, and the rest judg. Of whatever any one man can say or do, mankind is the natural and competent judg, in which is contain’d the very reason of parlaments; thro the want of understanding this came in confusion. Man that is in honor, and has no understanding, is like the beasts that perish. Nor can we possibly return to order, but by mending the hedg where it was broken. A prudent, intire and fit proposition made to a free parlament, recovers all. To them who are of the greatest eminency or authority in a commonwealth, belongs naturally that part of reason which is invention; and using this, they are to propose: but what did our grandees ever invent or propose, that might shew so much as that themselves knew what they would be at? and yet how confidently do they lay the fault upon the people, and their unfitness, forsooth, for government: in which they are wondrous wise! for, this I will boldly say, Where there was an aristocracy that perform’d their duty, there never was, nor ever can be a people unfit for government; but on the contrary, where the aristocracy have fail’d, the people being once under orders, have held very often. But while they are not under orders, if they fail it is not their fault, but the fault of the aristocracy; for who else should model a government but men of experience? there is not in England, I speak it to their shame, one Grandee that has any perfect knowledge of the orders of any one commonwealth that ever was in the world. Away with this same grave complexion, this huff of wisdom maintain’d by making faces. The people cannot do their duty consisting in judgment, but by virtue of such orders as may bring them together, and direct them; but the duty of the aristocracy consisting in invention, may be don by any one man, and in his study; and where is that one man among all the grandees that studys? they are so far from knowing their own duty, that a man for proposing that in which none can find a flaw, has don enough to be ridiculous to them, who are themselves ridiculous to the whole world, in that they could never yet propose any thing that would hold.

BUT if this amounts to a demonstration, it amounts to a clear detection of your profound grandees, and a full proof that they are phanatical persons, state jesuits, such as have reduc’d the politics to mental reservation, and implicit faith in their nods or nightcaps.

GOD, to propose his commandments to the people of Israel, wrote them on two tables; the Decemviri to propose their commandments to the people of Rome, wrote them on twelve tables; the Athenians propos’d in writing, sign’d with the name of the particular inventor; after this pattern do the Venetians, as was said, the same at this day. But no goosquill, no scribling: your grandees are above this.

MOSES, who was the first writer in this kind, shall be pardon’d; but Machiavel, the first in later times that has reviv’d his principles, or trod in his steps, is deservedly pelted for it by sermons. They are not for the Scripture, but the cabala.

I WILL tell you a story out of Boccalini: Apollo having spy’d the philosopher and great master of silence Harpocrates in the court of Parnassus, us’d such importunity with him, that for once he was persuaded to speak; upon which such apparent discovery was made of the hypocrite, and the gross ignorance he had so long harbor’d under a deceitful silence, that he was immediately banish’d the court. Were there cause, I could be modest; but this virtue, to the diminution of sound and wholsom principles, would be none: wherfore let a grandee write, and I will shew you Harpocrates.

THUS having sufficiently defy’d Sir Guy, I may with the less impeachment of reputation descend to Tom Thum. Not that I hold my self a fit person to be exercis’d with boys play, but that som, who should have more wit, have so little as to think this somthing. A good ratcatcher is not so great a blessing to any city, as a good jugglercatcher would be to this nation. Now because I want an office, I shall shew my parts to my country, and how fit I am for the white staff, or long pole of so worshipful a preferment.

Ridiculus ne sis, esto.


The first Preliminary of Oceana, inlarg’d, interpreted, and vindicated from all such Mistakes or Slanders as have bin alleg’d against it under the Notion of Objections.

Epsgrι μeegrgr kappavρατίstigmaοις eepsoxgrρησας γελοipergr[Editor: illegible character] ohpsvagrν

Θιγών σ’ epsgrμagrgrς μὲν[Editor: illegible character]kappav apsacgrν ωႨ epsgrμίανον χείρας.

A full Answer to all such Objections as have hitherto bin made against Oceana.

NEITHER the author or authors of the considerations upon Oceana, nor any other, have yet so much as once pretended one contradiction or one inequality to be in the whole commonwealth. Now this is certain, That frame of government which is void of any contradiction, or any inequality, is void of all internal causes of dissolution, and must, for so much as it imbraces, have attain’d to full perfection. This by wholesale is a full answer to the considerations, with all other objections hitherto; and will be (with any man that comprehends the nature of government) to thousands of such books, or myriads of such tittle tattle. Nevertheless, because every man is not provided with a sum, in the following discourse I shall comply with them that must have things by retail, or somwhat for their farthing.


IT is commonly said, and not without incouragement by som who think they have Parnassus by the horns, that the university has lash’d me: so it seems I have to do with the university, and lashing is lawful; with both which I am contented. In Moorfields, while the people are busy at their sports, they often and ridiculously lose their buttons, their ribbands, and their purses, where if they light, as somtimes they do, upon the masters of that art, they fall a kicking them a while (which one may call a rude charge) and then to their work again. I know not whether I invite you to Moorfields, but (difficile est satiram non scribere) all the favor I desire at your hands is but this, that you would not so condemn one man for kicking, as in the same act to pardon another for cutting of purses. A gentleman that commits a fallacious argument to writing, or gos about to satisfy others with such reasons as he is not satisfy’d with himself, is no more a gentleman but a pickpocket; with this in my mind, I betake my self to my work, or rather to draw open the curtain, and begin the play.

ONE that has written considerations upon Oceana, speaks the prolog in this manner:Epist. I beseech you gentlemen, are not we the writers of politics somwhat a ridiculous sort of people? is it not a fine piece of folly for private men sitting in their cabinets to rack their brains about models of government? certainly our labors make a very pleasant recreation for those great personages, who, sitting at the helm of affairs, have by their large experience not only acquir’d the perfect art of ruling, but have attain’d also to the comprehension of the nature and foundation of government. In which egregious complement the considerer has lost his considering cap.

IT was in the time of Alexander, the greatest prince and commander of his age, that Aristotle, with scarce inferior applause and equal fame, being a private man, wrote that excellent piece of prudence in his cabinet, which is call’d his politics, going upon far other principles than those of Alexander’s government, which it has long outliv’d. The like did Titus Livius in the time of Augustus, Sir Thomas Moor in the time of Henry the Eighth, and Machiavel when Italy was under princes that afforded him not the ear. These works nevertheless are all of the most esteemed and applauded in this kind; nor have I found any man, whose like indeavours have bin persecuted since Plato by Dionysius. I study not without great examples, nor out of my calling; either arms or this art being the proper trade of a gentleman. A man may be intrusted with a ship, and a good pilot too, yet not understand how to make sea-charts. To say that a man may not write of government except he be a magistrat, is as absurd as to say, that a man may not make a sea-chart, unless he be a pilot. It is known that Christopher Columbus made a chart in his cabinet, that found out the Indys. The magistrat that was good at his steerage never took it ill of him that brought him a chart, seeing whether he would use it or no, was at his own choice; and if flatterers, being the worst sort of crows, did not pick out the eys of the living, the ship of government at this day throout Christendom had not struck so often as she has don.Arte della Guer. Proem. To treat of affairs, says Machiavel, which as to the conduct of ’em appertain to others, may be thought a great boldness; but if I commit errors in writing, these may be known without danger, wheras i they commit errors in acting, such com not otherwise to be known, than in the ruin of the commonwealth. For which cause I presume to open the scene of my discourse, which is to change according to the variety of these following questions:

1. Whether prudence will be well distinguish’d into antient and modern?

2. Whether a commonwealth be rightly defin’d to be a government of laws, and not of men: and monarchy to be a government of som man, or a few men, and not of laws?

3. Whether the balance of dominion in land be the natural cause of empire?

4. Whether the balance of empire be well divided into national and provincial? and whether these two, or any nations that are of distinct balance, coming to depend upon one and the same head, such a mixture creates a new balance?

5. Whether there be any common right or interest of mankind distinct from the parts taken severally? and how by the orders of a commonwealth this may best be distinguish’d from privat interest?

6. Whether the senatusconsulta, or decrees of the Roman senat, had the power of laws?

7. Whether the ten commandments propos’d by GOD or Moses were voted by the people of Israel?

8. Whether a commonwealth coming up to the perfection of the kind, coms not up to the perfection of government, and has no flaw in it?

9. Whether monarchy, coming up to the perfection of the kind, coms not short of the perfection of government, and has not som flaw in it? in which is also treated of the balance of France, of the original of a landed clergy, of arms, and their kinds.

10. Whether a commonwealth that was not first broken by it self was ever conquer’d by any monarch?

11. Whether there be not an agrarian, or som law or laws of that nature to supply the defect of it, in every commonwealth? and whether the agrarian, as it is stated in Oceana, be not equal and satisfactory to all interests or partys?

12. Whether courses or a rotation be necessary to a well-order’d commonwealth? in which is contain’d the parembole or courses of Israel before the captivity; together with an epitome of the whole commonwealth of Athens, as also another of the commonwealth of Venice.

Chap. I.Antient and Modern Prudence.


Whether Prudence be well distinguish’d into Antient and Modern.

THE considerer (where by antient prudence I understand the policy of a commonwealth, and by modern prudence that of king, lords, and commons, which introduc’d by the Goths and Vandals upon the ruin of the Roman empire, has since reign’d in these western countrys, till by the predominating of som one of the three parts, it be now almost universally extinguish’d) thinks it enough for the confutation of this distinction, to shew out of Thucydides that of monarchy to be a more antient policy than that of a commonwealth. Upon which occasion, I must begin here to discover that which, the further I go, will be the more manifest; namely, that there is a difference between quoting authors, and saying some part of them without book: this may be don by their words, but the former no otherwise than by keeping to their sense. Now the sense of Thucydides, as he is translated by Mr. Hobbs in the place alleg’d, is thus:Thu. R. 1. P. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The manner, says he, of living in the most antient times of Greece was thieving; the stronger going abroad under the conduct of their most puissant men, both to inrich themselves, and fetch home maintenance for the weak: for there was neither traffic, property of lands, nor constant abode, till M nos built a navy, and expelling the malefactors out of the islands, planted colonys of his own, by which means they who inhabited the seacoasts, becoming more addicted to riches, grew more constant to their dwellings: of whom som, grown now rich, compass’d their towns about with walls For out of a desire of gain, the meaner sort underwent servitude with the mighty; and the mighty (thus overbalancing at home) with their wealth, brought the lesser citys (abroad) into subjection. Thus Pelops, tho he was a stranger, obtain’d such power in Peloponnesus, that the country was call’d after his name. Thus Atrius obtain’d the kingdom of Mycenæ: and thus kingdoms with honors limited came to be hereditary; and rising to power, proceeded afterwards to the war against Troy. After the war with Troy, tho with much ado, and in a long time Greece had constant rest (and land without doubt came to property) for shifting their seats no longer, at length they sent colonys abroad; the Athenians into Ionia with the islands, the Peloponnesians into Italy, Sicily, and other parts. The power of Greece thus improv’d, and the desire of mony withal, their revenues (in what? not in mony, if yet there was no usury: therefore except a man can shew that there was usury in land) being inlarg’d, in most of the citys there were erected tyrannys. Let us lay this place to the former, when out of a desire of gain the meaner sort underwent servitude with the mighty, it caus’d hereditary kingdoms with honors limited, as happen’d also with us since the time of the Goths and Vandals. But when the people came to property in land, and their revenues were inlarg’d, such as assum’d power over them, not according to the nature of their property or balance, were tyrants: well, and what remedy?Consid. p. 4. why, then it was, says the considerer, that the Grecians out of an extreme aversion to that which was the cause of their present sufferings slipt into popular government, not that upon calm and mature debates they found it best, but that they might put themselves at the greatest distance (which spirit usually accompanys all reformations) from that with which they were grown into dislike.Book I. Wherby he agrees exactly with his author in making out the true force and nature of the balance, working even without deliberation, and whether men will or no. For the government that is natural and easy, being in no other direction than that of the respective balance, is not of choice but of necessity. The policy of king, lords and commons, was not so much from the prudence of our ancestors, as from their necessity. If three hundred men held at this day the like overbalance to the whole people, it was not in the power of prudence to institute any other than the same kind of government, thro the same necessity. Thus the meaner sort with Thucydides submitting to the mighty, it came to kingdoms with hereditary honors: but the people coming to be wealthy, call’d their kings, tho they knew not why, tyrants; nay, and using them accordingly, found out means, with as little deliberation it may be as a bull takes to toss a dog, or a hern to split a hawk (that is, rather, as at the long-run they will ever do in the like cases, by instinct, than prudence or debate) to throw down that, which by the mere information of sense they could no longer bear; and which being thrown down, they found themselves eas’d. But the question yet remains, and that is, forsooth, whether of these is to be call’d antient prudence. To this end, never man made a more unlucky choice than the considerer has don for himself of this author, who, in the very beginning of his book, speaking of the Peloponnesian war, or that between the commonwealths of Athens and Lacedemon, says, that the actions which preceded this, and those again that were more antient, tho the truth of them thro length of time cannot by any means be clearly discover’d; yet for any argument that (looking into times far past) he had yet lighted on to persuade him, he dos not think they have bin very great either for matter of war, or otherwise; that is, for matter of peace or government.Mr. Hobbs in the Magire. And lest this should not be plain enough, he calls the prudence of the three periods, observ’d by Mr. Hobbs, viz. that from the beginning of the Grecian memory to the Trojan war, that of the Trojan war it self, and that from thence to the present commonwealths and wars, wherof he treats, the imbecillity of antient times.Thu. b. 1. p. 3. Wherfore certainly this prevaricator, to give him his own fees, has less discretion than a common attorny, who will be sure to examin only those witnesses that seem to make for the cause in which he is entertain’d.Consid. p. 34. Seeing that which he affirms to be antient prudence is depos’d by his own witness to have bin the imbecillity of antient times, for which I could have so many more than I have leisure to examin, that, (to take only of the most authentic) as you have heard one Greec, I shall add no more than one Roman, and that is Florus in his prolog, where (computing the ages of the Romans, in the same manner as Thucydides did those of the Greecs) he affirms the time while he liv’d under their kings, to have bin their infancy; that from the consuls till they conquer’d Italy, their youth; that from hence to their emperors, their manly age; and the rest (with a complement or Salvo to Trajan his present lord) their dotage.

These things, tho originally all government amongst the Greecs and the Romans was regal, are no more than they who have not yet past their novitiat in story, might have known.Consid. p. 2, 3. Yet, says the considerer, it seems to be a defect of experience to think that the Greec and the Roman actions are only considerable in antiquity. But is it such a defect of experience to think them only considerable, as not to think them chiefly considerable in antiquity, or that the name of antient prudence dos not belong to that prudence which was chiefest in antiquity? True, says he, it is very frequent with such as have bin conversant with Greec and Roman authors, to be led by them into a belief that the rest of the world was a rude inconsiderable people, and, which is a term they very much delight in, altogether barbarous. This should be som fine gentleman that would have universitys pull’d down; for the office of a university is no more than to preserve so much of antiquity as may keep a nation from stinking, or being barbarous; which salt grew not in monarchys, but in commonwealths: or whence has the Christian world that religion and those laws which are now common, but from the Hebrews and Romans? or from whence have we arts but from these or the Greecs? that we have a doctor of divinity, or a master of arts, we may thank popular government; or with what languages, with what things are scholars conversant that are otherwise descended? will they so plead their own cause as to tell us it is possible there should be a nation at this day in the world without universitys, or universitys without Hebrew, Greec and Latin, and not be barbarous, that is to say, rude, unlearn’d, and inconsiderable? yes, this humour even among the Greecs and Romans themselves was a servil addiction to narrow principles, and a piece of very pedantical pride. What, man! the Greecs and the Romans that of all other would not serve, servil! their principles, their learning, with whose scraps we set up for batchelors, masters, and doctors of fine things, narrow! their inimitable eloquence a piece of very pedantical pride! the world can never make sense of this any otherwise than that since heads and fellows of colleges became the only Greecs and Romans, the Greecs and Romans are become servily addicted, of narrow principles, very pedants, and prouder of those things they do not understand, than the other were of those they did: for, say they, in this question, the examples of the Babylonians, Persians and Egyptians (not to omit the antient and like modern discoverys of the queen of the Amazons, and of the king of China) cannot without gross partiality be neglected. This is pretty; they who say nothing at all to the policy of these governments, accuse me, who have fully open’d it, of negligence. The Babylonian, Persian, and, for ought appears to the contrary, the Chinese policy, is summ’d up, and far excell’d by that at this day of Turky; and in opening this latter, I have open’d them all, so far from neglect, that I every where give the Turc his due, whose policy I assert to be the best of this kind, tho not of the best kind. But they will bear me down, and but with one argument, which I beseech you mark, that it is absolutely of the best kind; for say they, it is of a more absolute form (has more of the man and less of the law in it) than is to be met with in any kingdom of Europe.

I am amaz’d! this is that kind of government which to hold barbarous, was in the Greecs and Romans pedantical pride, but would be in us, who have not the same temtation of interest, downright folly. The interest of a people is not their guide but their temtation! we that hold our land divided among us, have not the same temtation of interest that had the servil Hebrews, Greecs and Romans; but the same that had the free people of Babylon, Persia and Egypt, where not the people but the prince was sole landlord! O the arts in which these men are masters! to follow the pedantical pride of Moses, Lycurgus, Solon, Romulus, were with us downright folly; but to follow humble and learned Mahomet or Ottoman, in whose only model the perfection of the Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian policy is consummated, is antient prudence! exquisit politicians! egregious divines, for the leading of a people into Egypt or Babylon! these things consider’d, whether antient prudence, as I have stated it, be downright folly, or as they have stated it, be not downright knavery, I appeal to any court of claims in the world, where the judges, I mean, have not more in their caps than in their heads, and in their sleeves than the scarlet. And wheras men love compendious works, if I gain my cause, the reader, for an answer to the Oxford book, needs look no further than this chapter. For if riches and freedom be the end of government; and these men propose nothing but slavery, beggery, and Turcism, what need more words?


Whether a Commonwealth be rightly defin’d to be a Government of Laws and not of Men, and a Monarchy to be the Government of som Man, or a few Men, and not of Laws?

THAT part of the preliminarys which the prevaricator, as is usual with him, recites in this place falsly and fraudulently, is thus: relation had to these two times (that of antient and that of modern prudence) the one, as is computed by Janotti, ending with the liberty of Rome, the other beginning with the arms of Cæsar (which extinguishing liberty, became the translation of antient into modern prudence, introduc’d in the ruin of the Roman empire by the Goths and Vandals) GOVERNMENT (to define it de jure, or according to antient prudence) is an art wherby a civil society of men is instituted and preserv’d, upon the foundation of common right or interest; or (to follow Aristotle and Livy) it is an empire of laws, and not of men.

AND government, to define it de facto, or according to modern prudence, is an art wherby som man, or som few men, subject a city or a nation, and rule it according to his or their privat interest; which, because laws in such cases are made according to the interest of a man, or som few familys, may be said to be an empire of men, and not of laws.

Hereby it is plain, whether in an empire of laws, and not of men, as a commonwealth; or in an empire of men, and not of laws, as monarchy: first, That law must equally procede from will, that is, either from the will of the whole people, as in a commonwealth; from the will of one man, as in an absolute, or from the will of a few men, as in a regulated monarchy.

Secondly, That will, whether of one or more, or all, is not presum’d to be, much less to act without a mover.

Thirdly, That the mover of the will is interest.

Fourthly, That interests also being of one, or more, or of all; those of one man, or of a few men, where laws are made accordingly, being more privat than coms duly up to the law, the nature wherof lys not in partiality but in justice, may be call’d the empire of men, and not of laws: and that of the whole people coming up to the public interest (which is no other than common right and justice, excluding all partiality or privat interest) may be call’d the empire of laws, and not of men. By all which put together, wheras it is demonstrable that in this division of government I do not stay at the will, which must have som motive or mover, but go to the first and remotest notion of government, in the foundation and origination of it, in which lys the credit of this division, and the definition of the several members,Chap. II. that is to say, of interest, whether privat or public; the prevaricator tells me, that this division of government having (he knows not how) lost its credit,Confid. p. 6. the definitions of the several members of it need not be consider’d further, than that they com not at all up to the first and remotest notion of government in the foundation and origination of it, in which lys all the difficulty; and being here neglected, there is little hope the subsequent discourse can have in it the light of probable satisfaction, much less the force of infallible demonstration.

Very good! interest it should seem then is not the first and remotest notion of government, but that which he will outthrow; and at this cast, by saying, that the declaration of the will of the soverain power is call’d law:Consid. p. 8. which if it outlives the person whose will it was, it is only because the persons who succede in power are presum’d to have the same will, unless they manifest the contrary, and that is the abrogation of the law; so that still the government is not in the law, but in the person whose will gave a being to that law. I might as well say, the declaration to all men by these presents that a man ows mony is call’d a bond; which if it outlives the person that enter’d into that bond, it is only because the persons that succede him in his estate, are presum’d to have the same will, unless they manifest the contrary, and that is, the abrogation or cancelling of the bond; so that still the debt is not in the bond, but in his will who gave a being to that bond. If it be alleg’d against this example, that it is a privat one, the case may be put between several princes, states or governments, or between several states of the same principality or government, whether it be a regulated monarchy or a commonwealth; for in the like obligation of the states (as of the king, the lords, and commons) or partys agreeing, authoritate patrum & jussu populi, till the partys that so agreed to the obligation, shall agree to repeal or cancel it, lys all law that is not merely in the will of one man, or of one state, or party, as the oligarchy. But not to dispute these things further in this place, let the government be what it will, for the prevaricator to fetch the origination of law no further than the will (while he knows very well that I fetch’d it from interest, the antecedent of will) and yet to boast that he has outthrown me, I say he is neither an honest man, nor a good bowler. No matter, he will be a better gunner; for where I said that the magistrat upon the bench is that to the law, which a gunner upon his platform is to his cannon, he gos about to take better aim, and says, If the proportion of things be accurately consider’d, it will appear that the laden cannon answers not to the laws, but to the power of the person whose will created those laws: which if som of them that the power of the person whose will created them, intended should be of as good stuff or carriage as the rest, do nevertheless according to the nature of their matter or of their charge, com short or over, and others break or recoil; sure this report of the prevaricator is not according to the bore of my gun, but according to the bore of such a gunner. Yet again, if he be not so good a gunner, he will be a better anatomist: for wheras I affirm, that to say, Aristotle and Cicero wrote not the rights or rules of their politics from the principles of nature, but transcrib’d them into their books out of the practice of their own commonwealths, is as if a man should say of famous Harvey, that he transcrib’d his circulation of the blood, not out of the principles of nature, but out of the anatomy of this or that body: he answers, that the whole force of this objection amounts but to this, that because Harvey in his circulation has follow’d the principles of nature, therfore Aristotle and Cicero have don so in their discourses of government.

Pretty! it is said in Scripture, Thy word is sweet as hony: amounts that but to this, because hony is sweet, therfore the word of God is sweet? to say that my lord protector has not conquer’d many nations, were as if one should say, Cæsar had not conquer’d many nations: amounts that but to this, because Cæsar conquer’d many nations, therfore my lord protector has conquer’d many nations? what I produce as a similitude, he calls an objection; where I say, as, he says, because: what ingenious man dos not detest such a cheat! a similitude is brought to shew how a thing is or may be, not to prove that it is so; it is us’d for illustration, not as an argument: the candle I held did not set up the post, but shew where the post was set, and yet this blind buzzard has run his head against it. Nor has he yet enough; if he be not the better naturalist, he will be the better divine, tho he should make the worse sermon. My doctrin and use upon that of Solomon, I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the ground, discovers the true means wherby the principles of power and authority, the goods of the mind and of fortune, may so meet and twine in the wreath or crown of empire, that the government standing upon earth like a holy altar, and breathing perpetual incense to heaven in justice and piety, may be somthing, as it were between heaven and earth; while that only which is propos’d by the best, and resolv’d by the most, becoms law, and so the whole government an empire of laws, and not of men.Consid. p. 7. This he says is a goodby sermon; it is honest, and sense. But let any man make sense or honesty of this doctrin, which is his own; To say that laws do or can govern, is to amuse ourselves with a form of speech, as when we say time, or age, or death, dos such a thing; to which indeed the phansy of poets, and superstition of women, may adapt a person, and give a power of action; but wise men know they are only expressions of such actions or qualifications as belong to things or persons.

Speak out; is it the word of God, or the knavery and nonsense of such preachers that ought to govern? are we to hearken to that of the Talmud, there is more in the word of a scribe, than in the words of the law; or that which Christ therupon says to the Pharisees, You have made the word of God of no effect by your traditions?Mat. 15. 6. say, is the commonwealth to be govern’d in the word of a priest or a Pharisee, or by the vote of the people, and the interest of mankind?


Whether the balance of dominion in land be the natural cause of empire?

THE doctrin of the balance is that, tho he strains at it, which choaks the prevaricator; for this of all others is that principle which makes the politics, not so before the invention of the same, to be undeniable throout, and (not to meddle with the mathematics, an art I understand as little as mathematicians do this) the most demonstrable of any whatsoever.

For this cause I shall rather take pleasure than pains to look back, or tread the same path with other, and perhaps plainer steps: as thus; if a man having one hundred pounds a year may keep one servant, or have one man at his command, then having one hundred times so much, he may keep one hundred servants; and this multiply’d by a thousand, he may have one hundred thousand men at his command.Chap. III. Now that the single person, or nobility of any country in Europe, that had but half so many men at command, would be king or prince, is that which I think no man will doubt. But* no mony, no Switzers, as the French speak: if the mony be flown, so are the men also. Tho riches in general have wings, and be apt to bate; yet those in land are the most hooded, and ty’d to the perch, wheras those in mony have the least hold, and are the swiftest of flight. A bank where the mony takes not wing, but to come home seiz’d, or like a coyduck, may well be great; but the treasure of the Indys going out, and not upon returns, makes no bank. Whence a bank never paid an army; or paying an army, soon became no bank. But where a prince or a nobility has an estate in land, the revenue wherof will defray this charge, there their men are planted, have toes that are roots, and arms that bring forth what fruit you please.

Thus a single person is made, or a nobility makes a king, not with difficulty, or any greater prudence, but with ease, the rest coming home, as the ox that only knows his master’s crib, but must starve or repair to it. Nor for the same reason is government acquir’d with more ease than it is preserv’d; that is, if the foundation of property be in land: but if in mony, lightly com, lightly go. The reason why a single person, or the nobility that has one hundred thousand men, or half so many at command, will have the government, is that the estate in land, wherby they are able to maintain so many, in any European territory, must overbalance the rest that remains to the people, at least three parts in four, by which means they are no more able to dispute the government with him or them, than your servant is with you. Now for the same reason, if the people hold three parts in four of the territory, it is plain there can neither be any single person nor nobility able to dispute the government with them; in this case therfore, except force be interpos’d, they govern themselves. So by this computation of the balance of property or dominion in the land, you have according to the threefold foundation of property, the root or generation of the threefold kind of government or empire.

Oceana, p. 39.If one man be sole landlord of a territory, or overbalance the whole people, three parts in four, or thereabouts, he is Grand Signior; for so the Turc, not from his empire, but his property is call’d; and the empire in this case is absolute monarchy.

If the few, or a nobility, or a nobility with a clergy, be landlords to such a proportion as overbalances the people in the like manner, they may make whom they please king; or if they be not pleas’d with their king, down with him and set up whom they like better; a Henry the Fourth, or the Seventh, a Guise, a Montfort, a Nevil, or a Porter, should they find that best for their own ends and purposes: for as not the balance of the king, but that of the nobility in this case is the cause of the government, so not the estate or riches of the prince or captain, but his virtue or ability, or fitness for the ends of the nobility, acquires that command or office. This for aristocracy, or mix’d monarchy. But if the whole people be landlords, or hold the land so divided among them, that no one man or number of men within the compass of the few, or aristocracy overbalance them, it is a commonwealth. Such is the branch in the root, or the balance of property naturally producing empire; which not confuted, no man shall be able to batter my superstructures, and which confuted, I lay down my arms. Till then, if the cause necessarily precede the effect, property must have a being before empire, or beginning with it, must be still first in order.

Property coms to have a being before empire or government two ways, either by a natural or violent revolution. Natural revolution happens from within, or by commerce, as when a government erected upon one balance, that for example of a nobility or a clergy, thro the decay of their estates coms to alter to another balance; which alteration in the root of property, leaves all to confusion, or produces a new branch or government, according to the kind or nature of the root. Violent revolution happens from without, or by arms, as when upon conquest there follows confiscation. Confiscation again is of three kinds, when the captain taking all to himself, plants his army by way of military colonys, benefices, or timars, which was the policy of Mahomet; or when the captain has som shares, or a nobility that divides with him, which was the policy introduc’d by the Goths and Vandals; or when the captain divides the inheritance by lots, or otherwise, to the whole people; which policy was instituted by God or Moses in the commonwealth of Israel. This triple distribution, whether from natural or violent revolution, returns as to the generation of empire to the same thing, that is, to the nature of the balance already stated and demonstrated. Now let us see what the prevaricator will say, which first is this:

Consid. p. 14.THE assertion, that property producing empire consists only in land, appears too positive. A pig of my own sow; this is no more than I told him, only there is more imply’d in what I told him, than he will see; which therfore I shall now further explain. The balance in mony may be as good or better than that of land in three cases. First, where there is no property of land yet introduc’d, as in Greece during the time of her antient imbecillity; whence, as is noted by Thucydides, the meaner sort thro a desire of gain underwent the servitude of the mighty. Secondly, in citys of small territory and great trade, as Holland and Genoa, the land not being able to feed the people, who must live upon traffic, is overbalanc’d by the means of that traffic, which is mony. Thirdly, in a narrow country, where the lots are at a low scantling, as among the Israelits, if care be not had of mony in the regulation of the same, it will eat out the balance of land.Deut. 15. 6. & 23. 19. For which cause, tho an Israelit might both have mony, and put it to usury (thou shalt lend [upon usury] to many nations) yet might he not lend it upon usury to a citizen or brother: whence two things are manifest: first, that usury in itself is not unlawful: and next, that usury in Israel was no otherwise forbidden, than as it might com to overthrow the balance or foundation of the government; for where a lot as to the general amounted not perhaps to four acres, a man that should have had a thousand pounds in his purse, would not have regarded such a lot in comparison of his mony; and he that should have bin half so much in debt, would have bin quite eaten out. Usury is of such a nature, as, not forbidden in the like cases, must devour the government. The Roman people, while their territory was no bigger, and their lots, which exceeded not two acres a man, were yet scantier, were flead alive with it; and if they had not help’d themselves by their tumults, and the institution of their tribuns, it had totally ruin’d both them and their government. In a commonwealth, whose territory is very small, the balance of the government being laid upon the land, as in Lacedemon, it will not be sufficient to forbid usury, but mony itself must be forbidden. Whence Lycurgus allow’d of none, or of such only as being of old, or otherwise useless iron, was little better, or if you will, little worse than none. The prudence of which law appear’d in the neglect of it, as when Lysander, general for the Lacedemonians in the Peloponnesian war, having taken Athens, and brought home the spoil of it, occasion’d the ruin of that commonwealth in her victory. The land of Canaan compar’d with Spain or England, was at the most but a Yorkshire, and Laconia was less than Canaan. Now if we imagin Yorkshire divided, as was Canaan into six hundred thousand lots, or as was Laconia, into thirty thousand; a Yorkshire man having one thousand pounds in his purse, would, I believe, have a better estate in mony than in land; wherfore in this case, to make the land hold the balance, there is no way but either that of Israel by forbidding usury, or that of Lacedemon by forbidding mony. Where a small sum may com to overbalance a man’s estate in land, there I say usury or mony for the preservation of the balance in land, must of necessity be forbidden, or the government will rather rest upon the balance of mony, than upon that of land, as in Holland and Genoa. But in a territory of such extent as Spain, or England, the land being not to be overbalanc’d by mony, there needs no forbidding of mony or usury. In Lacedemon merchandize was forbidden, in Israel and Rome it was not exercis’d; wherfore to these usury must have bin the more destructive: but in a country where merchandize is exercis’d, it is so far from being destructive, that it is necessary; else that which might be of profit to the commonwealth would rust unprofitably in private purses, there being no man that will venture his mony but thro hope of som gain; which if it be so regulated that the borrower may gain more by it than the lender, as at four in the hundred, or therabouts, usury becoms a mighty profit to the public, and a charity to privat men; in which sense we may not be persuaded by them that do not observe these different causes, that it is against Scripture. Had usury to a brother bin permitted in Israel, that government had bin overthrown: but that such a territory as England or Spain cannot be overbalanc’d by mony, whether it be a scarce or plentiful commodity, whether it be accumulated by parsimony as in the purse of Henry the 7th, or presented by fortune, as in the revenue of the Indys, is sufficiently demonstrated, or shall be.

Consid. p. 12.First, by an argument ad hominem, one good enough for the prevaricator, who argues thus: The wisdom or the riches of another man can never give him a title to my obedience, nor oblige Mr. Harrington to give his clothes or mony to the next man he meets, wiser or richer than himself.

If he had said stronger, he had spoil’d all; for the parting with a man’s clothes or mony in that case, cannot be help’d: now the richer, as to the case in debate, is the stronger, that is, the advantage of strength remains to the balance. But well; he presumes me to have clothes and mony of my own, let him put the same case in the people, or the similitude does not hold. But if the people have clothes and mony of their own, these must either rise (for the bulk) out of property in land, or at least out of the cultivation of the land, or the revenue of industry; which if it be dependent, they must give such a part of their clothes and mony to preserve that dependence out of which the rest arises to him or them on whom they depend, as he or they shall think fit, or parting with nothing to this end, must lose all; that is, if they be tenants, they must pay their rent, or turn out. So if they have clothes or mony dependently, the balance of land is in the landlord or landlords of the people: but if they have clothes and mony independently, then the balance of land must of necessity be in the people themselves, in which case they neither would, if there were any such, nor can, because there be no such, give their mony or clothes to such as are wiser, or richer, or stronger than themselves. So it is not a man’s clothes and mony or riches, that oblige him to acknowledge the title of his obedience to him that is wiser or richer, but a man’s no clothes or mony, or his poverty, with which, if the prevaricator should come to want, he could not so finely prevaricat but he must serve som body, so he were rich, no matter if less wise than himself. Wherfore seeing the people cannot be said to have clothes and mony of their own without the balance in land, and having the balance in land, will never give their clothes, or mony, or obedience to a single person, or a nobility, tho these should be the richer in mony; the prevaricator by his own argument has evinc’d that in such a territory as England or Spain, mony can never com to overbalance land.

For a second demonstration of this truth, Henry the Seventh, tho he miss’d of the Indys, in which for my part I think him happy, was the richest in mony of English princes. Nevertheless this accession of revenue did not at all preponderat on the king’s part, nor change the balance. But while making farms of a standard he increas’d the yeomanry, and cutting off retainers he abas’d the nobility, began that breach in the balance of land, which proceding has ruin’d the nobility, and in them that government.

For a third, the monarchy of Spain since the silver of Potosi sail’d up the Guadalquivir, which in English is, since that king had the Indys, stands upon the same balance in the lands of the nobility on which it always stood.

Consid. p. 16.And so the learned conclusion of the prevaricator (That it is not to be doubted but a revenue sufficient to maintain a force able [to cry ware horns] or beat down all opposition, dos equally conduce to empire, whether it arises from rents, lands, profits of ready mony, dutys, customs, &c.) asks you no more than where you saw her premises. For unless they ascended his monti, and his banks, it is not to be imagin’d which way they went; and with these, because he is a profest zealot for monarchy, I would wish him by no means to be montebanking or meddling: for the purse of a prince never yet made a bank, nor, till spending and trading mony be all one, ever shall. The Genoese, which the king of Spain could never do with the Indys, can make you a bank out of letters of exchange, and the Hollander with herrings. Let him com no more here: where there is a bank, ten to one there is a commonwealth. A king is a soldier, or a lover, neither of which makes a good merchant, and without merchandize you will have a lean bank. It is true, the family of the Medici were both merchants and made a bank into a throne: but it was in commonwealth of merchants, in a small territory, by great purchases in land, and rather in a mere confusion than under any settl’d government; which causes, if he can give them all such another meeting, may do as much for another man. Otherwise let it be agreed and resolv’d, that in a territory of any extent, the balance of empire consists in land and not in mony; always provided that in case a prince has occasion to run away, as Henry the Third of France did out of Poland, his balance in ready mony is absolutely the most proper for the carrying on of so great and sudden an enterprize.

It is an excellent way of disputing, when a man has alleg’d no experience, no example, no reason, to conclude with no doubt. Certainly upon such occasions it is not unlawful nor unreasonable to be merry. Reasons, says one comedian, are not so common as blackberrys. For all that, says another comedian, no doubt but a revenue in taxes is as good as a revenue in feesimple; for this, in brief, is the sense of his former particular, or that part of it, which, the monti and the banks being already discharg’d, remains to be answer’d. Yet that the rents and profits of a man’s land in feesimple or property, com in naturally and easily, by common consent or concernment, that is, by virtue of the law founded upon the public interest, and therfore voluntarily establish’d by the whole people, is an apparent thing. So a man that will receive the rents and profits of other mens land, must either take them by mere force, or bring the people to make a law divesting themselves of so much of their property; which upon the matter is all one, because a people possest of the balance, cannot be brought to make such a law, further than they see necessary for their common defence, but by force, nor to keep it any longer than that force continues. It is true, there is not only such a thing in nature as health, but sickness too: nor do I deny that there is such a thing as a government against the balance. But look about, seek, find where it stood, how it was nam’d, how lik’d, or how long it lasted. Otherwise the comical proposition coms to this, it is not to be doubted but that violence may be permanent or durable, and the blackberry, for it is because nature is permanent or durable! what other construction can be made of these words? it is not to be doubted but a revenue sufficient to maintain a force able to beat down all opposition (that is, a force able to raise such a revenue) dos equally (on which word grows the blackberry) conduce to empire; that is, as much as could any natural balance of the same! he may stain mouths, as he has don som, but he shall never make a politician. The earth yields her natural increase without losing her heart; but if you com once to force her, look your force continue, or she yields you nothing: and the balance of empire consisting of earth, is of the nature of her element.

Divines are given to speak much of things which the considerer balks in this place that wou’d check them, to the end he may fly out with them in others, wherto they do not belong, as where he says, that government is founded either upon paternity, and the natural advantage the first father had over all the rest of mankind, who were his sons;Consid. p. 23. or else from the increase of strength or power in som man or men, to whose will the rest submit, that by their submission they may avoid such mischief as otherwise would be brought upon them. Which two vagarys are to be fetch’d home to this place.

For the former; if Adam had liv’d till now, he could have seen no other than his own children; and so that he must have bin king by the right of nature, was his peculiar prerogative. But whether the eldest son of his house, if the prevaricator can find him at this time of day, has the same right, is somwhat disputable; because it was early when Abraham and Lot divided territorys, became several kings: and not long after when the sons of Jacob being all patriarchs, by the appointment of God, whose right sure was not inferior to that of Adam, tho he had liv’d, came under popular government. Wherfore the advantage of a first father is for grave men a pleasant fancy; nevertheless if he had liv’d till now, I hope they understand that the whole earth would have bin his demeans, and so the balance of his property must have answer’d to his empire, as did that also of Abraham and Lot to theirs. Wherfore this way of deduction coms directly home again to the balance.De jure belli l. 1. c. 3. Paterfamilias Latifundia possidens, & neminem alia lege in suas terras recipiens quam ut ditioni suæ, qui recipiuntur, se subjiciant, est Rex, says Grotius. Fathers of familys are of three sorts, either a sole landlord, as Adam, and then he is an absolute monarch; or a few landlords, as Lot and Abraham, with the patriarchs of those days; who if they join’d not together, were so many princes; or if they join’d made a mix’d monarchy; or, as Grotius believes, a kind of commonwealth administer’d in the land of Canaan by Melchisedec, to whom as king and priest Abraham paid tithes of all that he had. Such a magistracy was also that of Jethro, king and priest in the commonwealth of Midian. Father of familys for the third sort, as when the multitude are landlords (which happen’d in the division of the land of Canaan) make a commonwealth. And thus much, however it was out of the prevaricator’s head in the place now deduc’d, he, excepting no further against the balance than that it might consist as well in mony as in land, had confest before.

His second vagary is in his deduction of empire from increase of strength, for which we must once more round about our coalfire. The strength wherby this effect can be expected, consists not in a pair of fists, but in an army; and an army is a beast with a great belly, which subsists not without very large pastures: so if one man has sufficient pasture, he may feed such a beast; if a few have the pasture, they must feed the beast, and the beast is theirs that feed it. But if the people be the sheep of their own pastures, they are not only a flock of sheep, but an army of lions, tho by som accidents, as I confest before, they be for a season confinable to their dens. So the advantage or increase of strength depends also upon the balance. There is nothing in the world to swear this principle out of countenance, but the fame of Phalaris, Gelon, Dionysius, Agathocles, Nabis, &c. with which much good do them that like it. It is proper to a government upon the balance to take root at home, and spread outwards; and to a government against the balance to seek a root abroad, and to spread inwards. The former is sure, but the latter never successful. Agathocles for having conquer’d Africa, took not the better root in Syracusa. Parvi sunt arma foras, nisi sit consilium domi.

To conclude this chapter; the prevaricator gives me this thanks for finding out the balance of dominion (being as antient in nature as her self, and yet as new in art as my writing) that I have given the world cause to complain of a great disappointment, who, while at my hand that satisfaction in the principles of government was expected, which several great wits had in vain study’d, have in diversifying riches in words only, as property, dominion, agrarian, balance, made up no more than a new lexicon, expressing the same thing that was known before; seeing the opinion that riches are power is (as antient as the first book of Thucydides, or the politics of Aristotle, and) not omitted by Mr. Hobbs, or any other politician. Which is as if he had told Dr. Harvey, that wheras the blood is the life was an opinion as antient as Moses, and no girl ever prick’d her finger, but knew it must have a course; he had given the world cause to complain of great disappointment in not shewing a man to be made of gingerbread, and his veins to run malmsy.

Chap. IV.CHAP. IV.

Whether the Balance of Empire be well divided into National and Provincial; and whether these two, or any Nations that are of distinct Balance, coming to depend upon one and the same Head, such a mixture creates a new Balance.

THE balance of empire that is national, as it is stated in the former chapter, stands in a regulated or mix’d monarchy upon the property or native interest of the nobility; in a commonwealth, upon the property or native interest of the people; so these are very natural. But the balance of absolute monarchy, partaking of force as well as nature, is a mix’d thing, and not much different from the balance of provincial empire, or the manner of holding a province or conquer’d country. In a province, if the native that is rich be admitted to power, the power grows up native, and overtops the foren: therfore you must either not plant your citizens in your provinces, where in time they will become native; or, so planting them, neither trust them with power nor with arms. Thus the provincial balance coms to be contrary to the national. And as where empire is native or national, the administration of it can be no otherwise than according to the national balance; so where empire is foren or provincial, the administration of it can be no otherwise than contrary to the national balance.Consid. p. 16, 17. That this may be admitted without opposition the considerer is inclining to allow, always provided he be satisfy’d in this demand, whether distinct balances under the same head or governor, as those of Castile and Arragon, the power of the king (I presume he means by the balance of a nobility) being greater in the one, and that of the people in the other, may not so poise one the other, as to produce a new balance. To which I answer, That no one government whatsoever has any more than one of two balances; that except in the cases excepted, of land which is national, or that of arms which is provincial. Wherfore if the king of Spain by his war against the commons altered the balance of Arragon, it must have bin one of two ways, either by strengthning the balance of the nobility, and governing the Arragonian people by them, in which case their balance, tho altered, remained yet national; or by holding both nobility and people by a provincial governor and an army, in which case his empire in that kingdom is provincial. There is no third way; nor, putting the case that the balance of Castile be national, and that of Arragon provincial, dos this any more create in the monarchy of Spain a third balance of empire, than did the multiplication of associations and provinces, divers for their balances, in the commonwealth of Rome. England and Scotland being united in one prince, made, if it had bin rightly us’d, an increase of strength, but not a third balance; nor do the kingdoms in Spain. Whether a soverainty has many territorys and provinces in subjection, or in league, it is all one as to this point; the stronger union or league will give the stronger balance: and the case of the present soveraintys in Europe being no other, the more nice than wise speculation of the considerer, who has not bin able to discern the balance of a league from that of empire, is a mare’s nest.


Whether there be any common Right or Interest of Mankind distinct from the parts taken severally; and how by the Orders of a Commonwealth it may be best distinguish’d from privat Interest.

IN the next place the prevaricator dos not go about to play the man, but the unlucky boy. Where I say that the soul of man is mistress of two potent rivals, reason and passion; he dos not stand to weigh the truth of the thing, or the fitness of the comparison, either of which had been fair; but tumbles Dick upon Sis, the logic upon the rhetoric, the sense upon the figure, and scuds away in this manner:Consid. p. 19. 20. If I could be persuaded Mr. Harrington was so far in earnest, as to expect any man shou’d be convinc’d by the metaphorical use of two or three words, som farther consideration might be propos’d. This is to use his readers as the fox dos the dogs, when having pist upon his tail, and flapt it in their eys, he gets away. Dos not his book deserve to be gilded and carry’d in statesmen’s pokes? alas! mine are nothing? Quis leget hæc? vel duo, vel nemo: they break the stationer. And yet let me comfort myself, whose are better? the prevaricator seems to set every whit as light by those of Hooker and Grotius, at least where they favor me. The opinions of Grotius, says he, cannot oblige us beyond the reasons wheron they are founded; and what are those? he will dispute against that which he dares not repeat: that his comment may take you by the nose, he has left out the text. The words of Grotius are of this sense:In Proleg. de jure B. ac P. Tho it be truly said that the creatures are naturally carry’d to their proper utility, this ought not to be taken in too general a sense, seeing divers of them abstain from their own profit, either in regard of those of the same kind, or at least of their young. Which words, says the prevaricator, carry a great restriction in them, and the way of producing actions in beasts is so different from the emanation of human reason (mark the impostor! the author is speaking of natural affection, and he wipes out that, and puts in human reason) that the inferences from (the natural affection of) the one, to the (degree of reason which is in the) other, must needs be very weak. Excellent! dos it therfore follow that the eminent degree of reason, wherwithal God has indu’d man, must in him deface that natural affection, and desertion in some cases of privat for common good, which is apparent even in beasts? what do reverend divines mean to cry up this infidel? nay, is not be worse than an infidel that provides not for his own family? a commonwealth is but a great family; and a family is a little commonwealth. Even beasts, in sparing out of their own mouths, and exposing themselves to danger for their young, provide for their familys; and in providing for their familys, provide for their whole commonwealth; that is, forsake in som things their privat good and safety, for the good of the public, or of the kind.Book 1. In this case it is that even stones or heavy things, says Hooker, forsake their ordinary wont or centre, and fly upwards to relieve the distress of nature in common. Wretch that he is, shall a stone upon this occasion fly upwards, and will he have a man to go downwards! yes, Mr. Hooker’s expression, says he, is altogether figurative; and it is easier to prove from thence that things wanting sense make discourses, and act by election, than that there is such a thing as a common interest of mankind.Chap. V. This is like the rest, Hooker speaks of the necessity that is in nature, and this gentleman translates that sense into the word election. So because a stone is necessitated to comply with the common interest of nature, without discourse or election; therfore it rather follows from hence, that things wanting sense make discourses, and act by election, than that there is such a thing as a common interest of mankind. His old trick. I do not say, that because it is so with the other creatures, therfore it must be so with man: but as we see it is with the creatures in this part, so we find it to be with man. And that so, and more than so, we find it to be with man (who tho he be evil, gives good things to his children, will work hard, lay up, deny himself, venture his life for his little commonwealth) is thus further demonstrated. All civil laws acknowledge that there is a common interest of mankind, and all civil laws procede from the nature of man; therfore it is in the nature of man to acknowledge that there is a common interest of mankind. Upon this acknowledgement of mankind, a man that steals is put to death, which certainly is none of his privat interest: nor is a man put to death for any other man’s privat interest: therfore there is a common interest of mankind distinct from the parts taken severally. But this, tho acknowleg’d in part by all governments, yet thro their natural frailty is nothing so well provided for in som as in others: for if the power be in one or a few men, one or a few men, we know, may be thieves, and the rather, because applying mony that is public, without a consideration that is public, to uses that are privat, is thieving. But such thieves will not be hang’d; in this case therfore the government gos not upon public but privat interest. In the frame of such a government as can go upon no other than the public interest, consists that whole philosophy of the soul which concerns policy: and this whole philosophy of the soul being throout the commonwealth of Oceana demonstrated; for the prevaricator to insinuat that I have omitted it, is to shew what it is that he loves more than truth. The main of this philosophy consists in deposing passion, and advancing reason to the throne of empire. I expected news in this place, that this were to promise more for the magistrat or the people than has bin perform’d by the stoics; but two girls, meaning no body any harm, have provok’d his wrath, forsooth, to such extravagancy by the way, that tho in all modesty it were forbid, as he confesses, by their cheeks, which discovering the green-sickness, shew’d that they were past the rod, he has taken them up! Tantæne animis cælestibus iræ! what he may have in school-divinity for so rude a charge, I do not know; but he shall never be able to shew any maxims for this kind of disciplin or philosophy of the soul, either in chevalry or the politics. The offence of the girls was no more, than that having a cake (by the gift of an uncle or aunt, or by purchase, or such a one perhaps as was of their own making) in common, or between them, the one had most accuratly divided, and the other was about to chuse; when in coms this rude fellow:Consid. p. 22, 23. how now, gentlemen, says he, what dividing and chusing! will no less serve your turn than the whole mystery of a well-order’d commonwealth? who has taught you to cast away passion, an’t please you, like the bran, and work up reason as pure as the flower of your cake? are you acquainted with the author of Oceana, that has seen foren countrys, convers’d with the speculativi, learn’d of the most serene lady Venetia to work with bobbins, makes you a magistracy like a pippin py, and sells butterprints with S. P. Q. R? have don, as you dread ballads, fusty pamphlets, or the ostracism of Billingsgate. Have don, I say: will you vy that green in your cheeks with the purple of the state? must your mother, who was never there her self, seek you in the oven? com, when I live to see Machiavel in pufpaste, a commonwealth com out of a bakehouse, where smocks were the boulters, let me be a mill-horse—But now you must know coms the best jest of all, and I need not say that it coms from Oxford; he tells them that their cake is do (let it not be lost I beseech you) and so snatching it away, eats it, for all the world as Jackpudding eats the custard. Did you ever see such a bestia?

But wheras either office, that of dividing or chusing, was communicable to either of the girls, it is not indifferent in the distribution of a commonwealth, because dividing is separating one thing, one reason, one interest, or consideration from another, which they that can so discern in privat affairs are call’d discrete, but they that can do it in public are prudent; and the way of this kind of dividing in the language of a commonwealth is debating. But they that are capable of this kind of dividing or debating are few among many, that when things are thus divided and debated, are able enough to chuse, which in the language of a commonwealth is to resolve. Hence it is that the debate of the few, because there be but few that can debate, is the wisest debate; and the result of the many (because every man has an interest what to chuse, and that choice which sutes with every man’s interest, excludes the distinct or privat interest or passion of any man, and so coms up to the common and public interest or reason) is the wisest result. To this end, God, who dos nothing in vain, has so divided mankind into the few or the natural aristocracy, and the many or the natural democracy, that there can hardly be upon any occasion a meeting of twenty men, wherin it will not be apparent, or in which you may not see all those lines which are requisite to the face of a beautiful commonwealth. For example, among any twenty men occasionally met, there will be some few, perhaps six, excelling the fourteen in greatness of parts. These six falling into discourse of business, or giving their judgment upon persons or things, tho but by way of mere conversation, will discover their abilitys; wherupon they shall be listen’d to and regarded by the fourteen; that is, the six will acquire an authority with, and imprint a reverence upon the fourteen: which action and passion in the Roman commonwealth were call’d authoritas patrum, & verecundia plebis. Nevertheless if the six indeavor to extend the authority which they find thus acquir’d, to power, that is, to bring the fourteen to terms or conditions of obedience, or such as would be advantageous to the few, but prejudicial to the many; the fourteen will soon find, that consenting, they hurt not only themselves by indamaging their own interests, but hurt the six also, who by this means com to lose their virtue, and so spoil their debate, which, while such advantages are procurable to themselves, will go no further upon the common good, but their privat benefit. Wherfore in this case they will not consent, and not consenting, they preserve not only their own liberty, but the integrity of the six also, who perceiving that they cannot impair the common interest, have no other interest left but to improve it. And neither any conversation, nor any people, how dull soever and subject by fits to be deluded, but will soon see thus much, which is enough, because what is thus propos’d by the authority of the six or of the senat, and resolv’d by the fourteen, or by the people, is enacted by the whole, and becoms that law, than which, tho mankind be not infallible, there can be nothing less fallible in mankind. Art is the imitation of nature; by observation of such lines as these in the face of nature, a politician limns his commonwealth.Consid. p. 26. But says the prevaricator, the paralogism lys in this, that the twenty men are first suppos’d to be a commonwealth, and then it is consider’d how they would dispose of the government. What is this? art is the imitation of nature; therfore art presumes nature to be art. A picture is the representation of a face; therfore the picture-drawer presum’d the face to be a picture; and in this same, there is lying, being, or squatting, a thing call’d a paralogism. Did you ever hear such a paraketism? for to speak a word without understanding the sense of it, is like a parrat. And yet I wrong the parrat in this comparison; for she, tho she do not understand her self, is understood by others, wheras neither can this prevaricator tell what he means, nor any man else. Or riddle me, riddle me what is this?Consid. p. 27. the sense of want among men that are in equality of power may beget a desire of exchange; as let me have your horse, and you shall have my cow, which is the fountain of privat contracts: but it is not to be with reason imagin’d, that this should be enough to make a man part with a natural freedom, and put himself into the hands of a power from which he can afterwards have no shield, tho it should be us’d to his own destruction.

Most victorious nonsense! for he that says nothing, cannot be answer’d. It should seem, if the twenty men were indeed a commonwealth, or in equality of power, for so he puts the case, they might truck horses and cows, but not by any means consider, or once let it enter into their heads, how by art to make good their natural freedom: that (unless they set up a prince, as you shall see anon) were to part with their natural freedom, and put themselves into the hands of a power from which (there being no other power but themselves) they can afterwards have no shield. To read it throughly for the understanding, as is intimated in his epistle, will be more; I doubt, than his book will obtain of any reader. Yet is he, in his own conceit, as surefooted as any mule, and knows the road. But Mr. Harrington has not lost his way without company; his brother Grotius complains, that they who treat of jus gentium, do commonly mistake som part of the Roman jus civile for it: and even so he laments (an’t please you) that while men profess to consider the principles of government, they fall upon notions which are the mere effects of government. But as an ape is the more ugly for being like a man, so this prevaricator, for making faces like Grotius. I, who am complain’d of, deriving government from the true principle of the same, in the balance or foundation, set the superstructures accordingly; and he who complains forsooth, never so much as proposes any thing like a principle or superstructure, but runs altogether upon mere notions:Consid p. 23. as where he asks me, what security will you give, that the six in their consultations shall not rather aim at their own advantage, than that of the fourteen, and so make use of the eminence of their parts to circumvent the rest? in another place he can answer himself and say, that the fourteen, or the people in this constitution, have the vote and the sword too. How then should the six circumvent them? what security has a prince, that his people will not pull him out of his throne? why, a nobility or an army: and are not the people in a commonwealth their own army? is this to mind principles? on the other side, how, says he, shall we be satisfied that the fourteen will not soon begin to think themselves wife enough to consult too, and making use of their excess in power, pull the six off their cushions? as if there were any experience public or privat, any sense or reason, that men having the whole power in their own hands, would deprive themselves of counsillors; or that ever a commonwealth depos’d the senat, or can depose the senat, and remain a commonwealth. The people of Capua being inrag’d to the full height, resolv’d and assembl’d together (the senat, if the people will, being always in their power) on purpose to cut the throats of the senators, when Pacuvius Calavius exhorted them that e’er they went upon the design, they would first make election among themselves of a new senat, which, the throats of the old being cut, might for the safety of the commonwealth immediately take their places; for, said he,* you must either have a king, which is to be abhor’d; or whatever becoms of this, you must have som other senat: for the senat is a council of such a nature as without it no free city can subsist. By which speech of Pacuvius, the people, who thought themselves, as the considerer has it, wise enough to consult, being convinc’d, fell to work for the election of a succeding senat out of themselves (the prevaricator should not tell me of notions, but learn that in a commonwealth there must be a senat, is a principle) while the people of Capua were intent upon chusing this new senat, the partys propos’d seem’d to them to be so ridiculously unfit for such an office, that by this means coming to a nearer sight of themselves, they were secretly so fill’d with the shame of their enterprize, that slinking away, they would never after be known so much as to have thought upon such a thing. Nor ever went any other people so far, not the Florentins themselves, tho addicted to innovation or changing of the senat beyond all other examples. Sons of the university, brothers of the college, heads and points; you love fine words. Whether tends to bring all things into servitude, my hypothesis, or his hypothytes? for, says he, I am willing to gratify Mr. Harrington with his partition of the twenty men into six and fourteen; but if I had been in a humor of contradiction, it had been as free for me to have said that som one of the twenty would have excel’d all the rest in judgment, experience, courage and height of genius, and then told him, that this had bin a natural monarchy, established by God himself over mankind: as if the twenty would give their clothes or money to the next man they met wiser or richer than themselves, which before he deny’d; Oportet mendacem esse memorem. God establish’d kings no otherwise than by election of the people; and the twenty will neither give their clothes nor money: how then? why in coms a gallant with a file of musketeers; what, says he, are you dividing and chusing here? go to, I will have no dividing, give me all. Down go the pots, and up go their heels: what is this? why a king! what more? by divine right! as he took the cake from the girls?


Whether the Senatusconsulta, or Decrees of the Roman Senat, had the Power of Laws?

AMONG divers and weighty reasons why I would have that prince look well to his file of musketeers, this is no small one, that he being upon no balance, will be able never to give law without them, For to think that he succedes to the senat, or that the power of the senat may serve his turn, is a presumption that will fail him. The senat, as such, has no power at all, but mere authority of proposing to the people, who are the makers of their own laws; whence the decrees of the senat of Rome are never laws, nor so call’d, but senatusconsulta. It is true that a king coming in, the senat, as there it did, may remain to his aid and advantage; and then they propose not as formerly to the people, but to him, who coms not in upon the right of the senat, but upon that of the people: whence says Justinian:* the prince’s pleasure has the force of law, since the people have by the lex regia, concerning his power, made over to him all their own empire and authority.Chap. VII. Thus the senatusconsultum Macedonicum, with the rest that had place allow’d by Justinian in compilement of the Roman laws, were not laws in that they were senatusconsulta, or propos’d by the senat, but in that they were allow’d by Justinian or the prince, in whom was now the right of the people.Consid. p. 30, 31. Wherfore the zealot for monarchy has made a pas de clerc, or foul step in his procession, where he argues thus out of Cujacius: it was soon agreed that the distinct decrees of the senat and people should be extended to the nature of laws; therfore the distinct decrees of the senat are laws, whether it be so agreed by the people, or by the prince, or no. For thus he has no sooner made his prince, than he kicks him heels overhead; seeing whether the decrees of the senat are laws without the king, that same is as much a king as the prevaricator a politician. A law is that which was past by the power of the people, or of the king.Consid. p. 32. But out of the light; in this place he takes a Welsh bait, and looking back, makes a muster of his victory, like the bussing Gascon, who to shew what he had thrown out of the windows in his debauchery, made a formal repetition of the whole inventory of the house.


Whether the Ten Commandments were propos’d by God or Moses, and voted by the People of Israel.

ONE would think the Gascon had don well; is he satisfy’d? no, he will now throw the house out of the windows.Consid. p. 33. 35. The principal stones being already taken from the foundation, he has a bag of certain winds wherwithal to reverse the superstructures. The first wind he lets go is but a puff, where he tells me, that I bring Switzerland and Holland into the enumeration of the Heathen commonwealths: which if I had don, their libertys in many parts and places being more antient than the Christian religion in those countrys (as is plain by Tacitus, where he speaks of Civilis, and of the customs of the Germans) I had neither wrong’d them nor my self; but I do no such matter, for having enumerated the Heathen commonwealths, I add that the procedings of Holland and Switzerland, tho after a more obscure manner, are of the like nature.Oceana. p. 51. The next is a storm, while reproaching me with rudeness, he brings in Dr. Fern and the clergy by head and shoulders, who till they undertake the quarrel of monarchy, to the confusion of the commonwealth of Israel, at least so far that there be no weight or obligation in such an example, are posted. As if for a Christian commonwealth to make so much use of Israel, as the Roman did of Athens, whose laws she transcrib’d, were against the interest of the clergy, which, it seems, is so hostil to popular power, that to say the laws of nature, tho they be the fountains of all civil law, are not the civil law, till they be the civil law; or thus, that thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, tho they be in natural equity, yet were not the laws of Israel or of England, till voted by the people of Israel, or the parlament of England, is to assert the people into the mighty liberty of being free from the whole moral law; and, inasmuch as to be the adviser or persuader of a thing, is less than to be the author or commander of it, to put an indignity upon God himself.Consid. p. 35. 40. In which fopperys the prevaricator, boasting of principles, but minding none, first confounds authority and command or power; and next forgets that the dignity of the legislator, or, which is all one, of the senat succeding to his office, as the sanhedrim to Moses, is the greatest dignity in a commonwealth: and yet that the laws or orders of a commonwealth derive no otherwise, whether from the legislator, as Moses, Lycurgus, Solon, &c. or the senat, as those of Israel, Lacedemon, or Athens, than from their authority receiv’d and confirm’d by the vote or command of the people. It is true, that with Almighty God it is otherwise than with a mortal legislator, but thro another nature which to him is peculiar, from whom as he is the cause of being, or the Creator of mankind, omnipotent power is inseparable; yet so equal is the goodness of this nature to the greatness therof, that as he is the cause of welbeing by way of election, for example in his chosen people Israel, or of redemption, as in the Christian church, himself has prefer’d his authority or proposition before his empire. What else is the meaning of these words, or of this proceeding of his?Exod. 19. 5. now therfore if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, ye shall be to me a kingdom, or I will be your king; which proposition being voted by the people in the affirmative, God procedes to propose to them the ten commandments in so dreadful a manner, that the people being exceedingly affrighted, say to Moses, speak thou with us, and we will hear thee: that is, be thou henceforth our legislator or proposer, and we will resolve accordingly; but let not God speak with us, lest we dy.Exod. 20. 19. From whenceforth God proposes to the people no otherwise than by Moses, whom he instructs in this manner: these are the judgments which thou shalt propose or set before them.Deut. 29. 1. Wherfore it is said of the book of Deuteronomy, containing the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb; this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel.Deut. 4. 44. Neither did God in this case make use of his omnipotent power, nor Christ in the like, who also is king after the same manner in his church, and would have bin in Israel, where when to this end he might have muster’d up legions of angels, and bin victorious with such armys, or argyraspides, as never prince could shew the like, he says no more than, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gather’d thee and thy children, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?Matt. 23. 37. where it is plain that the Jews rejecting Christ, that he should not reign over them, the law of the gospel came not to be the law of the Jews; and so if the ten commandments came to be the law of Israel, it was not only because God propos’d them, seeing Christ also propos’d his law, which nevertheless came not to be the law of the Jews; but because the people receiv’d the one, and rejected the other. It is not in the nature of religion that it should be thought a profane saying, that if the bible be in England, or in any other government, the law or religion of the land, it is not only because God has propos’d it, but also because the people or magistrat has receiv’d it, or resolv’d upon it; otherwise we must set lighter by a nation or government than by a privat person, who can bave no part nor portion in this law, unless he vote it to himself in his own conscience, without which, he remains in the condition he was before, and as the heathen, who are a law to themselves. Thus wheras in a covenant there must be two partys, the Old and New Testament being in sum the Old and New Covenant; these are that authority and proposition of God and Christ, to which they that refuse their vote or result may be under the empire of a clergy, but are none of his commonwealth. Nor, seeing I am gone so far, dos this at all imply freewill, but, as is admirably observ’d by Mr. Hobbs, the freedom of that which naturally precedes will, namely, deliberation or debate, in which, as the scale by the weight of reason or passion coms to be turn’d one way or other, the will is caus’d, and being caus’d is necessitated. When God coms in thus upon the soul of man, he gives both the will and the deed; from which like office of the senat in a commonwealth, that is, from the excellency of their deliberation and debate, which prudently and faithfully unfolded to the people, dos also frequently cause and necessitat both the will and the deed. God himself has said of the senat, that they are gods: an expression, tho divine, yet not unknown to the heathens; Homo homini Deus, one man, for the excellency of his aid, may be a God to another. But let the prevaricator look to it; for he that leads the blind out of his way, is his devil.

For the things I have of this kind, as also for what I have said upon the words Chirotonia and Ecclesia, the prevaricator is delighted to make me beholden underhand to Mr. Hobbs, nothwithstanding the open enmity which he says I profess to his politics.1 Sim. 8. 7. As if Josephus upon that of Samuel, They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them, had not said of the people (Θεον apsgrπεχειροτόν[Editor: illegible character]ν τeegrgrς betavασιλείας) that they unchirotoniz’d or unvoted God of the kingdom. Now if they unchirotoniz’d or unvoted God of the kingdom, then they had chirotoniz’d or voted him to the kingdom; and so not only the doctrin that God was king in Israel by compact or covenant, but the use of the word Chirotonia also in the sense I understand it, is more antient than Mr. Hobbs. I might add that of Capellus,* God was a political king and civil legislator of the Jews. And for the use I have made of the word Ecclesia, as no man can read such as have written of the Grecian commonwealths, and miss it, so I do not remember that Mr. Hobbs has spoken of it. To these things fuller satisfaction will be given in the second book; which nevertheless I do not speak, to the end I might wave obligation to so excellent an author in his way. It is true, I have oppos’d the politics of Mr. Hobbs, to shew him what he taught me, with as much disdain as he oppos’d those of the greatest authors, in whose wholsom fame and doctrin the good of mankind being concern’d, my conscience bears me witness that I have don my duty. Nevertheless in most other things I firmly believe that Mr. Hobbs is and will in future ages be accounted the best writer, at this day, in the world. And for his treatises of human nature, and of liberty and necessity, they are the greatest of new lights, and those which I have follow’d, and shall follow.


Whether a Commonwealth coming up to the perfection of the kind, coms not up to the perfection of Government, and has no flaw in it.

WHAT a commonwealth coming up to the perfection of the kind is, I have shewn both by the definition of an equal commonwealth, and the exemplification of it in all the parts.

The definition is contain’d in the first of my preliminarys; which, because it is short, I shall repeat.

AN equal commonwealth is a government establish’d upon an equal agrarian, arising into the superstructures or three orders, the senat debating and proposing, the people resolving, and the magistracy executing, by an equal rotation, or interchangeable election, thro the suffrage of the people given by the ballot. The exemplification is the whole commonwealth of Oceana. Each of which by him, who, if his doctrin of pure and absolute monarchy be observ’d, can be no Englishman, is call’d an Irish Bog; as in som sense it is, seeing the prevaricator has set never a foot in it that will stand, nor has more to say, than that Where there is one ambitious poor man, or one vicious rich man, it is impossible there should be any such government as can be secure from sedition.Consid. p. 43.

Which, first, is rather to make all governments ineffectual, or to make all governments alike, than to object against any, seeing That there should not be one ambitious poor man, or one vicious rich man, is equally, if not more, improbable in a monarchy than in a commonwealth.

Secondly, That one man alone, whether he be rich or poor, should without a party be able to disturb a commonwealth with sedition, is an absurdity; nor is such a party, as may be able in som sort to disturb the peace by robbing upon the highway, or som such disorder, always able to disturb a government with sedition. Wherfore this feat goes not so much upon the ability of any one man, rich or poor, as the power of the party he is able to make; and this strength of the party gos upon the nature of the government, and the content or discontents thence deriving to the few, or the many. The discontents, whether of the few or the many, derive from that which is, or by them is thought to be som bar to their interest; and those interests which are the causes of sedition are three, the desire of liberty, the desire of power, and the desire of riches; nor be there any more: for where the people thro want of bread, thro violence offer’d to their women, or oppression, rise up against their governors, it relates to the desire of liberty; those also under the name of religion make not a fourth, but come to one of the three.

Now to speak in the first place of the many, and anon of the few; the people in an equal commonwealth have none of these three interests: not the desire of liberty, because the whole frame of an equal commonwealth is nothing else but such a method wherby the liberty of the people is secur’d to them: not of power, because the power which otherwise they could not exercise, is thus estated in them: nor of riches, because where the rich are so bounded by an agrarian that they cannot overbalance (and therfore neither oppress the people, nor exclude their industry or merit from attaining to the like estate, power, or honor) the whole people have the whole riches of the nation already equally divided among them; for that the riches of a commonwealth should not go according to the difference of mens industry, but be distributed by the poll, were inequal.Chap. VIII. Wherfore the people in an equal commonwealth having none of those interests which are the causes of sedition, can be subject to no such effect.

To affirm then with the Considerer, that the whole of this libration is reduc’d to the want of power to disturb the commonwealth, must needs be a mistake, seeing in the commonwealth propos’d the people have the power, but can have no such interest; and the people having no such interest, no party can have any such power, it being impossible that a party should com to overbalance the people, having their arms in their own hands. The whole matter being thus reduc’d to the want of power to disturb the government: this, according to his own argument, will appear to be the libration in which the power, wherof the governor is possest, so vastly exceeds the power remaining with those who are to obey (which in case of contest must be so small a party) that it would be desperately unreasonable for them to hope to maintain their cause. If the true method then of attaining to perfection in government be to make the governor absolute, and the people in an equal commonwealth be absolute, then there can be none in this government, that upon probable terms can dispute the power with the governor, and so this state by his own argument must be free from sedition. Thus far upon occasion of the ambitious poor man objected. I have spoken of the many; and in speaking of the many, implicitly of the few: for as in an equal commonwealth, for example in England during the peerage or aristocracy, the many depended upon or were included in the few; so in an equal commonwealth the few depend upon or are included in the many, as the senat of Venice depends upon, or is included in the great council, by which it is annually elected in the whole or in som part. So what was said in an equal commonwealth of the many or the poorer sort, is also said of the few or of the richer; who, thro the virtue of the agrarian, as in Oceana, or of other orders supplying the defect of an agrarian, as in Venice, not able to overbalance the people, can never have any power to disturb the commonwealth in case they had such an interest, nor can have any such interest in case they had such power. For example in Oceana, putting the case that the few were as powerful as it is possible they should be; that is, that the whole land was fallen into five thousand hands: the five thousand, excluding the people, could get no more riches by it, because they have the whole land already; no more liberty by it, because they were in perfect liberty before; nor any more power by it, because thro the equality of the balance, or of their estates, they can be no more by themselves than an equal commonwealth, and that they were already with the people: but would be much less, the power or commonwealth, in which there be five thousand equals, being not greater, but much less than the power or commonwealth wherin the whole people are equal; because the power or effect of a greater people is proportionably greater than the power or effect of a lesser people, and the few by this means would get no more than to be the lesser people. So the people being no bar to the riches, liberty, nor power of the five thousand, and the desire of liberty, riches, and power, being the only causes of sedition; there could arise no sedition in this commonwealth by reason of the nobility, who have no such interest if they had the power, nor have any such power if they had the interest, the people being equally possest of the government, of the arms, and far superior in number. In sum, an equal commonwealth consists but of one hereditary order, the people, which is by election divided into two orders, as the senat and the congregation in Lacedemon, or the senat and the great council in Venice; for the gentlemen of Venice, as has bin often said, are the people of Venice, the rest are subjects. And an inequal commonwealth consists of two hereditary orders, as the Patricians and Plebeians in Rome, wherof the former only had a hereditary capacity of the senat: whence it coms to pass that the senat and the people in an equal commonwealth having but one and the same interest, never were nor can be at variance; and that the senat and the people in an inequal commonwealth having two distinct interests, never did nor can agree. So an equal commonwealth cannot be seditious, and an inequal commonwealth can be no other than seditious.

If a man be resolv’d, as the Considerer is, to huddle these things together, there is no making any thing of this kind of policy; of which therfore it will be a folly to talk. For example, Lacedemon is either to be consider’d as not taking in the helots; and then in her self she was an equal commonwealth void of any sedition, or cause of it, how much soever she were troubl’d with the helots: so the objection made by him, of her troubles by the helots, is impertinently urg’d, to shew that she was a seditious commonwealth: or if he will needs have it, that she took in the helots, it is undeniable that she took them in inequally, and so was inequal; whence the troubles by the helots must needs be impertinently urg’d against an equal commonwealth.

Again, when I allege Venice from Piero Gradenigo, that is, for the space of about four hundred years from the present date, at which time the reformation, yet in force, began, as an example of an equal commonwealth; for him to instance in the times before, when tho the commonwealth, according to the intention, was as equal as now, yet being not bound by sufficient orders to give her self security of her native liberty, her dukes on the one side did what they pleas’d, and the inrag’d people on the other side banish’d, condemn’d to death, or murder’d them; who fees not the imposture? Indeed he blushes at it himself. Wherfore my assertion being not yet knock’d on the head, he promises to kill it better, first by the example of Lacedemon leaving out the helots, and next by that of Venice since the time of Piero Gradenigo.

Consid. p. [Editor: illegible character]For the first you must know that once upon a time there was a quarrel between Cleomenes and Demaratus kings of Lacedemon about succession,Pausan. which was determin’d by the Ephori, that is, by a court of justice, and not by the sword;Lacon. the like happen’d in Leotychides the known bastard of Alcibiades, or so confest to be by his mother to divers of her maids.Plut. Alcib. Now this is a maxim in the politics, Where the differences of kings can go no further than a court of justice, there the government is seditious. Most ridiculous! Is there a stronger argument that such a government is not seditious? No matter, give him room; Much more fatal was the contest between Cleonymus and his brother Areus the son of Acrotatus, by whose war Zarax was ruin’d, and Pyrrhus came into the game, who besieg’d the capital city: the reign of Agis and Cleomenes was so full of turbulency, as would put a man out of breath to relate. Fair and softly: was not all this after Lysander, and the spoils of Athens had broken the agrarian, and so ruin’d Lacedemon? I affirm there can be no sedition in an equal commonwealth; and he to oppose me, shews that there was sedition in an inequal one; whether dos this affirm his assertion or mine?

But for better luck in Venice. This city by Mr. Harringtons own confession is possest of several advantages. Yes, I say that the commonwealth of Venice, thus seated, is like a man in a citadel, who therby may be the safer from his enemys, but ne’er a whit the safer from diseases. What conclusion would you expect he should infer from hence? Why among these therfore there is good cause to reckon her immunity from seditions: dos not our logician repeat faithfully, and dispute honestly? Again, Sir, she is like a ship ready to be boarded by pirats, has the Turc on this frontier, the Pope on that, the king of Spain on another. As if this were an argument every government must not be void of sedition, seeing there is none except they be ilands, whose frontiers are not bounded by the territorys of other princes. Well, but since the last reglement (in English, reformation) in the time of Gradenigo, you have had three seditions in Venice, that of Marino Bocconi, that of Baiamonte Tiepolo, and that of Marino Falerio.

BODIN has bin long since beaten for this like a stockfish, and yet our author will be serving it up for a courtly dish. Bocconi would have kill’d the duke, but was hang’d before he could do it. Felton kill’d a duke that had greater power here than the other in Venice, and was hang’d afterwards, therefore England was a seditious government; for this must either be undeniable for Felton’s sake, or why must the other be so for Bocconi’s? Again, Falerio and his complices would have destroy’d the great council, but were hang’d before they could do it. Vaux and his accomplices would have blown up the parlament, but were hang’d before they could do it; therfore England was in this relation a seditious government, else why was Venice? There passes not a month but there dy rogues at Tyburn; is the government therfore seditious? or is this one regard in which it is not? Where all that so invade the government are by virtue of the same brought to that end, there the commonwealth, or the orders of it, are not the cause but the cure of sedition; and so these are undeniable arguments that Venice is not seditious, where, since the reformation, there has not been a cut finger upon this score, save only thro the conspiracy of Baiamonte, which indeed came to blows. Nor for this yet can Venice be call’d a seditious commonwealth. You find no man accusing Rome of sedition, in that she had a Manlius or a Melius that dangerously affected monarchy, because to these her orders, by which they suffer’d death, as soon apply’d the remedy. But Rome was a seditious commonwealth, because the perpetual feud that was between the senat and the people sprung out of her orders, and was that to which there was no remedy to apply. England was not a seditious government because it had a Vaux or a Felton, but because the power antiently of the nobility, and late of the people, was such by the orders of the same as might at any time occasion civil war. Put the case a slave or some desperat fellow has kill’d the great Turk, the government for that cannot be said to be seditious, but in this, that thro the very nature of the policy, the janizarys at any time may do as much, it is undeniably seditious. Baiamonte’s conspiracy he will not say was of this nature. It was not a disease in the bones of the commonwealth, but a thing that no sooner appeared, or broke out (tho it be true, there happen’d a little scratching first) than it fell off like a scab; such an accident might befal the best constitution, and Venice never had the like but once: if he could say as much of a monarchy, he gains no advantage; yet let him say it, and prove it, I give him all. I omit many falshoods and absurditys in the proceding of the prevaricator, as where he intimats the power of the dukes to have bin that wherby Venice gain’d I know not what, and yet to have bin that also by which Falerio had like to have spoil’d all: each of which, the duke of Venice having no power at all, is known to be false. Why should I stay to put you in mind that having affirm’d Venice to derive her immunity from intestin discord no otherwise than a ship that is ready to be boarded by pirats, he instances in such examples to the contrary, as took occasion by the hair of a foren scalp, while in those of Bocconi and Tiepolo the commonwealth by her wars with the Genoese and Ferrara, was put to her plunges, and in that of Falerio reduc’d to the last extremity? I shall only note, that if such sudden flashes as these may com under the name of sedition, he has done a fine office for monarchy, seeing no senat is so much expos’d to like blows as any prince.

Consid. p. 48.Well; but for all this it is confest that there may be such a thing as a seditious commonwealth, in that the feud between the senat and the people of Rome cou’d not be cur’d; what security, says he, will you give us, that the like may not happen in Oceana, or that the whole body of the people being intrusted with giving a vote, and keeping a sword, may not by way of council or arms, fall to such work as levelling the five thousand, or bringing the agrarian from two to one thousand pounds a year, or less, as they fancy.

To which I answer by a like question, what security will he give me that the people of any commonwealth shall not cast themselves into the sea? a prince may be mad, and do so, but the people are naturally incapable of such madness. If men will boast of their knowledge in principles, and yet talk of nothing but effects, why may not a man fly as well as a bird? But if causes may be regarded, let him once shew how the will, seeing it is not free, nor mov’d without som object, should move the people in such a manner; or for what, they having all the liberty and all the power that can be had, should it strive? well, that is soon don, for the land may come into the hands of five thousand, and so the booty may be great, and the resistance small. Good: the Romans being the wisest of all people, went no further towards the remedy of their grievances, than to strive for the introduction of an agrarian, in which they fainted too, even to the destruction of that government. Except these, none have bin so wise; and if there be any such thing familiar with the nature of the people, why appear’d it but once, and then vanish’d without effect? why did not the people for example under the late monarchy (when the dominion or freehold of the nation, by greater shares, was in a smaller party, and they had not only riches, but liberty and power too, to whet them on) ever so much as think of levelling three hundred men? for the nobility and clergy, in whom was the balance, were no more. If it be reply’d that the people were not arm’d; by whom did the barons make war with the kings? if they were not trusted with a vote; what was that of the house of commons? let dominion or freehold stand upon what balance you will, inequal or equal, from the beginning of the world you shall never find a people turning levellers. And as reason is experience in the root, so experience is reason in the branch, which might therfore be sufficient in the case. Nevertheless for clearer satisfaction in a point of such concernment, I shall endeavour to dig up and discover the root of this branch, or the reason of this experience. That which in beasts is instinct, wherof they can give no account, is in it self that wisdom of God wherby he provides for them; so it was with the people, they are not levellers, nor know they why, and yet it is, because to be levellers were to destroy themselves. For, seeing I must repeat, to repeat briefly; there is no territory of any extent and populousness where the revenue of industry is not twice as much as the dry rent. This has bin demonstrated in Oceana. The revenue of industry is in those that work, that is, the people: wherfore the revenue of the people, where their industry is not obstructed, is two-fold to that of the nobility, holding the whole territory in freehold. But where their industry is obstructed, their revenue is nothing. Civil war being of all other the greatest obstruction of industry, the people in taking arms must venture all they have, for that, which if they obtain they lose two for one; and if they obtain not, all for nothing. Wherfore a people never will, nor ever can; never did, nor ever shall take arms for levelling. But they are intrusted with a vote; and therfore taking away the lands of the five thousand, or diminishing the agrarian by way of counsil, they need not obstruct their industry: but, preserving the revenue of that, may bring themselves into the possession of the land too. This will they, this can they less do, because being in counsil they must propose somthing for the advantage of the commonwealth, or of themselves, as their end in such an action. But the land coming to be in the possession of five thousand, falls not into a number that is within the compass of the few, or such a one as can be princes, either in regard of their number, or of their estates; but to such a one as cannot consent to abolish the agrarian, because that were to consent to rob one another: nor can they have any party among them, or against their common interest, strong enough to force them, or to break it; which remaining, the five thousand neither are nor can be any more than a popular state, and the balance remains every whit as equal, as if the land were in never so many more hands. Wherfore the commonwealth being not to be better’d by this means, the people by counsil can never go about to level, nor diminish the agrarian for the good of the commonwealth. Nor can they undertake it for the inrichment of themselves, because the land of Oceana, as has bin demonstrated, being level’d or divided equally among the fathers of families only, coms not to above ten pounds a year to each of them, wheras every footman costs his master twenty pounds a year; and there is not a cottager having a cow upon the common, but with his own labour, at one shilling a day, gets twenty pounds a year; which, the land being level’d, were impossible, because there would be nobody able to set a labourer on work, or to keep a servant: wherfore neither would, nor could the people by counsil go about any such business. So there being no possible cause of disagreement between the few and the many, the senat and the people, there can be no such effect; whence this is the government, which being perfectly equal, has such a libration in the frame of it, that no man in or under it can contract such an interest or power, as should be able to disturb the commonwealth with sedition.Consid. p. 67. Yet after all this, the prevaricator will only tell Mr. Harrington (for to deny the conclusion is a fair way of disputing) that this libration is of the same nature with a perpetual motion in the mechanics. But let me tell him, that in the politics there is nothing mechanic, or like it. This is but an idiotism of som mathematician resembling his, who imagin’d the stream of a river to be like that of his spiggot.

Rusticus expectat dum defluat amnis, at ille

Labitur & labetur in omne volubilis ævum.

The silly swain upon a river stood,

In hope the rolling bottom of the stood

Would once unwind it self, whose liquid clew

The silver thread for ever shall renew.

The mathematician must not take God to be such a one as he is. Is that of the sun, of the stars, of a river, a perpetual motion? even so one generation gos and another coms.Galen de usu partium, l. 4. Nature, says Galen, has a tendency to make her creature immortal, if it were in the capacity of the matter on which she has to work; but the people never dys. This motion of theirs is from the hand of a perpetual mover, even God himself, in whom we live, and move, and have our being; and to this current the politician adds nothing but the banks, to which end, or none, the same God has also created human prudence. Wherfore there is not any thing that raises it self against God or right reason, if I say that it is in human prudence so to apply these banks, that they may stand as long as the river runs; or let this Considerer consider again, and tell me out of Scripture or reason, why not. Mathematicians, it is true, pretended to be the monopolists of demonstration; but speak ingenuously, have they, as to the politics, hitherto given any other demonstration, than that there is a difference between seeing, and making of spectacles? much more is that comparison of the politics, going upon certain and demonstrable principles, to astrologers and fortunetellers, who have none at all, vain and injurious. For as in relation to what David has said, and experience confirm’d, of the age of man, that it is threescore years and ten; I may say, that if a man lys bed-rid, or dys before threescore years and ten, of any natural infirmity or disease, it was not thro any imperfection of mankind, but of his particular constitution: so in relation to the principles and definition of an equal commonwealth yet unshaken, nay untouch’d by this prevaricator, I may safely affirm, that a commonwealth is a government, which if it has bin seditious, it has not been from any imperfection in the kind, but in the particular constitution, which where the like has happen’d, must have bin inequal. My retreat to these principles is call’d running into a bog; as if such as have no principles were not bogs, Informis limus, stygiæque paludes.


Whether Monarchy coming up to the Perfection of the Kind, coms not short of the Perfection of Government, and has not som Flaw in it. In which is also treated of the Balance of France; of the Original of a landed Clergy; of Arms, and their Kinds.

ON monarchy I have said, that wheras it is of two kinds, the one by arms, the other by a nobility; for that by arms, as (to take the most perfect model) in Turky, it is not in art or nature to cure it of this dangerous flaw, that the Janizarys have frequent interest, and perpetual power to raise sedition, or tear the magistrat in pieces. For that by a nobility, as (to take the most perfect model) of late in Oceana, it was not in art or nature to cure it of that dangerous flaw, that the nobility had frequent interest and perpetual power by their retainers and tenants to raise sedition, and levy war:Chap. IX. whence I conclude that monarchy reaching the perfection of the kind, reaches not the perfection of government, but must still have some dangerous flaw in it.

This place (tho I did not intend by it to make work for a tinker) could not be of less concernment, than it proves to the prevaricator, who, as if he were oblig’d to mend all, falls first to patching with a monarchy by arms, then with a monarchy by a nobility: at length despairing, throws away each, and betakes himself with egregious confidence, to make out of both a new monarchy, which is neither. By observation of these three flourishes, the present chapter may be brought into some method.Consid. p. 46. The first blow of his hammer, or that wherby he intends the flaw or hole in monarchy by arms shall henceforth be mended and tite, is this: that the guards of the kings person be not increas’d beyond the necessity of security: that they be not suffer’d to stagnat at court, but be by a perpetual circulation drawn out upon service; and chiefly that they consist not of one entire body united under the same head, but be divided into distinct partys and commands; as we may see in France, where tho (in proportion to the extent of their dominions) the king’s guards be more numerous than those of the Roman or Turkish emperors, yet being divided into distinct bodys of French, Scots and Switzers, under their several colonels and captains, they have never bin the authors of any the least sedition. And in Turky of late years they begin to learn the art of poising the Janizarys by the Spahys, and so have frequently evaded the danger of their mutinys. Which fine work at first view gos upon this false ground, that the foundation of monarchy by arms is laid upon the prince’s guards or the court militia, wheras monarchy by arms consists in no other balance than the prince’s being sole landlord, which, where imperfect, as it was in that of the Roman emperors, the empire is the most troubl’d; and where perfect, as in Turky, the empire is less seditious. For that which he says of France, it relates to monarchy by a nobility; and therfore is not to be confounded, according to this method, with this, but refer’d to the next branch.

As to monarchy by arms, tho it be true that the balance of dominion in any of the three kinds may be said to be natural, in regard of the effect; yet seeing God has given the earth to the sons of men, that of a sole landlord, as Turky, is not so natural in the cause or foundation, as the Timars, and therfore requires the application of som kind of force, as the Janizarys, who are not the root of the government, that being planted in the earth of the Timars, or military farms and colonys (for that the Janizarys are not the foundation of this empire, which was founded long before, is plain, in that this order was not introduc’d till Amurath the Second) but the dragon that lys at that root, and without which the fruit would fall into the mouths of the Timariots by way of property (as when the knights fees granted first for life, became afterwards hereditary in Oceana) which would cause such a fall from monarchy, that it would becom, as we have seen, the rise of popular power (the lots, in case this should happen, of the Timariots, little differing from those divided by Joshua to the children of Israel) wherfore when this happens in the Turkish monarchy, it is at an end. And that this dos not happen, tho there be divers other concurrent policys, I would have any man shew me, how it could be but for the Janizarys. Otherwise it is plain that the Janizarys being a flying army, on wing at all games, and upon all occasions, are not so much the guard of the prince, as of the empire; which ruin’d, the prey falls to the Timariots, as those that are in possession, except these be ruin’d too, who being all horse, and far greater in number than the Janizarys that are foot, would (in case the aw of the prince, and the policy of the government which holds them divided, were broken) be invincible by the Janizarys, who nevertheless by these aids can easily contain them. Whence the sedition of the Janizarys, like that of a nobility, may be dangerous to the prince, but never threatens the throne; wheras the sedition of the Timariots, like that of a people, would be more against the throne than the prince. These things consider’d, and in them the nature, constitution, or disease of monarchy by arms, we may consult the more rationally with the considerer upon the applications or remedys by him offer’d, which are three.

First, That the guards of the king’s person be not increas’d beyond the necessity of security. But of what security, that of his person, or of his empire, or of both? for speaking of a monarchy by arms, in this latter sense only it is true: and if so, then this singular maxim of state (Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora) might have bin spar’d (Cela s’en va sans le dire, comme les heures de nostre curè.)

Secondly, That they be not suffer’d to stagnat at court, but be by a perpetual circulation drawn out upon service; for if there be not perpetual service, it should seem, men might be apt to think that government was instituted for peace as well as war. I add no more than is imply’d in his words, which as to this of Turky have chanc’d well; where not the stagnation of the Janizarys only, but of the court it self (which by the institution should always be in exercise of arms) is the cause of that present decay, so perceivable in this empire. But the prince sitting still or stagnating, to what the circulation of the Janizarys (whose alienation from the government, or intelligence with the Timariots, must needs be of dangerous consequence) could tend, should have bin thought on: otherwise to expose the empire to danger for the safety of the prince, is no cure of the government.

But his chief remedy remains: This court militia must not consist of one intire body united under the same head, but be divided under several colonels, captains, partys, brigades, and distributed to several quarters. As if this were a cure, there were any army that could be mutinous: but where he says, not united under the same head, he intimats perhaps divers generals, and divers armys; now such are the Turkish Beglerbegs, and the provinces under their governments. That these therfore be kept divided, so that not any two of them can lay their heads together without having them cut off, nor any son succede the father in government, requires that there be always a sufficient force (distinct from the interest of the Timariots and Beglerbegs) united, and still ready upon occasion of this service; and the Janizarys with the spahys or court-horse being united, are no more than sufficient for this service. Wherfore if these also were so divided as therby to be weaken’d, they could not be sufficient for this service; and their division, except such as might weaken them, would be of no security to the prince. That the provinces, under this aw, are less apt to rebel, than the court guards to mutiny, is no wonder; but the court guards being cur’d by the prescription of this physician, of the possibility of mutiny, which without weakening them is impossible, the provinces, if liberty, or riches, or power be desirable, would never indure the yoke of this government. Wherfore it being inavoidable in the Turkish empire, that either the Janizarys, or the Timariots may do what they list (in regard that whether of them be able to give law to the other, must at the same time be able to give law to the prince; and to bring them to an equal balance, were to make a civil war, or at least to sow the seed of it) the native wound of monarchy by arms remains incur’d and incurable. What more may be don for monarchy, founded upon a nobility, coms next to be try’d. In this the considerer gives his word, that there never rises any danger to the crown, but when either a great part of the soverain power is put into the hands of the nobility, as in Germany and Poland (where it should seem by him, that the electors and the gentry do not put power into the hands of the emperor, or king, but the emperor or king puts power into the hands of the electors or gentry) or when som person or family is suffer’d to overtop the rest in riches, commands, and dependence, as the princes of the blood and Lorrain, not long since, in France; and of old the Montforts and Nevils in England.Consid. p. 47. The first of these he declares to be a vicious government, and a monarchy only in name: the second he undertakes shall easily admit of this remedy; that the great ones be reduc’d (decimo sexto) to a lesser volum, and level’d into an equality with the rest of their order.

His putpin is pretty: the emperor puts power into the hands of the electors; and the king of Poland puts power into the hands of the gentlemen: which governments therfore (and all such like, as when the king of England did put power into the hands of the barons, at such a time as he was no longer able to keep it out of their fingers, by which means the antient and late government of king, lords and commons, was restor’d) are vicious constitutions, and monarchys only in name: such as he will not meddle with, and therfore let them go. Well; but where is the patient then? if these be not monarchys by nobility, what do we mean by that thing? or what government is it that we are to cure? why such a one, where som person or family is suffer’d to overtop the rest in riches, commands, and dependence, as the princes of the blood and Lorrain, not long since, in France; and of old the Montforts and the Nevils in England. So then the same again (for these are no other) upon recollection, are those that admit of this easy cure. Let the great ones be reduc’d to a lesser volum, and level’d with the rest of their order. But how? if they be the weaker party, they are not the great ones; and if they be the stronger party, how will he reduce them? put the case a man has the gout, his physician dos not bid him reduce his overtopping toes to the volum of the other foot, nor to level them to equality with the rest of their order, but prescribes his remedys, and institutes the method that should do this feat. What is the method of our Æsculapius; point de novelle; or where are we to find it? e’en where you please. The princes of the blood, and of Lorrain in France; the Montforts and the Nevils in England, overtop’d not their order by their own riches or power, but by that of the party, which for their fidelity, courage, or conduct, intrusted them with the managing of their arms or affairs. So the prince that would have level’d them, must have level’d their party; which in case the controversy be upon the right, or pretended right of the nobility in the government, which commonly makes them hang together, may com to the whole order: what then?Consid. p. 49. why then, says he, the prince must preserve his nobility weighty enough to keep the people under, and yet not tall enough in any particular person to measure with himself: which, abating the figure, is the same again; and so I have nothing to answer but the figure. Now for this, the prince himself is no otherwise tall, than by being set upon the shoulders of the nobility; and so if they set another upon the same shoulders (as in Henry the 4th or the 7th, who had no titles to the crown, nor could otherwise have measur’d with the prince) be he never so low, he coms to be tall enough in his particular person to measure with the prince, and to be taller too, not only by those old examples, but others that are younger than our selves, tho such (the nobility having not of late bin weighty enough to keep the people under) as derive from another principle, that of popular balance. A prince therfore preserving his nobility weighty enough to keep the people under, must preserve in them the balance of that kind of empire: and the balance containing the riches, which are the power, and so the arms of the nation; this being in the nobility, the nobility, when willing, must be able to dispose of the king, or of the government. Nor under a less weight is a nobility qualify’d to keep down the people, as by an argument from the contrary. Henry the 7th having found the strength of his nobility, that set him in a throne to which he had no right, and fearing that the tide of their favour turning, they might do as much for another, abated the dependence of their tenants, and cut off their train of retainers; which diminution of their weight, releasing the people by degrees, has caus’d that plain or level into which we live to see the mountain of that monarchy now sunk and swallow’d: wherfore the balance of the nobility being such as failing, that kind of monarchy coms to ruin; and not failing, the nobility, if they join, may give law to the king, the inherent disease of a monarchy by a nobility remains also uncur’d and incurable.

The balance of France.These are points to which I had spoken before; but somthing concerning France and foren guards was mumbled by the prevaricator in a wrong place, while he was speaking of Turky, where there is no such thing. This, left I be thought to have courted opposition for nothing, shall open a new scene; while I take occasion in this place to speak first of the balance of the French monarchy, and next of the nature and use of foren guards.

The whole territory of France except the crown lands, which on this account are not considerable, consists of three shares or parts, wherof the church holds one, the nobility another; and the presidents, advocats, other officers of the parlaments, courts of justice, the citizens, merchants, tradesmen, the treasurers, receivers of the customs, aids, taxes, impositions, gabels, all which together make a vast body, hold a third: by how equal portions I am sorry that I do not know, nor where to learn: but this is the balance of the French monarchy, to which the peasant holding nothing, but living (tho in one of the best countrys of the world) in the meanest and most miserable condition of a laborer, or hynd, is of no account at all.

The partys that hold the balance in a territory are those of whom the government does naturally consist, wherfore these are call’d estates; so the clergy, the nobility, and the commons, are the three estates of France. Tho the third, because the peasant partaking not of the balance can (in relation to government) be of no account, is not call’d the commons, but only the third estate: wheras the yeomanry and gentry in England having weigh’d as well in the balance as the church and the nobility, the three estates of England (while the monarchy was in vigor) were the clergy, the nobility, and the commons.Grotius de imp. sum. pot. circa sacra. c. 2. f. 4. The consent of nations evinces that the function of the clergy, or priest, except where otherwise determin’d by law, appertains to the magistrat. By this right Noah, Abraham, Job, with the rest of the patriarchs, instructed their familys, or sacrific’d. There seems to have bin a kind of commonwealth in Canaan, while Melchizedec was both king and priest. Such also was Moses, till he consecrated Aaron, and conser’d the preisthood upon the Levits, who are expresly said to succede to the firstborn, that is to the patriarchs, who till then exercis’d that function. Nor was it otherwise with the Gentils, where they, who had the soverain power, or were in eminent magistracy, did also the priestly office (omnino apud veteres qui rerum potiebantur, iidem auguria tenebant: ut enim sapere, sic divinare, regale ducebant, says Cicero; and Virgil, Rex Anius, rex idem hominum, Phoebique facerdos.) You find the heros, that is princes, in poets, sacrificing. The Ethiopian, Egyptian, Lacedemonian kings did the like. In Athens constantly and in Rome, when they had no kings, occasionally they elected a rex sacrorum, or king priest. So that a free people had thus far power of electing their priests, is not deny’d by any man.Original of a landed clergy. This came, it should seem, to be otherwise establish’d by the law in Egypt, where the priests (whose lands Joseph when he bought those of the people did not buy) being great landlords,Gen. 47. 22. it may be to the third of the whole territory, were one of the three estates of the realm. And it is clear in Scripture that the people, till they sold their lands, became not servants to Pharaoh.Xenoph. in Orat.de Ages. While Agesilaus was in Egypt they depos’d their king, which implys the recovery of their balance; but so, seeing they set up another, as withal shews the balance of the nobility to have bin predominant. These particulars seem to com near to the account of Diodorus Siculus, by whom the balance of Egypt should have stood thus:L. 1. the whole revenue was divided into three parts, wherof the priest had the first, the king had the second, and the nobility had the third. It seems to me that the priests had theirs by their antient right and title, untouch’d by Joseph; that the kings had all the rest by the purchase of Joseph; and that in time, as is usual in like cases, a nobility came thro the bounty of succeding kings to share with them in one half. But however it came about, Egypt by this means is the first example of a monarchy upon a nobility, at least distributed into three estates by means of a landed clergy, which by consequence came to be the greatest counsillors of state, and, fitting religion to their uses, to bring the people to be the most superstitious in the whole world.

Were it not for this example, I should have said, that the indowment of a clergy or religious order with lands, and the erecting of them into an estate of the realm or government, were no antienter than the Goths and Vandals, who introducing a like policy, which to this day takes place throout the Christian world, have bin the cause;

First, Why the clergy have bin generally great counsillors to kings, while the people are led into superstition?

Secondly, By planting a religious order in the earth, why religion has bin brought to serve worldly ends?

And, thirdly, by rendring the miter able to make war; why of latter ages we have had such a thing as war for religion, which till the clergy came to be a third state or landlords, was never known in the world:Thucyd. l. 1. for that some citys of Greece, taking arms upon the usurpation or violation of som temple, have call’d it the holy war; such disputes having bin put upon matter of fact, and not of faith, in which every man was free, came not to this account. Moses was learn’d in all the learning of the Egyptians; but a landed clergy introduced he not in Israel: nor went the apostles about to lay any such foundation of a church. Abating this one example of Egypt, till the Goths and Vandals, who brought in the third estate, a government, if it were inequal, consisted but of two estates; as that of Rome, whether under the kings or the commonwealth, consisted of the Patricians and Plebeians, or of the nobility and the people. And an equal commonwealth consists but of one, which is the people: for example of this you have Lacedemon and Venice, where the people being few, and having many subjects or servants, might also be call’d a nobility, as in regard of their subjects they are in Venice, and in regard of their helots or servants, they might have bin in Lacedemon. That, I say, which, introducing two estates, causes division, or makes a commonwealth inequal, is not that she has a nobility, without which she is depriv’d of her most special ornament, and weaken’d in her conduct, but when the nobility only is capable of magistracy, or of the senat; and where this is so order’d, she is inequal, as Rome But where the nobility is no otherwise capable of magistracy, nor of the senat, than by election of the people, the commonwealth consists but of one order, and is equal, as Lacedemon or Venice.

But for a politician commend me to the considerer, he will have Rome to have bin an equal commonwealth, and Venice to be an inequal one, which must be evinc’d by wiredrawing. For having elswhere, as has bin shewn, admitted without opposition that the balance of empire is well divided into natural and provincial, the humor now takes him to spin that wedg into such a thred, as by entangling of these two, may make them both easy to be broken.Consid. p 16. 69. 70. Hereto he betakes himself in this manner. As Mr. Harrington has well observ’d (p. 37.) where there are two partys in a republic with equal power (as in that of Rome, the people had one half, and the nobility had the other half) confusion and misery are there intail’d. For remedy wherof, or to avoid this, there can be no way but to make the commonwealth very inequal.

In answer to this, there will need no more than to repeat the same things honestly. Mr. Harrington speaks of the national balance of empire (p. 37) to this sense: Where the nobility holds half the property, or about that proportion, and the people the other half (the shares of the land may be equal; but in regard the nobility have much among few, and the people little among many, the few will not be contented to have authority, which is all their proper share in a commonwealth, but will be bringing the people under power, which is not their proper share in a commonwealth; wherfore this commonwealth must needs be inequal. And except by altering the balance, as the Athenians did by the sisacthia, or recision of debts; or as the Romans went about to do by an agrarian, it be brought to such an equality, that the whole power be in the people, and there remain no more than authority to the nobility) there is no remedy but the one (with perpetual feud) will eat out the other, as the people did the nobility in Athens, and the nobility the people in Rome. Where the carcase is, there will be the eagles also; where the riches are, there will be the power. So if a few be as rich as all the rest, a few will have as much power as all the rest; in which case the commonwealth is inequal, and there can be no end of staving and tailing, till it be brought to equality. Thus much for the national balance; for the provincial, there power dos not follow property, but the contrary: this the prevaricator having acknowleg’d, lets slip, to the end he may take a gripe of Venice, which (because the three or four thousand of which originally consisted, and now consists that whole government, having acquir’d provinces, and increase of their city by later comers, do not admit these to participation of power) he says is an inequal commonwealth. He will be a mill-horse, whether the cake be dow or not; for this is to draw in a circle: and Rome, which by his former arguments should have bin equal, by this again must be inequal, seeing Rome as little admitted her provinces into the body of the commonwealth, as dos Venice. This clash is but by way of parenthesis; to return therfore to the business in present agitation.

The estates be they one, or two, or three, are such (as was said by virtue of the balance) upon which the government must naturally depend. Wherfore constitutively the government of France (and all other monarchys of like balance) was administer’d by an assembly of the three estates; and thus continu’d till that nation being vanquish’d by the English, Charles the 7th was put to such shifts as, for the recovery of himself in the greatest distress, he could make. To which recovery, while the estates could not be legally call’d, he happening to attain without them, so order’d his affairs, that his successors, by adding to his inventions, came to rule without this assembly; a way not suting with the nature of their balance, which therfore requir’d som assistance by force, and other concurring policys of the like nature, wherof the foren guards of that monarchy are one; the great baits alluring the nobility another; and the emergent interest of the church a third.

To begin with the last of these; the church (except it be in a war for religion, as when they join’d with the princes of Lorrain, and what party of the French nobility were made, or they could make against the king of Navar) are not of themselves so hot at hand, or promt to arms: but the king being (to use their word) no heretic, thro their great apprehension of the third estate, as that which is most addicted to the Protestant religion, may be confident they will never side with the people. So by this emergent interest or accident he has the church sure enough.

For the nobility, which is exceeding gallant, this change has the greatest baits; for wheras the church being not spar’d, the third estate is laden, and the peasant overladen with taxes, the nobility is not only at better ease in this regard, but for the greater or more considerable part, receives advantage by it: the king having always, whether in peace or war, a great cavalry, than which there is no better in the world for the exercise, entertainment, and profit of the nobility: governments of citys, castles, provinces in abundance, which he rarely distributes to any other. The greater nobility are marechals, generals; the less officers in the armys, specially of the horse, the emoluments wherof they receive also in time of peace; and many of this order being pensioners, taste of the king’s liberality, without taking pains, or having any imployment at all. By which both that France is a monarchy by a nobility, and how she holds her nobility, is apparent.

Now the church and the nobility standing thus ingag’d to the king, by which means he has two parts of the balance to one, it is demonstrable that the government must be quiet. Nor, seeing the church for the reason shewn is sure enough, coms the government (since the Protestant citys and holds were demolish’d) to be otherwise disquieted than by the flying out of the nobility, which, whenever it happens in any party considerable, either for the number, or the interest, causes the crown to shake; for it seldom coms to pass upon this occasion, but the third estate, or som part of it, takes arms immediately. In which place it is worthy to be observ’d, that wealth, according to the distribution of the balance, has contrary motions. The third estate in France having riches, and those laden with taxes, com to have somthing to lose, and somthing to save: which keeps them in continual fear or hope. The nobility holding to the king, the third estate has somthing to lose, which withholds them from arms thro fear; but the nobility flying out, the third estate has somthing to save, which precipitats them into arms thro hope: wheras the peasant having nothing to save or to lose, to hope or to fear, never stirs. The case standing thus, the sufficiency of the French politician (since the masterpiece of cardinal Richlieu, in demolishing those walls of the Protestants, which had otherwise by this time bin a refuge for the third estate, and perhaps overturn’d the monarchy) lys altogether in finding for the nobility work abroad, or balancing them in such sort at home, that if a party flys out, there may be a stronger within to reduce it, or at least to be oppos’d to it. In this case, left the native interest of the nobility, since the assemblys of the three estates were abolish’d, might cool the remaining party, or make them slower in the redress of such disorder or discontents than were requisit, the king is wisely provided of foren guards; which being always in readiness, and not obnoxious to the native interest, may upon like occasions be of more expedition and trust. Being com thus to foren arms, which is the point I more especially propos’d to myself in the present discourse, one objection in relation to what has bin already said, seems to interpose itself. Seeing France, while it is not govern’d by the assembly of states, is yet of the same balance it was when govern’d by the assembly of states; it may be said that a government of the same balance may admit of divers administrations.

To which I need make no other answer, than to put you in mind, that while this government was natural, or administer’d by the assembly of states, it is celebrated by Machiavel to have bin the best order’d of any monarchy in the world; and that what it is, or has bin of later times, you may believe your own eys or ears.

Of arms, and their kind.There be yet, before I can com to foren guards, som previous considerations. All government, as is imply’d by what has bin already shewn, is of these three kinds: a government of servants: a government of subjects; or, a government of citizens. The first is absolute monarchy, as that of Turky: the second aristocratical monarchy, as that of France: the third a commonwealth, as those of Israel, of Rome, of Holland. Now (to follow Machiavel in part) of these, the government of servants is the harder to be conquer’d, and the easier to be held: the government of subjects is the easier to be conquer’d, and the harder to be held. To which I shall presume to add, that the government of citizens is both the hardest to be conquer’d, and the hardest to be held.

My author’s reasons, why a government of servants is the hardest to be conquer’d, com to this, that they are under perpetual disciplin and command, void of such interests and factions, as have hands or power to lay hold upon advantages or innovation; whence he that invades the Turk must trust to his own strength, and not rely upon disorders in the government, or forces which he shall be sure enough to find united.

His reasons why this government being once broken, is easily held, are, that the armys once past hope of rallying, there being no such thing as familys hanging together, or nobility to stir up their dependents to further reluctancy for the present, or to preserve themselves by complacence with the conquerors for future discontents or advantages, he that has won the garland has no more to do but to extinguish the royal line, and wear it ever after in security. For the people having bin always slaves, are such whose condition he may better, in which case they are gainers by their conqueror; but can never make worse, and therfore they lose nothing by him. Hence Alexander having conquer’d the Persian empire, he and his captains after him could hold it without the least dispute, except it arose among themselves. Hence Mahomet the Second having taken Constantinople, and put Palæologus the Greec emperor (whose government was of like nature with the Persian) together with his whole family, to the sword, the Turc has held that empire without reluctancy.

On the other side, the reasons why a government of subjects is easilier conquer’d, are these: That it is supported by a nobility so antient, so powerful, and of such hold and influence upon the people, that the king without danger, if not ruin to himself or the throne (an example wherof was given in Hen. 7th of England) can neither invade their privileges, nor level their estates; which remaining, they have power upon every discontent to call in an enemy, as Robert count of Artois did the English, and the duke of Guise the Spaniard into France.

The reasons why a government of subjects being so easily conquer’d, is nevertheless the harder to be held, are these: That the nobility being soon out of countenance in such a case, and repenting themselves of such a bargain, have the same means in their hands wherby they brought in the enemy, to drive him out, as those of France did both the English and the Spaniard.

For the government of citizens, as it is of two kinds, an equal or an inequal commonwealth, the reasons why it is the hardest to be conquer’d, are also of two kinds; as first, the reasons why a government of citizens, where the commonwealth is equal, is hardest to be conquer’d, are, that the invader of such a society must not only trust to his own strength, inasmuch as the commonwealth being equal, he must needs find them united, but in regard that such citizens, being all soldiers or train’d up to their arms, which they use not for the defence of slavery, but of liberty (a condition not in this world to be better’d) they have more specially upon this occasion the highest soul of courage, and (if their territory be of any extent) the vastest body of a well disciplin’d militia that is possible in nature: wherfore an example of such a one overcom by the arms of a monarch, is not to be found in the world. And if som small city of this frame has happen’d to be vanquish’d by a potent commonwealth, this is her prerogative, her towers are her funeral pile, and she expires in her own flame, leaving nothing to the conqueror but her ashes, as Saguntum overwhelm’d by Carthage, and Numantia by Rome.

The reasons why a government of citizens, where the commonwealth is inequal, is, next the former, the hardest to be conquer’d, are the same, with this difference, that tho her peace be not perfect within, her condition is not to be better’d by any thing without. Wherfore Rome in all her strife never call’d in an enemy; and if an enemy upon occasion of her strife, and hopes of advantage by it, came without calling, he presented her with her most soverain cure, who had no leisure to destroy her self, till having no enemy to find her work, she became her own.

Nondum tibi defuit hostis,

In te verte manus—.

Nor is there any example that a government of this kind was ever subdu’d by the arms of a monarch; tho som indeed may be found that have call’d or suffer’d foren princes or force to com in, as Holland by marriages of their prince, and Genoa thro her factions, as those of the Fiesci and Adorni.Guic. l. 11.

To conclude this part as to the reasons why a government of citizens so acquir’d or possest, as thro marriage, or faction, is the hardest to be held, there needs no more than that men accustom’d to their arms and their liberties will never indure the yoke. Wherfore the Spaniard, tho a mighty king, no sooner began in Holland, a small commonwealth, to innovat or break her orders, than she threw him off with such courage and disdain, as is admirable to the world. And somwhat of the like kind did Genoa by the help of her Doria in the vindication of her liberty from France.

To com by this farthest way about as I think the nearest way home: arms are of of two sorts, proper or improper; that is, native or foren.Proper and improper arms.

Proper and native arms are, according to the triple nature of government, of three kinds; servants in arms, as the helots in Lacedemon, the timariots and janizarys in Turky; subjects in arms, as the horse in France, and the seaguards or forces in Venice; or citizens in arms, as those upon the Lexiarcha in Athens, of the Moræ in Lacedemon, and the legions in Rome.

Improper or foren arms are of two sorts; auxiliarys, and mercenarys.

Auxiliarys are such as are supply’d by virtue of som league, as were those of the Latins and Italians to the Romans; and those of the cantons of Swiss (except Zuric) to the king of France: or they may be such as are occasionally lent freely, or let forth for mony by one state to another, the latter wherof differ not much from mercenarys.

Mercenarys are soldiers of fortune that have no other trade than their arms, and let out themselves for mony; of such consisted the greatest part of the Carthaginian strength, such is the land force of Venice, and, notwithstanding the antient league of France with those nations, such at this day are the Swiss and Scotish guards (and somtimes a good part of the foot) in France.

MACHIAVEL discourses upon these particulars in his art of war, to admiration: by whom I shall therfore steer.

Where the arms in bulk are proper, and consisting of citizens, they have other trades, and therfore are no soldiers of fortune; and yet because the commonwealth has arms for her trade (in regard she is a magistrat given for the good of mankind, and bears not her sword in vain) they are all educated as well in military as civil disciplin, taking their turns in service of either nature according to the occasion, and the orders of the commonwealth, as in Israel, Athens, Lacedemon, and Rome, which had (if their territorys permitted, and somtimes, as I may say, whether their territorys permitted or no, as in Israel) the vastest, the highest temper’d, and the best disciplin’d militia, that is to be found in the whole compass of story. Som armys of Israel have consisted of three or four hundred thousand men:Plin. L. Æmilio Papo, C. Atilio Regulo Coss. Rome upon the rumor of a Gallic tumult, arm’d in Italy only, without foren aid, seventy thousand horse and seven hundred thousand foot; things in our days (when the Turk can hardly arm half so many) not to be credited.

Hence that a commonwealth, which had not first broken her self, or bin broken by som other commonwealth, should not be found to have bin conquer’d by the arms of any monarch, is not miraculous, but a natural effect of an apparent cause. In this place, or upon this text, divines whom I would desire not to be enemys of popular power, but to give Machiavel his due, shall, if they please, hear him make a goodly sermon, in these words:Arte della Guer. Proem. If antient commonwealths and governments us’d diligence in any other order to make their people lovers of peace, faithful to their country, and to have the fear of God before their eys, they doubl’d it in this of their militia: for of whom should your country expect greater faith, than of such as have offer’d themselves to dy for her? Whom should she indeavour to make greater lovers of peace, than them who only can inslave her by force? In whom should there be greater fear of God, than in such as carry their lives in their hands? This, when lawgivers and captains rightly consider’d, was the cause why soldiers were esteem’d, honor’d, follow’d and imitated above all men in the world; wheras since such orders are broken, and custom is altogether deviated from the course of antient prudence, men are com to detest the iniquity of the camp, and fly the conversation of such as are in arms, as the pestilence. Where the arms in bulk are proper, but consist of subjects, they are the best next; and but the best next, as appears by all examples antient and modern. The arms with which Pyrrhus prince of Epirus invaded the Romans, were of subjects; yet that prince, tho he was not vanquish’d by the Romans, confest their advantage, and gave them over. The Spaniard being a far more potent king than was Pyrrhus, has acknowleg’d as much to the Hollanders, tho a far less commonwealth than Rome: so have the princes of Austria, and of Burgundy, to the Switzers. That the arms of subjects are nevertheless as much superior to the arms of servants, as inferior to the arms of citizens, is as plain; seeing as Alexander, with thirty thousand subjects, vanquish’d Darius, having innumerable slaves; so thirty thousand Christians are at this day a match for any army of Turks: and we see Venice, whose force by sea consists of subjects, to have made him quit that element near as fully to her dominion or empire, as did the Persian to Athens.

To arms that are proper, but consist of servants, all the preeminence that can be given is, that they are better than foren arms; a proof wherof we have in those of Selimus, wherby he conquer’d the Mamalucs; who being but a foren force that held Egypt in subjection, the country was irrecoverably lost, and, for the reasons already shewn, as easily kept.

Improper arms, whether auxiliary or mercenary, where the force of a prince or of a commonwealth consists, for the bulk or greater part, of no other, are the least effectual, and the most dangerous of all. For auxiliarys, or what effect has bin found of them by princes or commonwealths, it was seen in France during the league by the Spaniard; and in Holland during the reign of Queen Elizabeth by the English; but especially in the Goths and Vandals, who having been auxiliarys or mercenarys, rely’d upon by the later emperors, came therby to ruin the Roman empire.

Mercenarys who make their arms their trade, must of all others be the most pernicious; for what can we expect less of such whose art is not otherwise so profitable, than that they should (as Machiavel shews) be breakers of their faith, given up to rapin, enemys of peace and government.

To instance in som commonwealths, that of Carthage after her first war with the Romans, fell thro the rebellion of Spendius and Matho, ringleaders of her mercenarys, into another that was far more dangerous. Of such a dilemma were the arms of this state, that if Hannibal had conquer’d Rome, he must have bin king of Carthage; and not conquering Rome, Carthage was ruin’d. The commonwealth of Milan, trusting herself to F. Sforza and his mercenarys, became the subject of her servant, and he her duke. Nor is Venice, whose land-forces are of the same kind, otherwise in safety as to these, than by her situation. To give some instances of the same nature in princes: the father of F. Sforza being captain of a like mercenary army, forc’d Joan queen of Naples, whom he left disarm’d in the midst of her enemys, to lay herself at the feet of the king of Arragon; and Braccio by such another treachery had plainly possest himself of the kingdom of Naples, had he not bin broken at Aquila, where death intercepted his design. From what has bin said (first of government, and then of arms) if a government of servants be harder to be conquer’d, and easier to be held, then in this foren arms must needs be least necessary, and most dangerous.

If a government of subjects be easier to be conquer’d, and harder to be held, then in this foren arms may be more necessary, but must be less dangerous.

But tho a government of citizens be both hardest to be conquer’d, and hardest to be held, yet as it is again in this regard of two kinds, this cannot be said of each kind alike; wherfore I must distinguish.

In a government of citizens, if the commonwealth be not for increase, but preservation only, as Lacedemon, Carthage, Venice, foren arms are both necessary and dangerous; but in a government of citizens, where the commonwealth is both for increase and preservation, as Rome, foren arms are neither necessary nor dangerous.

To repeat the parts of this conclusion, which being brief is obscure, more fully and particularly.

The empire of Turky is of the harder kind to be conquer’d, wherfore the Turk needs not foren guards to defend him, but it is of the easier to be held; wherfore let him take heed of intrusting his person with foren guards, who having a foren interest, may have a foren nation to assist them: and so the person of the prince being in their hands, they have no more to do than to extinguish the royal line; and the empire being easily held, is their own thenceforth with security. Thus the Mamalucs, which were at first foren guards, extinguishing the royal line of the kings of Egypt, came to possess and hold that realm without opposition. Who well considers this point, will never enough admire the policy of the Turc in the creation (as it were) of his Janizarys, free from any national interest that might make them dream of, or desire liberty; and yet so void of all foren interest or knowledge, that they know not what, or who were their country or parents. Hence tho they have interest to murder the Turc, and somtimes do accordingly, they have no further interest in the world but what depends upon the government; and so the empire is safe, tho the prince be in danger: wheras if they were foren guards, or had any native interest, not only the prince, but the empire too, would be in danger, the rest being servants, and such whose condition might be better’d by a change, but could be no worse. Wherfore a government of servants must by no means admit of foren guards or Mamalucs.

But the empire of France, where the nobility are not only subject to fly out, but to call in strangers, may have use of foren guards, which not obnoxious to native interest and factions, as those of the nobility, are the readiest and best help at this lift; yet not dangerous, tho having the prince in their power, because by him they are safe from the nobility, who, were it not for the prince, would be so far from bearing or brooking foren guards, that in case a forener came in upon their call, having the same means to help themselves wherby they brought him in, they would shake the yoke, and the ends why they call’d him in, being satisfy’d or repented of, drive him out again as they did the Spaniards and the English. But if this government being invaded or conquer’d, be so hard to be kept, how much harder being surpriz’d? Wherfore in a government by subjects, foren arms may be more necessary, but must be less dangerous.

In a commonwealth for preservation, as Lacedemon, Carthage, Venice, foren arms are necessary: so Lacedemon, tho able to defend her self by her proper forces against any one city, yet the wars in Greece going much upon leagues and confederats, were forced also to make use of her confederats, and somtimes of her helots.

But as antiently to Carthage, so now to Venice, foren or mercenary forces are essential, because for land-service such a constitution can have no other; yet is this course extremely dangerous, as appear’d by Lacedemon, who (being ever in fear of her helots) when she had acquir’d upon the matter the whole empire of Greece, came, by the rebellion of her confederats, not only to lose all, but likewise to ruin. For Carthage, upon the mutiny of Spendius and Matho, she escap’d, as at other times upon like occasions, very narrowly. That such an accident neither has befaln Venice, nor can befal her, is to be attributed to her situation, by which, in this regard, she is secure: nevertheless, her progress or increase, which by this means either cannot be great, or being great, must render her but the more infirm, is fully barr’d.

To a commonwealth for increase, which always takes in the whole body of the people, foren arms (seeing she abounds above all other kinds of policy, with such as are proper) must needs be the least necessary; and they are the most safe, because never admitting them, but for her mere convenience and frugality in expence of native blood, she receives no such charge of them as can recoil, but must carry point blank, and as vigorously at her proper interest, very near as her proper arms. Thus did the Latin and Italian auxiliarys, of which, join’d with the Roman legions, consisted a consular army.

By thus much it seems that an inference from the success of arms to the perfection of government, and from the perfection of government to the success of arms, should be no fallacious way of disputing.

But this being sweaty work with the considerer, who loves his ease, it is enough to argue thus: The Switz, Scotish, and French guards, have never bin the authors of any sedition, therfore the seditiousness of a nobility may be mended by foren guards: which is, as if one should say, such a physician has never bin the cause of the gout; therfore the gout may be cur’d by such a physician. That foren arms may be well enough apply’d in the case of a seditious nobility, and have som good effects, is not deny’d: but is France therfore cur’d of her sedition, or remains she, notwithstanding her foren guards, the most seditious example in the world? If thus she has not bin, nor be, what has he read of the princes of the blood in former times, or heard of late from them? But if thus she has bin, and be, is it not a fine way of cure, to give us an example of the disease for the remedy? Nor are her guards so void of sedition neither: but the Switzer, if he wants his pay, dares threaten Paris: the Scot, at least of late years, has not bin so bold; but if a prince flys out, the ensigns of the French guards will one way or other be captains, while soldier and officer too follows his affections or interests, which way soever they frame. I should be glad to know when a dragon fell from that court, that it did not bear down stars with his train. But the prevaricator is set upon it: wheras of late years, the Janizarys are known to have bin far more imbru’d in the blood of their princes than ever; he gives us his honest word, that of late years in Turky they begin to learn the art of poising the Janizarys (who are the foot of the prince’s guard) by the Spahys (who are the horse of the same) and so have frequently evaded the danger of their mutinys. At which rate, seeing every army consists of horse and foot, no army could be mutinous. If these had not bin mere flights, and so intended, he might have don well to have shewn us one mutiny of the Janizarys appeas’d by the Spahys. But all the parts of his politics, as was said of those in rhetoric, consist of pronunciation.

Thus the wounds of monarchy, notwithstanding the former, or this last remedy of foren guards, are still bleeding or festering.

But his courage is undaunted (aut viam inveniet aut faciet) he will either mend a government, or make one, by asserting without any example, but with egregious confidence, That the perfection of monarchy is free from those flaws which are charg’d upon it, and that it consists in governing by a nobility, weighty enough to keep the people under, and yet not tall enough in any particular person to measure with the prince; and by a moderat army kept under the notion of guards and garisons, which may be sufficient to strangle all sedition in the cradle:Consid. p. 48, 49. from which mixture or counterpoise of a nobility and an army, arises the most excellent form of monarchical government.

There’s for your learning now, A model which is a short horse, and a legislator that has soon curry’d him. To the parts of it, consisting of a nobility, and in force, I have already spoken severally. I shall now speak to the whole together; that is, to the imagin’d mixture or counterpoise of a nobility and an army; and because there is nothing in nature that has not had a natural effect by som example.

The scale of arms, or of iron, continu’d in the line of William the Conqueror; and the scale of property, or gold, continu’d in the barons of England, and their successors. But in this before the barons wars consisted not the perfection of the monarchy, because it preponderated too much on the side of arms; nor after the barons wars, because the king, putting power (which he could not keep out of their fingers) into the hands of the nobility, it became a vicious constitution, and a monarchy only in name (so says the considerer) therfore the balance being then only even, when neither the king could overbalance or get the better of the barons, nor the barons overbalance or get the better of the king; the perfection of monarchy consisted in the barons wars? Lycurgus the second!

Mark; the king by all means must have a nobility weighty enough to keep down the people; and then he must have an army to hold gold weight with his nobility: as if the nobility in that case would keep down the people, and not fetch them up (as did the barons) into their scale, that so together they might weigh down the army; which sooner or later is the infallible consequence of this phansy, or let it be shewn where it was ever otherwise. To instance in France is quite contrary, where all the considerable officers and commands being in the nobility, or the richer sort of that nation, the balance of arms and of property are not two, but one and the same. There is no way for monarchy, but to have no army, or no other than the nobility, which makes the regulated monarchy, as in France, Spain, &c. or to have an army that may weigh down nobility and people too; that is, destroy them both, which makes the absolute way of monarchy, as in Turky: the wit of man never found nor shall find a third, there being no such thing in nature.

This chapter is already with the longest, and yet I must give you a corollary, pouce de roy, or a piece above measure; relating to a question on which the greenest politician that ever brought his verjuice to the press has spur’d me.

Consid. p. 49, 50.Where he desires to know my opinion of the way of governing by councils, which he confesses he has always thought admirable; he dos not mean such as are coordinat with the prince (which have been seen in the world) but such as those of Spain, purely of advice and dispatch, with power only to inform and persuade, but not limit the prince’s will. For almost all the weaknesses which have bin thought incident to monarchy are by this course prevented; and if there be any steadiness and maturity in the senat of a commonwealth, this takes it all in.

To give my counsil without a fee, and deal sincerely with a prevaricator: let the prince (that is, such a one as his) hold himself contented with his divan, or cabinet. If this be that he means, we are agreed; but if he would have more, I can make no less of his words than a hankering after such councils as I have propos’d, and that these are such as he always thought admirable, such as prevent almost all the weaknesses incident to monarchy, and take in the steadiness and maturity of a commonwealth.

How may we make this agree with that other place, where he says, that there is no frame of laws, or constitution of government, which will not decay and com to ruin, unless repair’d by the prudence and dexterity of them that govern?Consid. p. 68. now that this may not be expected from a monarch, as well as from a senat or assembly of men, he has not yet met with any conviction, but rather finds it reasonable to think that where debates are clearest, the result of them most secret, and the execution sudden (which are the advantages of monarchy) there the disorders of a state will soonest be discover’d, and the necessary remedys best apply’d. In that former place he bethought himself that the debates of Rome were as clear as those of Antiochus, that her results were as secret as those of Philip or Perseus, and of more sudden execution than either of theirs. He doubted it might be true, which is affirm’d by good authors, and commonly enough known, that for the clearness of debate, and secresy of result, the world never saw any thing like the senat of Venice; and that in all appearance they are for execution as quick with the Divan, as the Divan can be with them. Now when all this is don, to banish such generous thoughts without shewing us for what cause, and knock under the table, is sad news. But he shall find me, in any thing that is reasonable, most ready to serve him. To the question then, how such councils as I have propos’d would do with a prince; I answer, truly the best of them, I doubt, but untowardly. One, that is the popular assembly, has no mean, but is either the wisest in nature, or has no brains at all. When affairs go upon no other than the public interest, this having no other interest to follow, nor eys to see withal, is the wisest council: but such ways are destructive to a prince, and they will have no nay. The congregation of Israel, when Rehoboam would not hearken to their advice, depos’d him: and we know what popular councils, so soon as they came to sufficient power, did in England. If a prince put a popular council from this ward, he dos a great matter, and to little purpose; for they understand nothing else but themselves. Wherfore the kings of France and of Spain have dissolv’d all such assemblys. It is true, where a prince is not strong enough to get mony out of them but by their consent, they are necessary: yet then they are not purely of advice and dispatch, but share in the government, and he cannot be meddling with their purses, but they will be meddling with his laws. The senat is of fitter use for a prince, and yet, except he has the way of Tiberius, but a ticklish piece, as appears by Maximinus, who was destroy’d by Pupienus and Balbinus, captains set up against him by this order. To go to the root: these things are not otherwise in prudence or choice than by direction of the balance; where this is popular, no remedy but the prince must be advis’d by the people, which if the late king would have indur’d, the monarchy might have subsisted somwhat longer: but while the balance was aristocratical, as during the great estates of the nobility and the clergy, we find not the people to have bin great or wise counsillors. In sum, if a king governs by a popular council, or house of commons, the throne will not stand long: if he governs by a senat, or a house of lords, let him never fear the throne, but have a care of himself: there is no third, as I have said often enough, but the Divan.


Whether a Commonwealth that was not first broken by her self, was ever conquer’d by the Arms of any Monarch?

I COM in this chapter to resume the discourse, where I broke off in the former, making good my assertion, that a commonwealth is the government, which from the beginning of the world to this day was never conquer’d by any monarch; for if the commonwealths of Greece came under the yoke of the kings of Macedon, they were first broken by themselves.

When I speak of a commonwealth, in relation to this point, I am no more to be argu’d against out of the little citys in Asia, or those of Ragusa, and San Marino, which cannot be shewn to have had the command of any considerable army, than I argue against the prevaricator, where he asserts monarchy to consist of a mixture of arms and of a nobility, from the king of Yuetot, who had neither.

This assertion in the judgment of any rational man ought not to be incounter’d, but where there was a natural possibility of defence, in regard that a city which has no army at all, as Geneva (which yet being invaded by the duke of Savoy, found means to defend her self) or such a one as is not considerable, should be subdu’d by some potent monarch (if we could find the example) concerns the government no more, than if it had been overwhelm’d by som inundation, or swallow’d up by som earthquake. And yet all that is oppos’d by the considerer, amounts not to thus much.Consid. p. 53. Paus. Messen. The testimony he brings out of Pausanias coms far short; for it is recorded (says the author speaking of the Lacedemonians) that being corrupted by the bounty of Cræsus, they were the first that contracted amity with the Barbarians at the time when that king added the territorys inhabited by the Dorians upon the border of Caria, with other commonwealths in Asia, to his empire. So that Cræsus corrupted the Lacedemonians with gifts, Pausanias is express; but whether he obtain’d the Asiatic citys (likely in this case to have bin easilier corrupted than the Lacedemonians) by arms or by purchase, he is not express: and the presumtion of the latter, as in other regards, so in this, is the stronger, that Cræsus by the testimony of Solon, was more potent in gold than in iron. Now if it were so (and if otherwise, let the considerer shew) that these commonwealths inveigl’d by the treasure of Cræsus, came first under the Lydian, and fell with that under the Persian empire, when Cræsus was subdu’d by Cyrus; all I can learn by this example is no more than that Cræsus, for ought that is perceivable, might have brought those commonwealths as Cosimo of Medicis did Florence; from whom it is affirm’d by Machiavel, that there was not a considerable man in the whole city that had not receiv’d som considerable sum. So this example presumes; but in the next, which is of Sicily, there is not so much as a presumtion in favor of the assertor: the state of Sicily, before that which the Romans call the first Carthaginian war, being clear in story against his design.Chap. X.Fazello Hist de Sicil. Polyb. l. 1. For that Africa for the generation of monsters is not more famous than Sicily for that of tyrants, they who have pass’d their novitiat in story are not ignorant; nor how when Timoleon had freed her of this vermin, and with liberty she had recover’d some strength and virtue, she relaps’d under Agathocles and his horrid violation of faith, while he was trusted with the arms of her citizens; how after him Pyrrhus was call’d in from Epirus; after Pyrrhus, Hiero usurp’d; all by the same arts, getting first into trust or charge, and then recoiling upon them that would take no warning: by which it is apparent that the commonwealths of Sicily, like those of Greece, were ruin’d by themselves, and their own disorders; and no more subdu’d upon these changes by foren arms, than was Israel by the Canaanites, or Rome by the Gauls or Decemvirs.

ISRAEL having broken her orders, was indeed somtimes opprest by the Canaanites; Rome was sack’d by the Gauls, and usurp’d by the Decemvirs. But as the man that having got a fall in a duel, throws off his adversary, recovers himself and his sword, is not conquer’d, so neither the commonwealth:Decree of the States of Holland apud Grot. Hist. 4. wherfore neither Holland nor Genoa, tho they have bin under, being yet standing, can be said to be conquer’d by the arms of Spain or France, but rather the contrary; seeing the liberty of Holland (in many citys more ancient than any records or other monuments there can witness, and in it self than that of Tacitus, wherby Civilis, born of princely blood, is affirm’d to have vindicated the Betavian freedom) is still the same; and Genoa, tho happy in her Doria, remains as she was before he was born. Nor did the family of the Medicis banish’d out of Florence (where, by virtue of their prodigious wealth, and the inevitable consequence of the balance, their ancestors had bin princes many years before Charles the Fifth was a soldier) any more by the help of his arms, those of the Pope (at that time of the same family) and their party at home, than get into their known saddle. To insist a little more at large upon the storys of Genoa and Florence (because upon these the prevaricator sets up his rest that Mr. Harrington must needs be afflicted) Genoa was and is an oligarchy consisting of twenty-eight familys, making the great council, or aggregation, as they call it, none of these being capable of the senat or of magistracy; and if it could ever be said of a commonwealth, that she had broken her self, it might be said, at the time related to, of Genoa, where not only the faction of the Guelphs and Gibelins, which had destroy’d many citys in Italy, then reign’d; but the feud between the people included, and the subject excluded, was as great as ever had bin between the nobility and the people in Rome. Besides the quarrel of the Fieschi and the Adorni, two familys, like Cæsar and Pompey, which having many years together as it were ingroft the magistracy of duke, were nevertheless perpetually striving each with other, which should have it; and if one of these (as it did) brought in the king of France, there is nothing plainer than that this commonwealth was subdu’d by her own sedition, nor is there a man knowing any thing of her affairs, that makes any doubt of it. That of Florence indeed, if the prevaricator could shew it had bin ever up, I should grant were down; but to relate the story of this city, I must relate that of the house of Medicis. From Cosimo, a citizen famous throout Europe, both for his wisdom and his riches, this family for the space of sixty years exercis’d, under the pretext of some magistracy,Comines. very great power in Florence.P. Jovius. To Cosimo succeded Peter, to Peter Laurence, a man in prudence and liberality resembling his grandfather,Machiavel. save that he us’d more absolute power in managing the commonwealth; yet with gentleness, and not altogether to the suppression of liberty. Nevertheless he obtain’d of the signory (which did for the most part as he would have them) som small guard for his person: he was a man renown’d thro Italy, and look’d upon by foren princes with much respect. To him succeded his son, another Peter, who thro youth and rashness conceiving the power exercis’d by his predecessors to be no more than his due, took upon him the government as absolute lord of all; and standing most formidably upon his guard, grew sottishly profuse of the public mony, and committed many absurditys and violences: by which means having incurr’d the hatred of the citizens, he was banish’d by the signory, with cardinal John and Julian his brothers. This John coming after to be Pope Leo the Tenth, requir’d the revocation of his brother’s banishment, and the restitution of the house of Medicis; to which finding the prevailing party of the Florentins to be refractory, he stir’d up the arms of the emperor Charles the Fifth against them, by whose joint aid the city, after a long siege, was reduc’d to her old ward, and Alexander of Medicis, nephew to the Pope and son in law to the emperor, set in the known saddle of his ancestors. This is the action for which the prevaricator will have a commonwealth to have bin conquer’d by the arms of a monarch, tho whoever reads the story may very safely affirm, first, That Florence never attain’d to any such orders as could deserve the name of a commonwealth; and next, that the purse of Cosimo had don that long before, which is here attributed to the arms of the Pope and the emperor. Reason and experience, as I said, are like the roots and the branches of plants and trees: as of branches, fruits, and flowers, being open and obvious to the eye, the smell, the touch, and taste, every girl can judg; so examples to vulgar capacitys are the best arguments. Let him that says a commonwealth has bin at any time conquer’d by a monarch, to it again, and shew us the example. But tho fruits and flowers be easily known each from other, their roots are latent, and not only so, but of such resemblance, that to distinguish of these a man must be a gardener or a herbalist. In this manner, the reason why a commonwealth has not bin overcom by a monarch, has bin shewn in the distribution of arms, those of a prince consisting of subjects, or servants, and those of a commonwealth rightly order’d of citizens, which difference plainly relates to the perfection or imperfection of the government.

Consid. p. 51.BUT, says the prevaricator, this seems intended for a trial of our noses, whether they will serve us to discover the fallacy of an inference from the prosperous success of arms to the perfection of government. If the university, who should have som care of the vineyard of truth, shall ly pigging of wild boars, to grunt in this manner and tear with their tusks, and I happen to ring som of them (as I have don this Marcassin for rooting) there is nothing in my faith why such trial of their noses should be sin; but for fallacious inferences, such I leave to them whose caps are squarer than their play.

For all that, great and well policy’d empires, says he, have bin subverted by people so eloign’d from the perfection of government, that we scarce know of any thing to ty them together, but the desire of booty. Where, or how came he to know this? what reason or experience dos he allege for the proof of it? may we not say of this, it is for the trial of our noses, whether they will serve us to discover that a conclusion should have some premises? he gives us leave to go look, and all the premises that I can find are quite contrary.

The arms of Israel were always victorious till the death of Joshua, wherupon the orders of that commonwealth being neglected, they came afterwards to be seldom prosperous.Judg. ch. 1. & 2. Isocrates in his oration to the Areopagits, speaks thus of Athens: The Lacedemonians, who when we were under oligarchy, every day commanded us somthing; now while we are under popular administration, are our petitioners that we would not see them utterly ruin’d by the Thebans. Nor did Lacedemon fall to ruin till her agrarian, the foundation of her government was first broken. The arms of Rome (ever noted by historians, and clearly evinc’d by Machiavel to have bin the result of her policy) during the popular government were at such a pitch, as if victory had known no other wings than those of her eagles:Arte della Guerra. nor seeing the Goths and Vandals are the legislators, from whom we derive the government of king, lords, and commons, were these when they overcame the Roman empire, a people so eloign’d from the perfection of government, but their policy was then far better than that of the emperors, which having bin at first founded upon a broken senat, and a few military colonys, was now com to a cabinet and a mercenary army. The judgment of all ages and writers upon the policy of the Roman emperors, is in this place worthy, and thro the pains already taken by Erasmus and Sleidan, easy to be inserted. O miserable and deplorable state, says Erasmus, the authority of the senat, the power of the law, the liberty of the people being trod under foot!In his preface to Suetonius. to a prince that got up in this manner, the whole world was a servant, while he himself was a servant to such, as no honest man would have indur’d the like servants in his house: the senat dreaded the emperor, the emperor dreaded his execrable militia: the emperor gave laws to kings, and receiv’d them from his mercenarys.De quat. Imp. To this is added by Sleidan, that the condition of these princes was so desperat, it was a wonderful thing ambition it self could have the courage to run such a hazard; seeing from Caius Cæsar slain in the senat to Charles the Great, there had bin above thirty of them murder’d, and four that had laid violent hands upon themselves: for there was always somthing in them that offended the soldiery, which whether they were good or bad, was equally subject to pick quarrels, upon the least occasion rais’d tumults, and dispatch’d even such of them as they had forc’d to accept of that dignity, for example, Ælius Pertinax. But if this be true, that of the Goths and Vandals, when they subdu’d this empire, must have bin the better government; for so ill as this never was there any, except that only of the kings of Israel, which certainly was much worse. Those of the Britains and the Gauls were but the dregs of this of Rome, when they were overcome by the Saxons and Franks, who brought in the policy of the Goths and Vandals.

When Tamerlan overcame Bajazet, the Turkish policy had not attain’d to that ancient territory, which is plainly necessary to the nature of it, nor was the order of the Janizarys yet instituted. The Hollander, who under a potent prince was but a fisherman, with the restitution of a popular government, is becom the better soldier; nor has he bin match’d but by a rising commonwealth, whose policy you will say was yet worse, but then her balance (being that especially which produces men) was far better. For vastness, for fruitfulness of territory, for bodys of men, for number, for courage, nature never made a country more potent than Germany: yet this nation, antiently the seminary of nations, has of late years, merely thro the defect of her policy (which intending one commonwealth, has made a hundred monarchys in her bowels, whose cross interests twist her guts) bin the theater of the saddest tragedys under the sun; nor is she curable, unless som prince falling to work with the hammer of war, be able totally to destroy the old, and forge her a government intirely new. But if this coms to pass, neither shall it be said, that a well-policy’d empire was subverted, nor by a people so eloign’d from perfection of government, but theirs must be much better than the other. Let me be as ridiculous as you will, the world is (in fæce romuli) ripe for great changes which must com. And look to it, whether it be Germany, Spain, France, Italy, or England, that coms first to fix her self upon a firm foundation of policy, she shall give law to, and be obey’d by the rest. There was never so much fighting as of late days to so little purpose; arms, except they have a root in policy, are altogether fruitless. In the war between the king and the parlament, not the nation only, but the policy of it was divided; and which part of it was upon the better foundation?

Consid. p. 51BUT, says he, Ragusa and San Marino are commended for their upright and equal frame of government, and yet have hardly extended their dominion beyond the size of a handsom mannor.

Have Ragusa or San Marino bin conquer’d by the arms of any monarch? for this (I take it) is the question; tho, if they had, these being commonwealths unarm’d, it were nothing to the purpose. The question of increase is another point. Lacedemon could not increase (because her frame was of another nature) without ruin; yet was she not conquer’d by any monarch.

Consid. p. 52.Com, com, says he, for all this; it is not the perfection of government, but the populousness of a nation, the natural valor of the inhabitants, the abundance of horses, arms, and other things necessary for equipping of an army, assisted with a good military disciplin, that qualify a people for conquest; and where these concur, victory is intail’d upon them. Very fine!

As if these could concur any otherwise than by virtue of the policy. For example, there is no nation under heaven more populous than France:Essay 29. yet, says Sir Francis Bacon, if the gentlemen be too many, the commons will be base, and not the hundredth poll fit for a helmet, as may be seen by comparison of England with France, wherof the former, tho far less in territory and populousness, has bin nevertheless the overmatch; in regard the middle people in England make good soldiers, which the peasants in France do not. This therfore was from the policy, by which the one has bin the freest, and the other the most inslav’d subject in the world; and not from populousness, in which case France must have bin the overmatch.

The like is observable in the natural valor of the people, there being no greater courage of an infantry, than that of the middle people in England, wheras the peasant having none at all, is never us’d in arms. Again, France has one of the best cavalrys in the world, which the English never had, yet it avail’d her not. Victory is more especially intail’d upon courage, and courage upon liberty, which grows not without a root planted in the policy or foundation of the government.

ALEXANDER with a handful of freemen overcame the greatest abundance of horses, arms, and other things necessary for the equipping of an army, the hugest armys, the most vast and populous empire in the world: and when he had don, could not by all these subdue that handful of freer men (tho he kill’d Clytus with his own hand in the quarrel) to the servil customs of that empire. And that the best military disciplin deriv’d from the policy of the Romans, I intimated before, and have shewn at large in other places.

But the prevaricator neither minds what is said, nor cares what he says; to affirm that a commonwealth was never conquer’d by any monarch, and that a commonwealth has conquer’d many monarchs, or frequently led mighty kings in triumph, is to run upon the foil, the second proposition being with him no more than only the conversion of the first.Chap. XI.Consid. p. 55. As if that Rome was not conquer’d by the world, and that the world was conquer’d by Rome, were but a simple conversion. So the world having not conquer’d Venice, it must follow, that Venice has conquer’d the world. Do we take, or are we taken? nor is he thus satisfy’d to burn his fingers, but he will blister his tongue.

Where I said that the commonwealth of Venice, consisting of all them that first fled from the main land to those ilands where the city is now planted, at the institution took in the whole people, he would make you believe I had said that the senat of Venice, at the first institution, took in the whole people:Consid. p. 70. it is matter of fact, and that in which his integrity will be apparent to every man’s judgment.Oceana, p. 41. I pray see the places. And yet when he has put this trick upon me, he tells me, perhaps it is not true; and this only I grant him past peradventure is false, whether that I said it, or that the thing is possible. For how is it possible, that the senat, which is no otherwise such than as it consists of the aristocracy, or select part of the people, should take in the whole people? it is true, that good authors, both antient and modern, when they speak of the senat of Rome, or of Venice historically, imply the people. Machiavel speaks of the magistracy of Publilius Philo, as prolong’d by the senat of Rome, without making any mention of the people, by whom nevertheless it was granted: the like is usual with other authors. Thuanus seldom mentions the commonwealth of Venice, but by the name of the senat; which not understood by the learned Considerer, where Contarini speaks in the same manner of the courses taken by the commonwealth of Venice, for withholding the subject in the city from sedition, he takes him to be speaking of the means wherby the senat (an’t please you) keeps the people under: and so having put one trick upon me, and another upon Contarini, these two are his premises, whence he draws this conclusion; that Venice is as much as any in the world an inequal commonwealth. Now the conclusion you know nobody can deny.


Whether there be not an Agrarian, or som Law of Laws of that Nature, to supply the Defect of it in every Commonwealth: And whether the Agrarian, as it is stated in Oceana, be not equal and satisfactory to all Interests.

IN this chapter the prevaricator’s devices are the most welfavor’d: for wheras the agrarian of Oceana dos no more than pin the basket, which is already fill’d, he gets up into the tree where the birds have long since eaten all the cherrys, and with what clouts he can rake up, makes a most ridiculous scarcrow. This pains he needed not to have taken, if he had not slighted overmuch the Lexicon, of which he allows me to be the author; yet will have it, that he understood the words before, som of which nevertheless his ill understanding requires should be further interpreted in this place, as property, balance, agrarian, and levelling.

Property is that which is every man’s own by the law of the land; and of this there is nothing stirr’d, but all intirely left as it was found by the agrarian of Oceana.

Property in mony (except, as has bin shewn, in citys that have little or no territory) coms not to the present account. But property in land, according to the distribution that happens to be of the same, causes the political balance producing empire of the like nature: that is, if the property in lands be so diffus’d thro the whole people that neither one landlord, nor a few landlords overbalance them, the empire is popular. If the property in lands be so ingrost by the few, that they overbalance the whole people, the empire is aristocratical, or mix’d monarchy; but if property in lands be in one landlord, to such a proportion as overbalances the whole people, the empire is absolute monarchy. So the political balance is threefold, democratical, aristocratical, and monarchical.

Each of these balances may be introduc’d either by the legislator at the institution of the government, or by civil vicissitude, alienation, or alteration of property under government.

Examples of the balance introduc’d at the institution, and by the legislator, are first those in Israel, and Lacedemon, introduc’d by God or Moses, and Lycurgus, which were democratical or popular. Secondly, those in England, France, and Spain, introduc’d by the Goths, Vandals, Saxons, and Franks, which were aristocratical, or such as produc’d the government of king, lords, and commons. Thirdly, those in the East and Turky, introduc’d by Nimrod and Mahomet or Ottoman, which were purely monarchical.

Examples of the balance introduc’d by civil vicissitude, alienation, or alteration of property under government, are in Florence, where the Medici attaining to excessive wealth, the balance alter’d from popular to monarchical:Pausan. in Greece, where the Argives being lovers of equality and liberty,Corinth. reduc’d the power of their kings to so small a matter, that there remain’d to the children and successors of Cisus little more than the title, where the balance alter’d from monarchical to popular. In Rome, about the time of Crassus, the nobility having eaten the people out of their lands, the balance alter’d from popular, first to aristocratical, as in the triumvirs, Cæsar, Pompey and Crassus; and then to monarchical, as when Crassus being dead, and Pompey conquer’d, the whole came to Cæsar.Arist. Pol. l. 5. c. 3. In Tarentum, and not long after the war with the Medes, the nobility being wasted and overcom by Iapyges, the balance, and with that the commonwealth, chang’d from aristocratical to popular: the like of late has discover’d itself in Oceana. When a balance coms so thro civil vicissitude to be chang’d, that the change cannot be attributed to human providence, it is more peculiarly to be ascrib’d to the hand of God; and so when there happens to be an irresistible change of the balance, not the old government which God has repeal’d, but the new government which he dictats as present legislator, is of divine right.

This volubility of the balance being apparent, it belongs to legislators to have eys, and to occur with som prudential or legal remedy or prevention: and the laws that are made in this case are call’d agrarian. So an agrarian is a law fixing the balance of a government in such a manner that it cannot alter.

This may be don divers ways, as by intailing the lands upon certain familys, without power of alienation in any case, as in Israel and Lacedemon; or, except with leave of the magistrat, as in Spain but this, by making som familys too secure, as those in possession, and others too despairing, as those not in possession, may make the whole people less industrious.

Wherfore the other way, which by the regulation of purchases ordains only that a man’s land shall not excede som certain proportion; for example, two thousand pounds a year; or, exceding such a proportion, shall divide in descending to the children, so soon as being more than one they shall be capable of such a division, or subdivision, till the greater share excedes not two thousand pounds a year in land, lying and being within the native territory, is that which is receiv’d and establish’d by the commonwealth of Oceana.

By levelling, they who use the word seem to understand, when a people rising invades the lands and estates of the richer sort, and divides them equally among themselves; as for example,—no where in the world; this being that, both in the way and in the end, which I have already demonstrated to be impossible. Now the words of this Lexicon being thus interpreted, let us hearken what the prevaricator will say, and out it coms in this manner:

Consid. p. 73.TO him that makes property, and that in lands, the foundation of empire, the establishing of an agrarian is of absolute necessity, that by it the power may be fix’d in those hands to whom it was at first committed.

What need we then procede any further, while he having no where disprov’d the balance in these words, gives up the whole cause? for as to that which he says of mony, seeing neither the vast treasure of Henry the 7th alter’d the balance of England, nor the revenue of the Indys alters that of Spain, this retrait (except in the cases excepted) is long since baricado’d. But he is on and off, and, any thing to the contrary notwithstanding, gives you this for certain.

THE examples of an agrarian are so infrequent, that Mr. Harrington is constrain’d to wave all but two commonwealths; and can find in the whole extent of history only Israel and Lacedemon to fasten upon.

A man that has read my writings, or is skill’d in history, cannot chuse but see how he slurs his dice; nevertheless to make this a little more apparent.Pol. l. 2. c. 5. It has seem’d to som (says Aristotle) the main point of institution in government, to order riches right; whence otherwise derives all civil discord. Upon this ground Phaleas the Chalcedonian legislator made it his first work to introduce equality of goods; and Plato in his laws allows not increase to a possession beyond certain bounds. The Argives and the Messenians had each their agrarian after the manner of Lacedemon.Plut. Lycurg. If a man shall translate the words (apsgrρετή, δύναμις πολιτιkappaveegrgr, virtus & facultas civilis) political virtue or faculty, where he finds them in Aristotle’s politics (as I make bold, and appeal to the reader whether too bold to do) by the words political balance, understood as I have stated the thing, it will give such a light to the author, as will go nearer than any thing alleg’d (as before by this prevaricator) to deprive me of the honor of that invention.Pol. l. 3. c. 9. For example, where Aristotle says, If one man, or such a number of men, as to the capacity of government com within the compass of the few, excel all the rest (kappavατ’ apsgrρετeegrgrν) in balance, or in such a manner, that the (δύναμις πολιτιkappaveegrgr) political faculties or estates of all the rest be not able to hold weight with him or them, they will never condescend to share equally with the rest in power, whom they excel in balance; nor is it to any purpose to give them laws, who will be as the gods, their own laws, and will answer the people as the lions are said by Antisthenes to have answered the hares, when they had concluded, that every one ought to have an equal portion. For this cause (he adds) citys that live under popular power, have instituted the ostracism for the preservation of equality; by which, if a man increase in riches, retinue, or popularity, above what is safe, they can remove him (without loss of honor or estate) for a time.

If the Considerer thinks that I have strain’d courtesy with Aristotle (who indeed is not always of one mind) further than is warrantable, in relation to the balance, be it as he pleases; I who must either have the more of authority, or the less of competition in the point, shall lose neither way. However, it is in this place enough that the ostracism being of like nature, was that which supply’d the defect, in the Grecian citys, of an agrarian. To procede then to Rome, that the people there, by striving for an agrarian, strove to save their liberty, is apparent, in that thro the want of such a law, or the nonobservance of it, the commonwealth came plainly to ruin. If a Venetian should keep a table, or have his house furnish’d with retainers, he would be obnoxious to the council of ten; and if the best of them appear with other state or equipage than is allow’d to the meanest, he is obnoxious to the officers of the pomp: which two orders in a commonwealth, where the gentry have but small estates in land, are as much as needs be in lieu of an agrarian. But the German republics have no more to supply the place of this law, than that estates descending are divided among the children; which sure no man but will say must needs be both just and pious: and we ask you no more in Oceana, where grant this, and you grant the whole agrarian. Thus had I set him all the commonwealths in the world before; and so it is no fault of mine, that he will throw but at three of them: these are Israel, Lacedemon, and Oceana.

Consid. p. 77.First at Israel: Mr. Harrington (says he) thinks not upon the promise of God to Abraham (whence the Israelites derived their right to the land of Canaan) but considers the division of the lands as a politic constitution upon which the government was founded, tho in the whole history of the bible there be not the least footstep of such a design.

What means the man! the right of an Israelite to his land deriv’d from the promise of God to Abraham, therfore the right of an Oceaner to his land must derive from the promise of God to Abraham? or, why else should I in speaking of Oceana (where property is taken as it was found, and not stirr’d a hair) think on the promise to Abraham? nor matters it for the manner of division, seeing that was made, and this was found made, each according to the law of the government. But in the whole bible (says he) there is not the least footstep that the end of the Israelitish agrarian was political, or that it was intended to be the foundation of the government.

THE footsteps of God, by the testimony of David, may be seen in the deep waters, much more, by the consent of the whole bible, in land, or in the foundation of empire; unless we make the footsteps of God to be one thing, and his ways another, which as to government are these.

[Editor: illegible character] ad 1. 26. 53.God by the ballot of Israel (more fully describ’d in the next book) divided the land (som respect had to the princes and patriarchs for the rest) to every one his inheritance, according to the number of names, which were drawn out of one urn first, and the lots of land (the measure with the goodness of the same consider’d) drawn afterwards out of the other urn to those names. Wherfore God ordaining the cause, and the cause of necessity producing the effect, God in ordaining thi balance intended popular government. But when the people admitting of no nay, would have a king, God therupon commanding Samuel to shew them the manner of the king, Samuel declar’d to the people concerning the manner or policy of the king, saying, He will take your fields and your vinyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give to his servants (which kind of proceding must needs create the balance of a nobility;) over and above this, he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vinyards, and of your sheep (by way of tax, for the maintenance of his armys) and thus your daughters shall com to be his cooks and confectioners, and your sons to run before his chariot.1 Sam. 8. There is not from the balance to the superstructures a more perfect description of a monarchy by a nobility. For the third branch, the people of Egypt in time of the famin, which was very sore, com to Joseph, saying, buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants to Pharaoh.Gen. 47. 19, 20. And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt (except those of the priests) for Pharaoh. So the land became Pharaoh’s, who lest the remembrance of their former property by lively marks and continual remembrancers should stir them up (as the Vandals in Africa,Grot. ad stript in like manner of their property, and yet remaining in their antient dwellings,Gen. 47. were stirr’d up by their women) to sedition, remov’d the people thus sold, or drave them like cattel even from one end of the borders of Egypt to the other end therof. In which you have the balance of a sole landlord or absolute prince, with the miserable, and yet necessary consequence of an inslav’d people. Now the balance of governments throout the Scriptures being of these kinds, and no other, the balance of Oceana is exactly calculated to the most approv’d way, and the clearest footsteps of God in the whole history of the bible: and wheras the jubile was a law instituted for preservation of the popular balance from alteration, so is the agrarian in Oceana.

But says the prevaricator hocus pocus, or in the name of wonder, how can this agrarian be the foundation of that government which had subsisted more than forty five years without it? for they were so long after the giving of this law for the division of the land, before they had the land to divide.

Which is as if one should say upon that other law of the like date, judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates; hocus pocus, or in the name of wonder, how should the children of Israel make them judges and officers in their gates, before they had any gates to make them in? fine sport to be play’d by an attorny for the clergy with Scripture, where it is plain enough that the laws of a commonwealth were given by Moses to an army, to be put in execution when that army should becom a commonwealth, as happen’d under Joshua.

But no saying will serve his turn. If this agrarian were meant as fundamental to the government, the provision (he will have it) was weak, and not proper for attaining the end propos’d, there being nothing in the nature of the agrarian to hinder, but that the whole country might for the space of near fifty years, that is, the time between the two jubiles, have com into the hands of one man, and so have destroy’d balance, agrarian, government and all.

This they that boast of their mathematics might have taken the pains (before they had bin so confident) to have demonstrated possible; as how or by what means one lot could com in fifty years to be multiply’d six hundred thousand times, and that without usury, which bar (the Israelits being no merchants) was thought sufficient to be given: or thus to call the prudence of God by their impracticable phansys in question, is abominable.

I would have divines (as this prevaricator persuades, and it should seem has persuaded som of them) to overthrow the commonwealth of Israel; for otherwise I will give them my word they shall never be able to touch that of Oceana, which, except in the hereditary succession and dignity of the princes of the tribes, and the patriarchs, and that the senat was for life, differs not from the former: for as to the divers working up of the superstructures in divers commonwealths, according to the diversity of occasions, it coms to no accountable difference; and much, I conceive, of this carving or finishing in Israel; (which had it bin extant, would perhaps have shewn a greater resemblance) is lost. For the senats, as to their numbers, that of the 300 in Oceana, considering the bulk of the people, excedes not that of the seventy in Israel; the succession and dignity of the princes of the tribes and of the patriarchs was ordain’d for the preservation of the pedigrees, which (Christ being born) are not any more to be of like consequence; and that the senators were for life, deriv’d from a former custom of such a number of elders exercising som authority in Egypt (tho not that of the senat till it was instituted by God) from the descent of the patriarchs into that land, who being at thei descent seventy persons, and governing their familys by the right of paternity, as the people increas’d, and they came to dy, had their successors appointed in such a manner, that the number of seventy, in remembrance of those patriarchs, was diligently preserv’d. And for as much as the patriarchs governing their own familys (which at first were all) in their own right, were consequently for life, this also pleas’d in the substitution of others. These things rightly consider’d, I have not vary’d from the authority of Israel in a tittle, there being neither any such necessary use of pedigrees, nor uninterrupted succession of elders for life in Oceana; and unless a man will say, that we ought to have the like effect where there is not the like cause (which were absurd) the authority of a commonwealth holds no otherwise than from the cause to the effect.

OCEANA, I say, cannot be wounded but by piercing the authority of Israel, with which she is arm’d cap a pe.Consid. p. 36. It is true, as the prevaricator says in another place, that law can oblige only those to whom it was given; and that the laws of Israel were given, as to the power or obligation of them, only to the children of Israel. But the power, as has bin shewn, of a commonwealth, and her authority, are different things; her power extends no further than her own people, but her authority may govern others, as that of Athens did Rome, when the latter wrote her twelve tables by the copy of the former. In this manner, tho a man, or a commonwealth, writing out of antient governments, have liberty to chuse that which sutes best with the occasion, out of any; yet (whether we consider the wisdom and justice of the legislator supremely good, or the excellency of the laws) the prerogative of authority, where the nature of the thing admits it, must needs belong to Israel. That this opinion should go sore with divines, is strange; and yet if there be any feeling of their pulse by this their advocate or attorny, it is as true.

In his epist.For while he finds me writing out of Venice, he tells me, I have wisely put myself under protection or authority, against whom he dares not make war, lest he should take part with the Turk.

Consid. p. 39.But when he finds me writing out of Israel, he tells me, that he is not aware of any prerogative of authority belonging to the Israelitish more than any other republic: which is to take part with the devil.

So much for Israel. Now for Lacedemon; but you will permit me to shake a friend or two by the hand, as I go.

The first is Aristotle, in these words:

Pol. L. 5. c. 3.INEQUALITY is the source of all sedition, as when the riches of one or the few com to cause such an overbalance as draws the commonwealth into monarchy or oligarchy; for prevention wherof the ostracism has bin of use in divers places, as at Argos and Athens. But it were better to provide in the beginning, that there be no such disease in the commonwealth, than to com afterwards to her cure.

The second is Plutarch, in these words:

Plut. Lycur.Lycurgus judging that there ought to be no other inequality among citizens of the same commonwealth than what derives from their virtues, divided the land so equally among the Lacedemonians, that on a day beholding the harvest of their lots lying by cocks or ricks in the field, he laughing said, that it seem’d to him they were all brothers.

The third should have bin the considerer, but he is at feud with us all.

Consid. p. 78.THE design of Lycurgus, he professes, was not so much to attain an equality in the frame of his government, as to drive into exile riches, and the effects of them, luxury and debauchery.

Gentlemen, What do you say? you have the judgment of three great philosophers, and may make your own choice; only except he that has but one hundred pounds a year, can have wine and women at as full command, and retainers in as great plenty, as he that has ten thousand, I should think these advantages accru’d from inequality, and that Lycurgus had skill enough in a commonwealth to see as much. No, says the prevaricator, it appears far otherwise, in that he admitted of no mony but old iron, a cartload of which was worth little. Well, but in Israel, where silver and gold was worth enough, my gentleman would have it, that one man in the compass of fifty years might purchase the whole land, tho that country was much larger than this: and yet where, if the people had us’d mony, they would have us’d trade, and using both, such a thing, thro the straitness of the territory, might have happen’d, he will not conceive the like to have bin possible. No, tho he has an example of it in Lysander, who by the spoil of Athens ruin’d the agrarian, first by the overbalance that a man’s mony came to hold to his lot; then by eating out the lots themselves, and in those the equality of the commonwealth. But these things he interprets pleasantly, as if the vow of voluntary poverty (so he calls it) being broken, the commonwealth, like a forsworn wretch, had gon and hang’d her self: a phansy too rank, I doubt, of the cloyster, to be good at this work.

Plut. Lycur.But wheras Plutarch, upon the narrowness of these lots (which had they bin larger, must have made the citizens fewer than thirty thousand, and so unable to defend the commonwealth) and use of this same old and rusty iron instead of mony, observes it came by this means to pass that there was neither a fine orator, fortune-teller, baud, nor goldsmith, to be found in Lacedemon; our considerer professes,

THAT it is to him as strange as any thing in history, that Lycurgus should find credit enough to settle a government, which carry’d along with it so much want and hardship to particular men, that the total absence of government could scarce have put them into a worse condition; the laws that he made prohibiting the use of those things, which to injoy with security, is that only to other men that makes the yoke of laws supportable.

Here he is no monk again; I would ask him no more, than that he would hold to somthing, be it to any thing. It is true, we, who have bin us’d to our plumpottage, are like enough to make faces (as did the king of Pontus) at the Lacedemonian black broth: but who has open’d his mouth against plumpottage, gilded coaches, pages, lacquys, fair mannorhouses, good tables, rich furniture, full purses, universities, good benefices, scarlet robes, square caps, rich jewels, or said any thing that would not multiply all this? Why, says he, you are so far right, that the voice of Lycurguss agrarian was, Every man shall be thus poor; and that of yours is, that no man shall be more than thus rich. This is an argument (an’t please you) by which he thinks he has prov’d, that there is no difference between the agrarian that was in Lacedemon, and that which is in Oceana: for, Sir, whatsoever is thus and thus, is like: but the agrarian of Lacedemon was thus, A man could have no mony, or none that deserv’d that name; and the agrarian of Oceana is thus, A man’s mony is not confin’d: therfore the agrarian of the one, and of the other, are like. Was it not a great grievance in Lacedemon, think you, that they had no such logic or logician? Be this as it will, It had bin impossible, says he, for Lycurgus to have settl’d his government, had he not wisely obtain’d a response from the oracle at Delphos, magnifying and recommending it: after which all resistance would have bin downright impiety and disobedience, which concerns Mr. Harrington very little. The Bible then is not so good an oracle as was that at Delphos. But this reflection has a tang with it, that makes me think it relates to that where he says, I know not how, but Mr. Harrington has taken up a very great unkindness for the clergy.Consid. p. 18. He will know nothing; neither that the oracle of the Scripture is of all other the clearest for a commonwealth, nor that the clergy being generally against a commonwealth, are in this below the priests of Delphos, who were more for Lycurgus than these are for Moses. But hav’at the agrarian of Oceana with the whole bail of dice, and at five throws.

The first throw is, That it is unjust: for,

Consid. p. 81.IF it be truly asserted (in Oceana, page the 37th) that government is founded on property, then property consists in nature before government, and government is to be fitted to property, not property to government. How great a sin then would it be against the first and purest notion of justice, to bring in a government not only different from but directly destructive to the settl’d property of Oceana, where (in the 99th page) there are confest to be three hundred persons, whose estates in land excede the standard of two thousand pounds a year. Let me not be chok’d with the example of Lacedemon, till Mr. Harrington has shewn us the power of his persuasion with the nobility of Oceana, as Lycurgus with them of Lacedemon, to throw up their lands to be parcel’d by his agrarian (as page 103.) and when that is don, I shall cease to complain of the injustice of it. Nor need any one of these three hundred be put to own a shame, for preferring his own interest before that of a whole nation; for tho when government is once fix’d, it may be fit to submit privat to public utility, yet when the question is of chusing a government, every particular man is left to his own native right, which cannot be prescrib’d against by the interest of all the rest of mankind.

How many false dice there are in this throw (because you see I have little to do) will be worth counting.

Wheras I no where deny property to derive her being from law; he insinuats that I presume property to be in nature. There’s One.

Wheras in natural and domestic vicissitude, I assert, That empire is to follow the legal state of property; he imposes, as if I had asserted, that empire must follow the natural state of property. Two.

Wheras in violent or foren vicissitude (as when the Israelits possest themselves of the land of Canaan, the Goths and Vandals of Italy, the Franks of France, the Saxons of England) property, in order to the government to be introduc’d, is alterable; he insinuats as if I had said, that empire must always follow the state of property, not as it may be alter’d in that relation, but as it is found. Three.

Wheras the government of Oceana is exactly fitted to property, as it was settl’d before; he insinuats it to be destructive to the settl’d property. Four.

Wheras I say, that to put it with the most, they that are proprietors of land in Oceana, exceding two thousand pounds a year, do not excede three hundred persons; he says, that I have confest they be three hundred. Five.

Wheras I shew that the nobility of Lacedemon, upon the persuasion of Lycurgus, threw up their estates to be parcel’d by his agrarian; but that in Oceana, it is not needful or requir’d that any man should part with a farthing, or throw up one shovelful of his earth; he imposes, as if I went about to persuade the nobility to throw up their lands. Six.

Wheras I have shewn that no one of those within the three hundred can have any interest against the agrarian; he, without shewing what such an interest can be, insinuats that they have an interest against it. Seven.

Wheras the government of Oceana gos altogether upon consent, and happens not only to fit privat to public, but even public to privat utility, by which means it is void of all objection; he insinuats, that it is against privat utility. Eight.

Where he says, that in chusing a government every man is left to his own native right; he insinuats that the agrarian (which dos no more than fix property, as she found it) is against native right. Nine.

Wheras God has given the earth to the sons of men, which native right (as in case a man for hunger takes so much as will feed him, and no more, of any other man’s meat or herd) prescribes against legal property, and is the cause why the law esteems not such an action to be theft; he insinuats that there is a native right in legal property, which cannot be prescrib’d against by the interest of all the rest of mankind. Ten.

While he pleaded the case of monarchy, levelling was concluded lawful; in the case of a commonwealth, which asks no such favour, levelling is concluded unlawful. Eleven.

In the reformation or level as to monarchy, tho property subsisted before that level, yet property was to be fitted to the government, and not the government to property; but in the case of a commonwealth the government is to be fitted to property, and not property to the government. Twelve.

In that, any man was bound to relinquish his native right, else how could a prince level his nobility? In this, no man is bound to relinquish his native right. Thirteen.

In that, the same native right might be prescrib’d against by the prince; in this, it cannot be prescrib’d against by the interest of mankind. Fourteen.

In that, no nobleman but ought to own a shame if he preferr’d his interest before that of the prince; in this, no nobleman ought to own a shame for preferring his own interest before that of a whole nation. Fifteen.

Would you have any more? these fifteen majors and minors, or false dice, are soop’d up again, and put all into this conclusion or box, like themselves.

THUS the interest of the three hundred is not balanc’d with that of a whole nation, but that of som few extravagant spirits; who, by making dams in the current of other mens estates, hope to derive som water to their own parch’d fortunes.

CALUMNIARE fortiter, nihil adhærebit. If a river has but one natural bed or channel, what dam is made in it by this agrarian? but if a river has had many natural beds or channels, to which she has forgot to reach her breast, and whose mouths are dry’d up or obstructed; these are dams which the agrarian dos not make, but remove; and what parch’d fortunes can hereby hope to be water’d, but theirs only, whose veins having drunk of the same blood, have a right in nature to drink of the same milk? The law of Moses allow’d the firstborn but a double portion: was his an extravagant spirit?

His second throw is, That the nature of the agrarian is such as cannot be fix’d, in regard that the people being intrusted with a vote and a sword, may alter it for the less, or com to downright levelling. But as to this, in the 8th chapter I have bar’d his dice, that being the place in which I thought most proper to give a full answer to this objection.

At the third throw, he is extreme aukward. For wheras the Israelites (notwithstanding the voyages of Solomon, and what is said of the ships of Tharsis) during their agrarian, or while they had land, were a commonwealth of husbandmen, and not of merchants, nor came to the exercise of this trade, till they had no land, or after their dispersion by the emperor Adrian; he scrues it in, after this manner—Consid. p. 85. As the Jews who have no lands, are every where great traders; so the possession of lands being limited by this agrarian, men who are either covetous or ambitious (as if estates were not got by industry, but by covetousness and ambition) will employ themselves and their estates in foren traffic, which being in a manner wholly ingrost by the capital city of Oceana, that city, already too great, will immediately grow into an excess of power and riches, very dangerous to the commonwealth; Amsterdam being com by such means to exercise of late a tyranny in the disposal of som public affairs, much to the prejudice both of the liberty and interest of the rest of the union. An equal, if not greater incommodity to Oceana, would be created by the agrarian, which making Emporium a city of princes, would render the country a commonwealth of cottagers, able to dispute precedence with the beggers bush.

News, not from Tripoli, nor any other corner of the whole world but one. Bate me this, and shew me in what other city increase of houses or new foundations was ever held a nusance. This sure is a phansy that regards not the old folks, or antient-prudence.

One of the blessings that God promis’d to Abraham, was, that his seed should be multiply’d as the stars of heaven: and the commonwealth of Rome, by multiplying her seed, came to bound her territory with the ocean, and her fame with the stars of heaven. That such a populousness is that without which there can be no great commonwealth, both reason and good authors are clear; but whether it ought to begin in the country, or in the city, is a scruple I have not known them make. That of Israel began in the country, that of Rome in the city. Except there be obstruction or impediment by the law, as in Turky where the country, and in England where the city is forbid to increase; wherever there is a populous country, for example France, it makes a populous city, as Paris; and wherever there is a populous city, as Rome after the ruin of Alba, and Amsterdam after the ruin (as to trade) of Antwerp, it makes a populous territory, as was that of the rustic tribes, and is that of Holland.

But the ways how a populous city coms to make a populous country, and how a populous country coms to make a populous city, are contrary; the one happening thro sucking, as that of the city, and the other thro weaning, as that of the country.

For proof of the former: the more mouths there be in a city, the more meat of necessity must be vented by the country, and so there will be more corn, more cattel, and better markets; which breeding more laborers, more husbandmen, and richer farmers, bring the country so far from a commonwealth of cottagers, that where the blessings of God, thro the fruitfulness of late years with us, render’d the husbandman unable to dispute precedence with the beggers bush, his trade thus uninterrupted, in that his markets are certain, gos on with increase of children, of servants, of corn, and of cattel: for there is no reason why the fields adjoining to Emporium, being but of a hard soil, should annually produce two crops, but the populousness of the city.

The country then growing more populous, and better stock’d with cattel, which also increases manure for the land, must proportionably increase in fruitfulness. Hence it is that (as the Romans also were good at such work) in Holland there is scarce a puddle undrain’d, nor a bank of sand cast up by the sea, that is not cover’d with earth, and made fruitful by the people; these being so strangely, with the growth of Amsterdam, increas’d, as coms perhaps to two parts in three: nor, the agrarian taking place in Oceana, would it be longer disputed, whether she might not destroy fishes to plant men. Thus a populous city makes a country milch, or populous by sucking; and wheras som may say, that such a city may suck from foren parts, it is true enough, and no where more apparent than in Amsterdam. But a city that has recourse to a foren dug, e’er she had first suck’d that of her proper nurse or territory dry, you shall hardly find; or finding (as in som plantation not yet wean’d) will hardly be able to make that objection hold, seeing it will not ly so much against the populousness of the place, as the contrary.

But a populous country makes a populous city by weaning; for when the people increase so much, that the dug of earth can do no more, the overplus must seek som other way of livelihood: which is either arms, such were those of the Goths and Vandals; or merchandize and manufacture, for which ends it being necessary that they lay their heads and their stock together, this makes populous citys. Thus Holland being a small territory, and suck’d dry, has upon the matter wean’d the whole people, and is therby become as it were one city that sucks all the world.

But by this means, says the considerer, Emporium being already too great (while indeed Amsterdam, considering the narrowness of the territory, or the smallness of Holland, is much more populous) would immediately grow into an excess of power and riches, very dangerous to liberty, an example wherof was seen in the late tyranny of that city: as if it were not sufficiently known that Amsterdam contributes and has contributed more to the defence of the commonwealth, or united provinces, than all the rest of the league, and had in those late actions which have bin scandaliz’d, resisted not the interest of liberty, but of a lord. That the increase of Rome, which was always study’d by her best citizens, should make her head too great for her body, or her power dangerous to the tribes, was never so much as imagin’d; and tho she were a city of princes, her rustic tribes were ever had in greatest esteem and honor; insomuch, that a patrician would be of no other.

But the authority of antient commonwealths is needless; the prevaricator by his own argumentation or might, lays himself neck and heels.

Consid. p 93.For, says he, Were this agrarian once settl’d, Emporium would be a city of princes, and the nobility so throly plum’d, that they would be just as strong of wing, as wild fowl in moulting time. There would be a city of princes, and yet no nobility. He is so fast that I have pity on him, if I knew but which way to let him loose. He means perhaps, that the merchants growing rich, would be the nobility; and the nobility growing poor, would be grasiers.

But so for ought I know it was always, or worse, that is, men attain’d to riches and honors by such or worse arts, and in poverty made not always so honest retreats. To all which infirmitys of the state, I am deceiv’d if this agrarian dos not apply the proper remedys. For such an agrarian makes a commonwealth for increase: the trade of a commonwealth for increase, is arms; arms are not born by merchants, but by noblemen and gentlemen. The nobility therfore having these arms in their hands, by which provinces are to be acquir’d, new provinces yield new estates; so wheras the merchant has his returns in silk or canvas, the soldier will have his return in land. He that represents me as an enemy to the nobility, is the man he speaks of; for if ever the commonwealth attains to five new provinces (and such a commonwealth will have provinces enow) it is certain, that (besides honors, magistracys, and the revenues annex’d) there will be more estates in the nobility of Oceana, of fourteen thousand pounds land a year, than ever were, or can otherwise be of four; and that without any the least danger to the commonwealth: for if Rome had but look’d so far to it, as to have made good her agrarian in Italy, tho she had neglected the rest, the wealth of her nobility might have suck’d her provinces, but must have inrich’d the people; and so rather have water’d her roots, than starv’d and destroy’d them, as it did. In this case therfore the nobility of Oceana would not moulter like wild fowl, but be strong of wing as the eagle.

One argument more I have heard urg’d against the populousness of the capital city, which is, that the rich in time of sickness forsaking the place, by which means the markets com to fail, the poor, lest they should starve, will run abroad, and infect the whole country. But should a man tell them at Paris, or Grand Cairo (in the latter wherof the plague is more frequent and furious than happens with us) that they are not to build houses, nor increase so much, lest they should have the plague; or that children are not to be born so fast, lest they dy, they would think it strange news. A commonwealth is furnish’d with laws, and power to add such as she shall find needful. In case a city be in that manner visited, it is the duty of the country, and of the government, to provide for them by contribution.

Consid. p. 87.THE difficulty in making the agrarian equal and steddy thro the rise or fall that may happen in mony, which is the fourth throw of the prevaricator, is that which might have bin for his ease to have taken notice was long since sufficiently bar’d, where it is said, that if a new survey at the present rent was taken, an agrarian ordaining that no man should thenceforth hold above so much land as is there valu’d at the rate, however mony might alter, would be equal and steddy enough.

Consid. p. 80.His last cast is, that the agrarian would make war against universal and immemorial custom; which being without doubt more prevalent than that of reason, there is nothing of such difficulty as to persuade men at once, and crudely, that they and their forefathers have bin in an error.

Essay 24.Wise men, I see, may differ in judgment or counsil; for, says Sir Francis Bacon, Surely every medicin is an innovation, and he that will not apply new remedys must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator; and if time of course alters things to the worse, and wisdom and counsil may not alter them to the better, what must be the end?

But the case of the agrarian receives equal strength from each of these counsillors or opinions: from the latter, in that it gos upon grounds which time has not innovated for the worse, but for the better; and so according to the former coms not to have bin at once, and crudely persuaded, but introduc’d by custom, now grown universal and immemorial. For who remembers the gentry of this nation to have worn the blue coats of the nobility, or the lower sort of people to have liv’d upon the smoak of their kitchins? on the contrary, is it not now an universal custom for men to rely upon their own fortunes or industry, and not to put their trust in princes, seeking in their liberality or dependence the means of living? the prevaricator might as well jump into his great grandfather’s old breeches, and persuade us that he is a la mode, or in the new cut, as that the ways of our forefathers would agree with our customs. Dos not every man now see, that if the kings in those days had settl’d the estates of the nobility by a law, restraining them from selling their land, such a law had bin an agrarian, and yet not warring against their antient customs, but preserving them? wherfore neither dos the agrarian propos’d, taking the balance of estates as she now finds them, make war against, but confirm the present customs. The only objection that can seem in this place to ly, is, that wheras it has bin the custom of Oceana that the bulk of the estate should descend to the eldest son, by the agrarian he cannot, in case he has more brothers, inherit above two thousand pounds a year in land, or an equal share. But neither dos this, whether you regard the parents or the children, make war with custom. For putting the case the father has twenty thousand pounds a year in land, he gos not the less in his custom or way of life for the agrarian, because for this he has no less: and if he has more or fewer sons to whom his estate descends by equal or inequal portions, neither do they go less in their ways or customs of life for the agrarian, because they never had more.Pol. l. 3. c. 9. But, says Aristotle (speaking of the ostracism as it supplys the defect of an agrarian) this course is as necessary to kings as to commonwealths. By this means the monarchys of Turky and of Spain preserve their balance; thro the neglect of this has that of the nobility of Oceana bin broken: and this is it which the prevaricator, in advising that the nobility be no further level’d than will serve to keep the people under, requires of his prince. So, that an agrarian is necessary to government, be it what it will, is on all hands concluded.


Whether Courses or a Rotation be necessary to a well-order’d Commonwealth. In which is contain’d the Courses or Parembole of Israel before the Captivity, together with the Epitome of Athens and Venice.

ONE bout more and we have don: this (as reason good) will be upon wheels or rotation: for,

Oceana, p. 51.As the agrarian answers to the equality of the foundation or root, so dos rotation to the equality of the superstructures or branches of a commonwealth.

Equal rotation is equal vicissitude in, or succession to magistracy confer’d for equal terms, injoining such equal vacations, as cause the government to take in the body of the people, by parts succeding others, thro the free election or suffrage of the whole.

The contrary wherto is prolongation of magistracy, which, trashing the wheel of rotation, destroys the life or natural motion of a commonwealth.

The prevaricator, whatever he has don for himself, has don this for me, that it will be out of doubt whether my principles be capable of greater obligation or confirmation, than by having objections made against them. Nor have I bin altogether ingrateful, or nice of my labor, but gon far (much farther than I needed) about, that I might return with the more valuable present to him that sent me on the errand: I shall not be short of like proceeding upon the present subject, but rather over.

Rotation in a commonwealth is of the magistracy, of the senat, of the people; of the magistracy and the people; of the magistracy and the senat; or of the magistracy, of the senat, and of the people: which in all com to six kinds.

For example of rotation in the magistracy, you have the judg of Israel, call’d in Hebrew Shophet.Grot. The like magistracy after the kings Ithobal and Baal came in use with the Tyrians; from these, with their posterity the Carthaginians, who also call’d their supreme magistrats, being in number two, and for their term annual, shophetim, which the Latins by a softer pronunciation render suffetes.

The shophet or judg of Israel was a magistrat, not, that I can find, oblig’d to any certain term, throout the book of Judges; nevertheless, it is plain, that his election was occasional, and but for a time, after the manner of a dictator.

True it is, that Eli and Samuel rul’d all their lives; but upon this such impatience in the people follow’d, thro the corruption of their sons, as was the main cause of the succeding monarchy.

The magistrats in Athens (except the Areopagits, being a judicatory) were all upon rotation. The like for Lacedemon and Rome, except the kings in the former, who were indeed hereditary, but had no more power than the duke in Venice, where all the rest of the magistrats (except the procuratori, whose magistracy is but mere ornament) are also upon rotation.

Pol. l. 2. c. 7.For the rotation of the senat you have Athens, the Achæans, Ætolians, Lycians, the Amphictionium; and the senat of Lacedemon reprov’d, in that it was for life, by Aristotle:Chap. XII. modern examples of like kind are the diet of Switzerland, but especially the senat of Venice.

For the rotation of the people, you have first Israel, where the congregation (which the Greecs call ecclesia; the Latins, comitia, or concio) having a twofold capacity; first, that of an army, in which they were the constant guard of the country; and secondly, that of a representative, in which they gave the vote of the people, at the creation of their laws, or election of their magistrats, was monthly.1 Chron. 27. 1. Now the children of Israel after their number, to wit, the chief fathers and captains of thousands and hundreds, and their officers that serv’d the king in any matter of the courses, which came in, and went out month by month, throout all the months of the year, of every course were twenty and four thousand.

Grot. ad loc.Such a multitude there was of military age, that without inconvenience, four and twenty thousand were every month in arms, whose term expiring, others succeded, and so others; by which means the rotation of the whole people came about in the space of one year. The tribuns, or commanders of the tribes in arms, or of the prerogative for the month, are nam’d in the following part of the chapter, to the sixteenth verse; where begins the enumeration of the princes (tho Gad and Ashur, for what reason I know not, be omitted) of the tribes, remaining in their provinces, where they judg’d the people, and as they receiv’d orders, were to bring or send such farther inforcement or recruits as occasion requir’d to the army: after these, some other officers are mention’d. There is no question to be made but this rotation of the people, together with their prerogative or congregation, was preserv’d by the monthly election of two thousand deputys in each of the twelve tribes, which in all came to four and twenty thousand; or let any man shew how otherwise it was likely to be don, the nature of their office being to give the vote of the people, who therfore sure must have chosen them. By these the vote of the people was given to their laws, and at elections of their magistrats.

1 Chron. 13.To their laws, as where David proposes the reduction of the ark: and David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader. And David said to all the congregation of Israel, If it seems good to you, and it be of the Lord God, let us send abroad to our brethren every where (the princes of tribes in their provinces) that are left in the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites, which are in the citys and suburbs, that they may gather themselves to us; and let us bring again the ark of our God to us, for we inquir’d not at it in the days of Saul. And all the eongregation (gave their suffrage in the affirmative) said that they would do so; for the thing was right in the eys of the people.Grot. e Tertul. Nulla lex sibi soli conscientiam justitiæ suæ debet, sed eis a quibus obsequium expectat. Now that the same congregation or representative gave the vote of the people also in the election of priests, officers and magistrats;1 Chron. 25. moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jethudun, who should prophesy with harps, with psalterys, and with cymbals.1 Chron. 28. 2. But upon the occasion to which we are more especially beholden for the preservation and discovery of this admirable order (David having propos’d the business in a long and pious speech) the congregation made Solomon the son of David king the second time,1 Chron. 29. 22. and anointed him to the Lord to be chief governor, and Zadok to be priest.1 Kings 1. For as to the first time that Solomon was made king, it happen’d, thro the sedition of Adonijah, to have been don in hast and tumultuously by those only of Jerusalem; and the reason why Zadok is here made priest, is, that Abiathar was put out for being of the conspiracy with Adonijah.

I may expect (by such objections as they afford me) it should be alleg’d, that to prove an order in a commonwealth, I instance in a monarchy; as if there were any thing in this order monarchical, or that it could, if it had not bin so receiv’d from the commonwealth, have bin introduc’d by the kings, to whom in the judgment of any sober man (the prevaricator only excepted, who has bin huckling about som such council for his prince) no less could have follow’d upon the first frown of the people, than did in Rehoboam, who having us’d them roughly, was depos’d by the congregation, or the major part.1 Kings 12. It is true, that while Israel was an army, the congregation, as it needed not to assemble by way of election or representative, so I believe it did not; but that by all Israel assembl’d to this end, should be meant the whole people after they were planted upon their lots, and not their representative, which in a political sense is as properly so call’d, were absurd and impossible. Nor need I go upon presumtion only, be the same never so strong, seeing it is said in Scripture of the Korathites, that they were keepers of the gates of the tabernacle, and their fathers being over the host of the Lord, were keepers of the entry:1 Chron. 9. 29. that is, (according to the interpretation of Grotius) the Korathites were now keepers of the gates, as it appears in the book of Numbers, their ancestors the Kohathites had bin in the camp, or while Israel was yet an army.Numb. 4. But our translation is lame in the right foot, as to the true discovery of the antient manner of this service, which according to the Septuagint and the vulgar Latin was thus, they were keepers of the gates of the tabernacle (kaisymbol πατέρες apsgrυτων epsgrπigrgr τeepergrς παρεμβολeepergrς, & familiæ eorum per vices) and their fathers by turns, or rotation. So that offices and services by courses, turns, or rotation, are plainly more antient than kings in the commonwealth of Israel, tho it be true that when the courses or rotation of the congregation or representative of the people were first introduc’d, is as hard to shew, as it would be how, after the people were once planted upon their lots, they could be otherwise assembl’d. If writers argue well and lawfully from what the sanhedrim was in the institution by Jehosaphat, to what it had more antiently bin; to argue from what the congregation was in the institution by David, to what it had more antiently bin, is sufficiently warranted.

These things rightly consider’d, there remains little doubt but we have the courses of Israel for the first example of rotation in a popular assembly. Now to com from the Hebrew to the Grecian prudence, the same is approv’d by Aristotle, which he exemplifys in the commonwealth of Thales Milesius, where the people, he says, assembl’d (το kappavατα μέρ[Editor: illegible character], apsgrλλagrgr μeegrgr πάντας apsgrθρόους) by turns or rotation.Pol. l. 4. c. 14. Nor is the Roman prudence without som shadow of the like proceding, where the prerogative (pro tempore) with the jure vocatæ being made by lot, gave frequently the suffrage of the whole people. But the Gothic prudence in the policy of the third state, runs altogether upon the collection of a representative by the suffrage of the people (tho not so diligently regulated, by terms and vacations, as to a standing assembly were necessary, by turns, rotation, parembole or courses) as in the election of the late house of commons, and the constitutive vicissitude of the knights and burgesses, is known by sufficient experience.

When the rotation of a commonwealth is both in the magistracy and the people, I reckon it to be of a fourth kind, as in Israel, where both the judg and the congregation were so elected.

The fifth kind is when the rotation of a commonwealth is in the magistracy and the senat, as in those of Athens, of the Achæans, of the Ætolians, of the Lycians, and of Venice; upon which examples, rather for the influence each of them, at least Athens, may have upon the following book, than any great necessity from the present occasion, I shall inlarge in this place.

The commonwealth of Athens, was thus administer’d:

Epitome of the Athenia commonwealth.The senat of the bean being the proposing assembly (for that of the Areopagits, call’d also a senat, was a judicatory) consisted of four hundred citizens chosen by lot, which was perform’d with beans. These were annually remov’d all at once: by which means Athens became frustrated of the natural and necessary use of an aristocracy, while neither her senators were chosen for their parts, nor remain’d long enough in this function to acquire the right understanding of their proper office. These thus elected, were subdivided by lot into four equal parts, call’d Prytanys, each of which for one quarter of the year was in office. The Prytany, or Prytans in office, elected ten presidents, call’d proedri, out of which proedri or presidents they weekly chose one provost of the council, who was call’d the epistata. The epistata and the proedri were the more peculiar proposers to the Prytans, and to the Prytans it belong’d especially to prepare business (pisymbolρogrgr της βoulaλeepergrς kaisymbol pisymbolρogrgr τeepergrς epsgrkappavkappavλησίας) for the senat.Petit. de Leg. Att. They gave also audience to any that would propose any thing concerning the commonwealth, which if, when reported by the Prytans, it were approv’d by the senat, the party that propos’d might promulgat the business; and promulgation being made, the congregation assembl’d, and determin’d of it.Cic. pro Flac. Sic data concio Lælio est, processit ille, & Græcus apud Græcos non de culpa sua dixit, sed de pœna questus est; porrexerunt manus, Psephisma natum est.

The Prytans and their magistrats had right to assemble the senat, and propose to them; and what the senat determin’d upon such a proposition, if forthwith to be offer’d to the people, as in privat cases, was call’d proboulema; but if not to be propos’d till the people had a year’s trial of it, as was the ordinary way in order to laws to be enacted, it was call’d psephisma; each of which words, with that difference, signifys a decree. A decree of the senat in the latter sense had for one year the power of a law, after which trial it belong’d to the thesmothetæ (προγράphivειν) to hang it in writing upon the statues of the heros, and assemble the congregation.Ulpian ad These magistrats were of the number of the Archons, which in all were nine;Phil. 1. the chief, more peculiarly so call’d, was Archon Eponymus,Poll. l. 8. c. 8. he by whose name the year was reckon’d or denominated (his magistracy being of a civil concernment) the next was the king (a magistrat of a spiritual concernment) the third the polemarch (whose magistracy was of a military concernment) the other six were the thesmothetæ, who had several functions common with the nine; others peculiar or proper to themselves, as (προγrhosymbolάφειν) to give the people (by placarts) notice when the judicatorys were to assemble, that is, when the people were to assemble in that capacity, and to judg according to the law made; or, when the senat or the people were to assemble upon an apsgrισα「γελία, a crime that was not provided against by the law, as that of Alcibiades (the wits about that time in Athens being most of them Atheists) for laughing at Ceres, discovering her secrets, and shaving of the Mercurys. If an Archon or Demagog was guilty of such a crime, it belong’d to the cognizance of the senat, otherwise to that of the people whom the thesmothetæ were also in like manner to warn, when they were to com to the suffrage.L. 8. c. 16.

These six, like the electors in Venice, presided at all elections of magistrats whether made by the lot as the judges, or by suffrage as the new archons, the strategus or general, and most of the rest. They also had the hearing and introducing of all causes into the judicatorys.

But the right of assembling the ecclesia or congregation belong’d to the Prytans, by whom the senat propos’d to the people.

The congregation consisted of all them that were upon the roll of the lexiarcha, that is to say, of the whole people having right to the city The Prytans seated upon a tribunal, were presidents of this assembly; the assembly having sacrific’d and made oath of fidelity to the commonwealth, the proedri or presidents of the Prytans propos’d by authority of the senat to the people in this manner: July the 16th Policles being archon, and the tribe of Pandion in the prytaneat, Demosthenes Pæaneus thought thus, or was of this opinion. The same custom wherby the first proposer subscribes his opinion or part with his name, is at this day in Venice. Proposition being made, such of the people as would speak were call’d to the pulpit; they that were fifty years of age, or upwards, were to com first, and the younger afterwards; which custom of prating in this manner made excellent orators or demagogs, but a bad commonwealth.

From this, that the people had not only the result of the commonwealth, but the debate also, Athens is call’d a democracy; and this kind of government is oppos’d to that of Lacedemon, which, because the people there had not the power of debate, but of result only, was call’d an aristocracy, somtimes an oligarchy: thus the Greecs commonly are to be understood, to distinguish these two; while according to my principles, if you like them, debate in the people makes anarchy; and where they have the result and no more, the rest being manag’d by a good aristocracy it makes that which is properly and truly to be call’d democracy, or popular government. Neither is this opinion of mine new, but according to the judgment of som of the Athenians themselves; for says Isocrates in his oration to the areopagits for reformation of the Athenian government, I know the main reason why the Lacedemonians flourish to be, that their commonwealth is popular. But to return. As many of the people as would, having shew’d their eloquence, and with these the demagogs, who were frequently brib’d, conceal’d their knavery; the epistata, or provost of the proedri, put the decree or question to the vote, and the people gave the result of the commonwealth by their chirotonia, that is, by holding up their hands: the result thus given, was the law or psephisma of the people.

Dem. Phil. 1.Now for the functions of the congregation, they were divers; as first, election of magistrats (opsgrυkappav epsgrχειrhosymbolοτονεipergrτε δὲ epsgrξ udagrμohpegrν apsgrυτohpegrν δέkappavα Ταξιάρχους kaisymbol Στρατηγοugrgrς kaisymbol Φυλάrhosymbolχους, kaisymbol idagrUCππάρχους δύο;) namely, the archons, the strategus or general, the field officers, the admirals, with divers others, all, or the chief of them annual, and commonly upon terms and vacations; tho it be true, as Plutarch has it, that Phocion was strategus four years together, having that honor still put upon him by the congregation, without his seeking. The next office of this assembly was to elect judges into five courts or judicatorys; for the people being in the bulk too unwieldy a body for the performance of this duty, they exercis’d the supreme judicature by way of representative, into which election was made by lottery, in such a manner that five hundred, one thousand, or 1500 of them (according to the importance of the occasion) being above thirty years of age, and within the rest of the qualifications in that case provided by the law, became the soverain judicatory, call’d the heliæa. In all elections, whether by lot or suffrage, the thesmothetæ were presidents, and order’d the congregation. Furthermore, if they would amend, alter, repeal, or make a law, this also was don by a representative, of which no man was capable that had not bin of the heliæa, for the rest elected out of the whole people: this amounting to one thousand, was call’d the nomothetæ or legislators. No law receiv’d by the people could be abrogated but by the nomothetæ; by these any Athenian, having obtain’d leave of the senat, might abrogat a law, provided withal he put another in the place of it. These laws the proedri of the Prytans were to put to the suffrage.

First, the old, whether it agreed with the Athenian people, or not? then the new; and whether of these happen’d to be chirotoniz’d or voted by the nomothetæ, was ratify’d, according to that piece of the Athenian law cited by Demosthenes against Timocrates, odagrpisymbolότεrhosymbolον δ’ apsgrν τohpegrν νόμων χειrhosymbolοτονήσωσιν odagrι νομοthetavέται, τ[Editor: illegible character]τον kappavύrhosymbolιον εipspergrναι. What has bin said of the commonwealth of Athens, in relation to the present purpose, amounts to thus much, that not only the senat and the magistracy in this policy was upon rotation, but even the people also, at least as to the nomothetæ, or their legislative power, and the supreme judicatory of the heliæa, each of these being a representative, constituted of one thousand, or fifteen hundred citizens.

But for what follows in the second book, it is necessary that I observe in this place the proceding of certain divines, who indeavour to make use of this commonwealth for ends of their own, as particularly Dr. Seaman; who in his book call’d Four Propositions, argues after this manner:

CHIROTONIA (as Suidas has it) signifys both plebiscitum, a law made by the people, and psephisma. Now, say he, psephisma is the ordinary word us’d in the Attic laws, and in Demosthenes for senatusconsultum, a law made by the senat: whence he draws this conclusion; as, when the people make a law, they are said to chirotonize; so may the rulers, in like manner, in those laws that are made by themselves alone.

These ways with divines are too bad. The words of Suidas are these (χειροτονία, epsgrkappavλογη, pisymbolάντων kappavύρωσις) chirotonia is election or ratification by the many: which expresly excludes the few or the senat from being otherwise contain’d by the word chirotonia, than a part is by the whole. Nor has the author the word psephisma, or plebiscitum in the place. I would fain know what other word there is in Greec for plebiscitum but psephisma; and yet the doctor puts it upon Suidas, that he distinguishes between these two, and taking that for granted where he finds psephisma in Demosthenes and the Attic laws, will have it to signify no more than a decree of the senat. It is true that som decrees of the senat were so call’d, but those of the people had no other name; and whenever you find psephisma in Demosthenes or the Attic laws, for a law, there is nothing more certain than that it is to be understood of the people: for to say that a law in a popular commonwealth can be made without the people, is a contradiction.

Poll. lib. 8. c. 9.The second passage is a What think you of these words of Pollux, ipsgrδία δὲ odaacgrι μὲν thetavετμοthetavέται προγράφoulaσι, pisymbolότε δεipergr διkappavάζειν τagrgr διkappavαστήρια, kaisymbol τagrgrς εισαґγελίας εipsgrσαґγέλλoulaσιν εipsgrς τον δeepergrμον kaisymbol τας χειροτονίς. Which the doctor having english’d in this manner, the thesmothetæ do privatly prescribe when judgment is to be given, and promulge public accusations and suffrages to the people, asks you whose suffrages were these, if not the rulers? by which strange construction, where Pollux having first related in what part the function of the thesmothetæ was common with that of the nine archons, coms (ipsgrδία δὲ) to shew you what was peculiar to themselves, namely, to give notice when the heliæa or other judicatorys were to assemble; the doctor renders it, they do privatly prescribe: as if the session of a court of justice, and such a one as contain’d a thousand judges, being the representative of the whole people, were to be privatly prescrib’d. Then to this privat prescribing of justice, he adds, that they do publicly promulgeipsgrσαґγελίας) citations upon crimes not within the written law: as if privat prescription and public promulgation could stand together. Next, wheras promulgation in the very nature of the word signifys an act before a law made, he presumes the law to be first made by the rulers, and then promulgated by the thesmothetæ to the people, kim kam to the experience of all commonwealths, the nature of promulgation, and the sense of his author, whose words, as I shew’d before, declare it to have bin the proper or peculiar office of the thesmothetæ to give the people notice when they were to assemble for judicature, or when for giving their chirotonia or suffrage, by promulgation of the causeipsgrς τogrgrν δeepergrμον) upon which they were to determin.

For the fourth passage, the doctor quoting a wrong place for these words, χειrhosymbolοτονήσωσιν odagrι νομοthetavεται, that the nomothetæ (being a representative, as I shew’d, of the whole people, chosen by lot, and in number one thousand) chirotoniz’d, or gave the legistative suffrage; thence infers, that the rulers chirotoniz’d, voted or made laws by themselves without the people: which is as if one should say, that the prerogative tribe in Rome, or the house of commons in England, gave their vote to such or such a law, therfore it was made by the rulers alone, and not by the people of Rome or of England.

For the fourth passage, Stephanus quotes Demosthenes at large in these words, opsoxgrυτε βoulaλeepergrς, opsoxgrυτε δήμoula χειροτονήσαντος apsgrυτόν. This the doctor interprets of an officer; to which I shall say more, when he shews me where the sentence is, or what went before: for as yet I do not know of an officer in any commonwealth, whose election was indifferently made, either by the senat or by the people; nor do I think the doctor has look’d further for this than Stephens, who has not interpreted it.

The fifth passage is, that a decree of the senat in Athens had the force of a law for one year, without the people. So had the edicts of the prætors in Rome: but I would fain know, whence the senat in Athens, or the prætors in Rome, originally deriv’d this right (which was no more than that such laws might be probationers, and so better understood when they came to the vote) but from the chirotonia, or suffrage of the people.

The sixth passage stops the mouths of such as having nothing to say to the matter of my writing, pick quarrels with the manner or freedom of it, the liberty I take in the defence of truth; seeing the doctor takes a greater liberty upon other terms, while he bids his antagonist (one that defended the cause now in my hand) go and consult his authors, namely Stephens and Budæus again: for, says he, you wrong those learned men, while you would have us believe that they were as ignorant of the Greec story as yourself, or that things are to be found in them which are not. To which confidence I have better leave to say, that the doctor should do well to take no worse counsil than he gives.

But what is becom of my prevaricator? I have quite lost him, else I should have intreated him to compare his notes out of my sermon, with these out of the doctors; or retract that same affectation, in saying, I know not how, but Mr. Harrington has conceiv’d a great unkindness for the clergy. As if these their stratagems, with which they make perpetual war against the unwary people, did not concern a man that has undertaken the cause of popular government.

The policy of the Achæans consisted of divers commonwealths under one, which was thus administer’d. The citys sent their deputys twice every year of course, and oftner if they were summon’d by their strategus, or their demiurges, to the place appointed. The strategus was the supreme magistrat both military and civil, and the demiurges being ten, were his council, all annual magistrats elected by the people. This council thus constituted, was call’d the synarchy, and perform’d like dutys, in relation to the senat, consisting of the deputys sent by their peculiar soveraintys or citys, as the Prytans to that in Athens. The policys of the Ætolians and Lycians are so near the same again, that in one you have all. So both the senats and the magistracy of these commonwealths were upon rotation. To conclude with Venice.

Epitome of the commonwealth of Venice.The commonwealth of Venice consists of four parts; the great council, the senat, the college, and the signory.

The great council is the aggregat body of the whole people, or citizens of Venice, which, for the paucity of their number,The great council. and the antiquity of their extraction, are call’d gentlemen, or noble Venetians. Every one of them at five and twenty years of age has right of session and suffrage in this council; which right of suffrage, because throout this commonwealth, in all debates and elections, it is given by the ballot, is call’d the right of balloting, wherby this council being the soverain power, creates all the rest of the orders, councils, or magistracys; and has constitutively the ultimat result, both in cases of judicature, and the constitution of laws.

The senat.The senat, call’d also the pregati, consists of sixty senators properly so stil’d, wherof the great council elects six on a day, beginning so long before the month of October, that these being all chosen by that time, then receive their magistracy: it consists also of sixty more, call’d the junta, which are elected by the scrutiny of the old senat, that is, by the senat proposing, and the great council resolving; the rest of their creation is after the same manner with the former. In the sixty of the senat, there cannot be above three of any one kindred or family, nor in the junta so many, unless there be fewer in the former. These magistracys are all annual, but without interval, so that it is at the pleasure of the great council, whether a senator having finish’d his year, they will elect him again.

The college.The college is a council consisting more especially of three orders of magistrats call’d in their language savi; as the savi grandi, to whose cognizance or care belong the whole affairs of sea and land; the savi di terra ferma, to whose care and cognizance belong the affairs of the land; and the savi di mare, to whose cognizance appertain the affairs of the sea, and of the ilands. These are elected by the senat, not all at once, but for the savi grandi, who are six, by three at a time, with the interposition of three months; and for the savi di terra ferma, and the savi di mare, who are each five, after the same manner, save only that the first election consists of three, and the second of two. Each order of the savi elects weekly one provost, each of which provosts has right in any affair belonging to the cognizance of his order, to propose to the college. Audience of embassadors, and matters of foren negotiation, belong properly to this council.

The signory.The signory consists of the duke and of his counsillors. The duke is a magistrat created by the great council for life, to whom the commonwealth acknowleges the reverence due to a prince, and all her acts run in his name; tho without the counsillors he has no power at all, while they can perform any function of the signory without him. The counsillors, whose magistracy is annual, are elected by the scrutiny of the senat, naming one out of each tribe (for the city is locally divided into six tribes) and the great council approving; so the counsillors are six, whose function in part is of the nature of masters of requests, having withal power to grant certain privileges: but their greatest preeminence is, that all, or any one of them may propose to any council in the commonwealth.

Certain rights of the councils.The signory has session and suffrage in the college, the college has session and suffrage in the senat, and the senat has session and suffrage in the great council. The signory, or the provosts of the savi, have power to assemble the college, the college has power to assemble the senat, and the senat has power to assemble the great council; the signiori, but more peculiarly the provosts of the savi, in their own offices and functions, have power to propose to the college, the college has power to propose to the senat, and the senat has power to propose to the great council. Whatever is thus propos’d and resolv’d, either by the senat (for somtimes thro the security of this order, a proposition gos no further) or by the great council, is ratify’d, or becoms the law of the commonwealth. Over and above these orders, they have three judicatorys, two civil and one criminal, in each of which forty gentlemen elected by the great council are judges for the term of eight months; to these judicatorys belong the avogadori and the auditori, who are magistrats, having power to hear causes apart, and, as they judge fitting, to introduce them into the courts.

If a man tells me, that I omit many things, he may perceive I write an epitome, in which no more should be comprehended, than that which understood may make a man understand the rest. But of these principal parts consists the whole body of admirable Venice.

The consiglio de’ dieci, or council of ten, being that which partakes of dictatorian power, is not a limb of her, but as it were a sword in her hand. This council (in which the signory has also session and suffrage) consists more peculiarly of ten annual magistrats, created by the great council, who afterwards elect three of their own number by lot, which so elected are call’d capi de’ dieci, their magistracy being monthly: again, out of the three capi, one is taken by lot, whose magistracy is weekly: this is he, who over against the tribunal in the great council sits like another duke, and is call’d the provost of the dieci. It belongs to these three magistrats to assemble the council of ten, which they are oblig’d to do weekly of course, and oftner as they see occasion. The council being assembled, any one of the signory, or two of the capi may propose to it: the power which they now exercise (and wherin for their assistance they create three magistrats call’d the grand inquisitors) consists in the punishment of certain heinous crimes, especially that of treason; in relation wherto they are as it were sentinels, standing upon the guard of the commonwealth: but constitutively (with the addition of a junta, consisting of other fifteen, together with some of the chief magistrats having right in cases of important speed or secrecy to this council) they have the full and absolute power of the whole commonwealth as dictator.

That Venice either transcrib’d the whole and every part of her constitution out of Athens and Lacedemon, or happens to be fram’d as if she had so don, is most apparent. The result of this commonwealth is in the great council, and the debate in the senat; so was it in Lacedemon. A decree made by the senat of Athens had the power of a law for one year without the people, at the end wherof the people might revoke it: a decree of the senat of Venice stands good without the great council, unless these see reason to revoke it. The Prytans were a council preparing business for the senat; so is the Collegio in Venice: the presidents of the Prytans were the ten Proedri; those of the Collegio are the three provosts of the Savi. The archons or princes of Athens being nine, had a kind of soverain inspection upon all the orders of the commonwealth; so has the signory of Venice, consisting of nine besides the duke. The quarancys in Venice are judicatorys of the nature of the Heliæa in Athens; and as the Thesmothetæ heard and introduc’d the causes into that judicatory, so do the Avogadori and the Auditori into these. The Consiglio de’ Dieci in Venice is not of the body, but an appendix of the commonwealth; so was the court of the Ephori in Lacedemon: and as these had power to put a king, a magistrat, or any delinquent of what degree soever to death, so has the Consiglio de’ Dieci. This again is wrought up with the Capi de’ Dieci, and the weekly provost, as were the Prytans with the Proedri, and the weekly Epistata; and the ballot is lineally descended from the bean: yet is Venice in the whole, and in every part, a far more exquisit policy than either Athens or Lacedemon.

A political is like a natural body. Commonwealths resemble and differ, as men resemble and differ; among whom you shall not see two faces, or two dispositions, that are alike. Peter and Thomas in all their parts are equally men, and yet Peter and Thomas of all men may be the most unlike; one may have his greater strength in his arms, the other in his legs; one his greater beauty in his soul, the other in his body; one may be a fool, the other wise; one valiant, the other cowardly. These two, which at a distance you will not know one from the other, when you look nearer, or com to be better acquainted with, you will never mistake. Our considerer (who in his epistle would make you believe that Oceana is but a mere transcription out of Venice) has companions like himself; and how near they look into matters of this nature is plain, while one knows not Jethro from Moses, and the other takes a state of civil war to be the best model of a civil government.

Let a man look near, and he shall not find any one order in Oceana (the ballot only excepted) that has not as much difference from, or resemblance to any one order in Rome or Venice, as any one order in Rome or Venice has from, or to any one order in Athens or Lacedemon: which different temper of the parts must of necessity in the whole yield a result, a soul or genius, altogether new in the world, as imbracing both the arms of Rome, and the counsils of Venice; and yet neither obnoxious to the turbulency of the one, nor the narrowness of the other.

But the sum of what has bin said of Venice, as to the business in hand, coms to no more than that the senat and the magistracy of this commonwealth are upon rotation. No more: nay I am well if it coms to so much. For the prevaricator catching me up, where I say, that for all this the greater magistracys in Venice are continually wheel’d thro a few hands, tells me, that I have confest it to be otherwise.Consid. p. 93. I have indeed confest, that tho the magistracys are all confer’d for certain terms, yet those terms do not necessitat vacations; that is, the term of a magistracy being expir’d, the party that bore it is capable upon a new election of bearing it again without interval or vacation: which does not altogether frustrat the rotation of the commonwealth, tho it renders the same very imperfect. This infirmity of Venice derives from a complication of causes, none of which is incident to a commonwealth consisting of the many: wherfore there lys no obligation upon me to discover the reason in this place. But on the contrary, seeing, let me shew things never so new, they are slighted as old, I have an obligation in this place, to try whether I may get esteem by concealing something. What is said, every body knew before; this is not said, who knows it?

A riddle.Riddle me, riddle me, what is this? The magistracys in Venice (except such as are rather of ornament than of power) are all annual, or at most biennial. No man whose term is expir’d, can hold his magistracy longer, but by a new election. The elections are most of them made in the great council, and all by the ballot, which is the most equal and impartial way of suffrage. And yet the greater magistracys are perpetually wheel’d thro a few hands.

If I be worthy to give advice to a man that would study the politics, let him understand Venice; he that understands Venice right, shall go nearest to judg (notwithstanding the difference that is in every policy) right of any government in the world. Now the assault of the considerer deriving but from som pique or emulation which of us should be the abler politician, if the council of state had the curiosity to know either that, or who understands Venice, this riddle would make the discovery; for he that cannot easily unfold this riddle, dos not understand her.

The sixth kind of rotation is when a commonwealth gos upon it in all her orders, senat, people, and magistracy. Such a one taking in the many, and being fix’d upon the foot of a steady agrarian, has attain’d to perfect equality. But of this an example there is none, or you must accept of Oceana.

Rotation of Oceana.The rotation of Oceana is of two parts, the one of the electors which is annual, and the other of the elected which is triennial.

Speaking of electors in this sense, I mean as the great council in Venice are electors of all other orders, councils or magistrats. But the commonwealth of Oceana taking in the whole people, cannot, as dos the great council of Venice (wherin they that have right are but a few) attain to this capacity at one step: for which cause she takes three steps; one at the parishes, where every fifth elder is annually elected by the whole people. There is no doubt but there was som such order in Israel wherby the monthly rotation of her congregation or prerogative, by election of two thousand in each tribe, was preserv’d. The next step she takes is at the hundred, where by election of officers and magistrats, the troops chosen at the parishes, are very near form’d. Her third step is at the tribe, where the whole body of her deputys are in an exact form, disciplin and function, headed by proper officers and magistrats, these all together consisting of one fifth part of the whole people. This rotation being in itself annual, coms in regard of the body of the people to be quinquennial, or such as in the space of five years give every man his turn in the power of election.

But tho every man be so capable of being an elector, that he must have his turn; yet every man is not so capable of being elected into those magistracys that are soverain, or have the leading of the whole commonwealth, that it can be safe to lay a necessity that every man must take his turn in these also; but it is enough that every man, who in the judgment and conscience of his country is fit, may take his turn. Wherfore upon the conscience of the electors, so constituted as has bin shewn, it gos to determin who shall partake of soverain magistracy, or be at the assembly of a tribe elected into the senat or prerogative; which assemblys are so triennial, that one third part of each falling every year, and another being elected, the parlament is therby perpetuated.

Consid. p. 90.Such was the constitution of those councils which the prevaricator has confest he always thought admirable, but now the toy takes him to be quite of another mind; for, says he, That antient republics have thro a malicious jealousy (let them take it among them) made it unlawful even for persons of the clearest merit to continue long in command, but have by perpetual vicissitude substituted new men in the government, is manifest enough; but with what success they did this, will best appear by Veturius, Varro, and Mancinus. He is still admirable: one would wonder what he means; if it be that there were but three weak or unfortunat generals in the whole course of Rome, how strange is it to urge this as an argument against rotation, which is as strong a one as can be urg’d for rotation? If the Romans by this way of election having experience of an able general, knew ever after where to have him; or lighting upon one they found not so fit for their purpose, could in the compass of one year be rid of him of course, without dishonor or reproach to him, taking therby a warning to come no more there; was this a proceeding to favor malice? or such a one as, removing the cause of malice, left no root for such a branch or possibility of like effect? Certainly by this assertion the prevaricator has jolted his presumptuous head not only against the prudence of antient commonwealths, but of God himself in that of Israel. Veturius, Varro, and Mancinus (tho som of them cannot be at all points excus’d) by this mark upon them, may be thought hardlier of than is needful; for which cause there being that also in their storys, which is neither unpleasant nor unprofitable, I shall indeavor to make the reader somwhat better acquainted with them.Liv. l. 9. One of the greatest blows Rome ever receiv’d was by Pontius, captain general of the Samnits, who having drawn her consuls, Posthumius and Veturius, by stratagem into the straits of Caudium, a vally of narrow entrance, and shut up the mouth of it by possessing himself of the only passage, the rest being inviron’d with insuperable rocks, the Samnit came to have both the armys, and so upon the matter the whole strength (in those days) of Rome inevitably at his discretion. Hereupon, having leisure, and being desirous (in a matter of such moment) of good advice, he dispatch’d a messenger to his father Herennius, the ablest counsillor in Samnium, to know what might be his best course with the Romans now inavoidably at his mercy, who answer’d, that he should open the pass and let them return untouch’d. The young general, amaz’d at this counsil, desir’d farther direction: wherupon Herennius for the second time made answer, that he should cut them off to a man. But the general, upon the strange disagreement of such opinions, having his father’s age (for he was very old) in suspicion, took a third course, which neither (according to the first advice of wise Herennius) making friends, nor, according to the second, destroying enemys, became, as he prophesy’d, the utter ruin of the commonwealth of Samnium. For the Romans being dismist safe, but ignominiously, the senat upon their return fell into the greatest strait and consternation that had bin known among them. On the one side, to live and not revenge such an affront was intolerable; on the other, to revenge it was against the faith of the consuls, whose necessity (the loss of two armys depending upon it) had in truth forc’d them to accept of a dishonorable league with the Samnits. Now not the armys, but the senat it self was in Caudium, not a man of them could find the way out of this vale inviron’d with rocks, but he only that could not find it out of the other; Posthumius, who having first shew’d, that neither war nor peace could be so made, as to ingage the commonwealth (injuffu populi) without the command of the people, declar’d that the senat returning the consuls, with such others as had consented to so wicked and dishonorable a peace, naked, and bound to the Samnits; were free: nor ceas’d he till the senat (therto prest by the necessity of the commonwealth) resolving accordingly, he, Veturius, and som of the tribuns were deliver’d to the Samnits; who, nevertheless, to hold the Romans to their league, dismist them with safety. The disputes on either side that arose hereupon, and, coming to arms, ended with the destruction of Samnium, I omit. That which as to the present occasion is material, is the reputation of the consuls; and Veturius, tho he were not the leading man, being for the rest as deep in the action as Posthumius, the people were so far from thinking themselves deceiv’d in this choice, that the consuls were more honour’d in Rome for having lost, than Pontius in Samnium for having won the day at Caudium.

I do not rob graves, nor steal windingsheets; my controversys are not but with the living, with none of these that have not shew’d themselves best able for their own defence; nor yet with such, but in the prosecution of truths oppos’d by them to the damage of mankind: yet the prevaricator accuses me of rude charges. What are his then in defence of falshood, and against such as cannot bite? or whether of these is the more noble?

For Varro, who being consul of Rome, lost the battel of Cannæ to Hannibal, captain general for the Carthaginians, tho without cowardice, yet by rashness, he is not so excusable.

Florus, l 2. c. 18.But for Mancinus, brought (as was Posthumius by the Samnits) to dishonorable conditions by Megera, captain general of the Numantins, there be excuses: as first, the Numantins, for their number not exceeding four thousand fighting men, were the gallantest of so many, on which the sun ever shone.

Fourteen years had their commonwealth held tack with the Romans, in courage, conduct, and virtue, having worsted Pompey the Great, and made a league with him, when she might have made an end of him, e’er ever Mancinus (of whom Cicero gives a fair character) came in play: so his misfortunes, having great examples, cannot want som excuse. But suppose none of them deserv’d any excuse, what is it at which these examples drive? against a commonwealth? sure the Samnits, the Carthaginians, the Numantins were as well commonwealths as the Romans; and so wherever the advantage gos, it must stay upon a commonwealth: or if it be rotation that he would be at (for we must guess) granting Pontius the Samnit, and Megera the Numantin, to have bin no more upon rotation, than Hannibal the Carthaginian; yet it is plain that Rome upon her rotation overcame not only Pontius, Hannibal and Megera, but Samnium, Carthage, and Numantia.Consid. p. 91. So much for Rome; but, says he, no less appears by the rabble of generals often made use of by the Athenians, while men of valor and conduct have lain by the walls.

A rabble of generals did I never hear of before; but not to meddle with his rhetoric, wheras each of his objections has at least som one contradiction in it, this has two (one à priori, another à posteriori) one in the snout, another in the tail of it. For had there bin formerly no rotation in Athens, how should there have bin men of valor and conduct to ly by the walls? and if rotation thenceforth should have ceas’d, how could those men of valor and conduct have don otherwise than ly by the walls? so this inavoidably confesses, that rotation was the means wherby Athens came to be stor’d with persons of valor and conduct, they to be capable of imployment, and the commonwealth to imploy the whole virtue of her citizens: and it being, in his own words, an argument of much imperfection in a government not to dare to employ the whole virtue of the citizens, this wholly routs a standing general; for the government that dares imploy but the virtue of one, dares not imploy the virtue of all. Yet he jogs one.

Consid. p. 91.THOSE orders must needs be against nature, which, excluding persons of the best qualifications, give admission to others, who have nothing to commend them but their art in canvassing for the suffrage of the people. He never takes notice that the ballot bars canvassing beyond all possibility of any such thing; but we will let that go. Canvassing, it is confest, was more frequent in Rome and Athens than is laudable, where nevertheless it is the stronger argument for the integrity of popular suffrage, which, being free from any aid of art, produc’d in those commonwealths more illustrious examples (if a man gos no further than Plutarch’s lives) than are to be found in all the rest of story.

Consid. p. 91.YET, says he, this law has bin as often broken as a commonwealth has bin brought into any exigence; for the hazard of trusting affairs in weak hands then appearing, no scruple has been made to trample upon this order, for giving the power to some able man at that time render’d incapable by the vacation this law requires. The continuation of the consulship of Marius is sufficient to be alleg’d for the proof of this, tho if occasion were, it might be back’d by plenty of examples. His choice confutes his pretended variety, who jests with edg’d tools: this example above all will cut his fingers; for by this prolongation of magistracy, or, to speak more properly, of empire (for the magistracy of the consul was civil, and confer’d by the people centuriatis comitiis, but his empire was military, and confer’d curiatis) Rome began to drive those wheels of her rotation heavily in Marius, which were quite taken off in Cæsar.

I have heretofore in vain persuaded them upon this occasion, to take notice of a chapter in Machiavel, so worthy of regard, that I have now inserted it at length, as follows:

Mach. Dis. cor. b. 3 c. 24.THE proceedings of the Roman commonwealth being well consider’d, two things will be found to have bin the causes of her dissolution. The contention that happen’d thro the indeavor of the people (always oppos’d or eluded by the nobility) to introduce an agrarian, and the damage that accru’d from the prolongation of empire, which mischiefs, had they bin foreseen in due time, the government by application of fit remedys might have bin of longer life and better health. The diseases which this commonwealth, from contention about the agrarian, contracted, were acute and tumultuous; but those being flower and without tumult which she got by promulgation of empire, were chronical, and went home with her, giving a warning by her example, how dangerous it is to states that would injoy their liberty, to suffer magistracy (how deservedly soever confer’d) to remain long in the possession of the same man. Certainly if the rest of the Romans, whose empire happen’d to be prolong’d, had bin as virtuous and provident as Lucius Quintius, they had never run into this inconvenience. Of such wholsom example was the goodness of this man, that the senat and the people, after one of their ordinary disputes being com to som accord, wheras the people had prolong’d the magistracy of their present tribuns, in regard they were persons more fitly oppos’d to the ambition of the nobility, than by a new election they could readily have found; when hereupon the senat (to shew they needed not be worse at this game) would have prolong’d the consulat to Quintius, he refus’d his consent, saying, that ill examples were to be corrected by good ones, and not incourag’d by others like themselves; nor could they stir his resolution, by which means they were necessitated to make new consuls. Had this wisdom and virtue, I say, bin duly regarded, or rightly understood, it might have sav’d Rome, which thro this neglect came to ruin. The first whose empire happen’d to be prolong’d was Publilius Philo, his consulat expiring at the camp before Palæpolis, while it seem’d to the senat that he had the victory in his hand (actum cum tribunis plebis est, ad populum ferrent ut cum Philo consulatu abiisset, proconsul rem gereret) they sent him no successor, but prolong’d his empire, by which means he came to the first proconsul.Liv. l. 8. An expedient (tho introduc’d for the public good) that came in time to be the public bane: for by how much the Roman armys march’d further off, by so much the like course seeming to be the more necessary, became the more customary; whence insu’d two pernicious consequences: the one, that there being fewer generals, and men of known ability for conduct, the art with the reputation of the same came to be more ingrost, and obnoxious to ambition: the other, that a general standing long, got such hold upon his army, as could take them off from the senat, and hang them on himself. Thus Marius and Sylla could be follow’d by the soldiery to the detriment of the commonwealth, and Cæsar to her perdition. Wheras had Rome never prolong’d empire, she might perhaps not so soon have arriv’d at greatness or acquisition, but would have made less haste to destruction.

All the dilemma that Machiavel observes in these words, is, that if a commonwealth will not be so slow in her acquisition as is requir’d by rotation, she will be less sure than is requisit to her preservation.Consid. p. 92. But the prevaricator (not vouchsafing to shew us upon what reasons or experience he grounds this maxim) is positive, that the dilemma into which a commonwealth is in this case brought, is very dangerous; for either she must give her self a mortal blow by gaining the habit of insringing such orders as are necessary for her preservation, or receive one from without.

Mamercus apud Liv. l. 4.This same is another parakeetism: these words are spoken by me, after Machiavel, in relation to dictatorian power, in which they are so far from concluding against rotation, that this in case of a dictator is more especially necessary (maxima libertatis custodia est, ut magna imperia diuturna non sint, & temporis modus imponatur, quibus juris imponi non potest) which could not be more confirm’d than by him, who in the example of Marius shews that the contrary course spoil’d all.

The Romans, if they had sent a successor to Publius Philo at Palæpolis, it may be might have let the victory slip out of his hands, it may be not; however this had bin no greater wound to the commonwealth, than that her acquisition would have bin slower, which ought not to com in competition with the safety of a government, and therfore amounts not to a dilemma, this being a kind of argument that should not be stub’d of one horn, but have each of equal length and danger. Nor is it so certain that increase is slower for rotation, seeing neither was this interrupted by that, nor that by this, as the greatest actions of Rome, the conquest of Carthage by Scipio Africanus, of Macedon by Flaminius, and of Antiochus by Asiaticus, are irrefragable testimonys.

I would be loth to spoil the considerer’s preferment; but he is not a safe counsillor for a prince, whose providence not supplying the defect of rotation, whether in civil or military affairs, with somthing of like nature, exposes himself if not his empire as much to danger as a commonwealth.2 Sam. 3. 39. Thus the sons of Zerviah, Joab captain of the host, and Abishai his brother, were too strong for David; thus the kings of Israel and of Juda fell most of them by their captains or favorits, as I have elsewhere observ’d more particularly. Thus Brutus being standing captain of the guards, could cast out Tarquin; thus Sejanus had means to attempt against Tiberius; Otho to be the rival of Galba, Casperius Ælianus of Nerva, Cassius of Antoninus, Perennis of Commodus, Maximinus of Alexander, Philippus of Gordian, Æmilianus of Gallus; Ingebus Lollianus, Aureolus, of Gallienus; Magnesius of Constantius, Maximus of Gratian, Arbogastes of Valentinian, Ruffinus of Arcadius, Stilico of Honorius. Go from the west into the east: upon the death of Marcianus, Asparis alone, having the command of the arms, could prefer Leo to the empire; Phocas deprive Mauritius of the same; Heraclius depose Phocas; Leo Isaurias do as much to Theodosius Adramyttenus; Nicephorus to Irene, Leo Armenius to Michael Curopalates, Romanus Lagapenus to Constantin, Nicephorus Phocas to Romanus Puer, Johannes Zismisces to Nicephorus Phocas, Isaac Comnenus to Michael Stratioticus, Botoniates to Michael the son of Ducas, Alexius Comnenus to Botoniates: which work continu’d in such manner till the destruction of that empire. Go from the east to the north: Gustavus attain’d to the kingdom of Sweden, by his power and command of an army: and thus Secechus came near to supplant Boleslaus the third of Poland. If Wallestein had liv’d, what had becom of his master? in France the race of Pharamond was extinguish’d by Pipin; and that of Pipin in like manner, each by the major of the palace, a standing magistracy of exorbitant trust. Go to the Indys: you shall find a king of Pegu to have bin thrust out of the realm of Tangu by his captain general. Nay, go where you will, tho this be pretty well, you shall add more than one example. But as to the prevaricator, if he was not given to make such mouths, as eat up nothing else but his own words, I needed not have brought any other testimony to absolve a commonwealth of malice in this order than his own, where he says, that when som person overtops the rest in commands, it is a disease of monarchy which easily admits of this cure, that he be reduc’d to a less volum, and level’d to an equality with the rest of his order.Consid. p. 47. 48. Now a prince can no otherwise level a nobleman, that excels the rest thro command, to equality with his order, than by causing those of the same order to take their turns in like command. Good wits have ill memorys.Consid. p. 93. But, says he, I know not what advantage Mr. Harrington may foresee from the orders of this rotation, for my part, I can discover no other effect of it than this, that in a commonwealth like that of Oceana, taking in the many (for in Venice he confesses it to be otherwise) where every man will press forward towards magistracy, this law, by taking off at the end of one year som officers, and all at the end of three, will keep the republic in a perpetual minority: no man having time allow’d him to gain that experience, which may serve to lead the commonwealth to the understanding of her true interest either at home or abroad.

What I have confest to be otherwise in Venice, I have shewn already at least so far as concerns the present occasion, the causes of that defect being incompatible with a commonwealth consisting of the many; otherwise why was not the like found in Athens or Rome? where tho every man prest forward towards magistracy, yet the magistrats were, for illustrious examples, more in weight and number than are to be found in all the rest of the world.

If where elections were the most expos’d to the ambition of the competitor, and the humors of the people, they yet fail’d not to excel all others that were not popular, what greater vindication can there be of the natural integrity of popular suffrage even at the worst? but this, where it is given by the baliot, is at the best, and free from all that pressing for magistracy in the competitor, or faction of the people that can any ways be laid to the former: or let the considerer consider again, and tell me by what means either of these in such a state can be dangerous or troublesom; or if at worst the orders for election in Oceana must not perform that part, better than a croud and a sherif. Well; but putting the case the elections which were not quarrel’d much withal be rightly stated, yet this law for terms and vacations, by taking off at the end of one year som officers, and all at the end of three, will keep the republic in perpetual minority, no man having time allow’d him to gain that experience, which may serve to lead the commonwealth to the understanding of her true interest at home or abroad. Because every man will press forward for magistracy, therfore there ought not to be terms and vacations, lest these should keep the commonwealth in perpetual minority. I would once see an argument that might be reduc’d to mode and figure. The next objection is, that these orders take off at the end of one year som officers, which is true, and that at the end of three years they take off all, which is false; for wheras the leaders of the commonwealth are all triennial, the orders every year take off no more than such only as have finish’d their three years term, which is not all, but a third part. Wherfore let him speak out; three years is too short a term for acquiring that knowlege which is necessary to the leading of a commonwealth. To let the courses of Israel which were monthly, and the annual magistracys of Athens and Rome go; if three years be too short a term for this purpose, what was three months? a parlament in the late government was rarely longer liv’d than three months, nor more frequent than once in a year; so that a man having bin twelve years a parlament-man in England, could not have born his magistracy above three years, tho he were not necessarily subject to any vacation. Wheras a parlament in Oceana may in twelve years have born his magistracy six, notwithstanding the necessity of his vacations. Now which of these two are most straiten’d in the time necessary to the gaining of due experience or knowledge for the leading of a commonwealth? nevertheless the parlament of England was seldom or never without men of sufficient skill and ability; tho the orders there were more in number, less in method, not written, and of greater difficulty than they be in Oceana. There, if not the parlament man, the parlament itself was upon terms and vacations, which to a council of such a nature is the most dangerous thing in the world, seeing dissolution, whether to a body natural or political, is death. For if parlaments happen’d to rise again and again, this was not so much coming to themselves (seeing a council of so different genius has not bin known) as a new birth; and a council that is every year new born indeed must keep a commonwealth in perpetual minority, or rather infancy, always in danger of being overlaid by her nurse, or strangl’d by her guardian: wheras an assembly continu’d by succession, or due rotation regulated by terms, giving sufficient time for digestion, grows up, and is like a man, who tho he changes his flesh, neither changes his body nor his soul. Thus the senat of Venice changing flesh, tho not so often as in a commonwealth consisting of the many were requisit, yet oftenest of any other in the world, is, both in body and soul, or genius, the most unchangeable council under heaven. Flesh must be chang’d, or it will stink of it self; there is a term necessary to make a man able to lead the commonwealth to her interest, and there is a term that may inable a man to lead the commonwealth to his interest. In this regard it is, that, according to Mamercus, the vacations are (maxima libertatis custodia) the keepers of the libertys of Oceana.

The three regions into which each of the leading councils is divided, are three forms, as I may say, in the school of state: for them of the third, tho there be care in the choice, it is no such great matter what be their skill; the ballot which they practis’d in the tribe being that in the performance wherof no man can be out: and this is all that is necessary to their novitiat or first year, during which time they may be auditors. By the second, they will have seen all the scenes, or the whole rotation of the orders, so facil, and so intelligible, that at one reading a man understands them as a book, but at once acting as a play; and so methodical, that he will remember them better. Tell me then what it is that can hinder him for the second year from being a speaker; or why for the third, should he not be a very able leader.

The senat and the prerogative, or representative of the people, being each of like constitution, drop annually four hundred, which in a matter of ten years amount to four thousand experienc’d leaders, ready upon new elections to resume their leading.

Another thing which I would have consider’d is, whether our most eminent men found their parts in parlament, or brought them thither. For if they brought them, think you not the military orders of the youth, the disciplin of the tribes, the eight years orbs of the embassadors, the provincial armys of Oceana, likely to breed men of as good parts, as to such matters? nor have astronomers that familiarity with the stars, which men without these orbs will have with such as are in them. He is very dull, who cannot perceive that in a government of this frame the education must be universal, or diffus’d throout the whole body. Another thing which is as certain as comfortable, is, that the pretended depth and difficulty in matters of state is a mere cheat. From the beginning of the world to this day, you never found a commonwealth where the leaders having honesty enough, wanted skill enough to lead her to her true interest at home or abroad: that which is necessary to this end, is not so much skill as honesty; and let the leaders of Oceana be dishonest if they can. In the leading of a commonwealth aright, this is certain, wisdom and honesty are all one: and tho you shall find defects in their virtue, those that have had the fewest, have ever bin and for ever shall be, the wisest.

ROME was never ruin’d, till her balance being broken, the nobility forsaking their antient virtue, abandon’d themselves to their lusts; and the senators, who, as in the case of Jugurtha, were all brib’d, turn’d knaves; at which turn all their skill in government (and in this never men had bin better skill’d) could not keep the commonwealth from overturning. Cicero, an honest man, labor’d might and main; Pomponius Atticus another, despair’d; Cato tore out his own bowels; the poignards of Brutus and Cassius neither consider’d prince nor father: but the commonwealth had sprung her planks, and split her ballast; the world could not save her.

Consid. p. 36. p. 94.For the close, the prevaricator, who had judg’d before, that there was much reason to expect som of the clergy (against all of whom Mr. Harrington has declar’d war) would undertake the quarrel, tells me in the last line, that there be to whom he has recommended the disquisition of the Jewish commonwealth.

It is a miserable thing to be condemn’d to the perpetual budget; once turn an honest man to me. In the mean time, that it may be further seen, how much I am delighted in fair play, since some divines, it may be, are already at work with me, and I have not so fully explain’d my self upon that point, which with them is of the greatest concernment, that they can yet say, they have peep’d into my hand, or seen my game; as I have won this trick, gentlemen, or speak, so I play them out the last card in the next book for up.

An Advertisment to the Reader, or a Direction contain’d in certain Querys, how the Commonwealth of Oceana may be examin’d or answer’d by divers Sorts of Men, without spoiling their high Dance, or cutting off any Part of their Elegance, or Freeness of Expression.

  • To the Scholar that has pass’d his Novitiat in Story.

  • I. WHETHER the balance of property in land coming thro civil vicissitude by slow and undiscern’d degrees, to alter as it did, and to stand as it dos in Oceana, any other government could have bin introduc’d, otherwise than by the interposition of foren arms, that could have subsisted naturally without violence or reluctancy, or steddily without frequent changes, alterations, and plunges, except that only of the commonwealth propos’d?
  • II. WHETHER the balance in land so standing, as has bin shewn, the commonwealth propos’d, being once establish’d, were without the immediat hand of God, as by pestilence, famin, or inundation, to be alter’d or broken; and which way?
  • To the Godly Man.

  • I. WHETHER human prudence be not a creature of God, and to what end God made this creature?
  • II. WHETHER the commonwealth of Israel in her main orders, that is to say, the senat, the people, and the magistracy, was not erected by the same rules of human prudence with other commonwealths?
  • III. WHETHER Jethro were not a Heathen?
  • IV. WHETHER God did not approve of the advice of Jethro, in the fabric of the commonwealth of Israel?
  • V. WHETHER the natural body of a godly man can any otherwise be said to support and nourish it self in the air, or between heaven and earth, than by a figurative speech? or whether it be any more possible for the political body of a people so to do, than for the natural body of a godly man?
  • To the Grandee, or learned Commonwealthsman.

  • I. WHETHER a noble housekeeper has a horsekeeper, that is as as well to live as himself; and whether the housekeeper, should he lose his estate, would not be a horsekeeper rather than want bread?
  • II. WHETHER riches and poverty, more or less, do not introduce command or obedience, more or less, as well in a public as in a privat estate?
  • III. WHETHER the introduction of command or obedience, more or less, either in a public or privat estate, dos not form or change the genius of a man, or of a people accordingly? or what is the reason why the peasant of France is base, and the lower people in England of a high courage?
  • IV. WHETHER the genius of the people of Oceana, has bin of late years, or be devoted or addicted to the nobility and clergy as in former times?
  • V. WHETHER the genius of the people of Oceana, not being addicted to the nobility and clergy as formerly, can be said to be for monarchy, or against it?
  • VI. WHETHER the people be not frequently mistaken in names, while as to things they mean otherwise; or whether the people of Oceana desiring monarchy in name, do not in truth desire a government of laws, and not of men?
  • VII. WHETHER for these reasons, not to know how to hold the balance or foundation of a government steddy, nor yet to reform, or vary the orders of the same (as the foundation coms to vary) be not to deliver a nation to certain ruin and destruction?
  • To the rational Man.

  • I. WHETHER there be any thing in this fabric or model that is contradictory to itself, to reason, or to truth?
  • II. WHETHER a commonwealth that is fram’d intire or complete in all her necessary orders, without any manner of contradiction to her self, to reason, or to truth, can yet be false or insufficient?

AGAINST Dr. H. HAMMOND, Dr. L. SEAMAN, And the Authors they follow.

Optat Aprum aut fulvum descendere monte Leonem.

E. W.

Advertisment to the READER.

BOOKS, especially whose Authors have got themselves Names, are Leaders; wherfore in case any of these err in Leading, it is not only lawful, but Matter of Conscience to a Man that perceives it, as far as he is able, to warn others. This were Apology enough for my writing against Dr. Hammond and Dr. Seaman; and yet I have happen’d to be brought under a farther Obligation to this Enterprise, their Books have bin sent me by way of Objection against what I have formerly said of Ordination, and am daily more and more confirm’d I shall make good. However, there can be no great Hurt in this Essay, Truth being, like Venison, not only the best Quarry, but the best Game.

Order of the Discourse.

TO manage the present controversy with the more clearness, I have divided my discourse into five parts or chapters.

THE first, explaining the words chirotonia and chirothesia, paraphrastically relates the story of the perambulation made by the apostles Paul and Barnabas thro the citys of Lycaonia, Pisidia, &c. by way of introduction.

THE second shews those citys, or most of them, at the time of this perambulation, to have bin under popular government. In which is contain’d the whole administration of a Roman province.

THE third shews the deduction of the chirotonia from popular government, and of the original right of ordination from the chirotonia. In which is contain’d the institution of the sanhedrim or senat of Israel by Moses, and of that at Rome by Romulus.

THE fourth shews the deduction of the chirothesia from monarchical or aristocratical government, and the second way of ordination from the chirothesia. In which is contain’d the commonwealth of the Jews as it stood after the captivity.

THE fifth debates whether the chirotonia, us’d in the citys mention’d, was (as is pretended by Dr. Hammond, Dr. Seaman, and the authors they follow) the same with the chirothesia, or a far different thing. In which are contain’d the divers kinds of church-government introduc’d and exercis’d in the age of the apostles.

I am entring into a discourse to run much, for the words, upon a language not vulgar, which therfore I shall use no otherwise than by way of parenthesis, not obstructing the sense; and for the things, upon customs that are foren, which therfore I shall interpret as well as I can. Now so to make my way into the parts of this discourse, that (wheras they who have hitherto manag’d it in English, might in regard of their readers have near as well written it in Greec) I may not be above the vulgar capacity, I shall open both the names wherof, and the things wherupon we are about to dispute, by way of introduction.



Chap. I.THE names or words wherof we are about to dispute are Greec, the one chirotonia, the other chirothesia. The first signification of the word chirotonia, in Suidas, imports a certain leud action of the hand, which seems also by the Greec that renders it by the same word, to have bin intimated in Isa. 5. 9. In the second signification with Suidas, it is epsgrkappavλογeegrgr, πάντων kappavύrhosymbolωσις, election (that is to say of magistrats) or ratification (that is to say of laws) by the many: which amounts both by his testimony, and that generally of antient authors, to this, that the most usual and natural signification of the word chirotonia is popular suffrage, whether given, as when they speak of Athens, by the holding up of hands; or as when they speak (as dos Suidas in the place mention’d) of Rome, and other commonwealths (whose suffrage was not given with this ceremony) without holding up of hands.

CHIROTHESIA (epsgrπίthetavεσ[Editor: illegible character]ς χειrhosymbolohpegrν) is a word that in the strict signification imports laying on of hands, and no more: but the Jews using to confer their ordination most commonly by laying on of hands, and yet somtimes by word of mouth, or by letter, the word both as it relates to the custom of the Jewish commonwealth, and ordination thence transplanted into the church of Christ, signifys ordination confer’d by one man, or a few men, that is to say, by som distinct order from the people, whether with imposition of hands, or without it.

These words thus interpreted, I shall throout my discourse (which else must have run altogether upon the Greec) presume, as already I have don, to take for good English, and so procede to the things wherof we are to dispute; first, by opening the scene of this perambulation, which will be don best by the help of Erasmus, a man as for his learning not inferior to any, so for his freedom not addicted to interests or partys. For the remainder then of this introduction, I shall begin with the nineteenth verse of the eleventh, and continue my discourse to the end of the fourteenth chapter of the Acts; interweaving the text where it is darker with the paraphrase of that excellent author, for light, and his paraphrase with the text, where it is clearer, for brevity, in manner following:Book II.

Acts 11. 19.THEY whom the heat of persecution from the death of Stephen had dispers’d, travel’d thro the citys and villages as far as Phenice, and the adjacent iland of Cyprus; as also thro Antiochia, which lies between Phenice and Cilicia, preaching the gospel receiv’d from the apostles, which nevertheless they dar’d not to communicat but to such only as were of the Jewish nation, not out of envy, but a kind of superstition, they believing that to do otherwise were to give the childrens bread to dogs, which Christ had forbid.

BUT som of them that believ’d, being of Cyprus and Cyrene, when they came to Antioch, had the boldness to speak of Christ to the Greecs, preaching the Lord Jesus, in which they made such progress thro the blessing of God upon them and their labors, that a great number of these also believing the Gospel, were turn’d to the Lord. The tidings of these things coming to the ears of the church which was at Jerusalem, a man of apostolical sincerity, Barnabas the Levite, a Cyprian born, was sent by the apostles to take a view of what was don upon the places; and if he found it to be according to the will of God, to approve of it, by authority of the apostles. So great caution in receiving the Gentils to the Gospel was not, that the thing was not greatly desir’d by the apostles; but lest it should afterwards be repeal’d or made void by the Jews, as don rashly, or that the Gentils should rely less upon what was don, as conceiving it needed ratification by the law. Wherfore Barnabas so soon as he came to Antioch, and found the Greecs by faith, and without profession of the law, to have receiv’d the same grace of God with the Jews, was very much joy’d that the number of believers increas’d, and exhorted them to remain constant in their enterprize of adhering to the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the holy spirit, and of faith. Wherfore thro his ministry it came to pass, that a multitude of other believers were added to the former. Now Antioch being not far from Cilicia, the neighborhood of the place invited him to seek Paul, the fittest helper in this work, as chosen by Christ to preach his name to the Gentils and kings of the earth. For when Paul fled from Jerusalem. the disciples had conducted him to Cesarea of Phenice, whence he went to Tarsus; whom therfore when Barnabas had found there, he brought to Antioch, hoping in a city both famous and populous (but with a confus’d mixture of Jews and Greecs) to receive the better fruit thro the aid of an apostle more peculiarly design’d to this work. These two being conversant a whole year in the church of Antioch, which by the confluence both of Jews and Greecs became very numerous, so many were added by their preaching, that wheras hitherto, not exposing the name of Christ to envy, they had bin call’d Disciples, they now began first at Antioch from the name of their founder to be call’d Christians. In these times certain prophets came from the city of Jerusalem to Antioch, wherof one nam’d Agabus standing up in the congregation, signify’d by inspiration, that there should be a great dearth thro the whole world; which came to pass under Claudius Cæsar, the successor of Caligula. At this time they at Jerusalem, partly because they were poor at their conversion to the Gospel, partly because they had deposited their goods in common, and partly because they had bin spoil’d by the priests for their profession of Christ, ordain’d that by the contribution of such as had wherwithal, especially among the believing Gentils, mony should be sent to the relief of the Christians dwelling in Judea; but so that this contribution was not to be forc’d but free, and according to every man’s ability. This mony thus gather’d was sent by Paul and Barnabas to the elders at Jerusalem, to be distributed at their discretion to such as were in need. While Paul and Barnabas were thus imploy’d, king Herod, the same that beheaded John, and return’d Christ cloth’d, thro derision, in white, to Pilat, being griev’d to see this kind of people increase, and the name of Jesus king of the Jews to grow famous in divers nations, became concern’d to root out such a faction, and so spreading; wherfore he stretch’d forth his hand to vex certain of the church, kill’d James the brother of John with the sword; and because he saw it pleas’d the Jews, proceded further to take Peter also, who being imprison’d, was afterward miraculously deliver’d. But Paul and Barnabas having perform’d the trust committed to them by the brethren, and deliver’d the contribution for relief of the poor to the apostles, return’d from Jerusalem to Antioch, taking with them John, whose sirname was Marc.

NOW the church of Antioch flourish’d in such manner, that she had som fill’d with the gift of prophecy, and others with that of teaching; among whom was Barnabas and Simeon, alias Niger, together with Lucias a Cirenian, and Manaen who had bin brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, whom he left to com to Christ: but the chief of them was Saul, indow’d with all the gifts and graces apostolical. While all these were intent upon the ministry of the church, imploying their several gifts to the glory of God, and in his most acceptable service, the salvation of souls, with fasting and prayer, the Holy Ghost being stir’d up by their zeal, signified his will by the prophets, saying, Separat me Barnabas and Paul for the work wherto I have call’d them, namely, to be doctors of the Gentils, that by them I may propagat the gospel. The command of the Spirit was obey’d, and Barnabas with Paul, to the end that every one might see who are chosen, were separated from the rest; and when the congregation had unanimously implor’d the favor of God by prayer and fasting, the most eminent in authority among them laid their hands upon the persons so separated, and sent them wherever the spirit of God should direct them. By this impulse therfore Barnabas and Paul went to Seleucia, being a promontory of Antiochia, and thence sail’d into the iland of Cyprus, where they landed at Salamis, a famous city upon the eastern part of the iland; they preach’d not human inventions, but the word of God, nor that by stealth, but in the synagogs of the Jews, wherof thro the neighbourhood of Syria there was store. This honor by the commandment of Christ was always defer’d to the Jews, that the gospel should be first offer’d to them, lest they being a querulous and repining nation, should complain that they were despis’d. Thus travel’d these apostles thro the whole iland, till they came to Paphos, a city consecrated to Venus upon the western coast of Cyprus. Here they found a certain magician call’d Barjesus, that is, the son of Jesus a Jew, both by nation and religion, under which color he falsly pretended to the gift of prophesy. This man follow’d the court of Sergius Paulus, proconsul or governor of the iland for the Romans, otherwise a prudent man; but this sort of vermin insinuats it self into the best to chuse, that so their corruption may do the greater and more compendious mischief to mankind. The proconsul nevertheless having understood the gospel to be planting throout Cyprus, not only forbore to stop the ears of others, but by sending for Barnabas and Paul seem’d desirous to open his own. Wherfore Barjesus indeavoring to resist the growth of the word, as an enemy to Christ, and resisting the truth with falshood, a strife arose between the true prophets and a false one (for such is the interpretation of the Syriac word Elymas) whom Paul at length confuted of spiritual blindness, by taking away the eys of his body, miraculously struck in the presence of the proconsul who at the same time receiving the light of the gospel, imbrac’d the Christian faith. This being don at Paphos, Paul imbark’d there with his associats for the lesser Asia, and came to Perga, being a city of Pamphylia; here John, whose sirname was Marc, left them, and return’d to Jerusalem, while they, when they had visited Pamphylia, travel’d to Antiochia, a city of Pisidia, where having enter’d a synagog, they sat after the usual manner with the rest, attentive to the law and the prophets; wherof when the parts appointed were read, and no man stood up, the rulers of the synagog perceiving that the strangers by their habit were Jews, and such as by their aspect promis’d more than ordinary, sent to them, desiring that if they had any word of exhortation for the people, they would speak. Wherupon Paul standing up, preach’d to them Christ; whence came the word of the Lord to be divulg’d throout that region, tho the Jews out of envy to the Gentils, stirring up the devoutest matrons (an art not unknown in these times) and by them the chief of the city, rais’d such sedition in it, and tumult against the apostles, that Paul and Barnabas being cast out, shook off the dust from their feet against them, and went thence to Iconium a city of Lycaonia.Chap. 14. When they were com to Iconium, entring with the Jews after the custom into the synagog, they preach’d, as they had at Antioch, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and with such efficacy, that multitudes both of the Jews and Greecs believ’d. Here again the envy of the Jews became the author of sedition, by which means the city was divided into two parts or factions, wherof one stood for the unbelieving Jews, and the other for the apostles. At length when such of the Gentils as were join’d with the Jews, and the rulers of the city, made an assault upon the apostles, to offer violence and stone them; they being aware of it, fled to Lystra (a city of Lycaonia, which is a part of Pamphylia) and Derbe. At Lystra there was a man lame of his feet from the womb, who having listen’d to Paul with great attention and zeal, was miraculously cur’d by the apostle; when the people seeing what Paul had don, cry’d out, The gods were descended in the likeness of men: a persuasion that might gain the more easily upon the minds of the Lycaonians for the fable of Jupiter and Mercury, said to have descended in human shape, and bin entertain’d by Lycaon, from whom the Lycaonians receiv’d their name. Wherfore they call’d Barnabas, for the gravity of his aspect, Jupiter; Paul for his eloquence, Mercury: and the priest of Jupiter, who dwelt in the suburbs, brought bulls and garlands to the gates of the house where the apostles were, to have offer’d sacrifice with the people, which the apostles abhorring, vigorously dissuaded. In the mean time certain Jews by nation that were unbelievers, coming from Antioch of Pisidia, and Iconium, drew the people to the other extreme, who from sacrificing to the apostles fell on stoning them; a work which was brought so near to an end, that Paul being drawn by them out of the city, was left for dead, tho he soon after recover’d, and went thence with Barnabas to Derbe: when they had propagated the gospel there also, they return’d to Lystra, Iconium, and Antiochia, confirming the disciples whom they had converted. Now because the propagation of the gospel requir’d that the apostles should be moving thro divers nations, they chirotonizing them elders in every congregation or church, that is, ordaining them elders by the votes of the people in every city, left them to perform the dutys of the absent apostles, and when they had fasted and pray’d, commended them to the Lord. These things being brought to a conclusion, or finish’d at Antioch in Pisidia, when they had perambulated this country, they also visited Pamphylia; sowing the gospel where it was not yet sown, and confirming those who already believ’d, till they came to Perga: where having order’d their affairs, they proceded to Attalia, being a maritim city of Pamphylia; and from thence they sail’d back to Antioch of Syria, whence they first set out, with commission from the elders, to preach the gospel to the Gentils, and where by the Chirothesia, or Imposition of hands, prayer and fasting, they had bin recommended to the grace of God, and design’d to the work now finish’d.

Chap. II.In this narrative you have mention both of the Chirotonia and of the Chirothesia, or imposition of hands, but of the former as of ordination; for by that such were made presbyters or church-officers as were not so before: of the latter not, I think, as of ordination, at least in the sense we now take it; but as of designation of persons to an occasional and temporary imployment, that had bin ordain’d before, for so sure had Paul at least. However, that which is offer’d by this narrative to present consideration, is no more than the bare story.


That the Citys, or most of them nam’d in the Perambulation of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, were at that time under popular Government. In which is contain’d the Administration of a Roman Province.

THE Romans of all nations under heaven were indow’d, as with the highest virtues, so with the greatest human glory; which proceded from this especially, that they were in love with such as were in love with their liberty. To begin with their dawn, the Privernates (a free people inhabiting the city and parts adjoining, which at this day is call’d Piperno, som fifty miles from Rome, and five from Sesse) being the second time conquer’d by the Romans, it was consulted in the senat what course should be taken with them; where while som, according to the different temper of men, shew’d themselves hotter, and others cooler, one of the Privernates more mindful of the condition wherin he was born, than of that wherin he was faln, happen’d to render all more doubtful:Liv. l. 8. c. 21. for being ask’d by a senator of the severer judgment, what punishment he thought the Privernates might deserve, Such (says he) as they deserve who believe themselves worthy of liberty. At the courage of which answer, the consul (perceiving in them that had bin vehement enough before against the Privernates but the greater animosity, to the end that by a gentler interrogatory he might draw som softer answer from him) reply’d, And what if we inflict no punishment at all, but pardon you; what peace may we expect of you? Why if you give us a good one (said the other) a steady and perpetual peace, but if an ill one, not long. At which a certain senator falling openly upon ruffling and threatning the Privernat, as if those words of his tended to som practice or intention to stir up the citys in peace to sedition, the better part of the fathers being quite of another mind, declar’d, That they had heard the voice of a man, and of a freeman. For why, said they, should it be thought that any man or people will remain longer under such a burden as they are not able to bear, than till they can throw it down? There a peace is faithful, where it is voluntary; if you will have slaves, you are not to trust them but their fetters. To this opinion the consul especially inclining, inclin’d others, while he openly profest, That they who had no thought but upon their liberty, could not but be thought worthy to be Romans: wherupon the decree past by authority of the fathers, which was afterwards propos’d to the congregation, and ratify’d by the command of the people, wherby the Privernates were made citizens of Rome. Such was the genius of the Roman commonwealth; where by the way you may also observe the manner of her debate and result (authoritate patrum & jussu populi) by the advice of the senat, and the Chirotonia of the people.

But that which in this place is more particularly offer’d to consideration, is her usual way of proceding in case of conquest with other nations: for tho bearing a haughty brow towards such as, not contented to injoy their liberty at home, would be her rivals abroad, she dealt far otherwise, as with Carthage; this case excepted, and the pilling and polling of her provinces, which happen’d thro the avarice and luxury of her nobility, when the balance of popular power being broken, her empire began towards the latter end to languish and decline; the way which she took with the Privernates was that which she usually observ’d with others throout the course of her victorys, and was after the change of government made good at least in som part by the Roman emperors, under whom were now those citys mention’d in the present perambulation of the apostles Paul and Barnabas. Strabo for his credit among human authors is equal to any: he liv’d about the time of this perambulation, and being a Greec, is less likely to be partial: of that therfore which I have affirm’d to have bin the course of the Romans in their victorys, I shall make choice of this author for a witness; first where he epitomizes the story of Athens after this manner:Strab. 1. 9. When the Carians by sea, and the Bœotians by land, wasted Attica, Cecrops the prince, to bring the people under shelter, planted them in twelve citys, Cecropia, Tetrapolis, Epacrea, Decelea, Eleusis, Aphydna, Thoricus, Brauron, Cytherus, Sphettus, Cephissia, Phalerus; which Theseus is said to have contracted into one call’d Athens. The government of this city had many changes; at first it was monarchical, then popular: this again was usurp’d by the tyrants Pisistratus and his sons; whence recover’d, it fell afterwards into the hands of the few, as when the four hundred once, and again the thirty tyrants were impos’d by the Lacedemonians, in the war of Peloponnesus: which yoke the Athenians (by means of their faithful army) shaking off, restored their popular government, and held it till the Romans attain’d to the dominion of Greece. Now tho it be true that they were not a little disturb’d by the kings of Macedon, to whom they were forc’d to yield som kind of obedience; they nevertheless preserv’d the form of their commonwealth so intire, that there be who affirm it never to have bin better administer’d, than at such time as Macedon was govern’d by Cassander: for this prince, tho in other things more inclining towards the tyrant, having taken Athens by surrender, us’d not the people ill, but made Demetrius Phalereus the disciple of Theophrastus the philosopher, chief magistrat among them; a man so far from ruining their popular state (as in the commentarys he wrote upon this kind of government is attested) that he repair’d it. Nevertheless, whether suspected or envy’d for his greatness without support by the Macedonians, after the death of Cassander he fled into Egypt, while his enemys breaking down his statues (as som say) made homely vessels of them. But the Romans having receiv’d the Athenians under their popular form, left them their laws and libertys untouch’d, till in the war with Mithridates they were forc’d to receive such tyrants as that king was pleas’d to give them; wherof Ariston the greatest, when the Romans had retaken the city from him, being found trampling upon the people, was put to death by Sylla, and the city pardon’d, which to this day (he wrote about the reign of Tiberius) not only enjoys her libertys, but is high in honor with the Romans. This is the testimony of Strabo agreeing with that of Cicero, where disputing of Divine Providence, he savs, that to affirm the world to be govern’d by chance, or without God, is as if one should say that Athens were not govern’d by the Areopagits. Nor did the Romans by the deposition of the same author (or indeed of any other) behave themselves worse in Asia (the scene of our present discourse, where the same Paul, of whom we are speaking, being born at Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, that had acquir’d like or greater privilege by the same bounty, was also a citizen of Rome) than in Greece. Asia is understood in three significations: first, for the third part of the world answering to Europe and Africa. Secondly, for that part of Asia which is now call’d Natolia. Thirdly, for that part of it which Attalus king of Pergamum, dying without heirs, bequeath’d and left to the people of Rome: this contain’d Mysia, Phrygia, Æolis, Ionia, Caria, Doris, Lydia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, and by consequence the citys wherof we are speaking. To all these countrys the Romans gave their liberty, till in favor of Aristonicus, the bastard of Eumenes, many of them taking arms, they were recover’d, brought into subjection, and fram’d into a province.

When a consul had conquer’d a country, and the Romans intended to form it into a province, it was the custom of the senat to send (decem legatos) ten of their members, who with the consul had power to introduce and establish their provincial way of government. In this manner Asia was form’d by Marcus Aquilius consul; afterwards so excellently reform’d by Scævola, that the senat in their edicts us’d to propose his example to succeding magistrats, and the inhabitants to celebrat a feast to his name. Nevertheless Mithridates king of Pontus (all the Romans in this province being massacred in one day) came to possess himself of it, till it was recover’d at several times by Sylla, Murena, Lucullus and Pompey. The Romans, in framing a country into a province, were not accustom’d to deal with all the inhabitants of the same in a like manner, but differently according to their different merit. Thus divers citys in this were left free by Sylla, as those of the Ilienses, the Chians, Rhodians, Lycians and Magnesians, with the Cyzicens, tho the last of these afterwards for their practices against the Romans forfeited their liberty to Tiberius, in whose reign they were for this reason depriv’d of the same.

Taking Asia in the first sense, that is, for one third part of the world, the next province of the Romans in this country was Cilicia, containing Pamphylia, Isauria, and Cilicia more peculiarly so call’d. Here Cicero was somtimes proconsul, in honor to whom part of Phrygia, with Pisidia, and Lycaonia, were taken from the former, and added to this jurisdiction, by which means the citys wherof we are speaking came to be of this province. Adjoining hereto was the commonwealth of the Lycians, which the Romans left free:Epist. into this also the city of Attalia by som is computed, but Iconium both by Strabo and Cicero; the latter wherof being proconsul, in his journy from Laodicea, was receiv’d by the magistrats and deputys of this city. Lystra and Derbe, being citys of Lycaonia, must also have bin of the same province. Next to the province of Cilicia was that of Syria, containing Comagene, Seleucis, Phœnicia, Cœlosyria, and Judea or Palestin. In Seleucis were the four famous citys, Seleucia, Antiochia, Apamea (the last intire in her liberty) and Laodicea. Comagene and Judea were under kings, and not fram’d into provinces, till in the time of the emperors.

The fourth province of the Romans in Asia was that of Bithynia with Pontus: these were all acquir’d or confirm’d by the victorys of Pompey the Great. Strabo, who was a Cappadocian born at Amasia, relates a story worthy to be remember’d in this place. From the time, says he, that the Romans, having conquer’d Antiochus, became moderators of Asia, they contracted leagues of amity with divers nations; where there were kings, the honor of address was deser’d to them, with whom the treatys that concern’d their countrys were concluded. But as concerning the Cappadocians, they treated with the whole nation, for which cause the royal line of this realm coming afterwards to fail, the Romans gave the people their freedom or leave to live under their own laws: and when the people hereupon sending embassadors to Rome, renounc’d their liberty, being that to them which they said was intolerable, and demanded a king; the Romans amaz’d there should be men that could so far despair, permitted them to chuse, of their nation, whom they pleas’d; so Ariobarzanes was chosen, whose line again in the third generation coming to fail, Archelaus was made king by Antony (where you may observe, in passing, that the Romans impos’d not monarchical government, but for that matter us’d to leave a people as they found them) thus at the same time they left Pontus under king Mithridates, who not containing himself within his bounds, but extending them afterwards as far as Colchis and Armenia the Less, was reduc’d to his terms by Pompey; who divesting him of those countrys which he had usurp’d, distributed som part of them to such princes as had assisted the Romans in that war, and divided the rest into twelve commonwealths, of which, added to Bithynia, he made one province. When the Roman emperors became monarchs, they also upon like occasions made other distributions, constituting kings, princes, and citys, som more, som less, som wholly free, and others in subjection to themselves. Thus came a good, if not the greater part of the citys in the Lesser Asia, and the other adjoining provinces, to be som more, som less free; but the most of them to remain commonwealths, or to be erected into popular governments, as appears yet clearer by the intercourse of Pliny, while he was pretor or governor of Bithynia, with his master the emperor Trajan; a piece of which I have inserted in the letters following:

Pliny to Trajan.


Plin Epist. l. 10.“IT is provided by Pompey’s laws for the Bithynians, that no man under thirty years of age be capable of magistracy, or of the senat: by the same it is also establish’d, that they who have born magistracy may be senators. Now because by a latter edict of Augustus, the lesser magistracys may be born by such as are above one and twenty; there remains with me these doubts, whether he that being under thirty, has born magistracy, may be elected by the censors into the senat; and if he may, whether of those also that have not born magistracy, a man being above one and twenty, seeing at that age he may bear magistracy, may not by the same interpretation be elected into the senat, tho he has not born it: which is here practis’d and pretended to be necessary, because it is somwhat better, they say, that the senat be fill’d with the children of good familys, than with the lower sort. My opinion being ask’d upon these points by the new censors, I thought such as being under thirty have born magistracy, both by Pompey’s laws, and the edict of Augustus, to be capable of the senat; seeing the edict allows a man under thirty to bear magistracy, and the law, a man that has born magistracy, to be a senator. But as to those that have not born magistracy, tho at the age in which they may bear it, I demur till I may understand your Majesty’s pleasure, to whom I have sent the heads both of the law and of the edict.”

Trajan to Pliny.

“YOU and I, dearest Pliny, are of one mind. Pompey’s laws are so far qualify’d by the edict of Augustus, that they who are not under one and twenty may bear magistracy, and they who have born magistracy may be senators in their respective citys: but for such as have not born magistracy, tho they might have born it, I conceive them not eligible into the senat till they be thirty years of age.”

Pliny to Trajan.


“POWER is granted to the Bithynian citys by Pompey’s law, to adopt to themselves what citizens they please, so they be not foreners, but of the same province; by the same law it is shewn in what cases the censors may remove a man from the senat: among which nevertheless it is not provided what is to be don in case a foren citizen be a senator. Wherfore certain of the censors have thought fit to consult me, whether they ought to remove a man that is of a foren city for that cause out of the senat. Now because the law, tho it forbids the adoption of a forener, commands not that a forener for that cause should be remov d out of the senat, and I am inform’d there be foren citizens almost in every senat; so that many, not only men, but citys might suffer concussion by the restitution of the law in that part, which thro a kind of consent seems to be now grown obsolete; I conceive it necessary to have your Majesty’s resolution in the case, to which end I have sent a breviat of the law annex’d.”

Trajan to Pliny.

“WITH good cause, dearest Pliny, have you doubted what answer to return to the censors, inquiring whether they ought to elect a man into the senat that is of another city, tho of the same province; seeing on the one side the authority of the law, and of custom on the other to the contrary, might well disorder you. To innovat nothing for the time past, I think well of this expedient: they who are already elected senators, tho not according to the law, of what city soever they be, may remain for the present; but for the future Pompey’s laws should return to their full virtue, which if we should cause to look back, might create trouble.”

This might serve, but there will be no hurt in being a little fuller in the discovery of provincial government.

The provinces so fram’d, as has bin shewn, were subdivided into certain circuits call’d dioceses; that of Asia had six, Alabandæ, Sardes (antiently the senat of Cræsus) Smyrna, Ephesus, Adramytis, Pergamum. That of Cilicia had also six, the Pamphylian, Isaurian, and Cilician, the metropolis wherof was Tarsus, a free city; to these were taken out of the province of Asia, Cibyra, Sinnadæ, Apamea: what were the dioceses of the other two Sigonius, whom I follow, dos not shew. At these in the winter (for the summer was spent commonly with the army) the people of the province assembl’d at set times, as at our assizes, where the Roman governors did them justice.

The governors or magistrats, to whose care a province was committed, were of two kinds: the first and chief was consul or pretor, which appellations differ’d not in power, but in dignity, that of consul being more honorable, who had twelve lictors, wheras the pretor had but six; if the annual magistracy of either of these came to be prorogu’d, he was call’d proconsul or propretor.

The second kind of magistrat in a province was the questor, receiver or treasurer, who being also annual, was attended by lictors of his own; if he dy’d within his year, the consul, proconsul, or pretor might appoint one for that time in his place, who was call’d proquestor. The power of the consul, proconsul, or pretor, was of two kinds, the one civil, the other military; the former call’d magistracy, the latter empire.

The pomp of these assuming and exercising their magistracy was reverend; the consul or proconsul had legats, somtimes more but never under three, appointed him by the senat: these were in the nature of counsillors to assist him in all affairs of his province; he had tribuns, colonels, or field officers, for the military part of his administration; he had also secretarys, serjeants, heralds or criers, lictors or insignbearers, interpreters, messengers, divines, chamberlains, physicians; and besides these his companions, which for the most part were of the younger sort of gentlemen or gallants that accompany’d him for his ornament, and their own education. Into this the somwhat like train of the questor (who by the law was in place of a son to the proconsul, and to whom the proconsul was to give the regard of a father) being cast, it made the pretorian cohort or guard always about the person of the proconsul, who in this equipage having don his devotions at the capitol, departed the city, paludatus, that is in his royal mantle of gold and purple, follow’d for som part of the way with the whole train of his friends, wishing him much joy and good speed.

In his province he executed his twofold office, the one of captain general, the other of the supreme magistrat. In the former relation he had an army either receiv’d from his predecessor, or new levy’d in the city; this consisted in the one half of the legions (as I have elsewhere shewn) and in the other of associats: for the greatness of the same, it was proportion’d to the province, or the occasion; to an ordinary province in times of peace, I believe an army amounted not to above one legion with as many auxiliarys, that is, to a matter of twelve thousand foot, and twelve hundred horse. The magistracy or jurisdiction of the proconsul, or pretor, was executed at the Metropolitan city of each diæcis, which upon this occasion was to furnish the pretorian cohort with lodging, salt, wood, hay, and stable-room at the charge of the country. These, tho Cicero would hardly receive any of them, were, towards the latter time of the commonwealth, extended by the provincial magistrats to so great a burden to the people, that it caus’d divers laws to be pass’d in Rome (de repetundis) for restitution to be made to the provinces, by such as had injur’d them. Upon such laws was the prosecution of Verres by Cicero. When and where this kind of court was to be held, the consul, proconsul, or pretor, by proclamation gave timely notice. Being assembl’d at the time, and the city appointed, in the townhall stood a tribunal; upon this the sella curulis, or a chair of state, in which sat the consul, proconsul, or pretor, with his pretorian cohort or band about him, furnish’d with all manner of pomp, and officers requisit to the ornament or administration of so high a magistracy. The jurisdiction of this court was according to the laws made for the administration of the province; but because they could not foresee all things (as appear’d by the questions which Pliny put upon the laws of Pompey, to Trajan) it came to pass, that much was permitted to the edicts of the provincial pretors, as was also in use at Rome with the pretors of the city: and if any man had judg’d otherwise in his province, than he ought to have don in the city, made an edict contrary to the law of his province, or judg’d any thing otherwise than according to his own edict, he was held guilty of, and questionable for a heinous crime. But what the law of this or that province (which differ’d in each) was, would be hard particularly to say; only in general it was for the main very much resembling that of Sicily, call’d Rupilia.

LEGE Rupilia, or by the law of Rupilius, a cause between one citizen and another being of the same city, was to be try’d at home by their own laws. A cause between one provincial and another being of divers citys, was to be try’d by judges whom the pretor should appoint by lot. What a privat man claim’d of a people, or a people of a privat man, was to be refer’d to the senat of som third city. Upon what a Roman claim’d of a provincial, a provincial was to be appointed judg. Upon what a provincial claim’d of a Roman, a Roman was to be appointed judg. For decision of other controversys, select judges from among the Romans (not out of the pretorian cohort, but out of such Romans, or other citizens free of Rome, as were present in the same court) were to be given. In criminal causes, as violence, peculat, or treason, the law, and the manner of proceding was the same in the provinces, as in Rome.

For the tributs, customs, taxes, levys of men, mony, shipping, ordinary or extraordinary, for the common defence of the Roman republic, and her provinces, the consuls, proconsuls, or pretors proceding according to such decrees of the senat as were in that case standing or renew’d upon emergent occasions; in gathering these lay the magistracy or office of the questor: if the proconsul were indispos’d, or had more business than he could well turn his hand to, courts of this nature might be held by one or more of his legats. With matter of religion they meddl’d not; every nation being so far left to the liberty of conscience, that no violence for this cause was offer’d to any man: by which means both Jews and Christians, at least till the time of the persecuting emperors, had the free exercise of their religion throout the Roman provinces. This the Jews lik’d well for themselves, nor were they troubl’d for the Heathens; but to the Christians they always grudg’d the like privilege. Thus when they could no otherwise induce Pilat to put Christ to death, they accus’d Christ of affecting monarchy, and so affrighted Pilat, being a mean condition’d fellow, while they threaten’d to let Tiberius know he was not Cæsar’s friend, that he comply’d with their ends. But when at Corinth, where Gallio (a man of another temper) was proconsul of Achaia, they would have bin at this sport again, and with a great deal of tumult had brought Paul before the tribunal, Gallio took it not well, that they should think he had nothing else to do than to judg of words, and names, and questions of their law; for he car’d no more for the disputes between the Christians and the Jews, than for those between the Epicureans and the Stoics. Wherfore his lictors drave them from the tribunal, and the officious Corinthians, to shew their love to the proconsul, fell on knocking them out of the way of other business.

Now tho the commonwealth of the Achæans, being at this time a Roman province under the proconsul Gallio, injoy’d no longer her common senat, strategus and demiurges, according to the model shewn in the former book; yet remain’d each particular city under her antient form of popular government, so that in these, especially at Corinth, many of the Greecs being of the same judgment, the Jews could not dispute with the Christians without tumult. Of this kind was that which happen’d at Ephesus, where Christianity growing so fast, that the silversmiths of Diana’s temple began to fear they should lose their trade; the Jews liking better of Heathenism than Christianity, set Alexander, one of their pack, against Paul.Act. 19.

This place (in times when men will understand no otherwise of human story than makes for their ends) is fallen happily unto my hand; seeing that which I have said of a Roman province, will be thus no less than prov’d out of Scripture. For the chancellor of Ephesus perceiving the ecclesia (so it is in the original) or assembly (as in our translation) uncall’d by the senat, or the magistracy to be tumultuously gather’d in the theater (their usual place, as in Syracusa and other citys, of meeting) betakes himself to appease the people with divers arguments: among which he has these. First, as to matter of religion. You have brought hither, says he, these men which are neither robbers of temples, (Churches our bible has it before there was any church to be robb’d) nor yet blasphemers of the goddess: in which words (seeing that they offering no scandal, but only propagating that which was according to their own judgment, were not obnoxious to punishment) he shews that every man had liberty of conscience. Secondly, as to law: if Demetrius and the craftsmen which are with him have a matter against any man, the law, says he, is open. Thirdly, as to the matter of government, which appears to be of two parts, the one provincial, the other domestic: for the former, says he, there are (apsgrνthetavύπατοι) proconsuls (he speaks in the plural number with relation to the legats, by whom the proconsul somtimes held his courts; otherwise this magistrat was but one in a province, as at this time for Asia Publius Suilius) and to the latter, says he, if you desire any thing concerning other matters, that is, such as appertain to the government of the city (in which the care of the temple was included) it shall be determin’d in a lawful ecclesia, or assembly of the people. By which you may see that notwithstanding the provincial government, Ephesus, tho she was no free city, (for with a free city the proconsul had nothing of this kind to do) had (apsgrυ[Editor: illegible character]ονομίαν) the government of her self (as those other citys mention’d in Pliny’s epistles) by the senat, and the people; for wherever one of these is nam’d, as the senat by Pliny, or the people by Luke, the other is understood. When the chancellor had thus spoken, he dismiss’d the ecclesia. It is Luke’s own word, and so often as I have now repeated it, so often has he us’d it, upon the same occasion. Wherfore I might henceforth expect two things of divines; first, that it might be acknowleg’d that I have good authors, Luke and the chancellor of Ephesus, for the word ecclesia in this sense; and secondly, that they would not persuade us, the word ecclesia has lost its signification, lest they condemn this place of Scripture to be no more understood. The manner of provincial government being thus prov’d, not only out of profane authors, but out of Scripture it self; and the citys that were least free having had such power over themselves, and their territorys; why, if the Romans took no more of them for this protection, than was paid to their former lords, did they not rather undertake the patronage of the world than the empire; seeing Venice, and Dantzic, while the one was tributary to the Turk, the other to the king of Poland, were nevertheless so free estates, that of a king, or a commonwealth that should have put the rest of the world into the like condition, no less in our day could have bin said? and yet that the Romans, when the nature of the eastern monarchys shall be rightly consider’d, took far less of these citys than their old masters, will admit of little doubt. Cicero surely would not ly; he, when proconsul of Cilicia, wrote in this manner concerning his circuit, to his friend Servilius: two days I staid at Laodicea, at Apamea five, at Sinnadæ three, at Pilomelis five, at Iconium ten; than which jurisdiction or government there is nothing more just or equal. Why then had not those citys their senats and their ecclesiæ, or congregations of the people, as well as that of Ephesus, and those wherof Pliny gives an account to Trajan?

CORINTH was in Achaia; Perga of Pamphylia, Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe of Lycaonia, were in Cilicia; and with these, as som reckon, Attalia, Ephesus and the other Antioch were in Syria. Achaia, Cilicia, and Syria, were Roman provinces at the time of this perambulation of the apostles: the citys under provincial administration, whether free or not free, were under popular government; whence it follows, that Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch of Syria, Antioch of Pisidia, Perga, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Attalia, being at this time under provincial administration, were at the same time under popular government. There has been no hurt in going about, for the proof of this; tho indeed to shew that these citys (had quandam apsgrυτονομίαν) were under popular government, we needed have gone no further than the text, as where the chancellor of Ephesus, to get rid of a tumultuous ecclesia or assembly of the people, promises them a lawful one. In Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and the rest, you hear not of any king (as where Herod stretch’d out his hand to please the Jews, and vex the church) but of the people, of their rulers, of their assemblys, and of their tumults. The people at Lystra are now agreed to give the apostles divine honors; and anon, both at Iconium and Lystra, to stone them. Now to determin of divine honor or of life and death, are acts of soverain power. It is true, these nevertheless may happen to be usurp’d by a mere tumult; but that cannot be said of these congregations, which consisted as well of the magistrats and rulers, as of the people, and where the magistrats shew that they had no distinct power wherby to restrain the people, nor other means to prevail against them, than by making of partys: which passages, as they prove these commonwealths on the one side to have bin ill constituted, evince on the other, that these citys were under popular government.


The Deduction of the Chirotonia from popular Government, and of the original Right of Ordination from the Chirotonia. In which is contain’d the Institution of the Sanhedrim or Senat of Israel by Moses, and that of Rome by Romulus.

DIVINES generally in their way of disputing have a bias that runs more upon words than upon things; so that in this place it will be necessary to give the interpretation of som other words, wherof they pretend to take a strong hold in their controversys. The chief of these has bin spoken to already: chirotonia being a word that properly signifys the suffrage of the people, wherever it is properly us’d, implys power; wherfore tho the senat decrees by suffrage as well as the people, yet there being no more in a decree of the senat than authority, the senat is never said to chirotonize, or very seldom and improperly, this word being peculiar to the people. And thus much is imply’d in what went before.

The next word in controversy is psephisma, which signifies a decree or law; and this always implying power, always implys the suffrage of the people, that is, where it is spoken of popular government: for tho a psephisma or decree of the Athenian senat was a law for a year before it came to the suffrage or chirotonia of the people, yet the law or constitution of Solon, wherby the senat had this power, originally deriv’d from the chirotonia of the people.

The third word (kappavαthetavιstigmaάναι) signifys to constitute or ordain; this in the political sense of the same implys not power, but authority: for a man that writes or proposes a decree or form of government, may be said (kappavαthetavιstigmaάναι) to propose or constitute it, whether it be confirm’d by the chirotonia of the people or not; nay with Halicarnassæus the word signifys no more than barely to call or assemble a senat, βουλeegrgrν udagrπερ τινogrgrς kappavαthetavιstigmaάναι.

Now if these words be somtimes otherwise taken, what words be there in any language that are not often us’d improperly? but that understood politically, they must of necessity be understood as I have shewn, or will so intangle and disorder government, that no man shall either make head or foot of it, is that which I make little question to evince in the surest way, that is, by opening the nature of the things whence they derive, and wherof they are spoken by the best authors.

And because the words (tho the things they signify were much more antient) derive all from Athens, I shall begin by this constitution to shew the proper use of them. Chirotonia in Athens, as has bin shewn out of Suidas (who speaking of Rome refers to this) was election of magistrats, or enacting laws by the suffrage of of the people; which, because they gave by holding up their hands, came thence to be call’d chirotonia, which signifys holding up of hands. The legislative assembly, or representative of the people, call’d the nomothetæ, upon occasion of repealing an old law, and enacting a new one, gave the chirotonia of the people:Demost. contra Timocr. and yet says the Athenian law (διαχειροτονίαν δεipergr [Editor: illegible character] τ[Editor: illegible character]ς προέδρoulaς περί τ[Editor: illegible character]των τ[Editor: illegible character]ν νόμων) Let the proedri give or make the chirotonia to either law. The proedri, as was shewn in the former book, were the ten presidents of the prytans; which prytans upon this occasion were presidents of the nomothetæ.Chap. III. Again, wheras it was the undoubted right and practice of the people to elect their magistrats by their chirotonia (kappavapsgrgrν udagrμεipergrς edaacgrνα, kappavapsgrgrν pisymbolλείoulaς, kappavapsgrgrν τον δεipergrνα, kappavapsgrgrν odagrντιν[Editor: illegible character]ν χειροτονήσητε stigma[Editor: illegible character]ατηγogrgrν) it is nevertheless shewn by Pollux to have bin the peculiar office of the thesmothetæ, (stigmaρατηγ[Editor: illegible character]ς χειροτονεipergrν) to chirotonize the magistrats.Phil. 1. For as the proedri were presidents of the people in their legislative capacity, so were the thesmothetæ, upon occasion of elections:L. 8. c. 8. thus the chirotonia of the proedri or of the thesmothetæ signifys nothing else but the chirotonia of the people, by which they had enacted all their laws, and elected all their civil or ecclesiastical magistrats or priests, as the rex sacrificus, and the orgeones, except som by the lot; which ordination, as is observ’d by Aristotle, is equally popular. This whether ignorantly or wilfully unregarded, has bin, as will be seen hereafter, the cause of great absurdity; for who sees not that to put the chirotonia, or soverain power of Athens upon the proedri or the thesmothetæ, is to make such a thing of that government as can no wise be understood?

What the people had past by their chirotonia, was call’d psephisma, an act or law. And because in the nomothetæ there were always two laws put together to the vote, that is to say, the old one, and that which was offer’d in the room of it, they that were for the old law were said (apsgrποψηφίζειν) to pronounce in the negative; and they that were for the new (kappavαταψηφί[Editor: illegible character]ειν) to pronounce for the affirmative.

These laws, these propositions, or this frame of government, having bin propos’d first by Solon, and then ratify’d or establish’d by the chirotonia of the Athenian people; Aristotle says of him (τeegrgrν δὲ δημοkappavρατίαν kappavαταstigmaeepergrσαι) that he instituted or constituted the popular government; which constitution implys not any power in Solon, who absolutely refus’d to be a king, and therfore the word kappavαταstigmaeegrgrσαι as to him implys no more than authority. I have shew’d you the words in controversy, and the things together in the mint; now whether they that as to Athens introduc’d them both, understood either, I leave my reader by comparing them to judg.

It is true that the things exprest by these words have bin in som commonwealths more, in others less antient than the Greec language; but this hinders not the Greecs to apply the words to the like constitutions or things, wherever they find them, as, by following Halicarnassæus. I shall exemplify in Rome.

Odagr ΔΕ Ρώμυλ[Editor: illegible character], epsgrπειδeegrgr ταuperigrτα διεkappavόσμησε, βoulaλευτagrgrς epsgrυθυς epsacgrγνω kappavαταstigmaήσασthetavαι.Lib. 2. Romulus, when he had distributed the people into tribes and parishes, proceded to ordain the senat: in this manner the tribes were three, and the parishes thirty; out of every tribe he elected three senators, and out of every parish three more, all by the suffrage of the people. These therfore came to ninety nine chosen by the chirotonia; to which he added one more, not chosen by the chirotonia, but by himself only: which election we may therfore say was made by the chirothesia; for as in this chapter I am shewing that the chirotonia is election by the many, so in the next I shall shew that the chirothesia, is election by one, or by the few. But to keep to the matter in hand; the magistrat thus chosen by Romulus was (præsectus urbi) the protector of the commonwealth, or he who, when the king was out of the nation or the city, as upon occasion of war, had the exercise of royal power at home. In like manner with the civil magistracy were the priests created (tho som of them not so antiently) for the pontifex maximus, the rex sacrificus, and the flamens, were all ordain’d by the suffrage of the people (pontifex tributis, rex centuriatis, flamines curiatis) the latter of which, being no more than parish priests, had no other ordination than by their parishes. All the laws, and all the magistrats in Rome, even the kings themselves, were according to the orders of this commonwealth to be created by the chirotonia of the people; which nevertheless is by Appian somtimes call’d δεμάρχων χειrhosymbolοτονία, the chirotonia of the tribuns, whether these magistrats were presidents of the assemblys of the people, or elected by them.Galv. Inst. l. 4. cap. 3. § 15. Sic Romani historici non raro loquuntur, consulem qui comitia habuerit creâsse novos magistratus, non aliam ob causam nisi quia suffragia receperit, & populum moderatus est in eligendo.

Dion. Hal. l. 8.What past the chirotonia of the people, by the Greecs is call’d psephisma: μελλούσης δὲ διαλύεοthetavαι τeepergrς epsgrkappavkappavλησίας, apsgrναstigmaagrgrς odagr Μάrhosymbolkappavι[Editor: illegible character] epsacgrφη. adavagr μὲν εψήφιstigmaαι τogrgr kappavοινogrgrν udagrμohpegrν epsacgrχει kappavαλohpegrstigma· When the congregation of the people was to be dismist, Marcus standing up, said, Your psephisma, that is your act, is exceding good, &c.

This policy, for the greater part, is that which Romulus (as was shewn) is said (kappavαταstigmaήσαthetavαι) to have instituted or ordain’d, tho it be plain that he ordain’d it no otherwise than by the chirotonia of the people.

Thus you have another example of the three words in controversy (Chirotonia, kappavαthetavιstigmaάναι, psephisma) still apply’d in the same sense, and to the same things. Have I not also discover’d already the original right of ordination, whether in civil or religious orders? This will be scandalous. How! derive ordination as it is in the church of Christ, or as it was in the church of the Jews, from the religion, or rather superstition of the heathens! I meddle not with their religion, nor yet with their superstition, but with their ordination which was neither, but a part of their policy And why is not ordination in the church or commonwealth of Christ, as well a political thing as it was in the churches or commonwealths of the Jews, or of the heathens? Why is not election of officers in the church as well a political thing, as election of officers in the state? and why may not this be as lawfully perform’d by the chirotonia in the one, as in the other?

Philo de Inst.That Moses introduc’d the chirotonia, is expresly said by Philo; tho he opposes it to the ballot, in which I believe he is mistaken,Princ. as not seeing that the ballot including the suffrage of the people, by that means came as properly under the denomination of the chirotonia, as the suffrage of the Roman people; which tho it were given by the tablet, is so called by Greec authors. All ordination of magistrats, or of the senators or elders of the sanhedrim, of the judges or elders of inferior courts, of the judg or suffes of Israel, of the king, of the priests, of the Levits, whether with the ballot or viva voce, was perform’d by the chirotonia or suffrage of the people. In this (especially if you admit the authority of the Jewish lawyers, and divines call’d the Talmudists) the Scripture will be clear, but their names are hard; wherfore not to make any discourse more rough than I need, I shall here set them together. The authors or writings I use, by way of paraphrase upon the Scripture, are the Gemara, Babylonia, Midbar Rabba, Sepher Siphri, Sepher Tanchuma, Solomon Jarchius, Chiskuny, Abarbanel, Ajin Israel, Pesiktha Zotertha. These and many more being for the election of the sanhedrim by the ballot, I might have spoken them more briefly; for the truth is, in all that is talmudical I am assisted by Selden, Grotius, and their quotations out of the rabbys, having in this learning so little skill, that if I miscall’d none of them, I shew’d a good part of my acquaintance with them.

Nor am I wedded to Grotius or Selden, whom somtimes I follow, and somtimes I leave, making use of their learning, but of my own reason. As to the things in this present controversy, they were no other in Athens and Rome than they had been in the commonwealth of Israel.

When Moses came to institute the senat, he ask’d counsil of God.Numb. 11. v. 16, 24. And the Lord said, Gather to me seventy men of the elders of Israel; and Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord: that is, propos’d the dictat of the supreme legislator to the chirotonia of the congregation. What else can we make of these words of Moses to the people?Deut. 1. v. 13, 14, 15. Take ye wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes (kaisymbol kappavαταstigmaήσω apsgrυτoulaς epsgrφ’ udagrμohpegrν ηγουμένους udagr turnedrlaων) and I will constitute them rulers over you. Now how the people could otherwise take or chuse these rulers or magistrats thus propos’d, than by their chirotonia, let divines—shew; or notwithstanding the constitution of Moses, both the senat of Israel, and the inferior courts, were decreed by the chirotonia of the people. For the people upon this proposition resolv’d in the affirmative, or answer’d and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do. This then was the psephisma or decree of the people of Israel, whereupon says Moses (kappavατέstigmaησα apsgrυτ[Editor: illegible character]ς eedagrγεipergrσthetavαι) I constituted or ordain’d them governors. In which example you have the three words, or the three things again; nor as to the things, is it, or ever was it, otherwise in any commonwealth. Whence it is admirable in our divines, who will have kappavατέstigmaησα, constituted, to be the word of power; that they do not see by this means they must make two powers in the same government; the kappavατέstigmaησα or constitution of the legislator, and the chirotonia or suffrage of the people: or else say that the commonwealth of Israel was instituted by the power of the legislator, and the authority of the people, than which there is nothing more absurd. But the people staid not upon their first psephisma, or result, that the thing was good for them to do, but did accordingly. The manner of their proceding at different times was somwhat different; for it was somtimes viva voce, somtimes by the lot, without the suffrage; and somtimes by the ballot, which consisted not of the lot only, but of the suffrage. Each of these are equally popular (for neither of them gives an advantage to any person or party) but not equally prudent ways of proceding; the lot committing too much to fortune, except in som kinds of businesses, as first in the division of lands, whence the suffrage was properly excluded: for the divisions being made by three deputys out of each tribe, if there happen’d to fall som advantage or disadvantage to any man by the lot, it was equal or impartial; wheras if it had fallen by the suffrage, it must have bin inequal, or partial. Such was the cause why the lot in the division of the land of Canaan was us’d without the suffrage. In case of a crime committed by an unknown author, but among many of whom som one or more must have bin guilty, as in the cases of Achan and Jonathan, the lot was also us’d without the suffrage, somwhat after the manner of decimation in an army, when many that are guilty throw the dice, and he on whom the lot falls is punish’d; yet with considerable difference, for wheras decimation is not us’d but for punishment, where the persons are as well known as the guilt; this use of the lot in Israel was for the discovery of the unknown author of som known crime, that som one of many being put to the question (who if either by his own confession, or other proof he were found guilty, was punish’d accordingly, otherwise not) men might have less incouragement that their crimes would be the more hidden, or less punishable for company, or the shadow of it.

When the people were set upon the introduction of a new magistracy, and car’d not at all who should be the man, as in the election of Saul, at which time the Philistins lay hard upon them, and they look’d upon the ease they hop’d from a king, without coveting the trouble which he was like to have; it seems to me there was a third use of the lot without the suffrage.

But that the common use of the lot in Israel imply’d also the suffrage, and was of the nature of the ballot at this day in Venice, is little to be doubted; or you may satisfy your self, when you have consider’d the manner how the senat or sanhedrim was first elected (kappavαthetavιstigmaαμένη) or constituted by Moses.

Upon the psephisma, or decree of the legislator and the people, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do, they proceded to election of competitors in this manner. Each of the twelve tribes (to be hereafter as well locally, as they were yet but genealogically divided) were to make the election, not excluding the thirteenth, nor yet nominally taking it in; for Levi, tho genealogically as distinct a tribe as any of them, yet was not design’d locally so to be, but to have the right of promiscuous inhabiting, cohabiting, or marriage with all or any of the rest, and with right of suffrage accordingly; for this cause the tribes being thirteen, are reckon’d but twelve. So each of the twelve tribes elected among themselves by their suffrages, six wise men, and understanding, and known among them; who being elected, were written; and being written, were deliver’d each in a several scrol to Moses. Moses having receiv’d all the scrols, had seventy two competitors, which caus’d a fraction; for the senat, as is plain by the text (gather me seventy men, that they may stand with thee) was to consist but of seventy with Moses, that is, in all, of seventy one. So Moses having two competitors more than he needed, caus’d two urns to be brought, into one of which he cast the seventy two competitors, or names written in the scrols; and into the other seventy two scrols, of which two were blanks, and seventy were inscrib’d with the word presbyter. This being don, the whole congregation pray’d, and when they had pray’d gave forth their lots.

The lots were given forth after this manner. First a lot was drawn out of the urn of the magistracys, then another out of the urn of the competitors. The competitor to whose name a blank was drawn, departed: but he to whose name a prize was drawn, or given forth, became a magistrat.

They who had thus gain’d magistracy were συνkappavαταψηφιζομένοι, by this psephisma decreed to be together of the number of the seventy elders. But wheras in the urn of magistracy there were two blanks, two that had bin written competitors must of necessity have fail’d of magistracy.Numb. 11. 26. So Eldad and Medad being of them that were written competitors by the tribes, yet went not up to the tabernacle; that is, attain’d not to be (συνkappavαταψηφιζομένοι) numbred among the seventy, who were to sit in the court of the tabernacle; as afterwards they did in the pavement, or stonechamber, in the court of the temple.

In this place I shall mind you but once more of the three words in controversy. Moses the legislator (kappavατέstigmaησε) constituted the people chirotoniz’d; and that which they had chirotoniz’d, was psephisma, their decree.

There be in these times that are coif’d with such opinions, that to shew scripture to be reason, is to make it lose weight with them; and to talk of the Talmudists, is to profane it: of these I shall only desire to know how they understand that place of Eldad and Medad; for if they can no otherwise make sense of it than as I have don, it is a sufficient proof (letting the Talmudists go) of all that I have said. What therfore has the hierarchy, and the presbytery for their opinion that the sanhedrim was instituted by the chirothesia, or imposition of hands?

There is in the Old Testament no mention of laying on of hands by way of ordination, or election, but only by Moses in the designation of Joshua for his successor: and in this Moses did first as Romulus afterwards in the election of the prefect or protector of Rome, but upon a far greater exigence; for the commonwealth of Rome, when Romulus did the like, was seated or planted, but the commonwealth of Israel, when Moses did this, was neither seated nor planted, nor indeed a commonwealth, but an army design’d to be a commonwealth. Now between the government that is necessary to an army, and that which is necessary to a commonwealth, there is a vast difference. The government even of the armys of Rome, when she was a commonwealth, was nevertheless monarchical: in this regard Moses himself exercis’d a kind of dictatorian power for his life; and the commonwealth being not yet planted, nor having any balance wherupon to weigh her self, must either have bin left at his death to the care of som man whom he knew best able to lay her foundation, or to extreme hazard. Wherfore this ordination, which was but accidental, regarding the present military condition of the people, Moses most prudently distinguishes from the other; in that he shew’d them how they should manage their commonwealth, in this he bequeaths them the man whom he thinks the most likely to bring them to be a commonwealth: of which judgment and undertaking of Moses, Joshua the next illustrious example, most worthily acquitted himself.

There is in these elections another remarkable passage, but such a one as, being so far from political that it is supernatural, dos not properly appertain to this discourse, and so I shall but point at it.Num 11. 24, 25. When the elders, thus chosen, were set round about the tabernacle, the Lord came down in a cloud, and took of the spirit of Moses, and gave it to the seventy elders; and it came to pass, that when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesy’d and did not cease.Deut. 34. 9. So Joshua was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him. And Paul minds Timothy, Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the laying on of my hands.1 Tim. 1. 6. But the Talmudists themselves do not pretend that their ordination was further accompany’d with supernatural indowments than the first institution; and if divines were as ingenuous, no less might be acknowleg’d of theirs. Moses was a prophet, the like to whom has not bin in Israel; and has there bin an apostle like Paul in the Christian church? every body cannot do miracles, we see they can’t. Take heed how you deny sense, for then bread may be flesh. If we be not to make choice of a political institution without a miraculous test or recommendation; either ordination was at first accompany’d with supernatural gifts, and from thenceforth, as I conceive, neither. Divines methinks as such should not be so much concern’d in the ordination of the sanhedrim, or of Joshua, who were magistrats, as the people or the magistrat: yet if these should hence infer that their election, ordination, or designation of persons confer’d supernatural gifts, divines would hardly allow of it; and why are the people, or the magistrat oblig’d to allow more to that of a clergy? To return.

Deut. 1. 15.Such as I have shewn was the ordination of the senat, or great sanhedrim, that of the lesser sanhedrim, or inferior courts, was of like nature, for it follows; I took the chief of your tribes, wise men and known (kaisymbol kappavατέstigmaησα) and made them heads over you, captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, &c. which were other magistrats than according to our custom, we should readily expect to be intimated by such words, for they were the judges of the inferior courts, those that sat in the gates of each city, and others that appertain’d to the villages, as in the next verse:Ver. 10. and I charg’d your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes, and judg righteously.

The next magistrat whose election coms to be consider’d is the dictator, or judg of Israel.Judg. 2. 16. Where it is said of this people, that the Lord rais’d them up judges, which deliver’d them out of the hands of those that spoil’d them, it is to be understood, says Sigonius, that God put it into the mind of the people to elect such magistrats, or captains over them.De Rep. Heb. For example, when the children of Ammon made war against Israel, God rais’d up Jephtha, whose election was after this manner:Judges 11. the elders went to fetch Jephtha, out of the land of Tob, and when they had brought him to Mizpeh (which in those days was the place, where εkappavkappavλησία Θε[Editor: illegible character], the congregation of Israel usually assembled) the people made him head and captain over them. Now that the election of the king was as much in the chirotonia of the people, as that of the judg, is past all controversy, seeing the law, speaking of the people, says thus:Deut. 17. 15. one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; and accordingly when the government was chang’d to monarchy, it was not Samuel, but the people that would have it so; thus Saul was chosen king by the lot.Arist. Pol. b. 6. c. 2. Where the contradiction of Grotius is remarkable, who in this place to shew that the lot is of popular institution, quotes Aristotle; and yet when he coms to speak of the lots that were cast at the election of Matthias, says it was that it might appear not whom the multitude, but whom God had ordain’d; as if the magistrat lawfully elected by the people, were not elected by God, or that the lot which thus falls into the lap were not at the disposing of the Lord.De Imp. S. P. c. 10. But if the league by which the people receiv’d David into the throne, or the votes by which first the people of Jerusalem, and afterwards the congregation of Israel (as was shewn in the former book) made Solomon king, were of the Lord; then election by the people was of the Lord and the magistrat that was elected by the chirotonia of the people, was elected by the chirotonia of God:Judges 20. for as the congregation of Israel is call’d in Scripture (εkappavkappavλησία Θε[Editor: illegible character]) the ecclesia or congregation of God; so the chirotonia of this congregation is call’d by Josephus (Θεoula χειροτονία) the chirotonia of God, who, as I noted before out of Capellus, was in this commonwealth political king, or civil legislator (sans comparaison) as Solon in Athens, and Romulus in Rome; that is to propose to the people (Hæc est lex quam Moses proposuit) and whatever was propos’d, by God, or the lawful magistrat under him, and chirotoniz’d or voted by the people, was law in Israel, and no other.Jos. l. 4. Nay, and the people had not only power to reject any law that was thus propos’d, but to repeal any law that was thus enacted:Josephus, l. 6. c. 5. for if God intending popular government should have ordain’d it otherwise, he must have contradicted himself; wherfore he plainly acknowledges to them this power, where (Θεogrgrν apsgrpisymbolοχειροτονoulaσι τeepergrς betavασιλεipergrας) they rejected him (whom they had formerly chirotoniz’d or chosen king) that he should not reign over them; and elected Saul. This if God had withstood by his power, he must have introduc’d that kind of monarchy which he had declar’d against; wherfore he chose rather to abandon this sottish and ingrateful people to the most inextricable yoke of deserv’d slavery, telling them, when he had warn’d them and they would not hear him, that they should cry to him and he would not hear them, one title of whose words passed not unfulfill’d.

By this time I have shewn that all the civil magistrats in Israel were chosen by the chirotonia of the people, or, to follow Josephus, by the chirotonia of God, which is all one; for the chirotonia of the president of the congregation, as I have instanc’d in that of the proedri, of the thesmothetæ, of the consuls, of the tribuns, and the chirotonia of the congregation is the same thing; and of the congregation of Israel God, except only at the voting of a king, was president.

To com then from the civil magistrats to the priests and Levits, these were chosen in two ways, either by the lot, or by the chirotonia.

The office and dignity of the high priest being the greatest in Israel, and by the institution to be hereditary, caus’d great disputes in the election: to this Moses by the command of God had design’d Aaron his brother; which designation, the command of God being at first either not so obvious as that relation, or the ambition of others so blind that they could not or would not see it, caus’d great combustion. First, thro the conspiracy of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram; and next by the murmuring of the princes of the tribes, all emulous of this honor.Numb. 16. Korah being not only a great man,Josephus, l. 4. but of the tribe of Levi, could not see why he was not as worthy of the priesthood, consideration had of his tribe, as Aaron; and if any other tribe might pretend to it, Dathan and Abiram being descended from Reuben were not only of the elder house, but troubl’d to see a younger prefer’d before them. Wherfore these having gain’d to their party three hundred of the most powerful men of the congregation, accus’d Moses of affecting tyranny, and doing those things which threaten’d the liberty of the commonwealth; as under pretence of divination to blind the eyes of the people, preferring his brother to the priesthood without the suffrage of the congregation: of which charge Moses acquitting himself in the congregation, tells the people that Aaron was chosen both by God, and (kappavατagrgr τeegrgrν udagrμετεραν γνώμην αυτ[Editor: illegible character] τυ[Editor: illegible character]χάνων) by their suffrages, which (Korah being upon this occasion miraculously destroy’d) were therupon once more given by the people. Nevertheless the princes of the tribes continuing still discontented, and full of murmur, God decided the controversy by a second miracle, the budding of Aarons rod: (and so kaisymbol odagr μεν τρigrgrς apsgrυτόν τ[Editor: illegible character] Θε[Editor: illegible character] χειροτονησατος betavεbetavαίως epsacgrιχε τeegrgrν τιμeegrgrν) being thrice confirm’d by the chirotonia of God, he was confirm’d in that honor. Now that the chirotonia of God in this place of Josephus signifys the chirotonia of the people, is plain by that in Scripture, where they made Solomon king, and Zadoc to be priest.1 Chron. 20-22. After the captivity, as in other things, so in this power the sanhedrim came, as I conceive, to overreach the people: Joshua the son of Josedech being thus elected high priest by the sanhedrim, and this honor thenceforth (as appears by Maimonides) being at the disposing of this court.Grot. ad Nor cou’d any inferior priest serve at the altar, except he had acquir’d that right by the lot, as is not only deliver’d by the same author and by Josephus, but in Scripture.H[Editor: illegible character]g. 1. 1. Now the lot, as was shewn, giving no prerogative either to any person or party,Joseph. de Bel. is as popular an institution as the chirotonia.Jud. l. 4. So in election of priests, the orders of Israel differ’d not from human prudence, nor those of other commonwealths,Maimon. the priests of Jupiter having bin elected after the same manner in the commonwealth of Syracusa; the Augustales, and the Vestals in that of Rome:Hal. Cele and if the right of bearing holy magistracy, being in Israel confin’d to one tribe or order,Hamikdasch, cap. 42 & 5 may seem to make any difference, it was for some time no otherwise in Athens, nor in Rome, where the patricians or nobility assum’d these offices, or the greatest of them to themselves,2 Chron. 24. 5 & 25. 8. & 26. 13. till the people in those citys disputed that custom, as introduc’d without their consent, which the people of Israel could not fairly do, because it was introduc’d by their consent.

Numb. 8. 9, 10.To com to the Levits in their original ordination, God commanded Moses saying, Thou shalt bring the Levits before the tabernacle of the congregation, and thou shalt gather the whole assembly of the children of Israel, and they shall put their hands upon the Levits. This in the sound of the words may seem to imply the chirothesia, or imposition of hands, but take heed of that; divines will not allow the chirothesia to be an act of the people: but in this proceding the whole people acted in the ordination of the Levits, wherfore the Levits also were ordain’d by the chirotonia, consent, vote, or suffrage of the whole people imply’d in this action. But for the ordination of priests and Levits, whatever it was, it is not to the present purpose; divines deriving not theirs from priests and Levits, but from dukes, generals and magistrats, from that of Joshua and of the sanhedrim, always provided, that this were of the same nature with the former, that is, by the chirothesia, or imposition of hands, and not by the chirotonia of the people.Exod. 29. However the ordination of the magistracy was certainly political; and so in this deduction they themselves confess that their ordination also is a political constitution:Numb. 8. yet wheras Moses is commanded by God to bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and having wash’d them there, to adorn them with the priestly robes, with the miter, and to anoint them; wheras he is commanded (the children of Israel having first laid their hands upon the Levits) to cleanse them, and offer them for an offering: divines of the hierarchy and the presbytery (tho it be otherwise with Wallæus and such as acknowlege popular government) give the congregation, or consent of the people for nothing, and put the whole ordination of the priests and Levits upon the washing and cleansing, or other ceremonys of consecration: as if to put the ordination of Saul upon the ceremony of anointing by Samuel, tho perform’d by the immediat command of God, were not absolutely contradictory to Scripture, and to the known law of Israel, which speaking of the people, expresly says, One from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; upon which place says Philo, Most wise Moses never intended that the royal dignity should be acquir’d by lot, but chose rather that the king should be elected by the chirotonia, or suffrage of the whole people.Philo de inst. principiis. The congregations of the people assembl’d upon this as upon other public affairs, and requir’d a sign or confirmation from God: forasmuch as by his will man is to the rest of nature, what the face is to the body. Wherto agrees that of the Heathens, Os homini sublime dedit, cælumque tueri jussit, and their divinations upon the like occasions by intrals, none of which were ever understood as destructive of the liberty of the people, or of the freedom of their chirotonia.

Where Solomon is made king, and Zadoc priest by the people, tho the ceremony of anointing was doubtless perform’d, and perhaps by the prophet Nathan, it is wholly omitted in the place as not worth the speaking of. The opinion that the ordination of the priests and Levits lay in the ceremonys of their consecration, is every whit as sober and agreeable to reason, as if a man should hold the kings of England to have bin made by the unction of the bishops. Israel from the institution of Moses to the monarchy, was a democracy, or popular government; in popular government the consent of the people is the power of the people, and both the priests and Levits were ordain’d by the consent of the people of Israel.

Chap. IV.Ditm. c. 10.To bring these things to the citys in the perambulation of the apostles, which by the former chapter I have prov’d to have bin popular governments; it is acknowleg’d by Grotius to the citys of Asia, not only that they us’d the chirotonia, but in the strictest sense of the word, that is, to give their suffrage by the holding up of hands. And that they had the liberty of their religion, the choice of their magistrats, both civil and ecclesiastical in their ecclesiæ, or congregations, has bin also undeniably evidenc’d; whence it must needs follow that there were citys in Asia (χειροτονησαντες apsgrυτ[Editor: illegible character]ipergrς pisymbolrhosymbolεσβυ[Editor: illegible character]έrhosymboloulaς kappavατ’ εkappavkappavλησίαν) chirotonizing or ordaining them elders, that is, magistrats and priests in every congregation (with reverence be it spoken) long before Christ was in the flesh, or the apostles any of them were born. Wherfore to sum up what in this chapter I conceive to be sufficiently prov’d, I may boldly conclude, That the chirotonia derives from popular constitution, and that there was a way of ordination by the chirotonia.


The Deduction of the Chirothesia from Monarchical or Aristocratical Government, and of the second Way of Ordination from the Chirothesia. In which is contain’d the Commonwealth of the Jews as it stood after the captivity.

WHAT pleases the prince, says Justinian, has the force of a law, seeing the people in his creation have devolv’d their whole power upon his person; which is with the most. But when popular government is chang’d into monarchical, either the whole power of the people, or a great part of it must of necessity accrue to the king.1 Sam. 8. 12. Hence says Samuel, he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fiftys: in which words perhaps is intimated the judges of the inferior courts, or Jethronian prefectures; so that hereby Samuel tells the people they shall no more have the election of their rulers, but the king will have it; who, it may be, chang’d the nature of som of these magistracys, or added others:2 Sam. 8. 15. for when David came to reign over all Israel, Joab was over the host (his strategus or general) Jehoshaphat was recorder, Zadok and Abimelec were the priests, Seraiah was the scribe, and Benaiah was over the Pelethits, and the Cherethits; that is, was captain of his regiments of guard, call’d perhaps by these names, as those of Romulus were call’d Celeres. But it should seem that few or none of these officers were elected by the chirotonia, that is by the people, but by the prince, which kind of election, as will be shewn anon, may be call’d chirothesia. For the deduction of this kind of ordination, or election, we shall do well to hearken first to Dr. Hammond;§ 10. who in his query, or discourse concerning ordination by the imposition of hands, puts it thus:Exod. 17. 11. To lift up the hands was a ceremony in prayer, and accordingly to lay hands on any (differing no otherwise from lifting up, than by the determining that action to a peculiar object, the person that was pray’d for) was generally among the Jews a ceremony of benediction us’d first by the father to the children, in bestowing he blessing upon them (and with that a succession to som part of his estate or inheritance) as appears in Jacobs blessing the children of Joseph:Gen. 48. 14. he stretch’d out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim’s head, and his left hand on Manasses, and so he bless’d, &c. From thence it was accommodated among them to the communicating of any part of power to others as assistants, or to the deriving of any successive office from one to another. Thus when Moses had from heaven receiv’d, and long us’d his commission to be under God the ruler of the people, the seventy elders were by God’s appointment assum’d to assist him:Numb. 11. 17. it being certain from the Jewish writings, tho the sacred Scripture has no occasion to mention it, that the succession of the seventy elders under the name of sanhedrim or council was continu’d thro all ages by their creating others in the place of those that dy’d, by this ceremony of imposition of hands.Tit. Sanhed. c. 4. To this purpose are the clear words of Maimonides: Moses our master created the seventy elders by imposition of hands, and the divine majesty rested on them; and those elders impos’d hands on others, and others on others, &c. So a little before the departure of Moses out of this life, when a successor was to be provided for him, God commands him to take Joshua, and lay his hands upon him.Numb. 27. 18, 23. And Moses laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses: that is, deriv’d to him by this ceremony the authority which himself had, and constituted him his successor in that government.Deut. 34 9. And so it is repeated, Joshua was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him.

This is the doctor’s deduction of the chirothesia, or ordination by the laying on of hands, from the commonwealth of Israel: and, says he, from the three uses of this ceremony there, that is, first in praying for another; secondly, in paternal benediction; thirdly, in creating successors in power, either in whole, or in part, derive three sorts of things in the New Testament, to which this ceremony of laying on of hands is accommodated. That of prayer simply taken was of two sorts, either for the cure of diseases, or pardoning of sins.Mar. 16. 18. For diseases: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.1 Tim. 5. 22. For sins they were don away also by this ceremony in the absolution of penitents, to which belongs that exhortation of Paul to Timothy, Lay hands suddenly on no man, that is, not without due examination and proof of his penitence, lest thou be partaker of other men’s sins. From the second, that of paternal benediction, was borrow’d, first that of blessing infants with the ceremony of imposition of hands, as it differ’d from baptism.Mar. 10. 16. And secondly, that of confirming those of fuller age, that had bin formerly baptiz’d.Acts 6. 6. Lastly, to the creating successors in any power, or communicating any part of power to others, as to assistants, is answerable that imposition of hands in ordination so often mention’d in the New Testament, somtimes in the lower degree, as in the ordaining of deacons, elsewhere in the highest degree, setting governors over particular churches, as generally when by that laying on of hands it is said, they receiv’d the Holy Ghost; wheras the Holy Ghost contains all the χαrhosymbolίσματα requir’d to the pastoral function, and so signifys power from on high:L ke 24. 49. the authority and function itself, so it be given by imposition of hands, makes the parallel exact between this of Christian ordination, and that observ’d in the creating successors in the Jewish sanhedrim. So far the doctor.

Now say I, if the Scripture be silent as to the ordination of the elders in Israel, what means that place; Take ye wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you?Deut. 1. once in their lives let them give us the sense of it, or of that other, where Eldad and Medad were of those that were written, and yet went not up to the tabernacle:Numb. 11. otherwise that we hear no more of these, is from the silence of divines, and not of the Scripture. But if the Scripture be not silent in this point, is there not a great deal of fancy in going on to cure the sick, to pardon sins, to bless infants, confirm the baptiz’d, ordain ministers, nay, give the Holy Ghost, and all the graces belonging to the pastoral function, from a place that has no such thing in it? for if the sanhedrim according to Scripture were not ordain’d by the chirothesia, there is no such thing to be deriv’d by the chirothesia from the sanhedrim. The first chirotonia indeed of the sanhedrim was accompany’d with miraculous indowments; wherfore if they will derive these gifts and graces from the sanhedrim, why are they sworn enemies to the chirotonia? again, the sanhedrim was a civil court or senat; wherfore then by this title should not these gifts and graces be rathe pretended to by the civil magistrat, than by divines? what becoms of the priest Aaron and his lots? is he left to the civil magistrat, while divines derive themselves from general Joshua and his chirothesia? but if the sanhedrim and inferior judicatorys were otherwise ordain’d originally; then no magistrat in Israel was originally ordain’d by the chirothesia, but only Joshua. It is admirable that divines should look upon God, as if in the institution of a commonwealth he had no regard at all to human prudence, but was altogether fix’d upon their vain advantages. Who made human prudence; or to what end was it made? any man that understands the politics, and considers that God was now proceding according to this art (as in his constitution of the senat, and of the people or congregation, is most obvious) must needs see that this power he indulg’d to Moses of making his own choice of one man; could not possibly be intended as a permanent constitution; for wheras he intended popular government, nothing is plainer than that a people not electing their own magistrats can have no popular government. How absurd is it to conceive that God having already made an express law, that the people, if at any time they came under monarchy, should yet have the election of their king, would now make a law that the people being under a commonwealth, should no longer have the election of their magistrats? for who sees not that to introduce the chirothesia as a standing ordinance, had bin to bar the people of this power? Israel at this time, tho design’d for a commonwealth, had no land, no foundation to balance her self upon, but was an army in a wilderness, incompass’d about with enemys. To permit to the people in this case, the choice of all their civil magistrats, was nevertheless safe enough, nay, best of all: for at the election of wise men, and understanding, and known among their tribes, so far as was needful to civil administration, their skill must needs have bin at any time sufficient; but the commonwealth was yet in absolute necessity of a protector, and of dictatorian power. Now to know who was fittest in this case to succede Moses, requir’d the wisdom of God, or of Moses; and therfore was not yet safe to be ventur’d upon a people so new in their government. For these reasons, I say, Moses us’d the chirothesia for once, and no more; or let them shew me among all the dictators, judges, or kings, that succeded Joshua, any one that was chosen by the chirothesia, and be all dictators. It is now above three thousand years since the institution of the sanhedrim, from which time the ambitious elders first, then the Talmudists, and of latter ages divines have bin perpetually striving for, or possessing themselves of this same oligarchical invention of the chirothesia pretended to be deriv’d from Moses; tho there be neither any such precept of God or Christ in the Old or New Testament, nor any unanimous result upon the point, either by the Talmudists or divines themselves. And for the clear words quoted by the doctor out of Maimonides, they are such to which I shall in due time shew Maimonides to be elsewhere of a clear contrary opinion. But in this controversy, without som clearer deduction of the chirothesia, we shall make no happy progress; in this therfore I shall follow Selden the ablest Talmudist of our age, or of any.

The commonwealth of Lacedemon (if I could stand to shew it) has strange resemblances to that of Israel, not only in the agrarian, which is nothing to the present purpose, but in the senat, which to prevent catching another time, I do not say was a judicatory only, but not only a senat, but a judicatory also. For Lycurgus of all other legislators was in this the likest to God, or to Moses, that his work was so exquisitly perfected at once, and his laws so comprehensive, that if the senat had had no other function than to make or propose new laws, there being little or nothing of that wanting, they would have had little or nothing to do. Now it being thus, and much more than thus in Israel, the sanhedrim was not only the senat, but the supreme judicatory. And because one court in a territory of any extent is no where sufficient to this end; therfore the sanhedrim had divers branches distended not only to the citys of Judea, but even to the villages; these were call’d the lesser sanbedrim, or the Jethronian prefectures.

Selden deSyn.The great sanhedrim consisting, as has bin shewn, of 70 elders, sat first in the tabernacle, and afterwards in the court of the temple.

The Jethronian prefectures consisted som of three and twenty elders, and others but of three. Of the former kind there were two in the gates of the temple, and one sitting in the gates or every city; of the latter there was one almost in every village.

The power of the Jethronian court, consisting of twenty-three elders, was in matter of judicature equal with that of the great sanhedrim, only in cases of difficulty they observ’d this precept.Vid. Grot. ad If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between blood and blood,Deut. 17. 8. between plea and plea, between stroke and stroke, being matter of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse (in the future, for the commonwealth was yet but design’d, not planted) and thou shalt com to the priests and the Levits, and to the judg that shall be in those days, and inquire, and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: that is, thou shalt consult the sanhedrim, or if there be no sanhedrim, the suffes or judg of Israel. The reason why the sanhedrim in this text is mention’d under the name of the priests and Levits is, that these about the beginning of this commonwealth having (as were also the Egyptian priests at the same time) bin the learnedst men, whether for lawyers, or physicians, there were scarce any other chosen into the sanhedrim, tho towards the latter end it happen’d to be far otherwise. For wheras sacrificing was feasting, the priests injoying a fat idleness, became in latter times so heavy, that as to the election of the sanhedrim not only the Levits of inferior rank were upon the matter wholly laid by, but the high-priest himself sometimes omitted, the rest of the tribes far excelling this in learning.

The power of the triumvirats, or three judges in the villages, extended no farther than to inflict stripes to a certain number, and pecuniary mulcts to a certain sum. These possibly had the same recourse upon occasion of difficulty to the judges in the gates, as the judges in the gates had to the sanhedrim: but their power is not so much to the present purpose, which regards only their manner of election. This having bin institutively exercis’d, as has bin shewn by the chirotonia, or ballot of the people, came sooner or later (I find no man that can resolve upon the certain time) to the cbirothesia. For tho when a judg in the gates was dead, that court elected his successor out of their disciples (each court in the gates had 99 disciples that were their constant auditors) or out of the triumvirats; and when an elder of the sanhedrim dy’d, the sanhedrim elected his successor out of the courts in the gates, more particularly those in the gates of the temple by suffrages; yet no man was capable of being elected into any of these courts that was not a presbyter, nor was any man a presbyter that had not receiv’d the chirothesia:Mikotzi Misna Gemara. nor could any man confer the chirothesia that had not first receiv’d it, or bin so ordain’d a presbyter himself: nor tho he were so ordain’d, could he confer the like ordination, but in the presence of two others, whether ordain’d or not ordain’d: and no ordination could be confer’d but either this way, or by som one of the judicatorys.Abr. Zacuth. The manner how this ordination was confer’d, if the party were present, was either by laying on of hands, or by saying a verse or charm; or if he were absent, by a letter, or patent.Maimonide.

Rab. Jonah.An elder thus ordain’d was call’d rabbi, might have disciples, teach, practise, or expound the law, declare what was therby free or forbidden (which with them was call’d binding and loosing) ordain others with the assistance mention’d, or beRab. Nathan. capable of election into som one, or any court of justice, according to the nature of his ordination, the conditions mention’d at the conferring of the same, or the gift that was in him by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery: which in som extended no farther than to shew how meat should be kill’d and dress’d, how uncleanness should be purify’d, what were vices of the body, what might be eaten or drunk, and what not; in others it extended to som one or more, or all the facultys express’d; but I am inclining to believe that a plenary ordination us’d not to be confer’d but by the great sanhedrim, or at least som one of the Jethronian courts.

They us’d also to confer this ordination som time occasionally, and for a season in this manner.Maimon. Tit. Receive the gift of judiciary ordination, or the right of binding and loosing, till such time as you return to us in the city.San. cap. 4. Where the Christian Jews still following their former customs in higher matters, as the observation of the Sabbath, and of circumcision, even to such a degree, that Paul not to displease them took Timothy and circumcis’d him, seem to me to have follow’d this custom, who when the Prophets at Antioch had inform’d them that Paul and Barnabas were to be separated to an extraordinary work, laid their hands upon them, and sent them away:Acts 13. 3. for otherwise as to ordination Paul and Barnabas had that before; at least Paul by Ananias, and for any such precept in the Christian religion there was none.Acts 9. 17.

JOSEPHUS, Philo, and other authors that tell us the commonwealth of Israel was an aristocracy, look no farther than the introduction of the chirothesia by the Presbyterian party, which must have taken date som time after the captivity, or the restitution of the commonwealth by Ezra, there being not one syllable for it in Scripture, but enough to the contrary, seeing God introduc’d the chirotonia. By which it is demonstrable that a Presbyterian party may bring a popular government to oligarchy, and deface even the work of God himself, so that it shall not be known to after-ages; as also that ecclesiastical writers (for such are the Talmudists) may pretend that for many hundred years together, as divines also have don, to be in Scripture, which neither is, nor ever was there. But have I yet said enough to shew that ordination, especially as in this example, not of a clergy, but of a magistracy, whether by the chirotonia, or chirothesia, is a political institution? or must I rack my brains for arguments to prove that an order or a law having such influence upon the commonwealth, that being introduc’d or repeal’d, it quite alters the whole frame of the government, must needs be of a political nature, and therfore not appertain to divines, or to a clergy, but to the magistrat, unless their traditions may be of force to alter the government as they please? All is one, they can abate nothing of it, let what will com of the government, the chirothesia they must and will have. Then let them have monarchy too, or tyranny; for one of these, according as the balance happens to stand with or against their chirothesia, is the certain consequence; either tyranny as in Israel, or monarchy as in the papacy; and, from that or the like principle, in all Gothic empires: which examples, to begin with Israel, well deserve the pains to be somwhat more diligently unfolded.

All elections in Israel, save those of the priests who were eligible by the lot, being thus usurp’d by the presbyterian party, and the people by that means divested of their chirotonia; som three hundred years before Christ, Hillel senior high priest, and archon or prince of the sanhedrim, found means to draw this power of ordination, in shew somwhat otherwise, but in effect to himself, and his chirothesia:Maimon. Tit. for by his influence upon the sanhedrim it was brought to pass, that wheras formerly any man ordain’d might, in the manner shewn,Sam. cap. 4. have ordain’d his disciples; it was now agreed that no man should be ordain’d without the licence of the prince, and that this power should not be in the prince, but in the presence of the father of the sanhedrim, or speaker of the house. Thus the aristocracy of Israel becoming first oligarchical, took (according to the nature of all such governments) long steps towards monarchy, which succeding in the Asmonean family, commonly call’d the Maccabees, was for their great merit, in vindicating the Jews from the tyranny of Antiochus, confirm’d to them by the universal consent and chirotonia of the people. Nevertheless to him that understands the orders of a commonwealth, or has read the Athenian, Lacedemonian, or Roman story, it will be plain enough that but for their aristocracy they needed not to have bin so much beholden to, or to have stood so much in need of one family. It is true, both the merit of these princes, and the manner of their free election by the people, seem to forbid the name of tyranny to this institution: but so it is, that let there be never so much merit in a man, or inclination of the people to the prince, or the government that is not founded upon the due balance, the prince, in that case must either govern in the nature of a commonwealth, as did those of this family, reforming the policy after the Lacedemonian model, or turn tyrant, as from their time, who liv’d in the age of the Grecian monarchy, did all their successors, till under the Romans this nation became a province: from which time such indeavors and insurrections they us’d for the recovery of their antient policy, that under the emperor Adrian (who perceiv’d at what their ordination, being not of priests, but of magistrats, and of a senat pretending to soverain judicature and authority, seem’d to aim) there came, says the Talmud, against the Israelits an edict out of the kingdom of the wicked (meaning the Roman empire) wherby whosoever should ordain, or be ordain’d, was to be put to death, and the school or city in which such an act should be done, to be destroy’d: wherupon rabbi Jehuda Ben Baba (lest ordination should fail in Israel) went forth, and standing between two great mountains, and two great citys, and between two Sabbathdays journys from Osa and Sephara, ordain’d five presbyters. For this feat the rabbi is remember’d by the Talmudists under the name of Ordinator; but the same, as it follows, being discover’d by the Roman guards, they shot his body through with so many darts, as made it like a sieve: yet staid not the business here, but so obstinat continu’d the Jews in the superstition to which this kind of ordination was now grown, that wheras by the same it was unlawful for them to ordain in a foren land, and at home they could not be brought to abstain, the emperor banish’d them all out of their own country; whence happen’d their total dispersion. That of a thing which at the first was a mere delusion, such religion should com in time, and with education to be made that not only they who had receiv’d advantage could suffer martyrdom, but they that had lost by it, would be utterly lost for it, were admirable in the case of this people, if it were not common in the case of most in the world at this day: custom may bring that to be receiv’d as an ordinance of God, for which there is no color in Scripture. For to consult Maimonides a little better upon this point:Halac. Sam. C. 4. S. 11. Wheras, says he, they grant, in case it should happen that in all the holy land there remain’d but one presbyter, that presbyter, assisted by two other Israelits, might ordain the seventy, or great sanhedrim, and the sanhedrim so constituted might constitute and ordain the lesser courts, I am of opinion that were there no presbyter in the land, yet if all the wise men of Israel should agree to constitute or ordain judges, they might do it lawfully enough. But if so, then how coms it to pass that our ancestors have bin so solicitous, lest judicature should fail in Israel? Surely for no other cause than that from the time of the captivity the Israelits were so dispers’d that they could not upon like occasions be brought together Now I appeal whether the clear words of Maimonides, where he says, that our master Moses ordain’d the sanhedrim by the chirothesia, be not more clearly and strongly contradicted in this place, than affirm’d in the other; since acknowleging that if the people could assemble, they might ordain the sanhedrim, he gives it for granted, that when they did assemble, they had power to ordain it; and that Moses did assemble them upon this occasion, is plain in Scripture. Again, if the power of ordination falls ultimatly to the people, there is not a stronger argument in nature that it is thence primarily deriv’d. To conclude, the chirothesia of the presbyterian party in Israel is thus confess’d by the author no otherwise necessary, than thro the defect of the chirotonia of the people: which ingenuity of the Talmudist, for any thing that has yet past, might be worthy the imitation of divines.

In tracking the Jews from the restitution of their commonwealth after the captivity to their dispersion, it seems that the later monarchy in Israel was occasion’d by the oligarchy, the oligarchy by the aristocracy, and the aristocracy by the chirothesia; but that this monarchy, tho erected by magnanimous and popular princes, could be no less than tyranny deriv’d from another principle, that is, the insufficiency of the balance: for tho from the time of the captivity, the jubile was no more in use, yet the Virgin Mary as an heiress, is affirm’d by som to have bin marry’d to Joseph by virtue of this law:Numb. 27. [Editor: illegible character] Every daughter that possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her fathers, &c. By which the popular agrarian may be more than suspected to have bin of greater vigor than would admit of a well balanc’d monarchy.

The second presbytery, which is now attain’d to a well-balanc d empire in the papacy, has infinitly excell’d the pattern, the lands of Italy being most of them in the church. This, if I had leisure, might be track’d by the very same steps: at first it consisted of the seventy parish priests, or presbyters of Rome; now seventy cardinals creating to themselves a high priest, or prince of their sanhedrim, the pope, but for the superstition wherto he has brought religion, and continues by his chirothesia to hold it, a great and a reverend monarch, establish’d upon a solid foundation, and governing by an exquisit policy, not only well-balanc’d at home, but deeply rooted in the greatest monarchys of Christendom, where the clergy by virtue of their lands are one of the three states.

The maxims of Rome are profound; for there is no making use of princes without being necessary to them, nor have they any regard to that religion which dos not regard empire. All monarchys of the Gothic model, that is to say, where the clergy by virtue of their lands are a third estate, subsist by the pope, whose religion creating a reverence in the people, and bearing an aw upon the prince, preserves the clergy, that else being unarm’d, becom a certain prey to the king or the people; and where this happens (as in Henry the Eighth) down gos the throne; for so much as the clergy loses, falls out of the monarchical into the popular scale. Where a clergy is a third estate, popular government wants earth, and can never grow: but where they dy at the root, a prince may sit a while, but is not safe: nor is it in nature (except he has a nobility or gentry able without a clergy to give balance to the people) that he should subsist long or peaceably: for wherever a government is founded on an army, as in the kings of Israel or emperors of Rome, there the saddest tragedys under heaven are either on the stage, or in the tiringhouse. These things consider’d, the chirothesia being originally nothing else but a way of policy excluding the people, where it attains not to a balance that is sufficient for this purpose, brings forth oligarchy or tyranny, as among the Jews: and where it attains to a balance sufficient to this end, produces monarchy, as in the papacy, and in all Gothic kingdoms.

The priests of Egypt, where, (as it is describ’d by Siculus) their revenue came to the third part of the realm, would no question have bin exactly well fitted with the chirothesia pretended to by modern divines. Suppose the apostles had planted the Christian religion in those parts, and the priests had been all converted, I do not think that divines will say, that having alter’d their religion they needed to have deserted their being a third estate, their overbalance to the people, their lands, their preeminence in the government, or any part of their policy for that: and I am as far from saying so as themselves.

On the other side, as Paul was a citizen of Rome, let us suppose him to have bin a citizen of Athens, and about (kappavαθιstigmaάναι) to constitute the Christian religion in this commonwealth, where any citizen might speak to the people: imagin then he should have said thus: Men of Athens, that which you ignorantly seek I bring to you, the true religion; but to receive this, you must not alter your former belief only, but your antient customs. Your political assemblys have bin hitherto call’d ecclesiæ; this word must lose the antient sense, and be no more understood but of spiritual consistorys; and so wheras it has bin of a popular, it must henceforth be of an aristocratical, or presbyterian signification. For your chirotonia, that also must follow the same rule; insomuch as on whomsoever one or more of the aristocracy or presbytery shall lay their hands, the same is understood by virtue of that action to be chirotoniz’d. How well would this have sounded in Egypt, and how ill in Athens? Certainly the policy of the church of Christ admits of more prudence and temperament in these things: tho the apostles being Jews themselves, satisfy’d the converted Jews that were us’d to aristocracy, by retaining somewhat of their constitutions, as the chirothesia; yet when Paul and Barnabas com to constitute in popular commonwealths, they are (χειrhosymbolοτονήσαντες apsgrυτοις pisymbolrhosymbolεσβυτέrhosymboloulaς kappavατ’ epsgrkappavkappavλησίαν) chirotonizing them elders in every congregation.


Whether the Chirotonia mention’d in the fourteenth of the Acts be indeed, as is pretended by Dr. Mammond, Dr. Seaman, and the Authors they follow, the same with the Chirothesia, or a far different thing. In which are contain’d the divers kinds of Church-Government introduc’d and exercis’d in the age of the Apostles.

Chap. V.EITHER I have impertinently intruded upon the politics, or cannot be said so much to meddle in church-matters, as churchmen may be said to have meddled in state-matters: for if the chirotonia be election by the many, and the chirothesia be election by one, or by the few, the whole difference between popular and monarchical government falls upon these two words; and so the question will be, Whether the Scriptures were intended more for the advantage of a prince, of a hierarcliy or presbytery, than of the people. But that God in the Old Testament instituted the chirotonia, not only in the commonwealth, as by the election of the sanhedrim, but in the monarchy, as in the election of the kings, is plain: so if there remains any advantage in Scripture to kings, to the hierarchy or presbytery, it must be in the New Testament. Israel was God’s chosen people, and God was Israel’s chosen king. That God was pleas’d to bow the heavens, and come down to them, was his choice, not theirs; but in that upon his proposition, and those of his servant Moses they resolv’d to obey his voice, and keep his covenant, they chose him their king. In like manner, the church is Christ’s chosen people, and Christ is the church’s chosen king. That Christ taking flesh was pleas’d to bow the heavens, and com down in a more familiar capacity of proposing himself to mankind, was his own choice, not theirs: but in that the church upon his proposition, or those of his apostles sent by him, as he was sent by the father, resolv’d to obey his voice, and keep his covenant, she has chosen him her king. Whatever in nature or in grace, in church or in state, is chosen by man according to the will of God, is chosen by God, of whom is both the will and the deed.§ 36. Which things consider’d, I wonder at Dr. Hammond, who says, Sure the Jewish and Heathen citys, to whom the gospel by Christs command was to be preach’d, were not to chuse their guides or teachers. Christ was not chosen by them to whom he preach’d; for, says he, ye have not chosen me. He came from heaven, sent by his father on that errand; and happy they whom he was thus pleas’d to chuse, to call, and preach to. And when his apostles, after his example, go and preach to all nations, and actually gather disciples, they chose their auditors, and not their auditors them. To make short work, I shall answer by explaining his words as they fall.

A ROMAN chusing whether he would speak to the senat or the people, chose his auditors, and not they him: nevertheless, if it were the consul, they chose him, and not he them. It is one thing to be a speaker to a people, that have the liberty, when that’s don, to do as they think fit; and another thing to be a guide, whom the people have consented, or oblig’d themselves to follow: which distinction not regarded, makes the rest of his argumentation recoil upon himself; while he procedes thus: And they that give up their names to the obedience of the gospel (chose the preachers, as I should think, of that gospel their guides) one branch of this obedience obliges them (by their own consent it seems, because before they gave up their names) to observe those that (being thus plac’d over them by their consent) are plac’d over them by God: such not only are their civil magistrats (who succede to their places by, and govern according to the laws which the people have chosen) but also their pastors, whom the Holy Ghost either mediatly (according to the rules of church disciplin in Scripture) or immediatly (upon som such miraculous call, as the people shall judg to be no imposture) has set over them. From which words the Doctor, not considering those qualifications I have shewn all along to be naturally inherent in them, concludes that a bishop is made by the Holy Ghost, and not by the people.

If he would stand to this yet it were somthing; for if the Holy Ghost makes a bishop, then I should think that the Holy Ghost ordain’d a bishop, and so that the election and ordination of a bishop were all one. But this hereafter will appear to be a more dangerous concession than perhaps you may yet apprehend. Wherfore when all is don, you will not find divines, at least Dr. Hammond, to grant that the Holy Ghost can ordain: he may elect indeed, and that is all; but there is no ordination without the chirothesia of the bishops, or of the presbytery. Take the Doctor’s word for it.

§ 107.WHEN St. Paul says of the Bishops of Asia, that the Holy Ghost had set them overseers, I suppose that it is to be understood of their election or nomination to those dignitys:Acts 20. 28. for so Clement speaks of St. John, who constituted bishops of those that were signify’d by the Spirit; where the Spirit’s signification notes the election or nomination of the persons, but the constituting them was the ordination of St. John.

God may propose, as the electors do to the great council of Venice; but the power of the council, that is to resolve or ordain, is in the bishop, says Dr. Hammond, and in the presbytery, says Dr. Seaman. Indeed, that election and ordination be distinct things, is to divines of so great importance, that losing this hold, they lose all: for, as I said before, whatever is chosen by man according to the will of God, that is, according to divine law, whether natural or positive, the same, whether in state or church, is chosen by God, or by the Holy Ghost, of whom is both the will and the deed. To evade this, and keep all in their own hands, or chirothesia, divines have invented this distinction, that election is one thing, and ordination another: God may elect, but they must constitute; that is, God may propose, but they must resolve. And yet Grotius, who in these things is a great champion for the clergy, has little more to say upon this point than this:De Imp. sum. Whether we consider antient or modern times, we shall find the manner of election very different not only in different ages and countrys,Pot. c. 10. but in different years of the same age,§ 31. and places of the same country, so uncertain it is to determin of that which the Scripture has lest uncertain. And while men dispute not of right, but of convenience, it is wonderful to see what probable arguments are brought on all sides. Give me Cyprian and his times, there is no danger in popular election. Give me the Nicene fathers, and let the bishops take it willingly. Give me Theodosius, Valentinian, and Charles the Great, than royal election there is nothing safer. Upon the heels of these words treads Dr. Hammond in this manner:§ 104. That election and ordination are several things, is sufficiently known to every man that measures the nature of words either by usage or dictionarys; only for the convincing of such as think not themselves oblig’d to the observation of so vulgar laws, I shall propose these evidences.Acts 6. In the story of the creation of the deacons of Jerusalem, there are two things distinctly set down, one propos’d to the multitude of disciples to be don by them, another reserv’d to the apostles; that which was propos’d to the multitude was to elect, &c. Election of the persons was by the apostles permitted to them, but still the (kappavαταstigmaήσομεν) constituting is reserv’d to the apostles.Of ordinat. p. 13. Then coms Dr. Seaman: Be it granted, as it is by Protestants generally, that Paul and Barnabas made elders with the consent of the people, their consent is one thing, and their power another.

Where in the first place I for my particular, who have had the books of Dr. Hammond and Dr. Seaman sent to me by way of objection, need not go a step further. All that I have inserted in my Oceana concerning ordination, is in these three votes acknowledg’d and confirm’d: for the probationer to be there sent by a university to a cure that is vacant, may, by a doctor, or the doctors of the same university already ordain’d, receive imposition of hands, if that be thought fit to be added, and then the election of the same probationer by the people dos no hurt, nay, says Grotius, is of the right of nature; for it is naturally permitted to every congregation to procure those things which are necessary to their conservation, of which number is the application of function.De Imp. c. 10 So merchants have the right of electing of a master of their ship; travellers of a guide in their way, and a free people of their king. The merchant, it seems, dos not make the master of his ship, the traveller his guide, nor the free people their king, but elect them. As if Van Trump had bin admiral, a robber upon the highway had bin a scout, or the guide of an army, or Saul a king before they were elected. The point is very nice, which instead of proving, he illustrats in the beginning of the same chapter by these three similitudes.

The first is this, The power of the husband is from God, the application of this power to a certain person is from consent, by which nevertheless the right is not given; for if this were by consent, the matrimony might be dissolv’d by consent; which cannot be. As if an apparent retraction of matrimonial consent, as when a wife consents to another than her own husband, or commits adultery, did not deliver a man from the bond of marriage by the judgments of Christ. There is an imperfection or cruelty in those laws, which make marriage to last longer than a man in humanity may be judg’d to be a husband, or a woman a wife. To think that religion destroys humanity, or to think that there is any defending of that by religion which will not hold in justice, or natural equity, is a vast error.

The second similitude is this: Imperial power is not in the princes that are electors of the empire; wherfore it is not given by them, but applied by them to a certain person.

1 Pet. 2. 13.This is answer’d by Peter, where he commands obedience to every ordinance of man (or, as som nearer the original, every power created by men) whether it be to the Roman emperor, as supreme, or to the proconsuls of Asia and Phrygia, as sent by him; for this is the sense of the Greec, and thus it is interpreted by Grotius. Now if the then Roman emperor were a creature of man, why not the now Roman emperor?

The last similitude runs thus: The power of life and death is not in the multitude before they be a commonwealth; for no privat man has the right of revenge; yet it is apply’d by them to som man, or political body of men. But if a man invades the life of another, that other, whether under laws or not under laws, has the right to defend his own life, even by taking away that (if there be no other probable remedy) of the invader. So that men are so far from having bin void of the power of life and death before they came under laws, that laws can never be so made as wholly to deprive them of it after they com under them: wherfore the power of life and death is deriv’d by the magistrat from, and confer’d upon him by the consent or chirotonia of the people, wherof he is but a mere creature; that is to say, an ordinance of man.

Thus these candles being so far from lighting the house, that they dy in the socket, Grotius has bin no less bountiful than to grant us that the people have as much right (where there is no human creature or law to the contrary) to elect their churchmen, as merchants have to elect their seamen, travellers their guides, or a free people their king; which is enough a conscience. Nor is Dr. Hammond straiter handed: election, says he, was permitted by the apostles to the multitude, and therfore the same may be allow’d, always provided the (kappavαταstigmaήσομεν) constituting be reserv’d to the pastors, or ordain’d doctors and preachers. And Dr. Seaman, upon condition the people will not say that it was don by their power, but think it fair that it was don by their consent, is also very well contented. So all stands streight with what I have heretofore propos’d. Let no man then say, whatever follows, that I drive at any ends or interests, these being already fully obtain’d and granted; nevertheless for truth sake I cannot leave this discourse imperfect. If a politician should say that the election and the ordination of a Roman consul or pontifex were not of like nature; that the kappavαταstigmaήσομεν, contract of the senat of Rome with the people in the election of Numa (ut cum populus regem jussissent, id sic ratum esset, si patres autores fierent) included or imply’d the soverain power to be in the fathers; that the consent of this people was one thing, and their power another: if, I say, he should affirm these or the like in Athens, Lacedemon, or any other commonwealth that is or has bin under the sun, there would be nothing under the sun more ridiculous than that politician.Livy. But should men pretending to government of any kind be not oblig’d to som consideration of these rules in nature and universal experience; yet I wonder how the word (kappavαθιstigmaάναι) to constitute, with which they make such a flourish, did not lead them, otherwise than they follow; this, as it was said of Solon by Aristotle, being that which I have already shewn to be us’d both in the Greec of the Scripture, for the constitution of the sanhedrim by Moses, and in other authors for that of the senat by Romulus, each of which was then elected by the people: whence it may appear plainly that this is no word, as they pretend, to exclude popular suffrage, but rather to imply it. And indeed that it is of no such nature as necessarily to include power, could not have bin overseen in the New Testament, but voluntarily where (οidagr δὲ kappavαθιstigmaohpegrν[Editor: illegible character]ες τogrgrν Πα[Editor: illegible character]λον) they are signify’d by it that conducted Paul.Acts 17. 15. But they have miracles: such indeed as have neither words nor reason for them, had need of miracles. And where are these same miracles? why the apostles by the chirothesia or laying on of hands confer’d the Holy Ghost. So they did not only when they us’d that ceremony in reference to ordination, but when they us’d it not in that relation, as to those that were newly baptiz’d in Samaria, men and women:Acts 8. now it is not probable, that these, who should seem to have been numerous, were all ordain’d, at least, the women; and so the miracle is to be attributed to the hands of the apostles, and not to ordination in general. Joshua was fall of the spirit (not because he had been ordain’d by the chirothesia, for so had many of them that crucify’d Christ and persecuted the apostles, but) because Moses had laid his hands upon them.

Would divines be contented that we should argue thus: The chirotonia or suffrage of the people of Israel at the first institution was follow’d with miraculous indowments, therefore therfore whoever is elected by the people shall have the like? or what have they to shew why the argument is more holding as to their chirothesia, seeing for above one thousand years all the hierarchy and presbytery laid together have don no more miracles than a parish clerc?

A continu’d miracle, as that the sea ebbs and flows, the sun always runs his admirable course, is nature. Intermitted nature, as that the waters of the red sea were mountains, that the sun stood still in the dial of Ahaz, is a miracle. To continue the latter kind of miracle were to destroy the former, that is, to dissolve nature. Wherfore this is a certain rule, that no continu’d external act can be in the latter sense miraculous. Now government, whether in church or state, is equally a continu’d external act. An internal continu’d act may indeed be natural, or supernatural, as faith.

A natural man, being even in his own natural apprehension fearfully and wonderfully made, is by the continu’d miracle of nature convinc’d that the world had a Creator, and so coms to believe in that which is supernatural; whence it is that all nations have had som religion: and a spiritual man being convinc’d by the purity of Christ’s doctrine, and the miracles wherby it was first planted, is brought to the Christian faith. However Christ may require such continu’d faith or spiritual exercise of his church as is supernatural, he requires not any such continu’d act or bodily exercise of his church as is supernatural. But the government of the church is a continu’d act, or bodily exercise. It should be heeded that to delude the sense is not to do miracles, but to use imposture. Now to persuade us, that monarchical, aristocratical, popular, or mixt government have not always bin in nature, or that there has ever bin any other in the church, were to delude sense. Wherfore give me leave (in which I am confident I shall use no manner of irreverence to the Scripture, but on the contrary make the right use of it) to discourse upon church-government according to the rules of prudence.

The Gospel was intended by Christ to be preach’d to all nations, which (princes and states being above all things exceding tenacious of their power) is to me a certain argument that the policy of the church must be so provided for, as not to give any of them just cause of jealousy, there being nothing more likely to obstruct the growth of religion: and truly the nearer I look to the Scripture, the more I am confirm’d in this opinion.

First way of ordination in the church of Christ.Christ being taken up into heaven, the first ordination that we find was that of the apostle Matthias after this manner:

Acts 1.The aristocracy of the church, that is the apostles, assembl’d the whole congregation of disciples or believers at Jerusalem, being in number one hundred and twenty, where Peter (it having as it should seem bin so agreed by the apostles) was proposer; who standing up in the midst of the disciples, acquainted them, that wheras Judas was gone to his place, the occasion of their present meeting was to elect another apostle in his room: wherupon proceding to the suffrage, they appointed two competitors, Joseph and Matthias, whose names being written each in a several scrol, were put into one urn, and at the same time two other lots, wherof one was a blank, and the other inscrib’d with the word apostle, were put into another urn; which don, they pray’d and said, Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen. The prayer being ended, they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias (kaisymbol συνkappavα[Editor: illegible character]εψηφίσθη με[Editor: illegible character]α τohpegrν edaacgrνδεkappavα apsgrpisymbolοstigmaόλων) and by this psephisma (the very popular word, and not only so, but being apply’d to the ballot, is the very literal and original signification) he was added to the eleven apostles. So you have the first way of ordination in the church, after Christ was taken up into heaven, perform’d by the election or chirotonia of the whole church.

Now except any man can shew that Matthias ever receiv’d the imposition of hands, these several things are already demonstrated. First, that the chirotonia is not only the more antient way of ordination in the commonwealth of Israel, but in the church of Christ. Secondly, that the chirothesia or imposition of hands is no way necessary to ordination in the Christian church. Thirdly, that the disciplin of the Christian church was primitively popular; for to say that in regard of the apostles it was aristocratical, is to forget that there is no such thing, without a mixture of aristocracy, that is without the senat, as a popular government in nature. Fourthly, that ordination in the commonwealth of Oceana being exactly after this pattern, is exactly according to the disciplin of the church of Christ. And fifthly, that ordination and election in this example are not two, but one and the same thing.

The last of these propositions having bin affirm’d by Mr. Hobbs, Dr. Hammond tells him plainly, that his assertion is far from all truth:§ 115. let us therfore consider the doctor’s reasons, which are these; seeing the congregation, says he, is affirm’d by the gentleman to have ordain’d, and it is plain by the words of St. Luke that God elected, election and ordination by this example must be distinct things: which in another place going about to fortify with this argument, that it was don by lottery, and Solomon says, The lot is at the disposing of the Lord, he utterly overthrows without and beyond help; for in this Solomon not denying, but rather affirming that he was chosen king by the people, plainly shews that election by the people is election by God. Where it is affirm’d, that God rais’d up judges in Israel, it is not deny’d that the people elected them. The doctor is at it in Maimonides more than once, that the Divine Majesty rested upon such as were ordain’d by imposition of hands. But wheras it is affirm’d by Maimonides more often, that when the people (ecclesia dei) or congregation of Israel assembl’d, then the Divine Majesty, or the Holy Ghost rested upon them; of this he never takes any notice. The people, whether in Israel, Athens, Lacedemon, or Rome, never assembl’d for enacting of laws, or election of magistrats, without sacrifice and imploring the assistance of God, to whom when their work was perform’d, they always attributed the whole result or election: and would the doctor have Christians to allow him but a piece? for wheras God electing there had, in the sense both of Jews and Heathens, his choice of all, God electing here had, in the sense of divines, but his choice of two, which were next this or none, but that indeed where he has not the whole he has none at all. Is that then far from all truth, which the gentleman, or that which the divine has said, either in this part,Dr. H. of imposition. or where he adds, that the hundred and twenty in the text are never mention’d but once, and then it is in a parenthesis?§ 115. I will but transcribe the place.

Acts 1. 15.AND in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said (the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty) &c. Are the disciples in the parenthesis, or out of it? are they but once mention’d, and that is in a parenthesis? or are they but once number’d, and that is in a parenthesis? if a gentleman should do thus, what would they say? or, what were ill enough to be said? but to mend the text, and bring the disciples into the parenthesis, they have more ways than one; wheras the Heathen people, while the priests were willing, mix’d these dutys with devotions, divines will not suffer a Christian people upon like occasions to pray: for where it is said, They pray’d, it went before, they appointed two, and it follows, they gave out their lots; which antecedent and consequent, if the people pray’d, must be equally understood of them, and so they could be no parenthesis. Therfore pray they must not, or divines are lost. But how will they silence them? to shew you this art I must transcribe the heads of the chapter.

The apostles being return’d from Mount Olivet to Jerusalem, went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter and James, and John, and Andrew, JamesVerse 13. the son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

AND in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said (the 15. number of names together were about one hundred and twenty)

MEN and brethren,16.

OF these men which accompany’d with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in 21. and out amongst us,

MUST one be ordain’d to be a witness with us of his resurrection.22.

AND they appointed two, Joseph and Matthias.23.

AND they pray’d, and said, Thou Lord which knowest the hearts of all men, shew 24. whether of these two thou hast chosen.

AND they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, kaisymbol συνkappavα[Editor: illegible character]εψηφίσθη26. με[Editor: illegible character]agrgr τohpegrν edaacgrνδεkappavα apsgrpisymbolοstigmaόλων.

They whom Peter acquainted that one must be ordain’d, one would verily believe were the hundred and twenty disciples, in the midst of whom he stood up, and made the proposition; and so much the rather, because this was no more than the apostles knew before, and (in all right understanding of government and sense) were already agreed upon, it being the office of the aristocracy or senat in a commonwealth (and such exactly were the apostles in the church) upon all new orders or elections to be made; first, to debate and determin by themselves, and then to propose to the chirotonia or ultimat result of the people. But divines say absolutely no, which word to make good, they appointed two, and they pray’d, and they gave forth their lots, being sentences that stand plainly together, or hunt in couples, must leap sheer over nine verses, Peter’s whole oration (which by this means is no more than a parenthesis neither) and over the hundred and twenty disciples, without touching a hair of their heads, to light plum upon the thirteenth verse, and the eleven apostles!Grotius. never man us’d his grammar so since he threw it at a pear tree! yet that Chrysostom (who understood Greec) allows of no such construction, is confefs’d by the learnedst of this opinion; and wheras they fly to the Latin fathers, that retreat is wholly cut off by David Blundel in his very learned treatise of the right of the people in the church-government.

But what do we stand upon words? are these such wherof the things to which they relate may be interpreters? or to what things can they relate but the institution of the sanhedrim by Moses? that at the institution of the sanhedrim the competitors were elected by the suffrage of the people, and from thence that the ballot of Israel consisted not only of a lot but of a suffrage too, has bin already demonstrated out of Scripture; and that the election of Matthias was by the ballot of Israel is no less apparent in itself, than fully confess’d upon the place by Grotius.

They that under color of religion in matter of government, slight prudence, are mistaken, or do not mean honestly.Demonstration that God rever ordain’d any policy ecclesiastical or civil, but upon the principles of human prudence. Neither God nor Christ ever instituted any policy whatsoever upon any other principles than those of human prudence. The embassadors sent from the Gibeonites to Joshua deliver their message in this manner: the elders and all the inhabitants of our country spake to us, saying, go meet them, and say to them, We are your servants; therfore now make ye a league with us. They that had power to send embassadors and to make a league with a foren nation, had soverain power; this soverain power was in the elders, or senat, and in the people of Gibeon: wherfore God constituting his commonwealth for the main orders (that is to say, the senat and the people) upon the same principles on which the Gibeonites had long before built theirs, laid his foundations upon no other than human prudence.Josh. 9. 11. So for the inferior courts they were transcrib’d by Moses out of the commonwealth of Midian, upon advice of Jethro his father in law. According to such patterns was Israel fram’d, and by that of Israel this first policy of the church of Christ so exactly, as (sans comparaison) any man shall shew the commonwealth of Oceana to have bin transcrib’d out of Rome or Venice. Let them that would have the government be somwhat between earth and heaven, consider this place.

Nor is the ecclesiastical policy only subject to human prudence, but to the same vicissitudes also wherto human prudence is subject, both in her own nature, and as she is obnoxious to the state wherin she is planted, and that inavoidably; as I com now to demonstrat by the alterations which happen’d even in the age of the apostles themselves: for this at the election of Matthias being alter’d, the next form of ecclesiastical policy introduc’d in their times, is resembl’d by Grotius to that of Athens, of which, for the better clearing of what follows, it is necessary that I first say somthing by way of introduction.

Arist. 2. lib. 2. c. 10.The thesmothetæ, being in number six, were magistrats of the highest dignity, power, and rank in Athens. These, says Aristotle, were elected by the chirotonia or suffrage of the people; and says Pollux, being elected underwent the inquisition of the senat, where they were to answer to those interrogatorys, whether they worship’d the God of their countrys? Whether they had bin dutiful to their parents? born arms for the commonwealth?Pol. [Editor: illegible character] 8. c. 9. paid dutys or taxes? in which particulars the senat being satisfy’d, they were sworn and crown’d with myrtle: which coms to this, that the kappavαταstigmaήσομεν) or constitution being reserv’d to the senat, the thesmothetæ were elected by the chirotonia of the people. Now tho the government of Athens throout the citys of Asia (being most of them of the like model) was most known, I will not say that the apostles wrote their orders out of Athens, but seeing all political institutions must needs be according to human prudence, and there is nothing to be written out of this but what will fall even with som other government that is or has bin, I may say, as Grotius has said before me, that the frame of church government in the insuing example was after the manner of Athens.

Second way of ordination in the church of Christ.WHEN the number of the disciples, or believers, was multiply’d, there arose a murmuring among such of the Jews as having bin bred in Alexandria or other parts, were for their language (which was Greec) partly strangers, against the Hebrews or converted Jews, that spoke their own language, as if these indeed us’d them like strangers, their widows being neglected, or not dealt so liberally withal, as those of the Hebrews in the contributions due for their constant maintenance.

Hereupon the twelve apostles, after the manner of the senat, having without all question debated the business among themselves, as appears by the speech upon which they were agreed, assembl’d the people, which is still senatorian, or call’d the multitude of the disciples to them, and said, it is not reason that we should leave preaching, or the word of God, to be taken up with this, tho charitable, nay, seeing we have introduc’d community of goods, most just and necessary imployment of providing food and cloathing for every one of our fellowship or community (the Christians in these times, much after the manner of the Lacedemonian convives, us’d to eat in publick and together) to do this as it ought to be don, were to becom caterers, and be taken up in serving tables, wherfore, brethren, (take the wise men and understanding, and known among you) look out seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and of wisdom ([Editor: illegible character]ς kappavαταstigmaήσομεν epsgrπι τeepergrς χρειας ταυτης) whom we may appoint over this business.

THIS saying, that is, this proposition of the senat or apostles, pleas’d the whole multitude, (like that of Moses, the thing which thou hast said is good for us to do) so they chose Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, whom being elected, they set before the apostles, who when they had pray’d, laid their hands upon them.

What fuller demonstration can be given of any thing, than that in this example ordination and election are one and the same, that this was confer’d by the chirotonia of the people? if there be any possible way of making this clearer, it must be by opposition: wherfore let us see what divines have to say to the contrary.

GROTIUS gives us all we ask from this place, which he gives for nothing, because it concerns not the election of pastors, but of deacons. As if Stephen and Philip had not only bin preachers of the Gospel, but don miracles. What Dr. Seaman denys or grants in relation to the same, I have indeavor’d to understand, but it will not do. Dr. Hammond is so plain, that his objections may be of use. He, to prove that the ordination of these deacons was not in the chirotonia of their disciples, but in the chirothesia of the apostles, has these arguments:

THERE be two things distinctly set down, election, permitted to the people, and the (kappavαταstigmaήσομεν) constituting reserv’d to the apostles.

To which I answer, that there were two things set down by the Athenian law, election of the thesmothetæ by the people, and the (kappavαταstigmaήσομεν) constituting of them by the senat; yet that the ordination was in the power, and that the power was in the people of Athens: he that makes a doubt, is not resolv’d whether the most popular commonwealth that ever was, were a democracy.

But, says he, this looking out of men, or chusing, was permitted to the multitude by the apostles with these three bounds: first, to take seven, neither more nor fewer: secondly, those men generally known and well reputed of: and thirdly, full of the spirit, and of discretion or parts fit for government. To which I answer, that the election of the thesmothetæ was permitted by the law to the people of Athens with these three bounds; first to take six, neither more nor fewer: secondly, those generally known and reputed of: thirdly, in such estimation for their honesty and ability for government, as in their consciences (to which also they made oath) they should judg fittest for the commonwealth. Yet is all this so far from any proof that Athens was no democracy, or that the soverain power, whether in enacting of laws, or election of magistrats by the lot or the suffrage (institutions equally popular) was not in the people, that it amounts to the strongest argument that the people were soverain, and the commonwealth was democratical. Could truth desire greater advantage than redounds from such opposition? we have another example of the same model, in which because it has bin paraphras’d upon already in the introduction, I shall be briefer here.Acts 13. In the church of Antioch, where the disciples were now becom so numerous, that they began to be call’d Christians, there were among them prophets: so being assembl’d on occasion, as I conceive, of giving an extraordinary commission after the manner of the people of Athens when they elected ambassadors, or (that I may avoid strife upon a point so indifferent) to chuse two new apostles, the Holy Ghost said, separat me Barnabas and Saul for the work wherto I have appointed them: that is (for so it is render’d by all interpreters) the Holy Ghost spake those words by the mouths of the prophets. Now the prophets being well known for such, this suffrage of theirs was no sooner given, than (as one that can allow prophets to be leading men may easily think) follow’d by all the rest of the congregation: so the whole multitude having fasted and pray’d, the most eminent among them, or the senatorian order in that church, laid their hands upon Paul and Barnabas, who being thus sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed to Seleucia.

To evade this apparent election, or chirotonia of the whole congregation, wherby these apostles or ambassadors to the churches of the Gentils were ordain’d, divines have nothing to say, but that they were elected by the Holy Ghost: as if the chirotonia of the people were more exclusive to election by the Holy Ghost, than the chirothesia of the aristocracy, for which in the mean time they contend. But if neither of these were indeed exclusive of the Holy Ghost, how is it possible in this frame (where tho of natural necessity an aristocracy must have bin included, yet the aristocracy is not in the text so much as distinguish’d from the people, or once nam’d) that the power, and so the ordination should not have bin in the people? The council of the apostles, of the elders, and of the whole church at Jerusalem, and other councils, not of apostles, nor of the whole church, in other times or places, us’d this form in their acts; it seems good to the Holy Ghost, and to us:Acts 15. 22. but dos this, whether a true or a pretended stile, exclude that act from being an act of that whole council? or how coms it to pass that because Paul and Barnabas were separated by the Holy Ghost, they were not ordain’d by the chirotonia of the whole Christian people at Antioch?

The chirothesia can be no otherwise understood in nature, nor ever was in the commonwealth of the Jews, than election by the few: and so even under the mere chirothesia, ordination and election were not two, but one and the same thing. If Moses ordain’d Joshua his successor by the chirothesia, he elected Joshua his successor by the chirothesia; and for what reason must it be otherwise with the chirotonia? that a Pharisee could do more with one hand, or a pair of hands, than a Christian church or congregation can do with all their hands, is a doctrin very much for the honor of the true religion, and a soverain maxim of ecclesiastical policy.

Third way of ordination in the church of Christ. Grot. adThe third constitution of church-government in Scripture (whether consisting of bishops or presbyters, between which at this time a man shall hardly find a difference) runs wholly upon the aristocracy, without mention of the people, and is therfore compar’d by Grotius to the sanhedrim of Israel, as that came to be in these days; from whence divines also generally and truly confess that it was taken up:1 Tim. 4. 14. to which I shall need to add no more, than that it is an order for which there is no precept, either in the Old Testament of God, or in the New Testament of Christ. This therfore thus taken up by the apostles from the Jews, is a clear demonstration that the government of the church, in what purity soever of the times, nay, tho under the inspection of the apostles themselves, has bin obnoxious to that of the state wherin it was planted. The sanhedrim, from the institution of the chirothesia, for a constant order, consisted of no other senators than such only as had bin ordain’d by the imposition of hands; which came now to be confer’d by the prince, in the presence, or with the assistance of the sanhedrim.Grot. ad Mat. 19. 13. The same order was observ’d by the Jewish synagogues, of which each had her archon; nor would the Jews converted to the Christian faith, relinquish the law of Moses, wherto this way of ordination, among other things, tho erroneously, was vulgarly attributed: whence in the church, where it consisted of converted Jews, ordination was confer’d by the archon, or first in order of the presbytery, with the assistance of the rest. Hence Paul, in one place, exhorts Timothy thus:1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. And in another thus:2 Tim. 1. 6. Wherfore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

I grant divines, that ordination by this time was wholly in the presbytery; what say they then to the distinction of ordination and election? are these still two distinct things, or may we hence, at least, compute them to be one and the same? if they say yes, why then might they not have bin so before? if they say no, who, in this place, but the presbytery, elected? why, says Dr. Hammond, it is plain that the spirit of prophecy elected.§. 106. But to give account of no more than is already perform’d, were the spirit of history rather than of prophecy, to which it appertains to tell things before they be don; as did the prophets now living in this church, that Timothy should com to be ordain’d: so the place is interpreted by Grotius: and how it should be otherwise understood I cannot see. But putting the case som act preceded, as Saul and David were elected kings by prophecy; yet did ever man say that for this Saul or David were any whit the less elected kings by the people? to the contrary in every well-order’d commonwealth (a jove principium) the disposing of the lot, and of the suffrage too, has universally bin attributed to God.

§. 134.The piety of divines in persuading the people that God elects for them, and therfore they need not trouble themselves to vote, is as if they should persuade them that God provides their daily bread, and therfore they need not trouble themselves to work. To conclude this point with Dr. Hammond’s own words upon the same occasion; this distinction of ordination and election is in divines the procreative mistake, or ignorance producing all the rest.§. 111.

The reason why Paul ordain’d now after this manner among the Jews, is to me an irrefragable argument that he ordain’d not after this manner among the Gentils: for wheras the first ordination in the Christian church, namely that of Matthias, was perform’d by the chirotonia, which by degrees came now in complacence with the Jews to the chirothesia; it seems he was contented not to alter the worst of political institutions or customs, where he found them confirm’d by long and universal practice: and if so, why should any man think that he would go about to alter, or weed out the best, where they had taken like root? that this administration of the Jews was of the very worst, is clear in the nature of the politics, there being no example of a pure aristocracy or of a senat, such as was now the sanhedrim, without a popular balance, that ever govern’d with justice, or was of any continuance. Nor was the chirothesia, by which means this work came to effect in Israel, introduc’d by the prudence of God, but by the corrupt arts of men. Now that the governments at the same time of the Gentils, all balanc’d by the chirotonia of the people, were in their nature more excellent, and indeed more accommodated to ancient prudence, as it was introduc’d by God himself in the commonwealth of Israel, has bin already sufficiently prov’d: nevertheless, to refresh your memory with one example more,

CRETE having bin (as is affirm’d by the consent of authors) the most ancient, and the most excellent commonwealth in human story, was founded by Rhadamanthus and Minos, an age before the Trojan war: these were held to have learnt their arts by familiar discourse with Jupiter, and from point to point to have fram’d their model according to his direction.Epitome of the commonwealth of Crete Nor, tho’ all acknowlege Minos to have bin a king, did he found his government upon any other than a popular balance, or a fundamental regard to the liberty of the people: for the whole commonwealth was made up of these three parts, the college, the senat, and the people. The college consisted of the annual magistrats call’d the cosmi: these had the whole extentive power, som in leading forth the armies, and others in judging the people; which functions were accordingly assign’d by the orders to each in particular. That which was common to them all, was to propose such things as they had debated or prepar’d in their college or council, to the senat. The senat being elective for life, was the council, to which appertain’d the debate of whatever was to be propos’d to the congregation. The congregation, or assembly of the people of Crete, had not the right of debate; but in enacting of laws, and election of magistrats, had the ultimate result of the commonwealth. Such was the copy after which Lycurgus wrote himself so famous a legislator. And thus stood this frame to the six hundred and eighth year of Rome; when this people, having bin too favourable to pirates then infesting those seas, turn’d the arms of the Romans upon themselves; and by these, under the conduct of Quinctus Metellus, thence call’d Creticus, Crete was made a province: tho’ the chief cities being first freed, it should seem (by Cicero’s second oration against Antony) that the whole island was at length restor’d to her ancient liberty. However by the manner observ’d by the Romans, as was shewn, in provincial government, the cities under their magistrats (who while the commonwealth was a province perhaps might have exercis’d the office of the cosmi) were not yet depriv’d of their popular assemblies, at least in their distinct cities, electing all magistrats for their (apsgrυ[Editor: illegible character]ονομία) peculiar or domestic government. Such was the state of Crete, when Paul, having appeal’d from the Jews to Cæsar, and being thereupon conducted by sea towards Rome, touch’d in his way upon this island, where he left Titus to constitute elders of every city. The word (kappavαταstigmaήstigmaης) constitute, our divines will have to signify ordain by imposition of hands, and imposition of hands to signify an act of power excluding the people. But why Paul, who among the Jews had comply’d with their customs, should injoin; or how Titus, had it bin so injoin’d, should accomplish this where the power was popular, they have not shewn nor consider’d. To introduce religion or government there be but two ways, either by persuasion, or by force. To persuade the people of Crete, in whom was the power, to this new way of ordination, Titus must have spoken to this effect: Men of Crete, Minos being a king, could not chuse but have a natural inclination to popular power; wherfore his pretence that Jupiter told him, power was to be in the people, may be suspected to have bin imagin’d merely for his own ends: or this is a certain sign that Jupiter is no true, but a feign’d God; seeing the true God will have it that the people should have no power at all, but that such, upon whom his ambassadors shall confer power, be without all dispute obey’d. How! are you starting at this! are you solicitous for your commonwealth! it is true, that upon carnal principles or human prudence, without power in the people there can be no commonwealth: but Israel was a commonwealth without power in the people; where Moses made all the laws by the power invested in him by God, and created all the magistrats, not by popular suffrage, but by his chirothesia. Wherfore, men of Crete, know ye, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, the same is in all spiritual affairs, or matters of church-government, to be obey’d by you, after the same manner that you have hitherto obey’d such magistrats or priests as have bin ordain’d by your own election, or chirotonia. Of what other nature the arguments of Titus to the pretended purpose could have bin, I am not able to imagine; nor how this should have done less than provoke the people to a dangerous jealousy of such a doctrine. But divines, to set all streight, think it enough to repeat the words of Paul to Titus in Greec:Tit. 1. 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete (idaoxgrνα kappavαταstigmaήσης πόλιν pisymbolρεσbetavυτέrhosymboloulaς) that thou shouldst ordain elders in every city.De Corona. It is true that Demosthenes speaks somwhat like words concerning the expedition of Philip of Macedon in Peloponnesus (epsgrpisymbolειδeegrgr τυραννoulaς epsgrχεipergrνος epsgrν ταύταις ταις pisymbolόλεσι kappavατέstigmaησε) when he had ordain’d tyrants in every city: but then Philip had an army; what army did Paul leave with Titus? or if he ordain’d his elders neither of these two ways, I see no other than that only by the known and legal chirotonia or suffrage of the people. But if this be clear, the clergy com from Crete, not upon the wings of Titus, but of Icarus, whose ambitious wax is dissolv’d by the sun.

So much, I conceive, is now discover’d concerning church-government, as may shew that it was not of one, but of three kinds, each obnoxious to the nature of the civil government under which it was planted; in as much as the chirotonia, or ballot of Israel, being first introduc’d pure, and without any mixture, as at the ordination of Matthias, came afterwards to receive some mixture of the chirothesia, as in the ordination of Stephen; and last of all by excluding the people, to degenerat wholly into the chirothesia of the presbytery, as in the ordination of Timothy: all this by the testimony of Scripture, and in the purest times, even the age of the apostles. Whence my undertaking to shew that as Christ intended his doctrin should be preach’d to all nations, so he intended his disciplin should be such as might sute with any government (as indeed, if the choice of any of these three be lawful, it dos exactly) is, I hope, perform’d. For where the government is popular, it is the same with the first; where it is aristocratical or monarchical, it agrees with the last; and where it is mix’d, it is between both, and responsible to the second. Of these three in the farther exercise of their natural and intended compliance with human prudence, it may be convenient to give som fuller exemplification.

That any other ordination than that of the first kind for the original authority or practice of it, whether in the commonwealth of Israel or in the church of Christ, and indeed for the prerogative of the same in nature, should have bin introduc’d by the apostles, where it might, much less where the nature of the civil policy would admit of no other is neither probable by Scripture nor reason; whence it is that in the citys of Lycaonia and Pisidia, the government of these being then popular, we do not find any mention at all of the chirothesia, the apostles in these places (χειροτονήσαντες πρεσβυτέρoulaς kappavατ’ epsgrkappavkappavλησίαν) chirotonizing elders in every congregation.

To evade this place, our adversarys turn tail to the things, and make their whole flight at the words. In taking one of them into the disputation, I shall take in all, for they run all upon the same quotations, or with little additions.

§ 3.THAT the word chirotonizing, says Dr. Hammond, in this place signifies no more than ordaining by the imposition of hands, is not so generally acknowleg’d by late writers, but that it may be useful to give som few testimonies out of those writers which were nearest the times of the Scripture. Thus Philo Judæus of Joseph (betavασιλέως udaacgrpisymbolαrhosymbolχος εχειροτονε̃ιτο) he was ordain’d governor of all Egypt under the king. So again of Moses (eedagrγεμών εχειροτονε̃ιτο) he was constituted their ruler. So of Aaron’s sons (idagrερεipergrς epsgrχειροτόνει God constituted them priests. Alexander son of Antiochus Epiphanes writes to Jonathan (χειροτον[Editor: illegible character]μέν σε αρχιερέα) we (in the regal stile) constitute thee high priest.Joseph A[Editor: illegible character]. l. 13. c. 5. Lucian says of Hephestion (Θεogrgrν χειrhosymbolοτονeepergrσαι τogrgrν τετελευτηkappavότα) that Alexander made him a God when he was dead. Appian (which is added out of Grotius, whence most of the rest is taken) to signify election of magistrats made by the Roman emperors, uses no other word; and later writers speak of som that were chirotoniz’d emperors by their fathers. For the use of the word among Christian writers, take one place in the author of the constitutions for many; Clement after the death of Linus (kappavεχειροτόνηται) was ordain’d bishop of Rome by Peter.L. 7. c. 45. But what need any more? Christ’s disciples are said (pisymbolrhosymbolοkappavεχειροτονημένοι udagrpisymbologrgr τ[Editor: illegible character] Θε[Editor: illegible character]) design’d or foreconstituted by God the witnesses of his resurrection:Acts 10. 41. by all which that of Paul and Barnabas (χειροτονήσαντες πρεσbetavυτέρoulaς kappavατ’ εkappavkappavλησίαν) is but constituting or creating elders in every church. Wherfore they that have look’d so far back to the original, as to think it necessary to render the word create by suffrages, are sure guilty of a very impertinent nicety. I promise you had this bin against one of our doctors, it might have bin a rude charge; but it is only against Erasmus, Beza, Diodati, and such as took upon them to translate the Switz, French, Italian, Belgic, and (till the episcopal correction) the English bibles. And what apparent cause is there of such confidence? what necessity is there even in the places alleg’d why the word chirotonia should be understood in the sense impos’d? the people of Egypt, till having sold their lands they came to lose their popular balance, were not servants to Pharaoh; wherfore when Joseph was made governor over all Egypt they were free: now that a king should make a governor of a free people without their consent, or som advice as we say of his parlament, is altogether improbable, the rather because a protector, in the absence or minority of the king, has bin no otherwise made in England, nor pretends the present protector to any other title than the like chirotonia. But that Moses is said by the same author (who affirm’d that he introduc’d the chirotonia in Israel) to have bin chirotoniz’d ruler of the people, can in my judgment be no otherwise than originally and literally taken, seeing God himself was no otherwise made king in Israel than by the suffrage of the people. That the like must be understood of the sons of Aaron has been already shewn. The doctor is the first has told me, that the plural number for the royal stile is so ancient as Epiphanes:De Cor. sure I am it was not deriv’d from his Macedonian predecessors, for in the letters to the Athenians and the Thebans recited by Demosthenes, Philip of Macedon writes in the singular number. But the letters of Epiphanes to Jonathan must it seems import that he at single hand (tho’ the words carry double) had chirotoniz’d a high priest of the Jews: who can help it? some princes have not only given out that their priests have been chirotoniz’d when they were not, but that themselves have bin chirotoniz’d when there was no such matter. When a prince says that he was chirotoniz’d or elected by the people, to talk of rhetoric is to have none. Divines in this case commonly understand it to be proper, or literally meant; for to impose a new sense is to spoil the word; and spoil the word, spoil the prince. Lucian is a drol, and intends a jest, but not so good a one, as that he of all others should come nearest to help up with a hierarchy. For the chirotonia, or election of the Roman magistrats by the suffrage of the people or of the army, every man knows that it is literal: Suidas himself interpreting the word by this very example; where he affirms it to signify election or ratification by the many. The quotation out of the constitutions, with those of Bishop Bilson, and others out of the Greek fathers, and out of councils, do not only imply the word chirotonia, but the thing, while they all relate to that kind of ordination, which being in those churches yet administer’d as at the ordination of Stephen, was not conferr’d without the consent of the people. But it is above all, that labouring to prove the chirotonia and the chirothesia to be the same thing, they should rely most upon the place where the apostles are said (pisymbolrhosymbolοkappavεχειrhosymbolο[Editor: illegible character]ονημένοι udagrpisymbologrgr τ[Editor: illegible character] Θε[Editor: illegible character]) to have bin forechirotoniz’d by God; as if it were clear in this, that God ordain’d the apostles by the laying on of hands, for so it must be understood, or it makes no more for them than for us. Or if they mean it only to shew that the word chirotonia or suffrage is us’d for some ordination that cannot be taken in our sense; so the word chirothesia (epsgrπigrgr θεσις χειrhosymbolohpegrν) or laying on of hands, where Ananias being neither bishop nor presbyter, but only a disciple, that is, a Christian, lays his hands upon Paul, is us’d for some ordination that cannot be taken in their sense; or a man not ordain’d may ordain as well as they: for to say that the call was extraordinary, where the like is, or is pretended, will avail little. But there is no need that we should go so near the wind; wherfore to give them all these places in their own sense, even till we come to the cities in question What word in any language is not somtimes, nay frequently, us’d in some other than the proper sense? With what elegance, if this be forbidden, can any man write or speak? Is a word like a woman, that being taken with a metaphor, it can never be restor’d to the original virtue? If chirotonia has, as divines pretend, lost all other but their signification, how shall we understand it in Isaiah, or where Paul speaks it of the brother (χειρο[Editor: illegible character]ονηθέν[Editor: illegible character]α udagrpisymbologrgr τohpegrν εkappavkappavλησ[Editor: illegible character]ohpegrν) chirotoniz’d, or chosen by the churches?2 Cor. 8. 19[Editor: illegible character] Certainly in this one place at least it is of our sense, and in the word pisymbolrhosymbolοkappavεχειρο[Editor: illegible character]ονημένοι it is but once yet in all the New Testament of any other; so that if we gain the place in controversy, we have it twice of our sense in Scripture for once not in theirs, but in any other: and in human authors, they will not so much as pretend to have it once for them for a hundred times for us; which is pretty well for the vindication of the property of one word, and somwhat more perhaps than can be don for another. But in the sense of words that are somtimes properly and somtimes improperly taken, may we admit of the things wherof they are spoken for interpreters? Or if lillys and roses have bin almost as often said of ladys cheeks, must we understand them no otherwise when we are speaking of gardens?

Yes, says Dr. Hammond, and therfore to say of the apostles Paul and Barnabas, that they created elders by their own suffrages, is no more than to say that they, jointly did create, and indeed being but two, there could be no place for suffrages; and to assirm they did it by the suffrages of others, is not agreeable to the pretended use of the word; for where it is us’d of chusing by suffrages, as when the people are said to chirotonize, it is certain that their own, and not others suffrages, are meant by it.

His own words to Mr. Hobbs.IT were hardly possible to have contriv’d a greater number of affirmations in so small a compass, nor to have gone farther in them from all truth. Phrases, as words, are to be understood according to the rule and law of speech, which is use:§ 118. and thus that the apostles created elders by their own suffrages, is not said; that they did it by the suffrage of others, is necessarily imply’d; as also that the people are understood to chirotonize as well when it is said of the presidents of their assemblys, as of themselves.

Diruit, ædificat, mutat quadrata rotundis.

When a man is said to build a house, or marry a daughter, he is not understood to be the mason, or the bridegroom: but the apostles built churches in these citys; therfore the people were not the masons. The apostles marry’d Christ to these nations; therfore the people gave not their consent or suffrage; what a construction were this in ordinary discourse or writing, and yet in the language, as I may say, of a commonwealth the phrase is more usual.De Coron. How often dos Demosthenes speak of his laws (see my psephisma, peruse my law) and those of other privat men? after which copy the parte, or laws in the commonwealth of Venice, are call’d by the names of the proposers as were those of Rome, Rupilia, Cornelia, Trebonia; in which manner we have Poyning’s law, and som statutes bearing no other stile than enacted by the king’s most excellent majesty, which nevertheless are known to have bin all enacted by the parlament. Thus the laws of Moses, Rhadamanthus, Minos, Lycurgus, Solon, Romulus, king Edward, were (leges et consuetudines quas vulgus elegerit) such as the people had confirm’d or chosen by their chirotonia. But they may say, granting you this use of speech in relation to laws, what have you of this kind for elections? The exception is nice, but to leave none:

The high sherifs in England proposing to their countys the names of such as stand, are said to elect parlament-men. They that thus propose competitors to the great council in Venice are call’d electors, and said to elect the magistrats. The proedri, certain magistrats to whom it belong’d to put the question in the representative of the people of Athens, consisting of one thousand, were said (διαχειρο[Editor: illegible character]ονίαν pisymbolοιεipergrν) to give or make the suffrage.Demost. cont. The thesmothetæ, who were presidents at the creation of magistrats, were said (stigmaρα[Editor: illegible character]εγ[Editor: illegible character]ς χειρο[Editor: illegible character]ονεipergrν) to chirotonize the generals.Timocrat. Josephus renders those words of God to Samuel, Hearken to the voice of the people (kappavελεύω δή σε χειρο[Editor: illegible character]ονεipergrν αυ[Editor: illegible character]οipergrς βασιλέα) I command thee to chirotonize them a king;Pol. l. 8. c. 8. which author vindicating Luke for his understanding both of the Grecian customs, and property of speech, at each of which he was expert,Ant. l. 6. c. 4. com up to the full and genuin interpretation of the place in controversy, where Paul and Barnabas (χειρο[Editor: illegible character]ονήσαν[Editor: illegible character]ες αυ[Editor: illegible character]οipergrς pisymbolρεσbetavυ[Editor: illegible character]έρoulaς kappavατ’ εkappavkappavλησίαν) chirotonizing them elders in every congregation, can be no otherwise understood than that they here, as Moses at the institution of the sanhedrim, Samuel at the election of the king, the proedri at the passing of laws, the thesmothetæ at the creation of magistrats, the electors in the great council of Venice, and the high sherifs in the countys of England, were no more than presidents of that chirotonia, which was given or made by the suffrage of the people.

Wherfore the Greec is thus render’d by these several translations of the Bible.

That of Zurich,

WHEN they had created them elders by suffrages in every congregation.

That of Beza,

WHEN they had created them elders by suffrages in every congregation.

The French,

WHEN by the advice of the assemblys they had establish’d elders.

The Italian,

WHEN by the advice of the congregation they had constituted them elders.

That of Diodati,

WHEN they had ordain’d them in every church by the common votes of the elders.

That appointed by the synod of Dort,

WHEN in each church, by the holding up of hands, they had elected presbyters.

That us’d in England from the time of the Reformation till the Episcopal correction of the same,

WHEN they had ordain’d them elders by election in every congregation.

Indeed the circumstance of the place forbids any other construction of the words, for if the suffrage or chirotonia (which were scarce sense) related to the apostles only, what needed they have don that in every congregation or church, which they might have don in any chamber or closet? The circumstance of the action forbids any other construction; for the people were assembl’d upon occasion of election or creation of officers, which thing dos not use to be don in assemblys gather’d for divine service: besides, these congregations were not always of one mind, but sometimes for sacrificing to the apostles, somtimes for stoning them, which are acts of power; wherfore they were political assemblys. Now these consisting also of a people, that had in their citys (quandam apsgrυ[Editor: illegible character]ονομίαν) the government of themselves, hence arises the strongest circumstance of all, forbidding any interpretation of the text that might exclude them from election of their own magistrats, priests, or ecclesiastical elders, such as had bin the Asiarchs, tho heathen prelats, yet remember’d by the Scripture as affectionat friends to Paul; or such as were those, tho to a better end, now ordain’d by the apostles.Acts 19.3[Editor: illegible character]. Wherfore Grotius, notwithstanding all the arts he uses in other places to avoid this sense, giving this note upon the text, yields, Tho chirotonizing may be said of any election made by one, or by the few; yet to the election in this place it is probable that the consent of the people was given, no less being imply’d in the beginning of the chapter, where the multitude believ’d, where they were stir’d up, where they were evil affected, and where part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles: which shews that the people were active in the business. But says Dr. Seaman, There is difference between the consent of the people, and the power of the people: which is not to understand the case in controversy, nor to take notice that the people wherof we are speaking were under popular government; for wherever the people are under popular government, between that which is don by their consent, and that which is don (jussu populi) by their power, there is no difference. How should the people give their consent, but by their suffrage? or what difference, where they have power, can there be between the suffrage, and the power of the people?

Dr. HAMMOND upon this point is far more quaint: where the Scripture says, that the multitude were evil affected, and where part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles, he thinks it e’en like enough: but where it is said that a great multitude of the Jews, and also of the Greecs believ’d, he seems to have no opinion of it:§ 134. for, says he, It is evident that believers were at first but few in every town or city; they were not whole corporations at once converted, nor consequently could they act in a common capacity: but as Clemens Romanus says, they that were by the apostles constituted bishops and deacons in several citys and regions, were constituted over those that should after believe, there were oft so few at the present. And then, as fast as any did com into the faith, they readily submitted themselves to those by and under whom they did com in, and were not at all troubled (honest men) with the consultation or deliberation about the way of electing their teachers and guides.

Com away, to leave the Scripture a while, and follow Clemens; be it so for discourse sake, that in those days there was no where any such thing as a great multitude believing, much less whole states or commonwealths at once converted, wherby they might still act in a common capacity, but only som privat or gather’d congregations or churches; and that in such it was the apostles Paul and Barnabas chirotoniz’d: yet these, as they were found, or as afterwards they came to be made, must of necessity have bin corporations; for what can a number of men coming into a society regulated by certain laws, constitutions, or form, be but a corporation? Som ecclesiastical policy or disciplin they must have had; and that probably, seeing the greatest legislators, even Moses himself, have written after copys, according to som pattern: what was this pattern, and whence came it?

§ 125.Why, says he, not from their heathen customs, but from the metropolis; for it must be remember’d, that whersoever the gospel was preach’d, it came originally from Jerusalem; and then, as Agrippa in Philo says of that city, it was the metropolis, not only of Judea, but many other regions, because of the colonys thence sent into Egypt, Phenice, and both the Syrias; nay, to Pamphylia, Cilicia, and a great part of Asia, as far as Bithynia, and Pontus.§ 135. So in reason the churches in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas ordain’d elders, were to follow the pattern at Jerusalem; and there, we know, it was not by the suffrage of the people, that an elder was assum’d into the sanhedrim, but the prince or head of the sanhedrim receiv’d him in by imposition of hands. It will be much more reasonable to reduce the circumstances of ordaining elders from the customs familiar to them that preach’d the faith to them, than from the former usages of them to whom it was preach’d, who were not to dispute, but to believe, and receive the institutions as well as doctrins which were brought them.

These, methinks, are strange arguments: the gospel came to us from Rome, is Rome therfore the metropolis of England? It is true Agrippa being a Jew, and writing to Caligula in the behalf of the Jews, not of the Christians, tells him, That Jerusalem is the metropolis of the Jews, and of all their colonys; so is London of the English, and of all their colonys:Philo de legatione ad C[Editor: illegible character]ium. but dos it follow from hence that either Jerusalem or London is the metropolis of Christendom? But the Jews had many colonys in Asia; and therfore the churches of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, were to follow the pattern at Jerusalem. The Jews indeed had synagogs in Iconium and Lystra, as the French have churches in England; but is this a good argument, The French have churches in England, therfore the English are to follow the orders of the French church? The Jews withstood the gospel at Iconium; for, says the text, the multitude of the city was divided, and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles:Acts 14. 4. therfore the believing Iconians must have acknowledg’d Jerusalem to be their metropolis, and were to follow the pattern of that city: And what was that? Why there we know it was not by the suffrages of the people that an elder was assum’d into the sanhedrim, but the prince or head of the sanhedrim receiv’d him in by imposition of hands. The government of the Iconians was popular, that of the Jews was aristocratical; therfore the Iconians receiving the Christian faith, were bound to change their democracy into aristocracy. The apostles, to comply with an oligarchy, had alter’d that ordination, which originally (as at the election of Matthias) was popular, to aristocracy; therfore being now to plant the gospel in a free state, they might not alter it from aristocracy to democracy. To please the Jews they might change for the worse; therfore to please the Iconians they might not change for the better, but must tell the people plainly, That they were not to dispute, but to believe, and receive the institutions as well as doctrins that were brought them from the metropolis. How would this sound to a people that understood themselves?

Sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas.

The right temper of a metropolitan, to whom popular power is a heathen custom, and with whom nothing will agree but princeing of it in the senat: but with the apostles it was otherwise, who making no words of the chirothesia where it was needless, were glad of this occasion to chirotonize, or elect them elders in every congregation by popular suffrage. But this, they will say, is not to come off from the haunt, but to run still upon the people in a common or public capacity. Tho the Scripture speaks of great multitudes believing, believe it there is no such thing: Clemens says they were very few, their assemblys privat, and very scanty things. As privat as they were by the judgment of divines, they were, it seems, to receive from their pattern (if that were the sanhedrim) a form that was public enough; and why might not they have receiv’d this from that public form wherto they were accustom’d, rather than from a foren policy, and one contrary to their customs? Why should they suffer such power in new and privat, as they would not indure in their old and public magistrats? Or, if they receiv’d the Scriptures, why should they chuse that ordination which would fit them worst, rather than that which would fit them best, that of Timothy rather than that of Matthias? Or, let their assemblys have bin never so privat or scanty, yet if the apostles chirotoniz’d them elders in every congregation, is it not demonstrable that they did receive that of Matthias, and not that of Timothy?

Thus much for the propagation of the pure, or first kind of ecclesiastical policy to the citys of Lycaonia. The mix’d or second kind into which (the Christian presbytery delighting to follow the steps of the Jewish) the former might soon degenerat, continu’d in the primitive church, to speak with the least (for Walleus brings it down to Charles the Great) three hundred years after Christ:§ 138. which assertion in Mr. Hobbs, prov’d out of Ammianus Marcellinus, Dr. Hammond has either willingly overseen, or includes in this answer, it is most visibly void of all appearance of truth. Wherfore to the quotation mention’d I shall add the words of Platina: Damasus the second, by nation a Bavarian, sirnam’d Bagniarius, or as som will Popo, possess’d himself of the papacy by force, and without consent of the clergy and of the people. Now what can be clearer than that by this place the clergy and the people had hitherto a right to elect the pope? The doctor coms near the word of defiance to Mr. Hobbs, in a matter of fact so apparent to any judgment, that I need not add what gos before in the life of Clement the second; where the emperor engages the people of Rome not to meddle with the election of the pope without his express command: nor what follows after in Leo the ninth, where the whole power of election was now confer’d by the emperor upon the clergy. Again, Victor the second, says the same author, obtain’d the papacy rather by favor of the emperor, than by free suffrages of the clergy and the people of Rome, who apprehended the power of the emperor, whose displeasure they had somtime incurr’d by creating popes. So then the people, it is clear, had hitherto created the popes. The power of election thus in the whole clergy came afterwards, as at this day, to be restrain’d to the cardinals only; and so to devolve into the third kind of ordination exactly correspondent to the sanhedrim, and their chirothesia, as it was exercis’d among the converted Jews, when Timothy was ordain’d by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Now this is that with which, of all others, divines are so inamor’d, that they will not indure it should be said there is any other: it is also propitious above all the rest to monarchy, as that which, according to the inherent nature or impotence of oligarchy, must have a prince at home or abroad to rest upon, or becom the inevitable prey of the people. Herein lys the arcanum or secret of that antipathy which is between a clergy and a popular government, and of that sympathy which is between the miter and the crown. A prince receiving a clergy with the monopoly of their chirothesia, has no more to do than to make a metropolitan, by whom he governs them, and by them the people, especially if he indows them with good revenues; for so they becom an estate of his realm, and a more steddy pillar of his throne than his nobility themselves, who, as their dependence is not so strong, are of a more stirring nature. This is the Gothic model, from which we had our pattern, and in which No bishop, no king.

Thus for the dignity of ecclesiastical policy, whether in Scripture or human prudence, popular government, you see, is naturally inclin’d to the very best, and the spiritual aristocracy to the very worst. It is also remarkable that the political balance extends itself to the decision of the question about ordination: for as a people never offer’d to dispute with a well-balanc’d clergy, so a clergy dismounted never gain’d any thing by disputing with the people. As to the question of empire or government (I propheti disarmati Rovivano) the apostles became all things to all.

His own words to Mr. Hobbs. § 122.THUS beyond all measure improsperous are this divine’s undertakings against Mr. Hobbs, and the undertakings of divines upon this subject.

Advertisement to the Reader, or Direction to the Answerer.

THE answer of this book must ly in proving that the apostles, at the several times and places mention’d, introduc’d but one way of ordination, and that the same to which divines now pretend: or if the apostles divided, that is to say, introduc’d divers ways of ordination, then the people or magistrat may chuse.

I have taken the more leisure and pains to state, I think, all the cases of controversy that can arise out of the commonwealth of Oceana, as you have seen in these two books, to the end I may be no more oblig’d to write, and yet not omit writing on any occasion that shall be offer’d; for if my principles be overthrown (which when I see, I shall most ingenuously confess with thanks to the author) such an acknowlegement will ly in a little room; and this failing, I am deceiv’d if I shall not now be able to shew any writer against me that his answer is none, within the compass of three or four sheets.

This also will be the fittest way for boys-play, with which I am sure enough to be entertain’d by the quibling university-men; I mean a certain gang of ’em, who having publicly vanted that they would bring 40 examples against the balance, and since laid their caps together about it, have not produc’d one. These vants of theirs offering prejudice to truth and good principles, were the cause why they were indeed press’d to shew som of their skill; not that they were thought fit judges of these things, but first that they had declar’d themselves so, and next that they may know they are not.

An Answer to three Objections against Popular Government, that were given me after these two Books were printed.

Object. 1.MONARCHICAL government is more natural, because we see even in commonwealths that they have recourse to this, as Lacedemon in her kings; Rome both in her consuls and dictators; and Venice in her dukes.

Answer.Government, whether popular or monarchical, is equally artificial; wherfore to know which is more natural, we must consider what piece of art coms nearest to nature: as for example, whether a ship or a house be the more natural; and then it will be easy to resolve that a ship is the more natural at sea, and a house at land. In like manner where one man or a few men are the landlords, a monarchy must doubtless be the more natural; and where the whole people are the landlords, a commonwealth: for how can we understand that it should be natural to a people, that can live of themselves, to give away the means of their livelihood to one or a few men that they may serve or obey; each government is equally artificial in effect, or in it self; and equally natural in the cause, or the matter upon which it is founded.

A commonwealth consists of the senat proposing, the people resolving, and the magistracy executing; so the power of the magistrats (whether kings as in Lacedemon, consuls as in Rome, or dukes as in Venice) is but barely executive: but to a monarch belongs both the result, and execution too; wherfore that there have bin dukes, consuls, or kings in commonwealths (which were quite of another nature) is no argument that monarchical government is for this cause the more natural.

And if a man shall instance in a mix’d government, as king and parlament; to say, that the king in this was more natural than the parlament, must be a strange affirmation.

To argue from the Roman dictator (an imperfection which ruin’d that commonwealth, and was not to be found in any other) that all commonwealths have had the like recourse in exigences to the like remedy, is quite contrary to the universal testimony of prudence or story.

A man who considers that the commonwealth of Venice has stood one thousand years (which never any monarchy did) and yet shall affirm that monarchical government is more natural than popular, must affirm that a thing which is less natural may be more durable and permanent than a thing that is more natural.

Whether is a government of laws less natural than a government of men; or is it more natural to a prince to govern by laws or by will? compare the violences and bloody rapes perpetually made upon the crown, or royal dignity in the monarchys of the Hebrews and the Romans, with the state of the government under either commonwealth, and tell me which was less violent, or whether that which is more violent must therfore be more natural.

Object. 2.THE government of heaven is a monarchy, so is the government of hell.

Answer.IN this, says Machiavel, princes lose themselves and their empire, that they neither know how to be perfectly good, nor intirely wicked. He might as well have said, that a prince is always subject to error and misgovernment, because he is a man, and not a God, nor a devil. A shepherd to his flock, a plowman to his team, is a better nature; and so not only an absolute prince, but as it were a God. The government of a better or of a superior nature, is to a worse or inferior as the government of God. The Creator is another and a better nature than the creature; the government in heaven is of the Creator over his creatures, that have their whole dependence upon him, and subsistence in him. Where the prince or the few have the whole lands, there is somwhat of dependence resembling this; so the government there must of necessity be monarchical or aristocratical: but where the people have no such dependence, the causes of that government which is in heaven are not in earth; for neither is the prince a distinct or better nature than the people, nor have they their subsistence in him, and therfore there can be no such effect. If a man were good as God, there is no question but he would be not only a prince but a God; would govern by love, and be not only obey’d but worship’d: or if he were ill as the devil, and had as much power to do mischief, he would be dreaded as much, and so govern by fear. To which latter, the nature of man has so much nearer approaches, that tho we never saw upon earth a monarchy like that of heaven, yet it is certain the perfection of the Turkish policy lys in this, that it coms nearest to that of hell.

Object. 3.GOD instituted a monarchy, namely in Melchizedec, before he instituted a commonwealth.

Answer.If Melchizedec was a king, so was Abraham too; tho’ one that paid him tithes, or was his subject; for Abraham made war, or had the power of the sword, as the rest of the fathers of familys he fought against. So if Canaan was a monarchy in those days, it was such a one as Germany is in these; where the princes also have as much the right of the sword as the emperor, which coms rather (as has bin shewn already) to a commonwealth. But whether it were a monarchy or a commonwealth, we may see by the present state of Germany that it was of no very good example; nor was Melchizedec otherwise made a king by God than the emperor, that is, as an ordinance of man.


 [* ] Point de Argent, point de Suisse.

 [* ] Senatum omninò non habere non vultis: Quippe aut rex quod abominandum; aut, quod unum liberæ civitatis concilium est, senatus habendus est. Liv.

 [† ] Arochet.

 [* ] Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem, quam lege regia quæ de ejus imperio lata est, populus ei, & in eum omne imperium suum & potestatem concedat.

 [* ] Deus populi Judaici rex erat veluti politicus, & civilis legislator. In diatriba de voto Jephthæ.