<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2007-07-25</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Robyn Anspach</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate. Proofed title page(s). Checked for N=""s. Checked for GROUP tags. Checked ^s. Reviewed structure. Checked division-marking material at heads and feet of divisions (HEADS,  CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, BYLINE, etc.). Checked for signatures. Checked placement and completeness of PBs. Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s, --s, and UNCLEARs. Corrected ** $s and $word$s etc. of **. Converted __ $$s to GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="[vendor name]". Checked spacing of foreign GAPs.  Checked for LBs. Checked for startqs, endqs, oes, q;s, and Qs. Checked proofsheets and made corrections found there.  Checked for FIGUREs and decorated initials. Checked for missing-page GAPs. Revalidated. </ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A87135">
<STC T="W">H818A</STC>
<STC T="T">E2112_2</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99871249</BIBNO>
<VID>123654</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P><HI>POLITICASTER:</HI> OR, A Comical DISCOURSE, IN An&s;wer unto Mr. <HI>Wren's</HI> Book, INTITULED, <HI>Monarchy A&s;&s;erted,</HI> AGAINST Mr. HARRINGTON'S OCEANA.</P>
<P>By <HI>J. H.</HI></P>
<Q>Ad populum phaleras, ego te intus &amp; in|cute novi.</Q>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed by J. C. for <HI>Henry Fletcher,</HI> at the three Gilt Cups in <HI>Pauls</HI> Churchyard, near the We&s;t-end. 1659.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>EPISTLE TO THE READER.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>THey &s;ay well, that a man who hath written &s;hould not trouble him|&s;elf with &s;uch as write again&s;t him; but let the world hear on both ears, and then judge. That this in time would do well enough in my ca&s;e, I make as little doubt as another. Neverthe|le&s;s, where through &s;ilence there may be damage, at the tendere&s;t point or &s;ea&s;on, I hold my &s;elf obliged forth|with
<PB REF="3">
to an&s;wer the pre&s;ent Book, though it be but meer railery or je&s;t: and for this cau&s;e, if I al&s;o be merry, you will have me excu&s;ed. Another in&s;tigation or &s;pur to this laudable adventure, is, that as gloves which have lain in Spani&s;h skins give notice of them&s;elves in fair a&s;&s;emblies: &s;o hath &s;ome Book by having lain in &s;ome mans pocket. For order, though where there are but two Speakers, I &s;hall &s;carce ob&s;erve the Laws of a Play, yet the be&s;t method I can upon this occa&s;ion fit my &s;elf withal, will be by di&s;tributing my di&s;cour&s;e into Acts and Scoenes. The Acts, as well be|cau&s;e I have not taken my degrees, as that multitudes of Univer&s;ity-&s;cholars (they &s;ay, &s;oberly and &s;eriou&s;ly) pro|fe&s;s them&s;elves to be converted by Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> &s;hall not be Drammatical, but Univer&s;ity Acts: and to the&s;e, being the Scholars &s;light me for a Law-gi|ver, I will for once give &s;uch Laws as, let them do what they can, they &s;hall never evade; the &s;ame &s;hall be
<PB REF="3">
done in &s;uch manner, as, if they can|not an&s;wer nor get loo&s;e from my fir&s;t Act, then will I thereupon declare my &s;elf <HI>A Batchelor of Arts:</HI> if they cannot an&s;wer or get loo&s;e from my &s;e|cond Act, then will I be undenyably <HI>A Ma&s;ter of Arts:</HI> the third &s;hall make me in like manner <HI>A Batche|lor of Law;</HI> the fourth, a <HI>Doctor of Law,</HI> and perhaps <HI>of Divinity:</HI> for without confutation by Divines or Lawyers, there will be no rea&s;on why my Exerci&s;es are not &s;ufficiently per|formed; and the&s;e being &s;ufficiently performed, why have not I legitimate|ly acquired my Degrees? Then in the latter end, I will do &s;omething to go out <HI>Orator;</HI> and in the last place, &s;hall I &s;tand to be <HI>Poet Laureate.</HI> But you mu&s;t think that a man may as lawfully be two years, if he have no|thing el&s;e to do, about bu&s;ine&s;s of &s;uch importance, as Mr. <HI>Wren</HI> hath been about le&s;s matters. Be then atten|tive: for the pre&s;ent you &s;hall have the fir&s;t Act; and what you finde Mr.
<PB REF="4">
<HI>Wren</HI> or me to be in this, I here en|gage my reputation, that the re&s;pective characters &s;hall be made good through|out.</P>
<P>But now upon occa&s;ion of the&s;e Acts, I warrant you we &s;hall have my An|tagoni&s;t go pitifully complaining unto Dr. <HI>Wilkins,</HI> of <HI>di&s;-ingenious con|tumely</HI> thrown upon the Univer&s;itie. Goodne&s;s! What is an Univer&s;ity, at lea&s;t one where they can call &s;uch a Writer as Mr. <HI>Wren</HI> ingenious; and &s;uch trompery as his writings, full &s;a|tisfaction or conviction, that it &s;hould be unlawful for any man, though but a Ballad-&s;inger, to laugh &s;uch a white Mother into red cheeks!</P>
<CLOSER><DATELINE><DATE>March 20. 1659.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="prologue">
<PB N="1" REF="4">
<HEAD>THE PROLOGUE: In an&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Wrens</HI> PREFACE.</HEAD>
<P>GEntle Mr. <HI>Wren, (&s;ine ira &amp; ob|&s;equio</HI>) without pa&s;&s;ion or partiality, give me your hand, and let me as it were by &s;ome familiar and un&s;tudied di&s;cour&s;e, treat with you upon the Contents of that &s;ame Book you call <HI>Monarchy a&s;&s;erted,</HI> and &s;o forth.</P>
<P>Sir, for method, I &s;hall take tho&s;e places which are mo&s;t material, in the order you have borrowed for them, and &s;o be&s;towed upon them; omitting none that is not implyed in the an&s;wer I &s;hall give unto the&s;e: you &s;hall not finde me skipping, as you do, whole
<PB N="2" REF="5">
Pages and Chapters. And whereas you (upon my taking that liberty which is every mans right, of u&s;ing a Libel without a name, as he thinks fit) have appealed in the Conclu&s;ion unto my Lords, the Provo&s;ts of <HI>Oceana,</HI> as if I had given you ill Language; and have al&s;o in divers and &s;undry places of your work, as it were, dared my Mu&s;e, I &s;hall at lei&s;ure (it may be within two years) add a piece of Oratory, addre&s;&s;ed unto the &s;aid Lords, the Provo&s;ts of the A|cademy in <HI>Oceana;</HI> and &s;ome Poems not abhorring from your de&s;ires or provo|cations, not in the Thunder-thumping way of Grandfire <HI>Virgil,</HI> but in the &s;u|gar'd &s;peech of mine Uncle <HI>Chaucer.</HI> If you plea&s;e by the way to take a lick of it, I &s;hall at this di&s;tance from the <HI>Ope|ra,</HI> in&s;ert the Prologue.</P>
<Q><L>What <HI>Chaucer</HI> ho, ye han the Eng|li&s;h Key</L>
<L>Of the high Rock <HI>Parnas</HI> with the Tow'rs twey.</L>
<L>Your &s;ooten gab, &s;o ken I well thus far,</L>
<L>Of curte&s;ie the Yate till me un&s;par.</L>
<L>But here be Bavins in the way I trow,</L>
<L>All to be prickle like Urchin, hi ho.</L>
<L><PB N="3" REF="5">Forth come wi brond, gin ye no bren em green</L>
<L>Me Note they keepen out that nere wer in.</L></Q>
<P>Pray, Sir, ha' me commended to them that &s;ay, Your book is unan&s;wer|able; and let them know, it is to them that the Prologue is &s;poken. The bo|dy of the Work is Heroick, the Title thereof bequeathed by famous <HI>Selden,</HI> runneth thus: <HI>The Wars of the makers of Mou&s;e-traps again&s;t</HI> Inigo Jones; and it beginneth in this wi&s;e:</P>
<Q><L>Leif Mi&s;tre&s;s <HI>Margery Melpomine,</HI></L>
<L>Out how ye &s;norten! &s;ooth it been brede dey.</L>
<L>Ne Mother Midnight &s;it in sky, ne duskin,</L>
<L>For &s;hame now buckle on your blood|red buskin:</L>
<L>Or if ye like your ea&s;e, &s;weet Lady <HI>Meg</HI></L>
<L>Of womanhood, lend me your Lethren Leg:</L>
<L>And gin, I lig it not about &s;quare caps</L>
<L>That meet in hugger for to make Mou&s;e-traps,</L>
<L><PB N="4" REF="6">And wagen war anen&s;t <HI>Inigo Jones</HI></L>
<L>That harpen (like <HI>Amphion</HI>) till huge &s;tones</L>
<L>And maken ri&s;e in vew of Ker&s;on people</L>
<L>Into the Element and &s;it on &s;teeple.</L>
<L>Mote I ne tack ye mere by the &s;mall &s;ute</L>
<L>When ye mount Pega&s;us in Crim|&s;on bute.</L></Q>
<P>Look you there now, is not this fair? You have the length of my weapon: Moreover, I have manife&s;ted unto you the whole order of my work. Now to my tacklin.</P>
<P>Noble Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> you have declared your &s;elf to be of <HI>an a&s;&s;embly of men who are known both at home and abroad to be of the mo&s;t learned per&s;ons of this age:</HI> and &s;ome &s;u&s;pect it to have been under their eye that you have been a|bout two years in an&s;wering my la&s;t Book; an enterpri&s;e in which you have performed (&s;eeing you now own the former) your &s;econd adventure in like Chevalry; yet where I vouch <HI>A|ri&s;totle, Machiavil,</HI> and like Authors for the undoubted right which a private man may claim in treating upon the
<PB N="5" REF="6">
politicks, or upon the nature of Go|vernment, you tell me, That this pri|viledge is not to be extended unto <HI>e|very little Writer.</HI> I, again&s;t whom one of the <HI>a&s;&s;embly known both at home and abroad to be of the mo&s;t learned per&s;ons of this age,</HI> hath written twice, and been &s;o long about it, <HI>A little Writer!</HI> Sir, you forget your &s;elf.</P>
<P>Again, the Te&s;timony of <HI>Machiavil</HI> throughout his works, is, that he in|tendeth not carele&s;ly to &s;tart &s;ome <HI>Phi|lo&s;ophical Opinion,</HI> but applyeth every thing home and expre&s;ly unto <HI>Italy,</HI> though not without &s;ome de&s;pair, yet with the ardour (or, if you will have it &s;o) with <HI>the heat and pa&s;&s;ion belonging unto</HI> &s;o noble a <HI>De&s;igne.</HI> Wherefore for you to adoperate this te&s;timony quite contrary to the truth of it, as a proof that <HI>my way of writing hath no affinity with this Author's,</HI> is &s;uborna|tion of a witne&s;s.</P>
<P>But good Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> is your propo|&s;ion of <HI>German</HI>-hor&s;e, or, which is all one, of a mercenary Army for a &s;tand|ing Government, &s;uch as <HI>profe&s;&s;eth to</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">W. p. 107.</NOTE> <HI>have any fiction or Romance (while you enter not into de&s;pair</HI> (as you &s;ay) <HI>of li|ving to enjoy your &s;hare of the felicities</HI>
<PB N="6" REF="7">
<HI>which will belong unto the Subjects of &s;uch a Government) or adapted to the occa&s;ions or nece&s;&s;ities of a particular juncture?</HI> Is it &s;uch as in &s;o many fair <HI>complements</HI> where with you interweave me nominally, is <HI>propo&s;ed with the tem|per and moderation becoming a philo&s;o|phical Opinion, and not with the heat and pa&s;&s;ion belonging to a De&s;igne?</HI> Was my Book which named no man, a <HI>Libel</HI> or a <HI>Pa&s;quin;</HI> and are both yours, each page whereof is endued with my name, mo&s;t <HI>&s;erious Tracts, and true Hi&s;tory?</HI> Alas, that ever I fell into the hands of &s;uch an Hi&s;torian: what will become of my name, pre&s;erved in &s;uch &s;ugar'd elo|quence to future ages! But notwith&s;tan|ding you are a great Hi&s;torian, M. <HI>Wren,</HI> yet as concerning <HI>Chri&s;topher Colum|bus</HI> (and becau&s;e you will go to that) as concerning <HI>Seba&s;tian Gabato</HI> like|wi&s;e, I appeal unto my Lord <HI>Verulame</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hen. 7. pag. 188.</NOTE> whether they fir&s;t framed not De&s;ignes or Cards before they found out their di&s;coveries; or if di&s;coveries cannot be made but by de&s;igne or chance, what need I appeal to any man for this, &s;eeing it is known that they made their previous contracts with Princes before they undertook their
<PB N="7" REF="7">
adventures? What mean you then to &s;ay, That <HI>they who understand that</HI> Chri&s;topher Columbus <HI>mu&s;t fir&s;t have been at the Indies, before he could make a Card to teach others the way thither, will go near to &s;u&s;pect Mr.</HI> Harrington's <HI>abilities in modelling a Commonwealth till he have &s;pent &s;ome years in the Mi|nistry of State?</HI></P>
<P>Good Sir, be&s;ides the trick you put upon your Reader, in your antecedent, you are quite out in your Con&s;e|quence: For how many years, I pray you, had <HI>Lycurgus,</HI> or <HI>Numa Pompili|us</HI> &s;pent in the Mini&s;try of State before they modelled their Governments? Or what modelling of Government hath been bequeathed unto the world by all the Mini&s;ters of State in <HI>France</HI> &s;ince the di&s;&s;olution of the three E|&s;tates, the ancient model of that Go|vernment; or by all the Mini&s;ters of State &s;ince <HI>Henry</HI> the &s;eventh in <HI>Eng|land;</HI> or have not the&s;e rather been the ruine of the Engli&s;h Model? Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> if you will believe me, the main, nay the whole ability of modelling a Commonwealth, lyeth in two things; the One, in being wel ver&s;ed in ancient prudence; the Other, in being di&s;|engaged
<PB N="8" REF="8">
from all parties: neither of which qualifications is common with Mini&s;ters of State.</P>
<P>Talk not to me of <HI>French Taylours;</HI> to model is not &s;o ea&s;ie a thing as you take it for, if we may but count our late changes of Government: when the King left the Parliament, and the two Hou&s;es governed without a King, there was one change: when the Peers were excluded, and the Commons go|verned without King and Peers, there was two: when the Commons were excluded, and the General governed alone, there was three: when the Ge|neral governed with a convention of his own making, there was four: when by the Major-Generals, there was five: when the Protector go|verned by the In&s;trument, there was &s;ix: vvhen he governed by the Pe|tition and Advice, there was &s;even; the pre&s;ent &s;hould be the eighth: Nor hitherto hath there been any Mo|del at all, or any &s;uch as the makers them&s;elves have approved of. I hope I give no offence; for I &s;ay but as they &s;ay: But you are &s;uch a man, you can &s;hew me no body &s;o good at modelling as I, except it be your &s;elf; who I am
<PB N="9" REF="8">
&s;ure have had as little Mini&s;try; and yet the <HI>next dung-hill</HI> (which is your own &s;weet book) you think fitte&s;t to be my <HI>Magazine.</HI> Why &s;eeing you will have it &s;o, come your ways.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="1" TYPE="act">
<PB N="10" REF="9">
<HEAD>ACT. I.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="scene">
<HEAD><HI>Scoen. I.</HI> In an&s;wer to <HI>Chap. I.</HI>
Whether Prudence be well di&s;tingui|&s;hed into ancient and modern</HEAD>
<P>FOugh! this &s;ame mixen in the &s;tirring, is like Pepper in the No&s;e; but he &s;aith, it is Helle|bore for to purge heads.</P>
<P>Now as concerning purging of heads, Mr. <HI>VVren,</HI> there &s;eemeth al|ready to peep out a que&s;tion. Do your Univer&s;ities (gentle Sir) derive their learning from <HI>Nimrod,</HI> from the Kings of <HI>China,</HI> from the Monarchies? (to be equally with <HI>Macedon,</HI> I doubt, as to this point <HI>pa&s;&s;ed over in wi&s;e &s;ilence.</HI>) Are they de&s;cended (do you under|&s;tand me?) from the times in <HI>Greece,</HI> called by <HI>Thucydides, The imbecility of</HI>
<PB N="11" REF="9">
<HI>ancient times;</HI> from tho&s;e in <HI>Rome,</HI> cal|led by <HI>Florus, The childhood of that Go|vernment:</HI> or &s;peak out, is their whole &s;tock of learning, without which they had not had any kind of thing where|upon to &s;et up, derived from the He|brew, the Greek, and the Roman Com|monwealths? If &s;o, Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> whe|ther I pray you call you not now that &s;tock of learning <HI>Ancient Learning,</HI> al|beit they could not call it &s;o then? and if Politicians have no other Pedigree of Prudence, then the &s;ame that you have of learning; why is not that Pru|dence which they have received in the like manner, ancient Prudence, albeit tho&s;e Commonwealths could not call it &s;o then?</P>
<P>To &s;hift the&s;e things which are thus plain, you are in this Chapter a won|derful Artificer; yet cometh all but to this, That neither <HI>Thucydides</HI> nor <HI>Florus</HI> divide Prudence into ancient and modern. Why, Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> neither did the Commonwealths mentioned divide Learning into ancient and mo|dern: this di&s;tinction belongs unto latter times, in regard of &s;ome mo|dern Learning that is of latter inven|tion. So, Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> in regard of &s;ome modern Prudence, which fir&s;t I tell
<PB N="12" REF="10">
you what it is, namely, Government by King, Lords and Commons: and &s;econdly, how it came in, namely, by the <HI>Goths</HI> and <HI>Vandals;</HI> I call the Pru|dence (do you mark?) of tho&s;e ancient Commonwealths, <HI>Ancient Prudence;</HI> and the Prudence remaining unto us from the&s;e <HI>Goths</HI> and <HI>Vandals, Modern Prudence.</HI> What could you de&s;ire more? Nay, and this is according unto the plain &s;en&s;e of <HI>Janotti</HI> too: for, &s;aith he, as to his two limits or periods of time, <HI>Of the former, or that wherein</HI> Rome <HI>was oppre&s;&s;ed by the Arms of</HI> Cae&s;ar, <HI>came the &s;econd, or that when</HI> Italy <HI>was overrun by the</HI> Huns, Goths, Van|dals <HI>and</HI> Lombards; <HI>and of the &s;econd came all that alteration which hath gi|ven unto the world the face in which we now &s;ee it, and utterly lo&s;t it that face which it had in the time of the Romans.</HI> VVherein relation unto the two Go|vernments (the one popular, which was the more ancient; and the other by King, Lords and Commons, which is the more modern) is &s;o plain, that you are put unto a &s;hift, who can &s;ay no more then that I make <HI>Janotti</HI> au|thour of the divi&s;ion of Prudence in|to ancient and modern. How dare you
<PB N="13" REF="10">
you for your reputation do thus, Mr. <HI>Wren?</HI> while fir&s;t by your own acknow|ledgment I infer this divi&s;ion from more ancient Authors, as <HI>Thucydides</HI> and <HI>Florus:</HI> and &s;econdly, my words relating unto <HI>Janotti</HI> do no where from him derive the divi&s;ion of Prudence into ancient and modern, as to tho&s;e terms upon which runneth your equi|vocation; but fortifie this divi&s;ion of my own, by the two periods of time by him ob&s;erved, and that are of like &s;en&s;e with the&s;e terms.</P>
<P>But, Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> there was never the like of you! VVhereas the Que&s;tion by me propo&s;ed, was, VVhether Pru|dence be not rightly divided into an|cient and modern, you have convey|ed it into a Que&s;tion, whether Monar|chy be not a more ancient Govern|ment then a Commonwealth. This have I hitherto not di&s;puted, as that which concerneth not the pre&s;ent Controver&s;ie: but &s;eeing it may be for your &s;ervice, I do flatly deny that Monarchy is the more ancient Go|vernment; not that Mr. <HI>Hobbes</HI> holdeth<NOTE PLACE="marg">De cor. polit.</NOTE> <HI>Democracie</HI> to be of all Governments the fir&s;t in order of time; but fir&s;t, becau&s;e upon the place where it is &s;aid&punc;
<PB N="14" REF="11">
That <NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 10. 8.</NOTE><HI>Nimrod was a mighty hunter be|fore the Lord,</HI> it is re&s;olved by Divines that <HI>Nimrod</HI> was the fir&s;t Monarch. Now, Sir, <HI>Nimrod</HI> began his reign a|bout the One thou&s;and eight hun|dredth year of the world: whence I conclude thus: Either the world had no Government till <HI>Nimrod,</HI> or a Commonwealth may be above a thou|&s;and years elder then Monarchy: Nay, unle&s;s you can finde &s;ome Govern|ment that was neither a Common|wealth nor a Monarchy, mu&s;t have been no le&s;s. I know what you will &s;ay, That the Government till <HI>Nimrod</HI> was by fathers of families: why &s;o, I hope, you will yeild it was afterwards, at lea&s;t in the line of <HI>Shem.</HI> Now let us compute from <HI>Noah,</HI> and con&s;ider in the po&s;terity of <HI>Shem,</HI> what judg|ment may be made of the Government by fathers of families; or whether this were indeed, as Divines affirm, Monar|chical, or may not much rather be e|&s;teemed popular.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 11.</NOTE><HI>Noah</HI> had three Sons, <HI>Shem, Ham</HI> and <HI>Japhet;</HI> of <HI>Shem,</HI> by <HI>Arphaxad</HI> and others, de&s;cended <HI>Reu;</HI> of <HI>Reu, Se|rug;</HI> of <HI>Serug, Nahor;</HI> of <HI>Nahor, Te|rah;</HI> of <HI>Terah, Abram;</HI> of <HI>Abra|ham,</HI>
<PB N="15" REF="11">
<HI>I&s;aac;</HI> of <HI>I&s;aac, Jacob;</HI> and of <HI>Jacob</HI> de&s;cended the Commonwealth of <HI>I&s;rael.</HI> So much for the elder bro|ther, which was <HI>Shem.</HI> Now Sir for the &s;econd &s;on of <HI>Noah,</HI> that is <HI>Ham:</HI> of <HI>Ham</HI> de&s;cended <HI>Cu&s;h,</HI> and of <HI>Cu&s;h,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 10.</NOTE> <HI>Nimrod:</HI> by which, plain it is at the fir&s;t &s;ight, that the Commonwealth, as to precedence in dignity, is of the el|der hou&s;e; and as to precedence in time, unle&s;s you can &s;hew the de&s;cen|dents of <HI>Shem</HI> to have been under Mo|narchy, mu&s;t al&s;o have been the more ancient Government, that is, if Go|vernment by fathers of families were popular. Now as to this, <HI>it is a tra|dition</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Gemara Babylonia ad tit. San|hed rim.</NOTE> <HI>with the Rabbins, that there were &s;even precepts delivered to the children of</HI> Noah: 1. <HI>Concerning Judicato|ries: 2. Concerning Bla&s;phemy: 3. Con|cerning perver&s;e wor&s;hip: 4. Concern|ing uncovering of nakedne&s;s: 5. Con|cerning the &s;hedding of mans blood: 6. Concerning rapine or theft: 7. Con|cerning eating of things &s;trangled, or of a member torn from a living creature.</HI> This tradition throughout the Jewi&s;h Government, is undoubted: for to &s;uch as held the&s;e precepts, and no more, they gave not onely (as I may &s;ay) to|leration,
<PB N="16" REF="12">
but allowed them to come &s;o near unto the temple as the gates, and called them <HI>Pro&s;elytes of the gates.</HI> Nor do I think the proof in Scripture of the&s;e precepts, though not &s;et down together, to be ob&s;cure: as where it is &s;aid, <HI>None of you &s;hall approach to a|ny</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Levit. 18. 6. 24.</NOTE> <HI>that is near kin to him, to uncover their nakedne&s;s:&mdash;for in all the&s;e the Nations</HI> (that is, the Canaanites) <HI>are defiled, which I ca&s;t out before you.</HI> The Canaanites were de&s;cended from <HI>Ham;</HI> and that in the&s;e words it mu&s;t be implyed that they had violated the foregoing precepts, is in my judgment evident, &s;eeing there is nothing in the Law of Nature why a man might not approach in this manner unto one that is near of kin to him.</P>
<P>Again, that two other of the&s;e pre|cepts were given by God unto <HI>Noah,</HI> the Scripture is plain, where he &s;aith, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 9.</NOTE><HI>Fle&s;h with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, &s;hall you not eat. And who&s;o &s;heddeth mans blood, by man &s;hall his blood be &s;hed.</HI> VVhence it mu&s;t fol|low, that either fathers of families were not &s;ubject unto this Law; which becau&s;e it is given generally and with|out any exception, were ab&s;urd to
<PB N="17" REF="12">
think; or el&s;e that during Patriarchal Government, they &s;ubjected them|&s;elves unto &s;ome common Judicato|ries, according unto the fir&s;t of the &s;even precepts. Of which, &s;aith <HI>Mai|monides, By this the &s;ons of</HI> Noah <HI>con&s;ti|tuted Judges in every City, to judge of the other &s;ix precepts, and to govern the people; and the</HI> Gemara Babylonia <HI>&s;aith, That this was done after the man|ner that</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>commanded Judges to be &s;et in the gates throughout the tribes.</HI> By the advice of <HI>Jethro</HI> to <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> the like &s;hould have been the cu&s;tome of the <HI>Midianites,</HI> who, (as al&s;o the <HI>Gibeonites,</HI> de&s;cended of the &s;ame line with the <HI>Monarchy</HI> of <HI>Nimrod;</HI> and for ought perhaps to the contrary, of as ancient &s;tanding) were a Common|wealth. But above all, it &s;hould &s;eem by &s;ome of the Rabbines, that there was a Con&s;i&s;tory or Senate in&s;tituted by <HI>Shem,</HI> which was of u&s;e with his po&s;terity. Now if Patriarchal Go|vernment was exerci&s;ed by or un|der the common Ligament of a Senate or Con&s;i&s;tory, then was the Govern|ment of the Patriarchs of a popular nature, or a Commonwealth; at lea&s;t the&s;e, Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> mu&s;t be di&s;proved by
<PB N="18" REF="13">
them who will have Monarchy out of all controver&s;ie to be the more ancient Government.</P>
<P>Good Sir, I do not know, nor do I think that this &s;ame way (do you &s;ee?) of di&s;putation, hath any Predece&s;&s;or. VVhat do you tell me then, <NOTE PLACE="marg">W. <HI>Preface.</HI></NOTE><HI>that you have cau&s;e to think by the la&s;t or any Book of mine, that my &s;tores of Rea&s;on and Arguments are brought very low?</HI> You &s;ee already that it is far otherwi&s;e. Tell not me in this place that <HI>Doderus</HI> is as good a Book as the Bible; nor let Divines (for a thing that I know) run here as they do from the Scripture unto Heathen Authors. It is confe&s;t that <HI>Diodorus Siculus, Ari&s;totle, Cice|ro, Salu&s;t</HI> and <HI>Trogus</HI> &s;ay, That in the beginning of <HI>things and of Nations, the power was in Monarchs.</HI> But then the Heathen Stories know nothing beyond <HI>Nimrod,</HI> or his Succe&s;&s;or <HI>Belus;</HI> which is no excu&s;e to you, while the Scripture is &s;o much a more ancient record; much le&s;s to Divines, at lea&s;t &s;uch of them as preach again&s;t the &s;quaring of Go|vernment according to the rule of Heathen Authors. Mr. <HI>VVren,</HI> (to be plain) there are of the&s;e that have a &s;trange kinde of frowardne&s;s: if a
<PB N="19" REF="13">
Commonwealth be de&s;cribed out of Heathen Authors, they will undertake to prove that of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> to have been a Government of King, Lords and Commons. And if a Commonwealth be out of this of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> de&s;cribed un|an&s;werably otherwi&s;e, then they run to <HI>Ari&s;totle, Trogus,</HI> &amp; the re&s;t of the Hea|thens, for the antiquity of Monarchy. When none of this will do, they fall flatly upon conjuring the people to take heed how they hearken unto men of wit, rea&s;on or learning, and not in any wi&s;e to be led but by grace, and &s;uch grace onely as is without any mixture of wit, rea&s;on or learning. <HI>Mr. VVren,</HI> I de&s;ire them but to tell us once, what they mean by &s;uch grace as is without any mixture of wit, rea|&s;on or learning; and you in the mean time to con&s;ider, That Heathen Au|thors, though they give Monarchy the precedence in time, are very far from giving it the van in prudence. Nay, for this matter you will find them &s;o much of one minde, that we need<NOTE PLACE="marg">Pol. Lib. 3. Cap. 10, 11</NOTE> hear no more of them then <HI>Ari&s;totle,</HI> who divides <HI>Monarchy</HI> into two kinds; the One whereof he calleth <HI>Barbarous;</HI> and in this he relates to your <HI>Nimrod,</HI>
<PB N="20" REF="14">
or your Ea&s;tern Monarchs; the Other <HI>Heroick,</HI> in which he relates expre&s;ly to Principality in a Commonwealth; and namely, that of the <HI>Lacedemonian</HI> Kings. Say you then, To which giveth he the van in dignity; to the Heroick, or to the Barbarous prudence? But it is no matter, &s;trike up, and let us have the <HI>Rodomontado,</HI> which it plea&s;eth you &s;hall be of or belonging unto the pre|&s;ent Scoene: <HI>This</HI> (&s;ay you, for you may as well &s;ay it of this as of any thing el&s;e) <HI>approaches very near unto raving, and gives me cau&s;e to &s;u&s;pect I have taken a wrong cour&s;e of curing Mr.</HI> Harrington's <HI>Political di&s;tempers. For whereas I think to do it by giving him more light, know|ing men (and known to be of the learn|ed&s;t in this age) are of opinion that I ought to have &s;hut up the windows,</HI> and &s;o forth. Now very pa&s;&s;ing good indeed|law!</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="scene">
<PB N="21" REF="14">
<HEAD>Scoene 2. </HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">In an&s;wer to <HI>Chap 2.</HI>
Whether a Commonwealth be rightly defined to be a Government of Laws and not of men, and a Monarchy to be the Government of &s;ome man or few men, and not of Laws.</HEAD>
<P>THe readie&s;t way, Mr. <HI>VVren,</HI> of di&s;patch with the pre&s;ent Que|&s;tion, will be to &s;hew how far you and I are at length agreed; <HI>And we are agreed, that Law proceeds from the will of man (whether a Monarch or a Peo|ple) that this will mu&s;t have a Mo|ver, and that this Mover is Intere&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>Now, Sir, the intere&s;t of the people is one thing; it is the publick inte|re&s;t: and where the publick intere&s;t governeth, it is a Government of Laws, and not of men: the intere&s;t of a King or of a party, is another thing, it is a private intere&s;t; and where pri|vate intere&s;t governeth, it is a Govern|ment
<PB N="22" REF="15">
of men, and not of Laws. What ayles ye! If in <HI>England</HI> there have ever been any &s;uch thing as a Government of Laws, was it not <HI>Magna Charta?</HI> Well, and have not our Kings broken <HI>Magna Charta</HI> &s;ome thirty times? I be&s;eech you, Sir, did the Law go|vern when the Law was broken? Or was that a Government of men? On the other &s;ide, hath not <HI>Magna Char|ta</HI> been as often repaired by the peo|ple? and the Law being &s;o re&s;tored, was it not a Government of Laws, and not of men? I think you are wilde! Why have our Kings in &s;o many Sta|tutes or Oathes engaged them&s;elves to govern by Law, if there were not in Kings a capacity of governing other|wi&s;e? And if &s;o, then by every one of tho&s;e Oaths or Statutes it is agreed both by King and people, that there is a Government by Laws, and a Govern|ment by men. VVhy goodne&s;s, Mr. <HI>Wren!</HI> is there not a Government of Men, and a Government of Laws? VVhere do you dwell! Such as have laid people in Lavender for the late great Man and his Government, it is now thought will be left unto the Law and her Government. Come, come;
<PB N="23" REF="15">
Divines and Lawyers are indeed good men to help up a Prince at a dead lift; but they are known well enough: for they will no &s;ooner have &s;et him up, then if he do not govern by their Laws, they will be throwing &s;ticks at him. But do you hear? if a Prince would be entirely freed of &s;uch danger, let him get a Parliament of Mathematicians.</P>
<P>What Miracles hath Mr. <HI>Hobbes</HI> done in this kind! and hovv many more are there vvill make you a King by Geometry! But I &s;hall at this time content my &s;elf, Sir, to let them pa&s;s, and con&s;ider onely your grand Mathe|matical Demon&s;tration, vvith the nooks, crooks, angles and appurtenan|ces of the &s;ame. You Gentlemen of lovver forms, be attentive; it hath pa&s;t the tryal and te&s;t of the Doctors Aca|demy, con&s;i&s;ting of men knovvn to be of the learned&s;t of this age; and the manner thereof is as follovveth.</P>
<Q><P>To be plain <HI>(and rouzing)</HI> if the de|clared will of the &s;upreme power be con|&s;idered as the immediate cau&s;e of Go|vernment, then a Monarchy is as much as a Commonwealth, an Empire of Laws and not of men. If we look farther
<PB N="24" REF="16">
back, and con&s;ider the per&s;ons who&s;e will is received as Law, a Commonwealth is as much as a Monarchy, an Empire of men, and not of Laws.</P>
<P><HI>(Here, Sir, is your ca&s;t for the game: novv,</HI> Sir, <HI>for your &s;hout.)</HI></P>
<P>This is &s;o manife&s;t, and yet Mr. <HI>Har|tington</HI> &s;o firmly re&s;olved not to under|&s;tand it, that con&s;idering his temper, I must needs applaud his re&s;olution of ha|ving nothing to do with the Mathema|ticks; for half this ob&s;tinacy would be enough to keep him from apprehending, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles.</P></Q>
<P>Mr. <HI>VVren,</HI> you &s;pet crooked pins; you &s;hould be exorci&s;ed. For pray novv hear me, did you ever &s;ee 'em chu&s;e Knights of the &s;hire? tho&s;e &s;ame people, the <HI>high &s;hoone,</HI> as you call them, expect not, I conceive, that Angels &s;hould come dovvn there to ride upon their &s;houlders: Nor, I doubt, if the truth vvere knovvn, do they greatly care for Saints; they are mo&s;t for men that drink vvell, or at lea&s;t for &s;uch as eat good meat in their hou&s;es: Nor have I found by my rea|ding, that tho&s;e &s;ame <HI>high &s;hoone</HI> have
<PB N="25" REF="16">
at any time &s;et the worthy Gentleman on foot, and taken his Hor&s;e upon their backs: by which it is manife&s;t, that they do not conceive their Laws to be made by any thing above the nature of man, as Angels; or below the nature of man, as Hor&s;es. Now Sir, all you have proved by your wonderful Mathema|ticks, is, That Laws are neither made by Angels nor by Hor&s;es, but by men; therefore the <HI>high &s;hoone</HI> are as good Mathematicians as your &s;elf. The voyce of the people is as much the voyce of men, as the voyce of a Prince is the voyce of a man; and yet the voyce of the people is the Voyce of God, which the voyce of a Prince is not; no not as to Law-giving, the voyce of the Prince who was a man after Gods own heart: for thus <HI>David</HI> pro|po&s;eth unto the Congregation of <HI>I&s;|rael; If it &s;eem good unto you, and that</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Chro. 13.</NOTE> <HI>it be of the Lord our God&mdash;let us bring the Ark to us. David</HI> in matter of Law-giving, maketh not him&s;elf, but the people judge of what was of God; and the Government of Laws, &s;aith <HI>A|ri&s;totle,</HI> is the Government of God.</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> were you contented to be no wi&s;er then <HI>Titus Livius,</HI> (who in
<PB N="26" REF="17">
pa&s;&s;ing from the Government of the Romane Kings unto that of the Com|monwealth, hath this tran&s;ition: <NOTE PLACE="marg">Livy. li 2.</NOTE><HI>I come now unto the Empire of Laws more pow|erful then that of men</HI>) &s;ome who con|ceive the &s;aid <HI>Titus</HI> to have done pa&s;&s;ing well, would think you the better Poli|tician, for not taking the upper hand of him. You will not finde that <HI>Augu&s;tus Cae&s;ar,</HI> in who&s;e time this <HI>Author</HI> wrote, did &s;et any Mr. <HI>Wren</HI> upon him; which is a &s;hrewd &s;u&s;pition that <HI>Princes</HI> in that age either wanted &s;uch a wit as you are, or would &s;carce have thanked you for your &s;ubtil Argument; &s;omewhat too Mercurial to &s;tay even in your own head. For do not you your &s;elf &s;ay in another place, That <NOTE PLACE="marg">W. p. 171.</NOTE><HI>a Commonwealth having no eyes of her own,</HI> (as if this of all other were a mark of blindne&s;s) <HI>is forced to re&s;igne her &s;elf to the conduct of Laws?</HI> What imply you in this, le&s;s then that a Monarch is not forced to re&s;igne him&s;elf unto the conduct of Laws? or what le&s;s can follow from this confe&s;&s;ion of your ovvn, then that a Commonvvealth is a Government of Lavvs and not of men, and that a Mo|narchy is a Government of a man, or &s;ome fevv men, and not of Lavvs,
<PB N="27" REF="17">
Nay, Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> nor is it once that your minde mi&s;-gives you; for &s;oon after you are at it again, in &s;hewing what you phan&s;ie <NOTE PLACE="marg">W. p. 172.</NOTE><HI>befals a Commonwealth as &s;he is a Government of Laws.</HI></P>
<Q><L>But now for joy, let me my Cap up throw;</L>
<L>For one thing I have &s;aid, is &s;en&s;e, I trow.</L></Q>
<P>Sir, for this Rime I have &s;ome rea|&s;on; &s;eeing in a Monarchy, that the Laws being made according to the in|tere&s;t of one man or a few men, mu&s;t needs be more private and partial then &s;uits with the nature of ju&s;tice; and in a Commonwealth, that Laws being made by the whole people, mu&s;t come up to the publick intere&s;t, which is common right and ju&s;tice; are <HI>Propo|&s;itions,</HI> which Mr. <HI>Wren</HI> can confe&s;s <HI>to have indeed &s;ome &s;en&s;e in them.</HI> But this milk, alas, is kick'd down again, while you add, <HI>that they have not any more truth then tho&s;e other which wanted &s;en&s;e.</HI> Now this is a &s;ad ca&s;e; yet &s;uch as you &s;ay, <HI>will be apparent, if we examine the different tempers of a &s;ingle per&s;on and a multitude enacting Laws.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="28" REF="18">Are we no farther yet? I verily be|lieved that the different temper of a &s;ingle per&s;on, and of a popular a&s;&s;em|bly, had been long &s;ince con&s;idered in the Propo&s;itions already granted, in as much as the &s;ingle per&s;on is tem|pered by a private, the multitude by the publick intere&s;t: which were here|tofore by your &s;elf acknowledged to be the fir&s;t movers of will, and &s;o the efficient cau&s;es of Law. If your Ma|thematicks, or what &s;hall I call them? would but hold to any thing, we might have &s;ome end. But for the di&s;covery of the&s;e <HI>different tempers,</HI> you forget all that is pa&s;t, and begin anew in this manner:</P>
<P><HI>When a Monarch acts the Legi&s;lators part, he ought to be &s;o far from parti|ality, or re&s;pecting his own private inte|re&s;t, that he is then chiefly to direct his thoughts to the common good, and take the large&s;t pro&s;pect of publick utility, in which his own is &s;o eminently included.</HI></P>
<P>This Propo&s;ition then of yours is op|po&s;ed to mine, or tho&s;e in which you &s;ay there is &s;ome &s;en&s;e, but no truth: &s;o in this, both the &s;en&s;e and the truth &s;hould be apparent. But Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> if I &s;hould &s;ay, That the father of a family,
<PB N="29" REF="18">
in giving rules to the &s;ame, ought to be &s;o far from re&s;pecting his private in|tere&s;t, or the regard of keeping his whole e&s;tate and command unto him|&s;elf, and holding the &s;ervants that live upon him, &s;hort, or in nece&s;&s;ity to obey him, and work for him, that he were to take a larger, nay, the large&s;t pro|&s;pect of what is the publick utility of the men that &s;erve him, which is to at|tain unto means whereby to live of them&s;elves: Should I &s;ay that a father of a family would find the common and natural intere&s;t of his &s;ervants, which is to be free, that wherein his own inte|re&s;t, which is <HI>to have &s;ervants,</HI> is emi|nently included; I am confident you would neither allow this A&s;&s;ertion to be truth nor &s;en&s;e. The like &s;ay I to your Monarchy, whether it be by a &s;in|gle per&s;on, or by a Nobility. A Mo|narchy not keeping the people in &s;er|vitude, is no Monarchy; therefore ei|ther &s;ervitude mu&s;t be the intere&s;t of the people, or the intere&s;t of the people is not that to which a Monarch ought chiefly to direct his thoughts. Yet <HI>can you not believe that there are many ex|amples to be produced of Princes, who in enacting Laws have con&s;idered their own</HI>
<PB N="30" REF="19">
<HI>private per&s;onal intere&s;t?</HI> You are co&s;tive of belief, Mr. <HI>Wren:</HI> con&s;ider the Tur|ki&s;h and Ea&s;tern Monarchies, and &s;hew me any one of their Laws from any other Principle. It is true, in Monar|chies by a Nobility, or by Parliaments, Princes have not in enacting Laws, been able to make &s;o thorough work: for which cau&s;e, le&s;t Laws &s;o enacted, &s;hould give check unto this private intere&s;t &s;o e&s;&s;ential to Monarchy, they have &s;till been breaking them. But nei|ther can you believe that Lavvs have been broken by any Prince, <HI>&s;eeing that in buying and &s;elling, and other private contracts, Princes are content to tye them&s;elves up to the &s;ame rules which they pre&s;cribe to others.</HI> Rare! A King that plays fair at Piquet, can never break <HI>Magna Charta. Cae&s;ar</HI> paid no le&s;s for an hor&s;e then another man; therefore <HI>Cae&s;ar's</HI> Monarchy vvas a lawful purcha&s;e. O but <HI>&s;uch Laws,</HI> as upon that occa&s;ion were made by <HI>Cae&s;ar, were nece&s;&s;ary to attaining the ends of Government:</HI> Good! and &s;o that which is nece&s;&s;ary unto a private intere&s;t, or a &s;ingle per&s;on, towards the attaining unto the ends of Govern|ment,
<PB N="31" REF="19">
the &s;ame cometh up to the pub|lick intere&s;t, which is common right and ju&s;tice. Is this di&s;puting, Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> or is it fidling? Yet again: <HI>a Prince breaketh not the Law, but for the pub|lick tranquillity.</HI> Wonderful! not the Tinkers that fight, but the Con&s;table breaks the peace. That the <HI>po&s;&s;e Co|mitatus</HI> is according unto the Laws; or that there is a War in the Law for the maintenance of the publick peace, I have heard; but that the publick peace is in any ca&s;e by the breach of the publick peace (whereof the Laws onely are the bond) to be defended, in good earne&s;t I have not formerly heard. Yet take heed, I pray. On this &s;ide of yours, there mu&s;t be no <HI>fond imagination:</HI> But on the other &s;ide, (&s;ay you) <HI>there can be no fonder ima|gination, then to think that</HI> (in the Republick of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> framed by God or <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> in the four hundred that judg|ed <HI>Benjamin,</HI> in all, in any of the Commonwealths) <HI>or when any multi|tude is a&s;&s;embled to enact Laws, it is ne|ce&s;&s;ary their re&s;olutions</HI> (though tho&s;e of a &s;ingle per&s;on mu&s;t) <HI>&s;hould be con|&s;onant to publick ju&s;tice.</HI> I have a weary life with you, Mr. <HI>VVren,</HI> and
<PB N="32" REF="20">
with &s;uch of your Admirers, as if at their plea&s;ure I pick not &s;traws, can &s;o|berly and &s;eriou&s;ly re&s;olve you to be Conquerer of Mr. <HI>Harrington;</HI> what is that? nay, of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> of <HI>Solon,</HI> and <HI>Lycurgus.</HI> The &s;traw that is your fir&s;t lance in this Encounter, is, that <HI>a great part of this multitude</HI> (&s;o you will have it called, though Politicians under&s;tand not a people under orders by the word <HI>multitude,</HI> but the contrary) <HI>will not, for want of capacity, comprehend what this ju&s;tice and intere&s;t is.</HI></P>
<P>Sir, if a man know not what is his own intere&s;t, who &s;hould know it? and that which is the intere&s;t of the mo&s;t particular men, the &s;ame, being &s;um|med up in the common vote, is the publick intere&s;t O but the <HI>abler &s;ort will pre&s;ently be divided into factions and juncta's; and under pretence of publick interest, will pro&s;ecute their own de|&s;ignes.</HI></P>
<P>But, good Sir, if the&s;e abler &s;ort act as a Council under a &s;ingle per&s;on, what &s;hould hinder them from doing the like, except they debate onely, and propo&s;e unto the Prince, who onely may re&s;olve? Wherefore if in popu|lar Government the Senate of Coun|cil
<PB N="33" REF="20">
of the people have no more then the Debate, and the Re&s;ult remain wholly unto a popular Council having no power to debate; how can the abler &s;ort any more divide into Juncta's or Factions under popular Government, then under Monarchical? Speak your Con&s;cience; the intere&s;t of the people being as you &s;ay, That <HI>ju&s;tice be impar|tially admini&s;tred, and every man pre|&s;erved in the enjoyment of his own;</HI> Whether think you the more pro|bable way unto this end, that a Coun|cil, or the abler &s;ort, propo&s;e; and a &s;ingle intere&s;t, that is, a &s;ingle per&s;on, re&s;olve; or that the abler &s;ort propo&s;e, and the common intere&s;t, that is, the whole people, have the re&s;ult? O but take heed; for <HI>it is to be remembred, that the greate&s;t part of Laws concern &s;uch matters as are the continual occa&s;ion of controver&s;ie between the people of a Na|tion, &s;uch regard regulation of trade, priviledges of corporations,</HI> &amp;c. Sweet Mr. <HI>VVren!</HI> are there more Corpora|tions in <HI>England,</HI> then di&s;tinct Sove|raignties in the united Provinces? Have tho&s;e people no trade in compa|ri&s;on of ours? Or what quarrels&punc; have they about it? Per&s;wade them to have
<PB N="34" REF="21">
a King; and to this end be &s;ure you tell them, that if we had not had Kings in <HI>England,</HI> there had certainly in&s;tead of the Barons Wars, been Wars between the Tanners and Clothiers; and in&s;tead of tho&s;e of <HI>York</HI> and <HI>Lanca&s;ter,</HI> others between the Shoomakers and the Ho|&s;iers. Say, if you have any ingenui|ty, do you not make me pick &s;traws? But the longe&s;t &s;traw comes here <HI>after all.</HI> (Say you)</P>
<P><HI>It being e&s;&s;ential to popular a&s;&s;emblies that the plurality of votes &s;hould oblige the whole body, tho&s;e Laws which lay claim to the con&s;ent of all, are very of|ten the re&s;olutions of but a little more then half, and must con&s;equently go le&s;s in their preten&s;ions to publick inte|re&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>Gentlemen, here are forty of you, whereof five and twenty &s;ee in yonder Grove a Rooks-ne&s;t, which the other fifteen of you &s;ee not; now, Gentle|men, is that le&s;s a Rooks-ne&s;t for this? or do the&s;e five and twenty &s;ee farther then tho&s;e fifteen? If &s;o it be with e|very thing that is to be &s;een, felt, heard or under&s;tood, how cometh the world to be re&s;olved otherwi&s;e upon any thing, then that <HI>quod pluribus vi&s;um id</HI>
<PB N="35" REF="21">
what appeareth unto the mo&s;t, is mo&s;t authentick? and what can you de&s;ire more of certainty in a Govern|ment, then all that certainty which can be had in the world?</P>
<P>It was even now that we came from the Prince to the People; now from the people to the Prince again. Good Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> why do you &s;ay, or whoever &s;aid the like, <HI>that tho&s;e Laws which are reputed the peoples greate&s;t &s;ecurity a|gain&s;t inju&s;tice and oppre&s;&s;ion, have been e&s;tabli&s;hed by the authority of &s;ome Prince?</HI> Do you find any &s;uch thing in <HI>I&s;rael, Athens, Lacedemon, Rome, Venice, Holland, Switz?</HI> But you equivocate; as to authority in Princes, Magi&s;trates or &s;ole Legi&s;lators, in matter of Law|giving, you well know that I am for it; but not as you impo&s;e upon this term for their power. Thus be it gran|ted, that <HI>Alfred, Edward, Lewis, Al|phon&s;o, have been excellent Legi&s;lators;</HI> What is this to power, or to your pur|po&s;e, &s;eeing the Laws propo&s;ed by au|thority of the&s;e Princes, were enacted no otherwi&s;e then as <HI>Poinings</HI> Laws, by the power of the people, or a&s;&s;emblies of their three e&s;tates? <HI>But above all,</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>&s;everal of the Roman Empe|rours,</HI>
<PB N="36" REF="22">
<HI>and chiefly</HI> Ju&s;tinian, <HI>have fabri|cated tho&s;e Laws &s;o much admired for their rea&s;on and equity, which have &s;tretched them&s;elves farther then ever the Roman Legions were able to march, and which are &s;till embraced by tho&s;e people, who have long &s;ince cea&s;ed to ac|knowledge the Roman Empire.</HI> Herein you have paid your &s;elf to &s;ome pur|po&s;e: for mo&s;t eloquent Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> who but your &s;elf &s;aith, That <HI>Ju&s;tinian</HI> fabricated tho&s;e Laws you &s;peak of? I have heard indeed, that he com|piled them; and &s;urely, Sir, in that work of his, he did but new vamp the old bootes of the people of <HI>Rome:</HI> Nay, good Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> your Roman Em|perours at the gallante&s;t wore no bet|ter: for the ful proof whereof, I need go no foot farther then your own &s;weet &s;elf; for do not you give out of <HI>Justini|an</HI> this very definition of a Law; <NOTE PLACE="marg">W&punc; p. 59.</NOTE><HI>Lex est quod Populus Romanus Senatorio Ma|gi&s;tratu interroganto (veluti con&s;ule) constituebat?</HI> How &s;ay you then, that <HI>Justinian</HI> fabricated the&s;e Laws, which he plainly telleth you, were propo&s;ed by the Senate, and re&s;olved by the peo|ple of <HI>Rome?</HI> Do you &s;ee what your Emperours them&s;elves acknowledged
<PB N="37" REF="22">
to have been a Government of Laws, and more excellent then a Govern|ment of men, though they them&s;elves were the men that governed? And you your &s;elf have &s;aid enough to con|firm, that the ju&s;tice of the dead peo|ple went farther then the arms of the living Emperours; nay, and that &s;uch Laws as are yet of the greate&s;t trea|&s;ures in the world, are &s;till extant of the Roman people, though of the Empe|rours there remain nothing that is good.</P>
<P>But &s;ay you, <HI>On the other &s;ide</HI> (you may plea&s;e to &s;ay as you will, but it is on the &s;ame &s;ide yet) <HI>tho&s;e Common|wealths that have been most celebrated for their Laws, have received them from the hands of a Sole Legi&s;latour</HI> (which both words and things, though you li&s;t not to acknowledge it, every&punc; body knows that I taught you: now let us &s;ee how you can hit me with my own weapon) <HI>therefore it may well be doub|ted, whether the&s;e people of</HI> Athens <HI>and</HI> Lacedemon <HI>thought &s;o well of them|&s;elves as Mr.</HI> Harrington <HI>&s;eems to do of popular A&s;&s;emblies.</HI> Why, do not I &s;ay, That a popular A&s;&s;embly, as to the formation or fabricating of Govern|ment,
<PB N="38" REF="23">
through the want of invention, mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity have &s;ome &s;ole Legi|&s;lator? What fault do you find with Mr. <HI>Harrington?</HI> Why, <HI>that with &s;uch repeated confidence he a&s;&s;erts, that the people never faile to judge truly of the publick interest, where</HI> (the Legi&s;lator or) <HI>the Senate di&s;charge their duty:</HI> And what have you been &s;aying all this while in the&s;e examples of <HI>Solon</HI> and <HI>Lycurgus,</HI> who&s;e Laws being by them prudently propo&s;ed unto the people, were as prudently judged, and there|upon enacted by the people? So like|wi&s;e for the Roman Decemvirs: for if you think that the&s;e did any more then propo&s;e to the people, or that any Law of theirs was otherwi&s;e good then as voted and commanded by the peo|ple, you &s;hould go to &s;chool. Yet that if the Legi&s;lator or the Senate di|vide well, the people &s;hall be &s;ure to make a good choice, <HI>you must confe&s;s is too hard for your faith:</HI> why if it be matter of faith, you might have let it alone? but do you think it right in ci|vil matters, that the tenderne&s;s of faith &s;hould &s;upply the want of &s;en&s;e in you; or vvhat is the &s;cruple can yet remain in your con&s;cience! Good|ne&s;s!
<PB N="39" REF="23">
the ob&s;ervation which <HI>Anachar|&s;is</HI> made, who &s;aid of the popular A&s;|&s;emblies in <HI>Greece,</HI> That <HI>wi&s;e men pro|pounded matters, and fools decided them.</HI> Why Mr. <HI>Wren, Anachar&s;is</HI> would not lo&s;e his je&s;t, and you cannot finde it. Do you think that the Com|monwealths of <HI>Greece</HI> thought <HI>Ana|char&s;is,</HI> for this fine thing, wi&s;er then <HI>Lycurgus, Solon,</HI> or them&s;elves? Why Mr. <HI>VVren,</HI> in this earne&s;t you make your &s;elf the Je&s;ter. But let you a|lone, you will be the Ga&s;con &s;till; that which is thrown out of the win|dows where-ever you come, is no le&s;s then the whole hou&s;e; or if you leave any thing, it is but that you are weary <HI>to di&s;cover all the weak Arguments and fal&s;e Inferences of Mr.</HI> Harrington, <HI>as awork to others of &s;mall profit, and to your &s;elf of little glory.</HI> Poor Mr. <HI>Harrington!</HI> He will now leave you a while to take breath, and confer a little with your patron.</P>
<P>Doctor <HI>VVilkins</HI> having laughed &s;o much as in &s;ugge&s;ted in the Epi&s;tle, &s;hould not methinks be altogether left out of our game. He in his Book cal|led <HI>Mathematical Magick,</HI> pretends<NOTE PLACE="marg">B. 1. c. 14.</NOTE> to a <HI>Balance</HI> too. And his <HI>Balance</HI> is
<PB N="40" REF="24">
made for all the world like a Jack; the whole force of which engine con&s;i&s;t|eth in two double Pullies, twelve wheels and a &s;ail: the &s;ail is in&s;tead of the cre&s;t of the Jack, at which a fellow &s;tands blowing; and by blowing in this manner, the &s;aid Author pretendeth to demon&s;trate Mathematically, that the &s;aid fellow, with the &s;aid Jack, &s;hall tear you up the &s;tronge&s;t Oak by the roots. This, to men who know that &s;ome &s;hip in a &s;torm will break the &s;tronge&s;t Anchor that is made of Iron, and the &s;tronge&s;t Cable that is made of Hemp, mu&s;t needs be wonderful: of what then mu&s;t this Jack and this &s;tring be made, that it break not before it fetch up this Oak? Nay, how can any man blow a million of years toge|ther? Or if he could, where would the Oak or the Jack be? and in a le&s;s time the Oak it is confe&s;t could not<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ch. 16.</NOTE> by this means be removed one inch. This neverthele&s;s mu&s;t be a Mathema|tical Demon&s;tration. Goodne&s;s! what &s;tuff is here for Mathematicians, upon which to u&s;urp demon&s;tration in &s;uch wi&s;e, that it mu&s;t be forbidden unto all the re&s;t of Man-kinde?</P>
<P>Mr. <HI>VVren,</HI> I have <HI>Du Moulin,</HI> and
<PB N="41" REF="24">
<HI>Sander&s;on;</HI> vvill you deny the&s;e Au|thours to be good Logicians? upon the credit of my two eyes, in all their ex|amples of Demon&s;tration, they have not one that is Mathematical. Are not they clearly on my &s;ide then, that there may be Demon&s;tration, and yet not Mathematical? Why &s;ure there may, Sir; nay, and &s;uch a Demon&s;tra|tion may be every whit as valid and convincing, as if it vvere Mathemati|cal. For this I appeal to Mr. <HI>Hobbes: All true ratiocination</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>which</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Elements&punc; p 63.</NOTE> <HI>taketh its beginning from true principles, produceth &s;cience, and is true demon&s;tra|tion.</HI> This afterwards he declares <HI>in all &s;orts of Doctrines</HI> or Arts, and con&s;e|quently in the Politicks, to be holding. Wherefore, &s;ay I, if <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> Common|vvealths-men have nothing that can be &s;o &s;trong or holding as this &s;ame Jack and Jack-line of Doctor <HI>VVilkin&s;es,</HI> let us een vvith patience turn the &s;pit, vvhile our &s;alary-men eat the Ro&s;t|meat.</P>
<P>But now, Sir, mark me vvell: <HI>What was always &s;o and no otherwi&s;e, and &s;till is &s;o and no otherwi&s;e, the &s;ame &s;hall ever be &s;o and no otherwi&s;e.</HI> What think you of this for a Principle? A
<PB N="42" REF="25">
Principle vvhich is right and &s;traight, &s;hould be &s;uch as admitteth of as little proof or denial, as that the fire burns. I can no more prove the one then the other: vvherefore if you can no more deny the one then the other, by the leave of your Mathematicians, this principle is no le&s;s &s;ure and certain then the be&s;t in their art: and what <HI>ratiocina|tion</HI> I u&s;e in my politicks, <HI>that taketh not its beginning,</HI> or is not legitimately and undeniably derived from this principle, I am contented &s;hould go for nothing. What vvould you have more? or, why mu&s;t I be hit in the teeth vvith the vvant of demon&s;tration? Stand away, I vvill demon&s;trate, that's certain: but here is the mi&s;chief; not every man that pretends unto under&s;tanding in the Politicks, hath conver&s;ed vvith them; and &s;o in the&s;e, through meer vvant of under&s;tanding, a man vvill confidently deny, vvhat in other con|ver&s;ation, vvhere he is more skilled, he vvould be a&s;hamed to que&s;tion. For this cau&s;e I vvill not fall full butt upon the politicks at fir&s;t da&s;h, but begin fairly and &s;oftly, in <HI>Puris naturali|bus.</HI></P>
<P>That conver&s;ation vvhich vvith men
<PB N="43" REF="25">
is mo&s;t general (I apprehend) to be with women: and &s;o here I come with my fir&s;t demon&s;tration.</P>
<Q><P>What was always &s;o, and not otherwi&s;e, and &s;till is &s;o, and not otherwi&s;e; the &s;ame &s;hall ever be &s;o, and not other|wi&s;e.</P>
<P>But, Sir, women have been always &s;ome hand&s;ome, and &s;ome unhand&s;ome, and not otherwi&s;e; and women &s;till are &s;ome hand&s;ome, and &s;ome un|hand&s;ome, and not otherwi&s;e.</P>
<P>Therefore, women &s;hall ever be &s;ome hand&s;ome and &s;ome unhand&s;ome, and not otherwi&s;e.</P></Q>
<P>Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> the rea&s;on why I begin to demon&s;trate in this manner, or in &s;ome|thing meerly natural and known to e|very body, is, That otherwi&s;e I &s;hould never &s;tave men off from &s;aying, That <HI>what was always &s;o, and not otherwi&s;e, and &s;till is &s;o, and not other wi&s;e, mu&s;t ever be &s;o, and not otherwi&s;e,</HI> mu&s;t needs be true; that is, except a man can give a rea&s;on why it may be otherwi&s;e. This is that when I come unto the Po|liticks, things not le&s;s natural, but onely more remote from mens <HI>knowledge</HI> or
<PB N="44" REF="26">
<HI>acquaintance,</HI> which they will be all &s;ure enough to return: Wherefore let them begin here to &s;hew me &s;uch rea|&s;on as hereafter they will ask, that is, why women, notwith&s;tanding what is pa&s;t or pre&s;ent, may for the future be all hand&s;ome. Would not the under|taking of &s;uch an adventure, be a no|table ridiculous piece of Knight-er|rantry? In &s;ooth, Mr. <HI>VVren,</HI> though men will not &s;o ea&s;ily &s;ee it, it is no o|therwi&s;e in the politicks, which are not to be erected upon phan&s;ie, but upon the known cour&s;e of Nature; and therefore are not to be confuted by phan&s;ie, but by the known cour&s;e of Nature. Remember, Sir, Anatomy is an Art; but he that demon&s;trates by this Art, demon&s;trates by Nature, and is not to be contradicted by phan&s;ie, but by demon&s;tration out of Nature. It is no otherwi&s;e in the Politicks. The&s;e things therefore being duly con|&s;idered, I proceed.</P>
<Q><P>VVhat always was &s;o, and &s;till is &s;o, and not otherwi&s;e, the &s;ame &s;hall ever be &s;o, and not otherwi&s;e.</P>
<P>But where the Senate was upon Rota|tion, and had not the ultimate re|&s;ult,
<PB N="45" REF="26">
there was not any feud between the Senate and the people; and where the Senate is upon Rotation, and hath not the ultimate re&s;ult, there is no feud between the Senate and the people.</P><P>Therefore, where the Senate &s;hall be upon Rotation, and not have the ul|timate re&s;ult, there &s;hall be no feud between the Senate and the people.</P></Q>
<P>I know the humour of the&s;e times: though any thing that will patch be now called prudence, it will be known that what is after this manner unde|niably deducible from the Major of the&s;e Propo&s;itions, is Prudence or Po|licy, and no other.</P>
<P>But Mr. <HI>VVren,</HI> true it is that the demon&s;tration given is but <HI>Hoti,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> that is, from the effect; which though a cer|tain effect imply a certain cau&s;e, and come after that manner to be as good and undeniable a proof as the other demon&s;tration; yet becau&s;e this is not &s;o honourable an Argument as the o|ther, I &s;hall now give you the &s;ame, <HI>Dihoti,</HI> or from the Cau&s;e.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE></P>
<Q><P>Where the Senate hath no intere&s;t, di|&s;tinct
<PB N="46" REF="27">
or divided from the intere&s;t of the people, there can be no feud between the Senate and the people.</P>
<P>But where the Senate is upon Rotation, and hath not the ultimate re&s;ult, there the Senate can have no inte|re&s;t di&s;tinct or divided from the intere&s;t of the people.</P>
<P>Therefore where the Senate is upon Rotation, and hath not the ultimate re&s;ult, there can be no feud between the Senate and the people.</P></Q>
<P>Sir, this I &s;ay is <HI>Dihoti:</HI> and &s;eeing it is a cu&s;tome with you to give my things a turn over the tongue, I am re|&s;olved hereafter to <HI>hoti</HI> 'em and <HI>dihoti</HI> 'em in &s;uch manner, as &s;hall make you take your teeth. You will &s;ay, that I am a <HI>Pa&s;&s;ionate Gentleman.</HI> But what hath any man to do in this place to tell me of the &s;euds between the Senate and the people of <HI>Rome,</HI> or tho&s;e of the States in regulated or Gothick Mo|narchies? did I ever undertake to <HI>hoti</HI> or <HI>dihoti</HI> any of the&s;e? If they break loo&s;e, let them look to that whom it concerneth. Neverthele&s;s, I &s;ay, that Laws, whether in Commonweatlths or regulated Monarchies, are made by
<PB N="47" REF="27">
con&s;ent of the Senate and the people, or by con&s;ent of the States, or Lords and Commons. And I pray you, Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> What is in your Allegation to confute this &s;aying? Your words are the&s;e.</P>
<Q><P>If any one of the&s;e States have, in ca&s;e of difference, a ju&s;t power to force the o|bedience of the other, it is all one as if they were private per&s;ons; but if no one of them be acknowledged to have &s;uch power, then it comes in ca&s;e of di&s;agree|ment to a State of War.</P></Q>
<P>But doth this prove, that in ca&s;e of a Senate upon Rotation, there may be feud between them and the people? or that Laws in regulated Monarchie are not enacted by the Lords and Com|mons? You might as well have argued thus, Mr. <HI>Wren:</HI> The&s;e &s;ame Lords and Commons have power enough to di&s;|agree, or make Wars; therefore they have no power to agree or to make Laws: Or what doth this concern me?</P>
<P>But now for the Jig at parting. Mr. <HI>Hobbes</HI> &s;aith, That <HI>Aristotle and Cicero wrote not the Rules of their Politicks from the principles of nature, but tran|&s;cribed them into their Books, out of the practice of their own Commonwealths, as</HI>
<PB N="48" REF="28">
Grammarians <HI>de&s;cribe the Rules of Language out of the practice of the times.</HI> Mr. <HI>VVren,</HI> if I had an&s;wered Mr. <HI>Hobbes</HI> thus: That the whole force of his Argument amounted but to this, That becau&s;e Grammarians de&s;cribe the rules of Language out of the pra|ctice of the times, therefore <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> and <HI>Cicero</HI> did &s;o in their di&s;cour&s;es of Government; what would you have &s;aid? But becau&s;e Mr <HI>Hobbes</HI> doth not prove, but illu&s;trate what he &s;aith by way of &s;imilitude; therefore I an&s;wer him by way of &s;imilitude in this man|ner: <Q>That for Mr. <HI>Hobbes</HI> to &s;ay, <HI>A|ri&s;totle</HI> and <HI>Cicero</HI> wrote not the rules of their Politicks from the principles of Nature, but tran&s;cribed them into their Books out of the practice of their own Commonwealths, is as if a man &s;hould &s;ay of famous <HI>Harvey,</HI> that he tran&s;cribed his Circulation of the blood, not out of the principles of Nature, but out of the Anatomy of this or that body.</Q> Yet you an&s;wer me, That <HI>the whole force of this Obje|ction amounteth but to this: That becau&s;e</HI> Harvey <HI>in his Circulation hath followed the principles of Nature, therefore</HI> A|ri&s;totle <HI>and</HI> Cicero <HI>have done &s;o in their</HI>
<PB N="49" REF="28">
<HI>di&s;cour&s;es of Government.</HI> Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> I have complained of you for repeat|ing me fraudulently, but not &s;o often as I might: for whereas upon this oc|ca&s;ion I told you, <Q>That a &s;imilitude is brought for illu&s;tration, or to &s;hew how a thing is, not to prove that it is &s;o;</Q> You repeat me thus: <HI>Mr.</HI> Har|rington <HI>a&s;&s;ured me in his la&s;t Book, that he produced this onely as a &s;imilitude, and never intended that any man &s;hould look for Rea&s;on or Argument in it.</HI> Sir, though a &s;imilitude have not that proof in it which may draw a man, yet it hath &s;uch inducement in it as may lead a man. But, why &s;hould I be trou|bled, &s;eeing in the clo&s;e you <HI>heartily crave my pardon?</HI> Good, Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> abundantly enough: Nay, no more; no more, I be&s;eech you. Look you, do what I can, he will be making me re|paration too. Well then, if it mu&s;t be &s;o, what is it? Why, &s;ay you, <HI>By way of reparation to Mr.</HI> Harrington, <HI>I make here a &s;olemn Declaration, That for the future he &s;hall have no cau&s;e to accu&s;e for expecting Rea&s;on or Argument in any of his di&s;cour&s;es.</HI> O ingenuity! he confe&s;|&s;eth that he hath taken my &s;imilitude for an Argument, my Goo&s;e for my
<PB N="50" REF="29">
Pig; and the &s;atisfaction promi&s;ed, comes to this, that he will take my Ar|guments for Similitudes: when he &s;hould be &s;hooing my Goo&s;e, he is &s;oling my Pig; for which he will make (as ye &s;hall find hereafter) this amends, that when he &s;hould be &s;oling my Pig, he will be &s;hooing my Goo&s;e. Mr. <HI>Wren,</HI> good night.</P>
<TAILNOTE>
<P>The next is the Balance. Gentle|men, to morrow we play Hunks that bears thirty Dogs.</P>
<P><HI>Hunks of the Bear-Garden to be feared if he come nigh one.</HI></P>
</TAILNOTE>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD>ERRATA.</HEAD>
<P>PAge 31. <HI>for</HI> four hundred, <HI>read</HI> four hundred thou&s;and. 36. <HI>for</HI> interroganto, <HI>read</HI> inter|rogante.</P>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
