The prerogative of popular government. A politicall discourse in two books. The former containing the first præliminary of Oceana, inlarged, interpreted, and vindicated from all such mistakes or slanders as have been alledged against it under the notion of objections. The second concerning ordination, against Dr. H. Hamond, Dr. L. Seaman, and the authors they follow. In which two books is contained the whole commonwealth of the Hebrews, or of Israel, senate, people, and magistracy, both as it stood in the institution by Moses, and as it came to be formed after the captivity. As also the different policies introduced into the Church of Christ, during the time of the Apostles. By James Harrington.

CHAP. II. Whether a Commonwealth be rightly defined to be a Go∣vernment of Laws and not of Men, and a Monarchy to be the Government of some Man or few Men, and not of Laws.

THat part of the Preliminaries, which the Praevari∣cator (as is usual with him) recites in this place fasly and fraudulently, is thus. Relation had unto 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 Caesar (which extinguishing liberty became the translation of Antient into Modern Prudence, introduced in the ruine of the Roman Empire by the Goths and Van∣dals) Government to define it (de jure) or according unto Antient prudence, is an Art whereby a civil Society of Men, is instituted and preserved 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 unto Modern prudence, is an Art whereby some Man, or some few Men subject a City or a Nation, and rule it according unto his or their private interest, which because the Laws in such cases are made according to the interest of a Man, or some few Families, 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 proceed from will, that is either from the Will of the whole People, as in a Common∣wealth; from the will of one Man, as in Absolute, or from the will of a few Men, as in regulated Monarchy.

Secondly, That will whether of one, or more, or all, is not presumed to be, much lesse to Act without a Mover.

Thirdly, That the Mover of Will is Interest.

Fourthly, That Interests also being of one, of more, or of all; those of one Man, or of a few Men, where Laws are made accordingly, being more private, then comes duly up unto Law (the Nature whereof lyeth not in partiality but in Justice) may be called the Empire of Men, and not of Laws: And that of the whole People comming up to the Publique Interest (which is none▪ other then Common right and Justice, excluding all partiality or private Interest) may be truly called the Empire of Laws, and not of Men. By all which put together, whereas it is demonstrable, that in this division of Government, I do not stay at the Will, which must have some Motive or Mo∣ver, but go unto the first and remotest Notion of Government in the Foundation and Origination of it, In which lies the cre∣dit of this Division, and the Definition of the several members; that is to say, of interest whether private or publique: The Praevaricator telleth me, That this Division of Govern∣ment having (he knows not how) lost her Credit, the defini∣tions of the several Members of it need not be considered far∣ther then that they come not at all up to the first and remotest notion of Government in the Foundation and Origination of it, in which lies 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 of 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 out-throw, and at this cast, by saying that the Declaration of the will of the Soveraign power is called Law, which if it out-live the person whose will it was, it is onely because the persons who succeed in power are presumed to have the same will, unless they manifest the contrary, and that is the abroga∣tion of the Law; so that still the Government is not in the Law, but in the person whose will gave a being unto that Law. I might as well say, The Declaration unto all men by these presents that a man oweth money is called a Bond, which if it outlive the person that entred into that bond, it is only because the persons that succeed him in his estate, are presumed to have the same will, unlesse 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 unto that Bond. If it be alledged a∣gainst this example that it is a private one, the Case may be put between several Princes, States, or Governments, or between several States of the same Principality or Go∣vernment, whether it be a regulated Monarchy or a Com∣monwealth; for in like Obligation of the States, (as of the King, the Lords and Commons) or parties agreeing, Au∣thoritate Patrum & jussu Populi, till the Parties that so a∣greed to the Obligation, shall agree to repeal or cancel it, lyeth all law, that is not meerly in the will of one Man, or of one State, or Party as the Oligarchy. But not to dis∣pute these things farther in this place, let the Government be what it will, for the Prevaricator to fetch the Origina∣tion of Law no farther then the will, while he knows very well that I fetcht it from interest, the Antecedent of will; and yet to boast that he hath out-thrown 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 Magi∣strate upon the Bench is that unto the Law, which a Gun∣ner upon his Platform is to his Cannon; he goes about to take better Aim, and says, if the proportion of things be ac∣curately considered, 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 some 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 never∣theless according unto the Nature of their matter or of their charge, come short or over, and others break or re∣coyl: sure this Report of the Prevaricator is not accord∣ing unto the bore of my gun, but according unto the bore of such a Gunner. Yet again, if he be not so good a Gunner, he will be a better Anatomist; For whereas I affirm, that to say, Aristotle and Cicero wrote not the rights or rules of their Politicks, from the Principles of Nature, but transcribed them into their books out of the practice of their own Commonwealths, is as if a man should say of famous▪ Hervey, that he transcribed his Circulation of the bloud, 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 Hervey in his Circulation, hath follow'd the Principles of Nature; therefore Aristotle and Cicero have done so in their Dis∣courses of Government.

Pretty! It is said in Scripture, thy Word is sweet as honey; Amounts that but to this, because honey is sweet, there∣fore the Word of God is sweet? To say that my Lord Protector hath not conquer'd many Nations, were as if one should say that Caesar had not conquer'd many Nati∣ons; Amounts that but to this, that because Caesar con∣quer'd many Nations; therefore my Lord Protector hath conquer'd many Nations; what I produce as a similitude, he calls an objection, where I say as he says because; what in∣genuous man doth 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 used for illustration, not as an argu∣ment; the Candle I held did not set up the post, but shew where the post was set, and yet this blind Bayard hath run his head against it. Nor hath he yet enough; if he be not the better Naturalist, he will be the better Divine, though he make the worse Sermon. My Doctrine and Use upon that of Solomon, I have seen servants upon horses, and Princes walking as servants upon the Earth, discovers the true means

whereby the Principles of Power and of Authority, the goods of the mind and of the fortune may so meet and twine in the wreath or Crown of Empire, that the Go∣vernment standing upon Earth, like an Holy Altar, and breathing perpetual Incense unto Heaven, in Justice and Piety, may be something as it were between Heaven and Earth, while that only which is proposed by the best, and resolved by the most becomes Law; and so the whole Go∣vernment an Empire of Laws, and not of Men. This he says, is a goodly Sermon; it is honest and sense. But let any man make sense, or honesty of this Doctrine, which is his own; To say that Laws doe or can govern is to amuse our selves with a form of speech, as when we say Time, or Age, or Death does such a thing, to which indeed the phansie of Poets or superstition of Women may adapt a person, and give a power of Action; but wise Men know they are onely expres∣sions of such Actions or qualifications as belong to things and 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 unto that of the Talmud, There is more in the word of a Scribe then in the words of the Law, or that which Christ thereupon saith unto the Pharisees; You have made the word of God of none effect by your traditions? Say, is a 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?

Notes

• Consid. p. 6▪
• Consid. p. 8.
• Consid. p. 7.
• Mat. 15. 6.