PLATO



                         REDIVIVUS:



                           OR, A



                         DIALOGUE



                        CONCERNING



                        Government,



      Wherein, by Observations drawn from other KINGDOMS and STATES

      both Ancient and Modern, an Endeavour is used to discover the 

      present POLITICK DISTEMPER of our OWN, with the CAUSES, and REMEDIES.



                     [by Henry Neville]



          Non Ego sum Vates, sed Prisci conscius aevi.

          Pluribus exemplis haec tibi Mysta Cano, 

          Res nolunt male administrari.



               The Second Edition, with Additions.



                          LONDON, 



            Printed for S.I. and Sold by R. Dew, 1681.







          Non ego sum vates, sed prisci conscius aevi, 

          Pluribus exemplis haec tibi mysta cano. 

          Res nolunt male administrari.



I am no prophet, but know about times past and, a priest of the mysteries, 

sing of many examples for you.[1] A government cannot subsist long under an 

ill administration.







                         Contents



                                                        page



Political Discourses and Histories worth Reading          65



The Publisher to the Reader                               67 



The Argument                                              71 



The First Dialogue                                        73 



The Second Dialogue                                       79 



The Third Dialogue                                       152







         Political Discourses and Histories worth reading



     [prefaced to the second edition of Plato Redivivus, 1681]



1. The Works of the famous Nicholas Machiavel, Citizen and Secretary of 

Florence, containing, 1. The History of Florence. 2. The Prince. 3. The 

Original of the Guelf and Ghibilin Factions. 4. The Life of Castruccio 

Castracani. 5. The Murther of Vitelli, &c. by Duke Valentino. 6. The State 

of France. 7. The State of Germany. 8. The Discourses on Titus Livius. 9. 

The Art of War. 10. The Marriage of Belphegor, a Novel. 11. Nicholas 

Machiavel's Letter, in Vindication of himself and his writings: All written 

in Italian, and from thence newly and faithfully Translated into English. In 

Folio, Price Bound, 16s. [Ed. H. Neville, 1675.]



2. I Ragguagli di Parnasso; or Advertisements from Parnassus, in two 

Centuries, with the Politick Touchstone, written Originally in Italian, By 

that Noble Roman Trajano Boccalini. Englished by the Earl of Monmouth: In 

Folio, Price bound 8s. [1674.]



3. The History of the Affairs of Europe, in this present age, but more 

particularly of the Republick of Venice, written in Italian, by Battista 

Nani, Cavalier and Procurator of St Mark: Englished by Sir Robert Honiwood, 

Knight; in Folio, price bound 12s. [1673.]



4. The History of the Government of Venice, wherein the Policies, Councils, 

Magistrates, and Laws of that State are fully related, and the use of the 

Balloting Box, exactly described: Written in the Year 1675, in Octav. Price 

bound 3s. [Abraham Nicolas Amelotte de la Houssaye, tr. 1677.]



5. The History of the Turkish Empire, from the year 1623, to the year 1677, 

containing the Reigns of the three last Emperours, viz. Sultan Morat, 

Sultan Ibrahim, and Sultan Mahomet 4th, his Son, the 13th Emperour now 

Reigning: By Paul Rycaut, Esq; late Consul of Smyrna. In Folio, Price bound 

14s. [1680.]



6. The present State of the Ottoman Empire in 3 Books, containing the 

Maximes of the Turkish Polity, their Religion and Military Discipline, 

Illustrated with divers Figures. Written by Paul Rycaut, Esq; late Secretary 

to the English Ambassadour there, and since Consul of Smyrna. The Fourth 

Edition, in Octavo. Price bound 5s. [1672.]



7. The Memoires of Philip de Commines Lord of Argenton, containing the 

History of Lewis XI. and Charles VIII, Kings of France, with the most 

remarkable occurrences in their particular Reigns, from the Year 1464, to 

1498, Revised and Corrected by Denis Godfrey, Councellour and 

Historiographer to the French King, and from his Edition lately Printed at 

Paris, newly Translated into English, in Octav. Price bound 5s. [1674.]



8. The History of France, under the Ministry of Cardinal Mazarine, viz. 

from the Death of King Lewes XIII, to the year 1664, wherein all the Affairs 

of State to that time are exactly Related: By Benjamine Priolo, and 

faithfully Englished, by Christopher Wase, Gent. in Octav. Price bound 4s. 

[1671.] 



9. The Present State of the United Provinces of the Low Countries, as to 

the Government, Laws, Forces, Riches, Manners, Customes, Revenue, and 

Territory of the Dutch; Collected out of divers Authors:



     By W. A. Fellow of the Royal Society, the Second Edition in twelves: 

Price bound 2s. 6d. [Wm. Aglionby, 1670.]



10. The Present State of the Princes and Republicks of Italy, the Second 

Edition enlarged, with the manner of Election of Popes, and a Character of 

Spain. Written Originally in English by J. Gailhard, Gent. in twelves. 

Price bound 1s. 6d. [1668.]



11. The Policy and Government of the Venetians, both in Civil and Military 

Affairs: Written in French by the Sieur de la Hay, and faithfully 

Englished, in 12s. Price bound 1s. [1671.]



12. The Secret History of the Court of the Emperour Justinian, giving a 

true account of the Debaucheries thereof: Written in Greek, by Procopius of 

Caesarea; faithfully Englished, in Octav. Price bound 1s. 6d. [1674.]







             The Publisher to the Reader



Courteous Reader,



All the account I can give thee of this piece, is; that about the middle of 

October last[2] it was sent to me; accompanied with a letter without a 

name, and written in a hand altogether unknown to me; though different from 

the character of the dialogue itself, and the argument. The letter was very 

short; and contained only, that the writer having the fortune to meet with 

this discourse, (of which he denied to be the author,) he thought it very 

fit to be sent to me, to the end if I thought it could be of any advantage 

to me and no prejudice, I might publish it if I pleased and make my best of 

it. When I had opened it, and perceived that it treated of government, and 

of the present times; I (supposing it to be something of the nature of those 

scurrilous libels, which the press spawns every day) was extremely 

displeased with my servant, for receiving in my absence and in these 

dangerous days, such a packet; without taking any account or notice of the 

messenger who brought it: till he, to appease me, assured me, that the 

bearer did look like a gentleman, and had a very unsuitable garb to a 

trepan, and that he did believe he had seen him often at my shop, and that I 

knew him well. When I had begun to read it, and found no harm; I was 

resolved to peruse it in the company of a gentleman, a worthy friend of 

mine; who, to his exact skill and learning in the laws of his country, has 

added a very profound knowledge in all other literature; and particularly 

the excellence of platonic philosophy. When we had jointly gone through it, 

he was clearly of opinion; that although some might be angry with certain 

passages in it, yet the discourse reflecting upon no particular person, was 

very incapable of bringing me into any danger for publishing it; either from 

the state, or from any private man. When I had secured myself against the 

resulting loss, we went about the consideration of the other part of the 

distinction of the schools, which is lack of profit:[3] and I made some 

objections against the probability of vending this dialogue to profit; 

which, in things of my trade, is always my design, as it ought to be. My 

first fear in that behalf was, that this author would disgust the reader, in 

being too confident and positive in matters of so high a speculation. My 

friend replied; that the assurance he showed was void of all sauciness, and 

expressed with great modesty: and that he verily believed, that he meant 

very faithfully and sincerely towards the interest of England. My next doubt 

was; that a considerable part of this treatise being a repetition of a 

great many principles and positions out of Oceana, the author would be 

discredited for borrowing from another and the sale of the book hindered. To 

that my friend made answer; that before ever Oceana came out, there were 

very many treatises and pamphlets which alleged the political principle, 

that empire was founded in property, and discoursed rationally upon it: 

amongst the rest, one entitled A Letter from An Officer in Ireland, to his 

Highness the Lord Protector (which he then showed me) printed in 1653,[4] as 

I remember; which was more than three years before Oceana was written; and 

yet, said he, no man will aver that the learned gentleman who writ that book 

had stolen from that pamphlet: for whosoever sets himself to study politics, 

must do it by reading history, and observing in it the several turns and 

revolutions of government; and then the cause of such change will be so 

visible and obvious, that we need not impute theft to any man that finds it 

out: it being as lawful and as easy for any person, as well as for the 

author of Oceana, or that pamphlet, to read Thucydides, Polybius, Livy or 

Plutarch; and if he do so with attentiveness, he shall be sure to find the 

same things there that they have found. And if this were not lawful, when 

that any one person has written in any science, no man must write after him; 

for in polity, the orders of government; in architecture, the several orders 

of pillars, arches, architraves, cornices, &c; in physic, the causes, 

prognostics and crisis of diseases, are so exactly the same in all writers, 

that we may as well accuse all subsequent authors to have been but 

plagiaries of the antecedent. Besides this the learned gentleman added: 

that Oceana was written (it being thought lawful so to do in those times) to 

evince out of these principles, that England was not capable of any other 

government than a democracy; and this author out of the same maxims or 

aphorisms of politics, endeavours to prove, that they may be applied 

naturally and fitly to the redressing and supporting one of the best 

monarchies in the world, which is that of England. I had but one doubt more, 

and that was an objection against the title; which I resolved, at the first, 

not to mention; because I could salve it by altering the title page: But 

since I had opportunity, I acquainted the gentleman with it and it was, that 

certainly no man would ever buy a book that had in the front of it so 

insolent and presumptuous a motto, as Plato Redivivus; for that he must 

needs be thought not only vain in the highest degree, but void of sense and 

judgement too, who compares himself with Plato; the greatest philosopher, 

the greatest politician (I had almost said the greatest divine too) that 

ever lived. My counsellor told me, that he had as great a resentment of any 

injury done to Plato as I, as any man could have: but that he was hard to 

believe, that this man intended to compare himself to Plato, either in 

natural parts or learning; but only to show that he did imitate his way of 

writing, as to the manner of it, (though not the matter) as he has done 

exactly. For Plato ever writ these high matters in easy and familiar 

dialogues; and made the philosophers, and learned men of that age; as 

Simmias, Cebes, Timaeus, Callias, Phaedon, &c, yea and Socrates himself, the 

interlocutors; although they never heard anything of it till the book came 

out; and although talking of state-affairs in a monarchy must needs be more 

offensive, than it was in the democracy where Plato lived; therefore our 

author has forborne the naming the persons who constitute this dialogue: yet 

he does make a pretty near representation and character of some persons, who 

(I dare swear) never heard of this discourse, nor of the author's design. 

This convinced me, and made me suffer the title to pass. So that I have 

nothing more to say to thee, courteous reader, but to desire thee to pardon 

the faults in printing; and also the plainness and easiness of the style, 

and some tautologies: which latter I could easily have mended, but that I 

thought the author did not let them pass out of neglect, but design; and 

intended that both they, and the familiarity of the words and expressions, 

suited better with his purpose of disposing this matter to be treated in 

ordinary conversation amongst private friends, than full periods and 

starched language would have done; which might have been impropriety. The 

next request I have to thee is: that if thou do believe this discourse to 

be a very foolish one, as it may be for aught I know, (for I am no fit judge 

of such matters) that thou wilt yet vouchsafe to suspend thy censure of it 

for a while, till the whole impression is vended; that so, although neither 

the public nor thyself may ever reap any benefit or profit by it, I may be 

yet so fortunate by thy favour as to do it: which will make me study thy 

content hereafter in something better, and in the mean time remain,



                                         Thy Friend and Servant.







                     The Argument



A Noble Venetian,[5] (not one of the young fry, but a grave, sober person 

who had born office and magistracy in his own commonwealth,) having been 

some years since in France, with a near relation of his who was ambassador 

at that court, and finding himself out of employment; resolved to divert 

himself, by visiting some part of the world which he had never seen: and so 

passing through Germany, Flanders, and Holland, arrived in England, about 

the beginning of May last; bringing letters of recommendation to several 

English gentlemen, who had been travellers, and made friendship in his 

country: a custom, usually practised amongst such who travel into any part, 

where they have no habitude or acquaintance. Amongst the rest, he was 

addressed to one of the gentlemen who acts a part in this dialogue. Who, 

after he had waited upon him and served him for near two months, had certain 

necessary occasions, which called him for some time into the country: where 

he had not been above three weeks, before he heard, by mere accident, that 

the gentleman of Venice was fallen dangerous sick of a malignant fever: 

which made him post away immediately to London, to assist and serve him in 

what he might. But he found him almost perfectly restored to his health, by 

an eminent physician[6] of our nation; as renowned for his skill and cures 

at home, as for his writings both here and abroad: and who (besides his 

profound knowledge in all learning as well in other professions as his own) 

had particularly arrived to so exact and perfect a discovery of the formerly 

hidden parts of human bodies; that every one, who can but understand Latin, 

may by his means know more of anatomy, than either Hippocrates, or any of 

the ancients or moderns, did or do perceive: and if he had lived in the days 

of Solomon, that great philosopher would never have said, the heart of man 

is inscrutable. This excellent doctor being in the sick man's chamber, when 

the other English gentleman newly alighted, came to visit him; after some 

compliments and conversation of course, they began to talk of political 

matters: as you will better understand, by the introduction and by the 

discourse itself.







                 The First Dialogue[7]



ENGLISH GENTLEMAN.[8] The sudden news I had of your sad distemper, and the 

danger you were in, has been the cause of a great deal of affliction to me; 

as well as of my present and speedy repair to London, some weeks sooner than 

I intended. I must confess I received some comfort to hear at my arrival of 

your amendment; and do take much more now to find you up, and as I hope 

recovered: which I knew would be a necessary consequence of your sending for 

this excellent physician, the Aesculapius of our age; it being the first 

request I had to make to you, if by seeing him here in your chamber I had 

not found it needless. For the destiny of us Englishmen depends upon him; 

and we either live or die infallibly, according to the judgement or good 

fortune we have when we are sick, either to call or not call him to our 

assistance.



NOBLE VENETIAN. I am infinitely obliged to you, for your care of me; but am 

sorry it has been so inconvenient to you, as to make you leave your affairs 

in the country sooner than you proposed to yourself to do. I wish I might 

be so fortunate in the course of my life, as to find an opportunity of 

making some part of an acknowledgement, for this and all the rest of your 

favours; but shall pray God it may not be in the same kind: but that your 

health may ever be so entire, that you never need so transcendent a charity, 

as I now receive from your goodness. And as to this incomparable doctor; 

although, I must confess, that all the good which has happened to me in this 

country, as well as the knowledge I have received of persons and things, 

does derive from you; yet I must make an exception, as to this one point: 

for if I can either read or hear, this gentleman's excellent writings, and 

the fame he worthily enjoys in my country, would have made it inexcusable in 

me to implore the help of any other. And I do assure you, that, before I 

left England, it was in my ambition to beg your mediation towards the 

bringing me into the acquaintance and favour of this learned person; even 

before I had any thoughts of becoming the object of his care and skill, as 

now I am the trophy of both.



DOCTOR. Well, gentlemen, you are both too great to be flatterers, and I too 

little to be flattered; and therefore I will impute this fine discourse you 

both make about me, to the overflowing of your wit, and the having no object 

near you to vent it upon but me. And for you, sir, if my art fail me not, 

the voiding this mirth is a very good sign that you are in a fair way to a 

perfect recovery. And for my countryman here, I hope whilst he has this 

vent, that his hypochondriac distemper will be at quiet; and that neither 

his own thoughts, nor the ill posture of our public affairs, will make him 

hang himself, for at least this twelve-month. Only, gentlemen, pray take 

notice, that this does not pass upon me, nor do I drink it like milk (as the 

French phrase it;) being mindful of what a grave gentleman at Florence 

replied to a young esquire, (who answered his compliments with, 'Oh, sir, 

you flatter me,') -- 'The principle of flattery is that your equals 

understand you'.[9] That last word I cannot render well into Latin.



ENG. GENT. Well, doctor, we will not offend your modesty: the next time we 

do you justice, it shall be behind your back, since you are so severe upon 

us. But you may assure yourself, that my intention of recommending you to 

this gentleman, was for his own sake and not for yours: for you have too 

many patients already; and it were much better, both for you and us, that 

you had but half so many: for then we should have more of your writings, and 

sometimes enjoy your good conversation; which is worth our being sick on 

purpose for: and I am resolved to put my self sometimes into my bed, and 

send for you, since you have done coming to our coffee-house.[10]



But to leave this subject now, I hear you say, that this gentleman is in a 

perfect way of recovery: pray is he well enough to hear, without any 

prejudice to his convalescence, a reprehension I have to make him?



DOCT. Yes, yes, you may say what you will to him; for your reprimands will 

rather divert than trouble him, and prove more a cordial than a corrosive.



ENG. GENT. Then, sir, pray consider what satisfaction you can ever make me 

for the hard measure you have used towards me, in letting me learn from 

common fame and fortune, the news of your sickness, and that not till your 

recovery; and for depriving me of the opportunity of paying the debt I owe 

to your own merit, and to the recommendation of those worthy persons in 

Italy, who did me the honour to address you to me. And this injury is much 

aggravated by the splendour of your condition, and greatness of your 

fortune; which makes it impossible for me ever to hope for any other 

occasion to express my faithful service to you, or satisfy any part of the 

duty I have to be at your devotion. To be sick in a strange country, and to 

distrust the sincerity and obedience of --



NOBLE VEN. Pray, sir, give me leave to interrupt you, and to assure you, 

that it was not any distrust of your goodness to me, of which I have had 

sufficient experience; nor any insensibleness how much your care might 

advantage me; much less any scruple I had of being more in your debt; which 

if it had been possible for me to entertain, it must have been thought of 

long since, before I had received those great obligations, which I never 

made any difficulty to accept of. It was not, I say, any of these 

considerations, which hindered me from advertising you of my distemper; but 

the condition and nature of it, which in a moment deprived me of the 

exercise of those faculties which might give me a capacity of helping myself 

in any thing. But otherwise I assure you that no day of my life shall pass, 

wherein I will not express a sense of your favours; and --



DOCT. Pray now, sir, permit me to interrupt you; for this gentleman, I dare 

say, looks for no compliments: but that which I have to say, is; that the 

desire you signified to me, to give you some account of our affairs here, 

and the turbulency of our present state, will be much better placed, if you 

please to address it to this gentleman, whose parts and studies have fitted 

him for such an employment; besides his having had a great share in the 

managing affairs of state here, in other times: and really no man 

understands the government of England better than he.[11]



ENG. GENT. Now doctor, I should tell you, those who are my equals understand 

me;[12] for so you yourself have baptized this kind of civility. But 

however, this is a province that I cannot be reasonably pressed to take 

upon me, whilst you are present; who are very well known to be as skilful in 

the nature and distemper of the body politic, as the whole nation confesses 

you to be in the concerns of the natural. And you would have good store of 

practice in your former capacity, if the wise custom amongst the ancient 

Greeks were not totally out of use. For they, when they found any craziness 

or indisposition in their several governments, before it broke out into a 

disease, did repair to the physicians of state (who, from their profession, 

were called the seven wise men of Greece;) and obtained from them some good 

recipes, to prevent those seeds of distemper from taking root, and 

destroying the public peace. But in our days, these signs or forerunners of 

diseases in state are not foreseen, till the whole mass is corrupted; and 

that the patient is incurable, but by violent remedies. And if we could have 

perceived the first symptoms of our distemper, and used good alternatives, 

the curiosity of this worthy gentleman had been spared, as also his command 

to you to give him some light into our matters; and we unfortunate 

Englishmen had reposed in that quiet, ease, and security, which we enjoyed 

three hundred years since. But let us leave the contest who shall inform 

this gentleman, lest we spend the time we should do it in unprofitably, and 

let each of us take his part; for if one speak all, it will look like a 

studied discourse fitted for the press, and not a familiar dialogue. For it 

ought to be in private conversation, as it was originally in the planting 

the gospel; when there were two sorts of preaching: the one concionary,[13] 

which was used by the apostles and other missionaries, when they spoke to 

those who had never heard of the mysteries of Christian religion; possibly 

not so much, as of the Jewish law or the history of Christ; the duty of 

those was to hear, and not reply, or any way interrupt the harangue: but 

when the believers (called the church) assembled together, it was the custom 

of such of the auditors to whom any thing occurred, or (as saint Paul calls 

it) was revealed, to interpose and desire to be heard; which was called an 

interlocutory preaching, or religious conversation: and served very much to 

the instructing and edifying those who had long believed in Christ, and 

possibly knew as much of him as their pastor himself; and this is used still 

amongst many of our independent congregations. 



DOCT. I have (besides the reason I alleged before, and which I still insist 

upon) some other cause to beg that you will please to give yourself the 

trouble of answering this gentleman's queries; which is, that I am very 

defective in my expressions in the Italian language: which though I 

understand perfectly, and so comprehend all that either of you deliver; yet 

I find not words at hand to signify my own meaning, and am therefore 

necessitated to deliver my self in Latin, as you see. And I fear that our 

pronunciation being so different from that which is used in Italy, this 

worthy person may not so easily comprehend what I intend, and so be 

disappointed in the desire he has to be perfectly instructed in our 

affairs.[14]



NOBLE VEN. Really, sir, that is not all; for besides that, I confess your 

pronunciation of the Latin tongue to be very new to me, and for that reason 

I have been forced to be troublesome to you, in making you repeat things 

twice, or thrice. I say besides that, your Latinity, (as your writings show 

and all the world knows) is very pure and elegant: which it is notorious to 

all, that we in Italy scarce understand; gentlemen there never learning more 

Latin, than what is necessary to call for meat and drink, in Germany or 

Holland, where most of the hosts speak a certain Franck, compounded of 

Dutch, Latin, and Italian. And though some of us have Latin enough to 

understand a good author, (as you have of our language) yet we seldom arrive 

to speak any better than this Franck; or can without study comprehend good 

Latin, when we meet with it in discourse. And therefore it is your 

perfection in that tongue, and my ignorance in it, that makes me concur with 

you, in desiring this gentleman to take the pains of instructing my 

curiosity in Italian.



ENG. GENT. I shall obey you in this, and all things else, upon this 

condition, that both you and the doctor will vouchsafe to interrogate me, 

and by that means give me the method of serving you in this: and then that 

you will both please to interrupt and contradict me, when you think I say 

any thing amiss, or that either of you are of a different opinion; and to 

give me a good occasion of explaining myself, and possibly of being 

convinced by you, which I shall easily confess; for I hate nothing more than 

to hear disputes amongst gentlemen and men of sense, wherein the speakers 

seem (like sophisters in a college) to dispute rather for victory, than to 

discover and find out the truth.



DOCT. Well, all this I believe will be granted you; so that we have nothing 

to do now, but to adjourn, and name a time when to meet again. Which I, 

being this gentleman's physician, will take upon me to appoint: and it shall 

be tomorrow morning about nine of the clock, after he has slept well; as I 

hope he will, by means of a cordial I intend to send him immediately. In the 

mean time, not to weary him too much, we will take our leaves of him for 

this night.



NOBLE VEN. I shall expect your return with great impatience; and if your 

cordial be not very potent, I believe the desire of seeing you will make me 

wake much sooner than the hour you appoint: and I am very confident, that 

my mind as well as my body, will be sufficiently improved by such visits. It 

begins to be darkish; boy, light your torch, and wait on these gentlemen 

down. 



BOTH. Sir, we wish you all good rest and health.



NOBLE VEN. And I, with a thousand thanks, the like to you.







                 The Second Dialogue



DOCT. Well, sir, how is it? have you rested well to night? I fear we come 

too early.



NOBLE VEN. Dear doctor, I find myself very well, thanks to your care and 

skill; and have been up above these two hours, in expectation of the favour 

you and this gentleman promised me.



DOCT. Well, then pray let us leave off compliments and repartees (of which 

we had a great deal too much yesterday) and fall to our business; and be 

pleased to interrogate this gentleman what you think fit.



NOBLE VEN. Then, sir, my first request to you is, that you will vouchsafe 

to acquaint me for what reasons this nation, which has ever been esteemed 

(and very justly) one of the most considerable people of the world; and made 

the best figure both in peace, treaties, war and trade; is now of so small 

regard, and signifies so little abroad? Pardon the freedom I take, for I 

assure you it is not out of disrespect, much less of contempt that I speak 

it: for since I arrived in England, I find it one of the most flourishing 

kingdoms in Europe, full of splendid nobility and gentry; the comeliest 

persons alive, valiant, courteous, knowing, and bountiful; and as well 

stored with commoners, honest, industrious, fitted for business, 

merchandise, arts, or arms; as their several educations lead them. Those who 

apply themselves to study, prodigious for learning, and succeeding to 

admiration in the perfection of all sciences: all this makes the riddle 

impossible to be solved; but by some skilful Oedipus, such as you are; whose 

pains I will yet so far spare, as to acknowledge, that I do in that little 

time I have spent here, perceive that the immediate cause of all this, is 

the disunion of the people and the governors; the discontentment of the 

gentry, and turbulency of the commonalty; although without all violence or 

tumult, which is miraculous. So that what I now request of you, is, that you 

will please to deduce particularly to me, the causes of this division; that 

when they are laid open, I may proceed (if you think fit to permit it) from 

the disease when known, to enquire after the remedies.



ENG. GENT. Before I come to make you any answer, I must thank you for the 

worthy and honourable character you give of our nation; and shall add to 

it, that I do verily believe, that there are not a more loyal and faithful 

people to their prince in the whole world, than ours are; nor that fear more 

to fall into that state of confusion, in which we were twenty years since: 

and that, not only this parliament, which consists of the most eminent men 

of the kingdom, both for estates and parts; but all the inhabitants of this 

isle in general; even those (so many of them as have their understandings 

yet entire) which were of the anti-royal party in our late troubles, have 

all of them the greatest horror imaginable to think of doing any thing, that 

may bring this poor country into those dangers and uncertainties, which then 

did threaten our ruin.[15] And the rather for this consideration: that 

neither the wisdom of some who were engaged in those affairs, which I must 

aver to have been very great; nor the success of their contest, which ended 

in an absolute victory; could prevail so, as to give this kingdom any 

advantage; nay not so much as any settlement, in satisfaction and requital 

of all the blood it had lost, money it had spent, and hazard it had run. A 

clear argument why we must totally exclude a civil war from being any of the 

remedies, when we come to that point. I must add farther; that as we have as 

loyal subjects as are anywhere to be found, so we have as gracious and good 

a prince: I never having yet heard that he did or attempted to do, any the 

least act of arbitrary power, in any public concern; nor did ever take, or 

endeavour to take from any particular person the benefit of the law. And for 

his only brother, (although accidentally he cannot be denied to be a great 

motive of the people's unquietness,) all men must acknowledge him to be a 

most glorious and honourable prince: one who has exposed his life several 

times for the safety and glory of this nation; one who pays justly and 

punctually his debts, and manages his own fortune discreetly, and yet keeps 

the best court and equipage of any subject in Christendom; is courteous and 

affable to all; and in fine, has nothing in his whole conduct to be 

excepted against, much less dreaded; excepting, that he is believed to be of 

a religion contrary to the honour of God, and the safety and interest of 

this people, which gives them just apprehensions of their future condition. 

But of this matter we shall have occasion to speculate hereafter: in the 

mean time, since we have such a prince, and such subjects, we must needs 

want the ordinary cause of distrust and division; and therefore must seek 

higher, to find out the original of this turbulent posture we are in.



DOCT. Truly you had need seek higher, or lower, to satisfy us; for hitherto 

you have but enforced the gentleman's question, and made us more admire what 

the solution will be.



ENG. GENT. Gentlemen, then I shall delay you no longer. The evil 

counsellors, the pensioner-parliament, the thorough-paced judges, the 

flattering divines, the busy and designing papists, the French counsels, are 

not the causes of our misfortunes;[16] they are but the effects, (as our 

present distractions are) of one primary cause; which is, the breach and 

ruin of our government: which, having been decaying for near two hundred 

years,[17] is in our age brought so near to expiration, that it lies 

agonizing; and can no longer perform the functions of a political life; nor 

carry on the work of ordering and preserving mankind. So that the shifts 

that our courtiers have within some years used are but so many tricks, or 

conclusions which they are trying to hold life and soul together a while 

longer: and have played handy-dandy[18] with parliaments, (and especially 

with the house of commons, the only part which is now left entire of the old 

constitution) by adjourning, and proroguing, and dissolving them; contrary 

to the true meaning of the law; as well in the reign of our late king, as 

during his majesty's that now is. Whereas indeed our counsellors 

(perceiving the decay of the foundation, as they must if they can see but 

one inch into the politics) ought to have addressed themselves to the king 

to call a parliament, the true physician, and to lay open the distemper 

there; and so have endeavoured a cure, before it had been too late: as I 

fear, it now is; I mean for the piecing and patching up the old government. 

It is true, as the divine Machiavel says, that diseases in government are 

like a marasmus[19] in the body natural, which is very hard to be 

discovered, whilst it is curable; and after it comes to be easy to discern, 

difficult (if not impossible) to be remedied: yet it is to be supposed that 

the counsellors are, or ought to be skilful physicians; and to foresee the 

seeds of state-distempers, time enough to prevent the death of the patient: 

else they ought in conscience to excuse themselves from that sublime 

employment, and betake themselves to callings more suitable to their 

capacities. So that although for this reason, the ministers of state here 

are inexcusable; and deserve all the fury, which must one time or other be 

let loose against them; (except they shall suddenly fly from the wrath to 

come, by finding out in time and advising the true means of setting 

themselves to rights) yet neither prince nor people are in the mean time to 

be blamed, for not being able to conduct things better; no more, than the 

waggoner is to answer for his ill guiding, or the oxen for their ill drawing 

the waggon; when it is with age and ill usage broken, and the wheels 

unserviceable; or the pilot and mariners, for not weathering out a storm; 

when the ship hath sprung a plank. And as in the body of man, sometimes the 

head and all the members are in good order, nay, the vital parts are sound 

and entire; yet if there be a considerable putrification in the humours, 

much more, if the blood (which the scripture calls the life) be impure and 

corrupted; the patient ceases not to be in great danger, and oftentimes dies 

without some skilful physician: and in the mean time the head and all the 

parts suffer, and are unquiet, full as much, as if they were all immediately 

affected: so it is in every respect with the body politic, or commonwealth, 

when their foundations are mouldered. And although in both these cases, the 

patients cannot (though the distemper be in their own bodies) know what they 

ail, but are forced to send for some artist to tell them; yet they cease not 

to be extremely uneasy and impatient, and lay hold oftentimes upon 

unsuitable remedies, and impute their malady to wrong and ridiculous 

causes. As some people do here, who think that the growth of popery is our 

only evil; and that if we were secure against that, our peace and settlement 

were obtained; and that our disease needed no other cure. But of this more 

when we come to the cure.



NOBLE VEN. Against this discourse, certainly we have nothing to reply: but 

must grant, that when any government is decayed, it must be mended; or all 

will ruin. But now we must request you to declare to us, how the government 

of England is decayed; and how it comes to be so. For I am one of those 

unskilful persons that cannot discern a state-marasmus, when the danger is 

so far off. 



ENG. GENT. Then no man living can; for your government is this day the only 

school in the world, that breeds such physicians, and you are esteemed one 

of the ablest amongst them: and it would be manifest to all the world for 

truth, although there were no argument for it, but the admirable stability 

and durableness of your government; which has lasted above twelve hundred 

years entire and perfect. Whereas all the rest of the countries in Europe, 

have not only changed masters very frequently in a quarter of that time; but 

have varied and altered their polities very often. Which manifests that you 

must needs have ever enjoyed a succession of wise citizens, that have had 

skill and ability to forewarn you betimes of those rocks against which your 

excellently-built vessel might in time split.



NOBLE VEN. Sir, you over-value, not only me, but the wisdom of my 

fellow-citizens; for we have none of these high speculations, nor has 

scarce any of our body read Aristotle, Plato, or Cicero, or any of those 

great artists ancient or modern, who teach that great science of the 

governing and increasing great states and cities: without studying which 

science no man can be fit to discourse pertinently of these matters; much 

less to found, or mend a government, or so much as find the defects of it. 

We only study our own government; and that too chiefly to be fit for 

advantageous employments, rather than to foresee our dangers. Which yet, I 

must needs confess, some amongst us are pretty good at; and will in a 

harangue, made upon passing a law, venture to tell us what will be the 

consequence of it two hundred years hence. But of these things I shall be 

very prodigal in my discourse, when you have leisure and patience to command 

me to say any thing of our polity; in the mean time pray be pleased to go on 

with your edifying instruction.



ENG. GENT. Before I can tell you how the government of England came to be 

decayed, I must tell you what that government was; and what it now is. And I 

should say something too of government in general, but that I am afraid of 

talking of that subject before you who are so exact a judge of it.



NOBLE VEN. I thought you had been pleased to have done with this discourse. 

I assure you, sir, if I had more skill in that matter than ever I can 

pretend to, it would but serve to make me the fitter auditor of what you 

shall say on that subject.



ENG. GENT. Sir, in the course of my reasoning upon this point, I shall have 

occasion to insist and expatiate upon many things, which both myself and 

others have published in former times. For which I will only make this 

excuse; that the repetition of such matters is the more pardonable, because 

they will be at least new to you who are a stranger to our affairs and 

writings. And the rather, because those discourses shall be applied to our 

present condition, and suited to our present occasions. But I will say no 

more; but obey you, and proceed. I will not take upon me to say, or so much 

as conjecture, how and when government began in the world; or what 

government is most ancient. History must needs be silent in that point: for 

that government is more ancient than history; and there was never any writer 

but was bred under some government; which is necessarily supposed to be the 

parent of all arts and sciences, and to have produced them. And therefore it 

would be as hard for a man to write an account of the beginning of the laws 

and polity of any country, except there were memory of it; (which cannot be 

before the first historiographer:) as it would be to any person, without 

records, to tell the particular history of his own birth.



DOCT. Sir, I cannot comprehend you: may not historians write a history of 

matters done before they were born? If it were so, no man could write but 

of his own times.



ENG. GENT. My meaning is, where there are not stories, or records, extant; 

for as for oral tradition, it lasts but for one age, and then degenerates 

into fable: I call any thing in writing, whereby the account of the passages 

or occurrences of former times is derived to our knowledge, a history; 

although it be not penned methodically, so as to make the author pass for a 

wit: and had rather read the authentic records of any country, that is a 

collection of their laws and letters concerning transactions of state and 

the like, than the most eloquent and judicious narrative that can be made.



NOBLE VEN. Methinks, sir, your discourse seems to imply, that we have no 

account extant of the beginning of governments. Pray what do you think of 

the books of Moses? Which seem to be penned on purpose to inform us how he, 

by God's command, led that people out of Egypt into another land; and in 

the way made them a government. Besides, does not Plutarch tell us, how 

Theseus gathered together the dispersed inhabitants of Attica, brought them 

into one city, and under one government of his own making? The like did 

Romulus in Italy, and many others in divers countries.



ENG. GENT. I never said, that we had not sufficient knowledge of the 

original of particular governments; but it is evident, that these great 

legislators had seen and lived under other administrations, and had the help 

of learned law-givers and philosophers; excepting the first, who had the aid 

of God himself. So that it remains undiscovered yet, how the first 

regulation of mankind began: and therefore I will take for granted that 

which all the politicians conclude: which is, that necessity made the first 

government. For every man by the first law of nature (which is common to us 

and brutes) had, like beasts in a pasture, right to everything; and there 

being no property, each individual, if he were the stronger, might seize 

whatever any other had possessed himself of before, which made a state of 

perpetual war. To remedy which, and the fear that nothing should be long 

enjoyed by any particular person, (neither was any man's life in safety,) 

every man consented to be debarred of that universal right to all things; 

and confine himself to a quiet and secure enjoyment of such a part, as 

should be allotted him. Thence came in ownership, or property: to maintain 

which, it was necessary to consent to laws, and a government; to put them 

in execution.[20] Which of the governments now extant, or that have been 

formerly, was first, is not possible now to be known: but I think this must 

be taken for granted, that whatsoever the frame or constitution was first, 

it was made by the persuasion and mediation of some wise and virtuous 

person, and consented to by the whole number. And then, that it was 

instituted for the good and preservation of the governed; and not for the 

exaltation and greatness of the person or persons appointed to govern. The 

reason why I beg this concession is, that it seems very improbable, not to 

say impossible, that a vast number of people should ever be brought to 

consent to put themselves under the power of others, but for the ends 

above-said, and so lose their liberty without advantaging themselves in any 

thing. And it is full as impossible that any person (or persons so 

inconsiderable in number as magistrates and rulers are) should by force get 

an empire to themselves. Though I am not ignorant that a whole people have 

in imminent dangers, either from the invasion of a powerful enemy, or from 

civil distractions, put themselves wholly into the hands of one illustrious 

person for a time; and that with good success, under the best forms of 

government: but this is nothing to the original of states.



NOBLE VEN. Sir, I wonder how you come to pass over the consideration of 

paternal government, which is held to have been the beginning of 

monarchies.[21]



ENG. GENT. Really, I did not think it worth the taking notice of: for 

though it be not easy to prove a negative, yet I believe if we could trace 

all foundations of polities that now are, or ever came to our knowledge 

since the world began; we shall find none of them to have descended from 

paternal power. We know nothing of Adam's leaving the empire to Cain, or 

Seth: it was impossible for Noah to retain any jurisdiction over his own 

three sons; who were dispersed into three parts of the world, if our 

antiquaries calculate right: and as for Abraham, whilst he lived, as also 

his son Isaac, they were but ordinary fathers of families, and no question 

governed their own household as all others do. And when Jacob upon his 

death-bed did relate to his children the promise almighty God had made his 

grandfather; to make him a great nation, and give his posterity a fruitful 

territory; he speaks not one word of the empire of Reuben his first-born, 

but supposes them all equal. And so they were taken to be by Moses, when he 

divided the land to them by lot; and by God's command made them a 

commonwealth. So that I believe this fancy to have been first started, not 

by the solid judgement of any man, but to flatter some prince; and to 

assert, for want of better arguments, the divine right of monarchy.



NOBLE VEN. I have been impertinent in interrupting you, but yet now I cannot 

repent of it, since your answer has given me so much satisfaction; but if it 

be so as you say, that government was at first instituted for the interest 

and preservation of mankind, how comes it pass, that there are and have been 

so many absolute monarchies in the world, in which it seems that nothing is 

provided for, but the greatness and power of the prince?



ENG. GENT. I have presumed to give you already my reason, why I take for 

granted, that such a power could never be given by the consent of any 

people, for a perpetuity: for though the people of Israel did against the 

will of Samuel, and indeed of God himself, demand and afterwards choose 

themselves a king; yet he was never such a king as we speak of; for that all 

the orders of their commonwealth, the sanhedrim, the congregation of the 

people, the princes of the tribes, &c. did still remain in being: as has 

been excellently proved by a learned gentleman of our nation, to whom I 

refer you.[22] It may then be enquired into, how these monarchies at first 

did arise. History being in this point silent as to the ancient 

principalities, we will conjecture, that some of them might very well 

proceed from the corruption of better governments, which must necessarily 

cause a depravation in manners; (as nothing is more certain than that 

politic defects breed moral ones, as our nation is a pregnant example) this 

debauchery of manners might blind the understandings of a great many; 

destroy the fortunes of others, and make them indigent; infuse into very 

many a neglect and carelessness of the public good (which in all settled 

states is very much regarded) so that it might easily come into the ambition 

of some bold aspiring person, to affect empire; and as easily into his 

power, (by fair pretences with some, and promises of advantages with 

others,) to procure followers, and gain a numerous party, either to usurp 

tyranny over his own country, or to lead men forth to conquer and subdue 

another. Thus it is supposed that Nimrod got his kingdom: who in scripture 

is called, a great hunter before God; which expositors interpret, a great 

tyrant. The modern despotical powers have been acquired by one of these two 

ways. Either by pretending, by the first founder thereof, that he had a 

divine mission; and so gaining not only followers, but even easy access in 

some places without force, to empire, and afterwards dilating their power by 

great conquests; thus Mohamet and Genghis Khan began, and established the 

Saracen and Tartarian kingdoms: or by a long series of wisdom in a prince, 

or chief magistrate of a mixed monarchy, and his council, who by reason of 

the sleepiness and inadvertency of the people, have been able to extinguish 

the great nobility, or render them inconsiderable; and so by degrees taking 

away from the people their protectors, render them slaves. So the monarchies 

of France, and some other countries, have grown to what they are at this 

day; there being left but a shadow of the three states in any of these 

monarchies, and so no bounds remaining to the regal power. But since 

property remains still to the subjects; these governments may be said to be 

changed, but not founded or established: for there is no maxim more 

infallible and holding in any science, than this is in politics; that empire 

is founded in property. Force or fraud may alter a government; but it is 

property that must found and eternize it. Upon this undeniable aphorism we 

are to build most of our subsequent reasoning: in the meantime we may 

suppose, that hereafter the great power of the king of France may diminish 

much, when his enraged and oppressed subjects come to be commanded by a 

prince of less courage, wisdom, and military virtue; when it will be very 

hard for any such king to govern tyrannically a country,[23] which is not 

entirely his own.



DOCT. Pray, sir, give me leave to ask you by the way, what is the reason 

that here in our country where the peerage is lessened sufficiently, the 

king has not got as great an addition of power as accrues to the crown of 

France? 



ENG. GENT. You will understand that, doctor, before I have finished this 

discourse: but to stay your stomach till then, you may please to know that 

in France the greatness of the nobility which has been lately taken from 

them, did not consist in vast riches and revenues; but in great privileges, 

and jurisdictions, which obliged the people to obey them: whereas our great 

peers in former times had not only the same great dependencies, but very 

considerable revenues besides, in demesnes, and otherwise. This vassalage 

over the people, which the peers of France had, being abolished, the power 

over those tenants, which before was in their lords, fell naturally and of 

course into the crown; although the lands and possessions divested of those 

dependencies did and do still remain to the owners: whereas here in England, 

though the services are for the most part worn out, and insignificant; yet 

for want of providence and policy in former kings, who could not forsee the 

danger afar off, entails have been suffered to be cut off; and so two parts 

in ten of all those vast estates, as well manors as demesnes, by the luxury 

and folly of the owners, have been within these two hundred years purchased 

by the lesser gentry and the commons; which has been so far from advantaging 

the crown, that it has made the country scarce governable by monarchy. But 

if you please, I will go on with my discourse about government, and come to 

this again hereafter.



NOBLE VEN. I beseech you, sir, do.



ENG. GENT. I cannot find by the small reading I have, that there were any 

other governments in the world anciently than these three: monarchy, 

aristocracy, and democracy. For the first; I have no light out of antiquity 

to convince me, that there were in old times any other monarchies, but such 

as were absolutely despotical. All kingdoms then, as well in Greece, 

(Macedon, Epirus, and the like, where it is said the princes exercised their 

power moderately) as in Asia, being altogether unlimited by any laws, or any 

assemblies of nobility or people. Yet I must confess, Aristotle, when he 

reckons up the corruptions of these three governments, calls tyranny the 

corruption of the monarchy: by which if he means a change of government, 

(as it is in the corruptions of the other two;) then it must follow, that 

the philosopher knew of some other monarchy at the first, which afterwards 

degenerated into tyranny; that is, into arbitrary power: (for so the word 

tyranny is most commonly taken, though in modern languages it signifies the 

ill exercise of power;) for certainly arbitrary government cannot be called 

tyranny, where the whole property is in the prince, (as we reasonably 

suppose it to have been in those monarchies); no more than it is tyranny for 

you to govern your own house and estate as you please. But it is possible 

Aristotle might not in this speak so according to terms of art, but might 

mean, that the ill government of a kingdom or family is tyranny. However we 

have one example, that puzzles politicians: and that is Egypt, where Pharaoh 

is called king; and yet we see, that till Joseph's time he had not the whole 

property: for the wisdom of that patriarch taught his master a way to make a 

new use of that famine, by telling him, that if they would buy their lives, 

and sell their estates (as they did afterwards, and preserve themselves by 

the king's bread) they shall serve Pharaoh: which shows that Joseph knew 

well, that empire was founded in property. But most of the modern writers in 

polity, are of opinion, that Egypt was not a monarchy till then; though the 

prince might have the title of king: as the Heraclides had in Sparta, and 

Romulus and the other kings had in Rome; both which states were instituted 

commonwealths. They give good conjectures for this their opinion, too many 

to be here mentioned; only one is, that originally (as they go about to 

prove) all arts and sciences had their rise in Egypt; which they think very 

improbable to have been under a monarchy. But this position, that all kings 

in former times were absolute, is not so essential to the intent I have in 

this discourse; which is to prove, that in all states, of what kind soever, 

this aphorism takes place: Dominion is founded in property. So that if 

there were mixed monarchies, then the king had not all the property; but 

those who shared with him in the administration of the sovereignty, had 

their part (whether it were the senate, the people, or both) or if he had no 

companions in the sovereign power, he had no sharers likewise in the 

dominion or possession of the land. For that is all we mean by property, in 

all this discourse; for as for personal estate, the subjects may enjoy it in 

the largest proportion, without being able to invade the empire: the prince 

may when he pleases take away their goods by his tenants and vassals, 

(without an army;) which are his ordinary force, and answers to our county 

force; but the subjects with their money cannot invade his crown.[24] So 

that all the description we need make of this kind or form of government, 

is, that the whole possession of the country, and the whole power lies in 

the hands and breast of one man; he can make laws, break and repeal them 

when he pleases, or dispense with them in the meantime when he thinks fit; 

interpose in all judicatories, in behalf of his favourites; take away any 

particular man's personal estate, and his life too, without the formality of 

a criminal process, or trial; send a dagger, or a halter to his chief 

ministers, and command them to make themselves away; and in fine, do all 

that his will, or his interest, suggests to him.



DOCT. You have dwelt long here upon an argumentation, that the ancients had 

no monarchies but what were arbitrary --



ENG. GENT. Pray give me leave to save your objections to that point, and to 

assure you first; that I will not take upon me to be so positive in that; 

for that I cannot pretend to have read all the historians and antiquaries 

that ever wrote; nor have I so perfect a memory as to remember, or make use 

of, in a verbal and transient reasoning, all that I have ever read: and then 

to assure you again, that I build nothing upon that assertion; and so your 

objection will be needless, and only take up time.



DOCT. You mistake me; I had no intent to use any argument or example against 

your opinion in that, but am very willing to believe that it may be so. What 

I was going to say was this, that you have insisted much upon the point of 

monarchy, and made a strange description of it; whereas many of the 

ancients, and almost all the modern writers, magnify it to be the best of 

governments. 



ENG. GENT. I have said nothing to the contrary. I have told you in fact, 

what it is; which I believe none will deny. The philosopher said it was the 

best government; but with this restriction, where philosophers reigned:[25] 

and they had an example of it, in some few Roman emperors: but in the most 

turbulent times of the commonwealth, and factions between the nobility and 

the people, Rome was much more full of virtuous and heroic citizens, than 

ever it was under Aurelius or Antoninus. For the moderns that are of that 

judgement; they are most of them divines, not politicians: and something may 

be said in their behalf, when by their good preaching, they can infuse into 

their imaginary prince, (who seems already to have an image of the power of 

God), the justice, wisdom, and goodness too of the Deity.



NOBLE VEN. We are well satisfied with the progress you have hitherto made in 

this matter. Pray go on to the two other forms used amongst the ancients, 

and their corruptions; that so we may come to the modern governments, and 

see how England stands; and how it came to decay, and what must rebuild it.



ENG. GENT. You have very good reason to hasten me to that; for indeed, all 

that has been said yet, is but as it were a preliminary discourse to the 

knowledge of the government of England, and its decay: when it comes to the 

cure, I hope you will both help me, for both yourself and the doctor are a 

thousand times better than I at remedies. But I shall dispatch the other 

two governments. Aristocracy, or optimacy, is a commonwealth, where the 

better sort, (that is, the eminent and rich men,) have the chief 

administration of the government: I say, the chief; because there are very 

few ancient optimacies, but the people had some share: as in Sparta, where 

they had power to vote, but not debate; for so the oracle of Apollo, brought 

by Lycurgus from Delphos, settles it. But the truth is, these people were 

the natural Spartans: for Lycurgus divided the country or territory of 

Laconia into 39,000 shares; whereof 9,000 only of these owners were 

inhabitants of Sparta; the rest lived in the country: so that although 

Thucydides calls it an aristocracy, and so I follow him, yet it was none of 

those aristocracies usually described by the politicians; where the lands of 

the territory were in a great deal fewer hands. But call it what you will, 

wherever there was an aristocracy, there the property, or very much of the 

overbalance of it, was in the hands of the Aristoi or governors; be they 

more or fewer: for if the people have the greatest interest in the property, 

they will, and must have it in the empire. A notable example of it is Rome, 

the best and most glorious government that ever the sun saw; where the lands 

being equally divided amongst the tribes (that is, the people) it was 

impossible for the patricii to keep them quiet, till they yielded to their 

desires: not only to have their tribunes, to see that nothing passed into a 

law without their consent, but also to have it declared, that both the 

consuls should not only be chosen by the people (as they ever were, and the 

kings too before them) but that they might be elected too, when the people 

pleased, out of plebeian families.[26] So that now I am come to democracy. 

Which you see is a government where the chief part of the sovereign power, 

and the exercise of it, resides in the people: and where the style is, at 

the command of the people, by the authority of the senate. And it does 

consist of three fundamental orders; the senate proposing, the people 

resolving, and the magistrates executing. This government is much more 

powerful than aristocracy; because the latter cannot arm the people, for 

fear they should seize upon the government; and therefore are fain to make 

use of none but strangers and mercenaries for soldiers: which, as the divine 

Machiavel says, has hindered your commonwealth of Venice[27] from mounting 

up to heaven; whither those incomparable orders, and that venerable wisdom 

used by your citizens in keeping to them, would have carried you; if in all 

your wars, you had not been ill served.



DOCT. Well, sir, pray let me ask you one thing concerning Venice: how do you 

make out your empire is founded on property there? Have the gentlemen there, 

who are the party governing, the possession of the whole territory? does not 

property remain entire to the gentlemen, and other inhabitants in the 

several countries of Padua, Brescia, Vicenza, Verona, Bergamo, Cremona, 

Treviso, and Friuli; as also in the ultramarine provinces and islands? And 

yet I believe you will not deny, but that the government of Venice is as 

well founded, and has been of as long continuance, as any that now is or 

ever was in the world.[28]



ENG. GENT. Doctor, I shall not answer you in this; because I am sure it 

will be better done by this gentleman, who is a worthy son of that 

honourable mother.



NOBLE VEN. I thought you had said, sir, that we should have done 

complimenting; but since you do command me to clear the objection made by 

our learned doctor, I shall presume to tell you first how our city began. 

The Goths, Huns, and Lombards coming with all the violence and cruelty 

imaginable to invade that part of Italy which we now call Terra Firma, 

[mainland] and where our ancestors did then inhabit; forced them in great 

numbers to seek a shelter amongst a great many little rocks, or islands, 

which stood very thick in a vast lake, or rather marsh, which is made by the 

Adriatic sea; we call it Laguna, [the Lagoon] here they began to build, and 

getting boats, made themselves provisions of all kinds from the land; from 

whence innumerable people began to come to them, finding that they could 

subsist, and that the barbarous people had no boats to attack them, nor that 

they could be invaded either by horse or foot without them. Our first 

government, and which lasted for many years, was no more than what was 

practised in many country parishes in Italy, (and possibly here too,) where 

the clerk, or any other person, calls together the chief of the inhabitants 

to consider of parish-business; as choosing of officers, making of rates, 

and the like. So in Venice, when there was any public provision to be made 

by way of law, or otherwise, some officers went about to persons of the 

greatest wealth and credit, to intreat them to meet and consult; from whence 

our senate is called to this day Consiglio de pregadi, which in our 

barbarous idiom is as much as Pregati in Tuscan language. Our security 

increased daily; and so by consequence our number and our riches: for by 

this time there began to be another inundation of Saracens upon Asia Minor; 

which forced a great many of the poor people of Greece to fly to us for 

protection, giving us the possession of some islands, and other places upon 

the continent. This opened us a trade, and gave a beginning to our 

greatness: but chiefly made us consider what government was fittest to 

conserve ourselves, and keep our wealth; (for we did not then much dream of 

conquests, else without doubt we must have made a popular government.) We 

pitched upon an aristocracy: by ordering that those who had been called to 

council for that present year and for four years before, should have the 

government in their hands; and all their posterity after them forever: 

which made first the distinction between gentlemen and citizens. The people, 

who consisted of diverse nations, most of them newly come to inhabit there, 

and generally seeking nothing but safety and ease, willingly consented to 

this change; and so this state has continued to this day: though the several 

orders and councils have been brought in since, by degrees; as our nobility 

increased, and for other causes. Under this government we have made some 

conquests in Italy, and Greece: for our city stood like a wall between the 

two great torrents of Goths and Saracens; and as either of their empires 

declined, it was easy for us, without being very warlike, to pick up some 

pieces of each side. As for the government of these conquests: we did not 

think fit to divide the land among the nobility, for fear of envy, and the 

effects of it; much less did we think it advisable to plant colonies of our 

people, which would have given the power into their hands; but we thought it 

the best way for our government to leave the people their property, tax them 

what we thought fit, and keep them under by governors and citadels; and so 

in short make them a province. So that now the doctor's riddle is solved; 

for I suppose this gentleman did not mean that his maxim should reach to 

provincial governments.



ENG. GENT. No, sir; so far from that, that it is just contrary. For as in 

national or domestic government, where a nation is governed, either by its 

own people or its own prince, there can be no settled government, except 

they have the rule who possess the country: so in provincial governments, if 

they be wisely ordered, no man must have any the least share in the managing 

affairs of state, but strangers; or such as have no share or part in the 

possessions there; for else they will have a very good opportunity of 

shaking off their yoke.



DOCT. That is true; and we are so wise here (I mean our ancestors were) as 

to have made a law, that no native in Ireland can be deputy there.[29] But, 

sir, being fully satisfied in my demand by this gentleman, I beseech you to 

go on to what you have to say before you come to England.



ENG. GENT. I shall then offer two things to your observation; the first is, 

that in all times and places, where any great heroes or legislators have 

founded a government, (by gathering people together, to build a city, or to 

invade any country to possess it,) before they came to dividing the 

conquered lands, they did always very maturely deliberate under what form or 

model of government they meant to live; and accordingly made the partition 

of the possessions. Moses, Theseus, and Romulus, founders of democracies, 

divided the land equally. Lycurgus, who meant an optimacy, made a certain 

number of shares which he intended to be in the hands of the people of 

Laconia. Cyrus, and other conquering monarchs before him, took all for 

themselves and successors: which is observed in those eastern countries to 

this day; and which has made those countries continue ever since under the 

same government, though conquered and possessed very often by several 

nations. This brings me to the second thing to be observed; which is, 'that 

wherever this apportionment of lands came to be changed in any kind, the 

government either changed with it, or was wholly in a state of confusion '. 

And for this reason Lycurgus, the greatest politician that ever founded any 

government, took a sure way to fix property, by confounding it and bringing 

all into common: and so the whole number of the natural Spartans, who 

inhabited the city of Lacedemon, ate and drank in their several convives[30] 

together: and as long as they continued so to do, they did not only preserve 

their government entire (and that for a longer time than we can read of any 

commonwealth, that ever lasted amongst the ancients,) but held as it were 

the principality of Greece. The Athenians, for want of some constitutions to 

fix property as Theseus placed it, were in danger of utter ruin; which they 

had certainly encountered, if the good genius (as they then called it) of 

that people, had not raised them up a second founder, (more than 600 years 

after the first,) which was Solon. And because the history of this matter 

will very much conduce to the illustrating of this aphorism we have laid 

down, I will presume so much upon your patience as to make a short recital 

of it; leaving you to see it more at large, in Plutarch, and other authors.



The lands in the territory of Attica, which were in the possession of the 

common people, (for what reason history is silent) were for debt all 

mortgaged to the great men of the city of Athens; and the owners having no 

possibility of redeeming their estates, were treating to compound with their 

creditors and deliver up their lands to them. Solon (who was one of those 

state physicians we spoke of,) was much troubled at this, and harangued 

daily to the nobility and people against it; telling them first, that it was 

impossible for the Grecians to resist the Medes (who were then growing up to 

a powerful monarchy) except Athens, the second city of Greece, did 

countenance a democracy: that it was as impossible the people could keep 

their empire, except they kept their lands; nothing being more contrary to 

nature, than that those who possess nothing in a country should pretend to 

govern it. They were all sensible of his reasons, and of their own danger; 

but the only remedy (which was, that the great men should forgive the common 

people their debts) would not at all be digested. So that the whole city 

(now fully understanding their condition) were continually in an uproar; and 

the people flocked about Solon, whenever he came abroad, desiring him to 

take upon him the government and be their prince, and they would make choice 

of him the next time they assembled. He told them, No, he would never be a 

tyrant, especially in his own country: meaning, that he who had no more 

share than other of the nobles, could not govern the rest, without being an 

usurper or tyrant. But this he did to oblige his citizens; he frankly 

forgave all the debts that any of the people owed to him, and released their 

lands immediately: and this amounted to fifteen Attic talents of gold, (a 

vast sum in those days:) and betook himself to a voluntary exile; in which 

he visited Thales, and went to the oracle of Delphos, and offered up his 

prayers to Apollo for the preservation of his city. In return of which (as 

the people then believed) the hearts of the great ones were so changed and 

enlarged, that they readily agreed to remit all their debts to the people; 

upon condition, that Solon would take the pains to make them a new model of 

government, and laws suitable to a democracy; which he as readily accepted 

and performed. By virtue of which that city grew and continued long the 

greatest, the justest, the most virtuous, learned and renowned, of all in 

that age: drove the Persians afterwards out of Greece; defeated them both by 

sea and land, with a quarter of their number of ships and men; and produced 

the greatest wits and philosophers that ever lived upon earth. The city of 

Athens instituted a solemn feast in commemoration of that great generosity 

and self-denial of the nobility; who sacrificed their own interest to the 

preservation of their country: which feast was called the solemnity of the 

Seisactheia, (which signifies recision or abolition of debts,) and was 

observed with processions, sacrifices, and games, till the time of the 

Romans' dominion over them (who encouraged it) and even till the change of 

religion in Greece, and invasion of the Saracens.



The Romans, having omitted in their institution to provide for the fixing 

of property, and so the nobility (called patricii) beginning to take to 

themselves a greater share in the conquered lands than had been usual (for 

in the first times of the commonwealth under Romulus, and ever after, it was 

always practised to divide the lands equally amongst the tribes), this 

innovation stirred up Licinius Stolo, then tribune of the people, to propose 

a law (which, although it met with much difficulty, yet at last was 

consented to) by which it was provided, that no Roman citizen, of what 

degree soever, should possess above five hundred acres of land; and for the 

remaining part of the lands which should be conquered, it was ordered to be 

equally divided, as formerly, amongst the tribes. This found admittance 

(after much opposition) because it did provide but for the future; no man at 

that time being owner of more lands, than what was lawful for him to 

possess: and if this law had been strictly observed to the last, that 

glorious commonwealth might have subsisted to this day, for aught we 

know.[31]



DOCT. Some other cause would have been the ruin of it: what think you of a 

foreign conquest?



ENG. GENT. Oh doctor, if they had kept their poverty, they had kept their 

government and their virtue too; and then it had not been an easy matter to 

subdue them: Whom Jupiter wishes to destroy, he makes mad. Breach of rules 

and order causes division; and division, when it comes to be incurable, 

exposes a nation, almost as much as a tyrannical government does. The Goths 

and Vandals, had they invaded in those days, had met with the same success 

which befell the Cymbri and the Teutons. I must confess, a foreign invasion 

is a formidable thing, when a commonwealth is weak in territory and 

inhabitants, and that the invader is numerous and warlike; and so we see the 

Romans were in danger of utter ruin, when they were first attacked by the 

Gauls under Brennus. The like hazard may be feared, when a commonwealth is 

assaulted by another of equal virtue, and a commander of equal address and 

valour to any of themselves; thus the Romans ran the risk of their liberty 

and empire, in the war of Hannibal: but their power and their virtue grew to 

that height in that contest, that when it was ended, I believe that if they 

had preserved the foundation of their government entire, they had been 

invincible. And if I were alone of this opinion, I might be ashamed; but I 

am backed by the judgement of your incomparable countryman Machiavel: and no 

man will condemn either of us of rashness, if he first considers what small 

states, that have stood upon right bottoms, have done to defend their 

liberty against great monarchs. As is to be seen in the example of the 

little commonwealth of Athens; which destroyed the fleet of Xerxes, 

consisting of a thousand vessels, in the straits of Salamis: and before, the 

land-army of Darius, of three hundred thousand, in the plains of Marathon, 

and drove them out of Greece: for though the whole confederates were present 

at the battle of Plataea, yet the Athenian army singly under their general 

Miltiades gained that renowned battle of Marathon.[32]



NOBLE VEN. I beseech you, sir, how was it possible, or practicable, that 

the Romans conquering so many and so remote provinces, should yet have been 

able to preserve their Agrarian Law, and divide all those lands equally to 

their citizens? or if it had been possible, yet it would have ruined their 

city, by sending all their inhabitants away; and by taking in strangers in 

their room, they must necessarily have had people less virtuous and less 

warlike; and so both their government and their military discipline must 

have been corrupted: for it is not to be imagined, but that the people would 

have gone with their families to the place where their lands lay: so that it 

appears that the Romans did not provide, in the making and framing their 

first polity, for so great conquests as they afterwards made.



ENG. GENT. Yes, surely they did: from their first beginning they were 

founded in war, and had neither land nor wives but what they fought for; 

but yet what you object were very weighty, if there had not been a 

consideration of that early: for as soon as that great and wise people had 

subdued the Samnites on the east, and brought their arms as far as the Greek 

plantations, in that part of Italy which is now called the kingdom of 

Naples; and westward, had reduced all the Tuscans under their obedience, as 

far as the river Arnus; they made that, and the river Volturnus, (which runs 

by the walls of Capua,) the two boundaries of their empire, which was called 

the abode of empire. These were the uttermost points attained; for what they 

conquered between these two rivers, was all confiscated and divided amongst 

the tribes; the rustic tribes being twenty-seven, and the urban tribes nine, 

which made thirty-six in all. The city tribes were like our companies in 

London, consisting of tradesmen. The country tribes were divided like 

shires; and there was scarce any landed man who inhabited in the city, but 

he was written in that tribe where his estate lay: so that the rustic tribes 

(though they had all equal voices) were of far more credit and reputation 

than the urban. Upon the days of the Comitia, which were very well known, as 

many as thought fit amongst the country tribes came to give their voices; 

though every tribe was very numerous of inhabitants, that lived in the city. 

Now the Agrarian did not extend to any lands conquered beyond this precinct, 

but they were left to the inhabitants; they paying a revenue to the 

commonwealth: all but those which were thought fit to be set out to maintain 

a Roman colony; which was a good number of Roman citizens, sent thither, and 

provided of lands and habitations: which being armed, did serve in the 

nature of a citadel and garrison to keep the province in obedience; and a 

Roman praetor, proconsul, or other governor, was sent yearly to head them, 

and brought forces with him besides.



Now it was ever lawful for any Roman citizen to purchase what lands he 

pleased in any of these provinces; it not being dangerous to a city to have 

their people rich, but to have such a power in the governing part of the 

empire, as should make those who managed the affairs of the commonwealth 

depend upon them; which came afterwards to be that which ruined their 

liberty, and which the Gracchi endeavoured to prevent when it was too late. 

For those illustrious persons, seeing the disorder that was then in the 

commonwealth, and rightly comprehending the reason, which was the 

intermission of the Agrarian, and by consequence the great purchases which 

were made by the men of Rome (who had enriched themselves in Asia and the 

other provinces) in that part of Italy which was between the two rivers 

before-mentioned, began to harangue the people, in hopes to persuade them to 

admit of the right remedy; which was to confirm the Agrarian Law with a 

retrospect; which although they carried, yet the difficulties in the 

execution proved so great, that it never took effect: by reason that the 

common people whose interest it was to have their lands restored, yet having 

long lived as clients and dependents of the great ones, chose rather to 

depend still upon their patrons than to hazard all for an imaginary 

deliverance: by which supineness in them, they were prevailed with rather to 

join (for the most part) with the oppressors of themselves and their 

country, and to cut the throats of their redeemers, than to employ their 

just resentment against the covetous violators of their government and 

property. So perished the two renowned Gracchi, one soon after the other; 

not for any crime, but for having endeavoured to preserve and restore their 

commonwealth: for which (if they had lived in times suitable to such an 

heroic undertaking, and that the virtue of their ancestors had been yet in 

any kind remaining) they would have merited and enjoyed a reputation equal 

to that of Lycurgus, or Solon; whereas as it happened they were sometime 

after branded with the name of sedition, by certain wits, who prostituted 

the noble flame of poetry (which before had wont to be employed in 

magnifying heroic actions) to flatter the lust and ambition of the Roman 

tyrants.



NOBLE VEN. Sir, I approve what you say in all things; and in confirmation 

of it, shall further allege the two famous princes of Sparta, Agis and 

Cleomenes: which I couple together, since Plutarch does so. These (finding 

the corruption of their commonwealth, and the decay of their ancient virtue, 

to proceed from the neglect and in-observance of their founder's rules, and 

a breach of that equality which was first instituted;) endeavoured to 

restore the laws of Lycurgus, and divide the territory anew; their victory 

in the Peloponnesian war, and the riches and luxury brought into their city 

by Lysander, having long before broken all the orders of their commonwealth, 

and destroyed the proportions of land allotted to each of the natural 

Spartans. But the first of these two excellent patriots perished by 

treachery, in the beginning of his enterprise: the other began and went on 

with incomparable prudence and resolution; but miscarried afterwards, by the 

iniquity of the times, and baseness and wickedness of the people. So 

infallibly true it is, that where the policy is corrupted, there must 

necessarily be also a corruption and depravation of manners; and an utter 

abolition of all faith, justice, honour, and morality. But I forget myself, 

and entrench upon your province: there is nothing now remains to keep you 

from the modern policies, but that you please to shut up this discourse of 

the ancient governments, with saying something of the corruptions of 

aristocracy and democracy. For I believe both of us are satisfied that you 

have abundantly proved your assertion: and that when we have leisure to 

examine all the states or policies that ever were, we shall find all their 

changes to have turned upon this hinge of property; and that the fixing of 

that with good laws in the beginning or first institution of a state, and 

the holding to those laws afterwards, is the only way to make a commonwealth 

immortal.



ENG. GENT. I think you are very right: but I shall obey you; and do presume 

to differ from Aristotle, in thinking that he has not fitly called those 

extremes (for so I will style them) of aristocracy and democracy, 

corruptions: for that they do not proceed from the alteration of property, 

which is the only corruptor of politics. For example, I do not find that 

oligarchy, or government of a few, which is the extreme of an optimacy, ever 

did arise from a few men getting into their hands the estates of all the 

rest of the nobility: for had it begun so, it might have lasted, which I 

never read of any that did. I will therefore conclude, that they were all 

tyrannies; for so the Greeks called all usurpations, whether of one or more 

persons: and all those that I ever read of, as they came in either by craft 

or violence, (as the thirty tyrants of Athens; the fifteen of Thebes; and 

the Decemviri of Rome, though these at first came in lawfully:)[33] so they 

were soon driven out; and ever, were either assassinated, or died by the 

sword of justice: and therefore I shall say no more of them; not thinking 

them worth the name of a government. As for the extreme of democracy, which 

is anarchy, it is not so: for many commonwealths have lasted for a good time 

under that administration (if I may so call a state so full of confusion.) 

An anarchy then is when the people not contented with their share in the 

administration of the government, (which is the right of approving, or 

disapproving of laws, of leagues, and of making of war and peace, of judging 

in all causes upon an appeal to them, and choosing all manner of officers) 

will take upon themselves the office of the senate too, in managing 

subordinate matters of state, proposing laws originally, and assuming 

debate in the market-place, making their orators their leaders: nay, not 

content with this, will take upon them to alter all the orders of the 

government when they please; as was frequently practised in Athens, and in 

the modern state of Florence. In both these cities, whenever any great 

person who could lead the people, had a mind to alter the government, he 

called them together, and made them vote a change. In Florence they called 

it: To call the people to a parliament and to reform the government,[34] 

which is summoning the people into the market-place to resume the 

government; and did then presently institute a new one, with new orders, new 

magistracies, and the like.



Now that which originally causes this disorder, is the admitting (in the 

beginning of a government, or afterwards) the meaner sort of people, who 

have no share in the territory, into an equal part of ordering the 

commonwealth: these being less sober, less considering, and less careful of 

the public concerns; and being commonly the major part; are made the 

instruments oft-times of the ambition of the great ones, and very apt to 

kindle into faction. But notwithstanding all the confusion which we see 

under an anarchy, (where the wisdom of the better sort is made useless by 

the fury of the people;) yet many cities have subsisted hundreds of years in 

this condition: and have been more considerable, and performed greater 

actions, than ever any government of equal extent did; except it were a 

well-regulated democracy. But it is true, they ruin in the end; and that 

never by cowardice or baseness, but by too much boldness and temerarious 

undertakings; as both Athens and Florence did: the first undertaking the 

invasion of Sicily, when their affairs went ill elsewhere; and the other, by 

provoking the Spaniard and the pope. But I have done now; and shall pass to 

say something of the modern policies.[35]



NOBLE VEN. Before you come to that, sir, pray satisfy me in a point, which 

I should have moved before but that I was unwilling to interrupt your 

rational discourse. How came you to take it for granted, that Moses, 

Theseus, and Romulus were founders of popular governments? As for Moses, we 

have his story written by an infallible pen. Theseus was ever called king of 

Athens, though he lived so long since that what is written of him is justly 

esteemed fabulous: but Romulus certainly was a king; and that government 

continued a monarchy, though elective, under seven princes.



ENG. GENT. I will be very short in my answer; and say nothing of Theseus, 

for the reason you are pleased to allege: but for Moses, you may read in 

holy writ, that when, by God's command he had brought the Israelites out of 

Egypt, he did at first manage them by acquainting the people with the estate 

of their government; which people were called together with the sound of a 

trumpet, and are termed in scripture the Congregation of the Lord. This 

government he thought might serve their turn in their passage; and that it 

would be time enough to make them a better, when they were in possession of 

the land of Canaan: especially having made them judges and magistrates at 

the insistence of his father-in-law Jethro; which are called in authors, 

Jethronic magistracy.[36] But finding that this provision was not 

sufficient, he complained to God, of the difficulty he had to make that 

state of affairs hold together. God was pleased to order him, to let seventy 

elders be appointed for a senate; but yet the Congregation of the Lord 

continued still and acted: and by the several soundings of the trumpets, 

either the senate, or popular assembly were called together, or both. So 

that this government was the same with all other democracies; consisting of 

a principal magistrate, a senate, and a people assembled together: not by 

representation, but in a body. Now for Romulus: it is very plain, that he 

was no more than the first officer of the commonwealth (whatever he was 

called,) and that he was chosen (as your Doge is,) for life. And when the 

last of those seven kings usurped the place; that is, did reign without the 

people's command and exercise the government tyrannically; the people drove 

him out, (as all people in the world that have property will do in the like 

case, except some extraordinary qualifications in the prince preserve him 

for one age) and afterwards appointed in his room two magistrates, and made 

them annual; which two had the same command as well in their armies, as in 

their cities; and did not make the least alteration besides; excepting that 

they chose an officer that was to perform the king's function, in certain 

sacrifices which Numa appointed to be performed by the king; lest the 

people should think their religion was changed: this officer was called high 

priest. If you are satisfied; I will go on to the consideration of our 

modern states.



NOBLE VEN. I am fully answered; and besides am clearly of opinion, that no 

government, whether mixed monarchy or commonwealth, can subsist without a 

senate: as well from the turbulent state of the Israelites under Moses, 

till the Sanhedrim was instituted; as from a certain kingdom of the Vandals 

in Africa; where, after their conquest of the natives, they appointed a 

government consisting of a prince and a popular assembly; which latter, 

within half a year, beat the king's brains out; he having no bulwark of 

nobility, or senate, to defend him from them. But I will divert you no 

longer.



ENG. GENT. Sir, you are very right; and we should have spoken something of 

that before, if it had been the business of this meeting to discourse of 

the particular models of government: but intending only to say so much of 

the ancient policy as to show what Government in general is, and upon what 

basis it stands; I think I have done it sufficiently to make way for the 

understanding of our own; at least, when I have said something of the 

policies which are now extant; and that, with your favour, I will do. I 

shall need say little now of those commonwealths, which however they came by 

their liberty, either by arms or purchase, are now much-what under the same 

kind of policy as the ancients were. In Germany, the free towns, and many 

princes, make up the body of a commonwealth, called the empire; of which the 

emperor is head. This general union has its diets or parliaments, where they 

are all represented; and where all things concerning the safety and interest 

of Germany in general, or that belong to peace and war, are transacted. 

These diets never intermeddle with the particular concerns or policies of 

those princes or states that make it up, leaving to them their particular 

sovereignties. The several imperial cities, or commonwealths, are divided 

into two kinds; Lübeck's Law, and Cologne's Law:[37] which being the same 

exactly with the ancient democracies and optimacies, I will say no more of 

them. The governments of Switzerland, and the seven provinces of the 

Low-Countries, were made up in haste; to unite them against persecution and 

oppression, and to help to defend themselves the better: which they both 

have done very gallantly and successfully. They seem to have taken their 

pattern from the Grecians; who, when their greatness began to decline, and 

the several tyrants who succeeded Alexander began to press hard upon them, 

were forced to league themselves (yet in several confederacies, as that of 

the Aetolians, that of the Achaeans, &c.) for their mutual defence. The 

Swiss consist of thirteen sovereignties; some cities, which are most 

aristocratical; and some provinces, which have but a village for their head 

township. These are all democracies; and are governed all, by the owners of 

land: who assemble, as our freeholders do, at the county-court. They have 

their general diets, as in Germany.



The government of the United Provinces has for its foundation the Union of 

Utrecht; made in the beginning of their standing upon their guard against 

the cruelty and oppression of the Spaniard, and patched up in haste; and 

seeming to be composed only for necessity as a state of war, has made modern 

statesmen conjecture, that it will not be very practicable in time of peace 

and security. At their general diet (which is called the States General) do 

intervene the deputies of the seven provinces, in what number their 

principals please: but all of them have but one vote, which are by 

consequence seven; and every one of the seven has a negative: so that 

nothing can pass without the concurrence of the whole seven. Every one of 

these provinces have a council or assembly of their own, called the States 

Provincial, who send and instruct their deputies to the states general; and 

perform other offices belonging to the peace and quiet of the province. 

These deputies to the states provincial, are sent by the several cities of 

which every province consists, and by the nobility of the province, which 

has one voice only. The basis of the government lies in these cities; which 

are each of them a distinct sovereignty: neither can the states of the 

province, much less the states general, entrench in the least upon their 

rights, nor so much as intermeddle with the government of their cities, or 

administration of justice; but only treat of what concerns their mutual 

defence, and their payments towards it. Every one of these cities is a 

sovereignty; governed by an optimacy, consisting of the chief citizens: 

which upon death are supplied by new ones elected by themselves. These are 

called the Urnuscaperie, or Herne;[38] which council has continued to govern 

those towns, time out of mind: even in the times of their princes, who were 

then the sovereigns: for without the consent of him, or his deputy, called 

stadtholder, nothing could be concluded in those days. Since, they have 

instituted an artificial minister of their own, whom they still call 

stadtholder; and make choice of him in their provincial assemblies, and for 

form sake defer something to him, as the approbation of their Skepen and 

other magistrates, and some other matters. This has been continued in the 

province of Holland, which is the chief province, in the succession of the 

princes of Orange; and in the most of the others too: the rest have likewise 

chosen some other of the house of Nassau. This government (so oddly set 

together, and so composed of a state intended for a monarchy; and which as 

almanacs calculated for one meridian are made in some sort to serve for 

another, is by them continued in these several aristocracies) may last for a 

time: till peace and security, together with the abuse which is like to 

happen in the choice of the Herne, when they shall elect persons of small 

note into their body upon vacancies, for kindred or relation, rather than 

such as are of estate and eminency, or that otherwise abuse their power in 

the execution of it: and then it is believed, and reasonably enough, that 

those people (great in wealth, and very acute in the knowledge of their own 

interest) will find out a better form of government; or make themselves a 

prey to some great neighbour-prince in the attempting it: and this in case 

they in the meantime escape conquest from this great and powerful king of 

France, who at this time gives law to Christendom. I have nothing now left 

to keep me from the modern monarchies, but the most famous commonwealth of 

Venice; of which it would be presumption for me to say anything, whilst you 

are present.



NOBLE VEN. You may very safely go on if you please: for I believe strangers 

understand the speculative part of our government better than we do; and 

the doctrine of the ballot, which is our chief excellency: for I have read 

many descriptions of our frame, which have taught me something in it which I 

knew not before; particularly, Donato Gianotti the Florentine, to whom I 

refer those who are curious to know more of our orders. For we that manage 

the mechanical part of the government, are like horses who know their track 

well enough, without considering east or west, or what business they go 

about. Besides, it would be very tedious, and very needless, to make any 

relation of our model, with the several councils that make it up; and would 

be that which you have not done in treating of any other government. What we 

have said is enough to show what beginning we had; and that serves your 

turn: for we who are called nobility, and who manage the state, are the 

descendants of the first inhabitants; and had therefore been a democracy, if 

a numerous flock of strangers (who are contented to come and live among us 

as subjects) had not swelled our city, and made the governing party seem but 

a handful. So that we have the same foundations that all other aristocracies 

have, who govern but one city; and have no territory, but what they govern 

provincially. And our people, not knowing where to have better justice, are 

very well contented to live amongst us; without any share in the managing of 

affairs. Yet we have power to adopt whom we please into our nobility: and I 

believe that in the time of the Roman greatness, there were five for one of 

the inhabitants who were written in no tribe, but looked upon as strangers, 

and yet that did not vitiate their democracy; no more than our citizens and 

common people can hurt our optimacy. All the difficulty in our 

administration, has been to regulate our own nobility, and to bridle their 

faction and ambition; which can alone breed a disease in the vital part of 

our government: and this we do, by most severe laws; and a very rigorous 

execution of them.



DOCT. Sir, I was thinking to interpose concerning the propriety of lands in 

the territory of Padua; which, I hear, is wholly in the possession of the 

nobility of Venice.



NOBLE VEN. Our members have very good estates there, yet nothing but what 

they have paid very well for; no part of that country, or of any other 

province, having been shared amongst us as in other conquests. 'Tis true, 

that the Paduans having ever been the most revengeful people of Italy, could 

not be deterred from those execrable and treacherous murders which were 

every day committed, but by a severe execution of the laws as well against 

their lives as estates: and as many of their estates as were confiscated, 

were (during our necessities in the last war with the Turks)[39] exposed to 

sale, and sold to them that offered most; without any consideration of the 

persons purchasing. But it is very true, that most of them came into the 

hands of our nobility; they offering more than any other; by reason that 

their sober and frugal living, and their being forbidden all manner of 

traffic, makes them have no way of employing the money which proceeds from 

their parsimony; and so they can afford to give more than others, who may 

employ their advance to better profit elsewhere. But I perceive, doctor, by 

this question, that you have studied at Padua.



DOCT. No really, sir, the small learning I have was acquired in our 

university of Oxford; nor was I ever out of this island.



NOBLE VEN. I would you had, sir; for it would have been a great honour to 

our country to have contributed anything towards so vast a knowledge as you 

are possessor of: but I wish that it were your country, or at least the 

place of your habitation, that so we might partake not only of your 

excellent discourse sometimes, but be the better for your skill; which would 

make us immortal.



DOCT. I am glad to see you so well that you can make yourself so merry: but 

I assure you I am very well here. England is a good wholesome climate for a 

physician. But, pray let our friend go on to his modern monarchies.



ENG. GENT. This is all I have now to do. Those monarchies are two, absolute, 

and mixed. For the first kind, all that we have knowledge of except the 

empire of the Turks, differ so little from the ancient monarchies of the 

Assyrians and Persians; that having given a short description of them 

before, it will be needless to say any more of the Persian, the Mogul, the 

king of Burma,[40] China, Prester John; or any other the great men under 

those princes, as the satraps of old: being made so, only by their being 

employed and put into great places and governments by the sovereign. But the 

monarchy of the grand seignior is something different. They both agree in 

this, that the prince is, in both, absolute proprietor of all the lands, 

(excepting in the kingdom of Egypt, of which I shall say something anon;) 

but the diversity lies in the administration of the property: the other 

emperors as well ancient as modern using to manage the revenue of the 

several towns and parishes, as our kings or the kings of France do; that is, 

keep it in their hands, and administer it by officers: and so you may read 

that Xerxes king of Persia allowed the revenue of so many villages to 

Themistocles; which assignations are practised at this day, both to public 

and to private uses, by the present monarchs. But the Turks, when they 

invaded the broken empire of the Arabians, did not at first make any great 

alteration in their policy: till the house of Ottoman, the present royal 

family, did make great conquests in Asia, and afterwards in Greece: whence 

they might possibly take their present way of dividing their conquered 

territories; for they took the same course which the Goths and other modern 

people had used with their conquered lands in Europe, upon which they 

planted military colonies, by dividing them amongst the soldiers for their 

pay or maintenance. These shares were called by them timars, which signifies 

benefices: and differed in this only from the European knights-fees, that 

these last originally were hereditary, and so property was maintained; 

whereas amongst the Ottomans, they were merely at will; and they enjoyed 

their shares whilst they remained the Sultan's soldiers, and no longer; 

being turned out both of his service, and of their timars, when he pleases. 

This doubtless had been the best and firmest monarchy in the world, if they 

could have stayed here, and not had a mercenary army besides; which have 

often (like the praetorians in the time of the Roman tyrants) made the 

palace and the seraglio the shambles of their princes; whereas if the 

timariots, as well spahis (or horse) as foot, had been brought together to 

guard the prince by courses (as they used to do king David) as well as they 

are to fight for the empire; this horrid flaw and inconvenience in their 

government had been wholly avoided. For though these are not planted upon 

entire property, as David's were; (those being in the nature of 

trained-bands;) yet the remoteness of their habitations from the court and 

the factions of the great city, and their desire to repair home and to find 

all things quiet at their return, would have easily kept them from being 

infected with that cursed disease of rebellion against their sovereign, upon 

whose favour they depend for the continuance of their livelihood: whereas 

the janizaries [infantry] are for life, and are sure to be in the same 

employment under the next successor: so sure, that no grand seignior can, or 

dares go about to disband them; the suspicion of intending such a thing 

having caused the death of more than one of their emperors.[41] But I shall 

go to the limited monarchies.



DOCT. But pray, before you do so, inform us something of the Roman emperors: 

had they the whole dominion or property of the lands of Italy?



ENG. GENT. The Roman emperors I reckon amongst the tyrants: for so amongst 

the Greeks were called those citizens who usurped the government of their 

commonwealths, and maintained it by force, without endeavouring to found or 

establish it, by altering the property of lands, as not imagining that their 

children could ever hold it after them; in which they were not deceived: so 

that it was plain that the Roman empire was not a natural but a violent 

government. The reasons why it lasted longer than ordinarily tyrannies do, 

are many. First, because Augustus the first emperor kept up the senate, and 

so for his time cajoled them with this bait of imaginary power; which might 

not have sufficed neither to have kept him from the fate of his uncle, but 

that there had been so many revolutions and bloody wars between, that all 

mankind was glad to repose and take breath for a while under any government 

that could protect them. And he gained the service of these senators the 

rather, because he suffered none to be so but those who had followed his 

fortune in the several civil wars; and so were engaged to support him for 

their own preservation: besides, he confiscated all those who had at any 

time been proscribed, or sided in any encounter against him; which, 

considering in how few hands the lands of Italy then were, might be an 

over-balance of the property in his hands. But this is certain; that 

whatever he had not in his own possession, he disposed of at his pleasure; 

taking it away, as also the lives of his people, without any judicial 

proceedings, when he pleased. That the confiscations were great, we may see 

by his planting above sixty thousand soldiers upon lands in Lombardy; that 

is, erecting so many beneficia, or timars: and, if any man's lands lay in 

the way, he took them in for neighbourhood, without any delinquency. 

'Mantua, unfortunately, was much too near Cremona'.[42] And it is very 

evident, that if these beneficia had not afterwards been made hereditary, 

that empire might have had a stabler foundation; and so a more quiet and 

orderly progress than it after had: for the court-guards called the 

praetorians, did make such havoc of their princes, and change them so often, 

that this (though it may seem a paradox) is another reason why this tyranny 

was not ruined sooner. For the people, who had really an interest to 

endeavour a change of government, were so prevented by seeing the prince 

whom they designed to supplant, removed to their hand, that they were 

puzzled what to do; taking in the meantime great recreation to see those 

wild beasts hunted down themselves, who had so often preyed upon their lives 

and estates: besides that, most commonly the frequent removes of their 

masters, made them scarce have time to do any mischief to their oppressed 

subjects in particular, though they were all slaves in general. This 

government of the later Romans is a clear example of the truth and efficacy 

of these politic principles we have been discoursing of. First, that any 

government (be it the most unlimited and arbitrary monarchy) that is placed 

upon a right basis of property, is better both for prince and people, than 

to leave them a seeming property still at his devotion; and then for want of 

fixing the foundation, expose their lives to those dangers and hazards, with 

which so many tumults and insurrections, which must necessarily happen, will 

threaten them daily. And in the next place, that any violent constraining of 

mankind to a subjection, is not to be called a government; nor does salve 

either the politic or moral ends, which those eminent legislators amongst 

the ancients proposed to themselves, when they set rules to preserve the 

quiet and peace, as well as the plenty, prosperity and greatness of the 

people; but that the politics, or art of governing, is a science to be 

learned and studied by counsellors and statesmen be they never so great,[43] 

or else mankind will have a very sad condition under them, and they 

themselves a very perplexed and turbulent life, and probably a very 

destructive and precipitous end of it.



DOCT. I am very glad I gave occasion to make this discourse: now I beseech 

you, before you go to the mixed monarchies, not to forget Egypt.



ENG. GENT. 'Twas that I was coming to, before you were pleased to 

interrogate me concerning the Roman empire. The Egyptians are this day, for 

aught I know, the only people that enjoy property, and are governed as a 

province, by any of the eastern absolute princes. For whereas Damascus, 

Aleppo, and most of the other cities and provinces of that empire, whose 

territory is divided into timars, are governed by a bashaw,[44] who for his 

guards has some small number of janizaries or soldiers; the bashaw of 

Egypt, or of Grand Cairo, has ever an army with him: and divers forts are 

erected; which is the way European princes use in governing their provinces; 

and must be so where property is left entire, except they plant colonies as 

the Romans did. The reason why Selim, who broke the empire of the Mamelukes, 

and conquered Egypt,[45] did not plant timars upon it, was the laziness and 

cowardliness of the people, and the great fruitfulness of the soil, and 

deliciousness of the country, which has mollified and rendered effeminate 

all the nations that ever did inhabit it. So that a resolution was taken to 

impose upon them, first, the maintaining an army by a tax; and then to pay a 

full half of all the fruits and product of their lands to the grand 

seignior, which they are to cultivate and improve. This is well managed by 

the bashaws and their officers; and comes to an incredible sum: the goods 

being sold, the money is conveyed in specie to the port, and is the greatest 

part of that prince's revenue. And it is believed, that if all the lands had 

been entirely confiscated, and that the grand seignior had managed them by 

his officers, he would not have made a third part so much of the whole, as 

he receives now annually for one half: not only because those people are 

extremely industrious, where their own profit is concerned; but for that it 

is clear, if they had been totally divested of their estates, they would 

have left their country; and made that which is now the most populous 

kingdom of the world, a desert: as is all the rest of the Turkish dominions, 

except some cities. And if the people had removed as they did elsewhere, 

there would not only have wanted hands to have cultivated and improved the 

lands, but mouths to consume the product of it; so that the prince's revenue 

by the cheapness of victual, and the want of labourers, would have almost 

fallen to nothing.



NOBLE VEN. Pray God this be not the reason that this king of France leaves 

property to his subjects; for certainly he has taken example by this 

province of Egypt: his subjects having a tax (which for the continuance of 

it, I must call a rent or tribute) imposed upon them, to the value of one 

full half of their estates; which must ever increase, as the lands improve.



ENG. GENT. I believe, sir, there is another reason; for the property there, 

being in the nobility and gentry, which are the hands by which he manages 

his force both at home and abroad, it would not have been easy or safe for 

him to take away their estates. -- But I come to the limited monarchies. They 

were first introduced (as was said before) by the Goths, and other northern 

people. Whence those great swarms came, as it was unknown to Procopius 

himself who lived in the time of their invasion,[46] and who was a diligent 

searcher into all the circumstances of their concernments, so it is very 

needless for us to make any enquiry into it: thus much being clear, that 

they came man woman and child, and conquered and possessed all these parts 

of the world; which were then subject to the Roman empire, and since 

Christianity came in have been so to the Latin church; till honest John 

Calvin[47] taught some of us the way how to deliver ourselves from the 

tyrannical yoke, which neither we nor our forefathers were able to bear. 

Whence those people had the government they established in these parts after 

their conquest; that is, whether they brought it from their own country, or 

made it themselves; must needs be uncertain, since their original is wholly 

so: but it seems very probable that they had some excellent persons among 

them, though the ignorance and want of learning in that age has not suffered 

any thing to remain that may give us any great light; for it is plain, that 

the government they settled, was both according to the exact rules of 

politics, and very natural and suitable to that division they made of their 

several territories. Whenever then these invaders had quieted any province, 

and that the people were driven out or subdued, they divided the lands: and 

to the prince they gave usually a tenth part, or thereabouts; to the great 

men, or comites regis, as it was translated into Latin, every one, as near 

as they could, an equal share. These were to enjoy an hereditary right in 

their estates; as the king did in his part, and in the crown. But neither 

he, nor his peers or companions, were to have the absolute disposal of the 

lands so allotted them: but were to keep a certain proportion to themselves 

for their use; and the rest was ordered to be divided amongst the freemen, 

who came with them to conquer. What they kept to themselves was called 

demesnes, in English and French; and in Italian, beni allodiali. The other 

part which they granted to the freemen, was called a feud: and all these 

estates were held of these lords hereditarily, only the tenants were to pay 

a small rent annually; and at every death or change an acknowledgement in 

money, and in some tenures the best beast besides. But the chief condition 

of the feud or grant, was, that the tenant should perform certain services 

to the lord; of which one (in all tenures of freemen) was to follow him 

armed to the wars, for the service of the prince and defence of the land. 

And upon their admittance to their feuds, they took an oath to be true 

vassals and tenants to their lords; and to pay their rents, and perform 

their services; and upon failure to forfeit their estates. And these tenants 

were divided, according to their habitations, into several manors; in every 

one of which there was a court kept, twice every year; where they all were 

to appear, and to be admitted to their several estates, and to take the oath 

above mentioned. All these peers did likewise hold all their demesnes, as 

also all their manors, of the prince: to whom they swore allegiance and 

fealty. There were besides these freemen or franklins, other tenants to 

every lord, who were called villeins; who were to perform all servile 

offices, and their estates were all at the lord's disposal when he pleased: 

these consisted mostly of such of the former inhabitants of these countries, 

as were not either destroyed or driven out; and possibly of others who were 

servants amongst them, before they came from their own countries. Perhaps 

thus much might have been unnecessary to be said; considering that these 

lords, tenants, and courts, are yet extant in all the kingdoms in Europe: 

but that to a gentleman of Venice, where there are none of these things, and 

where the Goths never were, something may be said in excuse for me.



NOBLE VEN. Tis true, sir, we fled from the Goths betimes; but yet in those 

countries which we recovered since in Terra Firma, we found the footsteps 

of these lords, and tenures, and their titles of counts: though being now 

provinces to us, they have no influence upon the government; as, I suppose, 

you are about to prove they have in these parts.



ENG. GENT. You are right, sir; for the governments of France, Spain, 

England, and all other countries where these people settled, were framed 

accordingly. It is not my business to describe particularly the distinct 

forms of the several governments in Europe, which do derive from these 

people, (for they may differ in some of their orders and laws, though the 

foundation be in them all the same) this would be unnecessary, they being 

all extant and so well known: and besides, little to my purpose; excepting 

to show where they have declined from their first institution, and admitted 

of some change. France, and Poland, have not, nor as I can learn, ever had 

any freemen below the nobility; that is, had no yeomen; but all are either 

noble, or villeins: therefore the lands must have been originally given, as 

they now remain, into the hands of these nobles. But I will come to the 

administration of the government in these countries; and first say wherein 

they all agree, or did as least in their institution; which is, that the 

sovereign power is in the states assembled together by the prince, in which 

he presides; these make laws, levy money, redress grievances, punish great 

officers, and the like. These states consist in some places of the prince 

and nobility only, as in Poland; and anciently in France, before certain 

towns, for the encouraging of trade, procured privileges to send deputies: 

which deputies are now called the third estate: and in others, consist of 

the nobility and commonalty; which latter had, and still have the same right 

to intervene and vote, as the great ones have both in England, Spain, and 

other kingdoms.



DOCT. But you say nothing of the clergy: I see you are no great friend to 

them, to leave them out of your politics.[48]



ENG. GENT. The truth is, doctor, I could wish there had never been any: the 

purity of Christian religion, as also the good and orderly government of 

the world, had been much better provided for without them; as it was in the 

apostolical time, when we hear nothing of clergy: but my omitting their 

reverend lordships was no neglect, for I meant to come to them in order; for 

you know that the northern people did not bring Christianity into these 

parts, but found it here, and were in time converted to it; so that there 

could be no clergy at the first. But if I had said nothing at all of this 

race, yet I had committed no solecism in the politics: for the bishops and 

great abbots intervened in the states here, upon the same foundation that 

the other peers do; viz. for their great possessions, and the dependence 

their tenants and vassals have upon them: although they being a people of 

that great sanctity and knowledge, scorn to intermix so much as titles with 

us profane lay-idiots; and therefore will be called, lords spiritual. But 

you will have a very venerable opinion of them, if you do but consider how 

they came by these great possessions, which made them claim a third part of 

the government. And truly not unjustly, by my rule; for I believe they had 

no less (at one time) than a third part of the lands, in most of these 

countries.



NOBLE VEN. Pray, how did they acquire these lands? was it not here by the 

charitable donation of pious Christians, as it was elsewhere?



ENG. GENT. Yes, certainly, very pious men! some of them might be 

well-meaning people, but still such as were cheated by these holy men: who 

told them perpetually, both in public and private, 'that they represented 

God upon earth, being ordained by authority from him who was his viceroy 

here; and that what was given to them, was given to God; and he would repay 

it largely, both in this world, and the next.' This wheedle made our 

barbarous ancestors, newly instructed in the Christian faith, (if this 

religion may be called so, and sucking in this foolish doctrine more than 

the doctrine of Christ) so zealous to these vipers, that they would have 

plucked out their eyes to serve them; much more bestow, as they did, the 

fruitfullest and best situate of their possessions upon them. Nay, some they 

persuaded to take upon them their callings; vow chastity, and give all they 

had to them; and become one of them; amongst whom, I believe, they found no 

more sanctity, than they left in the world. But this is nothing to another 

trick they had: which was to insinuate into the most notorious and execrable 

villains with which that age abounded; men, who being princes, (and other 

great men, for such were the tools they worked with) had treacherously 

poisoned or otherwise murdered their nearest relations, fathers, brothers, 

wives, to reign or enjoy their estates: these they did persuade into a 

belief, 'that if they had a desire to be saved notwithstanding their 

execrable villainies, they need but part with some of those great 

possessions (which they had acquired by those acts:) to their bishoprics or 

monasteries, and they would pray for their souls; and they were so holy and 

acceptable to God, that he would deny them nothing:' which they immediately 

performed; so great was the ignorance and blindness of that age! And you 

shall hardly find in the story of those times, any great monastery, abbey or 

other religious house in any of these countries, (I speak confidently as to 

what concerns our own Saxons,) that had not its foundation from some such 

original.



DOCT. A worthy beginning, of a worthy race!



[[[49] NOBLE VEN. Sir, you maintain a strange position here, that it had 

been better there had been no clergy. Would you have had no gospel preached, 

no sacraments, no continuance of Christian religion in the world? Or do you 

think that these things could have been without a succession of the true 

priesthood, or (as you call it, of true ministry) by means of ordination? 

Does not your own church hold the same?



ENG. GENT. You will know more of my church, when I have told you what I find 

the word church to signify in scripture; which is to me, the only rule of 

faith, worship, and manners: neither do I seek these additional helps, of 

fathers, councils, or ecclesiastical history; much less tradition: for since 

it is said in the word of God itself, 'that Antichrist did begin to work 

even in those days;' I can easily believe that he had brought his work to 

some perfection, before the word church was by him applied to the clergy. I 

shall therefore tell you what I conceive that church, clergy, and 

ordination, signified in the apostolical times. I find then the word, 

church, in the New Testament taken but in two senses: the first, for the 

universal invisible church, called sometimes of the first-born; that is, the 

whole number of the true followers of Christ in the world, wherever 

resident, or into what part soever dispersed. The other signification of 

church, is an assembly; which though it be sometimes used to express any 

meetings (even unlawful and tumultuous ones) as well in scripture, as 

profane authors; yet it is more frequently understood of a gathering 

together to the duties of prayer, preaching, and breaking of bread: and the 

whole number so congregated is, both in the acts of the apostles and in 

their holy epistles, called the Church. Nor is there the least colour for 

appropriating that word to the pastors and deacons; who, since the 

corruptions of Christian religion, are called clergy. Which word in the Old 

Testament is used, sometimes for God's whole people, and sometimes for the 

tribe of Levi, out of which the priests were chosen; for the word signifies 

a lot; so that tribe is called God's lot, because they had no share allotted 

them when the land was divided, but were to live upon tithe, and serve in 

the functions of their religion, and be singers, porters, butchers, bakers, 

and cooks, for the sacrifices &c. So that this tribe was styled clergy but 

figuratively; and the allegory passed into the New Testament: where the 

saints are sometimes called clergy; but never the pastors or deacons: who 

were far from pretending, in those days, to come in the place of the 

Aaronical priesthood. The word ordination, in scripture, signifies lifting 

up of hands; and is used, first, for the giving a suffrage, which in all 

popular assemblies was done by stretching out the hand (as it is in the 

common hall of London:)[50] in the next place, it is applied to the order or 

decree made by the suffrage so given; which was then (and is yet too in all 

modern languages) called an ordinance; and the suffrage itself ordination: 

which word proves that the first Christian churches were democratical; that 

is, that the whole congregation had the choice in this, as well as the 

sovereign authority in all excommunications, and all other matters 

whatsoever that could occur: for in all aristocratical commonwealths the 

word for choice is Keirothesia, or imposition of hands, (for so the election 

of all magistrates and officers was made,) and not Keirotonia [stretching 

forth of hands -- as in voting for M.P.s for example]. These pastors and 

other officers did not pretend to be, by virtue of such choice, of a 

peculiar profession different from other men; as their followers have done 

since Antichrist's reign; but were only called and appointed (by the 

congregation's approval of their gifts or parts) to instruct or feed the 

flock; visit the sick; and perform all other offices of a true minister 

(that is, servant) of the gospel. At other times, they followed the 

business of their own trades and professions: and the Christians in those 

times (which none will deny to have been the purest of the church) did never 

dream that a true pastor ought to pretend to any succession, to qualify him 

for the ministry of the word; or that the idle and ridiculous ceremonies 

used in your church, (and still continued in that which you are pleased to 

call mine,) were any way essential or conducing to capacitate a person to be 

a true preacher or dispenser of the Christian faith. And I cannot 

sufficiently admire why our clergy, who very justly refuse to believe the 

miracle which is pretended to be wrought in transubstantiation; because they 

see both the wafer and the wine to have the same substance, and the same 

accidents after the priest has mumbled words over those elements as they had 

before; yet will believe, that the same kind of spell or charm in ordination 

can have the efficacy to metamorphose a poor lay-idiot, into a heavenly 

creature: notwithstanding that we find in them the same human nature, and 

the same necessities of it, to which they were subject before such 

transformation; nay, the same debauch, profaneness, ignorance, and 

disability to preach the gospel.



NOBLE VEN. Sir, this discourse is very new to me. I must confess I am much 

inclined to join with you i