Act I, Scene I. In Answer to Chap. I.: Whether Prudence be well distinguished into ancient and modern.

FOUGH! this same mixen in the stirring, is like pepper in the nose; but he faith it is hellebore for to purge heads.

Now as concerning purging of heads, Mr. Wren, there seemeth already to peep out a question. Do your universities (gentle Sir) derive their learning from Nimrod, from the kings of China, from the monarchies? (to be equally with Macedon, I doubt, as to this point, passed over in wise silence) Are they descended (do you understand me?) from the times in Greece called by Thucydides, The imbecillity of ancient times; from those in Rome, called by Florus, The childhood of that government? or speak out, is their whole stock of learning, without which they had not had any kind of thing whereupon to set up, derived from the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Roman commonwealths? if so, Mr. Wren, whether I pray you call you not now that stock of learning ancient learning, albeit they could not call it so then? and if politicians have no other pedigree of prudence, than the same that you have of learning, why is not that prudence, which they have received in the like manner, ancient prudence, albeit those commonwealths could not call it so then?

To shift these things which are thus plain, you are in this chapter a wonderful artificer; yet cometh all but to this, that neither Thucydides nor Florus divide prudence into ancient and modern. Why, Mr. Wren, neither did the commonwealths mentioned divide learning into ancient and modern. This distinction belongs unto latter times, in regard of some modern learning that is of latter invention. So, Mr. Wren, in regard of some modern prudence, which first I tell you what it is, namely, government by king, lords and commons: and secondly, how it came in, namely, by the Goths and Vandals. I call the prudence (do you mark?) of those ancient commonwealths, ancient prudence; and the prudence remaining unto us from these Goths and Vandals, modern prudence. What could you desire more? nay, and this is according unto the plain sense of Janotti too: for, saith he, as to his two limits or periods of time, of the former, or that wherein Rome was opposed by the arms of Cæsar, came the second, or that when Italy was overrun by the Huns, Goths, Vandals and Lombards; and of the second came all that alteration, which hath given unto the world the face in which we now see it, and utterly lost it that face which it had in the time of the Romans. Wherein relation unto the two governments (the one popular, which was the more ancient; and the other by king, lords and commons, which is the more modern) is so plain, that you are put unto a shift, who can say no more than that I make Janotti author of the division of prudence into ancient and modern. How dare you for your reputation do thus, Mr. Wren? while first by your own acknowledgment I infer this division from more ancient authors, as Thucydides and Florus: and secondly, my words relating unto Janotti do no where from him derive the division of prudence into ancient and modern, as to those terms, upon which runneth your equivocation; but fortify this division of my own, by the two periods of time by him observed, and that are of like sense with these terms.

But, Mr. Wren, there was never the like of you! whereas the question by me proposed, was, whether prudence be not rightly divided into ancient and modern, you have conveyed it into a question, whether monarchy be not a more ancient government than a commonwealth? this have I hitherto not disputed, as that which concerneth not the present controversy. But seeing it may be for your service, I do flatly deny that monarchy is the more ancient government; not that Mr. Hobbs holdeth democracy to be of all governments the first in order of time; but first, because upon the place where it is said, that Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord, it is resolved by divines that Nimrod was the first monarch. Now, Sir, Nimrod began his reign about the one thousand eight hundredth year of the world: whence I conclude thus: either the world had no government till Nimrod, or a commonwealth may be above a thousand years elder than monarchy: nay, unless you can find some government that was neither a commonwealth nor a monarchy, must have been no less. I know what you will say, That the government till Nimrod was by fathers of families. Why so, I hope, you will yield it was afterwards, at least in the line of Shem. Now let us compute from Noah, and consider in the posterity of Shem, what judgment may be made of the government by fathers of families; or whether this were indeed, as divines affirm, monarchical, or may not much rather be esteemed popular.

Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japhet; of Shem, by Arphaxad and others, descended Reu; of Reu, Serug; of Serug, Nahor; of Nahor, Terah; of Terah, Abram; of Abram, Isaac; of Isaac, Jacob; and of Jacob descended the commonwealth of Israel. So much for the elder brother, which was Shem. Now, Sir, for the second son of Noah, that is Ham: of Ham descended Cush, and of Cush, Nimrod: by which, plain it is at the first sight, that the commonwealth, as to precedence in dignity, is of the elder house; and as to precedence in time, unless you can shew the descendants of Shem to have been under monarchy, must also have been the more ancient government, that is, if government by fathers of families were popular. Now as to this, it is a tradition with the Rabbins, that there were seven precepts delivered to the children of Noah: 1. Concerning judicatories: 2. Concerning blasphemy: 3. Concerning perverse worship: 4. Concerning uncovering of nakedness: 5. Concerning the shedding of man’s blood: 6. Concerning rapine or thest: 7. Concerning eating of things strangled, or of a member torn from a living creature. This tradition throughout the Jewish government is undoubted: for to such as held these precepts, and no more, they gave not only, as I may say, toleration, but allowed them to come so near unto the temple as the gates, and called them proselytes of the gates. Nor do I think the proof in Scripture of these precepts, though not set down together, to be obscure: as where it is said, None of you shall approach to any that is near kin to him, to uncover their nakedness:—for in all these the nations (that is, the Canaanites) are defiled, which I cast out before you. The Canaanites were descended from Ham; and that in these words it must be implied that they had violated the foregoing precepts, is in my judgment evident, seeing there is nothing in the law of nature why a man might not approach in this manner unto one that is near of kin to him.

Again, that two other of these precepts were given by God unto Noah, the Scripture is plain, where he saith, Flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. And whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Whence it must follow, that either fathers of families were not subject unto this law, which because it is given generally and without any exception, were absurd to think; or else that during patriarchal government, they subjected themselves unto some common judicatories, according unto the first of the seven precepts. Of which saith Maimonides, By this the sons of Noah constituted judges in every city, to judge of the other six precepts, and to govern the people; and the Gemara Babylonia saith, That this was done after the manner that Moses commanded Judges to be set in the gates throughout the tribes. By the advice of Jethro to Moses, the like should have been the custom of the Midianites, who, (as also the Gibeonites, descended of the same line with the monarchy of Nimrod, and for ought perhaps to the contrary, of as ancient standing) were a commonwealth. But above all, it should seem by some of the Rabbins, that there was a consistory or senate instituted by Shem, which was of use with his posterity. Now if patriarchal government was exercised by or under the common ligament of a senate or consistory, then was the government of the patriarchs of a popular nature, or a commonwealth; at least these, Mr. Wren must be disproved by them, who will have monarchy out of all controversy to be the more ancient government.

Good Sir, I do not know, nor do I think that this same way (do you see?) of disputation hath any predecessor. What do you tell me then, that you have cause to think by the last or any book of mine, that my stores of reason and arguments are brought very low? you see already that it is far otherwise. Tell not me in this place, that Doderus is as good a book as the bible; nor let divines (for a thing that I know) run here as they do from the Scripture unto Heathen authors. It is confest that Diodorus Siculus; Aristotle, Cicero, Salust and Trogus say, That in the beginning of things and of nations, the power was in monarchs. But then the Heathen stories know nothing beyond Nimrod, or his successor Belus; which is no excuse to you, while the Scripture is so much a more ancient record; much less to divines, at least such of them as preach against the squaring of government according to the rule of Heathen authors. Mr. Wren, (to be plain) there are of these that have a strange kind of frowardness: if a commonwealth be described out of Heathen authors, they will undertake to prove that of Israel to have been a government of king, lords and commons. And if a commonwealth be out of this of Israel described unanswerably otherwise, then they run to Aristotle, Trogus, and the rest of the Heathens, for the antiquity of monarchy. When none of this will do, they fall flatly upon conjuring the people to take heed how they hearken unto men of wit, reason, or learning, and not in any wise to be led but by grace, and such grace only as is without any mixture of wit, reason, or learning. Mr. Wren, I desire them but to tell us once, what they mean by such grace as is without any mixture of wit, reason, or learning; and you in the mean time to consider, that Heathen authors, though they give monarchy the precedence in time, are very far from giving it the van in prudence. Nay, for this matter you will find them so much of one mind, that we need hear no more of them than Aristotle, who divides monarchy into two kinds; the one whereof he calleth barbarous, and in this he relates to your Nimrod, or your Eastern monarchs; the other heroick, in which he relates expresly to principality in a commonwealth, and namely, that of the Lacedemonian kings. Say you then, to which giveth he the van in dignity; to the heroick, or to the barbarous prudence? but it is no matter, strike up and let us have the rodomontado, which it pleaseth you shall be of or belong unto the present scene: this (say you, for you may as well say it of this as of any thing else) approaches very near unto raving, and gives me cause to suspect I have taken a wrong course of curing Mr. Harrington’s political distempers. For whereas I think to do it by giving him more light, knowing men (and known to be of the learnedest in this age) are of opinion, that I ought to have shut up the windows, and so forth. Now very passing good indeed-law!