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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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