Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	ordinance_n	power_n	resist_v	1,861	5	9.7674	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86917	A treatise of monarchie, containing two parts: 1. concerning monarchy in generall. 2. concerning this particular monarchy. Wherein all the maine questions occurrent in both, are stated, disputed, and determined: and in the close, the contention now in being, is moderately debated, and the readiest meanes of reconcilement proposed. Done by an earnest desirer of his countries peace.	Hunton, Philip, 1604?-1682.	1643 (1643)	Wing H3781; Thomason E103_15; ESTC R5640	60,985	86

and not striking at the very being of that Government it ought to be borne by publique patience rather then to endanger the being of the State by a contention betwixt the head and body Politique 2. If it be mortall and such as suffered dissolves the frame Pos 2 and life of the Government and publique liberty Then the illegality and destructive nature is to be set open and redresment sought by Petition which if failing Prevention by resistance ought to be But first that it is such must be made apparent and if it be apparent and an Appeale made ad conscientiam generis humani especially of those of that Community then the fundamentall Lawes of that Monarchy must iudge and pronounce the sentence in every mans conscience and every man as farre as concernes him must follow the evidence of Truth in his owne soule to oppose or not oppose according as he can in conscience acquit or condemne the act of carriage of the Governour For I conceive in a Case which transcends the frame and provision of the Government they are bound to People are unbound and in state as if they had no Government and the superiour Law of Reason and Conscience must be Judge wherein every one must proceed with the utmost advice and impartiality For if hee erre in iudgement hee either resists Gods Ordinance or puts his hand to the subversion of the State and Policy he lives in And this power of judging argues not a superiority in those who Judge over him who is Judged for it is not Authoritative and Civill but morall residing in reasonable Creatures and lawfull for them to execute because never devested and put off by any act in the constitution of a legall Government but rather the reservation of it intended For when they define the Superiour to a Law and constitute no Power to Judge of his Excesses from that Law it is evident they reserve to themselves not a Formall Authoritative Power but a morall Power such as they had originally before the Constitution of the Government which must needs remaine being not conveyed away in the Constitution CHAP. III. Of the division of Monarchy into Elective and Successive THe second division of Monarchy which I intend to Sect. 1 treat of is that of Elective or Successive Elective and successive Monarchy what they are Elective Monarchy is that where by the fundamentall constitution of the State the supreme power is conveyed but to the person of him whom they take for their Prince the people reserving to themselves power by men deputed by the same constitution to elect a new person on the decease of the former Successive is where by the fundamentall constitution of the State the Soveraignty is conferred on one Prince and in that one as a root and beginning to his heires after a forme and line of succession constituted also by the fundamentals of that Government In the first the Peoples oath and contract of subiection extends but to one person In the other to the whole Race and Line of Successors which continuing the bond of subjection continues or which failing the people returne to their first liberty of choosing a new person or succession to be invested with Soveraignty I doe conceive that in the first originall all Monarchy yea Sect. 2 any individuall frame of Government whatsoever All Monarchy whether originally from consent is elective that is is constituted and drawes its force and right from the consent and choice of that Community over which it swayeth And that triple distinction of Monarchy in o that which is gotten by Conquest Prescription or Choice is not of distinct parts unlesse by Choice be meant full and formall Choice my reason is because man being a voluntary agent and subiection being a morall act it doth essentially depend on consent so that a man may by force and extremity be brought under the power of another as unreasonable creatures are to be disposed of and trampled on whether they will or no But a bond of subjection cannot be put on him nor a right to claime Obedience and Service acquired unlesse a man become bound by some act of his owne Will For suppose another from whom I am originally free be stronger then I and so bring mee under his mercy doe I therefore sin if I doe not what he commands me or can that act of violence passe into a morall title without a morall principle Sect. 3 But this will be more manifest if by induction I shew how other titles resolve into this Monarchy by divine institution I will begin with that of divine institution Saul and David were by the Sacrament of anointing designed to the Kingdome as it were by Gods owne hand which notwithstanding they were not actually Kings till the Peoples consent established them therein That unction was a manifestation of the appointment of God and when it was made knowne to the People I thinke it had the power of Precept to restraine the Peoples choice to that person which if they had not done they had resisted Gods ordinance Yet they were not thereby actually endowed with Kingly power but remained as private men till the Peoples choice put them in actuall possession of that Power which in David was not till after many yeares Sect. 4 Then for that of Usuage or Prescription if any such did ever constitute a Monarchie Monarchy by prescription it was by vertue of an Universall consent by that Usuage and Prescription proved and implyed For in a Popular state where one Man in the Communitie by reason of great estate Wisdome or other Perfection is in the eye of all the rest all reverence him and his advice they follow and the respect continues from the People to the house and family for divers generations In this case subjection at first is arbitrary in the people and if in time it become necessary it is because their Custome is their Law and its long continuance is equivalent to a formall Election so that this Tenure and Right if it be good and more then at pleasure as it was at first the considerate must needs ascribe it to a consent and implicite choyce of the People But the mayn Question is concerning Monarchy archieved Sect. 5 by Conquest Monarchy by conquest where at first sight the Right seems gotten by the Sword without the consent and Choyce of the People yea against it Conquest is either 1. Totall where a full Conquest is made by a totall subduing a people to the Will of the Victor or 2. Partiall where an entrance is made by the Sword But the People either because of the Right claymed by the Invader or their unwillingnesse to suffer the Miseries of Warre or their apparent inability to stand out in a way of Resistance or some other consideration submit to a composition and contract of subjection to the Invader In this latter it is evident the Soveraignes Power is from the Peoples consent and

of Cut-throats even though Saul himselfe were in presence This the Doctor sees plainly and therefore shuffles it off by saying His example is extraordinary as if he were not a present Subject because he was designed by Gods revealed counsell to be a future King And he confesses Elisha's example of shutting the doore against the Kings messenger proves personall defense against sudden illegall assaults of messengers which is the thing in Question Sect 4 Let us now view the strength of what is said against resistence whether any thing comes home against this Assertion Arguments on the contrary dissolved The Doctors proofes from the old Testament come not to the matter Moses and afterwards the Kings were of Gods particular designation setting them absolutely over the people on no condition or limitation so that did they prove any thing yet they concerne not us respecting a Government of another nature But particularly that of Corah and the Princes rebelling against Moses is not to the matter it was a resistence of Moses owne Person and Office and doubtlesse penury of other proofes caused this and the rest here to be alledged For that 1 Sam. 8 18. how inconsequent is it to say the people should cry unto the Lord therefore they had no other meanes to helpe them but cries to God though I confesse in that Monarchy they had not That speech 1 Sam. 26 9. was most true there and is as true here but not to the purpose being spoken of the Kings owne Person But the maine authority brought against resistence is that Rom. 13. and on that Doctor Ferne builds his whole discourse Let us therefore something more largely consider what is deduced out of that Text. First he supposes the King to be the Supreme in Saint Peter and the Higher power in Saint Paul Secondly hee collects All persons every soule is forbidden to resist Thirdly that then was a standing Senate which not long before had the supreme Power in the Romane State It is confessed but that they could challenge more at that time when Saint Paul writ then our great Councell will or can I deny For that State devolving into Monarchy by Conquest they were brought under an Absolute Monarchy the Senate it selfe swearing full subjection to the Prince his Edicts and Acts of Will were Lawes and the Senates consent onely pro forma and at pleasure required He who reads Tacitus cannot but see the Senate brought to a condition of basest servitude and all Lawes and Lives depending on the will of the Prince I wonder then the Doctor should make such a parallel Indeed the Senate had been far more then ever our Parliaments were or ought to be but now that was far lesse then our Parliament hath been or I hope ever will be They were become the sworne Vassals of an absolute Emperour ours the sworne Subjects of a Liege or Legall Prince Fourthly he sayes then was more cause of Resistence when Kings were Enemies to Religion and had overthrown Lawes and Liberties I answere There were no causes for Resistence Not their enmity to Religion had they but a legall power because Religion then was no part of the Laws and so its violation no subversion of established government And for the overthrow of Lawes and Liberties that was past and done and the government new the Senate and all the rest actually sworne to absolute Principality Now an Ordinance of absolute Monarchy was constituted the sacred bond of an Oath had made it inviolate But what would he inferre hence all being granted him Sure this he doth intend That every soule among us severall and conjoyned in a Senate must be subject for conscience must not resist under paine of Damnation All this and what ever besides he can justly infer out of that Text we readily grant But can any living man hence collect that therefore no resistence may be made to fellow-subjects executing destructive illegall acts of the Princes will in a legall Monarchy Will he affirme that the Ordinance of God is resisted and Damnation incurred thereby Gods Ordinance is the Power and the Person invested with that power but here force is offered to neither as before I have made it appeare And herein we have B. Bilso● consenting where he sayes Bi●s●n of subje●● p 94 280. that the superiour power here forbidden to be resisted is not the Princes will against his Lawes but agreeing with his Lawes I thinke the day it selfe is not more cleare then this satisfaction to all that can bee concluded out of that Text so the foundation of all that discourse is taken from it if his intent were thence to prove unlawfulnesse of Resistence of Instruments of Arbitrarinesse in this Kingdome Let us also consider the force of his Reasons whether they impugne this point in hand He sayes such power of resistence would be no fit meanes of safety to a State but prove a remedy worse then the diseases His Reasons first because it doth tend to the overthrow of that order which is the life of a Common-wealth it would open a way to People upon the like pretences to resist and even overthrow power duly administred 2 It may proceed to a change of government 3. It is accompanied with the evills of Civill-Warre 4. On the same ground the two Houses proceed against the King may the people proceed to resistence against them accusing them not to discharge their trust Lastly seeing some must be trusted in every State It is reason the highest and finall trust should be in the highest power These are his main reasons on which he builds his conclusion against resistence To his first I say it were strange if resistence of distructive disorder should tend to the overthrow of Order It may for the time disturbe as Physick while it is in working disturbes the naturall bodie if the peccant humors make strong opposition but lure it tends to health and so doth this resistence of disorder to Order Neither would it open a way for the people to violate the Powers for doing right can open no way to the doing of wrong If any wicked seditious spirits should make use of the Vail of Justice to cover unnaturall Rebellion Shall a peoples right and liberty be taken from them to prevent such possible abuse Rather let the foulnesse of such pretences discover it selfe so God and good men will abhorre them such Cloakes of Rebellion have in former ages been taken off and the Authors brought to just confusion without the expence of the liberties of this Kingdome To the second must not Instruments be resisted which actually intend and seeked a chang of Government because such resistence may proceed to a chang of Government Is not an unlikely possibility of change to be hazarded rather then a certaine one suffered But I say It cannot proceed to a chang of Government unles it exceed the measure of lawfull resistence yea it is impossible that resistence of Instruments should ever proceed to

did altogether crosse those ends of their Ordination he had taught them rather a Doctrine of Resistence then Subjection shall we conceive that hee would presse subjection to Powers in the hands of Heathens and Persecutors if he had not intended they should passively be subject unto them even under those Persecutions Rather I approve the received Doctrine of the Saints in ancient and moderne times who could never finde this licence in that place of the Apostle and doe concurre with Master Burroughs Answ to Dr. Ferne Sect. 2. professing against resistence of authority though abused If those saies he who have power to make Lawes make sinfull Lawes and so give authority to any to force obedience we say here there must be either flying or passive Obedience And againe We acknowledge we must not resist for Religion if the Lawes of the land be against it But what doe they say against this In making such Lawes against Religion the Magistrates are not Gods ordinance and therefore to resist is not to resist Gods ordinance As an inferiour Magistrate who hath a Commission of Power for such ends is resistible if hee exceed his Commission and abuse his Power for other ends so Princes being Gods Ministers and having a deputed Commission from him to such ends viz. the promotion of godlinesse Peace Justice if they pervert their power to contrary ends may be resisted without violation of Gods ordinance That I may give a satisfactory answere to this which is the summe of their long discourse I must lay it downe in severall Assertions First I acknowledge Gods ordinance is not onely Power Assert 1 but Power for such ends sc the good of the People Secondly it is also Gods ordinance that there should be Assert 2 in men by publike consent called thereto and invested therein a power to choose the meanes the Lawes and Rules of government conducing to that end and a power of Judging in relation to those Lawes who be the well doers which ought to be praised and who the evill doers who ought to be punished This is as fully Gods ordinance as the former for without this the other cannot be performed Thirdly when they who have this finall civill Judicature Assert 3 shall censure good men as evill doers or establish iniquity by a Law to the encouragement of evill doers in this case if it be a subordinate Magistrate doth it appeale must bee made as Saint Paul did to the supreme if it be the supreme which through mistake or corruption doth mis-censure from whom there lyes no Civill Appeale then without resistence of that Judgement wee must passively submit And he who in his owne knowledge of innocency or goodnesse of his cause shall by force resist that man erects a Tribunal in his owne heart against the Magistrates Tribunal cleares himselfe by a private Judgement against a publike and executes his owne sentence by force against the Magistrates sentence which hee hath repealed and made void in his owne heart In unjust Censures by the highest Magistrate from whom there is no Appeale but to God the sentence cannot be opposed till God reverse it to whom we have appealed In the meane time vvee must suffer as Christ did notwithstanding his Appeale 1 Pet. 2.23 and so must wee notwithstanding our Appeale 1 Pet. 4 19. for he did so for our example If an Appeale to God or a censure in the Judgement of the condemned might give him power of resistence none would be guilty or submit to the Magistrates censure any further ●hen they please I desire those Authors before they settle their judgement in such grounds which I feare will bring too much scandall to weigh these particulars First their opinion takes away from the Magistrate the chiefe part of Gods ordinance sc povver of definitive judgement of Lawes and Persons who are the good and who the bad to be held so in Civill proceedings Secondly they justifie the Conscience of Papists Heretickes and grossest Malefactors to resist the Magistrate in case they be perswaded their cause is good Thirdly they draw men off from the commands of Patience under persecution and conforming to Christ and his Apostles in their patient enduring without verball or reall opposition though Christ could not have wanted power to have done it as he tells Peter Fourthly they deprive the Primitive and Moderne Martyrs of the glory of suffering imputing it either to their ignorance or disability Fifthly it is a wonder that sith in Christs and his Apostles time there was so much use of this power of resistence they would by no expresse word shew the Christians this liberty but condemne resistence so severely Sixthly there is in the case of the Parliament now taking up Armes no need of these offensive grounds Religion being now a part of our Nationall Law and cannot suffer but the Law must suffer with it Sect. 2 Now to the proposed Question I answere first Negatively sc 1. 1. When arms ought not to be assumed It ought not to be done against all illegall proceedings but such which are subversive and unsufferable Secondly not publike resistence but in excesses inducing publike evils for to repell private injuries of highest nature with publike hazzard and disturbance will not quit cost unlesse in a private case the common Liberty be strooke at Thirdly not when the government is actually subverted and a new forme though never so injuriously set up and the People already engaged in an Oath of absolute subjection for the remedy comes too late and the establishment of the new makes the former irrevocable by any justifiable power within the compasse of that Oath of God This was the case of the Senate of Rome in Saint Pauls time 2. When they may be assumed Secondly affirmatively I conceive three cases when the other Estates may lawfully assume the force of the Kingdome the King not joyning or dissenting though the same be by Law committed to him First when there is invasion actually made or imminently feared by a forraigne Power Secondly when by an intestine Faction the Lawes and Frame of government are secretly undermined or openly assaulted In both these cases the Being of the Government being endangered their trust binds as to assist the King in securing so to secure it by themselves the King refusing In extreme necessities the liberty of Voices cannot take place neither ought a Negative Voice to hinder in this exigence there being no freedome of deliberation and choice when the Question is about the last end Their assuming the sword in these cases is for the King whose Being as King depends on the Being of the Kingdome and being interpretatively his act is no disparagement of his Prerogative Thirdly in case the Fundamentall Rights of either of the three Estates bee invaded by one or both the rest the wronged may lawfully assume force for its owne defence because else it were not free but dependent on the pleasure of the other Also the suppression of

force But it appears the Doctor in his whole discourse hath avoided this point of resistence of mis-imployed subjects which yet is the alone point which would have given satisfaction for before it appeares we agree in all the rest and in this too for ought I know he having not distinctly said any thing against it Now concerning this case of forceable resistence of inferiour Sect. 3 persons mis-imployed to serve the illegall destructive commands of the Prince I will doe two things 1. Whether resistence of Instruments of will be lawfull I will maintaine my Assertion by convincing Arguments 2. I will shew the invalidity of what is said against it Assert 1. This then is my Assertion The two Estates in Parliament may lawfully by force of Armes resist any persons or number of persons advising or assisting the King in the performance of a command illegall and destructive to themselves or the publique Arg. 1 1. Because that force is lawfull to be used for the publique conservation which is no resistence of the Ordinance of God for that is the reason condemning the resistence of the Powers Now this is no resistence of Gods Ordinance For by it neither the person of the Soveraigne is resisted nor his power Not his person for we speak of Agents imployed not of his own person Nor his power For the measure of that in our Government is acknowledged to be the Law And therefore he cannot confer Authority to any beyond Law so that those Agents deriving no Authority from him are meere Instruments of his Will Unauthorized persons in their assaults Robbers and as Dr. Ferne calls them Cut-throats If the case be put What if the Soveraigne himselfe in person be present with such Assaylants joining his personall assistence in the execution of his Commands It is much to be lamented that the will of the Prince should be so impetuous in any subverting Act as to hazzard his own person in the prosecution of it Yet supposing such a case all councells and courses must betaken that no violence be offered to his person and Profession of none intended But no reason the presence of his person should priviledge ruining Instruments from suppression and give them an immunity to spoil and destroy subjects better themselves His person being secured from wrong His power cannot be violated in such an Act in which none of it can be conferred on the Agents And sure David though he avoided laying hands or using any violence against the person of Saul and on no extremity would have done it Yet for the Cut-throats about him if no other means would have secured him he would have rescued himselfe by force from their outrage Though Saul was in their company Else what intended he by all that force of Souldiers And his enquiry of God at Keilah by which it is plain He had an intent to have kept the place by force if the people would have stuck to him Neither is it to the purpose which the Dr. saies Sect. 2. That his example was extraordinary because he was anointed and designed to succeed Saul for that being but a designation did not exempt him from the duty of subjection for the present or lessen it as is plain by the great conscience he made of not touching Saul But he knew it was one thing to violate Sauls Person and Power and another to resist those Instruments of Tyranny the Cut-throats which were about him Secondly Because without such power of resistence in Arg. 2 the hands of subjects all distinction and limitation of Government is vain and all formes resolve into absolute and arbitrary for that is so which is unlimited and that is unlimited not onely which hath no limits set but also which hath no sufficient Limits for to be restrained from doing what I will by a power which can restrain me no longer nor otherwise then I will is all one as if I were left at my own Will I take this to be cleare Now it is as cleare that without this forceable resistence of Instruments of usurped power be lawfull no sufficient limits can be to the Princes Will and all Lawes bounding him are to no purpose This appeares by enumerating the other meanes Prayer to God Petition to the Prince Deniall of obedience Deniall of Subsidie a moderate use of the power of denying as Doctor Ferne calls it These are all but what are these to hinder if a Prince be minded to overthrow all and bring the whole Government to his own Will For Prayer and Petition these are put in to fill up the number They are no limitations they may be used in the most absolute Monarchy for deniall of obedience that may keep me from being an Instrument of publique servitude but Princes Wills never want them which will yeild obedience if I deny it Yea enough to destroy all the rest if nothing be left them but to suffer Then for deniall of Subsidie if he may by thousands of Instruments take all or what he or they please and I must not resist what need he care whether the people deny or grant If a Prince be taught that he may do it cases and reasons will soon be brought to perswade him that in them he may lawfully doe it as late experiences have given us too much Testimonie Thus it is apparent that the deniall of this Power of Resistence of Instruments overthrowes and makes invalid all Government but that which is absolute and reduces the whole world de jure to an absolute subjection that is servitude for the end of all constitution of moderated forms is not that the supreme power might not lawfully exorbitate but that it might have no power to exorbitate The Dr. is conscious hereof and therefore tells us in his Sect. 5. This is the very reason which is made for the Popes power of curbing and deposing Kings in case of heresie because else the Church saies the Papist hath no meanes for the maintenance of the Catholique Faith and its own safety But who sees not the vast difference 'twixt these two and that the same reason may be concluding here which is apparently non concluding there For 1. They thereby would draw to the Pope an authoritative power we no such superiour power but only a power of resistence for self-conservation which nature and the Law of reason gives to every one and may stand with the condition of subjection and inferiority 2. They on this reason give the Pope a Power over the very person of the King we only of resisting of unauthorized invading destroyers comming under the colour of an authority which is not in the Soveraigne to be derived 3. They prove a civill right for spirituall reasons we onely for civill reasons 4. The Church and the faith are constituted in their very formall being from Christ himselfe who is the head and great Shepheard immediately in his owne person and as it is his owne family so he keeps the power of

the Government is such as the Contract and fundamentall agreement makes it to be if it be the first Agreement and the pretender hath no former Title which remaines in force for then this latter is invalid if it include not and amount to a relinquishing and disanulling of the Old But the difficulty is concerning a full and meere Conquest and of this I will speak my mind clearly Such a Warre and Invasion of a People which ends in a Conquest 1. it is either upon the pretence or claim of a Title of Soveraignty over the People invaded and then if the pretender prevaile it is properly no Conquest but the vindication of a Title by force of Armes And the Government is not Originall but such as the Title is by which he claymes it 2. Or it is by One who hath no challenge of Right descending to him to justifie his claim and Invasion of a People Then if he subdue he may properly be said to come to his Government by Conquest And there be who wholly condemne this title of Conquest as unlawfull Whether conquest give a iust title and take it for nothing else but a Nationall and publike robbery so one of the Answerers to Doctor Ferne saies in his p. 10. Conquest may give such a right as Plunderers use to take in houses they can master It is inhumane to talke of right of Conquest in a Civill in a Christian State But I cannot allow of so indefinite a Censure rather I think the right of Conquest is such as the precedent Warre was if that were lawfull so is the Conquest For a Prince may be invaded or so farre injured by a neighbour People or they may be set on such a pernicious enmitie against him and his people that the safety of himselfe and people may compell to such a Warre which warre if it end in Conquest who can judge such Title unlawfull Suppose then Conquest may be a lawfull way of acquisition yet an immediate cause of right of Soveraignty that is of a Civill power of Government to which obedience is due it cannot be I say an immediate cause for a remote impulsive cause it oft is but not an immediate formall cause for that must ever be the consent of the people whereby they accept of and resigne up themselves to a Government and then their Persons are morally bound and not before Thus far the force of conquest may goe it may give a man title over and power to possesse and dispose of the Countrey and Goods of the Conquered yea the Bodies and lives of the Conquered are at the Will and Pleasure of the Conquerour But it still is at the Peoples choice to come into a morall condition of subiection or not When they are thus at the mercy of the Victor if to save life they consent to a condition of servitude or subiection then that consent oath or covenant which they in that extremity make being in relicita bindes them and they owe morall Duty But if they would rather suffer the utmost violence of the Conquerour and will consent to no termes of subjection as Numantia in Spaine and many other People have resolved they die or remaine a free People Be they captived or possessed at pleasure they owe no duty neither doe they sin in not obeying nor doe they resist Gods ordinance if at any time of advantage they use force to free themselves from such a violent possession yea perhaps if before by contract they were bound to another they should sin if to avoid death or bondage they should sweare or covenant fealty to a Conquerour and it were more noble and laudable to die in the service and for the faith to their naturall Soveraigne Thus I am perswaded it will appeare an uncontrolable truth in Policie that the consent of the People either by themselves or their Ancestors is the only mean in ordinary providence by which soveraignty is conferred on any Person or Family neither can Gods ordinance be conveyed and People engaged in conscience by any other means It hath been affirmed by some that mixture and limitation Sect. 6 is inconsistent to successive Monarchy Whether a Monarch by succession may not be limited as if where ever Soveraignty is entailed to a succession it must needs be absolute But I must professe I cannot see how it can stand with truth Rather I thinke that both Elective and Hereditary Monarchy are indifferently capable of absolutenesse or limitation If a free and not pre-ingaged People to any Government by publike compact yeeld up themselves to a Person to be commanded by his Will as their supreme Law during his naturall life and no longer can it be denied but that he is an absolute and yet Elective Monarch unlesse you will say he is not absolute because he cannot by his Will as by a Law bind them to elect his sonne to succeed him and change their Government into hereditary But his being limited in this Clause doth not disparage his Soveraignty or make his power of Government limited because this belongs not to present Government but is a meere provision for the future Againe if the power of Ruling according to a Law be by consent conveyed to one Person and his heires to succeed after him how this should come to be absolute and the entailement should overthrow the constitution I cannot imagine If the whole latitude of power may be by a People made hereditary sure a proportion may as well unlesse the limitation be such as includes a repugnancy to be perpetuall Indeed this enstating of a succession makes that power irrevocable during the continuance of that succession but it makes it neither greater nor lesse in the Successor then was in his Progenitors from whom hee derives it In a successive Monarchy the Successor holds by the originall Sect. 7 Right of him who is the root of succession and is de jure King the immediate instant after his Predecessors decease Also the people are bound 〈◊〉 him though they never take any Oath to his person For as he commands in vertue of the originall Right so they are bound to obey by vertue of the originall Covenant and nationall Contract of Subiection the new oath taken either by King or People is but a reviving of the old that the Conscience of it by renewing might be the more fresh and vigorous it neither gives any new power nor addes or detracts from the old unlesse by common agreement an alteration be made and so the foundation in that clause is new which cannot be without the consent of both parties CHAP. IIII. Of the Division of Monarchy into Simple and Mixed Sect. 1 THe third division is into Simple and Mixed Simple is when the Government absolute or limited is so intrusted in the hands of one Simple and mixed Monarchy what that all the rest is by deputation from him so that there is no authority in the whole Body but his or derived from him