Page:The Leveller movement; a study in the history and political theory of the English Great Civil War (IA levellermovement01peas).djvu/153

 Turning to the political philosophy expounded by the radicals in 1646, one notes in it important differences from the orthodox parliamentary argument of 1642–5. True, the one and the other can be reduced to propositions apparently similar in substance: no power is given by God to one man to rule over another man without that man’s consent and agreement; all power of government therefore originates in agreement between the governors and the governed, perhaps agreement among the people before such things as governors exist. Accordingly arbitrary governments have no just authority because the law of nature, which is a preserver of man and not a destroyer, permits no man to give arbitrary rights over himself to another. All except the last of these propositions are deducible from Parker; the last at least from Rutherford or Hunton. The newer writings are distinguished from the older by their spirit; once that is sensed, their novelty is startling.

The first distinction between 1642 and 1646 to be noticed is the reliance of the radical authors of 1646 on the law of God and the law of reason. This distinction is one of emphasis. The idea is traceable in the earlier writers—the word “reason” itself is used by the writer who places the “reason” of the people in the House of Parliament. But in