Page:The Leveller movement; a study in the history and political theory of the English Great Civil War (IA levellermovement01peas).djvu/160

 The radicals made important practical applications of these theories. Their doctrine of reserved and inalienable rights suggested an argument for liberty of conscience; for certainly the people in themselves had no power of coercion in religion to bestow on the Parliament. It was against nature for one man to give another the right of forcing him to worship God in any other way than that which his conscience bade him. Similarly, the radicals argued against the judicial power of the House of Lords. The people had never delegated to the House of Lords the power to judge them; therefore the House could have no inherent power of judging commoners.

If all just government originated in compact and agreement, how could the compact be enforced against the ruler? This question did not perplex the author of Regall Tyrannie. A contract broken by one of the contracting parties dissolved of itself. The whole course of Scripture was full of compacts between God and man that might serve as precedents. God had contracted with Adam; and when Adam broke the agreement, God inflicted the penalty; God had covenanted with the children of Israel; when they forsook his covenant he exacted the forfeiture.

The author brought his illustrations nearer home.