Page:The Leveller movement; a study in the history and political theory of the English Great Civil War (IA levellermovement01peas).djvu/91

 could lawfully enact that a man’s conscience must assent to this or that.

Robinson continued Goodwin’s attempts to demonstrate the absurdity of Prynne’s general proposition. His arguments recall Burton’s position of 1641. If parliaments and synods might justly be disobeyed when they enjoined popish observances, and the people were judge as to when they did so, why might not the Independents refuse obedience to things they considered popish? Was it not sinful for the people to submit their consciences to be burdened by a majority vote? Was it not ridiculous for men to submit in advance to any religion a parliament and synod might impose on them, without waiting to be convinced of its lawfulness? If Parliament by a majority vote had power to establish religion, was not the same power inherent in those who chose Parliament? Would it not be absurd to allow the unregenerate such power? Was it not much simpler to deny the power over religion to Parliament at the outset, than to palter with these cases of conscience?