Page:The Leveller movement; a study in the history and political theory of the English Great Civil War (IA levellermovement01peas).djvu/92

 Robinson, it will be seen, had here reopened the troublesome question as to the scope of Parliament’s power, and the right by which Parliament might claim it. If Parliament literally represented the people that chose the House of Commons, Burton’s argument was irresistible. It could have been met only by reverting to the earlier theory that the three estates of clergy, barons, and commons sat supreme in Parliament, enjoying certain powers by custom and precedent. Since the clerical element had been expelled from Parliament, it was no longer possible to regard the estates of the realm as figuratively represented there.

Meanwhile Prynne and Goodwin came to the point where the advocate of parliamentary absolutism and the advocate of divine right were at an impasse. Prynne argued that it was none of Goodwin’s business as a divine to prescribe limits to the powers of Parliament; to speak mildly, it was presumption. Goodwin sarcastically retorted with the suggestion that Prynne deign to mark off the domains he was willing to concede to Jesus Christ as sole ruler; Goodwin professed himself ready to abandon all the rest to Parliament.

The question at issue in 1645 between Prynne, Goodwin, and Robinson was theoretical; but the struggle then impending between Parliament and Assembly translated the Erastian and divine right theories into practical politics. The Presbyterians had overcome the Independents in the Assembly