In the twenty-ninth Chapter I have set down for one of the causes of the dissolutions of Commonwealths their imperfect generation,consisting in the want of an absolute and arbitrary legislative power;for want whereof,the civil sovereign is fain to handle the sword of justice unconstantly,and as if it were too hot for him to hold:one reason whereof (which I have not there mentioned)is this,that they will all of them justify the war by which their power was at first gotten,and whereon,as they think,their right dependeth,and not on the possession.As if,for example,the right of the kings of England did depend on the goodness of the cause of William the Conqueror,and upon their lineal and directest descent from him;by which means,there would perhaps be no tie of the subjects'
obedience to their sovereign at this day in all the world:wherein whilst they needlessly think to justify themselves,they justify all the successful rebellions that ambition shall at any time raise against them and their successors.Therefore I put down for one of the most effectual seeds of the death of any state,that the conquerors require not only a submission of men's actions to them for the future,but also an approbation of all their actions past;when there is scarce a Commonwealth in the world whose beginnings can in conscience be justified.
And because the name of tyranny signifieth nothing more nor less than the name of sovereignty,be it in one or many men,saving that they that use the former word are understood to be angry with them they call tyrants;I think the toleration of a professed hatred of tyranny is a toleration of hatred to Commonwealth in general,and another evil seed,not differing much from the former.For to the justification of the cause of a conqueror,the reproach of the cause of the conquered is for the most part necessary:but neither of them necessary for the obligation of the conquered.And thus much I have thought fit to say upon the review of the first and second part of this discourse.
In the thirty-fifth Chapter,I have sufficiently declared out of the Scripture that in the Commonwealth of the Jews,God Himself was made the Sovereign,by pact with the people;who were therefore called His "peculiar people,"to distinguish them from the rest of the world,over whom God reigned,not by their consent,but by His own power:and that in this kingdom Moses was God's lieutenant on earth;and that it was he that told them what laws God appointed them to be ruled by.But I have omitted to set down who were the officers appointed to do execution;especially in capital punishments;not then thinking it a matter of so necessary consideration as I find it since.
We know that generally in all Commonwealths,the execution of corporeal punishments was either put upon the guards,or other soldiers of the sovereign power,or given to those in whom want of means,contempt of honour,and hardness of heart concurred to make them sue for such an office.But amongst the Israelites it was a positive law of God their Sovereign that he that was convicted of a capital crime should be stoned to death by the people;and that the witnesses should cast the first stone,and after the witnesses,then the rest of the people.This was a law that designed who were to be the executioners;but not that any one should throw a stone at him before conviction and sentence,where the congregation was judge.
The witnesses were nevertheless to be heard before they proceeded to execution,unless the fact were committed in the presence of the congregation itself,or in sight of the lawful judges;for then there needed no other witnesses but the judges themselves.
Nevertheless,this manner of proceeding,being not thoroughly understood,hath given occasion to a dangerous opinion,that any man may kill another,in some cases,by a right of zeal;as if the executions done upon offenders in the kingdom of God in old time proceeded not from the sovereign command,but from the authority of private zeal:which,if we consider the texts that seem to favour it,is quite contrary.
