IX. Mutual Subje∣ction refuted.
Others there are that seem to fansie to themselves mutual subjection, as in case the King shall govern well, then the whole body of people should obey; but in case he go∣vern ill, then he ought to be subject unto the people. Now if what they say do amount to no more than this, That our obedience to Kings binds us not to do any thing that is manifestly wicked; they say no more than what all sober men will grant: Yet doth not this imply any compulsion or any right of Empire that is in the people. But in case they had a purpose to divide the Government with the King (whereof we shall have occasion hereafter to speak somewhat) they ought to assign bounds and limits to the power of ei∣ther party, which may easily be done by making distinction of either Places, Persons, or Affairs. But the well or ill management, especially of Civil Affairs; being apt to admit of great debates, are not so sit to distinguish the parts; for great confusions must neces∣sarily arise, where the right of power is to be judged of by the pretensions of good or evil acts, some judging of these Acts in favour to the King, others in savour to the people; which confusion no people, that I as yet know, were ever so imprudent as to introduce.