Secondly,that king whose power is limited is not superior to him,or them,that have the power to limit it;and he that is not superior is not supreme;that is to say,not sovereign.The sovereignty therefore was always in that assembly which had the right to limit him,and by consequence the government not monarchy,but either democracy or aristocracy;as of old time in Sparta,where the kings had a privilege to lead their armies,but the sovereignty was in the Ephori.

Thirdly,whereas heretofore the Roman people governed the land of Judea,for example,by a president;yet was not Judea therefore a democracy,because they were not governed by any assembly into which any of them had right to enter;nor by an aristocracy,because they were not governed by any assembly into which any man could enter by their election:but they were governed by one person,which though as to the people of Rome was an assembly of the people,or democracy;yet as to the people of Judea,which had no right at all of participating in the government,was a monarch.For though where the people are governed by an assembly,chosen by themselves out of their own number,the government is called a democracy,or aristocracy;yet when they are governed by an assembly not of their own choosing,it is a monarchy;not of one man over another man,but of one people over another people.

Of all these forms of government,the matter being mortal,so that not only monarchs,but also whole assemblies die,it is necessary for the conservation of the peace of men that as there was order taken for an artificial man,so there be order also taken for an artificial eternity of life;without which men that are governed by an assembly should return into the condition of war in every age;and they that are governed by one man,as soon as their governor dieth.

This artificial eternity is that which men call the right of succession.

There is no perfect form of government,where the disposing of the succession is not in the present sovereign.For if it be in any other particular man,or private assembly,it is in a person subject,and may be assumed by the sovereign at his pleasure;and consequently the right is in himself.And if it be in no particular man,but left to a new choice;then is the Commonwealth dissolved,and the right is in him that can get it,contrary to the intention of them that did institute the Commonwealth for their perpetual,and not temporary,security.

In a democracy,the whole assembly cannot fail unless the multitude that are to be governed fail.And therefore questions of the right of succession have in that form of government no place at all.

In an aristocracy,when any of the assembly dieth,the election of another into his room belonged to the assembly,as the sovereign,to whom belonged the choosing of all counsellors and officers.For that which the representative doth,as actor,every one of the subjects doth,as author.And though the sovereign assembly may give power to others to elect new men,for supply of their court,yet it is still by their authority that the election is made;and by the same it may,when the public shall require it,be recalled.

The greatest difficulty about the right of succession is in monarchy:and the difficulty ariseth from this,that at first sight,it is not manifest who is to appoint the successor;nor many times who it is whom he hath appointed.For in both these cases,there is required a more exact ratiocination than every man is accustomed to use.As to the question who shall appoint the successor of a monarch that hath the sovereign authority;that is to say,who shall determine of the right of inheritance (for elective kings and princes have not the sovereign power in propriety,but in use only),we are to consider that either he that is in possession has right to dispose of the succession,or else that right is again in the dissolved multitude.