Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	authority_n	law_n	power_n	1,453	5	4.7820	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85293	The anarchy of a limited or mixed monarchy. Or, A succinct examination of the fundamentals of monarchy, both in this and other kingdoms, as well about the right of power in kings, as of the originall or naturall liberty of the people. A question never yet disputed, though most necessary in these times.	Filmer, Robert, Sir, d. 1653.	1648 (1648)	Wing F910; Thomason E436_4; ESTC R202028	34,573	45

mixed Monarchy Machivell is the first in Christendome that I can find that writ of a Mixed Government but not one syllable of a Mixed Monarchy he in his discourses or disputations upon the Decades of Livy falls so enamored with the Roman Common-wealth that he thought he could never sufficiently grace that popular government unlesse he said there was something of Monarchy in it yet he was never so impudent as to say it was a mixed Monarchy And what Machivell hath said for Rome the like hath Contarene for Venice But Bodin hath layed open the errors of both these as also of Polibius and some few others that held the like opinions As for the Kingdome of England if it have found out a form of Government as the Treatise layeth it down of such perfection as never any other people could It is both a glory to the Nation and also to this Author who hath first decipher'd it I now make my approach to the Book it self The title is A Treatise of Monarchy The first part of it is of Monarchy in Generall Where first I charge the Author that he hath not given us any definition or description of Monarchy in Generall for by the rules of method he should have first defined and then divided for if there be severall sorts of Monarchy then in something they must agree which makes them to be Monarchies and in something they must disagree and differ which makes them to be severall sorts of Monarchies in the first place he should have shewed us in what they all agreed which must have been a definition of Monarchy in Generall which is the foundation of the Treatise and except that be agreed upon we shal argue upon we know not what I presse not this maine omission of our Author out of any humor of wrangling but because I am confident that had he pitched upon any definition of Monarchy in Generall his own definition would have confuted his whole Treatise Besides I find him pleased to give us a handsome definition of Absolute Monarchy from whence I may infer that he knew no other definition that would have fitted all his other sorts of Monarchy it concerned him to have produced it lest it might be thought there could be no Monarchy but Absolute What our Author hath omitted I shall attempt to supply and leave to the scanning And it shall be a reall as well as nominall definition of Monarchy A Monarchy is the government of one alone For the better credit of this definition though it be able to maintain it self yet I shall deduce it from the principles of our Author of the Treatise of Monarchy We all know that this word Monarch is compounded of two Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is imperare to govern and rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one alone The understanding of these two words may be picked out of our Author First for government he teacheth us it is Potestatis exercitium the exercise of a morall p. 1. power next he grants us that every Monarch even his limited p. 12. Monarch must have the Supream power of the State in him so that his power must no way be limited by any power above his for then he were not a Monarch but a subordinate Magistrate Here we have a fair confession of a supreame unlimited power in his limited Monarch if you will know what he meanes by these words supream power turn to his 26 page there you will find Supream power is either Legislative or Gubernative and that the legislative power is the chief of the two he makes both supream and yet one chief the like distinction he hath before where he saith The power of Magistracy in respect of its degrees is Nomotheticall or p. 5. Architectonicall and Gubernative or Executive by these words of Legislative Nomotheticall and Architectonicall power in plain English he understands a power of making Laws and by Gubernative and Executive a power of putting those Laws in execution by judging and punishing offenders The result we have from hence is that by the Authors acknowledgment every Monarch must have the Supream power and that supream power is a power to make laws and howsoever the Author makes the Gubernative and Executive power a part of the Supream power yet he confesseth the Legislative to be chief or the highest degree of power for he doth acknowledge degrees of Supream power nay he afterwards teacheth us that the Legislative power is the height of power to which the other parts p. 4● are subsequent and subservient if Gubernative be subservient to Legislative how can Gubernative power be supream Now let us examine the Authors Limited Monarch by these his own rules he tells us that in a moderated limited stinted conditionate ● 12. legall or allayed Monarchy for all these tearms he hath for it the Supream power must be restrained by some Law according to which this power was given and by direction of which this power must act when in a line before he said that the Monarchs power must not be limited by any power above his yet here he will have his Supream power restrained not limited and yet restrained is not a restraint a limitation and if restrained how is it supream and if restrained by some law is not the power of that law and of them that made that law above his supream power and if by the direction of such law only he must govern where is the Legislative power which is the chief of Supream power when the Law must rule and govern the Monarch and not the Monarch the Law he hath at the most but a Gubernative or Executive power if his authority transcends its bounds if it command p. 14. beyond the Law and the Subject is not bound legally to subjection in such cases and if the utmost extent of the Law of the land be the measure of the Limited Monarchs power and Subjects duty where shall we find the Supream power that Culmen or apex potestatis p. 16. that prime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Author saith must be in every Monarch The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies principality and power doth also signifie principium beginning which doth teach us that by the word Prince or principality the principium or beginning of Government is meant this if it be given to the Law it robs the Monarch and makes the Law the primum mobile and so that which is but the instrument or servant to the Monarch becomes the master Thus much of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 solus one alone the Monarch must not only have the Supream power unlimited but he must have it alone without any companions Our Author teacheth us He is no p. 15. Monarch if the Supream power be not in one And again he saith if you put the apex potestatis or supream power

King he gives the like note upon him that he did upon the Aesymnet that he was in old time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the heroick times The thing that made these heroicall Kingdomes differ from other sorts of Kingdomes was only the meanes by which the first Kings obtained their Kingdomes and not the manner of Government for in that they were as absolute as other Kings were without either limitation by law or mixture of companions Lastly as for Arist Barbaricke sort of Kings since he reckoned all the world Barbarians except the Graecians his Barbaricke King must extend to all other sorts of Kings in the world besides those of Greece and so may go under Aristotles fift sort of Kings which in generall comprehends all other sorts and is no speciall forme of Monarchy Thus upon a true accompt it is evident that the five severall sorts of Kings mentioned by Aristotle are at the most but different and accidentall meanes of the first obtaining or holding of Monarchies and not reall or essentiall differences of the manner of Government which was alwayes absolute without either limitation or mixture I may be thought perhaps to mistake or wrong Aristotle in questioning his diversities of Kings but it seemes Aristotle himselfe was partly of the same minde for in the very next Chapter when he had better considered of the point he confessed that to speake the truth there were almost but two sorts of Monarchies worth the considering that is his first or Laconique sort and his fift or last sort where one alone hath Supreame power over all the rest thus he hath brought his five sorts to two Now for the first of these two his Lacedemonian King he hath confessed before that he was no more then a Generalissimo of an Army and so upon the mater no King at all and then there remaines onely his last sort of Kings where one alone hath the Supreame power And this in substance is the finall resolution of Aristotle himself for in his sixteenth Chapter where he delivers his last thoughts touching the kindes of Monarchy he first dischargeth his Laconick King from being any sort of Monarchy and then gives us two exact rules about Monarchy and both these are point blanke against limited and mixed Monarchy therefore I shall propose them to be considered of as concluding all Monarchy to be absolute and arbitrary 1. The one rule is that he that is said to be a King according to Law Arist pol. l. 3. c. 16. is no sort of government or Kingdome at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The second rule is that a true King is he that ruleth all according to his owne will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This latter frees a Monarch from the mixture of partners or sharers in government as the former rule doth from limitation by lawes Thus in briefe I have traced Aristotle in his crabbed and broken passages touching diversities of Kings where first he findes but four sorts and then he stumbles upon a fift and in the next Chapter contents himselfe onely with two sorts of Kings but in the Chapter following concludes with one which is the true perfect Monarch who rules all by his own will In all this we find nothing for a regulated or mixed Monarchy but against it Moreover whereas the Author of the treatise of Monarchy affirmes it as a prime principle that all Monarchies except that of the Jewes depend upon humane designment when the consent of a society of men and a fundamentall contract of a Nation by originall or radicall constitution confers power He must know that Arist searching into the originall of government shewes himselfe in this point a better Divine then our Author and as if he had studied the book of Genesis teacheth that Monarchies fetch their petigree from the right of fathers and not from the gift or contract of people his words may thus be englished At the first Cities were Governed by Kings and so even to this day are Nations also for such as were under Kingly Government did come together for every house is governed by a King who is the eldest and so also Colonies are governed for kindred sake And immediately before he tels us that the first society made of many houses is a village which naturally seemes to be a Colonie of a house which some call fosterbrethren or Children and Childrens Children So in conclusion we have gained Aristotles judgement in three maine and essentiall points 1. A King according to Law makes no kind of Government 2. A King must rule according to his own will 3. The originall of Kings is from the right of Fatherhood What Aristotles judgement was two thousand years since is agreeable to the doctrine of the great modern politician Bodin Heare him touching limited Monarchy Vnto Majesty or Soveraignty saith he belongeth an absolute power not subject to any Law chief power given unto a Prince with condition is not properly Soveraignty or power absolute Except such conditions annexed to the Soveraignty be directly comprehended within the laws of God and nature Albeit by the sufferance of the King of England controversies between the King and his people are sometimes determined by the high Court of Parliament and sometimes by the Lord Chief Justice of England yet all the estates remaine in full subjection to the King who is no wayes bound to follow their advise neither to consent to their requests It is certaine that the lawes priviledges and grants of Princes have no force but during their life if they be not ratified by the expresse consent or by sufferance of the Prince following especially Priviledges Much lesse should a Prince be bound unto the Laws he maketh himself for a man may well receive a Law from an other man but impossible it is in nature for to give a Law unto himself no more then it is to command a mans self in a matter depending of his owne will The Law saith Nulla obligatio consistere potest quae à voluntate promittentis statum capit The Soveraigne Prince may derogate unto the laws that he hath promised and sworn to keep if the equity thereof be ceased and that of himself without the consent of his subjects the Majesty of a true Soveraigne Prince is to be known when the estates of all the people assembled in all humility present their requests and supplications to their Prince without having power in any thing to command determine or give voice but that that which it pleaseth the King to like or dislike to command or bid is holden for Law wherein they which have written of the duty of Magistrates have deceived themselves in maintaining that the power of the people is greater then the Prince a thing which causeth oft true subjects to revolt from their obedience to their Prince and ministreth matter of great troubles in Common-wealths of which their opinion there is neither reason nor ground for if the King be subject unto the assemblies