Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
end_n	good_a	law_n	moral_a	1,338	5	9.0849	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86918	A vindication of the Treatise of monarchy, containing an answer to Dr Fernes reply; also, a more full discovery of three maine points; 1. The ordinance of God in supremacie. 2. The nature and kinds of limitation. 3. The causes and meanes of limitation in governments. Done by the authour of the former treatise.	Hunton, Philip, 1604?-1682.	1644 (1644)	Wing H3784; Thomason E39_12; ESTC R21631	66,271	81

a limitation of Power it selfe for when a Power can produce no potentiall acts beyond such limits then it is limited in the very being 3. Acts exceeding politique and legall Limitation being not Legall nor authoritative in that State can give no authoritie to the Instruments and therefore they may be resisted without resistance or violation of Authoritie Whereas it is otherwise in Acts exceeding morall Limitation for being authoritative they authorize the Instrument and give him an unresistance In summe Limitation morall and civill or legall doe differ in three main particulars 1. Morall sith it is no politique or Authoritative Act Conclus 1 makes no reall detraction either in power or exercise of it and therefore agrees with the most absolute Government whereas Legall being a politique and authoritative Act makes a reall diminution and so is the ratio formalis or distinctive conceit constituting Limited government nor can be found in absolute 2. Hence Exceeding Acts notwithstanding morall limitation are Conclus 2 authoritative proceed from Gods Ordinance and challenge subjection but they are otherwise which exceed a legall limitation Conclus 3 3. Exceeding Acts in morall limitation being authoritative have the Sword or compelling power annexed to them which may not be resisted but in Legall being not authoritative they have not the sword or compelling power annexed and therefore may be resisted in their Instruments I will illustrate all this by a familiar instance In our Government a Iudge hath a Commission to heare and determine Causes according to the Verdict of twelve men Here is a Power limited in the very being that is Legally and Civilly This Iudge useth indirect meanes to corrupt the Iurie to bring in an unjust Verdict but judgeth as his Commission binds him according to their Verdict Here is a morall exceeding yet the Act of judgement is Authoritative because according to his Commission and must not be resisted Againe He passeth sentence in another cause expressely against the Verdict of the Iury in an arbitrary way Here is a Legall exceeding and the sentence is non authoritative He having no such Power committed to him the sentence can have no binding power in it Hereby it appeares how without any ground of Truth the former supposals are Sect. 3 Thirdly concerning the Causes and Meanes of Limitation the Doctors supposals are Causes meanes of Limitation 1. That Radicall Limitation that is of the Power it selfe requires an expresse and notorious act it must be done in the beginning and at once p. 15. 24. 39. 2. That a Prince may so limit himselfe as not to require to be actively subjected to and yet be limited only in the exercise not in the power it selfe p. 16. 3. That no Limitation by after condescent is of the Power it selfe p. 28. this being a consequent from the first Now that the falshood of these and the like grounds every where scattered in his bookes may appeare Let us a little more diligently handle the Causes and Meanes of Limitation which as before Causes of Moral Limitation being twofold Morall and Civill We will begin with Morall 1. Now the Formall cause of a meere Morall Limitation is that which morally bounds or makes sinfull any act of Power We are therefore to enquire what it is which can doe that And this is 1. Principally the Morall Law of God forbidding such an exercise of Power This is an universall perpetuall and invincible Limitation of all power of Government either absolute or legall yea of all Active Power of reasonable creatures 2. There is another meane of Limitation morall sc a Promise Oath or positive constitution whereby a Prince puts a bond upon himselfe making that now sinfull to be done which before was not so This also induces a morall Limitation as well in absolute as legall Governments as if an Absolute Monarch promise to follow such a Rule which hath a Power to use any which his reason shall dictate Or if a Legall promise to abridge himselfe in a course in which the Law hath left him indeterminate in this respect they come under a morall limitation But concerning this positive meane we must note 1. This promise how solemne soever it be must be a simple bond It must extend to no diminution of power or discharge from duty of subjection for then it is not meerely morall it makes the exceeding act not only sinfull but non obliging whereas it is the note of a meere morall bond that it extends not to any lessening of Authority or discharge of duty as if a Captaine take his enemy prisoner he to save his life sweares him a full vassalage afterward his Master promises to command him only such services never absolving him from his former bond of absolute slavery here is a morall bond yet still a full debt of subjection in case the Master should breake his word and put him on other employment 2. If the matter be more throughly looked into this positive meane of limitation is either none at all or else addes nothing to the former of the morall law of God For in such promise or Oath whereby a Governour limits himselfe there is an expresse or tacite condition if it conduce to the end of Government the glory of God and publick good For if such Oath or bond hinder the end of Government it is eo nomine unlawfull and invalid but if conduce to it then it was no more then was virtually required of him before by the morall Law this promise or Oath being but a more solemne profession and protestation to doe that which before implicitely he was bound morally unto Thus we see all that Doctor speakes of Morall and irrevocable limitation by promise and oath comes to nothing in the issue so that this being granted that the Monarchs power in this State were only Morally limited in the Doctors sense We are as much under and owe as much subjection as the captive slave to his Master and all our Laws and Statutes being but morall limitations of this second sort are not so much as morall limitations any farther then the Prince sees them conduce to the end of Government if any seem to stand in his way and hinder him therein he is no longer bound to it but may account it an ill made promise or Oath which is better broke then kept 2. Causes of Legall limitation Of the Causes and Meanes of Civill and legall limitation whereby not only the exercise but the power it selfe is confined 1. The formall cause hereof is the limitation of the duty of subjection in the people The duty of subjection is the originall of the power of Authority People by becomming debtors of subjection doe set up Authority and by stinting and terminating the duty of subjection doe put bounds and termes to the power of commanding 2. Let us see then by what meanes the duty of subjection may be terminated I conceive it may be done two wayes 1. At first when a

for their own good and the due end of Government Summe In the close of this Question I will lay downe three Conclusions concerning the Ordinance of God and the Nature of Soveraigntie Conclus 1 1. God hath ordained that in Societies of Men there should be a Politike Power for a peaceable and godly life This Ordinance hath put a Seminall Power in all the Societies of Men sc a Liberty and Power by common Consent to resigne up themselves and theirs to one Supreame thereby constituting a common Politique Power 2. God in his Ordinance for Government having not determined any kind Conclus 2 or forme of Power hath left it to the libertie of Societies of men to choose to which kind they will resigne up themselves either to a supreme regulated in the Acts of his Will by his owne Reason as in absolute Government or to one regulated by a Common Reason or Law constituted by publike consent as in Limited 3. God in his Ordinance for Government having not determined the subject Conclus 3 of this Power hath left it to the choice of Societies to invest with this Soveraigntie either one Person or many and those either of the same or divers sorts and rankes of men Whence arise simple or mixed Governments and this is the Architectonicall Power left in societies before they are engaged in a Government which the Doctour doth so causlesly deride Here is the summe of what I do averre concerning Gods Ordinance in Soveraigntie which I challenge the Doctour or any else to gain-say The second sort of the Doctors false supposals respect the Nature and Sect. 2 Quality of Limitation Of nature and Quality of Limitation where also I observe that he proceeds on two false and fallacious Principles sc 1. He every where confounds Morall and Civill or Legall Limitation so p. 18. 93. 39. 2. That Soveraignty is capable onely of a morall Limitation p. 39 42. So that if any other be in any State ordained He cannot beleeve but such a condition is unlawfull and unreasonable against the Order of Government p. 39. If the nature of Limitation be well knowne it will appeare that the Doctor hath done very inconsiderately or rather very fraudulently for he hath obscured the Truth much by it in confounding morall and Civill Limitation We will therefore consider the nature of Limitation something more accurately then I have done in my former Treatise for it will be a great light to the whole controversie First We must consider a distinction of Power which is either A Pos 1 simple Power of Willing or Doing which is in every Morall Agent 2. A Power of Authoritative and obligatorie Willing or Doing so that an act of it whether a Will of Command or Censure expressed hath in it a binding power to subjection this is that which we call Magistracy of whose Limitation now we treat Secondly concerning Limitation we must know that it induceth Pos 2 an absolute necessity of not producing any Act beyond those Limits For a Power having bounds beyond which it can exceed if it please though with difficulty it is not properly limited but hindred Pos 3 Thirdly This necessity of not exceeding those bounds is such as the bounds themselves are so that it is ever true That a Power in what way it is limited cannot exceed those limits Pos 4 Of Moral limits Fourthly There are of this Power but two sorts of Limits sc 1. Morall and 2. Civill or Politique Of which two we must distinctly consider 1. Morall Limits is the Morall Will or Law of God and a Power is said to be limited by this not when it cannot produce any Act at all but when it cannot morally produce it that is without sin For the supervening of a morall bond doth not take away the Power of doing but of right or sinlesse doing v. g. in Naturall Powers Gods prohibition of eating Swines flesh did not take away from the Jew the naturall Power of eating it but the power of sinlesse eating it So in Civill power a prohibition of God comming upon it doth not take away the Power of Civill and Authoritative Doing but of lawfull or sinlesse doing And hence it followes 1. That Morall Limitation is only of the Exercise of Power not of the power it selfe for the power is not thereby taken away but remaines equally extense and able to all its acts as it was before only now it cannot put forth it selfe unto certaine Acts without sinne which it could before Thus an Absolute Monarch who hath a power of doing as extense as his Reasonable Will promises to doe but this or in this manner now he is morally bound by vertue of this promise and cannot without sinne doe otherwise yet if he doe his Commanding Power is the same and its act binding to the Subject And so it is proportionably in Legall Governments Cyprian Bishop of Carthage hath by the Canons a power of judging Ecclesiasticall causes committed to him He resolves and promises to doe nothing of moment herein but by the consent of his Clergie now he is morally bound and if afterward he doe a thing by himselfe without their consent he sins yet no man will say his Episcopall power is lessened or the act he so doth is canonically invalid and not obligatorie 2. Yea it followes also that it is not properly a Limitation of the Exercise of power neither for by a morall bond the Power is not so bound up but that it can exercise it selfe and that validly too though not without sinne as appeares before 3. Also that it is no detraction from Absolutenesse of Power nor is it sufficient to make a distinction of it into Absolute and Limited For 1. It causes no reall Limitation of power either in the nature or exercise of it 2. It is not distinctive being to be found in the most absolute power under heaven Legall Limits all being bounded by Gods Law the Law of Equity and many promises by themselves made 2. Civill or Legall Limits cause a Civill and Legall definement of Authority so that its exceeding acts are not Legall and binding that is are non Authoritative for as a Morall bond induces a necessity of confinement in esse morali so a Civill and Legall bond doth in esse legali obligatorio Hence follows 1. It is these Legall and civill bounds which constitute a Government in a limited condition not those morall for this is distinctive and is never found in an absolute Governement for there the Soveraigne by promise or Oath binding himselfe to a stated course doth put no Law civill upon his power or the exercise of it for though he sinne in exceeding afterwards yet his acts are truely Legall and Authoritative 2. This induceth a reall Limitation of power neither can it be only of exercise for sith it brings an illegality and unauthoritativenesse on acts exceeding that is makes them none in esse civili politico it is

which are done per immediatam volitionem by a meere expression of the Will A concurrence in consenting and a concurrence in doing is one and the same thing Now Legislation is an imminent Act consisting in a meer expression of an Authoritative Will My third Argument for Mixture was from it's end which was Restraint from excesse 1. He grants such a Restraint but morall and legall not forceable p. 30. I answer He deceitfully confounds morall and legall as I shewed before 2. The End of Mixture in a State is that there may be a power of restreyning more then sufficient as his Majestie expresses it but the Doctors meere morall power is very insufficient It limits not the Power at all nor the Exercise properly no more then an Oath or Promise without it would doe that is makes it sinne to exceed But of this before But here which is very rare He doth not onely denie but give a reason of it If the fundamentall Constitution had intended them such a Power it would not have left a power in the Monarch to call or dissolve them which would make this power of theirs altogether ineffectuall p. 30. This Reason seemes to have some weight in it I will therefore the more seriously consider it 1. Whatever strength it hath had in it now it hath none because that power of dissolving is now by Law suspended for this Parliament and after it a necessity by Law imposed of reducing that Power of Calling Parliaments into Act every Three yeares 2. Neither was it true before these Acts that such a Power was left in the Monarch at pleasure to use or not for it was by ancient Law determined how often they should be convocated 3. But being granted that this Power is simply and fully in the Monarch yet I denie that hence it followes that it would make that Power of the Houses altogether ineffectuall because that de facto though it hath been in the Monarch so long yet it never hath made it voyd but they have exercised a limiting Power as Histories relate enough yea and sometimes too much over the Monarch notwithstanding his Power of calling and dissolving them Thus in the Colledges the Fellowes have an effectuall and more then morall limiting Power though the Governour hath the Power of calling and dissolving their meetings And anciently the prime Patriarch had the power of Calling and dissolving generall Councels yet they had a Power of limiting yea of Censuring him for exorbitances for all that The Reason is because many things fall out oft in a Government inducing such necessities on the Monarch that he for their supply will choose to reduce such power into act of Calling and suspend such power of dissolving although he know those States will use their Limiting Power in reducing such exorbitances and punishing those dearest instruments which have been used in them This the Constitutors of this Frame preconsidering might put in the Monarch this Power and yet intend to the other States a Legall and effectuall power of restraining his exorbitancies by using Force not against him but it's procurers and Instruments Thus we see there is no need of entring on that dispute Whether this Power of calling and dissolving the Houses be placed in the Monarch as all his other are not absolutely but with limitation of necessary reducing it into act on the last exigencies of the Kingdome After this he returns to my other Arguments for limitation One of which drawne from radicall Mixture he fully omits but now having shewed the invalidity of his exceptions against my arguments for it I have given force to this argument for Limitation drawne therefrom That which he sets on last is my first for Limitation in the very Power sc the Kings owne expresse confession That the Law is the measure of his power That the Powers which he hath are vested in him by Law p. 31. of my Tract And as if this were not more then he could answer the Doctor addes a third for us in which he ascribes to the Houses a power more then sufficient to restraine his Excesses p. 30. Here are Authorities as punctuall and expresse as can be imagined Yet the Doctor resolving not to be reasoned into a beliefe of these things out faces all this evidence and to that end frames three Answers such as they are 1. He sayes His Majestie had few of his learned Counsell about him 2. His gracious expressions ought not to be drawne out to his disadvantage 3. All that can be gathered from them doth not come up to these Conclusions p. 31. In the two first he openly enough taxeth his Majestie of unadvised expressions excusing it from absence of his learned Counsellours you may soone imagine whom he meanes Thus disparaging the Kings judgement and all then about him and tels us we must not be unjust to set those sayings on the racke that is we must not take them in their plaine meaning but on this mans wrested and sencelesse interpretation What doe not these men dare doe and say Before we heard him correcting the expressions of all Moderne Parliaments teaching us to reforme them by the old Here the King and his Counsell setting out in such a time Declarations to all his Subjects to informe them about the nature and extent of his Royall Power He compares those serious expresses to Trajans sudden and excessive speech He will correct Kings Counsels Parliaments and all but he will have his way To him they must come to learne how to speake and what powers they have But let us heare his Doctorall Exposition of his Majesties expresses Hee sayes The Law is the measure of his Power Wee must understand his meaning to be that his power is bounded by Law but it doth not follow that his power wherein it is not limited by Law is not absolute and full p. 31. Here is profound interpreting If his Power be limited by Law is there any part of it not limited by Law If the Law be the measure of it sure it is even with it for the measure is equall in extent with the thing measured Thus he papally interprets against the direct meaning of the Text But he doth not show us how that can be understood when he saith His powers are vested in him by Law if the Law be a limitation only of exercise Nor how their Restraining power is more then sufficient if it be only morall which how unsufficient a restraint for exorbitance it is every ones experience can enough testifie I admire a man who pretends to conscience and judgement should take such liberty of interpreting Certaine if those Reasons and Testimonies doe not clearly proove a radically limited and mixed Constitution of this Monarchy I shall despair of ever proving any thing by way of Argument any more I had an intent to have subnexed other Arguments to make good Sect. 3 those Assertions but I see it is to no purpose 7 Queries concerning this