Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	honour_n	king_n	lord_n	2,198	5	3.4827	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41310	Political discourses of Sir Robert Filmer, Baronet, viz. Patriarcha, or the natural power of Kings. The free-holders Grand-inquest. Observations upon Aristotles politicks. Directions for obedience to government. Also observations upon Mr. Hobbs's Leviathan. Mr. Milton against Salmatius. Hugo Grotius de Jure Belli & Pacis. Mr. Hunton's treatise on Monarchy. With an advertisement to the Jurymen of England touching witches; Patriarcha.	Filmer, Robert, Sir, d. 1653.	1680 (1680)	Wing F925; ESTC R215623	53,592	159

Benefit of the King's Prerogative over Laws 9. The King the Author the Interpreter and Corrector of the Common Laws 10. The King Judge in all Causes both before the Conquest and since 11. The King and his Council have anciently determined Causes in the Star-Chamber 12. Of Parliaments 13. When the People were first called to Parliament 14. The Liberty of Parliaments not from Nature but from Grace of the Princes 15. The King alone makes Laws in Parliament 16. Governs both Houses as Head by himself 17. By his Council 18. By his Judges 1. HItherto I have endeavour'd to shew the Natural Institution of Regal Authority and to free it from Subjection to an Arbitrary Election of the People It is necessary also to enquire whether Humane Laws have a Superiority over Princes because those that maintain the Acquisition of Royal Jurisdiction from the people do subject the Exercise of it to Positive Laws But in this also they Erre for as Kingly Power is by the Law of God so it hath no inferiour Law to limit it The Father of a Family Governs by no other Law than by his own Will not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants There is no Nation that allows Children any Action or Remedy for being unjustly Governed and yet or all this every Father is bound by the ●aw of Nature to do his best for the pre●ervation of his Family but much more ● a King always tyed by the same Law of Nature to keep this general ground That the safety of the Kingdom be his ●hief Law He must remember That he profit of every man in particular and of all together in general is not always One and the same and that the Publick is to be preferred before the Private ●nd that the force of Laws must not be ● great as Natural Equity it self which ●nnot fully be comprised in any Laws ●hatsoever but is to be left to the Re●●gious Atchievement of those who ●●ow how to manage the Affaires of ●tate and wisely to Ballance the particular profit with the Counterpoize of ●e Publick according to the infinite Va●ety of Times Places Persons a proof ●nanswerable for the Superiority of Princes above Laws is this That there were ●ings long before there were any Laws or a long time the Word of a King ●as the only Law and if Practice as ●●th Sir Walter Raleigh declare the ●eatness of Authority even the best Kings of Judah and Israel were not tyed to any Law but they did what-soever they pleased in the greatest matters 2 The Unlimitted Jurisdiction of Kings is so amply described by Samuel that it hath given Occasion to some to Imagine that it was but either a Plot or Trick of Samuel to keep the Government himself and Family by frighting the Israelites with the mischiefs in Monarchy or else a prophetical Description only of the future III Government of Saul But the Vanity of these Conjectures are judiciously discovered in that Majestical Discourse of the true Law of free Monarchy Wherein it is evidently shewed that the scope of Samuel was to teach the People a dutiful Obedience to their King even in those things which themselves did esteem Mischievous and Inconvenient For by telling them what a King would do he indeed instructs them what a Subject must Suffer yet not so that it is Right for Kings to do Injury but it is Right for them to go Unpunished by the People if they do it So that in this point it is all one whether Samuel describe a King or a Tyrant for Patient Obedience is due to both ●ho Remedy in the Text against Tyrants but in Crying and praying unto God in that Day But howsoever in a Rigorous Construction Samuel's description be applyed to a Tyrant yet the Words by a Benigne Interpretation may agree with the manners of a Just King and the Scope and Coherence of the Text doth best imply the more Moderate or Qualified Sense of the Words for as Sir W. Raleigh confesses all those Inconveniences and Miseries which are reckon●ed by Samuel as belonging to Kingly Government were not Intollerable but such as have been born and are still born by free Consent of Subjects towards their Princes Nay at this day and in this Land many Tenants by their Tenures and Services are tyed to the same Subjection even to Subordinate and ●nferior Lords To serve the King in his Wars and to till his ground is not only agreeable to the Nature of Subjects but much desired by them according to their several Births and Conditions The like may be said for the Offices of Women-Servants Confectioners Cooks and Bakers for we cannot think that the King would use their Labours without giving them Wages since the Text it self mentions a Liberal reward of his Servants As for the taking of the Tenth of their Seed of their Vines and of their Sheep it might be a necessary Provision for their Kings Household and so belong to the Right of Tribute For whereas is mentioned the taking of the Tenth it cannot agree well to a Tyrant who observes no Proportion in fleecing his People Lastly The taking of their Fields Vineyards and Olive-trees if it be by Force or Fraud or without just Recompence to the Dammage of Private Persons only it is not to be defended but if it be upon the publick Charge and General Consent it might be justifyed as necessary at the first Erects on of a Kingdome For those who wi●● have a King are bound to allow hi● Royal maintenance by providing Revenues for the CROWN Since it both for the Honour Profit and Safety too of the People to have their King Glorious Powerful and abounding in ●iches besides we all know the Lands ●nd Goods of many Subjects may be oft●mes Legally taken by the King either ●y Forfeitures Escheat Attainder Out●wry Confiscation or the like ●hus we see Samuel's Character of a ●ng may literally well bear a mild ●nse for greater probability there is at Samuel so meant and the Israelites understood it to which this may be ●ded that Samuel tells the Israelites ●s will be the manner of the King that ●ll Reign over you And Ye shall ●● because of your King which Ye shall ●e chosen you that is to say Thus ●●ll be the common Custom or Fashi● or Proceeding of Saul your King as the Vulgar Latine renders it this ●l be the Right or Law of your King ● meaning as some expound it the ●●al Event or Act of some individu●●agum or indefinite King that might ●en one day to Tyrannise over them ●hat Saul and the Constant practice Saul doth best agree with the Lite● Sense of the Text. Now that Saul ●no Tyrant we may note that the ●le asked a King as All Nations had God answers and bids Samuel to hear the Voice of the People in all things which they spake and appoint them a King They did not ask a Tyrant and to give them a Tyrant when they asked a King

Errors amongst the Heathen Philosophers Polybius though otherwise a most profound Philosopher and Judicious Historian yet here he stumbles for in searching out the Original of Civil Societies he conceited That Multitudes of Men after a Deluge a Famine or a Pestilence met together like Herds of Cattel without any Dependency untill the strongest Bodies and boldest Minds got the Mastery of their Fellows even as it is saith he among Bulls Bears and Cocks And Aristotle himself forgetting his first Doctrine tells us the first Heroica● Kings were chosen by the People for their deserving well of the Multitude either by teaching them some New Arts or by Warring for them or by Gathering them together or by Dividing Land amongst them also Aristotle had another ●ancy that those Men who prove wise of Mind were by Nature intended to be Lords and Govern and those which were Strong of Body were ordained to obey and to be Servants But this is a dangerous and uncertain Rule and not without some Folly for if a man prove both Wise and Strong what will Aristotle have done with him as he was Wise he could be no ●ervant and as he had Strength he could not be a Master besides to speak like a Philosopher Nature intends all things to be perfect both in Wit and strength The Folly or Imbecillity proceeds from some Errour in Generation ●r Education for Nature aims at Perfection in all her Works 2 Suarez the Jesuite riseth up against the Royal Authority of Adam ●● defence of the Freedom and Liberty of the people and thus argues By ●ight of Creation saith he Adam had only Oeconomical power but not Political he had a power over his Wife and a Fatherly power over his Sons whilst they were not made Free he might also in process of Time have Servants and a Compleat Family and in that Family he might have compleat Oeconomical Power But after that Families began to be multiplied and Men to be separated and become the Head of several Families they had the same power over their Families But Political Power did not begin until Families began to be gathered together into one perfect Community wherefore a● the Community did not begin by the Creation of Adam nor by his Will alone but of all them which did agree in this Community So we cannot say that Adam Naturally had Political Primacy in that Community for that cannot be gathered by any Natural Principles because by the Force of the Law o● Nature alone it is not due unto an● Progenitor to be also King of his Posterity And if this be not gathered out of the Principles of Nature w● cannot say God by a special Gift o● Providence gave him this Power Fo● there is no Revelation of this nor Testimony of Scripture Hitherto Suarez Whereas he makes Adam to have a Fatherly power over his Sons and yet shuts up this power within One Family ●he seems either to imagine that all Adam's Children lived within one House and under one Roof with their Father or else as soon as any of his Children ●ived out of his House they ceased to be Subject and did thereby become Free For my part I cannot believe that Adam although he were sole Monarch of the World had any such spacious Palace as might contain any such Considerable part of his Children It is ●ikelier that some mean Cottage or Tent ●id serve him to keep his Court in It were hard he should lose part of his Authority because his Children lay not within the Walls of his House But if Suarez will allow all Adam's Children to be of his Family howsoever they were separate in Dwellings if their Ha●itations were either Contiguous or ●t such Distance as might easily receive ●is Fatherly Commands And that all ●hat were under his Commands were ●f his Family although they had many Children or Servants married having temselves also Children Then I see no reason but that we may call Adam's Family a Commonwealth except we will wrangle about Words For Adam living 930 years and seeing 7 or 8 Descents from himself he might live to command of his Children and their Posterity a Multitude far bigger than many Commonwealths and Kingdoms 3. I know the Politicians and Civil Lawyers do not agree well about the Definition of a Family and Bodin doth seem in one place to confine it to a House yet in his Definition he doth enlarge his meaning to all Persons under the Obedience of One and the Same Head of the Family and he approves better of the propriety of the Hebrew Word for a Family which is derived from a Word that signifies a Head a Prince or Lord than the Greek Word for a Family which is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a House No● doth Aristotle confine a Family to One House but esteems it to be made of those that daily converse together whereas before him Charondas called Family Homosypioi those that feed together out of one common Pannier And Epimenides the Cretian terms a Family Homocapnoi those that sit by a Common Fire or Smoak But let Suarez understand what he please by Adam's Family if he will but confess as he needs must that Adam and the Patriarchs had Absolute power of Life and Death of Peace and War and the like within their Houses or Families he must give us leave at least to call them Kings of their Houses or Families and if they be so by the Law of Nature what Liberty will be left to their Children to dispose of Aristotle gives the Lie to Plato and ●hose that say Political and Oeconomical ●ocieties are all one and do not differ ●pecie but only Multitudine Pauci●te as if there were no difference betwixt a Great House and a Little City All the Argument I find he brings against them in this The Community of Man and Wise ●iffers from the Community of Master and Servant because they have several Ends. The Intention of Nature by Conjunction of Male and Female is Generation but the Scope of Master and Servant is Preservation so that a Wife and a Servant are by Nature distinguished because Nature does not work like the Cutlers of Delphos for she makes but one thing for one Use If we allow this Argument to be sound nothing doth follow but only this That Conjugal and Despotical communities do differ But it is no consequence That therefore Oeconomical and Political Societies do the like For though it prove a Family to consist of two distinct Communities yet it follows not that a Family and a Commonwealth are distinct because as well in the Commonwealth as in the Families both these Communities are found And as this Argument comes not home to our Point so it is not able to prove that Title which it shews for● for if it should be granted which ye● is false that Generation and Preservation differ about the Individuum ye● they agree in the General and serv● both for the Conservation