government theory

Chapter 10 Concerning Adam by His Fatherhood (2)
58．Reason can raise a man almost to the level of angels, but when a man throws away reason, his disordered mind can degrade him to a level worse than beasts.The human mind is more sandy than the Ganges and wider than the ocean. If there is no reason, the only star and compass to guide the direction, fantasy and emotion will definitely lead people into many strange places. journey.The imagination is always in constant motion, producing all kinds of thoughts.When reason is thrown aside, the human will can do all kinds of lawless things at any time.In this case, the most extreme person will be regarded by everyone as the most suitable person to lead, and thus get the most followers.What begins with folly or cunning, when fashion becomes fashion, custom sanctifies it, and any violation or doubt of it is considered audacity or madness.A man who examines world affairs with disinterestedness, will find that in some countries of the world so many religions, governments, and customs have been established and continued in this way, that he will no longer appreciate the prevailing These customs in the world, on the contrary, have reason to think that the mountains and forests where the irrational and uneducated dwellers live well because of obeying nature are more suitable than the cities and palaces where people live. Be a model for our behavior and life.For in these places those who call themselves civilized and reasonable are often overstepped by the example of others.

59．Perhaps, then, it is true, as Sir Robert says, that "in olden times men used to sell or castrate their children," even if they deserted them.If you like, you can go further and say that the purpose of their offspring is to fatten them up and cook them for meals, because this is a greater power!If these examples justify their right to do so, then we can use the same method to justify adultery, incest, and sodomy, because there are examples of them both ancient and modern.The seriousness of the evils, I think, lies chiefly in the fact that they interfere with the important purpose of "Nature," which requires the procreation and multiplication of the race in a state of high perfection, and the protection of the boundaries of the family under the marriage relationship is to achieve this purpose. necessary condition.

60．In support of this natural authority of the father, our author draws another poor argument from the plain commandments of God in the Holy Scriptures.He said: "To confirm that kingship is a natural right, we see in the "Ten Commandments" that the commandment to obey the king is expressed in the phrase 'Honor your father'. Although many people think that only the abstract Government in the sense of God is the command of God, but they have nothing at all to justify this command in the Bible except patriarchal authority. Therefore we see that in the Ten Commandments God uses 'honor It is not only the authority and right of government, but also the form of government and the people who enjoy it, that God ordained. In the beginning, what the father enjoyed Not only mere power, but the power of the sovereign, since he is the Father directly created by God." To the same end, our author cites the same law in several other places, and employs the same method , That is to say, the words "and mother" are often deleted as unsubstantiated scriptures.This is truly a great argument from the singular genius of our Author, whose validity requires a passion of its advocates to such a degree that it perverts the sacred rules of God's precepts in order to be fit for them. His needs now.This approach is common to those who accept the truth not because it is provided by reason and God, but who support certain doctrines and sects for purposes other than the truth.After this, they are determined to defend them no matter what, and willfully distort the words and meaning of the writers to achieve their goals.As Procust does with his guests, decapitating or elongating them in order to fit them to the size he had in mind, the arguments often turn out to be like the guests thus treated. All the same, become deformed and useless.

61．If our author quotes this commandment without falsification, in the very word of God, linking "mother" with father, every reader will see that it is directly contrary to what he asserts.Because it is not only insufficient to establish "the monarchy of the father", but also puts the mother and the father on the same position, because these regulations admonish the duties that are due to both the father and the mother. The Bible often says, "Honor your father and your mother" ("Exodus" Chapter 20); "Whoever beats his parents must put him to death" (Ibid. Chapter 21No.15); He that curses his father and mother shall surely put to death", Leviticus, Chapter 20, verse 15, and our Savior repeated it (Matthew, Chapter 19, verse 21); "Let every one of you Fear the mother and the father" ("Leviticus" Chapter 18, verse 21); "If a stubborn and disobedient son disobeys his parents, and they punish him, he will not obey. Then the parents can seize him... Say to the elders , 'Our stubborn and rebellious son did not listen to us'" ("Deuteronomy" Chapter 28No.16-11); , keep the commandments of your father, and do not forsake the law of your mother", these are the words of Solomon, who is not ignorant of his power as a father or king, but in the Proverbs he wrote, in In the matter of the whole lesson to children, father and mother are equated from beginning to end, "whoever says to his father, 'What have you brought forth?' or to his mother, 'What have you brought up?' plague." ("Isaiah" Chapter 28, verses 13, [-]) "They despise their parents in the Lord." ("Ezekiel" Chapter [-], verse [-]) "If any more prophesy, life His parents will say to him, You shall not live, because you prophesy falsely in the name of the LORD, and his father and mother will pierce him while he prophesies." (Zechariah Chapter [-] III Section) Here, not only the father has the power alone, but the mother also shares it with the father, and the power here refers to the right of life and death.

This is the rule of the Old Testament, and in the New Testament parents are likewise conjoined in speaking of their children's obedience to them.This rule is "You children, obey your parents" ("Ephesians" Chapter 6 first verse).I don't remember where I read "O sons and daughters, obey your father" without mentioning the mother. When the Bible talks about the filial piety of children, it also connects the "mother" with the father, because if there is any place in the original text of the "Bible" where it is mentioned that children are only filial or obedient to the "father", then we Sir Robert, who claimed to base everything on the Bible, would not have missed it.Not only that, the "Bible" not only makes "father and mother" have equal authority over their children, but even in some places ignores the priority that is usually considered to belong to the father, but mentions "mother" first and then Mention "Father", such as the third verse of Chapter 19 of "Leviticus". Since the Bible so often links father and mother together, we may therefore assert that the honor due to them from their children is an equal and common right belonging to both of them, which cannot be Complete monopoly cannot exclude a person.

62．One would therefore be surprised that our author should have deduced from the fifth commandment that "all power rests originally with the father."How could he think that the commandment, "Honor your father" and your mother, should prescribe and establish the sovereign right of government?If the duties of filial piety which are enshrined in the Ten Commandments, whatever their content, are the sole right of the "father," then, as our author says, the father "is nobler in begetting and a more principal participant, and thus enjoys sovereignty over woman”, why, then, did God always compare the “mother” with Him and share in this honor?Can a father cancel his child's "filial piety" to his "mother" based on his sovereignty? The Bible does not grant such a dispensation to the Jewish people, but breakups often occur between husband and wife, even to the point of separation and divorce.I don't think anyone would think it right for a child not to honor his mother, or, as the Bible says, "slight her" even if a father commands his child; The "filial piety" of his father.It is clear that this commandment of God does not give the father sovereignty and supremacy.

63．I agree with our author that this entitlement to "filial piety" is conferred on parents by nature, and it is a right due to them on the grounds that they have begotten children, God has clearly declared on many occasions , affirming their enjoyment of this right.I also agree with our author on this point: "Such a source of power as father (I would like to add 'and mother' because God is what binds parents together and does not allow man to separate them) The lower powers of man cannot limit the bestowals or bestowments of God or nature, nor can they make any law contrary to them." Then, by this divine law, since the mother has the right to be honored by her children, the right of her husband to be independent of her husband's will, the "absolute sovereignty of the father" can neither be grounded nor compatible with it.If there were any other man besides the father who had the same power over his subjects, and had the same qualifications, the power he enjoyed would be far from being "princely" and so absolute as our author maintains. Very different.Therefore, even our author himself has to say: "He does not know how anyone's sons and daughters can disobey their parents." " and "father", if the word "parents" refers only to the father here, it is the first time in my life that I know that there is such a usage. If such a wording can be adopted, then people can say anything .

64．According to our author's doctrine, the father, by virtue of his absolute dominion over his children, has the same power over the offspring of them.If the father does enjoy this power, then this reasoning should be true, but I would like to ask our author whether the grandfather could not, on his sovereignty, cancel the duty owed by his grandson to his father under the fifth commandment. What about filial piety?If the grandfather's "right by paternity" is the only supreme power, and the words "honor your father" prescribe obedience to the sovereign, then the grandfather may indeed exempt the grandson from honoring his father.However, according to common sense, grandfathers obviously cannot do this, so the phrase "honor your father and mother" obviously does not mean absolute obedience to a supreme power, but refers to something else.The right of parents, therefore, to be vested in them by nature and confirmed by the fifth commandment, is not the political dominion which our author wishes to deduce therefrom.For in all civil societies this power is supreme, and it abrogates any political obedience from any subject to another.But what law does the ruler have that can set a child free from "honoring his father and mother"?It is an eternal law purely concerning the relation between parents and children, which in no way contains the power of rulers, nor is it subordinate to it.

65．Our author says, "God gives the father the right or liberty to transfer to another his power over his children." I doubt whether he can "transfer" all his power to be "honored" by his children.But in any case, I am convinced that he cannot both "transfer" and retain the same power.If, therefore, the ruler's sovereignty is, as our author says, "only the authority of a supreme father," it inevitably follows that if the ruler enjoys this paternal If "fatherhood" is the source of all authority, the ruler must have such power - then no one of his subjects, even as a father, can enjoy the power and authority over their children. The right to be honored by them, for it is impossible to keep a part for oneself when the whole thing is in the hands of others.

So according to our author's own teaching, the words "Honor your father and mother" cannot be understood as political subordination or obedience, because both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, there are admonitions to children The law of "honor and obedience to their parents" is addressed to the sons and daughters, who are also under such a government and are subjects as much as they are in political society.Thus, to command them to "honor and obey their parents," in the sense of our author, is to command them to be subjects to those who do not have this right, since the right of subjection to obedience has been All given to others.So instead of inducing obedience, such a statement creates riots by establishing power where it does not exist.Therefore, if the commandment "Honor thy father and mother" means political dominion, it directly overthrows what our author speaks of as monarchy.why?For since this is the duty of every child to his father, even in society, every father necessarily enjoys political domination.In this way there would be as many rulers as there were fathers; besides, the mother would have this power, which would destroy the single sovereign right of the sovereign.But if the phrase "Honor your father and mother" means something else, and has nothing to do with political power, as it must, then it is not the argument our author needs to realize for him The purpose is also useless.

(End of this chapter)