government theory

Chapter 11 Concerning Adam by His Fatherhood (3)
66．Our author says: "The rule for educating a man to be obedient to the prince is expressed by the words 'Honor thy father,' as if all power rested originally in the father." In the expression "honor your mother", it seems that all the power belongs to the mother.I ask the reader to consider whether one side of the argument is just as valid as the other, since both the New Testament and the Old Testament exhorting children to be filial and obedient use the terms "father" and "mother". "On par.Next, our author also tells us: "The commandment 'Honor thy father' confers the right of government and makes the form of government a monarchy." To this I reply that if "Honor thy father The phrase "father" refers to subjection to the political authority of magistrates, so it does not refer to our responsibilities to our own biological fathers.

For our natural fathers, according to our author's doctrine, have been deprived of all power, which should belong to the sovereign; they are subjects and slaves as much as their children, and, though natural fathers, cannot enjoy the political subordination the right to "honor and obedience".If, according to our Savior's interpretation (see Matthew Chapter 15, verse [-] and elsewhere above), "Honor your father and your mother" refers to our duty to our natural parents, this interpretation It is obviously true, then it has nothing to do with political obedience, but is only a duty to those who are neither entitled to the right to rule, nor have the political power that a magistrate has over his subjects.For the paternity possessed by an individual is quite different from the right of obedience enjoyed by the supreme magistrate.This commandment must therefore refer to the individual of our natural father, and must refer to our duty to him, as distinct from our obedience to magistrates, which not even the most despotic monarchy can relieve. duty.What this duty is, then, we shall examine when we come to it.

67．Our author postulates that Adam had "absolutely unlimited dominion" and that, therefore, all human beings thereafter are "slaves" from birth, never having any right to liberty.We have finally examined everything he has put forward that seems to be an argument.However, if God's creation only gave human beings an existence, instead of creating Adam as "the prince of his descendants"; if Adam ("Genesis" Chapter 1No. , and was not endowed with a "personal dominion" other than his children, but was only given the rights and powers shared by the descendants of man over the land and the lower animals; if God ("Genesis" Chapter 20No.3) did not give Adam the political power over his wives and children, but merely made Eve subject to Adam as a punishment for her, or only foretelled women's control over the common affairs of the family. Subordination, but did not thereby give Adam as husband the power of life and death, which must belong to the magistrate; if fathers do not acquire dominion over their children by bearing them; Nor does the commandment "Mother" give him this power, but only obliges children to do the same duty to their parents, whether they be subjects or not, and to the mother as to the father.

If all the above points are true--and it seems to me to be obvious from the arguments stated--then, however emphatically denied by our author, human beings do have an "innate liberty" ".This is because all men of equal nature, power, and power are by nature equal, and should all enjoy common rights and privileges, unless it can be shown that God, who is Lord of all and blessed for ever, An election expressed in clear language to show the superiority of a particular individual, or to show a person's commitment to obedience to his superiors.This is so obvious that even our author himself admits: "Sir John Heyward, Blackwood, and Barclay, the most powerful advocates of the crown, cannot deny that , and unanimously recognized the inherent liberty and equality of human beings", thinking that this is an unquestionable truth.Our author maintains that "Adam was an absolute sovereign," and that "man was not born free," but any arguments he advances are far from proving his great claims, and even contradicting them.Therefore, to use his own argumentation method, "Once the original absurd principle fails, this huge institution of absolute power and absolutism will also collapse." , there is no further need for an answer.

68．But in order to save others the trouble, when necessary, he did not hesitate to use his own contradictory statement to show the weakness of his position.Adam's absolute and sole dominion is a thesis he has always stated and always based on, but he then tells us: "Since Adam was sovereign over his sons, his sons were therefore also sovereign over their own The Son has dominion and authority." According to this calculation of our author, this unlimited and indivisible dominion which Adam enjoyed by virtue of his fatherhood lasted but a short time, and existed only in the first generation; once he had a grandson, Sir Robert's story would not make sense.He said that Adam, as the father of his sons, "had absolute and unlimited royal power over them, and therefore had dominion over the children of them throughout the generations", but his sons, that is, Cain and Seth, also had paternal authority over their children, so they were both "absolute lord" and "subject" and "slave" at the same time.As "grandfather of his kind," Adam had all power, but his sons had a share as fathers as well.Adam had absolute power over them and their posterity, by having begot them, but his children, by the same title, should have absolute power over their own offspring.

Our author says: "No, the sons of Adam have power over their own offspring under him, but are still subject to the first parents." This distinction sounds good, but alas, it is meaningless. , which is also inconsistent with our author's words.I can quite concede that if Adam had "absolute power" over his descendants, any one of his offspring could derive from him a trust that gave him power over all or some of the rest, and thus a kind of "Subordinate" power.But that cannot be the kind of power our author is here speaking of.This power is not a power granted or delegated, but what he believes is the natural paternal right that a father should have over his sons.

For three reasons: First, He says: "Since Adam was lord over his sons, so the sons under him also had lordship over their own children." In the same manner, then, and according to the same The same qualifications of Adam, namely, by virtue of childbearing and fatherhood, were likewise masters of their own children.In the second place, our author obviously meant the natural power of the fathers, since he confines it to "their own children," whereas a delegated power has no such limitations except for its own In addition to your children, you can rule over others.Thirdly, If it were really a delegated power, it must appear in the Bible, but there is little evidence in the Bible that the children of Adam had any authority over their own rights other than the natural fatherhood. The child also has any other powers.

69．But what he means here is paternal power only and no other power, as is clear from the inferences he follows.He said: "I do not see, then, how the children of Adam, or anyone else, could be exempted from subordination to their parents." The "subordination" of one party is only the "natural power" and "subordination" between father and son.For there can be no other power, to which every man's children are bound, to which even our authors have often asserted to be absolute and unlimited.Our author says that Adam had a natural "power" over his offspring, which parents have over their children; The same is true for your children.

Adam, therefore, had absolutely unlimited power over all his offspring by the natural right of the father, while at the same time his sons had absolutely unlimited power over their own offspring by the same right.So there are two absolutely unlimited powers here at the same time, and I hope someone can reconcile them, or make them consistent with common sense, but he inserts the word "subordinate" to distinguish it, which only makes his words more serious. unreasonable.Letting one kind of "absolute, unlimited", or even "unrestricted power" be subordinated to another power is obviously contradictory to an incomparable degree. "Adam was absolute sovereign, having unlimited power over all his offspring by virtue of fatherhood." All his offspring, then, as our author says, were absolutely his subjects, "his slaves." ". "The sons and grandsons are alike in this state of subjection and slavery," but our author adds, "The children of Adam had paternal authority (absolute and unlimited power) over their own children," That is, in simple terms, that they were both slaves and absolute sovereigns in the same government, that is, one part of the subjects would have absolutely unlimited power over the other part by the natural right of fatherhood.

70．If anyone interprets for our author, thinks that what he says here is that men who are themselves under the absolute power of their parents still retain some power over their children.I admit that such a statement is closer to the truth, but it will not help our author in any way, because when our author speaks of patriarchal power, he always means absolutely unlimited power, unless he himself imposes on this power. limit, and indicate the limits to which it can go, otherwise we cannot conceive of him having any other understanding.What he is speaking of here is broad patriarchy, as is evident from the words immediately following, "The subordination of children is the root of all royal authority." "subordination" of Adam's grandsons to their fathers, and these are the subordination of the source of all "royalties"—what our author calls absolute and unrestricted rights— .

In this way, Adam's sons enjoy "kingdom" over their own children, but at the same time they are the same subjects as their children, and they are also the subjects of their father.But let him explain it how he likes to explain it.Apparently he gave "Adam's children the same paternity over their children as all other fathers," which would necessarily lead to one of two things: Like other fathers—his words were "kingly over his children by fatherhood"; or "Adam had no kingly power by fatherhood," For those in power, patriarchy either gives them kingship, or it doesn't.If it does give kingship, then whoever has "fatherhood" has "kingdom," and then, according to our author's theory of patriarchal government, there will be as many princes as there are fathers; Adam, then, could not be ruler by virtue of his fatherhood, nor could anyone else, and the whole political doctrine of our author collapsed at once.

71．Therefore, what kind of monarchy he established is left to him and his followers to consider for themselves.Princes certainly had great reason to thank him for this new politics which meant that there could be as many princes in each country as there were fathers.Who can blame our authors for this, which cannot be avoided by reasoning on the principles of our authors?For, since an "absolute right" has been given to "fathers who have acquired status by birth right," it is difficult for him to decide how much this power children should have over their own children.In consequence, as he did, in conferring all power on Adam, and while Adam lived his sons, when they were fathers, were to give them a part of that power which our author cannot deny, and this It became a very difficult thing to do.This difficulty made him very ambiguous in his terms, and he hesitated as to where to place the absolute natural right of 'father'.So the following situations occurred.Sometimes: Adam alone has this power.

Sometimes: Both "parents" have this power, and the term "parents" often does not refer to the father alone.

Sometimes: "sons" while the father is alive.

Sometimes: "Family Fathers" enjoy.

Sometimes: A general reference to the "fathers" enjoyment.

Sometimes: "Son of Adam" enjoys.

Sometimes: "Adam's descendants" enjoy.

Sometimes: "Patriarchs, all the sons and grandsons of Noah" enjoyed.

Sometimes: "oldest parent" enjoys.

Sometimes: the king of all has it.

Sometimes: all who have the highest power enjoy.

Sometimes: "the heirs of the earliest ancestors who were first the natural parents of all mankind" enjoys.

Occasionally: One elector enjoys.

Sometimes: Those who govern the "country", whether it be a few people, or a group of people.

Sometimes: the person who can seize this power - a "usurper" enjoys it.

72．Thus, in Sir Robert's opinion, this "new Mr. Nobody" with all power, power, and government, that is, this "fatherhood" to designate and establish the sovereign and the throne to which the people must obey, may By any means, by anyone.As a result of his politics, he can give kingship to democracies and make usurpers legitimate kings.If his politics can work so wonderfully, our author and his disciples have done a great service by relying on their almighty "fatherhood".For this "fatherhood" serves no other purpose than to overthrow, destroy, and replace all the legitimate governments of the world with disorder, despotism, and usurpation.

(End of this chapter)