government theory

Chapter 18 Who is this heir? (1)
106．From ancient times to modern times, the biggest problem that has plagued mankind and brought most of the disasters such as the destruction of cities, the extinction of the population of countries, and the destruction of world peace is not whether there is power in the world, nor is it that power comes from Where does it come from, but who should have the power.Whether this question can be properly settled is of no less importance than the safety of the sovereigns, and the peace and welfare of the sovereign domains and the country.It therefore seems to us that a writer of political science should give great attention to solving this problem, and be very clear, because if there is room for debate on this point, all else is of little importance.To adorn power with all the splendor and allurement that totalitarianism can bring, without specifying who is entitled to it, can only serve to further encourage men to develop their natural ambitions (which are themselves so prone to extremes) , making people more and more enthusiastic about scrambling for power, thus planting a permanent bane for continuous strife and turmoil, and finally making peace and tranquility, which belong to the task of government and the purpose of human society, unattainable.

107．Our author is more than the average man to solve this problem, because he has asserted that "it is a divine ordinance to confer national powers," which makes both power and its transfer sacred; Any consideration may be wrested from the hands of him to whom this power has been vested by divine right; nor is there any need or means for any other to take his place.For, if "it is a divine ordinance to confer state powers," and Adam's "heirs" are those who are thus "conferred" with such powers (see last chapter), then, according to our author, Yes, it is as sacrilegious for anyone who is not a descendant of Adam to take the throne, as it is for a "priest" among the Jews who is not a descendant of Aaron.The reason is as follows: "Not only" the priesthood "generally comes from God's stipulations, and, what's more, it appointed" can only be exclusive to the Aaron family and their descendants.This provision clearly states that this authority cannot be enjoyed or exercised by anyone other than the descendants of Aaron. Therefore, people carefully observe the succession of all descendants of Aaron.For this reason, it was possible to know exactly who qualified as priests.

108．Now, let us see how far our author has gone to in order to let us know who is this "Heir who, according to the divine ordinance, shall be sovereign over all mankind."We see that the first account of them goes like this: "This subordination of descendants is both the source of all kingly authority and the will of God himself, so that the power of the state is not only generally derived from God's ordinance, but also from God's own will. It is specially designated for the eldest parent." Matters of such importance should be stated in plain words, so as to minimize suspicion or ambiguity of meaning; A concept, then nouns that express different degrees of closeness in kinship or blood are one of the words that can be used.Therefore, we originally hoped that our author could use some easy-to-understand words and sentences here, so that it would be easier for us to know who is the person who is "ordained by God to be endowed with national power"; at the very least, he should also clearly tell We, what does he mean by "the oldest parents"; for I believe that if lands had been conferred or rewarded to him and to the "oldest parents" of his kind, I am afraid he himself would have It is necessary to ask someone to explain the term to himself, and it is difficult for him to know to whom the land belongs after his death.

109．In proper language (and I think proper language is very necessary in a paper of this nature), by "oldest parents" is meant either the oldest man and woman with children, or refers to the first man and woman to have children, then our author's assertion is that the father and mother who lived the longest or had the earliest children were able to control the "state power" "according to the divine ordinance", if in this statement We, the author, are responsible for any paradox; and if he does not mean what I have interpreted, it is also due to his failure to express himself.I'm sure that the term "parents" can never refer to a male heir only, and "eldest parents" can never refer to a single baby—though if he's the only one, he's most likely the real one. heirs.

Yet in spite of the "divine ordained decree," we remain at a loss as to to whom the power of the state should be attributed, as if there had never been such a decree, or as if our author had never said anything. The words "elderest parents" make us less concerned about who is by divine ordinance entitled to state power than those who have never heard of Adam's heir or succession (our author says all he has to say). It's the word) people who say things like this are even more confused.The main content of this work of the author is to teach obedience to those who have the right to be obeyed.According to him, this right is inherited from generation to generation, but the question of who should enjoy this hereditary power is like the "alchemist's touchstone" in political science. Out of reach, no one can tell from his writings.

110．A great master of style, such as Sir Robert, can never be blamed for lack of knowledge of languages ​​when he utters such ambiguous words when he himself wants to say something.Therefore, I am afraid that it is because he realized that it is very difficult to determine the rules of succession by divine ordinance, or that even if such a rule of succession is affirmed, it is not helpful for his purposes, or helps to clarify and affirm the monarchy. Only very little can be done in this matter, and he would rather be content to use ambiguous and general terms that sound less jarring than to give any such "fatherly" account of Adam. The clear rules of "right" succession allow people to be psychologically satisfied with who the throne goes to, and to know that it is someone who has the right to hold the throne and get their obedience.

111．Otherwise, how could Sir Robert never tell us what "heir" means, nor give What is the method of identifying who is the "next generation" or "true heir"?I don't remember that he ever dealt with this problem explicitly, but only touched it very carefully and hesitantly when he came across it.It was necessary for him to do so, otherwise all government and obedience based on his principles would be meaningless; and the perfect patriarchy would be of no use to anyone.

Therefore, our author says: "It is not only the general structure of power, but even its confinement to one type (i.e., monarchy) and the determination that it should be attributed to the particular individual Adam and his descendants, that God Neither Eve nor her descendants could restrict Adam's enjoyment of power, nor could any other person be connected with Adam, and all rights given to Adam were first given to him personally and then passed on to him descendants." Here again, our author tells us that "God's will" restricts Adam's power to whom?He says "through the line and descendants of Adam," which is really a very special kind of restriction, a restriction on the whole human race.If our author could find one among mankind who was not of Adam's "line" or "descendant," perhaps this person could tell him who was Adam's next successor.But, for my part, I'm disappointed in how this approach of limiting Adam's empire to his "line" or "descendant" can help us find "an heir."It is true that this "restriction" of the author may save some labor for those who wish to search for an "heir" among beasts - if there is any possible successor among them - but it is very important for finding one in man. The "next generation of heirs" will not contribute anything.Indeed, telling us that Adam's line and descendants should have kingship is an easy way to solve the problem of Adam's succession of kingship.

In plain English, anyone can enjoy this power, because who is alive who does not have the identity of Adam's "lineage" or "descendant"?As long as this identity exists, it is within the limits of what our author calls divine providence.Yes, he tells us that "such an heir is not only lord of his offspring, but also of his brethren."From this statement and some that follow (which we shall shortly examine), he seems to imply that the eldest son is the heir; The place directly said this Chinese sentence.However, based on the example of Cain and Jacob he gave later, we can assume that this is what he meant about heirs.

That is, if there were indeed many sons, the eldest son certainly had the right to be heir.However, as we have already stated, primogeniture cannot confer any patriarchal qualifications.It is not difficult to admit that a father may have some natural right over his sons; but it remains to be proved that the eldest son has a right over his brothers.Nowhere, so far as I know, has God or "nature" granted the eldest son such dominion, nor can reason find such a natural privilege in a band of brothers.The law of Moses provided for the firstborn to be given twice as much property and goods, but nowhere do we find him enjoying such a superiority or dominion either by nature or by God's ordinance.The examples given by our author are but thin evidence of the eldest son's entitlement to state power and dominion, or rather, they show the reverse.

112．Among the words quoted above are the following: "Therefore we see that God spoke thus of his brother Abel to Cain: 'He will desire you, but you will subdue him.'" In a few words, I can answer in this way: First, God said these words to Cain, and many commentators have a good reason to understand them in a very different way from our author's meaning; second, whatever the words are Neither of these meanings can be understood as Cain’s natural right to control Abel by virtue of his elder brother’s status, because this sentence is based on the premise of “if you do well” and it was said by Cain alone. , so whatever the phrase refers to depends on Cain's actions, not on his natural rights.Therefore, this statement can never be a general affirmation of primogeniture.

For before saying this, according to our author, Abel originally had "his own land according to personal disposition", and if "according to God's ordinance", Cain as heir should inherit his father's land. Thirdly, if God has the will to use this sentence as a charter of primogeniture, and generally promised to elders brother by right of succession, we may expect that this must include all his brothers, for we may suppose that the race was then multiplied from Adam, and that these sons were all grown up, and They had more sons than Cain and Abel, and Abel is only briefly mentioned in the Bible, and the original phrase is hardly applicable to Abel in any correct structure; Fourthly, It goes too far to base so much a doctrine on dubious and vague passages of the Bible, which could be interpreted in a very different sense, or even more properly, and must therefore be To take it as a poor proof is almost as dubious as what it is supposed to prove, especially when nothing else in Scripture or reason can be found to support it.

113．Our author goes on: "Therefore, when Jacob had bought his brother's birthright, Isaac blessed him: 'May thou be lord of thy brethren, and thy mother's sons bow down unto thee.' "I think this is yet another proof, and a rather admirable one, put forward by our author, that dominion is based on birthright.For, as an example given by a man who defends the natural power of the prince against all contracts, all the rights mentioned are, according to his own statement, entirely based on contracts, and decides to give the throne to younger brother.Unless the sale is not a contract, his reasoning method cannot but be said to be incredible.For our author expressly says, "When Jacob bought his brother Esau's birthright." But let us set that aside and examine the fact itself, and see how our author applies it, and we It can be found that he has the following mistakes:
First, our author reports this as if Isaac blessed Jacob immediately after he "bought the birthright," for he says "when Jacob bought..." Isaac blessed him," but that's clearly not what the Bible says.Because there is still a period of time between these two events, and if you look at the plot sequence of this story, the time distance must not be short.During the whole period of Gerar's stay, Isaac had intercourse with King Abimelech ("Genesis" Chapter 26 is during this period), when Rebecca's wife was still beautiful and young; but When Isaac blessed Jacob, Isaac was already old, and Esau also complained to Jacob ("Genesis" Chapter 27No.30), saying that he had deceived himself "twice".Esau said, "Once upon a time he took away my birthright" and "you see, he has now taken away my blessing".These words, I thought, showed the distance in time and showed that they were two different acts.

Second, our author's second error is that he thinks that Isaac gave Jacob his "blessing" and made him "lord of his brethren" because of his "birthright".Our author gives this example to prove that whoever has the "birthright" has the right to be "lord over his brethren"; but the text clearly tells us that Isaac never expected Jacob bought the birthright because, when he blessed Jacob, he didn't take him as Jacob, but he still took him as Esau; There is this connection between the "blessings" because he says, "Twice he has cheated me, once he took my birthright, and now, you see, he has taken my blessings." If "do If the "blessing" of the "Lord of his brothers" belonged to the "birthright", Esau should not have complained that the second was a deception, because what Jacob got was Esau's betrayal of the "birthright". Points" to him sold.Evidently the right of dominion - if that is what the above statement refers to - is not supposed to belong to the "birthright".

(End of this chapter)