government theory

Chapter 19 Who is this heir? (2)
114．In the age of the patriarchs, dominion does not refer to the rights of the heirs, but only refers to a larger part of the property, which can be clearly seen from Chapter 21, Section 25 of "Genesis".Sarah (Abraham's wife) regarded Isaac as his heir, and she said to Abraham, "Drive away this handmaid and her son, for the son of this handmaid will not be an heir with my son Isaac." The meaning of the sentence is that the son of a handmaid cannot enjoy the same right to inherit his father's property after his father's death, so he should be given a share now and let him go to other places.Therefore, we see such words ("Genesis" Chapter [-], verses [-] and [-]): "Abraham gave Isaac everything, but only a part of his wealth to his sons, Send them away from Isaac, his firstborn son, while he lived.” That is, Abraham gave a portion of his property to all his sons except Isaac and sent them away, and the property he retained was part of his inheritance The greatest part, was inherited by his eldest son Isaac after his death; but Isaac never had the right "to be lord over his brethren" by virtue of being the heir, for if he had this right, why would Sarah want to use How about taking away one of his subjects and slaves in the way of a bastard?
115．The privilege of "Birthright" is then nothing but double property, as it is in general law, so we see that in the time of the patriarchs before Moses (from which our author often boasted that his pattern was drawn) No one ever knew or thought that primogeniture would give any one the right to rule or the throne, or to rule over their brothers' fatherhood and kingship.

If this is not proved enough by the story of Isaac and Ishmael, the reader is referred to Chapter 5, verses 48 and 20 of Chronicles, where we find the words: "The firstborn of Israel was born It was Reuben, for he had defiled his father's bed, and his birthright went to Joseph (son of Israel), but he was not strictly firstborn in genealogy; Judah was superior to all his brothers, kings From him also, but the birthright was given to Joseph." What exactly is this birthright?When Jacob blessed Joseph ("Genesis" Chapter [-]No.[-] Section [-]), he said to us like this: "And I gave you all the land I took from the Amorites with bow and sword. to you, that you may have a portion more than your brethren." From this it is evident that birthright is nothing but a double inheritance, and that it is evident that the original text of Chronicles does not agree with our author's doctrine Quite the contrary, all this shows that dominion is not part of the birthright, because it tells us that although Joseph had the birthright, the dominion belonged to Judah.Since our author cites the examples of Jacob and Esau to show that dominion is the right of the heir over his brothers, we must suppose that he simply admires the word "birthright."

116．In the first place, it is only a poor example, and does not suffice to prove that dominion belongs to the firstborn according to the will of God, since Jacob, the youngest, was the one who had it (however he got it).If this instance serves to prove anything, it is certain that it proves only the opposite of what our author says, that "the dominion was not assigned to the firstborn by a divine grant."If it is, he cannot change it.For if, according to the will of God or the law of nature, absolute power and throne belong to the eldest son and his heirs, so that they are supreme princes, and the rest of the brothers are slaves, then our author gives gives us reason to doubt whether the eldest son had a right to cede this dominion to the detriment of his posterity.For our Author has told us: "No low power of man can limit, or make any law contrary to, those gifts or bounties, either from God or from Nature."

117．Second, the place our author mentions (Chapter 27No. 20 of Genesis) has nothing to do with one brother dominating the other, or Esau obeying Jacob or the like.Obviously historically Esau was never subject to Jacob but lived elsewhere on Mount Seir where he established another tribe and government and he was their ruler as Jacob was his own Like the monarch of the family.If we consider "thy brethren" and "thy mother's sons" in this sentence, we must not take it literally as referring to Esau, or that Jacob had dominion over Esau , because Isaac knew that Jacob had only one brother, and he certainly would not have used the terms "sons" and "brothers" literally.

The literal reading of these words is neither accurate nor convincing that Jacob had power over Esau.In the biblical stories we see just the opposite, for (Genesis Chapter 32) several times Jacob calls Esau "Lord" and claims to be his servant, and (Genesis "Chapter 33) "Seven times he fell down on the ground and saluted Esau".Whether, then, Esau was Jacob's subject (no, according to our author, all subjects are slaves), and whether Jacob, by birthright, was the prince of his reign, is left to the reader to judge for himself.If possible, I would also lead the reader to believe that Isaac's words, "May thou be lord of thy brothers, and thy mother's sons bow down unto thee," confirm that Jacob, by virtue of him, received from Esau The firstborn son named share in the power to rule over Esau.

118．Anyone who knows the story of Jacob and Esau will find that after the death of their father, neither of them had power or authority over the other. "Master" or "slave", they are independent of each other, they are the leaders of their respective families, neither of them is under the law of the other, they are separated from each other, they are born of different peoples under two different governments source.Then, the blessing of Isaac, with which our author seeks to establish the dominion of the elder brother, expresses nothing but the words Libeca heard from God: "Two nations are in your womb, In the future, one family will be stronger than another, and the older will take care of the younger." ("Genesis" Chapter 25No.20) Similarly, Jacob also blessed Judah ("Genesis" Chapter 49 ) and gave him a scepter and dominion, where our author may perhaps assert dominion and dominion over his brethren, as he asserts dominion to Jacob from Isaac's speech.Both of the aforementioned blessings were prophecies that were fulfilled to their descendants at a much later date, rather than declaring any one of them an inherited right to dominion.We thus conclude the only two arguments our author uses to justify the view that the heir is lord of his brothers: First, because God told Cain that (Genesis "Chapter 4), no matter how "sin" tempts him, he should, or can subdue it.Here even the most knowledgeable commentators would think that the words refer to "sin" and not to Abel, and the reasons they give are so strong that nothing favorable can be inferred from these dubious passages. The purpose of our author comes; secondly, because in the above-mentioned quotation from "Genesis" Chapter 27, Isaac prophesied that the Israelites, the descendants of Jacob, would have power over the Edomites, the descendants of Esau, so Our author tells us: "The heir is lord over his brothers." Whether this conclusion is true, I leave it to you to judge.

119．Now we see how our author ordained that Adam's scepter, or paternal dominion, be transmitted to his posterity, that is, by his heir, who inherited all his father's power, and after his father's death , he becomes a master like his father, "not only over his own offspring, but also over his brothers."It's all been passed down from the father, and it's passed on indefinitely.Not once, however, did he tell us who the heir of this succession was.All we have to learn from him on such a fundamental matter is that he uses the "firstborn" name passed down from Esau to Jacob in his example of Jacob. The term “fen” leads us to speculate that what he meant by heir was the eldest son.I don't remember, however, where he mentioned the right of primogeniture explicitly, but it was always hidden behind the shadow of the vague term "heir."

Even if he meant the eldest son as heir (and if the eldest son was not, he could not explain why all the sons could not be equally heirs), and the eldest son had the right to rule over his brothers according to primogeniture, that would only solve the problem of succession The first step in the matter, until he fails to point out who is the rightful heir in the possible case of the present ruler having no sons, is still very difficult.However, he silently skips over the question, which may be very clever, because in affirming that "those who possess such power, and even the power and form of government, are God's will and out of God's ordinance." Afterwards, what could be smarter than to take care not to touch on people?For the solution of his problem would necessarily compel him to admit that God and nature have made no decision on it.

If this natural prince, whom our author has spent so much labor in making, dies and leaves no son, if he cannot specify, by the right of nature and the express law of God, who is the nearest entitled to come Those who inherit his dominion, he can completely avoid spending too much energy on discussing other matters.For, to settle people's minds and determine their obedience and loyalty, it is more important to make people understand who is supposed to have this "right" according to original rights (superior and prior to human will and any action) patriarchal" qualifications, rather than pointing out that the existence of this "authority" is based on nature.Unless I know who, among many who have such a power, rightly possesses it, I know only that there is such a paternal authority, and that I should and will submit to it, and that does nothing to me. meaningful.

120．Since the main question now in question concerns my duty of obedience, and my inner duty to my master and ruler, I must affirm that the one who enjoys this patriarchal right The one who demands my obedience.Our author has said: "Not only is the power of the state generally derived from divine ordinances, but even a particular designation should be vested in the oldest parents." He added, "Not only the power or right of government, but even The form of that power, and those who possess it, are from the will of God."If these words are true, but unless he shows us in all cases who are this "appointed" of God, who are this "oldest parents", all his abstract ideas of sovereign rights, It doesn't make any sense when it comes to practical application and making people obey from the heart.For the "authority of the father" itself neither commands nor obeys, but only gives one a right which another does not have.If the right to command and to be obeyed is derived only by a right of inheritance which no one else can possess, I say that I obey the "father" when I obey him whom the father has not given him the right rights", which is ridiculous.For a man who cannot prove that he has power over me according to the will of God, can no more have the divine right to make me obey him, than he who can prove that there is such a divine right in the world.

121．As our author cannot justify a prince's right to reign on the grounds that any prince is the heir of Adam, this theory is of no use at all, and it would be better to leave it alone.Our author also likes to reduce all matters to actual possession, so that obedience to the state is attributed to the usurper, as to a legitimate prince, and thereby validates the usurper's monarchy.These words of his are worth remembering when he said: "If a man usurps the place of the true heir, the obedience of the people to the patriarchy must continue, and await the will of God." Question, leave it in the appropriate place and I will investigate further.I would like my sober readers to think how grateful princes are to a political doctrine which puts "patriarchy," i.e., the right to govern, in the hands of a Caedre or a Crimwell. .Thus, since all obedience is due to the right of the father, by the same right the obedience of the subjects is also due to the usurped prince, with exactly the same grounds as obedience to the legitimate prince.Yet a theory as dangerous as this is bound to ascribe all political power to Adam's divine and legitimate patriarchy, indicating only that it came from him, but not to whom, or to whom. is the heir to this power.

122．I think, therefore, that in order for the government of the world to be established, and for all men to accept the duty of obedience from the bottom of their hearts, we must (even if, in our author's opinion, all power is only the "paternal right" over Adam possession) like telling people that after the death of the father, the eldest son has the right of inheritance, let them know who has the right to this "power", this "Patriarchy".Since what we have to remember, and may presumably be what our author (if he has not sometimes forgotten) urges, is who has the right to be obeyed, and not where it is not clear who has that power. In this case, discuss whether there is such a power as "patriarchy" in the world.As long as we know who has this power, since it is a right of dominion, whether it be called "father," "royal," "natural," or "right of acquisition," "supreme father," and "supreme brother rights", it doesn't matter.

(End of this chapter)