government theory

Chapter 20 Who is this heir? (3)
123．Then, let me ask again on the issue of inheritance of "paternal authority" or "highest patriarchal authority", does the grandson born to one's own daughter have priority over the nephew born to the brother?Does the grandson born of the eldest son, when he is still an infant, have priority over the youngest son who is grown up and capable?Is it true that daughters are given priority over uncles or other men born in the male line?Is it true that grandchildren born to younger daughters have priority over granddaughters born to older daughters?Is it true that the eldest son from a concubine has priority over the youngest son from a regular wife?If things go on like this, many questions about legality will arise, for example, in terms of nature, what is the difference between a wife and a concubine?As far as the civil or statute laws of the world are concerned, they here state nothing.We can continue to ask: If the eldest son is a fool, should he inherit the "paternal right" first than the wise youngest son?How foolish is it to deprive him of this right?Who should be the judge of this question?Does the son of a fool who is excluded for stupidity have priority over the son of his reigning brother-in-law?If after the death of the king, the widowed queen has a leftover pregnancy, and no one knows whether she will give birth to a boy or a girl in the future, who should enjoy the "paternal right" at this time?If two twin boys were born at the same time as a result of the mother's caesarean section, who should be the heir?Do sisters with different mothers or fathers have priority over daughters born to brothers with the same parents?

124．These and other questions about succession status and rights of succession are the kind of questions we have often encountered in history in relation to succession, not idle fantasy.If we need them, we can find famous instances in the British Isles alone, without looking elsewhere. The shrewd and learned author of "The King of the Fathers" has written of these at such length that I need not repeat them.

Before our author has resolved all the doubts that may arise concerning the question of the next generation of heirs, and before he shows that these questions are clearly determined by the laws of nature or revealed by God, what he says about the "princely" and "absolute" "Supreme" "Adam's paternal authority" and all his assumptions (I say all his assumptions are quite counterproductive rather than proofs) as to how this power is passed on to his heirs, etc. It is useless for the establishment of the state or for the determination of the qualifications of any monarch in the world today. On the contrary, it will cause disputes and make everything a problem.

Although our author has repeatedly said to us, and all people also believe that Adam has "the right of the father", so he has the "power of the monarch", and believes that this power (the only power in the world) "is handed down to His heirs and grandchildren", there is no other power in the world except this power.But if there is any doubt as to whom the patriarchy passed, and to whom it now belongs, no one can be under any obligation of obedience.Unless someone says: "It is my duty to submit to the 'father' of a man who has no 'father' like myself, but this is tantamount to saying that I obey a man because he has the right to rule; if I was asked how he came to have the right to rule, and I replied that there was no way of knowing whether he had the right at all." Since I know that a "not a reason why I should obey" does not serve as a reason for The reason for my obedience, then, of course, a "reason that no one can know" cannot be a reason for my obedience.

125．So all the nonsense that our author utters about Adam's "fatherhood," how great its power is, and how necessary its assumptions, etc., if they fail to tell men whom they are to obey, or who is to rule, Who is to be obeyed, then, these words are of no help in determining the power of rulers, or in determining the duty of obedience of those subjects who are to obey others.At the same time, this "fatherhood" of Adam, this "sovereignty" handed down to his heirs, is of no use to the dominion of men, as our author tells the people, that Adam had "the power to forgive sins or to heal the sick." "Power," which according to God's ordinance should be passed on to his heirs, but who his heirs are cannot be determined, is of no benefit to the convincing of human beings or the protection of their health.If anyone believes so much in these solid words of our author, and therefore goes to a man who calls himself a monk or a doctor to confess his sins, hoping to be pardoned, or to gain health by taking his medicines, or to run into these professions and say: I accept the right of pardon from Adam, or say: I shall be healed by the right of healing from Adam.He does this, not just as a man who admits that all these powers are passed down from Adam to his only heir, but he does not know who this heir is, says that I accept this "father's right" from Adam and accept it. Is obedience equally unreasonable?

126．It is true that secular lawyers once thought they could settle some cases of succession, yet, on our author's principles, they interfered in matters which did not belong to their province.For if all political power were to be derived only from Adam, and to be transmitted only to his heirs from generation to generation, according to the "will of God" and "ordinance of God," then this would be a form of government which is prior to and above all governments. Therefore, the written laws of men cannot establish themselves as the foundation of all laws and governments, and its laws are only those received from God and the laws of nature.As silent as our author is on the matter, I am inclined to think that there is no right to transfer in this way.I believe that, if such a right existed, it would be of no use, and men would be even more at a loss in matters of domination and obedience to rulers than if they did not exist.

For all these endless entanglements can be properly settled by statutes and contracts which are excluded by "divine ordinances" (if such a thing exists); yet a divine right of nature , and how rights as important as the order and peace of the whole world can be transmitted to posterity without any definite, natural, or divine ordinance relating to it, is indeed never to be understood.If the power of the state is assigned to the heir "by the decree of the god," but "according to the decree of that god," and there is no way of knowing who the heir is, then all temporal dominion is lost.Since by "divine right" this "kingship of the father" belongs only to the heirs of Adam, there is no room for human thought and consent to delegate this power to others.For if only one man had a divine right to subject men, no one could claim that obedience except he who could prove to himself that right; feel a duty of obedience.Thus this doctrine overthrows all government at all.

127．It follows, then, that our author, after he has taken as a solid foundation the reference to dominion as "God's will" and "God's ordained man," informs us that this man is the heir.However, he left us to guess who the heir was.Therefore, this "divine rule" that assigns rights to a person whom we cannot know is basically the same as assigning to no one.However, whatever our author may do, the "divine ordinance" must not have made such comical designations, nor can we imagine that God could make a divine law stipulating that a person has a right to something without Tell us the law of identifying the man, or give divine authority to an heir without saying who the heir is.This may make people feel that, rather than saying that God grants such rights to the heir, but is evasive and uncertain about who the heir is, it is better to say that an heir is in accordance with "God's ordinance". do not enjoy such rights.

128．If God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham, and stipulated in vague words to give it to someone after him, but did not specify his descendants, so that people would know who this so-and-so was.Such a determination, then, of the title to the lands of Canaan would be of no force and use, like the decision to give the empire to the heirs of Adam and his descendants without telling who his heirs were, since " The term "heir" is tantamount to referring to "someone" who is unknown to me, if there is no criterion by which the person can be identified.God established the "God's rule" that people should not marry "close relatives". He believed that it was not enough to say that "one of you is not allowed to approach his close relatives so as to find them naked". There is no way to know who is the "close relative" who is "ordained by God" to prohibit marriage, otherwise the law would be of no use, because in general terms restrictions or privileges are given to people, but there is no way to identify who is the same. For this specific person, this provision is meaningless.But since God has nowhere said that the heir to the next generation should inherit all his father's property and dominion, so God has nowhere appointed who should be this heir, so do not feel Strange.

Since he never thought of it, and in that sense nominated any heir, we certainly cannot expect him to name or designate one as heir anywhere.Otherwise, we can expect it.Therefore, although the word "heir" appears in the "Bible", there is no heir in the sense mentioned by our author, that is, a person who should inherit everything from his father according to his natural right and exclude his brothers. heir.So Sarah thought that if Ishmael had remained in the house and shared in Abraham's inheritance after his death, the handmaid's son would have been an heir as well as Isaac.So Sarah said to Abraham, "Cast out this handmaid and her son, for the son of this handmaiden shall not be an heir with my son Isaac." But we cannot forgive our author for this, because Since he tells us that in each group there is one who is "the true and natural heir of Adam," it ought to tell us what the rule of succession is.However, he is so stingy that he refuses to give us the criterion of how to recognize who is the heir, then we will see in the next section, the biblical history he quotes-he thinks his theory of government is completely established. What is above the Bible—on this necessary and fundamental point, can tell us something.

129．To lend credit to his title, our author begins his account of Adam's transmission of kingship with these words: "Adam's dominion over the whole world, which he acquired by the command of God, and the patriarchs by The dominion enjoyed by his handed down right is very extensive, like..." How can he prove that the ancestors really enjoyed such power by inheritance?He said that because "we saw that the patriarch Judah had the power of life and death, and pronounced the death sentence on his daughter-in-law Tamar because she pretended to be a prostitute".How does this prove that Judah had absolute and sovereign power?By "he pronounced her death sentence"?In fact, the pronouncement of the death sentence was usually the function of the lower officials rather than a sure sign of the rulership.The power to make laws to kill and kill is indeed a sign of dominion, but the work of pronouncing sentences according to such laws can also be carried out by someone other than the ruler, so that the death sentence is only a kind of dominion over him. An insufficient evidence of the right.

It is as unreasonable as someone saying, "Justice Jaffery has recently pronounced the death sentence of people, so Judge Jaffery has the right to rule."Yet our author would say, "Judas did this in his own right, not by commission." Who knows whether he had a right?A moment of rage might drive him to do things he had no right to do. "Judah had dominion over life and death", how can we see this point?It seems that he exercised this right, and that he "declared Tamar dead."Our author thinks that since Judas did it, he had a right to do it, and this is a very good proof.But Judas slept with her.By the same method of proof, he also has a right to do it.If the reasoning that one has a right to do a certain thing because one has done it is correct, Abbaishalom may be counted among our author's rulers, for he was in the very Such a death sentence was pronounced on his brother Anon under similar circumstances, and it was also carried out.If this is enough to prove a domination right of life and death, isn't Yabaishalom also the ruler?

But even if all of the above are proofs of dominion, who is this man who "has a dominion as great as the absolute dominion of a king by virtue of a right descended from Adam"? "It is Judah," says our author. Judah was the youngest son of Jacob, and his father and elder brother were still alive; As long as the elder brother lived, a younger brother "by hereditary right" was entitled to Adam's scepter; and if a man so qualified could succeed to the throne, I do not see why all should not be lord; If Judah was one of Adam's heirs when his father and elder brother lived, I don't know who else was not.In this way, everyone can succeed to the throne like Judas.

130．Speaking of war, we know that Abraham led 318 soldiers from his family, and Esau led 400 armed people to meet his brother Jacob.To secure peace, Abraham made an alliance with Abimelech.Is it not possible that a man who has 318 in his family is not an heir of Adam?And a West Indian planter has many more men, whom he can gather together if he likes (and no doubt he does), and lead them against the Indians, and when he suffers from them, pay them demand reparations, all of which were done without the "absolute dominion of the princes descended from Adam."

(End of this chapter)