government theory

Chapter 21 Who is this heir? (4)
Is not this a marvelous argument for the assertion that all power is descended from Adam according to God's ordinance?And to say that the planter himself and his powers are just divine commands, because he has power over the servants who live in his house and buy with his money?But this is exactly what happened to Abraham: those who were rich in the time of their patriarchs, as they are in the West Indies today, bought male and female servants and, through their reproduction and the purchase of new ones, gradually arose many large family.Although they used these slaves in peace and war, the power of the rich over them was purchased with money. Can we think that their power is an inheritance from Adam?To use an example, a man who rode out on an expedition against his enemies, and the horse he bought from the market is a good proof that the owner of the horse "had by the right handed down to him the enjoyment that Adam had by the command of God." dominion over the world".This evidence is just as valid as the fact that Abraham led his house slaves into battle, is evidence of the patriarchs' dominion descended from Adam.In both cases the entitlement to power possessed by the master, whether over slaves or over horses, is acquired only by purchase.Gaining dominion over something through trade or money became a new way of proving one's power by heredity and inheritance.

131． "The declaration of war and the conclusion of peace are the marks of sovereignty." In political society, it is true.For example, in the West Indies there was a man who led with the sons of his friends, or companions, or hired soldiers, or bought slaves, or a company of Can he declare war and make peace (if there is such an opportunity) and "ratify the treaty by oath" without being a monarch or absolute king to those around him?If anyone says he cannot, he must admit that many shipowners or private planters are absolute princes, because they can do as much as princes.But in a political society the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace can only be carried out by the highest authority in society, for war or peace act differently on the power of such a political group, unless it is the person who has command over the power of the whole group. , otherwise no one else can declare war or make peace.In a political society, this power can only be the supreme power.But in a society of temporary free association, those who have such powers by the consent of the members of the society also have the power of war and peace, and a man may have such powers for his own interests; the state of war is that when no superior can In the case of a complaint, the animosity that exists between the two parties does not lie in the number of combatants.

132．In fact, the act of making war or making peace justifies the possession of power to make or cease hostilities by those who make war and peace for him, and nothing else.In many cases, this power can be exercised by anyone without being at the top of the political spectrum.Therefore, war or peace does not prove that he who does so is a political ruler, let alone a prince, or even a republican government is a prince, because they do declare war and peace like monarchical governments.

133．But even if this is a "sign of dominion" to Abraham, is this a proof that Adam's "dominion" over the world was passed on to him?If so, it would also be a strong proof that Adam's "rule" passed to someone else.Thus, since those republics also fought and made peace like Abraham, they were also Adam's successors like Abraham.If you say that the "rule" of Adam did not pass to the government of the republic by right, although the government of the republic also declared war and made peace, as I say to you that it was the same with Abraham, then the argument you rely on fails; If you insist on your argument that so long as those who fight and make peace (which, no doubt, are the republics) do "inherit the dominion of Adam," then again your monarchy is untenable, unless you say, A republic is a monarchy as long as it enjoys Adam's dominion by inheritance.You can justify yourself that way, but it would really be an ingenious way of making every government in the world a monarchy.

134．In order to give our author credit for this new invention—I confess that I was not the first to discover it by tracing his principles, and impose it on him—I had better let the reader know (although it seems very Ridiculous) it came out of his own mouth.He once said ably: "In all the kingdoms and republics of the world, whether the prince is the supreme father of the people, or only the true heir of the supreme father, or acquires the throne by usurpation, election, etc., whether by several persons or This republic is governed by a group of men, but the power possessed by any one man, or many, or whatever, remains the sole and natural power of the Supreme Father." Our authors often say of this " The right of fatherhood" is the "power of the king", especially in the example of Abraham given earlier.He said that those who governed the republic also had this kingship.If it is true that those who govern republics possess the power of princes, then it is also true that some republics are governed by princes; The latter must be a king, so that all republics are almost real monarchies.So, what more time do we need to spend on this matter?If the governments of the world are to be what they must be, they must be, and there can be no government in the world except that of monarchy.Doubtless, it is the surest means invented by our author, by which all governments except monarchies may be excluded from the world.

135．However, all this is difficult to prove that Abraham became a monarch by virtue of his status as Adam's heir.If he had been king by right of inheritance, then Lot (Abraham's nephew) who was of his own family must have been his subject, since by virtue of his family status he had such obligations before the servants of his house.We see, however, that they lived together as equals of friends, and that when their shepherds quarreled, there was no self-righteous or superior among them, but parted from each other by agreement (Genesis Chapter 13), so although Lot is actually Abraham's nephew, both Abraham and the original text of the Bible call Lot Abraham's brother. This is not a sign of dominion and authority, but a title of friendship and equality.

If our author knew that Abraham was Adam's heir, and was also a king, it would seem to know more than Abraham himself knew, and the servant he sent to marry his son.For when the servant lobbied the girl and her friend by enumerating the benefits of the marriage (Chapter 24No. 30 of Genesis), he said, "I am Abraham's servant, and the LORD is great." The land blessed my master, and made him great, and gave him flocks, herds, gold and silver, servants, camels, and donkeys. Sarah, my master's wife, bore a son to my master in her old age. My master has given everything to this son.” Can we imagine a prudent servant boasting of his master’s grandeur in such detail that if he knew that Isaac was to claim the throne, he would Do you leave it out?Can we imagine that, on such a momentous occasion, he would have neglected to inform them that Abraham was a king, which was a well-known title at that time, and there were nine kings in Abraham's neighbourhood.Had it ever occurred to him, or his master, that it might make his mission a success?
136．The matter, however, seems to have been left for two or three thousand years to be discovered by our author, so let him take the credit, but he must take care that a part of Adam's land be passed on as well as his whole dominion. This "heir".Although Abraham (if our author is to be believed) like the other patriarchs "had a dominion as great as the absolute dominion which should have been handed down to him, as any sovereign from the foundation of the world has had," yet his inheritance , his territory, his allotment was so small that he had not even an inch of it before he bought a field and a cave in it from the descendants of the Hittites in which to bury Sarah.

137．Combined with the example of Abraham, our author also cited the example of Esau to prove that "Adam had the dominion over the whole world, and it was enjoyed by the fathers by the right descended from him".This case is more comical than the last. "Esau went to meet his brother Jacob with 400 armed men," thus becoming a king by virtue of Adam's successor.Then 400 armed men, no matter how they were assembled, are enough to prove that the man who led them was a king and the heir of Adam.Some Conservatives in Ireland (whatever there are in other countries) would be grateful to our author for having such admirable views of them, especially if there is no one around who has 500 armed men and thus has They would have been more grateful the more highly qualified had come out to question the power of their 400 armed men.In such a serious controversy, it is a great disgrace to take such an attitude of indifference - let's not say it in a worse way.

In this place, Esau is brought forward to prove Adam's dominion, which was as great an absolute dominion as any other sovereign power passed down to his fathers.Jacob is again cited in the same chapter as an example of "being ruler over his brethren by birthright".We thus see that both brothers, by the same qualifications, are absolute sovereigns, and at the same time both are heirs of Adam.The eldest brother became Adam’s heir because he led 400 armed forces to meet his brothers, and the younger heir became Adam’s heir because of the “birthright” and “Esau received the Adam's dominion over the whole world was as great as the absolute dominion of any prince", while "Jacob ruled over Esau by the right of his heir over his brothers ".Hold back your laughter!I confess that I have never met a man of so shrewd and able a mind as Sir Robert who could argue in this way.It was his misfortune, however, that the principles he discovered were not in harmony with the nature of things or with human affairs, nor with the structure and order which God had established in the world, and he had to constantly contradict common sense and Experience creates conflict.

138．He tells us in the next section that this patriarchal power continued not only to the flood, but even beyond, as the word "patriarch" itself partly attests to. The word "ancestor" not only proves that as long as there are ancestors in the world, there will continue to be patriarchal rights, because as long as there are ancestors, there must be patriarchal rights, just as there must be patriarchal or husbandly rights as long as there are fathers or husbands.But it's just a game of names.What he wants to imply, absurdly, is the very thing that remains to be proved, namely, that the patriarchs, by virtue of rights descended from Adam, also possessed all Adam's power over the world, that is, the hypothetical Absolute and universal dominion vested in Adam.If he was sure that there was such an absolute monarchy in the world that lasted until the Flood, I should very much like to know from what record he got it.I confess that I have searched all the Bibles and found not a single word about this matter.If his 'right of patriarchy' meant something else, it would be irrelevant to what we are discussing now.As for how the title "Patriarch" can "partially prove" that only those who are so called have absolute monarchy?I admit, I'm very clueless about it.So I don't think it's necessary to answer until the debate based on that sentence becomes a little clearer.

139．"The three sons of Noah," says our author, "possessed the world," and "it was assigned to them by their father, because the whole world was filled with their offspring."Although Noah never gave the world to his sons, the world may indeed have been filled with his descendants, since the "earth" could be "filled" by humans without being distributed.Here, therefore, all the arguments advanced by our author fail to justify this distribution.However, even if I accept his proof, I ask again, who is Adam's heir among these three sons, since the world has been divided among them?If Adam's "rule" and Adam's "sovereignty" can only be passed on to the eldest son according to the rights, then the remaining two sons can only be his "subjects" and his "slaves".

If by reason it has been passed on to all three brothers, then by the same reason it should be passed on to all men, and therefore his statement that "the heir is Lord of the brothers" is not true, and all Brothers of God, together with all human beings, should be equal and independent, that is to say, everyone is the successor of Adam's monarchy, and everyone is a monarch, exactly the same as each other.However, our author would say, "Noah their father gave them the world." In doing so, our author would be acknowledging Noah's superiority over God Almighty, since he considers it unlikely that God himself would Granted to Noah and his three sons, thereby compromising Noah's birthright.He said these words: "Why should anyone think that Noah, the sole heir remaining in the world, would have been stripped of his birthright, and made a sojourner like his sons in the eyes of all the world? But in this place, he felt that Noah was justified in depriving Shem of his birthright and giving him and his brothers the world.From this it follows that, according to our author's wishes, this "birthright" is sometimes sacrosanct, but sometimes it is not.

140．If Noah had indeed divided the world among his sons, and if his distribution had been valid, then the oracle would have come to an end, and all that our author has said about the successors of Adam, together with his in this All the things built on the foundation will not hold water.The natural power of the prince collapses, and the form of dominion, and the persons endowed with it, will all be by the command of men, and not, as our author says, of God.For, if the right of inheritance is from God, it is a divine right, and no one—whether paternity or not—can alter it.If it is not a divine right, it is only artificial and depends on the will of man.Whereupon, in human institutions, where there is no such regulated institution, the eldest son has no power over his brothers, and mankind may give government to whomever it pleases, and choose any form it chooses.

(End of this chapter)