government theory

Chapter 22 Who is this heir? (5)
141．He went on: "The majority of the most civilized peoples in the world have tried to trace their origins from Noah's nephews." How many of the so-called most civilized peoples are there?Who are they?I am worried that the great and civilized Chinese nation, as well as several other nations in the east, west, north, south, and four directions, may not care much about this issue themselves.All peoples who believe in the Bible (this is, I think, what our author means by "most of the most civilized peoples") generally trace their origins from Noah; Noah's nephews would come to mind.

But even if the genealogists and archaeologists of the nations were ordered (for these are usually the ones who try to trace the origins of the peoples) or all the peoples themselves tried to trace them from some son or nephew of Noah Nor does it bear anything to prove that Adam's dominion over the whole world was rightfully passed on to his fathers.Men of every nation or race try to trace their origin from certain persons, which we may judge to be either men of renown, men of honor to posterity, or of their virtue. and acts are great.Besides, they did not ask or consider whose heirs these people were, but they only regarded them as people who, by virtue of their own virtue, had raised themselves to a certain position, so that they could give to future generations those who called themselves The people of their descendants are the ones who bring glory.But even if they were like Augustines, Hercules, Brahmans, Tamborines, Pharamonds, even Jupiter and Saten, many ancient and modern races have tried to find their origins from them. Does this prove that these people "rightly enjoyed the dominion of Adam handed down to them"?If not, it is but a evasion by our author to confuse his readers, and has no meaning in itself.

142．So he tells us what he said about the division of the world: "Some say it was done by lot, and others say that Noah traveled around the Mediterranean in ten years and divided the world into Asia, Africa, and Europe. ’” Divided part of the land to his three sons, America seemed to stay, and whoever could grab it was his, and these words were for the same purpose.Why does our author go to so much trouble to prove that Noah distributed the world to his sons, but refuses to abandon his less-than-dream imagination, and thinks he can get support for this imagination from somewhere? Woolen cloth?It is indeed very puzzling that he did so.

Since such a "distribution", if anything could be proved, would certainly result in depriving Adam's heir, or unless the three brothers were all Adam's heirs, our author goes on to say: " Although the circumstances of this distribution are not clear, one thing is most certain, that is, the distribution itself was made by the family of Noah and his sons, and the leaders and monarchs of this family were the parents.” If To admit the truth of his words, and hold it valid in proving that all power in the world is but the dominion descended from Adam, would only prove that the fathers of sons were all heirs to this dominion of Adam. .For, in those days, if Ham and Japheth and the other parents besides the eldest son were the heads and princes of their own houses, and had the right to divide the land according to the families, then the younger brothers were also the fathers of the houses. , what can prevent them from enjoying the same rights?Since Ham and Japheth did not cause them to lose the right bequeathed to him, and not be kings, because their elder brother had the right of heir, the sons of today may also be made kings by the same right bequeathed to them. monarch.

Thus, what our author speaks of as a king's natural right is limited to his own children, and no kingdom established by this natural right can be greater than a family.For "Adam's dominion over the world" should have passed, as our author says, to the eldest son only, and therefore had only one heir, or to all the sons equally, since The father of every family has this power as Noah's three sons did.No matter which of the above views is admitted, the existing governments and kingdoms in the world will be destroyed by it.For whoever once has this "natural kingship" which is rightly handed down to him, either acquires it, as our author says, in the same way that Cain acquired it, and becomes the master over his brothers. lord of the whole world, and thus become the sole king of the whole world, or, as he says here, divide this power among the three brothers Shem, Ham, and Japheth, so that each one becomes lord only of his own family, and each family Not affiliated with each other, the above two situations must be one of them.Either the whole world forms only one empire by the right of heir, or each family becomes itself a government by "the dominion handed down from Adam to the parents of the family", either.All the proofs he gives us here of the succession of Adam's dominion can only be reduced to this.Because after that, he continued to describe the issue of heredity.

143．He said, "Since Noah's family was scattered at the tower of Babel, we have of course found kingship established in kingdoms all over the world." If you must find out, do so, and you will help us discover new history.But you must prove it before we believe that kingship is established in the world on your principles.For I think no one can object to the statement that kingship is established in "kingdoms all over the world."But you say that the kings of certain kingdoms in the world enjoy the throne "according to the power passed down to them by Adam", which is not only unknown, but also quite impossible.If our author finds no better basis for the foundation of his monarchy than to grasp this hypothesis of what happened when the Tower of Babel was dispersed, then, in order to unite all mankind, the Monarchy, even with its top in the sky, can only serve to disperse mankind like the tower of Babel, and can produce no other effect than chaos.

144．For he tells us that the divided nations are all distinct, and that each family has its father as its ruler, so that, even in times of confusion, we shall see that "God carefully families to assign to them different languages, to preserve the power of the father".If anyone but our author could clearly discover in the original text of the Bible he has just quoted, that all the nations at that dispersion were ruled by their fathers, and that "God carefully reserved the power of the fathers." ", that is really very difficult. The original text in the "Bible" is actually this: "These are the descendants of Shem, each according to his own family, the tongue of the land where he lived, and the nation." This is after counting the descendants of Ham and Japheth. Said so, but nothing about their rulers, form of government, "father" or "fatherhood" is mentioned in these accounts.But our author saw patriarchy before anyone saw a shadow of it, and told us with certainty that their "ruler was their father, and God beware retain the power of the Father".

Why is this?Because those who belong to the same family speak the same language, they must be reunited when they are scattered.As if we could argue like this: Hannibal's army contained several different nationalities, and Hannibal gathered people who spoke the same language into one team, so that his father was the captain of each team, and Hannibal Bart was careful to preserve the "father's power"; or rather: in the colonial days of the Carolinas, where there were Englishmen, Frenchmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen, and the peoples of different nations lived together separately, so in the Carolinas, They are dividing up their land "each according to his dialect, family, and state," so that the "right of the father" is carefully preserved; A small tribe is an independent people, they speak different languages, so we can deduce that "God is careful to retain the power of the father", or that their rulers are "according to the rights handed down to them enjoy the rule of Adam right".Although we do not know who their rulers were or what their form of government was, it is sufficient to know that they were divided into independent small societies and spoke different languages.

145． Not a single word in the Bible mentions their rulers or the form of their government, it just describes how the human race gradually divided into different languages ​​and peoples.So if no such thing is said in the Bible, and someone tells us with certainty that their "ruler" is the "Father" - doing so is not arguing on the authority of the Bible, but in the Under the circumstances that are not mentioned at all in the records of the Bible, they self-righteously assert it as a fact and build castles in the air in their own minds.So his other words, "They were not a motley crowd without chiefs and rulers, who chose at will any ruler or government they liked," come from the same ground.

146．I ask, when all mankind, speaking one language, were gathered together on the plain of Sinai, were they all subject to one prince, who enjoyed Adam's dominion by virtue of the right handed down to them?If not, it means that the idea of ​​Adam's successor was obviously not there at that time. No one knew that the right to rule could be obtained according to this position at that time, and the "father's right" to Adam was not carefully preserved by God and human beings.When mankind was still a people, living together, speaking a common language, and building a city together, when they obviously knew who the real heir to the kingship was - because Shem lived to the time when Isaac existed, this The time was long after the separation of Babel - if at that time, I say, they were not governed by patriarchal monarchy according to Adam passing down to his successors, then, obviously, there was no respected No one recognized the "fatherhood" of Adam's successor, and there was no Shem empire in Asia, so there was no such thing as Noah's distribution of the world mentioned by our author.

(End of this chapter)