government theory

Chapter 3 On Patriarchy and Kingship (2)
"God gave the father a power and liberty to transfer to another his dominion over his children, and so we find, in the early stages of human history, the custom of selling and gifting children; Castration, or what makes a man eunuch, is because men regard their servants as a possession and inheritance, like other goods." "The law is but the will of the sovereign patriarch." "God ordained Adam's supreme power should be unlimited, and as extensive as all the actions of his will; as it was with Adam, so it is with all others who have supreme powers."

9.The reason I have troubled the reader by quoting our author's own words, is that there is seen in them what he says, scattered throughout his writings, of what he calls "the authority of the father."He believes that this authority was originally granted to Adam, and then it should belong to all monarchs.This "authority of the father" or "right as a father" appears to our author as a divine and unalterable sovereignty.Thus a father or a prince has an absolute, arbitrary, unlimited and unrestricted power over the life, liberty, and property of his children or subjects, so that he may take or transfer their property at will , sell, castrate, or use their bodies—for he is the lord and possessor of all, and they are all his slaves, and his infinite will is their law.

10.Since our author entrusts to Adam so great a power, and rests upon this supposition all the dominion and power of princes, we have reason to expect him to prove him statement.Since men are deprived of everything, they deserve, in their slave condition, certain proof that slavery is necessary, in order to convince them to submit peacefully to what their rulers have for them. Otherwise, what good, or pretense of good, could our author establish such an unlimited power, but flatter the natural vanity and ambition of men?What's more, this kind of vanity and ambition are especially easy to grow with the grasp of power.If those who have climbed the ladder of power to a great but limited extent by the consent of their kinsmen are persuaded that they are entitled to what is not given because they receive what is due their own, and thus to act at will by virtue of their power over others, they will be induced to do things which benefit neither themselves nor those subject to them, with the result being nothing but great harm. scourge.

11.Since our author takes Adam's sovereignty as the firm foundation upon which his strong theory of absolute monarchy is built, I expect that he will, in the Patriarchs, present all the arguments necessary for this fundamental morality to arrive at and to justify this principal assumption of his; and I expect that he will necessarily, in this matter of great importance, give sufficient reasons for his own confidence in it.But I still can't find anything of the sort in his whole paper; he takes things for granted without proving them, so that when I read the paper carefully, I find that such a large structure has been established On the basis of such a simple assumption, I can hardly believe myself; in his treatise, which boasts of refuting the "false principle" of the "natural freedom" of human beings, he only refers to the "authority of Adam" It is unbelievable to argue for a simple hypothesis without presenting any evidence to support it.

He can still say with confidence: "Adam had kingship", "absolute dominion and power over life and death", "a universal monarchy", "absolute power of life and death".He has frequently made this affirmation, but I am astonished that in the whole of his Treatise on the Patriarchs I cannot find a single reason which he considers to be a better foundation for the great foundation of his government, Nor can there be found anything that looks like an argument, but only such words as: "To confirm this natural right of kingship, we find that in the Ten Commandments the law of obedience to the prince, is It is expressed in the words: 'Honor thy father,' as if all power belonged to the father." Why, then, should I not say the same, that in the Ten Commandments the law to teach obedience to the queen is given by "Respect your mother", it seems that all power belongs to the mother?The argument employed by Sir Robert applies to the father as well as to the mother, but on this point we shall wait until the proper place to dwell on it.

12.What I have noticed here is that, in Chapter 1 or the rest of the book, all that our author has said in order to prove his main principle, "Adam's Absolute Power," are the only ones mentioned above. , but he seems to have settled the matter with conclusive proof, and begins his Chapter 2 with the words "according to the evidence and reasons obtained from the authority of the Bible."I admit that where is the "evidence and reason" of Adam's sovereignty, I really can't find any other than the above-mentioned "Honor your father" unless he said "in these words In , we see an explicit confession (that of Belamin) that God created man to be the prince of his descendants" as evidence and reason taken from the Holy Scriptures, or as It is any kind of evidence, but he then uses a new method of inference, from which he concludes: "Indeed, Adam's kingship" has been fully implemented in him.

13.If, in any chapter, or anywhere in the whole treatise, our author has given any other proof of the "kingship of Adam" than by repetition (which to some is an argument), , I ask anyone to show me the location and page number for him, so that I can ascertain my mistake and admit my omission.But if no such argument can be found, I implore those who ravish this book to consider and see whether they have given the world reason to doubt that they stand for an absolute monarchy, and that their admiration cannot be ascertained. Whether or not any writer who writes in favor of this doctrine with reason is not from reason and force of argument, but from other reasons connected with interest.But I believe that they cannot expect rational and objective persons, because their great scholar, in a treatise deliberately published in order to establish "Adam's absolute monarchy", against the "natural liberty" of mankind, Just say so few words as proof, and turn around and agree with them.On the contrary, they can quite naturally draw the conclusion that there is nothing to say at all.

14.Since our author has only a few words in the essay "On the Natural Rights of the Prince" and will not say more, I used all my powers to find out what he meant, and found his "To Asia. Aristotle, Hobbes' Commentary, etc., to see if he ever used any arguments in support of his cherished doctrine of the "sovereignty of Adam" in debates with others.In his "Comment on Mr. Hobbes's Leviathan," I think he has set out in detail all the arguments he has ever used anywhere in his various writings, and he These words are: "If God created Adam only, and took out of him a piece of flesh and blood to make woman, and if all human beings were a part of them and were reproduced by both of them, if God also gave Adam not only Dominion over this woman and the offspring of both of them, and let him subdue the whole world and all creatures in it, then, as long as Adam lived, no one would Anything may be claimed or enjoyed. . . . " Here we find all his arguments for "Adam's sovereignty" and against "natural liberty."These arguments are scattered in his following treatises: "God Created Adam," "God Gave Adam Dominion Over Eve," and "Adam's Dominion As Father Over His Children."For all these I shall discuss them specially.

(End of this chapter)