government theory

Chapter 4 On Adam's Sovereignty As Created By God

15.Sir Robert told us in the preface of his book "Comments on Aristotle's "Political Treatise": "If Adam is not denied as God's creation, then the natural freedom of human beings is unimaginable"; But the fact that Adam was created by God is nothing more than that Adam took life directly from the hand of the Almighty and God. I can't see why it should give Adam a kind of sovereignty over all, and I don't understand why "natural freedom" The assumption is to deny that Adam was created by God".I should be glad if someone else (since our author does not give us the benefit of a definite explanation) clarifies it for him; for though I believe "Adam was created by God" all the time, I think the assumption that " Human freedom" is not so difficult.

Adam was created by the direct power of God, or began his existence by that power, without the participation of his parents, nor any prior existence of the same species to beget him, but he was created only because God willed. Created; so was the Lion, king of beasts before him, created by the same creative power of God.If Adam could come into being simply because of this creativity, and in that way alone, it would give him dominion without effort.On this argument, then, our author can also give the lion the same powers as Adam, and even more ancient than him.Yet our author says "no" elsewhere, because "Adam was titled by God's election."This shows that God's creation alone does not give him dominion.Therefore, since it was God's "appointment" that made Adam a monarch, we can make the assumption that "man is born free" without denying that Adam was created by God.

16.But let's see how he connects his theory of "creation by God" with this theory of "appointment".Sir Robert said: "As soon as Adam was created, he was elected by God to be the monarch of the world, although he had no subjects. In fact, there could be no government before there were no subjects. However, based on the rights of nature, Adam should be Ruler of his descendants, so Adam was, in appearance at least, a king from his creation, though in fact he might not be." How I wish he could tell us here what "appointment by God" is. What does that mean, for everything that is commanded by divine providence, dictated by natural law, or declared by express revelation, may be said to be "by God's election."However, I do not think that what is being said here refers to the first sense, which is commanded by divine providence, because that would be tantamount to saying that "when Adam was created," he was de facto sovereign, because "by natural right, Adam should ruler of his descendants."But Adam could not have been de facto established by divine providence as the ruler of the world when the government and subjects to be ruled had not actually existed.Our author also admits this point.

And our author also uses the term "lord of the world" inconsistently, sometimes he refers to the owner of the whole world except other human beings, as in the same page of the preface quoted above, he refers to this Meaning, he says: "Adam was commissioned to multiply man, to fill the earth, to subdue the world, to acquire dominion over all living things, and thus to be sovereign over the whole world; Otherwise, we have no right to possess anything." Then, we understand "prince" as the owner of the world, and "appointment" as God's real and explicit gift to Adam ("Genesis" Chapter 1No.20 section), and we see Sir Robert in the same place.His argument, then, should be: "By the express grant of God, Adam, from creation, was proprietor of the world, because by natural right Adam ought to be the ruler of his descendants." But there are two The obvious fallacies lie in this method of argument: First, that God proscribed to Adam at the moment of his creation.

Because in the original text, although this sentence comes immediately after his creation, but before God created and gave Eve to him, it is obvious that this sentence was not addressed to Adam.So, how could it be possible for him to "become a monarch based on election from the moment of creation"?In particular, if I'm not mistaken, the author takes what God said to Eve (Genesis Chapter 3No. 16) as an "Original Grant of Government", which is something that didn't happen until "Original Sin" , and the occurrence of original sin, at least in terms of time, more in terms of conditions, is already very far away from the creation of Adam.I cannot see, therefore, how our author can say in this sense "Adam, from creation, was prince of the world by God's election."Second, even if it were true that Adam had been "appointed prince of the world" by an actual gift of God, the reasons here given by our author would not be sufficient to prove it.Concerning the statement that "God, by an express gift, elected Adam 'prince of the world, because by natural right Adam should be ruler of his Then there would be no need for an explicit bestowal, or at least this statement must never be taken as evidence of a bestowal, and is therefore, in any case, a fallacious reasoning.

17.On the other hand, if we regard "God's election" as the law of nature (although this is a rough term here), and interpret the "prince of the world" as the supreme ruler of mankind, it is also true. won't be of much help.For if so, we must be dealing with the sentence "by natural law, Adam, when he was created, was the ruler of men, because by natural right, Adam was rightfully the ruler of his descendants".This sentence is equivalent to saying: the reason why he is a ruler based on natural rights is because he is a ruler based on natural rights.But even if we admit that a man is the "natural ruler" of his children, Adam still cannot be "born a sovereign"; for this natural right rests on his being their father, since Only the father has this right, so how did Adam have the "natural right" to be the "ruler" before he became a father?I find it hard to imagine, unless our author wants him to be a father before he is a father, and a title before he has a title.

18.To this expected objection our author replies in a very logical manner: "He was ruler only in appearance and not in reality." So to be a ruler without a government is to be a It is a very ingenious way to be a father without children, to be a king without subjects!According to this logic, Sir Robert was already a writer—not “actually,” it is true, but only “appearance”—before he wrote his book; "by natural right" should be a writer, just as Adam "should be the ruler of children" when he begot children.If it is of any use to be a "Prince of the World" "in appearance but not in reality," Sir Robert may graciously confer the title on any of his friends at will, and I am ashamed of it. There will be no envy.

However, even if this so-called "reality" and "appearance" could say anything more than our author's skill in discernment, it would not serve his purpose here; for the problem here is not that Adam The actual exercise of the right to rule depends on whether he actually enjoys the authority of the ruler.Dominion, says our author, "was due to Adam by a natural right."So what exactly is this "natural right"?Our author regards it as a right which fathers have over their children by begetting them, quoting Grotius as saying that it is "the right which parents have over their children by begetting them."From this, then, it can be seen that rights follow and arise from the act of begetting children; and therefore, according to this method of reasoning or discernment of our author, Adam, when he was created, had only an "apparent rather than actual "permissions," to paraphrase in plain English, that is, he doesn't actually have permissions at all.

19.In less academic and more understandable terms, Adam can be said thus: "Since he had the possibility of begetting children, he also had the possibility of being a ruler, and he thereby acquired the natural right to the children who were thus produced. right (whatever that means)." But what does this have to do with "the creation of Adam"?How can it make our author think that "he was the prince of the world from creation"?If we follow this reasoning, we can also say that Noah was born the prince of the world, because he had the possibility of surviving alone among all mankind except his own descendants (this, according to our author. is enough to form a monarch—a semblance of a monarch).So, what is the necessary connection between the creation of Adam and his right to rule, and then it can be said that "if we do not deny that Adam was created by God, then the natural freedom of human beings is unimaginable"?I admit that in this respect I do not see any necessary connection; at the same time I do not see how, however one interprets the words "on the basis of election..." they can be put together into a fairly The fluent words, at least, can be used to support their closing argument, that "Adam was a prince from his creation".Our author speaks of a prince "not in reality but in appearance," or, in other words, in reality not at all.

20.I am afraid that the reader has run out of patience with this passage, which seems to have taken me longer than the time required to demonstrate the importance of any other point, but our author writes The way I can't do it.He mixed together several hypotheses, and used vague and general terms, so that his meaning was so confused that it would be difficult to examine the possible interpretations of his words without looking at how he interpreted them. By cohering these words of various meanings, and giving them truth, it was impossible for me to point out his error.

For example, in the previous passage, if we do not look into it, the inquiry into the words "from the time of his creation" is interpreted as from the time of his reign (this interpretation is possible, because the previous " How could he refute his statement that "Adam was from the What about the argument that he was a prince from his creation"?Secondly, if we do not examine, see that the so-called prince, as stated at the beginning of this passage, is based on "personal dominion" based on God's express grant, "elected to be the prince of the world" The assumption is based on "nature" and the assumption that its descendants should have the right to be a father according to natural rights, or whether the formation of the monarch refers to the above two meanings, or only refers to the two How can we judge whether it is true that Adam became a monarch in this way, or neither, but only by a divine creation different from the other two? ? The assertion that "Adam was sovereign from the time of his creation," though without any truth, is here written as a definite conclusion to be drawn from the preceding words; It is a simple assertion joined together with other assertions of the same nature.These things are confidently put together by our author in vague words, to give the appearance of an argument, which in fact has neither proof nor connection.This is a tactic our author is accustomed to, and I have pointed it out here to give the reader a sense of it, and I shall avoid it hereafter, so long as the argument permits.In fact, if it is not for the sake of the world to see clearly, before being carefully examined, those disconnected facts and assumptions, even if there is no evidence, but only cleverly piled up with beautiful words and exquisite styles It would be so easy to pass off as strong reason and perfect awareness that I won't point it out here yet.

(End of this chapter)