government theory

Chapter 7 Concerning Adam's Sovereignty by God's Gift (3)
I admit that it is possible that after the flood Noah had the same title, and the same ownership and dominion, as Adam had in the pre-flood days.But since personal dominion does not correspond to the common blessings and bestowments of God on Noah and his sons, there is good reason to conclude that Adam had no such personal dominion, especially in regard to his bestowals. There is nothing in the text that suggests this at all, nor at least agrees with it.Well, since there is no single word affirming it anywhere in the Bible, let alone the above has proved that the original text itself is contrary to it, and there are other places directly contrary to it. words and meaning.So, in this case, what is the best way to understand, let the reader judge for himself.

37．However, our author said: "Noah was the only heir of mankind. Why should anyone think that God would disinherit him by birth?" eldest son.But where has God ever appointed any such "heir of the world"?And how did God "deprive him of his birthright of inheritance"?Furthermore, the whole world has more than enough to satisfy Noah's own needs, even if Noah's sons all used it, it would still be inexhaustible, and the possession of one will not hinder the possession or use of the other, so if God makes What harm could it have done to Noah that his sons had the right to use part of the earth to support themselves and their families?How good it would be if our author could give us some pointers on these matters!
38．Our author probably anticipated that he would not be very successful in this art of persuading and confusing people, and whatever he said, people were willing and easy to believe the plain and plain words of the Bible and take them as they understood them. , that the gift of God was spoken to Noah and his sons together.Then he made some hints, as if the bestowment mentioned to Noah did not include ownership and dominion, because subjugation of the earthly world and dominion over living things are omitted in the original text, and the word "earthly world" is not used even once. Not mentioned.Therefore he says: "These two texts are very different. The first blessing gave Adam a kind of dominion over the earthly world and all living things, and the second blessing allowed Noah and his sons to enjoy living things. Liberty as food. His ownership of all things is here not changed or diminished, but the extent of his food is enlarged.” Then, according to our author, God here speaks to Noah and his sons All the words of God, do not give him dominion or ownership, but only enlarge the scope of his future food, or rather the scope of "their" food, because God said "All these I give you"; But our author replaces "their" with "his".It was therefore prescribed by Sir Robert that the sons of Noah were bound to fast while their father lived.

39．Anyone but our author who sees nothing in the blessings given to Noah and his sons but an increase in the breadth of bread, will be suspected of being deluded by prejudice.As regards the dominion which our author considers to be struck out, I think that the words of God, "I have made terror and dread of you all the beasts" itself signify dominion, or, affirm the greatness of man over other creatures. superior position.For in this "panic" and "fear" it seems that chiefly lies the power which God gave Adam over the lower animals.No matter what kind of absolute monarch Adam was, he would not have the guts to fight a lark or a rabbit to satisfy his hunger, but to eat herbaceous plants like beasts. Section 1 and No.30 can be seen very clearly.Second, it is evident that in this time God's blessing to Noah and his sons not only gave them ownership in plain language, but it was on a larger scale than that given to Adam.If God's words to Noah and his sons, "Into your hands I deliver them all," don't give them ownership—more precisely, possession—it's hard to find out There are other words to express.

For there is no more natural and surer way of expressing a person's possession of a thing than by "delivering it into their hands."In order to show that they have been given the maximum ownership that humans can have, that is, no matter what they have, they have the right to consume it for use. God said to them: "Every living animal can be your food." And this is not in the charter given to Adam.Our author calls this "freedom to use them for food, it is not a change of ownership" but only an extension of the range of food.It seems incomprehensible that humans have any ownership over animals other than the "freedom to use them."Therefore, if, as our author says, the first blessing "given Adam dominion over the creatures," the blessings given to Noah and his sons were "freedom to use them," which Adam did not have, What this blessing must have given them, then, was something that Adam, who possessed all sovereignty, lacked, and which one might well regard as a greater property.For, indeed, Adam had no absolute dominion even over wild beasts, and his property over them was narrow and limited, and he could not use them as God had permitted others to do.

If there were an absolute sovereign of a nation, who bid our author to "subdue this earthly world," and gave him dominion over all living creatures, he would not be allowed to take a kid or a lamb from his flock to satisfy his hunger. , then I suppose he would not consider himself the lord or proprietor of that place or the herd there.Instead, we will clearly see the difference between the possible dominion of being a shepherd and the full ownership of being an owner.So, if this had happened to Sir Robert himself, I believe he would have thought that there was an alteration here, or rather an enlargement of ownership, and believed that Noah and his sons based on this gift not only Got ownership, and got ownership of living things that Adam didn't have.In relation to each other, although human beings may be allowed to have ownership over certain parts of living things, to God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and the sole master and owner of the whole world, human beings' ownership of living things is only Energy is the "freedom to use them" that God allows.So, as we see here, after the Flood, human ownership can be altered and expanded, and what was previously disallowed is now permitted.On the basis of all the above, it is clear to me that neither Adam nor Noah enjoyed any "personal dominion," and that they would only have any "personal dominion" if they successively multiplied and required and were able to make use of other beings, not including their offspring. enjoy this ownership of living things to the exclusion of their offspring.

40．We have thus examined the argument for Adam's sovereign right, as maintained by our author on the basis of the word of blessing proclaimed by God (Genesis, Chapter 1, No. 20, verse [-]).I think that any sober reader can see in this benediction nothing but the elevation of the human race above other kinds of life on our inhabitable earth, and no other meaning is possible.It is nothing but the dominion God has given to man, the whole of humanity, who, as the image of his Creator, is the chief inhabitant of the earth, over other living beings.The meaning is so evident in plain scriptures that no one but our author would have thought it necessary to prove how these words, which seem to mean the exact opposite, gave Adam absolute scepter over the rest of mankind. , or sole ownership of all living things.

I think that on such an important matter as to lay the groundwork for what follows, he should have done more than simply cite words which obviously contradict his meaning.For I confess that I do not see in these writings anything inclined to "Adam's scepter or personal dominion," but rather the contrary.I do not lament my slowness of understanding, for I see that the Apostle, like myself, does not seem to see any such personal dominion in Adam, when he says, "All that God has given us is rich, for We enjoy," the apostle would not have said if God had given everything to the prince Adam and the other princes and their heirs and successors.All in all, instead of proving that Adam was the sole owner, this passage confirms that everything was originally shared by humans, as can be seen from this gift of God and elsewhere in the Bible.Therefore, since there is no basis for Adam's sovereignty based on personal dominion, it must be untenable.

41．But, after all, if one must think that, by this gift of God, Adam was the sole proprietor of the whole world, what has that to do with his sovereignty?Even if a person has ownership of the land, or even the land of the whole world, can he be given the supreme and arbitrary right to control the lives of others?It is even more absurd to say that the One who is the owner of the whole world can at will starve those human beings who do not recognize his sovereignty and submit to his will.If so, it would be a good argument to show that there never was such ownership, and that God never gave anyone such personal dominion.On the contrary, it would be more reasonable to think that since God commanded man to procreate, he should give all men the right to use the food, clothing, and other necessaries of life, of which God has provided an abundant supply, Nor should their existence be subordinated to the will of a man who has the power to destroy them all at will, and who is no better or stronger than any other, and who is more likely to live later by poverty and meager possessions, Instead of forcing them to do hard labor, they do not generously give them the necessities of life in order to facilitate the fulfillment of this great mission that God enjoined mankind to "produce many children."Whoever doubts this, let him examine the absolute monarchies of the world, and see the state of life and the state of the people there.

42．But we know that God never puts a man at his mercy so that he can be starved to death at will if others please.God, the Lord and Father of all men, did not give to any one of his children such a right to this particular part of the world, but to his poor brother a right to the remainder of his goods, that his brother should When there is an urgent need, it will not be unjustly refused.Hence a man cannot have a just power over the life of another man by title to land or property, for any man who has property will not give some of his riches to the relief of his brother, and let him starve and death, which will always be a sin, and as justice gives each man a right to the fruits of his upright industry and to the just possessions bequeathed to him by his fathers, so benevolence entitles every man In order to avoid falling into extreme poverty, take a part of other people's rich property if there is a way to maintain life.It is no less unrighteous than a stronger man to attack a weaker man, who, taking advantage of his danger, compels that man to be his vassal, by refusing to take the relief which God requires of him to render to his needy brother. Force him to obey, hold a dagger to his throat, and threaten him to become his slave, otherwise the result will be death.

43．Even if someone so misused the blessings that God in His gracious hand bestowed upon him, even if someone were so cruel to the extreme, all this still does not justify ownership of the land.Even in this instance, power over another's person can be given to a person, such power can only be obtained by contract.For the authority of the rich owner, and the subordination of the poor beggar, is not based on the ownership of the master, but on the consent of the poor who would rather be the master's servant than starve.He has power over the one who obeys him only to the extent and to the extent agreed to in the contract.It is based on this: that a man who has abundant savings in times of scarcity, has money in his pocket, is in a boat at sea, can swim, etc., all of these can be as dominant and ruling as he is in possession of all the land in the world. basis; for any one of these many conditions would be sufficient for me to save another's life, and if I would not give him this relief, he would die.According to this rule, anything that can be made a condition of satisfying another's need to preserve his life or to preserve what he considers precious, he will not hesitate to exchange at the price of freedom, so that it can become sovereignty and property. Foundation.From all that has been said, we see that, even if God had given Adam personal dominion, this personal dominion could not make him sovereign.And we have amply proved that God did not give him such personal dominion.

(End of this chapter)