government theory

Chapter 9 Concerning Adam by His Fatherhood (1)
50．Now there is one more point to make, after which I consider myself to have given you all the evidences which our author gave to prove the sovereignty of Adam.This argument assumes that a man has a natural right to rule over his children by virtue of his fatherhood.It can be seen that our author is so fond of this "fatherhood" right that he refers to it on nearly every page, and specifically says: "Not only Adam, but also the fathers The rights of status are sovereign over their children." On the same page he says "This obedience of children is the source of all sovereign rights," etc.

Since he mentions this so often in order to make us think that it is the chief basis of his fame, we may naturally expect that he will give definite reasons for it, since he regards it as necessary for the attainment of his purpose. The argument has been affirmed, and this purpose is "as long as a person is born, he is not free, and he becomes his father's subordinate as soon as he is born."Then, since Adam is the only person created by God, and all the people after him are born of human beings, then no one is born free.If we ask: How did Adam acquire this power over his children?Here he would answer that it was because he begot them; and that "this natural dominion of Adam" is also proved by the words of Grotius.Grotius taught: "Procreation gives parents power over their children." Indeed, since the act of procreation makes a man a father, his paternal rights over his children cannot, of course, be derived from anything other than paternity. produce.

51．Here Grotius does not tell us the extent of the power that parents have over their children, but our author always makes it clear that this is the "supreme power," as Absolute sovereigns have the same power over their slaves, absolute power of life and death.If he were asked why the birth of a child gave the father absolute power over his children, or how this power was given, he received no answer.We can only believe what he says here, as elsewhere, that even the laws of nature and the constitutions of governments must be established and annulled.Had he himself been an absolute prince, this statement might have been appropriate, since he would have allowed "reasons according to the will."

But this is only a clumsy way of defending an absolute monarchy, which Sir Robert could hardly establish with mere rhetoric.The unfounded opinion of one slave is not sufficient to annul the liberty and happiness of all mankind, and though not all men are created equal, as I think, I am sure that all slaves are created equal.I can then, without presumptuousness, put my own opinion against his, and say to my own opinion that the begetting of children does not make them slaves of their fathers, but makes all mankind free. Said with as much confidence as our author asserts to the contrary, that having children would make slaves of all mankind.However, since this argument of our author is the basis of the whole doctrine of the divine right of kings, in order to do as much justice as possible, since our author gives no reason, let us hear what others have said yes.

52．The argument that I have seen others use to prove that "the father acquires absolute power over his children by begetting them" is this: "The children derive their life and existence from the father, so the father has the right to life over his children." rights." This is the only possible argument.For, of course, the right to a thing which was never his own, nor given by him, but by the generosity of another, belongs to the other, and he has no reason to claim it.My answer is: First of all, a person who gives something to others does not necessarily always have the right to take it back.Second, those who say that fathers give life to their children are so dazzled by the idea of ​​kingship that they forget the fact that they should have kept in mind that "God is the creator and giver of life, and we can only rely on God can live, act and exist".

How can a man who does not even know what his own life consists of be supposed to give life to others?Although philosophers have studied it tirelessly, they are still at a loss; although anatomists have been engaged in the dissection and research of the human body all their lives, they have to admit that they have no idea about the human body. Nothing is known about the structure and usefulness of many parts, nor about how life as a whole works.Would it be possible, then, that a rude farmer or a ignorant dandy would construct or make a machine as wonderful as a man, and then give it life and consciousness?Would it be said that he constituted the necessary parts of his child's life?Or can he think himself that he gives life without knowing to what subject it is fit to be given, or what actions or organs are necessary to receive or maintain life?

53．To animate what does not yet exist is to construct the parts of a living being, fit them for their purpose, and, having assembled them, place a living soul into them.The man who can do this may indeed have some excuse for destroying his own handicraft, but is there any man who is so arrogant as to think that he can do the incredible thing that only the Almighty can do? what about work?Only God first created and continues to create the living soul, and only God can breathe the breath of life.If anyone thinks he is such a craftsman, let him count the parts of the body of the child he has created, and tell me their use and function, and when the living and rational soul entered this place. In the strange structure, when did the feeling start to arise.Also, how the machine he built thought and reasoned.

If he really made the machine, he should be called to fix it when it breaks, or at least to point out what is wrong. The author of "Psalm" said: "Can he who made the eyes not see?" ("Psalm" Chapter 94 Section [-]) Let us see the vanity of these people!The construction of a part of it alone is sufficient to convince us that God is an infinitely intelligent Creator, so that, like other works of his finely crafted work, he is evidently justified in enjoying a title so often given to him in the Bible, namely, "God our Creator, our Creator".Therefore, although our author, in order to exaggerate his "fatherhood", is always willing to say that "God's own power over human beings is also based on the right of fatherhood", but this fatherhood is with all the rights of human parents. Totally different.Because the reason why God is the Lord is that he is indeed the creator of all our human beings, but all parents cannot claim to be the creators of their children.

54．But if man has the skill and power to create his own offspring, it is not such a simple craft that it is conceivable that offspring could be created without design.For a thousand fathers, when they have children, which one has any longer-term considerations besides satisfying his desires at that time?God, in his infinite wisdom, placed a strong desire for sexual intercourse in the human body, thereby prolonging the human race, while the human race did so mostly without the intention, and often contrary to the desire of the begetter.It is true that those who will and plan to have children are only the occasional cause of their existence, and in designing and wishing to have children, they have done nothing more to create them than in the Greek mythology. It takes more effort to create humans by throwing stones backwards.

55．However, even if it is admitted that parents create children, give them life and existence, and thus enjoy absolute power, this is only the power that father and mother jointly control their children.For no one can deny that, if the mother cannot acquire greater rights, at least she cannot deny that she has the same rights as the father, because the mother has nourished the child in her own body for a long time with her own flesh and blood.The child is formed within the mother, from whom the matter and source of life necessary for the construction of the body are taken from her.It is difficult to imagine that the rational soul would enter the unformed embryo immediately after the father had completed his act of procreation.If we must imagine that some things in the child come from the parents, it is certain that most of them come from the mother.

In any case, in the process of bearing children, it cannot be denied that the mother has the same contribution as the father, so the absolute power of the father will not come from the matter of bearing children.Our author does think otherwise, for he says: "We know that God, when he created man, gave man sovereignty over woman, because man is the nobler and more principal participant in procreation." I I don't remember such a sentence in the Bible.If anyone can point me to the place where God gave man sovereignty over woman "in the creation of man" because "he was the nobler and more principal participant in procreation," then I Will take sufficient time to consider and give a reply.Our author, however, speaks to us of his fantasies as conclusive and divine truths.This is nothing new, for there is often a world of difference between what he said and what God said in the Bible: "His father and his mother begat him."

56．Some believe that the act of humans "abandoning or selling" their offspring is proof of their power over them.These men were as good polemicists as Sir Robert was, and they simply held out for their opinions the most shameful acts and the most outrageous murders that human nature is capable of committing.There is no such cruelty even in the lion's den or the jackal's den.These wild beasts who live in the wilderness obey God and nature, and care about their offspring lovingly.In order to protect their young, they hunt, guard, fight, and even endure hunger.They will never leave or abandon them until they are unable to stand on their own.

Has man alone the privilege of engaging in activities more unnatural than the wildest animals?Didn't God forbid us to take any human life with a severe punishment like the death penalty? (Even when insulted, even to a stranger) Does God permit us to treat those who are entrusted to our care and called upon to protect us according to the commands of "nature" and reason and the precepts of divine revelation? What about its destruction?God paid special attention to the reproduction of certain kinds of creatures during the creation of the world. To achieve this goal, each individual tried his best to act, so that they sometimes disregarded their own interests for this purpose, as if they had forgotten the "nature" that taught all things. The general principle, that of self-preservation, regards the protection of their young as the strongest principle, over their peculiar nature.So we see that when young children need protection, the coward becomes brave, the savage becomes kind, and the greedy becomes magnanimous.

57．But if the instances that have ever occurred are to be taken as the general rule, history will furnish to our authors some of the highest and most complete examples of this "absolute patriarchy."He would probably tell us stories about how Peruvians raise their children to fatten them up to eat.This story is so peculiar that I have to quote the author who said: "In some places they (the Inca of Peru) are so addicted to human flesh that they have no patience to wait until the dying man is completely dead. , sucked the blood from his wounds. They had public slaughterhouses, and they were so insane that their own children with women captured from the war would not be spared. They put them from Women captured in war served as concubines and carefully raised their offspring, slaughtering and eating them when they were about thirteen years old. If mothers were past childbearing age and could no longer produce meat for them, they They will treat them in the same way." (See "History of the Inca in Peru" Volume 13 No. 12 by Garcilaso de la Vega)
(End of this chapter)