Chapter 3 On Monarchy and Hereditary
In the system of all things, human beings are originally equal, and this equality can only be destroyed by some later accident: the difference between rich and poor can be explained very well, and in explaining it need not use the terms of oppression and greed. Kind of harsh, ugly words.Oppression is often the consequence of wealth, but seldom or never the means of it; and though avarice keeps a man from extreme poverty, it generally makes him cowardly from great fortune.
There is, however, a still greater difference which cannot be explained by really natural or religious reasons, and that is that which divides the people into "Kings" and "Subjects."Masculine and feminine are the differences made by nature, and good and evil are the differences made by God; but it is worthwhile to see how a certain kind of people can rise above the rest when they are born into the world, as if they are as different as a new race. Inquire into them, and see whether they are means of promoting human happiness or of incurring human misery.In the ancient societies of the world, according to the Bible, there were no kings; as a result of this, there were no wars; and it is the arrogance of kings that now throws mankind into confusion.Holland, without a king, has enjoyed more peace during the last century than any monarchy in Europe.The history of antiquity also bears witness to this statement; for the quiet pastoral life of the first heads of clans had a joy of its own, which is lost when we read the history of the Jewish royal families.
The form of government in the hands of kings was first initiated by pagans, and the practice was imitated by the Jews.This is the devil's best work to encourage idolatry.Pagans treated their dead kings as sacred, paying homage to them, while Christendom went a step further and treated living kings in the same manner.How blasphemous it is to assign the sacred title of "Your Majesty" to a villain who flaunts his power and turns into a bone in an instant!
The exaltation of one man above the rest is groundless on the principle of natural equal rights, and cannot be justified by citation: for what Gideon and the prophet Samuel proclaimed Na Hehua's will clearly disapproved of the regime controlled by Guoyu.In monarchies, all the anti-monarchy of the Bible has been skilfully glossed over, but they certainly deserve the attention of those countries which are yet to form a government.What belongs to Caesar should be returned to Caesar ④, which is the teaching of the Bible quoted by the court, but it is not the basis of the monarchy, because the Jews at that time had no national jade and were still in the position of being subordinate to the Romans.
Almost three thousand years passed from the time Moses recorded the creation of the world to the time when the Jewish people were deceived into demanding a king.Until the king was established, their form of government (except in special cases where Jehovah occasionally intervened) was a republic, with a judge and heads of the families.
They had no king, and they considered it a sin to acknowledge any one who had the title of king but the Lord of all.When a man sternly condemns the blind worship of kings and the like, he cannot doubt that Hehua, who will always want people to believe in his glory, will not approve of a form of government that flagrantly violates the prerogatives of heaven.
The monarchy is listed as one of the sins of the Jews in the Bible, and it is predicted what disasters this evil will produce.The history of that event is noteworthy.
Because the Israelites were oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon led a small army against them, and the Netherlands had joined the Commonwealth of 18 years before and ruled in it. - translator
② See "Old Testament Book of Judges". - translator
③See "The Old Testament Book of Samuel". - translator
④ See "New Testament: Gospel of Mark". - translator
Finally, with the participation of God, he won the victory.The Jews were very happy after the victory, thinking that this was the result of Gideon's great talents, so they proposed to make him king, saying: May you and your sons and grandchildren rule over us.It was indeed a most touching temptation; not a mere throne, but a hereditary one; but Gideon answered with reverence in his heart, I do not rule over you, neither does my son.Only the Harmony governs you.The words could not have been more clearly stated; Gideon did not refuse the honor, but denied them their right to give him it; The affirmative tone of the Prophet reproaches them with apostasy from their own sovereign, God.
About a hundred and thirty years after this incident, they made the same mistake again.The desire of the Jews to imitate the idolatrous customs of the pagans is indescribable; and as a result, they caught the misconduct of Samuel's two sons who were in charge of worldly affairs, and hurried noisily to Saur. said before his eyes, You are old, and your son has not walked in your ways; now please appoint a king for us and rule over us like the nations.Here we cannot fail to say that their motives were bad, that is, that they wished to be like other nations, that is, heathens, and that their real glory consisted in being as unlike as possible.Samuel was not pleased with them saying, Let a king rule over us; and he prayed to the LORD.And the Lord said to Samuel, "Obey what the people say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, and do not want me to be their king."They have often left me and served other gods since I brought them out of Egypt, and now they are doing to you just as they used to do.Therefore obey their words, but warn them and tell them how the king will rule over them in the future.That is to say, not the method of government of any particular king, but the customary means of all the kings of the world, which the Israelites were eager to imitate.Now, although the ages are far apart and the methods are very different, the nature has not changed. Samuel passed on the words of the Lord to the people who asked him to make a king, saying, "The king who governs you will do this."He will send your sons to drive the chariots for him, and run before the chariots with the horses.He also appointed them as commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties to plow the fields for him, harvest crops, and build weapons and equipment for chariots.I will take your daughters to make ointment for him, and to cook scones for him.He will also take your best fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his servants.You will also take a tenth of your grain and of what your vineyards produce, and give it to his overseer and his servants (from this we can see that bribery, embezzlement, and favoritism are the usual bad practices of kings).And he will take your servants and your maidservants, your healthy young men, and your donkeys for his servants.He will take a tenth of your flock, and you will be his servants.Then you will cry out to the LORD because of the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you.This explains why the monarchy continues to exist; the virtues of the few good kings who have existed since ancient times can neither justify the name nor erase the sin that first produced the king; The praise is not because he is a king in his position, but because he is a person who caters to God's will.However, the people refused to listen to Samuel's words, and said, "Otherwise, we must have a king rule over us, so that we will be like other nations. A king will rule over us, lead us, and fight for us."Samuel continued to counsel them, but in vain; he pointed out their ingratitude, but in vain; and when he saw that they were going their own way, he cried out: I will call upon the Lord, and he will send thunder and rain (for it was the time of wheat harvest, This is a punishment) so that you may know and see that you have committed a great sin before the LORD in asking for a king.So Samuel called to the LORD, and the LORD thundered and rained that day, and all the people feared the LORD and Samuel very much.And all the people said to Samuel, Pray to the LORD your God for your servants, that we may not die, for we have added sin to sin by asking for a king.These parts of the Bible are clear and affirmative.They are not subject to any ambiguous interpretation.Either God did protest against monarchy here, or the Bible
is forged.We have every reason to believe that, in Catholic countries, kings and priests have taken pains to keep these scriptures from the people.For the monarchy is without exception a politically Catholic institution.
To the evils of monarchy, there is the evil of heredity; as monarchy signifies our own degradation and disempowerment, so heredity, contested as a right, is an insult and deceit to our posterity.For, since all men are created equal, no one has a right by birth to found a family which is always superior to other families, and, though he himself may deserve a fair degree of respect from his contemporaries, his descendants But it may be absolutely unworthy of this honor.There is a very strong and obvious proof of the absurdity of the king's hereditary right, that is, the law of heaven does not approve of this method, otherwise it would not often give the ass instead of the lion, so that this The system has become a laughing stock.
Secondly, as any man can at first retain only the honors of society which are bestowed on him, likewise the bearers of those honors have no right to sacrifice the rights of posterity; and though they may say, "We make you our king," they cannot Say "your children and your children's children may rule our children and our children's children forever" without violating the rights of your own children.The reason for this is that such a foolish, unjust, and inhuman covenant will probably put them under the rule of villains or fools in the next dynasty.The personal sentiments of most wise men have always treated hereditary rights with contempt; but this is one of those evils which, once established, are not so easily removed; many obey from fear, others from superstition. obeyed, and some of the more powerful people helped the king to plunder the rest.
It is generally believed that the kings of the present world had a glorious origin: and the most probable fact is that, if we could tear away the ancient concealment and trace the origin of their prosperity, we would find that their ancestors were only No more than the villainous ringleader of a certain band of thugs, whose brutality or notorious insidiousness has earned him the title of bandit chief: by increasing his power and plunder, he frightens the unarmed. Kind-hearted people force them to contribute property in exchange for their safety.But it never occurred to those who elected him to confer heredity on his descendants, for such a permanent renunciation of their rights would be contrary to the principle of unfettered liberty by which they profess to live.Hereditary succession in the early days of the monarchy, therefore, could only be introduced as a temporary or supplementary measure, and not as a natural institution: but since little or no records remain of that age, the oral history is full of fictions. Therefore, after a few generations, it is easy to fabricate a set of superstitious nonsense that can be successfully disseminated at that time, like the legend about the pagan ancestors, and repeatedly propagate the concept of hereditary right to the people.
Perhaps, on the death of the chief, and the election of a new chief, the state of disturbance (for elections among thugs would not be very orderly) frightened, or seemed to frighten, many, and induced them at first to agree to the hereditary claim; , as has since happened, what was at first conceived as a temporary expedient was later asserted as a right.
Since the Duke of Normandy conquered England, England has produced a few good monarchs, but it has groaned anguishedly under a far greater number of tyrants: no man of sense would say that they were under William I It is an honor to enjoy the rights of the next.A French bastard who lands with an armed band of brigands, and proclaims himself King of England against the will of the native people, may be called without hesitation of humble origin.Of course, this does not imply divine power.However, ① William I of England (reigned 1066-1087) was born in Normandy.He brutally suppressed the opposition of the local population at the Battle of Hastings and we needn't spend much time exposing the absurdity of hereditary rights; Adore donkeys and lions and welcome them.
I will neither imitate their lowliness nor hinder their faith.
But I'd be glad to ask, how do they think the king was born in the first place?There can only be three answers to this question, namely, either by lot, or by election, or by usurpation.If the first king was chosen by lot, this sets a precedent for the next king, which cannot be hereditary.Saul was made king by lot, but the succession to the throne was not hereditary, and from the history of the incident we see no trace of any intention of hereditary succession.If the first king of a country is elected, it sets a precedent for the next; Apart from the doctrine of original sin, that man's free will is ruined at the hand of Adam, no similar example can be found in the Bible; No glorious conclusions can be drawn.What is reflected in Adam is that everyone has sinned, and what is reflected in the first batch of elect is that everyone obeys orders; what is reflected in the former is that human beings are all at the mercy of Satan, and what is reflected in the latter is that human beings Both are subject to dominion; by the former we lose our purity, by the latter our sovereignty; and since both prevent us from recovering some former state and privilege, we can undoubtedly infer from this that original sin and hereditary Category.What a humiliating juxtaposition!What a disgraceful connection!
Yet the most astute rhetorician cannot think of a more apt simile.
As for usurpation, no one would dare to justify such an action; William I was also a usurper, that is an undeniable fact.The plain reality is that the origins of the British monarchy will not stand up to scrutiny.
But the absurdity of hereditary system in relation to human beings is far less serious than the evils it causes.
Such a system might have been a divine dispensation if it had guaranteed a community of good and wise men, but in fact it only opened the door for the fool, the wicked, and the lowly, and so it had the character of misery.Those who regarded themselves as natural rulers and men as natural slaves soon became tyrannical.Since they were selected from the rest of humanity, their minds have long been poisoned by self-importance; and the world in which they operate is so markedly different from the ordinary world that they have little chance of knowing what it is really like. Interests, when they inherit power, they are often ignorant of matters within the entire territory and are not worthy to deal with them.
Another evil that accompanies hereditary system is that the throne is easily taken by a minor of any age; his trust.When a king grows old and feeble, and enters the last stages of human infirmity, the same misfortune takes place with respect to the whole nation.In both cases, the populace falls prey to villains of every description, who are free to play with the follies of old age or infancy.
The most plausible defense ever offered by those who favored hereditary system was that it preserved the country from civil war; and if this were true, it would have weight; but in fact it has deceived mankind. most shameless lie.The whole history of England also denies this fact.Thirty kings and two young kings have ruled the chaotic kingdom since 1999, during which time there have been at least eight civil wars and 19 rebellions (including revolutions in 1999).So instead of contributing to peace, it is not conducive to peace and undermines the foundations on which it rests.
Resistance, in 1066 invaded the borders of Great Britain. - translator
②The first king of the Israelites, see "Old Testament 1 Samuel". - translator
The struggle for the crown and succession between the houses of York and Lancaster reduced England for many years to a bloody field.Henry and Edward fought twelve bitter campaigns, skirmishes and sieges not counted.Henry was twice Edward's prisoner, and Edward was also captured by Henry.When the quarrel is only due to personal problems, the fate of the war and the likes and dislikes of the people of the country are elusive, so Henry was sent back to the palace from prison, while Edward was forced to flee from the palace to a foreign country; The change was unsustainable, and Henry was deposed from the throne, and Edward was recalled to succeed him.Parliaments always side with the strongest side.
This struggle started when Henry VI was in power, and it has not completely stopped in the hands of Henry VII, who unified the royal family.This period covered sixty-seven years, that is, from 1422 to 1489.
In short, monarchy and hereditary institutions have left not only a kingdom, but the whole world in blood and rubble.This is the form of government that the Bible opposes, so bloodshed is inevitable.
If we examine the work that kings do, we shall find that in some countries they are, so to speak, not doing much work; Let successors follow the same wasted path.In an autocratic monarchy country: the full burden of civil and military affairs is placed on the king; the Israelites once applied for a king when they asked for a king, hoping that "a king will govern us, lead us, and fight for us."
But in a country like England, where the king is neither a judge nor a marshal, it is really difficult to know what kind of work he does.
The closer any government is to a republic, the less work is required of the king.It is somewhat difficult to think of a proper name for the British form of government.Sir William Meredith called it a republic; but in its present state it was unworthy of the name, for the power was practically monopolized by the corrupt influence of the king, by virtue of his power to arrange all offices at will. , has eroded the effectiveness of the House of Commons (the republican part of the constitution), so that the constitution of England is almost as purely a monarchy as that of France or Spain.People will never agree easily if they don't know what the name really means.It is not the monarchical but the republican part of the English constitution that the English pride themselves on, and the liberty to choose members of the House of Commons from among their own bodies—and we can easily see that when the republic When it fails, slavery follows.The English constitution is faulty only because the monarchy has poisoned the republic; the king has monopolized the House of Commons.
In England, a king can often do no more than provoke wars and prostitutes; and this, he said frankly, impoverishes the country and creates strife.Good business for a man who puts out eight hundred thousand pounds a year and is admired!To society, and in the sight of God, an ordinary honest man is worth more than all the crowned villains of all ages.
① Refers to the struggle for the throne between the two dynasties—the York Dynasty and the Lancaster Dynasty—that lasted for thirty years (1455-1485). - translator
① When Henry VII came to the throne in 1485, he married Elizabeth of the York royal family, and the marriage of the two families ended the Rose War. - translator