The Romans thought self-murder an
heroical
act; and
theft was allow'd among the Lacedæmonians.
theft was allow'd among the Lacedæmonians.
Rehearsal - v1 - 1750
And he employs a whole chapter, book II.
chap.
vi.
to prove the mother's title equal
p. 78.
do not remem any where read, children obey your father and
supream I
when he asserts his authority over us, calls him
be a father, where is mine honour ? Whence some have thought, that
self our father, but never our mother.
our duty to God our father is contain'd in the c,th com mand, and therefore reckon'd it into the first table, of what relates to God.
But that it relates to- our spiritual and political fathers, to
If
336
The REHEARSAL.
to our governors in church and slate, is the common and
received opinion of the Chrisiian church : and express'd in our catechism, in our duty towards our neighbour : where immediately after honour thyfather and mother, follows, by way of explanation, to honour and obey the king, and all that are put in authority under him. To submit our selves to all our governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters. To order ourselves lowly and reverently to all our
betters. Where the whole œconomy of government, from the highest to the lowcst, is all included under the yh con- . mandment, and dedued from it.
This is shew'd more at large in Bishop OveraWs con- vocation-book, p. 25. where it is faid, " Thatitjs
generally agreed upon, that obedience to kings and ci vil magistrates is prescribed to all subjects in the sifth commandment, where we are enjoined to honour oui
parents. Whereby it followeth, that subjection of in
seriors unto their kings and governors, is grounded up on the very Jaw of nature; and consequently, that
the sentences of death, awarded by God himself, against such as shew'd themselves disobedient and incorrigi ble to their parents, of cursed them, or' struck them, were likewise due unto those, who committed any such offences against their kings and rulers, being the heads and fathers of their commonwealths and
kingdoms. "
Here is the authority of the whole church of England
in convocation assembled, against Mr. Lock in an expla nation of a text of scripture. And for his criticism, wherein he shews his wit, and found it out, (being cun ning ! ) that mother is join'd with father in the $tb com mand, it is no more an objection than where inferior go vernors are join'd with the supream, in the commands of oar obedience to them. As l Pet. ii. 15. Submit your
selves whether to the king as supream, or unto go vernors, as unto them that are sent by him. Will any fay here, that there is no supremacy given to the king, be cause other governors are join'd with him, in the fame
command of obedience? As much and no more, does the motbir,
The REHEARS AL.
337 vatber, being join'd with the father in the $th command,
take away the supremacy of the father! And yet so fond is Mr. Lack of this, as he thought, new discovery,
that he fays, p. 272. Had but this one thing been well
confider d— it wou'd have ended all the dispute about fa
therly authority, by setting up two co-ordinate monarchs,
Ithefather, and the mother.
Am told, that the Obfcrvator (which I have not seen,
for I
because no answer is given to those affidavits he has
printed relating to the flag hung out at Sandwich,
on the day of the late election there : and insers that the Rehearfal, by his silence, yields what he faid to be false. The Rehearsal did not think it needful to take any no
tice of these affidavits, because they are nothing to the purpose, nor do they contradict the affidavits of Joseph
Hunger and George Broad, printed in Rehearsal, N. 46. Which do not so much as name some persons, which the other affidavits take pains to clear from having done that deed: so that this is wholly trifling. Again the affi davits of Joseph Hunger and George Broad do not posi
tively assert that this flag did belong to a troop of horse in the time of Oliver Cromwell, only, that they did take it to be so, and believd and that was Francis Hook who had caus'd to be hung out. But they name not the window, or any window out of which was hung, nor who did but as theysuppose: but that such fag
was hung up at the anabaptift meeting-house, and that they took particular notice of and of the arms decipher'd
read no more that paper scurrilous
)
does
insult,
and that was not the fame flag which Francis Hook afterwards produc'd to the mayor of the town, un
less alter this they positively swear against which nothing faid in the other affidavits, but that such one, and such one did not do and such one did not see and was not hung out at such win dow. All which makes nothing against what the two forenam'd had sworn.
In the fame Rehearsal, N. 46. are set down certificates Vol. Q. t.
upon
up
I. it,
is d,
it :
a it
it,
it
a a
a
it,
:
it it
a
it
it,
it,
338 The REHEARSAL;
to disprove the •villainous lye of the Review, about the mieather-cockiX. Oxford. And Rehear. Mt 44. disproves another as notorious a faljhood of the Review, in siA'am
to the church of England, which he asserts so pofitively, as that ifit be otherwise, he promises /»r ever to
do-wn this cause, and not to fay one word more to it. Yet he writes on still with as much fury (by way of modera tion against the church as ever. And without much as offering to justify or retract his weather-cock, and Other
as gross impofition's upon the credulity of the vulgar to en- flame the nation, and prejudice them against the church
established.
Shou'd now call him to repentance, and to make good
his promise Or to retract and make satisfaction to the world for his very lying book call'd the experiment, about Abraham Gill, prov'd to be such by certificate from the present lord bishop of Chester, publish'd in several Ga zettes In that book he lays load, with all his venom, upon the church of England, and turns his own Shortest •way upon her (he still fond of that performance and provokes any to disprove one word of thesatis he relates. Yet being undeniably disproved, in the principal point, he blusheth not, nor thinks of repentance These men's principle is, to do no right, and take no -wrong. They boldly call upon others to make good what they fay. To prove, or to retract. But when requiri from themselves, they laugh and make jest of and go
on still in their wickedness and make no scruple to re peat the fame di/prov'd lyes and slanders over and
over again, with re-doubsd assurance
This by way of advertijement. For will not be
verted from the thread of the subject am upon, to fol
low men destitute of common honesty or shame. But my fatisfaction is, that have fully shew'd them to be yici:
and have left them.
From
so I
?
) ? I
I
:
is
l
a I!
it, di
!
so
:
! )
lay
The REHEARSAL.
From ^at. Aug. 18, to ,f>at Aug. 25, 1705. N° 56.
I. The government os Adam was sovereign ; with pow er os'lise and death, &c. 2. Proved by Mr. Lock, in his oppofing it. 3. The succession os the sirst-born,
to the government, proved from the consent os man kind, and the law os nature. 4. Some exceptions do affirm the rule. 5. App'lyd to elective kingdoms, and common-wealths.
Coun. ' I HUS far, master, I think we have gone on
X. s<*fily and clearly, that the state of nature was at the sirst a st ate of government and subjection, not of
That Adam had the government over £1^ ; and over all their children. And that all this was found
ed in very nature, besides the positive institution of God, to render all sure and certain, and cut off all occaston of dispute. So that the first state of nature, to which all
independency.
our whigs do reser, makes clearly against them, and is wholly on your side who plead for government, and the
divine institution of it; against that original indepen dent state of nature, which the wAtjs do suppose, but can never prove, unless they can sind some other origi
nal of mankind than the holy scriptures have told us.
But now, master, it remains to enquire what this government was which was plac'd in Adam ? How far it extended ? whether to life and death ? And all things to which our present governments upon earth do extend I
R. The nature of government is the fame, in all siWs and places. We have several modifications os
33j
(1. )
vernment in-the world now. Monarchies,
and what we call democracies: tho' none are properly siich, that is, by the eqaal vote of all the people. But in all these, wherever the fupream power is lodg'd, it is
and unaccountable, and extends to and death, and every thing of liberty, property, and whatever re
absolute,
lates to this world. WithouQt this there cou'd be no go-
•-
z vernment.
aristocracies,
54®
The REHEARSAL.
•vernmcnt. For how otherwise can the refractory be re-
ducd, or peace preserv'd ?
In my last I hope I have clear'd the matter as to Eve's
having a co-ordinate power with Adam over their children, which Mr. Lock has asserted. On the contrary, I have Thew'd, that Adam had thesupreme power, as well over
Eve, as over their children. And that the power of Eve over their children, was not co-ordinate, but sub- crdinate to that of Adam.
Now the supreme power has been call'd by several
names, in different ages and places. As by the name
of king, emperor, governor, protector, patriarch, captain, judge, Sec. But all of them took the name of father of
their country. And the fame thing was meant by all these names, that the supreme power. Which having been lodg'd in Adam, as well nature, as the divine appointment, he may be call'd any of these names. Tho' that offather was the ancientest, and includes all
the rest.
This thus explauVdin Bp. Overall's convocation-
. BOOK, lib. I. cap. z. where the power of Adam call'd
patriarchal, regal, or imperial and the reason given, because had no superior authority or power over or above
on earth. And whatever power has no superior, must be supreme and must be absolute and unaccounta ble. Since nothing but superior can call any to account,
or limit his power. For whatever does limit, or call to account, in that act, superior.
After the murder of Abel, Cain became vagabond
andfugitive. And why Because, fays he, every one that findeth me will stay me. We cannot suppose, that was every body's power to kill another, for any
crime, that wou'd make wild conszfeon upon the earth. And never was so, in any nation or government what soever. For inconsistent with all order, rule, or
government.
more reasonable to suppose, that Adam had pro-
scrib'd Cain, for the murder of his brother, and upon his
fight, had given orders for any that mt biro, Vojlay him. For
It is
it
in
it is
is,
it
it
is
a ?
a
a
is
it ;
;
by by
is
34* For which reason he and nutnt off, far from
his father, to the land of Nod. And built a city, pro bably for his own defence ; getting a band of men about him, who wou'd stand by him.
But however that was, the power of Adam was sove reign, for the reasons aforefaid. Or otherwise it must be, that there was no government whatsoever then upon the
face of the earth, but every man left to do what was good -in his own eyes. To plunder, steal, or kill any man, at his own discretion : which was inconsistent with the dominion
given to Adam over his wife and children, which we have seen before. And why was rule and dominion given to> Adam, and they all made subject unto him, but that he should govern them? And astate ofgovernment and inde pendency cannot stand together. They are contradictory the one to the other. Or can any suppose, that Adam, to whom the sirst grant and right ofgovernment was given, and from whom all mankind deduc'd their authority over their wives and children ; had not himself as great authority as we sind afterwards exercis'd by the fathers offamilies, where there was no superior political power to restrain them? As Judah commanded his daughter-in-law Ta- mar to be burnt, for playing the harlot ; and when it was found to be by himself, heforgave her, but none pretended to punish him. Here was absolute power in a
This he deriv'd from Adam. And had not Adam
family.
then as great power as Judah his son ? Judah was not then in his father's family ; and was not under the
subjection of any prince, who might restrain his fatherly authority in his own family. And was not Adam as
free as he ?
(2. ) Mr. Lock in his two treatises of government, p. 78. is forc'd to consess, that the power of life and death
was in the power of the father, but he will join the mother with him, because they are nam'd together, Zech. xiii. 3. " And it mall come to pass, that when any shall' yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him, shall fay unto him, thou shalt not live, for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his fa-
0. 3
ther
34a
The REHEARSAL.
ther and mother that begat him shall thrust him thro'
when he prophesieth. " Upon which Mr. Lock fays, " Here not the father only, but father and mother
had power in this case of lise and death. "
In my last 1 have shew'd, that the power of the mother over the children was not co-ordinate, but sub-ordinate to
that of the father. And the mother being here join'd in this execution, is for the greater abhorrence of the fin of blasphemy, in the son, and to shew, that her bow- tls, as a mother, must give place to her duty and regard to God. But suppose she shou'd have refus'd, thro' her
jointly,
to have join'd in this execution, wou'd that have taken away the power of the father to have done it himself? Or suppose the father shou'd have acquitted him for thisfin, cou'd the mother condemn and executt
him against the authority of the father ?
C. All this is plain, and that the supreme authority
was in the father. And consequently, by Mr. Lock's own consession, that the power of life and death was in the fatherhood, since he allows it in the parental autho
rity. Therefore there is no denying, that Adam had the power of life and death ; and consequently was a Hug, as well as a father ; since every father is a king in his own family, where there is no superior king or father to restrain his authority, in fach cafes as he thinks
fit, and bring them to be judg'd by him the supreme lard.
And thescriptures you have brought proving what was right and the law now, from what it was with Adam, as the woman to be insubjeclion, because Adam was first form'd; and, as also faith the law, i Tim. ii. 13. and I Cor. adv. 34. that is, this law given to Adam, shews that all authority is deriv'd from even the full fatherly authority, with power of life and death, as ex- ercis'd by fathers, that were not under a superior au thority afterwards ; which implies the whole regal au thority, that can extend no further than life and death : 1 fay, all this must have been undimably in Adam, since it is all deriv'd from that authority sirst given to him.
tenderness,
(3. ) But now, master, I am further to be inform'd how it
The REHEARSAl*
343
it went after Adam's death. To whom did his supreme
Or was it to end with him, since we sind not a grant to him and his successors ? Or who
was to be his successors?
R. That the government sirst sounded in Adam was not j
authority descend?
to cease with him, but to continue as a rule and standard, in all after ages to the end of the world, appears by the apostles making it a rule in their age, and an univer
sal rule to all mankind' for as such he speaks of those texts thou hast just now quoted.
And the common way of all the earth, from Adam to this day, has been, that the first-horn son Ihou'd succeed
the power and government of the sather upon his de- cease and as St. Augustin fays, what has always been5 and whose beginning we know not, we must conclude
have been from the beginning.
And this, the way, strong consirmation of
what prov'd before out of holy scripture, that the power of the mother was not equal xo that of the father over the children because, upon: the father's death, the go vernment did not devolve to the mother, assurvivor, which must have been the case, they had been copart ners in the government, but descended to the eldest son, as heir of his father and the queen consort became queen mother, and subset! to her son as with us to this day. And in the descent of private inheritance, the mo ther has a dowry orjointure during her lise, but the estate immediately descends to the eldest son, upon hisfa ther death.
G. The way and general custom of the whole earth of great weight, and the surest rule we have to know what we call the law of nature, as being that
which nature does dictate to all and which mo
\
rally impossible, that all men should otherwise agree.
yet surer indication of matter offact, that this was;
the method from the beginning, when we fee not the be
ginning or institution of set up as new thing, in any ester or later ages but to have com,e down, in full
currency, froni the beginning.
Q. 4 . (4. ) Yet,
But
;
it,
it is is
in
a
a
in
it is
sI;
is ;:
it
if
is a
it is
it,
a
;
;
by
in, y\
344
The REHEARSAL.
(4. ) Yet, master, there are exceptions from this general rule. As our gavel-kind, and other particular tenures in
England. places.
And I am toW, that there is the like in othei
R. It is a rule in grammar, and holds in other matteis, that an exception does affirm the rule, in all s«/2\i that aie not excepted. And indeed what law or custom can be
call'd general, or the of nature, ifa sew exceptions can overturn it ? We shall sind nothing to call the law of nature, at this rate, but eating, drinking, and
There is hardly any moral virtue, but we shall sind particular customs in some places to contradict it. And that is counted •virtuous in some countries, which is not
thought so in others. And some things are veryshame ful in this place, that are accomplishments in that.
The Romans thought self-murder an heroical act; and
theft was allow'd among the Lacedæmonians. The M»-
grelians at this day, who are Christians, think it no of fence against the law of God, or nature, to &// their young children, ifthey have more than they think they can maintain : esteeming it preserable for them to die young, than to live miserably. So that if we let some exceptions take away the general rule, these men that plead so much for the law of nature, will hardly be able
ro tell where to sind it.
(5. ) C. But what shall we fay, master, to Poland, that
is now an elective kingdom ? and Denmark, and Sweden were once so. What shall we fay to the Romans, and Grecians, and the several common-wealths at this day, as Venice and Holland? &c.
R. These are to be reckon'd among the exceptions, for these were not from the beginning -, because we know their beginning. The sirst common-wealths that ever were in the world, were those of Greece. And they began by
the mutiny and rebellion of the soldiers against generals and kings. And the whole curse of them while they last ed, was confuston and contest about their new schemes of
government, which they had invented ; with most bloody and perpetual wars, which rendered their whole country one continu'd Jbambles of/laughter. But
ing.
The REHEARSAL;
34£ But before that time, the way and manner of the
whole earth, without any exception, was hereditary mo
narchy. They knew of no other species of government. This therefore was that which was from the beginning;
and consequently which had descended from Adam.
C. This appears very plain to me. But, master, have
we no authority from scripture, concerning this right of
the first-born to succeed? this wou'd fortify and confirm very much.
R. There is proof sufficient, countryman, from holy- scripture, which I will shew thee at our next meeting. But
I was willing to pursue, in this, the topick I have ob- serv'd from the beginning, of considering nature as well as institution ; because our adversaries make such a stir a- bout nature, and think all natural arguments on their side. Therefore my sirst proof for the right of theprimo^
geniture has been from the general consent of mankind, and whatever we can call the law or dittate of nature.
From if>at. Aug. 25, to ^at. Sept 1, 1705. N° 57.
1 . The succession of the sirst-born, as well as the species of government, further demonstrated by the four rules in The short method with the deists. And shevSd to be infallible. 2. The same consirm 'd by the history and authority of the holy scriptures. 3. The right of the
God at the beginning. ShcvSd in the instance of Cain and Abel. 4. she suc
primogeniture established by
cession in the primogeniture/i-om Adam to Noah.
(1. ) Coun. ~X7'0'U shew'd me last time, master, the right J[ of the primogeniture to succeed in the go
vernment, from the law of nature, that is, the commen consent of mankind from the beginning : which must be either the law of nature ; or such an universal tradition as descended all the way from Adam through all his po
sterities.
For how> othernuise, cou'd they all have a- Q^5, greed,
correspondence
The REHEARSAL.
346
greed, far distant nations, that had no knowledge of, or
with one another, in one and the self fame notion, if it was not eitheT the dictate of nature, or
such an universal tradition ?
This, if I mistake not, is the fame fort of argument,
which is in a little small book you once gave me, master, call'd, A short and easy method with the deists ; which is sitted to a plain countryman's capacity, that he can tell it
over upon his fingers. For example, master, give me leave, and I will apply it to thesubject we are upon.
Thefirst of his four marks is, That the subject matter be some fali of which our outward senses can judge. Now, there is nothing more so, than government, and the succession of it, in any country : witness our own. For there is no man, woman, or child of ten years old, but must know whether they live under a king, or a commen-
"tuealth ; and whether the ting's eldest son does succeed, or not.
The second mart That such fact be publick, in the tyes of the world, and not done in corner.
This agrees super-eminently to government, which in its nature must be publick and the succession as publick.
The third mark That acts and monuments remain of it.
Now, though this be needless as to government, which always remains monument of itielf; yet there are many other such acts and monuments, as the deeds of every man's estate. Every bond and publick writing bearing date such year of such reign. Every, action at law, every affixes and fissions. Every time we go to church,
where the king, queen, or commonwealth prayd for.
Besides the oaths requir'd, and our daily conversation,
where impossible to miss it.
And as notorious is, whether monarchy be elective
or hereditary or hereditary, whether the rule at
custom in our own country for the eldest son to succeed. We call him prince of Wales in England during his fa thers life. Who knows not, that Charles succeeded as
tidist fin to James and Charles II. as y£» to Charles
I.
;
if it
is, ;
is,
I. it is is
a
a
it is
a
a
a
The REHEARSAL.
347
Charles I. and James II. as brother and heir to Charles II.
he having no lawfulson?
And though there have been several invafions made
upon this hereditary rule ofsuccession in the histories of England ; yet you have taught me in your last, to reckon these among the exceptions from the general rule. And
they appear to be exceptions, because in the contest os Turk and Lancaster, both pretended to be next in blood to the crown. Therefore both yielded that to be the rule ; and this exception does assirm the
And where more open invafions have been made, and
the rule itself broke through ; yet this was never done, but it was known, publickly and notoriously
known ; as in the usurpation of Oliver, CSV. So that this too was an affirmation of the rule , because we fay it was a breach of it : which cou'd not be broken, if there htd been no such rule.
The fourth and last mark in the Method with the deists, That such acts and monuments shou'd commence from
the time that such facts were faid to be done. ' And for this, what have faid to the third mark clears
for besides that government standing monument of itself, there can be no government wherein there are not many other acts (some of which have before natn'd) that must be co-eval with as being inseparable from
as inseparable as light from the sun. And this not Only as to government in the general, but as to the species
,or kind of and likewise as to the rule of succession. Now, master, these four marks are infallible, as that author fays (and he has not yet been difprov'd, that have heard of) where they all meet in any particular fact;
how much more, in
nature as government, From these reasons
thing of such publirk and notorious
and the succession of
have concluded with myself up
on the foundation you have given me, that since heredi
and the succession of the eldest Ion was the Viay of the whole earth, from Adam to the sirst exception
of the Grecian commonwealths, (and still continues the far greatest part of the world to this day) that was the;
Q_6 insti
tary monarchy,
it
in
I
I
if a
I
it ?
it ;
it it ;;
is,
it,
is Ia
34«
The REHEARSAL.
institution os God. Besides the argument from nature, of
which you have spoke ; and that it utterly destroys the notion of an independent fate of nature. And this argument
I take to be infallible.
(2. ) But still, master, I must not forget what you pro
mis'd me last time, to shew me how the holyscriptures do agree with all this. For that will be a mighty consirma tion.
R. That the succession of the eldest son to the throne
was the rule in the kingdom of Judah is so obvious, that it
wou'd be in vain to give particular instances.
This rule was broke sometimes by the special command os God himself, who- is master of his own rules, but it's
are not. He is not ty'd to those rules to which he ties us. Thus he gave the crown to Solomon even before he was bom, i Chron. xxii. 9, 10. And Solomon own'd the
right of Æonijah by nature and the rule of succession, when he faid, 1 Kings ii. 22. . /^Æ for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother. But for the ordinary rule of
succession, it is particularly remarked, 2 Chron xxii. I. That the youngest was made king, because all the eldest v/erestain. And 2 Kings iii. 27. ffif thatshould
have reigned in his stead.
This rule was likewise broke in the rebellion of the ten
tribes from the house of David, who, after that, set up a
kind of elective kingdom. But of these God fays, Æse/! viii.
4. They havIe set up kings, but not by me ; they have made
kncw it not.
But to shew, that the right and pre-eminence of the
primogeniture was a general and receiv'd notion, God ex
princes, and
his favour
to David, in that former,
my first-bom,
Iwi than the kings ofthe earth.
presses
high
faying, higher
P/al. lxxxix. 27.
11 make him
And long before that, Jacob express'd the dignity of thefirst-born, with a reason even from nature, Gen. xli*. 3. Reuben, thou art my first-born, my might, and the be
ginning of my strength : the excellency es dignity, and the
excellency ofpower,
Thii
The REHEARSAL.
3-4^ This is pursuant to what his father Isaac had faid to-
him, when he blejscd him as his first-born, Gen. xxvii. 29. Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow danvn to thee. And when he consirm'd the blesjlng of birth-right to him, which he then faw, being a prophet, that God had transserr'd to Jacob,, he fIaid to E/au, now
in the person of the younger, ver. I
have made him
lord, and all his brethren have 37. thy given
to him
vants. Here the succession of the eldest is vested in the full povver and authority of the father, After whose death
he stood as father to the rest of his brethren, who thence forward became his suljects and his servants.
Let me add to this, that Christ is called our elder-bro ther, Rom. viii. 29. The first-fruits of them that slept,.
1 Cor. xv. 20. and the first-begotten of the dead, Rev. i.
And all this, to express his high authority over us, Li the notion we must suppose then current in the world ; and which had obtain'd long before, as I have shew'd. And the church triumphant is call'd the church of the first-
bom, Heb. xii. 23. Still magnifying the dignity of the
first-born.
C. Ihad not indeed censider'd this so narrowly. And'
for ser
5.
it seems plain to me, that this must be the notion of the most early times. And from what has been faid before, I can have no doubt but that this fame rule and dominion of the primogeniture had descended to them all the way
down from Adam. For if it had not been the rule six'd and determin'd by Adam, it wou'd have been so great an- innovation, and an usurpation upon the rights and liber ties of all others, that whenever it came first to be set up, in any after age, it must have met with great oppo
sition.
And cou'd never have been tamely submitted to,
more than if the French king, (for example) shou'd now
set up for universal monarchy ; or any other pretend to it
by a new and unheard of title.
Nor cou'd such a thing be brought to pass in a day •
Or stolen in upon the world'vtx a private manner, without any body's knowing or taking any notice of it. All histories must be full of it. Such wonderful revolution-
mui£
a
it,
35o
The REHEARSAL.
must have been the subject of every pen. But since no thing of this appears, and we And the primogeniture in quiet and peaceable poffession all along, even in the earliest times, we cannot but conclude, that it was so from the beginning.
(3. ) But yet, master, if we cou'd sind any thing of this notion to have been in the very days of Adam, it wou'd open the eyes even of the blind.
R. We sind it even in those days ; for thus God ex postulates with Cain, Gen. iv. 7. Why art tbou wroth, CSV. If tbou dost well, shalt tbou not be accepted? And if
tbou dost not well, (or, as other translations read it, though tbou dost not well) fin lieth at the door. And unto thee
(or, as others read notwithstanding unto thee) shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Our margin reads Tbou /halt have the excellency, and be shall be
subject unto thee. These are the fame words, which have before quoted, wherein God establishes the domi nion of Adam over Eve, Gen. iii. And here the do minion of Can over Abel established in as full and am ple manner which cou'd be upon no account but that of the primogeniture. For Abel was more belov'd of God.
And God gives this as reason to Cain why he ought not to be wroth, because God had rejected his sacrifice, and accepted that of Abel. For that he did well, he shou'd be accepted as well as Abel. But though he did not well, and that fin lay at his door yet that did not take away his right of primogeniture, and the consequent right of dominion, which he shou'd have over Abel, when he suc ceeded to his father in the supreme fatherly authority, not only over his own children, but over his brethren,
even all the childrem of Adum. For that notion was not
yet born, that dominion founded in grace. And thi»
-right of the primogeniture not here mention'd as then
founded or granted God to Cain, we may sup pose, to pacify him for his fin, and Abes righteousness wou'd be strange reason for God's giving him the domi nion over Abel: but this of the primogeniture spoke of as thing then known, and eftablifiid: and as such urgd
to
2
if
6.
a
a
a
is
so
s
by
it,
if
is
is ;
a
is
;
1
I
it,
The REHEARSAL.
351
to Cain, to shew the unreasonableness of his discontent, when the succession into the full power and authority of his father was settsd on him, and not on Abel. So that by this we must suppose, that the right of the primo geniture was eftablish'd by God, at the very first, as a fun-
(4. )
priz'd in the fifth chapter of Genefis, that we have no thing but their names and ages set down.
R. It may be short in other things; but it is full as to the primogeniture. For indeed it is nothing else but a
list or catalogue of the first-born, and of their first-born, from Adam to Noah. These were the patriarchs before
the Flood. There are none nam'd there but the first
born ; the rest are pass'd over under the general name of Jons and daughters.
The word patriarch signisies the chief or govemour of the country, and is equivalent with king or emperor.
King David is call'd patriarch, Acts ii. 29. So that
whereas our contents to the 5th of Genefis is, The genea
logy, age, and death ofthe patriarchs from Adam to Noah ; it might as well have been put, of the Kings from Adam to Noah. For the words are s>nonymous ; and if a king
may be call'd a patriarch, a patriarch may be call'd a
king.
So that here we have a plain deduction of government
in the monarchical, and no other form ; and the succession of it in the primogeniture from Adam to Noah. Next time we will begin after the Flood, and see how it went
tiamental principle.
C. If this were so, we might expect to sind some thing of it in the successions after Adam before the Flood. Tho' what is related of them is so very short, all com-
then.
From
TKe REHEARSAL
y52
From ^at. Sept. i, to . Sat. Sept. 8, 1705. N° 58.
t. Mr. Lock'j rule os univerfal practice whereby to know
the law of nature. By which it is prov'd, That mo
narchy, and the succession of it in the primogeniture, and not commonwealth, far less independency, is the law of nature. 2. Mr. Lock'/ notion, That the power ofthe husband is founded on contract.
p. 78.
do not remem any where read, children obey your father and
supream I
when he asserts his authority over us, calls him
be a father, where is mine honour ? Whence some have thought, that
self our father, but never our mother.
our duty to God our father is contain'd in the c,th com mand, and therefore reckon'd it into the first table, of what relates to God.
But that it relates to- our spiritual and political fathers, to
If
336
The REHEARSAL.
to our governors in church and slate, is the common and
received opinion of the Chrisiian church : and express'd in our catechism, in our duty towards our neighbour : where immediately after honour thyfather and mother, follows, by way of explanation, to honour and obey the king, and all that are put in authority under him. To submit our selves to all our governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters. To order ourselves lowly and reverently to all our
betters. Where the whole œconomy of government, from the highest to the lowcst, is all included under the yh con- . mandment, and dedued from it.
This is shew'd more at large in Bishop OveraWs con- vocation-book, p. 25. where it is faid, " Thatitjs
generally agreed upon, that obedience to kings and ci vil magistrates is prescribed to all subjects in the sifth commandment, where we are enjoined to honour oui
parents. Whereby it followeth, that subjection of in
seriors unto their kings and governors, is grounded up on the very Jaw of nature; and consequently, that
the sentences of death, awarded by God himself, against such as shew'd themselves disobedient and incorrigi ble to their parents, of cursed them, or' struck them, were likewise due unto those, who committed any such offences against their kings and rulers, being the heads and fathers of their commonwealths and
kingdoms. "
Here is the authority of the whole church of England
in convocation assembled, against Mr. Lock in an expla nation of a text of scripture. And for his criticism, wherein he shews his wit, and found it out, (being cun ning ! ) that mother is join'd with father in the $tb com mand, it is no more an objection than where inferior go vernors are join'd with the supream, in the commands of oar obedience to them. As l Pet. ii. 15. Submit your
selves whether to the king as supream, or unto go vernors, as unto them that are sent by him. Will any fay here, that there is no supremacy given to the king, be cause other governors are join'd with him, in the fame
command of obedience? As much and no more, does the motbir,
The REHEARS AL.
337 vatber, being join'd with the father in the $th command,
take away the supremacy of the father! And yet so fond is Mr. Lack of this, as he thought, new discovery,
that he fays, p. 272. Had but this one thing been well
confider d— it wou'd have ended all the dispute about fa
therly authority, by setting up two co-ordinate monarchs,
Ithefather, and the mother.
Am told, that the Obfcrvator (which I have not seen,
for I
because no answer is given to those affidavits he has
printed relating to the flag hung out at Sandwich,
on the day of the late election there : and insers that the Rehearfal, by his silence, yields what he faid to be false. The Rehearsal did not think it needful to take any no
tice of these affidavits, because they are nothing to the purpose, nor do they contradict the affidavits of Joseph
Hunger and George Broad, printed in Rehearsal, N. 46. Which do not so much as name some persons, which the other affidavits take pains to clear from having done that deed: so that this is wholly trifling. Again the affi davits of Joseph Hunger and George Broad do not posi
tively assert that this flag did belong to a troop of horse in the time of Oliver Cromwell, only, that they did take it to be so, and believd and that was Francis Hook who had caus'd to be hung out. But they name not the window, or any window out of which was hung, nor who did but as theysuppose: but that such fag
was hung up at the anabaptift meeting-house, and that they took particular notice of and of the arms decipher'd
read no more that paper scurrilous
)
does
insult,
and that was not the fame flag which Francis Hook afterwards produc'd to the mayor of the town, un
less alter this they positively swear against which nothing faid in the other affidavits, but that such one, and such one did not do and such one did not see and was not hung out at such win dow. All which makes nothing against what the two forenam'd had sworn.
In the fame Rehearsal, N. 46. are set down certificates Vol. Q. t.
upon
up
I. it,
is d,
it :
a it
it,
it
a a
a
it,
:
it it
a
it
it,
it,
338 The REHEARSAL;
to disprove the •villainous lye of the Review, about the mieather-cockiX. Oxford. And Rehear. Mt 44. disproves another as notorious a faljhood of the Review, in siA'am
to the church of England, which he asserts so pofitively, as that ifit be otherwise, he promises /»r ever to
do-wn this cause, and not to fay one word more to it. Yet he writes on still with as much fury (by way of modera tion against the church as ever. And without much as offering to justify or retract his weather-cock, and Other
as gross impofition's upon the credulity of the vulgar to en- flame the nation, and prejudice them against the church
established.
Shou'd now call him to repentance, and to make good
his promise Or to retract and make satisfaction to the world for his very lying book call'd the experiment, about Abraham Gill, prov'd to be such by certificate from the present lord bishop of Chester, publish'd in several Ga zettes In that book he lays load, with all his venom, upon the church of England, and turns his own Shortest •way upon her (he still fond of that performance and provokes any to disprove one word of thesatis he relates. Yet being undeniably disproved, in the principal point, he blusheth not, nor thinks of repentance These men's principle is, to do no right, and take no -wrong. They boldly call upon others to make good what they fay. To prove, or to retract. But when requiri from themselves, they laugh and make jest of and go
on still in their wickedness and make no scruple to re peat the fame di/prov'd lyes and slanders over and
over again, with re-doubsd assurance
This by way of advertijement. For will not be
verted from the thread of the subject am upon, to fol
low men destitute of common honesty or shame. But my fatisfaction is, that have fully shew'd them to be yici:
and have left them.
From
so I
?
) ? I
I
:
is
l
a I!
it, di
!
so
:
! )
lay
The REHEARSAL.
From ^at. Aug. 18, to ,f>at Aug. 25, 1705. N° 56.
I. The government os Adam was sovereign ; with pow er os'lise and death, &c. 2. Proved by Mr. Lock, in his oppofing it. 3. The succession os the sirst-born,
to the government, proved from the consent os man kind, and the law os nature. 4. Some exceptions do affirm the rule. 5. App'lyd to elective kingdoms, and common-wealths.
Coun. ' I HUS far, master, I think we have gone on
X. s<*fily and clearly, that the state of nature was at the sirst a st ate of government and subjection, not of
That Adam had the government over £1^ ; and over all their children. And that all this was found
ed in very nature, besides the positive institution of God, to render all sure and certain, and cut off all occaston of dispute. So that the first state of nature, to which all
independency.
our whigs do reser, makes clearly against them, and is wholly on your side who plead for government, and the
divine institution of it; against that original indepen dent state of nature, which the wAtjs do suppose, but can never prove, unless they can sind some other origi
nal of mankind than the holy scriptures have told us.
But now, master, it remains to enquire what this government was which was plac'd in Adam ? How far it extended ? whether to life and death ? And all things to which our present governments upon earth do extend I
R. The nature of government is the fame, in all siWs and places. We have several modifications os
33j
(1. )
vernment in-the world now. Monarchies,
and what we call democracies: tho' none are properly siich, that is, by the eqaal vote of all the people. But in all these, wherever the fupream power is lodg'd, it is
and unaccountable, and extends to and death, and every thing of liberty, property, and whatever re
absolute,
lates to this world. WithouQt this there cou'd be no go-
•-
z vernment.
aristocracies,
54®
The REHEARSAL.
•vernmcnt. For how otherwise can the refractory be re-
ducd, or peace preserv'd ?
In my last I hope I have clear'd the matter as to Eve's
having a co-ordinate power with Adam over their children, which Mr. Lock has asserted. On the contrary, I have Thew'd, that Adam had thesupreme power, as well over
Eve, as over their children. And that the power of Eve over their children, was not co-ordinate, but sub- crdinate to that of Adam.
Now the supreme power has been call'd by several
names, in different ages and places. As by the name
of king, emperor, governor, protector, patriarch, captain, judge, Sec. But all of them took the name of father of
their country. And the fame thing was meant by all these names, that the supreme power. Which having been lodg'd in Adam, as well nature, as the divine appointment, he may be call'd any of these names. Tho' that offather was the ancientest, and includes all
the rest.
This thus explauVdin Bp. Overall's convocation-
. BOOK, lib. I. cap. z. where the power of Adam call'd
patriarchal, regal, or imperial and the reason given, because had no superior authority or power over or above
on earth. And whatever power has no superior, must be supreme and must be absolute and unaccounta ble. Since nothing but superior can call any to account,
or limit his power. For whatever does limit, or call to account, in that act, superior.
After the murder of Abel, Cain became vagabond
andfugitive. And why Because, fays he, every one that findeth me will stay me. We cannot suppose, that was every body's power to kill another, for any
crime, that wou'd make wild conszfeon upon the earth. And never was so, in any nation or government what soever. For inconsistent with all order, rule, or
government.
more reasonable to suppose, that Adam had pro-
scrib'd Cain, for the murder of his brother, and upon his
fight, had given orders for any that mt biro, Vojlay him. For
It is
it
in
it is
is,
it
it
is
a ?
a
a
is
it ;
;
by by
is
34* For which reason he and nutnt off, far from
his father, to the land of Nod. And built a city, pro bably for his own defence ; getting a band of men about him, who wou'd stand by him.
But however that was, the power of Adam was sove reign, for the reasons aforefaid. Or otherwise it must be, that there was no government whatsoever then upon the
face of the earth, but every man left to do what was good -in his own eyes. To plunder, steal, or kill any man, at his own discretion : which was inconsistent with the dominion
given to Adam over his wife and children, which we have seen before. And why was rule and dominion given to> Adam, and they all made subject unto him, but that he should govern them? And astate ofgovernment and inde pendency cannot stand together. They are contradictory the one to the other. Or can any suppose, that Adam, to whom the sirst grant and right ofgovernment was given, and from whom all mankind deduc'd their authority over their wives and children ; had not himself as great authority as we sind afterwards exercis'd by the fathers offamilies, where there was no superior political power to restrain them? As Judah commanded his daughter-in-law Ta- mar to be burnt, for playing the harlot ; and when it was found to be by himself, heforgave her, but none pretended to punish him. Here was absolute power in a
This he deriv'd from Adam. And had not Adam
family.
then as great power as Judah his son ? Judah was not then in his father's family ; and was not under the
subjection of any prince, who might restrain his fatherly authority in his own family. And was not Adam as
free as he ?
(2. ) Mr. Lock in his two treatises of government, p. 78. is forc'd to consess, that the power of life and death
was in the power of the father, but he will join the mother with him, because they are nam'd together, Zech. xiii. 3. " And it mall come to pass, that when any shall' yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him, shall fay unto him, thou shalt not live, for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his fa-
0. 3
ther
34a
The REHEARSAL.
ther and mother that begat him shall thrust him thro'
when he prophesieth. " Upon which Mr. Lock fays, " Here not the father only, but father and mother
had power in this case of lise and death. "
In my last 1 have shew'd, that the power of the mother over the children was not co-ordinate, but sub-ordinate to
that of the father. And the mother being here join'd in this execution, is for the greater abhorrence of the fin of blasphemy, in the son, and to shew, that her bow- tls, as a mother, must give place to her duty and regard to God. But suppose she shou'd have refus'd, thro' her
jointly,
to have join'd in this execution, wou'd that have taken away the power of the father to have done it himself? Or suppose the father shou'd have acquitted him for thisfin, cou'd the mother condemn and executt
him against the authority of the father ?
C. All this is plain, and that the supreme authority
was in the father. And consequently, by Mr. Lock's own consession, that the power of life and death was in the fatherhood, since he allows it in the parental autho
rity. Therefore there is no denying, that Adam had the power of life and death ; and consequently was a Hug, as well as a father ; since every father is a king in his own family, where there is no superior king or father to restrain his authority, in fach cafes as he thinks
fit, and bring them to be judg'd by him the supreme lard.
And thescriptures you have brought proving what was right and the law now, from what it was with Adam, as the woman to be insubjeclion, because Adam was first form'd; and, as also faith the law, i Tim. ii. 13. and I Cor. adv. 34. that is, this law given to Adam, shews that all authority is deriv'd from even the full fatherly authority, with power of life and death, as ex- ercis'd by fathers, that were not under a superior au thority afterwards ; which implies the whole regal au thority, that can extend no further than life and death : 1 fay, all this must have been undimably in Adam, since it is all deriv'd from that authority sirst given to him.
tenderness,
(3. ) But now, master, I am further to be inform'd how it
The REHEARSAl*
343
it went after Adam's death. To whom did his supreme
Or was it to end with him, since we sind not a grant to him and his successors ? Or who
was to be his successors?
R. That the government sirst sounded in Adam was not j
authority descend?
to cease with him, but to continue as a rule and standard, in all after ages to the end of the world, appears by the apostles making it a rule in their age, and an univer
sal rule to all mankind' for as such he speaks of those texts thou hast just now quoted.
And the common way of all the earth, from Adam to this day, has been, that the first-horn son Ihou'd succeed
the power and government of the sather upon his de- cease and as St. Augustin fays, what has always been5 and whose beginning we know not, we must conclude
have been from the beginning.
And this, the way, strong consirmation of
what prov'd before out of holy scripture, that the power of the mother was not equal xo that of the father over the children because, upon: the father's death, the go vernment did not devolve to the mother, assurvivor, which must have been the case, they had been copart ners in the government, but descended to the eldest son, as heir of his father and the queen consort became queen mother, and subset! to her son as with us to this day. And in the descent of private inheritance, the mo ther has a dowry orjointure during her lise, but the estate immediately descends to the eldest son, upon hisfa ther death.
G. The way and general custom of the whole earth of great weight, and the surest rule we have to know what we call the law of nature, as being that
which nature does dictate to all and which mo
\
rally impossible, that all men should otherwise agree.
yet surer indication of matter offact, that this was;
the method from the beginning, when we fee not the be
ginning or institution of set up as new thing, in any ester or later ages but to have com,e down, in full
currency, froni the beginning.
Q. 4 . (4. ) Yet,
But
;
it,
it is is
in
a
a
in
it is
sI;
is ;:
it
if
is a
it is
it,
a
;
;
by
in, y\
344
The REHEARSAL.
(4. ) Yet, master, there are exceptions from this general rule. As our gavel-kind, and other particular tenures in
England. places.
And I am toW, that there is the like in othei
R. It is a rule in grammar, and holds in other matteis, that an exception does affirm the rule, in all s«/2\i that aie not excepted. And indeed what law or custom can be
call'd general, or the of nature, ifa sew exceptions can overturn it ? We shall sind nothing to call the law of nature, at this rate, but eating, drinking, and
There is hardly any moral virtue, but we shall sind particular customs in some places to contradict it. And that is counted •virtuous in some countries, which is not
thought so in others. And some things are veryshame ful in this place, that are accomplishments in that.
The Romans thought self-murder an heroical act; and
theft was allow'd among the Lacedæmonians. The M»-
grelians at this day, who are Christians, think it no of fence against the law of God, or nature, to &// their young children, ifthey have more than they think they can maintain : esteeming it preserable for them to die young, than to live miserably. So that if we let some exceptions take away the general rule, these men that plead so much for the law of nature, will hardly be able
ro tell where to sind it.
(5. ) C. But what shall we fay, master, to Poland, that
is now an elective kingdom ? and Denmark, and Sweden were once so. What shall we fay to the Romans, and Grecians, and the several common-wealths at this day, as Venice and Holland? &c.
R. These are to be reckon'd among the exceptions, for these were not from the beginning -, because we know their beginning. The sirst common-wealths that ever were in the world, were those of Greece. And they began by
the mutiny and rebellion of the soldiers against generals and kings. And the whole curse of them while they last ed, was confuston and contest about their new schemes of
government, which they had invented ; with most bloody and perpetual wars, which rendered their whole country one continu'd Jbambles of/laughter. But
ing.
The REHEARSAL;
34£ But before that time, the way and manner of the
whole earth, without any exception, was hereditary mo
narchy. They knew of no other species of government. This therefore was that which was from the beginning;
and consequently which had descended from Adam.
C. This appears very plain to me. But, master, have
we no authority from scripture, concerning this right of
the first-born to succeed? this wou'd fortify and confirm very much.
R. There is proof sufficient, countryman, from holy- scripture, which I will shew thee at our next meeting. But
I was willing to pursue, in this, the topick I have ob- serv'd from the beginning, of considering nature as well as institution ; because our adversaries make such a stir a- bout nature, and think all natural arguments on their side. Therefore my sirst proof for the right of theprimo^
geniture has been from the general consent of mankind, and whatever we can call the law or dittate of nature.
From if>at. Aug. 25, to ^at. Sept 1, 1705. N° 57.
1 . The succession of the sirst-born, as well as the species of government, further demonstrated by the four rules in The short method with the deists. And shevSd to be infallible. 2. The same consirm 'd by the history and authority of the holy scriptures. 3. The right of the
God at the beginning. ShcvSd in the instance of Cain and Abel. 4. she suc
primogeniture established by
cession in the primogeniture/i-om Adam to Noah.
(1. ) Coun. ~X7'0'U shew'd me last time, master, the right J[ of the primogeniture to succeed in the go
vernment, from the law of nature, that is, the commen consent of mankind from the beginning : which must be either the law of nature ; or such an universal tradition as descended all the way from Adam through all his po
sterities.
For how> othernuise, cou'd they all have a- Q^5, greed,
correspondence
The REHEARSAL.
346
greed, far distant nations, that had no knowledge of, or
with one another, in one and the self fame notion, if it was not eitheT the dictate of nature, or
such an universal tradition ?
This, if I mistake not, is the fame fort of argument,
which is in a little small book you once gave me, master, call'd, A short and easy method with the deists ; which is sitted to a plain countryman's capacity, that he can tell it
over upon his fingers. For example, master, give me leave, and I will apply it to thesubject we are upon.
Thefirst of his four marks is, That the subject matter be some fali of which our outward senses can judge. Now, there is nothing more so, than government, and the succession of it, in any country : witness our own. For there is no man, woman, or child of ten years old, but must know whether they live under a king, or a commen-
"tuealth ; and whether the ting's eldest son does succeed, or not.
The second mart That such fact be publick, in the tyes of the world, and not done in corner.
This agrees super-eminently to government, which in its nature must be publick and the succession as publick.
The third mark That acts and monuments remain of it.
Now, though this be needless as to government, which always remains monument of itielf; yet there are many other such acts and monuments, as the deeds of every man's estate. Every bond and publick writing bearing date such year of such reign. Every, action at law, every affixes and fissions. Every time we go to church,
where the king, queen, or commonwealth prayd for.
Besides the oaths requir'd, and our daily conversation,
where impossible to miss it.
And as notorious is, whether monarchy be elective
or hereditary or hereditary, whether the rule at
custom in our own country for the eldest son to succeed. We call him prince of Wales in England during his fa thers life. Who knows not, that Charles succeeded as
tidist fin to James and Charles II. as y£» to Charles
I.
;
if it
is, ;
is,
I. it is is
a
a
it is
a
a
a
The REHEARSAL.
347
Charles I. and James II. as brother and heir to Charles II.
he having no lawfulson?
And though there have been several invafions made
upon this hereditary rule ofsuccession in the histories of England ; yet you have taught me in your last, to reckon these among the exceptions from the general rule. And
they appear to be exceptions, because in the contest os Turk and Lancaster, both pretended to be next in blood to the crown. Therefore both yielded that to be the rule ; and this exception does assirm the
And where more open invafions have been made, and
the rule itself broke through ; yet this was never done, but it was known, publickly and notoriously
known ; as in the usurpation of Oliver, CSV. So that this too was an affirmation of the rule , because we fay it was a breach of it : which cou'd not be broken, if there htd been no such rule.
The fourth and last mark in the Method with the deists, That such acts and monuments shou'd commence from
the time that such facts were faid to be done. ' And for this, what have faid to the third mark clears
for besides that government standing monument of itself, there can be no government wherein there are not many other acts (some of which have before natn'd) that must be co-eval with as being inseparable from
as inseparable as light from the sun. And this not Only as to government in the general, but as to the species
,or kind of and likewise as to the rule of succession. Now, master, these four marks are infallible, as that author fays (and he has not yet been difprov'd, that have heard of) where they all meet in any particular fact;
how much more, in
nature as government, From these reasons
thing of such publirk and notorious
and the succession of
have concluded with myself up
on the foundation you have given me, that since heredi
and the succession of the eldest Ion was the Viay of the whole earth, from Adam to the sirst exception
of the Grecian commonwealths, (and still continues the far greatest part of the world to this day) that was the;
Q_6 insti
tary monarchy,
it
in
I
I
if a
I
it ?
it ;
it it ;;
is,
it,
is Ia
34«
The REHEARSAL.
institution os God. Besides the argument from nature, of
which you have spoke ; and that it utterly destroys the notion of an independent fate of nature. And this argument
I take to be infallible.
(2. ) But still, master, I must not forget what you pro
mis'd me last time, to shew me how the holyscriptures do agree with all this. For that will be a mighty consirma tion.
R. That the succession of the eldest son to the throne
was the rule in the kingdom of Judah is so obvious, that it
wou'd be in vain to give particular instances.
This rule was broke sometimes by the special command os God himself, who- is master of his own rules, but it's
are not. He is not ty'd to those rules to which he ties us. Thus he gave the crown to Solomon even before he was bom, i Chron. xxii. 9, 10. And Solomon own'd the
right of Æonijah by nature and the rule of succession, when he faid, 1 Kings ii. 22. . /^Æ for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother. But for the ordinary rule of
succession, it is particularly remarked, 2 Chron xxii. I. That the youngest was made king, because all the eldest v/erestain. And 2 Kings iii. 27. ffif thatshould
have reigned in his stead.
This rule was likewise broke in the rebellion of the ten
tribes from the house of David, who, after that, set up a
kind of elective kingdom. But of these God fays, Æse/! viii.
4. They havIe set up kings, but not by me ; they have made
kncw it not.
But to shew, that the right and pre-eminence of the
primogeniture was a general and receiv'd notion, God ex
princes, and
his favour
to David, in that former,
my first-bom,
Iwi than the kings ofthe earth.
presses
high
faying, higher
P/al. lxxxix. 27.
11 make him
And long before that, Jacob express'd the dignity of thefirst-born, with a reason even from nature, Gen. xli*. 3. Reuben, thou art my first-born, my might, and the be
ginning of my strength : the excellency es dignity, and the
excellency ofpower,
Thii
The REHEARSAL.
3-4^ This is pursuant to what his father Isaac had faid to-
him, when he blejscd him as his first-born, Gen. xxvii. 29. Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow danvn to thee. And when he consirm'd the blesjlng of birth-right to him, which he then faw, being a prophet, that God had transserr'd to Jacob,, he fIaid to E/au, now
in the person of the younger, ver. I
have made him
lord, and all his brethren have 37. thy given
to him
vants. Here the succession of the eldest is vested in the full povver and authority of the father, After whose death
he stood as father to the rest of his brethren, who thence forward became his suljects and his servants.
Let me add to this, that Christ is called our elder-bro ther, Rom. viii. 29. The first-fruits of them that slept,.
1 Cor. xv. 20. and the first-begotten of the dead, Rev. i.
And all this, to express his high authority over us, Li the notion we must suppose then current in the world ; and which had obtain'd long before, as I have shew'd. And the church triumphant is call'd the church of the first-
bom, Heb. xii. 23. Still magnifying the dignity of the
first-born.
C. Ihad not indeed censider'd this so narrowly. And'
for ser
5.
it seems plain to me, that this must be the notion of the most early times. And from what has been faid before, I can have no doubt but that this fame rule and dominion of the primogeniture had descended to them all the way
down from Adam. For if it had not been the rule six'd and determin'd by Adam, it wou'd have been so great an- innovation, and an usurpation upon the rights and liber ties of all others, that whenever it came first to be set up, in any after age, it must have met with great oppo
sition.
And cou'd never have been tamely submitted to,
more than if the French king, (for example) shou'd now
set up for universal monarchy ; or any other pretend to it
by a new and unheard of title.
Nor cou'd such a thing be brought to pass in a day •
Or stolen in upon the world'vtx a private manner, without any body's knowing or taking any notice of it. All histories must be full of it. Such wonderful revolution-
mui£
a
it,
35o
The REHEARSAL.
must have been the subject of every pen. But since no thing of this appears, and we And the primogeniture in quiet and peaceable poffession all along, even in the earliest times, we cannot but conclude, that it was so from the beginning.
(3. ) But yet, master, if we cou'd sind any thing of this notion to have been in the very days of Adam, it wou'd open the eyes even of the blind.
R. We sind it even in those days ; for thus God ex postulates with Cain, Gen. iv. 7. Why art tbou wroth, CSV. If tbou dost well, shalt tbou not be accepted? And if
tbou dost not well, (or, as other translations read it, though tbou dost not well) fin lieth at the door. And unto thee
(or, as others read notwithstanding unto thee) shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Our margin reads Tbou /halt have the excellency, and be shall be
subject unto thee. These are the fame words, which have before quoted, wherein God establishes the domi nion of Adam over Eve, Gen. iii. And here the do minion of Can over Abel established in as full and am ple manner which cou'd be upon no account but that of the primogeniture. For Abel was more belov'd of God.
And God gives this as reason to Cain why he ought not to be wroth, because God had rejected his sacrifice, and accepted that of Abel. For that he did well, he shou'd be accepted as well as Abel. But though he did not well, and that fin lay at his door yet that did not take away his right of primogeniture, and the consequent right of dominion, which he shou'd have over Abel, when he suc ceeded to his father in the supreme fatherly authority, not only over his own children, but over his brethren,
even all the childrem of Adum. For that notion was not
yet born, that dominion founded in grace. And thi»
-right of the primogeniture not here mention'd as then
founded or granted God to Cain, we may sup pose, to pacify him for his fin, and Abes righteousness wou'd be strange reason for God's giving him the domi nion over Abel: but this of the primogeniture spoke of as thing then known, and eftablifiid: and as such urgd
to
2
if
6.
a
a
a
is
so
s
by
it,
if
is
is ;
a
is
;
1
I
it,
The REHEARSAL.
351
to Cain, to shew the unreasonableness of his discontent, when the succession into the full power and authority of his father was settsd on him, and not on Abel. So that by this we must suppose, that the right of the primo geniture was eftablish'd by God, at the very first, as a fun-
(4. )
priz'd in the fifth chapter of Genefis, that we have no thing but their names and ages set down.
R. It may be short in other things; but it is full as to the primogeniture. For indeed it is nothing else but a
list or catalogue of the first-born, and of their first-born, from Adam to Noah. These were the patriarchs before
the Flood. There are none nam'd there but the first
born ; the rest are pass'd over under the general name of Jons and daughters.
The word patriarch signisies the chief or govemour of the country, and is equivalent with king or emperor.
King David is call'd patriarch, Acts ii. 29. So that
whereas our contents to the 5th of Genefis is, The genea
logy, age, and death ofthe patriarchs from Adam to Noah ; it might as well have been put, of the Kings from Adam to Noah. For the words are s>nonymous ; and if a king
may be call'd a patriarch, a patriarch may be call'd a
king.
So that here we have a plain deduction of government
in the monarchical, and no other form ; and the succession of it in the primogeniture from Adam to Noah. Next time we will begin after the Flood, and see how it went
tiamental principle.
C. If this were so, we might expect to sind some thing of it in the successions after Adam before the Flood. Tho' what is related of them is so very short, all com-
then.
From
TKe REHEARSAL
y52
From ^at. Sept. i, to . Sat. Sept. 8, 1705. N° 58.
t. Mr. Lock'j rule os univerfal practice whereby to know
the law of nature. By which it is prov'd, That mo
narchy, and the succession of it in the primogeniture, and not commonwealth, far less independency, is the law of nature. 2. Mr. Lock'/ notion, That the power ofthe husband is founded on contract.
