Lock pleases himself, apiece of his wit, meerjest; for Abraham had power to do while he lived, and may be he did it, because he had not, he knew, that after his death these sons of the concuhines had been intirely under the
dominion
of Isaac their elder brother.
Rehearsal - v1 - 1750
Sept.
i 5, to Sept.
22, 1 705.
N° 60.
1 . An answer to the objections of Mr. Lock against tie
right cf the primogeniture drawn from the case of Esau and Jacob. 2. From that of Ishmael and I£tac 3. From the sons of the concubines of Abraham.
Count I ''HO' I think, master, that the cause of monarchy
nature, as by the plain word of God, and that 20 objec
tions from particular passages are of no weight against the current of history bothsacred and prosane.
(1. ) Yet, master, to give our wbigs over and above what is necest'ary, and that I may be able to solve all their scruples, I intreat you to give me your answer to what Mr. Lock objects against that text you have brought in
proof of the primogeniture, Gen. xxvii. 29, 37. where Jacob is made lord over his brethren ; he is very long and
tedious upon but will give you as short as can. He fays, p. 147, that the privilege of birth-right
no more than greater portion of the oar f/? «f? of tix
father.
R. double portion was ordained to the eldest, by tie
law, in private families, but as evident, that the cronxin and dominion did descend in the rqytf/ family to the
in the kingdom of Judah, which God himself up, as likewise among the patriarchs before the stood, at
have fhew'd N. 57. . .
And to be lord over his brethren signisies dominion anil government, and cannot be limited to a. double. pertion only
of ^(Wt.
C. But Mr. loci argues, p. 145, 146, 147, That the
blejstng given to Jacob, wherein he was declar'd /Wover his brethren, was not with any relation to the birth-right,
because Esau had sold his birth-right long before.
R. But
JL
andoftheprimogeniture is folly decided, as well by the universal practiee ofmankind, which is the law of
•
I
A
.
I
set
it is
it
a
it, I
The REHEARSAL.
367 R. But it is plain that Isaac gave the blessing as to the
eldest, and that Esau pleaded his right to as such, fay
ing, •ver. 32. am thy son, thy first-born, Esau. We can not tell what notice Isaac took of his having/s/*/ his birth right to Jacob, or whether Isaac knew or not but he certainly defigned the blessing for Esau.
C. Mr. Lock takes great pains p. 150, tji, 152, to prove, that this blessing was prophetical relating to the posterities of yæ«Æ and £/aa, and was not verisied of
their persons, for that Esau was never servant to Jacob. R. The father was master and governor of his family,
but he might manumit, or discharge as well as servant, out of his family, and let them for sel•ves. Thence forward they were no' more of the /«-
æwTv, and their Æfz> had nothing to do with them. This was the case of Esau, who, in hisfather time, settled in mount Seir, and became great prince there, but y«- r«£ was and heir of his father family, and succeeded
him in that, and in the promise of inheriting the land of Canaan and the family of ijsoac was dedued in Jacob and his posterity, and not in that of But the has absolute dominion over all he sinds in the family, his ^n? -
as well as others, that were not manumitted, or *///^ charged hisfather where there no superior power to restrain him, as in political governments, he succeeds in the full/>auw and authority of the father.
But besides this, grant, that the blessing given to ^æ-
cob was prophetical, and respecting the posterities of . E/aa and Jacob, and not their persons and that suppose to be the reason why Isaac could not recal the blessing so prophetically given, but what produe'd that text for was, that was spoken in the stile of the prerogative of the
Jirst-born, and as to the first-born. And expressed words as high as these of his father Isaac, when he
called the primogeniture the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power. Gen. xlix. Was not this some thing more than double portion of the goods? Was for"
filling his reverfion of these goods that was called pro fane? Heb. xii. 16. Was this the despifing of his birth- r^/,
4R
it
3.
a
I
it
in
it
I
-,
a
I
's
it
it,
; by
;
's
is aa
a
;
I
3^8
The REHEARSAL.
right, with which he is charged Gen. xxv. 34 ? Was it only his making an ill bargain about {ome goods ? which may be might never come to him, for he might havedWbe- foiehisfatbcr, and this was 30 years before the death of his father ; but to shew the connection there was betwixt the
hirth right and the hlefiing, his being thus providentially, and contrary to the intention of his father, rejected from the blessivg, was attributed to his profanenefs inselling his hirth-right, as it is faid, Heb. xii. 16, 17. Lest there be any profane person as Esau, who for one morsel os meat sold his
hirth-right; forye know how that afterward when he would have inherited the bles/ing, he was rejected ; which seems to imply that the blessing was annex a to the hirth-right l so that if Esau had not sold his hirth-right, he had not
forfeited his blessing ; at least, his selling his hirth-right was the method that providence took to make way for re jecting him from the blessing; all which fliews the dignity
and respect which God had to the primogeniture, which was the whole import of my naming that text, but not to enter upon the fulfilling of that prophesy, whether to Ja cob and Esau, or their posterities; so that Mr. Lock's long
digression upon that point was wholly out of the way, a* much out of purpose, as if he had gone about to prove thstt David was not thefirst-born, tho' he is so call'd psalm lxxxix. 27, or that the church triumphant in heaven were not all elder brothers, because they are called the first born, Heb. xii. 23. Both which texts I have quoted, N. ^7, upon this subject of the primogeniture, to shew the. high dignity of the first-born, when that appellation is used to express Gocss favour to David, and to Christ
umphant in heaven, as if an higher appellation could not have been given.
C. This has opened my understanding, and shews that Mr. Lock's objections are persect trifling. And how ab horrent does it look, after all this, to see Mr. Lock, as if
wholly ignorant of the phrase er import of the holy scrip tures, to dwindle all this mighty prerogative of the first
born, into a greater /hare of houjhold-stuff or goods I
Bur
himself, as I have there instanc'd, and to the church tri
The REHEARS AL. g69
But pray, master, why is Esau called profane for selling his hirth-right ? This makes something sacred to be in
it.
5. The priesthood, as well as «*'i7 government, was annex 'd to and was exercis'd the first-born till Gs•/ took the Levitts for his ^Wiy? . f and faid, that he took them in stead of the first-born, Num. ill. 12. and chap. viii. 8.
And to impress the dignity of the first born more
strongly upon the minds of men, he sanctifyd the firstlings
beasts to be sacrific'd unto himself; and this even from
the beginning, from the sirst institution of sacrifices for thus we sind observed Abel, Gen. iv. that hey«-
crified the firstlings of his^fo^ and under the /æ-w, what ever open the womb, whether man or was £s/>> unto the Lord, Exod. xiii. 2. Num. iii. 13.
(2. ) C. This very remarkable, but Mr, Lock, 147, brings this texr, Gen. xxi. q. Cast out the bond -woman aud her son, for the son the bond-woman shall not be heir with my son, to prove that there was no more meant by Isaac's being heir than that he should have greater por tion oi the goods of his father than IJkmael.
R. IfMr. Lock had read two verses further, he would have found, that there was much more meant for ver. 12, God himself gives the reason to Abraham, who was grieved to turn his son IJhmael out of his family, but God commanded him to do with this reason, For in Isaac shall thy seed be calVd. God had before promised Abraham, That in his feed all the nations the earth should
This was promise of Christ to come of the seed of Abraham. And now God tells Abraham from which of his sons Christ should come, not from IJhmael, bat from Isaac In Ifaac /hall thy seed be called. And as Esau persecuted Jacob, and thought to kill him, aster he
had sold his hirth-right to him, and that Jacob had re ceived the blessing which Esau thought to be his due, on account of his primogeniture, Gen. xxvii. 41. and we may suppose thought he might still inherit'if Jacob were dead:
So IJhmael, who was the elderson, persecuted Isaac pro
blessed.
:
a
it is
le
of
it is
it,
;
;
by
a
os
i
by
4. ;;
by it
p.
,
d1
it,
The REHEARSAIL,
370
bably for the fame reason, because Isaac was made htir
of the promise given: to Abraham ; for what is called his mocking of Isaac, Gen. xxi, 9. is called persecuting him,
Gal. iv. 29. and may be a good reason for having Ishmael sent away, lest he might destroy Isaac, in hopes of inhe riting the promise himself. And the apostle there applies
this very text, of the hireship of to his being heir of the promise made to Abraham; and from- the analogy, calls Christians likewise the children of the promise, as . /fasts was, Gal. iv. 28. iVmu •iw, brethren, as Ifaac •u. •æt,
/£f children of promise. And wr. 30. quotes the very rs*? we are speaking of, to the fame purpose. Ne vertheless what faith the scripture ? Cast out the bond-wo-
man and her son ; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman, so then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free. So that we see the apostle understood this heirjhip of Isaac to be a christian heir/hip, of-which we at this day do par take ; and not to be meant, as Mr. Lock would have it,
to respect nothing at all but a greater share of the goods and chattels of his father Abraham, who had no other,
no real estate, not so much as to set his foot on. Act. vii. 5. Yet, fays St. Stephen, He (God) promised that he would
give it to him (Abraham) for a possession, and to his feed af ter him, when asyet he had no child. This was the land of Canaan which God promised to Abraham, and to his feed, and was a type of heaven, of the Jerusalem that is above, and the posterity of Isaac, and of Jacob, not of
or Esau, were to inherit this land, as likewise what it typified, the spiritual covenant of Christ. And Isaac was likewise heir of this promise concerning the land of
Canaan. It was in hisseed that Abraham was called, and hisfamily dedue'd, that was to inherit Canaan, and not in the seed of Ishmad. And this mov'd the envy of Ish-
mael against Isaac, as of Esau against Jacob.
(3. ) C. But Mr. Lock brings another text. Gen. xxv. 5, 6. to explain the former, and to shew, that there was nothing meant in all this but the heirship to the greater portion of the goods of Abraham ; the words arc these.
And
Ishmael,
The REHEARSAL.
371
And Abraham gave all that he had unto Ifaac. But unto the sons of the concubines ivhich Abraham had, Abraham ga-ve gifts, andsent them awoy from Ifaac his son, while
he yet livd, Eastward into the East country.
R. This was after the death of Sarah, and Abraham's
second marriage, ver. I . and as we may suppose not long before his death, ver. 7, 8. and consequently many years after Ishmael was sent away. And there is no word of birefhip in this text ; and we may well suppose that Isaac
was elder than any of the sons of the concubines here men tioned. So that here is no difficulty at all.
C, But Mr. Lock, p. 148, insers from hence, That Ifaac, by being heir, had no right to be Lord over his bre thren, for if he had (fays Mr. Lock) why should Sarah de
sire to rob him of one os his subje&s, his slaves, by defiring to have himsent away. .
R. This is turning back again to the former text con
cerning Ishmael, for Sarah was dead before what is men
tioned in this second text. This is blending several things
and passages together, and arguing from them both, in the fame breath, to confound the reader ; and I have al-*
ready given an account why Ishmael was sent away, be cause he persecuted •saac, and sought to destroy him, that he himself might be heir of the promise given to Abra
ham (when Isaac was dead) of possessing Canaan; not to examine now whether Ishmael or Sarah her self under
stood the further import of that promise, as it related to
Christ the promised seed.
C. But now let me add to Mr. Lock, and suppose, that
these sons of the concubines, mentioned in the second text,
had the like defign with •shmael against Isaac.
R. Then there was the fame reason for sending them away; and observe, it is faid in this second text, that
Abraham sent them away, while he yet IfaPd. And in- what I before quoted Gen. xxvii. 41. Esau did not in tend to kill Jacob till after the death of his father Isaac, for he faid-, The days of mourning for my father are at hand,
then will Iflay my brother Jacob. And ver. 4-2. He did:
comsort himself in this purpose to kill Jacob. Then there R6 had
372
The REHEARSAL.
had been an end of the blessing given to Jacob, and Eseta
would have had his hirth-right again.
C. And would it not have been the fame, if he had
kill'd Jacob during his fashers lise?
R. Then he had been liable to the justice of his father,
as Qain was for the murder of his brother ; which shews the sovereign power to have been all along in the father,. as I have faid before, where there is no superior political
power to restrain it. And Esau, if he had escaped out of the hands of his father (upon the murder of his brother ) must have been a fugitive from him, asCain was, and
effectually difinherited.
Now if we suppose these sons of the concuhines to have
had any such destgn against Isaac, or that Abraham was eipprebenfive of from the example of lshmael, which, he had before seen, then his sending them away, mohile,
he livd, carries the fame force in we have been speak- of in the case of Esau.
But there was no such thing, yet why might not Abraham, while he livd, send them far eff from Isaac,
«nd provide for them in the East, whither the dominion. of Isaac was not to reach As God made lshmael a great nation, tho' he would not suffer him to be heir of the promised land with Isaac. As for his robbing Isaac of so many of his staves in reverfion, with which. Mr.
Lock pleases himself, apiece of his wit, meerjest; for Abraham had power to do while he lived, and may be he did it, because he had not, he knew, that after his death these sons of the concuhines had been intirely under the dominion of Isaac their elder brother. But whether Abraham did to secure Isaac from them, or them from Isaac, makes nothing to the argument we are upon, besides the uncertainty of such supposttions, where we have no solid ground to go upon.
C. There are some other objections of Mr. Lock's upon this head, which must reserve to the next opportunity,, if do not quite tire out your patience. But may be of use to persons of my capacity.
FroO
I
it
it
if
I it it,
it
is
if
? it,
it
a
it
The REHEARSAL.
From £>flt. Sept. 22, to ,|>at. Sept. 29, 1705. N° 61.
1 . jin answer to Mr. LockV objectian against the primo
geniture, from I Chr. v. 1. concerning the birth-right of Joseph, and the dominion of Judah\ 2. His answer to the instance of Judah and Tamar confidered,.
Coun. "X Come now, master, with your leave, to have. X from you a solution of the other objections of Mr.
Lock against the right of the primogeniture.
In the fame p. 148. where we left off last, he brings
another text, on which he lays greatstress. He sets it
down
faid, That Reuben was the first-born, but for as much as be defiled his father's bed,, his birth-right was given unto
1 Chron. v. 12. it should be ver. 1. where it is
the fens of Joseph, the sans of Israel ; and the genealogy is not to be reckoned aster the birth right. For JadahprevaiFd aboaie his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler, but the birth-right was Joseph V. Then Mr. Lock goes on, and infers thus, And what this birth-right mas (fays he) Ja
cob'/ blejpng Joseph, Gen. lviii. should be xlviii. 22. ) tells us in these words, Moreover have given thee. ONE PORTION ABOVE THy BRETHREN, WHICH TOOK
My SWORd ANd wITH My BOw. Whereby not only plain that the birth-right was nothing but a double portion, but the text in Chron. express against our authors doctrine,.
andshews, that dominion was no part the birth right
for it tells us, that Joseph had the birth-right, but Ju-- a H the dominion.
R. So you may fay that Jjhmael, and Esau, and Rat- ben, and Manajseh had the birth-right but was taken, from them, which could not have been, they had not had, and that this the meaning expressed in this very text, where faid, That the genealogy not
U reckoned after the birth-right, that after the birth
OUT Of THE HANd OF THE AMORITE, wITH
37j
be
is is
it ;
it it
is
; is,
I (it of
is
it is
if it is
I ;
d
The
REHEARSAL.
574
right of those who had lest and from whom was ta ken, and transferr'd to others.
Andthe word hirth-right or first-born used to ex press great dignity. Thus David who was the eighth arid* the youngest son, &»». xvi. n, called first-born, psalm lxxxix. 27. And Ephraim called first-born, Jer. xxxi.
and set before his elder brother Manas/eh, Gen. xlviii. 20.
And itmustbe in somesuch sense as this, that the hirth right ascrib'd to Joseph, for he was not the eldest, but the dominion was in Judah his elder brother. And after
the rejection of Reuben, for defiling his fathers, bed and of Simeon and Lm, for their massacre of the Sichemitet, Gen. xlix. Judah was the f/slt/? , and the dominion was given to him, with this expression of -ver. 8. 7£y/«- ther^s children shall bow down before thee. And the bless ing of Joseph comes afterward, ver. 22. according to his hirth-right, the last of all the twelve but Benjamin.
And in the blessing of Joseph there not word of the double portion Mr. ZocÆ fays Jacob gave him of oi-£a/ had taken from the Amorite with his sword and with his bow. That in the former chapter, and upon another
was after this that Jacob called all his sons
tecaston.
together, and pronoune'd their several blessings to them.
And this portion above his brethren, which Jacob gave to Joseph, could not be on account of his primogeniture, for he was the eleventh son. Therefore Mr. Lock's argu ment falls to the ground. was an act of special favour from his father for his wonderful preservation and sup
port of his father and all his brethren and had no respect
at all to" the primogeniture.
Let me add to all this, that these blessings pronounced
Jacob, Gen. xlix. were prophetical, and not ap plicable to that present time in which they were spoke, as Jacob said, ver. . And Jacob called unto his sons, and
said, Gather your selves together, that may tell you what shall hefalyou in the last days. And giving the dominion
to Judah (which his three elder brothers had forfeited) he fays, ver. 10. The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a law -giver from between hisfeet, until Shiloh come. Thar
was
I
;
is a
1
by
9. is
so
It
is
it,
It
is
I
it,
;
is
is
it
The REHEARSAL. m
was Our bleffed Saviour, of whom this is an acknowledg'd prophecy. This scepter was given to Judab in David of that tribe, \ Chron. xxviii. 4. and ordained to continue hereditarily^ in the succession of the eldest son, which was the rule in the kingdom of Judab, as I have before shew'd ; and our blessed Saviour came of that tribe, and is called
theson of David.
This was the lasting dominion, which was to endure for
ever in the person of our blessed Lord.
But there was likewise a rule and dominion given to Jo
seph, that to his son Ephraim by which name the ten tribes, as distinct kingdom from Judab, are all along named thro' the prophets, and called the house of Epbraim, and the children of Ephraim. This the meaning of the hirth-right of Joseph, and of Go^ faying, Ephraim my
first-born. Jer. xxxi. 9. tho' plain that ManaJseh wasthe sirst-born. Therefore first-born and hirth-right here
must be meant rule and dominion which strong con
firmation of the prerogative of thefirst-born, as have be fore observed.
Hence likewise appears, that this hirth-right of Jo seph, and the dominion of Judab, were not concerning the
fame thing, nor at the fame time, nor determinable toge ther. So that here no interfering or clashing betwixt the hirth-right and dominion mentioned in this text, to
which Mr. Lock would apply giving the hirth-right to one, and the dominion to another, meaning of the fame
thing, or else he meant nothing to the purpose for which- he brought it. The hirth-right or dominion of Joseph was over Ephraim, that is, the ten tribes. The hirth-right or dominion of Judah was over the kingdom of Judab but the preference was given to Judah, from whom Christ our isri/ mould come. As written Py«/. lxxviii.
67* 68. . Hi? refused the tabernacle os Joseph, and chose not the
tribe Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah.
Let the dissenters consult Mr. Pool (the most learned of them) upon this text, Chron. v. and they will sind ia
his synopsis, that there were three prerogatives of the pri mogeniture, the priesthood, the dominion or civil govern
ments
1
by
is
1 .
of
it is
it
;
I
is
it,
; is
it is
;
s
is a
a is,
"
As if one should fay, judge Jefferies pronoune'd. sentence of death in the late times, therefore judge Jef-
.
Mr. Lock
The REHEARSAL.
376
merit, and the double portion. Then let them choose whe
ther they will believe him, or Mr. Lock who fays that th > right oi the first-born was nothing but the double portion.
"These prerogatives were divided'by God in after-ages.
The priesthood was given to Levi instead of the first-born, as it is faid, Num. iii. I 2. and the dominion or civilgo
vernment was given to Judah, i CÆr. xxviii. 4. Now what objection is all this ? God may a/ter his own instituti ons, but we must not. Nay, this shews, that these pre
rogatives were joined in the first-born at sirst, because they were afterwards divided.
And that the name offirst-horn was given as an appel lation of dignity, tho' to the younger, is own'd in the as sembly 's annotations (I still quote their own authorities )
upon this tearr, I Gfcr. v. 1 . where it is given as a reason
why Judah isset before Reuben and Joseph too, because he had a greater dignity ; which still shews the current notion of the prerogative of the first-born.
(2. ) C. This I think is sufficiently explained. Now,. master, let me tell you Mr. Lock's objections against what youhave instane'd beforeof7«•<Wscondemning Tamarto dcafh, to shew the power of the fatherhood, where there is no superior poiver to restrain it. He fays, p. 166, " That pronouncing sentence of death is not a mark of sovereignty, but usually the office of inserior magistrates
feries had sovereign authority. " But he faw the tri fling of this answer, and therefore subjoins, " But it wi! L be faid Judah did it not by commission from another,
and therefore did it in his own right. " To which he re plies, " Who knows whether he had any right at all? heat of passion might carry him to do that which he had no authority to do. "
R. Who knews ? and might be, are pretty loose fort of answers, especially where no sort ofreason is given for such suppofitions. There is nothing ofpassion appears in that whole relation of Judah\ proceeding against Tamari
Me condemn'd her for & crime, which he mentions. .
The REHEA RSAL.
377 Lock might as well have faid, that it vraspasfiott in David when he condemned the Amalekite, who brought him the tidings of Sauss death. And who knows whether he had any right at all? There was much more of paffion in Saul, when he commanded the priests to he stain. And
tho' the soldiers would not put forth their hands to stay the priests of the Lord, and in so very unjust a cause too, only because David had been in their city, yet they dis puted not the authority of Saul, nor offer'd to make re
fistance, when they faw the priests flain by Deg, i Sam, xxii. 17, 18. Mr. Lock might have given the fame an
swer to all the instances in holy scripture of kings having power of life and death. It was allpassion! and who knows whether they had any right at all ? And if the fa
mily of Judah thought he had no right, is it likely, that, he would have commanded, or that none of the family would have shewed the least resentment against such a com mand to burn his daughter, which imply'd the lame au thority over them all ?
C. This is extravagant, out of all bounds. But Mr.
Lock makes another objection, p. 167, That Judah's fa ther was then alive, and three of his elder brothers ; and
so urges this as an instance against the fatherly authority, and that of the primogeniture.
R. I have shewed before, N. 58. That the power of the sather was full and absolute, where there was no su
perior power to restrain it. And N, 60. That a father might manumit or discharge a son out of the family.
Now at this time Judah had gone away from his fa ' ther and his brethren, and had married a Canaanite, and settled there, as we are told Gen. xxxviii. 1, &c. Here he erected afamily by himself, and had children, and gimd-children, and had no superior ; therefore he had the absolute power.
C. There is another objection which Mr. Lock brings, p. 200 from Gen. xlii. 37. And ReIuben spake unto his fa
thersaying, flay my two sons, if bring him not to thee. Upon which Mr. Lock makes h"imself merry, and rallies with great pleasure, and fays, All this had been vain,
3
super
37«
The REHEARSAL.
superfluous, and but a fort of mockery, if Jacob had had the fame power over every one of his family as he had over his ox, or his ass, as an owner over his substance. And the offer that Reuben or Judab made had been such a security for the returning of Benjamin, as if a man should take two lambs out of his lord's flock, and offer one as security, that he will fasely restore the other.
R. This is ridiculing, with too much assurance, and too little regard to the holyscriptures. For let me ask, suppose I lived in Denmark, Sweden, or any other abso lute monarchy, and should offer my sons to bestain, if I did not do such a thing : Would any of these kings make such ajest of this, as Mr. Lock does, and fay, I can hang you and your sons too at my pleasure ? Therefore this is no
security ! Or would a king and parliament in England fay, we can attaint you, for whatever we please ? Therefore this is Tiosecurity ! fortho-' the supreme power in every government can do all this, yet it is not to be supposed that they are so void of all humanity as to execute it with out any regard to justice. At feast they will never/a? so.
But if Mr. Lock will not allow the power of life and death to Jacob, he must, by this text, allow it to Reuben.
1 . An answer to the objections of Mr. Lock against tie
right cf the primogeniture drawn from the case of Esau and Jacob. 2. From that of Ishmael and I£tac 3. From the sons of the concubines of Abraham.
Count I ''HO' I think, master, that the cause of monarchy
nature, as by the plain word of God, and that 20 objec
tions from particular passages are of no weight against the current of history bothsacred and prosane.
(1. ) Yet, master, to give our wbigs over and above what is necest'ary, and that I may be able to solve all their scruples, I intreat you to give me your answer to what Mr. Lock objects against that text you have brought in
proof of the primogeniture, Gen. xxvii. 29, 37. where Jacob is made lord over his brethren ; he is very long and
tedious upon but will give you as short as can. He fays, p. 147, that the privilege of birth-right
no more than greater portion of the oar f/? «f? of tix
father.
R. double portion was ordained to the eldest, by tie
law, in private families, but as evident, that the cronxin and dominion did descend in the rqytf/ family to the
in the kingdom of Judah, which God himself up, as likewise among the patriarchs before the stood, at
have fhew'd N. 57. . .
And to be lord over his brethren signisies dominion anil government, and cannot be limited to a. double. pertion only
of ^(Wt.
C. But Mr. loci argues, p. 145, 146, 147, That the
blejstng given to Jacob, wherein he was declar'd /Wover his brethren, was not with any relation to the birth-right,
because Esau had sold his birth-right long before.
R. But
JL
andoftheprimogeniture is folly decided, as well by the universal practiee ofmankind, which is the law of
•
I
A
.
I
set
it is
it
a
it, I
The REHEARSAL.
367 R. But it is plain that Isaac gave the blessing as to the
eldest, and that Esau pleaded his right to as such, fay
ing, •ver. 32. am thy son, thy first-born, Esau. We can not tell what notice Isaac took of his having/s/*/ his birth right to Jacob, or whether Isaac knew or not but he certainly defigned the blessing for Esau.
C. Mr. Lock takes great pains p. 150, tji, 152, to prove, that this blessing was prophetical relating to the posterities of yæ«Æ and £/aa, and was not verisied of
their persons, for that Esau was never servant to Jacob. R. The father was master and governor of his family,
but he might manumit, or discharge as well as servant, out of his family, and let them for sel•ves. Thence forward they were no' more of the /«-
æwTv, and their Æfz> had nothing to do with them. This was the case of Esau, who, in hisfather time, settled in mount Seir, and became great prince there, but y«- r«£ was and heir of his father family, and succeeded
him in that, and in the promise of inheriting the land of Canaan and the family of ijsoac was dedued in Jacob and his posterity, and not in that of But the has absolute dominion over all he sinds in the family, his ^n? -
as well as others, that were not manumitted, or *///^ charged hisfather where there no superior power to restrain him, as in political governments, he succeeds in the full/>auw and authority of the father.
But besides this, grant, that the blessing given to ^æ-
cob was prophetical, and respecting the posterities of . E/aa and Jacob, and not their persons and that suppose to be the reason why Isaac could not recal the blessing so prophetically given, but what produe'd that text for was, that was spoken in the stile of the prerogative of the
Jirst-born, and as to the first-born. And expressed words as high as these of his father Isaac, when he
called the primogeniture the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power. Gen. xlix. Was not this some thing more than double portion of the goods? Was for"
filling his reverfion of these goods that was called pro fane? Heb. xii. 16. Was this the despifing of his birth- r^/,
4R
it
3.
a
I
it
in
it
I
-,
a
I
's
it
it,
; by
;
's
is aa
a
;
I
3^8
The REHEARSAL.
right, with which he is charged Gen. xxv. 34 ? Was it only his making an ill bargain about {ome goods ? which may be might never come to him, for he might havedWbe- foiehisfatbcr, and this was 30 years before the death of his father ; but to shew the connection there was betwixt the
hirth right and the hlefiing, his being thus providentially, and contrary to the intention of his father, rejected from the blessivg, was attributed to his profanenefs inselling his hirth-right, as it is faid, Heb. xii. 16, 17. Lest there be any profane person as Esau, who for one morsel os meat sold his
hirth-right; forye know how that afterward when he would have inherited the bles/ing, he was rejected ; which seems to imply that the blessing was annex a to the hirth-right l so that if Esau had not sold his hirth-right, he had not
forfeited his blessing ; at least, his selling his hirth-right was the method that providence took to make way for re jecting him from the blessing; all which fliews the dignity
and respect which God had to the primogeniture, which was the whole import of my naming that text, but not to enter upon the fulfilling of that prophesy, whether to Ja cob and Esau, or their posterities; so that Mr. Lock's long
digression upon that point was wholly out of the way, a* much out of purpose, as if he had gone about to prove thstt David was not thefirst-born, tho' he is so call'd psalm lxxxix. 27, or that the church triumphant in heaven were not all elder brothers, because they are called the first born, Heb. xii. 23. Both which texts I have quoted, N. ^7, upon this subject of the primogeniture, to shew the. high dignity of the first-born, when that appellation is used to express Gocss favour to David, and to Christ
umphant in heaven, as if an higher appellation could not have been given.
C. This has opened my understanding, and shews that Mr. Lock's objections are persect trifling. And how ab horrent does it look, after all this, to see Mr. Lock, as if
wholly ignorant of the phrase er import of the holy scrip tures, to dwindle all this mighty prerogative of the first
born, into a greater /hare of houjhold-stuff or goods I
Bur
himself, as I have there instanc'd, and to the church tri
The REHEARS AL. g69
But pray, master, why is Esau called profane for selling his hirth-right ? This makes something sacred to be in
it.
5. The priesthood, as well as «*'i7 government, was annex 'd to and was exercis'd the first-born till Gs•/ took the Levitts for his ^Wiy? . f and faid, that he took them in stead of the first-born, Num. ill. 12. and chap. viii. 8.
And to impress the dignity of the first born more
strongly upon the minds of men, he sanctifyd the firstlings
beasts to be sacrific'd unto himself; and this even from
the beginning, from the sirst institution of sacrifices for thus we sind observed Abel, Gen. iv. that hey«-
crified the firstlings of his^fo^ and under the /æ-w, what ever open the womb, whether man or was £s/>> unto the Lord, Exod. xiii. 2. Num. iii. 13.
(2. ) C. This very remarkable, but Mr, Lock, 147, brings this texr, Gen. xxi. q. Cast out the bond -woman aud her son, for the son the bond-woman shall not be heir with my son, to prove that there was no more meant by Isaac's being heir than that he should have greater por tion oi the goods of his father than IJkmael.
R. IfMr. Lock had read two verses further, he would have found, that there was much more meant for ver. 12, God himself gives the reason to Abraham, who was grieved to turn his son IJhmael out of his family, but God commanded him to do with this reason, For in Isaac shall thy seed be calVd. God had before promised Abraham, That in his feed all the nations the earth should
This was promise of Christ to come of the seed of Abraham. And now God tells Abraham from which of his sons Christ should come, not from IJhmael, bat from Isaac In Ifaac /hall thy seed be called. And as Esau persecuted Jacob, and thought to kill him, aster he
had sold his hirth-right to him, and that Jacob had re ceived the blessing which Esau thought to be his due, on account of his primogeniture, Gen. xxvii. 41. and we may suppose thought he might still inherit'if Jacob were dead:
So IJhmael, who was the elderson, persecuted Isaac pro
blessed.
:
a
it is
le
of
it is
it,
;
;
by
a
os
i
by
4. ;;
by it
p.
,
d1
it,
The REHEARSAIL,
370
bably for the fame reason, because Isaac was made htir
of the promise given: to Abraham ; for what is called his mocking of Isaac, Gen. xxi, 9. is called persecuting him,
Gal. iv. 29. and may be a good reason for having Ishmael sent away, lest he might destroy Isaac, in hopes of inhe riting the promise himself. And the apostle there applies
this very text, of the hireship of to his being heir of the promise made to Abraham; and from- the analogy, calls Christians likewise the children of the promise, as . /fasts was, Gal. iv. 28. iVmu •iw, brethren, as Ifaac •u. •æt,
/£f children of promise. And wr. 30. quotes the very rs*? we are speaking of, to the fame purpose. Ne vertheless what faith the scripture ? Cast out the bond-wo-
man and her son ; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman, so then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free. So that we see the apostle understood this heirjhip of Isaac to be a christian heir/hip, of-which we at this day do par take ; and not to be meant, as Mr. Lock would have it,
to respect nothing at all but a greater share of the goods and chattels of his father Abraham, who had no other,
no real estate, not so much as to set his foot on. Act. vii. 5. Yet, fays St. Stephen, He (God) promised that he would
give it to him (Abraham) for a possession, and to his feed af ter him, when asyet he had no child. This was the land of Canaan which God promised to Abraham, and to his feed, and was a type of heaven, of the Jerusalem that is above, and the posterity of Isaac, and of Jacob, not of
or Esau, were to inherit this land, as likewise what it typified, the spiritual covenant of Christ. And Isaac was likewise heir of this promise concerning the land of
Canaan. It was in hisseed that Abraham was called, and hisfamily dedue'd, that was to inherit Canaan, and not in the seed of Ishmad. And this mov'd the envy of Ish-
mael against Isaac, as of Esau against Jacob.
(3. ) C. But Mr. Lock brings another text. Gen. xxv. 5, 6. to explain the former, and to shew, that there was nothing meant in all this but the heirship to the greater portion of the goods of Abraham ; the words arc these.
And
Ishmael,
The REHEARSAL.
371
And Abraham gave all that he had unto Ifaac. But unto the sons of the concubines ivhich Abraham had, Abraham ga-ve gifts, andsent them awoy from Ifaac his son, while
he yet livd, Eastward into the East country.
R. This was after the death of Sarah, and Abraham's
second marriage, ver. I . and as we may suppose not long before his death, ver. 7, 8. and consequently many years after Ishmael was sent away. And there is no word of birefhip in this text ; and we may well suppose that Isaac
was elder than any of the sons of the concubines here men tioned. So that here is no difficulty at all.
C, But Mr. Lock, p. 148, insers from hence, That Ifaac, by being heir, had no right to be Lord over his bre thren, for if he had (fays Mr. Lock) why should Sarah de
sire to rob him of one os his subje&s, his slaves, by defiring to have himsent away. .
R. This is turning back again to the former text con
cerning Ishmael, for Sarah was dead before what is men
tioned in this second text. This is blending several things
and passages together, and arguing from them both, in the fame breath, to confound the reader ; and I have al-*
ready given an account why Ishmael was sent away, be cause he persecuted •saac, and sought to destroy him, that he himself might be heir of the promise given to Abra
ham (when Isaac was dead) of possessing Canaan; not to examine now whether Ishmael or Sarah her self under
stood the further import of that promise, as it related to
Christ the promised seed.
C. But now let me add to Mr. Lock, and suppose, that
these sons of the concubines, mentioned in the second text,
had the like defign with •shmael against Isaac.
R. Then there was the fame reason for sending them away; and observe, it is faid in this second text, that
Abraham sent them away, while he yet IfaPd. And in- what I before quoted Gen. xxvii. 41. Esau did not in tend to kill Jacob till after the death of his father Isaac, for he faid-, The days of mourning for my father are at hand,
then will Iflay my brother Jacob. And ver. 4-2. He did:
comsort himself in this purpose to kill Jacob. Then there R6 had
372
The REHEARSAL.
had been an end of the blessing given to Jacob, and Eseta
would have had his hirth-right again.
C. And would it not have been the fame, if he had
kill'd Jacob during his fashers lise?
R. Then he had been liable to the justice of his father,
as Qain was for the murder of his brother ; which shews the sovereign power to have been all along in the father,. as I have faid before, where there is no superior political
power to restrain it. And Esau, if he had escaped out of the hands of his father (upon the murder of his brother ) must have been a fugitive from him, asCain was, and
effectually difinherited.
Now if we suppose these sons of the concuhines to have
had any such destgn against Isaac, or that Abraham was eipprebenfive of from the example of lshmael, which, he had before seen, then his sending them away, mohile,
he livd, carries the fame force in we have been speak- of in the case of Esau.
But there was no such thing, yet why might not Abraham, while he livd, send them far eff from Isaac,
«nd provide for them in the East, whither the dominion. of Isaac was not to reach As God made lshmael a great nation, tho' he would not suffer him to be heir of the promised land with Isaac. As for his robbing Isaac of so many of his staves in reverfion, with which. Mr.
Lock pleases himself, apiece of his wit, meerjest; for Abraham had power to do while he lived, and may be he did it, because he had not, he knew, that after his death these sons of the concuhines had been intirely under the dominion of Isaac their elder brother. But whether Abraham did to secure Isaac from them, or them from Isaac, makes nothing to the argument we are upon, besides the uncertainty of such supposttions, where we have no solid ground to go upon.
C. There are some other objections of Mr. Lock's upon this head, which must reserve to the next opportunity,, if do not quite tire out your patience. But may be of use to persons of my capacity.
FroO
I
it
it
if
I it it,
it
is
if
? it,
it
a
it
The REHEARSAL.
From £>flt. Sept. 22, to ,|>at. Sept. 29, 1705. N° 61.
1 . jin answer to Mr. LockV objectian against the primo
geniture, from I Chr. v. 1. concerning the birth-right of Joseph, and the dominion of Judah\ 2. His answer to the instance of Judah and Tamar confidered,.
Coun. "X Come now, master, with your leave, to have. X from you a solution of the other objections of Mr.
Lock against the right of the primogeniture.
In the fame p. 148. where we left off last, he brings
another text, on which he lays greatstress. He sets it
down
faid, That Reuben was the first-born, but for as much as be defiled his father's bed,, his birth-right was given unto
1 Chron. v. 12. it should be ver. 1. where it is
the fens of Joseph, the sans of Israel ; and the genealogy is not to be reckoned aster the birth right. For JadahprevaiFd aboaie his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler, but the birth-right was Joseph V. Then Mr. Lock goes on, and infers thus, And what this birth-right mas (fays he) Ja
cob'/ blejpng Joseph, Gen. lviii. should be xlviii. 22. ) tells us in these words, Moreover have given thee. ONE PORTION ABOVE THy BRETHREN, WHICH TOOK
My SWORd ANd wITH My BOw. Whereby not only plain that the birth-right was nothing but a double portion, but the text in Chron. express against our authors doctrine,.
andshews, that dominion was no part the birth right
for it tells us, that Joseph had the birth-right, but Ju-- a H the dominion.
R. So you may fay that Jjhmael, and Esau, and Rat- ben, and Manajseh had the birth-right but was taken, from them, which could not have been, they had not had, and that this the meaning expressed in this very text, where faid, That the genealogy not
U reckoned after the birth-right, that after the birth
OUT Of THE HANd OF THE AMORITE, wITH
37j
be
is is
it ;
it it
is
; is,
I (it of
is
it is
if it is
I ;
d
The
REHEARSAL.
574
right of those who had lest and from whom was ta ken, and transferr'd to others.
Andthe word hirth-right or first-born used to ex press great dignity. Thus David who was the eighth arid* the youngest son, &»». xvi. n, called first-born, psalm lxxxix. 27. And Ephraim called first-born, Jer. xxxi.
and set before his elder brother Manas/eh, Gen. xlviii. 20.
And itmustbe in somesuch sense as this, that the hirth right ascrib'd to Joseph, for he was not the eldest, but the dominion was in Judah his elder brother. And after
the rejection of Reuben, for defiling his fathers, bed and of Simeon and Lm, for their massacre of the Sichemitet, Gen. xlix. Judah was the f/slt/? , and the dominion was given to him, with this expression of -ver. 8. 7£y/«- ther^s children shall bow down before thee. And the bless ing of Joseph comes afterward, ver. 22. according to his hirth-right, the last of all the twelve but Benjamin.
And in the blessing of Joseph there not word of the double portion Mr. ZocÆ fays Jacob gave him of oi-£a/ had taken from the Amorite with his sword and with his bow. That in the former chapter, and upon another
was after this that Jacob called all his sons
tecaston.
together, and pronoune'd their several blessings to them.
And this portion above his brethren, which Jacob gave to Joseph, could not be on account of his primogeniture, for he was the eleventh son. Therefore Mr. Lock's argu ment falls to the ground. was an act of special favour from his father for his wonderful preservation and sup
port of his father and all his brethren and had no respect
at all to" the primogeniture.
Let me add to all this, that these blessings pronounced
Jacob, Gen. xlix. were prophetical, and not ap plicable to that present time in which they were spoke, as Jacob said, ver. . And Jacob called unto his sons, and
said, Gather your selves together, that may tell you what shall hefalyou in the last days. And giving the dominion
to Judah (which his three elder brothers had forfeited) he fays, ver. 10. The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a law -giver from between hisfeet, until Shiloh come. Thar
was
I
;
is a
1
by
9. is
so
It
is
it,
It
is
I
it,
;
is
is
it
The REHEARSAL. m
was Our bleffed Saviour, of whom this is an acknowledg'd prophecy. This scepter was given to Judab in David of that tribe, \ Chron. xxviii. 4. and ordained to continue hereditarily^ in the succession of the eldest son, which was the rule in the kingdom of Judab, as I have before shew'd ; and our blessed Saviour came of that tribe, and is called
theson of David.
This was the lasting dominion, which was to endure for
ever in the person of our blessed Lord.
But there was likewise a rule and dominion given to Jo
seph, that to his son Ephraim by which name the ten tribes, as distinct kingdom from Judab, are all along named thro' the prophets, and called the house of Epbraim, and the children of Ephraim. This the meaning of the hirth-right of Joseph, and of Go^ faying, Ephraim my
first-born. Jer. xxxi. 9. tho' plain that ManaJseh wasthe sirst-born. Therefore first-born and hirth-right here
must be meant rule and dominion which strong con
firmation of the prerogative of thefirst-born, as have be fore observed.
Hence likewise appears, that this hirth-right of Jo seph, and the dominion of Judab, were not concerning the
fame thing, nor at the fame time, nor determinable toge ther. So that here no interfering or clashing betwixt the hirth-right and dominion mentioned in this text, to
which Mr. Lock would apply giving the hirth-right to one, and the dominion to another, meaning of the fame
thing, or else he meant nothing to the purpose for which- he brought it. The hirth-right or dominion of Joseph was over Ephraim, that is, the ten tribes. The hirth-right or dominion of Judah was over the kingdom of Judab but the preference was given to Judah, from whom Christ our isri/ mould come. As written Py«/. lxxviii.
67* 68. . Hi? refused the tabernacle os Joseph, and chose not the
tribe Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah.
Let the dissenters consult Mr. Pool (the most learned of them) upon this text, Chron. v. and they will sind ia
his synopsis, that there were three prerogatives of the pri mogeniture, the priesthood, the dominion or civil govern
ments
1
by
is
1 .
of
it is
it
;
I
is
it,
; is
it is
;
s
is a
a is,
"
As if one should fay, judge Jefferies pronoune'd. sentence of death in the late times, therefore judge Jef-
.
Mr. Lock
The REHEARSAL.
376
merit, and the double portion. Then let them choose whe
ther they will believe him, or Mr. Lock who fays that th > right oi the first-born was nothing but the double portion.
"These prerogatives were divided'by God in after-ages.
The priesthood was given to Levi instead of the first-born, as it is faid, Num. iii. I 2. and the dominion or civilgo
vernment was given to Judah, i CÆr. xxviii. 4. Now what objection is all this ? God may a/ter his own instituti ons, but we must not. Nay, this shews, that these pre
rogatives were joined in the first-born at sirst, because they were afterwards divided.
And that the name offirst-horn was given as an appel lation of dignity, tho' to the younger, is own'd in the as sembly 's annotations (I still quote their own authorities )
upon this tearr, I Gfcr. v. 1 . where it is given as a reason
why Judah isset before Reuben and Joseph too, because he had a greater dignity ; which still shews the current notion of the prerogative of the first-born.
(2. ) C. This I think is sufficiently explained. Now,. master, let me tell you Mr. Lock's objections against what youhave instane'd beforeof7«•<Wscondemning Tamarto dcafh, to shew the power of the fatherhood, where there is no superior poiver to restrain it. He fays, p. 166, " That pronouncing sentence of death is not a mark of sovereignty, but usually the office of inserior magistrates
feries had sovereign authority. " But he faw the tri fling of this answer, and therefore subjoins, " But it wi! L be faid Judah did it not by commission from another,
and therefore did it in his own right. " To which he re plies, " Who knows whether he had any right at all? heat of passion might carry him to do that which he had no authority to do. "
R. Who knews ? and might be, are pretty loose fort of answers, especially where no sort ofreason is given for such suppofitions. There is nothing ofpassion appears in that whole relation of Judah\ proceeding against Tamari
Me condemn'd her for & crime, which he mentions. .
The REHEA RSAL.
377 Lock might as well have faid, that it vraspasfiott in David when he condemned the Amalekite, who brought him the tidings of Sauss death. And who knows whether he had any right at all? There was much more of paffion in Saul, when he commanded the priests to he stain. And
tho' the soldiers would not put forth their hands to stay the priests of the Lord, and in so very unjust a cause too, only because David had been in their city, yet they dis puted not the authority of Saul, nor offer'd to make re
fistance, when they faw the priests flain by Deg, i Sam, xxii. 17, 18. Mr. Lock might have given the fame an
swer to all the instances in holy scripture of kings having power of life and death. It was allpassion! and who knows whether they had any right at all ? And if the fa
mily of Judah thought he had no right, is it likely, that, he would have commanded, or that none of the family would have shewed the least resentment against such a com mand to burn his daughter, which imply'd the lame au thority over them all ?
C. This is extravagant, out of all bounds. But Mr.
Lock makes another objection, p. 167, That Judah's fa ther was then alive, and three of his elder brothers ; and
so urges this as an instance against the fatherly authority, and that of the primogeniture.
R. I have shewed before, N. 58. That the power of the sather was full and absolute, where there was no su
perior power to restrain it. And N, 60. That a father might manumit or discharge a son out of the family.
Now at this time Judah had gone away from his fa ' ther and his brethren, and had married a Canaanite, and settled there, as we are told Gen. xxxviii. 1, &c. Here he erected afamily by himself, and had children, and gimd-children, and had no superior ; therefore he had the absolute power.
C. There is another objection which Mr. Lock brings, p. 200 from Gen. xlii. 37. And ReIuben spake unto his fa
thersaying, flay my two sons, if bring him not to thee. Upon which Mr. Lock makes h"imself merry, and rallies with great pleasure, and fays, All this had been vain,
3
super
37«
The REHEARSAL.
superfluous, and but a fort of mockery, if Jacob had had the fame power over every one of his family as he had over his ox, or his ass, as an owner over his substance. And the offer that Reuben or Judab made had been such a security for the returning of Benjamin, as if a man should take two lambs out of his lord's flock, and offer one as security, that he will fasely restore the other.
R. This is ridiculing, with too much assurance, and too little regard to the holyscriptures. For let me ask, suppose I lived in Denmark, Sweden, or any other abso lute monarchy, and should offer my sons to bestain, if I did not do such a thing : Would any of these kings make such ajest of this, as Mr. Lock does, and fay, I can hang you and your sons too at my pleasure ? Therefore this is no
security ! Or would a king and parliament in England fay, we can attaint you, for whatever we please ? Therefore this is Tiosecurity ! fortho-' the supreme power in every government can do all this, yet it is not to be supposed that they are so void of all humanity as to execute it with out any regard to justice. At feast they will never/a? so.
But if Mr. Lock will not allow the power of life and death to Jacob, he must, by this text, allow it to Reuben.
