Lock against tie
right cf the primogeniture drawn from the case of Esau and Jacob.
right cf the primogeniture drawn from the case of Esau and Jacob.
Rehearsal - v1 - 1750
76.
he highly commends her majesty's moderation, that she has not given order for this execution all this while !
But having little hopes, as I suppose, that ever she will be prevail''d upon to do hespirits up the mob for this glorious work and, to give them full gust of the im moderation of the church of England, he instances iTAlva in slanders, Cortez in Mexico, Michael Bastlowits in
and Charles IX. at the massacre at Paris. This
Muscovy,
was xostide in by the terrible apprehension of kings, and all monarchical government, and to prepare the way for old puss. Else he might have nam'd the mastacries, murders, devastation, and regicide of 48, and charg'd all with equal justice upon the church of England.
From
by a
it,
!
a
The REHEARSAL.
From ,f>at. Sept 8, to . &at. Sept. i 5, 1 705. N° 59.
t. All Mr. Lock's objeOions answer'd pgainst the domini on annex' d to the primogeniture of Cain. z. This
a full decision ofthe whole controversy. With a short view os the proof and conviction, on the other fide, of
Mr. Lock's popular scheme of government.
(1. ) Coun ts shall desire you now, master, to solve some X objectiom of Mr. Lock, as to some of the
scripture proofs you have brought, on behalf of the primo
geniture.
I begin with that of Gen. iv. 7. where it was faid to
Cain, concerning his brother Abel, Unto thee shall be his destre, and thou Jhalt rule over him.
To this fays Mr. Lock, p. 143. that this is understood otherwise than to the purpose you bring it by many in terpreters, and with great reason. He neither names the interpreters, nor the different fense in which he fays they take nor the great reason So that, master, am at
loss, know not what he means.
R. He had no mind to infist upon this, therefore he
left his reader in the dark but he hints afterwards,
upon another subject, p. 152. that he might not be hid wholly to forget and this, that these words are to be understood of fin, and not of Abel but still he con ceals his interpreters, and his or their reasons.
C. Then the text must run thus, Unto thee shall bit defire, that the defire offin, and thou shalt rule over him that is, over it, over fin.
But, master, this seems to me not to be interpret/r but altering the words of the text and this liberty be allow'd what text can stand before us
Besides, fancy could answer the reason of this my self: pray, master, let me try, the words are, thou doest not well, fin lieth at the door, and unto thee shall be
his defire, and thoushalt rule over him. Now this be under-
358
I I
is,
it,
if
g
I
If
?
if
;
it
;
;
a I
be
it
is ;
:
it,
The REHEARSAL.
359
Understood offin, then the meaning must be, that not do ing well is the way to conquer fin, and to rule over it, which. I take to be quite contrary ; for -not doing well,
that is, finning, is the teady way to letfin gain the domi nion over us, and not us to rule over it.
Again, master, what fort of an expression is that, Un to thee shall be sin'/ dtfire? One man's defire to be to an other, I understand to be & phrase in Jcripture, for obedi
ence and subjection to another ; that their defire fhall be to
obey and please that other, as aservant to his master. But does sin defire or delight to and besubject to us, and so to us ? or not rather to have ussubject to it ?
The subjection of Eve to Jdam, Gen. iii. 16. Thy defire /hall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, is ex- prest in the fame words as the subjection of Abel to Cain is
in the next chapter. What reason then can be given why
we should take them in difserent senses ? Indeed,
this looks very guiltily in whoever sets it Up, and seems to me a giving up of the cause, when men will strain texts at this rate ! therefore I will not trouble you with any
answer to this first objection of Mr. Lock. But go on to
the second.
The second is p. 1^-3, 144, where he fays, That what
ever is meant by these words, it eculd not be, that Cain as elder had a natural dominion over Abel, for the words are conditional, If thou doest well, andso personal to Cain, and ivbatever ivas fignified by them, did depend oh bis carriage, and not follaw his birth-right .
R. It might follow his birth-right, and be conditional
too, for his birth-right might be forfeited, and taken from him by God, as it was afterwards upon the murder of his brother, whom he envy'd for being more accepted of God than himself, and therefore fiew him, and was made
a vagabond and fuginve upon the earth instead of being heir to his father, from whose justice he fled; for we can not suppose that he had a thought offlying from God, or being afugitive from him who was omni-present.
But in the next place, countryman, here is a mani fest deceit, of which Mr. Lock could not be ignorant,
master,
$6o
The REHEARSAL.
it isTso artfully done : for by reading his worels any one Would think that the condition he mentions, Ifthou doest well, was annex'd to these words, Unto thee shall be his defire, and thoushalt rule over him ; for to these words he does apply it : whereas that condition is apply d in the text to quite another purpose, which was, to Cain's being ac cepted of God, as well as Abel, ifhe did well. Ifthou doesl well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, fin lieth at the door. There is the condition, and there is
the penalty ; but then to aggravate the unreasonableness of
Cain's discontent, it is added, that notwithstanding of this fin, he should have the excellency over his brother, and
should rule over him.
C. Mr. Lock adds another reason under the fame head,
diat Abel had distinct possessions from Cain, he had slocks and herds, Sec. which he fays was not confistent with the absolute dominion of Cain, if he were to inherit all his fa ther's dominion.
R. Was it not as consistent as his enjoying these possessi- ons under the dominion of his father ?
These men have strange notions of monarchy, and of
I have often faid, is absolute government, which, as the
fame in all forts of governments whatsoever. All the dif ference is, in whom this absolute power shall be plac'd,
few, arm many?
whether in one, in a.
Have not men estates and are rich in Denmark, Sweden,
France, and in Turky, and other absolute monarchies ?
C. They have only the present poffesshn, for all hsub-
ject to the will of the sovereign. They have no legal ti tle or right. There is not asubject in those kingdoms can call a penny he has his own.
R. I know not whether it be their own or not, but they spend their money freely, as if it were their own ; they eat and drink well, build great houses, and have line equipages, and purchase estates, as if their money were their own. It seems they trust the sovereign power.
And pray, do we not the fame in England? Can we have any right or title to an estate, or property in any thing, that is out of the reach of an act of parliament ?
3 Are
The REHEARSAL.
361
Are not our lives, as well as our liberty and property all subject to it? Is any plea allow'd against even an act of
attainder ?
C. But it is not so likely that a parliament should exer
cise this absolute power as a king.
R. That is according as the parliament or the king is.
We have seen pretty arhitrary things done by what was
called parliaments. But I will not enter upon this sub- ject, all my argument is concern'd in, that the property of the subject not inconfistent with the sovereignty of the
supreme power, and that all subjects, under any fort or y^f- cies of government, have the fame /zV/r to their property, with relation to the sovereign power, whether in the hands of one or wen? and therefore that Abel's property was no more inconfistent with the sovereignty of Adam, or of Cain, than property subjects inconsistent v/ithsupreme power in the sovereign, at this day, in any /ar/ of the •world, or under any fort of government whatsoever.
Has Mr. Lock any mor« objections
C. His third objection p. 144. that Abelis not nam'd
this text, only faid his desire, and he shall be sub ject unto thee.
R. Neither Cain named in this text, so that the fame rule may be this was not spoke to Cain more than of Abel but they are both named in the next verse and in the very next words, as well as in the relation that goes before of the occafion of the envy of Cain against Abel. This indeed fishing for an objection
C. But there more. Mr. Lock takes notice that none of Cain's brothers (and he fays we must suppose there were many then alive are namd here, but only Abel, and that the primogeniture of Cain gave him the authority, in reverfion, over his other brothers, as well as Abel, and therefore that his right of primogeniture, in the
general, could not here be meant, because there none named but Abel.
R. There was no reason for we should allow the suppofition for the murder of Abel, and the occafion of it, the envy that Cain conceived at him, was the subject
here
by ;
in
R
it,
)
if
! ?
is
by
is
it is
is is
; is
;
it
in is
is
is,
The REHEARSAL-
362
here treated of, and the dominion which God had placed in Cain over Abel (which excludes not others) was proper to be urged to Cain as an argument that he ought not to be so envious against Abel.
Besides what I have before shew'd, N. 57. that this was
not the sirst trecting of the right of the primogeniture, but that it is spoke of here as a thing that was then well known to Cain and Abel, as having been before establish'd by God.
So that here was no occafion ofmentioning any other but Abel, supposing there had then been other brothers, which does not appear ; and it would be hard to conceive how a right of dominion should be given to Cain, only over Abel, and no other, if they had then otlier brothers. Was it because Abel was a. good man, and accepted by God, that therefore he only of all his brethren should be put un der the dominion of a very wicked man ! These are such extravagant supposes as Mr. Lock would not have pardon'd in another. But has he any more ?
C. He has one objection more, which is the 4th and last, p. 144, 145, Ibatit is toomuch to build a doctrineef
so mighty consequence upon so doubtful and obscure a place of scripture, which may be well, nay better understood in a quite different sense — especially when there is nothing else in
scripture, or reason, to be found that favours or supports it. R. Every objection does not make a text obscure or
some make it more clear and certain, when we see how little can be faid against which
conceive to be the case, as to our present text.
In the next place, we build not upon this single text, have given you more, and have more still to produce,
very many, which shew the whole current of the holy scrip ture to run all on this side; but those have already given,
thinksufficient, at least, till they are answered.
And for reason, appeal to what have faid N. 38. and elsewhere, whether this method of the primogeniture, or Lock's scheme of popular government, be most rational,
practicable, or most for the good of mankind
And lastly, which of them has the best plea to the lai»
of
doubtful; nay,
I ?
I
I
II
it,
I
The REHEARSAL
363
os nature, and universal practice of the world ? all which I think I have demonstrated from plain and undeniable fact, as well as from the reason of the thing.
2. C. You have given me great fatisfaction, mastcr, in clearing this text, and it seems to conclude the cause all at once. You have shewed the succession of the primo
geniture to have been the way of all the earth for many ages from the beginning, even to the rising up of the Gre cian commonwealths in the later times. Then you have shewed this to be fully consonant to the current of the holy scriptures, and consirmed by them. And now lastly, that no demonstration might be wanting, here in this text
there is the &r(t instance that waspossible to be given, in the two first men that ever were born, and this determined and establish V by the mouth of God himself. Thus from the rivers ofsuccession, which run thro' all countries, you have led uS up to the fountain head of the original institution.
And there is nothing, on the other side, against this
irrefragable testimony, but the groundless and mad suppofition, meer suppofition, against all truth and fact, that mankind was at sirst made as much without government as the wild beasts of the earth, and the fish of the sea, and like them roving about, and hiding themselves in woods, rocks and boles, the weaker from the stronger, and preying upon one another, all independent, all equal in nature, all upon the
level ! till at last they found out the contrivance of go vernment of their own heads, and establish' d it by the free vote of every individual ; but yet without giving up to the government the power of life and death, or of their li berty and property ; for that, as Mr. Lock fays, would be worse than the state of nature, which he makes to be anarchy. So that here is government and no government, for without power, and absolute power over life, liberty
and property, there can be no government; and this, as Mr. ZacÆ fays, was not intaepower oftkeindividuals to grant, or they might ravz/ and set up kc•u> govern ment, they found the former inconvenient for them, ind then change that again, and the next and the next, tad so for ever besides what Mr. Lock likewise consesses
the
if !
it, zR
a
364
The REHEARSAL.
the impossibility of collecting the votes of every individual, and yet without which he fays no government could be erected upon the foot of nature ; because that according to thefreedom of nature no man's life, liberty, or property can be taken from him but by his own consent, and yet, that he has not power to consent to it, because no man ha
power over his own life ; and therefore cannot give that power to another. All which you have fully shew'd from
Mr. Lock, in your N. 38.
So that here is romance, contradiction, and impossibility
set up against the universal practice of mankind (which Mr. Lock allows to be the law of nature) and which mon
archy and hereditary succession in the primogeniture con sessedly was for many thousand years from, the beginning of the world ; but commonwealth never was nor is at this
day, the universal practice of the world, nor of the twen tieth part of it. And as for the frame of popular govern ment, by the free vote of every individual (which these men make to be the only law of nature ) there is not one instance of it since the foundation of the world.
And this prime law of nature, as these men would make not only against the law of nature, but con trary to the whole current and authority of the holy scrip tures, whose fense grows clearer to us by the vain oppo
fition made against them.
Which hope will yet further appear in your answer
to Mr. Lock's next objection concerning Jacob and Esau, which beg may be the subject of our next conversation, that they may have no cause to complain of their not
being answer'd in every thing. ADVERTISEMEN T.
thought the advertisement in Review Vol. II. N. 79. against the lord bishop of Chester not worth any answer, thefolly of being apparent.
But sinding the fame long advertisement printed again, N. St. and lest the party might be fond of it, because
provokes me or any other to answer fay this to the urgu
it, I
it
it
I
I
it, is
I
The REHEARSAL:
365
argument part of it concerning the hishop's certisicate be ing negative, and that his memory might fail him.
1 . That negative evidence is often admitted, because in many cases, as in this, no other can be'ghren.
2. "TYi&tbishops trust not their memories, but have regi sters wherein the letters of orders they grant are enter'd.
3. That a bishop's certificate is allowed in the civ/'/courts, not only as evidence, but in some cases as decifive.
Now as to the other part of this advertisement, wherein the Review, very civilly sirst ajking bis lord/hip's pardon, gives him flatly the lie, and compares his veracity to that of his-footman, I need make no comments, nor inform the Review whether this will bring him under any hazard of
the statute ofscandalum magnatum. I only fhew his breed ing, and force of his arguments.
He fays he will quit Abraham Gill if this can be prov'd upon him, that as he has quit his sine story of the wea ther-cock, of which gave an advertisement in my last,
that he had trumpt up again, Vol. II. N. 76. without faying one word to the full disproof had been given of
tho' by the way was negative, vi2. that such wea- tber-cock was not set up.
But to shew man past all bounds ofshame he, in an after Review, N. 78. has up that story again, where,
speaking of another story he fays true, he adds as con firmation of that was as true as the weather-cock at Oxford, which will always remain as true as his Rehear
sal; yet all this while he has not one word in answer to that unquestionable disproof of which in the Rehearsal,
N. 46. and of which he was minded in mine of Aug.
N. 55. since which he has twice re-a/serted ofsering to vindicate it.
without
. 3 . \
Frem
This an original! and consummate!
is
is, it I
it,
!
a
it
is
is
a 8.
1
i:,
it,
a it a
it
366
The
REHEARSAL.
From &at. 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
?
But having little hopes, as I suppose, that ever she will be prevail''d upon to do hespirits up the mob for this glorious work and, to give them full gust of the im moderation of the church of England, he instances iTAlva in slanders, Cortez in Mexico, Michael Bastlowits in
and Charles IX. at the massacre at Paris. This
Muscovy,
was xostide in by the terrible apprehension of kings, and all monarchical government, and to prepare the way for old puss. Else he might have nam'd the mastacries, murders, devastation, and regicide of 48, and charg'd all with equal justice upon the church of England.
From
by a
it,
!
a
The REHEARSAL.
From ,f>at. Sept 8, to . &at. Sept. i 5, 1 705. N° 59.
t. All Mr. Lock's objeOions answer'd pgainst the domini on annex' d to the primogeniture of Cain. z. This
a full decision ofthe whole controversy. With a short view os the proof and conviction, on the other fide, of
Mr. Lock's popular scheme of government.
(1. ) Coun ts shall desire you now, master, to solve some X objectiom of Mr. Lock, as to some of the
scripture proofs you have brought, on behalf of the primo
geniture.
I begin with that of Gen. iv. 7. where it was faid to
Cain, concerning his brother Abel, Unto thee shall be his destre, and thou Jhalt rule over him.
To this fays Mr. Lock, p. 143. that this is understood otherwise than to the purpose you bring it by many in terpreters, and with great reason. He neither names the interpreters, nor the different fense in which he fays they take nor the great reason So that, master, am at
loss, know not what he means.
R. He had no mind to infist upon this, therefore he
left his reader in the dark but he hints afterwards,
upon another subject, p. 152. that he might not be hid wholly to forget and this, that these words are to be understood of fin, and not of Abel but still he con ceals his interpreters, and his or their reasons.
C. Then the text must run thus, Unto thee shall bit defire, that the defire offin, and thou shalt rule over him that is, over it, over fin.
But, master, this seems to me not to be interpret/r but altering the words of the text and this liberty be allow'd what text can stand before us
Besides, fancy could answer the reason of this my self: pray, master, let me try, the words are, thou doest not well, fin lieth at the door, and unto thee shall be
his defire, and thoushalt rule over him. Now this be under-
358
I I
is,
it,
if
g
I
If
?
if
;
it
;
;
a I
be
it
is ;
:
it,
The REHEARSAL.
359
Understood offin, then the meaning must be, that not do ing well is the way to conquer fin, and to rule over it, which. I take to be quite contrary ; for -not doing well,
that is, finning, is the teady way to letfin gain the domi nion over us, and not us to rule over it.
Again, master, what fort of an expression is that, Un to thee shall be sin'/ dtfire? One man's defire to be to an other, I understand to be & phrase in Jcripture, for obedi
ence and subjection to another ; that their defire fhall be to
obey and please that other, as aservant to his master. But does sin defire or delight to and besubject to us, and so to us ? or not rather to have ussubject to it ?
The subjection of Eve to Jdam, Gen. iii. 16. Thy defire /hall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, is ex- prest in the fame words as the subjection of Abel to Cain is
in the next chapter. What reason then can be given why
we should take them in difserent senses ? Indeed,
this looks very guiltily in whoever sets it Up, and seems to me a giving up of the cause, when men will strain texts at this rate ! therefore I will not trouble you with any
answer to this first objection of Mr. Lock. But go on to
the second.
The second is p. 1^-3, 144, where he fays, That what
ever is meant by these words, it eculd not be, that Cain as elder had a natural dominion over Abel, for the words are conditional, If thou doest well, andso personal to Cain, and ivbatever ivas fignified by them, did depend oh bis carriage, and not follaw his birth-right .
R. It might follow his birth-right, and be conditional
too, for his birth-right might be forfeited, and taken from him by God, as it was afterwards upon the murder of his brother, whom he envy'd for being more accepted of God than himself, and therefore fiew him, and was made
a vagabond and fuginve upon the earth instead of being heir to his father, from whose justice he fled; for we can not suppose that he had a thought offlying from God, or being afugitive from him who was omni-present.
But in the next place, countryman, here is a mani fest deceit, of which Mr. Lock could not be ignorant,
master,
$6o
The REHEARSAL.
it isTso artfully done : for by reading his worels any one Would think that the condition he mentions, Ifthou doest well, was annex'd to these words, Unto thee shall be his defire, and thoushalt rule over him ; for to these words he does apply it : whereas that condition is apply d in the text to quite another purpose, which was, to Cain's being ac cepted of God, as well as Abel, ifhe did well. Ifthou doesl well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, fin lieth at the door. There is the condition, and there is
the penalty ; but then to aggravate the unreasonableness of
Cain's discontent, it is added, that notwithstanding of this fin, he should have the excellency over his brother, and
should rule over him.
C. Mr. Lock adds another reason under the fame head,
diat Abel had distinct possessions from Cain, he had slocks and herds, Sec. which he fays was not confistent with the absolute dominion of Cain, if he were to inherit all his fa ther's dominion.
R. Was it not as consistent as his enjoying these possessi- ons under the dominion of his father ?
These men have strange notions of monarchy, and of
I have often faid, is absolute government, which, as the
fame in all forts of governments whatsoever. All the dif ference is, in whom this absolute power shall be plac'd,
few, arm many?
whether in one, in a.
Have not men estates and are rich in Denmark, Sweden,
France, and in Turky, and other absolute monarchies ?
C. They have only the present poffesshn, for all hsub-
ject to the will of the sovereign. They have no legal ti tle or right. There is not asubject in those kingdoms can call a penny he has his own.
R. I know not whether it be their own or not, but they spend their money freely, as if it were their own ; they eat and drink well, build great houses, and have line equipages, and purchase estates, as if their money were their own. It seems they trust the sovereign power.
And pray, do we not the fame in England? Can we have any right or title to an estate, or property in any thing, that is out of the reach of an act of parliament ?
3 Are
The REHEARSAL.
361
Are not our lives, as well as our liberty and property all subject to it? Is any plea allow'd against even an act of
attainder ?
C. But it is not so likely that a parliament should exer
cise this absolute power as a king.
R. That is according as the parliament or the king is.
We have seen pretty arhitrary things done by what was
called parliaments. But I will not enter upon this sub- ject, all my argument is concern'd in, that the property of the subject not inconfistent with the sovereignty of the
supreme power, and that all subjects, under any fort or y^f- cies of government, have the fame /zV/r to their property, with relation to the sovereign power, whether in the hands of one or wen? and therefore that Abel's property was no more inconfistent with the sovereignty of Adam, or of Cain, than property subjects inconsistent v/ithsupreme power in the sovereign, at this day, in any /ar/ of the •world, or under any fort of government whatsoever.
Has Mr. Lock any mor« objections
C. His third objection p. 144. that Abelis not nam'd
this text, only faid his desire, and he shall be sub ject unto thee.
R. Neither Cain named in this text, so that the fame rule may be this was not spoke to Cain more than of Abel but they are both named in the next verse and in the very next words, as well as in the relation that goes before of the occafion of the envy of Cain against Abel. This indeed fishing for an objection
C. But there more. Mr. Lock takes notice that none of Cain's brothers (and he fays we must suppose there were many then alive are namd here, but only Abel, and that the primogeniture of Cain gave him the authority, in reverfion, over his other brothers, as well as Abel, and therefore that his right of primogeniture, in the
general, could not here be meant, because there none named but Abel.
R. There was no reason for we should allow the suppofition for the murder of Abel, and the occafion of it, the envy that Cain conceived at him, was the subject
here
by ;
in
R
it,
)
if
! ?
is
by
is
it is
is is
; is
;
it
in is
is
is,
The REHEARSAL-
362
here treated of, and the dominion which God had placed in Cain over Abel (which excludes not others) was proper to be urged to Cain as an argument that he ought not to be so envious against Abel.
Besides what I have before shew'd, N. 57. that this was
not the sirst trecting of the right of the primogeniture, but that it is spoke of here as a thing that was then well known to Cain and Abel, as having been before establish'd by God.
So that here was no occafion ofmentioning any other but Abel, supposing there had then been other brothers, which does not appear ; and it would be hard to conceive how a right of dominion should be given to Cain, only over Abel, and no other, if they had then otlier brothers. Was it because Abel was a. good man, and accepted by God, that therefore he only of all his brethren should be put un der the dominion of a very wicked man ! These are such extravagant supposes as Mr. Lock would not have pardon'd in another. But has he any more ?
C. He has one objection more, which is the 4th and last, p. 144, 145, Ibatit is toomuch to build a doctrineef
so mighty consequence upon so doubtful and obscure a place of scripture, which may be well, nay better understood in a quite different sense — especially when there is nothing else in
scripture, or reason, to be found that favours or supports it. R. Every objection does not make a text obscure or
some make it more clear and certain, when we see how little can be faid against which
conceive to be the case, as to our present text.
In the next place, we build not upon this single text, have given you more, and have more still to produce,
very many, which shew the whole current of the holy scrip ture to run all on this side; but those have already given,
thinksufficient, at least, till they are answered.
And for reason, appeal to what have faid N. 38. and elsewhere, whether this method of the primogeniture, or Lock's scheme of popular government, be most rational,
practicable, or most for the good of mankind
And lastly, which of them has the best plea to the lai»
of
doubtful; nay,
I ?
I
I
II
it,
I
The REHEARSAL
363
os nature, and universal practice of the world ? all which I think I have demonstrated from plain and undeniable fact, as well as from the reason of the thing.
2. C. You have given me great fatisfaction, mastcr, in clearing this text, and it seems to conclude the cause all at once. You have shewed the succession of the primo
geniture to have been the way of all the earth for many ages from the beginning, even to the rising up of the Gre cian commonwealths in the later times. Then you have shewed this to be fully consonant to the current of the holy scriptures, and consirmed by them. And now lastly, that no demonstration might be wanting, here in this text
there is the &r(t instance that waspossible to be given, in the two first men that ever were born, and this determined and establish V by the mouth of God himself. Thus from the rivers ofsuccession, which run thro' all countries, you have led uS up to the fountain head of the original institution.
And there is nothing, on the other side, against this
irrefragable testimony, but the groundless and mad suppofition, meer suppofition, against all truth and fact, that mankind was at sirst made as much without government as the wild beasts of the earth, and the fish of the sea, and like them roving about, and hiding themselves in woods, rocks and boles, the weaker from the stronger, and preying upon one another, all independent, all equal in nature, all upon the
level ! till at last they found out the contrivance of go vernment of their own heads, and establish' d it by the free vote of every individual ; but yet without giving up to the government the power of life and death, or of their li berty and property ; for that, as Mr. Lock fays, would be worse than the state of nature, which he makes to be anarchy. So that here is government and no government, for without power, and absolute power over life, liberty
and property, there can be no government; and this, as Mr. ZacÆ fays, was not intaepower oftkeindividuals to grant, or they might ravz/ and set up kc•u> govern ment, they found the former inconvenient for them, ind then change that again, and the next and the next, tad so for ever besides what Mr. Lock likewise consesses
the
if !
it, zR
a
364
The REHEARSAL.
the impossibility of collecting the votes of every individual, and yet without which he fays no government could be erected upon the foot of nature ; because that according to thefreedom of nature no man's life, liberty, or property can be taken from him but by his own consent, and yet, that he has not power to consent to it, because no man ha
power over his own life ; and therefore cannot give that power to another. All which you have fully shew'd from
Mr. Lock, in your N. 38.
So that here is romance, contradiction, and impossibility
set up against the universal practice of mankind (which Mr. Lock allows to be the law of nature) and which mon
archy and hereditary succession in the primogeniture con sessedly was for many thousand years from, the beginning of the world ; but commonwealth never was nor is at this
day, the universal practice of the world, nor of the twen tieth part of it. And as for the frame of popular govern ment, by the free vote of every individual (which these men make to be the only law of nature ) there is not one instance of it since the foundation of the world.
And this prime law of nature, as these men would make not only against the law of nature, but con trary to the whole current and authority of the holy scrip tures, whose fense grows clearer to us by the vain oppo
fition made against them.
Which hope will yet further appear in your answer
to Mr. Lock's next objection concerning Jacob and Esau, which beg may be the subject of our next conversation, that they may have no cause to complain of their not
being answer'd in every thing. ADVERTISEMEN T.
thought the advertisement in Review Vol. II. N. 79. against the lord bishop of Chester not worth any answer, thefolly of being apparent.
But sinding the fame long advertisement printed again, N. St. and lest the party might be fond of it, because
provokes me or any other to answer fay this to the urgu
it, I
it
it
I
I
it, is
I
The REHEARSAL:
365
argument part of it concerning the hishop's certisicate be ing negative, and that his memory might fail him.
1 . That negative evidence is often admitted, because in many cases, as in this, no other can be'ghren.
2. "TYi&tbishops trust not their memories, but have regi sters wherein the letters of orders they grant are enter'd.
3. That a bishop's certificate is allowed in the civ/'/courts, not only as evidence, but in some cases as decifive.
Now as to the other part of this advertisement, wherein the Review, very civilly sirst ajking bis lord/hip's pardon, gives him flatly the lie, and compares his veracity to that of his-footman, I need make no comments, nor inform the Review whether this will bring him under any hazard of
the statute ofscandalum magnatum. I only fhew his breed ing, and force of his arguments.
He fays he will quit Abraham Gill if this can be prov'd upon him, that as he has quit his sine story of the wea ther-cock, of which gave an advertisement in my last,
that he had trumpt up again, Vol. II. N. 76. without faying one word to the full disproof had been given of
tho' by the way was negative, vi2. that such wea- tber-cock was not set up.
But to shew man past all bounds ofshame he, in an after Review, N. 78. has up that story again, where,
speaking of another story he fays true, he adds as con firmation of that was as true as the weather-cock at Oxford, which will always remain as true as his Rehear
sal; yet all this while he has not one word in answer to that unquestionable disproof of which in the Rehearsal,
N. 46. and of which he was minded in mine of Aug.
N. 55. since which he has twice re-a/serted ofsering to vindicate it.
without
. 3 . \
Frem
This an original! and consummate!
is
is, it I
it,
!
a
it
is
is
a 8.
1
i:,
it,
a it a
it
366
The
REHEARSAL.
From &at. 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
?
