"These
prerogatives
were divided'by God in after-ages.
Rehearsal - v1 - 1750
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. How else could he give to any other power to stay his sons ? This puts it in the fatherhood still (against which Mr. Lock disputes) and gave Jacob as much power over Reuben as Reuben had over his sons.
C. These are all the objections I can sind in Mr. Lock, against the fatherly authority, and the primogeniture ; so
that I will now release you from this drudgery of answer ing such a parcel of undigested mistakes of the holy scrip-
lursue the deduction of
ment after the stood; for so far we had gone when I inter
rupted you with these objections of Mr. Lock.
R. It is notunuseful to have considered these objeclions, lest any might think them greater than they are; and
thp' most of them do respect the times after the food, yet
they come in properly here, because the settlement of the
fatherly authority, and the right of the primogeniture, is necessary in order to the deduction of them in fact, which we
The REHEARSAL.
379
we are next to see in the times after the flood, and will jhorten the work, while we shall have little else now to do but to pursue the threado£ history, without any interruption.
The Observatory the 19th instant, Fol. IV. N. 49. fays, That in the Rehearsal, N. 50, is contained the high est treason, he names it not, therefore I look'd it over, and can sind nothing like treason in unless be making the Ohservator cuckoo, and as such, turning him oft", as unsit for civil converfation.
He tells us likewise of his being bound over, upon the complaint of the imperial envoy, for his rude and barbarous treatment of his imperial majesty and instead ofsubmit ting or asking pardon, he justifies what he has done, and
bullies and threatens what more he will do not sparing
her majesty, for entering into confederacy with popish allies, nor even the present ministry, they sufser him to be
profecuted, and for not prosecuting of others, with vin dication of the right of every commoner in England to in termeddle in state affairs both foreign and domestick, and to pass their verdiii in print for the information of the po
pulace
had not taken notice of this, but to shew the natural.
tffeSls of these commonwealth principles. They make men insolent and brutal, even in common conversation, for how can A? retain any respect for government, or any a'/A tinction of upon the earth, who looks upon himself as the original and fountain of all power and honour and that emperors, kings, and parliaments, are nothing else but hisservants, his deputies and representatives How
can any government be easy with men of such notions, or expect obedience from them
The Observator tells us, Vol. IV. N. 42. ofhis education and proficiency in the private academies of the dissenters amongst us; andifwemay guessatwhat's iNthem, what comes out of them, 'tis time to look after them Here's
pregnant instance what principles are learnt there, what manners, what reverence to govermnent, or regard to y«-
periors! And the performance of their Calamys,
Palmers, &c. are
a
I
!
!
by! ! a
!
if
!
;
a
it, it
380
The REHEARSAL.
&c. are not inferior, in all these respects, to their Obscr- vators ; especially in their treatment of the church : which must lie under the load of all their venom and jlan-
der till Go•/ shall think sit to deliver her.
And monarchy told us j for which he has been well rewarded.
From ,§at. Sept. 29, to Oct. 6, 1 705.
I. Ti? >f fatherly authority in Noah aster the Flood. z. 7he power of lise death in Noah. 3. 7j6< occa sion of the division of nations aster the Flood. 4. Tbe means by which it ivas brought to pass. 5. The divi
sion was into 70 nations, by the means of 70 langua ges. 6. The division of languages was all at one time. 7. The sons of Shem, Ham, and Japheth in Gen. x. were only the rulers of countries, none other
oftheir children are there namd. 8. The succession of some of them preserv'd to this day.
G>»». TT7'E are new come, master, to the times of
monwealths men.
R. Noah had a. wicked fin, as Adam had ; and we sind
Noah exercising authority over him, Gen. ix. 25. And he said, Cursed, be Canaan, a servant ofservants shall be be unto his brethren. And he blessed his dutiful and obedient
children, ver. 26, 27. And he, said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem ; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall
is join'd with episcopacy in their root and branch work ;
which Mr. Wisely (bred among them) has veryseasonably
N° 62.
VV
Noah after the Flood. . And the sirst point is, whether we can sind any marks of fatherly authority in Noah over his children f For that is deny'd by our com
and Canaan shall be his sirvant. And this curse upon Ham or Canaan was for his irreverence
to his father, in looking upon his nakedness. And the blessing upon the other two was for their awful respect to
enlarge Japheth,
their father, ver. 22, 23, 24. .
C. But
The RE HEARSAL,
381
C. But was not this prophetical?
R. Yes. And not of less authority for that ; but it
was grounded upon thefatherly authority ; and the curse and the blessing given with respect to that.
(«. ) C. The whzgs will allow, that Noah had a fatherly
authority. But they deny that it had any respect to go- tvernment, or did extend to life and death,
R. God fays to Noah, Gen. ix. 6. man's Hood, by man shall his blood be shed.
Whofo sheddetb
C. They fay, that this was spoke with respect to man kind in general; but did not place the authority in any one more than another. Not in Noah more than in any
one of his fins, or in them all together.
R. Then any aw of Noah's sons, and their fins after
them, had the power of life and death over Noah, as well as he over them ! And, by the fame rule, every man in the world had the power of life and death over every man in the world !
C. That wou'd make a strange iwr/•/ indeed ! there wou'd be nothing but killing and flaying at this rate ! there cou'd be no judge, because every man wou'd be
judge over his judge, and might put his judge to death, as well as the judge pass sentence upon him ! surely this can not be the meaning of that text !
R. It must be the meaning, unless the power of life and death was put in some particular hands exclusive of ethers.
C. In whose hands was it put ? That does not appear in this text.
R. There was no need of expressing it in this text ; because the fins of Noah were well appriz'd, that their father had the authority over them. This was efiablished
from the beginning, as well by the positive institution of God, as by the dictate of nature. All which we have be fore discours'd at large ; as likewise, that the authority which has no superior, must be absolute, and extend to every thing of authority. And therefore it being con
,
that Noah, as father, had autho rity over his font, but not they over him : it must follow,
sessedly acknowledg'd,
that
3*2
The REHEARSAL
that the command in this text was to be executed by Ncab over hisfins ; but not by them over
C. Why then was this command given to M«Æ and his fins ? for they are all join'd together, ver. I. ofarf Go•/ bleJsedNoah, and bis fins, andsaid unto them, &c.
R. It was a command of obedience to them, in respect of their father. But it was likewise a command that was to extend to all generations ofww» to the «rrf of the world. And did respect the fins of AkaÆ, when they came to be governors themselves, and to succeed in ihepoiver of Noah, their father ; whereas if it had been only spoke of Noah,
it might have been thought, that it was only a particular grant to him, and not to extend to any govermurs after 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. How else could he give to any other power to stay his sons ? This puts it in the fatherhood still (against which Mr. Lock disputes) and gave Jacob as much power over Reuben as Reuben had over his sons.
C. These are all the objections I can sind in Mr. Lock, against the fatherly authority, and the primogeniture ; so
that I will now release you from this drudgery of answer ing such a parcel of undigested mistakes of the holy scrip-
lursue the deduction of
ment after the stood; for so far we had gone when I inter
rupted you with these objections of Mr. Lock.
R. It is notunuseful to have considered these objeclions, lest any might think them greater than they are; and
thp' most of them do respect the times after the food, yet
they come in properly here, because the settlement of the
fatherly authority, and the right of the primogeniture, is necessary in order to the deduction of them in fact, which we
The REHEARSAL.
379
we are next to see in the times after the flood, and will jhorten the work, while we shall have little else now to do but to pursue the threado£ history, without any interruption.
The Observatory the 19th instant, Fol. IV. N. 49. fays, That in the Rehearsal, N. 50, is contained the high est treason, he names it not, therefore I look'd it over, and can sind nothing like treason in unless be making the Ohservator cuckoo, and as such, turning him oft", as unsit for civil converfation.
He tells us likewise of his being bound over, upon the complaint of the imperial envoy, for his rude and barbarous treatment of his imperial majesty and instead ofsubmit ting or asking pardon, he justifies what he has done, and
bullies and threatens what more he will do not sparing
her majesty, for entering into confederacy with popish allies, nor even the present ministry, they sufser him to be
profecuted, and for not prosecuting of others, with vin dication of the right of every commoner in England to in termeddle in state affairs both foreign and domestick, and to pass their verdiii in print for the information of the po
pulace
had not taken notice of this, but to shew the natural.
tffeSls of these commonwealth principles. They make men insolent and brutal, even in common conversation, for how can A? retain any respect for government, or any a'/A tinction of upon the earth, who looks upon himself as the original and fountain of all power and honour and that emperors, kings, and parliaments, are nothing else but hisservants, his deputies and representatives How
can any government be easy with men of such notions, or expect obedience from them
The Observator tells us, Vol. IV. N. 42. ofhis education and proficiency in the private academies of the dissenters amongst us; andifwemay guessatwhat's iNthem, what comes out of them, 'tis time to look after them Here's
pregnant instance what principles are learnt there, what manners, what reverence to govermnent, or regard to y«-
periors! And the performance of their Calamys,
Palmers, &c. are
a
I
!
!
by! ! a
!
if
!
;
a
it, it
380
The REHEARSAL.
&c. are not inferior, in all these respects, to their Obscr- vators ; especially in their treatment of the church : which must lie under the load of all their venom and jlan-
der till Go•/ shall think sit to deliver her.
And monarchy told us j for which he has been well rewarded.
From ,§at. Sept. 29, to Oct. 6, 1 705.
I. Ti? >f fatherly authority in Noah aster the Flood. z. 7he power of lise death in Noah. 3. 7j6< occa sion of the division of nations aster the Flood. 4. Tbe means by which it ivas brought to pass. 5. The divi
sion was into 70 nations, by the means of 70 langua ges. 6. The division of languages was all at one time. 7. The sons of Shem, Ham, and Japheth in Gen. x. were only the rulers of countries, none other
oftheir children are there namd. 8. The succession of some of them preserv'd to this day.
G>»». TT7'E are new come, master, to the times of
monwealths men.
R. Noah had a. wicked fin, as Adam had ; and we sind
Noah exercising authority over him, Gen. ix. 25. And he said, Cursed, be Canaan, a servant ofservants shall be be unto his brethren. And he blessed his dutiful and obedient
children, ver. 26, 27. And he, said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem ; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall
is join'd with episcopacy in their root and branch work ;
which Mr. Wisely (bred among them) has veryseasonably
N° 62.
VV
Noah after the Flood. . And the sirst point is, whether we can sind any marks of fatherly authority in Noah over his children f For that is deny'd by our com
and Canaan shall be his sirvant. And this curse upon Ham or Canaan was for his irreverence
to his father, in looking upon his nakedness. And the blessing upon the other two was for their awful respect to
enlarge Japheth,
their father, ver. 22, 23, 24. .
C. But
The RE HEARSAL,
381
C. But was not this prophetical?
R. Yes. And not of less authority for that ; but it
was grounded upon thefatherly authority ; and the curse and the blessing given with respect to that.
(«. ) C. The whzgs will allow, that Noah had a fatherly
authority. But they deny that it had any respect to go- tvernment, or did extend to life and death,
R. God fays to Noah, Gen. ix. 6. man's Hood, by man shall his blood be shed.
Whofo sheddetb
C. They fay, that this was spoke with respect to man kind in general; but did not place the authority in any one more than another. Not in Noah more than in any
one of his fins, or in them all together.
R. Then any aw of Noah's sons, and their fins after
them, had the power of life and death over Noah, as well as he over them ! And, by the fame rule, every man in the world had the power of life and death over every man in the world !
C. That wou'd make a strange iwr/•/ indeed ! there wou'd be nothing but killing and flaying at this rate ! there cou'd be no judge, because every man wou'd be
judge over his judge, and might put his judge to death, as well as the judge pass sentence upon him ! surely this can not be the meaning of that text !
R. It must be the meaning, unless the power of life and death was put in some particular hands exclusive of ethers.
C. In whose hands was it put ? That does not appear in this text.
R. There was no need of expressing it in this text ; because the fins of Noah were well appriz'd, that their father had the authority over them. This was efiablished
from the beginning, as well by the positive institution of God, as by the dictate of nature. All which we have be fore discours'd at large ; as likewise, that the authority which has no superior, must be absolute, and extend to every thing of authority. And therefore it being con
,
that Noah, as father, had autho rity over his font, but not they over him : it must follow,
sessedly acknowledg'd,
that
3*2
The REHEARSAL
that the command in this text was to be executed by Ncab over hisfins ; but not by them over
C. Why then was this command given to M«Æ and his fins ? for they are all join'd together, ver. I. ofarf Go•/ bleJsedNoah, and bis fins, andsaid unto them, &c.
R. It was a command of obedience to them, in respect of their father. But it was likewise a command that was to extend to all generations ofww» to the «rrf of the world. And did respect the fins of AkaÆ, when they came to be governors themselves, and to succeed in ihepoiver of Noah, their father ; whereas if it had been only spoke of Noah,
it might have been thought, that it was only a particular grant to him, and not to extend to any govermurs after him.
