No More Learning

Thefirst of his four marks is, That the subject matter be some fali of which our outward senses can judge. Now, there is nothing more so, than government, and the succession of it, in any country : witness our own. For there is no man, woman, or child of ten years old, but must know whether they live under a king, or a commen-
"tuealth ; and whether the ting's eldest son does succeed, or not.
The second mart That such fact be publick, in the tyes of the world, and not done in corner.
This agrees super-eminently to government, which in its nature must be publick and the succession as publick.
The third mark That acts and monuments remain of it.
Now, though this be needless as to government, which always remains monument of itielf; yet there are many other such acts and monuments, as the deeds of every man's estate. Every bond and publick writing bearing date such year of such reign. Every, action at law, every affixes and fissions. Every time we go to church,
where the king, queen, or commonwealth prayd for.
Besides the oaths requir'd, and our daily conversation,
where impossible to miss it.
And as notorious is, whether monarchy be elective
or hereditary or hereditary, whether the rule at
custom in our own country for the eldest son to succeed. We call him prince of Wales in England during his fa thers life. Who knows not, that Charles succeeded as
tidist fin to James and Charles II. as y£» to Charles
I.
;
if it
is, ;
is,
I. it is is
a
a
it is
a
a
a
The REHEARSAL.
347
Charles I. and James II. as brother and heir to Charles II.
he having no lawfulson?
And though there have been several invafions made
upon this hereditary rule ofsuccession in the histories of England ; yet you have taught me in your last, to reckon these among the exceptions from the general rule. And
they appear to be exceptions, because in the contest os Turk and Lancaster, both pretended to be next in blood to the crown. Therefore both yielded that to be the rule ; and this exception does assirm the
And where more open invafions have been made, and
the rule itself broke through ; yet this was never done, but it was known, publickly and notoriously
known ; as in the usurpation of Oliver, CSV. So that this too was an affirmation of the rule , because we fay it was a breach of it : which cou'd not be broken, if there htd been no such rule.
The fourth and last mark in the Method with the deists, That such acts and monuments shou'd commence from
the time that such facts were faid to be done. ' And for this, what have faid to the third mark clears
for besides that government standing monument of itself, there can be no government wherein there are not many other acts (some of which have before natn'd) that must be co-eval with as being inseparable from
as inseparable as light from the sun. And this not Only as to government in the general, but as to the species
,or kind of and likewise as to the rule of succession. Now, master, these four marks are infallible, as that author fays (and he has not yet been difprov'd, that have heard of) where they all meet in any particular fact;
how much more, in
nature as government, From these reasons
thing of such publirk and notorious
and the succession of
have concluded with myself up
on the foundation you have given me, that since heredi
and the succession of the eldest Ion was the Viay of the whole earth, from Adam to the sirst exception
of the Grecian commonwealths, (and still continues the far greatest part of the world to this day) that was the;
Q_6 insti
tary monarchy,
it
in
I
I
if a
I
it ?
it ;
it it ;;
is,
it,
is Ia
34«
The REHEARSAL.
institution os God. Besides the argument from nature, of
which you have spoke ; and that it utterly destroys the notion of an independent fate of nature. And this argument
I take to be infallible.
(2. ) But still, master, I must not forget what you pro
mis'd me last time, to shew me how the holyscriptures do agree with all this. For that will be a mighty consirma tion.
R. That the succession of the eldest son to the throne
was the rule in the kingdom of Judah is so obvious, that it
wou'd be in vain to give particular instances.
This rule was broke sometimes by the special command os God himself, who- is master of his own rules, but it's
are not. He is not ty'd to those rules to which he ties us. Thus he gave the crown to Solomon even before he was bom, i Chron. xxii. 9, 10. And Solomon own'd the
right of Æonijah by nature and the rule of succession, when he faid, 1 Kings ii. 22. . /^Æ for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother. But for the ordinary rule of
succession, it is particularly remarked, 2 Chron xxii. I. That the youngest was made king, because all the eldest v/erestain. And 2 Kings iii. 27. ffif thatshould
have reigned in his stead.
This rule was likewise broke in the rebellion of the ten
tribes from the house of David, who, after that, set up a
kind of elective kingdom. But of these God fays, Æse/! viii.
4. They havIe set up kings, but not by me ; they have made
kncw it not.
But to shew, that the right and pre-eminence of the
primogeniture was a general and receiv'd notion, God ex
princes, and
his favour
to David, in that former,
my first-bom,
Iwi than the kings ofthe earth.
presses
high
faying, higher
P/al. lxxxix. 27.
11 make him
And long before that, Jacob express'd the dignity of thefirst-born, with a reason even from nature, Gen. xli*. 3. Reuben, thou art my first-born, my might, and the be
ginning of my strength : the excellency es dignity, and the
excellency ofpower,
Thii
The REHEARSAL.
3-4^ This is pursuant to what his father Isaac had faid to-
him, when he blejscd him as his first-born, Gen. xxvii. 29. Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow danvn to thee. And when he consirm'd the blesjlng of birth-right to him, which he then faw, being a prophet, that God had transserr'd to Jacob,, he fIaid to E/au, now
in the person of the younger, ver. I
have made him
lord, and all his brethren have 37. thy given
to him
vants. Here the succession of the eldest is vested in the full povver and authority of the father, After whose death
he stood as father to the rest of his brethren, who thence forward became his suljects and his servants.
Let me add to this, that Christ is called our elder-bro ther, Rom. viii. 29. The first-fruits of them that slept,.
1 Cor. xv. 20. and the first-begotten of the dead, Rev. i.
And all this, to express his high authority over us, Li the notion we must suppose then current in the world ; and which had obtain'd long before, as I have shew'd. And the church triumphant is call'd the church of the first-
bom, Heb. xii. 23. Still magnifying the dignity of the
first-born.
C. Ihad not indeed censider'd this so narrowly. And'
for ser
5.
it seems plain to me, that this must be the notion of the most early times. And from what has been faid before, I can have no doubt but that this fame rule and dominion of the primogeniture had descended to them all the way
down from Adam. For if it had not been the rule six'd and determin'd by Adam, it wou'd have been so great an- innovation, and an usurpation upon the rights and liber ties of all others, that whenever it came first to be set up, in any after age, it must have met with great oppo
sition.
And cou'd never have been tamely submitted to,
more than if the French king, (for example) shou'd now
set up for universal monarchy ; or any other pretend to it
by a new and unheard of title.
Nor cou'd such a thing be brought to pass in a day •
Or stolen in upon the world'vtx a private manner, without any body's knowing or taking any notice of it. All histories must be full of it. Such wonderful revolution-
mui£
a
it,
35o
The REHEARSAL.
must have been the subject of every pen. But since no thing of this appears, and we And the primogeniture in quiet and peaceable poffession all along, even in the earliest times, we cannot but conclude, that it was so from the beginning.
(3. ) But yet, master, if we cou'd sind any thing of this notion to have been in the very days of Adam, it wou'd open the eyes even of the blind.
R. We sind it even in those days ; for thus God ex postulates with Cain, Gen. iv. 7. Why art tbou wroth, CSV. If tbou dost well, shalt tbou not be accepted? And if
tbou dost not well, (or, as other translations read it, though tbou dost not well) fin lieth at the door. And unto thee
(or, as others read notwithstanding unto thee) shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Our margin reads Tbou /halt have the excellency, and be shall be
subject unto thee. These are the fame words, which have before quoted, wherein God establishes the domi nion of Adam over Eve, Gen. iii. And here the do minion of Can over Abel established in as full and am ple manner which cou'd be upon no account but that of the primogeniture. For Abel was more belov'd of God.
And God gives this as reason to Cain why he ought not to be wroth, because God had rejected his sacrifice, and accepted that of Abel. For that he did well, he shou'd be accepted as well as Abel. But though he did not well, and that fin lay at his door yet that did not take away his right of primogeniture, and the consequent right of dominion, which he shou'd have over Abel, when he suc ceeded to his father in the supreme fatherly authority, not only over his own children, but over his brethren,
even all the childrem of Adum. For that notion was not
yet born, that dominion founded in grace. And thi»
-right of the primogeniture not here mention'd as then
founded or granted God to Cain, we may sup pose, to pacify him for his fin, and Abes righteousness wou'd be strange reason for God's giving him the domi nion over Abel: but this of the primogeniture spoke of as thing then known, and eftablifiid: and as such urgd
to
2
if
6.
a
a
a
is
so
s
by
it,
if
is
is ;
a
is
;
1
I
it,
The REHEARSAL.
351
to Cain, to shew the unreasonableness of his discontent, when the succession into the full power and authority of his father was settsd on him, and not on Abel. So that by this we must suppose, that the right of the primo geniture was eftablish'd by God, at the very first, as a fun-
(4. )
priz'd in the fifth chapter of Genefis, that we have no thing but their names and ages set down.
R. It may be short in other things; but it is full as to the primogeniture. For indeed it is nothing else but a
list or catalogue of the first-born, and of their first-born, from Adam to Noah. These were the patriarchs before
the Flood. There are none nam'd there but the first
born ; the rest are pass'd over under the general name of Jons and daughters.
The word patriarch signisies the chief or govemour of the country, and is equivalent with king or emperor.
King David is call'd patriarch, Acts ii. 29. So that
whereas our contents to the 5th of Genefis is, The genea
logy, age, and death ofthe patriarchs from Adam to Noah ; it might as well have been put, of the Kings from Adam to Noah. For the words are s>nonymous ; and if a king
may be call'd a patriarch, a patriarch may be call'd a
king.
So that here we have a plain deduction of government
in the monarchical, and no other form ; and the succession of it in the primogeniture from Adam to Noah. Next time we will begin after the Flood, and see how it went
tiamental principle.
C. If this were so, we might expect to sind some thing of it in the successions after Adam before the Flood. Tho' what is related of them is so very short, all com-
then.
From
TKe REHEARSAL
y52
From ^at. Sept. i, to . Sat. Sept. 8, 1705. N° 58.
t. Mr. Lock'j rule os univerfal practice whereby to know
the law of nature. By which it is prov'd, That mo
narchy, and the succession of it in the primogeniture, and not commonwealth, far less independency, is the law of nature. 2. Mr. Lock'/ notion, That the power ofthe husband is founded on contract. 3. His dissolu tion of all fatherly authority, and all civil govern ment ; the same sin with that of Luciser. 4. Adver tisement, shewing the truth, honesty, and plain design- ofthe Review.
Goun. "\TOU have, master, trae'd government from the
X beginning, and deduc'd it in the primogeniture from Adam to Noah, which brings us to the Flood. But before we look into the times after that, let me tell you what Mr. Lock has objected against what you have ad- vane'd. For I have read Mr, Lock ; he is the oracle of the whigs, and their text. Therefore I wou'd take him
along with us, as we go, that our nay may be clear.
In his so much celebrated Two
ment, where he is setling his law of nature, to which he reduces every thing, he gives this as the surest rule and index of it, Booil. f. 114, 1 1 5. Where the practice is universal, 'tis reasonable to thini the cause is natu ral. '
R. Will the whigs stand by this rule? Ihaveshew'd
monarchy, and the succession of it in the primogeniture, to have been the universal practice of the whole earth, . till the sirst erection of commonwealths in Greece. And it remains so at this day in the far greatest part of the world.
. On the other hand, they cannot shew, that the com monwealth frame was ever, at any time, the universal
practice. So that here they have intirely lost their argu ment from stature. But go on with Mr. Lock. w
( 1 . )
treatises ofgovern
The R E H E A R S A L.
353
(2. ) C. He fays, p. 1 26. That the power of the hushand isfounded on contract.
R. Did Eire make a contract with Adam ? And the holy scriptures all along found the obedience of the wife npon the subjection of Eve to Adam, as the sirst pattern which all were to follow. Some of these texts I have already quoted, as 1 Tim. it. 1 3. Read the exhortation at the end of the office of matrimony, where the duty of husbands
and wtivr is extracted out of the holy scriptures. And see if you can sind any such argument as contract there.
Suppose the hushand shou'd make a contract to e%>, and the wife to command. Such promises are frequently
made in wooing. Wou'd that the sirst institution ? At this rate every wise may make a new bargain for herself ; and the duty of wives wou'd be very different. But these men will not let God set the rule ; true fins of liberty, that is, of Belial throughout/ They wou'd be without any yoke, and fay, Let us break the bands of the Lord, and of his anointed asunder, and cast away their cords from us. They are fond of contract, to resolve all power into themselves. And every man carries a dispenfing power in
his own breast, as the original and ultimate judge of att government ! This wou'd make a sine settlement in the;
world among all relations of whether />r/^/?
and lay
men, kings and fubjects, husbands and wives, parents and children, or masters and servants ! Tins wou'd turn the whole world into one ;««/} of confufion, and leave no ffMf- gation of conscience any where ; while the aW/y of inferiors of all forts is thought to have no deeper a roirf than,
their own contract, of which they are the judges !
Thus Mr. argues, p. 131. That no man derives
any satherly authority from ^i/a«r ; no more (fays he) than
hushands have their conjugal power by inheritance front Adam.
C. I am fick of this ; for, as you have fhew'd, the apostles argue the authority of the hushand from the power given to Adam over his •wj#. And every husband does
succeed Adam in this power;, and so has it by inheritance &om ,W•? «t. And, "no doubt, the title is the fame as to-
the
354
The REHEARSAL.
the fatherly authority derivd from the first Jather, as the
other from the first husband.
(3. ) But that nothing might be exempted out of the
fewer of this contract, Mr. Lock founds even the fatherly
authority upon it ; as if men begot children by corns a3 and agreement with them !
He is so gracious indeed as to suppose, that this con-
tract did not begin till it cou'd begin. And therefore
during the state of fwadling-cloatks, he fays, p. 273.
Their parents have a fort of rule and jurisdiction over them. It is but a fort of rule; and he cannot tell what
fort it is. But he issure, that, as he expresses it, ,tis but a temporary one. For, as he goes on, and fays, The bonds of this subjection are like the fiwadling-clothes they nrt wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their in fancy. Age and reason, as they grow up, loosen th. m, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own
free disposal.
Now, master, with what little reason I have, I can
prove from hence, that these bonds of subjection of chil
dren to parents are not temporary, because they are not at
all ; if by bonds ofsubjection we mean any senfe of duty.
towards our permits; for children in sweuUing-clothet
cannot have that finfe. And if age and reason wears theso
bonds quite off, as Mr. Lock fays, then they were never
en ; for they cou'd not be on before age and reason : and.
age and reason wears them quite off. - so they never were at all.
This reduces us to the state of brute beasts ; who, by the instinct of nature, feed and bring up their young. But as they are able to provide for themselves, they think no more of their sires or dams, but are free to prey even upon them without distinction. As some ungracious chil dren of liberty or Belial, have serv'd their aged and in duigent parents, who brought them up with gTeat care and
tenderness !
This liberty is the Corban of the Jews, which suffers
us to do no more for our father or mother. If they soid to their father, it is A gist, by whatsoever tboumigbt-
est
The REHEARSAL.
355
be profited me, and honour not his father or his mo
ther, he shall be free. And if we Cry liberty and proper — there's an end of all fatherly authority over us we think ourselves free born, as Job fays, like a wild ass's
colt.
But you have instructed me, That God ordain'd man
to be under government and shew'd in deducing them
all from one man, to whom they were all born in fub- jection.
And by the fin of the angels in heaven you have made plain, that there no other way possible of rebelling a- gainst God, but pppofing his institutions, and those go-
•vernours he has set over us which began in our first
sather. And by thus weakning, and indeed dissolving the fatherly authority, and the authority of all our civil go- •vernours, as having no otherfoundation than the suppos'd contract of the people the free and equal vote of every individual, as Mr. Lock asserts, and you have fully prov'd, even from himself, to be impossible, your Re- hearsal, N. 38. And pretending to no other divine right for this than vox populi, which, N. 53. you have shew'd to be rather Vox diaboli fay by all this, these men have, as much as in them lies, dijolv'd all govern ment in heaven, or on earth and are guilty of the very
fin of Lucifer. The fame war of liberty which he began in. heaven with his angels, he still carrying on by the hands of men upon earth and has seduced us to fin after his example and wou'd persuade us, that the service of God not perfect freedom. We will obey God himself. Yes all means If
he will come dewn, and
us
govern himself immediately in his own person But we will not allow him to make any d'puties nor submit to those
whom he has set over us which indeed, as faid, dis solving all the government that God has ordain in heaven or on earth. To avoid which we fay, that God has set
none over us, unless be vox populi But that we
have set governor over ourselves by our own authority and may pull them down again, as creatures of our ovon
making which literally usurping the ojice of Go a
!
; by
is
;
is s
by
; 1
!
is
by ;
it
! ; by
by
; is
;
:
dI
is !
!
I:
in
it
i
it ty
tfl
;
by
356
The REHEARS AL.
himself, to rule and govern the world by his deputies and vicegerents : And is as much an attempt to i/fp«/£ Him,
and wrest the government out of His hands, as that of
which Lucifer was guilty. Let any man {hew the diffe rence! For we will not allow God to have any deputies upon earth. No. They are our deputies I and accoun table to us ! They are the' anointed of the people ! whose voice, being the voice of God, he is oblig'd to ratisy what
tbfy have done !
these mob principles of Belial, as blasphemy, as well as seise , and utter confufion to the of the world, if they
ihou'd prevail. ADVERTISEMENT.
To follow them, but not to lead
them! They are the principal, and original of all govtrn- m/nt upon earth! not a»//«- God ! but He »»i/fr them f Not they to be determin'd by what He has done ; but He oblig'd to ratify whatever they do. Thus far, ma
ster, I have learn'd truly from you ; and hate and detest
J Was fore'd to
clear some gross reflections cast upon me. In this the
it
: Her known and to the church of rffcflion firmness
publish,
an Advertisement, N. t&
The
tor, as the wifer of the two, by chance, upon this or•i<z- has taken no notice, the truth being s/far. But the zeal of the Review has brought him into a snare; and expos'd both his w;> and his integrity. His •iw>, in mentioning that Advertisement in his Review, Vol. IX.
N. 76. And naming the story of the weather-cock object ed against him, without faying one word against the truth of it ; and his integrity, in not retracting or con
fessing what he cou'd not deny to be a lie. But he is con
cern'd, that it Ihou'd be call'd a villainous lie. The lie
was fram'd, to represent the univerfity of Oxford, or, as he calls them, the gentlemen of Oxford, as enemies to her
Observator and Review were concern'd :
Observa-
majesty. And that in so publick and provoking a manner, as to decipher, in an emblematick device, as the Review calls
England, and her gracious promises to support and main
tain
by the constancy of weather-cock. And that ie might
it,
a
The REHEARSAL.
357 might be more notorious, and taken notice of by every body, to six up her arms upon a weather-cock, with her
royal motto of Semper Eadem under them ; and then' set it
up upon Merton- College for publick view. And this "
had gone for granted among all the mob of England, (to whom he writes) if it had not been disproved. Bare de nying it wou'd not have done, for we cannot do as they
do. They fay any thing, and it passes ; but we must prove every word. Was not this then worth disproving t and was not the defign of the Review in this very vil
lainous ? of a piece with his Shortest way, which he ex pressly justifies too, in his Review, Vol. II. N. 69. and pav'd the way for it with the sculls of all the high-church, in his Review immediately preceding, N. 68. Wherein
he loudly proclaims and sounds the trumpet for an univer sal massacre of all the high-churchmen in England by the hands of the zealous mob, whom he instigates to it with all the art and rhetorick he is master of ; but all by way
of moderation ! He wou'd have them taken out of the, way, only because they will not be moderate ! And, N. 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.