No More Learning

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. 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.