of descent were settled, he chose rather to content himself with doubtful and general terms, which might make no ill sound in men's ears who were willing to be pleased with them; rather than offer any clear rules of descent of this fatherhood of Adam, by which men's consciences might be satisfied to whom it descended, and know the persons who had a right to regal power, and with it to their obedience.

46

§. 111. How else is it possible, that laying so much stress, as he does, upon descent, and Adam's heir, next heir, true heir, he should never tell us what heir means, nor the way to know who the next or true heir is? This, I do not remember, he does any-where expressly handle; but where it comes in his way, very warily and doubtfully touches; though it be so necessary, that without it all discourses of government and obedience upon his principles, would be to no purpose, and fatherly power, ever so well made out, will be of no use to any body. Hence he tells us, O. 244. "That not only the constitution of power in general, but the "limitation of it to one kind, i. e. monarchy and "the determination of it to the individual person and "line of Adam, are all three ordinances of God; nei"ther Eve nor her children could either limit Adam's "power, or join others with him; and what was given unto Adam was given in his person to his posterity. Here again our author informs us, that the divine ordinance hath limited the descent of Adam's monarchical power. To whom? "To Adam's line and posterity," says our author. A notable limitation, a limitation to all mankind: for if our author can find any one amongst mankind that is not of the line and posterity of Adam, may perhaps tell him who this next heir of Adam is: but for us, I despair how this limitation of Adam's empire to his line and posterity will help us to find out one heir. This limitation indeed of our author, will save those the labour, who would look for him amongst the race of brutes, if any such there were; but will very little contribute to the discovery of one next heir amongst men, though it make a short and easy deterU 4 mination

66

he

;

mination of the question about the descent of Adam's regal power, by telling us, that the line and posterity of Adam is to have it, that is, in plain English, any one may have it, since there is no person living that hath not the title of being of the line and posterity of Adam ; and while it keeps there, it keeps within our author's limitation by God's ordinance. Indeed, p. 19, he tells us, that "such heirs are not only lords of their own "children, but of their brethren;" whereby, and by the words following, which we shall consider anon, he seems to insinuate, that the eldest son is heir; but he no-where, that I know, says it in direct words, but by the instances of Cain and Jacob, that there follow, we may allow this to be so far his opinion concerning heirs, that where there are divers children, the eldest son has the right to be heir. That primogeniture cannot give any title to paternal power, we have already showed. That a father may have a natural right to some kind of power over his children, is easily granted; but that an elder brother has so over his brethren, remains to be proved: God or nature has not any where, that I know, placed such jurisdiction in the first-born; nor can reason find any such natural superiority amongst brethren. The law of Moses gave a double portion of the goods and possessions to the eldest; but we find not any where that naturally, or by God's institution, superiority or dominion belonged to him; and the instances there brought by our author are but slender proofs of a right to civil power and dominion in the first-born, and do rather show the contrary,

§. 112. His words are in the forecited place; "And "therefore we find God told Cain of his brother Abel, "his desire shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt rule "over him." To which I answer,

1. These words of God to Cain, are by many interpreters, with great reason, understood in a quite different sense than what our author uses them in.

2. Whatever was meant by them, it could not be, that Cain, as elder, had a natural dominion over Abel; for the words are conditional, "If thou dost well;" and

sn personal to Cain: and whatever was signified by them, did depend on his carriage, and not follow his birthright; and therefore could by no means be an establishment of dominion in the first-born in general; for before this Abel had his "distinct territories by right of private dominion," as our author himself confesses, Ó. 210. which he could not have had to the prejudice of the heir's title, "if by divine institution" Cain as heir were to inherit all his father's dominion.

66

3. If this were intended by God as the charter of primogeniture, and the grant of dominion to the elder brothers in general as such, by right of inheritance, we might expect it should have included all his brethren; for we may well suppose, Adam, from whom the world was to be peopled, had by this time, that these were grown up to be men, more sons than these two whereas Abel himself is not so much as named; and the words in the original can scarce, with any good construction, be applied to him.

4. It is too much to build a doctrine of so mighty consequence upon so doubtful and obscure a place of scripture, which may well, nay better, be understood in a quite different sense, and so can be but an ill proof, being as doubtful as the thing to be proved by it; especially when there is nothing else in scripture or reason to be found, that favours or supports it.

§. 113. It follows, p. 19." Accordingly when Ja"cob bought his brother's birth-right, Isaac blessed him thus; Be lord over thy brethren, and let the sons of thy mother bow before thee." Another instance, I take it, brought by our author to evince dominion due to birth-right, and an admirable one it is: for it must be no ordinary way of reasoning in a man, that is pleading for the natural power of kings, and against all compact, to bring for proof of it an example, where his own account of it founds all the right upon compact, and settles empire in the younger brother, unless buying and selling be no compact; for he tells us, when "Jacob bought his birth-right." But passing by that, let us consider the history itself, with what use our author

66

makes

makes of it, and we shall find the following mistakes about it.

1. That our author reports this, as if Isaac had given Jacob this blessing, immediately upon his purchasing the birth-right; for he says, "when Jacob bought, Isaac "blessed him;" which is plainly otherwise in the scripture: for it appears, there was a distance of time between, and if we will take the story in the order it lies, it must be no small distance: all Isaac's sojourning in Gerar, and transactions with Abimelech, Gen. xxvi. coming between; Rebecca being then beautiful, and consequently young: but Isaac, when he blessed Jacob, was old and decrepit: and Esau also complains of Jacob, Gen. xxvii. 36. that two times he had supplanted him; "he took away my birth-right," says he, " and "behold now he hath taken away my blessing;" words, that I think signify distance of time and difference of action.

66

2. Another mistake of our author's is, that he supposes Isaac gave Jacob the blessing, and bid him be

lord over his brethren," because he had the birthright; for our author brings this example to prove, that he that has the birth-right, has thereby a right to "be lord over his brethren. But it is also manifest, by the text, that Isaac had no consideration of Jacob's having bought the birth-right; for when he blessed him, he considered him not as Jacob, but took him for Esau. Nor did Esau understand any such connexion between birth-right and the blessing; for he says, "He hath supplanted me these two times, he took away my birth“right, and behold now he hath taken away my blessing" whereas had the blessing, which was to be lord over his brethren," belonged to the birth-right, Esau could not have complained of this second, as a cheat, Jacob having got nothing but what Esau had sold him, when he sold him his birth-right; so that it is plain, dominion, if these words signify it, was not understood to belong to the birth-right,

§. 114. And that in those days of the patriarchs, dominion was not understood to be the right of the heir,

but

but only a greater portion of goods, is plain from Gen. xxi. 10. for Sarah, taking Isaac to be heir, says, "cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of "this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son:" whereby could be meant nothing, but that he should not have a pretence to an equal share of his father's estate after his death, but should have his portion presently, and be gone. Accordingly we read, Gen. xxv. 5, 6. "That Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac, but "unto the sons of the concubines which Abraham had, "Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac "his son, while he yet lived." That is, Abraham having given portions to all his other sons, and sent them away, that which he had reserved, being the greatest part of his substance, Isaac as heir possessed after his death but by being heir, he had no right to be "lord "over his children;" for if he had, why should Sarah endeavour to rob him of one of his subjects, or lessen the number of his slaves, by desiring to have Ishmael sent away?

§. 115. Thus, as under the law, the privilege of birth-right was nothing but a double portion: so we see that before Moses, in the patriarchs time, from whence our author pretends to take his model, there was no knowledge, no thought, that birth-right gave rule or empire, paternal or kingly authority, to any one over his brethren. If this be not plain enough in the story of Isaac and Ishmael, he that will look into 1 Chron. v. 1. may there read these words: "Reuben "was the first-born: but forasmuch as he defiled his "father's bed, his birth-right was given unto the sons "of Joseph, the son of Israel: and the genealogy is "not to be reckoned after the birth-right; for Judah "prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the "chief ruler; but the birth-right was Joseph's." What this birth-right was, Jacob blessing Joseph, Gen. xlviii. 22. telleth us in these words, " Moreover I have given thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took "out of the hand of the Amorite, with my sword and " with my bow." Whereby it is not only plain that the birth-right was nothing but a double portion, but

the