the evil effects or
consequences
that happen in any kingdom
or state to wrong causes.
or state to wrong causes.
Rehearsal - v1 - 1750
92.
calling a* excellent sermon at Oxford, another Oxford weather-cock.
'Tis a good jrst still !
which therefore he often reseats
I expect not (aftei this) to bring him, or his scandahus club to Jhame ! But I hope to make all men of sense a-
shamd of them.
! [ ae a>
From ^at. Oct. 1 i, to &at. Oct. 20, 1 705. N° 66.
1 . 77 •s/ God abolished an univerfal monarchy. And that the succefficn of the 70 nations was by the rule of
4i2
like hio Jkcrtejl way.
And that was instituted of God. 2. Ansiuer to in objection That the division of nations
was brfire the division languages. 3. Mr. Lock argument from Go to, let us build, That the builders f/' Babel wcre a commonwealth, or all independent. 4. That the poflestbr has the right, where none claims
a better right. With an answer to the objections against, this in a certain specimen.
&M. X70U have fully clear'd to me, master, last &-
firms the rights of the primogeniture else when Cod gave that to any, he gave them nothing.
(1. ) Hence likewise plain to me, that, instead of an universal monarchy over the whole earth, in the person of the eldest son of Noah, and of his eldest, and on, to the end of the world pleased God to interpose his
authority, and to divide the world into 70 independent nations, and to set ra/ur over every one of them. And this he did without the intervention of any human
means, by the miraculous divifion of languages, that
might appear to be his own act; and marvellous in in our eyes. But
mogeniture.
•
how that God Lard pv£r his own.
turday,
institutions, can alter and dispense with them at pleasure can make the youngest the eldest, and give the rights of the primogeniture to whom he pleases which still con
a
it
; it
is
;
it ;
is
js
it
;s
pri
so
X
of it
The RE HEAR SAL,
Bat now, master, after the earth was thus divided, in,
their nations, after their languages, how did the fuccession. .
ofgovernment go in these particular nations ?
R. When there is an exception from a general rule,. the rule stands in all cafes not excepted. The exception
here is only as to an universal monarchy, in which they propos'd mighty things to themselves. To make them a name, and that they shou'd not be dispersed abroad up
on the face of the whole earth, but live all together, and to be one people. As it is faid, Gen. xi. 6. Behold the •
people is one ■ And this they begin to do ; and now no
thing will be restrained from them, which they have ima gined to do. Therefore God divided them into several nations, by means of the several languages, as I have faid before, N. 62. This was all the alteration was made:
therefore the succession, in these several nations went on
C. But I wou'd have a positive text commanding the succession to be in the first-born, and so to continue to the end of the world, and this given to Adam. That it was
the receiv'd notion then, you have shew'd plain enough,
N. 57. from the instance of Cain and Abel. And that-
it was the fact and practice univerfally over all the earth. But this is but practice still. I would see the sirst command and institution given to Adam.
R. The history of Genefis before the Flood is very 'short, and gives onlyfacts. The institutions are sup-
pos'd, and were generally receiv'd as such by the Jews. at the time when Moses wrote, and to this day ; and,
by Christians as well as Jews. For example, marriage is faid, in our office of matrimony, to have been instituted of God in Paradise in the time of man's innocency. Yet
the institution does not appear, only the fact is told. Thus ofsacrifices, of priesthood, of clean and unclean beasts and fowl, which we sind in fact before the Flood; and there can be no doubt of the institution ! for they cou'd
T3 not
4r3.
as formerly, by the rule ofprimogeniture, as it was in alt the earth from that time to this day, which I have fhew'd before, N 56, and 57. with an answer to those exceptions which have been made against it.
The REHEARSAL;
not have been the invention of man. There is no com
mand in the New Testament for the change of the sabbath- from the seventh day to the first. But we conclude there was such a command from the practice of the apostles, and the universal eburch from them. And I have shew'd as universal a consent, and as early for the primogeniture as any of these before nam'd, of whose institution we do not doubt ; and therefore can doubt as httle of this,
(2 ) C. I have heard an objection, master, That the di vifion of nations being told, Gen. x. and the building of Babel, with the confusion of languages, told in the fol lowing chapter, it shou'd seem as if the divifion of tongues was after the divifion of nations, and so not the means by which it was efsected, as you have asserted, N. 62.
R. It is very frequent, as well in holy scripture, as in other writings, having related a fact, to tell afterwards ofpassages which happen'd before. Thus John xix. 18. it is faid, They crucified him. And ver. 23. Then the
soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, £SV. Yet after this, ver. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. seve ral passages before his death are related.
And thus it is faid, Gen. xi. I. And the whole earth
was of me language, and one speech. And ver. 6. The people is one, and they have all one language. Yet chap. x. 20, 31. it is faid, the people were divided after their tongues.
So that what is related chap. xi. resers to the time before
the divifion mention'd in the xth chap, where the divi fion of the nations, by their languages, being told, the: holy penman goes en, in the next chapter, to shew, upon
what occafion, and by what means, this divifion of ian guages was effected.
• . (3. ) C. Mr. Lock, in his Two treatises ofgovernment, p. 187. lays great stress upon its being faid, Gen. vi. 4. Go to, let us build us a city And thence wou'd inser, that the people were then a commonwealth, or something like
4t4
it ; this being, fays he, the consultation of a sree people.
R. This text neither shews their
theirfreedom ; but their canst nt and willingness towards the undertaking, which might have been fram'd by their
consultation,
nor leaders;
stines.
The REHEARSAL:
415 leaders ; and the work, no doubt, was conducted by them :
else it wou'd have gone flowly on, if all had been ma sters, and , none servants, as it must have been in Mr.
Lock's supposed state and freedom of nature.
It is faid, I Sam. iv. 7. The Philistines were afraid ;
and, ver. 9. they faid one to another, S>uit yourselves like men, and fight. Had they therefore no commanders, no
princes ? when we are told of the princes of these Phili
May not men encourage one another in perform ing what is commanded them ? and it is call'd their act, when they have done it. As it may be faid, that the work-men built St. Pauss ; and likewise, that the parlia ment built it ; and the work-men may fay one to another, Go to, let us build. It is faid, ver. 2. And the Philistines
put themselves in array. But does any doubt, that it was their commanders who did it ? Was it put to the vote of every individual how they shou'd array themselves \ It is faid, chap. xvii. 2 1 . Israel and the Philistines put the battle- in array, army against army; when we know, that Saul the king of Israel was then in the army, and, no doubt, commanded ; how frequent is it for people to be faid to do- what is both consulted and commanded them to do by 0- thers ? Yet when they have done They have done it.
And may not then be faid faid, Exod. xxxii. . . That the people made the calf which Aaron made.
Many more instances of the like sort may be brought.
C. desire no more. obvious and, Go to, let us build, can imply no more, meant of the people, than
their readily and freely going about the work and hin ders not, but that this defign might have been consulted by their monarch or ruler, with those he advis'd with as his council and this, Go to, let us build, might have been said of them, of the king and his councii. But either way comes not up to what Mr. Lock wou'd infer from
either of commonwealth, or his suppos'd independent state nature. And know of no argument the whigs
have brought that shews more of than this This fjbing for arguments and they are hard put to it. This rubbish indeed which yet you have done well to put
T out
is
it
53
!
;
I
4
it
It if is
so ?
:
is
of
I
it,
; a
it
;
is ;
It it,
The REHEARSAJL.
out of your way ; because many of our country-folks are taken with such texts and glasses ; though they will not go down with men offense and horning.
(4. ) But now, master, comes my grand objection ; and if you can dear that as plainly and easily as you have the ethers, I think I shall have little more to trouble you with upon this subject.
You fay, that the succession of the 70 rulers in the xth of Genefis was to go hereditarily according to the prime- geniture. Is it not then neceflary that every king now
4i6
in the world shou'd derive himself from some of these 70, and by the eldest son all the way ? else what right has
he to the government more than I
nothing else but an usurper. And all you have faid hitherto goes for nothing ; because we cannot sind out the right heir to any one os these 70.
? and then he can be
R. I told you at the beginning, that God did create man with a designation for government ; and God did or
dain, that government shou'd continue to the end of the world; for without it mankind cou'd not subsist. And our bltsscd Saviour did command obedience to governments as to the ordinance of God, in that late age of the world, when he came into it ; which shews, that government was always to continue.
This then being six'd as the foundation, we go on- And now I must account for the several conquests and ui
furpatiens have been in the world, to the breaking that line of succession which began in these 70, nam'd Gen. x.
possessor. For example, countryman, to speak to your capacity, and make it very familiar to you. Suppose I shou'd rob you of your hat ; this does not give me a right
against you. But it gives me such a right to that another shou'd rob me of that hat, wou'd be robbery in him. And though he shou'd prove, at his trial, that had robb'd you of that hat, wou'd be no justification
of him, because he cou'd shew no right- that he had to it. C. Tbia
And the rule in all such cases is this :
is in possession of the government, has the right likewise where there is none who claims a better right than the
That whoever
it
it
it, I if
The REHE A RS AL;
4iT C This is very plain and easy to me ; but is the cafe
the fame in a crown as in a hat ?
R. The very fame in this point : That the right goes
along with the possession, where there is none that claims a better right than that of the possessor. If there are several competitors to the crown, as in the case of York and Lan caster, every man must inform himself, as well as he can, which of them are nearest in blood to the preceding right ful king. Both York and Lancaster did pretend to be nearest in blood to king Richard II. and set up their title upon that foot. Therefore both of them did acknowledge
the nearest in blood to be the rule of sucetssion. .
But where there is no competition, the possessor has the best WgAs in the world, because there is none other right but his ; and government must quite cease out of the world, if this be not the rule. But God having ordain'd
government always to continue, as before is faid; there fore this must be the rule.
Again, that must be a right government, which is not. usurp'd ; and there is no usurpation, but where one is got into the possession of what another has right to. These are: Mr. Lock's own words in his forefaid Two treatisesi. Book II. chap. xvii. which he intitles, Of usurpation, p. . 418. where he lays this down as a sure rule or principle.
I quote him, because I hope the whigs will submit to his authority, and receive from him what they would contend with me for. Here then where the peace of the world is preserv'd, governments concinu'd, and no man's right invaded, what dispute can remain ? If that be not right, there is no right in the world!
C. I prosess I can fay nothing against it ; for that must be right where no body's wrong d.
But you are not like to come oft' so easily ; for the book I told you of last time we met, call'd, A defence of the natural rights ofmankind, wrote or to be wrote against
Cassandra, makes this very point you are upon, which, is mention'd in Ca/sandra, his second specimen, to shew how cleverly he can baffle all these principles. He attacks this principle, in hisspecimen, only as to the consequences of
The REHEARSAL.
It. But for the reason of the thing, &c. he reserves that for his great work, and has given us no specimen of it. Unless his specimen be more than I have seen; for it seems to break off abruptly, as if there were more of it to follow immediately ; for thus it ends, p. 16. "Hav ing thus given my reader the lively instances of history for the illustration of this noble principle, I shall now
R. I might wave giving any answer to his instances from history as to the consequences of this principle, till I see what he fays to the reason of the thing ; for that is it must determine the cause with reasonable men. Argu
ments from consequences are often fallacious, attributing
4i8
look into the reason of the thing, &c.
the evil effects or consequences that happen in any kingdom
or state to wrong causes. There are complications of di- stempers oftentimes in a state, as well as ire the natural bo
dy ; and the greatest skill of the physician is Ihew'd in sinding out the root and true ground of the disease.
But I will not delay answering for this ; for I can re member since a certain author was attack'd; and many
instances given from history (none of which came up to the point, as was afterwards shew'd) with a promise, like that of this author, to consider the reason of the thing af terwards : and it was very long astcvwards, for it is not come out to this day, though this was several years ago.
But not long afterwaids came out insults and bravado's, why this author was not answer d; for his opponent waited for his reasons, and his entring upon the merits of the cause ; which, 'tis to be presum'd, he never intended, because he never perform d. Now, lest this cafe shou'd happen a second time, I will go on with you now, as to his argument from consequences, and histoty : therefore let me hear them. "
C. He fays, p. 1 2. That the consequence of this doctrine That any one shall poison prince, or
stab him, and destroy all the royal family, and pos
sess himself of the throne, he has divine right to be king
that " And under, in the fame he country. " page,
puts case,
Thus (fays he) the conspirators in the gun.
f a
if if
a
a so
is,
The REHEAR
AL;
4i9 gunpowder treason- plot had succeeded, and blown up the king, lords, and commons, by this doctrine they
wou'd have had a right to the government, if they had pleas'd to have seiz'd it. For as to a better right, 'tis a jest, according to their principles ; for who must decide the controversy betwixt two pretenders ? "
cafe.
R. Here's a jumble of arguments thrust together, to blind the reader's eyes, and hide the true state of the
But I will take them asunder, and put them in a true light ; and I must begin with the last, because it is the foundation of all the rest ; and that Whoshall decide the controversy betwixt two pretenders If he means the ijfue of battle, or who shall de facto prevail, know none pretends to decide it. That lies in the hands ofpro
vidence, who, for thefins of nation, often suffers wicked ness to prevail, and civil wars and destruction to ensue, as in the case of David and Absalom, of Joash and Aha- liah, and come home to our own country, of York and Lancaster, which contest lasted above 100 years, with vast effufion of English blood and treasure. Nor did end till the right line was restor'd.
But the deciding be meant, how every man shall de termine his own conscience whichfide to take as have faid before, examining the pretences on both
and joining with that he thinks the best, according to the law of God, and the known statutes and law of the land, pursuant to the holy scriptures. And there no other way of determining private conscience in any case
whatsoever. As what religion he will embrace or how
be will determine of any particular action in his life, con
versation, or bufiness.
For this foundation so poorly and fallacioufy laid, he
makes no scruple to inser, that, as to a better right, 'tis a jest according to their principles. Which of their princi ples their principle of adhering to the better right,
and making that the rule And this making jest of it not the jest on his side, who wou'd throw off' a rule so solidly laia, and substantially prov'd such fay
From hence
sides
ing, as has no meaning and perfect banter
is
is
?
a a
is is, it I
by
?
; It I
? Is
? ;
Is it
if
a
by
it, a a
in ?
? is,
The REHEARSAL.
hence we proceed* to consider nis infiance of the gun- fo-ivdir-plottcrs. For by this rule of the better right, if
they had succeeded,. blown up king, lords, and com mons; this wou'd not have made them the next heirs to
the crvwn, bot to the gallows. Though I will not seyy
that this is always the fate of such conspirators ; for some
'
And,
420
times God suffers them to prevail, as I faid, for our fins.
.
llle crucem pretium /celeris tulit, hie diadema I
^
To have made any one of these conspirators next heir to the crown of England, great part of Europe must have been destroy'd. The whole house of Hanover must have gone to pot ; and many both before and aster them.
But since we are upon suppofitions, I'll make one, coun tryman, (hall end this whole cause, and is almost as pro bable, as what this author supposes : Suppose then, that one man shou'd kill all the" wcrld, wou'd not he be uni
versal monarch, and have all the world to himself? And
wou'd it not be a sad thing, that a man shou'd gain the
universal monarchy and property of the whole earth by so wicked &n act ? And yet so it must be ! These are the ar
guments, and such like the suppofitions upon which our whigs wou'd unhinge ihewerld, and leave no government
or settlement in it.
And for his several instances out of the Spanish or Go-
thick histories of murders, usurpations, and conquests, he' needed not to have gone so far from home. And he may compile a history, if he pleases, of all the vAcked acts have been perpetrated imtcÆam, and make 100 volumes of them ; and all will not be one tittle to his purpose, nor
overthrow this rule ; but it will shew, what mischiefs and ruin has follow'd the breach of it : which, I will explain more fully to you hereafter.
The End of the First Volume.
J
-
THE BORROWER WILL BE CHARGED AN OVERDUE FEE IF THIS BOOK IS NOT RETURNED TO THE LIBRARY ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW. NON-RECEIPT OF OVERDUE NOTICES DOES NOT EXEMPT THE BORROWER FROM OVERDUE FEES.
I expect not (aftei this) to bring him, or his scandahus club to Jhame ! But I hope to make all men of sense a-
shamd of them.
! [ ae a>
From ^at. Oct. 1 i, to &at. Oct. 20, 1 705. N° 66.
1 . 77 •s/ God abolished an univerfal monarchy. And that the succefficn of the 70 nations was by the rule of
4i2
like hio Jkcrtejl way.
And that was instituted of God. 2. Ansiuer to in objection That the division of nations
was brfire the division languages. 3. Mr. Lock argument from Go to, let us build, That the builders f/' Babel wcre a commonwealth, or all independent. 4. That the poflestbr has the right, where none claims
a better right. With an answer to the objections against, this in a certain specimen.
&M. X70U have fully clear'd to me, master, last &-
firms the rights of the primogeniture else when Cod gave that to any, he gave them nothing.
(1. ) Hence likewise plain to me, that, instead of an universal monarchy over the whole earth, in the person of the eldest son of Noah, and of his eldest, and on, to the end of the world pleased God to interpose his
authority, and to divide the world into 70 independent nations, and to set ra/ur over every one of them. And this he did without the intervention of any human
means, by the miraculous divifion of languages, that
might appear to be his own act; and marvellous in in our eyes. But
mogeniture.
•
how that God Lard pv£r his own.
turday,
institutions, can alter and dispense with them at pleasure can make the youngest the eldest, and give the rights of the primogeniture to whom he pleases which still con
a
it
; it
is
;
it ;
is
js
it
;s
pri
so
X
of it
The RE HEAR SAL,
Bat now, master, after the earth was thus divided, in,
their nations, after their languages, how did the fuccession. .
ofgovernment go in these particular nations ?
R. When there is an exception from a general rule,. the rule stands in all cafes not excepted. The exception
here is only as to an universal monarchy, in which they propos'd mighty things to themselves. To make them a name, and that they shou'd not be dispersed abroad up
on the face of the whole earth, but live all together, and to be one people. As it is faid, Gen. xi. 6. Behold the •
people is one ■ And this they begin to do ; and now no
thing will be restrained from them, which they have ima gined to do. Therefore God divided them into several nations, by means of the several languages, as I have faid before, N. 62. This was all the alteration was made:
therefore the succession, in these several nations went on
C. But I wou'd have a positive text commanding the succession to be in the first-born, and so to continue to the end of the world, and this given to Adam. That it was
the receiv'd notion then, you have shew'd plain enough,
N. 57. from the instance of Cain and Abel. And that-
it was the fact and practice univerfally over all the earth. But this is but practice still. I would see the sirst command and institution given to Adam.
R. The history of Genefis before the Flood is very 'short, and gives onlyfacts. The institutions are sup-
pos'd, and were generally receiv'd as such by the Jews. at the time when Moses wrote, and to this day ; and,
by Christians as well as Jews. For example, marriage is faid, in our office of matrimony, to have been instituted of God in Paradise in the time of man's innocency. Yet
the institution does not appear, only the fact is told. Thus ofsacrifices, of priesthood, of clean and unclean beasts and fowl, which we sind in fact before the Flood; and there can be no doubt of the institution ! for they cou'd
T3 not
4r3.
as formerly, by the rule ofprimogeniture, as it was in alt the earth from that time to this day, which I have fhew'd before, N 56, and 57. with an answer to those exceptions which have been made against it.
The REHEARSAL;
not have been the invention of man. There is no com
mand in the New Testament for the change of the sabbath- from the seventh day to the first. But we conclude there was such a command from the practice of the apostles, and the universal eburch from them. And I have shew'd as universal a consent, and as early for the primogeniture as any of these before nam'd, of whose institution we do not doubt ; and therefore can doubt as httle of this,
(2 ) C. I have heard an objection, master, That the di vifion of nations being told, Gen. x. and the building of Babel, with the confusion of languages, told in the fol lowing chapter, it shou'd seem as if the divifion of tongues was after the divifion of nations, and so not the means by which it was efsected, as you have asserted, N. 62.
R. It is very frequent, as well in holy scripture, as in other writings, having related a fact, to tell afterwards ofpassages which happen'd before. Thus John xix. 18. it is faid, They crucified him. And ver. 23. Then the
soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, £SV. Yet after this, ver. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. seve ral passages before his death are related.
And thus it is faid, Gen. xi. I. And the whole earth
was of me language, and one speech. And ver. 6. The people is one, and they have all one language. Yet chap. x. 20, 31. it is faid, the people were divided after their tongues.
So that what is related chap. xi. resers to the time before
the divifion mention'd in the xth chap, where the divi fion of the nations, by their languages, being told, the: holy penman goes en, in the next chapter, to shew, upon
what occafion, and by what means, this divifion of ian guages was effected.
• . (3. ) C. Mr. Lock, in his Two treatises ofgovernment, p. 187. lays great stress upon its being faid, Gen. vi. 4. Go to, let us build us a city And thence wou'd inser, that the people were then a commonwealth, or something like
4t4
it ; this being, fays he, the consultation of a sree people.
R. This text neither shews their
theirfreedom ; but their canst nt and willingness towards the undertaking, which might have been fram'd by their
consultation,
nor leaders;
stines.
The REHEARSAL:
415 leaders ; and the work, no doubt, was conducted by them :
else it wou'd have gone flowly on, if all had been ma sters, and , none servants, as it must have been in Mr.
Lock's supposed state and freedom of nature.
It is faid, I Sam. iv. 7. The Philistines were afraid ;
and, ver. 9. they faid one to another, S>uit yourselves like men, and fight. Had they therefore no commanders, no
princes ? when we are told of the princes of these Phili
May not men encourage one another in perform ing what is commanded them ? and it is call'd their act, when they have done it. As it may be faid, that the work-men built St. Pauss ; and likewise, that the parlia ment built it ; and the work-men may fay one to another, Go to, let us build. It is faid, ver. 2. And the Philistines
put themselves in array. But does any doubt, that it was their commanders who did it ? Was it put to the vote of every individual how they shou'd array themselves \ It is faid, chap. xvii. 2 1 . Israel and the Philistines put the battle- in array, army against army; when we know, that Saul the king of Israel was then in the army, and, no doubt, commanded ; how frequent is it for people to be faid to do- what is both consulted and commanded them to do by 0- thers ? Yet when they have done They have done it.
And may not then be faid faid, Exod. xxxii. . . That the people made the calf which Aaron made.
Many more instances of the like sort may be brought.
C. desire no more. obvious and, Go to, let us build, can imply no more, meant of the people, than
their readily and freely going about the work and hin ders not, but that this defign might have been consulted by their monarch or ruler, with those he advis'd with as his council and this, Go to, let us build, might have been said of them, of the king and his councii. But either way comes not up to what Mr. Lock wou'd infer from
either of commonwealth, or his suppos'd independent state nature. And know of no argument the whigs
have brought that shews more of than this This fjbing for arguments and they are hard put to it. This rubbish indeed which yet you have done well to put
T out
is
it
53
!
;
I
4
it
It if is
so ?
:
is
of
I
it,
; a
it
;
is ;
It it,
The REHEARSAJL.
out of your way ; because many of our country-folks are taken with such texts and glasses ; though they will not go down with men offense and horning.
(4. ) But now, master, comes my grand objection ; and if you can dear that as plainly and easily as you have the ethers, I think I shall have little more to trouble you with upon this subject.
You fay, that the succession of the 70 rulers in the xth of Genefis was to go hereditarily according to the prime- geniture. Is it not then neceflary that every king now
4i6
in the world shou'd derive himself from some of these 70, and by the eldest son all the way ? else what right has
he to the government more than I
nothing else but an usurper. And all you have faid hitherto goes for nothing ; because we cannot sind out the right heir to any one os these 70.
? and then he can be
R. I told you at the beginning, that God did create man with a designation for government ; and God did or
dain, that government shou'd continue to the end of the world; for without it mankind cou'd not subsist. And our bltsscd Saviour did command obedience to governments as to the ordinance of God, in that late age of the world, when he came into it ; which shews, that government was always to continue.
This then being six'd as the foundation, we go on- And now I must account for the several conquests and ui
furpatiens have been in the world, to the breaking that line of succession which began in these 70, nam'd Gen. x.
possessor. For example, countryman, to speak to your capacity, and make it very familiar to you. Suppose I shou'd rob you of your hat ; this does not give me a right
against you. But it gives me such a right to that another shou'd rob me of that hat, wou'd be robbery in him. And though he shou'd prove, at his trial, that had robb'd you of that hat, wou'd be no justification
of him, because he cou'd shew no right- that he had to it. C. Tbia
And the rule in all such cases is this :
is in possession of the government, has the right likewise where there is none who claims a better right than the
That whoever
it
it
it, I if
The REHE A RS AL;
4iT C This is very plain and easy to me ; but is the cafe
the fame in a crown as in a hat ?
R. The very fame in this point : That the right goes
along with the possession, where there is none that claims a better right than that of the possessor. If there are several competitors to the crown, as in the case of York and Lan caster, every man must inform himself, as well as he can, which of them are nearest in blood to the preceding right ful king. Both York and Lancaster did pretend to be nearest in blood to king Richard II. and set up their title upon that foot. Therefore both of them did acknowledge
the nearest in blood to be the rule of sucetssion. .
But where there is no competition, the possessor has the best WgAs in the world, because there is none other right but his ; and government must quite cease out of the world, if this be not the rule. But God having ordain'd
government always to continue, as before is faid; there fore this must be the rule.
Again, that must be a right government, which is not. usurp'd ; and there is no usurpation, but where one is got into the possession of what another has right to. These are: Mr. Lock's own words in his forefaid Two treatisesi. Book II. chap. xvii. which he intitles, Of usurpation, p. . 418. where he lays this down as a sure rule or principle.
I quote him, because I hope the whigs will submit to his authority, and receive from him what they would contend with me for. Here then where the peace of the world is preserv'd, governments concinu'd, and no man's right invaded, what dispute can remain ? If that be not right, there is no right in the world!
C. I prosess I can fay nothing against it ; for that must be right where no body's wrong d.
But you are not like to come oft' so easily ; for the book I told you of last time we met, call'd, A defence of the natural rights ofmankind, wrote or to be wrote against
Cassandra, makes this very point you are upon, which, is mention'd in Ca/sandra, his second specimen, to shew how cleverly he can baffle all these principles. He attacks this principle, in hisspecimen, only as to the consequences of
The REHEARSAL.
It. But for the reason of the thing, &c. he reserves that for his great work, and has given us no specimen of it. Unless his specimen be more than I have seen; for it seems to break off abruptly, as if there were more of it to follow immediately ; for thus it ends, p. 16. "Hav ing thus given my reader the lively instances of history for the illustration of this noble principle, I shall now
R. I might wave giving any answer to his instances from history as to the consequences of this principle, till I see what he fays to the reason of the thing ; for that is it must determine the cause with reasonable men. Argu
ments from consequences are often fallacious, attributing
4i8
look into the reason of the thing, &c.
the evil effects or consequences that happen in any kingdom
or state to wrong causes. There are complications of di- stempers oftentimes in a state, as well as ire the natural bo
dy ; and the greatest skill of the physician is Ihew'd in sinding out the root and true ground of the disease.
But I will not delay answering for this ; for I can re member since a certain author was attack'd; and many
instances given from history (none of which came up to the point, as was afterwards shew'd) with a promise, like that of this author, to consider the reason of the thing af terwards : and it was very long astcvwards, for it is not come out to this day, though this was several years ago.
But not long afterwaids came out insults and bravado's, why this author was not answer d; for his opponent waited for his reasons, and his entring upon the merits of the cause ; which, 'tis to be presum'd, he never intended, because he never perform d. Now, lest this cafe shou'd happen a second time, I will go on with you now, as to his argument from consequences, and histoty : therefore let me hear them. "
C. He fays, p. 1 2. That the consequence of this doctrine That any one shall poison prince, or
stab him, and destroy all the royal family, and pos
sess himself of the throne, he has divine right to be king
that " And under, in the fame he country. " page,
puts case,
Thus (fays he) the conspirators in the gun.
f a
if if
a
a so
is,
The REHEAR
AL;
4i9 gunpowder treason- plot had succeeded, and blown up the king, lords, and commons, by this doctrine they
wou'd have had a right to the government, if they had pleas'd to have seiz'd it. For as to a better right, 'tis a jest, according to their principles ; for who must decide the controversy betwixt two pretenders ? "
cafe.
R. Here's a jumble of arguments thrust together, to blind the reader's eyes, and hide the true state of the
But I will take them asunder, and put them in a true light ; and I must begin with the last, because it is the foundation of all the rest ; and that Whoshall decide the controversy betwixt two pretenders If he means the ijfue of battle, or who shall de facto prevail, know none pretends to decide it. That lies in the hands ofpro
vidence, who, for thefins of nation, often suffers wicked ness to prevail, and civil wars and destruction to ensue, as in the case of David and Absalom, of Joash and Aha- liah, and come home to our own country, of York and Lancaster, which contest lasted above 100 years, with vast effufion of English blood and treasure. Nor did end till the right line was restor'd.
But the deciding be meant, how every man shall de termine his own conscience whichfide to take as have faid before, examining the pretences on both
and joining with that he thinks the best, according to the law of God, and the known statutes and law of the land, pursuant to the holy scriptures. And there no other way of determining private conscience in any case
whatsoever. As what religion he will embrace or how
be will determine of any particular action in his life, con
versation, or bufiness.
For this foundation so poorly and fallacioufy laid, he
makes no scruple to inser, that, as to a better right, 'tis a jest according to their principles. Which of their princi ples their principle of adhering to the better right,
and making that the rule And this making jest of it not the jest on his side, who wou'd throw off' a rule so solidly laia, and substantially prov'd such fay
From hence
sides
ing, as has no meaning and perfect banter
is
is
?
a a
is is, it I
by
?
; It I
? Is
? ;
Is it
if
a
by
it, a a
in ?
? is,
The REHEARSAL.
hence we proceed* to consider nis infiance of the gun- fo-ivdir-plottcrs. For by this rule of the better right, if
they had succeeded,. blown up king, lords, and com mons; this wou'd not have made them the next heirs to
the crvwn, bot to the gallows. Though I will not seyy
that this is always the fate of such conspirators ; for some
'
And,
420
times God suffers them to prevail, as I faid, for our fins.
.
llle crucem pretium /celeris tulit, hie diadema I
^
To have made any one of these conspirators next heir to the crown of England, great part of Europe must have been destroy'd. The whole house of Hanover must have gone to pot ; and many both before and aster them.
But since we are upon suppofitions, I'll make one, coun tryman, (hall end this whole cause, and is almost as pro bable, as what this author supposes : Suppose then, that one man shou'd kill all the" wcrld, wou'd not he be uni
versal monarch, and have all the world to himself? And
wou'd it not be a sad thing, that a man shou'd gain the
universal monarchy and property of the whole earth by so wicked &n act ? And yet so it must be ! These are the ar
guments, and such like the suppofitions upon which our whigs wou'd unhinge ihewerld, and leave no government
or settlement in it.
And for his several instances out of the Spanish or Go-
thick histories of murders, usurpations, and conquests, he' needed not to have gone so far from home. And he may compile a history, if he pleases, of all the vAcked acts have been perpetrated imtcÆam, and make 100 volumes of them ; and all will not be one tittle to his purpose, nor
overthrow this rule ; but it will shew, what mischiefs and ruin has follow'd the breach of it : which, I will explain more fully to you hereafter.
The End of the First Volume.
J
-
THE BORROWER WILL BE CHARGED AN OVERDUE FEE IF THIS BOOK IS NOT RETURNED TO THE LIBRARY ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW. NON-RECEIPT OF OVERDUE NOTICES DOES NOT EXEMPT THE BORROWER FROM OVERDUE FEES.
