The second branch of the common interpretation is, That by the Sceptre is signified a civil sovereignty in the tribe of Judah. This, in my opinion, has still less of stability than the other. It supposes that the Sceptre, or the supreme rule of the Jewish People, remained in natives of that Tribe, from the time of David to the coming of Christ. But Petavius hath shewn, that from the giving of the Prophecy to the time of David (a Space of above six hundred Years), there was but one or two Rulers descended from the Tribe of Judah: And that from the death of Sedecias to the birth of Christ (a space of near the same number of years) all the Rulers of the Jewish People were of other Tribes; the Asmonean princes particularly being all of the tribe of Levi*. The Abbé de Houteville, who, at a very easy rate, hath obtained the reputation of an able defender of Revelation †, hath indeed invented a curious expedient to evade this difficulty. His system is, that the rulers of the tribe of Levi (and so I suppose of the rest) exercised this Sovereignty by leave, or deputation from the Tribe of Judah. To such wretched shifts are learned men reduced, when they have reversed the order of things, and made Truth to wait upon their Systems; instead of making their Systems subservient to Truth.

-At complures antiquorum recentiorumque qui in illa Jacobi sententia Judam peculiari de tribu intellexerunt, id sibi Patriarcham voluisse credunt, ex stirpe ac progenie Judæ filii ipsius perpetuo Judæis præfuturum aliquem eorumque fore principem, donec Christus adveniat. Sed in hujus reddenda dicti ratione multum æstuant, siquidem vetustatis omni teste memoriâ refelluntur, quæ non solum ante Davidem unum alterumve duntaxat ex illa tribu rexisse populum ostendit, annis circiter 675 ab edita prophetia; sed etiam post Sedecias necem, occasumque Urbis & Templi ad Christum usque de alia quam Judæ stirpe duees extitisse annis 588; etenim Machabæos constat ex Levitica et Sacerdotali progenie descendere. Ration. Temporum, Par. II. L. III. C. 16.

See his book, intitled, Religion preuvée par les Faits.

These two senses (by one or other of which the common interpretation hath been long supported) being found on a stricter scrutiny, to be intenable, men cast about for a third; and a happy one it was thought to be, which contrived, that Sceptre should signify a domestic, not a civil rule; a TRIBAL, not a SOVEREIGN Sceptre; and of which, they say, JUDAH, at the giving of the Prophecy, was already possessed. This expedient, the learned Dr. Sherlock, Bishop of London, has honoured with his support and protection*.

It would be want of respect to so eminent a Person, to pass over this refinement with the same slight notice that has been given to the other two. I shall therefore do myself the honour to consider his Lordship's reasoning more at large.

His Lordship's first argument in support of a tribal Sceptre is-That the Sceptre's not DEPARTING from Judah shews plainly that Judah had a Sceptre when the prophecy was given." Is there any sense (says "his Lordship) in saying that a thing shall not depart, "which never was yet in possession? The prophecy "is not a grant of the Sceptre, but a confirmation of "it. Now a confirmation of nothing is nothing: "And, to make it something, the possession of the

thing confirmed must be supposed. I know not by "what rules of language or grammar, these words can "be construed into a grant of the Sceptre. And though so many writers and interpreters have followed "this sense, yet I do not reinember to have seen one passage or parallel expression from the Scripture, or any other author, produced to justify the interpre"tation." pp. 326, 7.

Is there any Sense (his Lordship asks) in saying a thing shall not DEPART which never was yet in posses

Use and Intent of Prophecy, Dissert. III. 5th Edit, 1749.

sion?

sion? Yes certainly, a very good one, in a PROPHECY, where the subject is not of a present but of a future possession; and where the Holy Spirit is wont to call the things that are not, as though they were. The Subject is a Sceptre, which could in no sense, not even in the sense of a tribal sceptre, be in possession of Judah before he became a Tribe. His Lordship, indeed, supposes he became a Tribe immediately after the death of Jacob.-This power in the hands of the Tribes took place immediately upon the death of Jacob. P. 323.

But if it did? Was not that accession as properly future, as if it had been a thousand years after? Judah then, at the time of this Prophecy, not being in possession of his Sceptre, a confirmation of nothing is nothing, &c. so that all the absurdities bere imagined stick to his Lordship's Era of the Sceptre, as well as to the common one. But let us suppose that Jacob's Prophecy and death were individual; and then see how he proves his assertion, that Judah and the Rest became Tribes immediately on the death of Jacob. His proof is a little extraordinary-When Moses and Aaron led them into the Wilderness (says his Lordship) we hear of the ELDERS of the people, and the RULERS of the congregation. p. 323. His assertion is, that the tribal sceptre sprung up from the ashes of Jacob; and his proof, that it arose and flourished in the Wilderness. This is indeed the truth; it was a Native of that place; as may be fairly presumed from the occasion which the Israelites had of a tribal rule (namely, to fit them for the warfare they were now about to undertake), and as may be fairly proved from the first chapter of the book of Numbers-" And the Lord spake unto "Moses in the wilderness of Sinai: Take ye the sum "of all the congregation of the Children of Israel, "after their families, by the house of their Fathers

H 4

" all

"all that are able to go forth to war in Israel; "Thou and Aaron shall number them with their "armies. And with you, there SHALL BE A MAN

166

" of every tribe; every one HEAD OF THE HOUSE of "his Fathers--and they assembled all the congregation; and they declared their pedigrees, after "their families, by the house of their Fathers-These 66 were those which were numbered: and the PRINCES OF ISRAEL BEING TWELVE MEN, EACH ONE WAS 66 FOR THE HOUSE OF HIS FATHERS. And the "Children of Israel shall pitch their tents, every man by his own camp, and every man by his own standard, throughout their Hosts-And the Children of Israel "did according to all the Lord commanded them *." Then follows the order of the Tribes in their tents †. Now, surely, this detailed account of these tribal Sceptres hath all the mark of a new Institution.

The Bishop's hypothesis therefore is without foundation the Sceptre was something in reversion. Indeed the particular words, as well as the general nature of Prophecy, declare the subject to be of things future."And Jacob called to his sons, and said, Gather

yourselves together that I may tell you what shall "befall you IN THE LAST DAYS." The Bishop owns, that most of the Interpreters, from these words, take it for granted, and it is the common notion, that the Sceptre was not to be settled in Judah's family till some ages after the death of Jacob. p. 326. I think they had not reason so to do. How does his Lordship prove they had? In this manner : "The observation, “when rightly applied, is right. And if the continuance " of the Sceptre of Judah be, as I suppose, the thing foretold, it extends to the very last days of the Jewish * Numb. i. 4, 5. 18. 44. 52. 54. + Numb. chap. ii.

Gen. xlix. 1.

"State;

66

"State; and in this respect the interpretation is justified:" (p. 327.) i. e. if you will agree that futurity refers to the continuance, and not to the establishment of the Sceptre, his Lordship will shew you, how well he can evade this objection. But though we were inclined to be thus complaisant, the book of Numbers would not suffer us: which informs us (wę see) that even the tribal Sceptre was established long after the death of Jacob. But to go no farther than the Prophecy. If each Tribe had a Sceptre then existing, how happened it that Judah's is only named, by way of CONFIRMATION, as his Lordship will have it. For, by way of GRANT, we find Dan too had a Sceptre-Dan SHALL judge his People as one of the Tribes [or SCEPTRES] of Israel. But then Dan's is a reversionary Sceptre; and such a one destroys all his Lordship has been erecting.

The

To proceed-The Prophecy (says the Bishop) is not a GRANT of a sceptre, but a coNFIRMATION. Prophecy itself plainly intimates the contrary. Jacob having told his sons that he would inform them of what should befalt them in the last days, when he comes to Judah, he says, Thy Father's Children shall bow down before thee. This, if it was any thing, was the promise of a future Sceptre; and consequently it was the grant.

The Bishop goes on-Now a confirmation of nothing is nothing. Without doubt. But he supposes (what I have shewn to be a mistake), that there was no grant. If there were a grant, then the confirmation of it was the confirmation of something. He seems to be apprehensive of so obvious an answer, for he immediately adds-I know not by what rules of language or grammar these words can be construed into a GRANT of the

* Gen. xlix. 8.

Sceptre.