with some unusual display of divine favour. Accordingly, Prophets were raised up; and an extraordinary Providence for some short time administered, as ap pears from many places in those Prophets *.

III. That the Theocracy continued even to the coming of. CHRIST, may be seen from hence

1.. Whenever it was abrogated, it must needs be done in the same solemn manner in which it was esta blished; so that the one might be as well known as the other because it was of the highest importance to a people so strictly bound to obedience, not to be mistaken concerning the power under which, they lived, Natural equity requires this formality as a necessaryconcomitant in the imposing and abrogating of all civil laws and institutions whatsoever. Now the Theocracy having never been thus abolished till the coming of Christ, we conclude that it continued to subsist till that time.

2. Nor indeed, could it have been abolished without dissolving the whole frame of the Republic; since all the Laws of it, whether as to their equity, force, or fitness, as well as the whole Ritual of Worship, re, spected, and referred to God as civil Governor. But neither by the declaration of any Prophet, nor by the act of any good King, did the Institution, suffer the least change in any of its parts, from the time of its establishment by Moses to its dissolution by JESUS CHRIST, either by addition, correction, or abrogation, Consequently, the Theocracy was existing throughout that whole period: Nothing being more absurd than to suppose that national Laws, all made in reference to the form of Government, should remain invariable, while the Government itself was changed.

For, what

· 19. Zech. viii. 12.

the

the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says of the PRIEST (in a Constitution where the two Societies were incorporated) must be equally true of the KING. -THE PRIESTHOOD BEING CHANGED, THERE IS MADE ALSO, OF NECESSITY, A CHANGE OF THE LAW *. And now it was that JESUS, the MESSIAH, who is here spoken of as making this change, in quality of PRIEST, made it likewise in quality of KING.' For, as we learn from the history of his Ministry, he came as Heir of GOD, to succeed immediately without any interregnum, in his Father's kingdom: GOD having DELIVERED UP to his Son the kingdom, of which the Father was, till then, in possession. And this change in the Government, from the temporal Theocracy of GOD the Father, to the spiritual Kingdom of GOD the Son, was made in the same solemn and authentic manner in which that Theocracy was introduced. GOD raised up from amongst his chosen People, a Prophet like unto Moses, who exercised the Legislative power, like Moses; and assumed the Regal power, like GOD. He gave a NEW LAW to be administered in a NEW KINGDOM, and confirmed the divinity of the Dispensation by the most stupendous miracles. Thus, we find, the Theocracy did indeed subsist till the coming of Christ.

And this ABOLITION of it by the Son of GoD, I take to be the true completion of that famous PROPHECY of Jacob, of which so much hath been written and disputed. THE SCEPTRE SHALL NOT DEPART FROM JUDAH, NOR A LAWGIVER FROM BETWEEN HIS FEET, UNTIL SHILOH COME †, i.c. the THEOCRACY shall continue over the Jews until Christ

Chap. vii. ver. 12.

+ Gen. xlix. 10. Who took their Name from the Tribe of Judah; the rest being incorporated in that Tribe, or extinguished in Captivity.

VOL. V.

H

come

come to take possession of his Father's Kingdom: For there was never any Lawgiver*, in Judah, but GoD by the ministry of Moses, until the coming of his SON.

JESUS the MESSIAH, the best interpreter of the Oracles of GOD, of which he himself is the capital subject, and for whose sake the chain of prophecies was so early drawn out, and exended to such a length, seems to have paraphrased and explained the words of Jacob concerning the departure of the Sceptre from Judah, by his declaration recorded in St. Matthew, THE PROPHETS AND THE LAW PROHHESIED TILL JOHN †, i.e." the Mosaic Law, and the Theocratic Government by which it was dispensed, continued in Being till the approach of this harbinger of Christ, John the Baptist; but was then superseded by the promulgation of a new Law and the establishment of a new Kingdom."

But as this interpretation is so different from the common, and understands the Prophecy as foretelling that the Jewish nation should not be bereft of Sovereign Power, by falling under a foreign Yoke, till the Advent of the MESSIAH, the Reader will excuse me, if I detain him a little longer on so important a subject.

The common notion of the Sceptre of Judah, is explained three different ways, each of which has it's particular Followers.

Mhhokek, Legislator, aut Legis interpres. But the fist is its original and proper Signification. And thus Isaiah [ch. xxxiii. ver. 22.] "The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our LAWGIVER [Mhhokekenou], the Lord is our King, he will save us." Where the word Mhhokek is used in its proper Signification of Lawgiver; the other Sense of Dispenser or Interpreter of the Law being contained in the titles of Judge and King.

Matt. xi. 13.

1. Some

1. Some suppose the Sceptre of Judah to signify the SOVEREIGNTY OF THE JEWISH NATION at large.

2. Others again suppose it to signify the SOVEREIGNTY OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH.

3. And a third sort contend that it signifies not a sovereign or regal, but a TRIBAL SCEPTRE only.

In the Sense of a Sovereignty in the Jewish People at large, which is the most general interpretation, and, in my Opinion, the most natural of the three (as the whole People were long denominated from that tribe), the pretended Prophecy was not only never fulfilled, but has been directly falsified: because long before the coming of Shiloh, or of Christ, the Sceptre or Sovereignty in the Jewish people was departed. During the Babylonian and Persian Captivity, and while afterwards they continued in a tributary dependence on the Greeks, they could, in no reasonable sense, be said to have retained their Sceptre, their Sovereignty, or independent Rule. But it may be replied, "that the Prophecy by departure, meant a final departure ; and in these instances it was but temporary: for CYRUS restored the Sceptre to them; and when it was again lost in the Grecian Empire, the MACCABEI recovered it for them." Though this be allowed, yet we must still confess, that the Romans, who under Pompey reduced Judea to a dependent Province, effectually overthrew the Prophecy. POMPEY took Jerusalem; and left to Hyrcanus, the last of the Ase monean family, only the office of High-Priest. From this time, to the birth of Christ, it was ever in dependence on the Romans, who disposed of all things at their pleasure. The Senate gave the Government of Judea to Antipater; and then to Herad his Son, under the title of King. And Archelaus, on the death of bis Father, did not dare to take possession of this subiect

H 2

subject-kingdom, till he had obtained leave of Augustus; who afterwards, on complaint of the Jews against him, banished him into the West, where he died. Now the precarious Rule of a dependent Monarch could no more be called a Sceptre (which, in the figurative mode of all languages, signifies Sovereignty) than the condition of the Jews could be said to be sovereign, when this Archelaus was deposed, and Coponius a Roman Knight made procurator of Judæa, at that time which the supporters of this interpretation fix for the Departure of the Sceptre.

I reckon for nothing another objection which has been made to the common interpretation, "That after the return from the Captivity, the Jews were, from time to time, under a form of Government resembling rather the Aristocratic than the Monarchic;" because the Sceptre, or Sovereignty, belongs equally to all those Forms. This then makes no more against the common interpretation, than the other, I am now going to mention, makes for it, namely, that the Senate of Rome gave the Government of Judæ to Herod under the title of KING; since the dependent rule of this Roitelet was as certainly the departure of a Sceptre, as a Sovereignty under an aristocratic Government was the continuance of it.

The learned Father Tournemine was so embarrassed with these difficulties, that in a dissertation on the Sceptre of Judah, he endeavours to shew, that the proof of the predicted birth of Christ from this Prophecy arises not from the departure of the Sceptre, but from its re-establishment under the Messiah *. Which thesis (as the intelligent reader may observe) fairly put him in the road; and, had it been pursued, would have led him to the sense I am here endeavouring to establish.

* Journal de Trevoux, Mars 1705, & Feb. 1721.

The