do? Where will be the harm of it? The two kingdoms made up but one Commonwealth; of which God, as Head, governed by two Viceroys. And if he oftener acted immediately in the kingdom of Ifrael, there was a plain reafon for it; Its inhabitants were more given to idolatrous worship; and needed more the frequency of an extraordinary reftraint. And in effect, we find he did interfere greatly in other inftances, as well as in the election of their Kings.

In truth, F. Simon seemed to fee as little into the force of the obfervation (that God referved the choice of their King to himself) when he urged it, as M. Le Clerc did, when he defpifed it: yet it is ftrongly conclufive for the continuation of the Theocracy. For had the visible King which the Ifraelites demanded been granted to them, that is, a King in his own right, fovereign, and at the head of a new Constitution, or indeed, any other than a Viceroy to the KING of the Theocracy, the choice of him would have been referved to the People. It was a natural right; and more than that, a right which God did not think fit to take from them, when he firft accepted the regal office for himself. But if the People have, by natural Law, a right to chuse their own King, that King hath, by civil Law, a prerogative to chufe his own Deputy. When we fee him therefore exercise this prerogative, we may be affured that the King chofen was no other than his Deputy, as SOVEREIGN of the Theocracy. But to return to the two Combatants. -Here the Dispute ended; and for farther fatisfaction,

hereditaire, & étoit poffedé par la maifon de David, fans qu'il fùt befoin d'aucune election, au lieu qu'il le fit plufieurs elections dans celui des dix tribus. Defenfe des Sentimens, p. 121,

122.

Le

Le Clerc refers us to a book of Spencer's, written profeffedly upon this very fubject. It is his tract De Theocratia Judaica. What is to be found

there, befides the arguments which Le Clerc has borrowed from it, and which have been confidered already, I fhall now with fome reluctance inform the Reader.

This treatife is by no means in the number of thofe on which Spencer raised his reputation. He goes on a wrong hypothefis; he uses weak arguments; and he is confufed and inconfiftent in his affertions,

1. He thinks the Theocracy was established by degrees", and abrogated by degrees. A conceit highly abfurd, as GOD was the Lawgiver, and Surpreme Magiftrate, of the Jews.-He thinks the firft ftep to its introduction was their protection. at the Red Sea'; and the first step to its aboli

Il n'eft pas neceffaire que je m'arrête d'avantage à cela, après ce qu'en a dit le favant Spencer dans un traité qu'il a fait expres fur cette matiere. Lib. i. de Legg. Heb. Ritual. Defense des Sent. p. 122.

3 Neminem in facris literis vel mediocriter verfatum latere poteft Theocratiam in ipfo rerum Ifraeliticarum exordio ali quatenus obtinuiffe, ad axun autem non nifi gradatim & poft legem in Sinai datam perveniffe. Vol. i. p. 239.

• Cum autem regiminis hujus, non fimul & femel, fed per gradus quofdam, jacturam fecerint, placet hic veritatis fugientis vefligia gradatim premere. Id. ib.

Gradum primum ad poteftatem regiam obtinendam feciffe videtur Deus, cum gentem Ifraeliticam infigni illo potentiæ & bonitatis fuæ documento (Ægyptiorum in Mari Rubro fubmer fione) fibi devinxiffet. Id. ib.

tion, their demand of a King: That it was ftill more impaired when Saul and David got poffeffion of the throne: That it approached much nearer to its end when it became hereditary, under Salomon': and yet, for all this, he confeffes that fome obfcure footsteps of it remained even to the time of CHRIST'.

2. In his reasoning for the abolition of the THEOCRACY, inftead of employing the general principles of civil Policy, which were the only means of coming to the truth, he infifts much on the difufe of Urim and Thummim, &c. which Le Clerc borrowed from him; and which hath been already confidered. He brings the defpotic power of the Kings", as another argument; which, I think, proves juft the contrary. For if fo be, that these Kings were the Viceroys of God, whofe power was defpotic, their power must be defpotic too, i. e. independent on all but the SOVEREIGN. Not fo, if they were Monarchs in their own right.

་

9 Primo itaque ad certum affirmo, quod Ifraelite, regem fibi dari poftulantes, gradum primum ad imperii hujus defideratiffimi ruinam feciffe videantur. Id. ib.

• Dei regimen multo magis imminutum eft, cum Deus Saulem & Davidem ad rerum arbitrium evocaffet. p. 240.

• Salomone rerum potito, Theocratia multo vicinior apan non immerito cenfeatur.

Judæi Theocratiæ veteris indicia & veftigia quædam obfcuriora, ad extrema ufque politiæ fuæ tempora retinuereipfo Domini noftri feculo, Hierofolyma civitas magni regis audiit. Ib.

"- adeo ut hinc conftet eos fe pro regibus geffiffe, & potef

tatem arbitrariam exercuiffe. Ib.

3. Though,

3. Though, as we obferved, Spencer, in the fecond fection of his fourth chapter, fuppofes a gradual decay of the Theocracy; and that even fome obfcure footsteps of it remained to the time of CHRIST; yet, in the following fection, he, all the way, argues upon the fuppofition of an abfolute and entire abrogation by the establishment of the Kings *. To proceed.

II. That

Regiminis hujus mutati vel abrogati caufa principalis De regiminis hujus abrogati effectu vel eventu breviter differendum est &c. p. 241,-243.

y Dr. Sykes has undertaken to confute the cenfure here paffed upon Dr. Spencer. Here it is (fays this Anfwerer) that Mr. W. attacks Dr. Spencer's differtation on the Jewish Theocracy. Are wo not now from hence to IMAGINE that Dr. Spencer was one of those writers that fuppofed the Theocracy to have ended with the Judges? [An examination of Mr. W's account, &c. p. 168.] What demands of imagination his trade of Answering may have upon him, I do not know. But from my words, a fair reafoner would imagine nothing but that I meant to prove what I said ; namely, that Dr. Spencer's discourse of the Theocracy is weak and inconfiftent.

His firft charge (fays he) against Spencer is, that he thought the Theocracy was established by degrees, and abrogated by degrees. "A conceit highly abfurd," fays Mr. W. But wherein lies the abfurdity of this gradual progress and gradual declenfion? [p. 170.] The Abfurdity lies here. When God is pleafed to affume the character of civil Magiftrate, he muft, like all other Magistrates, enter upon his office at once, and (as common sense requires) abdicate it at once. Now the Government under fuch a Magistrate is what we properly call a Theocracy. Therefore to talk of the gradual progress and gradual declenfion of this mode of civil relation, is the fame as to talk of the gradual progrefs and gradual declension of Paternity, or any other mode of natural relation; of which, I fuppofe, till now, no body ever heard.

He goes on if there be any abfurdity or inconfiftency, in this manner of Speaking, it may be JUSTIFIED by Mr. W's own authority. That is, my abfurdity will justify another Man's. But

!

II. That this Theocracy, the administration of which lay, as it were, in abeyance during the Captivity,

this is doing me an honour which I do not pretend to. Well, but how do I justify Dr. Spencer? Why, I fay, it feems, "That in "the period immediately preceeding the Jewish Captivity, on "the gradual withdrawing the extraordinary Providence from "them, they began to entertain doubts concerning God's "further peculiar regard to them as his chosen People." Sa that here (lays Dr. Sykes) he exprefly owns a GRADUAL WITHDRAWING OF THE EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE from the Jews. And where is the abfurdity of Dr. Spencer's GRADUAL DECLENSION OR IMMINUTION OF THE THEOCRACY, which Mr. W's gradual withdrawing of the extraordinary Providence is not liable unto. Or was not the gradual withdrawing of the extraordinary Providence a proper imminution of the Theocracy? [p. 171.] He is fo pleased with this argument that he repeats it at p. 218. Yet who would have fufpected him of what he here discovers, a total ignorance of any difference between the FORM of Government and the ADMINISTRATION of it. Now Dr. Spencer talked of the gradual decline of the form of Government, which I thought abfurd: I fpoke of the gradual decline of the adminiftration of it; which, whether it be equally abfurd let thofe determine who have feen (unless perhaps the rarity of the fact has made it escape obfervation) an adminiftration of Government grow worfe and worse, while the form of it ftill continued the fame.

So much as to Spencer's abfurdity. We come next to his inconfiftency, in fuppofing fome foot-steps of the Theocracy till the time of Chrift, and yet that it was entirely abrogated by the establishment of the Kings. Of this inconfiftency, Dr. Spencer is abfolved by the dexterity of our Anfwerer, in the following manner: Here again is Dr. Spencer much misrepreJented, from not confidering WHAT HE MEANT by the ABROGATION of God's Government. Not that the Theocracy entirely ceafed; but the Government received an ALTERATION and ABATEMENT. And therefore he uses more than once the phrase of REGIMINIS MUTATI, in this very fection; Where is the abfurdity and inconfiftency of this way of reafoning, unless abrogation is made to fignify a total abolition, and duration is to be conftrued ceflation?

He asks, where is the abfurdity of this way of reasoning? I did not accufe Spencer of abfurdity in his way of reafoning, but

9

of