tivity, was again exercised after the return from it, is evident from the express declaration of the A mighty,

of contradiction in his way of expression. I fee no reasoning there is, or can be, in a man's delivering what he thinks a fact; fuch as his opinion of the duration of a form of Government. But he who cannot diftinguish reafoning from expreffion, may be well excufed for confounding the form of Government, and the adminiftration of Government with one another.

ABATEMENT.

However, Spencer (he fays) is much misreprefented; he did not mean by ABROGATION a CEASING; but an ALTERATION and It seems then, a writer is much misrepresented if, when he is charged with an inconfiftent expreffion, his meaning may be proved confiftent. A good commodious principle for the whole clafs of Anfwerers! But he tells us that abrogation [regimen abrogatum] does not fignify ceafing. Where did he get his latin? for the Roman writers ufe it only in the sense of diffolution, abolition, or the entire ceafing of an office or command. What then does it fignify? ALTERATION (he fays) and But now where did he get his English? Our Country writers, I think, ufe the word alteration to fignify a change; and abatement, to fignify no change; no alteration in the qualities of things, but a diminution only in the vigour of their operations. What the alteration of a Theocracy, or any other form of Government is, we well understand; but what the abatement of it is, one is much at a lofs to conceive. However, this I know, that Dr. Sykes here confirms what I charge upon him, the confounding the mode of Government with the administration of it: Alteration being applicable to the former, and abatement, only to the latter.

ABATEMENT.

But his inference from this fpecial reafoning, is worth all the rest — and THEREFORE Spencer ufes, more than once, the phrafe of regiminis MUTATI, in this very fection. Therefore! Wherefore? Why, becaufe by abrogati he meant only abated, therefore he uses mutati, more than once to explain himself. That is to fay, "because, by totum, I mean pars, THERE' FORE I use omne more than once, to explain my meaning." Well, if he did not clear it up before, he has done it now.

And where (fays he) is the abfurdity or inconfiftency of this way of reafoning? Nay, for that matter, the reasoning is full as good as the Criticifm. But here he fhould have stopped; for fo fatal is his expreffion, when the fit of Answering is upon

mighty, by the Prophet Haggai: Yet now be Atrong, O Zerubbabel, faith the Lord, and be Strong,

him, that he cannot afk quarter for one blunder without committing another. Unless ABROGATION is made to fignify a TOTAL ABOLITION, and duration is conftrued to be ceffation."I can find (fays he) no abfurdity nor inconfiftency in Dr. Spencer, without perverting the common fignification of words:" without calling duration ceffation. This is his Argument; and fo far was well. But he goes on - and abrogation, a total abolition. Here he finks again; for abrogation was abolition, amongst all nations and languages, till Dr. Sykes firft pleaded in abatement. Well, but our Anfwerer will go farther and having fo ably vindicated Dr. Spencer, he will now fhew, tho' the Dr. be confiftent, yet so am not I: for that I hold, the extraordinary Providence entirely ceased on the re turn from the Captivity: From whence, (fays this fubtile logician) I argue thus, "If the EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE

entirely ceafed on the full Settlement of the Jews after their "Return, it ceafed fome centuries at least before the days of "Chrift; and CONSEQUENTLY the THEOCRACY must have "ceafed fome centuries before the days of Chrift. How then "is Mr. W. confiftent about the duration of the Theo "cracy, fince he pleads for its continuance till Chrift's time, "and yet maintains that IT entirely ceafed fo long before his "time * ?"

The argument, we fee, gathers even as it rolls from his mouth. In the beginning of the fentence, The ceafing of an extraordinary Providence only implied in confequence, the ceafing of the Theocracy; but, before we get to the end, an extraordinary Providence and a Theocracy are one and the fame thing. "Mr. W. pleads for its [a Theocracy's] continuance "till Chrift's time, and yet maintains that IT entirely ceased "fo long before his Time." Thus again to the fame purpose at p. 178. "Or by what rule does he form a judgment that WHAT was gradually decaying to the Captivity, was entirely "to cease after their Return and full Settlement; and yet wAS to continue till Chrift's Time "Nay, if he begins to talk of Rules, Jet me afk him by what Rule he found out, that

a Monarchy and an exact Administration of Justice are one " and the fame thing ?" The truth is, our Examiner was thus grievously misled by the ambiguity of the English word THE

* Exam. of Mr. W's Account, &c. p. 173-4.
VOL. IV.
R

GOVERN

frong, O Joshua, Son of Fofedech the High Priest, and be strong, all ye People of the Land, faith the Lord, and work: for I am with you, faith the Lord of Hofts; ACCORDING TO THE WORD THAT I coVENANTED WITH YOU WHEN YOU CAME OUT OF EGYPT, SO MY SPIRIT REMAINETH AMONGST YOU: fear ye not. What was that Covenant ? That Ifrael fhould be his People, and He, their God and King. Therefore it cannot barely mean, that he would be their God, and they should be his People; for this was but part of the Covenant. Nor can it mean that they fhould be conducted by an extraordinary providence, as at their coming out of Egypt, and during the first periods of the Theocracy; for this was but the effects of the Covenant: and befides, we know that that difpenfation of Providence foon ceafed after the Re-eftablishment. The meaning therefore must be, that he would still continue their KING as well as God. Yet at the fame Time, when this Theocracy was restored, it was both fit, on account of its own dignity, and neceffary for the People's affurance,

GOVERNMENT; which fignifies either the MODE of Civil Policy, or the ADMINISTRATION of it. But was this to be expected of a man who had been all his life-time writing ABOUT GOVERNMENT?

To conclude this long note, The charge against SPENCER was of abfurdity and contradiction in one fingle inftance amidst a thousand excellencies. Dr. Sykes affumes the honour of his Defence. But with what judgment, he foon gives us to underftand, when he could find no other part of that immortal Book to do himself the credit of fupporting, but the difcourfe concerning the Theocracy; much in the fpirit of that ancient Advocate of Cicero, who while the Patriot's character was torn in pieces by his Enemies, would needs vindicate him from the imputation of a Wart upon his Nofe, against his Friends.

2

Chap. ii. ver. 4 5.

that

that it fhould be attended with fome unusual dif play of divine favour. Accordingly, Prophets were raifed up; and an extraordinary Providence, for fome fhort time, adminiftered, as appears from many places in thofe Prophets ".

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

1. Whenever it was abrogated, it must needs be done in the fame folemn manner in which it was established; fo that the one might be as well known as the other because it was of the highest importance to a people fo ftrictly bound to obedience, not to be mistaken concerning the power under which they lived. Natural equity requires this formality as a neceffary concomitant in the impofing and abrogating of all civil laws and inftitutions whatsoever. Now the Theocracy having never been thus abolished till the coming of Chrift, we conclude that it continued to fubfift till that time.

2. Nor indeed, could it have been abolished without diffolving the whole frame of the Republic, fince all the Laws of it, whether as to their equity, force, or fitnefs, as well as the whole Ritual of Worship, refpected, and referred to God as civil Governour. But neither by the declaration of any Prophet, nor by the act of any good King, did the Inftitution fuffer the leaft change in any of its parts, from the time of its establishment by Mofes to its diffolution by JESUS CHRIST, either by addition, correction, or abrogation. Confequently, the Theocracy

Hag. i. 6-11. Chap. ii. ver. 16-19. Zech. viii. 12. Mal. iii. 10, 11.

was exifting throughout that whole period. Nothing being more abfurd than to fuppofe that national Laws, all made in reference to the form of Government, should remain unvariable, while the Government itself was changed. For what the Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews fays of the PRIEST (in a Conftitution 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 likewife in quality of KING. For, as we learn from the history of his Ministry, he came as Heir of GOD, to fucceed 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 poffeffion. 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 fame folemn and authentic manner in which that Theocracy was introduced. GOD raised up from amongst his chofen People, a Prophet like unto Mofes, who exercised the Legislative power, like Moses; and affumed the Regal power, like GOD. He gave a NEW LAW to be administered in a NEW KINGDOM, and confirmed the divinity of the Difpenfation by the most stupendous miracles. Thus, we find, the Theocracy did indeed fubfift 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 fo much hath been written and difputed. THE SCEPTRE SHALL NOT