my

reasoning. Where he got it, I know not: but certainly not from the Bible; the book of all others he seems. the least acquainted with. Had he looked into that, he would have found that he had given the most false and injurious, because most contrary representation of this whole matter. For the Bible tells us, that the severity of the punishment, in this suspension, fell, as it ought, not upon the good, but upon the evil only. Hear God's own express declaration in the very place, where this suspension is denounced, viz. the third chapter of Isaiah; which, too, our Examiner pretends to have read. SAY

YE TO THE RIGHTEOUS THAT IT SHALL BE WELL WITII HEM FOR THEY SHALL EAT THE FRUIT OF THEIR

DOINGS. WO UNTO THE WICKED, IT SHALL BE ILL WITH HIM; FOR THE REWARD OF HIS HANDS SHALL BE GIVEN HIM, ver. 10, 11. And we learn, from a parabolical command in Ezekiel, how exactly these promises were fulfilled-And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and that cry for all the abominations. that be done in the midst thereof. And to others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city and smite: Let not your eye spare, neither have you pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary, &c. chap. ix. ver. 4-6. And now, will our learned Doctor be pleased to take this for an answer likewise to the concluding words of his paragraph? "The great point was first to have been proved that ever "there was such an extraordinary providence to parti"culars-This, I say, should first have been proved; which, I apprehend, has not been done. Nor, in course, will any of these passages from the Prophets prove a suspension of that equal providence over particulars, which SEEMS never to have been ex"erted*."

66

66

66

I should not leave the passage, here quoted, without observing, that, where I have made the break, it went on with the old sophism, in this manner," As that no * Exam, of Mr. IP's Account, &c. p. 214.

transgressor

But

transgressor ever escaped punishment, nor did any "observer of the law miss his present reward." I wave it, as beginning now to pity him. It has been observed of your notorious story-tellers, that, by often repeating a favourite tale, they have at last come to believe themselves. And thus it seems to be with our good Doctor. He has urged his own sense of the proposition so often to all my arguments (not less, I dare say, than twenty times) that he now scems in good earnest, to take it for mine.

.06

166

XIV. But we are drawing towards a conclusion with him. The Author of The Divine Legation (says he) "proceeds, in the last place, to give a full and general "solution of the difficulty. It stands thus: the common cause of these complaints arose from the gradual withdrawing the extraordinary providence. "Under the Judges it was perfectly equal. When "the people had rebelliously demanded a King, "and-God suffered the theocracy to be administered by a viceroy, there was-a great abatement in the rigour of this extraordinary providence-From "hence to the time of the Captivity the extraordinary providence kept gradually decaying; till, on their "full settlement after their return, it entirely ceased. "This leaves us as much in the dark as any of the solu❝tions before given. For the extraordinary providence over particulars (by which IS ALWAYS MEANT such a providence that no transgressor escaped punishment, nor observer of the law missed his reward) kept gradually decaying to the Captivity. After Samuel's "time there was a great abatement in its vigour; and, "from this time, it gradually decayed. Its abatement "" then must be in not inflicting constantly temporal evils on the one, or in not giving constantly temporal rewards to the other or else" Well, to stop him short, it did consist in not giving constantly. What then? Why then (says he) it cannot be the former of these notions, "because if the equal providence was not constant, it "would come to be the same as unequal. For what is the common providence, or not extraordinary, but where transgressors are often not punished here, but go on and prosper in their wickedness; and good men are often

66

166

866

.66

E3

-66

not

"not rewarded but sometimes suffer*?" A most admirable argument! and, as well expressed. It cannot (says he) be the former of these notions-meaning, I suppose, that if the former of these notions be mine, he will shew it to be a false one. Well, but his reason: "BECAUSE if an EQUAL providence was not constant, "it would come to be the same as UNEQUAL.' Very well quibbled again. What is not perfectly equal must needs be unequal. Therefore, as more than ten may be either eleven or eleven thousand; so unequal may signify, as well the highest degree of inequality, such as that providence exercised at present, or some small deviation only from equality. And this being so, he only desires you, in courtesy to his argument, to understand it in the first sense. And then with the same success, he will dispute against the Moon's equal or regular motion round the Earth. You Astronomers, says he (for, to do him justice, nothing comes amiss to him; he has confounded all men in their turns, and put every science out of countenance) you contend for the moon's equal or regular motion; and yet you are forced to confess that there are some inequalities or irregularities in that motion, arising from the sun's attraction, the elliptical figure of its orbit, and its not moving in the plain of the earth's motion. Now if your equal motion be not constant, it would come to be the same as unequal. For what is regular motion but that which has no irregularities? In short, you have a great difficulty to surmount when you attempt upon your scheme of equality to account for the representations of inequality, which Nature so plainly makes. As great authors as you are, what has been hitherto published is all confusion, and full of inextricable difficulties.

But, to make his argument wear the better, he has lined his quibble with an equivocation. Observe his words: if an equal providence (says he) was not constant, IT WOULD COME to be the same as unequal.But when? Why the quibble encourages you to understand presently; which is to the purpose: but if that fail, the equivocation authorizes you to understand many ages afterwards, though it be nothing to the purpose. Exam. of Mr. W's Account, &c. p. 217-9.

This equal providence of Heaven kept gradually declining in its vigour, till it became at last the present common unequal providence; and so could be no longer called equal or extraordinary. Thus agam, the regular motion of the moon, as our great philosopher, who has so well accounted for its present irregularities, tells us, wiH probably, for the reasons he assigns, grow more and more irregular, till it become at last so unconstant, that it will be no longer a regular but an irregular motion.

-66

-66

46

But we are not got to the stress of the affair. The old sophism lies yet at the bottom of the inkhorn: but now indeed so worn and hacknied, that it is scarce able to support a miserable quibble. Yet it still puts its best foot forward. This choice reasoning being introduced as usual, "The extraordinary providence over particulars; "by which IS ALWAYS MEANT such a providence that no transgressor escaped punishment, nor observer "of the law missed his reward." ALWAYS MEANT! Yes, truly, I can't but say he is constant enough in this meaning. For which reason I must here, for the third time, remind him whom it belongs to.--" Mr. Warbur"ton (says he) produces some evidence that an extraordinary providence revived after the return from the Captivity. He cites Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. "But none of these places prove any thing more than a promised blessing to the Jews nationally considered*." Indeed? Why then had he not the honesty to quote those places in The Divine Legation which do prove more? particularly from the prophet Amos, where this extraordinary providence is considered as administered to particulars. The words quoted in Book V. § 4. of The Divine Legation are these--Also I have withholden the rain from you, when there was yet three months to the harvest, AND I CAUSED IT TO RAIN UPON ONE CITY, AND CAUSED IT NOT TO RAIN UPON ANOTHER CITY, ONE PIECE WAS RAINED UPON, AND THE PIECE WHEREUPON IT RAINED NOT, WITHERED †.-But he goes on-"It proves a very strong promise to bless the "nation of the Jews-but as to a proof of an extraordinary providence in the sense that NO TRANS$4 GRESSOR WAS TO ESCAPE PUNISHMENT, NOR NO # Exam. of Mr. W's Account, &c. p. 220. Amos. iv. 7.

OBSERVER OF THE LAW MISS HIS REWARD, I cannot see the force of his argument *." But I can see the force of his, though: and therefore here again accuse him, for the fourth and last time, of a very vile prevarication that has run through all his reasoning upon this subject.

And now we are happily got through his whole Examination of my Account of the Nature of the Jewish Theocracy. A very singular composition truly! One part blunder, and two parts fallacy! Which though it may sometimes make, as a great writer assures us, a good man of the world, has here however made a very bad pamphlet. And no wonder. For this kind of composition requires, in both cases, a very nice adjustment. Otherwise, in playing the knave (whether it be on paper or in public) folly is so apt to get the upper hand, that very often the first dupe a designing man makes, is himself: as, not to mince the matter, is the case of our Examining Doctor, whose wantonness in undertaking a subject he did not understand, has so far outstript his art in managing it, that, before his fallacy had time to impose upon others, his too frequent and indiscreet repetition of it had so worked upon himself, that he became no longer able to judge of any thing I had written: and therefore confesses (and I dare say truly) that what I have HITHERTO PUBLISHED IS ALL CONFUSION, to him, AND FULL OF INEXTRICABLE DIFFICULTIES †.

"But 'tis the sport to have the engineer
"Hoist with his own petar."

We have now passed through our Two Examining Doctors. Happy for them had they but known or understood that maxim of a certain celebrated French writer, DE PRENDRE POUR VRAI CE QUE DIT UN AUTEUR, SANS REJETTER COMME FAUX CE QU'IL NE DIT PAS. In these we find so great a similitude of talents, that Dr. S. might very well be mistaken for Dr. S. were it not for some minuter differences; a kind of polemic badges, that just serve to tell us to what party either wearer belongs.

But adjusting the merits of such kind of authors, is now the least of my concern. I here bid a final adieu to * Exam. of Mr. W's Account, &c. p. 221. † Ibid. p. 222.

controversy,