parables for an equal Providence over particulars, but at most for a particular and peculiar Dispensation." Defence, p. 61. This is the pleasantest of Answerers. If this parabolical command does not mean what itself says it does mean, namely, "that virtuous individuals should be distinguished from the wicked, in a general calamity ;" what then does it mean? Why, at most, but a particular and peculiar Dispensation. And in what, I pray you, does a particular and peculiar Dispensation consist, if not in a distinction between the virtuous and the wicked, in a general calamity? But he had some confused notion that there was a difference between a parabolical and a real representation: and therefore he makes it to consist in this, that no argument can be drawn from the former.-Now, if from Jesus's parable of the rebellious Husbandmen (who wounded their Lord's Servants and killed the Heir, and for their pains were ejected from their possessions, and the vineyard let to other Husbandmen) I should conclude, that he meant the Jews, who had murdered the Prophets which were sent unto them, and were ready to murder the Messiah likewise, and that for this crime they should be deprived of the blessing of the Gospel, and the Gentiles received into the Kingdom of Christ, in their stead, I make no doubt but, if it served our Doctor's purpose of answering, he would reply, It is but a parabolic tale, and no argument can be drawn from parables, of Christ's sufferings and the rejection of the Jews, &c. but, at most, that the Jews were rebels and murderers, and would be treated as such.

Another Answerer is yet more shameless. "As to the parabolical command in Ezekiel" (says Dr. Rutherforth) "the very same promises were exactly fulfilled to the Christians. Rev. vii. 1, 2, 3." If you ask when, where, and how, you would embarras, but not disconcert him. Yet, as he assures us, these promises were exactly fulfilled to Christians, he must give us leave to assure him, that it could be only in a spiritual sense: for St. Paul tells us, that the Jews had the promise of the life that now is, and the Christians of that which is to come. I doubt then the learned Professor was a little disoriented when he called the promises in Ezekiel and in the Revelations, the same. There is a strange perversity in these men. The promises under the Law, they tell us, are to be understood SPIRITUALLY, and this, in order that they may bring Judaism to Christianity: But then, to bring Christianity back to Judaism, they tell us on the other hand, that the promises under the Gospel are to be understood Carnally. But what is to be expected, or rather what is not to be expected, from a man who dares to assert, that there was no more an extraordinary Providence under the Jewish than under the Christian Dispensation; in open defiance of the Prophets and the Apostles, of Moses and of Jesus Christ.

P. 502. R. Yet Dr. Sykes scruples not to say, "The passage from Amos does not prove an equal or unequal Providence, but a peculiar interposition OCCASIONALLY administered." Def. p. 61. As I would be willing that every thing of this learned Answerer's should be put to use, I would recommend this observation to the reader as a paraphrase on the words of the Apostle, where he says that, under the Mosaic Dispensation, "the word. spoken by Angels was STEDFAST, and EVERY transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward." Heb. ii. 2.

P. 502. S. To this Dr. Sykes replies, "The equal providence over the Jews by his own confession had ceased some hundred of years, and therefore at the writing of this epistle, Tribulation was deemed by no body more an opprobrium of the Jews, or a punishment of their crimes, than it was of other people." Defence, p. 62. This great Divine did not perceive that St. Paul is here speaking of the different genius of the two Religions, Judaisın

and Christianity, not of the condition of the two People at the time he wrote and consequently, as what was once true would be always true, the Apostle considers the nature of the two Dispensations as invariable.

P. 505. T. The Writer of the first Book of Maccabees appears to have lived in the times he wrote of; and we find no wonders nor prodigies in his History. But a long time after comes the Author of the second Book, an Epitomizer of one Jason of Syrene; and he largely supplies what he thought the other wanted. This Man is such a lover of prodigies, that, when he has made a monstrous lye, and so frightened himself at the size of it that he dare not tell it out, he insinuates it [as Chap. xii. ver. 22.—èk TŷS TOÙ đáνTA ἐφορῶντος ἐπιφανείας. Chap. xv. ver. 27. τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιφανείᾳ.] Nay he even ventures at an apology for lying Wonders, [Chap. xv. ver. 11.] and under this encouragement falls a lying to some purpose, [Chap. xii. ver. 16.] P. 507. U. I will only observe at present, what the least reflection on this matter so naturally suggests, that this complaint of inequality never could have come from good men, as it did even from Jeremiah himself, who thus expostulates with the Almighty: Righteous art thou, O Lord, when I plead with thee: yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the Wicked prosper? Wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously? [Chap. xii. ver. 1.] It never, I say, could have come from such men, had they been at all acquainted with the Doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments; or had they not been long accustomed to an extraordinary Providence.

P. 508. X. Mr. Chubb, in some or other of his Tracts, has, as I remember, made an unusual effort; an effort to be witty. He observes, that the Author of the Divine Legation has done the Unbeliever's business for him; "by proving that an equal Providence was promised; while the Bible shews that it was not performed." But he might have known, that the Author did not furnish Infidelity with this foolish objection; it lay open to them. And he might have seen, that the folly of it was here effectually exposed. However, Mr. Chubb was a very extraordinary personage; and might have said with the reasoning Rustic in Moliere,-"Oui, si j'avois étudié j'aurois été songer à des choses où l'on n'a jamais songé." As it was, he did wonders. He began with defending the reasonableness of Christianity, and carried on his work so successfully, that, before he gave over, he had reasoned himself out of Religion.

P. 1. vol. iii. Y. The Atheist Vanini, indeed, seems to rank Moses in the number of those Politicians, who, he says, promised a future state that the cheat might never be found out.-"In unica naturæ lege, quam natura, quæ Deus est (est enim principium motus) in omnium gentium animis inscripsit. Cæteras vero leges non nisi figmenta et illusiones esse asserebant, non a cacodæmone aliquo inductas, fabulosum namque illorum genus dicitur a philosophis, sed a principibus ad subditorum pædagogiam excogitatas, et a sacrificulis ob honoris et auri aucupium confirmatas, non miraculis, sed scriptura, cujus nec originale ullibi adinvenitur, quæ miracula facta recitet, et bonarum ac malarum actionum repromissiones polliceatur, in futura tamen vita, ne fraus detegi possit.”—De admirandis naturæ arcanis.

P. 3. Z. The miserable efforts of these men to evade the force of a little plain sense is deplorable. "Moses" (says one of them) "could not omit the mention of the Devil for the reason given by the author of the D. L. because he mentions him expressly, and represents him as the patron, if not as the author, of idolatry." Deut. xxxii. ver. 17. Rutherforth's Essays, p. 294.-The words of Moses are these,-They sacrificed to DEVILS, not to God; to Gods whom they knew not, to new Gods that came newly up, whom

your fathers feared not. The Hebrew word here translated Devils, is Schedim, which, the best interpreters tell us, has another signification. The true God being Schaddei, the omnipotent and all-sufficient, the Gentile Gods, by a beautiful opposition, are called Schedim, counterfeit Gods. And the context, where they are called new Gods, shews this interpretation to be the true. But admit that, by Schedim is to be understood evil spirits: by these spirits are not meant fallen Angels, but the souls of wicked men. These were the Demons of Paganism; but the Devils discovered by Revelation have a different nature and original: Accordingly, the Septuagint, which took Schedim in the sense of the souls of wicked men, translates it by daiμóvia.

P. 5. AA. Dr. Sykes in disputing with me, as we have seen above, on this question, Whether the extraordinary Providence was only over the State in general, or whether it extended to Particulars, having sufficiently puzzled himself and his reader; To recover the ground he had lost, on a sudden changes the question, and now tells us, that it is, "Whether an extraordinary Providence was administered to Particulars IN SUCH A MANNER that no transgressor of the Law escaped punishment, nor any observer of the Law missed his reward;"-" which Mr. Warburton represents" (says he) “to be the state of the Jews under an equal Providence." [Exam. p. 187, 188.] Now what his drift was in this piece of management, is easily understood. It was to introduce a commodious Fallacy under an ambiguous expression; which would be always at hand to answer his occasions. And indeed, the cautious reader (and I would advise no other to have to do with him) will suspect no less, when he observes that the words, [no Transgressor escaped punishment, nor any Observer of the Law missed his Reward] quoted from me, are not to be found in that place where I state the nature of the extraordinary Providence; but here, where I speak of the consequences of it, in the words above-We have shewn at large, &c. What now has this ANSWERER done? He has taken the words [no Transgressor escaping Punishment, nor any Observer of the Law missing his Reward] from their natural place; misrepresented their purpose; and given them to the reader as my DEFINITION of an extraordinary Providence to Particulars. And not content with all this, he has put a false and sophistical sense upon them, viz. that NO ONE SINGLE PERSON, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ever escaped Punishment, or missed his Reward. And in this sense, by the vilest prevarication, he repeats and applies them, on every following occasion, as the sole answer to all my reasonings on the subject of an extraordinary Providence. It will be proper then to shew, that the words could not mean, by any rules of just construction, that every single person, without exception, was thus punished and rewarded; but only that this extraordinary Providence over Particulars was so exactly administered, that no one could hope to escape it, or fear to be forgotten by it.

First then, let it be observed, that the words are no absolute assertion; but a consequence of something asserted.-AND THEN no Transgressor escaping, etc. which illative words the honest Examiner omitted.-What I had asserted was simply this, that the extraordinary Providence over the Jews was in Scripture represented as administered over Particulars; but that this very administration would of necessity be attended with some inequalities. Must not then the consequence I draw from these premises be as restrained as the premises themselves? Secondly, I said, that God had promised an equal Providence to Particulars, but that he had declared, at the same time, how it should be administered, viz. in such a manner as would occasion some few exceptions. If therefore Dr. Sykes would not allow me, he ought to have allowed God Almighty at least, to explain his own meaning.

Thirdly, had the words been absolute, as they then might have admitted of two senses, did not common ingenuity require, that I should be understood in that which was the easiest to prove, when either was alike to my purpose? But there was still more than this to lead an ingenuous man into my meaning; which was, that he might observe, that I used, throughout my whole discourse of the Jewish Economy, the words extraordinary Providence and equal Providence, as equivalent terms. By which he might understand that I all along admitted of exceptions. Fourthly, If such rare cases of exception destroyed an equal Providence to Particulars, (which Providence I hold) it would destroy, with it, the equal Providence to the State, (which Dr. Sykes pretends to hold.) But if not for the sake of truth in opinion, yet for fair-dealing in practice, Dr. Sykes should have interpreted my words not absolutely, but with exceptions. For thus stood the case. He quoted two positions from the Divine Legation. 1. That there was an extraordinary Providence over the State in general. 2. Over private men in particular. He grants the first; and denies the second. But is not the extent of that providence understood to be in both cases the same? Now in that over the State, he understands it to have been with exceptions, as appears from his own mention of the case of Achan, p. 190; and of David, p. 197. Ought he not then, by all the rules of honest reasoning, to have understood the Proposition denied, in the same sense he understands the Proposition granted? If in the administration over the State in general, there were some few exceptions, why not in That over private men in particular?

But if now the candid reader shall ask me, Why I employed expressions, which, when divorced from the context, might be abused by a Caviller to a perverse meaning, I will tell him. I used them in imitation of the language of the Apostle, who says that, under the Jewish Economy, EVERY transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward.* And if He be to be understood with latitude, why may

not I?

P. 5. BB. But as GOD acted with them in the capacity of the Creator and Father of all Men, as well as of tutelary God and King, he was pleased, at the same time, to provide that they should never lose the memory of the attributes of the Almighty: and therefore adds,-And shewing mercy unto thousands in them that love me and keep my commandments. Numb. xiv. 18. Deut. v. 9.

P. 5. CC. "The Author of the D. L." (says Dr. Sykes) "goes on, and observes that this punishment [of visiting the iniquities of Fathers upon their Children] was only to supply the want of a future state. But how will this extraordinary œconomy SUPPLY this want? The Children at present suffer for their Parents' crimes; and are supposed to be punished when they have no guilt. Is not this a plain act of HARD: HIP? And if there be no future state or compensation made, the hardship done must continue for ever a hardship on the unhappy sufferer." [Exam. of Mr. W's account, p. 202, 203.] For a Reasoner, it would be hard to find his fellow. 1. The question is, whether this Law of punishing, was a SUPPLY to the want of a future state? If it laid hold of the passions, as he owns it did, it certainly was a SUPPLY. However, he will prove it was none. how? Because it was a HARDSHIP. 2. He supposes, I hold, that when Children were punished, in the proper sense of the word, they were innocent, whereas I hold, that then they were always guilty. innocent were affected by their Parents' crimes, it was by the deprivation

• Heb. ii. 2.

And

When the

of benefits, in their nature forfeitable. 3. He supposes, that if Moses taught no future state, IT WOULD FOLLOW, that there was none.

P. 5. DD. To this it hath been objected-" As to the proof, that visiting the iniquities of Parents on their Children was designed to supply the want of a future state, because in a new Dispensation, it is foretold, that this mode of punishing will be changed; this argument will not be admitted by the Deists, who do not allow that a new Dispensation is revealed under the phrase of a new Covenant." Here the Objector should have distinguished. The Deists make two different attacks on Revelation. In the one, They dispute that order, connexion, and dependency between the two Dispensations, as they are delivered in Scripture, and maintained by Believers: In the other, they admit (for argument's sake) this representation of revealed Religion; and pretend to shew its falshood, even upon that footing. Amongst their various arguments in this last method of attack, one is, that the Jewish Religion had no sanction of a future state, and so could not come from God. [See Lord Bolingbroke's Posthumous Writings.] The purpose of this work is to turn that circumstance against them and from the omission of the Doctrine, demonstrate the Divine original of the Law. So that the Reader sees, I am in order, when, to evince a designed omission, I explain the Law of punishing the crimes of Fathers on the Children, from the different natures of the two Dispensations; as going upon principles acceded to, though it be only disputandi gratia, by the Deists themselves.

P. 6. EE. It hath been objected, "That the Prophet here upbraids the Jews as blameable in the use of this proverb." Without doubt. And their fault evidently consisted in this, That they would insinuate that an innocent posterity were punished for the crimes of their forefathers; whereas we have shewn, that when the children's teeth were set on edge, they likewise had been tasting.

P. 7. FF. Dr. Stebbing has thought fit to support this charge of contradiction urged by Spinoza and Tyndal, very effectually. He insults the author of the D. L. for pretending to clear up a difficulty, where there was none. "He [the author of the D. L.] has also justified the equity of another Law, that of punishing posterity for the crimes of their forefathers. -Though it is one of the plainest cases in the world, that God doth this EVERY DAY in the ordinary exercise of his Providence." Hist. of Abr. p. 89.-MOSES Says, God will visit the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children. JEREMIAH and EZEKIEL say as expressly, that God will not do so. See, exclaim Spinoza and Tyndal, the discordancies and contradictions amongst these Prophets. Softly, replies the Author of the Divine Legation. You mistake the matter; the contradiction is all a fiction of your own brains: Moses speaks of the Jewish Dispensation; and Jeremiah and Ezekiel, of the Christian. I deny that, cries Dr. Stebbing; punishing posterity for the crimes of their Fathers is done every day under the Christian Dispensation. And thus the objection of Spinoza and Tyndal, by the kind pains of Dr. Stebbing, remains not only unanswered, but unanswerable. And yet this is the man, whose zeal would not let him rest till he had rescued Revelation from the dishonours brought upon it by the Author of the Divine Legation.

P. 8. GG. Yet Doctor Sykes modestly tells his reader, that "there is not any ground or foundation for this distinction; for that the innocent posterity were sometimes deprived of life for the crimes of their Parents in virtue of this Law."-But here, as the Doctor has not to do with me, but with the Prophet, I leave it to be adjusted between them, as the Public