the burning the town of Blandford, which was brought about in the fame way with that of the revolution; in which, to appearance, at least, it was not a great and good, but a very bad end, that was ferved by it, viz. the bringing into great distress, the inhabitants of that town. For, For, when the fire broke out in that place, the great defolation that followed, was owing, as I have been informed, to the wind's fudden and frequent shifting and changing its quarter. Now, admitting this to be the cafe, I think, it will be very hard to fuppofe, that the inhabitants of the town of Blandford were more vile and wicked, and, as fuch, were more the objects of the divine refentment, than the inhabitants of the city of London, or any other place, and therefore were fingled out to be monuments of God's displeasure: I fay, it will be hard to fuppofe this; and, confequently, it will be hard to fuppofe, that the particular and Special interpofition of the Deity was concerned in bringing that great defolation upon them. What I would obferve, is, that though by the wind's fudden and frequent fhifting and changing its quarter, a great deliverance accrued to the people of England, in one inftance, and great diftress upon the inhabitants of the town of Blandford, in another; yet, nothing can be concluded from either of thefe cafes, in favour of fuch a particular providence, as I oppose; because, we have no juft ground to prefume, that, in either of the forementioned inftances, the event was brought about by a particular

and

and fpecial interpofition of the Deity. But farther, I undertook to fhew, Secondly, that fuch a particular providence, as I oppose, is not proved by any thing that our Lord Jefus Chrift has faid touching this matter. Thefe are what I attempted to fhew, and these appear, to me, to be the truth of the cafe, notwithstanding what has been offered against me on this fubject; tho' these are points, that must be fubmitted to the judgment of our readers.

But, perhaps, were I to proceed no farther, my opponent might then think, he had juft ground of complaint against me, viz. that I chofe to avoid fpeaking to what he has urged, because I could not make a proper reply to it. And therefore, to bar all fuch complaints, I farther observe, that our Lord, in Matt. vi. 28. puts the queftion to his difciples, And why take ye thought for raiment? to which he adds, in that, and the following verfes, Confider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they fpin. And yet, I say unto you, that even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of thefe. Wherefore, if God fo cloath the grafs of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is caft into the oven, shall be not much more cloath you, O ye of little faith? Here, by those words, [much more] my opponent thinks, that our Saviour taught the doctrine of fuch a particular providence, as 1 oppose. For, if God, in the courfe of his general providence, cloaths the grafs of the field, then by his much more cloathing Christ's faith

ful

ful fervants, must be meant, his doing it by his particular providence; otherwife the terms [much more] anfwer no purpose to Chrift's argument. This, I think, must be the argument of my opponent, because, otherwife, it makes nothing against me. Upon which, I obferve, that in this, I think, my opponent was too bafty and inattentive, by his putting fuch a fenfe upon Chrift's words, as is contradicted by univerfal experience and fact. For it does not appear, that any one of Chrift's difciples, either in, or fince his time, has been cloathed by a particu lar providence; that is, by a particular and fpecial interpofition of the Deity, but only by the general providence of God; or, at leaft, no fuch inftance has come to my knowledge. And, if any fuch has come within the knowledge of my opponent, he is at full liberty to produce it. We have had no miraculous cloathing, that I have ever heard of; and as to any other way of cloathing mankind, it will anfwer no purpofe to my opponent, because every other way comes properly under the denomination of God's general providence. And in this, I think, my opponent has not done juftice to Chrift, our common Mafter, nor fervice to his caufe, but the contrary; because, the putting fuch a sense upon Chrift's words, as is contradicted by univerfal experience and fact,.(which is the prefent cafe;) as it is not the truth of the cafe; fo it gives too much countenance to unbelievers, and is paving the way to infidelity.

But

But farther, I obferve, that our Lord, in the chapter referred to, forbad his difciples to take any thought for the things of this life. Thus, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for the body, what ye shall put on. Again, Take no thought for the morrow; and fuch like. Now, the queftion arifing from hence, is, What our Lord intended by thefe prohibitions? Whether he intended to bar his difciples from taking any kind of thought for the things of this world? or, Whether he only intended to bar them from all anxious and unnecessary thought and concern for the things of this life? And, whether it be one, or the other of thefe, I think, we ought, in justice to our Mafter, to fuppofe, that the reasons he urges to back his prohibitions, were fuitable and proper to ground thofe prohibitions upon. This, Ifay, ought to be fuppofed, because, otherwife, we confider our Lord as acting a childish part, by his affigning fuch a reafon, as will not fupport what he makes it to be the ground or reafon of.

If the former was the cafe, that is, if our Lord intended to bar his difciples from taking any kind or degree of thought, and care, for the things of this life, then, I readily grant, that by God's much more cloathing Chrift's disciples than the grafs of the field, must be meant, his doing it by a particular and special interpofition of his power; becaufe, God's doing it in the general courfe of his providence, would not be a proper ground for the aforefaid prohibition,

when taken in the fenfe under confideration. For if Chriftians were to take no kind nor degree of thought, nor care, for food and raiment, then the confequence would be, that they would be destitute of both, except God fupplied them with both, by a particular and special interpofition of his power. But as fuch

a prohibition would render man a useless part of the creation, and as Christians are not fupplied with food and raiment in any fuch particular and extraordinary way, therefore, I think, we may fairly and juftly conclude, that our Lord's prohibition is not to be understood in this fenfe. And if our Lord intended, in the forementioned prohibition, only to bar his difciples from all anxious and unnecessary thought and concern for the things of this world, then God's fhewing a greater concern for the welfare of man, in the course of his general providence, than for the grafs of the field, as he has provided the latter for the fake of, and as a means to, the former, this is a proper ground for fuch a prohibition, or it is a proper reason to a Chris tion, not to be anxious, as aforefaid; and therefore, I think, this was all that our Lord intended in those words, Shall be not [much more] cloath you, O ye of little faith? As to God's cloathing Chriftians by a particular and fpecial interpofition of his power, this does not appear to have taken place in fact; and fuch an interpofition would not only be a bar to all anxiety, but it would also be a reafon against taking any kind or degree of thought, or care, for the things

of