This great affection to believe,

Which all confefs, but few perceive,

If old affertions căn't prevail,

Be pleas'd to hear a modern tale.

• When sports went round, and all were gay
On neighbour Dobfon's wedding day,
Death call'd afide the jocund groom
With him into another room:

And looking grave, You muft, fays he,
Quit your fweet bride, and come with me.
With you, and quit my Sufan's fide!
With you! the hapless husband cry'd:
Young as I am; 'tis monftrous hard;
Befides, in truth, I'm not prepar'd :
My thoughts on other matters go,
This is my wedding night, you know.

• What more he urg'd I have not heard,
His reafon could not well be stronger;
So death the poor delinquent spar'd,
And left to live a little longer.
Yet calling up a serious look,

His hour-glass trembled while he spoke,
Neighbour, he said, farewell: No more
Shall death disturb your mirthful hour,
And further to avoid all blame
Of cruelty upon my name,
To give you time for preparation,
And fit you for your future ftation,
Three feveral Warnings you shall have
Before you're fummon'd to the grave:
Willing for once I'll quit my prey,
And grant a kind reprieve;
In hopes you'll have no more to say,
But when I call again this way,
Well-pleas'd the world will leave.

To thefe conditions both confented,
And parted, perfectly contented.

• What next the hero of our tale befell, How long he liv'd, how wife, how well, How roundly he pursu'd his course,

And smok'd his pipe and ftrok'd his horfe,
The willing muse shall tell:

He chaffer'd then, he bought, he fold,
Nor once perceiv'd his growing old,

Nor thought of death as near;

His friends not falfe, his wife no fhrew,
Many his gains, his children few,
He pafs'd his hours in peace;

But while he view'd his wealth increase,
While thus along life's dufty road
The beaten track content he trod,
Old Time, whofe hafte no mortal spares,
Uncall'd, unheeded, unawares,

Brought on his eightieth year.

• And now one night in mufing mood,
As all alone he fat,

Th' unwelcome meffenger of fate
Once more before him ftood.

• Half kill'd with anger and furprize, So foon return'd! old Dabfon cries.

So foon, d'ye call it! Death replies : Surely, my friend, you're but in jeft. Since I was here before,

'Tis fix and thirty years at least,

And

you are now fourfcore.

So much the worfe, the clown rejoin'd:
To spare the aged would be kind:
However, fee your fearch be legal ;
And your authority-Is't regal?
Elfe you are come on a fool's errand,
With but a fecretary's warrant.

Befides, you promis'd me Three Warnings,

Which I have look'd for nights and mornings.

But for that lofs of time and cafe,

I can recover damages.

I know, cries Death, that at the best,

I feldom am a welcome guest;
But don't be captious, friend, at leaft:
I little thought you'd ftill be able
To stump about your farm and ftable;
Your years have run to a great length,
I wish you joy tho' of your strength.

Hold, fays the farmer, not fo faft,
I have been lame these four
years past.

And no great wonder, Death replies,
However you ftill keep your eyes,
And fure to fee one's loves and friends,
For legs and arms would make amends.

Perhaps, fays Dobson, so it might,
But latterly I've loft my fight.

This is a fhocking ftory, faith,.
Yet there's fome comfort ftill, fays Death;
Each ftrives your fadness to amuse,

I warrant you hear all the news.

I'm

• There's none, cries he, and if there were,
grown fo deaf I could not hear.'

Nay then, the spectre stern rejoin'd,
Thefe are unjustifiable yearnings;
If you are lame, and deaf, and blind,
You've had your three fufficient Warnings.

So come along, no more we'll part,
He faid, and touch'd him with his dart;
And now old Dobfon turning pale,
Yields to his fate-fo ends my tale.'

XIII. Remarks on Dr. Lowth's Letter to the Dip of Gloucefer, With the Bishop's Appendix, and the S cond Epiftolary Correfpondence between his Lordship and the Doctor annexed. 8vo. Pr. 15. Ed. Davies and Reymers.

Riters generally difcover a zeal in their own defence, which, without provocation, they feldom exert in the caufe of truth. The afperity of thefe remarks evidently fhews, that the author is perfonally concerned in the difpute between the bishop and the profeflor. The reader will want no other fignature to convince him, that this is the production of the Candid Examiner,

Before he enters on the argument, he prefents the reader with the bishop's appendix, at large, and defires him to judge of the reproof by the provocation; and then compare both with the doctor's libellous letter', as he is pleased to call it.

My part, he fays, fhall be to pick up, as carefully as I can, from under his opprobrious and ribauld language, the little of argument to be found, and give it a fair and impartial exami

nation.

The two points, to which I fhall at prefent confine myself, are" the punishment of idolatry by the patriarchs; and the punifliment of children for the fins of their parents.'

In handling the firft, I fhall begin with the article of moft confequence; to convince the doctor of arguing on the principles of intolerance, and fhew that his complaints of being faljely

and

and injuriously accufed on this head, are groundless and impertinent. I shall then confider the arguments he brings, to prove that the patriarchs were impowered to punish idolatry; and detect and expose the fophiftry, by which he has endeavoured to load and blacken the fyftem of his learned adversary, and to hide and palliate the nakedness and deformity of his own. Laftly, I fhall examine his objection to the bishop's defence of the Jewish laws in punishing idolaters with death; and shew his inability to vindicate this part of the Mofaic constitution, without having recourfe to the principle of the theocracy.

• Doctor Lowth complains, that he has been atrociously and infamously abused in this Appendix. And this, 1ft, because he is charged with maintaining the principle of intolerance and restraint in matters of religion. 2dly, Because he is represented as entertaining the fame notion with Filmer, concerning the origin of civil government.

Let then the charge and the defence be fairly and impartially confidered. The author of the book of Job fays, “ If I beheld the fun when it fhined, or the moon walking in brightnefs, and my heart hath been fecretly enticed, or my mouth hath kiffed my hand; this also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge, for I fhould have denied the God that is above." The doctor holds, that he is here speaking of the patriarchal judge or magistrate and confequently must hold that the patriarchal judge or magiftrate was authorized to suppress the particular mode of idolatry bere fpecified, or to punish the idolator, who killed his hand with his mouth, while he was worshipping the heavenly bodies. Now, whether this be, or be not, afferting the doctrine of intolerance and restraint in matters of religion, is the point in difpute.

:

Mr. Locke has proved, as clearly as reafon itself can prove any thing, that civil government must have been conftituted for one particular, determinate, and precife end. He has proved alfo, that this could be no other, than the fecurity of the temporal interefts, or the liberty and property, of man. But how were the liberty, the property, or any of the civil interefts of men in fociety, hurt by an idolator, when he kiffed his hand with bis mouth, while adoring the fun and moon?

This particular overt-act of idolatrous worship was not in itself immoral or civilly criminal. It had no tendency to dif turb the peace and quiet of the state, and could have no pernicious and malignant influence on the interests of society, by hurting the morals of its followers. Since then the Dr. gives his patriarchal magißrate a right to fupprefs and restrain idolatry thus circumftanced, he gives him a right to fupprefs and restrain idolatry, as fuch, or fimply as it is a deviation and aberration

U 4

from

from the worthip of the one true God. In other words, hê gives him a right to punish it as a fpeculative and religious error, or a falfe and erroneous perfuafion concerning the proper object of divine worship. But is not afferting the punishment of speculative and religious error, or mere matter of opinion, afferting the doctrine of intolerance and perfecution in its largest

extent ?

Again, Job fays, "This were an iniquity to be punished by the judge, for I should have denied the God that is above." He must then have been speaking of political and civil laws, which punifhed idolatry as fuch, or purely as it was the denial of the one fupreme God. But if punished under this idea, in any form of government, which was not theocratical, it must have been punifhed purely as matter of opinion, or a wrong and mistaken apprehenfion concerning the proper object of divine worship.

All this is confirmed by the doctor's own anfwer, when afked, "Where idolatry was punifhed by the magiftrate, but under the Jewish economy?" He replies, "Abraham was called out of his country, to preserve the worship of the true God in his family: and that, in order to keep them attached to this worship, he was commiffioned to punish apoftates, or those who revolted from the fervice of the one fupreme Deity." The doctor does not confine and limit his commission to the punifhment of apoftacy, where it was productive of flagitious, immoral, and obfcene practices; but extends it to all forts of apoftacy, without intimating any limitation, diftinction, or referve. And this his argument neceffarily required. For the purpose of Abraham's call was on a religious, not a civil account. It was for the preservation of the worship of the true God, and not for the fecurity of the temporal interefts of his family. Now, if he was to keep them attached to this worship by the infliction of fecular punishment, every deviation and departure from it must have been cognizable by him. How could it be otherwife, fince he was to punish idolatry because it dishonoured the true God, and not because it was prejudicial to Pociety by the practices required of its votaries ?

He pretends alfo, that Abraham and the other patriarchal magistrates were to look upon idolaters as rebels and traitors, guilty of no lefs than lefe majefty. They were then to look upon them as the proper objects of capital punishment. And what could the most bigotted intolerant do more ?

Now then let the public judge, whether the author of the Divine Legation has done him any injury, in charging him with being an advocate for intolerance.'

Dr. Lowth in his letter to the bishop referred his lordship to the Præcepta Noachidarum in the Gemara Babylonica, con cerning