humbly to contemplate what God has done, rather than to speculate as to what he might have done.  In nothing, however, has he so monstrously blundered, as in hinting, that if an event is natural, therefore Providence is out of the question in effecting it; and that, on the other hand, if it is not natural, therefore even a benevolent Providence, that has interposed to remedy the evils of it, is faulty in not having been earlier at work to prevent its occurrence altogether.  This is sophistry of the worst kind.  A single remark may be sufficient to silence it.  Nature is the regular operation of an intelligent Providence; and natural events are the individual instances of it; but it does not follow, either that events which to us seem irregular, are therefore uninfluenced by the same Agent, or that the addition of the word mere to the word natural, can signify any thing else than the presumption of him, who chuses to exercise his right of private judgment in using it, to exclude entirely the consideration of a Providence.  This is the more extraordinary in Dr H, because in his letter to Mr Dalrymple, who had taxed him with some errors on this subject, he affirms his belief to be “that the Supreme Being is perpetually operating,” and “that he is the cause of all events,”—­propositions certainly not very reconcileable with what he says here as to mere natural events.  It is, however, very like the inconsistencies of a man who esteems his own conviction of consciousness of the rectitude of his opinions, so highly, as to make him comparatively indifferent whether they are false or true.  Taking the view of the subject, then, which such an admission offers, the question is readily solved, but not to the credit of Dr H.’s judgment.  If the Supreme Being is continually operating, and is the cause of all things, then the Supreme Being is the only providence, and providence is concerned in every event.  But according to the constitution which this providence has given us, different events produce different effects on us, and these, on the same principle, are also in the order of providence; and besides, we have the advice of an inspired writer to this purport.  “In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider.”  It will be difficult to shew that any prosperity is so blissful to the human heart as redemption from death, in whatever sense we take the word; or that any joy is so rational as that which expresses itself in gratitude to God, the author of the blessing enjoyed.  The converse of the text may be similarly applied.  That is the greatest adversity that most threatens life (for all that a man hath will he give for it); and that is the most suitable consideration that teaches to acknowledge the hand that smites, and produces humble submission to the blow,—­that leads a man, to say with Job of old, “I have heard of thee (0 Lord) by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth thee:  Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”—­E.]