historians, for so trifling a variation, as this? If we do, we must reject all history, and even the books of Kings and Chronicles. For in them there are greater differences than this. On the contrary, the fureft mark's of authenticity in hiftories, the circumftances that intitle them to the fulleft credit, are their agreement in things of great confequence, to which the writers could not but attend, and their differing in things of small confequence, to which they would naturally give lefs attention. This fhews that they did not write in concert, but that they are proper independent evidences of the facts they relate. Had one of the evangelifts faid that Jefus drove the buyers and fellers out of the temple, and another of them afferted that he did no fuch thing, it would have been more to Mr. Levi's purpose. But even fuch a difference as this would not invalidate the whole of the gospel hiftory.

LETTER

LETTER III.

Of the Miracles of Jefus as a Proof of his divine Miffion, and of Mr. Levi's Objections to fome of them.

WH

66

HAT furprizes me moft in Mr. Levi is his profeffing to pay fo little regard to the miracles of Jesus. Whether," he fays, p. 22, "it was by the art of decep"tion, or fupernatural power, it is not my "bufinefs to inquire." But, certainly, nothing can be of more importance than to inquire whether miracles are real or pretended. Because a change in the constitution of nature can only be made by the author of nature, or with his permiffion; and if one real miracle might be permitted for the purpofe of deception, any other, or all of them, might.

If the divine Being could either by his own immediate power, or the

of any

agency of

fuperior

fuperior fpirit, enable Jefus to heal the fick, to feed the multitudes, to change water into wine, to ftill a tempeft, to walk on the fea, and to raise the dead; and if, after a public execution (which rendered his death unquestionable) God should raise him from the dead, and take him up into heaven (by belief of which thousands and ten thousands, millions and thoufands of millions, were deceived) he might have permitted all the miracles recorded in the books of Mofes, and for the fame purpose of deception. As, therefore, you justly, and with indignàtion, reject the latter fuppofition, you ought also to reject the former. And if the miracles

recorded in the New Teftament be true, the Chriftian doctrine is of God. It behoves you, therefore, ferioufly to inquire whether they be true or not.

Mr. Levi fays, p. 71, that "miracles

only were not fufficient to establish a firm "belief in the divine miffion of Mofcs." But, after confidering what he urges on the fubject, I cannot find any thing more than miracles to have been neceffary. Indeed

there

there cannot be any other criterion of divine interpofition befides miracles. He fays, p.

68,"it was God speaking with Mofes face "to face, in the prefence of fix hundred "thousand men, befides women and chil"dren." But what was this befides a miracle? If there had been nothing extraordinary in the tranfaction, nothing more than what might have happened to any other man, would your ancestors have believed in him?

Let us confider what Mofes himself says, in the very paffage quoted by Mr. Levi, Exod. xix. 9. And the Lord faid unto Mofes, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may bear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever; referring, no doubt, to the delivery of the ten commandments in the hearing of all the people, in a distinct articulate voice, from mount Sinai. This was, indeed, a most extraordinary miracle, and justly confirmed the faith of your anceftors in Mofes, fo that it has never been fhaken fince. But it was fimply a miracle that did it. When Mofes, in his first con

ference

ference with God, at the burning-bush, naturally asked, how he should make it appear to his countrymen that God had fent him, he was directed to the changing of his rod into a ferpent before them. Nothing but a miracle, of some kind or other, could have convinced them that he came from God. But any real miracle would have been fufficient for the purpose.

66

Mr. Levi fays, p. 83, that " Mofes him"felf has told us, in the most plain and intelligible language, that miracles only are not a fufficient proof of a divine misfion;" and for this purpose he quotes Deut. xiii. 1, 2, 3. If there arife among you a prophet, a dreamer of dreams, and he give you a fign, or a wonder; and the fign or wonder come to pass whereof be speaketh unto ' thee, faying, let us go after other gods, which thou haft not known, and let us serve them ; thou shalt not hearken to the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your foul.

PART II.

C

This