This was probably to forewarn your anceftors, that perfons might come to them with fuch tricks as the Egyptian magicians exhibited (the fallacy of which they might not be able to detect) and might endeavour to perfuade them to worship other gods; but that they were not to listen to fuch pretended miracles. They knew that real, numerous, and unquestionable miracles had been wrought in proof of their religion, and therefore that there could be no other real miracles to overthrow it. Or, which is no uncommon thing, Mofes might put a cafe that he knew to be impoffible, in order to exprefs himself in a stronger manner. Thus Paul fays to a chriftian church, "if himself, "or an angel from heaven, should preach "any other doctrine than that which he had

taught them, they were not to regard " him." Gal. i. 8. But he had no idea of the poffibility of any fuch thing.

But

you will please to obferve, that what Mofes fays does not at all apply to the cafe of Jefus. For he did not endeavour to draw you to the worship of other gods. He was

a humble

a humble and devout worshipper of the fame God that you worship, and he worshipped him in the fame manner. There is, therefore, no reason, whatever why you should not attend to the miracles of Jesus, as much as to thofe of Mofes, or those of any of the prophets who followed him.

Mr. Levi objects to the miracles of Jefus, p. 77, as "fcarcely juft, or rational." But if they were true, we should be cautious how we pronounce this cenfure upon them. In general, it cannot be denied that the miracles of Jefus were both benevolent and great, fuch as were worthy of a messenger from the greatest and best of Beings. With respect to one or two of them, a person so dispofed may cavil, as he might at fome that are recorded in the Old Teftament. That which Mr. Levi objects to as unjust in our Saviour, is the deftruction of the fwine, after the cure of the two fierce demoniacs. "What

right had he," fays Mr. Levi, p. 78,“ to deftroy another man's property." I answer, he affumed no right in the cafe. The miracle was not wrought by him, but by God,

whofe right to take our property, our lives, or whatever he has given, no man can queftion. Jefus laid no hand on the fwine, and without a miracle, or the immediate act of God, fuch a number of fwine could never have been made to run into the fea.

When Mr. Levi fays the miracles of Jefus were not rational, he refers to his curfing the barren fig-tree. "He requires," he fays,, p. 78, "the tree to produce fruit out of "feafon." But the time of figs does not neceffarily mean the time of the growing, or ripening, of figs, but rather that of gathering them; fo that when Jefus faw the tree with leaves, or in a healthy state, he might naturally expect to find fruit alfo. But this miracle had lefs refpect to the fig-tree, than to ferve as a warning to your ancestors, to bring forth the fruits that God expected of them; intimating, in a very expreffive manner, that if they did not, they would perifh like that tree.

Arguing against the pretenfions of Jesus to the gift of prophecy, Mr. Levi fays, p. 87, "the deftruction of Jerufalem was known

"to

"to all the learned Jews, and therefore Jefus "could not be ignorant of it." Confequently, it could not require the spirit of prophecy to fortel all that he did concerning it.

But how does it appear that this great and calamitous event was known to all the learned Jews of that age? Nothing is more evident, from the history of it, than that they were far indeed from expecting any fuch thing in the time of Jefus, or long afterwards. On the contrary, during the very siege, they were continually flattering themselves with the hope of the appearance of the Meffiah, to deliver them. Befides, the prophecy of Daniel is only general, and that of Jesus very particular, defcribing the circumstances of the fiege, and limiting the time of it. He also mentions the fate of the temple, concerning which Daniel fays nothing at all. The taking of the city did not imply the demolition of the temple. This the conquerors might be expected to preferve with care, as Titus actually endeavoured

C 3

voured to do.

And leaft of all could it

have been fuppofed that the Jews themfelves would have promoted the destruction of it.

LETTER

IV.

Of the fuppofed Contradictions between Jefus and Mofes.

MR.

R. Levi makes ufe of another argument, which, if it could be fupported, would indeed prove that Jefus was a false prophet. "If," says he, p. 25, we compare Jefus with the reft of the prophets,

66

we fhall find fuch a manifeft contradiction "between him and them, as to demonftrate "that both parties could not be messengers "of God, as God never contradicts him"felf." This he argues on two suppositions, one on that of Chrift being God, and the other on his being only a prophet.

" Whether