Page images
PDF
EPUB

most extraordinary miracle, and justly confirmed the faith of your ancestors in Moses, so that it has never been shaken since. But it was simply a miracle that did it. When Moses, in his first conference with God, at the burning bush, naturally asked, how he should make it appear to his countrymen that God had sent him, he was directed to the changing of his rod into a serpent 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 sufficient for the purpose.

Mr. Levi says, that "Moses himself has told us, in the most plain and intelligible language, that miracles only are not a sufficient proof of a divine mission ;" and for this purpose he quotes Deut. xiii. 1-3: "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign, or a wonder; and the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto 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 soul."

This was probably to forewarn your ancestors, that persons might come to them with such tricks as the Egyptian magicians exhibited, (the fallacy of which they might not be able to detect,) and might endeavour to persuade them to worship other gods; but that they were not to listen to such 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, Moses might put a case that he knew to be impossible, in order to express himself in a stronger manner. Thus Paul says to a Christian 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 possibility of any such thing.

But you will please to observe, that what Moses says does not at all apply to the case of Jesus. For he did not endeavour to draw you to the worship of other gods. He was a humble and devout worshipper of the same God that you worship, and he worshipped him in the same manner. There is, therefore, no reason whatever why you should not attend to

Letter, p. 83. (P.)

the miracles of Jesus, as much as to those of Moses, or those of any of the prophets who followed him.

Mr. Levi objects to the miracles of Jesus, as "scarcely just, or rational." * But if they were true, we should be cautious how we pronounce this censure upon them. In general, it cannot be denied that the miracles of Jesus were both benevolent and great, such as were worthy of a messenger from the greatest and best of Beings. With respect to one or two of them, a person so disposed may cavil, as he might at some that are recorded in the Old Testament. That which Mr. Levi objects to as unjust in our Saviour, is the destruction of the swine, after the cure of the two fierce demoniacs. "What right had he," says Mr. Levi, "to destroy another man's property?" I answer, he assumed no right in the case. The miracle was not wrought by him, but by God, whose right to take our property, our lives, or whatever he has given, no man can question. Jesus laid no hand on the swine, and without a miracle, or the immediate act of God, such a number of swine could never have been made to run into the sea.

When Mr. Levi says the miracles of Jesus were not rational, he refers to his cursing the barren fig-tree. "He requires," he says, "the tree to produce fruit out of season."+ But the time of figs does not necessarily mean the time of the growing, or ripening, of figs, but rather that of gathering them; so that when Jesus saw the tree with leaves, or in a healthy state, he might naturally expect to find fruit also. § But this miracle had less respect to the fig-tree, than to serve as a warning to your ancestors, to bring forth the fruits that God expected of them; intimating, in a very expressive manner, that, if they did not, they would perish like that

tree.

Arguing against the pretensions of Jesus to the gift of prophecy, Mr. Levi says, "The destruction of Jerusalem was known to all the learned Jews, and therefore Jesus could not be ignorant of it."|| Consequently, it could not require the spirit of prophecy to foretell 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 such thing in the time of Jesus, or long afterwards. On the contrary, during the

[blocks in formation]

Letter, p. 77. (P.) † Ibid. p. 78. (P.) § See Vol. XIII. pp. 279, 280.

very siege, they were continually flattering themselves with the hope of the appearance of the Messiah, to deliver them. Besides, the prophecy of Daniel is only general, and that of Jesus very particular, describing the circumstances of the siege, and limiting the time of it. He also mentions the fate of the temple, concerning which Daniel says nothing at all. The taking of the city did not imply the demolition of the temple. This the conquerors might be expected to preserve with care, as Titus actually endeavoured to do. And least of all could it have been supposed that the Jews themselves would have promoted the destruction of it.

LETTER IV.

Of the supposed Contradictions between Jesus and Moses. MR. Levi makes use of another argument, which, if it could be supported, would indeed prove that Jesus was a false prophet. "If," says he, "we compare Jesus with the rest of the prophets, we shall find such a manifest contradiction between him and them, as to demonstrate that both parties could not be messengers of God, as God never contradicts himself." This he argues on two suppositions; one on that of Christ being God, and the other on his being only a prophet.

Whether Christ was the second person in the Trinity, as Christians in general hold, or only a prophet, as you and the rest of your sect affirm; I say, in either case, he could not be sent to us in the first place, nor could we receive him, without being hostile to the laws of Moses, as also to God who was the author of them, as acknowledged both by Jews and Christians. For, if he came in the former character, and the doctrine which he preached was intended to maintain that absurd and corrupt tenet, it would be an unanswerable argument that his doctrine never came from God, it being impossible that God should contradict himself. For has he not expressly told us himself, in the first commandment, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME? This, I think, must necessarily signify, if there be any meaning in language, ONE SUPREME, INTELLIGENT BEING, endued with all possible perfection, power, wisdom, and goodness. And, agreeable to this just, rational, and fundamental doctrine, Moses has, in the most solemn manner,

* Letter, p. 25. (P.)

endeavoured to inculcate this most important truth, in the following words: Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. Deut. vi. 4. These, besides numberless other passages in the Old Testament, make it plain that we could not receive Christ in the first character, without a breach of the covenant established between God and our nation."

In this, all Unitarian Christians, and your whole nation, are agreed. But Mr. Levi does not pretend to shew that either Jesus himself, or his apostles, taught any such doctrine as that of the Trinity; † and your writers in general prove, against the Christians, that the Old Testament contains no such thing. Mr. Levi, therefore, ought not to have left the argument in this state; but have acknowledged, as others of your countrymen have done, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not any doctrine of the New Testament, but a gross corruption of Christianity. Moses himself is not more explicit in teaching the unity of God than are Christ and his apostles, as I have shewn in my former Letters; ‡ and this Mr. Levi has not controverted.

I shall now consider what Mr. Levi has alleged to prove that Jesus cannot be received as a true prophet of God, on account of his having contradicted what had been advanced by preceding prophets, and especially by Moses, the greatest of them. He quotes for this purpose, Deut. iv. 2, and xii. 32: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, whereas Christians hold that Jesus had power to abolish the Mosaical dispensation, and which, say they, he actually did. And although you, and some other Christians, believe the perpetual obligation of the law of Moses, yet I suppose that a person of your knowledge need not be informed, that it is not the sentiment of Christians in general."

But has Mr. Levi proved from the New Testament, that Christ did annul the law of Moses? What some Christians have thought on this subject is no more to the purpose than their believing the doctrine of the Trinity. I have shewn in my former Letters, that Christ and the apostles asserted the perpetual obligation of the law of Moses; and Mr. Levi has not attempted to prove that I have misrepresented their meaning. Nay, your own writers have argued this before me, against the generality of Christians, who had asserted ⚫ Letter, p. 21. (P.)

+ Mr. Levi, however, chiefly relying on the "Ministry of Baptism" in Matthew, says, "He that does not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, cannot be a Christian, if the Gospels be true." Second Letter, pp. 23, 24.

Supra, p. 264.

that the law of Moses was abolished by the Gospel. You may see my thoughts on this subject at large in the Theological Repository, under the signature of HERMAS.*

But this is no part of the argument between you and me, but, like that concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, between me and other Christians.

I am satisfied, however, that Mr. Levi has mistaken the sense of Moses in the passage he quotes. It is not there said, or intimated, that God would never, by any future prophet, make any change in what he had enjoined by Moses. He only warns them, that is, the people in general, who had no particular instruction from God, not to add to the law, or to take from it, that is, without authority from him.

Several additions, you must know, the Divine Being made to your institutions after the time of Moses. He was commanded to construct a tabernacle, but Solomon was directed to build a magnificent temple. Also the temple described by Ezekiel is very different from that of Solomon; and this I imagine you believe to be the pattern of that which is to be erected on your final restoration to your country. In his prophecies there is also a whole set of institutions very different from those of Moses.

It is evident, therefore, that the words of Moses are not to be interpreted as they are by Mr. Levi. God will always reserve to himself the power of changing his institutions, according as the circumstances of his creatures shall require. And if Jesus was a prophet, (proved to be so by real miracles,) his institutions must have the same authority with those of Moses himself, even though they should be different from his. I shall, however, consider all the instances of contradiction that Mr. Levi finds between what Jesus delivered and what was taught by Moses, that you may see what the amount of them is, and then judge whether they be sufficient to prove that he must be a false prophet.

"Moses," he says, "allowed a man to put away his wife, if he found some uncleanness in her, and she was allowed to marry another; whereas Jesus said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery."+ But Jesus himself observed, that the permission of divorce by Moses was an innovation. Matt. xix. 8: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.' [Vers. 4, 5:] "Have ye not read, that he who made them at the

See Vol. XII. pp. 442-482,

+ Letter, p. 27. (P.)

« PreviousContinue »