Here we have a convincing proof, how far crafty men are able to work upon the credulity of the multitude, in thus eafily impofing upon them for true, and miraculous, what Chriftians themselves acknowledge to be the viles of the devil, or the trick of pagan priests; but which they nevertheless, were not able to deny or detect. And, indeed, there is fuch a wide field for deception, in this cafe, as well as that of cafting out devils, &c. (and which was claimed by heathens, Jews, and heretics,) that it is no wonder, they were made use of to impofe on the credulity of the multitude, or that they should have the defired effect, fince they were fo admirably well calculated for the purpose: and from whence it is demonftrable, that those kind of miracles, are no proof of a divine miffion, fince it is acknowledged by Chriftians themselves, that they may be counterfeited, and yet not be easily denied, or detected.

I fhall now confider what you alledge, in order to invalidate my affertion concerning the pretenfions of Jefus to the gift of prophecy. In your first Letters to the Jews, (page 19,) you observe, "As a true prophet, Chrift foretold the dreadful "calamities that befél your nation in that genera

tion," as recorded in Luke xix. 41. To this I anfwered, (page 87, of my Letters) that, that was no proof of his prophetic fpirit, as it was neither more or lefs, than the vifion which the angel had fhewn to Daniel, concerning the city

and

and fanctuary, as recorded in the twenty-sixth and twenty-feventh verfes of the ninth chapter of Daniel, &c. To this you was pleased to observe in your fecond Letters, page 21, "The prophecy "of Daniel is only general, and that of Jefus "very particular, defcribing the circumftances of "the fiege, and limiting the time of it. He alfo "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." These are your words: but never in all my reading did I meet with so many falfehoods in fo few lines. For in the firft place, Daniel is fo far from being general, that on the contrary, he is very particular in defcribing the calamity of the nation, as he fays, "And the

people of the prince that shall come, fhall deftroy the city, &c. And the end thereof, fhall "be with a flood, and to the end of the war de"folations are determined." See alfo verfe 27. This is a more particular defcription of the calamities of the nation, than that recorded in Luke xix. 41. or any of the other Evagelifts. For although he (Chrift) mentions the casting up a trench, and which was no more than the natural confequence of a fiege, yet, did he not particularize the different calamities that were to befall

Second, as to his

the nation, as Daniel did. limiting the time, according to your affertion, I must tell you, that I have read your quotation from Luke, over and over, but cannot find any

fuch

fuch thing therein: whereas in Daniel it is clearly expreffed; for there we are informed, that at the end of the fixty-two (i. e. the fixty-nine) weeks, the anointed fhall be cut off, and the city, &c. destroyed by the people of the prince, &c. fo that the war was to commence at the end of the fixty-ninth week, and continue till the end of the feventieth, when the city, &c, were to be finally destroyed. Hence it is manifeft, that nothing can be clearer than this limitation; whereas nothing of the kind is to be found in the paffage you have quoted from Luke. Third, you obferve, "He (Chrift) alfo 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." Gracious God! Can any thing be falfer than this affertion? for does not. Daniel exprefsly, fay, (chap. ix. 26.) "And the people of the prince that shall come, "fhall destroy the city, and the SANCTUARY." Now, Sir, every perfon in the least converfant in facred writ knows, that, the fanctuary denotes the temple; and therefore, I am not a little furprised, that you should be ignorant of it. But, was it actually ignorance that led you to make this falfe affertion? Or was it a wilful intention to mifrepresent Scripture, in order to mislead your readers? Charity forbids me to think the latter, But, when I confider, that in the paffage quoted by you from Luke, there is not the least mention

made

made of the deftruction of the temple*, I am really ftaggered in my opinion, and know not which to attribute it to. Yet, I can hardly be 'perfuaded to impute it to ignorance, in a perfon of your profound learning and knowledge in both facred and profane literature. I know, that, in your difputes with Chriftians, (i. e. Trinitarians, or idolaters, as you fometimes call them,) you have been charged "with flandering them; and "that to ferve a turn, you would not scruple to

belie even your most confcientious neighbours." But this I can fcarcely believe, neither can I harbour any fuch uncharitable thoughts towards you; and therefore, am loth to impute it to a designed mifrepresentation of Scripture, in order to mislead your readers for that would be a crime of a very deep die indeed. If, however, I must at all events, impute it to ignorance, it undoubtedly furnishes us with a very ufeful leffon; I mean, a ftriking inftance of the fallibility of man, not

As to the paffages in Matth. xxiv. 15. and Mark xiii. 14. where the temple is mentioned, it is plain from the words of Jefus, that he meant no more than the accomplishment of Daniel's prophecy, as he fays, " When ye therefore shall fee the abomination of defolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, ftand in the holy place." Now, Sir, can there be a clearer proof than this, that the prophecy of Daniel was known to Jefus ? and who no doubt learned it, as the other learned Jews did, by their acquaintance with Scripture; for it is fo plainly defcribed in Daniel, that he that runs, may read.

Socinianifm brought to the Test, by J. Macgowan, page 4.

withstanding

withstanding all his boafted knowledge, philofophy, &c. For it is manifeft, that, while you were charging me with ignorance of the New Teftament, though without the leaft foundation in truth, as I have fhewn, you have laid yourself open in fuch a manner, as to ftand fairly convicted of ignorance of the Old Teftament: or what is worfe, wilfully mifreprefenting it. This, fully verifies the expreffion of Solomon,

He that diggeth a pit, fhall fall into it." Before I quit this head, I must say a few words, which is, that even if your propofition had been well founded, fo that Daniel had actually omitted mentioning the temple, and Jefus had defcribed the exact limitation, it would nevertheless not have amounted to a full proof of his divine miffion becaufe, I have never yet met with any fimple and clear proof, founded on fubftantial and undeniable arguments, that the three former Gofpels were published, or written, before the deftruction of Jerufalem; confequently, whatever is contained therein, cannot be produced as proofs of prophecy concerning that event. But, as I 'have already fhewn, we are under no neceffity of having recourfe to that expedient for fettling the point in queftion.

You fay, page 25, "I fhall now confider what "Mr. Levi has alledged to prove that Jefus can"not be received as a true prophet of God, on "account of his having contradicted what had "been advanced by preceding prophets, and " especially

G 2