And I am confident, that you cannot produce an inftance of any prophet prophesying in the name of God, acting as Jefus did, to prove his authority: do but attend to his own words. "And "when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto "him as he was teaching, and faid, By what authority doeft thou these things? and who

gave thee this authority? And Jefus answered, "and faid unto them, I alfo will ask you one "thing, which if ye tell me, I likewife will tell

you by what authority I do these things. The

baptifm of John, whence was it? from heaven "or of men? And they reasoned with them"felves, faying, If we fhall fay from heaven; he "will fay unto us, Why did ye not then believe "him? But if we shall fay of men; we fear the "people for all hold John as a prophet. And

they anfwered Jefus, and faid, we cannot tell. "And he faid unto them, neither tell I you

by what authority I do these things." Matth. xxi. 23. &c. Mark xi. 27, &c. and Luke xx. 1. &c. I forbear making any remarks on this pro ceeding of Jefus to fo fair and candid a question, (and which, if as fairly and candidly answered, might have actually led to the conversion of those to whom he was fent, in the first inftance,) as I have only adduced it as a collateral proof, that his language was the direct contrary to that of all the other prophets.

Hence it is manifeft, that my affertion, that I did not find it recorded that Chrift prophesied in the name of God, was well founded, in the fenfe that I used it: viz. that we could not receive him as a prophet, because he was deficient in the effential character of a prophet. And I humbly fubmit it to the judgment of every candid and liberal mind whether his language was that of the other prophets: confequently, what you have advanced, hath not in the leaft weakened my pofition: neither does it prove my ignorance of the New Teftament, as I was well acquainted with thofe and numberless other paffages of the like import; but all which make intirely against your doctrine, as I am clear, that they inculcate the doctrine of Chrift's divinity; the fame as Chriftians in general hold.

I fhall now proceed to take notice of your third charge, viz. my ignorance of profane literature. You obferve (page 3) "I com2 "plain of my opponent's want of profane lite "rature, because it leaves us deftitute of fome

common principles, without which, it is im"poffible to come to any conclufion with "refpect to the queftion in debate." What these common principles are, I think you ought to have mentioned; I fhould then have been better able to answer your objection: but if you thereby mean the proof of the firft Chriftians being Unitarians, or that the Ebionites were not heretics, &c. &c. I must refer you to page 10, and

note

note, where I have obferved, that these things have nothing to do with the difputes between Jews and Christians: the Bible, I contend, ought to be the proper and fole arbiter between them: confequently, I cannot perceive wherein the impoffibility of our coming to any conclufion with respect to the queftion in debate can exift. For the queftion between Jews and Christians is, fimply, whether the Gospel teaches any doctrine that is repugnant to the Mofaical difpenfation; and whether the acts of Jefus recorded therein, were conformable to the prophecies delivered in the Old Teftament as defcriptive of the Meffiah, fo as to prove their completion in his perfon. The former, I think, is fully proved by the foregoing; and the latter, I mean to confider at large in my Differtation on all the prophecies concerning the Meffiah, in which I intend to take a review of fuch prophecies as Chriftians only apply to the Meffiah, as well as thofe which both Jews and Christians apply to him: and which give me leave to tell you Sir, is the courfe you ought to have taken, as I observed (page 91) of my Letters, and not have referred us to the refult of what you call your inquiries into the prophecies in the Theological Repofitory: for those inquiries do not seem to concern the controverfy between Jews and Chriftians, but more properly Unitarians and Chriftians, as may be observed from your own words. "All* ⚫.Theol. Rep. Vol. V, page 212,213.

"Chriftian

great difficulties in this fubject. But it appears to me, that they have arifen chiefly from the neceffity they imagined themselves to be under of applying more prophecies "to Jefus Chrift, than, in my opinion, belong "to him, and especially from not distinguishing "the characters of the humble prophet from "thofe of the temporal prince, but applying in

a fpiritual fenfe to the former, what was "intended in a literal fenfe for the latter: in "which they have too clofely followed the "writers of the New Teftament." This affertion, which feems to be the ground of your argument, does not affect the Jews in the leaft, but feems to be aimed intirely against the Chriftians, and the authority of the New Teftament, the uniform language of which, is highly defcriptive of the exalted character of the Meffiah, and not that of an humble prophet: confequently, the prophecies that you have there cited, do not tend to illuftrate the queftion in debate: for which reafon, I fhall take no farther notice of them at prefent, especially as fome of them will naturally fall under my confideration, in the aforementioned Differtation.

You also charge me (note, page 4,) with mifreprefenting Mr. Bafnage concerning what he has advanced about the hiftorian Joseph Ben Gorion, for you observe, "Mr. Levi fays," (page 61, note)" that Mr. Bafnage,

" in

"in his great zeal to decry this work has fallen "into a moft egregious blunder: obferving "that he firft fays, that it was the production "of the eleventh century, and then that it " was known to Saadias in the tenth century. "But this," you fay, " is a mifreprefentation "of Mr. Bafnage, who, after giving his opinion "concerning the real age of this work, viz. that "it was the production of the eleventh century, fays, that it did not make its appearance before "the twelfth, and that the moft that can be "faid is, that it may seem to be referred to by

two writers in the tenth century, but that "these two teftimonies are very doubtful."

This is your charge, and which give me leave to tell you Sir, is not a light one, for it is no lefs than wilfully misreprefenting an author of note: but this I think, is what I never have yet been guilty of, and fincerely hope, never fhall.

It pains me much, to be thus obliged to enter fo often on my own vindication, but the love of truth, which I fincerely profefs, compels me thereto. And, in order to clear my character from this foul charge, I fhall adduce Mr. Bafnage's own words, as printed in the London folio Edition of 1708, now before me. Mr. Bafnage first obferves, (book vii, chap. vi. page 610.) " Jo

seph the Historian, the fon of Gorion is one of "the doctors that France brought forth in the "eleventh century." But page 611, he fays, "The author of the Midrafchim, or Commenta

"ries