"ries upon the Chronicles, is the first that seems "to have quoted it: but this author, whofe name

was Mattenot, the son of Niffam, and who wrote

at Toledo, is not very ancient. Saadias one of "the excellents of the tenth century, feems also " to have known it." Thefe are Mr. Bafnage's own words, from which it is manifeft, that my affertion was well founded: for he does not fay, as you have obferved, "that the most that can "be faid is, that it may feem to be referred to by "two writers in the tenth century." No, there are no fuch words to be found there. But on the contrary, fays, that the author of the Midrafchim, and who by his own account feems to have been prior to Saadias, who flourished in the tenth century, did not feem merely to refer to it, but actually quoted it. And Saadias of the tenth century, feemed alfo to have known it. Now, I think it must appear rather ftrange, that a book, the author of which, did not exift till the eleventh century, fhould be known to a perfon that lived in the tenth, and actually quoted by another who seems to be prior to the faid perfon. This is a fair flatement, and which I hope will fully exculpate me from the charge of mifreprefenting Mr. Bafnage; at the fame time that it fhews what little credit ought to be given to the evidence of Mr. Bafnage, concerning the authenticity of the book in queftion. But, dear Sir, give me leave to ask you, whether a book may not exift, although no proofs can be adduced of its being quoted, efpe

cially.

cially before the art of printing was known? I prefume the affirmative may be maintained; and that, for the following reafons. First, on account of its being scarce, and therefore, perhaps unSecond, because the subject treated of might not ftand in need of illuftration from it, &c. &c. So that what you think to be

known to the writer.

absolutely incredible," viz. that it should remain fo long unquoted, is in fact not at all incredible: but on the contrary, is very probable, and may be easily accounted for, on a cool and candid inquiry.

LETTER II.

Of the prophetic fpirit of Christ, his divine million compared with that of Mofes, as far as it relates to miracles, &c. &c.

DEAR SIR,

γου

OU are pleased to obferve, (page 15, of your Letters, Part. II.) that Mr. Levi fays, page 71, that miracles only were not fuf"ficient to establish a firm belief in the divine "miffion of Mofes." You then proceed to remark, "But after confidering what he urges on the subject, I cannot find any thing more "than miracles to have been neceffary." You farther obferve, (page 16,) "He fays, page "68, it was God fpeaking with Mofes face to "face in the presence of fix hundred thousand <c men, befides women and children," "But

(say you) what was this but 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?" Yes, Sir, it was a miracle I grant: but fuch a miracle, an fully juftifies all that I have advanced concerning it. For in the first place, it proves that miracles only were not a fufficient proof of the divine miffion of Mofes. What I mean by miracles, are those that were performed by means of human inftrumen

7

inftrumentality: fuch as Aaron's cafting the rod on the ground to become a ferpent; or his fmiting the waters to turn them into blood, or to bring up the frogs, &c. &c. Alfo Mofes's ftriking and dividing the red fea, &c. Thefe and the like, although fome of them were great and ftupendous miracles, yet, as they were performed by the agency of Mofes or Aaron, were not accounted as a fufficient proof of the divine miffion of Mofes; efpecially, as the Magicians did the like in fome inftances. And therefore, the nation might perhaps have doubted his divine miffion, from the proof of his miracles only; concluding, that he was only a greater adept in the art than Pharaoh's Magicians. For which reafon, God was pleased to deliver the ten commandments himself, in the hearing of all the people, without the agency of Mofes, or any other human being. Nay, in order to remove from their mind the moft diftant idea of any agency on the part of Mofes, he was not permitted to be on the mount at the time that God fpake the ten commandments, as may be eafily perceived from what the Lord faid unto Mofes; for in Exod. chap. xix. 21. God bids Mofes go down and charge the people; Mofes in answer thereto, verse 23, obferves, that the people cannot come up, because they were already charged: to which God anfwers, verfe 24, "Away, get thee down:" in confequence of this command, we find verfe 25, "And Moses went down and spake unto them."

And immediately follow the ten commandments: but not the leaft mention is made of Mofes afcending the mount: for that did not take place till after the delivery of the ten commandments, as recorded in chap. xxiv. 1. "And he faid "unto Mofes, come up unto the Lord, thou "and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and feventy "of the elders of Ifrael," and which is the very fame order, mentioned in chap. xix. 24. This, Sir, was the great proof of the divine miffion of Mofes, and confirmation, that the miracles which he wrought were by the divine affiftance, agreeable to what we find, Exod. xix. 9. "And the "c Lord faid unto Mofes, Lo, I come unto thee

in a thick cloud, that the people may hear "when I fpeak with thee, and believe thee for "ever." For thereby they were not only convinced of the divine mission of Mofes, but also of revelation in general, as I have already obferved in my answer to your first Letters, page 70, &c. And which could never have been effected by the miracles which Mofes wrought: but on the contrary, fome doubt of their reality would have remained. But this great and folemn proof of his divine miflion, was perfectly calculated to remove every doubt*. This being the true state

of

For they themselves were the witnesses of his divine mif

,הלכות יסודי התורה fon, as Maimonides juftly obferves in

'I he conftitution of the fundamentals of the Law, chap. viii. And which give me leave once more to tell you Sir, is such

an