Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

juftly be reckoned the greatest, and most wonderful discovery of this, or any other age.

As to what Mr. Swain obferves, page 67, "Would our author have us reject the miracles " of Mofes, because they were the occafion of "much lofs and damage to the Egyptians?" scarcely deserves notice, were it not to expose its abfurdity, and at the fame time show, what a miserable fubterfuge he is obliged to have recourfe to, in order to evade the force of my objection. For every one the least converfant in Scripture knows, that THE LOSS and DAMAGE fuftained by the Egyptians, was a juft punishment upon them, first, for their ill ufage of, and cruelty to the Ifraelites, by the hard labour they forced them to undergo, and the drowning, and otherwife deftroying their, infants. And, fecond, for their repeated difobedience to God's word, and their obftinacy in refusing to let them go, according to God's command by Mofes. But, this can by no means be faid to be the case of the fwine, or as I can find, the owners thereof.

As I have already exceeded the limits allotted to this Letter, I must postpone the confideration of your examination of my 5th, and 7th, objections to another opportunity.

I am, Sir,

Your's, &c.

D. LEVI.

A LET

A

LETTER

MR. SWAIN,

OCCASIONED BY HIS

Examination of Mr. David Levi's Objections,

IN HI'S

ANSWER TO DR. PRIESTLEY'S

FIRST LETTERS TO THE JEWS.

BY DAVID LEVI,

AUTHOR OF LINGUA SACRA, THE CEREMONIES OF THE JEWS, &c.

אני ראשון ואני אחרון ומבלעדי אין אלהים

ISAIAH, xliv. 6.

IBID. xl. 25,

ואל מי תדמיוני ואשוה יאמר קדוש

A

LETTER TO MR. SWAIN.

REV. SIR,

Have read your examination of my objections, &c. And in anfwer thereto, muft inform you, that you will find feveral of the arguments contained in the said examination, noticed in my Letters to Dr. Priestley, &c. in the preceding part of this pamphlet. As to that part which contains the prophecies, it will be duly confidered in my Differtation on the Prophecies; fo that I fhall at prefent confine myself to your questions, page 8, viz. ft. "Whether the doctrine of the Trinity

has any foundation in the Old Teftament." adly, "Whether it is inconfiftent with the Unity "of the Divine Nature."

As to the first question, it must be remembered, that in my Anfwer to Dr. Priestley's first Letters to the Jews, I have fhewn, that the Old Teftament always inculcates a perfect Unity, as may be perceived from the paffages there quoted, befides a number of others. But, as you have obferved, page 11, that "Several paffages occur in the Old "Teftament, in which the plural number is used,

though God alone is spoken of." I think it proper to fay a few words in anfwer thereto. In the first place, if you were at all acquainted with

the

the facred language, you would have known, ift, that the verb is sometimes in the fingular*, and the nominative in the plural; and fometimes the verb in the plural, and the nominative in the fingular. Sometimes the verb is in the feminine, and the subftantive in the mafculine. 2d. An adjective fingulart, is fometimes joined to a fubftantive plural; besides a number of others of the like import, that are peculiar to the Hebrew. And had you been acquainted with it, you would not then have written in the manner you have, page 11. for you there say, "Would it not, moreover, have been an im"propriety in the language of Mofes, in books,

[ocr errors]

and in a revelation intended to establish the "unity of the Godhead in oppofition to idolatry, or a plurality of gods, to make use of fuch ex"preffions in fpeaking of the Creator of all things, "as imply more than one, if there were no foun«dation for fuch expreffions?" Now I think, Į have fhewn by the foregoing rules, that the language of Mofes does not countenance or imply the existence of any more than one. And if fome one that is intirely ignorant of the language,in which Mofes wrote, fhould fancy to take it into his head to draw fuch conclufions from it; is Mofes to be blamed for it, any more than a man is for planting a tree, because some madman was pleased to hang himself on it? I know there are feveral, who, in order to establish the doctrine of the Tri

* See the Syntax, in Lingua Sacra, chap. xv. fect. ift, + Ibid.

page 364.

T

nity

[ocr errors][merged small]

nity from the Old Teftament, obferve that D
is a plural noun; but in Lingua Sacra, radix
I have thewn what is the true fenfe of it. How-
ever, if I should for argument's fake allow, that
this noun, or your verb, (Gen. i. 26.) implies a
plurality, the doctrine of the Trinity, would by
no means be established thereby for what proof
can you, or any other produce, that a plurality de-
notes a Trinity, and no more? I may as well fay,
that it implies two, two hundred, two thoufand, and
fo on ad infinitum: fo that to establish a plurality,
is in truth, establishing POLYTHEISM.

"There are

But as you obferve, page 18, many places in the Old Teftament, in which a "perfon is spoken of, to whom the honours, "works, worship, and titles of God are ascribed,

σ

yet in a manner, that implies a diftinction, or "fome kind of difference." I fhall take notice of a few of them, the limits of this letter not admitting of the whole; neither do I think it neceffary; for as they are all built on the fame mistaken principles, the confuting of one, is confuting of all.

Gen. xxi. 17. "And God heard the voice of "the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar "out of heaven, and faid unto her, What aileth

[ocr errors]

thee, Hagar? Fear not, for God hath heard the "voice of the lad where he is. Arife, lift up the "lad, and hold him in thine hand, for I will make "him a great nation." On this paffage you 'observe, Ibid. "God and the angel of God are

" spoken

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »