The miracles of Christ were performed without ostentation and display, yet they were of such general notoriety that the Jews themselves did not, and do not even now deny their being wrought by him, but ascribed them to the aid and agency of the devil a miserable subterfuge indeed! But this is not all; a contemporary writer of that nation, David Levi, in his letter to Dr. Priestley asserts, that there was not only "no such necessity" for the miracles of Jesus as for those of Moses, but " that they were scarcely just or rational, and consequently cannot be offered as proofs of his divine mission in comparison with that of Moses," p. 67, 68.

In support of this assertion the learned controversialist observes, "that as to the miracles of Moses, there was the greatest necessity for them; for instance, the plagues he brought upon the Egyptians were necessary for the redemption of the Jewish nation; as was the dividing of the Red Sea, and the drowning the Egyptians for their farther deliverance from them: the manna from heaven and the water from the rock were necessary for their subsistence in the wilderness; the same of all the rest.'

This we may admit in its full force; but as the miracles which Christ wrought were altogether as necessary for the proof of his divine mission, as these of Moses for the proof of his: a man must be very partial to his own nation, who will assert, that the deliverance of the Jews from their captivity in Egypt was a more important object than the redemption of lost mankind. We will not doubt but it was necessary the Egyptian host should be drowned, because it seemed good to God so to punish their obduracy, and extricate the Jewish tribes, but it is no less necessary, that mankind should believe in Christ, if they are to be saved through his means,

and for the confirmation of that necessary faith these miracles were performed; the author of the objection, who himself asserts that Moses delivered the important doctrine of a future state, will not deny that the belief of a future state is a necessary belief; and if it be so, it must follow that Christ's resurrection and appearance upon earth after his crucifixion (a miracle I presume as great and striking as any wrought by the hand of Moses) was as pertinent to that general end as the wonders in the land of Egypt and at the Red Sea were to the ticular purpose of rescuing the Jews out of their captivity.

par

If we grant that Moses, as this objector intimates, did impart the doctrine of a future state, Christ did more by exemplifying it in his own person, and against such evidence we might presume even a Sadducee would not hold out. Now as so large a portion of the Jewish nation was still in the avowed disbelief of that doctrine, which our opponent believes was taught them by their great prophet and lawgiver himself, surely he must of course allow that the resurrection of Christ was to them, at least, and to all who like them did not credit the doctrine of a life to come, a necessary miracle.

Where such a teacher as Moses had failed to persuade, what less than a miracle could conquer their infidelity? Unless, indeed, our author shall join issue with Abraham in his reply to Dives, as recorded in the words of Christ, and maintain with him, that as they would not believe the word of Moses, “neither would they be persuaded, though one actually rose from the dead."

And now I will more closely animadvert upon the bold assertion of David Levi, the Jew (whose hostile opinions we tolerate), that the miracles of

Christ the Saviour of the world (whose religion we profess) were "scarcely just or rational."

Our faith is at issue, our established church falls to the ground, our very sovereign becomes no longer the defender of our faith, but rather the defender of our folly, if this contemner of Christ, this alien who assaults our religion, whilst he is living under the protection of our laws, shall with one stroke of an audacious pen undermine the strong foundation of our belief.

Let us hear how this modern caviller confutes those miracles which his forefathers saw and did not dare to deny.

He takes two out of the number, and if there is any merit in the selection, he is beholden to his correspondent for it; these are, first, "the driving the devils out of the man possessed, and sending them into the herd of swine;" Mat. viii. 28. Secondly, "the curse pronounced upon the barren fig tree;" Mark xi. 13.

Upon the first of these he has the following stricture:- -"This I think was not strictly just, for as, according to your (Dr. Priestley's) opinion), he was but a man and a prophet, I would willingly be informed what right he had to destroy another man's property in the manner he did by sending the devils into them, and so causing them to run violently into the sea and perish ?"

This miracle is recorded also by St. Mark, v. 1, and again by St. Luke, viii. 26. What St. Matthew calls the country of the Gergesenes, the other two evangelists call the country of the Gadarenes, and St. Luke adds that it is over against Galilee; this country, as I conceive, was within the boundaries of the half tribe of Manasseh, on the other side of Jordan, and is by Strabo called Gadarida,

lib. 16. Now Moses both in Leviticus xi. and Deuteronomy xiv. prohibits swine as one of the unclean beasts: "Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you." Isaiah also states it as a particular sin and abomination in the Jews, whom he calleth a "rebellious people, a people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face: which remain among the graves and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh." lxv. 2, 3, 4. And again, "They that sanctify themselves and purify themselves in the gardens, behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, &c. shall be consumed together, saith the Lord." lxvi. 17. Eleazer the scribe, "when constrained to open his mouth and eat swine's flesh, chose rather to die gloriously than to live stained with such an abomination." 2 Macc. vi. 18, 19. The seven brethren also who were compelled to the like abomination declared," they were ready to die rather than to transgress the laws of their fathers." This being the law of Moses with respect to this proscribed animal, and such being the corruptions of the people in violating that law, I am at a loss to discover the injustice of the miracle seeing what abominations these creatures had occasioned amongst the Jews, so as to draw down the denunciations of the prophet Isaiah, repeatedly urged in the passages above quoted: and it is with particular surprise I meet the charge from one who is himself a Jew, and who, I must presume, would die the death of Eleazar rather than be defiled with such abominable food. It would be hard indeed if Christ, whom he arraigns for abolishing the Mosaical dispensation in one part of his argument, should in another be accused of wrong and injury for conforming to it; but any wretched shift shall be resorted to for matter of railing against

VOL. II.

I

Christ, and rather than not feed his spleen at all he will feed it upon swine's flesh: let the learned Jew first prove to me that a hog was not an abomination to his countrymen, and it will then be time enough to debate upon the injustice of destroying them ; meanwhile I shall not be disposed to allow of any damages for the swine in question at the suit and prosecution of a Jew.

His second attack is pointed against the miracle of the fig tree which was blasted at the word of Christ.

Though Saint Matthew as well as Saint Mark records this miracle, yet, for reasons sufficiently obvious, he refers to the latter, who says, " that when Christ came to it he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet." His argument upon this passage is as follows: "Hence it is manifest that he required the tree to produce fruit out of season, and which would have been contrary to the intent of its Creator: and therefore he, as a dutiful son, curses the innocent and guiltless tree for doing that which his father had commanded it to do, viz. to bear fruit in its proper season:" In this paragraph our Jew has quickened his argument with some facetious irony, and he follows it with an air of exultation as well as insult: "If after this Christians should still persist in the miracle according to the letter of the story, much good may it do them ; but I am sure it will never be the means of converting the unbelieving Jews to the Christian faith."

I close with him in opinion that this miracle will not be the means of converting his unbelieving brethren to Christianity: for how can I hope that what their fathers saw, and yet believed not, should at this distant period gain belief from their posterity? I also join with him in saying (and I suspect I say it with somewhat more sincerity) much good may it