fwallowed up by the fea, miraculously divided into a wall on each fide of those who paffed through it; but who will fay that God's power is not as wonderfully and confpicuoufly dif played in restoring dead Lazarus to life, as in drowning Pharaoh and his hoft? Surely it is as great a miracle to give life to the dead, as it is to put the living to death.

The miracles of Chrift were performed without oftentation and display, yet they were of fuch general notoriety, that the Jews themfelves did not, and do not even now, deny their being wrought by him, but afcribed them to the aid and agency of the Devil: A miferable fubterfuge indeed! But this is not all: A contemporary writer of that nation, David Levi, in his letter to Dr. Priestley afferts, that there was not only no fuch necessity for the miracles of Jefus as for thofe of Mofes, but that they were scarcely just or rational, and confequently cannot be offered as proofs of his divine miffion in comparison with that of Moses. p. 67. 68.

In fupport of this affertion the learned controverfialist observes, that as to the miracles of Mofes, there was the greatest neceffity 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 further deliverance from them; the manna from heaven and the water from the rock were necessary for their fubfiftence in the wildernefs; the fame of all the reft.

This we may admit in it's full force; but as the miracles, which Chrift wrought were altogether as necessary for the proof of his divine' miffion, as these of Mofes for the proof of his; a man must be very partial to his own nation, who will affert, that the deliverance of the Jews from their captivity in Egypt was a more important object than the redemption of loft mankind. We will not doubt but it was neceffary the Egyptian hoft should be drowned, because it feemed good to God fo to punish their obduracy, and extricate the Jewish tribes; but it is no less neceffary, that mankind fhould believe in Chrift, if they are to be faved through his means, and for the confirmation of that neceffary faith, these miracles were performed: The author of the objection, who himself afferts that Mofes delivered the important doctrine of a future ftate, will not deny that the belief of a future ftate is a neceffary belief; and if it be fo, it must follow that Chrift's refurrection and appearance upon earth after his crucifixion, (a miracle I prefume

as great and ftriking as any wrought by the hand of Mofes) was as pertinent to that general end, as the wonders in the land of Egypt and at the Red Sea were to the particular purpose of rescuing the Jews out of their captivity.

If we grant that Mofes, as this objector intimates, did impart the doctrine of a future ftate, Chrift did more by exemplifying it in his own. person, and against such evidence we might prefume even a Sadducee would not hold out. Now as fo large a portion of the Jewish nation were ftill in the avowed disbelief of that doctrine, which our opponent believes was taught them by their great prophet and lawgiver himself, furely he muft of force allow, that the refurrection of Christ was to them at least, and to all who like them did not credit the doctrine of a life to come, a neceffary miracle.

Where fuch a teacher as Mofes had failed to perfuade, what lefs than a miracle could conquer their infidelity? Unless indeed, our author fhall join iffue 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 Mofes, neither would they be perfuaded, though one actually rose from the dead.

And now I will more closely animadvert upon the bold affertion of David Levi, the Jew, 6 (whofe

(whofe hoftile opinions we tolerate) that the miracles of Chrift, the Savior of the world (whofe religion we profefs) were scarcely just or rational.

Our faith is at iffue; our established church falls to the ground, our very fovereign becomes no longer the defender of our faith, but rather the defender of our folly, if this contemner of Chrift, this alien, who affaults our religion, whilst he is living under the protection of our laws, fhall, with one stroke of an audacious pen, undermine the ftrong foundation of our belief.

Let us hear how this modern caviller confutes thofe miracles, which his forefathers faw 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 correfpondent for it: These are, firft, the driving the devils out of the man possessed, and fending them into the herd of fwine; Mat. viii. 28. Secondly, the curfe pronounced upon the barren fig-tree; Mark xi. 13.

Upon the first of these he has the following ftricture-This I think was not strictly just, for as according to your [Dr. Prieftley's] opinion, he was but a man and a prophet, I would willingly be informed what right he had to deftroy another man's property in the manner he did by fending the devils

into them, and fo caufing them to run violently inte the fea and perifh?

This miracle is recorded alfo by Saint Mark, v. 1. and again by Saint Luke, viii. 26. What Saint Matthew calls the country of the Gergefenes, the other two evangelifts 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 Manaffeh, on the other fide of Jordan, and is by Strabo called Gadarida, lib. 16. Now Mofes both in Leviticus xi. and Deuteronomy xiv. prohibits swine, as one of the unclean beasts: Of their flefh fhall ye not eat, and their carcafe shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you. Ifaiah alfe ftates it as a particular fin 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 fwine's flesh. Ixv. 2, 3, 4. And again, They that fanctify themselves and purify themselves in the gardens, behind one tree in the midft, eating fwine's flesh, &c. fhall be confumed together, faith the Lord. lxvi. 17. Eleazar the fcribe, when conftrained to open his mouth and eat fwine's flesh, chofe rather to die gloriously, than to live ftained with fuch an abomination. 2 Macc. vi. 18. 19. The feven brethren alfo, who were compelled to

the