the like abomination, declared, They were ready to die rather than to tranfgrefs the laws of their fathers. This being the law of Mofes with refpect to this profcribed animal, and fuch being the corruptions of the people in violating that law, I am at a lofs to difcover the injuftice of the miracle; feeing what abominations thefe creatures had occafioned amongft the Jews, fo as to draw down the denunciations of the prophet Ifaiah, repeatedly urged in the paffages above quoted; and it is with particular furprize I meet the charge from one, who is himself a Jew, and who, I must prefume, would die the death of Eleazar rather than be defiled with fuch abominable food. It would be hard indeed if Chrift, whom he arraigns for abolishing the Mofaical difpenfation in one part of his argument, should in another be accused of wrong and injury for conforming to it: But any wretched fhift fhall be reforted to for matter of railing against Chrift, and rather than not feed his fpleen at all, he will feed it upon fwine's flefh: 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 injuftice of deftroying them; meanwhile I fhall not be difpofed to allow of any damages for the fwine in queftion at the fuit and profecution of a Jew.

His fecond attack is pointed against the miracle of the fig-tree, which was blafted at the word of Chrift.

Though Saint Matthew as well as Saint Mark, records this miracle, yet, for reasons fufficiently obvious, he refers to the latter, who fays, that when Chrift came to it he found nothing but leaves for the time of figs was not yet. His argument upon this paffage is as follows: Hence it is manifeft, that he required the tree to produce fruit out of feafon, and which would have been contrary to the intent of it's creator; and therefore he, as a dutiful fon, curfes the innocent and guiltless tree for doing that, which his father had commanded it to do, viz. to bear fruit in it's proper season : In this paragraph our Jew has quickened his argument with fome facetious irony, and he follows it with an air of exultation as well as infult: If, after this, Christians should still perfift in the miracle, according to the letter of the story, much good may it do them; but I am fure it will never be the means of converting the unbelieving Jews to the Chriftian faith.

I close with him in opinion that this miracle will not be the means of converting his unbe lieving brethren to Chriftianity; for how can I hope, that what their fathers faw and yet believed not, fhould at this diftant period gain belief from their pofterity? I alfo join with him in

faying (and I fufpect I fay it with somewhat more fincerity) much good may it do to all those Christians, who perfift in their belief of it! A defcendant of those who murdered Chrift, may act in character, when he infülts his miracles and ridicules his perfon, but a believer in Chrift will be an imitator of his patience.

It is now time to difmifs the irony and apply to the argument. This fimply turns upon Saint Mark's interjectional observation, not noticed by Saint Matthew in his account, viz. that the time of figs was not yet: He fays, that Jefus being hungry faw a fig-tree afar off, having leaves, and came if haply he might find any thing thereon: By this it appears that the tree was in leaf, and Jefus approached it with the expectation of finding something thereon ; but when he found nothing but leaves, he faid unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever! And his difciples heard it'; These came again the next morning, and paffing by the fig-tree faw it dried up from the roots; which when Peter remarked as a completion of the miracle, Jefus faid to them all, HAVE FAITH IN GOD!

In these important words we have the moral of the act. The tree, which this reviler takes upon himself to fay, was commanded by God to bear fruit in it's proper feafon, was on the contrary commanded by God to bear fruit no more, but ferve

P 2

ferve a nobler purpose by witneffing to the mira culous power of Chrift; and now if an innocent and guiltless tree was blafted out of feafon by the word of Chrift for the purpofe of infpiring the beholders with Faith in God, the benefit confer. red upon human nature may well atone for the injury done to vegetable nature; though I am free to acknowledge to it's pathetic advocate, that, as a Jew, he has undertaken a more cleanly cause, than when he before ftood' forth in defence of the hogs: As well may he bewail the innocent and guiltless trees and grain of Egypt, which were fmitten by the hail, when Mofes called it down upon the land, if fuch be his tender feelings toward the productions of the earth, as this fingle fig-trce: Till he can convince us that the deliverance of the Jews from their Egyptian bondage was a more important object than the redemption of the world, he will find it hard to make a reafoning man allow, that this fingle fig-tree, even though it had no right to bear fruit, hath a stronger appeal to juftice against the miracle of Chrift, than every herb of the field that was fmitten, every guiltlefs and innocent tree of the field that was broken by the ftretching forth of the rod of Mofes.

Thus then ftands the account between Chrift and his accufer; the Jewish nation loft a tree, and mankind gained-a Savior!

N° CXVII.

N° CXVII.

F it were neceffary to enter into a more literal defence of the miracle of the blafted fig-tree, I fee no abfolute reason to conclude with the caviller, that Chrift required the tree to produce fruit out of feason and act against it's nature; for if the time of figs be the gathering or harveft of figs, it was more reasonable to expect fruit from this tree before the time of plucking, than after it; and as this fruit was no fmall article in the produce and traffick of Judæa, we may well conclude the time of figs, mentioned by Saint Mark, was like the vintage in the wine countries; and I apprehend it would not be an unreasonable expectation to find a cluster of grapes on a vine, before the time of vintage was come. This conftruction of the words will seem the more reasonable, when we remark that Saint Matthew, who records the miracle, takes no account of this circumftance, and that Saint Mark, who ftates it, ftates alfo that Chrift in his hunger applied to the tree, if haply he might› find any thing thereon, which implies expec

tation.

But our Jew hath suggested a better method