conclude the abfurdity of fuppofing, that there ever has been any fuch poffeffions, oracles, or divinations.

But more particularly, I would confider the objection under these four branches, as (1.) That evil or injury was done to the creatures themfelves. (2.) That evil or injury was done to the proprieters of them. (3.) That the miracle did alienate the minds of the people against Christ's perfon and ministry. (4.) That the wicked defires of a number of devils, or evil fpirits were gratified. As to the first; although fwine are the creatures of God's power, and more generally made for the fervice of man; yet, it is evident that their use was abfolutely forbidden among the Jews, in Palestine. See Lev. xi. 7, 8. Deut. xiv. 8. This law rendered the use of fwine unlawful: for they are forbid to touch a' carcafs. And whilft living, every one knows, they are of no ufe to man any where. I doubt not but there was a reafon in nature for a prohibition of the use of fwine in Judæa, either from their being unwholfome food; or from their miniftring too much to the purposes of luxury among them. In the hot months, even in this Northern Ifland, fwines-flesh is not reckoned wholfome: furely then, it could not be fo in that much warmer climate. And Lightfoot has observed, that the Romans had fwines-flesh in' high esteem, as a luxurious food. So that there was occafion given for a prohibition in the cenfor's laws, interdi&taque cœnis abdomina, glandia, tefticuli; vulva, fincipita verrina. See his works, Vol. I. p. 231. He thinks it probable, that the Roman luxury had tempted the Jews in Gadara to deal in fwine.

That the Jews had gone into an abominable, idolatrous ufe of fwines flesh, will appear from

If. Ixv. 4. There were thofe who remained among the graves, and lodged in the monuments of the dead, who eat fwines flesh; and broth of abominable things: -comp. c. 66, 17. which will enable us to form fome idea of the dæmoniac, and of the vitious, idolatrous character of the Gadarenes, when our Lord vifited them. So in the hiftory of the Maccabees, under Antiochus : Eleazar, a principal fcribe, an aged man, was conftrained to open his mouth to receive fwines. flesh, which fpitting out, he was put to death. 2 Mac. vi. This will obviate. the firft article of the objection, by fhewing, that the deftruction of the wine at Gadara, was in vindication of the law and the prophets; and a bene ficial removal of an hurtful food, as well as an open reproof of their idolatries.

So that the fecond article will be easily anfwered, viz. that an injury was done to private

property nay, to the public." The fallacy of this is apparent, as they were illicite, contraband goods; and forbidden by the ftatute, laws of their country. Nor did Tiberius, the Roman Emperor, allow his lieutenants, or governors of this province, to oblige the Jews to violate any of their religious rites or cuftoms. But Pilate having been guilty, they had matter of complaint against him. See Dr. Lardner's Credibility, Vol. I. p. 193.Will any man fay, that it would be a piece of injuftice to feize any contraband goods? or to deftroy any number of noxious or infectious animals introduced. among us?

The third article of complaint, is, "That it did alienate the minds of the people against Chrift's "perfon and miniftry." This is not fo evident. Thefe wicked people are awed by the apprehenfion of Chrift's divine power! And

they

they seem to be confcious of guilt; for they defire him to depart out of their coaft. They are afraid of farther cenfure! and much more are they concerned about their fwine, than the recovery of a wretched fellow-creature, now reftored to his right mind. But our Lord does not feem to think, that the affections of this people would be alienated against him; for afore-time he had never had them engaged in his favour, that we are told of. On the contrary, he feems to expect, that the miracle would have a very different effect, by his ordering the difpoffeffed man to go home to his friends, and tell them, how great things the Lord hath done for him, and the compaffion he had had upon him. It was very probable, that upon cool reflection, the people, having this living monument of Chrift's friendly power with them, would think more justly of him, and be excited to express the greateft veneration of his perfon and miniftry. So that Mr. Chubb's opinion, and that of our Lord's about the effects of the miracle, appear to be diametrically oppofite

the one to the other.

As to the fourth thing objected unto, viz. Our Lord's gratifying the wicked defires of a great number of devils, or evil Spirits : This has as little foundation in the history. For Chrift is difpoffeffing them of their power and influence in this country. They perceive it, and beg that he would not fend them out of it. And Luke fays, that they befought him, that he would not command them to go out into the abyss. Jefus gratifies them in neither of these requests. And though he suffered them to enter into the herd of fwine; yet, as thefe creatures had been the inftruments and means of the peoples expreffing their idolatries, and were the minifters of their lufts; it was a wife permiffion for notwithftanding

R

Ꭱ .

Sect.

standing the evil fpirits might defire this, from an expectation of its raifing the prejudices, and inflaming the paffions of the people against Jefus : yet, he knew, it would be an open reproof of their idolatries and vices; and would, at the fame time, be a fenfible illuftration of the malevolence of thofe evil fpirits; fo that the beft ends would be promoted by it.

This is, with me, a juft and natural defence of the miracle; if it be allowed, Mr. Chubb's formidable objection, was but a spectre raised in his own imagination.

Mark xi. 12, 13, 14. gives us fome dif XXXV. guft; Vol. II. p. 188. because it mentions a figO jection tree withering upon our Lord's finding no fruit the wither on it, when the time of figs was not," i. e. not ing of the over; or the time of gathering figs not come : fig-tree. for the fpring-figs grow ripe, and the autumn-figs

made to

continue green. The former are ripe at the beginning of fummer. So that as there were leaves, the figs must have been produced, had the tree afforded any; because the fruit appears before the leaves. The objector fhould have fhewn, that our Lord had no ground of expecting fruit from the feafon. This would have proved Chrift's ignorance of the common productions of nature. But this cannot be done; therefore the next thing he should have attempted, ought to have been a proof, that this fig-tree was private property. And fuch private property too, as did occafion a complaint to be made against him. For, doubtlefs, had it been fo, when the Sanhedrim. were fo difficultly fet to find any that would witnefs, against Jefus, they might eafily have recollected this inftance of injuftice, and have pleaded it against him. But when impartially viewed, we. thall difcover that the manifeft defign of his pronouncing it barren for ever, and its inftantly

wither

withering upon it, was to give them a fample of his divine power; and at the fame time exhibit a fymbol of their own moral condition; who had been fruitless under the most divine means of culture! who muft, as a nation, be e're long deftroyed, under his direction, by the hands of the Romans.

water into

Sect.

Likewife the miracle of turning wine, related John ii. is objected to. Vol. II. XXXVI. p. 185, and onward.

The miracle of

But the remarks and reflections are ftale; and turning a folution has often been given of them. Mary, water into the mother of Jefus, went out of her province, wine, obin prescribing to him, when, and in what man- jected to. ner he fhould exercife miraculous power. And yet, in his answer, Woman! what have I to do with thee? there is nothing indecent; forafmuch, as the word, woman, was frequently in ufe as a term of refpect. They had a more honourable idea affixed to it, than it usually has, in the idiom of our language, thus ufed. And in regard to the intention of the miracle of turning water into wine; it is no better than an uncharitable fuggeftion, viz. that it was in order to their riot, luxury, or debauch. There are no materials in the history to fupport fuch an infinuation. But the quantity might be of great fervice to the new married couple, whofe circumstances seem to have been but narrow. And it was perfectly in character, that after our Lord had been entertained, together with his difciples, that he should thus prefent them, with the munificent effects of his miraculous power; and give a teftimony of his divine miffion, to a great number of perfons convened on this chearful occafion. It is not at all likely, that in his prefence, the guests fhould .venture upon any excefs. The infinuations that they did, are very unjuft.

R 2

It