have so reveng'd the Disappointment on the[147] senseless and faultless
Tree? Was it, because he was forc'd to fast longer than usual and
expedient? not so, I hope neither: Could not Angels, if he was in a
desert Place, have administered unto him? Or could not he miraculously
have created Bread for himself and his Company, as he multiplied or
increased the Loaves for his Thousands in the Wilderness? What Occasion
then for his being out of Humour for want of Food? If he was of Power to
provide Bread for others on a sudden, he might sure have supply'd his
own Necessities, and so have kept his Temper, without breaking into a
violent Fit of Passion, upon present Want and Disappointment.
But what is yet worse, _the Time of Figs was not yet_, when Jesus
look'd and long'd for them. Did ever any one hear or read of any
thing more[148] unreasonable than for a Man to expect Fruit out of
Season? _Jesus_ could not but know this before he came to the Tree,
and if he had had any Consideration, he would not have expected Figs
on it, much less, if he had regarded his own Reputation, as a wise
Man, would he have so resented the Want of them. What, if a _Yeoman_
of _Kent_ should go to look for _Pipins_ in his Orchard at _Easter_,
(the supposed Time[149] that _Jesus_ sought for these Figs) and,
because of a Disappointment, cut down all his Trees; What then would
his Neighbours make of him; Nothing less, than a _Laughing-stock_; and
if the Story got into our publick News, he would be the Jest and
Ridicule of Mankind. How _Jesus_ salv'd his Credit upon this his wild
Prank; and prevented the Laughter of the _Scribes_ and _Pharisees_
upon it, I know not; but I cannot think of this Part of the Letter of
this Story, without smiling at it at this Day; and wonder our
_Divines_ are not laugh'd out of Countenance for reading it gravely,
and having _Jesus_ in Admiration for it.
Again, I would gladly know, whose Figtree this was, and whether
_Jesus_ had any legal Right to the Fruit, if haply he had found any on
it, or any Leave or Authority to smite it with a Curse for its
Unfruitfulness? As to the Tree's being _Jesus_'s Property, that could
not be. For he was so far from being either Landlord or Tenant, that
it's said he had not where to lay his Head. During the Time of his
Ministry, he was but a Wanderer, like a Mendicant Fryar, or an
itinerant Preacher, and before that Time was no better than a
Journeyman Carpenter (of whose Workmanship, I wonder, the Church of
_Rome_ has no holy Relicks, not so much as a Three-footed-stool, or a
Pair of Nutcrackers;) consequently he had no House nor Land of his own
by Law, much less any Figtree, and least of all _this_ which he espy'd
at a distance in his Travels. How then had he any Right to the Figs,
if he had met with any? I hope he ask'd Leave beforehand of the
Proprietor, or _Infidels_ will say of him, that if he had had an
Opportunity he would have been a _Rob-Orchard_. And it he had no Right
to the Fruit, much less to smite the Tree with a Curse; where was his
Honour,[150] _his Justice_, his Goodness, and his Honesty in this Act?
The _Evangelists_, if they would have us to think, _Jesus_ did no
wrong to any Man, should have left us somewhat upon Record, to
Satisfaction, in this Case; or _Infidels_, who have here Scope for it,
will think worse of _Jesus_, than possibly he may deserve. Whether
_Jesus_, modestly speaking, met with any Blame or Reprimand from the
Proprietor, for his Act of Execration, none can affirm or deny. But if
any one so spitefully and maliciously should destroy almost any other
Tree, whether fruitful or not, of another Man's, in this Country, he
would have good Luck, if he escaped the House of Correction for it.
And what now have our _Divines_ to say, to all this Reasoning against
the Letter of this Story? Nothing more than "That the Act of cursing the
Figtree, whether it be at this Distance of Time reconcilable to Reason,
Justice and Prudence or not, was a supernatural Work, above the Power of
Nature or Art to imitate; consequently it was a Miracle, and they will
admire and adore _Jesus_ for it." And to agree with them at present,
that it was a real Miracle, and a supernatural Event, yet I hope,
they'll acknowledge, that if _Jesus_, as St. _Augustin_[151] says, had,
instead of cursing the Figtree, made a dry, dead and withered one,
immediately to bud, flourish and revive, and in an Instant to bring
forth ripe Fruits, out of Season, it would have pleased them much
better. Such an Instance of his Power had been an indisputable Miracle:
Such an Instance of his divine Power had carry'd Goodness along with it,
and none of the foresaid Exceptions could have been made to it: Such an
Instance of his Almighty Power, had been a Demonstration of his being
Lord of the Creation, and Author of the Fruits of the Earth for the Use
of Man, in their Season, or he could not have produced them out of
Season: In such an Instance of Power, his Divine Care and Providence
against Hunger and Want would have been visible; and it would have been
an Admonition to us, to depend daily upon him for the Comforts and
Necessaries of Life: Such an Instance of his Power would have been, as
St. _Augustin_ says above, like his Miracles of healing Diseases, of
making the Languid, _Sound_; and the Feeble, _Strong_; and we might more
certainly have inferr'd from one with the other, that both were the
Operations of a good God. But this Instance of his cursing the Figtree
in this Fashion spoils the Credit, and sullies the Glory of his other
Miracles. It is in its own Nature of such a malevolent Aspect, that its
enough to make us suspect the Beneficence of _Christ_ in his other
Works, and to question whether there might not be some latent Poyson and
diabolical Design under the Colour of his fairer Pretences to Almighty
Power. It is so like the malignant Practices of _Witches_, who, as
Stories go, upon Envy, Grudge, or Distaste, smite their Neighbours
Cattle with languishing Distempers, till they die, that it's hard, if
not impossible, to distinguish one from the other, in Spite and Malice.
If _Mahomet_, and not _Jesus_, had been the Author of this Miracle, our
_Divines_ would presently have discover'd the _Devil_'s Foot in it, and
have said that _Satan_ drew him into a Scrape, in the Execution of this
mad and foolish Frolick, on purpose to expose _him_ for a _Wizard_ and
_his_ Musselmen of all Ages since for _Fools_ in believing on him. The
Spirit of _Christ_, who is all Love and Mercy, should, one would think,
breath forth nothing but Goodness and Kindness to Mankind; but that such
a pestilential Blast, like a mortiferous North-East Wind in some
Seasons, should proceed from his Mouth, to the Destruction of another
Man's harmless and inoffensive Tree, is what none upon Earth can account
for.
Our _Divines_, one or other of them, have publish'd several notable
Notions about Miracles, and have laid down good Rules to distinguish
_true_ from _false_ ones; but none of them, as far as I perceive, have
taken any Pains to shew the Consistence of _Jesus_'s Miracles to their
own Rules and Notions. Mr. _Chandler_, (who as the _Archbishop_[152]
says, has rightly slated the Notion of a Miracle) among his Rules of
judging by whom Miracles are perform'd, says,[153] _That the Things
pretended to be done, are to be such, as that it is consistent with
the Perfections of God to interest himself in_; and again, _they must
be such as answer to the Character of God as a good and gracious
Being_; and again, _It seems reasonable to believe, that whenever the
first and best of Beings is pleased to send an extraordinary Messenger
with a Revelation of his Will, he will furnish him with such Proofs of
his Mission, as may argue, not only the Power of him in whose Name be
comes, but his Love to Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good_.
I have no Dislike to these Notions of Mr. _Chandler_; but as it is not
to be questioned, that he (and the _Archbishop_ too) had this Miracle
of _Jesus_'s cursing the Figtree, and some others, as of his
_boisterous driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple_; of _his
sending the Devils into the Herd of Swine_; of _his turning Water into
Wine for the Use of Men, who had before well drank_, &c. in his View,
when he gave forth the foresaid Rules; (for acute and learned Writers
in Theology are supposed to have their Wits about them;) so it is to
be hop'd that he or the _Archbishop_ will soon publish somewhat to
reconcile these Miracles of _Jesus_ to their own Notions; tho' I don't
expect it before _latter Lammas_.
But after all, it may be questioned, if Infidels should go about it,
whether this Work of _Jesus_ was miraculous; and whether there was not
more of the Craft of Man, than of the Power of God in it; or to use
Mr. _Chandler_'s[154] Words, whether it don't _look like the little
Tricks and cunning Deceits of Impostors_. St. _Matthew_ says,
_presently the Figtree withered away_; but this _presently_ is an
indeterminate Time, and may be understood of a Day, or a Week or two,
as well as of the Moment in which the Words were spoken, _Let no Fruit
grow on thee henceforward for ever_. St. _Mark_ says, _that in the
Morning as the Disciples passed by; they saw the Figtree dry'd up from
the Roots_, which was at least the Day[155] after the Curse was
utter'd, so that there was certainly four and twenty Hours for its
withering; and if it is said that the _Tree dry'd up from the Roots_,
it does not imply that the Trunk of it perish'd, or was reduc'd to
nothing; but only that the green Leaves of the Whole, and of every
Part of it, were in a withering Condition: And might not all this be
done without a Miracle? What if _Jews_ and _Infidels_ should say, that
_Jesus_, being minded to impose on his Disciples and Followers, took a
secret Opportunity beforehand to lay his Carpenter's Ax to the Root of
this Tree, and so imperceptibly circumcised it, as that the Leaves
did, what they will do, wither in a Night and a Day's Time. God
forbid, that I should think, _Jesus_ did so; but as to the Possibility
of such a Fraud in an Impostor, none can doubt of it.
I am so far from thinking there was any such Fraud in this supposed
Miracle of _Jesus_, that I don't believe it was at all done by him
according to the Letter: And for this I have not only a clear and
intrinsick Proof from the Story itself; but the Authority of the
Fathers. St. _Ambrose_, treating on the Parable of the Figtree in[156]
St. _Luke_, intimates, that what St. _Matthew_ and St. _Mark_ write of
_Jesus_'s cursing the Figtree, is but[157] Part of the same Parable.
And St. _John_ of _Jerusalem_[158] says expressly enough, that the three
_Evangelists_ write of one and the same Figtree, consequently
parabolically, and that, what St. _Matthew_ and St. _Mark_ write of it,
was no more a literal Transaction, than the Parable in St. _Luke_.
Thanks to these holy Fathers for their ridding us of the Belief of the
Letter of this Story, which otherwise might have perplex'd us with its
Absurdities before urg'd. And to their Opinion I desire it may be added
and considered, whether it be not as reasonable in itself to take what
the three _Evangelists_ write of this Figtree as Part of one Story, as
well as, what they write of the _Woman with her Issue of Blood_, and of
_Jesus's calling the Devils out of the Madmen_, and of other Miracles
which are but several Relations of the same Story, Parable or Miracle,
Neither is it any Argument for a literal Transaction of this Miracle,
that the _Evangelists_ speak of it, as a Thing done: For, as _Origen_
says, there are some Things spoken of in the _Evangelists_, as Facts,
which were never transacted; so it is of the Nature of Prophecy (and
our Saviour in his whole Life prophesied) to speak of Things to come,
as if they were already past; because such Prophecies are not to be
understood till after their Accomplishment, and then the Reason of the
Use of the _præter_, instead of the _future_ Tense, in Prophecy, will be
visible. But what, in my Opinion, is an absolute Demonstration, that
there's no Truth in the Letter of this Story, is, what our Saviour adds,
upon the Disciples wondering at the sudden withering of the Figtree,
saying,[159] _that if they had Faith they should not only do what was
done to the Figtree; but should say to this Mountain_, (that was near
him, I suppose) _be thou removed and cast into the Sea, and it shall be
done_. But these Things were never litterally done by them, consequently
_Jesus_ himself did not litterally curse the Figtree; or the Disciples
wanted Faith for the doing the said Miracles, which is an Absurdity to
suppose; or _Jesus_ talked idly of a Promise to invest them with a
Power, they were never to be possess'd of. But of what ill Consequence
to Religion, either of these Suppositions is, let the old Objection in
_Paschasius Rathertus_[160] speak; which I shall not stay here to urge
and revive; but only say at present, that if _Jesus_ actually cursed a
Figtree, his Disciples ought to have done so too, and to remove
Mountains. If we adhere to the Letter in one Case, we must in the other
also; but we are only to look to the Mystery in both, or St.
_Augustin_[161] will tell us, that _Jesus_ utter'd vain, empty and
insignificant Words and Promises.
St. _Augustin_, who believes no more of the Letter of this Story, than
I do, says, that the Works of _Jesus_ are all figurative and of a
spiritual Signification, which is so manifest from his Act of cursing
the Figtree, as Men must,[162] _whether they will or not_ acknowledge
it. But he is mistaken: Tho' there might be none in his Time who
would question, that this supposed Fact of _Jesus_ had a mystical
Signification; yet if he had liv'd in our Days, he would have met with
_Divines_, who, for all the foresaid Absurdities and their Cogency to
drive us to Allegory, do adhere to the Letter only, whether the Truth,
Credibility and Reasonableness of it be defensible or not. But then to
do Justice to St. _Augustin_'s Assertion, he would have met with
others, who _against their Wills_, interpret this Miracle
figuratively, such as Dr. _Hammond_ and Dr. _Whitby_, who say, _Jesus_
cursed the Figtree by way of Type of the Destruction of the _Jewish_
State, which declined and wasted away after the Similitude of this
withering Tree. But why then don't these _Commentators_ allegorically
interpret and apply other Miracles of our Saviour? Because they think
the Letter will stand good and abide the Test without an Allegory. And
why do they allegorise this Miracle only? Because of the Difficulties
and Absurdities of the Letter, which they can't account for. And are
these Reasons good? No, certainly: The _Evangelists_ should have made
the Distinction for them. They should have told us, which Miracles are
to be allegoris'd and mystically applied, and which are not; or we
are to allegorise all or none at all. And how came these modern
Allegorists of this Miracle to apply it as they do, and to make it a
mystical Representation of the Ruin of the _Jewish_ State? Did they
take up this Notion of their own Heads, or did they borrow it of the
Fathers? Why in all Probability they took the Hint from the Fathers;
wherefore then don't they, what none of them do, cite and acknowledge
their Authors for it? Because, like Men of Subtilty, they would be
thought to devise it of themselves; for if they had quoted the Fathers
for it, the Fathers would have oblig'd them, upon their Authority, to
allegorise the rest of _Jesus_'s Miracles, in the way that I have
interpreted some of them; but this would not have agreed with their
Stomachs for many Reasons. No Thanks then to the aforesaid
_Commentators_ for their allegorical Application of this Miracle,
which they are again to desert, or abide the Consequence of
allegorising others also, which for their Interests and Reputations
they will not do. Therefore let them return again to the Letter of
this Miracle, and say for it, what is all that is to be said for it,
with _Victor Antiochenus_, an Apostatical Writer of the fifth
Century,[163] _that when we read this Passage of Scripture concerning
the Figtree_, Jesus _cursed, we ought not curiously to enquire whether
it was wisely or justly done of_ Jesus, _or not; but we ought to
contemplate and admire this Miracle, as well as that of_ Jesus'_s
drowning the Swine, notwithstanding some think it void of the Face of
Justice_. Ay, ay, our _Divines_ must allegorise all _Jesus_'s
Miracles, or betake themselves to this Opinion of _Victor_; which this
_Free-thinking_ Age will hardly let them quietly rest in. So,
supposing our _Divines_ to be, what they generally are, still
Ministers of the Absurdity of the Letter, I pass to the Consideration
of the Authority of the Fathers, and to see, whether we can't learn of
them this Parable of the Figtree.
Who or what is meant by the Figtree seems not to be agreed among the
Fathers; or, more properly speaking, they are not agreed, all of them
to apply it always to one and the same Thing. Some, as[164] _Gregory_
the _Great_, say Human Nature or Mankind is typified by the Figtree.
Others, as[165] St. _Hilary_, say the _Jewish_ Church or State is
meant by it. Others, as[166] _Origen_ say, it is a Type of the Church
of Christ. So do the Fathers seem to be divided in their Opinions; but
it is without any Difference or Inconsistency with each other. For as
there is, according to the Fathers, Mystery upon Mystery in all the
Actions of _Jesus_; so I believe the Figtree here, as a Type, may be
properly enough apply'd to the foresaid three Purposes. And if the
Fathers had been ask'd their Opinion in this Case, I dare say, they
would have said so too. This is certain that _Origen_[167] understands
it as applicable to the _Jewish_ as well as the _Christian_ Church.
And St. _Augustin_, as Occasion offers itself, takes it in the
foresaid three Senses. When they understand it as a Type of all
Mankind, they say that the _three Years_ of its Unfruitfulness are to
be interpreted of the[168] _three grand Periods_ of the World; the
_one_ before the Law of _Moses_; _another_ under the Law; and the
_third_ under the Gospel; at the Conclusion of which _third_ Period,
as it was an ancient and common Opinion, _Jesus_ in Spirit would come
to his Figtree of Mankind, and animadvert on them for their
Unfruitfulness, not by any Destruction of human Nature, but by a
Cessation of its Unfruitful State, which then will wither away, and be
turn'd into a fruitful one against the grand Sabbath, or acceptable
Year, which is the Year signified in the Parable, _that it is to be
let alone to bring forth Fruit in_. They that understand the Figtree
as a Type of the _Jewish_ State, mean by the _three Years Jesus_ came
to it, the _three Years_ of his preaching among the _Jews_; at the End
of which, after _Christ_'s Passion and Resurrection, the _Jewish_
State, like the Figtree, withered away, and, for its Unfruitfulness,
was rooted up. They, that understand the Figtree as a Figure of the
Church of _Christ_, by the _three Years_, mean the apocalyptical
_twelve hundred and sixty Days_ (that is, three Years and a half) of
the Church's barren and unfruitful State in the Wilderness, at the
Conclusion of which, the Fathers say, _Jesus_ will come again to his
Church or Figtree, seeking Fruit on it.
Some perhaps may be ready here to interpose with a Question, and say,
how will _Jesus_ then come to his Church? I have carefully perused the
Fathers upon this Question, and can't find that they mean any more by
_Christ_'s second or spiritual Advent, than that clear _Truth_, right
_Reason_ and divine _Wisdom_ (which are the mystical Names of _Jesus_)
will descend upon the Church, on the Clouds of the Law and the
Prophets, to the Removal of her unfruitful and unprofitable Errors,
and to enable her to bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, against the
grand Sabbath. Neither can any reasonable Man conceive how
otherwise[169] _the Lord should come_, (not _with ten thousand of his
Saints_, as our Translation has it, but) [Greek: en myriasin agiais
autou], that is, as _Origen_ interprets, _in his holy thousands_ of
Allegorists [Greek: poiêsai krisen], _to criticise upon all_ the
Scripture, and to convince _Ministers of the Letter_ of their
abominable Errors, and of their horrid Blasphemies spoken, preach'd
and printed against the Holy, (Ghost or) Spirit of the Law and
Prophets. As to that literal and common Pulpit-Story (with all its
Appendages) of _Jesus_'s second Coming on ætherial Clouds, as on a
Wool-sack, in his human, tho' glorious and majestick Appearance, for
the Resurrection of Mens Bodies, by the Sound of a Trumpet, in the
Audience of the Dead, _&c._ it is the most absurd, nonsensical and
unphilosophical, (such groundless and worthless Stuff have the
_Clergy_ sold and preach'd to God's People!) that ever was told
against Reason, against prophetick and evangelical Scripture, and
against other antient and good Authority. It is no Place here to
multiply Testimonies and Arguments to either of these Purposes which
my Readers, if they do but attend, will see no Occasion for. But if
our _Divines_ should think I have put a false Gloss on the Text of St.
_Jude_ above, I have a Bundle of Arguments and Testimonies to produce
in Defence of it, at their Service.
In the Parable of St. _Luke_, it is said, _Lo, these three Years come
I seeking Fruit on this Figtree_; as if _Jesus_ came annually and
successively for _three Years_ together: but according to the
Original, it ought to be read, _Lo, it is three Years and I now
come_, or, _Lo, the three Years are now past, and I come_. And here it
is to be noted, that whether we understand the Figtree, as a Figure of
the Church in particular, or of Mankind in general; the mystical
Number of _three Years_ will terminate about the same Time, against
the Evangelical Sabbath, on which the Unfruitfulness of the Church, or
of Mankind, according to the Fathers, is to have an End put to it.
And _Jesus_, when he came to the Figtree, _found nothing thereon but
Leaves only_: So _Jesus_, when he comes to his Church, will find
nothing in her but Leaves only. And what is here meant by Leaves? Let
the Fathers, such as[170] St. _Hilary_, St. _John_[171] _of
Jerusalem_, and[172] St. _Theophylact_ tell us, who by Leaves
understand a vain and empty Appearance of Wisdom and good Works, or
the Words and Letter of the Scriptures, which are the Leaves of the
Oracle, without any Figs of spiritual Interpretations of them. And
whether this ben't the Case of the Church at present, our _Divines_
are to consider. The Figs that _Jesus_ may be supposed to look for at
his Coming, are not only the Fruits of the Spirit mention'd by St.
_Paul_, but[173] _spiritual Interpretations_ of the Scriptures, which
St. _Jerome_[174] says are _mystical Figs_; because, as ripe Figs are
sweet to the Palate of our Mouths, so are they no less delicious to
the Soul of Man.
But _Jesus_ is said to be _hungry_ after Figs: so will _Jesus_ in
Spirit _hunger_ for the mystical Figs of his Church, that is, as
_Origen_[175] rightly interprets, he will earnestly desire, like a Man
that is hungry, the Fruits of the Spirit in his Church, which will be
as grateful to him as Figs can be to a Man naturally. To understand
this Expression of _Jesus_'s _Hunger_ literally, is such a mean
Circumstance of Life, that unless it be, what's next to impossible,
necessarily introductory to some noble Transaction, its unfit to be
remember'd of a _Saint_ in History. _Diogenes Laertius_ would have
disdain'd to mention such a frivolous Circumstance in the Life of a
Philosopher as _this_ of _Jesus_. But if we understand this _Hunger_
in _Jesus_ mystically, and figuratively of his Desires of the Fruits
of the Spirit in his Church, it is sublime and noble; and the Emblem
confessedly proper and instructive.