Partition of Plants into Herb and Tree, in Gen. 1. 11.
41. While you reade in Theophrastus, or modern Herbalists, a strict division of Plants, into Arbor, Frutex, Suffrutex et Herba, you cannot but take notice of the Scriptural division at the Creation, into Tree and Herb: and this may seem too narrow to comprehend the Classis of Vegetables; which, notwithstanding, may be sufficient, and a plain and intelligible division thereof. And therefore in this difficulty concerning the division of Plants, the learned Botanist, Cæsalpinus, thus concludeth. Clarius agemus si alterâ divisione neglectâ, duo tantùm Plantarum genera substituamus, Arborem scilicet, et Herbam, conjungentes cum Arboribus Frutices, et cum Herba Suffrutices; Frutices being the lesser Trees, and Suffrutices the larger, harder and more solid Herbs.
And this division into Herb and Tree, may also suffice, if we take in that natural ground of the division of perfect Plants, and such as grow from Seeds. For Plants, in their first production, do send forth two Leaves adjoining to the Seed; and then afterwards, do either produce two other Leaves, and so successively before any Stalk; and such go under the name of Πόα, Βοτάνη, or Herb; or else, after the first Leaves succeeding to the Seed Leaves, they send forth a Stalk, or rudiment of a Stalk before any other Leaves, and such fall under the Classis of Δένδρον, or Tree. So that, in this natural division, there are but two grand differences, that is, Tree and Herb. The Frutex and Suffrutex have the way of production from the Seed, and in other respects the Suffrutices, or Cremia, have a middle and participating nature, and referable unto Herbs.
The Bay Tree, in Psal. 37. 35
42. I have seen the ungodly in great power, and flourishing like a green Bay Tree. Both Scripture and humane Writers draw frequent illustrations from Plants. Scribonius Largus illustrates the old Cymbals from the Cotyledon Palustris, or Umbelicus Veneris. Who would expect to find Aaron’s Mitre in any Plant? yet Josephus hath taken some pains to make out the same in the seminal knop of Hyoscyamus, or Henbane. The Scripture compares the Figure of Manna unto the Seed of Coriander. In Jeremy[232] we find the expression, Streight as a Palm Tree: And here the wicked in their flourishing state are likened unto a Bay Tree. Which, sufficiently answering the sense of the Text, we are unwilling to exclude that noble Plant from the honour of having its name in Scripture. Yet we cannot but observe, that the Septuagint renders it Cedars, and the Vulgar accordingly, Vidi impium superexaltatum, et elevatum sicut Cedros Libani; and the Translation of Tremelius mentions neither Bay nor Cedar; Sese explicantem tanquam Arbor indigena virens; which seems to have been followed by the last Low Dutch Translation. A private Translation renders it like a green self-growing[233] Laurel, The High Dutch of Luther’s Bible, retains the word Laurel; and so doth the old Saxon and Island Translation; so also the French, Spanish; and Italian of Diodati: yet his Notes acknowledge that some think it rather a Cedar, and others any large Tree in a prospering and natural Soil.
But however these Translations differ, the sense is allowable and obvious unto apprehension: when no particular Plant is named, any proper to the sense may be supposed; where either Cedar or Laurel is mentioned, if the preceding words [exalted and elevated] be used, they are more appliable unto the Cedar; where the word [flourishing] is used, it is more agreeable unto the Laurel, which, in its prosperity, abounds with pleasant flowers, whereas those of the Cedar are very little, and scarce perceptible, answerable to the Firre, Pine and other coniferous Trees.
The Figg Tree, in S. Mark. 11. 13, etc.
43. And in the morning, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry; and seeing a Figg Tree afar off having Leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon; and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves: for the time of Figgs was not yet. Singular conceptions have passed from learned men to make out this passage of S. Mark, which S. Matthew[234] so plainly delivereth; most men doubting why our Saviour should curse the Tree for bearing no Fruit, when the time of Fruit was not yet come; or why it is said that the time of Figgs was not yet, when, notwithstanding, Figgs might be found at that season.
Heinsius,[235] who thinks that Elias must salve the doubt, according to the received Reading of the Text, undertaketh to vary the same, reading οὕ γὰρ ἦν, καιρὸς σύκων, that is, for where he was, it was the season or time of Figgs.
A learned Interpreter[236] of our own, without alteration of accents or words, endeavours to salve all, by another interpretation of the same, Οὐ γὰρ καιρὸς σύκων, For it was not a good or seasonable year for Figgs.