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) εν μυριασιν αγιαις αυτου, that is, as Origen interprets, in his holy thousands of Allegorists ποιησαι κρισεν, 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.
But Jesus is said to come to the Figtree at an unseasonable Time; For the Time of Figs was not yet; which Expression has been the Perplexity of Commentators, who with all their Wit and Sagacity can't get well over it. I shall not mention here all or any of their pretended Solutions of this Difficulty; but let us see whether we can't easily and at once unlose it. St. Mark's Words are ου γαρ ην καιρος συκων, which are and have been commonly translated, for the Time of Figs is not yet. But if we change the Point into an Interrogation, and read thus, for was it not the Time of Figs? the Difficulty vanishes as certainly, as that it is absurd to suppose Christ should come to his Figtree and look for Fruit, when he could not reasonably expect any. This my Solution of this Difficulty certainly serves the Purpose of the mystical Interpretation; and if it does not the litteral, I answer, we are not to heed the Letter, which seldom or never has any Sense or Truth in it. But, by the by, it does the litteral too, since there are no Grounds from the Text to think, what has been the common Opinion, that it was about the Jewish Passover that Jesus came to the Figtree. If this my Solution of the Difficulty don't please, I must say with[176] Heinsius, that it must be left as a Knot for Elias to untie, who, according to the[177] ancient Jews, is first to gather Fruits off this mystical Figtree, and present them to the intellectual Taste of Mankind. But, that my Solution is good, will appear by what follows.
And Jesus finding Leaves only says, in St. Matthew, to the Figtree, Let no Fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever; which (with its parallel Place in St. Mark) is in my Opinion a false Translation: The Original is, Μηκετι εκ σου καρπος γενηται εις τον αιωνα, and ought to be englished, not as yet, or not until now, (that I come) against the (grand) Age (of the Sabbath) has Fruit grown on thee. So that the Miracle of Jesus was to make the Figtree of the Church fruitful; and if her preceding unfruitful State, which (in St. Mark) Jesus is said to curse, or rather to devote to Ruin, wasted away, it was by Consequence.