Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour Part 9

_I took myself to be a_ Christian _of the same Faith with the Fathers of the Church; and, without Vanity, think, I have publish'd some Tracts, in Defence of Christianity, equal, if not superior to any Thing this Age has produced. I repeatedly also in my_ Discourses on Miracles, _to obviate the Prejudices of an ignorant_ Clergy, _made solemn Protestations of the Sincerity of my Design, not to do Service to Infidelity, but to make Way for the Demonstration of_ Jesus_'s Messiahship from Prophecy: But all these a.s.severations of the Integrity of my Heart, it seems, stand for nothing (and I don't wonder at it) with the_ Clergy, _who in their Principles, their Oaths, and Subscriptions are so accustom'd to prevaricate with G.o.d and Man. I shall make no more serious Protestations of my Faith, but expect your_ Lordship _should soon publish a Defence of your foul_ Charge _against me, that I may see what Skill you have in the impious and blasphemous Writings of an_ Infidel.

_And if your railing_ Accusation _be not soon followed with a Dissertation of more Reason, I shall insist on a publick Reparation of the Injury done to my Reputation by your_ vile _and_ slanderous _Sermon; and appeal to the worshipful_ Societies _for Reformation of Manners, whether it be not just and reasonable, you should do one or the other_.

_Now I have laid hold on your_ Lordship, _than whom I could not have wish'd for an_ Adversary, _that will do me more Honour to overcome, I will hold you fast; and you must expect to be teaz'd and insulted from the_ Press, _if you enter not the Lists against me_.

_A clear Stage_, my Lord, _and no Favour. If you have the Sword of the Spirit in your Hand, cut as sharply as you can with it. I had conceiv'd a great Opinion of your Learning, and should have been a little apprehensive of the Power of it; if you had not in your_ Sermon _betray'd as great Weakness and Ignorance, as could be in a poor_ Curat; _or you had never a.s.serted that the_ Greek _Commentators adher'd more strictly, to the litteral Sense of the Holy Scriptures; as if you knew not, that St_. Theophilus _of_ Antioch, _and even_ Origen _himself and others, the greatest_ Allegorists, _if a Comparison may be made, were_ Commentators _of the_ Greek _Church_.

_The sooner your_ Lordship _appears from the_ Press, _the better, in as much as you may possibly prevent my Publication of more_ Discourses _of this Kind. And that it may not be long first, I will accept of a Dissertation from you, on any two or three of the Miracles, I have handled, as sufficient for all. Take your Choice of them: but don't I beseech you, touch the Miracle of_ Jesus_'s driving the_ Buyers _and_ Sellers _out of the Temple, because it is a_ hot _one, and may possibly burn your Fingers. The Miracles, that I have most ludicrously and, of consequence, most offensively handled, are the_ two _of this present Discourse. If you please_, my Lord, _let them be the easy and short Task imposed on you. If you can defend the Letter of the Stories of these_ two _Miracles, I'll quietly give up the Rest to you._

_So heartily thanking your_ Lordship _for the Favour done me, in taking Notice of my_ Discourses on Miracles, _which shall be turn'd to good Use and Advantage, I subscribe myself_,

[Sidenote: _Feb. 26. 1728_]

_My LORD_, _Your most obliged_ _Humble Servant_, Tho. Woolston.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

A THIRD DISCOURSE ON THE MIRACLES OF OUR _SAVIOUR_, &c.

My two former Discourses having met with a favourable Reception, I am encourag'd to go on and publish another; which, without any more Preface, I enter upon, by a Repet.i.tion of three general Heads, at first proposed to be spoken to, and they were,

I. To show that the Miracles of healing all Manner of bodily Diseases, which _Jesus_ was justly famed for, are none of the proper Miracles of the _Messiah_, neither are they so much as a good Proof of his divine Authority, to found a Religion.

II. To prove, that the literal History of many of the Miracles of _Jesus_, as recorded by the _Evangelists_, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities, and Incredibilities; consequently they, either in whole or in part, were never wrought, as they are commonly believed now-a-days, but are only related as prophetical and Parabolical Narratives of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.

III. To consider, what _Jesus_ means, when he appeals to his Miracles, as to a Testimony and a Witness of his divine Authority; and to show that he could not properly and ultimately refer to those he then wrought in the _Flesh_, but to those Mystical ones, that he would do in the _Spirit_, of which those wrought in the Flesh are but mere Types and Shadows.

Tho' I have already, spoken what may be thought sufficient, to the first of these Heads; yet I have several Things still, both from Reason and Authority, to add to it; but having not here a convenient Place for that purpose, I defer it to a better Opportunity; and so pa.s.s immediately to the Resumption of my

II. Second general Head, and that is, to prove, that the literal History of many of the Miracles of _Jesus_, as recorded by the _Evangelists_, does imply Absurdities, Improbabilities and Incredibilities; consequently they, either in whole or in part were never wrought, as it is commonly believed now-a-days, but are only related, as Prophetical and parabolical Narratives of what would be mysteriously and more wonderfully done by him.

To this Purpose I have taken into Examination six of the Miracles of _Jesus_, _viz._ those.

1. Of his driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple.

2. Of his exorcising the _Devils_ out of the Mad-men, and sending them into the Herd of Swine.

3. Of his Transfiguration on the Mount.

4. Of his healing a Woman, that had an Issue of Blood, twelve Years.

5. Of his curing a Woman that had a Spirit of Infirmity, eighteen Years, and

6. Of his telling the _Samaritan_ Woman her Fortune of having had five Husbands, and being then an Adulteress with another Man.

Whether I have not prov'd the Storys of these Miracles, either in whole or in part, to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities, and incredibilities, according to the Proposition before us, I leave my _Readers_ to judge; and now will take in Hand

7. A Seventh Miracle of _Jesus_; _viz._ that[145] _of his cursing the Figtree, for not bearing Fruit out of Season_; which Miracle, upon the bare mention of it, appears to be such an absurd, foolish, and ridiculous, if not malicious and ill-natured Act in _Jesus_, that I question, whether, for Folly and Absurdity, it can be equalled in any Instance of the Life of a reputed wise Man. The Fathers, such as _Origen_, St. _Augustin_, St. _John of Jerusalem_, and others, have all said as smart Things, as the wittiest Infidels can, against the Letter of this Story. St. _Augustin_[146] very plainly says, that _this Fact in Jesus_, upon Supposition that it was done, was _a foolish one_. If therefore I treat this Story a little more ludicrously than ordinary, and expose the Folly of the Fact as well as of the modern Belief of it, I hope their Authority and Example will plead my Excuse for it.

_Jesus_ was hungry, it seems, and being disappointed of Figs, to the Satisfaction of his Appet.i.te, cursed the Figtree. Why so peevish and impatient? Our _Divines_, when they please, make _Jesus_ the most patient, resign'd and easy under Sufferings, Troubles and Disappointments, of any Man. If he really was so, he could hardly have been so much out of Humour, for want of a few Figs, to the Allay of his Hunger. But to curse the Figtree upon it, was as foolishly and pa.s.sionately done, as for another Man to throw the Chairs and Stools about the House; because his Dinner is not ready at a critical Time, or before it could be got ready for him.

But _Jesus_ was hungry, some will say, and the Disappointment provoked him. What if he was hungry? He should, as he knew the Return of his Appet.i.te, have made a better and more certain Provision for it. Where was _Judas_ his Steward and Caterer with his Bag of Victuals as well as Money? Poor Forecast, and Management amongst them, or _Jesus_ had never trusted to the uncertain Fruits of a Figtree, which he espy'd at a Distance, for his Breakfast.

And if _Jesus_ was frustrated of a long'd-for Meal of Figs, what need he 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 Pa.s.sion, 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 G.o.d. 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 Sc.r.a.pe, 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 G.o.d to interest himself in_; and again, _they must be such as answer to the Character of G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sed 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 circ.u.mcised it, as that the Leaves did, what they will do, wither in a Night and a Day's Time. G.o.d 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 _praeter_, 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 a.s.sertion, 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 Pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.s 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 Pa.s.sion 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) e? ???as?? a??a?? a?t??, that is, as _Origen_ interprets, _in his holy thousands_ of Allegorists p???sa? ???se?, _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 aetherial 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 G.o.d'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 Circ.u.mstance of Life, that unless it be, what's next to impossible, necessarily introductory to some n.o.ble Transaction, its unfit to be remember'd of a _Saint_ in History. _Diogenes Laertius_ would have disdain'd to mention such a frivolous Circ.u.mstance 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 n.o.ble; 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 ?? ?a? ??

?a???? s????, 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_ Pa.s.sover 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.