Nor paf

Corn of thy Neighbours, then thou mayeft pluck the Ears with thine Hand, but thou Thalt not move a Sickle into thy Neighbours ftanding Corn. This Law the Jewish Doctors extended (as indeed the Reafon of the Law extends itself) not only to Grapes and Corn, but to Olives, Figs, Dates, and all other common eatable Fruits; and Jofephus tells us, That the Benefit of this Indulgence reached not only to Jews, but to all Travellers upon the Highway in Judea, whether they were Natives or not. So that had our Saviour found Figs on the Tree, and eat never so plentifully of them, he could have done no Injury to any Proprietor, because he only made use of the Privilege, which the common Law of the Country gave him.

But, fuppofing this Tree to have no fionate. Proprietor, and as it was in itself a barren Tree, useless and contemptible even to a Proverb, I fee no Reafon, why it might not (without Offence to any Man) be blafted as well as cut down, fince it was a manifeft Incumbrance to the Ground, and capable of occafioning the farther Delusion of other Travellers, by the Spaciousness of its Leaves. Nor can I conceive, why our Saviour fhould be deem'd to be in a Paffion, when he did this,

Antiq. Jud. L. 4. C. 9.

be

ctive.

this, any more than a Farmer may thought to be fo, when he orders his Servants to cut down a barren and uselefs Tree. But then, if our Saviour had an higher View in doing this, and, if the blafting of this Tree ferved fo great an End, as to be a Type of the ap- But highproaching Deftruction of the Jewish ly Instru Nation, on Suppofition of their want of Repentance, and perfifting in their wicked Design to deftroy Jefus himfelf (and that this was our Saviour's Intent in doing it, the two fevere Parables which he spake to the Jews about that Time, and which, both St. Matthew and St. Mark adjoin to the Account of this Action, are a plain Indication) if the Deftruction of the Tree, I fay, anfwered this Purpose, it was juftly facrific'd to the publick Good, as a warning to the Jews to avoid the like Fate, by the Malediction of God, and his holy Prophet Jesus. When, therefore the warning given, by this Action to the whole Nation of the Jews, was fo very charitable and kind, it is mere Perversenefs to cavil at the Miracle, because it was a deftructive to one Tree.

a

The

Bp. Smallbroke's Vind. p. 419. Dr. Pearce, Part 3. p. 19.

lous A&ti

on.

Andtruly The number of Chrift's Miracles, miracu- which are of a vindictive Kind, are but three; his driving the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple, his permitting the Devils to enter into the Herd of Swine, and, here, his deftroying the Tree, that had nothing on it but Leaves; the reft of his Works (in great Variety) are all of a beneficial Nature: But why should these be thought clearer and more inconteftible Miracles, than the other, when they are both equally fupernatural Acts, and require an Almighty Agent to effect them? Inftead of drying up a flourishing Tree then, we will fuppofe, that our Saviour had made a dry and dead one revive and flourish; yet b might not Jews and Infidels with the fame Colour pretend, that a Tree, which is supposed to revive and flourish, was never really dead, but retained a latent Principle of Life, which afterwards, on fome incidental Occafion, exerted itself? Or might not a boundless Scepticism fuggeft, that a living Tree was artificially fubftituted in the room of the dead one? In fhort, if our Saviour's other Miracles of a benign Nature, fuch as curing, with a Word, the most desperate Diseases, healing the Impotent, and reviving the very dead themselves, could not then, and

Bp. Smallbroke's Vind. p. 427

and cannot now overcome the unreafonable Prejudices of Infidels, the miraculous flourishing of a dead Tree would no more have been confider'd, as a Supernatural A&, than the caufing of a flourishing Tree to wither immediately, and die, with one omnipotent Word. For when Men have once imbib'd strong Prejudices, and are obftinately bent againft Conviction, whether the Work, defigned for their Cure, be of a merciful, or vindictive Nature, it makes very little Alteration in the Cafe; fince the miraculous Blossoms and Fruit of Aaron's Rod (to ufe a Comparison fuitable to our prefent Subject) did no more prevent the Murmurings and Difobedience of the Ifraelites, than the miraculous Hail and Fire, which smote the Vines and Fig-Trees of the Egyptians, cured them and their King of their hardness of Heart.

*

whole
Answer.

And now, to take a Review of what A sum of has been faid on this Subject. Since our the bleffed Saviour, who took not on him the Nature of Angels, but the Seed of Abraham, was, in all Things, made like unto his Brethren, and fubject to the innocent Infirmities of humane Nature, which he, nevertheless, thought not proper, by any miraculous means, to re

medy, or to exert his Divinity upon every little Occurrence of Life: Since, beyond Dispute it has been prov'd, that there were in Judea Fig-Trees, of a věry early kind, which had Fruit in full Maturity before the time of the Palover, or at the time, when our Saviour, in his Return to Bethany, went to find Fruit on this; nor are the Words of St. Mark incompatible with this Circumftance: Since this Tree, barren as it was, was nevertheless intended to be the Subject of a Miracle, and by its hafty withering away, at our Saviour's Execration, a Type and Figure of the speedy Destruction of the Jewish Nation: Since, had it born Fruit, its standing in the Way made it of common Right, or, had it been enclosed, a particular Law, provided for that purpose, submitted it to the Ufe of every Traveller, that was minded to gather of it: And, laftly, fince a Miracle of this kind, ferved to fuch excellent Ufes, was at this time more neceffary, and in all refpects as convincing, as if it had been of a merciful and beneficial Nature; there is certainly no Appearance either of Folly, or Ignorance, or Injuftice, or Paffion, or Ill-nature, in our Saviour's doing it, as is pretended: And that he could not poffibly impofe on his

C