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,