That the _Old_ Testament is to be allegorically interpreted, I have Authority, even ancient Authority enough, if that would be allow'd to be sufficient to prove my Point. We have Apostolical Authority and Example for it. The Passages in the Epistles of St. _Paul_ and _Barnabas_ to this Purpose are numerous, and so well known, that I need not recite all, or any of them. And from the Passages in St. _Paul_, that might be here produced, the Fathers asserted and concluded from his Authority, that the whole _Old_ Testament was to be allegorized. This I believe the _Bishop_ will grant, and spare me the Pains of Citations out of them. And if the _Bishop_, and my other _Adversaries_, were of the same Mind with the Fathers, on St. _Paul_'s Expressions in relation to allegorical Interpretations of the _Old_ Testament, my present Dispute with them would be half over. And what is the Reason that the _Bishop_ and others will not give into the Opinion of the Fathers on the Apostolical Passages to this Purpose? Because of their Prejudices to the _Letter_ of the _Old Testament_, otherwise they would urge St. _Paul_'s Authority for the _Spirit_ of it, as much as the Fathers or I can do. But being, I say, prepossess'd of _literal_ Interpretations, and not discerning any Force and Truth in _spiritual_ ones, they will not allow the mystical Expositions of Scripture by _Origen_ and other Fathers, tho' made in Imitation of St. _Paul_, to be of good Authority. And therefore I must demonstrate to Sense and Reason, or Primitive and Apostolical Authority will stand me in no stead. Again, If Authority for allegorical Interpretations of the _Old_ Testament would avail any thing, there is ancienter, and I had like to have said _better_, Authority for them, than _that_ of the Fathers and Apostles, _viz._ the Authority of the more ancient _Jews_. The Bishop of _St. David_'s[379] says, "The Christian Fathers (and why did he not say the _Apostles_ too?) derived this allegorical Practice from the Jewish Interpreters." He owns[380] "that _Philo Judæus_ was a great mystical Writer as his Works which are extant testify"; and[381] confesses that "there is Reason to believe, that this mystical Way of expounding Scripture was of greater Antiquity than _Philo_ himself, even amongst the _Essens_ and _Therapeuts_, whom _Philo_ writes of, and who had amongst them several ancient Books of their Predecessors or Founders, full of allegorical Interpretations." Thus far the _Bishop_ says well and truly. And what Observation should he, as a Lover of Antiquity, have made hereupon? Should he not have said, _Id verius, quod prius_; the older any Doctrine was, the more likely to be true, in as much as Truth precedes Error?