When therefore Mr. Jowett speaks contemptuously of "the attempt to adapt the truths of Scripture to the doctrines of the Creeds," (p. 353,) the kindest thing which can be said is that he writes like an ignorant, or at least an unlearned man. "The Creeds" (he says) "are acknowledged to be a part of Christianity.... Yet it does not follow that they should be pressed into the service of the Interpreter." Why not? we ask. "The _growth of ideas_," (he replies,) "in the interval which separated the first century from the fourth or sixth makes it _impossible_ to apply the language of the one to the explanation of the other. Between Scripture and the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds, _a world of the understanding comes in_; and mankind are no longer at the same point as when the whole of Christianity was contained in the words 'Believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and thou mayest be saved;' when the Gospel centred in the attachment to a living and recently departed friend and Lord."

(p. 353.)

But there is a fallacy or a falsity at every step of this argument. For _when_ did the Gospel ever "centre in attachment?" or _when_ was "the whole of Christianity contained" in one short sentence? Supposing too that "a world of the understanding" _does_ come in between the first century and the sixth; how does it follow that it is "impossible" to apply the language of the Creeds to the interpretation of Holy Scripture? Explain to me how that "world of understanding" affects _the Nicene_ Creed? Even in the case of that most precious Creed called the Athanasian,--why need we _a.s.sume_ that "the growth of ideas" has been a spurious growth? What if it should prove, on the contrary, that the development has been that of the plant from the seed[211]? Above all, why talk of "the fourth _or sixth_ century,"--as if the Creeds were not essentially much older; nay, _co-eval with Christianity itself_?... Such writing shews nothing so much as a confused mind,--a weak, ill-informed, and illogical thinker.

Indeed Mr. Jowett seems to be altogether in the dark on the subject of the Creeds: for he speaks of them as "the result of three or four centuries of reflection and controversy," (p. 353,)--which is by no means true of all of them; nor, except in a certain sense, of any. But when he inquires,--"If the occurrence of the phraseology of the Nicene age in a verse of the Epistles would detect the spuriousness of the verse in which it was found,--how can the Nicene _or Athanasian Creed_ be a suitable instrument for the interpretation of Scripture?"

(p. 354.)--he simply asks a fool's question. The cases are not only not parallel, but there is not even any a.n.a.logy between them. Let us hear him a little further:--

"Absorbed as St. Paul was in the person of Christ, ... he does not speak of Him as 'equal to the Father,' or 'of one substance with the Father[212].' Much of the language of the Epistles, (pa.s.sages for example such as Romans i. 2: Philippians ii. 6,) would lose their meaning if distributed in alternate clauses between our LORD'S Humanity and Divinity[213]. Still greater difficulties would be introduced into the Gospels by the attempt to identify them with the Creeds[214]. We should have to suppose that He was and was not tempted[215]; that when He prayed to His Father He prayed also to Himself[216]; that He knew and did not know 'of that hour' of which He as well as the angels were ignorant[217]. How could He have said 'My G.o.d, My G.o.d, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' or 'Father, if it be possible let this cup pa.s.s from Me.'

How could He have doubted whether 'when the Son of Man cometh He shall find faith upon the earth[218]?' These simple and touching words,"

(p. 355,)--pah!

Now if what precedes means anything at all,--(I am by no means certain however that it does!)--it means that the writer does not believe in the Divinity of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. Unless the sentence which is without a reference to the foot of the page be not a denial of the fundamental Doctrine of the Faith[219],--I do not understand it. But look at _all_ which precedes; and then say if those are the remarks of a man ent.i.tled to dogmatize "On the Interpretation of Scripture." ... If Mr. Jowett really means that the Creeds _cannot be reconciled with the Bible_,--how can he himself subscribe to the VIIIth Article? If he means nothing of the kind,--why does he write in such a weak, cloudy, illogical way?

But the whole of the case has not even yet been stated. Down from the remote period of which we have been hitherto speaking,--the age of primitive Creeds, and oec.u.menical Councils, and ancient Fathers,--in every country of the civilized world to which the Gospel has spread,--the loftiest Intellect, the profoundest Learning, the sincerest Piety, have invariably endorsed the ancient and original method of interpretation. I am not implying that such corroboration was in any sense _required_; but the circ.u.mstance that it has been _obtained_, at least deserves attention. Modes of thought are dependent on times and countries. There is a fashion in all things. Great advances in Science,--grand epochs in civilization,--vicissitudes of opinion,--difference of inst.i.tutions, national traditions, and the like,--might be supposed to have wrought a permanent change even in this department of Sacred Science. But it is not so. The storm has raged from one quarter or other of the heavens, but has ever spent its violence in vain. Still has the Church Catholic retained her own unbroken tradition.

To keep to the history of that Church to which we, by G.o.d'S mercy, belong:--The constant appeal, at the time of our own great Reformation, was to the Fathers of the first four centuries. Ever since, the temper and spirit of our Commentators has been to revert to the same standard, to reproduce the same teaching. The most powerful minds and the most holy spirits,--English Divines of the deepest thought and largest reading,--let me add, of the soundest judgment and severest discrimination,--have, in every age, down to the present, gratefully accepted not only the method, but even the very details of primitive Patristic Interpretation. But "the acceptance of a hundred generations and the growing authority arising from it,"--like "the inst.i.tutions based upon such ancient writings, and the history into which they have entwined themselves indissolubly for many centuries,"--all conspire to "const.i.tute a perpetually increasing and strengthening[220]" body of evidence on the subject of Sacred Interpretation.

Now, to oppose to the learning, and piety, and wisdom, of every age of the English Church,--to the unbroken testimony of the Church Universal,--(3) to the torrent of Patristic Antiquity,--(4) the decision of early Councils, and (5) the 'still small voice' of primitive Creeds,--yet more, (6) to the constant practice of the Apostles,--and, above all, (7) to the indisputable method of our Divine LORD Himself;--to oppose to all this mighty acc.u.mulation of evidence, the simple _a priori_ convictions of--Mr. Jowett! savours so strongly of the ridiculous, that it really seems superfluous to linger over the ant.i.thesis for a single moment.

$4.$ Our task might now be looked upon as completed.--It only remains, in justice to the gentleman whose method we have been considering, to ascertain by what considerations he is induced to reject that method of Interpretation which, as we have seen, enjoys such overwhelming sanction.

(i) In opposition to what goes before, then, he throws out a suggestion, that "nothing would be more likely to restore a natural feeling on this subject than a History of the Interpretation of Scripture. It would take us back to the beginning; it would present in one view the causes which have darkened the meaning of words in the course of ages." (p. 338-9.) "Such a work would enable us to separate the elements of Doctrine and Tradition with which the meaning of Scripture is enc.u.mbered in our own day." (p. 339.)

Let us here be well understood with our author. The advantage of a good "History of Interpretation" would indeed be incalculably great. But Mr.

Jowett, (like most other writers of his cla.s.s,) _a.s.sumes_ the point he has to _prove_, when he insinuates that the result of such a contribution to our Theological Literature would be to shew that all the world has been in error for 1700 years, and that he alone is right. That 'erring fancy' has _often_ been at work in the fields of sacred criticism,--_who_ ever doubted? That there have been epochs of Interpretation,--different Schools,--and varying tastes, in the long course of so many centuries of mingled light and darkness, learning and barbarism;--what need to declare? A faithful history of Interpretation would of course establish these facts on a sure foundation.

But the Reverend Author forgets his Logic when he goes on from these undoubted generalities to imply that all has been confusion and utter uncertainty until now. Above all, common regard for the facts of the case ought to have preserved him from putting forth so monstrous a falsehood as the following:--"_Among German Commentators_ there is for the first time in the history of the world, an approach to agreement and certainty." (p. 340.)

Let us however,--pa.s.sing by the many crooked remarks and unsound inferences with which the Reverend writer, (_more suo_,) delights to perplex a plain question[221],--invite him to abide by the test which he himself proposes. For 1700 years, (he says,) the Interpretation of Scripture has been obscured and enc.u.mbered by successive Schools of Interpretation. The Interpreter's concern (he says) is _with the Bible itself_. "The simple words of that book he tries to preserve absolutely pure from the refinements of later times.... The greater part of his learning is a knowledge of the text itself." [He is evidently the very man who _sweeps the house to discover the pearl of great price_.

(p. 414.)] "He has no delight in the voluminous literature which has overgrown it. He has no theory of Interpretation. A few rules guarding against common errors are enough for him.... He wants to be able to open his eyes, and see or imagine things as they truly are." (p. 338.) [How crooked by the way is all this! "He has no _theory_ of Interpretation[222]?" Why, no; for the best of all reasons. He _denies Inspiration altogether!_ His "theory" is that _the Bible is an uninspired Book!_ ... How peculiar too, and how plaintive is the "want"

of the supposed Interpreter, "_to he able to open his eyes_;"--glued up, as they no doubt are, by the superst.i.tious tendencies of the nineteenth century, and the tyranny of an intolerant age!]

But we may perhaps state the matter more intelligibly and simply, thus:--In order to ascertain the _true_ principle of Scriptural Interpretation, let us,--divesting ourselves of the complicated and voluminous lore of 1700 years,--_resort to the Bible itself_. Let us go for our views to the fountain-head; and abide by what we shall discover _there_.

A fairer proposal (as I think) never was made. It exactly describes the method which I have humbly endeavoured myself to pursue in the ensuing Sermons. The inquiry will be found elaborated from p. 141 to p. 160 of the present volume; and the result is to be read on the last-named page, in the following words:--"that it may be regarded as a fundamental rule, that the Bible _is not to be interpreted like a common book_. This I gather infallibly from the plain fact, that _the inspired writers themselves_ habitually interpret it _as no other book either is, or can be interpreted_.--Next, I a.s.sert without fear of contradiction that inspired Interpretation, whatever varieties of method it may exhibit, is yet uniform and unequivocal in this one result; namely, that it proves Holy Scripture to be of far deeper significancy than at first sight appears. By no imaginable artifice of Rhetoric or sophistry of evasion,--by no possible vehemence of denial or plausibility of counter a.s.sertion,--can it be rendered probable that Scripture has invariably one only meaning; and _that_ meaning, the most obvious and easy."

Now, the reader is requested to observe that what precedes is _the direct contradictory_ of the position which Mr. Jowett has written his Essay in order to establish. And thus we keep for ever coming back to his p??t?? ?e?d??,--the fundamental falsity which underlies the whole of what he has written.

(ii) But although we have eagerly resorted to Scripture itself in order to ascertain _on what principle_ Scripture ought to be interpreted, we cannot for a moment allow some of the sophistries with which the Reverend Author has enc.u.mbered the question, to escape without castigation. He may not first court an appeal to the School of Apostolical Interpretation; and then, before the result of that appeal has been ascertained, go off in praise of the illumination of the present age; and claim to represent the Theological mind of Europe in his own person. "Educated persons," (he has the impertinence to a.s.sert,) "are _beginning to ask_ (!), not what Scripture may be _made_ to mean, but what it _does_. And it is no exaggeration to say that he who in the present state of knowledge will confine himself to _the plain meaning of words_, and the study of their context, may know more of the original spirit and intention of the authors of the New Testament _than all the controversial writers of former ages put together_."

(pp. 340-1.) This might be tolerated perhaps, in the self-const.i.tuted oracle of a Mechanics' Inst.i.tute; but as proceeding from a Divinity Lecturer in one of the first Colleges in Oxford, I hesitate not to declare that such an opinion is simply disgraceful.

Very much of a piece with this, in point of flippancy,--(though barely consistent with his frequent a.s.sertions that the entire subject is hemmed in by grave difficulties,)--are the Regius Professor of Greek's remarks on the value of learning as a help to the Interpretation of Holy Writ. "_Learning obscures_ as well as ill.u.s.trates." (p. 337.)--"There seem to be reasons for doubting whether any _considerable light_ can be thrown on the New Testament from inquiry into _the language_."

(p. 393.)--"Minute corrections of tenses or particles are _no good_."

(p. 393.)--"Discussions respecting the chronology of St. Paul's life and his second imprisonment; or about the ident.i.ty of James, the brother of the LORD; or, in another department, _respecting the use of the Greek article,--have gone far beyond the line of utility_." (p. 393.) "The minuteness of the study of Greek in our own day has also a tendency _to introduce into the text a.s.sociations_ which are not really found there."

(p. 391.)--Lastly, he complains of "the error of interpreting every particle, as though it were a link in the argument; instead of being, as is often the case, _an excrescence of style_." (p. 391.)

So then, in brief, the Fathers are in a conspiracy to mislead: Creeds and Councils enc.u.mber the sense: Modern Commentators are not to be trusted: the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, except it be "of the same age and the same authors," "will tend rather to confuse than to elucidate:" (p. 383:) "Learning obscures," and an accurate appreciation of the meaning of the text is "no good!"--"When the _meaning of Greek words_ is once known[223], the young student has almost _all the real materials which are possessed by the greatest Biblical scholar_, in the book itself." (p. 384.) In a word, (as Dr. Moberly has had the manliness to remark,)--"It simply comes to this: A little Greek, (not too much,) and a strong self-relying imagination, and you may interpret Holy Scripture as well as--Mr. Jowett!" (p. lxii.) ... Benighted himself, the unhappy author of this Essay is so apprehensive lest a ray of light from Heaven shall break in upon one of his disciples,--even sideways, as it were, from the margin of the Bible,--that he carefully prohibits "the indiscriminate use of parallel pa.s.sages" as "useless and uncritical."

... Yet may one not _with discrimination_ refer to the margin?--Better not! "No good!" (p. 393.) replies the Oracle. "Even the critical use of parallel pa.s.sages is _not without danger_." (p. 383.) ... O shame! And all this from a College Tutor and Lecturer on Divinity! _this_ from one entrusted with the care of educating young men! _this_ from a Regius Professor of Greek[224]!

Mr. Jowett congratulates himself that "Biblical criticism has made two great steps onward,--at the time of the Reformation, and _in our own day_." But his notion is amply refuted by the known facts of the case: for when he adds,--"The diffusion of a critical spirit in History and Literature is affecting the criticism of the Bible in our own day in a manner not unlike the burst of intellectual life in the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries;" (p. 340;) he clearly requires to be reminded that the success of the Divinity of the Reformation was owing to the grand appeal then made to _the Patristic writings_.

So far then as any of ourselves are resorting to _those_ sources of information, there may be a faint resemblance _in kind_ between the spirit which animates us, and that which wrought so n.o.bly in the Fathers of our spiritual freedom,--Cranmer and Ridley and the other learned and holy men who revised our Offices. But if "_German_ Commentators" and _their_ method be supposed to be the ideals to which the age is tending, _then_ the Theology of the middle of the nineteenth century stands in marked _contrast_ to what prevailed in the middle of the sixteenth; and our spirit is _the very reverse of theirs_.--But I hasten on.

(iii) "The uncertainty which prevails in the Interpretation of Scripture," Mr. Jowett proposes to get rid of,--(this is in fact the aim of his entire Essay,) by denying that there are in Scripture any deeper meanings to interpret. In the meantime, by every device in his power, he seeks from _a priori_ considerations, (as we have seen,) to shew that no such meanings can exist. We allow ourselves to be bia.s.sed, to a singular extent, he says, "by certain previous suppositions with which we come to the perusal of Scripture." (p. 342.) _But_ for this, "no one would interpret Scripture as many do." (_Ibid._) Let us ascertain then what these erroneous "suppositions" are.

(=1=) "The failure of a prophecy is never admitted, in spite of Scripture and of history, (Jer. x.x.xvi. 30. Isaiah xxiii. Amos vii.

10-17.)" (p. 343.)

Now this can only mean two things: viz. first, that a Divine Prophecy is _not_ an infallible utterance: and secondly, that the three places quoted from the Old Testament are _proofs_ of the fallibility of Prophecy; proofs which ought to overcome prejudice, and persuade men to renounce their "previous supposition" that Prophecy is _in_fallible.

Certainly the charge is a grave one. For if _Prophecy_ is untrue, then what becomes of Inspiration?

And yet, how stands the case? The writer seems to have expected "that no one would refer to the pa.s.sages that he has bracketed, or that all would be too ignorant to know the utter groundlessness of his a.s.sumption. If there are, in the whole Scripture, two past prophecies which were signally and remarkably fulfilled, they are the first two which he has selected as instances to be dropped down, without a remark, of the failure of Scripture prophecies! And as to the third pa.s.sage, surely it implies an 'incuria' which might be deemed 'cra.s.sa' to have a.s.serted that it contained an instance of the non-fulfilment of Prophecy: for it implies that Mr. Jowett has read the verses to which he refers with so little attention as not to have discovered that the prediction which failed of its fulfilment was _no utterance of Amos_, but was _the message of Amaziah, the priest of Bethel_, in which he falsely attributes to Amos _words he had not spoken_!... Surely such slips as these are as discreditable to a scholar as a Divine[225]!"

And this, from a gentleman who has the impertinence to remind us oracularly, that "he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the Old Testament, should have _the courage to examine how far its details were minutely fulfilled_!" (p. 347.) Are we then to infer that Mr.

Jowett's courage failed him when he came to Amos vii. 10-17?

(=2=) "The mention of a name later than the supposed age of the prophet is not allowed, as in other writings, to be taken in evidence of the date. (Isaiah xlv. 1.)" (p. 343.)

But what is the meaning of this complaint when applied to Isaiah's well known prophecy concerning Cyrus? In the words of the excellent critic last quoted,--"We know not that we could point to such an instance as this in the writings of any other author of credit. Of course, Mr.

Jowett knows as well as we do the distinction between History and Prophecy; and that the mention in any doc.u.ment of the name of one who was unborn at the time fixed as the date of the writing, would be at once a complete _disproof_ of its accuracy as a history of the past, and a _proof_ of its accuracy as a prediction of the future. Of course he also remembers that the point he has _to prove_ is that this pa.s.sage is History and not Prediction; and his mode of proving is this; _he a.s.sumes that it is a history of the past_,--advancing as a charge against the believers of Revelation, that they do not, (as they would in any other History,) reject the genuineness of the pa.s.sage because it embalms a future name in a past history!... This audacious, (for we cannot use a weaker word,) _a.s.sumption_ of what he has _to prove_, pervades his Essay[226]."

And thus, into whatever department of speculation we follow this writer, the tortuous path is still found to conduct us back to the same underlying fallacious _a.s.sumption_,--viz. that _the Bible is like any other Book_; in other words, is _not inspired_.

(=3=) Persons in Mr. Jowett's position, "find themselves met by a _sort of presupposition that 'G.o.d speaks not as Man speaks_.'"--(p. 343.)

"A sort of presupposition," indeed!... Does the Reverend gentleman really expect that we will stoop so low as argue _this_ point also with him? It shall suffice to have branded him with his own words.

"The suspicion of Deism, or perhaps of Atheism, awaits inquiry. By such fears, a good man (!) refuses to be influenced: a philosophical mind (!) is apt to cast them aside with too much bitterness. It is better to close the book, than to read it under conditions of thought which are imposed from without." (p. 343.)

Well surely, the proximity to Balliol College of the scene of Cranmer and Ridley's martyrdom, must have turned the brain of the Regius Professor of Greek!--Let him be well a.s.sured however that not rational "Inquiry," but irrational _a.s.sumption_; not the modest cogitations of "a philosophical mind," but the _arrogant dreams of a weak and confused intellect_, are what have excited such general indignation of late, among "good men," from one end of the Kingdom to the other. Nor could anything probably of equal pretensions be readily appealed to, which is nevertheless more truly unphilosophical, fallacious, and foolish, than the Essay now under consideration.

(iv) Subsequently, (p. 344,) Mr. Jowett professes to grapple with the phenomenon of Inspiration. His method is instructive. He begins by inadvertently advancing a direct untruth: for he a.s.serts that for none "of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration is there _any foundation_ in the Gospels or Epistles." (p. 345.)--Had he then forgotten St. Paul's statements in Gal. i. 1, 11-17: ii. 2, 7-9. 1 Cor.

xv. 3. Ephes. iii. 3, &c., &c.? But I have established the contradictory of the Professor's position in the ensuing Sermons, p. 53 to p. 57, to which the reader must be referred.--This done, he proceeds to a.s.sert that,

(=1=) Inspiration does not preserve a writer from inaccuracy. And the charge is substantiated by the following ridiculous enumeration:--"One [Evangelist] supposes the original dwelling-place of our LORD'S Parents to have been Bethlehem[227], another Nazareth[228]." (This from a Lecturer on Divinity! Does Mr. Jowett then suppose that his readers have never opened the Gospels, and do not know better? Why, _both_ his statements are simply _false!_)--"They trace His genealogy in different ways." (Yes. In two. And why not _in twenty?_ Is Mr. Jowett not aware that a genealogy may be differently traced through different ancestors?)--"One mentions the thieves blaspheming: another has preserved to after ages the record of the penitent thief:" (And why should he not?)--"They appear to differ about the day and hour of the Crucifixion." (Yes, _they appear_ to differ: but _they do not differ_!)--"The narrative of the woman who anointed our LORD'S feet with ointment is told in all four, each narrative having more or less considerable variations." (There is no conceivable reason why this should _not_ have been as Mr. Jowett relates; but, as a matter of fact, we have here another of this Gentleman's private _blunders_,--shewing what an uncritical reader he must be, of that book concerning which he presumes to dogmatize so freely.)--"These are a few instances of the differences which arose in the traditions of the earliest ages respecting the history of our LORD." (Nay, but this is to beg the whole question!)--"He who wishes to investigate the character of the sacred writings _should not be afraid_ to make a catalogue of them all, with the view of estimating their c.u.mulative weight." (p. 346.) (Truly, it would be well for Mr. Jowett if he had as little to fear from such "investigations" as the Evangelists!)

"In the same way, he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the Old Testament, should have the courage to examine how far its details were minutely fulfilled. _The absence of such a fulfilment_ may further lead him to discover that he took the letter for the spirit in expecting it." (p. 347.) But really this is again simply to beg the whole question. Unbecoming in any writer, how absurd also is such a sentence from the pen of one who, (as we have lately seen,) no sooner descends to particulars than he makes himself ridiculous by betraying his own excessive ignorance.... "The letter for the spirit," also! which is one of the 'cant' expressions of Mr. Jowett and his accomplices in 'free handling,'--based evidently on a misconception of the meaning of 2 Cor.

iii. 6. The contrast recurs at pp. 36, 357, 375, 425, &c., &c.

(=2=) Still bent on shewing that Inspiration does not secure Scripture from blots and blemishes, Mr. Jowett proceeds as follows. (I must present him to the reader, for a short s.p.a.ce, _in extenso_; since by no other expedient can the complicated fallacies of his very intricate and perverse method be exposed.)

"Inspiration is a fact which we infer from the study of Scripture,--not of one portion only, but of the whole." (p. 347.) (Now even _this_ is not a correct way of stating the case. Still, because the words _may_ bear an honourable sense, we pa.s.s on.)--"Obviously then, it embraces writings of very different kinds,--the book of Esther, for example, or the Song of Solomon, as well as the Gospel of St. John." (That _the volume_ of Inspiration is of this complex character, and that _it_ embraces writings so diverse, is beyond dispute.)--"It is reconcileable with the mixed good and evil of the characters of the Old Testament, which nevertheless does not exclude them from the favour of G.o.d." (_Why_ the Inspiration of a writer should not be 'reconcileable' with _any_ amount of wickedness in the persons about whom he writes,--I am quite at a loss to perceive. Neither do I see why "the mixed good and evil" of certain "characters of the Old Testament," (or of the New either,) should "exclude them from the favour of G.o.d." What else becomes of your hope, and mine, of Eternal Life?)--"Inspiration is also reconcileable,"

(he proceeds,)--"with the attribution to the Divine Being of _actions at variance with that higher revelation which He has given of Himself in the Gospel_." (Is this meant as an insult to "the Divine Being?" or simply as a slur on Revelation? Either way, we reject the charge with indignation[229].)--"It is not inconsistent with imperfect or opposite aspects of the Truth, as in the Book of Job or Ecclesiastes:" (Nothing which comes from G.o.d should be called "imperfect:" but why _different_ aspects of the Truth should not be brought out, by different writers, as by St. Paul and by James,--it is hard to see.)--"With variations of fact in the Gospels, or the Books of Kings and Chronicles:" (We do not admit that Inspiration is consistent with "variations of _fact;_" but with _different versions_ of the same incident, it is confessedly compatible.)--"With inaccuracies of language in the Epistles of St.

Paul." (With _grammatical inelegancies_, no doubt; but not with _logical inaccuracies_.)--"For these are all found in Scripture:" (This statement, by the way, should have been substantiated by at least as many references as there are heads in the indictment,)--"neither is there any reason why they should not be; except a general impression that Scripture ought to have been written in a way different from what it has." (Just as if Mankind for 1800 years had been the victims of an _a priori_ conception as to _how_ Holy Scripture _ought to have been_ written!)--"A principle of progressive revelation admits them all; and this is already contained in the words of our SAVIOUR, 'Moses because of the hardness of your hearts;' or even in the Old Testament, 'Henceforth there shall be no more this proverb in the house of Israel?'" (O if Catholic writers were to expound Holy Scripture with the license of _these_ gentlemen!... That the scheme of Revelation has been progressive, is a Theological truism. What that has to do with the question in hand, I see not.)--"For what is progressive is necessarily imperfect in its earlier stages:" ("Imperfect" in what sense?)--"and _even erring_ to those who come after." (No, not in _that_ sense imperfect, certainly!) ... "There is no more reason why _imperfect narratives_ should be excluded from Scripture than imperfect grammar; no more ground for expecting that the New Testament would be logical or Aristotelian in form, than that it would be written in Attic Greek."

(Now _why_ this cloudy shuffling about "imperfect narratives,"--instead of saying _what you mean_, like a man! Further,--Is Mr. Jowett so weak as not to perceive that there is _no force whatever_ in his supposed parallel? The Discourses of the Incarnate SON, for instance, are certainly anything but "Aristotelian in form." His dialect,--(Angels bowed to catch it, I nothing doubt!)--was that of the despised Galilee.

But need _the teaching it conveyed_ have _therefore_ been "imperfect?"

Why may not the least perfect _Greek_ be the vehicle for the more perfect _Doctrine_? What connexion is there between the casket and the jewel which it encloses?)