That the Bible _does_ set up for itself such a claim, will be found established at p. 53 to p. 57 of the present volume. Professor Jowett's assurance that "for any of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration, _there is no foundation in the Gospels or Epistles_," (p. 345,)--must therefore be regarded as an extraordinary, or rather as an unpardonable oversight on his part. One would have thought that a single saying, like that in Acts iii. 18 and 21, would have occurred to his memory, and been sufficient to refute him. Other places will be found quoted at p. cxcvii. Very much is it to be feared however that the same gentleman has overlooked a consideration of at least equal importance; namely, the inevitable _inference_ from the discovery that the origin of the Bible is Divine. He informs us that,--"It will be a further assistance (!) in the consideration of this subject, to observe that the Interpretation of Scripture has _nothing to do with any opinion respecting its origin_." (p. 350.) "The _meaning_ of Scripture," (he proceeds,) "is one thing: the _Inspiration_ of Scripture is another."--True. But when we find the Reverend Author insisting, again and again, that "it may be laid down that Scripture has _one_ meaning,--_the meaning which it had to the mind of the Prophet or Evangelist who first uttered, or wrote it_," (p. 378,)--we are constrained to remind him that, "To say that the Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can have no other or farther meaning than those persons thought or had, who first recited or wrote them; is evidently saying, _that those persons were the original, proper, and sole authors of those books_, i.e. THAT THEY ARE NOT INSPIRED[185]." So that, in point of fact, _the origin_ of Holy Scripture, so far from being a consideration of no importance, (as Mr. Jowett supposes,) proves to be a consideration of the most vital importance of all. And _the Interpretation_ of Scripture, so far from having "_nothing to do_ with any opinion respecting its origin," is affected by it most materially, or rather depends upon it altogether! On a review of all that goes before, it will, I think, appear plain to any person of sound understanding, that Professor Jowett's _à priori_ views respecting the Interpretation of Holy Scripture will not stand the test of exact reason. To suggest as he has done that the Bible is to be interpreted like any other book, on the plea that it _is_ like any other book, is to build upon a false foundation. His syllogism is the following:-- If the Bible is a book like any other book, the Bible is to be interpreted like any other book. The Bible is a book like any other book. Therefore,-- But it has been shewn that the learned Professor's minor premiss is false. It has been proved that the Bible is NOT a book like any other book.