Nay, I claim to have done _more_. I claim to have established the contradictory minor premiss. The syllogism therefore will henceforth stand as follows:-- If the Bible can be shewn to be a book like no other book, but entirely _sui generis_, and claiming to be the work of Inspiration,--then is it reasonable to expect that it will have to be interpreted like no other book, but entirely after a fashion of its own. But the Bible _can_ be shewn to be a book like no other book; entirely _sui generis_; and claiming to be the work of Inspiration. Therefore,-- $2.$ It remains however, now, to advance an important step.--Mr. Jowett, in a certain place, adopts a principle, the soundness of which I am able, happily, entirely to admit. "Interpret Scripture from itself,--like any other book about which we know almost nothing except what is derived from its pages." (p. 382.) "_Non nisi ex Scripturâ Scripturam interpretari potes._" (p. 384.) Scarcely has he made this important admission however, and enunciated his golden Canon of interpretation, when he hastens to nullify it. His very next words are,--"The meaning of the Canon is only this,--'That we cannot understand Scripture without becoming familiar (!) with it.'" But, (begging the learned writer's pardon,) so far from _that_ being the whole of the meaning of the Canon, his gloss happens exactly to miss the only important point. The plain meaning of the words,--"Only out of the Scriptures can you explain the Scriptures,"--is obviously rather this:--'That in order _to interpret_ the Bible, our aim must be to _ascertain how the Bible interprets itself_.' In other words,--'Scripture must be made _its own Interpreter_.' More simply yet, in the Professor's own words, (from which, _more suo_, he has imperceptibly glided away,)--"_Interpret Scripture from itself._" (p. 382.) ... How then does Scripture interpret Scripture? _That_ is the only question! for the answer to this question must be held to be decisive as to the other great question which Mr. Jowett raises in the present Essay,--namely, How are _we_ to interpret Scripture? Now this whole Inquiry has been conducted elsewhere; and will be found to extend from p. 144 to p. 160 of the present volume. It has been there established, by a sufficiently large induction of examples, that _the Bible is to be interpreted as no other book is, or can be interpreted_; and for the plain reason, that _the inspired Writers themselves_, (our LORD Himself at their head!) _interpret it after an altogether extraordinary fashion_. Mr. Jowett's statement at p. 339 that "the mystical interpretation of Scripture originated in the Alexandrian age," is simply false.