It will of course be asked,--Then does Mr. Jowett take no notice at all of this vast and complicated problem? How does he treat of the relation between the Old Testament and the New?... He despatches the entire subject in the following passage:--"The question," (he says,) "runs up into a more general one, 'the relation between the Old and New Testaments.' For the Old Testament _will receive a different meaning accordingly as it is explained from itself, or from the New_." (Very different certainly!) "In the first case,--a careful and conscientious study of each one for itself is all that is required." (That is to say, it will not be explained at all!) "In the second case,--_the types and ceremonies of the Law, perhaps the very facts and persons of the history_, WILL BE ASSUMED (!) to be predestined or made after a pattern corresponding to the things that were to be in the latter days." (p. 370.) (And why not "_will be found_ to be replete with Christian meaning,--full of lofty spiritual significancy?"--the _proved_ marvellousness of their texture, the _revealed_ mysteriousness of their purpose, being an effectual refutation of all Mr. Jowett's _à priori_ notions!) "And this question," (he proceeds,) "stirs up another question respecting the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Is such Interpretation to be regarded as the meaning of the original text, or _an accommodation of it to the thoughts of other times_?" (Nay, but Reverend and learned Sir: "nothing so plain," as you justly observe, "that it may not be explained away;" (p. 359;) yet we cannot consent to have the sense of plain words thus clouded over at your mere bidding. It is now _our_ turn to declare that the Interpreter's "object is to read Scripture _like any other book_, with a real interest and not merely a conventional one." It is now _we_ who "want to be able to open our eyes, and see things as they truly are." (p. 338.) We simply petition for leave to "_interpret Scripture like any other book, by the same rules of evidence and the same canons of criticism_." (p. 375.) And if this freedom be but conceded to us, there will be found to be no imaginable reason why the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New,--(CHRIST Himself being the Majestic Speaker! our present edification and everlasting welfare being His gracious purpose!)--should not be strictly "regarded as _the meaning of the original text_." ... But let us hear the Professor out:--)