"Our object," (he says, and with this he dismisses the problem!)--"Our object is not to attempt here the determination of these questions; but to point out that they must be determined before any real progress can be made, or any agreement arrived at in the Interpretation of Scripture." (p. 370.) ... They must indeed. But can it be right in this slovenly, slippery style to shirk a discussion on the issue of which the whole question may be said to turn? especially on the part of one who scruples not to prejudge that issue, and straightway to apply it, (in a manner fatal to the Truth,) throughout all his hundred pages. Mr. Jowett's method is ever to _assume_ what he ought to _prove_, and then either to be plaintive, or to sneer. "It is a _heathenish or Rabbinical fancy_:"--"Such complexity would place the Scriptures _below human compositions_ in general; for it would deprive them of the ordinary intelligibleness of human language" (p. 382):--&c. "Is the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New to be regarded as the _meaning of the original text_; or an _accommodation of it to the thoughts of other times_?" (p. 370.) This is Mr. Jowett's question; the question which it is "_not his object_ to attempt to determine;" but which I, on the contrary, have made it _my_ object to discuss in my VIth Sermon,--p. 183 to p. 220. Without troubling the reader however now to wade through those many pages, let me at least explain to him in a few words what Mr. Jowett's question really amounts to: namely this,--Do the Apostles and Evangelists, does our Blessed LORD Himself, when He professes to explain the mysterious significancy of the Old Testament,--_invariably,--in every instance,--misrepresent "the meaning of the original text_?" And the answer to this question I am content to await from any candid person of plain unsophisticated understanding. Is it credible, concerning the Divine expositions found in St. Matth. xxii. 31, 32,--xxii. 43-5,--xii. 39, 40,--xi. 10,--St. John viii. 17,18,--i. 52,--vi. 31, &c,--x. 34-5:--the Apostolic interpretations found in 1 Cor. ix. 9-11,--x. 1-6,--xv. 20,--Heb. ii. 5-9,--vii. 1-10,--Gal. iv. 21-31:--is it conceivable, I ask, that _not one_ of all these places should exhibit the actual '_meaning of the original text_?' And yet, (as Mr. Jowett himself is forced to admit,)--"If we attribute to the details of the Mosaical ritual a reference to the New Testament, or suppose the passage of the Red Sea to be regarded not merely as a figure of Baptism, but as a preordained type;--_the principle is conceded_!" (p. 369.) "A little more or a little less of the method does not make the difference." (_Ibid._) In a word,--in such case, Mr. Jowett's Essay falls to the ground!... To proceed however.