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 accumulation of evidence, the simple _à priori_ convictions of--Mr. Jowett! savours so strongly of the ridiculous, that it really seems superfluous to linger over the antithesis 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 encumbered 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 class,) _assumes_ 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.)