(iii) "The uncertainty which prevails in the Interpretation of Scripture," Mr. Jowett proposes to get rid of,--(this is in fact the aim of his entire Essay,) by denying that there are in Scripture any deeper meanings to interpret. In the meantime, by every device in his power, he seeks from _à priori_ considerations, (as we have seen,) to shew that no such meanings can exist. We allow ourselves to be biassed, to a singular extent, he says, "by certain previous suppositions with which we come to the perusal of Scripture." (p. 342.) _But_ for this, "no one would interpret Scripture as many do." (_Ibid._) Let us ascertain then what these erroneous "suppositions" are. (=1=) "The failure of a prophecy is never admitted, in spite of Scripture and of history, (Jer. xxxvi. 30. Isaiah xxiii. Amos vii. 10-17.)" (p. 343.) Now this can only mean two things: viz. first, that a Divine Prophecy is _not_ an infallible utterance: and secondly, that the three places quoted from the Old Testament are _proofs_ of the fallibility of Prophecy; proofs which ought to overcome prejudice, and persuade men to renounce their "previous supposition" that Prophecy is _in_fallible. Certainly the charge is a grave one. For if _Prophecy_ is untrue, then what becomes of Inspiration? And yet, how stands the case? The writer seems to have expected "that no one would refer to the passages that he has bracketed, or that all would be too ignorant to know the utter groundlessness of his assumption. If there are, in the whole Scripture, two past prophecies which were signally and remarkably fulfilled, they are the first two which he has selected as instances to be dropped down, without a remark, of the failure of Scripture prophecies! And as to the third passage, surely it implies an 'incuria' which might be deemed 'crassa' to have asserted that it contained an instance of the non-fulfilment of Prophecy: for it implies that Mr. Jowett has read the verses to which he refers with so little attention as not to have discovered that the prediction which failed of its fulfilment was _no utterance of Amos_, but was _the message of Amaziah, the priest of Bethel_, in which he falsely attributes to Amos _words he had not spoken_!... Surely such slips as these are as discreditable to a scholar as a Divine[225]!" And this, from a gentleman who has the impertinence to remind us oracularly, that "he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the Old Testament, should have _the courage to examine how far its details were minutely fulfilled_!" (p. 347.) Are we then to infer that Mr. Jowett's courage failed him when he came to Amos vii. 10-17? (=2=) "The mention of a name later than the supposed age of the prophet is not allowed, as in other writings, to be taken in evidence of the date. (Isaiah xlv. 1.)" (p. 343.)