that Inspiration is consistent with "variations of _fact;_" but with _different versions_ of the same incident, it is confessedly compatible.)--"With inaccuracies of language in the Epistles of St. Paul." (With _grammatical inelegancies_, no doubt; but not with _logical inaccuracies_.)--"For these are all found in Scripture:" (This statement, by the way, should have been substantiated by at least as many references as there are heads in the indictment,)--"neither is there any reason why they should not be; except a general impression that Scripture ought to have been written in a way different from what it has." (Just as if Mankind for 1800 years had been the victims of an _à priori_ conception as to _how_ Holy Scripture _ought to have been_ written!)--"A principle of progressive revelation admits them all; and this is already contained in the words of our SAVIOUR, 'Moses because of the hardness of your hearts;' or even in the Old Testament, 'Henceforth there shall be no more this proverb in the house of Israel?'" (O if Catholic writers were to expound Holy Scripture with the license of _these_ gentlemen!... That the scheme of Revelation has been progressive, is a Theological truism. What that has to do with the question in hand, I see not.)--"For what is progressive is necessarily imperfect in its earlier stages:" ("Imperfect" in what sense?)--"and _even erring_ to those who come after." (No, not in _that_ sense imperfect, certainly!) ... "There is no more reason why _imperfect narratives_ should be excluded from Scripture than imperfect grammar; no more ground for expecting that the New Testament would be logical or Aristotelian in form, than that it would be written in Attic Greek." (Now _why_ this cloudy shuffling about "imperfect narratives,"--instead of saying _what you mean_, like a man! Further,--Is Mr. Jowett so weak as not to perceive that there is _no force whatever_ in his supposed parallel? The Discourses of the Incarnate SON, for instance, are certainly anything but "Aristotelian in form." His dialect,--(Angels bowed to catch it, I nothing doubt!)--was that of the despised Galilee. But need _the teaching it conveyed_ have _therefore_ been "imperfect?" Why may not the least perfect _Greek_ be the vehicle for the more perfect _Doctrine_? What connexion is there between the casket and the jewel which it encloses?)