(=3=) The Reverend writer promises us help, from "another consideration which has been neglected by writers on this subject." (The announcement makes us attentive.)--"It is this,--that any true Doctrine of Inspiration must conform to all well-ascertained facts of History or of Science." (We scarcely see the drift of this ill-worded proposition; but are disposed to assent.)--"The same fact cannot be true and untrue," (Who ever supposed that it could?)--"any more than the same words can have two opposite meanings." (But why glide at once into a gross falsity? Are there not plenty of words and speeches, of the kind called 'equivocal' or 'ambiguous,' which are of this nature? I am content to refer this writer to _his own pages_, for the abundant refutation of his own assertion. No man in the world knows better than Mr. Jowett that "_the same words can have two opposite meanings_.") "The same fact cannot be true in Religion, when seen by the light of Faith; and untrue in Science, when looked at through the medium of evidence or experiment." (Why not? For example,--'He maketh His Sun to rise.' 'If GOD so clothe the grass of the field.' 'GOD said, Let there be light.' Who sees not that the view which Faith and which Physical Science respectively take of the same phenomenon, may essentially differ?)--"It is ridiculous to suppose that the Sun goes round the Earth in the same sense in which the Earth goes round the Sun;" (Very ridiculous.)--"or that the world appears to have existed, but has not existed, during the vast epochs of which Geology speaks to us." (Leave out the words, "appears to have," and this also is undeniable.)--"But if so, there is no need of elaborate reconcilements of Revelation and Science." (How does that follow? If what is thought to be Divinely revealed, and what is thought to be scientifically ascertained, seem to be conflicting truths,--why should not an effort be made to reconcile them?) "They reconcile themselves the moment any scientific truth is distinctly ascertained." (Yes: by the Human simply trying to thrust the Divine out of doors!)--"As the idea of Nature enlarges, the idea of Revelation also enlarges:" (I deny that there is any such intimate connexion as this author supposes between Physical Science and Divinity,)--"it was a temporary misunderstanding which severed them." (But _when_ were Nature and Revelation ever for an instant "severed?")--"And as the knowledge of Nature which is possessed by the few is communicated in its leading features at least, to the many, they will receive it with a higher conception of the ways of GOD to Man. It may hereafter appear as natural to the majority of Mankind to see the Providence of GOD in the order of the world, as it once was to appeal to interruptions of it." (p. 349.) (As if an increased _knowledge of Nature_ were the condition of Theological enlightenment!... I presume that the latter clause,--so hazy and the reverse of obvious in its meaning!--is intended to convey the