True enough it is that had such airs been assumed by such an one as Richard Hooker, who achieved the first four books of his 'Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity' before he was 40; and dying in his 46th year, proved himself to be the greatest genius of his age:--had language like Mr. Jowett's been found on the lips of Joseph Butler, who when he was 44 produced his immortal 'Analagy,' and at the age of 26 delivered his famous Rolls 'Sermons:'--had Bishop Bull been betrayed into the language of self-complacency when, at the age of 35, he made himself famous by his 'Harmonia Apostolica:'--the proceeding would have been intelligible, however much one might have lamented such an exhibition of weakness.... But when the speaker proves to be one of the very shallowest of thinkers, and most confused of reasoners;--a man who, although grey-headed, has done nothing whatever for Literature, sacred or profane;--nor indeed is known out of Oxford except for having been thought to deny the Doctrine of the Atonement;--a man who dogmatizes in a Science of which he clearly does not know so much as the very alphabet; and presumes to dispute about a Bible which he has evidently not read with the attention which is due even to a first-rate uninspired book;--_then_, one's displeasure and impatience assume the form of indignation and disgust. The Divine who, purposing to prove that Holy Scripture is in kind like any other book, does so _by inveighing against those who treat it differently_; and indeed, on every occasion, _assumes as proved_ the thing he has _to prove_[234]:--is obviously the very man to vaunt the privileges of the intellect. The student of the Bible who mistakes the utterance of a lying prophet for the language of Amos, and then boldly charges the lie upon the inspired author of a book of Canonical Scripture;--is of course a proper person to discuss the Prophetic Canon. The gentleman who flatters himself that he has been _sweeping the house_ to find _the pearl of great price_, (p. 414,) is a very pretty person, truly, to lecture about the Gospel!... I forbear reproaching Mr. Jowett with his _invariable_ misapplications or misapprehensions of the meaning of Scripture: his false glosses, and truly preposterous specimens of exegesis[235]. I am content to take leave of him, while he is flattering himself that he has "_found the pearl of great price, after sweeping the house_:" (p. 414:) and under that melancholy delusion, I fear he must be left,--holding the broom in his hands. * * * * * On a review of these Seven Essays, few things strike one more forcibly than the utterly untenable ground occupied by their authors. They are "in a position in which it is impossible to remain. The theory of Mr. Jowett and his fellows is as false to philosophy as to the Church of England. More may be true, or less; but to attempt to halt where they would stop is a simple absurdity[236]."