[213] _Ans._ Passages of the Epistles "distributed in alternate clauses between our Lord's Humanity and Divinity," begging Mr. Jowett's pardon, is nonsense. But _no_ passage in St. Paul's Epistles which relates to the Humanity, or to the Divinity of CHRIST, could be said to "lose its meaning" by being unlocked by its own proper clue: or, if the statement be complex, by being distributed under two heads. [214] _Ans._ But not, I suppose, to _reconcile_ them? Why use inaccurate language on so solemn a subject? [215] _Ans._ Doubtless we have to suppose this! [216] _Ans._ Not so. For "there is one Person of the FATHER, and another of the SON." [217] _Ans._ Doubtless we have to suppose this! [218] _Ans_. But He did _not_ doubt! [219] 1 St. John iv. 2, 3.--2 St. John ver. 7. [220] Dr. Moberly, as before, p. xlvii. [221] E.g. "We should observe how the popular explanations of Prophecy, as in heathen (Thucyd. ii. 54,) so also in Christian times, had adapted themselves to the circumstances of mankind." (The Reverend writer can _never for a moment_ divest himself of his theory that Thucydides and the Bible stand on the same footing!) "We might remark that in our own country, and in the present generation especially, the interpretation of Scripture had assumed an apologetic character, as though making an effort to defend itself against some supposed inroad of Science and Criticism." (p. 340.) ... Just as if any other attitude was _possible_ when one has to do with 'Essayists and Reviewers!' [222] One would imagine that the Essayist and his critic were entirely agreed. See below, p. 74,--"I refuse to accept any _theory_ whatsoever." And p. 115,--"_Theory_ I have none."