Job 10 read as man’s own protest and allowed to stand unanswered: thou knowest that I am without guilt; why then dost thou try by torture to extract from me a confession of guilt? Neville applies it to the doctrine of inherited sin, and the application is angry and specific: he did nothing to come into this world, he simply found himself here, and yet a priest tells him that he sinned, or that his father and mother sinned in begetting him - so the parents must go to church, pay a sum of money and confess a mortal sin for the normal, natural function of the body, while the church grows richer on the confession. After the protest Job goes through the entire picture of horrors, and the answer when it comes is not a verdict but a sight (Job 42:5). At 1414 the same claim is made from God’s side rather than man’s: God treats us as if we were innocent, as if we were without guilt, and there is no one in this world who is guilty in the eyes of God, whatever the individual has done. A CONTRADICTION TO RECORD RATHER THAN RESOLVE: at 1370 (P538429) Neville says the opposite in the same words - no man is without guilt, not one - on the ground that every man has coveted and has stolen at least mentally, and you can steal a man’s good name. The two may be reconcilable, 1370 speaking of self-analysis on the psychological level and 1414 of the verdict in God’s eyes, and 1370 draws the practical conclusion that you should therefore not analyse yourself at all; but that reconciliation is mine and not his, and both statements should be kept.