101 
theologians is unreasonable ; it is not their proper subject, nor 
can they give to it the amount of study which it needs. If 
this be so, surely it were better if they left it alone; but, 
passing this by, at least then we may ask, and reasonably, 
for theological unity. 
Alas for the cause, here is, if possible, even greater dis- 
cordance than in matters of Science. Take the case of Biblical 
exegesis. Here, is a book, written in plain and simple style, 
which has been in the hands of theologians complete for nigh 
800 y ears, and on which they have bestowed the most unre- 
mitting study ; where no new facts can ever be rising up to 
disconcert past conclusions ; where, therefore, if anywhere, 
unanimity would seem to be inevitable, and diversity of 
opinion be most inexplicable and criminal, and yet in so 
simple a matter as whether, in this book, the word “ day 
always means a . period of twenty-fgur hours, or whether 
certain phrases . in a straightforward narrative necessarily 
denote universality or not, — in such simple matters as these 
the world of theologians is at open war with itself. Verily, if 
they dwell in such extremely friable residences themselves, 
they should beware how they throw stones at their neighbours. 
But even this is not the worst. One would have thought that, 
however much . interpretations might differ, at least when it 
came to questions of principle and fundamental doctrine, 
theologians would be at one. But no ; much as they have read 
and studied their Bible, much as they have written about it, 
they nave not been able even to settle the prime question in 
the entire controversy what is the real issue at stake ? 
borne tell us that, if the objections of Science are carried 
home, the Divine authority of Scripture is at an end, some 
that it is merely rendered a little more doubtful, some that it is 
not touched in the least. Certainly there is no discord amono* 
men of Science that can be compared to this. 
What, then, is to be done ? It is said, that, to get rid of the 
changeableness and unsoundness of Science, we must cast 
theories and prejudices on one side, and give ourselves to a 
closer and more impartial investigation of facts. Very good; 
and precisely so must we do, only to a far greater extent, to 
get rid of the changeableness and unsoundness of our theo- 
logical defence It is not enough for the advocate of Scripture 
to scrutinize severely the facts and conclusions of Science ; he 
has need to do so indeed, but much more has he need to 
scrutinize the assertions and arguments of current theoloo-y 
and exegesis. It will not do for him in these matters, even 
so muck as in tkose, to trust to kis own notions, or tke notions 
of tkis writer or tkat writer; ke must set kimself earnestly to 
