no . 
should not be confined merely to particular departments of Science, but that 
it must allow discussions upon every question which affects the truth o 
revelation^ and be prepared to take up all questions of that character 
exactly at the point where they have been left off by other societies, and 
determine, if it can, how far the conclusions to which they are supposed to 
ten“ict with Scripture. All the other learned societies deehnejo 
entertain the question of interpretation. It must be taken up by some one 
and I think it is especially the work of this Society. It wih l be ^duy 
when an apparent contradiction is pointed out m Scripture 
We have plenty of theologians amongst us, and must not shrink from the 
di Tntcnll“^I am sure the vote of thanks to Mr. Warington will be 
readdy concurred in by the meeting. It would be quite impossibte o 
discuss such an extensive subject in detail. There is one point, ^»weve^ . 
which I would differ from our Honorary Secretary, and that is ^esp“t 
to the question of exegesis. I do not see how we can oxhide from o r 
discussions. We have not only to determine whether an objection is really 
• h-flp . l-mt if so whether it is contrary to a fair interpretation 
Word of God I have used the phrase really scientific advisedly, because 
nothing can be more vague than the ^ " By ^^1 
have to determine whether it is contrary to the W««U4 
only be done by a fair appeal to the original anguage of the Smptntes 
an illustration of what. I mean, I would only refer to * e ""s 
store of food in summer, and the hare chewing e cu ’ * Scriptures 
ihe various trices o bold man who wo uld predicate, from 
Tut he knewrf oneteibe, what might be the strange 
Solomon was scientifically correct ; for what was lately ^Jitoed Mg y 
improbable by the naturalist, becomes by the advance of J 
History probable in the highest degree I can ^ J^thn 
subject to the high authority of Mr. Darwin as a naturalist. T g 
