406 
But as to its being helpful in any higher sense, I confess Dr. Gladstone has 
failed to convince me. If he will excuse my saying so, I think there did 
prevail throughout his essay a kind of patronage of theology, a kind of treat- 
ment which I think, as theologians, we do not desire. I do not, as a theolo- 
gian myself, wish to be patronized. Believing that Divine Revelation is 
actually true, I ask no favour to be shown to it whatever. Let it confront the 
world in its own way, and I am quite sure it will answer for itself. If it be not 
capable of doing so, it is not of God. Then the tone which was adopted in some 
parts of this well-meant paper, seemed to me to be otherwise scarcely respectful 
to our side— the theological side— of the subject brought before us. Indeed, 
Dr. Gladstone admitted that he had paid rather more attention to the other 
side, and in some degree in one passage he apparently apologizes for it ; yet 
I thought the apology a somewhat awkward one. It is that sort of apology 
which we make to a lady when we tell her, in some very complimentary way, 
that we defer to her judgment, that she is our queen ! And queen was 
the title assigned to our science, — not by Dr. Gladstone in the first instance, 
I grant, but in his paper to-night, in a somewhat new sense,— a sense which 
seemed to me to be about as respectful as that which I have just indicated. 
But there were graver things that arose in my mind many times as the paper 
proceeded. One or two points seem to me to show that Dr. Gladstone has 
not given that close attention to theology that he undoubtedly has given to 
science. He may probably retort that on me ; and I cannot help it. But I 
think in his case, it would have been well if he had not classed Anselm on 
the doctrine of atonement with Abelard and Bernard of Clairvaux, as though 
there were anything in accordance between them 
Dr. Gladstone. — I referred to them as holding totally different views ! 
Dr. Irons.— I only mention that as an instance of a kind of treatment 
of theological science which, I think, would scarcely have been thought 
respectful, if it had proceeded from our side towards natural science. It 
would have been thought to have been a mingling together of incongruous 
and impracticable theories, as if all were science alike. But with respect to 
one part of Dr. Gladstone’s paper, I have to take a much stronger line of 
objection. He says that the Bible is so much easier to understand than 
natural science. You will recollect the passage, as the paper has been so 
recently read. He seems to consider even the language of the ancient 
prophets to be so extremely intelligible that any one might make out their 
meaning for himself. Now I do not hesitate to say, that if he would take 
the prophet Isaiah, and read it through (in the Hebrew) with care, and take 
his pen and endeavour to put down in plain modem language side by side, m 
a parallel column (in language such as The Times newspaper, for instance) 
the exact sense of the prophet, — what he means in every phrase, Dr. 
Gladstone would certainly not arrive at any of these conclusions concerning 
any single chapter of Isaiah, which have been universally taken, in the 
Christian Church, as being the sense of the prophet. I am persuaded there 
would be found in the literal language much more that is acceptable to a 
Jew than to a Christian. And yet, notwithstanding this, we should accept 
