360 
whole controversy, I say, between science and what is commonly called 
religion, arises on the side of quasi religious people, from the habit of con- 
founding the facts of religion with a mass of interpretations and theories 
founded° upon certain other facts ; and on the side of science, I submit 
that the same process of error obtains to no less an extent, I say, unhesi- 
tatingly, that we have in the first chapter of St. Matthew something 
approaching to a chronology. I freely admit that in one place there are three 
kings’ names omitted, and that two are omitted in another ; and I also admit 
the force of the inference that if you have gaps of this sort m the New 
Testament you may find, but not must find, corresponding gaps in the Old 
Testament. As an instance, we have the names of Eber, Peleg, and Reu, 
three patriarchs coming in consecutive order in the Old Testament. Eber is 
mentioned as having lived 464 years, and Peleg only 239. It is pointed out 
that this disparity of age indicates probably a gap ; that is to say, that if we 
had all the names from which that register was compiled, we might find 
some gap similar to those in the first chapter of Matthew. But my 
point is, that these irregularities are like the irregularities in the grammar- 
they follow a rule of their own, and if we have here and there a clue, whether 
it be unique or manifold, by which to estimate the duration of the gap, we 
are thus furnished with the means of completing to even greater perfection 
the chronolooy which I maintain we have without the clue. In the Acts of 
the Apostles” St. Paul, immediately after his conversion, began to preach at 
Damascus ; a riot was the consequence, and his life was endangered, but he 
escaped and went up to Jerusalem. But in St. Paul’s own account of the 
matter, given in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says he left and went to 
Arabia, and was there three years. You may say, “ How is it that the two 
accounts clash?” The fact is that they do not clash; the historian has 
simply related those things with which he had immediately to do, whatever 
else is wanting being inserted in its proper place. I say that these irregu- 
larities have a rule of their own, and that they constitute a means of measuring 
the chronology of the Bible. I do not say this because I am anxious to 
defend the popular chronology of 6,000 years ; — it may not be in the Bible, 
but I am careful not to say that it is not in the Bible, and the day may come 
when our grandchildren will see that it is there as clear as noon-day. I 
admit that there is an important distinction between the facts of Scripture, 
whether chronological or otherwise, and the inferences that may be based 
upon them ; but I ask, is this a danger that pertains to religious men ? No, 
it is a danger that exists on the other side. In defence of Mr. Reddie, the 
cause of whose absence I am sure we all most deeply regret, I will say a few 
words. Professor Huxley is stated to have said : “ You [the clergy] tell your 
congregations that the world was made 6,000 years ago in six days, and that 
all living animals were made within that period.” We have it m the report 
of the Norwich Congress that Dr. Pusey distinctly stated that the clergy 
never said anything of the sort. In the first part of Genesis it is not asserted 
that the world was made or created in any definite period of time ; but what 
is said may be taken as a distinct declaration on the point that has been 
