erms so peculiar to
its own subject as to convey no meaning to the student of the other
branch. There is a second, and more harassing possibility. The same
words may be used by students in each branch but each side may put a
different significance into the terms. Then each believes he
understands the other, when he really does not.

Our theology is man's interpretation of God's revelations of Himself
as recorded in the Bible. Our science is man's interpretation of God's
revelation of Himself in nature. Each is God's revelation, and so far
as we have understood it, that revelation is of the utmost importance
in our lives. Each has all the inherent short-comings of man's
interpretation. Each has all the difficulties necessarily found in any
stage of a developing understanding. We may be sure if we could
thoroughly understand God's revelation of Himself as recorded in the
Bible and his revelation of Himself as recorded in the rocks and the
tissues of animals as well as in the body and mind of man to-day,
there would be no difficulty. When we understand both completely, as
perhaps we never shall, there will be no contradictions of any kind
between them. Even now if we are firmly convinced that truth must be
in both, there will be little difficulty in reaching a workable unity
which will satisfy the present needs of the human mind and will not be
so crystallized as to prevent a future growth. If, however, we hope to
find a unity between a belief in evolution and a belief in the
inspiration and value of the Bible, we must accept both of these in
the terms of to-day. To reconcile a twentieth century statement of
science with an eighteenth century statement of theology would be as
absurd as it would be to reconcile a statement of twentieth century
theology with eighteenth century science. Each century must restate
its truths in terms of its own time. The truths may be at bottom the
same through many centuries but to be clearly intelligible in any
century they must be couched in the terminology of the age.

It seems to me if we are to understand, in conformity with the thought
of the age, any particular book in the Bible, there are three steps
through which we must pass. We must first ask ourselves the kind of
people to whom the book was originally written. We must know their
habits of life and of thought. Until this is clear in our minds the
book can have little significance. Having built up as nearly as may be
the life and t