254 DARWINIAN A. 



than that the whole stress should bear upon a single 

 point, and that perhaps the authority of an interpreta- 

 tion of Scripture. A consensus of opinion upon Dr. 

 Hodge's ground, for instance (although better guarded 

 than that of Dr. Dawson), if it were still possible, 

 would — to say the least — probably not at all help to 

 reconcile science and religion. Therefore, it is not to 

 be regretted that the diversities of view among accred- 

 ited theologians and theological naturalists are about 

 as wide and as equably distributed between the ex- 

 tremes (and we may add that the views themselves are 

 quite as hypothetical) as those which prevail among 

 the various naturalists and natural philosophers of the 

 day. 



As a theologian, Mr. Henslow doubtless ic not to 

 be compared with the veteran professor at Princeton. 

 On the other hand, he has the advantage of being a 

 naturalist, and the son of a naturalist, as well as a 

 clergyman : consequently he feels the full force of an 

 array of facts in nature, and of the natural inferences 

 from them, which the theological professor, from his 

 Biblical standpoint, and on his implicit assumption 

 that the Old Testament must needs teach true science, 

 can hardly be expected to appreciate. Accordingly, a 

 naturalist would be apt to say of Dr. Hodge's exposi- 

 tion of " theories of the universe " and kindred top- 

 ics — and in no captious spirit — that whether right or 

 wrong on particular points, he is not often right or 

 wrong in the way of a man of science. 



Probably from the lack of familiarity with preva- 

 lent ideas and their history, the theologians are apt to 

 suppose that scientific men of the present day are tak- 



