8o4 THE POPULAR SCIEXCE MONTHLY. 



called for. And, were tlie opponents of this ancient fraternity as calm 

 in spirit, as respectful to beliefs, and as discriminating as to the real 

 question at issue as Mr. Huxley, no other word need be spoken. But 

 with a phalanx of reconcilers on the one hand, who will continue to 

 shelter untenable positions under the carefully qualified argument of 

 Mr. Gladstone, and with quasi-scientific men on the other, who will 

 exaggerate and misinterpret the triumph of Mr. Huxley, a further 

 clearing of the ground is necessary. The breadth of view, the sagacity, 

 and inimitable charity of Mr. Gladstone's second article certainly go 

 far with many minds to remove the forebodings with which they re- 

 ceived the first. Nevertheless, so powerful a championship of a position 

 which many earnest students of modern religious questions have seen 

 reason wholly to abandon can not but excite misgivings of a serious 

 kind. And though these are now in part removed by the large con- 

 cessions and ampler statement of the second paper, Mr. Gladstone still 

 deliberately involves himself with the fortunes of the reconcilers. So 

 far, however, is he in advance of most of them that much that may be 

 reluctantly said here against the stand-point from which they work in 

 no sense applies to him. This much fairness not less than courtesy 

 makes it a pleasure to premise. 



It will be recognized by every one that the true parties in this case 

 are, as the title of Mr. Huxley's article suggests, "The Interpreters 

 of Genesis and the Interpreters of Nature." Now, who are the inter- 

 preters of Genesis ? "VYe answer by asking. Who are the interpreters 

 of Nature ? 



We respectfully point out to Mr. Huxley that his paper contains 

 no single reference to the interpreters of Genesis in the sense in which 

 he uses the term " the interpreters " in the case of science. Who are 

 " the interpreters " of Nature ? Mr. Huxley answers, and rightly, 

 himself. And who are " the interpreters " of Genesis ? Certainly 

 Mr. Gladstone would be the last to claim this for himself. Does not 

 the legitimate question lie between modern theology and modern sci- 

 ence ? And in perfect fairness should not the title of Mr. Huxley's 

 paper have read, " Some interpreters of Genesis, and the scientific 

 interpreters of Nature " ? This may be a verbal matter, and we do 

 not press it. But in view of the fact that many will see in Mr. 

 Huxley's article, and in spite of all protestation, a direct and damaging 

 assault upon the Biblical records, would it not have been right to 

 point out the real terms of the antithesis? It may be replied, and 

 justly, that Mr. Huxley is not responsible for the inferences of the 

 uneducated. And in ordinary circumstances it would be gratuitous 

 to define so carefully the real limitations of the question at issue. 

 But the circumstances here are quite exceptional. For, although the 

 widely general knowledge of science makes the aberrations of indi- 

 vidual theorists in that department harmless, it is not so in the case of 

 theology. Theology, in this relation, has long suffered under quite 



