306 
“ It behoves the advocates of Scripture to consider this well.” — I venture 
to interpolate that both sides should keep it in mind. — “We hear 
much now-a-days [he continues] of the contradictory hypotheses of science, 
and of the constant flux of opinions in the scientific world. . . . But 
are there no contradictory hypotheses among the defenders of Scripture? 
Is there no flux of opinion in orthodox views ? . . . Ay, truly, and that 
to a far greater degree, and of a kind far more inexcusable. Does the 
gradual unfolding of new facts cause scientific theories to be perpetually 
changing, and allow, for the time being, of the existence of many conflicting 
hypotheses ? Well, be it remembered that every one of these theories aud 
hypotheses has its advocates and representatives also among the defenders of 
Scripture.” (p. 100.) 
This, yon will observe, is a very different state of things to 
that described by Professor Huxley. Which is the true 
description ? Some may think Mr. Warington was rather 
hard upon the defenders of Scripture, among whom, no doubt, 
the great body of the clergy will be found. It may be thought 
that it is somewhat unkind now, to reproduce such a graphic 
picture of “ a house divided against itself.” But, let me ask. 
Is it not well to know the truth ? And will it not also be 
profitable, if this may help us to discover the great cause of 
these disagreements, and to trace the main source of this 
internecine war among the defenders of Scripture? Well, 
then, we have this well explained, in few words and in popular 
language, in the ScituTday Review of 30th November last : 
“ Professor Huxley and Professor Tyndall after him” (says the Reviewer) 
“ were exceedingly cogent in their demonstration that, if science and the 
clergy are to get on together, the clergy must take their scientific facts from 
science. But the truth is, this is just what they do already.” 
This, you will perceive, quite agrees with what Mr. Warington 
says, as to the various conflicting hypotheses and perpetually 
changing scientific theories having found but too ready ac- 
ceptance among the defenders of Scripture, and tempted them 
to these varying interpretations. But the Reviewer — almost 
unconscious of the importance of his reproving words— also 
says this : — 
“ However ludicrous the readiness of the clerical mind to accept such con- 
ciliations may seem ; however absurd it may be in men to find rest* now in 
a gap between two verses, now in the hypothesis of visions, and now in a 
theory of pure poetry, the readiness certainly does not prove any attitude of 
determined hostility towards science ; ... The clergy, in fact, float 
along with the stream of general opinion, and, considering the necessary 
