Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 28.djvu/824

804 called for. And, were the 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 received 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 concessions 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 interpreters of Genesis? We 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 science? 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 individual theorists in that department harmless, it is not so in the case of theology. Theology, in this relation, has long suffered under quite