ADDRESS. Ixxili 
It remains to say a few words on some prospects which this Norwich Meet- 
ing opens. 
A new science has dawned upon us, that of the Early History of Mankind. 
Prehistoric archeology (including as it does the origin of language and of 
art) has been the latest to rise of a series of luminaries that have dispelled 
the mists of ages and replaced time-honoured traditions by scientific truths. 
Astronomy, if not the queen, yet the earliest of sciences, first snatched the 
torch from the hands of dogmatic teachers, tore up the letter and cherished 
the spirit of the law. Geology next followed, but not till two centuries had 
elapsed, nor indeed till this our day, in divesting religious teaching of many 
cobwebs of scientific error. It has told us that animal and vegetable life 
preceded the appearance of man on the globe, not by days but by myriads of 
years; and how late this knowledge came we may gather from the fact that 
Lawrence in his previously quoted lectures *, delivered so late as 1818, says 
of the extinct races of animals, “that their living existence has been sup- 
posed, with considerable probability, to be of older date than the formation 
of the human race.” 
And, last of all, this new science proclaims man himself to have inhabited 
this earth for perhaps many thousands of years before the historic period— 
a result little expected less than thirty years ago, when the Rey. W. V. Har- 
court, in his address to the Association at Birmingham 7, observed that 
“Geology points to the conclusion, that the time during which mankind has 
existed on the globe, cannot materially differ from that assigned by Scrip- 
ture,” referring, I need not say, to the so-called Scripture chronology, which 
has no warrant in the Old Testament, and which gives 5874 years as the 
age of the inhabited globe. 
Pre-historic Archeology now offers to lead us where man has hitherto not 
ventured to tread. Can we, whilst truthfully and fearlessly pursuing this 
inquiry, separate its physical from its spiritual aspect ? will be the upper- 
most thought in the minds of many here present. To separate them is, I 
believe, indeed impossible, but to search out common truths that underlie 
both is permitted to all. Mr. Disraelit has well said of Truth, that it is the 
sovereign passion of mankind. And it should be emphatically so in the minds 
engaged in this search, where religion and science should speak peace to one 
another, if they are to walk hand in hand in this our day and generation. 
A great deal has of late been said and written about the respective attitudes 
of Religion and Science ; and my predecessor, the Duke of Buccleuch, dwelt 
on this in his address last year with great good sense and good taste, and 
pointed out how much the progress of knowledge depended on this attitude 
being mutually considerate and friendly. During the first decades of my 
scientific life, science was rarely, within my experience, heard of from the 
pulpits of these islands: during the succeeding, when the influence of the 
‘ Reliquize Diluviane’ and the Bridgewater Treatises was still felt, I often 
heard it named, and always welcomed. Now, and of late years, science is 
more frequently named than ever, but too often with dislike or fear, rather 
than with trust and welcome. 
The Rey. Dr. Hanna, in an eloquent and candid contribution to the ‘ Con- 
temporary Review’S, has adduced a long list of eminent clergymen of various 
denominations, who have adorned science by their writings, and religion by 
their lives. Ido not ignore their contributions, still less do I overlook the 
many brilliant examples of educated preachers who give to science the respect 
* Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, &e., p. 52, +t Report, p. 17. 
t Life of Lord George Bentinck, § Vol. yi. No, 21, September, 1867. 
