348 
Dr. Gladstone.— Well, Sir, I do not wish to enter into the geological 
question. I did not hear Professor Huxley, nor have I read his paper, and I 
believe there is a gentleman here who is better acquainted with the subject, 
and who will be able to show that Professor Huxley was, to a considerable 
extent, misunderstood ; or, in other words, that Mr. Keddie mistook Professor 
Huxley and his argument. But with this I have nothing to do, and I would 
rather say a few words with, reference to the great question as to whether 
there is the discrepancy spoken of between scientific and clerical opinion. 
For my part, I do not believe that religious people or the clergy are opposed 
to science ; I think, on the contrary, we have abundant evidence that they 
are ready to open their minds to knowledge of every description, whether in 
connection with natural science or with any other subject. On the other 
hand, I do not believe that there is an opposition or antagonism on the part 
of the cultivators of natural science towards religion. I am frequently in the 
habit of meeting with scientific men, as well as with merchants, lawyers, and 
military and naval men ; and it is my belief that among scientific men there 
are just about the same proportions of real Christianity and of unbelief as are 
to be found in any other profession, while I am also of opinion that there is a 
much larger proportion of believing Christians in the ranks of science than 
in the ranks of many of our artisan trades. But when I have stated this, 
I am generally reminded that there are certain scientific men who are 
notorious infidels. This I grant ; but I say, if you will take any other 
profession, do you not also find many infidels in it ? There is, however, this 
difference between the two : — if a man be, let me say, a barrister, he 
cannot bring any arguments from his own profession against the truth of 
Christianity ; nor if he be an artisan, a cobbler, or a tailor, can he bring 
arguments from his craft against the truth of the Bible ; but, if he be a man 
of science, he can fall back on his profession, and can bring forward arguments 
opposed to some of the religious opinions of the day which he thinks are 
opposed to the statements of revelation itself. I think that this important 
difference ought always to be borne in mind. If you take the infidel barrister 
or cobbler, what does he do ? He cannot from his own profession or trade 
bring forward arguments against Christianity, but he goes to natural science, 
where he thinks he can find those arguments. It is a great deal, therefore, if 
such a man can only say that those persons who cultivate natural science are 
drawn by their studies into infidelity ; and thus we find that the orators who 
are to be met with on the platforms of the infidel halls of London are 
always ready enough and even rejoiced to maintain, true or false, that 
scientific men are, on the whole, rather inclined to infidelity. That in saying 
this they utter a calumny against the profession to which scientific men 
belong, I fully believe ; but, supposing it were the truth, would it not be a 
matter that we should mourn over in secret rather than be constantly 
repeating from pulpit and platform ? If this were the fact, it seems to me 
that it might be regarded as the strongest possible argument against the 
truth of Christianity. As I have said, I do not believe that the statement is 
true ; indeed, I am rather disposed to think that the truth is on the other 
