43 
the one simple object of obtaining some addition to onr knowledge of 
ancient man. There is an idea that men of science investigate scientific ques- 
tions with a view of raising an antagonism to religion, and of forming a scien- 
tific clique to upset the Bible. This, to my mind, is a most unfair and unjust 
assertion, and one which I shall, on all proper occasions, feel it necessary to 
repudiate on the part of my scientific brethren and myself* (Hear.) We 
simply go into this matter of the flints as a question of scientific truth and 
evidence, and are all just as ready to welcome facts on the one side as on the 
other. With regard to what Mr. Whitley has stated, I have learnt a great 
deal from him to-night. The subject of the diffusion of these flint-flakes, 
on which he has enlarged, has opened up a number of new questions with 
respect to the causes of that distribution. (Applause.) 
* Dr. Carpenter for the moment appears to have forgotten that there is 
some foundation for the “ idea ” ; no one will accuse him or men of science 
generally of antagonism to religion, but Dr. Carpenter, as President of 
the British Association, at Brighton, in 1872, found it necessary to speak 
as follows When science, passing beyond its own limits, assumes 
to take the place of theology, and sets up its own conception of the order 
of nature as a sufficient account of its cause, it is invading a province of 
thought to which it has no claim, and not unreasonably provokes the hos- 
tility of those who ought to be its best friends.” 
Commenting upon these words in the Preface of Volume VI. of the 
Transactions , we said,—' “ Attacks on revealed religion tend to injure the 
progress of true science, and it would be well if those, whose scientific 
labours are otherwise of no small value, were deterred by Dr. Carpenter’s 
remarks from continuing assaults made with the foregone conclusion 
that the Christian religion is unworthy of credence. Upon _ this sub- 
ject generally, the Bight Honourable W". E. Gladstone, in his address 
delivered at Liverpool College, in December, 1872, spoke as follows :— 
‘Belief cannot now be defended by reticence, any more than by railing, 
or by any privileges or assumptions. Nor, again, can it be defended 
exclusively by its ‘standing army’— by priests and ministers of religion. 
To them, I do not doubt, will fall the chief share of the burden, and of the 
honour, and of the victory. But we commit a fatal error if we allow this to 
become a mere professional question. It is the affair of all. . . • • _ • 
The combat is now with men who commonly confess not only that Chris- 
tianity has done good, but even that it may still confer at least some relative 
benefit before the day of perfect preparedness for its removal shall arrive $ 
and one of the most ‘ advanced’ of whom .... appears to be touched 
by a lingering sentiment of tenderness, while he blows his trumpet for a final 
assault at once upon the ‘ Syrian superstition’ and on the poor, pale, and 
semi-animate substitutes for it which Deism has devised It is 
not now only the Christian Church, or only the Holy Scriptures, or only 
Christianity which is attacked. The disposition is boldly proclaimed to deal 
alike with root and branch, and to snap utterly the ties which, under the 
still venerable name of religion, unite man with the unseen world, and 
lighten the struggles and the woes of life by the hope of a better land; 
These things are done as the professed results* and the newest triumphs of 
modern thought and modern science : but I believe that neither science 
nor thought is responsible, any more than liberty is responsible, for mis- 
deeds committed in their names.’ ” — [Ed.] 
