- 
The Honorary SECRETARY (Captain F. Petrie) said that, from a glance 
at the report, which was in the hands of all present, it would be seen 
that the Institute was steadily increasing, and earning the support of leading 
men of science, and that the list of papers read during the session was one of 
no ordinary importance. Among the new Vice-Presidents the name of Mr. 
Alexander M‘Arthur, M.P., will remind many of the part he took in 
successfully floating the Institute in 1865, when he introduced seventy 
friends as members. 
Sir J. Lerroy, K.C.M.G., C.B., F.R.S.—My Lord, I rise for the purpose 
of moving “That the Report be received, and that the thanks of the Members 
and Associates be presented to the Council, Honorary Officers, and Auditors 
for their efficient conduct of the business of the Victoria Institute during 
the year.” In doing this I may perhaps be allowed to express my regret 
that, very unexpectedly to myself, I am in the position of occupying a post 
which certainly demands a worthier man, and which I really did not con- 
template when accepting the invitation to speak on this occasion. I had 
flattered myself that any deficiencies of mine would be more than compensated 
for by that master of many branches of physical science, Professor Stokes, who 
was to have followed me, and the cause for whose absence we regret so much. 
One hundred and fifty years ago Bishop Butler said, “ It has come, I know 
not how, to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not 
so much as a subject of inquiry ; but that it is now at length discovered to 
be fictitious.” Everybody knows that Bishop Butler’s immortal work was 
addressed to a refutation of this supposition, and to the endeavour to prove 
that there is a great deal in Christianity which deserves the very serious 
attention of every thoughtful and reasonable being. But I allude to this, in 
addressing the Victoria Institute, because I think it cannot be supposed that 
the objections of physical philosophers in Bishop Butler’s day were present 
to his mind or had any share in the production of that condition of unbelief 
which he then remarked upon. I am one of those who are very much 
disposed to deny that they have in any special degree that effect now. I 
may, perhaps, be allowed to quote here so unfashionable an author as 
St. Paul. Nowhere has St. Paul said the scientific mind is enmity against 
God. On the contrary, he exhorts us to “ prove all things,” while he calls 
_on the sophist and the man of letters and the disputer of the schools to lay 
aside their pride of intellect and to accept the Gospel as little children. But 
he does say that the natural mind is enmity against God. And this is equally 
true of the philosopher behind his crucibles and the divine in his study, and no 
truer of one than of the other. It seems that the acceptance or rejection of 
the Scripture is not a question of one pursuit or another. The sources 
from which the objections start vary from age to age as the incidents of 
reflection and study vary; but they have a common pedigree. Bacon, 
as every one will remember, says, “No man can search too far, or be too 
well studied in the Book of God’s works or the Book of His Word, in 
divinity or philosophy.” I am old enough to remember the publication 
