9 
to be accomplished by means of the Victoria Institute. Those 
who rather distrust the deductions of science than the state- 
ments of Scripture are invited to join the new Society and help 
to investigate fully and impartially the most important ques- 
tions of philosophy and science, but more especially those that 
bear upon the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture, with the 
view of defending these truths against “the oppositions of 
science, falsely so called,” that is, against supposed contradic- 
ts?* science which, it is anticipated, will be proved to be, 
not the contradictions of true science, but merely the rash 
deductions of false or pseudo science.* 
To this proposed coarse, it may obviously be objected' in 
Limme, thau it assumes science to be at fault, and with this pre- 
conceived view it sets about its investigations. But the answer 
to this is equally easy, namely, that the assumption truly 
represents the state of mind of those who propose to pursue 
this course. It is simply a fact that they do distrust science, 
and do not distrust the Scriptures ; and, therefore, they are in 
a manner bound to see whether their distrust of science can 
be fully justified or not. Besides, it can be a matter of little 
moment whether they expect to find one result or another, so 
One or two gentlemen, who have otherwise and generally approved of 
the objects of the Victoria Institute, and one at least who has joined it, con- 
sider that this “ object” is somewhat too negative in its scope. They would 
have preferaed that the primary object of the Society should have been, to 
sliow positively how scientific discoveries illustrate and corroborate the truths 
ot revelation. Of course, it by no means follows that this view may not yet 
prevail m the Society. But it should be kept in mind that the Victoria 
Institute, as a matter of fact, originated as a defence movement. The first 
work, therefore, it has -set its members and associates, is the investigation of 
the alleged facts and so called science which Dr. Colenso, Dr. Temple, and 
others have publicly declared to be in opposition to Scripture statements. 
And this issurely the natural and proper course for those who dispute the 
exis ence of such “ facts ” ot “ science.” Moreover, for my own part, I would 
beg leave to adopt the prudent language employed by the Rev. H. B. Tristram 
before the British Association at Bath, in 1864, upon reading his valuable 
paper. On the Deposits m the Basin of the Dead Sea.” He said he “ had 
a dread of attempting to corroborate Scripture by natural or physical argu- 
ments which may be refuted ; for the objector is apt to think that whenhe 
has refuted the weak argument, he has refuted the Scriptural statement 
(-%>. of Brit. Assoc., 1864, p. 73.) 
I ought to add here that the Scriptural phrase, “oppositions of science 
faisely so called, is not used in the sense of the Greek original, as employed 
by bt. Rani, but only as commonly used now in the popular sense the words 
imply m English which is also, perhaps, all they mean as rendered in the 
Vulgate, viz. : Oppositiones falsi nominis scientia? ” 
B 2 
