16 
observing, as regards tliis pointy that I have no reason for sup- 
posing that Sir Charles Lyell has as yet changed his opinions, 
and that till he does so, Dr. Colenso will probably be content to 
believe as he does. It is no part of my object to endeavour 
to prove that there are now no scientific views opposed to the 
Scriptures. Were that the case— had every quasi - fact and 
every u scientific " theory already shared the fate of the 
azoic ages and the “ original igneous fluidity of the earth's 
nucleus," why then, of course, the Victoria Institute had been 
founded late in the day ! It would have had really no occupa- 
tion. I for one would never have thought of its establishment. 
But at the same time, I may be permitted to observe, that 
surely these confident appeals made by Bishop Colenso and 
Dr. Temple to “ simple facts revealed by modern science " 
that contradict the statements of Holy Scripture, are put for- 
ward with an unwise effrontery so soon after such large con- 
fessions by our most eminent geologist (from whom they take 
their science second-hand), of science contradicting itself, and 
of the utterly delusive character of its former “ revelations " 
respecting the very foundation (( facts of geology. Surely 
when the scientific have been all out as regards the Creation of 
the world,— after all the bold sneers in “ Essays and Reviews " 
as to the blunders of “the Hebrew Descartes,"— a little modesty 
and somewhat less confidence might well become our once 
“ deluded" teachers, when they come to speak now of the 
Deluge, There are, doubtless, men of science and authors, 
who have already been engaged in investigating this question 
of the evidence of the universality of the deluge from a 
scientific point of view ; and who have arrived at other con- 
clusions than those of Sir Charles Lyell* Some of them are 
already members of the Victoria Institute ; and it is one of 
the professed objects of that Society to bring such men 
together, to give them a fair hearing, to discuss their arguments, 
and further to investigate what may be regarded as the facts 
under discussion, and thus to get at truth. In Sir Charles 
Lyell' s “ Antiquity of Man " he informs us, that for the greater 
part of his scientific lifetime, he had resisted evidences he now 
* I may here draw attention to an able pamphlet by Mr. S. R. Pattison, 
F G.S., The Antiquity of Man : An Examination of Sir G. LyelVs recent 
work (bond. : Lovell Reeve, 1863), and to the well-reasoned and larger work, 
Remarks on the Antiquity and Nature of Man, by the Rev. James Brodie, 
A.M. (bond. : Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1864). In the latter work, Sir. C. 
Lyeh’s arguments, adopted by Bishop Colenso, against the Mosaic account 
of the Deluge, are- fairly met ; but- my present object is not to bring forward 
anything that has not been acknowledged by the recognized “ authorities 
in science. 
