else to substitute in its room ! We really have no “ science ” 
of the world's origin at present ! 
Consider, too, how much valuable time has been lost for 
science, and how much talent has been wasted, while this 
untenable theory has thus been blindly entertained; and while 
men have generally thus been discouraged and even debarred 
from seeking after a true interpretation of the numerous and 
most important newly discovered facts made known by geo- 
logical research. < . 
But we must be content with these few brief instances ot 
how the progress of true science has been hampered and 
retarded, through the mischievous influence of imperative 
theories and the authority of great names, to attend to some 
still more important considerations, which I apprehend in 
themselves alone constitute a sufficient ground for the esta- 
blishment of the Victoria Institute ; and which will fuithei 
and at the same time account, in great measure, for. inductive 
science having already acquired some of the worst vices of the 
false system of philosophising, which it was Bacon's great 
object to root out for ever from scientific inquiry. 
While we have been obliged to appeal to the fact, that there 
is an openly alleged opposition in our day between the so-called 
discoveries of modern science and the statements of Scripture, 
especially as to the creation and deluge, I think we may also 
find evidence, that this is not solely if at all to be accounted 
for, by any desire on the part of scientific men generally, at 
least in this country, to establish any such opposition, or any 
disposition to pervert scientific research, so as to make it 
antagonistic to religion. If Halley was infidel in his opinions, 
still we know that Newton was devout. If Laplace was 
atheistic in his views, and applying Sir W. Herschel's specula- 
tions as to the nebulae to the first formation of this world, was 
thus furnished with an hypothesis which enabled him, as he 
supposed, “to dispense with G-od throughout ; "—still we must 
remember that that hypothesis was first put forth m England, 
as an interpretation of geological appearances, m one of the 
Bridgewater Treatises, by Dr. Buckland, some thirty years ago, 
intentionally to exhibit God's power in His works of creation. 
Professor Sedgwick, also, no doubt expressed an opinion 
entertained by many other men of science besides himsell, 
when he declared that the theories now admitted to 
be “ altogether delusive " by Sir Charles Lyell, but which 
some may then have believed to be true theories founded upon 
sufficient facts ascertained by geological science,— were confir- 
matory of revelation. It is very true that m saying this, it was 
with the understanding that considerable modification mig 
