186 
with which Mr. Warington executed this most delicate task 
caused me for a moment some anxiety. As your Honorary 
Secretary, you are aware, I have the privilege and the plea- 
sure of perusing in the first instance the papers which are 
sent in to he read before the Institute; and you can well 
understand that the character of the first paper to be read 
before a new society— and more especially a society like ours 
which takes up subjects about which men are naturally so 
sensitive and so apt to become excited— must needs have been 
a matter of extreme anxiety to all charged with any respon- 
sibility in connection therewith. Well, upon reading Mr. 
Warington’ s paper, I feared— very naturally perhaps, but, 
as it turned out, very needlessly— what might be its effect 
upon “ weaker brethren.” I also confess that I thought Mr. 
Warington had been over severe upon what persons out ol tJ he 
Institute would call our own side of the question; and that 
some might even conclude upon reading his paper— to use a 
phraseology we have been recently accustomed to elsewhere 
--that we, like the unfortunate engineer, “ had been hoist 
with our own petard.” But a little reflection cleared away 
these apprehensions. Besides, there was but one course open 
to us, and that was, not to shrink from difficulties, it theie 
were difficulties, but to meet them. In controversy and intel- 
lectual strifes, as in material wars, there is but one path tha 
is tolerable to honest hearts — I believe it also to be the path 
of safety— and that 'is the path of honour. In the Victoria 
Institute I trust that shall ever be our path, come weal come 
woe. If there was matter, then, in Mr. Warington s paper to 
startle us, or to make us feel uneasy, that, m truth, was the 
very best reason that could be urged why such a paper should 
be read in this Institute. It at once— had we been inclined to 
forget it— reminded us of the serious issues that had been 
raised in the name of Science against the Holy Scriptures. It 
braced us to our work, and put us upon our mettle. -Nay, our 
enemies themselves being judges, neither tne ability nor the 
impartiality of Mr. WaringWs paper can be questioned. I 
have ventured to make these remarks upon the present occa- 
sion, as upon a few incidental issues involved, I happened to 
differ from Mr. Warington" s view, as may be seen from the 
discussion upon his paper. But, what was the result when 1 
was read ? There was at first a natural feeling on the part ot 
some (such as that which I had myself experienced on nrs 
reading the paper), that it was unsatisfactory to have, as it 
were, such a bill of indictment drawn up against the ^cnp- 
tures, concentrating all that had been said against them m e 
name of Science, without complete answers being given to tne 
