PREFACE. 
XV 
Cambridge, though not uttered in reference to the Victoria 
Institute, somewhat aptly describe its principles, consequently 
their insertion here may be pardoned : — 
“We all admit that the book of nature and the book of revelation 
come alike from God, and that consequently there can be no real dis- 
crepancy between the two if rightly intepreted. The provinces of 
Science and of Revelation are, for the most part, so distinct that there is 
little chance of collision. But if an apparent discrepancy should arise, we 
have no right, on principle, to exclude either in favour of the other. For 
however firmly convinced we may be of the truth of revelation, we must 
admit our liability to err as to the extent or interpretation of what is 
revealed ; and however strong the scientific evidence in favour of a theory 
may be, we must remember that we are dealing with evidence which, in its 
nature, is probable only, and it is conceivable that wider scientific knowledge 
might lead us to alter our opinion. We should be ready to hear the whole 
of the evidence, and judge honestly from the whole. We should admit the 
principle of hearing both sides ; not that we should each make the examina- 
tion, for comparatively few would be competent to do so 
« It is impossible for the bulk of our population, whose lives are spent in 
earning their daily bread, to weigh the evidence of what are stated to be the 
conclusions of science. They take them on trust, if thoy attend to them at 
all ; and if scientific conjectures are represented to them as the conclusions 
of science, they are predisposed to accept them as such from the general 
knowledge they possess of the great things that science has done. It is 
quite possible that a stumbling-block may thus be placed in the way of 
religious belief ; for though, our fundamental idea of the unity of truth 
involves, as an axiom, the absence of antagonism between real science and 
revelation, we have no such guarantee respecting scientific conjecture. 
“As the dangers referred to arise from a separation of Science from 
Revelation, and a determination to ignore one of these two modes of 
arriving at truth which are open to man, it follows that they are best 
guarded against by a hearty recognition of both, as coming, in different 
ways, from the Author of our being.” 
F. PETRIE, Hon. Sec. fyc. 
1st Januaky, 1872. 
