12G 
we go beyond this, by attempting to make every word in 
Scripture tally with scientific facts, we shall not only fail, but 
weaken the evidences of Revelation instead of strengthening 
them. In our vain attempt to uphold it by insecure props we 
shall bring it down with a crash. We shall alienate the scien- 
tific world from Christianity, and drive it more and more into 
antagonism with us. In which case the Victoria Institute, 
instead of being a foster-mother to religion, will become 
unconsciously one of its worst and deadliest foes. On the 
contrary, by treating this important question in the manner 
which I have ventured here to adopt, we shall sustain our 
character honourably, both as students of science, and as 
believers in the Word of God. For observe, I pray you, that 
while we have approached this Holy Word with an implicit 
conviction that all its teaching is divine, I have not attempted 
to force its teaching into any preconceived and self-determined 
lines of our own making, but have taken it just as it stands, 
and have interpreted it according to those necessary laws of 
sequence, which ever attend the discovery of actual facts. Now, 
I submit that this is at once reverential and philosophical, and 
alone worthy of an Institute like our own, which professes to 
reason without unbelief, and to believe without being unreason- 
able. It seems to me that this is the only method by which 
Philosophy and Theology can occupy the same chair. Philosophy 
can surely never cramp her researches into physical science by 
any antecedent desire to force her discoveries into harmony 
with the words of Scripture. She says, “ I must patiently 
investigate, tabulate results, reason on them, generalize, and 
draw deductions accordingly.” Theology must do the same 
thing. She must never cramp her researches into Scripture 
with any preconceived determination of forcing the sacred text 
into harmony with science. She, too, must say, “ I will 
patiently investigate, reverently criticise, tabulate results, 
generalize, and draw deductions accordingly.” If students on 
both sides would only be thus sincerely faithful to their respec- 
tive functions, and, instead of rashly making war with one 
another, because they appear at first sight to disagree, would 
only do their best to get honestly at facts, and, out of those 
facts, the plain teaching which they present, we might then 
entertain some hope that, in the calm and quiet atmosphere of 
ascertained and admitted truths, a way would be found for 
reconciling their discrepancies, without compromise on either 
side, and with equal loyalty to both their spheres of thought. 
This alone can be the foundation of their mutual respect and 
toleration. As, therefore, it is the singular happiness of our 
Institute to occupy each of these platforms, I some time ago 
