306 
considerations which form so large a portion of all observations founded upon 
moral subjects. 
Rev. J. H. Tttcomb. — I would not offer a word of criticism upon this 
valuable paper on this or that particular point ; but I must say that I was 
extremely pleased with the able way in which Mr. Garbett stated that true 
science could contain no error. I think we cannot possibly overstate that 
fact. You see the truths of science come from God, and the truths of revela- 
tion alike come from God. God must be the author of both, and if the one 
be infallible the other must be infallible too. For instance, I would not mind 
saying, even in the pulpit itself, if the occasion demanded it, that such a fact in 
mathematical science as that the squares described on two sides of a right- 
angled triangle are equal to the square described on the hypothenuse is no 
less infallibly true than that there is only one God. The two facts are 
equally true. This adjustment between revelation and science is necessary, 
because they come from the same author, and have a common origin and a 
common fulness. That thought struck me while the paper was being read. 
I was also very much struck with the value and force of what Mr. Garbett 
stated with regard to the importance of accumulating facts for the better 
ordering and subserving of truth in all the processes of experimental science. 
I think the history of geology shows that the gathering of a few facts and 
generalizing upon them may lead to much error in so-called science, or at all 
events to the adoption of an unscientific manner ; and the addition of other 
facts afterwards may lead to other deductions, which may totally upset the 
previously formed views on the subject. Fossil remains have been found in 
a stratum which was thought at one time to contain no such remains ; and 
things which a few years ago were pronounced to be unscientific are now 
possibly quite scientific 
The Chairman. — Or are supposed to be correct ? 
Mr. Titcomb. — Yes. The accumulation of facts becomes more and more 
the handmaid to discovery ; but for that we should go into the line of 
thought suggested by Mr. Garbett, concerning the great advantage of skilled 
or talented observation. I was very much interested with Mr. Garbett’s 
observations regarding the microscopic power of the eye. If Mr. Darwin 
were here, we might call upon him to elaborate his theory of the origin of 
species, and to explain the power which he attributes to a body, of assimi- 
lating and developing certain organs and functions to a degree which did not 
naturally belong to them ; and he would no doubt tell us whether the change 
remains permanent and continues from generation to generation or not 
The Chairman. — Certainly long sight and short sight are not hereditary. 
Mr. Titcomb. — As to Adams’s discoveries, I understood Mr. Garbett to 
attribute them to the observation of other discoverers. I understand that 
Adams’s discovery was arrived at from abstract reading ; Leverrier’s from 
actual observation 
The Chairman. — The real facts of the case have not been given by Mr. 
Garbett. Mr. Garbett assumes that Adams and Leverrier were both 
astronomical observers. Now, at the time Adams made his discovery, I 
