308 
think the paper which we have had read to us is very valuable for the purpose 
of concentrating our strict attention on this fact. It does not follow that 
because a man is eminent in one branch that he should be taken for a guide 
beyond that ; and I maintain most strongly that it is not the faculty of 
observation which enables a man to say whether there is design in creation 
or not. 
Eev. A. De la Mare. — I quite agree with what Mr. Row has said this even- 
ing, that Mr. Garbett’s paper is a most valuable one, and full of the 
most valuable material for our own thought when we shall have it printed 
and in our hands . But there is one point for which I especially thank Mr. 
Garbett, because I think he has clearly brought out what has led to so much 
misunderstanding in the relative position of theologians and scientific men. 
Mr. Garbett has’ stated distinctly that the theologian has as much right to 
faith on his side, as the scientific man has to demand to have evidence 
received from him ; or, in other words, that the scientific man can no more 
do without faith in carrying out his processes than we can do without reason. 
I only draw attention to that lest it should escape notice, because it answers 
an imputation which is often thrown out against theologians, that their pro- 
cesses are almost superstitious, resting on nothing but faith, and totally 
removed therefore from a scientific character. I thought Mr. Garbett’s 
observation was very valuable, and I desired to mention the point lest 
it should not be noticed. 
Mr. Reddie. — I am sorry that Mr. Garbett has left us, because I 
am afraid that I shall have to criticise his paper adversely on some points. 
With regard to the general scope of the paper, as an illustration of the object 
which this Society has in view, I think there will be a general agreement 
among us ; but when I now proceed to make some observations, not quite in 
accordance with Mr. Garbett’s views, I may state that that is not fighting 
him in an unfair way, as he will be allowed, if he wishes, to reply to what is 
reported of our remarks. He commenced his paper by saying he would give 
a few instances to illustrate his general reasoning, but he was peculiarly un- 
fortunate in those instances. We have already heard that the actual place of 
Neptune and the calculations of Leverrier and Adams did not agree in the least 
together. All the calculations have been published by Messrs. Walker and 
Pierce, of the principal observatory in the United States. The astronomers 
here, however, did not take these revelations very well, because there is an in- 
clination among them to profess to be perfectly accurate in their science — — 
The Chairman. — Certainly one has heard very little of the great discovery 
since, as an example of astronomical accuracy. (Laughter.) 
Mr. Reddie. — Without going into the history of that, however, I think it 
is easy to show, that there is considerable inconvenience from the observer 
and the reasoner being separately employed upon the same work, for I do 
not go with Mr. Garbett on that point. It is unfortunate that those who 
give us the mathematical laws of astronomy are seldom astronomers at all, 
while the astronomers who observe are often but indifferent mathematicians 
