137 
truth could not possibly have been ascertained, does warrant us in saying 
that this is the finger of God. And in connection with the existence of these 
positive affirmations of truth there are remarkable evidences of error on the 
part of students of science. Scientific men are, in these days, constantly 
abandoning their own theories, and until you get finality in science, you have 
no right to question the scientific accuracy of the Bible. 
Captain F. Petrie. — As science has made such rapid strides even since 
the days of Chalmers, Sedgwick, and Whewell, perhaps it may be well to 
supplement Dr. Wain wright’s remark in reference to their acceptance of the 
Bible, by quoting the opinions of two among the leading men of the present 
day in the scientific world, namely, the Rev. Robert Main ( Radcliffe Ob- 
server), and Professor Phillips* (Professor of Geology at Oxford). The 
former, alluding to the Creation as given in Gen. i. 2, 3, says, “Nothing 
can exceed in truth and grandeur these words of the inspired historian. 
Like the bold touches of a great artist, they create a picture which no after- 
addition or refinement can improve. The only passage besides these which 
concerns me as an astronomer, is that which describes with equal majesty 
the works of the Creator beyond the earth” (Gen. i. 14 — 18). “ The most 
keen-eyed hypercriticism should see nothing to object to, as unworthy of an 
inspired pen, in this grand assertion of God’s creation of the sun, and moon, 
and stars, and of the provision which He made by them for the necessities 
of His creatures.” Professor Phillips in his statement, speaking of his work 
as a geologist, says — “ There has never been produced in my own mind . . . 
the slightest impression that we ” (he, and those who studied under him) 
“ were considering facts and laws in any way opposed to Christian Faith, 
to the inferences from Natural Theology, or the deductions from Scrip- 
ture.”+ 
The ChxVirman. — There is only one observation I should like to make 
before Mr. Titcomb replies, and it has reference to Alcyone being the centre 
of the entire Cosmos. As a scientific society, I am glad we are not 
allowing it to go forth that we implicity accept Madlers hypothesis, when 
we know it to be altogether ignored by many astronomers of eminence. 
Miidler has assumed from certain observations, that the star Alcyone is the 
centre of the Cosmos — the centre around which the whole universe revolves. 
Mr. Titcomb speaks of its being somewhat uncertain, but that phrase 
is not sufficiently strong, seeing that it is altogether disputed by many astro- 
nomers of eminence. As to the meaning of the passage in Job, “ Canst 
thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades or loose the bands of Orion ? ” it 
is suggested that that refers to the heliacal rising of the constellation, at the 
time of the year when it took place, and would be within the comprehension 
of the people for whom it was written. But as to its being the omphalos of 
the Cosmos — the centre of the whole universe, — that must have been beyond 
their knowledge, and the fact itself is very questionable. 
* Professor Phillips died after the date of this meeting. — E d. 
t “ Replies to Essays and Reviews” (Parker, 1862). 
* 
