strike, were originally aqueous beds which have been in this wise transformed, especially if they now show no positive sign of such origin.

A few special examples evincing Sir Charles's loose mode of reasoning and illogical statements respecting these rocks may be in point. When he speaks (p. 117) of "organic remains obliterated entirely," the question naturally rises: How does he know this? So, when he says (p. 8), "In some cases, dark limestones, replete with shells and corals, have been turned into white statuary marble, ..... every vestige of the organic bodies having been obliterated," the query might be raised, whether it be meant that the limestones were changed in their whole extent, or only in portions. But, waiving the ambiguity that runs through the sentence, I should like the proof of the last clause. If it be admitted that no organic trace could be found in the metamorphic part, to say nothing of the whole rock, I fail to see any stable foundation on which to build an argument for the previous existence of fossils. Again, though organic forms may be sometimes effaced, it is a well-known fact that limestone may be burnt in a kiln, the included fossils remaining as distinct at the end of the process as they were at the beginning; also, that shells often occur in the changed portions of rocks near dikes, retaining their forms perfectly. Besides, it is difficult to understand how Sir Charles should know of this obliteration, or how he learned that there were originally any "shells and corals" in the changed parts of the rock, unless he were present when the transformation took place; since every vestige of organization was effaced, according to his showing, when the rocks were metamorphosed.

To look at another phase of the matter. The author is much disposed to make the so-called Eozoön and metamorphism prove each other. Speaking of the Laurentian rocks as metamorphic, he says (p. 477): "Even if we had not discovered the Eozoön [since, however, it is discovered, there remains no doubt!] we might fairly have [might have fairly?]

inferred from analogy that as the quartzites were once beds of sand [a point yet to be proved], ..... so the calcareous masses..... were originally of organic origin" [in other words, contained Eozoön]. Again (p. 558), he refers to the Laurentian rocks as "known fossiliferous strata." How so known? Of course, from the Eozoön. Thus the assumed sedimentary origin of the foliated rocks is, in one instance, presumptive proof of the organic nature of the Eozoön; while, on the other hand, the known organic character of the latter is taken as irrefragable evidence of the aqueous derivation of the beds in which it occurs.

66

But, waiving further instances, and granting all that the facts warrant, I would ask, what is proved? Simply this: Aqueous masses have been changed to a distance ordinarily of a few feet, rarely of yards, or rods by intrusive matter. And so much, or whatever more the facts clearly indicate, should be cheerfully granted. When, however, it is inferred that rocks some thirty thousand feet thick, and of almost indefinite range, have been as a rule so changed as now "to contain no distinct fragments of other rocks, whether rounded or angular," and to be wholly devoid of organic remains" (p. 560), the famous Eozoön alone excepted, it is quite another thing. The overflows of recent lavas are often in beds. In this respect they have something in common, at least in appearance, with sedimentary strata. Shall we, therefore, infer that they are aqueous deposits, and that all the remains of ancient overflows had a like origin, they having in some cases lost their bedding by metamorphic agency? Surely, more evidence than this is needed. We should rightly require a vast amount of proof before calling recent lavas, or similar outbursts of the olden time, metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. It is even so with the vast pile of foliated beds, after we have eliminated all that is foreign. To call that thirty-thousand-foot mass metamorphic aqueous rock, while we have so little evidence to sustain us, is a stretch of the fancy, a tax upon credulity, a straining of proof, which needs to be shown up, if we would not teach

our children that much of our logic is mere jugglery, and what some call scientific discussion only leger-de-main — a skilful sleight of hand. To the proposal of such an hypothesis as a point for investigation, to its thorough consideration as a matter placed under review, or to its logical exposition as a thing to be candidly weighed, I do not object. But when it is assumed to be true, and put forth for acceptance with so slight a foundation for its support, I am constrained to demur, and to regard its presentation in such a light as wholly unsuited to grace a Student's Manual of Geology.

But this Article, already too long, must be brought to a close. Though there be other points as much open to criticism as those noticed, they must be waived. Accordingly, taking up the order of Sir Charles, who from the most recent pages of the book of nature proceeds to the earlier, I may now advance from the "finis" to the "title-page." Opposite to this stands the "frontispiece," presumed to be the crowning part of the work, and intended, as I suppose, to give in miniature the grand features of the ages. It has as characteristic of the Palaeozoic times a Trilobite, which, on the whole, does very well; of the Secondary, an Ammonite, which, though evincing progress in inferior and class characters, fails to show the distinctive advance thus far made; while the Tertiary is represented by a Nummulite-a form the position of which in the scale of organization, though still in dispute, is universally admitted to be low; there thus being, according to the scheme adopted, an actual regression as we go up the geologic ladder. Verily, this is "progress backward," in one view the proper title of Sir Charles's work. While these. three forms respectively belong to the eras which they are intended to signalize, the Ammonite is certainly not the most significant type of the Mesozoic. So the Nummulite, a nondescript form with which palaeontologists are still unagreed what to do, is anything but a good representative of the third grand step in the onward aeonian movement, which witnessed the introduction of Mammals, at the head of which stands Man, the crowning work of creation. It is almost as if one should

characterize the Augustan period of Roman literature by means of the most illiterate and least known individual of the time. Surely, if we take the frontispiece as a specimen and evidence, we are virtually compelled to infer that the method adopted by the author has vitiated his taste, blunted his finer powers of intuition, and, while certain lower faculties have been sharpened, left him incapable either of appreciating the grand harmonies of the universe, or of duly unfolding and representing the majestic strides taken during the geologic ages.

And yet to judge a man with "final judgment" in this way, or by a single example, is not quite fair; and I would not do it. The impression, while it is certainly made by the book, is still partial; relating not to the whole man, but to particular points which I hope to see amended. Even Homer, as the report is handed down by the prince of Roman critics, was liable sometimes to doze. Possibly, this frontispiece, with some portions of the volume, was conceived in one of Sir Charles's dozing moods. Be this, however, as it may, the faults remain and mar the work. Indeed, the usefulness which might be expected from it, in view of much of its matter and of its many excellences, cannot fail to be greatly lessened by the method chosen; since, in its present form, it is not, what every such work ought in a measure to be, a natural and progressive exhibition at once of the primal revelation and of the gradual unfoldings of the divine plan as witnessed by the geologic record.

A closing explanation is needful, that I may not wrong myself. To write as I have written has caused me pain; for I have been indebted to Sir Charles for many hints, and for not a little instruction, in regard to the structure of the earth's crust. Having principally in view, however, not personal feelings, but the advance of science, as well as its dissemination, and particularly the establishment of sound processes of investigation and wise methods of instruction, I have not known how to deal otherwise than plainly. Upon the excellences of Mr. Lyell's new book I have made few

comments; for they speak for themselves, and will be lauded by every critic. Of parts which I regard as defective or faulty I have written more at large and freely, "not that I love Caesar less, but Rome more." It is mainly in this direction that good, yea, a constant increase of good, is likely to come. Teachers of geology need to see the defects in existing books and modes of instruction, that they may demand, and so be prepared to find, better ways than they have before known. And then the frank and honest exposure of faults and deficiencies in a work which has many and great excellences may incite and constrain the author, before it is too late, to make improvements which, as tending to the progress and diffusion of wholesome knowledge, and thus to the welfare of the race, will redound, as false praise never can, to his permanent honor and undying glory.

ARTICLE VI.

CHRIST AS A PRACTICAL OBSERVER OF NATURE, PERSONS, AND EVENTS.

BY REV. SELAH MERRILL, SALMON FALLS, N.H.

IN studying the words and discourses of Christ, one cannot but notice that his mind was intensely practical. It is impossible to find in his teachings and conversations a single visionary or dreamy sentiment. Every thought and statement of his is fresh, vigorous, and pointed. There is also in all that he has said, whether in plain instruction, in reproof, or in sympathy, a healthy tone, which commends his sayings to our ideas of every-day life, as well as especially to our minds and hearts. Although a "carpenter" (Mark vi. 3), he was, as we should say, an exceedingly well-informed man on almost all the social and business affairs of the day. His power of observation was very great; and not less was the skill he had in elevating the humblest employment or