LOUIS AGASSIZ AND GEORGE BERKELEY 319 



that when we use such phrases as the "language of nature," 

 and the "interpretation of nature," our words are not figurative, but 

 literal. 



It is not because we find contrivances in nature, but because 

 the order of nature is one consistent and harmonious whole, that 

 he holds it to be intended. 



" In their respective great types, the phenomena of animal life 

 correspond to one another, whether we compare their rank as de- 

 termined by structural complication with the phases of their growth, 

 or with their succession in past geological ages ; whether we com- 

 pare this succession with their embryonic growth, or all these 

 different relations with each other and with the geographical dis- 

 tribution of animals upon earth. The same series everywhere ! 

 The connection, however, between the facts, it is easily seen, is 

 only intellectual, and implies, therefore, the agency of Intellect as 

 its first cause." 



He holds that this truth is most clearly shown by those system- 

 atic affinities which make out of the individual animals and plants 

 a consistent and harmonious whole, a realm of nature ; and he 

 calls his work an Essay on Classification. 



"The division of animals according to branch, class, order, 

 family, genius, and species, by which we express the results of 

 our investigation into the relations of the animal kingdom, and 

 which constitute the first question respecting the systems of Natural 

 History which we have to consider, seems to me to deserve the 

 consideration of all thoughtful minds. Are these divisions artificial 

 or natural ? Are they the devices of the human mind to classify 

 and arrange our knowledge in such a manner as to bring it more 

 readily within our grasp and facilitate further investigation, or 

 have they been instituted by the Divine Intelligence as categories 

 of his mode of thinking ? Have we perhaps thus far been only 

 the unconscious interpreters of a Divine conception, in our attempts 

 to expound nature? and when, in our pride of philosophy, we 

 thought we were inventing systems of science, and classifying 

 creation by the force of our own reason, have we followed only, 

 and reproduced, in our imperfect expressions, the plan whose 

 foundations in the dawn of creation, and the development of which, 

 we are laboriously studying, thinking as we arrange our frag- 



