VI. 



that it has become exceedingly perplexing to the student. The mineral 

 which is called epidote by Haiiy, is named pristazit by Werner, thallite by 

 Lemetherie, akanticone by Dandrada, AelpUniie by Saussure, glassy actinolite 

 by Kirwan, arendalit by Karsten, glamger strahlstein by Emmerling ; la 

 rayonnante vitreuse by Brochant, prismatoidischer augit-spath by Mohs, 

 &c., &c."* 



To enter, here, on any defence of geology, against the groundless objec- 

 tions of weak, but amiable opponents, would be to travel out of the record. 

 Happily, the mists of delusions, and the prejudices consequent on long- 

 cherished and preconceived notions, are rapidly clearing away before the 

 lucid and delightful, and unanswerable statements and views of the galaxy 

 of learned, and scientific, and pious geologists of the present day. I trust 

 I may be permitted to quote from one of these a most happily conceived 

 and beautifully expressed passage: "How then can they, by whom the 

 magnificent truths of elapsed time and successive generations have been 

 put in clear and strong evidence how can they be expected to yield to 

 false notions of philosophy, and narrow views of religion, the secure 

 conviction that, in the formation of the crust of the earth, Almighty 

 wisdom was glorified, the permitted laws of nature were in beneficent 

 operation, and thousands of beautiful and active things enjoyed their 

 appointed life, long before man was formed of the dust of the ancient 

 earth, and endowed with a divine power of comprehending the wonders of 

 its construction ? It is something worse than philosophical prejudice, to 

 close the eyes of reason on the evidence which the earth offers to the eyes 

 of sense ; it is a dangerous theological error, to put in unequal conflict a 

 few ill- understood words of the Pentateuch, and the thousands of facts 

 which the finger of God has plainly written on the book of nature; folly, 

 past all excuse, to suppose that the moral evidence of an eternity of the 

 future should be weakened by admitting the physical evidence for an 

 immensity of the past."f 



It remains for me to add a few words only, as deprecatory of severe 

 criticism. No one can be more aware than myself of the numerous errors 

 and deficiencies everywhere pervading this small volume : for these I urge 

 nothing, even in extenuation. For myself, it is sufiicient that I have 

 derived from its preparation much information, great gratification. I 

 entertain no morbid sensitiveness respecting the fate that awaits it. "With 



Professor Cleavel*nd. f Professor Phillips. 



