418 Reviews —“ Scripture” Geology. 
who showed signs of deeper acquaintance with the problems of 
science than his printer. 
Plunging, on his ninth page, into the assertion of a law ‘that we 
can conceive no essential difference . . . between a brick and an 
archangel,’ he proceeds to correlate the Geological and Mosaic ac- 
counts of Creation ab initio. Wisely eliminating the Miltonian 
accounts of the Fall of Angels and Man from scientific consideration, 
he thus translates Genesis i. 2 :— 
‘And the earth was without stratification (Tho-ht) and without 
cleavage—i.e. crystallized (Vo-ht),’ &c. &c. 
After the above, our readers can well imagine that Hebrew may 
mean anything, especially if interpreted on the philological maxim, 
that ‘ AOSStOTTE are interchangeable, and that vowels don’t count.’ 
According to Mr. Marsden, the solar system existed first; the world 
was then introduced from without into it (p. 27). We learn this 
(he states) from the Word of God, and we are bound to accept .it 
reverently. After this, we must not be surprised when our author, 
in the next line, states that he is a ‘convulsionist.’ We think so. 
It is furthermore, according to this interpreter, ‘ certainly revealed’ 
that the earth was granitic when the six days’ creation began. We 
are glad to hear this: the announcement of the fact will probably 
save some of our mineralogists much labour, which they may spare, 
if they submissively sit at ‘the feet of our scientific Gamaliel. 
We are pleased to see a paleontological proof adduced by him 
that the earth did not at first revolve (page 100). ‘It is also re- 
markable that vertebrate fishes commenced with rotation, and the 
heterocercal tail ceased when the earth began to revolve in an orbit.’ 
The author’s prevision here must have induced him to pen these 
remarks a few millions of years in advance; for, as we must tell him 
that the heterocercal tail in fishes has not yet ceased (the sturgeon 
and shark being familiar examples), we must accept as a logical 
corollary from the above sentence, that the earth does not even yet 
revolve ! 
If Paleozoology in the hands of Mr. Marsden becomes unsafe, 
Paleophytology under his auspices comes to irremediable grief. 
Thus he says, as a corroborative of the exactitude of the statement 
contained in Genesis i. 11, ‘I know of no terms which could more 
briefly or accurately describe to us the stemmy Equisetaceze—the 
ferns with seed on their leaves—the Stigmaria—or, again, the firmly- 
rooted Stgillaria, some of them with kidney-formed seed, arranged 
upon the outer bark ;’ and on the next page, ‘In these knobs and 
kidneys we have, doubtless the seed,’ &c. Apparently our author is 
not aware of the fact, that the markings in which he takes such 
complacent delight are leaf-scars. Similar scars can be seen on the 
sides of every bamboo-cane, which nevertheless may bear a very 
indirect relation to the Fourth Day of Creation. 
As a strong teleologist of course he says, ‘ Nature plainly speaks 
of adaptation. The atmosphere is made for the wing of the bird, 
and wings are adaptations for the aérial voyager... The ostrich 
is for the sand, and the sand for the ostrich. The duck’s bill for 
