316 Beviews— The Age of Man Geologically Considered. 



not only deficient in geological knowledge, bnt also in good manners 

 towards Ms opponent, — a grave fault in a minister, and still worse in 

 one who is a " Professor of p?-acfo'caZ Theology in the Evangelical 

 Union Academy." 



It needs no practised eye to detect the leading features in this 

 mild essay at book-making, in which our author is familiar. 



First we observe the endless repetition of Sir C. Ly ell's name, of 

 whom, however, he speaks in the most contemptuous terms through- 

 out his book. 



In Chapter I., entitled " Ignorance and Error," he compares him 

 with an ignorant school-girl, who, seeing steam -boats with "wheels," 

 wondered what they would do when they came to deep water I 

 "We coidd stake a good deal," adds the reverend gentleman, "that 

 she would have beat Sir Charles Lyell himself, if called to speak on 

 the subject of the growth of peat" (pp. 11 and 12) ! 



Again, p. 73. "This spirit of carelessness follows Sir Charles, 

 even in the reading of the proofs of his volume (' The Antiquity of 

 Man'). For example, he says, regarding the peat-formation at 

 Abbeville : — '•' This vegetable matter is all of submarine — (yeSy 

 'sub-marine') — or fresh water origin " (p. 111). Mr. Kirk adds: — 

 " We are perfectly well aware of the difiiciilty of keeping the printer 

 right, and this blunder is no doubt the result of a mere slip of the 

 pen or of the press ; but it is in thorough keeping with everything 

 else in the book." 



Had the Rev. Prof. Kirk turned to the list of errata and corrigenda 

 at the end of the "Antiquity of Man," he would have found "for 

 submarine read sMp?-amarine." It would be well if spelling formed 

 one of the qualifications necessary for the post of Professor in the 

 Evangelical Union Academy, as in that case we might find " Abbey- 

 vUle" spelt without a y (p. 72) ;fluminaUs, not " flumenalis" (more 

 than twenty times, pp. 201-210) ; plutonic, not " platonic" (p. 143) ; 

 unto, not " unis" (p. 203) ; primigenius, not " primogenius" (pp. 

 220-221); tichorhinus, not " ticJiorinus" (p. 221); impennis, not 

 " impennius" (p. 185) ; we notice typographical blunders of common 

 words at pp. 109, 133, 135, 205, 229, but there is no table of errata 

 given. 



In another place, speaking of Sir Charles Lyell's reasonings on 

 Eiver-gravels, etc. (p. 113) he says: — "A man who has devoted a 

 life and a fortune to the collection of geological facts is necessarily, 

 in the language of ordinary life, ' an eminent geologist.' He may 

 be trusted as a man of the highest honour, who would not for any- 

 thing state that as a fact which he only knows as a probability. . . . 

 Yet he has, perhaps, never spent a serious half hour in endeavouring 

 to master the most essential laws of true reasoning." 



To speak familiarly or contemptuously of men of science is no 

 proof of wisdom, but the contrary, and we shrewdly suspect Prof. 

 Kirk's boasted frequent visits into geological territory (see p. 4) have 

 been made by night, which may account for his ignorance as a guide 

 both of the coimtry and the language made use of. 



As a " Professor of Practical Theology," we would recommend 



