748 
[December, 
Analyses of Books. 
. It is stated that among the varieties of condensed milk is one 
in which salt is partially substituted for sugar. In France there 
is even, liorribile dictu, milk condensed with the addition of tar, 
coal or wood ! 
In the instructions for examining human milk we find it stated 
that “ Woman’s milk differs from the milk of animals, especially 
cows.” We must here ask whether the milk of animals belonging 
to the order of Primates, and especially of the anthropoid apes, 
has ever been fully examined ? 
The author’s suggested rules for a rational milk inspection are 
admirable, and we should greatly like to see them officially 
adopted in England. 
The only defect of this book is that it is written in very im- 
perfect English. 
Expository Thoughts on the Creation. By James Robert 
Smith. London : Elliot Stock. 
We have here one of the many attempts at reconciling the 
teachings of modern Science with the Hebrew cosmogony. The 
author confesses to a lack of sufficient knowledge of Natural 
History, and pleads that neither leisure nor learning (properly 
so called) has been brought to bear upon his undertaking. He 
admits, further, being “ no Hebrew scholar.” 
In an early part of Mr. Smith’s treatise we further find him 
recording his opinion that “ the Bible was not written to teach 
Nature’s faCts and laws and workings.” This is the very view 
which, since the days of Giordano Bruno, and of Galilei, has 
been held by men of Science in general. Rightly understood, 
this view renders all inquiries as to the harmony and disharmony 
between Science and Revelation a mere waste of time. Mr. 
Smith, however, does not feel the the full force of the admission, 
or he would — rather he could — have proceeded no further. 
The first chapter, entitled “ Observations and Conclusions 
respecting the Authors of Creation,” lies entirely outside our 
competence. We can merely intimate that the author takes up 
a position which a few centuries ago would have been perilous in 
the extreme. Even in our days it may give occasion to much 
inkshed should it attract the attention of professional theo- 
logians. 
In the second chapter Mr. Smith takes up what he calls “ the 
much-vexed question respecting the length of each period trans- 
lated in our English Bible ‘ day.’ ” To the man of Science who 
takes his stand on the simple principle above laid down, this is 
no question at all. The author conceives, as have done others 
