surfaces of things-to accidental rank, as such; nor invest its possessors with adventitious dignities and virtues, that it may bow down before the god of its own creation. It does, however, bend lowly before the naked Truth—before untrammelled Right. And in this is our highest hope; from it we draw our brightest auguries for the future.

Far be it from us to prove ungrateful to the Past. We thank it for the lessons of wisdom inscribed upon all its pages of savanic lore. We thank it for the lyrie sweetness of its rhythmed melody, and for the nobler strains of its heroic bards. We thank it for its valor displayed on field and wave, and for its higher valor shown in its martyrdoms for the Truth. And, infinitely beyond all, we thank God that He has bound us of the Present to the Past, by ties indissoluble, through a SAVIOUR and a Salvation.

THE EPOCH OF CREATION; Or, the Scripture Doctrine contrasted with the Geological Theory. By ELEAZAR LORD. in one volume: pp. 311. New York: CHARLES SCRIBNER.

We have read this work with pleasure and profit; and while we are compelled in the main to differ from the intelligent author, we acknowledge the force of many of his arguments, and think them worthy of a careful consideration. So long as human knowledge is mixed with a degree of uncertainty, there will be different opinions and conflicting theories; and more especially in considering the mighty and mysterious changes of the past. Geology was originally pursued as a distinct science, by men who were above the influence of prejudice, and who scorned an improper use of their knowledge. By them it was not arrayed against the Mosaic cosmogony. Then, as now, the true student of science looked to the sacred record as the only testimony worthy of belief; and considered the natural phenomena so far only as they went to explain the sacred record, or aided him to read it rightly. But as the early conjectures seemed to conflict with the inspired history, the unbelieving made use of them in their arguments denying the authenticity and truthfulness of the sacred writings. By this means the whole army of clergy was excited to a general and ill-judged attack on the science.

It cannot be denied that, with a literal interpretation of the inspired volume, a disagreement between the friends of the two records is unavoidable; but it is very generally conceded that a more liberal view not only fully reconciles the geological phenomena with the Mosaic account, but illustrates and proves the truth of both. Recent discoveries have done much to harmonize all that had even the appearance of opposition, and to bring the savan and the theologian together as co-workers on broad and liberal grounds, where, rising above the letter into the spirit of the inspired writings, and from isolated discoveries to great principles, they found themselves in the presence of the same Almighty POWER, who, writing not alone on the stones of Sinai, but on all, has left unmistakable evidence of His own great being in every department of the universe.

In these views Mr. LORD does not fully agree with us. He defends the Scriptural account of the creation in its literal sense, and refuses all geological aid in its interpretation. This task he has performed with great ingenuity and force; and to those who entertain similar views, he has given an interesting and valuable commentary. His style is clear and forcible, and his arguments generally well directed. His reviews of Professor HITCHCOCK's Geology and HUGH MILLER'S Foot-prints' may be considered the ablest portions of his book; but we think we discover a spirit which

should not be found in scientific and theological discussions. Sarcasm can have but little influence in settling important questions of any character, and least of all in matters of this nature. We are not certain that we do Mr. LORD justice in these reflections; but if we do, we would persuade him to leave such feelings to the editor of the 'Literary World,' and others of similar elements, to whom they properly belong.

In conclusion, we recommend the book to our readers, and particularly to those who are interested in the discussion. While we differ in our views, we are anxious to see both sides of the great question fully and clearly presented, so that knowledge may be increased and truth attained. We need original thinkers, who are ready to take the responsibility of a new thought, and who, like our author, are willing to attack the strong places of science. To such we give a hearty welcome.

OUTLINES OF A SYSTEM OF MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY: Being a Research into the Laws of Force. By SAMUEL ELLIOTT CORIES. In one volume: pp. 336. Boston: LITTLE AND BBOWN.

If these 'Outlines' prove correct, new experiments must be made, and systems yet unknown adopted. The beautiful discoveries of NEWTON, proved by innumerable concurring phenomena, and acquiesced in by philosophers of every grade and character, will be remembered only with the errors of the past. That mighty chain of gravitation which binds the universe together; that directs the motions of the heavenly bodies; limits their wanderings, and regulates their varied influences; and on the supposition of which the forces of nature have been calculated, the planets weighed, and their localities pointed out before they had been seen by the eye of science; must yield its supremacy to the innate force of matter. The problem of the three bodies must be opened again; and the calculations of CLAIRAUT, D'ALEMBERT and EULER proved the foolishness of great men. Some other cause must be shown for the harmony discovered by the immortal LA PLACE; and the labors of ADAMS and LEVERRIER, to which the civilized world turned with the profoundest reverence, must be treated as happy accidents.

But are they true? Is there a natural force in each element, by which motion is produced, and through which all natural phenomena may be explained? These are questions of importance, suggested not alone by these 'Outlines,' but by every inquiring mind. There are many things unexplained by gravitation, or any other known element. Into the mysterious workings of the universe we are enabled to penetrate to certain fixed points, but there the lights of science leave us, bewildered, in the presence of potencies unexplained and of beauties indescribable. No human eye can detect the secret of their harmony, because the POWER which moves the machinery is behind the horizon that binds all mortal vision. All human theories may be questioned, nay, they should be. If we would advance, we must examine and reëxamine every position taken in our progress; open and reopen every question so long as arguments can be added or doubts suggested. In this opinion our author fully agrees with us. With a boldness which we admire, and a force which commands respect, he attacks our oldest and best-supported theories. Nor is his book a mere attack upon the views and theories of others; he offers something in their place. The Vandal may level the most perfect edifice, but it requires the skill of civilization and refinement to erect one worthy of admiration. This our author has

done. While he denies the theory of gravitation, and all the influences of such a force, he supplies its place in the universe by other potencies of equal extent and influence. He attempts to prove that there is a transferable, diffusible, independent and indestructible force in every thing, sufficient to secure the harmony of motion. He meets the theory of gravitation with many objections, which he thinks cannot be urged against his theory of force. In this connection he quotes from NEWTON:

WOULD it were permitted us to deduce the other phenomena of nature from mechanical principles, and by the same kind of reasoning; for many things lead me to suspect that all these phenomena depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies are either urged toward each other, through causes not yet known, and cohere according to regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto made their attempts upon nature in vain.' Our author adds: We are disposed to believe that the ultimate particles of bodies have an orbital or rotary motion, intense in proportion to the cir cumscribed space in which they move. In every mass, also, and at times extending beyond the mass, (as especially the object of perception in the magnet,) this motion exists, the phenomena of which are those of polarization, and the result of which is cohesion together with the phenomena of friction, and perhaps of chemical affinity. The force revolving in the mass is cohe sion, out of the mass friction or pression, and the change of the structure of the mass is chemical action.'

He goes on to develop these ideas, and to prove the correctness of his theory, and closes this chapter with the following language:

Ir may be objected to this view that the generalization is too far extended. But we can hardly err on this side. The present state of philosophy seems to demand generalization - the grouping together of the heretofore isolated action of nature. Nature has been too much parcelled out too much separated into artificial departments. There have been too many tribunals set up, each with its own code of laws. Such divisions are not characteristic of the simplicity of truth, but have bees made from the necessity of the case. There is an error in the theory which relates to general principles. Gravitation cannot be brought down to the particulars; it will not apply to the minute. It has to be added to, or taken from; it has to be modified for every class of phenomena. Thus have we gravitation, attraction, elective attraction, capillary attraction, attraction of cohesion, attraction dynamic, attraction statical, attraction between elements of one kind, attraction between masses of different kinds, and so on, almost without end; and in place of science giving method to the mind, clearness and distinctness to thought, the intellect is embarrassed in its attempts to assign to nature the modicum of order which the theory itself may have in minds of the greatest strength.'

Our author finds great, indeed insurmountable difficulty, in trying to reconcile different phenomena with the action of particular laws. Thus in reference to the gravitation of the atmosphere, and its density and weight, he finds it necessary to reject the theory of GALILEO, TORRICELLI and PASCAL, because it does not fully explain the atmospheric phenomena. If the force of attraction, he thinks, acted on the whole atmosphere as one volume, it would be of as uniform density as a mass of granite; and that if it operated on each particle according to its distance from the centre of attraction, the difference in the weight of different strata would be far less than that apparently indicated by the barometer. Again, he writes: It is supposed that heat always rarefies the air, and that cold condenses it, yet it is contended that the lower strata of the atmosphere are not only more dense than the upper, but that they contain more heat.' This, he thinks, is directly opposed to the law as stated. And if it is true, he argues that there should be an upward current of wind to correct the action of gravitation.

If the intelligent author of this work would stop to consider the many necessary special provisions in the universe, beautiful in themselves, and indispensable in the economy of nature, we think he would attach less importance to all arguments of this character. Experiments have shown us that the exception to which he refers does exist; and more, that it is indispensably necessary to the life and growth of animate nature. Water is also expanded by heat, and condensed by cold, but there is an important exception to this general law. Water is condensed to a certain point only, after which it is expanded by cold, and it is owing to this provision that our lakes and rivers are kept liquid during the winter. We might refer to many other

instances of this character, but it would be useless. There are limits to the action of every natural law, as well as exceptions to their operation. All nature appears to be full of these provisions, and it is these which make it so difficult to establish general laws.

But we must dismiss this interesting and scholar-like work. We do so, however, with reluctance. We would say more of an original and laborious argument like this than our space permits. We do not agree with the author. We prefer the NEWTONIAN theory to his, because it is venerable with age, has been proved by the experiments and calculations of centuries; because it accounts for most, if not all of the natural phenomena, and because it has received the approval of the greatest minds the world ever contained; men who stand as beacon-lights in the history of the human mind and of its achievements, and to whom the world is more largely indebted than to its statesmen and warriors: but we do not think that all is yet known, and that no farther discoveries are to be made. The field has been but partially explored.

We sincerely hope that Mr. CORIES may be encouraged to continue his labors, and to publish a more elaborate work; for which he has the materials already collected. He is a ripe scholar, and is well acquainted with the subject; and as he ‘works beyond the surface of things,' he will prepare the way for others, if he fails himself; and while he induces farther thought on subjects and theories which are now received as settled, he will either contribute to confirm us in our present opinions, or force us to strike out new ones for ourselves.

THE LADIES OF THE COVENANT. In one volume: pp. 346. Published by J. S. REDFIELD, Clinton-Hall Buildings, corner of Beekman and Nassau-streets.

THIS is a reprint of an English book, 'got up' in admirable style. It consists of a series of biographies of some of those noble women who suffered in the cause of religious and civil liberty during the great struggle of the Scottish Covenanters; a field which has been trodden by no other writer, and which has all the freshness of novelty. Most of these sketches are historical, and give a vivid picture of the zeal and sufferings of those female martyrs, who, although they repel somewhat our sympathies by something too masculine and stern in their characters, yet fill us with admiration for their patient endurance of trials and unfaltering adherence to the cause they espoused. It was not merely from the natural impulse of woman's heart to stand by a husband when proscribed and hunted down for opinion's sake that they braved torture and even death, but they acted from a deep sense of religious obligation, a conscientious belief that the form of church government the STUARTS were attempting to force upon them was contrary to the Word of God, and that for which they were contending vital to the interests of Christianity. Never did a severer trial pass over the Church of Scotland than during this persecution. Previously she had fought, with various success, many a battle against kings and statesmen. Often defeated, she soon rallied her forces, and recovered the ground lost. But during this long persecution it was all disaster. She was not destroyed, but she was cast down and trodden under foot. All she could do was to exercise patience and fortitude under the fury of her enemies. These women form a part of the great cloud of witnesses' with which we are encompassed. Though belonging to past generations whose bodies are now sleeping beneath the heather, and whose spirits have gone to the eternal world, they yet speak.'

EDITOR'S TABLE.

MORE 'LAST WORDS' FROM 'CARL BENSON.'-Our friend BENSON, before 'going down to the sea' (we hope not into it) in one of our noble steam-ships, has had barely time to correct a few errors, partly his own and partly the proof-reader's, which crept into his last hurried letter to the EDITOR.

ED. KNICKERBOOKER

DEAR KNICK.: There is just time to bid you good-bye again, as we are standing, so to speak, with one foot on land and the other on board. Two or three little typographical slips in my last I want to correct. Cento(r)ism is obvious; occidus and amplexa any one's knowledge of metre would enable him to rectify into occiduo and amplexu; teneatis (in the 'ANNA') might perhaps be recognized, though stripped of its initial; but nemini for memini (in the third line of the same) may have puzzled some. In the quotation from OviD, parte should have been latere: that I believe was my fault. Also there was a sentence left out to this effect: that the non-use of cano as applied to singing birds was rendered more extraordinary by its use in reference to croaking birds; corvus canit, parræ recinentis omen, etc. Talking of misprints and your hypercritical friend who found fault with you for writing sobriquet, do you know that that is one of the most commonly mis-spelt French words? People are misled by the more familiar and somewhat similarly-sounding word bouquet, improperly written by some boquet. I had written soubriquet myself the other day, and it would have gone forth so to the world but for CRAIGHEAD'S foreman, (who is a very sharp man at his business, by the way, and has all his wits about him.) That evening I tried experiments among my friends, and found that most of them (including one who was actually born in Paris) spelt the word with the superfluous u.

Apropos of the American-Parisian above mentioned. He said rather a good thing the other day, me judice. Two stout Union men,' who would go out of the way any day to catch a fugitive' for a 'Southern brother,' were driving in a gig, and nearly all but pitched into one of those carriage-traps that our corporation and contractors are in the habit of sprinkling about the avenues. They were detailing their inkling of adventure' very circumstantially. So,' quoth HENRI, 'you came near changing your politics.' 'How so?' asked one of the almost sufferers. Because you had like to become sewered men.' I call that not bad for an impromptu. Do you know if this is old? An acquaintance says it is, but I never heard it. What is the cheapest way to get a musical instrument? Buy a shilling's worth of physic at the druggist's, and they'll give you a vial in. At any rate, I am sure this one is n't old; it's bad enough to be bran-new. Why ought a ballet-girl to be good at philosophy? Because she has been accustomed to play-toe. Beat that if you can: and so goodbye!

CARL BENSON.