NOTES ON CURRENT SCIENCE: THE remarkable and constant advance We have lately had occasion more than once to point out the necessity that exists in geological matters for suspended judgment-not antagonism: we need not fight the false, it will die of its own inanition-but waiting until the truth is discovered; and whatever that may be, there is no pure and enlightened mind that would for a moment reject it. Now it can hardly be said that, as we actually know them, the facts of geology irresistibly display evidence of a progressive development. But it is fallacious in the last degree to make too much of this. The geological record must be eminently imperfect, especially in its older pages. Nevertheless, it has to be remembered that at the base of the Silurian rocks-so far as the evidence went for a long while, taking the position of the earliest strata giving evidence of organized existences-there are found biological remains of organized forms that are very highly differentiated or developed. But subsequently-in 1859-Logan discovered in the Laurentian formation in Canada, which lies under the Silurian, and is composed of extremely 'altered' or metamorphosed rocks, a curious imbedded structure, which after careful examination was declared to be of animal origin: a 'fossil,' indeed, having a structure analagous to, but less highly organized than, the Foraminifera, so widely distributed in time and space. This was not received without question; but it was an extremely delicate point to determine. Confessedly the rocks in which it was found had undergone much change; it must therefore have undergone similar metamorphosis, and it would only be here and there that what would be esteemed a perfect specimen would be recovered. And even in such instances it would require much special knowledge to arrive at a definite conclusion. This knowledge was undoubtedly possessed by Dr. W. Carpenter and Principal Dawson; and both deter mined that the evidence afforded by microscopical examination of sections of the fossil, cut in all directions and carefully compared and studied, led to a necessary conclusion that it was a fossil animal of the lowliest type; and it was named EozoÖN CANADENSE, or, The Dawn Animal. Thus we commence the Biological series that have inhabited the earth with a very lowly form indeed—a mere mass of protoplasm possessed of the power to secrete from the ocean in which it dwelt a shell or test of carbonate of lime; and the form which the fossil presents is comparatively indefinite externally, but internally it is chambered in tiers, each chamber communicating with that above and below it by means of delicate channels. The part representing what was supposed to be the animal, is now filled up with serpentine,' the shell being in the form of limestone. There are no other definite fossils found in this formation-none, indeed, until we come to the Silurian rocks, where we meet with fossil animals of, as we have before said, high development. But this formation has been so metamorphosed that it is quite conceivable that all the biological remains it might have contained were wholly destroyed; but that the eozoon was so profusely spread over the ocean, and so peculiar in structure, that to careful investigation evidences of its organic character had survived all changes. So that development being assumed as proved in more recent formations, it was argued that the absence of evidence of its action between the eozoön and the advanced organisms of the Silurian epoch was quite accounted for by metamorphosis' in the rocks; but nature's method was still made manifest, it was argued, since the earliest organism found at the base of the earliest rocks containing fossils was of the lowliest conceivable type. Further, inasmuch as it was an animal that appeared first, and the vegetables did not apparently present themselves until enormous periods of time had elapsed, it was inferred that the cosmogony of Genesis was profoundly at fault. We have recently had occasion to point out in these columns how fallacious this mode of reasoning is, being based wholly upon negative evidence; and to record the fact that a highly-organized vegetable-a calamite has been in two or three different places found in the Laurentian and Silurian rocks; thus carrying a highly-developed vegetable down to a level with the most lowly-developed animal, namely, the eozoön. But the real point of interest is this. Two extremely expert mineralogists, Messrs. King and Rowney, after an apparently close examination of the Eozoon Canadense, declared that it was not a 'fossil' at all. They affirmed that it was a simple mineral production. This, of course, led to controversy, which some six years since was both lively and long. On neither side did the disputants convince their opponents; but the result of the controversy was, on the whole, to leave the careful student of scientific evidence, not an expert, with the impression, that although it was by no means an established point, yet it was still highly probable that the eozoön was an animal fossil. Since that time Dr. Dawson has published a popular treatise on it, which has somewhat strengthened this view. But now a new critic has devoted himself to the question, and with somewhat remarkable results. Dr. Karl Moebius, an eminent geologist of Kiel, is a good microscopist and well acquainted with the Foraminifera as a group, and after what he affirms to be a most prolonged, patient and unbiased study of a large variety of sections of eozoön, he has come to the conclusion, almost unwillingly, that it is not a fossil, but simply a mineral. The whole process of his examination has been given, and some very accurate and beautiful drawings accompany the paper. He tells us that he examined it from a biological point of view, expecting that he should succeed in establishing its organic origin beyond a doubt. But facts' have led him to the contrary conclusion. When he first saw the beautiful stem-systems in Dr. Carpenter's sections, he became at once a partisan to the views Dr. Carpenter held; but the more good sections and isolated stems he examined the more doubtful he became as to its organic origin, until at length the most magnificent canal systems,' taken altogether and closely compared with Foraminifera sections, taught him nothing but its inorganic origin. He further says that, with the specimens now at his disposal, he has been repeatedly enabled in an hour to produce the same mental change in skilful biologists in relation to it that it took so long to produce in himself. He is manifestly sorry to reach the conclusion he has reached, having been so courteously aided in every way by Drs. Dawson and Car penter; but while attributing to them complete honesty of work and inference, he yet claims to have made a more thorough investigation. And he concludes as follows: 'If eozoon......were really remains of an undoubted Foraminifera species, then we should possess in (the specimens) certain proofs that, even during the formation of the most ancient strata of the earth's crust, living beings occurred, and that the first organisms belonged to the lowest animals, by which Biology and Geology would have gained two highly-important facts. The proof that Eozoön is not a fossil rhizopod will perhaps for many persons take away an important link from the beautiful picture of the development of organic life upon the earth, which they have drawn up for themselves. But the object of natural research does not consist in finding reasons for attractive conceptions about nature, but in knowing nature as it really is. Because only an insight into the real condition of nature can, in the long run, satisfy the scientific mind, which gives up as errors the most attractive hypotheses regarding the essence and action of nature, if in the face of newlydiscovered facts they can no longer hold good; no matter whether these erroneous hypotheses may have reigned supreme for a long time previously, and may have been held to be the best conceptions of nature by the most eminent authorities.' It should be known, however, that Dr. Dawson and Dr. Carpenter have both written to the scientific journals declaring Dr. Moebius to be but incompetently informed on the subject; and whilst admitting his accuracy of observation and illustration, yet contend that it is not extended enough; at the same time promising us a joint monograph on the subject, opening up new and convincing facts, and very naturally asking for the suspension of final judgment until this paper appears. We think it highly probable that they will maintain their ground fairly, for they are on the whole the most competent experts; but we cannot refrain from pointing out the necessity for caution in making sweeping inferences of a definite kind from either unestablished 'facts' or mere negative evidence. We need not attempt to reconcile' 'geology and Genesis' until we know what geology it is we have to 'reconcile.' The Committee of the House of Commons appointed to enquire into the value of the electric light has completed its labours and issued its report. It contains nothing specially new. The only region in which electricity has made itself a practical source of illumination is in our lighthouses; and the report fully confirms the opinion we have given in this Magazine, that the electric-light panic was a mere scare, and that in fact very little real progress in its practical application to ordinary illuminating purposes had been made. On the 13th of June last, M. Borelly, at Marseilles, discovered the one hundred and ninety-eighth of the asteroids; and on the 10th of July, Professor Peters, at Hamilton College, Clinton, United States, discovered another, and still another on the 17th. This raised the number of these most remarkable little bodies to two hundred. The one hundredth was found by Professor Watson, in July, 1868; so it has taken just eleven years to find one hundred of these little bodies a remarkable illustration of the vigour with which research is prosecuted now; for from 1807 to 1845, only four of these bodies were known. But in 1845, Herr Heucke discovered Astrea, and in 1847 he discovered Hebe. Since that date no one year has passed without one or more being discovered. This year has been very prolific, for we just learn that Professor Peters has discovered another, making the two hundred and first, and the thirtyseventh discovered by him-the tenth this year. The Russian Government has voted two hundred and fifty thousand rubles for the construction of the largest telescope that can, with our present knowledge and skill, be advantageously made. The object-glass is to be three feet in diameter. To accomplish this will be a gigantic work. The largest at present existing is twenty-six inches in diameter. The difficulty is to cast crown and flint glass that shall be in all its parts of the same density and without bubbles. If this can be done, the grinding is a mere question of engineering. Mr. Lewis Swift discovered a small comet in the constellation Perseus on the 16th of July. It was but faint, and was rapidly receding. THE BAMPTON LECTURE FOR 1878:* THIS must be admitted to be the most -imagination' intermeddle with his processes or his conclusions. As the title indicates, this volume is, in the first place, an examination and a defence, then, an exposition at once grammatical, historical and homiletic. These elements being rather promiscuously blended, the work lacks homogeneousness and symmetry. Its architecture is of a composite order. We have, first, a very sensible Introduction, in which he, as we think, successfully vindicates the integrity of the book, not only against those who, like Professor Davison and Dean Stanley, assail it, but against those who, like Canon Perowne, in Smith's Dictionary, regard it as doubtful. Then comes a New Translation with Notes, often light-striking, always well worth pondering. The body of the book is made up of the Lectures, a considerable part of which was not delivered. The highly serviceable Critical and Eight *Zechariah and his Prophecies, Considered in Relation to Modern Criticism: with a Critical and Grammatical Commentary and New Translation. Lectures delivered before the University of Oxford. By Charles H. H. Wright, B.D., of Trinity College, Dublin, etc. London: Hodder and Stoughton. 1879. Grammatical Commentary completes the work: Mr.Wright, himself a Hebrew scholar of the first class, has consulted Dr. Wright and Professor Delitzsch. The temper of the Lecturer is all but invariably fine, the only exception being the contemptuous tone which he allows himself to assume towards Bishop Wordsworth (p. 256, note). He seeks light from all quarters, from Modernist and Romanist, as well as from orthodox and evangelical expositors. The book is, in fact, a repertory of diverse interpretations; yet he keeps in view his primary object, 'to take a calm survey of the results of modern criticism.' The result is a firm decision in favour of the oneness of the authorship of the Book of Zechariah, and the direct Messianic reference of many of its predictions. This volume contains some fine specimens of right workmanly exposition. But it is not without monitory instances of self-reliant blundering. Take his comment on chapter viii.: 'Many of the prophecies which are still viewed by the latterday expositors as unfulfilled have long ago been accomplished. But the ideal of the Prophet has sometimes not been attained through the sin of man.' (P. 181.) On reading this, one naturally asks: Is prophecy, then, absolutely conditional? Does the perversity of any generation of men neutralize the prediction? definitively frustrate its fulfilment ? Or does it only postpone its historic realization? Does prophecy imply no foresight of a time, 'in the latter day,' when the Spirit of God shall overcome at last' the inveterate perversity of man? Is a prophet an idealist only? Latter-day expositors! Who can help being a 'latter-day expositor' who prays believing 'Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven'? But our author, like many others, unconsciously puts on a little sneer when he becomes over-confident in his own opinion. Of course, he himself is obliged to be a latter-day expositor before he reaches the conclusion of Zechariah's prophecy, and comes to treat of "the last things" as seen in the light of the Old Dispensation.' (Chapter xiii.) Take, again, his exposition of chapter x. 8-10, etc.: 'I will hiss for them, and I will gather them...... And I will sow them (as seed) among the nations, and in the distant lands they will remember Me, and live with their sons and return. And I will bring them back from the land of Egypt, etc.'-' If they did not return in greater numbers to Palestine, the fault lay with themselves. The blessing was there, had they embraced Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah. The predictions of this chapter were fully realized in the trials, struggles and victories of Israel during the glorious period of the Maccabees.' If so, the Lecturer must have access to some historical authority, of which we have no intimation, and to which he makes no reference. And what of the authoritative interpretation of that prince of latter-day expositors, St. Paul, in Romans xi. ? Inconsistency and incoherence are the sure indices of error. The Lecturer supplies several instances of this. Thus, in explaining the vision of the angel-riders' (i. 8, 9), he says: 'The variety of the colours in the horses is no doubt significant.' (P. 12.) But, in interpreting that of the four chariots' (vi. 6, 7), he writes: 'The truth seems to be that the colours of the horses harnessed to the four chariots, like the colours of those ridden by the angels in the first vision, are of no symbolical significance.' (P. 135.) We are at a loss to think what significance other than symbolical the colours of the horses can have, and Mr. Wright does not tell us. He admits that it is 'natural that attempts should have been made to compare those passages in the Book of the Revelation, in which similar symbols occur, with this vision of Zechariah,' yet he adds: 'It does not necessarily follow that the symbols in s later prophet are to be regarded as explanatory of those which may occur in pass ages of an earlier writer.' (P. 13.) True. but there must be some right explanation which is common to both, mutatis mu tandis. The significance of the colours must surely be the same in both. There must be consistency in the symbolic language of Revelation-in the meaning of prophetic hieroglyphics-else exegesis would be hopeless. Mr. Wright's only reason for denying their significance is that he is not satisfied with the explanations of his predecessors, and yet cannot himself improve upon them. This is the argument from impatience. Was the universe a clumsy, unplanned structure, till Copernicus and Newton studied it? The fact on which the Lecturer lays such stress-that the colour, 'speckled' of Zechariah can scarcely be the same colour as the 'pale' in the Revelatio -does not prove that 'white,' 'red' and 'black' have not the same meaning in both Again, on vii. 4-6, the Lecturer sa that the Prophet's object is 'To bring o into bold relief the truth that fasts and feasts are a matter of total indifference God's sight...... The sense of the reply wa fasting is neither enjoined nor forbidden by God.' (P. 171.) But what of the enjoined feasts? The lesson is, to say the least, very awkwardly put in the following sentence: Men are neither better in God's sight by fasting, nor are they the worse for feasting.' (P. 172.) |