sunk to the centre. On such an earth no crust could have been formed till all below was solid. "It is strange that Mr. Lord, who lays so much stress on facts, as opposed to theories, if he could not see the philosophy of this case, should have entirely forgotten all that has been written on the subject of molten lava, which is but the matter of the earth in the state of igneous fusion' contemplated by his argument. The facts as well as the philosophy of the case are conclusive against him. A few examples will suffice."Pp. 539, 540. And he proceeds to recite passages from Mr. Coan, of Hawaii, Prof. Dana, and Sir T. De La Beche, to prove that when lava is thrown out of a crater on to the earth, it will cool on the surface, while it remains in fusion beneath. But here he is again guilty of a total misrepresentation of the point we affirmed and maintained. We made no attempt to prove that lava thrown out of a volcano on to the earth, would not cool on the surface, so as to become sufficiently solid to bear a considerable weight, while when the mass is of the depth of several feet, it remains in fusion beneath. Not a syllable was penned by us on that subject. We had no occasion to treat it in contravention of Dr. Hitchcock's theory. We were probably quite as well aware of the fact that lava will cool when thrown out upon the ground, exposed to the atmosphere, and precluded from any further accessions of heat, as Mr. Blake is, having some knowledge as well as other persons of the laws of caloric, and having read, as Mr. B. may perhaps be aware, not only some other works on volcanoes, but the very volumes to which he refers, and with one exception, quoted them in the Journal. The point, and the only point we controverted, was that such a solid crust would or could be formed on such a molten world, as the geological theory we were opposing affirms; and that is a crust, not of lava, but of granite. Thus the theory of Dr. Buckland, whom we quoted in the first article on the subject, is, that the crust formed over the molten world, was of granite. "We commence our inquiry at that most ancient period, when there is much evidence to render it probable that the entire materials of the globe were in a fluid state, and that the cause of this fluidity was heat. . . . Assuming that the whole materials of the globe may have once been in a fluid, or even a nebulous state, from the presence of intense heat, the passage of the first consolidated portion of this fluid or nebulous matter to a solid state, may have been produced by the radiation of heat from its surface into space; the gradual abstraction of such heat would allow the particles of matter to approximate and crystallize; and the first result of this crystallization might have been the formation of a shell or crust composed of oxidated metals and metalloids, constituting various rocks of the granitic series." That is the theory also of Mr. Macculloch, from whom we cited the following passage: "I know of no mode in which the surface of a fluid globe could be consolidated, but by the radiation of heat. . . . The immediate result of this must have been the formation of rocks on that surface; and if the interior fluid does now produce the general unstrati fied rocks-the first that were formed must have resembled these, if not all. We may not unsafely infer that they were granite, perceiving that substances of this character have been produced wherever the cooling appears to have been most gradual. The first apparently solid globe was therefore a globe of granite, or of those rocks which bear the nearest crystalline analogies to it." That is the theory, as we showed, of Prof. Phillips, Sir T. De la Beche, Mr. Bakewell, and others; and it is the theory, so far as we know, of every writer who maintains that the earth has existed in a state of fusion from heat. And that is the hypothesis also of Dr. Hitchcock. He adopted it from Buckland, Macculloch, Phillips, De la Beche, and others, who preceded him, and without modification. He utters not a hint that he regarded the crust which he assumes was formed on the supposed molten world as lava, in contradistinction from granite; nor could he, as we shall show, entertain such a theory, without contradicting one of the most indubitable and important facts of geology. The theory we opposed, accordingly, was that the crust supposed to have been formed on the fused mass of the earth, was a crust of granite. This is seen from the pa3sage on which Mr. Blake founds his criticism. "All the other parts of that hypothesis are equally at war with the laws of matter. Such is the formation of A CRUST OF GRANITE OVER THE MOLTEN OCEAN." And after quoting a passage from Dr. Hitchcock in which he states that on the supposition that the earth was originally a diffused mass of vapor, "he can conceive how, by the operation of such natural laws as now exist, it might have been condensed into a solid globe, into a melted state indeed, from the amount of heat extricated in the condensation," and that "those same laws might subsequently form over the mass a solid crust, which at length might be ridged and furrowed by the action of internal heat so as to form the basis of continents and the beds of oceans;" we added "But the laws to which the matter of the globe is subjected, would have rendered the formation of a crust upon such a fiery ocean impossible. For as all substances occupy a larger space when in a state of fusion, than when solidified, had any particles or small portions of the surface become CRYSTALLIZED INTO GRANITE, as by that process their bulk would have diminished, and their density become greater than that of the molten ocean on which they were formed, they would have instantly sunk by their superior weight into the depths of the fiery sea; and though they would have been again fused, yet as all other particles or masses that might have been subsequently crystallized, would have sunk in like manner into the abysses of the molten ocean, the result would have been that those abysses would have been the scene of the first permanent solidification, and the surface of the globe the last."-Journal, vol. v. pp. 367, 368. In the other arguments also that follow this passage in confutation of that hypothesis, the phrase "granite crust" is repeatedly and exclusively used to denote the formation against which we alleged our objections. Mr. Blake's procedure here, is marked accordingly by the same discreditable characteristics as before. 1. On the one side he conceals from his readers the fact that the crust which Dr. Hitchcock, and other geologists against whom we were arguing, assume, was formed over the supposed molten ocean, was a crust of granite. Not a hint does he give that that is their theory-nor that that is the theory, and the only theory which is contemplated in our objections. On the other side, he frames his reply as entire materials of the globe were in a fluid state, and that the cause of this fluidity was heat. . . . Assuming that the whole materials of the globe may have once been in a fluid, or even a nebulous state, from the presence of intense heat, the passage of the first consolidated portion of this fluid or nebulous matter to a solid state, may have been produced by the radiation of heat from its surface into space; the gradual abstraction of such heat would allow the particles of matter to approximate and crystallize; and the first result of this crystallization might have been the formation of a shell or crust composed of oxidated metals and metalloids, constituting various rocks of the granitic series." That is the theory also of Mr. Macculloch, from whom we cited the following passage: "I know of no mode in which the surface of a fluid globe could be consolidated, but by the radiation of heat. . . . The immediate result of this must have been the formation of rocks on that surface; and if the interior fluid does now produce the general unstratified rocks—the first that were formed must have resembled these, if not all. We may not unsafely infer that they were granite, perceiving that substances of this character have been produced wherever the cooling appears to have been most gradual. The first apparently solid globe was therefore a globe of granite, or of those rocks which bear the nearest crystalline analogies to it." That is the theory, as we showed, of Prof. Phillips, Sir T. De la Beche, Mr. Bakewell, and others; and it is the theory, so far as we know, of every writer who maintains that the earth has existed in a state of fusion from heat. And that is the hypothesis also of Dr. Hitchcock. He adopted it from Buckland, Macculloch, Phillips, De la Beche, and others, who preceded him, and without modification. He utters not a hint that he regarded the crust which he assumes was formed on the supposed molten world as lava, in contradistinction from granite; nor could he, as we shall show, entertain such a theory, without contradicting one of the most indubitable and important facts of geology. The theory we opposed, accordingly, was that the crust supposed to have been formed on the fused mass of the earth, was a crust of granite. This is seen from the passage on which Mr. Blake founds his criticism. "All the other parts of that hypothesis are equally at war with the laws of matter. Such is the formation of A CRUST OF GRANITE OVER THE MOLTEN OCEAN." And after quoting a passage from Dr. Hitchcock in which he states that on the supposition that the earth was originally a diffused mass of vapor, "he can conceive how, by the operation of such natural laws as now exist, it might have been condensed into a solid globe, into a melted state indeed, from the amount of heat extricated in the condensation," and that "those same laws might subsequently form over the mass a solid crust, which at length might be ridged and furrowed by the action of internal heat so as to form the basis of continents and the beds of oceans;" we added- "But the laws to which the matter of the globe is subjected, would have rendered the formation of a crust upon such a fiery ocean impossible. For as all substances occupy a larger space when in a state of fusion, than when solidified, had any particles or small portions of the surface become CRYSTALLIZED INTO GRANITE, as by that process their bulk would have diminished, and their density become greater than that of the molten ocean on which they were formed, they would have instantly sunk by their superior weight into the depths of the fiery sea; and though they would have been again fused, yet as all other particles or masses that might have been subsequently crystallized, would have sunk in like manner into the abysses of the molten ocean, the result would have been that those abysses would have been the scene of the first permanent solidification, and the surface of the globe the last."-Journal, vol. v. pp. 367, 368. In the other arguments also that follow this passage in confutation of that hypothesis, the phrase "granite crust" is repeatedly and exclusively used to denote the formation against which we alleged our objections. Mr. Blake's procedure here, is marked accordingly by the same discreditable characteristics as before. 1. On the one side he conceals from his readers the fact that the crust which Dr. Hitchcock, and other geologists against whom we were arguing, assume, was formed over the supposed molten ocean, was a crust of granite. Not a hint does he give that that is their theory-nor that that is the theory, and the only theory which is contemplated in our objections. On the other side, he frames his reply as |