In the last number of this celebrated periodical The Edinburgh Review on Wikipedia, one of the longest reviews that we ever recollect, perhaps the longest, has been given of this much-abused little book; the reviewer, on this occasion, being no less a man than the Magnus Apollo of the geologists, the Reverend Professor Sedgwick See Adam Sedgwick on Wikipedia.

From our own minor Reverend at the Collegiate, up to the Cambridge professor, this work seems to be especially obnoxious to the criticism of the schoolmen The term "schoolmen" is being used as a biting, slightly sarcastic label for the academic and religious establishment—specifically those holding high positions at ancient universities like Oxford and Cambridge. , nor have they let slip any opportunity that chance may have thrown in their way, of having a fling at it. Be this, however, as it may, all we shall have to do with at present, is the article in the northern periodical, nor do we merely assume Professor Sedgwick to be its writer, as we happen to know the fact, apart from the internal evidence it contains of his authorship.

It is by no means our intention to give a set “review of the reviewer” on the one hand, nor to laud the author of the “Vestiges” on the other, but having heard so much said (among men of small critical note, it is true) about the castigation the unfortunate author has received, under the sledge-hammer hands of the Reverend reviewer, amounting, indeed, to annihilation, we have thought it our duty to read this long, but by no means dull, sample of periodical criticism, and point out, by a few brief passages, the manner in which this literary feat has been performed. Lest our object should be mistaken, a word or two as to our own opinion of the work that is the occasion of so much critical turmoil may not be wholly out of place; and we may add, this is the first ink we have shed on the subject.

We have seldom read a book so open to severe criticism, nor one where the facts, to use the mildest term, were put together so loosely, while from them such astounding deductions were sought to be drawn. The scientific knowledge of the author is, evidently, altogether acquired from books, and not from original or even well-verified experiments; and some of these are of a most questionable class, as to the amount of scientific reliance that could be fairly placed to the credit of their authority. It even evinces but a small acquaintance with the works on the principles of electro-chemical science, of which, by the way, the author makes much use. In short, its learning is reading merely, and precisely of that kind that a diligent and previously accomplished mind might readily acquire from the library, and not that which can be derived only from observation on the broad field of nature, or by varied experiment in the closet. These were our impressions after reading the work, and such being our general opinion, we shall hardly, we trust, be suspected of undue partiality to the author, or his book.

But with all this—and quite apart from the elegant and flowing language in which it is written—there is much of merit pervading it. Through the work runs a vein of what we cannot forbear to think is fair subject for philosophic speculation; but, unfortunately, the character of some of the witnesses the author has cited into court, to prove his case, will not bear the closest examination; nor is it the clumsy abuse of the Edinburgh Review, nor the cuckoo note of materialism which it sounds against the work, that will at all alter the opinion of the reading and thinking public with respect to, at least, this part of its merit.

In polemics or criticism nothing can be more unfair than to raise the hue and cry of materialism. It implies, not seldom, a lack of sounder argument in those having recourse to it, and the review under notice is a notable instance of the truth of the remark; for if we ever read a work, with the slightest pretension to philosophy, that was less obnoxious to such a charge, it is this. If ever philosophical speculation tended to elevate our ideas of the great Creator of all things, it is this which our author has had the rare merit of opening more fully to view—a philosophy that has for its primal object, to show us not only the universality of His outward and visible power, but that it exists in essence, undiminished through myriads, or an infinitude of years, in every form of matter we are acquainted with, and not only on our own earth, but by well grounded analogy, alike in all those globes and systems, that lie scattered through boundless space.

To call such doctrines “material,” and “binding the Divinity in chains of fatalism,” if not wilfully unfair, at least betrays a narrowness of view that we may be allowed to say, ought not to find place in a work of the high character of the Edinburgh Review; and were we disposed to bandy charges—at best but a poor mode of argument—we might be tempted to say, that a tendency to materialism, if it any where exists, is most to be met with—although sturdily denied—among the school our Reverend reviewer so stoutly represents. Listen to what he tells us, (E. R., p. 63) “We have no conception of God, nor can we ever have, except through such faculties as he has given us. Humanize his attributes, therefore, we must, or express ourselves in mere negations. This is our condition, whatever may be our views of nature.” This, put in other words, literally means, that, from the conformation of the reviewer’s mind, he is unable to form a higher conception of the Divinity, than that of an all-powerful, but humanized being; for human attributes mean this, or nothing. It follows, then, that he cannot conceive the great Maker of the machine breathing such a breath of life into it at the beginning, as shall be sufficient for all the changes it has, and ever shall undergo. No, this, with our reviewer, would be little, if any, short of blasphemy. He must have his timepiece wound up periodically, and that, too, at short intervals, and by the direct hand of its maker, else it is no timepiece for him.

Now, if the word materialism, when applied in doctrinal points, is intended to have any meaning short of a mere ad captandum vulgus, to bespatter an opponent, the tendency to materialize is, beyond question, with the author of the passage just quoted, and, let us in justice add, least of all with the author of the “Vestiges,” who, on this occasion, as in many others throughout the review of his book, might be well justified in retorting the far from choice language of his reverend reviewer, and “reject the beggarly conclusions he dares to draw from his doctrines.” (E. R., p. 63)

Had we not a higher idea of the honesty of purpose of Professor Sedgwick, we should be almost tempted to opine, that he has, on this occasion, made the author of the “Vestiges” a scape-goat, to ward off the charges of a tendency to infidelity and materialism, that have been so unfairly, but yet plentifully, heaped of late on his own favourite pursuit, Geology—a sort of peace-offering to the Dean of York,—thinking, possibly, that a mere anonymous bookmaker might well be sacrificed to evidence the orthodoxy of a Cambridge divine. Let us hope this is not so, and the rather, because, as he tells us somewhere in the review, that we find many singular instances of credulity allied to scepticism, so as in his own case, we not unfrequently find instances of comprehensive views, in one particular science, combined with narrowness of mental perception in all beyond it.

Our reviewer is a hard-working, and, to a certain extent, a close-reasoning geologist, a first-rate dialectician, although more copious than either clear or choice; and one, too, who, in the arena of the Geological Society, is a perpetual drag on any unfortunate theorist. If Columbus had published his Theory of the Discovery of America in a pamphlet, the Rev. Professor would have demolished it in a good set speech, or a lengthy review, and would, no doubt, have blandly told him, in such language as he has used to our author, that he had no “right to toss out his fantastical crudities before the public, and give himself the airs of a legislator over the material world.” In short, our reviewer is a man of talent, not of genius, nor, as a consequence, can he either tolerate or understand that higher state of mind, which with instinctive boldness, at once takes possession of a truth beyond the limits of his own mental ken. He never would have thought of cutting the Gordian knot; but would have set himself down, with praiseworthy earnestness, to untie it; and Alexander would have conquered Asia before he had completed the task.

We shall now quote a few passages from the review, in proof of the theory-phobia of its reverend author. The author of the “Vestiges” says, reasoning, of course, from analogy, that “organic matter must be everywhere the same;” and, again, “that the inhabitants of all the globes, probably, bear not only a general, but a particular resemblance to our own, as the whole of creative arrangements are in perfect unity.” But let us hear how these very harmless, and really inoffensive, speculations are handled by the reviewer. “We have no softer words (says he) to explain our meaning, when we call this kind of language the raving madness of hypothetical extravagance. It is at open war with all the calm lessons of inductive truth, and, on any interpretation we can give of it, bears on its front the stamp of folly, and irreverence towards the God of nature.” R., p. 25.

Another instance occurs (R., p. 61) instructively illustrative of the clerical humility with which our reviewer supports his own opinion, when he ventures on one. We are here told that “There are some good anatomists at Paris, misled, (?) we believe, by false views respecting the grand zoological sequence of geology, who cling to the theory of development.” This, be it understood, is the theory of the author of the “Vestiges.” But our reviewer sets their opinions at naught, and, in the true Trulliber vein, very blandly says, “Were all the anatomists on earth against us, we should not abate one jot of our confidence in the truth of our opinion.”

We had thought, in the simplicity of our heart, that if the book contained one comparison more justly conceived than another, and felicitously illustrative of the rationale of its author’s hypothesis, it was that where the analogy is instituted—for illustration merely—between the cyclical changes that our globe, in all probability, has undergone, with those numerical changes that arise after the lapse of millions of revolutions of Babbage’s calculating machine, these being so many laws of its construction. Or, to venture on a humbler one of our own, as the American aloe has been embued, ab initio, with the power to give out flowers only once in seventy years, he who might run his race within view of it, although of extra length, might be found stoutly denying that such a phenomenon would ever take place. Most persons with whom we have exchanged opinions on the merits of the book have admitted—however much they have quarrelled with the rest—that this, at least, was a happy conception.

But hear how the doctors differ! Our reviewer devotes nearly a couple of pages to shew us—not by simple and calm ratiocination—that the analogy is unsound; oh no; but with a remittent fire of what we are compelled to call unmeaning abuse. Hear him in part—we regret that we have not room for the whole, (p. 66-7.) “We think this, perhaps, the most unspeakably preposterous instance of bad reasoning in the whole volume.” * * “A child may see through the absurdity of such an argument.” * * “Sophistry may nestle among numbers, and a gross fallacy may cheat our senses by skulking under a formula.” He winds up facetiously, doubtless, with the subjoined self-gratulative conclusion:—“This is, we think, sound reasoning, and all unsophisticated minds will yield assent to it the moment it is proposed to them.” We (confess it we must, however humiliating) are, by logical inference, in the category of the sophisticated, being unable, quite, to discern any approach to soundness in the professor’s method.

We were somewhat surprised to find that he has run full tilt against phrenology. How is this? Have the phrenologers denied him the possession of a perfect cranium? We personally know him to enjoy at least a good working forehead. Indeed he takes occasion to admit, in a very candid manner, that that is an advantage to its fortunate possessor. We can then only explain this little outbreak on the hypothesis, that his combativeness (which we happen to know is any thing but small) was unduly excited by the nature of the pestiferous little volume under review.

Before closing our few desultory remarks on this, in some respects, ill-tempered review, it is but justice to the reviewer to say, that the strictly geological portion of it is full of valuable information, as to the present state, prospects, and opinions of the most laborious cultivators of that important science. Nor was less to be expected from the well-known talent and acknowledged ability of Professor Sedgwick, and as we have already said, our only regret is, that the speculative opinions hazarded by the author of the volume under notice, should have been met in such an intolerant spirit.

But as we have already hinted, Professor Sedgwick is not alone in his hostility to the volume, most other geologists having declared open war against it. We have gathered this fact from a proceeding taken by our diligent and enterprising friend Dr. Hume, who, in a fit of very commendable zeal, coupled with no trifling humility, wrote to all of them, of any note, to get their opinions of the book, before he ventured to print his own. From this correspondence, which he has tacked, by way of life buoy, to his very ingenious little paper on the subject, we have gathered, that, to a man—or rather, to a philosopher, including the respected Dr. himself—they all join in tearing our author to tatters. With respect to Dr. Hume’s attack, we should say, that the author is not likely to sink under it. Perhaps motives of humanity have kept him from being too severe; but the others have been actuated by a very different spirit, and yet, at first sight, we thought this not a little strange; as from what we supposed was a tolerable acquaintance with their previously published opinions on matters of cosmological geology, we were led to believe that the views of the author of the “Vestiges” would be received, if not with favour, at least without violent hostility. But geological philosophers, in this respect, are like others, nor will they suffer a mere anonymous interloper to “give himself the airs of a legislator over the material world.”

In proof of this, we have only room to refer to the treatment our author’s starting point has met with; that indeed, on which he has superimposed the whole of his structure—that agglomeration of globes, known by the name of “the Nebular Theory.” Most geologists of any note have, in a greater or less degree, adopted it. Dr. Mantell gives us representations of nebulae, in a variety of stages of condensation, at the commencement of one of his works on the science. Dr. Buckland tells us, in one of the Bridgewater Treatises, that “the nebular hypothesis offers the most simple, and, therefore, the most probable theory respecting the first condition of the material elements that compose our solar system.” (Vol. I. p. 40). There are other parts of their writings that would strongly tempt us to suppose, had it not been for the recent correspondence, that, to a great extent, they also, at least up to a very recent period, had agreed with the author of the “Vestiges” even in the theory of the progressive development of animal and vegetable life. But seeing they have now written so unmeasuredly, that they thoroughly repudiate the doctrines of the book, we are compelled to assume we have been wrong, though their works are before us.

It is, however, not a little curious, that while the nebular theory was locked up from vulgar eyes in the iron-bound casket of the Philosophical Transactions, it was held as a talismanic gem of the first water, destined to be the key that was at no remote day to open to our gaze many of the profounder secrets of nature. But no sooner had Nichol, with more of zeal for popular information than proper veneration for philosophical profundity, transferred it, brilliantly re-set, to his pert little duodecimo, than it was discovered that the gem contained some flaws, and, although it had passed through the hands of such men as the elder Herschell, Laplace, and Comte, still it had diminished in value. But even after all this, our philosophers yet condescended to use sly slices of it, dexterously detached, even from the setting of Nichol, whenever they found themselves in a cosmogonal “fix.” But now that the author of the “Vestiges,” in his turn, has taken it, cut and dry, from Nichol, and while he has been laudably endeavouring to make it work out its seeming destiny in his own pages, it is discovered to be mere paste after all, or, in the language of our reviewer, (p. 21,) “it is a splendid vision, and may vanish in mid air.” But as if something loth to part with it, he adds, in the same sentence too, by way of affording consolation to ages yet unborn, “that in five hundred years (as a day to a geologist) it may pass into a good substantial theory.” Geological language furnishes us with the analogy, and we might suggest that henceforth, it might not unfitly be called, THE TRANSITION THEORY.

We have already exceeded our limits, but lest our readers should conclude that this is a mere controversy of the “Little and Bigendians,” we will briefly state, in sober fairness, the real amount of difference that exists between our author and the geologists. The author of the “Vestiges” is of opinion, that our system was made at one fiat of Divine will, and that it was, at the same time, essentially embued with the elements of all those changes that have subsequently taken place; or, in other words, that it is strictly in accordance with the plan of the almighty Architect, that they should arise ab intra. The geologists, on their part say, that although the elementary matter of the system might be made at one fiat of the Divine will, and also admitting that some geological changes do take place ab intra, yet the more important ones, as the creation of various families of plants and animals, have been the result of repeated interpositions of the Deity, and are necessarily ad extra.

These then, are the opinions that have so scandalized our philosophers, and though we believe that they have most grounds for resting theirs upon, yet, at the same time, we confess our inability to discover sufficient cause for the shedding of so much virtuous indignation upon those of an author who has excited much and well-deserved attention.