the restless steed, and ride to a
purpose! Shall we ever see the bits of that bridle?

On the subject of material form, we find the following passage, which,
while, perhaps, the most original in the book, is to us the least
instructive:--

"However multiplied interior actions may be, the universe, as a whole,
must have a _common movement_, or none. One division cannot, in
relation to the rest, stand still, lag behind, fly off, or diverge
from its place, without destroying all unity. The earth is full of
motions; but they do not interfere with her general and uniform
motion. So it is with the universal orb: its rotation is, we believe,
fundamental,--the basis of all other movements, without which there
could be none other.

"In everything, there is virtue in FORM; and we surmise that vastly
more depends on the configuration and movement of matter as _one mass_,
than has been suspected. As perfect a whole as any of its parts,
must not the universe have a definable outline or shape,--one to
which nothing amorphous can possibly belong? What is its figure? It
can hardly be a cube, cylinder, or prism of any kind; indeed, we
might as reasonably suppose it a three-sided figure as one bounded
at all by straight lines. No one extending in one direction more
than in another could have met the exigencies of creation; and that
the universe is a sphere may also be inferred from fluid matter
naturally assuming that form,--perhaps because its elements have it.
Had atoms been bounded by plane surfaces, so, we may suppose, had
worlds, drops of water, and soap-bubbles.

"The universe is spherical, then, because its molecules are: and it
moves, because they are incapable of rest."

Does this mean that the totality of matter is finite?--that it can
be viewed, spiritually, from the outside,--even from such a distance
as to appear infinitely small? If so, can there be infinite power,
either material or spiritual? If the universe is spherical because
its molecules are, can the molecules compose any other than the
spherical form? Do we gain much by reasoning from an assumption
below the ken of the microscope to a conclusion above that of the
telescope?

Mr. Ewbank, however, does not often indulge in a logical stride so
long or on such shaky footing as this. Through more or less
cloudiness of expression, he gives us many striking and satisfactory
views, looking towards a complete synthesis of the glorious system
of things to which we be