(1) That in one place at least the sedimentary strata are seen to be actually dipping beneath the superincumbent basalt; and that the impression produced by the general relation of the two rocks is, that they do so everywhere.
(2) Since the columns into which the lava is split are vertical, the cooling surface must have been horizontal: the mass must, therefore, have formed a sheet, and not a dyke; for, in the latter case, the cooling surfaces would have been vertical.
(3) It is difficult to conceive, on the supposition that the volcanic rock is a neck with perpendicular sides, that the marine denudation should have uniformly proceeded only so far as to lay bare the junction between the two formations. We should have expected that in many places the igneous rock itself would have been cut down to the general level, whereas the only signs of such an effect are shown in a few narrow inlets where the rock was manifestly softer than in the surrounding parts.
The last objection is greatly confirmed by the overhanging cliffs and numerous blocks of porphyrite which lie scattered on the beach, as if to attest the former extension of that ancient sheet of which these blocks now form but a small remnant. Indeed, the existence of such remains appears sufficient of itself to condemn any hypothesis which presumes the present face of the cliff to have formed the original boundary of the mass.
It may be fairly objected to our theory, as Prof. Geikie himself has suggested, that the high angle at which the strata dip is difficult to account for. But, in fact, this steep inclination constitutes the very difficulty which any hypothesis on the subject must be framed to explain; and it is a difficulty which is not more easily solved by Prof. Geikie's theory than by our own.
[3] From the Geological Magazine, Vol. IX. No. 4. April, 1872.
[4] Memoirs of Geological Survey of Scotland, sheet 33, pp. 40, 41.
[5] Note on p. 41 of Mem. Geol. Survey of East Lothian.