"Now, as we see objects by the rays of light passing from those objects to our eye, it follows that we do not perceive the heavenly bodies, as they are at the moment of our seeing them, but as they were at the time the rays of light by which we see them left those bodies. Thus when we look at the moon, we see her, not as she is at the moment of our beholding her disc, but as she was a second and a quarter before; for instance, we see her not at the moment of her rising above the horizon, but 1-1/4 second after she has risen. The sun also when he appears to us to have just passed the meridian, has already passed it by 8 minutes. So, in like manner, of the planets and the fixed stars. We see Jupiter, not as he is at the moment of our catching a sight of him, but as he was 52 minutes before. Uranus appears to us, not as he is at the moment of our discovering him, but as he was 2 hours previously. And a star of the 12th magnitude presents itself to our eye as it was 4,000 years ago: so that, suppose such a star to have been annihilated 3,000 years back, it would still be visible on the earth's surface for 1,000 years to come: or, suppose a star of the same magnitude had been created at the time the Israelites left Egypt, it will not be perceptible on the earth for nearly 700 years from this date."

Beautiful, and at first sight unanswerable as this argument is, it falls to the ground before the spear-touch of our Ithuriel, the doctrine of prochronism. There is nothing more improbable in the notion that the sensible undulation was created at the observer's eye, with all the pre-requisite undulations prochronic, than in the notion that blood was created in the capillaries of the first human body. The latter we have seen to be a fact: is the former an impossibility?

It may perhaps be said:—"The traces of prochronism you have adduced in created organisms may be granted, because they are inseparable from the presumed condition of those organisms respectively. The blood in the vessels, the hair, the teeth, the nails, may afford evidences of past processes; but then those are only past stages of what yet exists. The case, however, is not parallel with the fossil skeletons, many of which have no connexion with anything now existing. The concentric rings of a timber-tree are essential to its adult state; but how is the existence of the Pterodactyle or the Megatherium essential to that of the recent Draco volans, or the South American Sloth? Can you show in the new-formed creature any trace of some organ which does not come into its present condition of being,—of something which has quite passed away?"

Perhaps I can. The very concentric rings of the tree are considered by botanists as, in some sense, dead. The paradoxical dictum of Schleiden,—"No tree has leaves,"[108]—is grounded on this circumstance, that the woody portion of the mass is the inert result of former generations, and that the present race of leaves is growing, not out of the woody portion of the tree, but out of its herbaceous extremities, "which grow upon the woody stem as upon a ground, formed by the process of vegetation. This common ground, namely, the woody stem, which is almost lifeless in comparison with the herbaceous parts engaged in active growth, is annually covered with a vigorous sheath under the protecting bark; and this sheath is the ground of the nourishment of all the vegetating herbaceous extremities."[109]

The polygonal plates into which the bark of the Testudinaria divides, not only show many superposed laminæ, at any given moment of its adult condition, but also bear witness, in the broad existent surface of each one, to former laminæ, yet older than the oldest now present, which have disintegrated and dropped off.

The Palm and the Tree-fern show, in their trunk-scars, evidences of organs which have completely died away and disappeared; while, between these scars and the generation of living fronds, there is, at any given moment of the tree's history, a series of fronds which are quite dead and dry, but which have not yet disappeared.

The Nerita, a genus of beautiful shells from the tropical seas, dissolves away and removes, in the progress of growth, the spiral column, which originally formed the axis of development; so that, in adult age, the spiral direction of the whole testifies to the past existence of a column which has quite disappeared.

In that species of Murex,[110] which, on account of the long and slender rostellum, and the spines with which it is covered, is known to collectors as the Thorny Woodcock (M. tenuispina), the shelly spines of the earlier whorls would interfere with such as came, in process of development, to be superposed on them; for they cross the area which is to be the cavity enclosed by the advancing lip. They are, however, removed by absorption; but not so completely but that traces may still be discovered where they formerly existed: evidences of the quondam existence of what exists no longer.

Towards one side of the upper surface of the pretty Star-fish, Cribella rosea, (as in many other species of Star-fishes,) there is a curious little mark, known as the madreporic plate, the use of which has greatly puzzled naturalists. Sars, the Norwegian zoologist, has unveiled the mystery.[111] The young larva, before it assumes the stellar form, is furnished with a sort of thick column, divided into four diverging clubbed arms, which are adhering organs, ancillary to locomotion. In the process of development, however, new locomotive organs are formed; and this four-fold column, being no longer needed, sloughs away; and that so completely, that not a trace of its existence remains, except this scar, or "madreporic plate;" which is therefore a permanent record of something that has quite passed away.

But the closest parallel to the relation borne by the skeleton of an extinct species to an extant one, is presented by that of the hilum to a seed, or of the umbilicus to a mammal. Each of these is a legible and undeniable, record of a being, whose individuality was totally distinct from that of the being by which it is presented, and of which all vestiges have disappeared, save this record. Nor is the parallel founded on obscure or rare examples; both the umbilicus and the hilum are generally conspicuous; and both are extensively found in their respective kingdoms, the former pervading the viviparous Vertebrata, the latter characterising the whole of the cotyledonous types of vegetation.

Once more. An objection may arise to the reception of the prochronic principle, on the ground that the examples I have adduced are not to be compared, in point of grandeur, with the mighty revolutions, which are presumed to have written their records in the crust of the globe; and that hence no analogy can be fairly drawn from one to the other. To the philosopher, however, there is no great or small, as there is none in the works of God. We have every reason to believe that He has wrought by the same laws in all portions of his universe: the principle on which an apple falls from the branch to the ground, is the same as that which keeps the planet Neptune in the solar system. I have shown that the principle of prochronic development obtains wherever we are able to test it; that is, wherever another principle, that of cyclicism, exists; whether the cycle be that of a gnat's metamorphosis, or of a planet's orbit. The distinction of great or small, grand or mean, does not apply to it. If it cannot be proved to be universal, it is only because we are not sufficiently acquainted with some of the economies of nature to be able to pronounce with certainty whether they are cyclical or not. I am not aware of any natural process, in which its existence can be absolutely denied.

And this makes all the difference in the world between my position and that of the old simple-minded observers, with which a superficial reader might think it to possess a good deal in common. A century ago, people used to talk of lusus naturæ; of a certain plastic power in nature; of abortive or initiative attempts at making things which were never perfected; of imitations, in one kingdom, of the proper subjects of another, (as plants were supposed to be imitated by the frost on a window-pane, and by the dendritic forms of metals). Still later, many persons have been inclined to take refuge from the conclusions of geology in the absolute sovereignty of God, asking,—"Could not the Omnipotent Creator make the fossils in the strata, just as they now appear?"

It has always been felt to be a sufficient answer to such a demand, that no reason could be adduced for such an exercise of mere power; and that it would be unworthy of the Allwise God.

But this is a totally different thing from that for which I am contending. I am endeavouring to show that a grand law exists, by which, in two great departments of nature at least, the analogues of the fossil skeletons were formed without pre-existence. An arbitrary acting, and an acting on fixed and general laws, have nothing in common with each other.

Finally, the acceptance of the principles presented in this volume, even in their fullest extent, would not, in the least degree, affect the study of scientific geology. The character and order of the strata; their disruptions and displacements and injections; the successive floras and faunas; and all the other phenomena, would be facts still. They would still be, as now, legitimate subjects of examination and inquiry. I do not know that a single conclusion, now accepted, would need to be given up, except that of actual chronology. And even in respect of this, it would be rather a modification than a relinquishment of what is at present held; we might still speak of the inconceivably long duration of the processes in question, provided we understand ideal instead of actual time;—that the duration was projected in the mind of God, and not really existent.

The zoologist would still use the fossil forms of non-existing animals, to illustrate the mutual analogies of species and groups. His recognition of their prochronism would in nowise interfere with his endeavours to assign to each its position in the scale of organic being. He would still legitimately treat it as an entity; an essential constituent of the great Plan of Nature; because he would recognise the Plan itself as an entity, though only an ideal entity, existing only in the Divine Conception. He would still use the stony skeletons for the inculcation of lessons on the skill and power of God in creation; and would find them a rich mine of instruction, affording some examples of the adaptation of structure to function, which are not yielded by any extant species. Such are the elongation of the little finger in Pterodactylus, for the extension of the alar membrane; and the deflexion of the inferior incisors in Dinotherium, for the purposes of digging or anchorage. And still would he find, in the fossil forms, evidences of that complacency in beauty, which has prompted the Adorable Workmaster to paint the rose in blushing hues, and to weave the fine lace of the dragonfly's wing. The whorls of the Gyroceras, the foliaceous or zigzag sutures of the Ammonites, and the radiating pattern of Smithia, are not less elegant than anything of the kind in existing creation, in which, however, they have no parallels. In short, the readings of the "stone book" will be found not less worthy of God who wrote them, not less worthy of man who deciphers them, if we consider them as prochronically, than if we judge them diachronically, produced.

Here I close my labours. How far I have succeeded in accomplishing the task to which I bent myself, it is not for me to judge. Others will determine that; and I am quite sure it will be determined fairly, on the whole. To prevent misapprehension, however, it may be as well to enunciate what the task was, which I prescribed, especially because other (collateral, hypothetical) points have been mooted in these pages.

All, then, that I consider myself responsible for is summed up in these sentences:—

I. The conclusions hitherto received have been but inferences deduced from certain premises: the witness who reveals the premises does not testify to the inferences.

II. The process of deducing the inferences has been liable to a vast incoming of error, arising from the operation of a Law, proved to exist, but hitherto unrecognised.

III. The amount of the error thus produced we have no means of knowing; much less of eliminating it.

IV. The whole of the facts deposed to by this witness are irrelevant to the question; and the witness is, therefore, out of court.

V. The field is left clear and undisputed for the one Witness on the opposite side, whose testimony is as follows:—

"In six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is."

INDEX.

Agave, 147.

Ammonites, appearance of, 58.
profusion of, 65.

Amphibia, foot-prints of, 52, 56.

Anoplotherium, 69.

Antediluvian hypothesis, 9.
untenable, 51.


Babbage, Mr., opinions of, 25.

Babiroussa, 262.

Bamboo, 134.

Banyan, 164.

Barnacle, development of, 217.

Basalt, formation of, 66, 91.

Beaches, raised, 83.

Beard, 284.

Beetle, egg of, 310.

Belemnites, 58.

Bignonia, 168.

Birds, earliest, 69.
gigantic, 82.
feathers of, 253.

Blackwood, opinions of, 9.

Blocks, transport of, 78.

Blood, 275, 285.

Bones, structure of, 279.

Botryllus, metamorphoses of, 222.

Brachionus, eggs of, 321.

Bracts, development of, 166.

Brown, Rev. J. M., opinions of, 9.

Bulbs, growth of, 153, 156.

Buprestis, 214.

Butterflies, eggs of, 307.

Butterfly-flower, 150.


Cabbage-palm, 144.

Carboniferous deposits, 44.

Case-flies, 209.

Cassowary, 252.

Caverns, bone, 76, 88.

Ceiba, 174.

Cephalaspis, 44.

Chalk formation, 64.

Chalmers, Dr., opinions of, 19.

Chronology of globe, 30, 339.

Circularity of organic life, 113, 336, 351.

Clavagella, 225.

Coal, age of, 50.
extent of, 46.
origin of, 47.

Coccus, economy of, 315.

Cockburn, Rev. Sir W., opinions of, 14.

Cockroach, egg-case of, 318.

Conybeare, Dr., opinions of, 20.

Coprolites, 60.

Coral polypes, 40, 41, 45.
activity of, 86.

Couch-grass, 135.

Cow, circular life of, 121.

Cowry, 231.

Crab, metamorphosis of, 216.

Crag and tail, 55.
formation, 75.

Crinoids, abundance of, 58.

Creation, extent of, 22.
fact of, 110.
law of, 337, 368.
periods of, 15.
What is it? 123.

Cribella, metamorphosis of, 321.

Crocodile, 248.

Cuckoo-fly, egg of, 309.

Cumbrian formations, 36.

Currents, oceanic, 356.

Cuttlefish, shell of, 237.

Cycads, 60.

Cyclicism, 336, 351.
of the globe, 354.
of inorganic nature, 355.
of celestial orbs, 359.

Cysticercus, 196.


Daphnia, economy of, 325.

Dauber, economy of, 320.

Days of creation, 15.

Deductions, fallible, 2.

Deer, Irish, 84.

Deltas, 85.

Deposits, earthy, 87.

Depressions and elevations, 81.

Development hypothesis, 111.

Devonian formations, 42.

Diachronism, 125, 346.

Diatomaceæ in chalk, 64.

Dinotherium, 72, 370.

Dione, 228.

Disturbances of strata, 54, 66.

Dodo, 84.

Double cocoa-nut, 296.


Earth-pea, germination of, 299.

Echinus, 190.

Eggs of fowl, 328.
of insects, 306.

Elephant, dentition of, 266.
fossil, 73.

Elevations and depressions, 81.

Encephalartos, 161.

Euphorbia, 164.

Erythrina, 297.


Fairholm, Mr., opinions of, 12.

Feather, growth of, 253.

Feather-star, 193, 305.

Fig, Australian, 162.
Indian, 164.

Fishes, cycloid, 68.
earliest, 44.
sauroid, 52.

Fishes, scales of, 242.

Fœtus of kangaroo, 333.

Footprints, 57.

Foraminifera, 64, 70.

Frog, 57.


Gall-fly, egg of, 310.

Ganges, delta of, 85.

Geography, changes of, 60, 66, 70.

Geology, in need of caution, 4.

Germs, hypothesis of, 294.

Gilt-head, 241.

Glaciers, theory of, 79.

Gladiolus, 152.

Globe, chronology of, 30.
cyclicism of, 354.
density of, 37.

Gnats, egg-raft of, 207.

Goliathus, 205.

Granite, 37.
decomposition and reconstruction of, 38.

Grass-tree, 154.

Gray, Mr., opinions of, 20.

Grit, 46.

Gulf-stream, 356.

Gyroceras, 371.


Hair, growth of, 278.

Harris, Dr., opinions of, 19.

Hawkmoth, 118.

Hertfordshire, strata of, 33.

Hippopotamus, 263.
fossil, 73.

Hitchcock, Dr., opinions of, 21.

Horns of ibex, 257.
stag, 258.

Horse, 260.

Hylæosaurus, 62.

Hypotheses, variety of, 27.


Ibex, 257.

Ichthyosaurus, 59.

Iguanodon, 62.

Infusoria in chalk, 64.

Insects, eggs of, 306.

Iriartea, 139.


Julus, 212.


Kangaroo, fœtus of, 333.

Kirkdale cave, 77.


Labyrinthodon, 57.

Lace-fly, egg of, 311.

Lady-fern, 116.

Law of creation, 337, 368, 371.

Leaf-scars of fern, 130.

Lepralia, 219.

Lias, 58.

Light, velocity of, 360.

Lily, 156.

Limestone coral, 45.

Locust-tree, 177.

London clay, 67.

Loranthus, 169.

"Lusus Naturæ," 368.


Macbrair, Mr., opinions of, 10.

Madrepore, 183.

Mammal, earliest, 63.

Mammoth, 73.

Man, introduction of, 83.
structure of, 275.

Mangrove, 173.
germination of, 301.

Marsupials, 82.

Mastodon, 73.

Medusa, 188, 304.

Megalosaurus, 61.

Melicerta, 210.

Miller, Hugh, opinions of, 15.

Millepore, 183.

Moa, 84.

Moho, 84.

Moon, cyclicism of, 359.

Mosasaurus, 65.

Moth, eggs of, 314.

Mountains, upheaving of, 66, 70.

Murex, 233, 365.


Nails, growth of, 277.

Nature, circularity of, 113.
plan of, 345, 369.

Nautilus, 235.

Navel, evidence from, 289, 334.

Nerita, axis of, 365.

Noah's flood, 6.


Œstridæ, economy of, 309.

Oolitic system, 58, 60;
duration of, 63.

Opossum, 63.

Organ-pipe, 185.

Organic life a circle, 113, 122.

Organisms, earliest, 40.

Orchis, 152.


Palm-leaf, young, 145.

Penn, Mr., opinions of, 11.

Phenomena, evidence of, delusive, 337.

Plants of London clay, 67.

"Plastic power," 368.

Plates of tortoise, 250.

Plesiosaurus, 59.

Plumularia, 119.

Powell, Professor, opinions of, 26.

Prickly pear, 172.

Prochronism, 125, 346, 368.
dependent on cyclicism, 354.

"Protoplast," opinions of, 23.

Pterodactyle, 62, 370.


Raindrops, 58.

Rattan, 145.

Rattlesnake, 247.

Reptiles, Marine, 16, 59.

Rhinoceros, fossil, 73.

Roots, aerial, of fig, 163.
of iriartea, 139.
of mangrove, 173.
of pandanus, 138.

Rotifera, viviparous, 322.


Sackcloth of palms, 141.

Sandstone, age of, 50.
new red, 56.
old red, 42.

Saw-fly, eggs of, 317.

Scale of fish, 242.

Scarlet-runner, economy of, 113.

Screw-pine, 136.

Scripture, efforts to reconcile with geology, 5.
literal sense of, 4.

Sea-urchin, 191, 305.

Sea-pen, 182.

Secondary epoch, 66.

Sedgwick, Professor, on past time, 98.
opinions of, 17.

Selaginella, 133.

Senses, evidence of, 1.

Serpent, earliest, 68.

Serpula, 198, 305.

Sharks, 52, 58, 243.
egg of, 326.

Shells, now fossilizing, 89.

Shore-crab, 216.

Silk-cotton tree, 174.

Silurian formations, 40.

Skeleton, human, 286.

Skeletons, evidence from, 105, 340.

Sloths, fossil, 82.

Smith, Dr. Pye, opinions of, 22.

Smithia, elegance of, 371.

Species, persistence of, 110.

Spider, eggs of, 313.

Stag, 258.

Star-fish, madreporic plate of, 366.

Stars, light from fixed, 361.

Stature of man, 284.

Strata, disturbances of, 54.
number of, 37.

Strombus, 230.

Sugar-palm, 141.

Sumner, Dr., opinions of, 19.

Surinam toad, 327.

Sword-fish, 240.


Tapeworm, 195.

Tapir, 69.

Teeth of babiroussa, 262.

Teeth of crocodile, 249.
elephant, 268.
hippopotamus, 263.
horse, 261.
man, 281, 285.
shark, 243.

Termes, 203.

Terebella, 201.

Tertiary epoch, 66.
fauna, 76.

Testimony, divine, 2;
dear to many scientific men, 5;
by some rejected, 8.

Testudinaria, 158.

Thames Tunnel, strata of, 32.

Thyroid cartilage, 284.

Timber, rings of, 178, 342, 349.

Tortoise, 250.

Tour of inspection, 127.

Traveller's tree, 148.

Tree-fern, age of, 128.

Tree-frog, 246.

Trilobites, 41.

Truth, value of, 7.

Tulip, seed of, 298.

Tulip-tree, 165.

Turner, Sharon, opinions of, 18.

Tusk of elephant, 266.


Ure, Dr., opinions of, 10.


Venus, prickly, 228.

"Vestiges," hypothesis of, 27, 111.

Volcanic action, 55, 66, 86.


Weevil, economy of, 308.

Whalebone, 255.

White ant, 203.

World, projected history of, 351.


Yorkshire, strata of, 33.

Young, Dr., opinions of, 13.