cast ashore on the western coasts of Ireland and Norway. Pennant
observes that the seeds of plants which grow in Jamaica, Cuba, and the
adjacent countries, are collected on the shores of the Hebrides. Thither
also barrels of French wine, the remains of vessels wrecked in the West
Indian seas, have been carried. In 1809 His Majesty's ship _Little
Belt_ was dismasted at Halifax, Nova Scotia, and her bowsprit was found,
eighteen months after, in the Basque Roads. The mainmast of the
_Tilbury_, buried off Hispaniola in the Seven Years' war, was brought to
our shores."[105]
These facts are dependent on the eastward set of this majestic current;
and so is another great physical fact of immeasurable importance to
us;--the superiority in temperature of the western shores of Europe over
the eastern shores of North America. The harbour of St. John's,
Newfoundland, is frequently fast closed by ice in the month of June; yet
the latitude of St. John's is considerably south of that of the port of
Brest, in France.
Impelled by the rotatory motion of the earth, and by the
trade-wind,[106] the equatorial waters of the Atlantic are ever urged, a
broad and rapid river, into the Caribbean sea, and the Gulf of Mexico,
the narrowing shores of which compress the stream as in a funnel. The
Andes here present a slender but impregnable barrier to its further
progress westward; and the trend of the Isthmus turns it to the
northward. Still finding no outlet, the impatient current, like a
wild-beast pacing round its cage, courses the Gulf of Mexico, doubles
the peninsula of Florida, and pursues its way first to the north-east,
and then to the east, crossing the Atlantic in a retrograde direction,
until it laves with its warm billows the coasts of Europe. Here it turns
to the southward, and after embracing the "Fortunate" isles that lie off
the African shores,--the Azores, the Madeiras, and the Canaries,--it
joins the great equatorial set beneath the trade-wind, and returns on
its westward course.
This mighty circulation of water must have been going on from the
instant that the earth commenced rotating on its axis, or (granting this
to have been chronologically subsequent) from the instant the Atlantic
occupied its present bed. Whether sooner or later, it commenced at
_some_ instant; but at that instant all the previous elements of the
circle were presupposed, and a boundless succession of former circles.
An intelligent stranger, looking on the movement immediately after its
commencement, but ignorant of its origin, would not be able to assign
any limit to its past duration. From his observation of the velocity of
the current in different parts of the circle, he would say with
confidence,--"These identical particles of water, which I see now urged
on their ceaseless course towards the middle of the North Atlantic,
were, yesterday morning at this hour, in the latitude of the mouth of
the Chesapeake; on the morning before, off Cape Hatteras, on the morning
before that, off Cape Lookout;" and so backwards interminably.
Whether the economy of the globe is circular, or not, I am not in a
position to show. But its movements certainly are; and so are the
movements of all the myriad worlds with which astronomy is conversant.
Asteroids, planets, satellites, comets, suns,--nay, even the stellar
universe itself--obey _in their motions_, the grand universal law of
circularity. Take any one of these;--our Moon. When its orbital motion
commenced, it commenced at some point or other of the circle which it
describes in its course around the earth. The pre-existence, or at least
the co-existence, of the Earth, and also that of the Sun, are necessary
to its motion. Supposing it possible for a spectator, furnished with
modern astronomical knowledge, to have looked at that instant on the
newly-spun orb, would he not confidently have inferred, from its
position at that moment, its position a week before? Would he not have
felt able to indicate with unhesitating certainty the solar and lunar
eclipses of a century or a chiliad before, just as he now calculates the
time of the eclipse that marked the death of Herod the Great?
Undoubtedly he would; for he would assume the constancy of those
movements which modern science has deduced from the observations of many
centuries; and, granting him the fact of their constancy, we could not
invalidate his conclusions. Yet _what_ would he have shown? The
conditions and phenomena of bodies before they had begun to exist. The
conditions are legitimately deducible; but they are prochronic
conditions.
The mention of the celestial orbs suggests to remembrance the famous
argument for the vast antiquity of the material universe, founded on the
time which is required for the propulsion of light. I believe it owes
its origin to Sir William Herschel.
Speaking of the known velocity of light in connexion with the immense
distance of certain nebulae, that eminent astronomer made these
remarks:--
"Hence it follows, that, when we... see an object of the calculated
distance at which one of these very remote nebulae may still be
perceived... the rays of light which convey its image to the eye must
have been more than nineteen hundred and ten thousand, that is, almost
_two millions_, of years on their way; and that, consequently, so many
years ago, this object must already have had an existence in the
sidereal heavens, in order to send out those rays by which we now
perceive it."[107]
The notion has been amplified, with some interesting details, by a
writer in the _Scottish Congregational Magazine_ for _January 1847_; who
thus throws the statements into a tabular form, and comments on them.
"From the Moon, light comes to the earth in 1-1/4 second
" the Sun " " in 8 minutes
" Jupiter " " in 52 "
" Uranus " " in 2 hours
" a fixed Star of 1st magnitude -- 3 to 12 years
" " 2d " 20 "
" " 3d " 30 "
" " 4th " 45 "
" " 5th " 66 "
" " 6th " 96 "
" " 7th " 180 "
" " 12th " 4000 "
"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 laminae, at any given moment of its adult
condition, but also bear witness, in the broad existent surface of each
one, to former laminae, 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 naturae_; 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.
[Illustration: GYROCERAS.]
* * * * *
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.
Diatomaceae 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.
Foetus 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.
Hylaeosaurus, 62.
Hypotheses, variety of, 27.
Ibex, 257.
Ichthyosaurus, 59.
Iguanodon, 62.
Infusoria in chalk, 64.
Insects, eggs of, 306.
Iriartea, 139.
Julus, 212.
Kangaroo, foetus 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 Naturae_," 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.
Oestridae, 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.