gosse’s omphalos. 
59 
the earliest Cambrian epoch of geologists, that it must have been created 
with marks and signs pointing backwards, pro chronically, to an anterior 
state which never actually existed, and so have conformed to the uni¬ 
versal law of organic species. 
We must remember, however, that Mr. Gosse is by no means called 
upon to prove the prolability of the world following a cyclical' law, 
similar to that of organic species. It is sufficient for his logical consis¬ 
tency to establish examples of that law in the creation of organic species 
(which he has undoubtedly done), and to assert confidently the possi¬ 
bility of a similar law prevailing in the structure of the universe, con¬ 
sidered as a whole. 
But the important question remains to he asked, whether, after all 
this display of logical subtlety, the world at large will believe one word 
of Mr. Gosse’s theory. We are confident, and so we think is Mr. Gosse, 
that they will not. The religious geologist will believe as firmly that 
his fossils lived once actually and really, as he believes that the same 
God made both them and him. Erom Berkeley’s day to the present 
hour, his theory of the non-existence of an external world has not gained 
a single convert; and we believe that Mr. Gosse’s theory of Prochronism, 
as well as our own of Metachronism, will prove equally barren and un¬ 
fruitful. They are idle speculations, fit only to please a philosopher in 
his hours of relaxation, but hardly worthy of the serious attention of 
any earnest man, whether scientific or not. 
Mr. Gosse has introduced his speculation to the world under the 
guise of a legal investigation, involving the credibility of witnesses and 
the nature of their testimony, and he properly observes that the whole 
of geological evidence is of the kind called circumstantial:— 
“ In the first place, there is nothing here but circumstantial evidence; there is no 
direct testimony to the facts sought to be established. Let it not seem unfair to make 
this distinction ; it is one of great importance. No one has deposed to actual observation 
of the processes enumerated ; no one has appeared in court who declares he actually saw 
the living Pterodactyls flying about, or heard the winds sighing in the tops of the Lepi- 
dodendra. You will say, ‘ It is the same thing ; we have seen the skeleton of the one, 
and the crushed trunk of the other, and, therefore, we are as sure of their past existence 
as if we had been there at the time.’ No, it is not the same thing, it is not quite the same 
thing; not quite. Strong as is the evidence, it is not quite so strong as if you had 
actually seen the living things, and had been conscious of the passing of time while you 
saw them live. It is only by a process of reasoning that you infer they lived at all.”— 
Page 10B. 
We accept this forensic illustration, and would, in conclusion, ask 
Mr. Gosse’s attention to the following view of the case he has made out 
for the Mosaic record of the creation. 
A supposed criminal is formally accused before twelve of his coun¬ 
trymen, and in the opinion of eleven proved clearly guilty, on circum¬ 
stantial evidence; but the twelfth juryman, or the prisoner’s counsel, 
suggests a possible, although highly improbable, mode of viewing the 
circumstantial evidence, which is consistent with the hypothesis of the 
prisoner’s innocence. The solitary juryman holds out against his obsti¬ 
nate brethren, and, being of a logical turn of mind, refuses to join in their 
