22 us ad are co 66 W now) i of spac starry "TI to time man is habitat we are elapsed which Or, is occupie waste, charact the occ upon m upon th sponges planets LIFE AT compass not into The assertion ratios w from on and hav time upo relation a second space, an waste of t few year taken resi tain parts the earth. The present dry land on our globe is ny" ne-fourth of the whole surface; all the rest is ocean. T La muen a tus furth part has been examined by geologists? ‚‹œ »œai is the area of stratification which has been explored! Tavonture to my art one-fiftieth part of the whole;-and upon the malla í » martial a survey is founded an astounding generaln. We admit the probability of the generalization, but we vertema "he presumption to which it has led, when we find it supporting views derogatory from the dignity of testructive of grand truths, which the contemplative s mind has long and ardently cherished. In op2. Hermore, to speculations so unwise, may we not ask if tani WHL the Limits of probability that the solid materials -tare Seen precipitated from their suspension or persinon in their watery matrix, by some rapid process like tras vid trengs down our showers of rain, hail, and snow? Dere not exist beneath the Pacific and Atlantic *~_ms—lement the forty-nine fiftieths of the unexplored earth, cans of man which can only be displayed to reason, won the weans have quitted their beds, or some great convul *7 quer the strata in which they have been buried? W. Come to our author's seventh chapter, entitled The A and we venture to say that it does not contain even the tras of an argument against the doctrine of a plurality of weria Esa bold attempt to concuss the reader into his views in repeated applications of the argumentum baculinum, - exclamaties against the absurdity of one theory, and orations over the certainty of another. We are here fortunately. no longer perpuexed with the heterogeneous compound of time. and space, and the azure element of pure physics we are in no danger of a Scylla or a Charybdis. Two artificial hts, distinctly round and distinctly separated, ammear as one light when placed at a sufficient distance from the eve. In like manner, a hundred lights of the same kind, and placed at the same distance from each other, have the appearance of a nebula or white cloud when carried to a sufficient distance from the observer. These are facts, the cause of which we need not now discuss. For the same reason, two stars, very near each other, like the double star Castor, appear as one to the naked eye, and clusters of stars, distinctly separable or resolvable, as astronomers say, by the telescope, appear as nebulae to unassisted vision. Let us now suppose seven clusters of stars placed at seven different distances in space, and all of which were reckoned nebulae by astronomers before the invention of the telescope. When observed by Galileo with his telescope, Na 1, or the nearest, becomes a distinct cluster of stars, while Argument from Nebula Considered. 25 all the rest remain nebula. Galileo tries in vain to resolve. No. 2, but does not doubt that it also, and all the other five are clusters of stars. Newton with his little reflector resolves No. 2 into a cluster of stars, and on better evidence than Galileo regards the other five as clusters of stars. Hadley with his superior Gregorian telescope resolves No. 3; Short, No. 4; Herschel, No. 5; and Lord Rosse, No. 6. All these astronomers firmly believed that all the nebulae were clusters of stars, and Lord Rosse on better evidence than the rest. Lord Rosse fails in resolving No. 7, even with his gigantic telescope, but does not hesitate to express his conviction, that with a telescope twice the size of his own, which may be the work of another century, the seventh nebula will also be resolved. He firmly believes-he cannot help believing, that No. 7 also is a cluster of stars. The same reasoning which applies to seven nebula, applies to seventy, to seven hundred, or to seven thousand, and the conclusion is inevitable, though the evidence of demonstration is wanting, that all nebulæ are clusters of stars. There is a phase of this question to which we would call the attention of astronomers, as one that has not been the subject of discussion. There may be-nay, we venture to say, there must be in the remote expanse of the universe, nebula that never can be resolved. The nebula No. 7, for example, may never be resolved. It may resist the telescope of the next century; nay, it may be unresolvable by telescopes of infinite perfection and infinite power, and yet be a cluster of stars. Unless a star is accurately in the zenith, the rays by which it is visible are bent and dispersed by the refraction of the atmosphere, and as the atmosphere never is, and never can be a perfectly homogeneous medium, a star may be so distant that even if its light does make its way undisturbed in its journey of thousands of years through space, it will be so treated in its passage through our atmosphere, that an image of it cannot be formed in the focus of the most perfect telescope. On the emission theory the particles of its light may be so distant by divergence, or so inflected or refracted, that not one of them may enter the tube; and on the undulatory theory, the enfeebled waves may be broken up into patches incapable of giving a distinct image upon the retina, if they do fall upon it, or so widely separated that they do not enter the telescope at all. In the case of a single star thus acted upon, it would be invisible. In the case of clusters, the cluster would continue to appear a nebula. With these views we are prepared to meet our author, unintimidated by the grape shot of assertion, banter, and ridicule with which he advances into the field. us adopt our author's premises, and look at his conclusions, which are contained, not very clearly, in the following passages: "We find that man (the human race, from its present origin till now) has occupied but an atom of time, as he has occupied but an atom of space." That is, we need not wonder that the Earth, the atom of space, is the only inhabited world among the innumerable planetary and starry worlds, because it was so long without inhabitants, and has been occupied only an atom of time! Again,— "The scale of man's insignificance is of the same order in reference to time as to space. If the Earth as the habitation of man is a speck in the midst of an infinity of space, the Earth as the habitation of man is also a speck at the end of an infinity of time. If we are as nothing in the surrounding universe, we are as nothing in the elapsed eternity; or rather in the elapsed organic antiquity during which the Earth has existed, and been the abode of life. Or, is the objection this? That if we suppose the Earth only to be occupied with inhabitants, all the other objects of the universe are waste, turned to no purpose? Is work of this kind unsuited to the character of the Creator? But here, again, we have the like waste in the occupation of the Earth. All its previous ages have been wasted upon mere brute life; after, so far as we can see, for myriads of years upon the lowest, the least conscious forms of life, upon shell-fish, corals, sponges. Why, then, should not the seas and continents of other planets be occupied at present with a life no higher than this, OR WITH NO The intelligent part of creation is thrust into the compass of a few years in the course of myriads of ages; why then not into the compass of a few miles in the expanse of systems?"-P. 103. LIFE AT ALL. The argument meant to be conveyed in these tautological assertions we hold to be utterly inept and illogical. Even if the ratios were correct, as they are not, what right have we to reason from one set of quantities to others that are incommensurable, and have no relation to them whatever, except that the one is time upon a planet, and the other space upon a planet? What relation is there between an atom of time and an atom of space, a second and a mite,-between a speck in the midst of infinite space, and a speck at the end of an infinity of time,-between waste of time and waste of space; or between the compass of a few years, and the compass of a few miles? If a sovereign has taken a long term of years to build and prepare a magnificent residence for a visitor who is to occupy it only for a month, is that any reason why all the other houses but the one which that sovereign has built should be without inhabitants? If the Almighty has occupied millions of years in preparing the Earth for the residence of man, not by a summary process, but by the slow operation of secondary causes, and laid down, in each mem Geological Truths in Favour of a Plurality of Worlds. 23 ber of its formations, fossil remains, to enable man to read its history, and thus to shew forth His glory to an intelligent race, is that any reason why the Earth, the habitation of man, should, among unnumbered, and to the eye, more glorious worlds, be the only one that is inhabitated? The very opposite conclusion is that to which reason and common sense must lead us. If nearly infinity of time has been used to provide for intellectual life so glorious an abode, is it not likely that infinity of space would be devoted to the same noble purpose? In order to appreciate better this view of the subject, let us consider what change has been produced upon the common argument for a plurality of worlds by geological discoveries. In the time of Fontenelle, when the earth was believed to have been made summarily in six days, the argument from analogy was admitted as having a certain degree of force. Has the force of that analogy been diminished by the discovery that God has occupied millions of years to prepare the Earth for man's residence? Certainly not. It has, on the contrary, afforded us a new ground of analogy. If the Almighty has been at such pains to prepare an atom of a planet for man, will he not have made a similar preparation for more gigantic planets, to excite the admiration and promote the happiness of other intellectual races? That preparation may be going on now in some, or, what is much more likely, it may be finished in all the other planets of the system. All of them were doubtless launched into space at the same time; or if they were formed by secondary causes from a solar atmosphere, the Earth was certainly not the first-born of the series. The new form, therefore, of the argument from analogy is certainly this, that all the planets have been formed by a process similar to that of the Earth, that all of them are intended for inhabitants, and that some of them may now be only in a state of preparation. To the reasoning of our author we have to state another objection. The doctrine of a plurality of worlds is a theory founded on analogies; but the argument with which it is assailed is also a theory which may or may not be true; and we cannot but consider it as an extraordinary method of reasoning, and one which science disclaims, to examine one theory by the light, or rather by the darkness of another-to pronounce one theory wrong because another theory may be right. When we find a theory used so improperly, and, as we think, for so unworthy a purpose, we become disposed to consider its value, even though we ourselves believe it. There are some grounds, not very shallow, why the periods occupied by the earth's preparation may not be of such incalculable length as geologists believe; and it is possible also that Pre-adamite races may have existed in cer tain parts of the earth. The present dry land on our globe is only one-fourth of the whole surface; all the rest is ocean. How much of this fourth part has been examined by geologists? How small is the area of stratification which has been explored? We venture to say not one-fiftieth part of the whole;-and upon the results of so partial a survey is founded an astounding generalization. We admit the probability of the generalization, but we condemn the presumption to which it has led, when we find it employed in supporting views derogatory from the dignity of science, and destructive of grand truths, which the contemplative and religious mind has long and ardently cherished. In opposition, therefore, to speculations so unwise, may we not ask if it is not within the limits of probability that the solid materials of our globe have been precipitated from their suspension or their solution in their watery matrix, by some rapid process like that which brings down our showers of rain, hail, and snow? And may there not exist beneath the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, beneath the forty-nine fiftieths of the unexplored earth, distinct traces of man which can only be displayed to reason, when the oceans have quitted their beds, or some great convulsion upheaved the strata in which they have been buried? We come now to our author's seventh chapter, entitled The Nebula, and we venture to say that it does not contain even the trace of an argument against the doctrine of a plurality of worlds. It is a bold attempt to concuss the reader into his views by repeated applications of the argumentum baculinum, -by exclamations against the absurdity of one theory, and ovations over the certainty of another. We are here fortunately no longer perplexed with the heterogeneous compound of time. and space, and in the azure element of pure physics we are in no danger of a Scylla or a Charybdis. Two artificial lights, distinctly round and distinctly separated, appear as one light when placed at a sufficient distance from the eye. In like manner, a hundred lights of the same kind, and placed at the same distance from each other, have the appearance of a nebula or white cloud when carried to a sufficient distance from the observer. These are facts, the cause of which we need not now discuss. For the same reason, two stars, very near each other, like the double star Castor, appear as one to the naked eye, and clusters of stars, distinctly separable or resolvable, as astronomers say, by the telescope, appear as nebula to unassisted vision. Let us now suppose seven clusters of stars placed at seven different distances in space, and all of which were reckoned nebulæ by astronomers before the invention of the telescope. When observed by Galileo with his telescope, No. 1, or the nearest, becomes a distinct cluster of stars, while |