represent man's history and position as unique. | clear that the author's notions are foreAstronomy, some think, suggests the contrary. I examine the force of this latter suggestion, and it seems to me to amount to little or nothing." (P. 54.) But the views of the author seems to have found maturity and confirmation even from his own labors whilst preparing the Essay, for in the same dialogue this pas sage occurs: gone conclusions formed upon other grounds than the deductions of astronomical and other science; they are, as he expresses it "convictions that have grown gradually deeper through the effects of various trains of speculation," and not stages of inductive reasoning that lead of necessity to certain definite and unavoid able results. The discoveries of science are to be looked at through his medium, "As to myself, the views which I have at length or "in the somewhat different view" committed to paper have long been in my mind. which he speculatively proposes. The The convictions which they involved grew gradu- work is therefore avowedly not so much ally deeper, through the effect of various trains of an effort of inductive philosophy, as an speculation; and I may also say, that when I exercise of ingenuity, and must be acceptproceeded to write the Essay the arguments ap-ed in this light. It is a speculation in peared to me to assume, by being fully unfolded, greater strength than I had expected; but however that may be, be the arguments strong or weak, there they are, delivered in all sincerity and simplicity. Liberavi animam meam." (P. 72.) The views that have long been in the essayist's mind, and that have grown gradually deeper through the effect of various trains of speculation, are clearly and succintly expressed in the following paragraph, contained in the twelfth chapter of the Essay: "One school of moral discipline, one theatre of moral action, one arena of moral contests for the highest prizes, is a sufficient centre for innumerable hosts of stars and planets, globes of fire and earth, water and air, whether or not tenanted by corals and madrepores, fishes and creeping things. So great and majestic are those names of right and good, duty and virtue, that all mere material or animal existence is worthless in the comparison." (P. 368.) The essayist opens the discussion by placing before the reader a picture of the universe, sketched in accordance with the generally received views, and then offers a statement of Dr. Chalmer's notions on the subject, drawn from the eloquent divine's astronomical discourses, which are presumed to be a fair exposition of the popular idea. He then propounds his own doctrine, that "the peculiar character of man's condition seems to claim for him a nature and place unique and incapable of repetition in the scheme of the universe;" and thence proceeds to show that the discoveries of astronomy, and the deductions of modern science, ordinarily conceived to be opposed to this doctrine, are not so when contemplated from his peculiar point of view. Here then it is which an attempt is made to show that the facts observed by astronomers are not irreconcilable with certain articles of belief which the essayist conceives the authority of revealed religion requires should be entertained. The course of induction is from the obvious towards the obscure; it invariably advances from facts well and familiarly known to the contemplation of remote analogies. The essayist, on the other hand, argues from the obscure to the obvious; he comes from the remote to the near and familiar. Astronomy began with the earth, and then carried the information and experience it had gleaned there to the examination, first of the moon, then of the planets, next of the sun and fixed stars, and last of all the nebulæ. The Essay, on the contrary, starts with the dawn of terrestrial history which broke on no human eyes, and which, therefore, is the very dream-land of knowledge; and from it goes to the nebula, to the distant stars, and then to the remote and nearer planets. Because the old earth for many ages had no men, and because the filmy nebulæ, and unstable stars, and outer planets cannot have men, it is hardly likely that the nearer orbs should have them. Such is the general course of this argumentative inversion of the process of induction. Upon this peculiarity Captain Jacob remarks in his "Few More Words," in the following pertinent way: "The results arrived at by Z." (the initial assumed by the essayist) "appear to be due, at least in part, to his having commenced his speculations bodies nearest to us, and of which we know the at the wrong end. Instead of beginning with the most, and endeavoring to make them throw the light of analogy on those more remote, he begins with the most distant, or at least the most ob scure; and, descending by degrees to the nearer and more distinct, he attempts to drag a little of the obscurity with him in his downward progress." (Jacob, p. 24.) We do not, however, say that the essayist has really commenced his speculations at the "wrong end." It is probable that he is right in the course he has adopted, considering what his avowed object is, namely, to square the facts of science to a preconceived opinion. But we deem it right to keep the method of his argument clearly in mind whilst we weigh the several results that it presents for acceptance upon logical grounds. The argument of the essayist, so far as it is based upon the evidence of physical science, naturally distributes itself into four distinct propositions. The first of these maintains, that the deductions of geology analogically disprove the existence of rational creatures beyond the terrestrial precincts. The second contends, that the nebulæ are composed of filmy substance too thin to be the dwelling-place of life. The third asserts, that the fixed stars are not completed suns, and that they are not fitted to play the same part for other worlds as our sun plays for the earth. The fourth undertakes to prove, that the planets cannot be peopled by highly gifted beings like man, and that they are not all likely to be inhabited even by lower kinds of vital organization. The portion of the argument derived from geological considerations is very elaborately stated. It is to the effect, that the scale of time which is involved in the succession of geological phenomena corresponds with the scale of distances that astronomical science has revealed. Geology does in time with events what astronomy does in space with objects. The one elicits its conclusions from the axioms of causation, as the other does from the axioms of geometry. They are twin sisters, working together to a common end; but of the two geology is the more important, the more trustworthy witness, because it has to do with an additional consideration that astronomy knows nothing concerning. It takes into its estimation life. It shows that the earth has been the seat of human life for a few thousands, and of animal life for several myriads, of years. It proves that man has occupied only an atom of time in the world's history, and it is therefore "more than probable" that he occu pies only an atom of space in the universe in other words, that his race inhabits the earth, but is found nowhere else. As geology and astronomy are twin sisters, the conclusions of the stronger are to be received as binding upon the weaker. There are inferior, as well as superior, ranks of animated creation; and the inferior have occupied an immensely much larger portion of time with their history than the superior, therefore the inferior also fill much larger domains of space, and the superior are restricted to one solitary globe. In previous ages the earth was wasted for lengthened periods on mere brute life. It is probable, therefore, that the other bodies of the universe are now wasted in a similar way. The evidence of geology is thus opposed to the notion, that there are intelligent existences amongst the planets or the stars. The following passage serves to illustrate the essayist's views in this particular: Earth, which has been the seat of human life for "When, therefore, geology tells us that the a few thousand years only, has been the seat of animal life for myriads, it may be millions of years, she has a right to offer this as an answer to any difficulty which astronomy, or the readers of considerations that the earth, the seat of human astronomical books may suggest, derived from the life, is but one globe of a few thousand miles in diameter, among millions of other globes, at distances millions of times as great. "Let the difficulty be put in any way the objector pleases. Is it that it is unworthy of the greatness and majesty of God, according to our conceptions of Him, to bestow such peculiar care on so small a part of His creation? But we know small part of His creation-mankind-His espefrom geology that He has bestowed upon this cial care: He has made their period, though only a moment in the ages of animal life, the only period of intelligence, morality, religion. If, then, to suppose that He has done this, is contrary to our conceptions of His greatness and majesty, it is plain that our conceptions are erroneous; they judged, as to what is worthy of Him, as we have have taken a wrong direction. God has not judged. He has found it worthy of Him to bestow upon man his special care, though he occupies so small a portion of time; and why not, then, although he occupies so small a portion of space?" (P. 194.) Throughout the statement of this portion of the argument it seems to us that there is an evident fallacy. The argument runs-because man has occupied only an atom of time in the world's history, he only occupies an atom of space in the uni But fur "But if we admit the result with regard to man, the argument does not apply to other intellectual beings than man-to an inferior or to a superior race that never occupied the earth at all. If man is thus limited by a syllogism to the occupation of one planet, one atom of space, an angelic race, who never lived on the earth at all, may be inther, let us suppose that we learn by the telescope dulged with the occupation of Jupiter. that every planet and satellite in the solar system is inhabited by man, he would still occupy but an atom of space, and our author's argument would go to prove that none of the fixed stars or binary systems are inhabited. In like manner, if habited, the sum of them all would be but an atom we could prove that the binary systems were inof space, and our author would still rejoice in his conclusion that the clusters of stars and nebulæ were uninhabited vapor. "If the reasoning which we have examined be sound in its nature, which it is not, it would fail entirely by a change of the premises. If it is probable, as we have already shown it is, that the time of the earth's preparation was comparatively short. If it be possible, which we aver it is, that intelligent beings occupied the earth previous to man, and if it is probable that man will continue to occupy the earth during a period equal or approximating to the period of the earth's preparation, the whole of our author's argument has neither force nor meaning." (Brewster, p. 205.) verse. But this is very much like what it | vid, very aptly and forcibly expresses how would be to affirm that, because France much may be said that is rationally antag was ten centuries without an emperor, and onistic to the position of the essayist: then had one for a few years, therefore all the rest of the world is without an emperor! It is arguing from the history of one body to the condition of another which has never been shown to have any sensible bonds of connection with it, and which really appears to be altogether extraneous. There is obviously no ascertained relation between the development of the earth's condition as a world, and the state of any other orb in space; and the essayist, if he be consistent throughout with his own principles, ought surely to be the last of mankind to assume any such relation, or to ask for any such concession. Upon this ground, if upon no other, the argument derived from geology must be deemed entirely irrelevant. Much in the same predicament stands the attempt to show that, because inferior grades of creation fill up immeasurably larger portions of time in the Earth's history than superior grades, therefore the inferior also occupy a large portion of space whilst the superior are restricted to a comparatively narrow one. The force of analogy would point to exactly the opposite conclusion, if the fact really were as it is stated in the Essay; for, if the greater part of the world's history were filled by subordi nate and lower forms of organisation, and the conditions of space had anything to do with time, then it would be probable that the greater part of space was also filled with similar rudimentary types. Sir David Brewster has, however, in his reply to the Essayist, very happily pointed out that the fact is not as stated. Geology makes it appear, it is true, that the inferior races of animate life have been in existence myriads of years longer than the human race. But the measure of human existence upon the globe has not yet been filled. For aught that is known, mankind may endure on the earth until the tables are turned upon its brute predecessors, and so brute existence become the atom, and human existence the infinite. It is quite possible, indeed, that the time may come when the argument of the essayist would tell in the opposite direction, and go far, upon his own premises, to establish the universality of human life throughout the domains of seemingly infinite space. The following extracts from the "More Worlds than One" of Sir Da In this particular we fully agree with Sir David. We think that the argument of the anonymous essayist is without force, and that his geological train of speculation, at least, exhausts itself without carrying the conviction he desires. In turning from geology to the nebular department of astronomical science, the essayist first refers to Sir John Herschel's observations of the Magellanic clouds. This illustrious observer conceived that he detected in these clouds specks of nebulous light and distinct stars all mixed up together within orbicular spaces, whose furthest border was not above a tenth part more remote than the nearest one-a difference which is by no means sufficient to account for some stars being seen distinctly, whilst others are blended in misty confusion. Sir John believes that these Magellanic clouds demonstrate the coexistence of stars of the eighth degree of brightness, and of nebula that cannot be resolved into star-firmaments by powerful telescopes, at nearly equal distances from the earth; and he thinks that this sug gests the necessity of receiving with caution, for the present, the generalisation that all the nebulous objects seen in the sky are remote star-firmaments. As, however, this forms the key of the essayist's position, so far as the nebula are concerned, it may be as well to let Sir John tell the result of his observations in his own words. The passage is extracted from the last edition of his "Outlines of Astronomy": "It must, therefore, be taken as a demonstrated fact that stars of the seventh or eighth magnitudes and irresolvable nebula may coexist within limits of distance not differing in proportion more than as nine to ten, a conclusion which must inspire some degree of caution in admitting as certain many of the consequences which have been rather strongly dwelt upon in the foregoing pages." visible against the dark back-ground of the sky being the tracing of its course as it is thus brought up. The spiral nebulæ are not vortices of remote star-streams, bent into curves by orderly irregularities of movement; they are whiffs of infinitely thin curling smoke rolled up in a single twist. They are masses of luminous fog with very slight internal cohesion of parts, drifting through resistance, and, so dragged out into spiral lines: "In the nebula we have loose matter of a thin and vaporous constitution, differing as more or less rare, more or less luminous, in a small degree; diffused over enormous spaces, in strag brief curves, with no vestige of order or system, gling and irregular forms; moving in devious and or even of separation of different kinds of bodies. In the solar system we have the luminous separated from the non-luminous, the hot from the cold, the dense from the rare; and all luminous and non-luminous formed into globes, impressed with regular and orderly motions, which continue the same for innumerable revolutions and cycles. The spiral nebulæ, compared with the solar system, cannot be considered as other than a kind of chaos; and not even a chaos in the sense of a state preceding an orderly and stable system; for there is no indication in those objects of any tendency towards such a system. If we were to say that they appear mere shapeless masses, flung off in the work of creating solar systems, we might, perhaps, disturb those who are resolved to find every where worlds like ours, but it seems difficult to suggest any other reason for not saying so. "So far, then, as the nebulæ are concerned, the improbability of their being inhabited appears to mount to the highest point that can be conceived. We may, by the indulgence of fancy, people the alis, with living beings of the same kind of subsummer clouds, or the beams of the aurora borestance as those bright appearances themselves; and in doing so we are not making any bolder assumption than we are when we stock the nebulæ with inhabitants, and call them in that sense distant worlds.'" (P. 232.) The author of the Essay, however, does not find in these clouds inculcations of caution merely; they are in his eyes proof that all nebulæ are luminous fog. He holds them to be "lumps of light," in some cases resolvable by the telescope into sparkling dots. But these dots are not stars, they are merely brighter and denser parts of the curdled and granulated light. There are instances of like irresolvable luminosity furnished in the tails of comets. Such tails are manifestly vaporous masses through which stars are readily and distinctly seen. Nebula, therefore, are vaporous masses too; and this at once, in the essayist's eyes, accounts for the spiral arrangements of their parts, detected by Lord Rosse. Encke's comet is approaching the sun, because its rare filmy substance is moving through a medium that is capable of affording some resistance to its filminess. It may probably reach the sun after ten thousand revolutions round it, and its substance is probably one hundred thousand times denser than the re- Such are the conclusions of the essayist tarding medium through which it is re-in regard to these interesting objects that volving. But the spiral scrolls in many have excited so much attention, since the of the nebulæ only make one turn from gigantic instrument of Lord Rosse has their outer commencement to their inner been added to the implements of astronotermination. This is because their sub-mical research. It will be observed here stance is only ten times denser than the retarding medium. Nebula are really the ten thousand times refined essence of comets' tails, and the exquisitely subtle substance of which they are composed, is whirling round, as the comet whirls about the sun, but it is so extremely light that the resisting ether through which it sweeps brings it up at one turn, the luminous spire that the gist of the matter is comprised in three distinct propositions. The nebulæ are not composed of stars: they are luminous vapor of a comet-like nature, and of extreme tenuity; and being only thin vapor, they are destitute of living inhabitants. The third of these propositions is made, in the reasonings of the essayist, to depend entirely upon the establishment of the preceding two. Those two, therefore, are the premises that require to be examined. Touching the first, Professor Baden Powell writes thus, in his "Essay on the Unity of Worlds": "I am able to state on the authority of those who have actually seen the nebulæ in Lord Rosse's instrument, that the appearance is perfectly and brilliantly that of stars; distinct effulgent points of no sensible magnitude, and of whose stellar nature no doubt could remain on the mind of the observer.' (P. 188.) Here surely, then, the essayist is pleading a distinction without a difference. He speaks of the nebula as resolved into dots of light" by the telescope. But dots of light seen in the sky are stars. Nothing more is positively known of the fixed stars than that they are luminous points without discernible dimensions scattered in surrounding space. Whether such luminous points are contemplated by the unaided eye, or through the assistance of the telescope, can in no way concern their intrinsic natures. The " sparkling dots" of the essayist are stars, and his "curdled lumps of light," in the majority of instances, are star-beds, if it is to be admitted that there are such things as stars in the sky. But all the nebula have not been resolved into "star-dots,"-those, for instance, which are contained within the spaces of the Magellanic clouds, and to which Sir John Herschel alludes in the passage specified above, have not been so resolved. But it must be remembered that those nebula lie in a hemisphere of the heavens that never comes within the sky of the British Isles. The powerful instruments of Lord Lord Rosse have, therefore, never included them in their penetrating scrutiny. It will have been noticed that the sagacious astronomer who made them the subjects of especial attention with such instrumental aid as he had at his command during his sojourn at the Cape of Good Hope, did not feel himself warranted in drawing any definite conclusion from them, beyond the belief that they were near neighbors (speaking comparatively) of stars that he could distinctly discern. Other observers, who are competent to form their own opinions in the matter, do not seem to be satisfied fully upon this point. Sir John formed his belief avowedly upon what he deemed the extreme improbability that so many star-clusters should be arranged in a long column of space turned directly way from the earth, or, as the anonymous essayist puts the case: "That the two nebulæ are thus approximately, spherical spaces is in the highest degree probable, not only from the peculiarity of their contents, which suggests the notion of a peculiar group of objects collected into a limited space, but from the barrenness as to such objects of the sky in the neigborhood of these Magellanic clouds. To suppose (the only other possible supposition) that they are two columns of space, with their ends turned towards us, and their lengths hundreds and thousands of times their breadths, would be too fanafter all, not explain the facts without further altotastical a proceeding to be tolerated; and would, gether arbitrary assumptions." (P. 212.) It is hoped that the reader apprehends the point here to be that, in a space of the sky twelve or thirteen times wider than the full moon, numerous stars and numerous nebulæ are seen by tolerably large telescopes lying near together; that if the nebulæ are star-firmaments, they must be many times more remote than the stars (the essayist says a thousand times, but Captain Jacob says fifty), or the telescope would see them as stars too; and that there are so many of these nebulæ in this space, that it is very unlikely they would be distributed out further and further beyond each other, the only alternative to this arrangement being that they are not star-firmaments, but simply some kind of luminous substance of a different and less concrete nature than that of the stars amidst which they are grouped. Captain Jacob, astronomer to the Honorable East India Company, in his "Few More Words on the Plurality of Worlds," writes: "The great Magellanic cloud is certainly not approximately spherical, for it does not present a nearly circular outline, it is of an irregular form approaching to quadrilateral. "Sir John Herschel's catalogue of the smaller Magellanic cloud shows but 39 nebula and clus ters out of a total of 244 visible objects, and four of these are beyond the limits of the cloud; and not only are they so much more thinly scattered, but they also exhibit less variety, there being but five of the thirty-five marked as clusters. The remaining objects are stars from the seventh to the tenth magnitude inclusive, from which by must be derived; and to my mind there seems far the greatest part of the light of the cloud nothing so very extravagant or fantastical in supposing that the moderate number of thirty nebulæ and five clusters, have been casually arranged so |