intensity of gravity, or its efficacy in counteracting muscular power, and repressing animal activity, on Jupiter is nearly two and a-half times that on the earth, on Mars not more than one-half, on the Moon one-sixth, and on the smaller planets probably not more than one-twentieth: giving a scale of which the extremes are in the proportion of sixty to one. Lastly, the density of Saturn hardly exceeds one-eighth of the mean density of the Earth, so that it must consist of materials not much heavier than cork. Now, under the various combinations of elements so important to life as these, what immense diversity must we not admit in the conditions of that great problem, the maintenance of animal and intellectual existence and happiness, which seems, so far as we can judge by what we see around us in our own planet, and by the way in which every corner of it is crowded with living beings, to form an unceasing and worthy object for the exercise of the Benevolence and Wisdom which presides over all!"

The climate of the Moon is of the most extraordinary kind. Her day is a fortnight long-whence the heat and glare of the side exposed to the Sun, must exceed anything of the kind felt in the desert-and is suddenly succeeded, without the intervention of a moment's twilight, by a corresponding night of the keenest cold. From the small mass of the material of which she is constructed, it follows that muscular force would produce six times the effect that it does with us. But the want of any air, and the probable absence of any fluids, render it impossible that the Moon should be tenanted by any forms of life analogous to our own. Regarded by itself, this ought to present little or no obstacle to a theory of life in other globes. The glorious wisdom and omnipotence of the Creator may doubtless be exhibited on as noble a scale in a world where any atmosphere would drown its denizens as here. What renders it no necessary part of that theory that the Moon should be tenanted, is the fact that the Moon has an obvious use of another kind. The question is, Have the planets any such obvious use for us as our satellite has, and as their satellites would appear, by parity of analogy, to subserve for them? Jupiter's satellites are sionally, even frequently eclipsed. This phenomenon occasioned to us the discovery of the rate of light; and serves roughly to determine longitude at sea. But will any one contend that this is sufficient, as a final cause of his creation? Such an hypothesis would be as ridiculous as the theory that he is but another and a miniature moon to us. Hanging in resplendent, though very distant radiance over the waters, his dancing gleam may serve to beguile the tedious hours of the mariner, or may lend a silver charm to the brief hour of lovers' converse. And if it lifts the hearts of these to the wise and good Father Who holds all in equipoise, it is well. But has it no other meaning, no more independent reason for existence?

осса

Such is the thought which will, again and again, steal over us, in spite of all the labored and devious lucubrations of our

6

learned author. It is utterly unworthy of an enlarged and philosophical line of thought, to limit our conceptions of other life to the forms around us. It was utterly unnecessary, therefore, that The Essay' should drag us tediously through such false assumptions as that 'Intelligence. . . implies a history of intellectual development;' or such unhappy mistakes as that moral and religious progress has been far more extensively aimed at than a progress in abstract and general knowledge;' and has been, in many nations, and in a very great measure, really effected.' These labored premisses were, we repeat it, unnecessary in order to establish the conclusion (falsely, however, deduced from them) that Jupiter and Saturn can have no inhabitants analogous to men. It is not because it would be too bold an assumption to speak of the conscience of an inhabitant of Jupiter,' that we do not speculate concerning such matters, but simply because it is needless, and, in the absence of all data, unphilosophical. It is worthy of the author of a moral and metaphysical Euclid, to assume that When we attempt to extend our sympathies to the inhabitants of 'other planets and other worlds, and to regard them as living like us under a moral government, we are driven to suppose them to be, in all essential respects, human beings like our'selves;' but the assumption is untrue. What proof have we of this? In all the attempts which have been made, with whatever licence of hypothesis and fancy, to present to us 'descriptions and representations of the inhabitants of other 'parts of the universe.' Marvellous indeed! Because absurd 'attempts have been made,' 'we are driven' to be absurd and unphilosophical also! We beg leave to say, 'speak for yourself, oh author,' for as he himself immediately afterwards observes, There is no more wisdom or philosophy in believing 'such assemblages of beings to exist in Jupiter or Sirius, without evidence, than in believing them to exist in the island of Formosa, with the like absence of evidence.'

6

'Since we know nothing about the inhabitants of Jupiter, true science requires that we say and suppose nothing about them.' Most true, with the single exception of their existence, and the very few conditions which we do know respecting its possible modes. Thus a most unnecessary array of false argument is collected to establish a conclusion which nobody denies, and which has no reference to the single topic of discussion.

We trust there may be nothing more than inadvertence in the meagre and not over-reverent phraseology, which in exalting the worth and dignity of man, and man's world, can speak of our Blessed Saviour as a special Messenger (!) whom in the

fulness of time, God sent upon the earth in the form of a man,' and in the typographical distinctions which speak of God's revealing His purpose. . by a Divine messenger, preceded by prophetic announcements of his coming.' But this sort of inadvertence is always to be regretted; and we cannot but deplore that so very learned and pious a man as our author shows himself to be, should rarely suffer any symptoms to betray that he considers Christian privileges, Christian tempers, Christian hopes, to be the only perfect 'glory and worship,' wherewith man is crowned; and Christianity, rather than intellectual 'dignity,' or even moral progress,' to be the normal condition of humanity. Everywhere we meet with a supreme reverence for MAN. He is honoured with all the distinctions which initial types, emphatic collocation, and wearisome repetition can bestow. ΜΑΝ is an intelligent, moral, religious, and spiritual creature.'' Man and Mankind.'-Man is capable of, &c.''Man has occupied his thoughts.'-'Man is also capable of, &c.''He is, &c.' Perhaps man, &c.'; and, finally, Man is naturally, and reasonably, the greatest object of interest to man,' and to none apparently more so than to the author. Indeed, if there be such a religion as Anthropolatry, we conceive our essayist to be its Hierophant. And it would appear throughout his book, as if he were uneasy under an unconfessed, and perhaps unconscious feeling of humiliation, at so dignified a creature as man being made the tenant of so mean a globe as ours. He seems to deem it necessary to adduce every consideration which may mitigate the apparent disproportion. And the whole book seems based on this idea-if it can be said, indeed, to have any settled idea whatever. It conveys to one the impression of a somewhat rambling and verbose apology for the residence of the noblest of created existences in one of the smallest of the many mansions which he eyes.

The most valuable portion of this remarkable volume, is the two chapters on Geology; and, perhaps, the most original part of it is a chapter on The Nebulæ. It is not our intention to present our readers with an abstract of the very excellent geological sketch here displayed, for there is nothing new in the facts or the inferences deduced from them. We ought, however, to make one significant exception. It is, we believe, in this treatise, that geology has been made to contribute analogies, for the first time, to the consideration of the question before us. And though the argument is highly ingenious, and is not without its force, we conceive that it will scarcely be reproduced. For it appears to us to have very little weight, as compared with that steady and cumulative reasoning which our author endeavours to overthrow; and which he has scarcely met with any

other real analogy than the geological. But let him state it for himself:

'When Geology tells us that the earth, which has been the seat of human life for 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 astronomical books, may suggest, derived from the consideration that the Earth, the seat of human life, is but one globe of a few thousand miles in diameter, among millions of other globes, at distances millions of times as great.'

There is certainly a great degree of plausibility in this analogy, and it is forcibly put at considerable length, and in divers forms, by our author. Valeat quantum. But after all we do not know, even concerning our own earth, that it was untenanted by intelligent, moral, and religious beings in the bygone ages of its existence. That we find no remains in human form, may render it extremely improbable that such are to be found; may render it unlikely that man ever walked this globe before the creation of Adam. Indeed, the spirit of Scripture would seem to negative the supposition with more of certainty than the revelations of geology. But we must earnestly protest against the unwarranted assumption that, because we find no remains like unto our own, therefore no sentient and intellectual creatures can have preceded us. We must here quote our author against himself:

'Not only does the analogy of creation not point to any such entire resemblance of similar parts, as is thus assumed, but it points in the opposite direction. Not entire resemblance, but universal difference is

1 The above argument, as applied to the religious thinker, involves precisely the same fallacy as the Answer from the Microscope;' enhancing, in fact, the (socalled) religious difficulty, while it has considerable force as an analogy in removing a philosophical or intellectual one. Geology has a right to offer the above as an answer' to any analogy the astronomer may assert, or any difficulty he may raise on the supposed waste of space-just as the microscope offers her discoveries as a confirmation of such analogy-but neither can offer the least help to a man laboring under the difficulty, 'How can I believe all I am told of man, when I find him occupying so infinitesimal a part of Space?' It is a sort of argumentum ad hominem to say to him, 'You do manage to believe the same under the same difficulty with regard to Time,' but this argument can only raise fresh scruples in his mind. We admit the force of the analogy as against a probable Plurality of Worlds, and leave it to pair off with the Microscopic Analogies. There seems to be some difficulty in apprehending exactly what is the religious difficulty. Is it that he for whom Christ died should inhabit so minute a home? Then his ephemeral existence as a tenant even there does but increase the difficulty. Is it that he should inhabit so minute a home among all other homes? Then certainly Geology may offer her analogies from time, to neutralise the suggestion from space that there are any other homes. The objection very likely enters different minds in different forms, and probably not without some confusion of thought. To us it does not appear formidable; but, if any, it would assume rather the former shape. And thus it would be of nearly the same force when the Plurality of Inhabited Worlds was disproved.

what we discover . . . . not uniformity and a fixed type of existences, but progression and a climax.'

We decline to speculate on the possible forms of our possible predecessors, or on the possibility of their having been trans. lated to another home. But we strenuously deny that the absence of a particular type of vertebrate mammals among geological fossils, is any proof that we were the first rational tenants of this sphere; or that it affords even a presumption that our race are the people, and wisdom shall die with them.'

เ

6

We have already animadverted on our author's extraordinary respect for the species to which he belongs. This is not limited to a deep sense of the importance and responsibility attaching to free moral agents-nor to a grateful acknowledgment of the gifts of reason and intelligence. As an intellectual creature, he has not only an intelligence which he can apply to 'practical uses . . . but also an intellect by which he can 'speculate about the relations of things, in their most general form; for instance, the properties of space and time, the ' relations of finite and infinite. . . . These are conditions to 'which the creation conforms, that is, to which the Creator conforms that is, to which the Creator conforms'!! Without dilating on this grievous and palpable tendency to a pantheistic view of things, we will say only that we should prefer to have read, which the Creator imposes.' But we can never tolerate so cool an assumption, as that man's intellect is capable of specu lation about the relation of things in their most general form.' It may be so. But it is at least equally likely that it is not so. The properties of space and time, for example, are among the 'most general' and abstract forms of which we have any conception; but they are not necessarily so in absolute omniscience. They are so ἐφ' ἡμῖν who shall venture to add καὶ άos? On the contrary, they appear to be either conditions or accidents of finite existence; and they may very possibly be resolved into far higher generalisations in a future state. Yes, Sir Essayist, even I. xlvii. which seems to you so glorious and indelible an achievement of man's (MAN's) dignities and intelligence, may hereafter appear a truism, or at best an axiom! Therefore, we object to the above assertion on your part, worded as it is in its most general form.'

But if our author seems inclined to over-estimate the elevation of man's apprehensions in matters of objective truth, he fully compensates for this by the extraordinary manner in which he makes the reality of spiritual life to rest on subjective opinion. We have seldom met with a more palpable avowal, that truth is what a man troweth,' than is comprised in the following passage, designed to establish, in a different way, the