{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36288/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36288","id":"gutenberg_36288","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36288","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Physics","Plurality of worlds"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Jonathan Ingram, Stephen H. Sentoff and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net\n(This file was produced from images generously made\navailable by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: 51 Messier; 99 Messier]\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n  PLURALITY OF WORLDS.\n\n            On Nature's Alps I stand,\n    And see a thousand firmaments beneath!\n    A thousand systems, as a thousand grains!\n    So much a stranger, _and so late arrived_,\n    How shall man's curious spirit not inquire\n    What are the natives of this world sublime,\n    Of this so distant, unterrestrial sphere,\n    Where mortal, untranslated, never strayed?\n\n                                        NIGHT THOUGHTS.\n\n  WITH AN INTRODUCTION\n  BY\n  EDWARD HITCHCOCK, D.D.,\n\n  PRESIDENT OF AMHERST COLLEGE, AND PROFESSOR OF\n  THEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY.\n\n  BOSTON:\n  GOULD AND LINCOLN,\n  50 WASHINGTON STREET.\n\n  1854.\n\n  Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by\n  GOULD AND LINCOLN,\n  In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of\n  the District of Massachusetts.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nAlthough the opinions presented in the following Essay are put forwards\nwithout claiming for them any value beyond what they may derive from the\narguments there offered, they are not published without some fear of\ngiving offence. It will be a curious, but not a very wonderful event, if\nit should now be deemed as blamable to doubt the existence of\ninhabitants of the Planets and Stars, as, three centuries ago, it was\nheld heretical to teach that doctrine. Yet probably there are many who\nwill be willing to see the question examined by all the light which\nmodern science can throw upon it; and such an examination can be\nundertaken to no purpose, except the view which has of late been\ngenerally rejected have the arguments in its favor fairly stated and\ncandidly considered.\n\nThough Revealed Religion contains no doctrine relative to the\ninhabitants of planets and stars; and though, till within the last three\ncenturies, no Christian thinker deemed such a doctrine to be required,\nin order to complete our view of the attributes of the Creator; yet it\nis possible that at the present day, when the assumption of such\ninhabitants is very generally made and assented to, many persons have so\nmingled this assumption with their religious belief, that they regard it\nas an essential part of Natural Religion. If any such persons find their\nreligious convictions interfered with, and their consolatory impressions\ndisturbed, by what is said in this Essay, the Author will deeply regret\nto have had any share in troubling any current of pious thought\nbelonging to the time. But, as some excuse, it may be recollected, that\nif such considerations had prevailed, this very doctrine, of the\nPlurality of Worlds, would never have been publicly maintained. And if\nsuch considerations are to have weight, it must be recollected, on the\nother hand, that there are many persons to whom the assumption of an\nendless multitude of Worlds appears difficult to reconcile with the\nbelief of that which, as the Christian Revelation teaches us, has been\ndone for this our World of Earth. In this conflict of religious\ndifficulties, on a point which rather belongs to science than to\nreligion, perhaps philosophical arguments may be patiently listened to,\nif urged as arguments merely; and in that hope, they are here stated,\nwithout reserve and without exaggeration.\n\nAll speculations on subjects in which Science and Religion bear upon\neach other, are liable to one of the two opposite charges;--that the\nspeculator sets Philosophy and Religion at variance; or that he warps\nPhilosophy into a conformity with Religion. It is confidently hoped that\nno candid reader will bring either of these charges against the present\nEssay. With regard to the latter, the arguments must speak for\nthemselves. To the Author at least, they appear to be of no small\nphilosophical force; though he is quite ready to weigh carefully and\ncandidly any answers which may be offered to them. With regard to the\namount of agreement between our Philosophy and Religion, it may perhaps\nbe permitted to the Author to say, that while it appears to him that\nsome of his philosophical conclusions fall in very remarkably with\ncertain points of religious doctrine, he is well aware that Philosophy\nalone can do little in providing man with the consolations, hopes,\nsupports, and convictions which Religion offers; and he acknowledges it\nas a ground of deep gratitude to the Author of all good, that man is\nnot left to Philosophy for those blessings; but has a fuller assurance\nof them, by a more direct communication from Him.\n\nPerhaps, too, the Author may be allowed to say, that he has tried to\ngive to the book, not only a moral, but a scientific interest; by\ncollecting his scientific facts from the best authorities, and the most\nrecent discoveries. He would flatter himself, in particular, that the\nview of the Nebulae and of the Solar System, which he has here given, may\nbe not unworthy of some attention on the part of astronomers and\nobservers, as an occasion of future researches in the skies.\n\n\n\n\n  CONTENTS\n  OF\n  THE PLURALITY OF WORLDS.\n\n\n                                           PAGE\n\n  Introduction.                               9\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n  Astronomical Discoveries.                  17\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n  Astronomical Objection to Religion.        33\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n  The Answer from the Microscope.            41\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n  Further Statement of the Difficulty.       49\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n  Geology.                                   72\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n  The Argument from Geology.                 98\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n  The Nebulae.                               135\n\n  CHAPTER VIII.\n  The Fixed Stars.                          163\n\n  CHAPTER IX.\n  The Planets.                              192\n\n  CHAPTER X.\n  Theory of the Solar System.               219\n\n  CHAPTER XI.\n  The Argument from Design.                 236\n\n  CHAPTER XII.\n  The Unity of the World.                   275\n\n  CHAPTER XIII.\n  The Future.                               292\n\n\n\n\n  INTRODUCTORY NOTICE\n  TO THE\n  AMERICAN EDITION.\n\n\nIt is an interesting feature in the literature of our day, that so many\nminds are turning their attention to the bearings of science upon\nreligion. With a few honorable exceptions, Christian scholars have\nregarded this as a most unpromising field, which they have left to the\ntilting and gladiatorship of scepticism. But we owe it mainly to the\ndisclosures of geology, that the tables are beginning to be turned. For\na long time suspected of being in league with infidelity, it was treated\nas an enemy, and Christians thought only of fortifying themselves\nagainst its attacks. But they are finding out, that if this science has\nbeen seen in the enemy's camp, it was only because of their jealousy\nthat it was compelled to remain there; like captives that are sometimes\npushed forwards to cover the front rank and receive the fire of their\nfriends. Judging from the number of works, some of them very able, that\nappear almost monthly from the press, in which illustrations of\nreligion are drawn from geology, we may infer that this science is\nbeginning to be recognized by the friends of religion as an efficient\nauxiliary.\n\n\"The Plurality of Worlds,\" now republished, is the most recent work of\nthis description that has fallen under our notice. We can see no reason\nwhy an Essay of so much ability, in which the reasoning is so\ndispassionate, and opponents are treated so candidly, should appear\nanonymously. True, the author takes ground against some opinions widely\nmaintained respecting the extent of the inhabited universe, and seems to\nsuppose that he shall meet with little sympathy; and this may be his\nreason, though in our view quite insufficient, for remaining incognito.\nWe think he will find that there are a secret seven thousand, who never\nhave bowed their understandings to a belief of many of the doctrines\nwhich he combats, and he might reasonably calculate that his reasoning\nwill add seven thousand more to the number. We confess, however, that\nthough we have long been of this number to a certain extent, we cannot\ngo as far as this writer has done in his conclusions.\n\nAll the world is acquainted with Dr. Chalmers' splendid Astronomical\nDiscourses. Assuming, or rather supposing that he has proved, that the\nuniverse contains a vast number of worlds peopled like our own, he\nimagines the infidel to raise an objection to the mission of the Son of\nGod, on the ground that this world is too insignificant to receive such\nan extraordinary interposition. His replies to this objection, drawn\nchiefly from our ignorance, are ingenious and convincing. But the author\nof the Plurality of Worlds doubts the premises on which the objection is\nfounded. He thinks the facts of science will not sustain the conclusion\nthat many of the heavenly bodies are inhabited; certainly not with moral\nand intellectual beings like man. Nay, by making his appeal to geology,\nhe thinks the evidence strong against such an opinion. This science\nshows us that this world was once certainly in a molten state, and very\nprobably, at a still earlier date, may have been dissipated into\nself-luminous vapor, like the nebulae or the comets. Immense periods,\nthen, must have passed before any organic structures, such as have since\npeopled the earth, could have existed. And during the vast cycles that\nhave elapsed since the first animals and plants appeared upon the globe,\nit was not in a proper condition to have sustained any other than the\ninferior races. Accordingly, it has been only a few thousand years since\nman appeared.\n\nNow, so far as astronomy has revealed the condition of other worlds,\nalmost all of them appear to be passing through those preparatory\nchanges which the earth underwent previous to man's creation. What are\nthe unresolvable nebulae and most of the comets also, but intensely\nheated vapor and gas? What is the sun but a molten globe, or perhaps\ngaseous matter condensed so as to possess almost the density of water?\nThe planets beyond Mars, also, (excluding the asteroids,) appear to be\nin a liquid condition, but not from heat, and therefore may be composed\nof water, or some fluid perhaps lighter than water; or at least be\ncovered by such fluid. Moreover, so great is their distance from the\nsun, that his light and heat could not sustain organic beings such as\nexist upon the earth. Of the inferior planets, Mercury is so near the\nsun that it would be equally unfit for the residence of such beings.\nMars, Venus, and the Moon, then, appear to be the only worlds known to\nus capable of sustaining a population at all analogous to that upon\nearth. But of these, the Moon appears to be merely a mass of\nextinguished volcanos, with neither water nor atmosphere. It has\nproceeded farther in the process of refrigeration than the earth,\nbecause it is smaller; and in its present state, is manifestly unfit for\nthe residence either of rational or irrational creatures. So that we are\nleft with only Mars and Venus in the solar system to which the common\narguments in favor of other worlds being inhabited, will apply.\n\nBut are not the fixed stars the suns of other systems? We will thank\nthose who think so, to read the chapter in this work that treats of the\nfixed stars, and we presume they will be satisfied that at least many of\nthese bodies exhibit characters quite irreconcilable with such an\nhypothesis. And if some are not central suns, the presumption that the\nrest are, is weakened, and we must wait till a greater perfection of\ninstruments shall afford us some positive evidence, before we know\nwhether our solar system is a type of any others.\n\nThus far, it seems to us, our author has firm ground, both geological\nand astronomical, to stand upon. But he does not stop here. He takes the\nposition that probably our earth may be the only body in the solar\nsystem, nay in the universe, where an intellectual, moral and immortal\nbeing, like man, has an existence. He makes the \"earth the domestic\nhearth of the solar system; adjusted between the hot and fiery haze on\none side, and the cold and watery vapor on the other: the only fit\nregion to be a domestic hearth, a seat of habitation.\" He says that \"it\nis quite agreeable to analogy that the solar system should have borne\nbut one fertile flower. And even if any number of the fixed stars were\nalso found to be barren flowers of the sky, we need not think the powers\nof creation wasted, or frustrated, thrown away, or perverted.\" He does\nnot deny that some other worlds may be the abodes of plants and animals\nsuch as peopled this earth during the long ages of preadamic history.\nBut he regards the creation of man as the great event of our world. He\nlooks upon the space between man and the highest of the irrational\ncreatures, as a vast one: for though in physical structure they approach\none another, in intellectual and moral powers they cannot be compared.\nHe does not think it derogatory to Divine Wisdom to have created and\narranged all the other bodies of the universe to give convenience and\nelegance to the abode of such a being; especially since this was to be\nthe theatre of the work of redemption.\n\nNow we sympathize strongly in views that give dignity and exaltation to\nman, and not at all with that debasing philosophy, so common at this\nday, that looks upon him as little more than a somewhat improved orang.\nBut we cannot admit that man is the only exalted created being to be\nfound among the vast array of worlds around us. Geology does, indeed,\nteach us, that it is no disparagement of Divine Wisdom and benevolence\nto make a world--and if one, why not many--the residence of inferior\ncreatures; nay to leave it without inhabitants through untold ages. But\nit also shows us, that when such worlds have passed through these\npreparatory changes, rational and immortal beings may be placed upon\nthem. Nay, does not the history of our world show us that this seems to\nbe the grand object of such vast periods of preparation. And is it not\nincredible, that amid the countless bodies of the universe, a single\nglobe only, and that a small one, should have reached the condition\nadapted to the residence of beings made in the image of God? Of what\npossible use to man are those numberless worlds visible only through the\nmost powerful telescopes? Surely such a view gives us a very narrow idea\nof the plans and purposes of Jehovah, and one not sustained in our\nopinion by the analogies of science.\n\nThere is another principle to which our author attaches, as we think,\ntoo little importance in this connection. When we see how vast is the\nvariety of organic beings on this globe, and how manifold the conditions\nof their existence; how exactly adapted they are to the solid, the\nliquid, and the gaseous states of matter, can we doubt that rational and\nintelligent beings may be adapted to physical conditions in other worlds\nwidely diverse from those on this globe? May not spirits be connected\nwith bodies much heavier, or much lighter, than on earth; nay, with mere\ntenuous ether; and those bodies, perhaps, be better adapted to the play\nof intellect than ours; and be unaffected by temperatures which, on\nearth, would be fatal? It does seem to us that such conclusions are\nlegitimate inferences from the facts of science; and if so, we can\nhardly avoid the conclusion that there may be races of intelligent\nbeings upon other worlds where the condition of things is widely\ndifferent from that on earth. Yet there is a limit to this principle;\nand when we can prove another world to be in a similar condition to our\nearth, when it was inhabited by preadamic races, or not at all\ninhabited, the presumption is strong, that such a world has inhabitants\nof a like character, or none at all.\n\nOur author makes but a slight allusion to some most important statements\nof revelation, that seem to us to bear strongly upon the hypothesis\nwhich he adopts. We refer to the existence of angels, holy and unholy.\nIn the history of the latter, we learn that _they kept not their first\nestate, but left their own habitation_. Have we not here an example of\nother rational creatures, more exalted than man, who, like him, have\nfallen from their first estate; and does not the presumption hence\narise, that there may be similar examples in other worlds? And is there\nnot a probability, that holy angels now in heaven, may be rational\nintelligences who have passed a successful probation in other worlds? It\ndoes seem to us, that these biblical facts make the hypothesis of our\nauthor respecting man extremely improbable.\n\nBut though we must demur as to some of the views of this work, we can\ncordially recommend its perusal to intelligent and reasoning minds. It\nis an effort in the right direction, and we think will do much to\ncorrect some false notions respecting the Plurality of Worlds. And even\nthe author's peculiar hypothetical views are sustained with much\nability. He states the facts of geology and astronomy with great\nclearness and correctness, and seems quite familiar with mathematical\nreasoning. Nor does he advance opinions that come into collision with\nnatural or revealed religion; though, as already stated, we think his\nfavorite notions narrow our conceptions of the Divine plans and\npurposes. We predict for the work an extended circulation among\nscientific men and theologians; and commend it with confidence to all\nreaders--and in our country they are numerous--who are fond of tracing\nout the connection between science and religion.\n\n                                        E. H.\n                                        Amherst College, April, 1854.\n\n\n\n\nTHE\nPLURALITY OF WORLDS.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nASTRONOMICAL DISCOVERIES.\n\n\n\"When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the\nstars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of\nhim? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?\"\n\n1. These striking words of the Hebrew Psalmist have been made, by an\neloquent and pious writer of our own time, the starting point of a\nremarkable train of speculation. Dr. Chalmers, in his _Astronomical\nDiscourses_, has treated the reflection thus suggested, in connection\nwith such an aspect of the heavens and the stars, the earth and the\nuniverse, as modern astronomy presents to us. Even from the point of\nview in which the ancient Hebrew looked at the stars; seeing only their\nnumber and splendor, their lofty position, and the vast space which they\nvisibly occupy in the sky; compared with the earth, which lies dark, and\nmean, and perhaps small in extent, far beneath them, and on which man\nhas his habitation; it appeared wonderful, and scarcely credible, that\nthe maker of all that array of luminaries, the lord of that wide and\nmagnificent domain, should occupy himself with the concerns of men: and\nyet, without a belief in His fatherly care and goodness to us,\nthoughtful and religious persons, accustomed to turn their minds\nconstantly to a Supreme Governor and constant Benefactor, are left in a\ndesolate and bewildered state of feeling. The notion that while the\nheavens are the work of God's fingers, the sun, moon, and stars ordained\nby him, He is _not_ mindful of man, does not regard him, does not visit\nhim, was not tolerable to the thought of the Psalmist. While we read, we\nare sure that he believed that, however insignificant and mean man might\nbe, in comparison with the other works of God,--however difficult it\nmight seem to conceive, that he should be found worthy the regards and\nthe visits of the Creator of All,--yet that God _was_ mindful of him,\nand _did_ visit him. The question, \"What is man, that this is so?\"\nimplies that there is an answer, whether man can discover it or not.\n\"_What_ is man, that God is mindful of him?\" indicates a belief,\nunshaken, however much perplexed, that man is _something_, of such a\nkind that God _is_ mindful of him.\n\n2. But if there was room for this questioning, and cause for this\nperplexity, to a contemplative person, who looked at the skies, with\nthat belief concerning the stars, which the ancient Hebrew possessed,\nthe question recurs with far greater force, and the perplexity is\nimmeasurably increased, by the knowledge, concerning the stars, which is\ngiven to us by the discoveries of modern astronomy. The Jew probably\nbelieved the earth to be a region, upon the whole, level, however\ndiversified with hills and valleys, and the skies to be a vault arched\nover this level;--a firmament in which the moon and the stars were\nplaced. What magnitude to assign to this vault, he had no means of\nknowing; and indeed, the very aspect of the nocturnal heavens, with the\nmultitude of stars, of various brightness, which come into view, one set\nafter another, as the light of day dies away, suggests rather the notion\nof their being scattered through a vast depth of space, at various\ndistances, than of their being so many lights fastened to a single\nvaulted surface. But however he might judge of this, he regarded them as\nplaced in a space, of which the earth was the central region. The host\nof heaven all had reference to the earth. The sun and the moon were\nthere, in order to give light to it, by day and by night. And if the\nstars had not that for their principal office, as indeed the amount of\nlight which they gave was not such as to encourage such a belief,--and\nperhaps the perception, that the stars must have been created for some\nother object than to give light to man, was one of the principal\ncircumstances which suggested the train of thought that we are now\nconsidering;--yet still, the region of the stars had the earth for its\ncentre and base. Perhaps the Psalmist, at a subsequent period of his\ncontemplations, when he was pondering the reflections which he has\nexpressed in this passage, might have been led to think that the stars\nwere placed there in order to draw man's thoughts to the greatness of\nthe Creator of all things; to give some light to his mental, rather than\nto his bodily eye; to show how far His mode of working transcends man's\nfaculties; to suggest that there are things in heaven, very different\nfrom the things which are on earth. If he thought thus, he was only\nfollowing a train of thought on which contemplative minds, in all ages\nand countries, have often dwelt; and which we cannot, even now,\npronounce to be either unfounded or exhausted; as we trust hereafter to\nshow. But whether or not this be so, we may be certain that the Psalmist\nregarded the stars, as things having a reference to the earth, and yet\nnot resembling the earth; as works of God's fingers, very different from\nthe earth with its tribes of inhabitants; as luminaries, not worlds. In\nthe feeling of awe and perplexity, which made him ask, \"What is man that\nthou art mindful of him?\" there was no mixture of a persuasion that\nthere were, in those luminaries, creatures, like man, the children and\nsubjects of God; and therefore, like man, requiring his care and\nattention. In asking, \"What is man, that thou visitest him?\" there was\nno latent comparison, to make the question imply, \"that thou visitest\n_him_, rather than those who dwell in those abodes?\" It was the\nmultitude and magnificence of God's works, which made it seem strange\nthat he should care for a _thing_ so small and mean as man; not the\nsupposed multitude of God's intelligent creatures inhabiting those\nworks, which made it seem strange that he should attend to every\n_person_ upon this earth. It was not that the Psalmist thought that,\namong a multitude of earths, all peopled like this earth, man might seem\nto be in danger of being overlooked and neglected by his Maker; but\nthat, there being only one earth, occupied by frail, feeble, sinful,\nshort-lived creatures, it might be unworthy the regards of Him who dwelt\nin regions of eternal light and splendor, unsullied by frailty,\ninaccessible to corruption.\n\n3. This, we can have no doubt, or something resembling this, was the\nPsalmist's view, when he made the reflection, which we have taken as the\nbasis of our remarks. And even in this view, (which, after all that\nscience has done, is perhaps still the most natural and familiar,) the\nreflection is extremely striking; and the words cannot be uttered\nwithout finding an echo in the breast of every contemplative and\nreligious person. But this view is, as most readers at this time are\naware, very different from that presented to us by Modern Astronomy. The\ndiscoveries made by astronomers are supposed by most persons to have\nproved, or to have made it in the highest degree probable, that this\nview of the earth, as the sole habitation of intelligent subjects of\nGod's government; and of the stars, as placed in a region of which the\nearth is the centre, and yet differing in their nature from this lower\nworld; is altogether erroneous. According to astronomers, the earth is\nnot a level space, but a globe. Some of the stars which we see in the\nvault of heaven, are globes, like it; some smaller than the earth, some\nlarger. There are reasons, drawn from analogy, for believing that these\nglobes, the other planets, are inhabited by living creatures, as the\nearth is. The earth is not at rest, with the celestial luminaries\ncirculating above it, as the ancients believed, but itself moves in a\ncircle about the sun, in the course of every year; and the other planets\nalso move round the sun in like manner, in circles, some within and some\nwithout that which the earth describes. This collection of planets, thus\ncirculating about the sun, is the SOLAR SYSTEM: of which the earth thus\nforms a very small part. Jupiter and Saturn are much larger than the\nearth. Mars and Venus are nearly as large. If these be inhabited, as the\nEarth is, which the analogy of their form, movements and conditions,\nseems to suggest, the population of the earth is a very small portion of\nthe population of the solar system. And if the mere number of the\nsubjects of God's government could produce any difficulty in the\napplication of his providence to them, a person to whom this view of the\nworld which we inhabit had been disclosed, might well, and with far more\nreason than the Psalmist, exclaim, \"Lord, what is man, that thou art\nmindful of him? the inhabitants of this Earth, that thou regardest him?\"\n\n4. But this is only the first step in the asserted revelations of\nastronomy. Some of the stars are, as we have said, planets of the kind\njust described. But these stars are a few only:--five, or at most six,\nof those visible to the unassisted eye of man. All the rest, innumerable\nas they appear, and numerous as they really are, are, it is found,\nobjects of another kind. They are not, as the planets are, opaque\nglobes, deriving their light from a sun, about which they circulate.\nThey shine by a light of their own. They are of the nature of the sun,\nnot of the planets. That they appear mere specks of light, arises from\ntheir being at a vast distance from us. At a vast distance they\nundoubtedly are; for even with our most powerful telescopes, they still\nappear mere specks of light;--mere luminous points. They do not, as the\nplanets do, when seen through telescopes, exhibit to us a circular face\nor disk, capable of being magnified and distinguished into parts and\nfeatures. But this impossibility of magnifying them by means of\ntelescopes, does not at all make us doubt that they may be far larger\nthan the planets. For we know, from other sources of information, that\ntheir distance is immensely greater than that of any of the planets. We\ncan measure the bodies of the solar system;--the earth, by absolutely\ngoing round a part of it, or in other ways; the other bodies of the\nsystem, by comparing their positions, as seen from different parts of\nthe earth. In this manner we find that the earth is a globe 8,000 miles\nin diameter. In this way, again, we find that the circle which the earth\ndescribes round the sun has, in round numbers, a radius about 24,000\ntimes the earth's radius; that is, nearly a hundred millions of miles.\nThe earth is, at one time, a hundred millions of miles on one side of\nthe sun; and at another time, half a year afterwards, a hundred millions\nof miles on the other side. Of the bright stars which shine by their own\nlight,--the _fixed stars_, as we call them, (to distinguish them from\nthe planets, the _wandering stars_,)--if any one were at any moderate\ndistance from us, we should see it change its apparent place with regard\nto the others, in consequence of our thus changing our point of view two\nhundred millions of miles: just as a distant spire changes its apparent\nplace with regard to the more distant mountain, when we move from one\nwindow of our house to the other. But no such change of place is\ndiscernible in any of the fixed stars: or at least, if we believe the\nmost recent asserted discoveries of astronomers, the change is so small\nas to imply a distance in the star, of more than two hundred thousand\ntimes the radius of the earth's orbit, which is, itself, as we have\nsaid, one hundred millions of miles.[1] This distance is so vastly\ngreat, that we can very well believe that the fixed stars, though to our\nbest telescopes they appear only as points of light, are really as large\nas our sun, and would give as much light as he does, if we could\napproach as near to them. For since they are thus, the nearest of them,\ntwo hundred thousand times as far off as he is, even if we could magnify\nthem a thousand times, which we can hardly do, they would still be only\none two-hundredth of the breadth of the sun; and thus, still a mere\npoint.\n\n5. But if each fixed star be of the nature of the sun, and not smaller\nthan the sun, does not analogy lead us to suppose that they have, some\nof them at least, planets circulating about them, as our sun has? If the\nSun is the centre of the Solar System, why should not Sirius, (one of\nthe brightest of the fixed stars,) be the centre of the _Sirian System_?\nAnd why should not that system have as many planets, with the same\nresemblances and differences of the figure, movements, and conditions of\nthe different planets, as this? Why should not the Sirian System be as\ngreat and as varied as the solar system? And this being granted, why\nshould not these planets be inhabited, as men have inferred the other\nplanets of the solar system, as well as the earth, to be? And thus we\nhave, added to the population of the universe of which we have already\nspoken, a number (so far as we have reason to believe) not inferior to\nthe number of inhabitants of the solar system: this number being,\naccording to all the analogies, very many fold that of the population of\nthe whole earth?\n\nAnd this is the conclusion, when we reason from one star only, from\nSirius. But the argument is the same, from each of the stars. For we\nhave no reason to think that Sirius, though one of the brightest, is\nmore like our sun than any of the others is. The others appear less\nbright in various degrees, probably because they are further removed\nfrom us in various degrees. They may not be all of the same size and\nbrightness; it is very unlikely that they are. But they may as easily be\nlarger than the sun, as smaller. The natural assumption for us to make,\nhaving no ground for any other opinion, is, that they are, upon the\naverage, of the size of our sun. On that assumption, we have as many\nsolar systems as we have fixed stars; and, it may be, six or ten, or\ntwenty times as many inhabited globes; inhabited by creatures of whom\nwe must suppose, by analogy, that God is mindful, if he is mindful of\nus. The question recurs with overwhelming force, if we still follow the\nsame train of reflection: \"What is man, that God is mindful of him?\"\n\n6. But we have not yet exhausted the views which thus add to the force\nof this reflection. The fixed stars, which appear to the eye so\nnumerous, so innumerable, in the clear sky on a moonless night, are not\nreally so numerous as they seem. To the naked eye, there are not visible\nmore than four or five thousand. The astronomers of Greece, and of other\ncountries, even in ancient times, counted them, mapped them, and gave\nthem names and designations. But Astronomy, who thus began her career by\ndiminishing, in some degree, the supposed numbers of the host of heaven,\nhas ended by immeasurably increasing them. The first application of the\ntelescope to the skies discovered a vast number of fixed stars,\npreviously unseen: and every improvement in that instrument has\ndisclosed myriads of new stars, visibly smaller than those which had\nbefore been seen; and smaller and smaller, as the power of vision is\nmore and more strengthened by new aids from art; as if the regions of\nspace contained an inexhaustible supply of such objects; as if infinite\nspace were strewn with stars in every part of it to which vision could\nreach. The small patch of the sky which forms, at any moment, the field\nof view of one of the great telescopes of Herschel, discloses to him as\nmany stars, and those of as many different magnitudes, as the whole\nvault of the sky exhibits to the naked eye. But the magnifying power of\nsuch an instrument only discloses, it does not make, these stars. There\nappears to be quite as much reason to believe, that each of these\ntelescopic stars is a sun, surrounded by its special family of planets,\nas to believe that Sirius or Arcturus is so. Here, then, we have again\nan extension, indefinite to our apprehension, of the universe, as\noccupied by material structures; and if so, why not by a living\npopulation, such as the material structures which are nearest to us\nsupport?\n\n7. Even yet we have not finished the series of successive views which\nastronomers have had opened to them, extending more and more their\nspectacle of the fulness and largeness of the universe. Not only does\nthe telescope disclose myriads of stars, unseen to the naked eye, and\nnew myriads with each increase of the powers of the instrument; but it\ndiscloses also patches of light, which, at first at least, do not appear\nto consist of stars: _Nebulae_, as they are called; bright specks, it\nmight seem, of stellar matter, thin, diffused, and irregular; not\ngathered into regular and definite forms, such as we may suppose the\nstars to be. Every one who has noticed the starry skies, may understand\nwhat is the general aspect of such nebulae, by looking at the milky way\nor galaxy, an irregular band of nebulous light, which runs quite round\nthe sky; \"A circling zone, powdered with stars;\" as Milton calls it. But\nthe nebulae of which I more especially speak, are minute patches,\ndiscovered mainly by the telescope, and in a few instances only\ndiscernible by the naked eye. And what I have to remark especially\nconcerning them at present is, that though to visual powers which barely\nsuffice to discern them, they appear like mere bright clouds, patches of\ndiffused starry matter; yet that, when examined by visual powers of a\nhigher order, by more penetrating telescopes, these patches of\ncontinuous feeble light are, in many instances at least, distinguishable\ninto definite points: they are found, in fact, to be aggregations of\nstars; which before appeared as diffused light, only because our\ntelescopes, though strong enough to reveal to our senses the aggregate\nmass of light of the cluster, were not strong enough to enable us to\ndiscern any one of the stars of which the cluster consists. The galaxy,\nin this way, may, in almost every part, be _resolved_ into separate\nstars; and thus, the multitude of the stars in the region of the sky\noccupied by that winding stream of light, is, when examined by a\npowerful telescope, inconceivably numerous.\n\n8. The small telescopic nebulae are of various forms; some of them may be\nin the shape of flat strata, or cakes, as it were, of stars, of small\nthickness, compared with the extent of the stratum. Now, if our sun were\none of the individuals of such a stratum, we, looking at the stars of\nthe stratum from his neighborhood, should see them very numerous and\nclose in the direction of the edge of the stratum, and comparatively few\nand rare in other parts of the sky. We should, in short, see a galaxy\nrunning round the sky, as we see in fact. And hence Sir William Herschel\nhas inferred, that our sun, with its attendant planets, has its place in\nsuch a stratum; and that it thus belongs to a host of stars which are,\nin a certain way, detached from the other nebulae which we see. Perhaps,\nhe adds, some of those other nebulae are beds and masses of stars not\nless numerous than those which compose our galaxy, and which occupy a\nlarger portion of the sky, only because we are immersed in the interior\nof the crowd. And thus, a minute speck of nebulous light, discernible\nonly by a good telescope, may contain not only as many stars as occupy\nthe sky to ordinary vision, but as many as is the number into which the\nmost powerful telescope resolves the milky light of the galaxy. And of\nsuch resolvable nebulae the number which are discovered in the sky is\nvery great, their forms being of the most various kind; so that many of\nthem may be, for aught we can tell, more amply stocked with stars than\nthe galaxy is. And if all the stars, or a large proportion of the\nstars, of the galaxy, be suns attended by planets, and these planets\npeopled with living creatures, what notion must we form of the\npopulation of the universe, when we have thus to reckon as many galaxies\nas there are resolvable nebulae! the stock of discoverable nebulae being\nas yet unexhausted by the powers of our telescopes; and the possibility\nof resolving them into stars being also an operation which has not yet\nbeen pursued to its limit.\n\n9. For, (and this is the last step which I shall mention in this long\nseries of ascending steps of multitude apparently infinite,) it now\nbegins to be suspected that not some nebulae only, but _all_, are\nresolvable into separate stars. When the nebulae were first carefully\nstudied, it was supposed that they consisted, as they appeared to\nconsist, of some diffused and incoherent matter, not of definite and\nlimited masses. It was conceived that they were not stars, but Stellar\nMatter in the course of formation into stars; and it was conceived,\nfurther, that by the gradual concentration of such matter, whirling\nround its centre while it concentrated, not only stars, that is, suns,\nmight be formed, but also systems of planets, circling round these suns;\nand thus this _Nebular Hypothesis_, as it has been termed, gave a kind\nof theory of the origin and formation of systems, such as the solar\nsystem. But the great telescope which Lord Rosse has constructed, and\nwhich is much more powerful than any optical instrument yet fabricated,\nhas been directed to many of the nebulae, whose appearance had given rise\nto this theory; and the result has been, in a great number of cases,\nthat the nebulae are proved to consist entirely of distinct stars; and\nthat the diffused nebulous appearance is discovered to have been an\nillusion, resulting from the accumulated light of a vast number of small\nstars near to each other. In this manner, we are led to regard every\nnebula, not as an imperfectly formed star or system, but as a vast\nmultitude of stars, and, for aught we can tell, of systems; for the\napparent smallness and nearness of these stars are, it is thought, mere\nresults of the vast distance at which they are placed from us. And thus,\nperhaps, all the nebulae are, what some of them seem certainly to be, so\nmany vast armies of stars, each of which stars, we have reason to\nbelieve, is of the nature of our sun; and may have, and according to\nanalogy has, an accompaniment of living creatures, such as our sun has,\ncertainly on the earth, probably, it is thought, in the other planets.\n\n10. It is difficult to grasp, in one view, the effect of the successive\nsteps from number to number, from distance to distance, which we have\nthus been measuring over. We may, however, state them again briefly, in\nthe way of enumeration.\n\nFrom our own place on the earth, we pass, in thought, as a first step,\nto the whole globe of the Earth; from this, as a second step, to the\nPlanets, the other globes which compose the Solar System. A third step\ncarries us to the Fixed Stars, as visible to the naked eye; very\nnumerous and immensely distant. The transition to the Telescopic Stars\nmakes a fourth step; and in this, the number and the space are\nincreased, almost beyond the power of numbers to express how many there\nare, and at what distances. But a fifth step:--perhaps all this array of\nstars, obvious and telescopic, only make up our Nebula; while the\nuniverse is occupied by other Nebulae innumerable, so distant that, seen\nfrom them, our nebula, though including, it may be, stars of the 20th\nmagnitude, which may be 20 times or 2,000 times more remote than Sirius,\nwould become a telescopic speck, as their nebulae are to us.\n\n11. Various images and modes of representation have been employed, in\norder to convey to the mind some notion of the dimensions of the scheme\nof the universe to which we are thus introduced. Thus, we may reckon\nthat a cannon-ball, moving with its usual original velocity unabated,\nwould describe the interval between the sun and the earth in about one\nyear. And this being so, the same missile would, from what has been\nsaid, occupy more, we know not how much more, than 200,000 years in\ngoing to the nearest fixed star: and perhaps a thousand times as much,\nin going to other stars belonging to our group; and then again, 200,000\ntimes so much, or some number of the like order, in going from one group\nto another. When we have advanced a step or two in this mode of\nstatement, the velocity of the cannon-ball hardly perceptibly affects\nthe magnitude of the numbers which we have to use.\n\nAnd the same nearly is the case if we have recourse to the swiftest\nmotion with which we are acquainted; that of Light. Light travels, it is\nshown by indisputable scientific reasonings, in about eight minutes from\nthe sun to the earth. Hence we can easily calculate that it would occupy\nat least three years to travel as far as Sirius, and probably, three\nthousand years, or a much greater number, to reach to the smallest\nstars, or to come from them to us. And thus, as Sir W. Herschel\nremarked, since light is the only vehicle by which information\nconcerning these distant bodies is conveyed to us, we do, by seeing\nthem, receive information, not what they are at this moment, but what\nthey were, as to visible condition, thousands of years ago. Stars may\nhave been created when man was created, and yet their light may not have\nreached him.[2] Stars may have been extinguished thousands of years\nago, and yet may still be visible to our eyes, by means of the light\nwhich they emitted previous to their extinction, and which has not yet\ndied away.\n\n12. So vast then are the distances at which the different bodies of the\nuniverse are distributed; and yet so numerous are those bodies. In the\nvastness of their distances, there is, indeed, nothing which need\ndisturb our minds, or which, after a little reflection, is likely to do\nso: for when we have said all that can be said, about the largeness of\nthese distances, still there is no difficulty in finding room for them.\nWe necessarily conceive _Space_ as being infinite in its extent: however\nmuch space the heavenly bodies occupy, there is space beyond them: if\nthey are not there, space is there nevertheless. That the stars and\nplanets are so far from each other, is an arrangement which prevents\ntheir disturbing each other with their mutual attractions, to any\ndestructive extent; and is an arrangement which the spacious, the\ninfinite universe, admits of, without any difficulty.\n\n13. But we are more especially concerned with the _Numbers_ of the\nheavenly bodies. So many planets about our sun: so many suns, each\nperhaps with its family of planets: and then, all these suns making but\none group: and other groups coming into view, one after another, in\nseemingly endless succession: and all these planets being of the nature\nof our earth, as all these stars are of the nature of our sun:--all\nthis, presents to us a spectacle of a world--of a countless host of\nworlds--of which, when we regard them as thus arranged in planetary\nsystems, and as having, according to all probability, years and seasons,\ndays and nights, as we have, we cannot but accept it as at least a\nlikely suggestion, that they have also inhabitants;--intelligent beings\nwho can reckon these days and years; who subsist on the fruits which\nthe season brings forth, and have their daily and yearly occupations,\naccording to their faculties. When we take, as our scheme of the\nuniverse, such a scheme as this, we may well be overwhelmed with the\nnumber of provinces, besides that in which man dwells, which the empire\nof the Lord of all includes; and, recurring to the words of the\nPsalmist, we may say with a profundity of meaning immeasurably\naugmented--\"Lord, what is man?\"\n\nIt was this view, I conceive, which Dr. Chalmers had in his thoughts, in\npursuing the speculations which I have mentioned, in the outset of this\nEssay.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] It is quite to our purpose to recollect the impression which such\ndiscoveries naturally make upon a pious mind.\n\n    Oh! rack me not to such extent,\n      These distances belong to Thee;\n    The world's too little for Thy tent,\n      A grave too big for me!\n                                        GEORGE HERBERT.\n\n[2] This thought is, however, older. Young expresses it in his _Night\nThoughts_, Night IX., (published in 1744):\n\n    How distant some of these nocturnal suns!\n    So distant (says the sage) 'twere not absurd\n    To doubt if beams, set out at nature's birth,\n    Are yet arrived at this so foreign world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE ASTRONOMICAL OBJECTION TO RELIGION.\n\n\n1. Such astronomical views, then, as those just stated, we may suppose\nto be those to which Chalmers had reference, in the argument of his\n_Astronomical Discourses_. These real or supposed discoveries of\nastronomers, or a considerable part of them, were the facts which were\npresent to his mind, and of which he there discusses the bearings upon\nreligious truths. This multiplicity of systems and worlds, which the\ntelescopic scrutiny of the stars is assumed to have disclosed, or to\nhave made probable, is the main feature in the constitution of the\nuniverse, as revealed by science, to which his reflections are directed.\nNor can we say that, in fixing upon this view, he has gone out of his\nway, to struggle with obscure and latent difficulties, such as the bulk\nof mankind know and care little about. For in reality, such views are\ngenerally diffused in our time and country, are common to all classes of\nreaders, and as we may venture to express it, are the _popular_ views of\npersons of any degree of intellectual culture, who have, directly or\nderivatively, accepted the doctrines of modern science. Among such\npersons, expressions which imply that the stars are globes of luminous\nmatter, like the sun; that there are, among them, systems of revolving\nbodies, seats of life and of intelligence; are so frequent and\nfamiliar, that those who so speak, do not seem to be aware that, in\nusing such expressions, they are making any assumption at all; any more\nthan they suppose themselves to be making assumptions, when they speak\nof the globular form of the earth, or of its motion round the sun, or of\nits revolution on its axis. It was, therefore, a suitable and laudable\npurpose, for a writer like Chalmers, well instructed in science, of\nlarge and comprehensive views with regard both to religion and to\nphilosophy, of deep and pervasive piety, and master of a dignified and\npersuasive eloquence, to employ himself in correcting any erroneous\nopinions and impressions respecting the bearing which such scientific\ndoctrines have upon religious truth. It was his lot to labor among men\nof great intellectual curiosity, acuteness, and boldness: it was his\ntendency to deal with new views of others on the most various subjects,\nreligious, philosophical, and social; and, on such subjects, to\noriginate new views of his own. It fell especially within his province,\ntherefore, to satisfy the minds of the public who listened to him, with\nregard to the conflict, if a conflict there was, or seemed to be,\nbetween new scientific doctrines, and permanent religious verities. He\nwas, by his culture and his powers, peculiarly fitted, and therefore\npeculiarly called, to mediate between the scientific and the religious\nworld of his time.\n\n2. The scientific doctrine which he especially deals with, in the work\nto which I refer, is the multiplicity of worlds;--the existence of many\nseats of life, of enjoyment, of intelligence; and it may be, as he\nsuggests also, of moral law, of transgression, of alienation from God,\nand of the need, and of the means, of reconciliation to Him; or of\nobedience to Him and sympathy with Him. That if there be many worlds\nresembling our world in other respects, they may resemble it in some of\nthese, is an obvious, and we may say, an irresistible conjecture, in any\nspeculative mind to which the doctrine itself has been conveyed. Nor can\nit fail to be very interesting, to see how such a writer as I have\ndescribed deals with such a suggestion; how far he accepts or inclines\nto accept it; and if so, what aspect such a view leads him to give to\ntruths, either belonging to Natural or to Revealed Theology, which,\nbefore the introduction of such a view, were regarded as bearing only\nupon the world of which man is the inhabitant.\n\n3. The mode in which Chalmers treats this suggestion, is to regard it as\nthe ground of an objection to Religion, either Natural or Revealed. He\nsupposes an objector to take his stand upon the multiplicity of worlds,\nassumed or granted as true; and to argue that, since there are so many\nworlds beside this, all alike claiming the care, the government, the\ngoodness, the interposition, of the Creator, it is in the highest degree\nextravagant and absurd, to suppose that he has done, for this world,\nthat which Religion, both Natural and Revealed, represents him as having\ndone, and as doing. When we are told that God has provided, and is\nconstantly providing, for the life, the welfare, the comfort of all the\nliving things which people this earth, we can, by an effort of thought\nand reflection, bring ourselves to believe that it is so. When we are\nfurther told that He has given a moral law to man, the intelligent\ninhabitant of the earth, and governs him by a moral government, we are\nable, or at least the great bulk of thoughtful men, on due consideration\nof all the bearings of the case, are able, to accept the conviction,\nthat this also is so. When we are still farther asked to believe that\nthe imperfect sway of this moral law over man has required to be\nremedied by a special interposition of the Governor of the world, or by\na series of special interpositions, to make the Law clear, and to\nremedy the effects of man's transgression of it; this doctrine\nalso,--according to the old and unscientific view, which represents the\nhuman race as, in an especial manner, the summit and crown of God's\nmaterial workmanship, the end of the rest of creation, and the selected\ntheatre of God's dealings with transgression and with obedience,--we can\nconceive, and, as religious persons hold, we can find ample and\nsatisfactory evidence to believe. But if this world be merely one of\ninnumerable worlds, all, like it, the workmanship of God; all, the seats\nof life, like it; others, like it, occupied by intelligent creatures,\ncapable of will, of law, of obedience, of disobedience, as man is; to\nhold that this world has been the scene of God's care and kindness, and\nstill more, of his special interpositions, communications, and personal\ndealings with its individual inhabitants, in the way which Religion\nteaches, is, the objector is conceived to maintain, extravagant and\nincredible. It is to select one of the millions of globes which are\nscattered through the vast domain of space, and to suppose that one to\nbe treated in a special and exceptional manner, without any reason for\nthe assumption of such a peculiarity, except that this globe happens to\nbe the habitation of us, who make this assumption. If Religion require\nus to assume, that one particular corner of the Universe has been thus\nsingled out, and made an exception to the general rules by which all\nother parts of the Universe are governed; she makes, it may be said, a\ndemand upon our credulity which cannot fail to be rejected by those who\nare in the habit of contemplating and admiring those general laws. Can\nthe Earth be thus the centre of the moral and religious universe, when\nit has been shown to have no claim to be the centre of the physical\nuniverse? Is it not as absurd to maintain this, as it would be to hold,\nat the present day, the old Ptolemaic hypothesis, which places the\nEarth in the centre of the heavenly motions, instead of the newer\nCopernican doctrine, which teaches that the Earth revolves round the\nSun? Is not Religion disproved, by the necessity under which she lies,\nof making such an assumption as this?\n\n4. Such is, in a general way, the objection to Religion with which\nChalmers deals; and, as I have said, his mode of treating it is highly\ninteresting and instructive. Perhaps, however, we shall make our\nreasonings and speculations apply to a wider class of readers, if we\nconsider the view now spoken of, not as an objection, urged by an\nopponent of religion, but rather as a difficulty, felt by a friend of\nreligion. It is, I conceive, certain that many of those who are not at\nall disposed to argue against religion, but who, on the contrary, feel\nthat their whole internal comfort and repose are bound up indissolubly\nwith their religious convictions, are still troubled and dismayed at the\ndoctrines of the vastness of the universe, and the multitude of worlds,\nwhich they suppose to be taught and proved by astronomy. They have a\nprofound reverence for the Idea of God; they are glad to acknowledge\ntheir constant and universal dependence upon His preserving power and\ngoodness; they are ready and desirous to recognize the working of His\nprovidence; they receive the moral law, as His law, with reverence and\nsubmission; they regard their transgressions of this law as sins against\nHim; and are eager to find the mode of reconciliation to Him, when thus\nestranged from him; they willingly think of God, as near to them. But\nwhile they listen to the evidence which science, as we have said, sets\nbefore them, of the long array of groups, and hosts, and myriads, of\nworlds, which are brought to our knowledge, they find themselves\nperturbed and distressed. They would willingly think of God as near to\nthem; but during the progress of this enumeration, He appears, at every\nstep, to be removed further and further from them. To discover that the\nEarth is so large, the number of its inhabitants so great, its form so\ndifferent from what man at first imagines it, may perhaps have startled\nthem; but in this view, there is nothing which a pious mind does not\neasily surmount. But if Venus and Mars also have their inhabitants; if\nSaturn and Jupiter, globes so much larger than the earth, have a\nproportional amount of population; may not man be neglected or\noverlooked? Is he worthy to be regarded by the Creator of all? May not,\nmust not, the most pious mind recur to the exclamation of the Psalmist:\n\"Lord, what is man, that thou art mindful of him?\" And must not this\nexclamation, under the new aspect of things, be accompanied by an\nenfeebled and less confident belief that God _is_ mindful of him? And\nthen, this array of planets, which derive their light from the Sun,\nextends much further than even the astronomer at first suspected. The\norbit of Saturn is ten times as wide as the orbit of the earth; but\nbeyond Saturn, and almost twice as far from the sun, Herschel discovers\nUranus, another great planet; and again, beyond Uranus, and again at\nnearly twice _his_ distance, the subtle sagacity of the astronomers of\nour day, surmises, and then detects, another great planet. In such a\nsystem as this, the earth shrinks into insignificance. Can its concerns\nengage the attention of him who made the whole? But again, this whole\nSolar System itself, with all its orbits and planets, shrinks into a\nmere point, when compared with the nearest fixed star. And again, the\ndistance which lies between us and such stars, shrinks into incalculable\nsmallness, when we journey in thought to other fixed stars. And again,\nand again, the field of our previous contemplation suffers an\nimmeasurable contraction, as we pass on to other points of view.\n\n5. And in all these successive moves, we are still within the dominions\nof the same Creator and Governor; and at every move, we are brought, we\nmay suppose, to new bodies of his subjects, bearing, in the expansion of\ntheir number, some proportion to the expanse of space which they occupy.\nAnd if this be so, how shall the earth, and men, its inhabitants, thus\nrepeatedly annihilated, as it were, by the growing magnitude of the\nknown Universe, continue to be anything in the regard of Him who\nembraces all? Least of all, how shall men continue to receive that\nspecial, persevering, providential, judicial, personal care, which\nreligion implies; and without the belief of which, any man who has\nreligious thoughts, must be disturbed and unhappy, desolate and\nforsaken?\n\n6. Such are, I conceive, the thoughts of many persons, under the\ninfluence of the astronomical views which Chalmers refers to as being\nsometimes employed against religious belief. Of course, it is natural\nthat the views which are used by unbelievers as arguments against\nreligious belief, should create difficulties and troubles in the minds\nof believers; at least, till the argument is rebutted. And of course\nalso, the answers to the arguments, considered as infidel arguments,\nwould operate to remove the difficulties which believers entertain on\nsuch grounds. Chalmers' reasonings against such arguments, therefore,\nwill, so for as they are valid, avail to relieve the mental trouble of\nbelievers, who are perplexed and oppressed by the astronomical views of\nwhich I have spoken; as well as to confute and convince those who reject\nreligion, on such astronomical grounds. It may, however, as I have said,\nbe of use to deal with these difficulties rather as difficulties of\nreligious men, than as objections of irreligious men; to examine rather\nhow we can quiet the troubled and perplexed believer, than how we can\ntriumph over the dogmatic and self-satisfied infidel. I, at least,\nshould wish to have the former, rather than the latter of these tasks,\nregarded as that which I propose to myself.\n\nI shall hereafter attempt to explain more fully the difficulties which\nthe doctrine of the Plurality of Worlds appears to some persons to throw\nin the way of Revealed Religion; but before I do so, there is one part\nof Chalmers' answer, bearing especially upon Natural Religion, which it\nmay be proper to attend to.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE ANSWER FROM THE MICROSCOPE.\n\n\n1. It is not my business, nor my intention, to criticize the remarkable\nwork of Chalmers to which I have so often referred. But I may say, that\nthe arguments there employed by him, so far as they go upon astronomical\nor philosophical grounds, are of great weight; and upon the whole, such\nas we may both assent to, as scientifically true, and accept as\nrationally persuasive. I think, however, that there are other arguments,\nalso drawn from scientific discoveries, which bear, in a very important\nand striking manner, upon the opinions in question, and which Chalmers\nhas not referred to; and I conceive that there are philosophical views\nof another kind, which, for those who desire and who will venture to\nregard the Universe and its Creator in the wider and deeper relations\nwhich appear to be open to human speculation, may be a source of\nsatisfaction. When certain positive propositions, maintained as true\nwhile they are really highly doubtful, have given rise to difficulties\nin the minds of religious persons, other positive propositions,\ncombating these, propounded and supported by argument, that they may be\naccepted according to their evidence, may, at any rate, have force\nenough to break down and dissipate such loosely founded difficulties. To\npresent to the reader's mind such speculations as I have thus\nindicated, is the object of the following pages. They can, of course,\npretend to no charm, except for persons who are willing to have their\nminds occupied with such difficulties and such speculations as I have\nreferred to. Those who are willing to be so employed, may, perhaps, find\nin what I have to say something which may interest them. For, of the\narguments which I have to expound, some, though they appear to me both\nvery obvious and very forcible, have never, so far as I am aware, been\nput forth in that religious bearing which seems to belong to them; and\nothers, though aspiring to point out in some degree the relation of the\nUniverse and its Creator, are of a very simple kind; that is, for minds\nwhich are prepared to deal with such subjects at all.\n\n2. As I have said, the arguments with which we are here concerned refer\nboth to Natural Religion and to Revealed Religion; and there is one of\nChalmers' arguments, bearing especially upon the former branch of the\nsubject, which I may begin by noticing. Among the thoughts which, it was\nstated, might naturally arise in men's minds, when the telescope\nrevealed to them an innumerable multitude of worlds besides the one\nwhich we inhabit, was this: that the Governor of the Universe, who has\nso many worlds under his management, cannot be conceived as bestowing\nupon this Earth, and its various tribes of inhabitants, that care which,\ntill then, Natural Religion had taught men that he does employ, to\nsecure to man the possession and use of his faculties of mind and body;\nand to all animals the requisites of animal existence and animal\nenjoyment. And upon this Chalmers remarks, that just about the time when\nscience gave rise to the suggestion of this difficulty, she also gave\noccasion to a remarkable reply to it. Just about the same time that the\ninvention of the _Telescope_ showed that there were innumerable worlds,\nwhich might have inhabitants requiring the Creator's care as much as the\ntribes of this earth do,--the invention of the _Microscope_ showed that\nthere were, in this world, innumerable tribes of animals, which had been\nall along enjoying the benefits of the Creator's care, as much as those\nkinds with which man had been familiar from the beginning. The telescope\nsuggested that there might be dwellers in Jupiter or in Saturn, of giant\nsize and unknown structure, who must share with us the preserving care\nof God. The microscope showed that there had been, close to us,\ninhabiting minute crevices and crannies, peopling the leaves of plants,\nand the bodies of other animals, animalcules of a minuteness hitherto\nunguessed, and of a structure hitherto unknown, who had been always\nsharers with us in God's preserving care. The telescope brought into\nview worlds as numerous as the drops of water which make up the ocean;\nthe microscope brought into view a world in almost every drop of water.\nInfinity in one direction was balanced by infinity in the other. The\ndoubts which men might feel as to what God could do, were balanced by\ncertainties which they discovered, as to what he had always been doing.\nHis care and goodness could not be supposed to be exhausted by the\nhitherto known population of the earth, for it was proved that they had\nnot hitherto been confined to that population. The discovery of new\nworlds at vast distances from us, was accompanied by the discovery of\nnew worlds close to us, even in the very substances with which we were\nbest acquainted; and was thus rendered ineffective to disturb the belief\nof those who had regarded the world as having God for its governor.\n\n3. This is a striking reflection, and is put by Chalmers in a very\nstriking manner; and it is well fitted to remove the scruples to which\nit is especially addressed. If there be any persons to whom the\nastronomical discoveries which the telescope has brought to light,\nsuggests doubts or difficulties with regard to such truths of Natural\nReligion as God's care for and government of the inhabitants of the\nearth, the discoveries of the many various forms of animalcular life\nwhich the microscope has brought to light are well fitted to remove such\ndoubts, and to solve such difficulties. We may easily believe that the\npower of God to sustain and provide for animal life, animal sustenance,\nanimal enjoyment, can suffice for innumerable worlds besides this,\nwithout being withdrawn or distracted or wearied in this earth; for we\nfind that it does suffice for innumerable more inhabitants of this earth\nthan we were before aware of. If we had imagined before, that, in\nconceiving God as able and willing to provide for the life and pleasure\nof all the sentient beings which we knew to exist upon the earth, we had\nformed an adequate notion of his power and of his goodness, these\nmicroscopical discoveries are well adapted to undeceive us. They show us\nthat all the notions which our knowledge, hitherto, had enabled us to\nform of the powers and attributes of the Creator and Preserver of all\nliving things, are vastly, are immeasurably below the real truth of the\ncase. They show us that God, as revealed to us in the animal creation,\nis the Author and Giver of life, of the organization which life implies,\nof the contrivances by which it is conducted and sustained, of the\nenjoyment by which it is accompanied,--to an extent infinitely beyond\nwhat the unassisted vision of man could have suggested. The facts which\nare obvious to man, from which religious minds in all ages have drawn\ntheir notions and their evidence of the Divine power and goodness, care\nand wisdom, in providing for its creatures, require, we find, to be\nindefinitely extended, in virtue of the new tribes of minute creatures,\nand still new tribes, and still more minute, which we find existing\naround us. The views of our Natural Theology must be indefinitely\nextended on one side; and therefore we need not be startled or disturbed\nat having to extend them indefinitely on the other side;--at having to\nbelieve that there are, in other worlds, creatures whom God has created,\nwhom he sustains in life, for whom he provides the pleasures of life, as\nhe does for the long unsuspected creatures of this world.\n\n4. This is, I say, a reflection which might quiet the mind of a person,\nwhom astronomical discoveries had led to doubt of the ordinary doctrines\nof Natural Religion. But, I think, it may be questioned, whether, to\nproduce such doubts, is a common or probable effect of an acquaintance\nwith astronomical discoveries. Undoubtedly, by such discoveries, a\nperson who believes in God, in his wisdom, power, and goodness, on the\nevidence of the natural world, is required to extend and exalt his\nconceptions of those Divine Attributes. He had believed God to be the\nAuthor of many forms of life;--he finds him to be the Author of still\nmore forms of life. He had traced many contrivances in the structure of\nanimals, for their sustentation and well-being; his new discoveries\ndisclose to him (for that is undoubtedly among the effects of\nmicroscopic researches) still more nice contrivances. He had seen reason\nto think that all sentient beings have their enjoyments; he finds new\nfields of enjoyment of the same kind. But in all this, there is little\nor nothing to disturb the views and convictions of the Natural\nTheologian. He must, even by the evidence of facts patent to ordinary\nobservation, have been led to believe that the Divine Wisdom and Power\nare not only great, but great in a degree which we cannot fathom or\ncomprehend;--that they are, to our apprehension, infinite: his new\ndiscoveries only confirm the impression of this infinite character of\nthe Divine Attributes. He had before believed the existence of an\nintelligent and wise Creator, on the evidence of the marks of design and\ncontrivance, which the creation exhibited: of such design and\ncontrivance he discovers new marks, new examples. He had believed that\nGod is good, because he found those contrivances invariably had the good\nof the creature for their object: he finds, still, that this is the\ngeneral, the universal scheme of the creation, now when his view of it\nis extended. He has no difficulty in expanding his religious\nconceptions, to correspond with his scientific discoveries, so far as\nthe microscope is the instrument of discovery; there is no reason why he\nshould have any more difficulty in doing the same, when the telescope is\nhis informant. It is true, that in this case the information is more\nimperfect. It does not tell him, even that there are living inhabitants\nin the regions which it reveals; and, consequently, it does not disclose\nany of those examples of design which belong to the structure of living\nthings. But if we suppose, from analogy, that there are living things in\nthose regions, we have no difficulty in conceiving, from analogy also,\nthat those living things are constructed with a care and wisdom such as\nappear in the inhabitants of earth. It will not readily or commonly\noccur to a speculator on such subjects, that there is any source of\nperplexity or unbelief, in such an assumption of inhabitants of other\nworlds, even if we make the assumption. It is as easy, it may well and\nreasonably be thought, for God to create a population for the planets as\nto make the planets themselves;--as easy to supply Jupiter with tenants,\nas with satellites;--as easy to devise the organization of an inhabitant\nof Saturn, as the structure and equilibrium of Saturn's ring. It is no\nmore difficult for the Universal Creator to extend to those bodies the\npowers which operate in organized matter, than the powers which operate\nin brute matter. It is as easy for Him to establish circulation and\nnutrition in material structures, as cohesion and crystallization, which\nwe must suppose the planetary masses to possess; or attraction and\ninertia, which we know them to possess. No doubt, to our conception,\norganization appears to be a step beyond cohesion; circulation of living\nfluids, a step beyond crystallization of dead masses:--but then, it is\nin tracing such steps, that we discern the peculiar character of the\nCreator's agency. He does not merely work with mechanical and chemical\npowers, as man to a certain extent can do; but with organic and vital\npowers, which man cannot command. The Creator, therefore, can animate\nthe dust of each planet, as easily as make the dust itself. And when\nfrom organic life we rise to sentient life, we have still only another\nstep in the known order of Creative Power. To create animals, in any\nprovince of the Universe, cannot be conceived as much more\nincomprehensible or incredible, than to create vegetables. No doubt, the\naddition of the living and sentient principle to the material, and even\nto the organic structure, is a mighty step; and one which may, perhaps,\nbe made the occasion of some speculative suggestions, in a subsequent\npart of this Essay; but still, it is not likely that any one, who had\nformed his conceptions of the Divine Mind from its manifestations in the\nproduction and sustentation of animal, as well as vegetable life, on\nthis earth, would have his belief in the operation of such a Mind,\nshaken, by any necessity which might be impressed upon him, of granting\nthe existence of animal life on other planets, as well as on the earth,\nor even on innumerable such planets, and on innumerable systems of\nplanets and worlds, system above system.\n\n5. The remark of Chalmers, therefore, to which I have referred,\nstriking as it is, does not appear to bear directly upon a difficulty of\nany great force. If astronomy gives birth to scruples which interfere\nwith religion, they must be found in some other quarter than in the\npossibility of mere animal life existing in other parts of the Universe,\nas well as on our earth. That possibility may require us to enlarge our\nidea of the Deity, but it has little or no tendency to disturb our\napprehension of his attributes.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nFURTHER STATEMENT OF THE DIFFICULTY.\n\n\n1. We have attempted to show that if the discoveries made by the\nTelescope should excite in any one's mind, difficulties respecting those\ndoctrines of Natural Religion,--the adequacy of the Creator to the\nsupport and guardianship of all the animal life which may exist in the\nuniverse,--the discoveries of the Microscope may remove such\ndifficulties; but we have remarked also, that the train of thought which\nleads men to dwell upon such difficulties does not seem to be common.\n\nBut what will be the train of thought to which we shall be led, if we\nsuppose that there are, on other planets, and in other systems, not\nanimals only, living things, which, however different from the animals\nof this earth, are yet in some way analogous to them, according to the\ndifference of circumstances; but also creatures analogous to\nman;--intellectual creatures, living, we must suppose, under a moral\nlaw, responsible for transgression, the subjects of a Providential\nGovernment? If we suppose that, in the other planets of our solar\nsystems, and of other systems, there are creatures of such a kind, and\nunder such conditions as these, how far will the religious opinions\nwhich we had previously entertained be disturbed or modified? Will any\nnew difficulty be introduced into our views of the government of the\nworld by such a supposition?\n\n2. I have spoken of man as an Intellectual Creature; meaning thereby\nthat he has a Mind;--powers of thought, by which he can contemplate the\nrelations and properties of things in a general and abstract form; and\namong other relations, moral relations, the distinction of _right_ and\n_wrong_ in his actions. Those powers of thought lead him to think of a\nCreator and Ordainer of all things; and his perception of right and\nwrong leads him to regard this Creator as also the Governor and Judge of\nhis creatures. The operation of his mind directs him to believe in a\nSupreme Mind: his moral nature directs him to believe that the course of\nhuman affairs, and the condition of men, both as individuals and as\nbodies, is determined by the providential government of God.\n\n3. With regard to the bearing of a merely _intellectual_ nature on such\nquestions, it does not appear that any considerable difficulty would be\n_at once_ occasioned in our religious views, by supposing such a nature\nto belong to other creatures, the inhabitants of other planets, as well\nas to man. The existence of our own minds directs us, as I have said, to\na Supreme Mind; and the nature of Mind is conceived to be, in all its\nmanifestations, so much the same, that we can conceive minds to be\nmultiplied indefinitely, without fear of confusion, interference, or\nexhaustion. There may be, in Jupiter, creatures endowed with an\nintellect which enables them to discover and demonstrate the relations\nof space; and if so, they cannot have discovered and demonstrated\nanything of that kind as true, which is not true for us also: their\nGeometry must coincide with ours, as far as each goes:--thus showing how\nabsurdly, as Plato long ago observed, we give to the science which deals\nwith the relations of space, a name (_geometry_), borrowed from the art\nof measuring the earth. The earth with its properties is no more the\nspecial basis of geometry, than are Jupiter or Saturn, or, so far as we\ncan judge, Sirius or Arcturus and their systems, with their properties.\nWherever pure intellect is, we are compelled to conceive that, when\nemployed upon the same objects, its results and conclusions are the\nsame. If there be intelligent inhabitants of the Moon, they may, like\nus, have employed their intelligence in reasoning upon the properties of\nlines and angles and triangles; and must, so far as they have gone, have\narrived, in their thoughts, at the same properties of lines and angles\nand triangles, at which we have arrived. They must, like us, have had to\ndistinguish between right angles and oblique angles. They may have come\nto know, as some of the inhabitants of the earth came to know, four\nthousand years ago, that, in a right-angled triangle, the square on the\nlarger side is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.\nWe can conceive occurrences which would give us evidence that the Moon,\nas well as the Earth, contains geometers. If we were to see, on the face\nof the full moon, a figure gradually becoming visible, representing a\nright-angled triangle with a square constructed on each of its three\nsides as a base; we should regard it as the work of intelligent\ncreatures there, who might be thus making a signal to the inhabitants of\nthe earth, that they possessed such knowledge, and were desirous of\nmaking known to their nearest neighbors in the solar system, their\nexistence and their speculations. In such an event, curious and striking\nas it would be, we should see nothing but what we could understand and\naccept, without unsettling our belief in the Supreme and Divine\nIntelligence. On the contrary, we could hardly fail to receive such a\nmanifestation as a fresh evidence that the Divine Mind had imparted to\nthe inhabitants of the Moon, as he has to us, a power of apprehending,\nin a very general and abstract form, the relations of that space in\nwhich he performs his works. We should judge, that having been led so\nfar in their speculations, they must, in all probability, have been led\nalso to a conception of the Universe, as the field of action of a\nuniversal and Divine Mind; that having thus become geometers, they must\nhave ascended to the Idea of a God who works by geometry.\n\n4. But yet, by such a supposition, on further consideration, we find\nourselves introduced to views entirely different from those to which we\nare led by the supposition of mere animal life, existing in other worlds\nthan the earth. For, not to dwell here upon any speculations as to how\nfar the operations of our minds may resemble the operations of the\nDivine Mind;--a subject which we shall hereafter endeavor to\ndiscuss;--we know that the advance to such truths as those of geometry\nhas been, among the inhabitants of the earth, gradual and progressive.\nThough the human mind have had the same powers and faculties, from the\nbeginning of the existence of the race up to the present time, (as we\ncannot but suppose,) the results of the exercise of these powers and\nfaculties have been very different in different ages; and have gradually\ngrown up, from small beginnings, to the vast and complex body of\nknowledge concerning the scheme and relations of the Universe, which is\nat present accessible to the minds of human speculators. It is, as we\nhave said, probably about four thousand years, since the first steps in\nsuch knowledge were made. Geometry is said to have had its origin in\nEgypt; but it assumed its abstract and speculative character first among\nthe Greeks. Pythagoras is related to have been the first who saw, in the\nclear light of demonstration, the property of the right-angled triangle,\nof which we have spoken. The Greeks, from the time of Socrates,\nstimulated especially by Plato, pursued, with wonderful success, the\ninvestigation of this kind of truths. They saw that such truths had\ntheir application in the heavens, far more extensively than on the\nearth. They were enabled, by such speculations, to unravel, in a great\ndegree, the scheme of the universe, before so seemingly entangled and\nperplexed. They determined, to a very considerable extent, the relative\nmotions of the planets and of the stars. And in modern times, after a\nlong interval, in which such knowledge was nearly stationary, the\nprogress again began; and further advances were successively made in\nman's knowledge of the scheme and structure of the visible heavens; till\nat length the intellect of man was led to those views of the extent of\nthe Universe and the nature of the stars, which are the basis of the\ndiscussions in which we are now engaged. And thus man, having probably\nbeen, in the earliest ages of the existence of the species, entirely\nignorant of abstract truth, and of the relations which, by the knowledge\nof such truth, we can trace in nature, (as the barbarous tribes which\noccupy the greater part of the earth's surface still are;) has, by a\nlong series of progressive steps, come into the possession of knowledge,\nwhich we cannot regard without wonder and admiration; and which seems to\nelevate him in no inconsiderable degree, towards a community of thought\nwith that Divine Mind, into the nature and scheme of whose works he is\nthus permitted to penetrate.\n\n5. Now the knowledge which man is capable, by the nature of his mental\nfaculties, of acquiring, being thus blank and rudimentary at first, and\nonly proceeding gradually, by the steps of a progress, numerous, slow,\nand often long interrupted, to that stage in which it is the basis of\nour present speculations; the view which we have just taken, of the\nnature of Intellect, as a faculty always of the same kind, always\nuniform in its operations, always consistent in its results, appears to\nrequire reconsideration; and especially with reference to the\napplication which we made of that view, to the intelligent inhabitants\nof other planets and other worlds, if such inhabitants there be. For if\nwe suppose that there are, in the Moon, or in Jupiter, creatures\npossessing intellectual faculties of the same kind as those of man;\ncapable of apprehending the same abstract and general truths; able, like\nman, to attain to a knowledge of the scheme of the Universe; yet this\nsupposition merely gives the capacity and the ability; and does not\ninclude any security, or even high probability, as it would seem, of the\nexercise of such capacity, or of the successful application of such\nability. Even if the surface of the Moon be inhabited by creatures as\nintelligent as men, why must we suppose that they know anything more of\nthe geometry and astronomy, than the great bulk of the less cultured\ninhabitants of the earth, who occupy, really, a space far larger than\nthe surface of the Moon; and, all intelligent though they be, and in the\nfull possession of mental faculties, are yet, on the subjects of\ngeometry and astronomy, entirely ignorant;--their minds, as to such a\nknowledge, a blank? It does not follow, then, that even if there be such\ninhabitants in the Moon, or in the Planets, they have any sympathy with\nus, or any community of knowledge on the subjects of which we are now\nspeaking. The surface of the Moon, or of Jupiter, or of Saturn, even if\nwell peopled, may be peopled only with tribes as barbarous and ignorant\nas Tartars, or Esquimaux, or Australians; and therefore, by making such\na supposition, we do little, even hypothetically, to extend the dominion\nof that intelligence, by means of which all intelligent beings have some\ncommunity of thought with each other, and some suggestion of the working\nof the Divine and Universal Mind.\n\n6. But, in fact, the view which we have given of the mode of existence\nof the human species upon the earth, as being a progressive existence,\neven in the development of the intellectual powers and their results,\nnecessarily fastens down our thoughts and our speculations to the earth,\nand makes us feel how visionary and gratuitous it is to assume any\nsimilar kind of existence in any region occupied by other beings than\nman. As we have said, we have no insuperable difficulty in conceiving\nother parts of the Universe to be tenanted by animals. Animal life\nimplies no progress in the species. Such as they are in one century,\nsuch are they in another. The conditions of their sustentation and\ngeneration being given, which no difference of physical circumstances\ncan render incredible, the race may, so far as we can see, go on\nforever. But a race which makes a progress in the development of its\nfaculties cannot thus, or at least cannot with the same ease, be\nconceived as existing through all time, and under all circumstances.\nProgress implies, or at least suggests, a beginning and an end. If the\nmere existence of a race imply a sustaining and preserving power in the\nCreator, the progress of a race implies a guiding and impelling power; a\nGovernor and Director, as well as a Creator and Preserver. And progress,\nnot merely in material conditions, not merely in the exercise of bodily\nfaculties, but in the exercise of mental faculties, in the intellectual\ncondition of a portion of the species, still more implies a special\nposition and character of the race, which cannot, without great license\nof hypothesis, be extended to other races; and which, if so extended,\nbecomes unmeaning, from the impossibility of our knowing what is\nprogress in any other species;--from what and towards what it tends. The\nintellectual progress of the human species has been a progress in the\nuse of thought, and in the knowledge which such use procures; it has\nbeen a progress from mere matter to mind; from the impressions of sense\nto ideas; from what in knowledge is casual, partial, temporary, to what\nis necessary, universal, and eternal. We can conceive no progress, of\nthe nature of this, which is not identical with this; nothing like it,\nwhich is not the same. And, therefore, if we will people other planets\nwith creatures, intelligent as man is intelligent, we must not only give\nto them the intelligence, but the intellectual history of the human\nspecies. They must have had their minds unfolded by steps similar to\nthose by which the human mind has been unfolded; or at least, differing\nfrom them only as the intellectual history of one nation of the earth\ndiffers from that of another. They must have had their Pythagoras, their\nPlato, their Kepler, their Galileo, their Newton, if they know what we\nknow. And thus, in order to conceive, on the Moon or on Jupiter, a race\nof beings intelligent like man, we must conceive, there, colonies of\nmen, with histories resembling more or less the histories of human\ncolonies; and indeed resembling the history of those nations whose\nknowledge we inherit, far more closely than the history of any other\nterrestrial nation resembles that part of terrestrial history. If we do\nthis, we exercise an act of invention and imagination which may be as\ncoherent as a fairy tale, but which, without further proof, must be as\npurely imaginary and arbitrary. But if we do not do this, we cannot\nconceive that those regions are occupied at all by intelligent beings.\nIntelligence, as we see in the human race, in order to have those\ncharacters which concern our argument, implies a history of intellectual\ndevelopment; and to assume arbitrarily a history of intellectual\ndevelopment for the inhabitants of a remote planet, as a ground of\nreasoning either for or against Religion, is a proceeding which we can\nhardly be expected either to assent to or to refute. If we are to form\nany opinions with regard to the condition of such bodies, and to trace\nany bearing of such opinions upon our religious views, we must proceed\nupon some ground which has more of reality than such a gratuitous\nassumption.\n\n7. Thus the condition of man upon the earth, as a condition of\nintellectual progress, implies such a special guidance and government\nexercised over the race by the Author of his being, as produces\nprogress; and we have not, so far as we yet perceive, any reason for\nsupposing that He exercises a like guidance and government over any of\nthe other bodies with which the researches of astronomers have made us\nacquainted. The earth and its inhabitants are under the care of God in a\nspecial manner; and we are utterly destitute of any reason for believing\nthat other planets and other systems are under the care of God in the\nsame manner. If we regarded merely the existence of unprogressive races\nof animals upon our globe, we might easily suppose that other globes\nalso are similarly tenanted; and we might infer, that the Creator and\nUpholder of animal life was active on those globes, in the same manner\nas upon ours. But when we come to a progressive creature, whose\ncondition implies a beginning, and therefore suggests an end, we form a\npeculiar judgment with respect to God's care of that creature, which we\nhave not as yet seen the slightest grounds to extend to other possible\nfields of existence, where we discern no indication of progress, of\nbeginning, or of end. So far as we can judge, God is mindful of man, and\nhas launched and guided his course in a certain path which makes his lot\nand state different from that of all other creatures.\n\n8. Now when we have arrived at this result, we have, I conceive, reached\none of the points at which the difficulties which astronomical discovery\nputs in the way of religious conviction begin to appear. The Earth and\nits human inhabitants are, as far as we yet know, in an especial manner\nthe subjects of God's care and government, for the race is progressive.\nNow can this be? Is it not difficult to believe that it is so? The\nearth, so small a speck, only one among so many, so many thousands, so\nmany millions of other bodies, all, probably, of the same nature with\nitself, wherefore should it draw to it the special regards of the\nCreator of all, and occupy his care in an especial manner? The teaching\nof the history of the human race, as intellectually progressive, agrees\nwith the teaching of Religion, in impressing upon us that God is mindful\nof man; that he does regard him; but still, there naturally arises in\nour minds a feeling of perplexity and bewilderment, which expresses\nitself in the words already so often quoted, What is man, that this\nshould be so? Can it be true that this province is thus singled out for\na special and peculiar administration by the Lord of the Universal\nEmpire?\n\n9. Before I make any attempt to answer these questions, I must pursue\nthe difficulty somewhat further, and look at it in other forms. As I\nhave said, the history of Man has been, in certain nations, a history of\nintellectual progress, from the earliest times up to our own day. But\nintellectual progress has been, as I have also said, in a great measure\nconfined to certain nations thus especially favored. The greater part of\nthe earth's inhabitants have shared very scantily in that wealth of\nknowledge to which the brightest and happiest intellects among men have\nthus been led. But though the bulk of mankind have thus had little share\nin the grand treasures of science which are open to the race, their life\nhas still been very different from that of other animals. Many nations,\nthough they may not have been conspicuous in the history of intellectual\nprogress, have yet not been without their place in progress of other\nkinds--in arts, in arms, and, above all, in morals--in the recognition\nof the distinction of right and wrong in human actions, and in the\npractical application of this distinction. Such a progress as this has\nbeen far more extensively aimed at, than a progress in abstract and\ngeneral knowledge; and, we may venture to say, has been, in many nations\nand in a very great measure, really effected. No doubt the imperfection\nof this progress, and the constant recurrence of events which appear to\ncounteract and reverse it, are so obvious and so common as to fill with\ngrief and indignation the minds of those who regard such a progress as\nthe great business of the human race; but yet still, looking at the\nwhole history of the human race, the progress is visible; and even the\ngrief and the indignation of which we have spoken are a part of its\nevidences. There has been, upon the whole, a moral government of the\nhuman race. The moral law, the distinction of right and wrong, has been\nestablished in every nation; and penalties have been established for\nwrong-doing. The notion of right and wrong has been extended, from mere\noutward acts, to the springs of action, to affection, desire, and will.\nThe course of human affairs has generally been such, that the just, the\ntruthful, the kind, the chaste, the orderly portion of mankind have been\nhappier than the violent and wicked. External wrong has been commonly\npunished by the act of human society. Internal sins, impure and\ndishonest designs, falsehood, cruelty, have very often led to their own\npunishment, by their effect upon the guilty mind itself. We do not say\nthat the moral government which has prevailed among men has been such,\nthat we can consider it complete and final in its visible form. We see\nthat the aspect of things is much the contrary; and we think we see\nreasons why it may be expected to be so. But still, there has existed\nupon earth a moral government of the human race, exercised, as we must\nneeds hold, by the Creator of man; partly through the direct operation\nof man's faculties, affections, and emotions; and partly through the\nauthorities which, in all ages and nations, the nature of man has led\nhim to establish. Now this moral progress and moral government of the\nhuman race is one of the leading facts on which Natural Religion is\nfounded. We are thus led to regard God as the Moral Governor of man; not\nonly his Creator and Preserver, but his Lawgiver and his Judge. And the\ngrounds on which we entertain this belief are peculiarly the human\nfaculties of man, and their operation in history and in society. The\nbelief is derived from the whole complex nature of man--the working of\nhis Affections, Desires, Convictions, Reason, Conscience, and whatever\nelse enters into the production of human action and its consequences.\nGod is seen to be the Moral Governor of man by evidence which is\nespecially derived from the character of Man, and which we could not\nattempt to apply to any other creature than man without making our words\naltogether unmeaning. But would it not be too bold an assumption to\nspeak of the Conscience of an inhabitant of Jupiter? Would it not be a\nrash philosophy to assume the operation of Remorse or Self-approval on\nthe planet, in order that we may extend to it the moral government of\nGod? Except we can point out something more solid than this to reason\nfrom, on such subjects, there is no use in our attempting to reason at\nall. Our doctrines must be mere results of invention and imagination.\nHere then, again, we are brought to the conviction that God is, so far\nas we yet see, in an especial and peculiar manner, the Governor of the\nearth and of its human inhabitants, in such a way that the like\ngovernment cannot be conceived to be extended to other planets, and\nother systems, without arbitrary and fanciful assumptions; assumptions\neither of unintelligible differences with incomprehensible results, or\nof beings in all respects human, inhabiting the most remote regions of\nthe universe. And here, again, therefore, we are led to the same\ndifficulty which we have already encountered: Can the earth, a small\nglobe among so many millions, have been selected as the scene of this\nespecially Divine Government?\n\n10. That when we attempt to extend our sympathies to the inhabitants of\nother planets and other worlds, and to regard them as living, like us,\nunder a moral government, we are driven to suppose them to be, in all\nessential respects, human beings like ourselves, we have proof, in all\nthe attempts which have been made, with whatever license of hypothesis\nand fancy, to present to us descriptions and representations of the\ninhabitants of other parts of the universe. Such representations, though\npurposely made as unlike human beings as the imagination of man can\nframe them, still are merely combinations, slightly varied, of the\nelements of human being; and thus show us that not only our reason, but\neven our imagination, cannot conceive creatures subjected to the same\ngovernment to which man is subjected, without conceiving them as being\nmen of one kind or other. A mere animal life, with no interest but\nanimal enjoyment, we may conceive as assuming forms different from those\nwhich appear in existing animal races; though even here, there are, as\nwe shall hereafter attempt to show, certain general principles which run\nthrough all animal life. But when in addition to mere animal impulses,\nwe assume or suppose moral and intellectual interests, we conceive them\nas the moral and intellectual interests of man. Truth and falsehood,\nright and wrong, law and transgression, happiness and misery, reward and\npunishment, are the necessary elements of all that can interest us--of\nall that we can call _Government_. To transfer these to Jupiter or to\nSirius, is merely to imagine those bodies to be a sort of island of\nFormosa, or new Atlantis, or Utopia, or Platonic Polity, or something of\nthe like kind. The boldest and most resolute attempts to devise some\nlife different from human life, have not produced anything more\ndifferent than romance-writers and political theorists have devised _as_\na form of human life. And this being so, there is no more wisdom or\nphilosophy in believing such assemblages of beings to exist in Jupiter\nor Sirius, without evidence, than in believing them to exist in the\nisland of Formosa, with the like absence of evidence.\n\n11. Any examination of what has been written on this subject would show\nthat, in speculating about moral and intellectual beings in other\nregions of the universe, we merely make them to be men in another place.\nWith regard to the plants and animals of other planets, fancy has freer\nplay; but man cannot conceive any moral creature who is not man. Thus\nFontenelle, in his _Dialogues on the Plurality of Worlds_, makes the\ninhabitants of Venus possess, in an exaggerated degree, the\ncharacteristics of the men of the warm climates of the earth. They are\nlike the Moors of Grenada; or rather, the Moors of Grenada would be to\nthem as cold as Greenlanders and Laplanders to us. And the inhabitants\nof Mercury have so much vivacity, that they would pass with us for\ninsane. \"Enfin c'est dans Mercure que sont les Petites-Maisons de\nl'Univers.\" The inhabitants of Jupiter and Saturn are immensely slow and\nphlegmatic. And though he and other writers attempt to make these\ninhabitants of remote regions in some respects superior to man, telling\nus that instead of only five senses, they may have six, or ten, or a\nhundred, still these are mere words which convey no meaning; and the\ngreat astronomer Bessel had reason to say, that those who imagined\ninhabitants in the Moon and Planets, supposed them, in spite of all\ntheir protestations, as like to men as one egg to another.[1]\n\n12. But there is one step more, which we still have to make, in order to\nbring out this difficulty in its full force. As we have said, the moral\nlaw has been, to a certain extent, established, developed, and enforced\namong men. But, as I have also said, looking carefully at the law, and\nat the degree of man's obedience to it, and at the operation of the\nsanctions by which it is supported, we cannot help seeing, that man's\nknowledge of the law is imperfect, his conviction of its authority\nfeeble, his transgressions habitual, their punishment and consequences\nobscure. When, therefore, we regard God, as the Lawgiver and Judge of\nman, it will not appear strange to us, that he should have taken some\nmode of promulgating his Law, and announcing his Judgments, in addition\nto that ordinary operation of the faculties of man, of which we have\nspoken. Revealed Religion teaches us that he has done so: that from the\nfirst placing of the race of man upon the earth, it was his purpose to\ndo so: that by his dealing with the race of man in the earlier times,\nand at various intervals, he made preparation for the mission of a\nspecial Messenger, whom, in the fulness of time, he sent upon the earth\nin the form of a man; and who both taught men the Law of God in a purer\nand clearer form than any in which it had yet been given; and revealed\nHis purpose, of rewards for obedience, and punishments for disobedience,\nto be executed in a state of being to which this human life is only an\nintroduction; and established the means by which the spirit of man, when\nalienated from God by transgression, may be again reconciled to Him. The\narrival of this especial Messenger of Holiness, Judgment, and\nRedemption, forms the great event in the history of the earth,\nconsidered in a religious view, as the abode of God's servants. It was\nattended with the sufferings and cruel death of the Divine Messenger\nthus sent; was preceded by prophetic announcements of his coming; and\nthe history of the world, for the two thousand years that have since\nelapsed, has been in a great measure occupied with the consequences of\nthat advent. Such a proceeding shows, of course, that God has an\nespecial care for the race of man. The earth, thus selected as the\ntheatre of such a scheme of Teaching and of Redemption, cannot, in the\neyes of any one who accepts this Christian faith, be regarded as being\non a level with any other domiciles. It is the Stage of the great Drama\nof God's Mercy and Man's Salvation; the Sanctuary of the Universe; the\nHoly Land of Creation; the Royal Abode, for a time at least, of the\nEternal King. This being the character which has thus been conferred\nupon it, how can we assent to the assertions of Astronomers, when they\ntell us that it is only one among millions of similar habitations, not\ndistinguishable from them, except that it is smaller than most of them\nthat we can measure; confused and rude in its materials like them? Or if\nwe believe the Astronomers, will not such a belief lead us to doubt the\ntruth of the great scheme of Christianity, which thus makes the earth\nthe scene of a special dispensation.\n\n13. This is the form in which Chalmers has taken up the argument. This\nis the difficulty which he proposes to solve; or rather, (such being as\nI have said the mode in which he presents the subject,) the objection\nwhich he proposes to refute. It is the bearing of the Astronomical\ndiscoveries of modern times, not upon the doctrines of Natural Religion,\nbut upon the scheme of Christianity, which he discusses. And the\nquestion which he supposes his opponent to propound, as an objection to\nthe Christian scheme, is:--How is it consistent with the dignity, the\nimpartiality, the comprehensiveness, the analogy of God's proceedings,\nthat he should make so special and pre-eminent a provision for the\nsalvation of the inhabitants of this Earth, where there are such myriads\nof other worlds, all of which may require the like provision, and all of\nwhich have an equal claim to their Creator's care?\n\n14. The answer which Chalmers gives to this objection, is one drawn, in\nthe first instance, from our ignorance. He urges that, when the objector\nasserts that other worlds may have the like need with our own, of a\nspecial provision for the rescue of their inhabitants from the\nconsequences of the transgression of God's laws, he is really making an\nassertion without the slightest foundation. Not only does Science not\ngive us any information on such subjects, but the whole spirit of the\nscientific procedure, which has led to the knowledge which we possess,\nconcerning other planets and other systems, is utterly opposed to our\nmaking such assumptions, respecting other worlds, as the objection\ninvolves. Modern Science, in proportion as she is confident when she has\ngood grounds of proof, however strange may be the doctrines proved, is\nnot only diffident, but is utterly silent, and abstains even from\nguessing, when she has no grounds of proof. Chalmers takes Newton's\nreasoning, as offering a special example of this mixed temper, of\ncourage in following the evidence, and temperance in not advancing when\nthere is no evidence. He puts, in opposition to this, the example of the\ntrue philosophical temper,--a supposed rash theorist, who should make\nunwarranted suppositions and assumptions, concerning matters to which\nour scientific evidence does not reach;--the animals and plants, for\ninstance, which are to be found in the planet Jupiter. No one, he says,\nwould more utterly reject and condemn such speculations than Newton,\nwho first rightly explained the motion of Jupiter and of his attendant\nsatellites, about which Science _can_ pronounce her truths. And thus,\nnothing can be more opposite to the real spirit of modern science, and\nastronomy in particular, than arguments, such as we have stated,\nprofessing to be drawn from science and from astronomy. Since we know\nnothing about the inhabitants of Jupiter, true science requires that we\nsay and suppose nothing about them; still more requires that we should\nnot, on the ground of assumptions made with regard to them, and other\nsupposed groups of living creatures, reject a belief, founded on direct\nand positive proofs, such as is the belief in the truths of Natural and\nof Revealed Religion.\n\n15. To this argument of Chalmers, we may not only give our full assent,\nbut we may venture to suggest, in accordance with what we have already\nsaid, that the argument, when so put, is not stated in all its\nlegitimate force. The assertion that the inhabitants of Jupiter have the\nsame need as we have, of a special dispensation for their preservation\nfrom moral ruin, is not only as merely arbitrary an assumption, as any\nassertion could be, founded on a supposed knowledge of an analogy\nbetween the botany of Jupiter, and the botany of the earth; but it is a\ngreat deal more so. There may be circumstances which may afford some\nreason to believe that something of the nature of vegetables grows on\nthe surface of Jupiter; for instance, if we find that he is a solid\nglobe surrounded by an atmosphere, vapor, clouds, showers. But, as we\nhave already said, there is an immeasurable distance between the\nexistence of unprogressive tribes of organized creatures, plants, or\neven animals, and the existence of a progressive creature, which can\npass through the conditions of receiving, discerning, disobeying, and\nobeying a moral law; which can be estranged from God, and then\nreconciled to him. To assume, without further proof, that there are, in\nJupiter, creatures of such a nature that these descriptions apply to\nthem, is a far bolder and more unphilosophical assumption, than any that\nthe objector could make concerning the botany of Jupiter; and therefore,\nthe objection thus supposed to be drawn from our supposed knowledge, is\nvery properly answered by an appeal to our really utter ignorance, as to\nthe points on which the argument rests.\n\n16. This appeal to our ignorance is the main feature in Chalmers'\nreasonings, so far as the argument on the one side or the other has\nreference to science. Chalmers, indeed, pursues the argument into other\nfields of speculation. He urges, that not only we have no right to\nassume that other worlds require a redemption of the same kind as that\nprovided for man, but that the very reverse maybe the case. Man maybe\nthe only transgressor; and this, the only world that needed so great a\nprovision for its salvation. We read in Scripture, expressions which\nimply that other beings, besides man, take an interest in the salvation\nof man. May not this be true of the inhabitants of other worlds, if such\ninhabitants there be? These speculations he pursues to a considerable\nlength, with great richness of imagination, and great eloquence. But the\nsuppositions on which they proceed are too loosely connected with the\nresults of science, to make it safe for us to dwell upon them here.\n\n17. I conceive, as I have said, that the argument with which Chalmers\nthus deals admits of answers, also drawn from modern science, which to\nmany persons will seem more complete than that which is thus drawn from\nour ignorance. But before I proceed to bring forward these answers,\nwhich will require several steps of explanation, I have one or two\nremarks still to make.\n\n18. Undoubtedly they who believe firmly both that the earth has been\nthe scene of a Divine Plan for the benefit of man, and also that other\nbodies in the universe are inhabited by creatures who may have an\ninterest in such a Plan, are naturally led to conjectures and\nimaginations as to the nature and extent of that interest. The religious\npoet, in his Night Thoughts, interrogates the inhabitants of a distant\nstar, whether their race too has, in its history, events resembling the\nfall of man, and the redemption of man.\n\n    Enjoy your happy realms their golden age?\n    And had your Eden an abstemious Eve?\n    Or, if your mother fell are you redeemed?\n    And if redeemed, is your Redeemer scorned?\n\nAnd such imaginations may be readily allowed to the preacher or the\npoet, to be employed in order to impress upon man the conviction of his\nprivileges, his thanklessness, his inconsistency, and the like. But\nevery form in which such reflections can be put shows how intimately\nthey depend upon the nature and history of man. And when such\nreflections are made the source of difficulty or objection in the way of\nreligious thought, and when these difficulties and objections are\nrepresented as derived from astronomical discoveries, it cannot be\nsuperfluous to inquire whether astronomy has really discovered any\nground for such objections. To some persons it may be more grateful to\nremedy one assumption by another: the assumption of moral agents in\nother worlds, by the assumption of some operation of the Divine Plan in\nother worlds. But since many persons find great difficulty in conceiving\nsuch an operation of the Divine Plan in a satisfactory way; and many\npersons also think that to make such unauthorized and fanciful\nassumptions with regard to the Divine Plans for the government of God's\ncreatures is a violation of the humility, submission of mind, and spirit\nof reverence which religion requires; it may be useful if we can show\nthat such assumptions, with regard to the Divine Plans, are called forth\nby assumptions equally gratuitous on the other side: that Astronomy no\nmore reveals to us extra-terrestrial moral agents, than Religion reveals\nto us extra-terrestrial Plans of Divine government. Chalmers has spoken\nof the _rashness_ of making assumptions on such subjects without proof;\nleaving it however, to be supposed, that though astronomy does not\nsupply proof of intelligent inhabitants of other parts of the universe,\nshe yet does offer strong analogies in favor of such an opinion. But\nsuch a procedure is more than rash: when astronomical doctrines are\npresented in the form in which they have been already laid before the\nreader, which is the ordinary and popular mode of apprehending them, the\nanalogies in favor of \"other worlds,\" are (to say the least) greatly\nexaggerated. And by taking into account what astronomy really teaches\nus, and what we learn also from other sciences, I shall attempt to\nreduce such \"analogies\" to their true value.\n\n14. The privileges of man, which make the difficulty in assigning him\nhis place in the vast scheme of the Universe, we have described as\nconsisting in his being an _intellectual_, _moral_, and _religious_\ncreature. Perhaps the privileges implied in the last term, and their\nplace in our argument, may justify a word more of explanation. Religion\nteaches us that there is opened to man, not only a prospect of a life in\nthe presence of God, after this mortal life, but also the possibility\nand the duty of spending this life as in the presence of God. This is\nproperly the highest result and manifestation of the effect of Religion\nupon man. Precisely because it is this, it is difficult to speak of this\neffect without seeming to use the language of enthusiasm; and yet\nagain, precisely because it is so, our argument would be incomplete\nwithout a reference to it. There is for man, a possibility and a duty of\nbringing his thoughts, purposes, and affections more and more into\ncontinual unison with the will of God. This, even Natural Religion\ntaught men, was the highest point at which man could aim; and Revealed\nReligion has still more clearly enjoined the duty of aiming at such a\ncondition. The means of a progress towards such a state belong to the\nReligion of the heart and mind. They include a constant purification and\nelevation of the thoughts, affections, and will, wrought by habits of\nreligious reflection and meditation, of prayer and gratitude to God.\nWithout entering into further explanation, all religious persons will\nagree that such a progress is, under happy influences, possible for man,\nand is the highest condition to which he can attain in this life.\nWhatever names may have been applied at different times to the steps of\nsuch a progress;--the cultivation of the divine nature in us;\nresignation; devotion; holiness; union with God; living in God, and with\nGod in us;--religious persons will not doubt that there is a reality of\ninternal state corresponding to these expressions; and that, to be\ncapable of elevation into the condition which these expressions\nindicate, is one of the especial privileges of man. Man's soul,\nconsidered especially as the subject of God's government, is often\ncalled his _Spirit_; and that man is capable of such conformity to the\nwill of God, and approximation to Him, is sometimes expressed by\nspeaking of him as a _spiritual creature_. And though the privilege of\nbeing, or of being capable of becoming, in this sense, a spiritual\ncreature, is a part of man's religious privileges; we may sometimes be\nallowed to use this additional expression, in order to remind the\nreader, how great those religious privileges are, and how close is the\nrelation between man and God, which they imply.\n\n15. We have given a view of the peculiar character of man's condition,\nwhich seem to claim for him a nature and place unique and incapable of\nrepetition, in the scheme of the universe; and to this view astronomy,\nexhibiting to us the habitation of man as only one among many similar\nabodes, offers an objection. We are, therefore, now called upon, I\nconceive, to proceed to exhibit the answer which a somewhat different\nview of modern science suggests to this difficulty or objection.\n\nFor this purpose, we must begin by regarding the Earth in another point\nof view, different from that hitherto considered by us.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Populaere Vorlesungen ueber Wissenschaftliche Gegenstaende, p. 31.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nGEOLOGY.\n\n\n1. Man, as I trust has been made apparent to the consciousness and\nconviction of the reader, is an intelligent, moral, religious, and\nspiritual creature; and we have to discuss the difficulty, or\nperplexity, or objection, which arises in our minds, when we consider\nsuch a creature as occupying an habitation, which is but one among many\nglobes apparently equally fitted to be the dwelling-places of living\nthings--a mere speck in the immensity of creation--an atom among such a\nvast array of material structures--a world, as we needs must deem it,\namong millions of other objects which appear to have an equal claim to\nbe regarded as worlds.\n\n2. The difficulty appears to be great, either way. Can the earth alone\nbe the theatre of such intelligent, moral, religious, and spiritual\naction? On the other hand, can we conceive such action to go on in the\nother bodies of the universe? If we take the latter alternative, we must\npeople other planets and other systems with men such as we are, even as\nto their history. For the intellectual and moral condition of man\nimplies a _history_ of the species; and the view of man's condition\nwhich religion presents, not only involves a scheme of which the history\nof the human race is a part, but also asserts a peculiar reference had,\nin the provisions of God, to the nature of man; and even a peculiar\nrelation and connection between the human and the divine nature. To\nextend such suppositions to other worlds would be a proceeding so\narbitrary and fanciful, that we are led to consider whether the\nalternative supposition may not be more admissible. The alternative\nsupposition is, that man is, in an especial and eminent manner, the\nobject of God's care; that his place in the creation is, not that he\nmerely occupies one among millions of similar domiciles provided in\nboundless profusion by the Creator of the Universe, but that he is the\nservant, subject, and child of God, in a way unique and peculiar; that\nhis being a spiritual creature, (including his other attributes in the\nhighest for the sake of brevity,) makes him belong to a spiritual world,\nwhich is not to be judged of merely by analogies belonging to the\nmaterial universe.\n\n3. Between these two difficulties the choice is embarrassing, and the\ndecision must be unsatisfactory, except we can find some further ground\nof judgment. But perhaps this is not hopeless. We have hitherto referred\nto the evidence and analogies supplied by one science, namely,\nastronomy. But there are other sciences which give us information\nconcerning the nature and history of the earth. From some of these,\nperhaps, we may obtain some knowledge of the place of the earth in the\nscheme of creation--how far it is, in its present condition, a thing\nunique, or only one thing among many like it. Any science which supplies\nus with evidence or information on this head, will give us aid in\nforming a judgment upon the question under our consideration. To such\nsciences, then, we will turn our attention.\n\nOne science has employed itself in investigating the nature and history\nof the earth by an examination of the materials of which it is\ncomposed; namely, Geology. Let us call to mind some of the results at\nwhich this science has arrived.\n\n4. A very little attention to what is going on among the materials of\nwhich the earth's surface is composed, suffices to show us that there\nare causes of change constantly and effectually at work. The earth's\nsurface is composed of land and water, hills and valleys, rocks and\nrivers. But these features undergo change, and produce change in each\nother. The mountain-rivers cut deeper and deeper into the ravines in\nwhich they run; they break up the rocks over which they rush, use the\nfragments as implements of further destruction, pile them up in sloping\nmounds where the streams issue from the mountains, spread them over the\nplains, fill up lakes with sediment, push into the sea great deltas. The\nsea batters the cliffs and eats away the land, and again, forms banks\nand islands where there had been deep water. Volcanoes pour out streams\nof lava, which destroy the vegetation over which they flow, and which\nagain, after a series of years, are themselves clothed with vegetation.\nEarthquakes throw down tracts of land beneath the sea, and elevate other\ntracts from the bottom of the ocean. These agencies are everywhere\nmanifest; and though at a given moment, at a given spot, their effect\nmay seem to us almost imperceptible, too insignificant to be taken\naccount of, yet in a long course of years almost every place has\nundergone considerable changes. Rivers have altered their courses, lakes\nhave become plains, coasts have been swept away or have become inland\ndistricts, rich valleys have been ravaged by watery or fiery deluges,\nthe country has in some way or other assumed a new face. The present\naspect of the earth is in some degree different from what it was a few\nthousand years ago.\n\n5. But yet, in truth, the changes of which we thus speak have not been\nvery considerable. The forms of countries, the lines of coasts, the\nranges of mountains, the groups of valleys, the courses of rivers, are\nmuch the same now as they were in ancient times. The face of the earth,\nsince man has had any knowledge of it, may have undergone some change,\nbut the changeable has borne a small proportion to the permanent.\nChanges have taken place, and are taking place, but they do not take\nplace rapidly. The ancient earth and the modern earth are, in all their\nmain physical features, identical; and we must go backwards through a\nconsiderably larger interval than that which carries us back to what we\nusually term _antiquity_, before we are led, by the operation of causes\nnow at work, to an aspect of the earth's surface very different from\nthat which it now presents.\n\n6. For instance, rivers do, no doubt, more or less alter, in the course\nof years, by natural causes. The Rhine, the Rhone, the Po, the Danube,\nhave, certainly, during the last four thousand years, silted up their\nbeds in level places, expanded the deltas at their mouths, changed the\nchannels by which they enter the sea; and very probably, in their upper\nparts, altered the forms of their waterfalls and of their shingle beds.\nYet even if we were thus to go backwards ten thousand, or twenty, or\nthirty thousand years, (setting aside great and violent causes of\nchange, as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and the like,) the general\nform and course of these rivers, and of the ranges of mountains in which\nthey flow, would not be different from what it is now. And the same may\nbe said of coasts and islands, seas and bays. The present geography of\nthe earth may be, and from all the evidence which we have, must be, very\nancient, according to any measures of antiquity which can apply to human\naffairs.\n\n7. But yet the further examination of the materials of the earth\ncarries us to a view beyond this. Though the general forms of the land\nand the waters of continents and seas, were, several thousand years ago,\nmuch the same as they now are; yet it was not always so. We have clear\nevidence that large tracts which are now dry ground, were formerly the\nbed of the ocean; and these, not tracts of the shore, where the varying\nwarfare of sea and land is still going on, but the very central parts of\ngreat continents; the Alps, the Pyrenees, the Himalayas. For not only\nare the rocks of which these great mountain-chains consist, of such\nstructure that they appear to have been formed as layers of sediment at\nthe bottom of water; but also, these layers contain vast accumulations\nof shells, or impressions of shells, and other remains of marine\nanimals. And these appearances are not few, limited, or partial. The\nexistence of such marine remains, in the solid substance of continents\nand mountains, is a general, predominant, and almost universal fact, in\nevery part of the earth. Nor is any other way of accounting for this\nfact admissible, than that those materials really have, at some time,\nformed bottoms of seas. The various other conjectures and hypotheses,\nwhich were put forward on this subject, when the amount, extent,\nmultiplicity, and coherence of the phenomena were not yet ascertained,\nand when their natural history was not yet studied, cannot now be\nconsidered as worthy of the smallest regard. That many of our highest\nhills are formed of materials raised from the depths of ocean, is a\nproposition which cannot be doubted, by any one, who fairly examines the\nevidence which nature offers.\n\n8. If we take this proposition only, we cannot immediately connect it\nwith our knowledge respecting the surface of the earth in its present\nform. We learn that what is now land, has been sea; and we may suppose\n(since it is natural to assume that the bulk of the sea has not much\nchanged) that what is now sea was formerly land. But, except we can\nlearn something of the manner in which this change took place, we cannot\nmake any use of our knowledge. Was the change sudden, or gradual;\nabrupt, or successive; brief, or long-continuing?\n\n9. To these questions, the further study of the facts enables us to\nreturn answers with great confidence. The change or changes which\nproduced the effects of which we have spoken--the conversion of the\nbottom of the ocean into the centre of our greatest continents and\nhighest mountains,--were undoubtedly gradual, successive, and long\ncontinued. We must state very briefly the grounds on which we make this\nassertion.\n\n10. The masses which form our mountain-chains, offer evidence, as I have\nsaid, that they were deposited as sediment at the bottom of a sea, and\nthen hardened. They consist of successive layers of such sediment,\nmaking up the whole mass of the mountain. These layers are, of course,\nto a certain extent, a measure of the time during which the deposition\nof sediment took place. The thicker the mass of sediment, the more\nnumerous and varied its beds, and the longer period must we suppose to\nhave been requisite for its formation. Without making any attempt at\naccurate or definite estimation, which would be to no purpose, it is\nplain that a mass of sedimentary strata five thousand or ten thousand\nfeet thick, must have required, for its deposit, a long course of years,\nor rather, a long course of ages.\n\n11. But again: on further examination it is found, that we have not\nmerely one series of sedimentary deposits, thus forming our mountains.\nThere are a number of different series of such layers or strata, to be\nfound in different ranges of hills, and in the same range, one series\nresting upon another. These different series of strata are\ndistinguishable from one another by their general structure and\nappearance, besides more intimate characters, of which we shall shortly\nhave to speak. Each such series appears to have a certain consistency of\nstructure within itself; the layers of which it is composed being more\nor less parallel, but the successive series are not thus always\nparallel, the lower ones being often highly inclined and irregular,\nwhile the upper ones are more level and continuous: as if the lower\nstrata had been broken up and thrown into disorder, and then a new\nseries of strata had been deposited horizontally on their fragments. But\nin whatever way these different sedimentary series succeeded each other,\neach series must have required, as we have seen, a long period for its\nformation; and to estimate the length of the interval between the two\nseries, we have, at the present stage of our exposition, no evidence.\n\n12. But the mechanical structure of the strata, the result, as it seems,\nof aqueous sedimentary deposit, is not the only, nor the most important\nevidence, with regard to the length of time occupied by the formation of\nthe rocky layers which now compose our mountains. As we have said, they\ncontain shells, and other remains of creatures which live in the sea.\nThese they contain, not in small numbers, scattered and detached, but in\nvast abundance, as they are found in those parts of the ocean which is\nmost alive with them. There are the remains of oysters and other\nshell-fish in layers, as they live at present in the seas near our\nshores; of corals, in vast patches and beds, as they now occur in the\nwaters of the Pacific; of shoals of fishes, of many different kinds, in\nimmense abundance. Each of these beds of shells, of corals, and of\nfishes, must have required many years, perhaps many centuries, for the\ngrowth of the successive individuals and successive generations of which\nit consists: as long a time, perhaps, as the present inhabitants of the\nsea have lived therein: or many times longer, if there have been many\nsuch successive changes. And thus, while the present condition of the\nearth extends backwards to a period of vast but unknown antiquity; we\nhave, offered to our notice, the evidence of a series of other periods,\neach of which, so far as we can judge, may have been as long or longer\nthan that during which the dry land has had its present form.\n\n13. But the most remarkable feature in the evidence is yet to come. We\nhave spoken in general of the oysters, and corals, and fishes, which\noccur in the strata of our hills; as if they were creatures of the same\nkinds which we now designate by those names. But a more exact\nexamination of these remains of organized beings, shows that this is not\nso. The tribes of animals which are found petrified in our rocks are\nalmost all different, so far as our best natural historians can\ndetermine, from those which now live in our existing seas. They are\ndifferent species; different genera. The creatures which we find thus\nembedded in our mountains, are not only dead as individuals, but extinct\nas species. They belonged, not only to a terrestrial period, but to an\nanimal creation, which is now past away. The earth is, it seems, a\ndomicile which has outlasted more than one race of tenants.\n\n14. It may seem rash and presumptuous in the natural historian to\npronounce thus peremptorily that certain forms of life are nowhere to be\nfound at present, even in the unfathomable and inaccessible depths of\nthe ocean. But even if this were so, the proposition that the earth has\nchanged its inhabitants, since the rocks were formed, of which our hills\nconsist, does not depend for its proof on this assumption. For in the\norganic bodies which our strata contain, we find remains, not only of\nmarine animals, but of animals which inhabit the fresh waters, and the\nland, and of plants. And the examination of such remains having been\npursued with great zeal, and with all the aids which natural history can\nsupply, the result has been, the proofs of a vast series of different\ntribes of animals and plants, which have successively occupied the earth\nand the seas; and of which the number, variety, multiplicity, and\nstrangeness, exceed, by far, everything which could have been previously\nimagined. Thus Cuvier found, in the limestone strata on which Paris\nstands, animals of the most curious forms, combining in the most\nwonderful manner the qualities of different species of existing\nquadrupeds. In another series of strata, the Lias, which runs as a band\nacross England from N. E. to S. W., we have the remains of lizards, or\nlacertine animals, different from those which now exist, of immense size\nand of extraordinary structure, some approaching to the form of fishes\n(_ichthyosaurus_); others, with the neck of a serpent; others with\nwings, like the fabled forms of dragons. Then beyond these, that is,\nanterior to them in the series of time, we have the immense collection\nof fossil plants, which occur in the Coal Strata; the shells and corals\nof the Mountain Limestone; the peculiar fishes, different altogether\nfrom existing fishes, of the Old Red Sandstone; and though, as we\ndescend lower and lower, the traces of organic life appear to be more\nrare and more limited in kind, yet still we have, beneath these, in\nslates and in beds of limestone, many fossil remains, still differing\nfrom those which occur in the higher, and therefore, newer strata.\n\n15. We have no intention of instituting any definite calculation with\nregard to the periods of time which this succession of forms of organic\nlife may have occupied. This, indeed, the boldest geological\nspeculators have not ventured to do. But the scientific discoveries thus\nmade, have a bearing upon the analogies of creation, quite as important\nas the discoveries of astronomy. And therefore we may state briefly some\nof the divisions of the series of terrestrial strata which have\nsuggested themselves to geological inquirers. At the outset of such\nspeculations, it was conceived that the lower rocks, composed of\ngranite, slate, and the like, had existed before the earth was peopled\nwith living things; and that these, being broken up into inclined\npositions, there were deposited upon them, as the sediment of\nsuperincumbent waters, strata more horizontal, containing organic\nremains. The former were then called _Primitive_ or _Primary_, the\nlatter, _Secondary_ rocks. But it was soon found that this was too\nsweeping and peremptory a division. Rocks which had been classed as\nPrimary, were found to contain traces of life; and hence, an\nintermediate class of _Transition_ strata was spoken of. But this too\nwas soon seen to be too narrow a scheme of arrangement, to take in the\nrapidly-accumulating mass of facts, organic and others, which the\ngeological record of the earth's history disclosed. It appeared that\namong the fossil-bearing strata there might be discerned a long series\nof Formations: the term _Formation_ being used to imply a collection of\nsuccessive strata, which, taking into account all the evidence, of\nmaterials, position, relations, and organic remains, appears to have\nbeen deposited during some one epoch or period; so as to form a natural\ngroup, chronologically and physiologically distinct from the others. In\nthis way it appeared that, taking as the highest part of the Secondary\nseries, the beds of chalk, which, marked by characteristic fossils, run\nthrough great tracts of Europe, with other beds, of sand and clay, which\ngenerally accompany these; there was, below this _Cretaceous Formation_,\nan _Oolitic Formation_, still more largely diffused, and still more\nabundant in its peculiar organic remains. Below this, we have, in\nEngland, the _New Red Sandstone Formation_, which, in other countries,\nis accompanied by beds abundant in fossils, as the _Muschelkalk_ of\nGermany. Below this again we have the _Coal Formation_, and the\n_Mountain Limestone_, with their peculiar fossils. Below these, we have\nthe Old Red Sandstone or Devonian System, with its peculiar fishes and\nother fossils. Beneath these, occur still numerous series of\ndistinguishable strata; which have been arranged by Sir Roderick\nMurchison as the members of the _Silurian_ formation; the researches by\nwhich it was established having been carried on, in the first place, in\nSouth Wales, the ancient country of the Silures. Including the lower\npart of this formation, and descending still lower in order, is the\n_Cambrian_ formation of Professor Sedgwick. And since the races of\norganic beings, as we thus descend through successive strata, seem to be\nfewer and fewer in their general types, till at last they disappear;\nthese lower members of the geological series have been termed, according\nto their succession, _Palaeozoic_, _Protozoic_, and _Hypozoic_ or\n_Azoic_. The general impression on the minds of geologists has been,\nthat, as we descend in this long staircase of natural steps, we are\nbrought in view of a state of the earth in which life was scantily\nmanifested, so as to appear to be near its earliest stages.\n\n16. Each of these formations is of great thickness. Several of the\nmembers of each formation are hundreds, many of them thousands of feet\nthick. Taken altogether, they afford an astounding record of the time\nduring which they must have been accumulating, and during which these\nsuccessive groups of animals must have been brought into being, lived,\nand continued their kinds.\n\n17. We must add, that over the Secondary strata there are found, in\npatches, generally of more limited extent, another, and of course, newer\nmass of strata, which have been termed _Tertiary Formations_. Of these,\nthe strata, near and under Paris, lying in a hollow of the subjacent\nstrata, and hence termed the _Paris Basin_, attracted prominent notice\nin the first place. And these are found to contain an immense quantity\nof remains of animals, which, being well preserved, and being subjected\nto a careful and scientific scrutiny by the great naturalist George\nCuvier, had an eminent share in establishing in the minds of Geologists\nthe belief of the extinct character of fossil species, and of the\npossibility of reconstructing, from such remains, the animals, different\nfrom those which now live, which had formerly tenanted the earth.\n\n18. We have, in this enumeration, a series of groups of strata, each of\nwhich, speaking in a general way, has its own population of animals and\nplants, and is separated, by the peculiarities of these, from the groups\nbelow and above it. Each group may, in a general manner, be considered\nas a separate creation of animal and vegetable forms--creatures which\nhave lived and died, as the races now existing upon the earth live and\ndie; and of which the living existence may, and according to all\nappearance must, have occupied ages, and series of ages, such as have\nbeen occupied by the present living generations of the earth. This\nseries of creations, or of successive periods of life, is, no doubt, a\nvery striking and startling fact, very different from anything which the\nimagination of man, in previous stages of investigation of the earth's\ncondition, had conceived; but still, is established by evidence so\ncomplete, drawn from an examination and knowledge of the structures of\nliving things so exact and careful, as to leave no doubt whatever of the\nreality of the fact, on the minds of those who have attended to the\nevidence; founded, as it is, upon the analogies, offices, anatomy, and\ncombinations of organic structures. The progress of human knowledge on\nthis subject has been carried on and established by the same\nalternations of bold conjectures and felicitous confirmations of\nthem,--of minute researches and large generalizations,--which have given\nreality and solidity to the other most certain portions of human\nknowledge. That the strata of the earth, as we descend from the highest\nto the lowest, are distinguished in general by characteristic or organic\nfossils, and that these forms of organization are different from those\nwhich now live on the earth, are truths as clearly and indisputably\nestablished in the minds of those who have the requisite knowledge of\ngeology and natural history, as that the planets revolve round the sun,\nand satellites round the planets. That these epochs of creation are\nsomething quite different from anything which we now see taking place on\nthe earth, no more disturbs the belief of those facts, which scientific\nexplorers entertain, than the seemingly obvious difference between the\nnebulae which are regarded as yet unformed planetary systems, and the\nsolar system to which our earth belongs, disturbs the belief of\nastronomers, that such nebulae, as well as our system, really exist.\nIndeed we may say, as we shall hereafter see, that the fact of our earth\nhaving passed through the series of periods of organic life which\ngeologists recognize, is, hitherto, incomparably better established,\nthan the fact that the nebulae, or any of them, are passing through a\nseries of changes, such as may lead to a system like ours; as some\neminent astronomers in modern times have held. In this respect, the\nhistory of the world, and its place in the universe, are far more\nclearly learnt from geology than from astronomy.\n\n19. But with regard to this series of Organic _Creations_, if, for the\nsake of brevity, we may call them so; we may naturally ask, in what\nmanner, by what agencies, at what intervals, they succeeded each other\non the earth? Now, do the researches of geologists give us any\ninformation on these points, which may be brought to bear upon our\npresent speculations? If we ask these questions, we receive, from\ndifferent classes of geologists, different answers. A little while ago,\nmost geologists held, probably the greater number still hold, that the\ntransitions from one of these periods of organic life to another, were\naccompanied generally by seasons of violent disruption and mutation of\nthe surface of the earth, exceeding anything which has taken place since\nthe surface assumed its present general form; in the same proportion as\nthe changes of its organic population go beyond any such changes which\nwe can discern to be at present in operation. And there were found to be\nchanges of other kinds, which seemed to show that these epochs of\norganic transition had also been epochs of mechanical violence, upon a\nvast and wonderful scale. It appeared that, at some of these epochs at\nleast, the strata previously deposited, as if in comparative\ntranquillity, had been broken, thrust up from below, or drawn or cast\ndownwards; so that strata which must at first have been nearly level,\nwere thrown into positions highly inclined, fractured, set on edge,\ncontorted, even inverted. Over the broken edges of these strata, thus\ndisturbed and fractured, were found vast accumulations of the fragments\nwhich such rude treatment might naturally produce; these fragmentary\nruins being spread in beds comparatively level, over the bristling edges\nof the subjacent rocks, as if deposited in the fluid which had\noverwhelmed the previous structure; and with few or no traces of life\nappearing in this mass of ruins; while, in the strata which lay over\nthem, and which appeared to have been the result of quieter times, new\nforms of organic life made their appearance in vast abundance. Such is,\nfor example, the relation of the coal strata in a great part of\nEngland; broken into innumerable basins, ridges, valleys, strips, and\nshreds, lying in all positions; and then filled into a sort of level, by\nthe conglomerate of the magnesian limestone, and the superincumbent red\nsandstone and oolites. In other cases it appeared as if there were the\nmeans of tracing, in these dislocations, the agency of igneous stony\nmatter, which had been injected from below, so as to form\nmountain-chains, or the cores of such; and in which the period of the\nconvulsion could be traced, by the strata to which the disturbance\nextended; _those_ strata being supposed to have been deposited before\nthe eruption, which were thrust upwards by it into highly-inclined\npositions; while those strata which, though near to these scenes of\nmechanical violence, were still comparatively horizontal, as they had\nbeen originally deposited, were naturally inferred to have been formed\nin the waters, after the catastrophe had passed away. By such reasonings\nas these, M. Elie de Beaumont has conceived that he can ascertain the\nrelative ages (according to the vast and loose measurements of age which\nbelong to this subject) of the principal ranges of mountains of the\nearth's surface.\n\n20. Such estimations of age can, indeed, as we have intimated, be only\nof the widest and loosest kind; yet they all concur in assigning very\ngreat and gigantic periods of time, as having been occupied by the\nevents which have formed the earth's strata, and brought them into their\npresent position. For not only must there have been long ages employed,\nas we have said, while the successive generations of each group of\nanimals lived, and died, and were entombed in the abraded fragments of\nthe then existing earth; but the other operations which intervened\nbetween these apparently more tranquil processes, must also have\noccupied, it would seem, long ages at each interval. The dislocation,\ndisruption, and contortion of the vast masses of previously existing\nmountains, by which their framework was broken up, and its ruins covered\nwith beds of its own rubbish, many thousand feet thick, and gradually\nbecoming less coarse and smoother, as the higher beds were deposited\nupon the lower, could hardly take place, it would seem, except in\nhundreds and thousands of years. And then again, all these processes of\ndeposition, thus arranging loose masses of material into level beds,\nmust have taken place in the bottom of deep oceans; and the beds of\nthese oceans must have been elevated into the position of mountain\nridges which they now occupy, by some mighty operation of nature, which\nmust have been comparatively tranquil, since it has not much disturbed\nthose more level beds; and which, therefore, must have been\ncomparatively long continued. If we accept, as so many eminent\ngeologists have done, this evidence of a vast series of successive\nperiods of alternate violence and repose, we must assign to each such\nperiod a duration which cannot but be immense, compared with the periods\nof time with which we are commonly conversant. In the periods of\ncomparative quiet, such as now exist on the earth's surface, and such as\nseem to be alone consistent with continued life and successive\ngeneration, deposits at the bottom of lakes and seas take place, it\nwould seem, only at the rate of a few feet in a year, or perhaps, in a\ncentury. When, therefore, we find strata, bearing evidence of such a\nmode of deposit, and piled up to the amount of thousands and tens of\nthousands of feet, we are naturally led to regard them as the production\nof myriads of years; and to add new myriads, as often as, in the\nprosecution of geological research, we are brought to new masses of\nstrata of the like kind; and again, to interpolate new periods of the\nsame order, to allow for the transition from one such group to another.\n\n21. Nor is there anything which need startle us, in the necessity of\nassuming such vast intervals of time, when we have once brought\nourselves to deal with the question of the antiquity of the earth upon\nscientific evidence alone. For if geology thus carries us far backwards\nthrough thousands, it may be, millions of years, astronomy does not\noffer the smallest argument to check this regressive supposition. On the\ncontrary, all the most subtle and profound investigations of astronomers\nhave led them to the conviction, that the motions of the earth may have\ngone on, as they now go on, for an indefinite period of past time. There\nis no tendency to derangement in the mechanism of the solar system, so\nfor as science has explored it. Minute inequalities in the movements\nexist, too small to produce any perceptible effect on the condition of\nthe earth's surface; and even these inequalities, after growing up\nthrough long cycles of ages, to an amount barely capable of being\ndetected by astronomical scrutiny, reach a maximum; and, diminishing by\nthe same slow degrees by which they increased, correct themselves, and\ndisappear. The solar system, and the earth as part of it, constitute, so\nfor as we can discover, a Perpetual Motion.\n\n22. There is therefore nothing, in what we know of the Cosmical\nconditions of our globe, to contradict the Terrestrial evidence for its\nvast antiquity, as the seat of organic life. If for the sake of giving\ndefiniteness to our notions, we were to assume that the numbers which\nexpress the antiquity of these four Periods;--the Present organic\ncondition of the earth; the Tertiary Period of geologists, which\npreceded that; the Secondary Period, which was anterior to that; and the\nPrimary Period which preceded the Secondary; were on the same scale as\nthe numbers which express these four magnitudes:--the magnitude of the\nEarth; that of the Solar System compared with the Earth; the distance\nof the nearest Fixed Stars compared with the solar system; and the\ndistance of the most remote Nebulae compared with the nearest fixed\nstars; there is, in the evidence which geological science offers,\nnothing to contradict such an assumption.\n\n23. And as the infinite extent which we necessarily ascribe to space,\nallows us to find room, without any mental difficulty, for the vast\ndistances which astronomy reveals, and even leaves us rather embarrassed\nwith the infinite extent which lies beyond our farthest explorations; so\nthe infinite duration which we, in like manner, necessarily ascribe to\npast time, makes it easy for us, so far as our powers of intellect are\nconcerned, to go millions of millions of years backwards, in order to\ntrace the beginning of the earth's existence,--the first step of\nterrestrial creation. It is as easy for the mind of man to reason\nrespecting a system which is billions or trillions of miles in extent,\nand has endured through the like number of years, or centuries, as it is\nto reason about a system (the earth, for instance,) which is forty\nmillion feet in extent, and has endured for a hundred thousand million\nof seconds, that is, a few thousand years.\n\n24. This statement is amply sufficient for the argument which we have to\nfound upon it; but before I proceed to do that, I will give another view\nwhich has recently been adopted by some geologists, of the mode in which\nthe successive periods of creation, which geological research discloses\nto us, have passed into one another. According to this new view, we find\nno sufficient reason to believe that the history of the earth, as read\nby us in the organic and mechanical phenomena of its superficial parts,\nhas consisted of such an alternation of periods of violence and of\nrepose, as we have just attempted to describe. According to these\ntheorists, strata have succeeded strata, one group of animals and\nplants has followed another, through a season of uniform change; with no\ngreater paroxysm or catastrophe, it may be, than has occurred during the\ntime that man has been an observer of the earth. It may be asked, how is\nthis consistent with the phenomena which we have described;--with the\nvast masses of ruin, which mark the end of one period and the beginning\nof another, as is the case in passing from the coal measures of England\nto the superincumbent beds;--with the highly-inclined strata of the\ncentral masses, and the level beds of the upper formations which have\nbeen described as marking the mountain ranges of Europe? To these\nquestions, a reply is furnished, we are told, by a more extensive and\ncareful examination of the strata. It may be, that in certain\nlocalities, in certain districts, the transition, from the mountain\nlimestone and the coal, to the superjacent sandstones and oolites, is\nabrupt and seemingly violent; marked by _unconformable_ positions of the\nupper upon the lower strata, by beds of conglomerate, by the absence of\norganic remains in certain of these beds. But if we follow these very\nstrata into other parts of the world, or even into other parts of this\nisland, we find that this abruptness and incongruity between the lower\nand the higher strata disappears. Between the mountain-limestone and the\nred sandstone which lies over it, certain new beds are found, which fill\nup the incoherent interval; which offer the same evidence as the strata\nbelow and above them, of having been produced tranquilly; and which do\nnot violently differ in position from either group. The appearance of\nincoherence in the series arose from the occurrence, in the region first\nexamined, of a gap, which is here filled up,--a blank which is here\nsupplied. Hence it is inferred, that whatever of violence and extreme\ndisturbance is indicated by the dislocations and ruins there observed,\nwas local and partial only; and that, at the very time when these\nfragmentary beds, void of organized beings, were forming in one place,\nthere were, at the same time, going on, in another part of the earth's\nsurface, not far removed, the processes of the life, death and imbedding\nof species, as tranquilly as at any other period. And the same assertion\nis made with regard to the more general fact, before described, of the\nstratigraphical constitution of mountain chains. It is asserted that the\nunconformable relation of the strata which compose the different parts\nof those chains, is a local occurrence only; and that the same strata,\nif followed into other regions, are found conformable to each other; or\nare reduced to a virtually continuous scheme, by the interpolation of\nother strata, which make a transition, in which no evidence of\nexceptional violence appears.\n\n25. We shall not attempt (it is not at all necessary for us to do so) to\ndecide between the doctrines of the two geological schools which thus\nstand in this opposition to each other. But it will be useful to our\nargument to state somewhat further the opinions of this latter school on\none main point. We must explain the view which these geologists take of\nthe mode of succession of one group of _organized_ beings to another; by\nwhich, as we have said, the different successive strata are\ncharacterized. Such a phenomenon, it would at first seem, cannot be\nbrought within the ordinary rules of the existing state of things. The\nspecies of plants and animals which inhabit the earth, do not change\nfrom age to age; they are the same in modern times, as they were in the\nmost remote antiquity, of which we have any record. The dogs and horses,\nsheep and cattle, lions and wolves, eagles and swallows, corn and vines,\noaks and cedars, which occupy the earth now, are not, we have the\nstrongest reasons to believe, essentially different now from what they\nwere in the earliest ages. At least, if one or two species have\ndisappeared, no new species have come into existence. We cannot conceive\na greater violation of the known laws of nature, than that such an event\nas the appearance of a new species should have occurred. Even those who\nhold the uniformity of the mechanical changes of the earth, and of the\nrate of change, from age to age, and from one geological period to\nanother; must still, it would seem, allow that the zoological and\nphytological changes of which geology gives her testimony, are complete\nexceptions to what is now taking place. The formation of strata at the\nbottom of the ocean from the ruin of existing continents, may be going\non at present. Even the elevation of the bed of the ocean in certain\nplaces, as a process imperceptibly slow, may be in action at this\nmoment, as these theorists hold that it is. But still, even when the\nbeds thus formed are elevated into mountain chains, if that should\nhappen, in the course of myriads of years, (according to the supposition\nit cannot be effected in a less period,) the strata of such mountain\nchains will still contain only the species of such creatures as now\ninhabit the waters; and we shall have, even then, no succession of\norganic epochs, such as geology discovers in the existing mountains of\nthe earth.\n\n26. The answer which is made to this objection appears to me to involve\na license of assumption on the part of the _uniformitarian_ geologist,\n(as such theorists have been termed,) which goes quite beyond the bounds\nof natural philosophy: but I wish to state it; partly, in order to show\nthat the most ingenious men, stimulated by the exigencies of a theory,\nwhich requires some hypothesis concerning the succession of species, to\nmake it coherent and complete, have still found it impossible to bring\nthe creation of species of plants and animals within the domain of\nnatural science; and partly, to show how easily and readily geological\ntheorists are led to assume periods of time, even of a higher order than\nthose which I have ventured to suggest.\n\n27. It must, however, be first stated, as a fact on which the assumption\nis founded which I have to notice, that the organic groups by which\nthese successive strata are characterized, are not so distinct and\nseparate, as it was convenient, for the sake of explanation, to describe\nthem in the first instance. Although each body of strata is marked by\npredominant groups of genera and species, yet it is not true, that all\nthe species of each formation disappear, when we proceed to the next.\nSome species and genera endure through several successive groups of\nstrata; while others disappear, and new forms come into view, as we\nascend. And thus, the change from one set of organic forms to another,\nas we advance in time, is made, not altogether by abrupt transitions,\nbut in part continuously. The uniformitarian, in the case of organic, as\nin the case of mechanical change, obliterates or weakens the evidence of\nsudden and catastrophic leaps, by interposing intermediate steps, which\ninvolve, partly the phenomena of the preceding, and partly those of the\nsubsequent condition. As he allows no universal transition from one\ndeposit to a succeeding discrepant and unconformable deposit, so he\nallows no abrupt and complete transition from one collection of organic\nbeings,--one creation, as we may call it,--to another. If creation must\nneeds be an act out of the region of natural science, he will have it to\nbe at least an act not exercised at distant intervals, and on peculiar\noccasions; but constantly going on, and producing its effects, as much\nat one time in the geological history of the world, as at another.\n\n28. And this he holds, not only with regard to the geological periods\nwhich have preceded the existing condition of the earth, but also with\nregard to the transition from those previous periods to that in which we\nlive. The present population of the earth is not one in which all\nprevious forms are extinct. The past population of the earth was not one\nin which there are found no creatures still living. On the contrary, he\nfinds that there exists a vast mass of strata, superior to the secondary\nstrata, which are characterized by extinct forms, and are yet inferior\nto those deposits which are now going on by the agency of obvious\ncauses. These masses of strata contain a population of creatures, partly\nextinct species, and partly such species as are still living on our land\nand in our waters. The proportion in which the old and the new species\noccur in such strata, is various; and the strata are so numerous, so\nrich in organic remains, so different from each other, and have been so\nwell explored, that they have been classified and named according to the\nproportion of new and of old species which they contain. Those which\ncontain the largest proportion of species still living, have been termed\n_Pliocene_, as containing a _greater_ number of _new_ or recent species.\nBelow these, are strata which are termed _Miocene_, implying a _smaller_\nnumber of _new_ species. Below these again, are others which have been\ntermed _Eocene_, as containing few new species indeed, but yet enough to\nmark the _dawn_, the _Eos_, of the existing state of the organic world.\nThese strata are, in many places, of very considerable thickness; and\ntheir number, their succession, and the great amount of extinct species\nwhich they contain, shows, in a manner which cannot be questioned, (if\nthe evidence of geology is accepted at all,) in what a gradual manner, a\nportion at least, of the existing forms of organic life have taken the\nplace of a different population previously existing on the surface of\nthe globe.\n\n29. And thus the uniformitarian is led to consider the facts which\ngeology brings to light, as indicating a slow and almost imperceptible,\nbut, upon the whole, constant series of changes, not only in the\nposition of the earth's materials, but in its animal and vegetable\npopulation. Land becomes sea and sea becomes land; the beds of oceans\nare elevated into mountain regions, carrying with them the remains of\ntheir inhabitants; sheets of lava pour from volcanic vents and overwhelm\nthe seats of life; and these, again, become fields of vegetation; or, it\nmay be, descend to the depths of the sea, and are overgrown with groves\nof coral; lakes are filled with sediment, imbedding the remains of land\nanimals, and form the museums of future zoologists; the deltas of mighty\nrivers become the centres of continents, and are excavated as\ncoal-fields by men in remote ages. And yet all this time, so slow is the\nchange, that man is unaware such changes are going on. He knows that the\nmountains of Scandinavia are rising out of the Baltic at the rate of a\nfew feet in a century; he knows that the fertile slope of Etna has been\ngrowing for thousands of years by the addition of lava streams and\nparasitic volcanos; he knows that the delta of the Mississippi\naccumulates hundreds of miles of vegetable matter every generation; he\nknows that the shores of Europe are yielding to the sea; but all these\nappear to him minute items, not worth summing; infinitesimal quantities,\nwhich he cannot integrate. And so, in truth, they are, for him. His\nephemeral existence does not allow him to form a just conception, in any\nordinary state of mind, of the effects of this constant agency of\nchange, working through countless thousands of years. But Time,\ninexhausted and unremitting, sums the series, integrates the formula of\nchange; and thus passes, with sure though noiseless progress, from one\ngeological epoch to another.\n\n30. And in the meanwhile, to complete the view thus taken by the\nuniformitarian of the geological history of the earth, by some constant\nbut inscrutable law, creative agency is perpetually at work, to\nintroduce, into this progressive system of things, new species of\nvegetable and animal life. Organic forms, ever and ever new ones, are\nbrought into being, and left, visible footsteps, as it were, of the\nprogress which Time has made;--marks placed between the rocky leaves of\nthe book of creation; by which man, when his time comes, may turn back\nand read the past history of his habitation. But the point for us to\nremark is, the immeasurable, the inconceivable length of time, if any\nlength of time could be inconceivable, which is required of our\nthoughts, by this new assumption of the constant production of new\nspecies, as a law of creation. We might feel ourselves well nigh\noverwhelmed, when, by looking at processes which we see producing only a\nfew feet of height or breadth or depth during the life of man, we are\ncalled upon to imagine the construction of Alps and Andes,--when we have\nto imagine a world made a few inches in a century. But there, at least,\nwe had _something_ to start from: the element of change was small, but\nthere _was_ an element of change: we had to expand, but we had not to\noriginate. But in conceiving that all the myriads of successive species,\nwhich we find in the earth's strata, have come into being by a law which\nis now operating, we have _nothing_ to start from. We have seen, and\nknow of, no such change; all sober and skilful naturalists reject it, as\na fact not belonging to our time. We have here to build a theory without\nmaterials;--to sum a series of which every term, so far as we know, is\nnothing;--to introduce into our scientific reasonings an assumption\ncontrary to all scientific knowledge.\n\n31. This appears to me to be the real character of the assumption of\nthe constant creation of new species. But, as I have said, it is not my\nbusiness here, to pronounce upon the value or truth of this assumption.\nThe only use which I wish to make of it is this:--If any persons, who\nhave adopted the geological view which I have just been explaining,\nshould feel any interest in the speculations here offered to their\nnotice, they must needs be (as I have no doubt they will be) even more\nwilling than other geologists, to grant to our argument a scale of time\nfor geological succession, corresponding in magnitude to the scale of\ndistances which astronomy teaches us, as those which measure the\nrelation of the universe to the earth.\n\nThis being supposed to be granted, I am prepared to proceed with my\nargument.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE ARGUMENT FROM GEOLOGY.\n\n\n1. I have endeavored to explain that, according to the discoveries of\ngeologists, the masses of which the surface of the earth is composed,\nexhibit indisputable evidence that, at different successive periods, the\nland and the waters which occupy it, have been inhabited by successive\nraces of plants and animals; which, when taken in large groups,\naccording to the ascending or descending order of the strata, consist of\nspecies different from those above and below them. Many of these groups\nof species are of forms so different from any living things which now\nexist, as to give to the life of those ancient periods an aspect\nstrangely diverse from that which life now displays, and to transfer us,\nin thought, to a creation remote in its predominant forms from that\namong which we live. I have shown also, that the life and successive\ngenerations of these groups of species, and the events by which the\nrocks which contain these remains have been brought into their present\nsituation and condition, must have occupied immense intervals of\ntime;--intervals so large that they deserve to be compared, in their\nnumerical expression, with the intervals of space which separate the\nplanets and stars from each other. It has been seen, also, that the best\ngeologists and natural historians have not been able to devise any\nhypothesis to account for the successive introduction of these new\nspecies into the earth's population; except the exercise of a series of\nacts of creation, by which they have been brought into being; either in\ngroups at once, or in a perpetual succession of one or a few species,\nwhich the course of long intervals of time might accumulate into groups\nof species. It is true, that some speculators have held that by the\nagency of natural causes, such as operate upon organic forms, one\nspecies might be transmuted into another; external conditions of\nclimate, food, and the like, being supposed to conspire with internal\nimpulses and tendencies, so as to produce this effect. This supposition\nis, however, on a more exact examination of the laws of animal life,\nfound to be destitute of proof; and the doctrine of the successive\ncreation of species remains firmly established among geologists. That\nthe _extinction_ of species, and of groups of species, may be accounted\nfor by natural causes, is a proposition much more plausible, and to a\ncertain extent, probable; for we have good reason to believe that, even\nwithin the time of human history, some few species have ceased to exist\nupon the earth. But whether the extinction of such vast groups of\nspecies as the ancient strata present to our notice, can be accounted\nfor in this way, at least without assuming the occurrence of great\ncatastrophes, which must for a time, have destroyed all forms of life in\nthe district in which they occurred, appears to be more doubtful. The\ndecision of these questions, however, is not essential to our purpose.\nWhat is important is, that immense numbers of tribes of animals have\ntenanted the earth for countless ages, before the present state of\nthings began to be.\n\n2. The present state of things is that to which the existence and the\nhistory of MAN belong; and the remark which I now have to make is, that\nthe existence and the history of Man are facts of an entirely different\norder from any which existed in any of the previous states of the earth;\nand that this history has occupied a series of years which, compared\nwith geological periods, may be regarded as very brief and limited.\n\n3. The remains of man are nowhere found in the strata which contain the\nrecords of former states of the earth. Skeletons of vast varieties of\ncreatures have been disinterred from their rocky tombs; but these\ncemeteries of nature supply no portion of a human skeleton. In earlier\nperiods of natural science, when comparative anatomy was as yet very\nimperfectly understood, no doubt, many fossil bones were supposed to be\nhuman bones. The remains of giants and of antediluvians were frequent in\nmuseums. But a further knowledge of anatomy has made it appear that such\nbones all belong to animals, of one kind or another; often, to animals\nutterly different, in their form and skeleton, from man. Also some\nbones, really human, have been found petrified in situations in which\npetrification has gone on in recent times, and is still going on. Human\nskeletons, imbedded in rocks by this process, have been found in the\nisland of Guadaloupe, and elsewhere. But this phenomenon is easily\ndistinguishable from the petrified bones of other animals, which are\nfound in rocks belonging to really geological periods; and does not at\nall obliterate the distinction between the geological and the historical\nperiods.\n\n4. Indeed not bones only, but objects of art, produced by human\nworkmanship, are found fossilized and petrified by the like processes;\nand these, of course, belong to the historical period. Human bones, and\nhuman works, are found in such deposits as morasses, sand-banks,\nlava-streams, mounds of volcanic ashes; and many of them may be of\nunknown, and, compared with the duration of a few generations, of very\ngreat antiquity; but such deposits are distinguishable, generally\nwithout difficulty, from the strata in which the geologist reads the\nrecords of former creations. It has been truly said, that the geologist\nis an _Antiquary_; for, like the antiquary, he traces a past condition\nof things in the remains and effects of it which still subsist; but it\nhas also been truly said, at the same time, that he is an antiquary _of\na new Order_; for the remains which he studies are those which\nillustrate the history of the earth, not of man. The geologist's\nantiquity is not that of ornaments and arms, utensils and habiliments,\nwalls and mounds; but of species and of genera, of seas and of\nmountains. It is true, that the geologist may have to study the works of\nman, in order to trace the effects of causes which produce the results\nwhich he investigates; as when he examines the pholad-pierced pillars of\nPateoli, to prove the rise and the fall of the ground on which they\nstand; or notes the anchoring-rings in the wall of some Roman edifice,\nonce a maritime fort, but now a ruin remote from the sea; or when he\nremarks the streets in the towns of Scania, which are now below the\nlevel of the Baltic,[1] and therefore show that the land has sunk since\nthese pavements were laid. But in studying such objects, the geologist\nconsiders the hand of man as only one among many agencies. Man is to him\nonly one of the natural causes of change.\n\n5. And if, with the illustrious author to whom we have just referred,[2]\nwe liken the fossil remains, by which the geologist determines the age\nof his strata, to the Medals and Coins in which the antiquary finds the\nrecord of reigns and dynasties; we must still recollect that a _Coin_\nreally discloses a vast body of characteristics of man, to which there\nis nothing approaching in the previous condition of the world. For how\nmuch does a Coin or Medal indicate? Property; exchange; government; a\nstandard of value; the arts of mining, assaying, coining, drawing, and\nsculpture; language, writing, and reckoning; historical recollections,\nand the wish to be remembered by future ages. All this is involved in\nthat small human work, a Coin. If the fossil remains of animals may (as\nhas been said) be termed Medals struck by Nature to record the epochs of\nher history; Medals must be said to be, not merely, like fossil remains,\nrecords of material things; they are the records of thought, purpose,\nsociety, long continued, long improved, supplied with multiplied aids\nand helps; they are the permanent results, in a minute compass, of a\nvast progress, extending through all the ramifications of human life.\n\n6. Not a coin merely, but any, the rudest work of human art, carries us\nfar beyond the domain of mere animal life. There is no transition from\nman to animals. No doubt, there are races of men very degraded,\nbarbarous, and brutish. No doubt there are kinds of animals which are\nvery intelligent and sagacious; and some which are exceedingly disposed\nto and adapted to companionship with man. But by elevating the\nintelligence of the brute, we do not make it become the intelligence of\nthe man. By making man barbarous, we do not make him cease to be a man.\nAnimals have their especial capacities, which may be carried very far,\nand may approach near to human sagacity, or may even go beyond it; but\nthe capacity of man is of a different kind. It is a capacity, not for\nbecoming sagacious, but for becoming rational; or rather it is a\ncapacity which he has in virtue of being rational. It is a capacity of\nprogress. In animals, however sagacious, however well trained, the\nprogress in skill and knowledge is limited, and very narrowly limited.\nThe creature soon reaches a boundary, beyond which it cannot pass; and\neven if the acquired habits be transmitted by descent to another\ngeneration, (which happens in the case of dogs and several other\nanimals,) still the race soon comes to a stand in its accomplishments.\nBut in man, the possible progress from generation to generation, in\nintelligence and knowledge, and we may also say, in power, is\nindefinite; or if this be doubted, it is at least so vast, that compared\nwith animals, his capacity is infinite. And this capacity extends to all\nraces of men its characterizing efficacy: for we have good reason to\nbelieve that there is no race of human beings who may not, by a due\ncourse of culture, continued through generations, be brought into a\ncommunity of intelligence and power with the most intelligent and the\nmost powerful races. This seems to be well established, for instance,\nwith regard to the African negroes; so long regarded by most, by some\nprobably regarded still, as a race inferior to Europeans. It has been\nfound that they are abundantly capable of taking a share in the arts,\nliterature, morality and religion of European peoples. And we cannot\ndoubt that, in the same manner, the native Australians, or the Bushmen\nof the Cape of Good Hope, have human faculties and human capacities;\nhowever difficult it might be to unfold these, in one or two\ngenerations, into a form of intelligence and civilization in any\nconsiderable degree resembling our own.\n\n7. It is not requisite for us, and it might lead to unnecessary\ndifficulties, to fix upon any one attribute of man, as peculiarly\ncharacteristic, and distinguishing him from brutes. Yet it would not be\ntoo much to say that man is, in truth, universally and specifically\ncharacterized by the possession of _Language_. It will not be questioned\nthat language, in its highest forms, is a wonderful vehicle and a\nstriking evidence of the intelligence of man. His bodily organs can, by\na few scarcely perceptible motions, shape the air into sounds which\nexpress the kinds, properties, actions and relations of things, under\nthousands of aspects, in forms infinitely more general and recondite\nthan those in which they present themselves to his senses;--and he can,\nby means of these forms, aided by the use of his senses, explore the\nboundless regions of space, the far recesses of past time, the order of\nnature, the working of the Author of nature. This man does, by the\nexercise of his Reason, and by the use of Language, a necessary\nimplement of his Reason for such purposes.\n\n8. That language, in such a stage, is a special character of man, will\nnot be doubted. But it may be thought, there is little resemblance\nbetween Language in this exalted degree of perfection, and the seemingly\nsenseless gibberish of the most barbarous tribes. Such an opinion,\nhowever, might easily be carried too far. All human language has in it\nthe elements of indefinite intellectual activity, and the germs of\nindefinite development. Even the rudest kind of speech, used by savages,\ndenotes objects by their kinds, their attributes, their relations, with\na degree of generality derived from the intellect, not from the senses.\nThe generality may be very limited; the relations which the human\nintellect is capable of apprehending may be imperfectly conveyed. But to\ndenote kinds and attributes and actions and relations _at all_, is a\nbeginning of generalization and abstraction;--or rather, is far more\nthan a beginning. It is the work of a faculty which can generalize and\nabstract; and these mental processes once begun, the field of progress\nwhich is open to them is indefinite. Undoubtedly it may happen that weak\nand barbarous tribes are, for many generations, so hard pressed by\ncircumstances, and their faculties so entirely absorbed in providing for\nthe bare wants of the poorest life, that their thoughts may never travel\nto anything beyond these, and their language may not be extended so as\nto be applicable to any other purposes. But this is not the standard\ncondition of mankind. It is not, by such cases, that man, or that human\nnature, is to be judged. The normal condition of man is one of an\nadvance beyond the mere means of subsistence, to the arts of life, and\nthe exercise of thought in a general form. To some extent, such an\nadvance has taken place in almost every region of the earth and in every\nage.\n\n9. Perhaps we may often have a tendency to think more meanly than they\ndeserve, of so-called barbarous tribes, and of those whose intellectual\nhabits differ much from our own. We may be prone to regard ourselves as\nstanding at the summit of civilization; and all other nations and ages,\nas not only occupying inferior positions, but positions on a slope which\ndescends till it sinks into the nature of brutes. And yet how little\ndoes an examination of the history of mankind justify this view! The\ndifferent stages of civilization, and of intellectual culture, which\nhave prevailed among them, have had no appearance of belonging to one\nsingle series, in which the cases differed only as higher or lower. On\nthe contrary, there have been many very different kinds of civilization,\naccompanied by different forms of art and of thought; showing how\nuniversally the human mind tends to such habits, and how rich it is in\nthe modes of manifesting its innate powers. How different have been the\nforms of civilization among the Chinese, the Indians, the Egyptians, the\nBabylonians, the Mexicans, the Peruvians! Yet in all, how much was\ndisplayed of sagacity and skill, of perseverance and progress, of mental\nactivity and grasp, of thoughtfulness and power. Are we, in thinking of\nthese manifestations of human capacity, to think of them as only a stage\nbetween us and brutes? or are we to think so, even of the stoical Red\nIndians of North America, or the energetic New Zealanders, and Caffres?\nAnd if not, why of the African Negroes, or the Australians, or the\nBushmen? We may call their Language a jargon. Very probable it would, in\nits present form, be unable to express a great deal of what we are in\nthe habit of putting into language. But can we refuse to believe that,\nwith regard to matters with which they are familiar, and on occasions\nwhere they are interested, they would be to each other intelligible and\nclear? And if we suppose cases in which their affections and emotions\nare strongly excited, (and affections and emotions at least we cannot\ndeny them,) can we not believe that they would be eloquent and\nimpressive? Do we not know, in fact, that almost all nations which we\ncall savage, are, on such occasions, eloquent in their own language? And\nsince this is so, must not their language, after all, be a wonderful\ninstrument as well as ours? Since it can convey one man's thoughts and\nemotions to many, clothed in the form which they assume in his mind;\ngiving to things, it may be, an aspect quite different from that which\nthey would have if presented to their own senses; guiding their\nconviction, warming their hearts, impelling their purposes;--can\nlanguage, even in such cases, be otherwise than a wonderful produce of\nman's internal, of his mental, that is, of his peculiarly _human_\nfaculties? And is not language, therefore, even in what we regard as its\nlowest forms, an endowment which completely separates man from animals\nwhich have no such faculty?--which cannot regard, or which cannot\nconvey, the impressions of the individual in any such general and\nabstract form? Probably we should find, as those who have studied the\nlanguage of savages always have found, that every such language contains\na number of curious and subtle practices,--_contrivances_, we cannot\nhelp calling them,--for marking the relations, bearings and connections\nof words; contrivances quite different from those of the languages\nwhich we think of as more perfect; but yet, in the mouths of those who\nuse such speech, answering their purpose with great precision. But\nwithout going into such details, the use of any _articulate_ language\nis, as the oldest Greeks spoke of it, a special and complete distinction\nof man as man.\n\n10. It would be an obscure and useless labor, to speculate upon the\nquestion whether animals have among themselves anything which can\nproperly be called _Language_. That they have anything which can be\ntermed Language, in the sense in which we here speak of it, as admitting\nof general expressions, abstractions, address to numbers, eloquence, is\nutterly at variance with any interpretation which we can put upon their\nproceedings. The broad distinction of Instinct and Reason, however\nobscure it may be, yet seems to be most simply described, by saying,\nthat animals do not apprehend their impressions under general forms, and\nthat man does. Resemblance, and consequent association of impressions,\nmay often show like generalization; but yet it is different. There is,\nin man's mind, a germ of general thoughts, suggested by resemblances,\nwhich is evolved and fixed in language; and by the aid of such an\naddition to the impressions of sense, man has thousands of intellectual\npathways from object to object, from effect to cause, from fact to\ninference. His impressions are projected on a sphere of thought of which\nthe radii can be prolonged into the farthest regions of the universe.\nAnimals, on the contrary, are shut up in their sphere of\nsensation,--passing from one impression to another by various\nassociations, established by circumstances; but still, having access to\nno wider intellectual region, through which lie lines of transition\npurely abstract and mental. That they have their modes of communicating\ntheir impressions and associations, their affections and emotions, we\nknow; but these modes of communication do not make a language; nor do\nthey disturb the assignment of Language as a special character of man;\nnor the belief that man differs in his Kind, and we may say, using a\nlarger phrase, in his Order, from all other creatures.\n\n11. We may sometimes be led to assign much of the development of man's\npeculiar powers, to the influence of external circumstances. And that\nthe development of those powers is so influenced, we cannot doubt; but\ntheir development only, not their existence. We have already said that\nsavages, living a precarious and miserable life, occupied incessantly\nwith providing for their mere bodily wants, are not likely to possess\nlanguage, or any other characteristic of humanity, in any but a stunted\nand imperfect form. But, that manhood is debased and degraded under such\nadverse conditions, does not make man cease to be man. Even from such an\nabject race, if a child be taken and brought up among the comforts and\nmeans of development which civilized life supplies, he does not fail to\nshow that he possesses, perhaps in an eminent degree, the powers which\nspecially belong to man. The evidences of human tendencies, human\nthoughts, human capacities, human affections and sympathies, appear\nconspicuously, in cases in which there has been no time for external\ncircumstances to operate in any great degree, so as to unfold any\ndifference between the man and the brute; or in which the influence of\nthe most general of external agencies, the impressions of several of the\nsenses, have been intercepted. Who that sees a lively child, looking\nwith eager and curious eyes at every object, uttering cries that express\nevery variety of elementary human emotion in the most vivacious manner,\nexchanging looks and gestures, and inarticulate sounds, with his nurse,\ncan doubt that already he possesses the germs of human feeling, thought\nand knowledge? that already, before he can form or understand a single\narticulate word, he has within him the materials of an infinite\nexuberance of utterance, and an impulse to find the language into which\nsuch utterance is to be moulded by the law of his human nature? And\nperhaps it may have happened to others, as it has to me, to know a child\nwho had been both deaf, dumb, and blind, from a very early age. Yet she,\nas years went on, disclosed a perpetually growing sympathy with the\nother children of the family in all their actions, with which of course\nshe could only acquaint herself by the sense of touch. She sat, dressed,\nwalked, as they did; even imitated them in holding a book in her hand\nwhen they read, and in kneeling when they prayed. No one could look at\nthe change which came over her sightless countenance, when a known hand\ntouched hers, and doubt that there was a human soul within the frame.\nThe human soul seemed not only to be there, but to have been fully\ndeveloped; though the means by which it could receive such\ncommunications as generally constitute human education, were thus cut\noff. And such modes of communication with her companions as had been\ntaught her, or as she had herself invented, well bore out the belief,\nthat her mind was the constant dwelling-place, not only of human\naffections, but of human thoughts. So plainly does it appear that human\nthought is not produced or occasioned by external circumstances only;\nbut has a special and indestructible germ in human nature.\n\n12. I have been endeavoring to illustrate the doctrine that man's nature\nis different from the nature of other animals; as subsidiary to the\ndoctrine that the Human Epoch of the earth's history is different from\nall the preceding Epochs. But in truth, this subsidiary proposition is\nnot by any means necessary to my main purpose. Even if barbarous and\nsavage tribes, even if men under unfavorable circumstances, be little\nbetter than the brutes, still no one will doubt that the most civilized\nraces of mankind, that man under the most favorable circumstances, is\nfar, is, indeed, immeasurably elevated above the brutes. The history of\nman includes not only the history of Scythians and Barbarians,\nAustralians and Negroes, but of ancient Greeks and of modern Europeans;\nand therefore there can be no doubt that the period of the Earth's\nhistory, which includes the history of man, is very different indeed\nfrom any period which preceded that. To illustrate the peculiarity, the\nelevation, the dignity, the wonderful endowments of man, we might refer\nto the achievements, the recorded thoughts and actions, of the most\neminent among those nations;--to their arts, their poetry, their\neloquence; their philosophers, their mathematicians, their astronomers;\nto the acts of virtue and devotion, of patriotism, generosity,\nobedience, truthfulness, love, which took place among them;--to their\npiety, their reverence for the deity, their resignation to his will,\ntheir hope of immortality. Such characteristic traits of man as man,\n(which all examples of intelligence, virtue, and religion, are,) might\nserve to show that man is, in a sense quite different from other\ncreatures, \"fearfully and wonderfully made;\" but I need not go into such\ndetails. It is sufficient for my purpose to sum up the result in the\nexpressions which I have already used; that man is an intellectual,\nmoral, religious, and spiritual being.\n\n13. But the existence of man upon the earth being thus an event of an\norder quite different from any previous part of the earth's history, the\nquestion occurs, how long has this state of things endured? What period\nhas elapsed since this creature, with these high powers and faculties,\nwas placed upon the earth? How far must we go backward in time, to find\nthe beginning of his wonderful history?--so utterly wonderful compared\nwith anything which had previously occurred. For as to that point, we\ncannot feel any doubt. The wildest imagination cannot suggest that\ncorals and madrepores, oysters and sepias, fishes and lizards, may have\nbeen rational and moral creatures; nor even those creatures which come\nnearer to human organization; megatheriums and mastodons, extinct deer\nand elephants. Undoubtedly the earth, till the existence of man, was a\nworld of mere brute creatures. How long then has it been otherwise? How\nlong has it been the habitation of a rational, reflective, progressive\nrace? Can we by any evidence, geological or other, approximate to the\nbeginning of the Human History?\n\n14. This is a large and curious question, and one on which a precise\nanswer may not be within our reach. But an answer not precise, an\napproximation, as we have suggested, may suffice for our purpose. If we\ncan determine, in some measure, the order and scale of the period during\nwhich man has occupied the earth, the determination may serve to support\nthe analogy which we wish to establish.\n\n15. The geological evidence with regard to the existence of man is\naltogether negative. Previous to the deposits and changes which we can\ntrace as belonging obviously to the present state of the earth's\nsurface, and the operation of causes now existing, there is no vestige\nof the existence of man, or of his works. As was long ago observed,[3]\nwe do not find, among the shells and bones which are so abundant in the\nolder strata, any weapons, medals, implements, structures, which speak\nto us of the hand of man, the workman. If we look forwards ten or twenty\nthousand years, and suppose the existing works of man to have been, by\nthat time, ruined and covered up by masses of rubbish, inundations,\nmorasses, lava-streams, earthquakes; still, when the future inhabitant\nof the earth digs into and explores these coverings, he will discover\ninnumerable monuments that man existed so long ago. The materials of\nmany of his works, and the traces of his own mind, which he stamps upon\nthem, are as indestructible as the shells and bones which give language\nto the oldest work. Indeed, in many cases the oldest fossil remains are\nthe results of objects of seemingly the most frail and perishable\nmaterial;--of the most delicate and tender animal and vegetable tissues\nand filaments. That no such remains of textures and forms, moulded by\nthe hand of man, are anywhere found among these, must be accepted as\nindisputable evidence that man did not exist, so as to be contemporary\nwith the plants and animals thus commemorated. According to geological\nevidence, the race of man is a novelty upon the earth;--something which\nhas succeeded to all the great geological changes.\n\n16. And in this, almost all geologists are agreed. Even those who hold\nthat, in other ways, the course of change has been uniform;--that even\nthe introduction of man, as a new species of animal, is only an event of\nthe same kind as myriads of like events which have occurred in the\nhistory of the earth;--still allow that the introduction of man, as a\nmoral being, is an event entirely different from any which had taken\nplace before; and that event is, geologically speaking, recent. The\nchanges of which we have spoken, as studied by the geologist in\nconnection with the works of man, the destruction of buildings on\nsea-coasts by the incursions of the ocean, the removal of the shore many\nmiles away from ancient harbors, the overwhelming of cities by\nearthquakes or volcanic eruptions; however great when compared with the\nchanges which take place in one or two generations; are minute and\ninfinitesimal, when put in comparison with the changes by which ranges\nof mountains and continents have been brought into being, one after\nanother, each of them filled with the remains of different organic\ncreations.\n\n17. Further than this, geology does not go on this question. She has no\nchronometer which can tell us when the first buildings were erected,\nwhen man first dwelt in cities, first used implements or arms; still\nless, language and reflection. Geology is compelled to give over the\nquestion to History. The external evidences of the antiquity of the\nspecies fail us, and we must have recourse to the internal. Nature can\ntell us so little of the age of man, that we must inquire what he can\ntell us himself.\n\n18. What man can tell us of his own age--what history can say of the\nbeginning of history--is necessarily very obscure and imperfect. We know\nhow difficult it is to trace to its origin the History of any single\nNation: how much more, the History of all Nations! We know that all such\nparticular histories carry us back to periods of the migrations of\ntribes, confused mixtures of populations, perplexed and contradictory\ngenealogies of races; and as we follow these further and further\nbackwards, they become more and more obscure and uncertain; at least in\nthe histories which remain to us of most nations. Still, the obscurity\nis not such as to lead us to the conviction that research is useless and\nunprofitable. It is an obscurity such as naturally arises from the lapse\nof time, and the complexity of the subject. The aspect of the world,\nhowever far we go back, is still historical and human; historical and\nhuman, in as high a degree, as it is at the present day. Men, as\ndescribed in the records of the oldest times, are of the same nature,\nact with the same views, are governed by the same motives, as at\npresent. At all points, we see thought, purpose, law, religion,\nprogress. If we do not find a beginning, we find at least evidence that,\nin approaching the beginning, the condition of man does not, in any way,\ncease to be that of an intellectual, moral, and religious creature.\n\n19. There are, indeed, some histories which speak to us of the beginning\nof man's existence upon earth; and one such history in particular, which\ncomes to us recommended by indisputable evidence of its own great\nantiquity, by numerous and striking confirmations from other histories,\nand from facts still current, and by its connection with that religious\nview of man's condition, which appears to thoughtful men to be\nabsolutely requisite to give a meaning and purpose to man's faculties\nand endowments. I speak, of course, of the Hebrew Scriptures. This\nhistory professes to inform us how man was placed upon the earth; and\nhow, from one centre, the human family spread itself in various branches\ninto all parts of the world. This genealogy of the human race is\naccompanied by a chronology, from which it results that the antiquity of\nthe human race does not exceed a few thousand years. Even if we accept\nthis history as true and authoritative, it would not be wise to be\nrigidly tenacious of the chronology, as to its minute exactness. For, in\nthe first place, of three different forms in which this history appears,\nthe chronology is different in all the three: I mean the Hebrew, the\nSamaritan, and the Septuagint versions of the Old Testament. And even if\nthis were not so, since this chronology is put in the form of\ngenealogies, of which many of the steps may very probably have a meaning\ndifferent from the simple succession of generations in a family, (as\nsome of them certainly have,) it would be unwise to consider ourselves\nbound to the exact number of years stated, in any of the three versions,\nor even in all. It makes no difference to our argument, nor to any,\npurpose in which we can suppose this narrative to have a bearing,\nwhether we accept six thousand or ten thousand years, or even a longer\nperiod, as the interval which has now elapsed since the creation of man\ntook place, and the peopling of the earth began.\n\n20. And, in our speculations at least, it will be well for us to take\ninto account the view which is given us of the antiquity of the human\nrace, by other histories as well as by this. A satisfactory result of\nsuch an investigation would be attained if, looking at all these\nhistories, weighing their value, interpreting their expressions fairly,\ndiscovering their sources of error, and of misrepresentation, we should\nfind them all converge to one point; all give a consistent and\nharmonious view of the earliest stages of man's history; of the times\nand places in which he first appeared as man. If all nations of men are\nbranches of the same family, it cannot but interest us, to find all the\nfamily traditions tending upwards towards the same quarter; indicating a\ndivergence from the same point; exhibiting a recollection of the\noriginal domicile, or of the same original family circle.\n\n21. To a certain extent at least, this appears to be the result of the\nhistorical investigations which have been pursued relative to this\nsubject. A certain group of nations is brought before us by these\nresearches which, a few thousands of years ago, were possessed of arts,\nand manners, and habits, and belief, which make them conspicuous, and\nwhich we can easily believe to have been contemporaneous successors of a\ncommon, though, it may be even then, remote stock. Such are the Jews,\nEgyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians. The histories of these nations are\nconnected with and confirm each other. Their languages, or most of them,\nhave certain affinities, which glossologists, on independent grounds,\nhave regarded as affinities implying an original connection. Their\nchronologies, though in many respects discrepant, are not incapable of\nbeing reduced into an harmony by very probable suppositions. Here we\nhave a very early view of the condition of a portion of the earth as the\nhabitation of man, and perhaps a suggestion of a condition earlier\nstill.\n\n22. It is true, that there are other nations also, which claim an\nantiquity for their civilization equal to or greater than that which we\ncan ascribe to these. Such are the Indians and the Chinese. But while we\ndo not question that these nations were at a remote period in possession\nof arts, knowledge, and regular polity, in a very eminent degree, we are\nnot at all called upon to assent to the immense numbers, tens of\nthousands and hundreds of thousands of years, by which such nations, in\ntheir histories, express their antiquity. For, in the first place, such\nnumbers are easily devised and transferred to the obscure early stages\nof tradition, when the art of numeration is once become familiar. These\nvast intervals, applied to series of blank genealogies, or idle fables,\ngratify the popular appetite for numerical wonders, but have little\nclaim on critical conviction.\n\n23. And in the next place, we discover that not enumeration only, but a\nmore recondite art, had a great share in the fabrication of these\ngigantic numbers of years. Some of the nations of whom we have thus\nspoken, the Indians, for example, had, at an early period, possessed\nthemselves of a large share of astronomical knowledge. They had observed\nand examined the motions of the Sun, the Moon, the Planets, and the\nStars, till they had discovered Cycles, in which, after long and\nseemingly irregular wanderings in the skies, the heavenly bodies came\nround again to known and regular positions. They had thus detected the\norder that reigns in the seeming disorder; and had, by this means,\nenabled themselves to know beforehand when certain astronomical events\nwould occur; certain configurations of the Planets, for instance, and\neclipses; and knowing how such events would occur in future, they were\nalso able to calculate how the like events had occurred in the past.\nThey could thus determine what eclipses and what planetary\nconfigurations had occurred, in thousands and tens of thousands of years\nof past time; and could, if they were disposed to falsify their early\nhistories, and to confirm the falsification by astronomical evidence, do\nso with a very near approximation to astronomical truth. Such\nastronomical confirmation of their assertions, so incapable in any\ncommon apprehension of being derived from any other source than actual\nobservation of the fact, naturally produced a great effect upon common\nminds; and still more, on those who examined the astronomical fact,\nenough only to see that it was, approximately, at least, true. But in\nrecent times the fallacy of this evidence has been shown, and the\nfabrication detected. For though the astronomical rules which they had\ndevised were approximately true, they were true approximately only. The\nmore exact researches of modern European astronomy discovered that their\ncycles, though nearly exact, were not quite so. There was in them an\nerror which made the cycle, at every revolution of its period, when it\nwas applied to past ages, more and more wrong; so that the astronomical\nevents which they asserted to have happened, as they had calculated that\nthey would have happened, the better informed astronomer of our day\nknows would not have happened exactly so, but in a manner differing more\nand more from their statement, as the event was more and more remote.\nAnd thus the fact which they asserted to have been observed, had not\nreally happened; and the confirmation, which it had been supposed to\nlend to their history, disappeared. And thus, there is not, in the\nasserted antiquity of Indian civilization and Indian astronomy, anything\nwhich has a well-founded claim to disturb our belief that the nations of\nthe more western regions of Asia had a civilization as ancient as\ntheirs. And considerations of nearly the same kind may be applied to the\nvery remote astronomical facts which are recorded as having been\nobserved in the history of some others of the ancient nations above\nmentioned.\n\n24. Still less need we be disturbed by the long series of dynasties,\neach occupying a large period of years, which the Egyptians are said to\nhave inserted in their early history, so as to carry their origin beyond\nthe earliest times which I have mentioned. If they spoke of the Greek\nnations as children compared with their own long-continued age, as Plato\nsays they did, a few thousands of years of previous existence would well\nentitle them to do so. So far as such a period goes, their monuments and\ntheir hieroglyphical inscriptions give a reality to their pretensions,\nwhich we may very willingly grant. And even the history of the Jews\nsupposes that the Egyptians had attained a high point in arts,\ngovernment, knowledge, when Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation,\nwas still leading the life of a nomad. But this supposition is not\ninconsistent with the account which the Jewish Scriptures give, of the\norigin of nations; especially if, as we have said, we abstain from any\nrigid and narrow interpretation of the chronology of those scriptures;\nas on every ground, it is prudent to do.\n\n25. It appears then not unreasonable to believe, that a very few\nthousands, or even a few hundreds of years before the time of Abraham,\nthe nations of central and western Asia offer to us the oldest aspect of\nthe life of man upon the earth; and that in reasoning concerning the\nantiquity of the human race, we may suppose that at that period, he was\nin the earliest stages of his existence. Although, in truth, if we were\nto accept the antiquity claimed by the Egyptians, the Indians, or the\nChinese, the nature of our argument would not be materially altered; for\nten thousand, or even twenty thousand years, bears a very small\nproportion to the periods of time which geology requires for the\nrevolutions which she describes; and, as I have said, we have geological\nevidence also, to show how brief the human period has been, when\ncompared with the period which preceded the existence of man. And if\nthis be so; if such peoples as those who have left to us the monuments\nof Egypt and of Assyria, the pyramids and ancient Thebes, the walls of\nNineveh and Babylon, were the first nations which lived as nations; or\nif they were separated from such only by the interval by which the\nGermans of to-day are separated from the Germans of Tacitus; we may well\nrepeat our remark, that the history of man, in the earliest times, is as\ntruly a history of a wonderful, intellectual, social, political,\nspiritual creature, as it is at present. We see, in the monuments of\nthose periods, evidences so great and so full of skill, that even now,\nthey amaze us, of arts, government, property, thought, the love of\nbeauty, the recognition of deity; evidences of memory, foresight, power.\nIf London or Berlin were now destroyed, overwhelmed, and, four thousand\nyears hence, disinterred, these cities would not afford stronger\ntestimony of those attributes, as existing in modern Europeans, than we\nhave of such qualities in the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians. The\nhistory of man, as that of a creature pre-eminent in the creation, is\nequally such, however far back we carry our researches.\n\n26. Nor is there anything to disturb this view, in the fact of the\nexistence of the uncultured and barbarous tribes which occupy, and\nalways have occupied, a large portion of the earth's surface. For, in\nthe first place, there is not, in the aspect of the fact, or in the\ninformation which history gives us, any reason to believe that such\ntribes exhibit a form of human existence, which, in the natural order of\nprogress, is earlier than the forms of civilized life, of which we have\nspoken. The opinion that the most savage kind of human life, least\nacquainted with arts, and least provided with resources, is the state of\nnature out of which civilized life has everywhere gradually emerged, is\nan opinion which, though at one time popular, is unsupported by proof,\nand contrary to probability.[4] Savage tribes do not so grow into\ncivilization; their condition is, far more probably, a condition of\ncivilization degraded and lost, than of civilization incipient and\nprospective. Add to this, that if we were to assume that this were\notherwise; if man thus originally and naturally savage, did also\nnaturally tend to become civilized; this _tendency_ is an endowment no\nless wonderful, than those endowments which civilization exhibits. The\ncapacity is as extraordinary as the developed result; for the capacity\ninvolves the result. If savage man be the germ of the most highly\ncivilized man, he differs from all other animal germs, as man differs\nfrom brute. And add to this again, that in the tribes which we call\nsavage, and whose condition most differs, in external circumstances,\nfrom ours, there are, after all, a vast mass of human attributes:\nthought, purpose, language, family relations; generally property, law,\ngovernment, contract, arts, and knowledge, to no small extent; and in\nalmost every case, religion. Even uncivilized man is an intellectual,\nmoral, social, religious creature; nor is there, in his condition, any\nreason why he may not be a spiritual creature, in the highest sense in\nwhich the most civilized man can be so.\n\n27. Here then we are brought to the view which, it would seem, offers a\ncomplete reply to the difficulty, which astronomical discoveries\nappeared to place in the way of religion:--the difficulty of the opinion\nthat man, occupying this speck of earth, which is but as an atom in the\nUniverse, surrounded by millions of other globes, larger, and, to\nappearance, nobler than that which he inhabits, should be the object of\nthe peculiar care and guardianship, of the favor and government, of the\nCreator of All, in the way in which Religion teaches us that He is. For\nwe find that man, (the human race, from its first origin till now,) has\noccupied but an atom of time, as he has occupied but an atom of\nspace:--that as he is surrounded by myriads of globes which may, like\nthis, be the habitations of living things, so he has been preceded, on\nthis earth, by myriads of generations of living things, not possibly or\nprobably only, but certainly; and yet that, comparing his history with\ntheirs, he has been, certainly has been fitted to be, the object of the\ncare and guardianship, of the favor and government, of the Master and\nGovernor of All, in a manner entirely different from anything which it\nis possible to believe with regard to the countless generations of brute\ncreatures which had gone before him. If we will doubt or overlook the\ndifference between man and brutes, the difficulty of ascribing to man\npeculiar privileges, is made as great by the revelations of geology, as\nof astronomy. The scale of man's insignificance is, as we have said, of\nthe same order in reference to time, as to space. There is nothing\nwhich at all goes beyond the magnitude which observation and reasoning\nsuggest for geological periods, in supposing that the tertiary strata\noccupied, in their deposition and elevation, a period as much greater\nthan the period of human history, as the solar system is larger than the\nearth:--that the secondary strata were as much longer than these in\ntheir formation, as the nearest fixed star is more distant than the\nsun:--that the still earlier masses, call them primary, or protozoic, or\nwhat we will, did, in their production, extend through a period of time\nas vast, compared with the secondary period, as the most distant nebula\nis remoter than the nearest star. If the earth, as the habitation of\nman, is a speck in the midst of an infinity of space, the earth, as the\nhabitation of man, is also a speck at the end of an infinity of time. If\nwe are as nothing in the surrounding universe, we are as nothing in the\nelapsed eternity; or rather, in the elapsed organic antiquity, during\nwhich the earth has existed and been the abode of life. If man is but\none small family in the midst of innumerable possible households, he is\nalso but one small family, the successor of innumerable tribes of\nanimals, not possible only, but actual. If the planets _may_ be the\nseats of life, we know that the seas which have given birth to our\nmountains _were_ the seats of life. If the stars may have hundreds of\nsystems of tenanted planets rolling round them, we know that the\nsecondary group of rocks does contain hundreds of tenanted beds,\nwitnessing of as many systems of organic creation. If the nebulae may be\nplanetary systems in the course of formation, we know that the primary\nand transition rocks either show us the earth in the course of\nformation, as the future seat of life, or exhibit such life as already\nbegun.\n\n28. How far that which astronomy thus asserts as possible, is\nprobable:--what is the value of these possibilities of life in distant\nregions of the universe, we shall hereafter consider. But in what\ngeology asserts, the case is clear. It is no possibility, but a\ncertainty. No one will now doubt that shells and skeletons, trunks and\nleaves, prove animal and vegetable life to have existed. Even,\ntherefore, if Astronomy could demonstrate all that her most fanciful\ndisciples assume, Geology would still have a complete right to claim an\nequal hearing;--to insist upon having her analogies regarded. She would\nhave a right to answer the questions of Astronomy, when she says, How\ncan we believe this? and to have her answers accepted.\n\n29. Astronomy claims a sort of dignity over all other sciences, from her\n_antiquity_, her _certainty_, and the _vastness_ of her discoveries. But\nthe antiquity of astronomy as a science had no share in such\nspeculations as we are discussing; and if it had had, new truths are\nbetter than old conjectures; new discoveries must rectify old errors;\nnew answers must remove old difficulties. The vigorous youth of Geology\nmakes her fearless of the age of Astronomy. And as to the certainty of\nAstronomy, it has just as little to do with these speculations. The\ncertainty stops, just when these speculations begin. There may, indeed,\nbe some danger of delusion on this subject. Men have been so long\naccustomed to look upon astronomical science as the mother of\ncertainty, that they may confound astronomical discoveries with\ncosmological conjectures; though these be slightly and illogically\nconnected with those. And then, as to the vastness of astronomical\ndiscoveries,--granting that character, inasmuch as it is to a certain\ndegree, a matter of measurement,--we must observe, that the discoveries\nof geology are no less vast: they extend through time, as those of\nastronomy do through space. They carry us through millions of years,\nthat is, of the earth's revolutions, as those of astronomy do through\nmillions of the earth's diameters, or of diameters of the earth's orbit.\nGeology fills the regions of duration with events, as astronomy fills\nthe regions of the universe with objects. She carries us backwards by\nthe relation of cause and effect, as astronomy carries us upwards by the\nrelations of geometry. As astronomy steps on from point to point of the\nuniverse by a chain of triangles, so geology steps from epoch to epoch\nof the earth's history by a chain of mechanical and organical laws. If\nthe one depends on the axioms of geometry, the other depends on the\naxioms of causation.\n\n30. So far then, Geology has no need to regard Astronomy as her\nsuperior; and least of all, when they apply themselves together to\nspeculations like these. But in truth, in such speculations, Geology has\nan immeasurable superiority. She has the command of an implement, in\naddition to all that Astronomy can use; and one, for the purpose of such\nspeculations, adapted far beyond any astronomical element of discovery.\nShe has, for one of her studies,--one of her means of dealing with her\nproblems,--the knowledge of Life, animal and vegetable. Vital\norganization is a subject of attention which has, in modern times, been\nforced upon her. It is now one of the main parts of her discipline. The\ngeologist must study the traces of life in every form; must learn to\ndecypher its faintest indications and its fullest development. On the\nquestion, then, whether there be in this or that quarter, evidence of\nlife, he can speak with the confidence derived from familiar knowledge;\nwhile the astronomer, to whom such studies are utterly foreign, because\nhe has no facts which bear upon them, can offer, on such questions, only\nthe loosest and most arbitrary conjectures; which, as we have had to\nremark, have been rebuked by eminent men, as being altogether\ninconsistent with the acknowledged maxims of his science.\n\n31. When, therefore, Geology tells us that the earth, which has been\nthe seat of human life for a few thousand years only, has been the seat\nof animal life for myriads, it may be, millions of years, she has a\nright to offer this, as an answer to any difficulty which Astronomy, or\nthe readers of astronomical books, may suggest, derived from the\nconsiderations that the Earth, the seat of human life, is but one globe\nof a few thousand miles in diameter, among millions of other globes, at\ndistances millions of times as great.\n\n32. Let the difficulty be put in any way the objector pleases. Is it\nthat it is unworthy of the greatness and majesty of God, according to\nour conceptions of Him, to bestow such peculiar care on so small a part\nof His creation? But we know, from geology, that He has bestowed upon\nthis small part of His creation, mankind, this special care;--He has\nmade their period, though only a moment in the ages of animal life, the\nonly period of intelligence, morality, religion. If then, to suppose\nthat He has done this, is contrary to our conceptions of His greatness\nand majesty, it is plain that our conceptions are erroneous; they have\ntaken a wrong direction. God has not judged, as to what is worthy of\nHim, as we have judged. He has found it worthy of Him to bestow upon man\nHis special care, though he occupies so small a portion of time; and why\nnot, then, although he occupies so small a portion of space?\n\n33. Or is the objection this; that if we suppose the earth only to be\noccupied by inhabitants, all the other globes of the universe are\nwasted;--turned to no purpose? Is waste of this kind considered as\nunsuited to the character of the Creator? But here again, we have the\nlike waste, in the occupation of the earth. All its previous ages, its\nseas and its continents, have been wasted upon mere brute life; often,\nso far as we can see, for myriads of years, upon the lowest, the least\nconscious forms of life; upon shell-fish, corals, sponges. Why then\nshould not the seas and continents of other planets be occupied at\npresent with a life no higher than this, or with no life at all? Will it\nbe said that, so far as material objects are occupied by life, they are\nnot wasted; but that they are wasted, if they are entirely barren and\nblank of life? This is a very arbitrary saying. Why should the life of a\nsponge, or a coral, or an oyster, be regarded as a good employment of a\nspot of land and water, so as to save it from being wasted? No doubt, if\nthe coral or the oyster be there, there is a reason why it is so,\nconsistently with the attributes of God. But then, on the same ground,\nwe may say that if it be not there, there is a reason why it is not so.\nSuch a mode of regarding the parts of the universe can never give us\nreasons why they should or should not be inhabited, when we have no\nother grounds for knowing whether they are. If it be a sufficient\nemployment of a spot of rock or water that it is the seat of\norganization--of organic powers; why may it not be a sufficient\nemployment of the same spot that it is the seat of attraction, of\ncohesion, of crystalline powers? All the planets, all parts of the\nuniverse, we have good reason to believe, are pervaded by attraction, by\nforces of aggregation and atomic relation, by light and heat. Why may\nnot these be sufficient to prevent the space being wasted, in the eyes\nof the Creator? as, during a great part of the earth's past history, and\nover large portions of its present mass, they are actually held by Him\nsufficient; for they are all that occupy those portions. This notion,\nthen, of the improbability of there being, in the universe, so vast an\namount of waste spaces, or waste bodies, as is implied in the opinion\nthat the earth alone is the seat of life, or of intelligence, is\nconfuted by the fact, that there are vast spaces, waste districts, and\nespecially waste times, to an extent as great as such a notion deems\nimprobable. The avoidance of such waste, according to our notions of\nwaste, is no part of the economy of creation, so far as we can discern\nthat economy, in its most certain exemplifications.\n\n34. Or will the objection be made in this way; that such a peculiar\ndignity and importance given to the earth is contrary to the analogy of\ncreation;--that since there are so many globes, similar to the\nearth,--like her, revolving round the sun, like her, revolving on her\naxes, several of them, like her, accompanied by satellites; it is\nreasonable to suppose that their destination and office is the same as\nhers;--that since there are so many stars, each like the sun, a source\nof light, and probably of heat, it is reasonable to suppose that, like\nthe sun, they are the centres of systems of planets, to which their\nlight and heat are imparted, to uphold life:--is it thought that such a\nresemblance is a strong ground for believing that the planets of our\nsystem, and of other systems, are inhabited as the earth is? If such an\nastronomical analogy be insisted on, we must again have recourse to\ngeology, to see what such analogy is worth. And then, we are led to\nreflect, that if we were to follow such analogies, we should be led to\nsuppose that all the successive periods of the earth's history were\noccupied with life of the same order; that as the earth, in its present\ncondition, is the seat of an intelligent population, so must it have\nbeen, in all former conditions. The earth, in its former conditions, was\nable and fitted to support life; even the life of creatures closely\nresembling man in their bodily structure. Even of monkeys, fossil\nremains have been found. But yet, in those former conditions, it did not\nsupport human life. Even those geologists who have dwelt most on the\ndiscovery of fossil monkeys, and other animals nearest to man, have not\ndreamt that there existed, before man, a race of rational, intelligent,\nand progressive creatures. As we have seen, geology and history alike\nrefute such a fancy. The notion, then, that one period of time in the\nhistory of the earth must resemble another, in the character of its\npopulation, because it resembles it in physical circumstances, is\nnegatived by the facts which we discover in the history of the earth.\nAnd so, the notion that one part of the universe must resemble another\nin its population, because it resembles it in physical circumstances, is\nnegatived as a law of creation. Analogy, further examined, affords no\nsupport to such a notion. The analogy of time, the events of which we\nknow, corrects all such guesses founded on a supposed analogy of space,\nthe furniture of which, so far as this point is concerned, we have no\nsufficient means of examining.\n\n35. But in truth, we may go further. Not only does the analogy of\ncreation not point to any such entire resemblance of similar parts, as\nis thus assumed, but it points in the opposite direction. Not entire\nresemblance, but universal difference is what we discover; not the\nrepetition of exactly similar cases, but a series of cases perpetually\ndissimilar, presents itself; not constancy, but change, perhaps advance;\nnot one permanent and pervading scheme, but preparation and completion\nof successive schemes; not uniformity and a fixed type of existences,\nbut progression and a climax. This may be said to be the case in the\ngeological aspect of the world; for, without occupying ourselves with\nthe question, how far the monuments of animal life, which we find\npreserved in the earth's strata, exhibited a gradual progression from\nruder and more imperfect forms to the types of the present terrestrial\npopulation; from sponges and mollusks, to fish and lizards, from\ncold-blooded to warm blooded animals, and so on, till we come to the\nmost perfect vertebrates;--a doctrine which many eminent geologists\nhave held, and still hold;--without discussing this question, or\nassuming that the fact is so; this at least cannot be denied or doubted,\nthat man is incomparably the most perfect and highly-endowed creature\nwhich ever has existed on the earth. How far previous periods of animal\nexistence were a necessary preparation of the earth, as the habitation\nof man, or a gradual progression towards the existence of man, we need\nnot now inquire. But this at least we may say; that man, now that he is\nhere, forms a climax to all that has preceded; a term incomparably\nexceeding in value all the previous parts of the series; a complex and\nornate capital to the subjacent column; a personage of vastly greater\ndignity and importance than all the preceding line of the procession.\nThe analogy of nature, in this case at least, appears to be, that there\nshould be inferior, as well as superior provinces, in the universe; and\nthat the inferior may occupy an immensely larger portion of time than\nthe superior; why not then of space? The intelligent part of creation is\nthrust into the compass of a few years, in the course of myriads of\nages; why not then into the compass of a few miles, in the expanse of\nsystems? The earth was brute and inert, compared with its present\ncondition, dark and chaotic, so far as the light of reason and\nintelligence are concerned, for countless centuries before man was\ncreated. Why then may not other parts of creation be still in this brute\nand inert and chaotic state, while the earth is under the influence of a\nhigher exercise of creative power? If the earth was, for ages, a turbid\nabyss of lava and of mud, why may not Mars or Saturn be so still? If the\ngerms of life were, gradually, and at long intervals, inserted in the\nterrestrial slime, why may they not be just inserted, or not yet\ninserted, in Jupiter? Or why should we assume that the condition of\nthose planets resembles ours, even so far as such suppositions imply?\nWhy may they not, some or all of them, be barren masses of stone and\nmetal, slag and scoriae, dust and cinders? That some of them are composed\nof such materials, we have better reason to believe, than we have to\nbelieve anything else respecting their physical constitution, as we\nshall hereafter endeavor to show. If then, the earth be the sole\ninhabited spot in the work of creation, the oasis in the desert of our\nsystem, there is nothing in this contrary to the analogy of creation.\nBut if, in some way which perhaps we cannot discover, the earth\nobtained, for accompaniments, mere chaotic and barren masses, as\nconditions of coming into its present state; as it may have required,\nfor accompaniments, the brute and imperfect races of former animals, as\nconditions of coming into its present state, as the habitation of man;\nthe analogy is against, and not in favor of, the belief that they too\n(the other masses, the planets, &c.) are habitations. I may hereafter\ndwell more fully on such speculations; but the possibility that the\nplanets are such rude masses, is quite as tenable, on astronomical\ngrounds, as the possibility that the planets resemble the earth, in\nmatters of which astronomy can tell us nothing. We say, therefore, that\nthe example of geology refutes the argument drawn from the supposed\nanalogy of one part of the universe with another; and suggests a strong\nsuspicion that the force of analogy, better known, may tend in the\nopposite direction.\n\n36. When such possibilities are presented to the reader, he may\nnaturally ask, if we are thus to regard man as the climax of creation,\nin space, as in time, can we point out any characters belonging to him,\nwhich may tend to make it conceivable that the Creator should thus\ndistinguish him, and care for him:--should prepare his habitation if it\nbe so, by ages of chaotic and rudimentary life, and by accompanying\norbs of brute and barren matter. If Man be, thus, the head, the crowned\nhead of the creation, is he worthy to be thus elevated? Has he any\nqualities which make it conceivable that, with such an array of\npreparation and accompaniment, he should be placed upon the earth, his\nthrone? Or rather, if he be thus the chosen subject of God's care, has\nhe any qualities, which make it conceivable that he should be thus\nselected; taken under such guardianship; admitted to such a\ndispensation; graced with such favor. The question with which we began\nagain recurs: What is man that God should be thus mindful of him? After\nthe views which have been presented to us, does any answer now occur to\nus?\n\n37. The answer which we have to give, is that which we have already\nrepeatedly stated. Man is an intellectual, moral, religious, and\nspiritual creature. If we consider these attributes, we shall see that\nthey are such as to give him a special relation to God, and as we\nconceive, and must conceive, God to be; and may therefore be, in God,\nthe occasion of special guardianship, special regard, a special\ndispensation towards man.\n\n38. As an intellectual creature, he has not only an intelligence which\nhe can apply to practical uses, to minister to the needs of animal and\nsocial life; but also an intellect by which he can speculate about the\nrelations of things, in their most general form; for instance, the\nproperties of space and time, the relations of finite and infinite. He\ncan discover truths, to which all things, existing in space and time,\nmust conform. These are conditions of existence to which the creation\nconforms, that is, to which the Creator conforms; and man, capable of\nseeing that such conditions are true and necessary, is capable, so far,\nof understanding some of the conditions of the Creator's workmanship.\nIn this way, the mind of man has some community with the mind of God;\nand however remote and imperfect this community may be, it must be real.\nSince, then, man has thus, in his intellect, an element of community\nwith God, it is so far conceivable that he should be, in a special\nmanner, the object of God's care and favor. The human mind, with its\nwonderful and perhaps illimitable powers, is something of which we can\nbelieve God to be \"mindful.\"\n\n39. Again: man is a moral creature. He recognizes, he cannot help\nrecognizing, a distinction of right and wrong in his actions; and in his\ninternal movements which lead to action. This distinction he recognizes\nas the reason, the highest and ultimate reason, for doing or for not\ndoing. And this law of his own reason, he is, by reflection, led to\nrecognize as a Law of the Supreme Reason; of the Supreme Mind which has\nmade him what he is. The Moral Law, he owns and feels as God's Law. By\nthe obligation which he feels to obey this Law, he feels himself God's\nsubject; placed under his government; compelled to expect his judgment,\nhis rewards, and punishments. By being a moral creature, then, he is, in\na special manner, the subject of God; and not only we can believe that,\nin this capacity, God cares for him; but we cannot believe that he _does\nnot_ care for him. He cares for him, so as to approve of what he does\nright, and to condemn what he does wrong. And he has given him, in his\nown breast, an assurance that he will do this; and thus, God cares for\nman, in a peculiar and special manner. As a moral creature, we have no\ndifficulty in conceiving that God may think him worthy of his regard and\ngovernment.\n\n40. The development of man's moral nature, as we have just described it,\nleads to, and involves the development of his religious nature. By\nlooking within himself, and seeing the Moral Law, he learns to look\nupwards to God, the Author of the Law, and the Awarder of the rewards\nand penalties which follow moral good and evil. But the belief of such a\ndispensation carries us, or makes us long to be carried, beyond the\nmanifestations of this dispensation, as they appear in the ordinary\ncourse of human life. By thinking on such things, man is led to ascribe\na wider range to the moral Government of God:--to believe in methods of\nreward and punishment, which do not appear in the natural course of\nevents: to accept events, out of the order of nature, which announce\nthat God has provided such methods: to accept them, when duly\nauthenticated, as messages from God; and thus, when God provides the\nmeans, to allow himself to be placed in intercourse with God. Since man\nis capable of this; since, as a religious creature, this is his\ntendency, his need, the craving of his heart, without which, when his\nreligious nature is fully unfolded, he can feel no comfort nor\nsatisfaction; we cannot be surprised that God should deem him a proper\nobject of a special fatherly care; a fit subject for a special\ndispensation of his purposes, as to the consequences of human actions.\nMan being this, we can believe that God is not only \"mindful of him,\"\nbut \"visits him.\"\n\n41. As we have said, the soul of man, regarded as the subject of God's\nreligious government, is especially termed his _Spirit_: the course of\nhuman being which results from the intercourse with God, which God\npermits, is a _spiritual_ existence. Man is capable, in no small degree,\nof such an existence, of such an intercourse with God; and, as we are\nauthorized to term it, of such a life with God, and in God, even while\nhe continues in his present human existence. I say _authorized_, because\nsuch expressions are used, though reverently, by the most religious\nmen; who are, at any rate, authority as to their own sentiments; which\nare the basis of our reasoning. Whatever, then, may be the imperfection,\nin this life, of such a union with God, yet since man can, when\nsufficiently assisted and favored by God, enter upon such a union, we\ncannot but think it most credible and most natural, that he should be\nthe object of God's special care and regard, even of his love and\npresence.\n\n42. That men are, only in a comparatively small number of cases,\nintellectual, moral, religious, and spiritual, in the degree which I\nhave described, does not, by any means, deprive our argument of its\nforce. The capacity of man is, that he may become this; and such a\ncapacity may well make him a special object in the eyes of Him under\nwhose guidance and by whose aid, such a development and elevation of his\nnature is open to him. However imperfect and degraded, however\nunintellectual, immoral, irreligious, and unspiritual, a great part of\nmankind may be, still they all have the germs of such an elevation of\ntheir nature; and a large portion of them make, we cannot doubt, no\nsmall progress in this career of advancement to a spiritual condition.\nAnd with such capacities, and such practical exercise of those\ncapacities, we can have no difficulty in believing, if the evidence\ndirects us to believe, that that part of the creation in which man has\nhis present appointed place, is the special field of God's care and\nlove; by whatever wastes of space, and multitudes of material bodies, it\nmay be surrounded; by whatever races it may have been previously\noccupied, of brutes that perish, and that, compared with man, can hardly\nbe said to have lived.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Lyell, II. 420. [6th Ed.]\n\n[2] Cuvier.\n\n[3] By Bishop Berkeley. See Lyell, III. 346.\n\n[4] A recent popular writer, who has asserted the self-civilizing\ntendency of man, has not been able, it would seem, to adduce any example\nof the operation of this tendency, except a single tribe of North\nAmerican Indians, in whom it operated for a short time, and to a small\nextent.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE NEBULAE\n\n\n1. I have attempted to show that, even if we suppose the other bodies of\nthe universe to resemble the Earth, so far as to seem, by their\nmaterials, forms, and motions, no less fitted than she is to be the\nabodes of life; yet that, knowing what we do of man, we can believe that\nthe Earth is tenanted by a race who are the _special_ objects of God's\ncare. Even if the tendency of the analogies of creation were, to incline\nus to suppose that the other planets are as well suited as our globe, to\nhave inhabitants, still it would require a great amount of evidence, to\nmake us believe that they have such inhabitants as we are; while yet\nsuch evidence is altogether wanting. Even if we knew that the stars were\nthe centres of revolving systems, we should have an immense difficulty\nin believing that an Earth, with such a population as ours, revolves\nabout any of them. If astronomy made a plurality of worlds probable, we\nhave strong reasonings, drawn from other subjects, to think that the\nother worlds are not like ours.\n\n2. The admirers of astronomical triumphs may perhaps be disposed to say,\nthat when so much has been discovered, we may be allowed to complete the\nscheme by the exercise of fancy. I have attempted to show that we are\nnot in such a state of ignorance, when we look at other relations of\nthe earth and of man, as to allow us to do this. But now we may go a\nlittle onwards in our argument; and may ask, whether Astronomy really\ndoes what is here claimed for her:--whether she carries us so securely\nto the bounds of the visible universe, that our Fancy may take up the\ntask, and people the space thus explored:--whether the bodies which\nAstronomy has examined, be really as fitted as our Earth, to sustain a\npopulation of living things:--whether the most distant objects in the\nuniverse do really seem to be systems, or the beginnings of\nsystems:--whether Astronomy herself may not incline in favor of the\ncondition of man, as being the sole creature of his kind?\n\n3. In making this inquiry, it will of course be understood, that I do so\nwith the highest admiration for the vast discoveries which Astronomy has\nreally made; and for the marvellous skill and invention of the great men\nwho have, in all ages of the world, and not least, in our time, been the\nauthors of such discoveries. From the time when Galileo first discovered\nthe system of Jupiter's satellites, to the last scrutiny of the\nstructure of a nebula by Lord Rosse's gigantic telescope, the history of\nthe telescopic exploration of the sky, has been a history of genius\nfelicitously employed in revealing wonders. In this history, the noble\nlabors of the first and the second Herschel relative to the distribution\nof the fixed stars, the forms and classes of nebulae, and the phenomena\nof double stars, especially bear upon our present speculations; to which\nwe may add, the examination of the aspect of each planet, by various\nobservers, as Schroeter, and of the moon by others, from Huyghens to\nMaedler and Beer. The achievements which are most likely to occur to the\nreader's mind are those of the Earl of Rosse; as being the latest\naddition to our knowledge, and the result of the greatest instrumental\npowers. By the energy and ingenuity of that eminent person, an eye is\ndirected to the heavens, having a pupil of six feet diameter, with the\nmost complete optical structure, and the power of ranging about for its\nobjects over a great extent of sky; and thus the quantity of light which\nthe eye receives from any point of the heavens is augmented, it may be,\nfifty thousand times. The rising Moon is seen from the Observatory in\nIreland with the same increase of size and light, as if her solid globe,\ntwo thousand miles in diameter, retaining all its illumination, really\nrested upon the summits of the Alps, to be gazed at by the naked eye. An\nobject which appears to the naked eye a single star, may, by this\ntelescope, so far as its power of seeing is concerned, be resolved into\nfifty thousand stars, each of the same brightness as the obvious star.\nWhat seems to the unassisted vision a nebula, a patch of diluted light,\nin which no distinct luminous point can be detected, may, by such an\ninstrument, be discriminated or resolved into a number of bright dots;\nas the stippled shades of an engraving are resolved into dots by the\napplication of a powerful magnifying glass. Similar results of the\napplication of great telescopic power had of course been attained long\npreviously; but, as the nature of scientific research is, each step adds\nsomething to our means of knowledge; and the last addition assumes,\nincludes, and augments the knowledge which we possessed before. The\ndiscussions in which we are engaged, belong to the very boundary region\nof science;--to the frontier where knowledge, at least astronomical\nknowledge, ends, and ignorance begins. Such discoveries, therefore, as\nthose made by Lord Rosse's telescope, require our special notice here.\n\n4. We may begin, at what appears to us the outskirts of creation, the\nNebulae. At one time it was conceived by astronomers in general, that\nthese patches of diffused light, which are seen by them in such\nprofusion in the sky, are not luminous bodies of regular terms and\ndefinite boundaries, apparently solid, as the stars are supposed to be;\nbut really, as even to good telescopes many of them seem, masses of\nluminous cloud or vapor, loosely held together, as clouds and vapors\nare, and not capable by any powers of vision of being resolved into\ndistinct visible elements. This opinion was for a time so confidentially\nentertained, that there was founded upon it an hypothesis, that these\nwere gaseous masses, out of which suns and systems might afterwards be\nformed, by the concentration of these luminous vapors into a solid\ncentral sun, more intensely luminous; while detached portions of the\nmass, flying off, and cooling down so as to be no longer self-luminous,\nmight revolve round the central body, as planets and satellites. This is\nthe _Nebular Hypothesis_, suggested by the elder Herschel, and adopted\nby the great mathematician Laplace.\n\n5. But the result of the optical scrutiny of the nebulae by more modern\nobservers, especially by Lord Rosse in Ireland, and Mr. Bond in America,\nhas been, that many celestial objects which were regarded before as\ntruly nebulous, have been resolved into stars; and this resolution has\nbeen extended to so many cases of nebulae, of such various kinds, as to\nhave produced a strong suspicion in the minds of astronomers that _all_\nthe nebulae, however different in their appearance, may really be\nresolved into stars, if they be attacked with optical powers\nsufficiently great.\n\n6. If this were to be assumed as done, and if each of the separate\npoints, into which the nebulae are thus resolved, were conceived to be a\nstar, which looks so small only because it is so distant, and which\nreally is as likely to have a system of planets revolving about it, as\nis a star of the first magnitude:--we should then have a view of the\nimmensity of the visible universe, such as I presented to the reader in\nthe beginning of this essay. All the distant nebulae appear as nebulae,\nonly because they are so distant; if truly seen, they are groups of\nstars, of which each may be as important as our sun, being, like it, the\ncentre of a planetary system. And thus, a patch of the heavens, one\nhundredth or one thousandth part of the visible breadth of our sun, may\ncontain in it more life, not only than exists in the solar system, but\nin as many such systems as the unassisted eye can see stars in the\nheavens, on the clearest winter night.\n\n7. This is a stupendous view of the greatness of the creation; and, to\nmany persons, its very majesty, derived from magnitude and number, will\nmake it so striking and acceptable, that, once apprehended, they will\nfeel as if there were a kind of irreverence in disturbing it. But if\nthis view be really not tenable when more closely examined, it is, after\nall, not wise to connect our feelings of religious reverence with it, so\nthat they shall suffer a shock when we are obliged to reject it. I may\nadd, that we may entertain an undoubting trust that any view of the\ncreation which is found to be true, will also be found to supply\nmaterial for reverential contemplation. I venture to hope that we may,\nby further examination, be led to a reverence of a deeper and more\nsolemn character than a mere wonder at the immensity of space and\nnumber.\n\n8. But whatever the result may be, let us consider the evidence for this\nview. It assumes that all the Nebulae are resolvable into stars, and that\nthey appear as nebulae only because they are more distant than the region\nin which they can appear as stars. Are there any facts, any phenomena in\nthe heavens, which may help us to determine whether this is a probable\nopinion?\n\n9. It is most satisfactory for us, when we can, in such inquiries, know\nthe thoughts which have suggested themselves to the minds of those who\nhave examined the phenomena with the most complete knowledge, the\ngreatest care, and the best advantages; and have speculated upon these\nphenomena in a way both profound and unprejudiced. Some remarks of Sir\nJohn Herschel, recommended by these precious characters, seem to me to\nbear strongly upon the question which I have just had to ask:--Do all\nthe nebulae owe their nebulous appearance to their being too distant to\nbe seen as groups of distinct stars, though they really are such groups?\n\n10. Herschel, in the visit which he made to the Cape of Good Hope, for\nthe purpose of erecting to his father the most splendid monument that\nson ever erected,--the completed survey of the vault of heaven,--had\nfull opportunity of studying a certain pair of remarkable bright spaces\nof the skies, filled with a cloudy light, which lie near the southern\npole; and which, having been unavoidably noticed by the first Antarctic\nvoyagers, are called the _Magellanic Clouds_. When the larger of these\ntwo clouds is examined through powerful telescopes, it presents, we are\ntold, a constitution of uncommon complexity: \"large patches and tracts\nof nebulosity in every stage of resolution, from light, irresolvable\nwith eighteen inches of reflecting aperture, up to perfectly separated\nstars like the Milky Way, and clustering groups sufficiently insulated\nand condensed to come under the designation of irregular, and in some\ncases pretty rich clusters. But besides these, there are also nebulae in\nabundance, both regular and irregular; globular clusters in every stage\nof condensation, and objects of a nebulous character quite peculiar, and\nwhich have no analogies in any other region of the heavens.\"[1] He goes\non to say, that these nebulae and clusters are far more crowded in this\nspace than they are in any other, even the most crowded parts, of the\nnebulous heavens. This _Nubecula Major_, as it is termed, is of a round\nor oval form, and its diameter is about six degrees, so that it is about\ntwelve times the apparent diameter of the moon. The _Nubecula Minor_ is\na smaller patch of the same kind. If we suppose the space occupied by\nthe various objects which the nubecula major includes, to be, in a\ngeneral way, spherical, its nearest and most remote parts must (as its\nangular size proves) differ in their distance from us by little more\nthan a tenth part of our distance from its centre. That the two nubeculae\nare thus approximately spherical spaces, is in the highest degree\nprobable; not only from the peculiarity of their contents, which\nsuggests the notion of a peculiar group of objects, collected into a\nlimited space; but from the barrenness, as to such objects, of the sky\nin the neighborhood of these Magellanic Clouds. To suppose (the only\nother possible supposition) that they are two columns of space, with\ntheir ends turned towards us, and their lengths hundreds and thousands\nof times their breadths, would be too fantastical a proceeding to be\ntolerated; and would, after all, not explain the facts without further\naltogether arbitrary assumptions.\n\n11. It appears, then, that, in these groups, there are stars of various\nmagnitudes, clusters of various forms, nebulae regular and irregular,\nnebulous tracts and patches of peculiar character; and all so disposed,\nthat the most distant of them, whichever these may be, are not more than\none-tenth more distant than the nearest. If the nearest star in this\nspace be at nine times the distance of Sirius, the farthest nebulae,\ncontained in the same space, will not be at more than ten times the\ndistance of Sirius. Of course, the doctrine that nebulae are seen as\nnebulae, merely because they are so distant, requires us to assume all\nnebulae to be hundreds and thousands of times more distant than the\nsmallest stars. If stars of the eighth magnitude (which are hardly\nvisible to the naked eye) be eight times as remote as Sirius, a nebula\ncontaining a thousand stars, which is invisible to the naked eye, must\nbe more than eight thousand times as remote as Sirius. And thus if, in\nthe whole galaxy, we reckon only the stars as far as the eighth\nmagnitude, and suppose all the stars of the galaxy to form a nebula,\nwhich is visible to the spectators in a distant nebula, only as their\nnebula is visible to us; we must place them at eight thousand times two\nhundred thousand times the distance of the Sun; and, even so, we are\nobviously vastly understating the calculation. These are the gigantic\nestimates with which some astronomical speculators have been in the\nhabit of overwhelming the minds of their listeners; and these views have\ngiven a kind of majesty to the aspect of the nebulae; and have led some\npersons to speak of the discovery of every new streak of nebulous light\nin the starry heavens, as a discovery of new worlds, and still new\nworlds. But the Magellanic Clouds show us very clearly that all these\ncalculations are entirely baseless. In those regions of space, there\ncoexists, in a limited compass, and in indiscriminate position, stars,\nclusters of stars, nebulae, regular and irregular, and nebulous streaks\nand patches. These, then, are different kinds of things in themselves,\nnot merely different to us. There are such things as nebulae side by side\nwith stars, and with clusters of stars. Nebulous matter resolvable\noccurs close to nebulous matter irresolvable. The last and widest step\nby which the dimensions of the universe have been expanded in the\nnotions of eager speculators, is checked by a completer knowledge and a\nsager spirit of speculation. Whatever inference we may draw from the\nresolvability of some of the nebulae, we may not draw this\ninference;--that they are more distant, and contain a larger array of\nsystems and of worlds, in proportion as they are difficult to resolve.\n\n12. But indeed, if we consider this process, of the resolution of nebulae\ninto luminous points, on its own ground, without looking to such facts\nas I have just adduced, it will be difficult, or impossible, to assign\nany reason why it should lead to such inferences as have been drawn from\nit. Let us look at this matter more clearly. An astronomer, armed with a\npowerful telescope, _resolves_ a nebula, discerns that a luminous cloud\nis composed of shining dots:--but what are these dots? Into _what_ does\nhe resolve the nebula? Into _Stars_, it is commonly said. Let us not\nwrangle about words. By all means let these dots be Stars, if we know\nabout what we are speaking: if a _Star_ merely mean a luminous dot in\nthe sky. But that these stars shall resemble, in their nature, stars of\nthe first magnitude, and that such stars shall resemble our Sun, are\nsurely very bold structures of assumption to build on such a basis. Some\nnebulae are resolvable; are resolvable into distinct points; certainly a\nvery curious, probably an important discovery. We may hereafter learn\nthat _all_ nebulae are resolvable into distinct points: that would be a\nstill more curious discovery. But what would it amount to? What would be\nthe simple way of expressing it, without hypothesis, and without\nassumption? Plainly this: that the substance of all nebulae is not\ncontinuous, but discrete;--separable, and separate into distinct\nluminous elements;--nebulae are, it would then seem, as it were, of a\ncurdled or granulated texture; they have run into _lumps_ of light, or\nhave been formed originally of such lumps. Highly curious. But what are\nthese lumps? How large are they? At what distances? Of what structure?\nOf what use? It would seem that he must be a bold man who undertakes to\nanswer these questions. Certainly he must appear to ordinary thinkers to\nbe _very_ bold, who, in reply, says, gravely and confidently, as if he\nhad unquestionable authority for his teaching:--\"These lumps, O man, are\nSuns; they are distant from each other as far as the Dog-star is from\nus; each has its system of Planets, which revolve around it; and each of\nthese Planets is the seat of an animal and vegetable creation. Among\nthese Planets, some, we do not yet know how many, are occupied by\nrational and responsible creatures, like Man; and the only matter which\nperplexes us, holding this belief on astronomical grounds, is, that we\ndo not quite see how to put our theology into its due place and form in\nour system.\"\n\n13. In discussing such matters as these, where our knowledge and our\nignorance are so curiously blended together, and where it is so\ndifficult to make men feel that so much ignorance can lie so close to so\nmuch knowledge;--to make them believe that they have been allowed to\ndiscover so much, and yet are not allowed to discover more:--we may be\npermitted to illustrate our meaning, by supposing a case of blended\nknowledge and ignorance, of real and imaginary discovery. Suppose that\nthere were carried from a scientific to a more ignorant nation,\nexcellent maps of the world, finely engraved; the mountain-ranges shaded\nin the most delicate manner, and the sheet crowded with information of\nall kinds, in writing large, small, and microscopic. Suppose also, that\nwhen these maps had been studied with the naked eye, so as to establish\na profound respect for the knowledge and skill of the author of them,\nsome of those who perused them should be furnished with good\nmicroscopes, so as to carry their examination further than before. They\nmight then find that, in several parts, what before appeared to be\nmerely crooked lines, was really writing, stating, it may be, the amount\nof population of a province, or the date of foundation of a town. To\nexhaust all the information thus contained on the maps, might be a work\nof considerable time and labor. But suppose that, when this was done, a\nbody of resolute microscopists should insist that the information which\nthe map contained was not exhausted: that they should continue peering\nperseveringly at the lines which formed the shading of the mountains,\nmaintaining that these lines also were writing, if only it might be\ndeciphered; and should go on increasing, with immense labor and\ningenuity, the powers of their microscopes, in order to discover the\nlegend contained in these unmeaning lines. We should, perhaps, have here\nan image of the employment of these astronomers, who now go on looking\nin nebulae for worlds. And we may notice in passing, that several of the\narguments which are used by such astronomers, might be used, and would\nbe used, by our microscopists:--how improbable it was that a person so\nfull of knowledge, and so able to convey it, as the author of the maps\nwas known to be, should not have a design and purpose in every line that\nhe drew: what a waste of space it would be to leave any part of the\nsheet blank of information; and the like. To which the reply is to us\nobvious; that the design of shading the mountains was design enough; and\nthat the information conveyed was all that was necessary or convenient.\nNor does this illustration at all tend to show that such astronomical\nscrutiny, directed intelligently, with a right selection of the points\nexamined, may not be highly interesting and important. If the\nmicroscopists had examined the map with a view to determine the best way\nin which mountains can be indicated by shading, they would have employed\nthemselves upon a question which has been the subject of multiplied and\ninstructive discussion in our own day.\n\n14. But to return to the subject of Nebulae, we may further say, with\nthe most complete confidence, that whether or not nebulous matter be\ngenerally resolvable into shining dots, it cannot possibly be true that\nits being, or not being so resolvable by our telescopes, depends merely\nupon its smaller or greater distance from the observer. For, in the\nfirst place, that there is matter, to the best assisted eye not\ndistinguishable from nebulous matter, which is not so resolvable, is\nproved by several facts. The tails of Comets often resemble nebulae; so\nmuch so that there are several known nebulae, which are, by the less\nexperienced explorers of the sky, perpetually mistaken for comets, till\nthey are proved not to be so, by their having no cometary motion. Such\nis the nebula in Andromeda, which is visible to the naked eye.[2] But\nthe tails and nebulous appendages of comets, though they alter their\nappearance very greatly, according to the power of the telescope with\nwhich they are examined, have never been resolved into stars, or any\nkind of dots; and seem, by all investigations, to be sheets or cylinders\nor cones of luminous vapor, changing their form as they approach to or\nrecede from the sun, and perhaps by the influence of other causes. Yet\nsome of them approach very near the earth; all of them come within the\nlimits of our system. Here, then, we have (probably, at least,) nebulous\nmatter, which when brought close to the eye, compared with the stellar\nnebulae, still appears as nebulous.\n\n15. Again, as another phenomenon, bearing upon the same question, we\nhave the Zodiacal Light. This is a faint cone of light[3] which, at\ncertain seasons, may be seen extending from the horizon obliquely\nupwards, and following the course of the ecliptic, or rather, of the\nsun's equator. It appears to be a lens-shaped envelope of the sun,\nextending beyond the orbits of Mercury and Venus, and nearly attaining\nthat of the earth; and in Sir John Herschel's view, may be regarded as\nplacing the sun in the list of nebulous stars. No one has ever thought\nthat this nebulous appearance was resolvable into luminous points; but\nif it were, probably not even the most sanguine of speculators on the\nmultitude of suns would call these points _suns_.\n\n16. But indeed the nebulae themselves, and especially the most remote of\nthe nebulae, or at least those which most especially require the most\npowerful telescopes, offer far more decisive proofs that their\nresolvability or non-resolvability,--their apparent constitution as\ndiffused and vaporous masses,--does not depend upon their distance. A\nremarkable fact in the irregular, and in some of the regular nebulae[4]\nis, that they consist of long patches and streaks, which stretch out in\nvarious directions, and of which the form[5] and extent vary according\nto the visual power which is applied to them. Many of the nebulae and\nespecially of the fainter ones, entirely change their form with the\noptical power of the instrument by which they are scrutinized; so that,\nas seen in the mightier telescopes of modern times, the astronomer\nscarcely recognizes the figures in which the earlier observers have\nrecorded what they saw in the same place. Parts which, before, were\nseparate, are connected by thin bridges of light which are now detected;\nand where the nebulous space appeared to be bounded, it sends off long\ntails of faint light into the surrounding space. Now, no one can suppose\nthat these newly-seen portions of the nebula are immensely further off\nthan the other parts. However little we know of the nature of the\nobject, we must suppose it to be one connected object, with all its\nparts, as to sense, at the same distance from us. Whether therefore it\nbe resolvable or no, there must be some other reason, besides the\ndifference of distance, why the brighter parts were seen, while the\nfainter parts were not. The obvious reason is, that the latter were not\nseen because they were thin films which required more light to see them.\nWe are led, irresistibly as it seems, to regard the whole mass of such a\nnebula, as an aggregation of vaporous rolls and streaks, assuming such\nforms as thin volumes of smoke or vapor often assume in our atmosphere,\nand assuming, like them, different shapes according to the quantity of\nlight which comes to us from them. If, as soon as one of these new\nfilaments or webs of a nebula comes into view, we should say, Here we\nhave a new array of suns and of worlds, we should judge as\nfantastically, as any one who should combine the like imaginations with\nthe varying cloud-work of a summer-sky. To suppose that all the varied\nstreaks by which the patch of nebulous light shades off into the\nsurrounding darkness, and which change their form and extent with every\nadditional polish which we can give to a reflecting or refracting\nsurface, disclose, with every new streak, new worlds, is a wanton\nindulgence of fancy, to which astronomy gives us no countenance.[6]\n\n17. Undoubtedly all true astronomers, taught caution and temperance of\nthought by the discipline of their magnificent science, abstain from\nfounding such assumptions upon their discoveries. They know how\nnecessary it is to be upon their guard against the tricks which fancy\nplays with the senses; and if they see appearances of which they cannot\ninterpret the meaning, they are content that they should have no meaning\nfor them, till the due explanation comes. We have innumerable examples\nof this wise and cautious temper, in all periods of astronomy. One has\noccurred lately. Several careful astronomers, observing the stars by\nday, had been surprised to see globes of light glide across the field of\nview of their telescopes, often in rapid succession and in great\nnumbers. They did not, as may be supposed, rush to the assumption that\nthese globes were celestial bodies of a new kind, before unseen; and\nthat from the peculiarity of their appearance and movement, they were\nprobably inhabited by beings of a peculiar kind. They proceeded very\ndifferently; they altered the focus of their telescopes, looked with\nother glasses, made various changes and trials, and finally discovered\nthat these globes of light were the winged seeds of certain plants which\nwere wafted through the air; and which, illuminated by the sun, were\nmade globular by being at distances unsuited to the focus of the\ntelescope.[7]\n\n18. But perhaps something more may be founded on the ramified and\nstraggling form which belongs to many of the nebulae. Under the powers of\nLord Rosse's telescope, a considerable number of them assume a shape\nconsisting of several spiral films diverging from one centre, and\ngrowing broader and fainter as they diverge, so as to resemble a curled\nfeather, or whirlpool of light.[8] This form, though generally deformed\nby irregularities, more or less, is traceable in so many of the nebulae,\nthat we cannot easily divest ourselves of the persuasion that there is\nsome general reason for such a form;--that something, in the mechanical\ncauses which have produced the nebulae, has tended to give them this\nshape. Now, when this thought has occurred to us, since mathematicians\nhave written a great deal concerning the mechanics of the universe, it\nis natural to ask, whether any of the problems which they have solved\ngive a result like that thus presented to our eyes. Do such spirals as\nwe here see, occur in any of the diagrams which illustrate the possible\nmotions of celestial bodies? And to this, a person acquainted with\nmathematical literature might reply, that in the second Book of Newton's\n_Principia_, in the part which has especial reference to the Vortices\nof Descartes, such spirals appear upon the page. They represent\nthe path which a body would describe if, acted upon by a central\nforce, it had to move in a medium of which the resistance was\nconsiderable;--considerable, that is, in comparison with the other\nforces which act; as for example, the forces which deflect the motion\nfrom a straight line. Indeed, that in such a case a body would describe\na spiral, of which the general form would be more or less oval, is\nevident on a little consideration. And in this way, for instance,\nEncke's comet, which, if the resistance to its motion were insensible,\nwould go on describing an ellipse about the sun, always returning upon\nthe same path after every revolution; does really describe a path which,\nat each revolution, falls a little within the preceding revolution, and\nthus gradually converges to the centre. And if we suppose the comet to\nconsist of a luminous mass, or a string of masses, which should occupy\na considerable arc of such an orbit, the orbit would be marked by a\ntrack of light, as an oval spiral. Or if such a comet were to separate\ninto two portions, as we have, with our own eyes, recently seen Biela's\ncomet do; or into a greater number; then these portions would be\ndistributed along such a spiral. And if we suppose a large mass of\ncometic matter thus to move in a highly resisting medium, and to consist\nof patches of different densities, then some would move faster and some\nmore slowly; but all, in spirals such as have been spoken of; and the\ngeneral aspect produced would be, that of the spiral nebulae which I have\nendeavored to describe. The luminous matter would be more diffused in\nthe outer and more condensed in the central parts, because to the centre\nof attraction all the spirals converge.\n\n19. This would be so, we say, if the luminous matter moved in a greatly\nresisting medium. But what is the measure of _great_ resistance? It is,\nas we have already said, that the resistance which opposes the motion\nshall bear a considerable proportion to the force which deflects the\nmotion. But what is that force? Upon the theory of the universal\ngravitation of matter, on which theory we here proceed, the force which\ndeflects the motions of the parts of each system into curves, is the\nmutual attraction of the parts of the system; leaving out of the account\nthe action of other systems, as comparatively insignificant and\ninsensible. The condition, then, for the production of such spiral\nfigures as I have spoken of, amounts really to this; that the mutual\nattraction of the parts of the luminous matter is slight; or, in other\nwords, that the matter itself is very thin and rare. In that case,\nindeed, we can easily see that such a result would follow. A cloud of\ndust, or of smoke, which was thin and light, would make but a little way\nthrough the air, and would soon fall downwards; while a metal bullet\nshot horizontally with the same velocity, might fly for miles. Just so,\na loose and vaporous mass of cometic matter would be pulled rapidly\ninwards by the attraction to the centre; and supposing it also drawn\ninto a long train, by the different density of its different parts, it\nwould trace, in lines of light, a circular or elliptical spiral\nconverging to the centre of attraction, and resembling one of the\nbranches of the spiral nebulae. And if several such cometic masses thus\ntravelled towards the centre, they would exhibit the wheel-like figure\nwith bent spokes, which is seen in the spiral nebulae. And such a figure\nwould all the more resemble some of these nebulae, as seen through Lord\nRosse's telescope, if the spirals were accompanied by exterior branches\nof thinner and fainter light, which nebulous matter of smaller density\nmight naturally form. Perhaps too, such matter, when thin, may be\nsupposed to cool down more rapidly from its state of incandescence; and\nthus to become less luminous. If this were so, a great optical power\nwould of course be required, to make the diverging branches visible at\nall.\n\n20. There is one additional remark, which we may make, as to the\nresemblance of cometary[9] and nebular matter. That cometary matter is\nof very small density, we have many reasons to believe:--its\ntransparency, which allows us to see stars through it undimmed;--the\nabsence of any mechanical effect, weight, inertia, impulse, or\nattraction, in the nearest appulses of comets to planets and\nsatellites:--and the fact that, in the recent remarkable event in the\ncometic history, the separation of Biela's comet into two, the two parts\ndid not appear to exert any perceptible attraction on each other, any\nmore than two volumes of dust or of smoke would do on earth. Luminous\ncometary matter, then, is very light, that is, has very little weight or\ninertia. And luminous nebulous matter is also very light in this sense:\nif our account of the cause of spiral nebulae has in it any truth. But\nyet, if we suppose the nebulae to be governed by the law of universal\ngravitation, the attractive force of the luminous matter upon itself,\nmust be sufficient to bend the spirals into their forms. How are we to\nreconcile this; that the matter is so loose that it falls to the centre\nin rapid spirals, and yet that it attracts so strongly that there is a\ncentre, and an energetic central force to curve the spirals thither? To\nthis, the reply which we must make is, that the size of the nebular\nspace is such, that though its rarity is extreme, its whole mass is\nconsiderable. One part does not perceptibly attract another, but the\nwhole does perceptibly attract every part. This indeed need the less\nsurprise us, since it is exactly the case with our earth. One stone does\nnot visibly attract another. It is much indeed for man, if he can make\nperceptible the attraction of a mountain upon a plumb-line; or of a\nstratum of rock a thousand feet thick upon the going of a pendulum; or\nof large masses of metal upon a delicate balance. By such experiments\nmen of science have endeavored to measure that minute thing, the\nattraction of one portion of terrestrial matter upon another; and thus,\nto weigh the whole mass of the earth. And equally great, at least, may\nbe the disproportion between the mutual attraction of two parts of a\nnebulous system, and the total central attraction; and thus, though the\nformer be insensible, the latter may be important.\n\n21. It has been shown by Newton, that if any mass of matter be\ndistributed in a uniform sphere, or in uniform concentric spherical\nshells, the total attraction on a point without the sphere, will be the\nsame as if the whole mass were collected in that single point, the\ncentre. Now, proceeding upon the supposition of such a distribution of\nthe matter in a nebula, (which is a reasonable average supposition,) we\nmay say, that if our sun were expanded into a nebula reaching to the\nextreme bounds of the known solar system, namely, to the\nnewly-discovered planet Neptune, or even hundreds of times further; the\nattraction on an external point would remain the same as it is, while\nthe attraction on points within the sphere of diffusion would be less\nthan it is; according to some law, depending upon the degree of\ncondensation of the nebular matter towards the centre; but still, in the\nouter regions of the nebula, not differing much from the present solar\nattraction. If we could discover a mass of luminous matter, descending\nin a spiral course towards the centre of such a nebula, that is, towards\nthe sun, we should have a sort of element of the spiral nebulae which\nhave now attracted so much of the attention of astronomers. But, by an\nextraordinary coincidence, recent discoveries have presented to us such\nan element. Encke's comet, of which we have just spoken, appears to be\ndescribing such a spiral curve towards the sun. It is found that its\nperiod is, at every revolution, shorter and shorter; the amplitude of\nits sweep, at every return within the limits of our observation,\nnarrower and narrower; so that in the course of revolutions and ages,\nhowever numerous, still, not such as to shake the evidence of the fact,\nit will fall into the sun.\n\n22. Here then we are irresistibly driven to calculate what degree of\nresemblance there is, between the comet of Encke, and the luminous\nelements of the spiral nebulae, which have recently been found to exist\nin other regions of the universe. Can we compare its density with\ntheirs? Can we learn whether the luminous matter in such nebulae is more\ndiffused or less diffused, than that of the comet of Encke? Can we\ncompare the mechanical power of getting through space, as we may call\nit, that is, the ratio of the inertia to the resistance, in the one\ncase, and in the other? If we can, the comparison cannot fail, it would\nseem, to be very curious and instructive. In this comparison, as in most\nothers to which cosmical relations conduct us, we must expect that the\nnumbers to which we are led, will be of very considerable amount. It is\nnot equality in the density of the two luminous masses which we are to\nexpect to find; if we can mark their proportions by thousands of times,\nwe shall have made no small progress in such speculations.\n\n23. The comet of Encke describes a spiral, gradually converging to the\nsun; but at what rate converging? In how many revolutions will it reach\nthe sun? Of how many folds will its spire consist, before it attains the\nend of its course? The answer is:--Of very many. The retardation of\nEncke's Comet is very small: so small, that it has tasked the highest\npowers of modern calculation to detect it. Still, however, it is there:\ndetected, and generally acknowledged, and confirmed by every revolution\nof the comet, which brings it under our notice; that is, commonly, about\nevery three years. And having this fact, we must make what we can of it,\nin reasoning on the condition of the universe. No accuracy of\ncalculation is necessary for our purpose: it is enough, if we bring into\nview the kind of scale of numbers to which calculation would lead us.\n\n24. Encke's comet revolves round the sun in 1,211 days. The period\ndiminishes at present, by about one-ninth of a day every revolution.\nThis amount of diminution will change, as the orbit narrows; but for our\npurpose, it will be enough to consider it unchangeable. The orbit\ntherefore will cease to exist in a number of periods expressed by 9\ntimes 1,211; that is, in something more that 10,000 revolutions; and of\ncourse sooner than this, in consequence of its coming in contact with\nthe body of the sun. In 30,000 years then, it may be, this comet will\ncomplete its spiral, and be absorbed by the central mass. This long\ntime, this long series of ten thousand revolutions, are long, because\nthe resistance is so small, compared with the inertia of the moving\nmass. However thin, and rare, and unsubstantial the comet may be, the\nmedium which resists it is much more so.\n\n25. But this spiral, converging to its pole so slowly that it reaches it\nonly after 10,000 circuits, is very different indeed from the spirals\nwhich we see in the nebulae of which we have spoken. In the most\nconspicuous of those, there are only at most three or four circular or\noval sweeps, in each spiral, or even the spiral reaches the centre\nbefore it has completed a single revolution round it. Now, what are we\nto infer from this? How is it, that the comet has a spiral of so many\nrevolutions, and the nebulae of so few? What difference of the mechanical\nconditions is indicated by this striking difference of form? Why, while\nthe Comet thus lingers longer in the outer space, and approaches the sun\nby almost imperceptible degrees, does the Nebular Element rush, as it\nwere, headlong to its centre, and show itself unable to circulate even\nfor a few revolutions?\n\n26. Regarding the question as a mechanical problem, the answer must be\nthis:--It is so, because the nebula is so much more rare than the matter\nof the comet, or the resisting medium so much more dense; or combining\nthe two suppositions, because in the case of the comet, the luminous\nmatter has _much_ more inertia, more mechanical reality and substance,\nthan the medium through which it moves; but in the nebula very _little_\nmore.\n\n27. The numbers of revolutions of the spiral, in the two cases, may not\nexactly represent the difference of the proportions; but, as I have\nsaid, they may serve to show the scale of them; and thus we may say,\nthat if Encke's comet, approaching the centre by 10,000 revolutions, is\n100,000 times as dense as the surrounding medium, the elements of the\nnebula, which reach the centre in a single revolution, are only ten\ntimes as dense as the medium through which they have to move.[10]\n\n28. Nor does this result (that the bright element of the nebulae is so\nfew times denser than the medium in which it moves) offer anything which\nneed surprise us: for, in truth, in a diffused nebula, since we suppose\nthat its parts have mechanical properties, the nebula itself is a\nresisting medium. The rarer parts, which may very naturally have cooled\ndown in consequence of their rarity, and so, become non-luminous, will\nresist the motions of the more dense and still-luminous portions. If we\nrecur to the supposition, which we lately made, that the Sun were\nexpanded into a nebulous sphere, reaching the orbit of Neptune, the\ndiffused matter would offer a far greater resistance to the motions of\ncomets than they now experience. In that case, Encke's comet might be\nbrought to the centre after a few revolutions; and if, while it were\nthus descending, it were to be drawn out into a string of luminous\nmasses, as Biela's comet has begun to be, these comets, and any others,\nwould form separate luminous spiral tracks in the solar system; and\nwould convert it into a spiral nebula of many branches, like those which\nare now the most recent objects of astronomical wonder.\n\n29. It seems allowable to regard it as one of those coincidences, in the\nepochs of related yet seeming unconnected discoveries, which have so\noften occurred in the history of science; that we should, nearly at the\nsame time, have had brought to our notice, the prevalence of spiral\nnebulae, and the circumstances, in Biela's and in Encke's comets, which\nseem to explain them: the one by showing the origin of luminous broken\nlines, one part drifting on faster than another, according to its\ndifferent density, as is usual in incoherent masses;[11] and the other\nby showing the origin of the spiral form of those lines, arising from\nthe motion being in a resisting medium.\n\n30. But though I have made suppositions by which our Solar System might\nbecome a spiral nebula, undoubtedly it is at present something very\ndifferent; and the leading points of difference are very important for\nus to consider. And the main point is, that which has already been\ncursorily noticed: that instead of consisting of matter all nearly of\nthe same density, and a great deal of it luminous, our Solar System\nconsists of kinds of matter immensely different in density, and of large\nand regular portions which are not luminous. Instead of a diffused\nnebula with vaporous comets trailing spiral tracks through a medium\nlittle rarer than themselves; we have a central sun, and the dark globes\nof the solid planets rolling round him, in a medium so rare, that in\nthousands of revolutions not a vestige of retardation can be discovered\nby the most subtle and persevering researches of astronomers. In the\nsolar system, the luminous matter is collected into the body of the sun;\nthe non-luminous matter, into the planets. And the comets and the\nresisting medium, which offer a small exception to this account, bear a\nproportion to the rest which the power of numbers scarce suffices to\nexpress.\n\n31. Thus with regard to the density of matter in the solar system; we\nhave supposed, as a mode of expression, that the density of a comet,\nEncke's comet for instance, is 100,000 times that of the resisting\nmedium. Probably this is greatly understated; and probably also we\ngreatly understate the matter, when we suppose that the tail of a comet\nis 100,000 times rarer than the matter of the sun.[12] And thus the\nresisting medium would be, at a very low calculation, 10,000 millions of\ntimes more rare than the substance of the sun.\n\n32. And thus we are not, I think, going too far, when we say, that our\nSolar System, compared with spiral nebulous systems, is a system\ncompleted and finished, while they are mere confused, indiscriminate,\nincoherent masses. In the Nebulae, we have loose matter of a thin and\nvaporous constitution, differing as more or less rare, more or less\nluminous, in a small degree; diffused over enormous spaces, in\nstraggling and irregular forms; moving in devious and brief curves, with\nno vestige of order or system, or even of separation of different kinds\nof bodies. In the Solar System, we have the luminous separated from the\nnon-luminous, the hot from the cold, the dense from the rare; and all,\nluminous and non-luminous, formed into globes, impressed with regular\nand orderly motions, which continue the same for innumerable revolutions\nand cycles.[13] The spiral nebulae, compared with the solar system,\ncannot be considered as other than a kind of chaos; and not even a\nchaos, in the sense of a state preceding an orderly and stable system;\nfor there is no indication, in those objects, of any tendency towards\nsuch a system. If we were to say that they appear mere shapeless masses,\nflung off in the work of creating solar systems, we might perhaps\ndisturb those who are resolved to find everywhere worlds like ours; but\nit seems difficult to suggest any other reason for not saying so.\n\n33. The same may be said of the other very irregular nebulae, which\nspread out patches and paths of various degrees of brightness; and shoot\nout, into surrounding space, faint branches which are of different form\nand extent, according to the optical power with which they are seen.\nThese irregular forms are incapable of being permanent according to the\nlaws of mechanics. They are not figures of equilibrium; and, therefore,\nmust change by the attraction of the matter upon itself. But if the\ntenuity of the matter is extreme, and the resistance of the medium in\nwhich it floats considerable, this tendency to change and to\ncondensation may be almost nullified; and the bright specks may long\nkeep their straggling forms, as the most fantastically shaped clouds of\na summer-sky often do. It is true, it may be said that the reason why we\nsee no change in the form of such nebulae, is that our observations have\nnot endured long enough; all visible changes in the stars requiring an\nimmense time, according to the gigantic scale of celestial mechanism.\nBut even this hypothesis (it is no more) tends to establish the extreme\ntenuity of the nebulae; for more solid systems, like our solar system,\nrequire, for the preservation of their form, motions which are\nperceptible, and indeed conspicuous, in the course of a month; namely,\nthe motions of the planets. All, therefore, concurs to prove the extreme\ntenuity of the substance of irregular nebulae.\n\n34. Nebulae which assume a regular, for instance, a circular or oval\nshape, with whatever variation of luminous density from the inner to the\nouter parts, may have a form of equilibrium, if their parts have a\nproper gyratory motion. Still, we see no reason for supposing that these\ndiffer so much from irregular nebulae, as to be denser bodies, kept in\ntheir forms by rapid motions. We are rather led to believe that, though\nperhaps denser than the spiral nebulae, they are still of extremely thin\nand vaporous character. It would seem very unlikely that these vast\nclouds of luminous vapor should be as dense as the tail of a comet;\nsince a portion of luminous matter so small as such a tail is, must have\ncooled down from its most luminous condition; and must require to be\nmore dense than nebular matter in order to be visible at all by its own\nlight.\n\n35. Thus we appear to have good reason to believe that nebulae are vast\nmasses of incoherent or gaseous matter, of immense tenuity, diffused in\nforms more or less irregular, but all of them destitute of any regular\nsystem of solid moving bodies. We seem, therefore, to have made it\ncertain that _these_ celestial objects at least are not inhabited. No\nspeculators have been bold enough to place inhabitants in a comet;\nexcept, indeed, some persons who have imagined that such a habitation,\ncarrying its inmates alternately into the close vicinity of the sun's\nsurface, and far beyond the orbit of Uranus, and thus exposing them to\nthe fierce extremes of heat and cold, might be the seat of penal\ninflictions on those who had deserved punishment by acts done in their\nlife on one of the planets. But even to give coherence to this wild\nimagination, we must further suppose that the tenants of such\nprison-houses, though still sensible to human suffering from extreme\nheat and cold, have bodies of the same vaporous and unsubstantial\ncharacter as the vehicle in which they are thus carried about the\nsystem; for no frame of solid structure could be sustained by the\nincoherent and varying volume of a comet. And probably, to people the\nnebulae with such thin and fiery forms, is a mode of providing them with\npopulation, that the most ardent advocates of the plurality of worlds\nare not prepared to adopt.\n\n36. So far then as the Nebulae are concerned, the improbability of their\nbeing inhabited, appears to mount to the highest point that can be\nconceived. We may, by the indulgence of fancy, people the summer-clouds,\nor the beams of the aurora borealis, with living beings, of the same\nkind of substance as those bright appearances themselves; and in doing\nso, we are not making any bolder assumption than we are, when we stock\nthe Nebulae with inhabitants, and call them in that sense, \"distant\nworlds.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Herschel, _Outl. of Astr._ Art. 893.\n\n[2] Herschel, _Outl. of Astr._ Art. 874, and Plate 11, Fig. 3.\n\n[3] Ibid. Art. 897.\n\n[4] Hersch. 874.\n\n[5] Ibid. 881-8.\n\n[6] At the recent meeting of the British Association (Sept. 1853),\ndrawings were exhibited of the same nebulae, as seen through Lord Rosse's\nlarge telescope, and through a telescope of three feet aperture. With\nthe smaller telescopic power, all the characteristic features were lost.\nThe spiral structure (see next Article but one) has been almost entirely\nbrought to light by the large telescope.\n\n[7] See monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Dec. 13,\n1850.\n\n[8] The frontispiece to this volume represents two of these Spiral\nNebulae; those denominated 51 Messier, and 99 Messier, as given by Lord\nRosse in the _Phil. Trans. for 1850_. The former of these two has a\nlateral focus, besides the principal focus or pole.\n\n[9] I am aware that some astronomers do not consider it as proved that\ncometary matter is entirely self-luminous. Arago found that the light of\na Comet contained a portion of polarized light, thus proving that it had\nbeen reflected (_Cosmos_, I. p. 111, and III. p. 566). But I think the\nopinion that the greater part of the light is self-luminous, like the\nnebulae, generally prevails. Any other supposition is scarcely consistent\nwith the rapid changes of brightness which occur in a comet during its\nmotion to and from the Sun.\n\n[10] We assume here that the number of revolutions to the centre is\ngreater in proportion as the relative density of the resisting medium is\nless; which is by no means mechanically true; but the calculation may\nserve, as we have said, to show the scale of the numbers involved.\n\n[11] Humboldt, whom nothing relative to the history of science escapes,\nquotes from Seneca a passage in which mention is made of a Comet which\ndivided into two parts; and from the Chinese Annals, a notice of three\n\"coupled Comets,\" which in the year 896 appeared, and described their\npaths together. _Cosmos_, III. p. 570, and the notes.\n\n[12] Laplace has proved that the masses of comets are very small. He\nreckons their mean mass as very much less than 1-100000th of the Earth's\nmass. And hence, considering their great size, we see how rare they must\nbe. See _Expos. du Syst. du Monde_.\n\n[13] Humboldt repeatedly expresses his conviction that our Solar System\ncontains a greater variety of forms than other systems. (_Cosmos_, III.\n373 and 587.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE FIXED STARS.\n\n\n1. We appear, in the last chapter, to have cleared away the supposed\ninhabitants of the outskirts of creation, so far as the Nebulae are the\noutskirts of creation. We must now approach a little nearer, in\nappearance at least, to our own system. We must consider the Fixed\nStars; and examine any evidence which we may be able to discover, as to\nthe probability of their containing, in themselves or in accompanying\nbodies, as planets, inhabitants of any kind. Any special evidence which\nwe can discern on this subject, either way, is indeed slight. On the one\nside we have the asserted analogy of the parts of the universe; of which\npoint we have spoken, and may have more to say hereafter. Each Fixed\nStar is conceived to be of the nature of our Sun; and therefore, like\nhim, the centre of a planetary system. On the other side, it is\nextremely difficult to find any special facts relative to the nature of\nthe fixed stars, which may enable us in any degree to judge how far they\nreally are of a like nature with the Sun, and how far this resemblance\ngoes. We may, however, notice a few features in the starry heavens, with\nwhich, in the absence of any stronger grounds, we may be allowed to\nconnect our speculations on such questions. The assiduous scrutiny of\nthe stars which has been pursued by the most eminent astronomers, and\nthe reflections which their researches have suggested to them, may have\na new interest, when discussed under this point of view.\n\n2. Next after the Nebulae, the cases which may most naturally engage our\nattention, are Clusters of stars. The cases, indeed, in which these\nclusters are the closest, and the stars the smallest, and in which,\ntherefore, it is only by the aid of a good telescope that they are\nresolved into stars, do not differ from the resolvable nebulae, except in\nthe degree of optical power which is required to resolve them. We may,\ntherefore, it would seem, apply to such clusters, what we have said of\nresolvable nebulae: that when they are thus, by the application of\ntelescopic power, resolved into bright points, it seems to be a very\nbold assumption to assume, without further proof, that these bright\npoints are suns, distant from each other as far as we are from the\nnearest stars. The boldness of such an assumption appears to be felt by\nour wisest astronomers.[1] That several of the clusters which are\nvisible, some of them appearing as if the component stars were gathered\ntogether in a nearly spherical form, are systems bound together by some\nspecial force, or some common origin, we may regard, with those\nastronomers, as in the highest degree probable. With respect to the\nstability of the form of such a system, a curious remark has been made\nby Sir John Herschel,[2] that if we suppose a globular space filled with\nequal stars, uniformly dispersed through it, the particular stars might\ngo on forever, describing ellipses about the centre of the globe, in all\ndirections, and of all sizes; and all completing their revolutions in\nthe same time. This follows, because, as Newton has shown, in such a\ncase, the compound force which tends to the centre of the sphere would\nbe everywhere proportional to the distance from the centre; and under\nthe action of such a force, ellipses about the centre would be\ndescribed, all the periods being of the same amount. This kind of\nsymmetrical and simple systematic motion, presented by Newton as a mere\nexemplification of the results of his mechanical principles, is perhaps\nrealized, approximately at least, in some of the globular clusters. The\nmotions will be swift or slow, according to the total mass of the\ngroups. If, for instance, our Sun were thus broken into fragments, so as\nto fill the sphere girdled by the earth's orbit, all the fragments would\nrevolve round the centre in a year. Now, there is no symptom, in any\ncluster, of its parts moving nearly so fast as this; and therefore we\nhave, it would seem, evidence that the groups are much less dense than\nwould be the space so filled with fragments of the sun. The slowness of\nthe motions, in this case, as in the nebulae, is evidence of the weakness\nof the forces, and therefore, of the rarity of the mass; and till we\nhave some gyratory motion discovered in these groups, we have nothing to\nlimit our supposition of the extreme tenuity of their total substance.\n\n3. Let us then go on to the cases in which we have proof of such\ngyratory motions in the stars; for such are not wanting. Fifty years\nago, Herschel the father, had already ascertained that there are certain\npairs of stars, very near each other (so near, indeed, that to the\nunassisted eye they are seen as single stars only,) and which revolve\nabout each other. These Binary Sidereal Systems have since been examined\nwith immense diligence and profound skill by Herschel the son, and\nothers; and the number of such binary systems has been found, by such\nobservers, to be very considerable. The periods of their revolutions are\nof various lengths, from 30 or 40 years to several hundreds of years.\nSome of those pairs which have the shortest periods, have already,\nsince the nature of their movements was discovered, performed more than\na complete revolution;[3] thus leaving no room for doubting that their\nmotions are really of this gyratory kind. Not only the fact, but the law\nof this orbital motion, has been investigated; and the investigations,\nwhich naturally were commenced on the hypothesis that these distant\nbodies were governed by that Law of universal Gravitation, which\nprevails throughout the solar system, and so completely explains the\nminutest features of its motions, have ended in establishing the reality\nof that Law, for several Binary Systems, with as complete evidence as\nthat which carries its operations to the orbits of Uranus and Neptune.\n\n4. Being able thus to discern, in distant regions of the universe,\nbodies revolving about each other, we have the means of determining, as\nwe do in our own solar system, the masses of the bodies so revolving.\nBut for this purpose, we must know their distance from each other; which\nis, to our vision, exceedingly small, requiring, as we have said, high\nmagnifying powers to make it visible at all. And again, to know what\nlinear distance this small visible distance represents, we must know the\ndistance of the stars from us, which is, for every star, as we know,\nimmensely great; and for most, we are destitute of all means of\ndetermining how great it is. There are, however, some of these binary\nsystems, in which astronomers conceive that they have sufficiently\nascertained the value of both these elements, (the distance of the two\nstars from each other, and from us,) to enable them to proceed with the\ncalculation of which I have spoken; the determination of the masses of\nthe revolving bodies. In the case of the star _Alpha Centauri_, the\nfirst star in the constellation of the Centaur, the period is reckoned\nto be 77 years; and as, by the same calculator, the apparent semi-axis\nof the orbit described is stated at 15 seconds of space, while the\nannual parallax of each star is about one second, it is evident that the\norbit must have a radius about 15 times the radius of the earth's orbit;\nthat is, an orbit greater than that of Saturn, and approaching to that\nof Uranus. In the solar system, a revolution in such an orbit would\noccupy a time greater than that of Saturn, which is 30 years, and less\nthan that of Uranus, which is about 80 years: it would, in fact, be\nabout 58 years. And since, in the binary star, the period is greater\nthan this, namely 77 years, the attraction which holds together its two\nelements must be less than that which holds together the Sun and a\nplanet at the same distance; and therefore the masses of the two stars\ntogether are considerably less than the mass of our sun.\n\n5. A like conclusion is derived from another of these conspicuous double\nstars, namely, the one termed by astronomers _61 Cygni_; of which the\nannual parallax has lately been ascertained to be one-third of a second\nof space, while the distance of the two stars is 15 seconds. Here\ntherefore we have an orbit 45 times the size of the Earth's orbit;\nlarger than that of the newly-discovered planet Neptune, whose orbit is\n30 times as large as the earth's, and his period nearly 165 years. The\nperiod of 61 Cygni is however, it appears, probably not short of 500\nyears; and hence it is calculated that the sum of the masses of the two\nstars which make up this pair is about one-third of the mass of our\nSun.[4]\n\n6. These results give some countenance to the opinion, that the quantity\nof luminous matter, in other systems, does not differ very considerably\nfrom the mass of our Sun. It differs in these cases as 1 to 3, or\nthereabouts. In what degree of condensation, however, the matter of\nthese binary systems is, compared with that of our solar system, we have\nno means whatever of knowing. Each of the two stars may have its\nluminous matter diffused through a globe as large as the earth's orbit;\nand in that case, would probably not be more dense than the tail of a\ncomet.[5] It is observed by astronomers, that in the pairs of binary\nstars which we have mentioned, the two stars of each pair are of\ndifferent colors; the stars being of a high yellow, approaching to\norange color,[6] but the smaller individual being in each case of a\ndeeper tint. This might suggest to us the conjecture that the smaller\nmass had cooled further below the point of high luminosity than the\nlarger; but that both these degrees of light belong to a condition still\nprogressive, and probably still gaseous. Without attaching any great\nvalue to such conjectures, they appear to be at least as well authorized\nas the supposition that each of these stars, thus different, is\nnevertheless precisely in the condition of our sun.\n\n7. But, even granting that each of the individuals of this pair were a\nsun like ours, in the nature of its material and its state of\ncondensation, is it probable that it resembles our Sun also in having\nplanets revolving about it? A system of planets revolving around or\namong a pair of suns, which are, at the same time, revolving about one\nanother, is so complex a scheme, so impossible to arrange in a stable\nmanner, that the assumption of the existence of such schemes, without a\nvestige of evidence, can hardly require confutation. No doubt, if we\nwere really required to provide such a binary system of suns with\nattendant planets, this would be best done by putting the planets so\nnear to one sun, that they should not be sensibly affected by the other;\nand this is accordingly what has been proposed.[7] For, as has been well\nsaid of the supposed planets, in making this proposal, \"Unless closely\nnestled under the protecting wing of their immediate superior, the sweep\nof the other sun in his perihelion passage round their own, might carry\nthem off, or whirl them into orbits utterly inconsistent with the\nexistence of their inhabitants.\" To assume the existence of the\ninhabitants, in spite of such dangers, and to provide against the\ndangers by placing them so close to one sun as to be out of the reach of\nthe other, though the whole distance of the two may not, and as we have\nseen, in some cases does not, exceed the dimensions of our solar system,\nis showing them all the favor which is possible. But in making this\nprovision, it is overlooked that it may not be possible to keep them in\npermanent orbits so near to the selected centre: their sun may be a vast\nsphere of luminous vapor; and the planets, plunged into this atmosphere,\nmay, instead of describing regular orbits, plough their way in spiral\npaths through the nebulous abyss to its central nucleus.\n\n8. Clustered stars, then, and double stars, appear to give us but little\npromise of inhabitants. We must next turn our attention to the single\nstars, as the most hopeful cases. Indeed, it is certain that no one\nwould have thought of regarding the individual stars of clusters, or of\npairs, as the centres of planetary systems, if the view of insulated\nstars, as the centres of such systems, had not already become familiar,\nand, we may say, established. What, then, is the probability of that\nview? Is there good evidence that the Fixed Stars, or some of them,\nreally have planets revolving round them? What is the kind of proof\nwhich we have of this?\n\n9. To this we must reply, that the only proof that the fixed stars are\nthe centres of planetary systems, resides in the assumption that those\nstars are _like the Sun_;--resemble him in their qualities and nature,\nand therefore, it is inferred, must have the same offices, and the same\nappendages. They are, as the Sun is, independent sources of light, and\nthence, probably, of heat; and therefore they must have attendant\nplanets, to which they can impart their light and heat; and these\nplanets must have inhabitants, who live under and enjoy those\ninfluences. This is, probably, the kind of reasoning on which those\nrely, who regard the fixed stars as so many worlds, or centres of\nfamilies of worlds.\n\n10. Everything in this argument, therefore, depends upon this: that the\nStars are _like the Sun_; and we must consider, what evidence we have of\nthe exactness of this likeness.\n\n11. The Stars are like the Sun in this, that they shine with an\nindependent light, not with a borrowed light, as the planets shine. In\nthis, however, the stars resemble, not only the Sun, but the nebulous\npatches in the sky, and the tails of comets; for these also, in all\nprobability, shine with an original light. Probably it will hardly be\nurged that we see, by the very appearance of the stars, that they are of\nthe nature of the Sun: for the appearance of luminaries in the sky is so\nfar from enabling us to discriminate the nature of their light, that to\na common eye, a planet and a fixed star appear alike as stars. There is\nno obvious distinction between the original light of the stars and the\nreflected light of the planets. The stars, then, being like the sun in\nbeing luminous, does it follow that they are, like the sun, definite\ndense masses?[8] Or are they, or many of them, luminous masses in a far\nmore diffused state; visually contracted to points, by the immense\ndistance from us at which they are?\n\n12. We have seen that some of those stars, which we have the best means\nof examining, are, in mass, one third, or less, of our Sun. If such a\nmass, at the distance of the fixed stars, were diffused through a sphere\nequal in radius to the earth's orbit, it would still appear to us as a\npoint; as is evident by this, that the fixed stars, for the most part,\nhave no discoverable annual parallax; that is, the earth's orbit appears\nto them a point. If one of the fixed stars, Sirius, for instance, be in\nthis diffused condition, such a circumstance will not, mechanically\nspeaking, prevent his having planets revolving round him; for, as we\nhave said, the attraction of his whole mass, in whatever state of\nspherical diffusion, will be the same as if it were collected at the\ncentre. But such a state of diffusion will make him so unlike our Sun,\nas much to break the force of the presumption that he must have planets\nbecause our Sun has. If the luminous matter of the stars gradually\ncools, grows dark, and solidifies, such diffusion would imply that the\ntime of solidification is not yet begun; and therefore that the solid\nplanets which accompany the luminous central body are not yet brought\ninto being. If there be any truth in this hypothetical account of the\nchanges, through which the matter of the stars successively passes; and\nif, by such changes, planetary systems are formed; how many of the fixed\nstars may never yet have reached the planetary state! how many, for want\nof some necessary mechanical condition, may never give rise to permanent\norbits at all!\n\n13. And that the matter of the stars does go through changes, we have\nevidence, in many such changes which have actually been observed;[9]\nand perhaps in the different colors of different stars; which may, not\nimprobably, arise from their being at different stages of their\nprogress. That planetary systems, once formed, go through mighty\nchanges, we have evidence in the view which geology gives us of the\nhistory of this earth; and in that view, we see also, how unique, and\nhow far elevated in its purpose, the last period of this history may be,\ncompared with the preceding periods; and, up to the present time at\nleast, how comparatively brief in its duration. If, therefore, stellar\nglobes can become planetary systems in the progress of ages, it will not\nbe at all inconsistent with what we know of the order of nature, that\nonly a few, or even that only one, should have yet reached that\ncondition. All the others, but the one, may be systems yet unformed, or\nfragments struck off in the forming of the one. If any one is not\nsatisfied with this account of the degree of resemblance between the\nfixed stars and the sun, but would make the likeness greater than this;\nwe have only to say, that the proof that it is so lies upon him. Such a\nresemblance as we have supposed, is all that the facts suggest. That the\nstars are independent luminaries, we see; but whether they are as dense\nas the sun, or globes a hundred or a thousand times as rare, we have no\nmeans whatever of knowing. And, to assume that besides these luminous\nbodies which we see, there are dark bodies which we do not see,\nrevolving round the others in permanent orbits, which require special\nmechanical conditions; and to suppose this, in order that we may build\nupon this assumption a still larger one, that of living inhabitants of\nthese dark bodies; is a hypothetical procedure, which it seems strange\nthat we should have to combat, at the present stage of the history of\nscience, and in dealing with those whose minds have been disciplined by\nthe previous events in the progress of astronomy.\n\n14. Let us consider, however, further, how far astronomy authorizes us\nto regard the Fixed Stars as being, like our Sun, the centres of systems\nof Planets. Those who hold this, consider them as having a permanent\ncondition of brightness, as our Sun has had for an indefinite period, so\nfar as we have any knowledge on the subject. Yet, as we have said, no\nsmall number of the stars undergo changes of brightness; and some of\nthem undergo such changes, in a manner which is not discernibly\nperiodical; and which must therefore be regarded as progressive. This\nphenomenon countenances the opinion of such a progress from one material\ncondition to another; which, we have seen, is suggested by the analogy\nof the probable formation of our own solar system. The very star which\nis so often taken as the probable centre of a system, Sirius, has, in\nthe course of the last 2,000 years, changed its light from red to white.\nPtolemy notes it as a red star: in Tycho's time it was already, as it is\nnow, a white one.[10] The star _Eta Argus_ changes both its degree of\nlight and its color; ranging, in seemingly irregular intervals of time,\nfrom the fourth to the first magnitude,[11] and from yellow to red.\nSeveral other examples of the like kind have been observed. Mr. Hind[12]\ngives an example in which he has, quite recently, observed in two years\na star change its color from very red to bluish. These variable\nunperiodical stars are probably very numerous. Also, some stars,\nobserved of old, are now become invisible. \"The lost Pleiad,\" by the\nloss of which the cluster, called the Seven Stars, offers now only six\nto the naked eye, is an example of a change of this kind already noted\nin ancient times. There are several others, of which the extinction is\nrecognized by astronomers as proved.[13] In other cases, new stars have\nappeared, and have then seemed to die away and vanish. The appearance of\na new star in the time of the Greek astronomer Hipparchus, induced him\nto construct his famous Catalogue of the Stars. Others are recorded to\nhave appeared in the middle ages. The first which was observed by modern\nastronomers was the celebrated star seen by Tycho Brahe in 1572. It\nappeared suddenly in the constellation Cassiopeia, was fixed in its\nplace like the neighboring stars, had no nebula or tail, exceeded in\nsplendor all other stars, being as bright as Venus when she is nearest\nthe earth. It soon began to diminish in brightness, and passing through\nvarious diminishing degrees of magnitude, vanished altogether after\nseventeen months. This star also passed through various colors; being\nfirst white, then yellow, then red. In like manner, in 1604, a new star\nof great magnitude blazed forth in the constellation Serpentarius; and\nwas seen by Kepler. And this also, like that of 1572, after a few\nmonths, declined and vanished.\n\n15. These appearances led Tycho to frame an hypothesis like that which\nSir William Herschel afterwards proposed, that the stars are formed by\nthe condensation of luminous nebulous matter. Nor is it easy to think of\nsuch phenomena (of which several others have been observed, though none\nso conspicuous as these), without regarding them as showing that the\nmatter of the fixed stars, occasionally at least, passes through changes\nof consistence as great as would be the condensation and extinction of a\nluminous vapor. And if such changes have been but few within the\nrecorded period of man's observation of the stars, we must recollect how\nsmall that period is, compared with the period during which the stars\nhave existed. The stars themselves give us testimony of their having\nbeen in being for millions of years. For according to the best estimates\nwe can form of their distances, the time which light would employ in\nreaching us from the most remote of them, would be millions of years;\nand, therefore, we now see those remote stars by means of the light\nemitted from them millions of years ago. And if, in the 2,000 years\nduring which such observations are recorded, only 200 stars have\nundergone such changes in a degree visible to the earth's inhabitants;\nin a million of years, change going on at the same rate, 100,000 stars\nwould exhibit visible progressive change, showing that they had not yet\nreached a permanent condition. And how much of change may go on in any\nstar without its being in any degree perceptible to the most exact\nastronomical scrutiny!\n\n16. The tendency of these considerations is, to lead us to think that\nthe fixed stars are not generally in that permanent condition in which\nour sun is; and which appears to be alone consistent with the existence\nof a system such as the solar system.[14] These views, therefore, fall\nin with that which we have been led to by this consideration of the\nNebulae: that the Solar System is in a more complete and advanced state,\nas a system, than many at least of the stellar systems can be; it may\nbe, than any other.\n\n17. It has been alleged, as a proof of the likeness of the Fixed Stars\nto our Sun, that like him, they revolve upon their axes.[15] This has\nbeen supposed to be proved with regard to many of them, by their having\nperiodical recurrences of fainter and brighter lustre; as if they were\nrevolving orbs, with one side darkened by spots. Such facts are not very\nnumerous or definite in the heavens. _Omicron_[16] in the constellation\n_Cetus_, is the longest known of them; and is held to revolve in 831\ndays. From the curious phenomena now spoken of, it has been called _Mira\nCeti_.[17] _Algol_, the second star (_Beta_) of _Perseus_, called also\n_Caput Medusae_, is another, with a period of 2 days 21 hours; and in\nthis case, the obscuration of the light, and the restoration of it, are\nso sudden, that from the time when it was first remarked, (by Goodricke,\nin 1782,) it suggested the hypothesis of an opaque body revolving round\nthe star. The star _Delta_, in the constellation _Cephus_, is another,\nwith a period of 5 days 9 hours. The star _Beta_ in the _Lyre_, has a\nperiod of 6 days 10 hours, or perhaps 12 days 21 hours, one revolution\nhaving been taken for two. Another such star is _Eta Aquilae_, with a\nperiod of 7 days 4 hours. These five are all the periodical stars of\nwhich astronomers can speak with precision.[18] But about thirty more\nare supposed to be subject to such change, though their periods, epochs,\nand phases of brightness, cannot at present be given exactly.\n\n18. That these periodical changes in certain of the fixed stars are a\ncurious and interesting astronomical fact, is indisputable. Nothing can\nbe more probable also, than that it indicates, in the stellar masses, a\nrevolution on their axes; which cannot surprise us, seeing that\nrevolution upon an axis is, so far as we know, a universal law of all\nthe large compact masses of matter which exist in the universe; and may\nbe conceived to be a result derived from their origin, and a condition\nof any permanent or nearly permanent figure. But this can prove little\nor nothing as to their being like the sun, in any way which implies\ntheir having inhabitants, in themselves or in accompanying planets. The\nrotation of our Sun is not, in any intelligible way, connected with its\nhaving near it the inhabited Earth.\n\n19. If we were to suppose some of the stars to be centres of planetary\nsystems, we can hardly suppose it likely that these alone rotate, and\nthat the others stand still. Probably all the stars rotate, more or less\nregularly, according as they are permanent or variable in form; but the\nmost regular may still have no planets; and if they have, those planets\nmay be as blank of inhabitants as our moon will be proved to be.\n\n20. The revolution of Algol seems to approach the nearest to a fact in\nfavor of a star being the centre of a revolving system; and from the\nfirst, as we have said, the periodical change, and the sudden darkening\nand brightening of this luminary, suggested the supposition of an opaque\nbody revolving about it. But this body cannot be a planet. The planets\nwhich revolve about our Sun are not, any of them, nor all of them\ntogether, large enough to produce a perceptible obscuration of his\nlight, to a spectator outside the system. But in Algol, the phenomena\nare very different from this.[19] The star is usually visible as a star\nof the second magnitude; but during each period of 2 days 21 hours, (or\n69 hours,) it suffers a kind of eclipse, which reduces it to a star of\nthe fourth magnitude. During this eclipse, the star diminishes in\nsplendor for 3-1/2 hours; is at its lowest brightness for a quarter of\nan hour; and then, in 3-1/2 hours more, is restored to its original\nsplendor. According to these numbers, if the obscuration be produced by\na dark body revolving round a central luminary, and describing a\ncircular orbit, as the regular recurrence of the obscuration implies,\nthe space of the orbit during which the eclipsing body is interposed\nmust be about one-ninth of the circumference; for the obscuration\noccupies 7-1/4 hours out of 69. And therefore the space during which the\neclipsing body obscures the central one, must be about one _sixth_ of\nthe _diameter_ of its orbit. But in order that the revolving body may,\nthrough this space, obscure the central one, the latter must extend over\nthis space, namely, one sixth of the diameter of the orbit. But we may\nremark that there is no proof, in the phenomena, that the darkening body\nis detached from the bright mass. The effect would be the same if the\ndark mass were a part of the revolving star itself. It may be that the\nstar has not yet assumed a spherical form, but is an oblong nebular mass\nwith one part (perhaps from being thinner in texture) cooled down and\nbecome opaque. And the amount of obscuration, reducing the star from the\nsecond to the fourth magnitude, implies that the obscuring mass is large\n(perhaps one half the diameter, or much more) compared with the luminous\nmass. If this be a probable hypothesis to account for the phenomena,\nthey are much more against than for the supposition of the star being\nthe centre of seats of habitation. And even if we have a planet nearly\nas large as its sun, revolving at the distance of only six of the sun's\nradii, how unlike is this to the solar system!\n\n21. In fact, all these periodical stars, in so far as they are\nperiodical, are proved, not to be like, but to be _unlike_ our sun. It\nis true that the sun has spots, by means of which his rotation has been\ndetermined by astronomers. But these spots, besides being so small that\nthey produce no perceptible alteration in his brightness, and are never,\nor very rarely, visible to the naked eye, are not permanent. A star with\na permanent dark side would be very unlike our sun. The largest known of\nthese stars, _Mira_, as the old astronomers called it, becomes invisible\nto the naked eye for 5 months during a period of 11 months. It must,\ntherefore, have nearly one half its surface quite dark. This is very\nunlike the condition of the sun; and is a condition, it would seem, very\nlittle fitted to make this star the centre of a planetary system like\nours.\n\n22. But there are other remarkable phenomena respecting these periodical\nstars, which have a bearing on our subject. Their periods are not quite\nregular, but are subject to certain variations. Thus it has been\nsupposed that the period of Mira is subject to a cyclical fluctuation,\nembracing 88 of its periods; that is, about 80 years. But this notion of\na cycle of so long a duration, requires confirmation; the fact of\nfluctuation in the period is alone certain. In like manner, Algol's\nperiods are not quite uniform. All these facts agree with our\nsuggestion, that the periodical stars are bodies of luminous matter\nwhich have not yet assumed a permanent form; and which, therefore, as\nthey revolve about their axes, and turn to us their darker and their\nbrighter parts, do so at intervals, and in an order somewhat variable.\nAnd this suggestion appears to be remarkably confirmed, by a result\nwhich recent observations have discovered relative to this star, Algol;\nnamely, that its periods become shorter and shorter. For if the luminous\nmatter, which is thus revolving, be gradually gathering into a more\ncondensed form;--becoming less rare, or more compact; as, for instance,\nit would do, if it were collecting itself from an irregular, or\nelongated, into a more spherical form; such a shortening of the period\nof revolution would take place; for a mass which contracts while it is\nrevolving, accelerates its rate of revolution, by mechanical principles.\nAnd thus we do appear to have, in this observed acceleration of the\nperiods of Algol, an evidence that that luminous mass has not yet\nreached its final and permanent condition.\n\n23. It is true, it has been conjectured, by high authority,[20] that\nthis accelerated rapidity of the periods of Algol will not continue; but\nwill gradually relax, and then be changed to an increase; like many\nother cyclical combinations in astronomy. But this conjecture seems to\nhave little to support it. The cases in which an acceleration of motion\nis retarded, checked, and restored, all belong to our Solar System; and\nto assume that Algol, like the solar system, has assumed a permanent and\nbalanced condition, is to take for granted precisely the point in\nquestion. We know of no such cycles among the fixed stars, at least with\nany certainty; for the cycle proposed for Mira must be considered as\ngreatly needing confirmation; considering how long is the cycle, and how\nrecent the suggestion of its existence.\n\n24. And even in the solar system, we have accelerated motions, in which\nno mathematician or astronomer looks for a check or regress of the\nacceleration. No one expects that Encke's comet will cease to be\naccelerated, and to revolve in periods continually shorter; though all\nthe other motions hitherto observed in the system are cyclical. In the\ncase of a fixed star, we have much less reason to look for such a cycle,\nthan we have in Encke's comet. But further: with regard to the existence\nof such a cycle of faster and slower motion in the case of Algol, the\nmost recent observed facts are strongly against it; for it has been\nobserved by Argelander, that not only there is a diminution of the\nperiod, but that this diminution proceeds with accelerated rapidity; a\ncourse of events which, in no instance, in the whole of the cosmical\nmovements, ends in a regression, retardation, and restoration of the\nformer rate. We are led to believe, therefore, that this remarkable\nluminary will go on revolving faster and faster, till its extreme point\nof condensation is attained. And in the meantime, we have very strong\nreasons to believe that this mutable body is not, like the sun, a\npermanent centre of a permanent system; and that any argument drawn from\nits supposed likeness to the sun, in favor of the supposition that the\nregions which are near it are the seats of habitation, is quite\nbaseless.\n\n25. There are other phenomena of the Fixed Stars, and other conjectures\nof astronomers respecting them, which I need not notice, as they do not\nappear to have any bearing upon our subject. Such are the \"proper\nmotions\" of the stars, and the explanation which has been suggested of\nsome of them; that they arise from the stars revolving round other stars\nwhich are dark, and therefore invisible. Such again is the attempt to\nshow that the Sun, carrying with it the whole Solar System, is in\nmotion; and the further attempt to show the direction of this motion;\nand again, the hypothesis that the Sun itself revolves round some\ndistant body in space. These minute inquiries and bold conjectures, as\nto the movements of the masses of matter which occupy the universe, do\nnot throw any light on the question whether any part besides the earth\nis inhabited; any more than the investigation of the movements of the\nocean, and of their laws, could prove or disprove the existence of\nmarine plants and animals. They do not on that account cease to be\nimportant and interesting subjects of speculation; but they do not\nbelong to our subject.\n\n26. In Fontenelle's _Dialogues on the Plurality of Worlds_, a work which\nmay be considered as having given this subject a place in popular\nliterature, he illustrates his argument by a comparison, which it may be\nworth while to look at for a moment. The speaker who asserts that the\nmoon, the planets, and the stars, are the seats of habitation, describes\nthe person, who denies this, as resembling a citizen of Paris, who,\nseeing from the towers of Notre Dame the town of Saint Denis, (it being\nsupposed that no communication between the two places had ever\noccurred,) denies that it is inhabited, because he cannot see the\ninhabitants. Of course the conclusion is easy, if we may thus take for\ngranted that what he sees is a town. But we may modify this image, so as\nto represent our argument more fairly. Let it be supposed that we\ninhabit an island, from which innumerable other islands are visible; but\nthe art of navigation being quite unknown, we are ignorant whether any\nof them are inhabited. In some of these islands, are seen masses more or\nless resembling churches; and some of our neighbors assert that these\nare churches; that churches must be surrounded by houses; and that\nhouses must have inhabitants. Others hold that the seeming churches are\nonly peculiar forms of rocks. In this state of the debate, everything\ndepends upon the degree of resemblance to churches which the forms\nexhibit. But suppose that telescopes are invented, and employed with\ndiligence upon the questionable shapes. In a long course of careful and\nskilful examination, no house is seen, and the rocks do not at all\nbecome more like churches, rather the contrary. So far, it would seem,\nthe probability of inhabitants in the islands is lessened. But there are\nother reasons brought into view. Our island is a long extinct volcano,\nwith a tranquil and fertile soil; but the other islands are apparently\nsomewhat different. Some of them are active volcanoes, the volcanic\noperations covering, so far as we can discern, the whole island; others\nundergo changes, such as weather or earthquakes may produce; but in none\nof them can we discover such changes as show the hand of man. For these\nislands, it would seem the probability of inhabitants is further\nlessened. And so long as we have no better materials than these for\nforming a judgment, it would, surely, be accounted rash, to assert that\nthe islands in general are inhabited; and unreasonable, to blame those\nwho deny or doubt it. Nor would such blame be justified by adducing\ntheological or _a priori_ arguments; as, that the analogy of island with\nisland makes the assumption allowable; or that it is inconsistent with\nthe plan of the Creator of islands to leave them uninhabited. For we\nknow that many islands are, or were long, uninhabited. And if ours were\nan island occupied by a numerous, well-governed, moral, and religious\nrace, of which the history was known, and of which the relation to the\nCreator was connected with its history; the assumption of a history,\nmore or less similar to ours, for the inhabitants of the other islands,\nwhose existence was utterly unproved, would, probably, be generally\ndeemed a fitter field for the romance-writer than for the philosopher.\nIt could not, at best, rise above the region of vague conjecture.\n\n27. Fontenelle, in the agreeable book just referred to, says, very\ntruly, that the formula by which his view is urged on adversaries is,\n_Pourquoi non_? which he holds to be a powerful figure of logic. It is,\nhowever, a figure which has this peculiarity, that it may, in most\ncases, be used with equal force on either side. When we are asked Why\nthe Moon, Mercury, Saturn, the system of Sirius, should _not_ be\ninhabited by intelligent beings; we may ask, Why the earth in the ages\nprevious to man might not be so inhabited? The answer would be, that we\nhave proof _how_ it _was_ inhabited. And as to the fact in the other\ncase, I shall shortly attempt to give proof that the Moon is certainly\nnot, and Mercury and Saturn probably not inhabited. With regard to the\nFixed Stars, it is more difficult to reason; because we have the means\nof knowing so little of their structure. But in this case also, we might\neasily ask on our side, _Pourquoi non_? Why should not the Solar System\nbe the chief and most complete system in the universe, and the Earth the\nprincipal planet in that System? So far as we yet know, the Sun is the\nlargest Sun among the stars; and we shall attempt to show, that the\nEarth is the largest solid opaque globe in the solar system. Some System\nmust be the largest and most finished of all; why not ours? Some planet\nmust be the largest planet; why not the Earth?\n\n28. It should be recollected that there must be some system which is the\nmost complete of all systems, some planet which is the largest of all\nplanets. And if that largest planet, in the most complete system, be,\nafter being for ages tenanted by irrational creatures, at last, and\nalone of all, occupied by a rational race, that race must necessarily\nhave the power of asking such questions as these: Why they should be\nalone rational? Why their planet should be alone thus favored? If the\ncase be ours, we may hope to be then able to answer these questions,\nwhen we can explain the most certain fact which they involve; Why the\nEarth was occupied so long by irrational creatures, before the rational\nrace was placed upon it? The mere power of asking such questions can\nprove or disprove nothing; for it is a power which must equally subsist,\nwhether the human inhabitants of the earth be or be not the only\nrational population which the universe contains. If there be a race thus\nfavored by the Creator, they must, at that stage of their knowledge in\nwhich man now is, be able to doubt, as man does, of the extent and\ngreatness of the privilege which they enjoy.\n\n29. The argument that the Fixed Stars are like the Sun, and therefore\nthe centres of inhabited systems as the Sun is, is sometimes called an\nargument from Analogy; and this word _Analogy_ is urged, as giving great\nforce to the reasoning. But it must be recollected, that precisely the\npoint in question is, whether there _is_ an analogy. The stars, it is\nsaid, are like the Sun. In what respects? We know of none, except in\nbeing self-luminous; and this they have in common with the nebulae,\nwhich, as we have seen, are not centres of inhabited systems. Nor does\nthis quality of being self-luminous at all determine the degree of\ncondensation of a star. Sirius may be less than a hundredth or a\nthousandth of the density of the Sun. But the Stars, it may be further\nurged, are like the Sun in turning on their axes. To this we reply, that\nwe know this only of those stars in which, the very phenomenon which\nproves their revolution, proves also that they are unlike the Sun, in\nhaving one side darker than the other. Add to which, their revolution is\nnot connected with the existence of planets, still less of inhabitants\nof planets, in any intelligible manner. The resemblance, therefore, so\nfar as it bears upon the question, is confined to one single point, in\nthe highest degree ambiguous and inconclusive; and any argument drawn\nfrom this one point of resemblance, has little claim to be termed an\nargument from analogy.[21]\n\n30. On a subject on which we know so little, it is difficult to present\nany view which deserves to be regarded as an analogy. We see, among the\nstars, nebulae more or less condensed, which are possibly, in some cases,\nstages of a connected progress towards a definite star; and it may be,\nto a star with planets in permanent orbits. We see, in our planet,\nevidence of successive stages of a connected series of brute animals,\npreceded perhaps by various stages of lifeless chaos. If the histories\nof the Sun, and of all the stars, are governed by a common analogy, the\nnebulous condensation, and the stages of animal life, may be parts of\nthe same continued series of events; and different stars may be at\ndifferent points of that series. But even on this supposition, but a few\nof the stars may be the seats of conscious life, and none, of\nintelligence. For among the stars which have condensed to a permanent\nform, how many have failed in throwing off a permanent planet! How many\nmay be in some stage of lifeless chaos! We must needs suppose a vast\nnumber of stages between a nebular chaos and the lowest forms of\nconscious life. Perhaps as many as there are fixed stars; and far more\nthan there are of stars which become fertile of life: so that no two\nsystems may be at the same stage of the planetary progress. And if this\nbe so,--our system being so complicated, that we must suppose it\npeculiarly developed, having the largest Sun that we know of, and our\nEarth being (as we shall hereafter attempt to prove) the largest solid\nplanet that we know of,--this Earth may be the sole seat of the highest\nstage of planetary development.\n\n31. The assumption that there is anything of the nature of a regular law\nor order of progress from nebular matter to conscious life,--a law which\nextends to all the stars, or to many of them,--is in the highest degree\nprecarious and unsupported; but since it is sometimes employed in such\nspeculations as we are pursuing, we may make a remark or two connected\nwith it. If we suppose, on the planets of other systems, a progress in\nsome degree analogous to that which geology shows to have occurred on\nthe Earth, there may be, in those planets, creatures in some way\nanalogous to our vegetables and animals; but analogy also requires that\nthey should differ far more from the terrestrial vegetables and animals\nof any epoch, than those of one epoch do from those of another; since\nthey belong to a different stellar system, and probably exist under very\ndifferent conditions from any that ever prevailed on the Earth. We are\nforbidden, therefore, by analogy, to suppose that on any other planet\nthere was such an anatomical progression towards the form of man, as we\ncan discern (according to some eminent physiologists) among the tribes\nwhich have occupied the Earth. Are we to conceive that the creatures on\nthe planets of other systems are, like the most perfect terrestrial\nanimals, symmetrical as to right and left, vertebrate, with fore limbs\nand hind limbs, heads, organs of sense in their heads, and the like?\nEvery one can see how rash and fanciful it would be to make such\nsuppositions. Those who have, in the play of their invention, imagined\ninhabitants of other planets, have tried to avoid this servile imitation\nof terrestrial forms. Here is Sir Humphry Davy's account of the\ninhabitants of Saturn. \"I saw moving on the surface below me, immense\nmasses, the forms of which I find it impossible to describe. They had\nsystems for locomotion similar to that of the morse or sea-horse, but I\nsaw with great surprise that they moved from place to place by six\nextremely thin membranes, which they used as wings. I saw numerous\nconvolutions of tubes, more analogous to the trunk of the elephant, than\nto anything else I can imagine, occupying what I supposed to be the\nupper parts of the body.\"[22] The attendant Genius informs the narrator,\nthat though these creatures look like zoophytes, they have a sphere of\nsensibility and intellectual enjoyment far superior to that of the\ninhabitants of the Earth. If we were to reason upon a work of fancy like\nthis, we might say, that it was just as easy to ascribe superior\nsensibility and intelligence to zoophyte-formed creatures upon the\nEarth, as in Saturn. Even fancy cannot aid us in giving consistent form\nto the inhabitants of other planets.\n\n32. But even if we could assent to the opinion, as probable, that there\nmay occur, on some other planet, progressions of organized forms\nanalogous in some way to that series of animal forms which has appeared\nupon the earth, we should still have no ground to assume that this\nseries must terminate in a rational and intelligent creature like man.\nFor the introduction of reason and intelligence upon the Earth is no\npart nor consequence of the series of animal forms. It is a fact of an\nentirely new kind. The transition from brute to man does not come within\nthe analogy of the transition from brute to brute. The thread of\nanalogy, even if it could lead us so far, would break here. We may\nconceive analogues to other animals, but we could have no analogue to\nman, except man. Man is not merely a higher kind of animal; he is a\ncreature of a superior order, participating in the attributes of a\nhigher nature; as we have already said, and as we hope hereafter\nfurther to show. Even, therefore, if we were to assume the general\nanalogy of the Stars and of the Sun, and were to join to that the\ninformation which geology gives us of the history of our own planet;\nthough we might, on this precarious path, be led to think of other\nplanets as peopled with unimagined monsters; we should still find a\nchasm in our reasoning, if we tried, in this way, to find intelligent\nand rational creatures in planets which may revolve round Sirius or\nArcturus.\n\n33. The reasonable view of the matter appears to be this. The assumption\nthat the Fixed Stars are of exactly the same nature as the Sun, was, at\nthe first, when their vast distance and probable great size were newly\nascertained, a bold guess; to be confirmed or refuted by subsequent\nobservations and discoveries. Any appearances, tending in any degree to\nconfirm this guess, would have deserved the most considerate attention.\nBut there has not been a vestige of any such confirmatory fact. No\nplanet, nor anything which can fairly be regarded as indicating the\nexistence of a planet, revolving about a star, has anywhere been\ndiscerned. The discovery of nebulae, of binary systems, of clusters of\nstars, of periodical stars, of varying and accelerated periods of such\nstars, all seem to point the other way. And if all these facts be held\nto be but small in amount, as to the information which they convey,\nabout the larger, and perhaps nearer stars; still they leave the\noriginal assumption a mere guess, unsupported by all that three\ncenturies of most diligent, and in other respects successful research,\nhas been able to bring to light. That Copernicus, that Galileo, that\nKepler, should believe the stars to be Suns, in every sense of the term,\nwas a natural result of the expansion of thought which their great\ndiscoveries produced, in them and in their contemporaries. Nor are we\nyet called upon to withdraw from them our sympathy; or entitled to\ncontradict their conjecture. But all the knowledge that the succeeding\ntimes have given us; the extreme tenuity of much of the luminous matter\nin the skies; the existence of gyratory motion among the stars, quite\ndifferent from planetary systems; the absence of any observed motions at\nall resembling such systems; the appearance of changes in stars, quite\ninconsistent with such permanent systems; the disclosure of the history\nof our own planet, as one in which changes have constantly been going\non; the certainty that by far the greater part of the duration of its\nexistence, it has been tenanted by creatures entirely different from\nthose which give an interest, and thence, a persuasiveness, to the\nbelief of inhabitants in worlds appended to each star; the\nimpossibility, which appears, on the gravest consideration, of\ntransferring to other worlds such interests as belong to our own race in\nthis world; all these considerations should, it would seem, have\nprevented that old and arbitrary conjecture from growing up, among a\ngeneration professing philosophical caution, and scientific discipline,\ninto a settled belief.\n\n34. Some of the moral and theological views which tend to encourage and\nuphold this belief, may be taken under our more special consideration\nhereafter: but here, where we are reasoning principally upon\nastronomical grounds, we may conclude what we have to remark about the\nFixed Stars, as the centres of inhabited systems of worlds, by saying;\nthat it will be time enough to speculate about the inhabitants of the\nplanets which belong to such systems, when we have ascertained that\nthere are such planets, or one such planet. When that is done, we can\nthen apply to them any reasons which may exist, for believing that all,\nor many planets, are the seats of habitation of living things. What\nreasons of this kind can be adduced, and what is their force with\nregard to our own solar system, we must now proceed to discuss.[23]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Herschel, 866.\n\n[2] Ibid. 866.\n\n[3] Herschel, 846.\n\n[4] Herschel, 848.\n\n[5] That these systems have not condensed to _one_ centre, appears to\nimply a less complete degree of condensation than exists in those\nsystems which have done so.\n\n[6] Herschel, 850.\n\n[7] Herschel, 847.\n\n[8] The density of the sun is about as great as the density of water.\n\n[9] Herschel, 827-832.\n\n[10] _Cosmos_, III. 169, 205, and 641.\n\n[11] Ibid., III. 172 and 252.\n\n[12] _Astron. Soc. Notices_, Dec. 13, 1850.\n\n[13] See Grant's _Hist. of Physical Astronomy_, p. 538.\n\n[14] I am aware of certain speculations, and especially of some recent\nones, tending to show that even our Sun is wasting away by the emission\nof light and heat; but these opinions, even if established, do not much\naffect our argument one way or the other.\n\n[15] Chalmers' _Astron. Disc._ p. 39.\n\n[16] Hersch. 820.\n\n[17] The periodical character of this star was discovered by David\nFabricius, a parish priest in East Friesland, the father of John\nFabricius, who discovered the solar spots. (_Cosmos_, III. 234.)\n\n[18] Hersch. 825. In Humboldt's _Cosmos_, III. 243, Argelander, who has\nmost carefully observed and studied these periodical stars, has given a\ncatalogue containing 24, with the most recent determinations of their\nperiods.\n\n[19] Hersch. 821. Humboldt (_Cosmos_, III. 238 and 246,) gives the\nperiod as 68 hours 49 minutes, and says that it is 7 or 8 hours in its\nless bright state. If we could suppose the times of the warning, and of\nthe greatest eclipse, given by Herschel, to be exactly determined, as\n3-1/2 and 1/4, that is, in the proportion of 14 to 1, the darkening body\nmust have its effective breadth 14/15 of that of the star. But this is\non the supposition that the orbit of the darkening body has the\nspectator's eye in its plane; if this be not so, the darkening body may\nbe much larger.\n\n[20] Hersch. _Outl. Astr._ 821. Another explanation of the variable\nperiod of Algol, is that the star is moving towards us, and therefore\nthe light occupies less and less time to reach us.\n\n[21] Humboldt, very justly, regards the force of analogy as tending in\nthe opposite direction. \"After all,\" he asks, (_Cosmos_, III. 373,) \"is\nthe assumption of satellites to the Fixed Stars so absolutely necessary?\nIf we were to begin from the outer planets, Jupiter, &c., analogy might\nseem to require that all planets have satellites. But yet this is not\ntrue for Mars, Venus, Mercury.\" To which we may further add the\n_twenty-three_ Planetoids. In this case there is a much greater number\nof bodies which have not satellites, than which have them.\n\n[22] _Consolations in Travel_. Dial. 1.\n\n[23] What is said in Art. 15, that in consequence of the time employed\nin the transmission of visual impressions, our seeing a star is\nevidence, not that it exists now, but that it existed, it may be, many\nthousands of years ago; may seem, to some readers, to throw doubts upon\nreasonings which we have employed. It may be said that a star which was\na mere chaos, when the light, by which we see it, set out from it, may,\nin the thousands of years which have since elapsed, have grown into an\norderly world. To which bare possibility, we may oppose another\nsupposition at least equally possible:--that the distant stars were\nsparks or fragments struck off in the formation of the Solar System,\nwhich are really long since extinct; and survive in appearance, only by\nthe light which they at first emitted.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE PLANETS.\n\n\n1. When it was discovered, by Copernicus and Galileo, that Mercury,\nVenus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, which had hitherto been regarded only as\n\"wandering fires, that move in mystic dance,\" were really, in many\ncircumstances, bodies resembling the Earth;--that they and the Earth\nalike, were opaque globes, revolving about the Sun in orbits nearly\ncircular, revolving also about their own axes, and some of them\naccompanied by their Satellites, as the Earth is by the Moon;--it was\ninevitable that the conjecture should arise, that they too had\ninhabitants, as the Earth has. Each of these bodies were seemingly\ncoherent and solid; furnished with an arrangement for producing day and\nnight, summer and winter; and might therefore, it was naturally\nconceived, have inhabitants moving upon its solid surface, and reckoning\ntheir lives and their employment by days, and months, and years. This\nwas an unavoidable guess. It was far less bold and sweeping than the\nguess that there are inhabitants in the region of the Fixed Stars, but\nstill, like that, it was, for the time at least, only a guess; and like\nthat, it must depend upon future explorations of these bodies and their\nconditions, whether the guess was confirmed or discredited. The\nconjecture could not, by any moderately cautious man, be regarded as so\noverwhelmingly probable, that it had no need of further proof. Its final\nacceptance or rejection must depend on the subsequent progress of\nastronomy, and of science in general.\n\n2. We have to consider then how far subsequent discoveries have given\nadditional value to this conjecture. And, as, in the first place,\nimportant among such discoveries, we must note the addition of several\nnew planets to our system. It was found, by the elder Herschel, (in\n1781,) that, far beyond Saturn, there was another planet, which, for a\ntime, was called by the name of its sagacious discoverer; but more\nrecently, in order to conform the nomenclature of the planets to the\nmythology with which they had been so long connected, has been termed\n_Uranus_. This was a vast extension of the limits of the solar system.\nThe Earth is, as we have already said, nearly a hundred millions of\nmiles from the Sun. Jupiter is at more than five times, and Saturn\nnearly at ten times this distance: but Uranus, it was found, describes\nan orbit of which the radius is about nineteen times as great as that of\nthe Earth. But this did not terminate the extension of the solar system\nwhich the progress of astronomy revealed. In 1846, a new planet, still\nmore remote, was discovered: its existence having been divined, before\nit was seen, by two mathematicians, Mr. Adams, of Cambridge, and M.\nLeverrier, of Paris, from the effects of its force upon Uranus. This new\nplanet was termed Neptune: its distance from the Sun is about thirty\ntimes the Earth's distance. Besides these discoveries of large planets,\na great number of small planets were detected in the region of the solar\nsystem which lies between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. This series of\ndiscoveries began on the first day of 1801, when Ceres was detected by\nPiazzi at Palermo; and has gone on up to the present time, when\ntwenty-three of these small bodies have been brought to light; and\nprobably the group is not yet exhausted.\n\n3. Now if we have to discuss the probability that all these bodies are\ninhabited, we may begin with the outermost of them at present known,\nnamely Neptune. How far is it likely that this globe is occupied by\nliving creatures which enjoy, like the creatures on the Earth, the light\nand heat of the Sun, about which the planet revolves? It is plain, in\nthe first place, that this light and heat must be very feeble. Since\nNeptune is thirty times as far from the sun as the earth is, the\ndiameter of the sun as seen from Neptune will only be one-thirtieth as\nlarge as it is, seen from the earth. It will, in fact, be reduced to a\nmere star. It will be about the diameter under which Jupiter appears\nwhen he is nearest to us. Of course its brightness will be much greater\nthan that of Jupiter; nearly as much indeed, as the sun is brighter than\nthe moon, both being nearly of the same size: but still, with our\nfull-moonlight reduced to the amount of illumination which we receive\nfrom _a full Jupiter_, and our sun-light reduced in nearly the same\nproportion, we should have but a dark, and also a cold world. In fact,\nthe light and the heat which reach Neptune, so far as they depend on the\ndistance of the sun, will each be about nine hundred times smaller than\nthey are on the earth. Now are we to conceive animals, with their vital\npowers unfolded, and their vital enjoyments cherished, by this amount of\nlight and heat? Of course, we cannot say, with certainty, that any\nfeebleness of light and heat are inconsistent with the existence of\nanimal life: and if we had good reason to believe that Neptune is\ninhabited by animals, we might try to conceive in what manner their\nvital scheme is accommodated to this scanty supply of heat and light. If\nit were certain that they were there, we might inquire how they could\nlive there, and what manner of creatures they could be. If there were\nany general grounds for assuming inhabitants, we might consider what\nmodifications of life their particular conditions would require.\n\n4. But is there any such general ground!? Such a ground we should have,\nif we could venture to assume that _all_ the bodies of the Solar System\nare inhabited;--if we could proceed upon such a principle, we might\nreject or postpone the difficulties of particular cases.\n\n5. But is such an assumption true? Is such a principle well founded? The\nbest chance which we have of learning whether it is so, is to endeavor\nto ascertain the fact, in the body which is nearest to us; and thus, the\nbest placed for our closer scrutiny. This is, of course, the Moon; and\nwith regard to the Moon, we have, again, this advantage in beginning the\ninquiry with her:--that she, at least, is in circumstances, as to light\nand heat, so far as the Sun's distance affects them, which we know to be\nquite consistent with animal and vegetable life. For her distance from\nthe Sun is not appreciably different from that of the Earth; her\nrevolutions round the earth do not make nearly so great a difference, in\nher distance from the sun, as does the earth's different distances from\nthe sun in summer and in winter: the fact also being, that the earth is\nconsiderably nearer to the sun in the winter of this our northern\nhemisphere, than in the summer. The moon's distance from the sun then,\nadapts her for habitation: is she inhabited?\n\n6. The answer to this question, so far as we can answer it, may involve\nsomething more than those mere astronomical conditions, her distance\nfrom the sun, and the nature of her motions. But still, if we are\ncompelled to answer it in the negative;--if it appear, by strong\nevidence, that the Moon is not inhabited; then is there an end of the\ngeneral principle, that, _all_ the bodies of the solar system are\ninhabited, and that we must begin our speculations about each, with this\nassumption. If the Moon be not inhabited, then, it would seem, the\nbelief that each special body in the system is inhabited, must depend\nupon reasons specially belonging to that body; and cannot be taken for\ngranted without such reasons. Of the two bodies of the solar system\nwhich alone we can examine closely, so as to know anything about them,\nthe Earth and the Moon, if the one be inhabited, and the other blank of\ninhabitants, we have no right to assume at once, that any other body in\nthe solar system belongs to the former of these classes rather than to\nthe latter. If, even under terrestrial conditions of light and heat, we\nhave a total absence of the phenomenon of life, known to us only as a\nterrestrial phenomenon; we are surely not entitled to assume that when\nthese conditions fail, we have still the phenomenon, life. We are not\nentitled to _assume_ it; however it may be capable of being afterwards\nproved, in any special case, by special reasons; a question afterwards\nto be discussed.\n\n7. Is, then, the Moon inhabited? From the moon's proximity to us, (she\nis distant only thirty diameters of the earth, less than ten times the\nearth's circumference; a railroad carriage, at its ordinary rate of\ntravelling, would reach her in a month,) she can be examined by the\nastronomer with peculiar advantages. The present powers of the telescope\nenable him to examine her mountains as distinctly as he could the Alps\nat a few hundred miles distance, with the naked eye; with the additional\nadvantage that her mountains are much more brilliantly illuminated by\nthe Sun, and much more favorably placed for examination, than the Alps\nare. He can map and model the inequalities of her surface, as faithfully\nand exactly as he can those of the surface of Switzerland. He can trace\nthe streams that seem to have flowed from eruptive orifices over her\nplains, as he can the streams of lava from the craters of Etna or Hecla.\n\n8. Now, this minute examination of the Moon's surface being possible,\nand having been made, by many careful and skilful astronomers, what is\nthe conviction which has been conveyed to their minds, with regard to\nthe fact of her being the seat of vegetable or animal life? Without\nexception, it would seem, they have all been led to the belief, that the\nMoon is not inhabited; that she is, so far as life and organization are\nconcerned, waste and barren, like the streams of lava or of volcanic\nashes on the earth, before any vestige of vegetation has been impressed\nupon them: or like the sands of Africa, where no blade of grass finds\nroot. It is held, by such observers, that they can discern and examine\nportions of the moon's surface as small as a square mile;[1] yet, in\ntheir examination, they have never perceived any alteration, such as the\ncycle of vegetable changes through the revolutions of seasons would\nproduce. Sir William Herschel did not doubt that if a change had taken\nplace on the visible part of the Moon, as great as the growth or the\ndestruction of a great city, as great, for instance, as the destruction\nof London by the great fire of 1666, it would have been perceptible to\nhis powers of observation. Yet nothing of the kind has ever been\nobserved. If there were lunar astronomers, as well provided as\nterrestrial ones are, with artificial helps of vision, they would\nundoubtedly be able to perceive the differences which the progress of\ngenerations brings about on the surface of our globe; the clearing of\nthe forests of Germany or North America; the embankment of Holland; the\nchange of the modes of culture which alter the color of the ground in\nEurope; the establishment of great nests of manufactures which shroud\nportions of the land in smoke, as those which have their centres at\nBirmingham or at Manchester. However obscurely they might discern the\nnature of those changes, they would still see that change was going on.\nAnd so should we, if the like changes were going on upon the face of the\nMoon. Yet no such changes have ever been noticed. Nor even have such\nchanges been remarked, as might occur in a mere brute mass without\nlife;--the formation of new streams of lava, new craters, new crevices,\nnew elevations. The Moon exhibits strong evidences, which strike all\ntelescopic observers, of an action resembling, in many respects,\nvolcanic action, by which its present surface has been formed.[2] But,\nif it have been produced by such internal fires, the fires seem to be\nextinguished; the volcanoes to be burned out. It is a mere cinder; a\ncollection of sheets of rigid slag, and inactive craters. And if the\nMoon and the Earth were both, at first in a condition in which igneous\neruptions from their interior produced the ridges and cones which\nroughen their surfaces; the Earth has had this state succeeded by a\nseries of states of life in innumerable forms, till at last it has\nbecome the dwelling-place of man; while the Moon, smaller in dimensions,\nhas at an earlier period completely cooled down, as to its exterior at\nleast, without ever being judged fit or worthy by its Creator of being\nthe seat of life; and remains, hung in the sky, as an object on which\nman may gaze, and perhaps, from which he may learn something of the\nconstitution of the universe; and among other lessons this; that he must\nnot take for granted, that all the other globes of the solar system are\ntenanted, like that on which he has his appointed place.\n\n9. It is true, that in coming to this conclusion, the astronomers of\nwhom I speak, have been governed by other reasons, besides those which I\nhave mentioned, the absence of any changes, either rapid or slow,\ndiscoverable in the Moon's face. They have seen reason to believe that\nwater and air, elements so essential to terrestrial life, do not exist\nin the Moon. The dark spaces on her disk, which were called _seas_ by\nthose who first depicted them, have an appearance inconsistent with\ntheir being oceans of water. They are not level and smooth, as water\nwould be; nor uniform in their color, but marked with permanent streaks\nand shades, implying a rigid form. And the absence of an atmosphere of\ntransparent vapor and air, surrounding the moon, as our atmosphere\nsurrounds the earth, is still more clearly proved, by the absence of all\nthe optical effects of such an atmosphere, when stars pass behind the\nmoon's disk, and by the phenomena which are seen in solar eclipses, when\nher solid mass is masked by the Sun.[3] This absence of moisture and air\nin the Moon, of course, entirely confirms our previous conclusion, of\nthe absence of vegetable and animal life; and leaves us, as we have\nsaid, to examine the question for the other bodies, on their special\ngrounds, without any previous presumption that such life exists.\nUndoubtedly the aspect of the case will be different in one feature,\nwhen we see reason to believe that other bodies have an atmosphere; and\nif there be in any planet sufficient light and heat, and clouds and\nwinds, and a due adjustment of the power of gravity, and the strength of\nthe materials of which organized frames consist, there may be, so far as\nwe can judge, life of some kind or other. But yet, even in those cases,\nwe should be led to judge also, by analogy, that the life which they\nsustain is more different from the terrestrial life of the present\nperiod of the earth, than that is from the terrestrial life of any\nformer geological period, in proportion as the conditions of light and\nheat, and attraction and density, are more different on any other\nplanet, than they can have been on the earth, at any period of its\nhistory.\n\n10. Let us then consider the state of these elements of being in the\nother planets. I have mentioned, among them, the force of gravity, and\nthe density of materials; because these are important elements in the\nquestion. It may seem strange, that we are able, not only to measure the\nplanets, but to weigh them; yet so it is. The wonderful discovery of\nuniversal gravitation, so firmly established, as the law which embraces\nevery particle of matter in the solar system, enables us to do this,\nwith the most perfect confidence. The revolutions of the satellites\nround their primary planets, give us a measure of the force by which the\nplanets retain them in their orbits; and in this way, a measure of the\nquantity of matter of which each planet consists. And other effects of\nthe same universal law, enable us to measure, though less easily and\nless exactly, the masses, even of those planets which have no\nsatellites. And thus we can, as it were, put the Earth, and Jupiter or\nSaturn, in the balance against each other; and tell the proportionate\nnumber of pounds which they would weigh, if so poised. And again, by\nanother kind of experiment, we can, as we have said, weigh the earth\nagainst a known mountain; or even against a small sphere of lead duly\nadjusted for the purpose. And this has been done; and the results are\nextremely curious; and very important in our speculations relative to\nthe constitution of the universe.\n\n11. And in the first place, we may remark that the Earth is really much\nless heavy than we should expect, from what we know of the materials of\nwhich it consists. For, measuring the density, or specific gravity, of\nmaterials, (that is their comparative weight in the same bulk,) by their\nproportion to water, which is the usual way, the density of iron is 8,\nthat of lead 11, that of gold 19: the ordinary rocks at the Earth's\nsurface have a density of 3 or 4. Moreover, all the substances with\nwhich we are acquainted, contract into a smaller space, and have their\ndensity increased, by being subjected to pressure. Air does this, in an\nobvious manner; and hence it is, that the lower parts of our atmosphere\nare denser than the upper parts; being pressed by a greater\nsuperincumbent weight, the weight of the superior parts of the\natmosphere itself. Air is thus obviously and eminently elastic. But all\nsubstances, though less obviously and eminently, are still, really, and\nin some degree, elastic. They all contract by compression. Water for\ninstance, if pressed by a column of water 100000 feet high, would be\nreduced to a bulk one-tenth less than before. In the same manner iron,\ncompressed by a column of iron 90000 feet high, loses one-tenth of its\nbulk, and of course gains so much in density. And the like takes place,\nin different amounts, with all material whatever. This is the rate at\nwhich compression produces its effect of increasing the density, in\nbodies which are in the condition of those which lie around us. But if\nthis law were to go on at the same rate, when the compression is\ngreatly increased, the density of bodies deep down towards the centre of\nthe Earth must be immense. The Earth's radius is above 20 million feet.\nAt a million feet depth we should have matter subjected to the pressure\nof a column of a million feet of superincumbent matter, heavier than\nwater; and hence we should have a compression of water 10 times as great\nas we have mentioned; and, therefore, the bulk of the water would be\nreduced almost to nothing, its density increased almost indefinitely:\nand the same would be the case with other materials, as metals and\nstones. If, therefore, this law of compression were to hold for these\ngreat pressures, all materials whatever, contained in the depths of the\nEarth's mass, must be immensely denser, and immensely specifically\nheavier, than they are at the surface. And thus, the Earth consisting of\nthese far denser materials towards the centre, but, nearer the surface,\nof lighter materials, such as rock, and metals, in their ordinary state,\nmust, we should expect, be, on the whole, much heavier than if it\nconsisted of the heaviest ordinary materials; heavier than iron, or than\nlead; hundreds of times perhaps heavier than stone.\n\n12. This, however, is not found to be so. The expectation of the great\ndensity of the Earth, which we might have derived from the known laws of\ncondensation of terrestrial substances, is not confirmed. The mass of\nthe Earth being weighed, by means of such processes as we have already\nreferred to, is found to be only five times heavier than so much water:\nless heavy than if it were made of iron: less than twice as heavy as if\nit were made of ordinary rock. This, of course, shows us that the\ncondensation of the interior parts of the Earth's mass, is by no means\nso great as we should have expected it to be, from what we know of the\nlaws of condensation here; and from considering the enormous pressure of\nsuperincumbent materials to which those interior parts are subjected.\nThe laws of condensation, it would seem, do not go on operating for\nthese enormous pressures, by the same progression as for smaller\npressure. If a mass of a material is compressed into nine-tenths its\nbulk by the weight of a column of 100000 feet high, it does not follow\nthat it will be again compressed into nine-tenths of its condensed bulk,\nby another column of 100000 feet high. The compression and condensation\nreach, or tend to, a limit; and probably, before they have gone very\nfar. It may be possible to compress a piece of iron by one-thousandth\npart, even by such forces as we can use; and yet it may not be possible\nto compress the same piece of iron into one half its bulk, even by the\nweight of the whole Earth, if made to bear upon it. This appears to be\nprobable: and this will explain, how it is, that the materials of the\nEarth are not so violently condensed as we should have supposed; and\nthus, why, the Earth is so light.\n\n13. We must avoid drawing inferences too boldly, on a subject where our\nmeans of knowledge are so obscure as they are with regard to the\ninterior of the Earth; but yet, perhaps, we may be allowed to say, that\nthe result which we have just stated, that the Earth is so light,\nsuggests to us the belief that the interior consists of the same\nmaterials as the exterior, slightly condensed by pressure.[4] We find no\nencouragement to believe that there is a nucleus within, of some\nmaterial, different from what we have on the outside; some metal, for\ninstance, heavier than lead. If the earth were of granite, or of lava,\nto the centre, it would, so far as we can judge, have much the same\nweight which it now has. Such a central mass, covered with the various\nlayers of stone, which form the upper crust of the Earth, would\nnaturally make this globe of at least the weight which it really has.\nAnd therefore, if we were to learn that a planet was much lighter than\nthis, as to its materials,--much less dense, taking the whole mass\ntogether,--we should be compelled to infer that it was, throughout, or\nnearly so, formed of less compact matter than metal and stone; or else,\nthat it had internal cavities, or some other complex structure, which it\nwould be absurd to assume, without positive reasons.\n\n14. Now having decided these views from an examination of the Earth, let\nus apply them to other planets, as bearing upon the question of their\nbeing inhabited; and in the first place, to Jupiter. We can, as we have\nsaid, easily compare the mass of Jupiter and of the Earth; for both of\nthem have Satellites. It is ascertained, by this means, that the mass of\nweight of Jupiter is about 333 times the weight of the earth; but as his\ndiameter is also 11 times that of the earth, his bulk is 1331 times that\nof the earth: (the _cube_ of 11 is 1331); and, therefore, the density of\nJupiter is to that of the earth, only as 333 to 1331, or about 1 to 4.\nThus the density of Jupiter, taken as a whole, is about a quarter of the\nearth's density; less than that of any of the stones which form the\ncrust of the earth; and not much greater than the density of water.\nIndeed, it is tolerably certain, that the density of Jupiter is not\ngreater than it would be, if his entire globe were composed of water;\nmaking allowance for the compression which the interior parts would\nsuffer by the pressure of those parts superincumbent. We might,\ntherefore, offer it as a conjecture not quite arbitrary, that Jupiter is\na mere sphere of water.\n\n15. But is there anything further in the appearance of Jupiter, which\nmay serve to contradict, or to confirm, this conjecture? There is one\ncircumstance in Jupiter's form, which is, to say the least, perfectly\nconsistent with the supposition, that he is a fluid mass; namely, that\nhe is not an exact sphere, but oblate, like an orange. Such a form is\nproduced, in a fluid sphere, by a rotation upon its axis. It is\nproduced, even in a sphere which is (at present at least,) partly solid\nand partly fluid; and the oblateness of the earth is accounted for in\nthis way. But Jupiter, who, while he is much larger than the earth,\nrevolves much more rapidly, is much more oblate than the earth. His\npolar and equatorial diameters are in the proportion of 13 to 14. Now it\nis a remarkable circumstance, that this is the amount of oblateness,\nwhich, on mechanical principles, would result from his time of\nrevolution, if he were entirely fluid, and of the same density\nthroughout.[5] So far, then, we have some confirmation at least, of his\nbeing composed entirely of some fluid which in its density agrees with\nwater.\n\n16. But there are other circumstances in the appearances of Jupiter,\nwhich still further confirm this conjecture of his watery constitution.\nHis belts,--certain bands of darker and lighter color, which run\nparallel to his equator, and which, in some degree, change their form,\nand breadth, and place, from time to time,--have been conjectured, by\nalmost all astronomers, to arise from lines of cloud, alternating with\ntracts comparatively clear, and having their direction determined by\ncurrents analogous to our trade-winds, but of a much more steady and\ndecided character, in consequence of the great rotatory velocity.[6]\nNow vapors, supplying the materials of such masses of cloud, would\nnaturally be raised from such a watery sphere as we have supposed, by\nthe action of the Sun; would form such lines; and would change their\nform from slight causes of irregularity, as the belts are seen to do.\nThe existence of these lines of cloud does of itself show that there is\nmuch water on Jupiter's surface, and is quite consistent with our\nconjecture, that his whole mass is water.[7]\n\n17. Perhaps some persons may be disposed to doubt whether, if Jupiter\nbe, as we suppose, merely or principally a mass of water and of vapor,\nwe are entitled to extend to him the law of universal gravitation, which\nis the basis of our speculations. But this doubt may be easily\ndismissed. We know that the waters of the earth are affected by\ngravitation; not only towards the earth, as shown by their weight, but\ntowards those distant bodies, the Sun and the Moon; for this gravitation\nproduces the tides of the ocean. And our atmosphere also has weight, as\nwe know; and probably has also solar and lunar tides, though these are\nmarked by many other causes of diurnal change. We have, then, the same\nreason for supposing that air and water, in other parts of the system,\nare governed by universal gravitation, and exercise themselves the\nattractive force of gravitation, which we have for making the like\nsuppositions with regard to the most solid bodies. Whatever argument\nproves universal gravitation, proves it for all matter alike; and\nNewton, in the course of his magnificent generalization of the law, took\ncare to demonstrate, by experiment, as well as by reasoning, that it\nmight be so generalized.\n\n18. As bearing upon the question of life in Jupiter, there is another\npoint which requires to be considered; the force of gravity at his\nsurface. Though, equal bulk for equal bulk, he is lighter than the\nearth, yet his bulk is so great that, as we have seen, he is altogether\nmuch heavier than the earth. This, his greater mass, makes bodies, at\nequal distances from the centres, ponderate proportionally more to him\nthan they would do to the earth. And though his surface is 11 times\nfurther from his centre than the earth's is, and therefore the gravity\nat the surface is thereby diminished, yet, even after this deduction,\ngravity at the surface of Jupiter is nearly two and a half times that on\nthe earth.[8] And thus a man transferred to the surface of Jupiter would\nfeel a stone, carried in his hands, and would feel his own limbs also,\n(for his muscular power would not be altered by the transfer,) become\n2-1/2 times as heavy, as difficult to raise, as they were before. Under\nsuch circumstances animals of large dimensions would be oppressed with\ntheir own weight. In the smaller creatures on the earth, as in insects,\nthe muscular power bears a great proportion to the weight, and they\nmight continue to run and to leap, even if gravity were tripled or\nquadrupled. But an elephant could not trot with two or three elephants\nplaced upon his back. A lion or tiger could not spring, with twice or\nthrice his own weight hung about his neck. Such an increase of gravity\nwould be inconsistent then, with the present constitution and life of\nthe largest terrestrial animals; and if we are to suppose planets\ninhabited, in which gravity is much more energetic than it is upon the\nearth, we must suppose classes of animals which are adapted to such a\ndifferent mechanical condition.\n\n19. Taking into account then, these circumstances in Jupiter's state;\nhis (probably) bottomless waters; his light, if any, solid materials;\nthe strong hand with which gravity presses down such materials as there\nare; the small amount of light and heat which reaches him, at 5 times\nthe earth's distance from the sun; what kind of inhabitants shall we be\nled to assign to him? Can they have skeletons where no substance so\ndense as bone is found, at least in large masses? It would seem not\nprobable.[9] And it would seem they must be dwellers in the waters, for\nagainst the existence there of solid land, we have much evidence. They\nmust, with so little of light and heat, have a low degree of vitality.\nThey must then, it would seem, be cartilaginous and glutinous masses;\npeopling the waters with minute forms: perhaps also with larger\nmonsters; for the weight of a bulky creature, floating in the fluid,\nwould be much more easily sustained than on solid ground. If we are\nresolved to have such a population, and that they shall live by food, we\nmust suppose that the waters contain at least so much solid matter as is\nrequisite for the sustenance of the lowest classes; for the higher\nclasses of animals will probably find their food in consuming the lower.\nI do not know whether the advocates of peopled worlds will think such a\npopulation as this worth contending for: but I think the only doubt can\nbe, between such a population, and none. If Jupiter be a mere mass of\nwater, with perhaps a few cinders at the centre, and an envelope of\nclouds around it, it seems very possible that he may not be the seat of\nlife at all. But if life be there, it does not seem in any way likely,\nthat the living things can be anything higher in the scale of being,\nthan such boneless, watery, pulpy creatures as I have imagined.\n\n20. Perhaps it may occur to some one to ask, if this planet, which\npresents so glorious an aspect to our eyes, be thus the abode only of\nsuch imperfect and embryotic lumps of vitality as I have described; to\nwhat purpose was all that gorgeous array of satellites appended to him,\nwhich would present, to intelligent spectators on his surface, a\nspectacle far more splendid than any that our skies offer to us: four\nmoons, some as great, and others hardly less, than our moon, performing\ntheir regular revolutions in the vault of heaven. To which it will\nsuffice, at present, to reply, that the use of those moons, under such a\nsupposition, would be precisely the same, as the use of our moon, during\nthe myriads of years which elapsed while the earth was tenanted by\ncorals and madrepores, shell-fish and belemnites, the cartilaginous\nfishes of the Old Red Sandstone, or the Saurian monsters of the Lias;\nand in short, through all the countless ages which elapsed, before the\nlast few thousand years: before man was placed upon the earth \"to eye\nthe blue vault and bless the _useful_ light:\" to reckon by it his months\nand years: to discover by means of it, the structure of the universe,\nand perhaps, the special care of his Creator for him alone of all his\ncreatures. The moons of Jupiter, may in this way be of use, as our own\nmoon is. Indeed we know that they have been turned to most important\npurposes, in astronomy and navigation. And knowing this, we may be\ncontent not to know how, either the satellites of Jupiter, or the\nsatellite of the Earth, tend to the advantage of the brute inhabitants\nof the waters.\n\n21. There is another point, connected with this doctrine of the watery\nnature of Jupiter, which I may notice, though we have little means of\nknowledge on the subject. Jupiter being thus covered with water, is the\nwater ever converted into ice? The planet is more than 5 times as far\nfrom the sun as the earth is: the heat which he receives is, on that\naccount, 25 times less than ours. The veil of clouds which covers a\nlarge part of his surface, must diminish the heat still further. What\neffect the absence of land produces, on the freezing of the ocean, it is\nnot easy to say. We cannot, therefore, pronounce with any confidence\nwhether his waters are ever frozen or not. In the next considerable\nplanet, Mars, astronomers conceive that they do trace the effects of\nfrost; but in Mars we have also appearances of land. In Jupiter, we are\nleft to mere conjecture; whether continents and floating islands of ice\nstill further chill the fluids of the slimy tribes whom we have been led\nto regard as the only possible inhabitants; or whether the watery globe\nis converted into a globe of ice; retaining on its surface, of course,\nas much fluid as is requisite, under the evaporating power of the sun,\nto supply the currents of vapor which form the belts. In this case,\nperhaps, we may think it most likely that there are no inhabitants of\nthese shallow pools in a planet of ice: at any rate, it is not worth\nwhile to provide any new speculations for such a hypothesis.\n\n22. We may turn our consideration from Jupiter to Saturn; for in many\nrespects the two planets are very similar. But in almost every point,\nwhich is of force against the hypothesis of inhabitants, the case is\nmuch stronger in Saturn than it is in Jupiter. Light and heat, at his\ndistance, are only one ninetieth of those at the Earth. None but a very\nlow degree of vitality can be sustained under such sluggish influences.\nThe density of his mass is hardly greater than that of cork; much less\nthan that of water: so that, it does not appear what supposition is left\nfor us, except that a large portion of the globe, which we see as his,\nis vapor. That the outer part of the globe is vapor, is proved, in\nSaturn as in Jupiter, by the existence of several cloudy streaks or\nbelts running round him parallel to his equator. Yet his mass, taken\naltogether, is considerable, on account of his great size; and gravity\nwould be greater, at his outer surface, than it is at the earth's. For\nsuch reasons, then, as were urged in the case of Jupiter, we must either\nsuppose that he has no inhabitants; or that they are aqueous, gelatinous\ncreatures; too sluggish, almost to be deemed alive, floating on their\nice-cold waters, shrouded forever by their humid skies.\n\n23. Whether they have eyes or no, we cannot tell; but probably if they\nhad, they would never see the Sun; and therefore we need not commiserate\ntheir lot in not seeing the host of Saturnian satellites; and the Ring,\nwhich to an intelligent Saturnian spectator, would be so splendid a\ncelestial object. The Ring is a glorious object for man's view, and his\ncontemplation; and therefore is not altogether without its use. Still\nless need we (as some appear to do) regard as a serious misfortune to\nthe inhabitants of certain regions of the planet, a solar eclipse of\nfifteen years' duration, to which they are liable by the interposition\nof the Ring between them and the Sun.[10]\n\n24. The cases of Uranus and Neptune are similar to that of Saturn, but\nof course stronger, in proportion to their smaller light and heat. For\nUranus, this is only 1-360th, for Neptune, as we have already said,\n1-900th of the light and heat at the earth. Moreover, these two new\nplanets agree with Jupiter and with Saturn, in being of very large size\nand of very small density; and also we may remark, one of them, probably\nboth, in revolving with great rapidity, and in nearly the same period,\nnamely, about 10 hours: at least, this has been the opinion of\nastronomers with regard to Uranus. The arguments against the hypothesis\nof these two planets being inhabited, are of course of the same kind as\nin the case of Jupiter and Saturn, but much increased in strength; and\nthe supposition of the probably watery nature and low vitality of their\ninhabitants must be commended to the consideration of those who contend\nfor inhabitants in those remote regions of the solar system.\n\n25. We may now return towards the Sun, and direct our attention to the\nplanet Mars. Here we have some approximation to the condition of the\nEarth, in circumstances, as in position. It is true, his light and heat,\nso far as distance from the Sun affects them, are less than half those\nat the Earth. His density appears to be nearly equal to that of the\nEarth, but his mass is so much smaller, that gravity at his surface is\nonly one-half of what it is here. Then, as to his physical condition,\nso far as we can determine it, astronomers discern in his face[11] the\noutlines of continents and seas. The ruddy color by which he is\ndistinguished, the red and fiery aspect which he presents, arise, they\nthink, from the color of the land, while the seas appear greenish.\nClouds often seem to intercept the astronomer's view of the globe, which\nwith its continents and oceans thus revolves under his eye; and that\nthere is an atmosphere on which such clouds may float, appears to be\nfurther proved, by brilliant white spots at the poles of the planet,\nwhich are conjectured to be snow; for they disappear when they have been\nlong exposed to the sun, and are greatest when just emerging from the\nlong night of their polar winter; the snow-line then extending to about\nsix degrees (reckoned upon the meridian of the planet) from the pole.\nMoreover, Mars agrees with the earth, in the period of his rotation;\nwhich is about 24 hours; and in having his axis inclined to his orbit,\nso as to produce a cycle of long and short days and nights, a return of\nsummer and winter, in every revolution of the planet.\n\n26. We have here a number of circumstances which speak far more\npersuasively for a similarity of condition, in this planet and the\nEarth, than in any of the cases previously discussed. It is true, Mars\nis much smaller than the earth, and has not been judged worthy of the\nattendance of a satellite, although further from the Sun; but still, he\nmay have been judged worthy of inhabitants by his Creator. Perhaps we\nare not quite certain about the existence of an atmosphere; and without\nsuch an appendage, we can hardly accord him tenants. But if he have\ninhabitants, let us consider of what kind they must be conceived to be,\naccording to any judgment which we can form. The force of his gravity is\nso small, that we may allow his animals to be large, without fearing\nthat they will break down by their own weight. In a planet so dense,\nthey may very likely have solid skeletons. The ice about his poles will\ncumber the seas, cold even for the want of solar heat, as it does in our\narctic and antarctic oceans; and we may easily imagine that these seas\nare tenanted, like those, by huge creatures of the nature of whales and\nseals, and by other creatures which the existence of these requires and\nimplies. Or rather, since, as we have said, we must suppose the\npopulation of other planets to be more different from our existing\npopulation, than the population of other ages of our own planet, we may\nsuppose the population of the seas and of the land of Mars, (if there be\nany, and if we are not carrying it too high in the scale of vital\nactivity,) to differ from any terrestrial animals, in something of the\nsame way in which the great land and sea saurians, or the iguanodon and\ndinotherium, differed from the animals which now live on the earth.\n\n27. That we need not discuss the question, whether there are intelligent\nbeings living on the surface of Mars, perhaps the reader will allow,\ntill we have some better evidence that there are living things there at\nall; if he calls to mind the immense proportion which, on the earth, far\nbetter fitted for the habitation of the only intelligent creature which\nwe know or can conceive, the duration of unintelligent life has borne to\nthat of intelligent. Here, on this Earth, a few thousand years ago,\nbegan the life of a creature who can speculate about the past and the\nfuture, the near and the absent, the Universe and its Maker, duty and\nimmortality. This began a few thousand years ago, after ages and myriads\nof ages, after immense varieties of lives and generations, of corals and\nmollusks, saurians, iguanodons, and dinotheriums. No doubt the Creator\nmight place an intelligent creature upon a planet, without all this\npreparation, all this preliminary life. He has not chosen to do so on\nthe earth, as we know; and that is by much the best evidence attainable\nby us, of what His purposes are. It is also possible that He should, on\nanother planet, have established creatures of the nature of corals and\nmollusks, saurians and iguanodons, without having yet arrived at the\nperiod of intelligent creatures: especially if that other planet have\nlonger years, a colder climate, a smaller mass, and perhaps no\natmosphere. It is also possible that He should have put that smaller\nplanet near the Earth, resembling it in some respects, as the Moon does,\nbut without any inhabitants, as she has none; and that Mars may be such\na planet. The probability against such a belief can hardly be considered\nas strong, if the arguments already offered be regarded as effective\nagainst the opinion of inhabitants in the other planets, and in the\nMoon.\n\n28. The numerous tribe of small bodies, which revolve between Jupiter\nand Mars, do not admit of much of the kind of reasoning, which we have\napplied to the larger planets. They have, with perhaps one exception\n(Vesta) no disk of visible magnitude; they are mere dots, and we do not\neven know that their form is spherical. The near coincidence of their\norbits has suggested, to astronomers, the conjecture that they have\nresulted from the explosion of a larger body, and from its fracture into\nfragments. Perhaps the general phenomena of the universe suggest rather\nthe notion of a collapse of portions of sidereal matter, than of a\nsudden disruption and dispersion of any portion of it; and these small\nbodies may be the results of some imperfectly effected concentration of\nthe elements of our system; which, if it had gone on more completely and\nregularly, might have produced another planet, like Mars or Venus.\nPerhaps they are only the larger masses, among a great number of smaller\nones, resulting from such a process: and it is very conceivable, that\nthe meteoric stones which, from time to time, have fallen upon the\nearth's surface, are other results of the like process:--bits of planets\nwhich have failed in the making, and lost their way, till arrested by\nthe resistance of the earth's atmosphere. A remarkable circumstance in\nthese bodies is, that though thus coming apparently from some remote\npart of the system, they contain no elements but such as had already\nbeen found to exist in the mass of the earth; although some substances,\nas nickel and chrome, which are somewhat rare in the earth's materials,\nare common parts of the composition of meteoric stones. Also they are of\ncrystalline structure, and exhibit some peculiarities in their\ncrystallization. Such as these strange visitors are, they seem to show\nthat the other parts of the solar system contain the same elementary\nsubstances, and are subject to the same laws of chemical synthesis and\ncrystalline force, which obtain in the terrestrial region. The smallness\nof these specimens is a necessary condition of their reaching us; for if\nthey had been more massive, they would have followed out the path of\ntheir orbits round the sun, however eccentric these might be. The great\neccentricity of the smaller planets, their great deviation from the\nzodiacal path, which is the highway of the large planets, their great\nnumber, probably by no means yet exhausted by the discoveries of\nastronomers; all fall in with the supposition that there are, in the\nsolar system, a vast multitude of such abnormal planetoidal lumps. As I\nhave said, we do not even know that they are approximately spherical;\nand if they are of the nature of meteoric stones, they are mere crude\nand irregularly crystallized masses of metal and earth. It will\ntherefore, probably, be deemed unnecessary to give other reasons why\nthese planetoids are not inhabited. But if it be granted that they are\nnot, we have here, in addition to the moon, a large array of examples,\nto prove how baseless is the assumption, that all the bodies of the\nsolar system are the seats of life.\n\n29. We have thus performed our journey from the extremest verge of the\nUniverse, so far as we have any knowledge of it, to the orbit of our own\nplanet; and have found, till we came into our own most immediate\nvicinity, strong reasons for rejecting the assumption of inhabited\nworlds like our own; and indeed, of the habitation of worlds in any\nsense. And even if Mars, in his present condition, may be some image of\nthe Earth, in some of its remote geological periods, it is at least\nequally possible that he may be an image of the Earth, in the still\nremoter geological period before life began. Of peculiar fitnesses which\nmake the earth suited to the sustentation of life, as we know that it\nis, we shall speak hereafter; and at present pass on to the other\nplanets, Venus and Mercury. But of these, there is, in our point of\nview, very little to say. Venus, which, when nearest to us, fills a\nlarger angle than any other celestial body, except the Sun and the Moon,\nmight be expected to be the one of which we know most. Yet she is really\none of the most difficult to scrutinize with our telescopes. Astronomers\ncannot discover in her, as in Mars, any traces of continents and seas,\nmountains and valleys; at least with any certainty.[12] Her illuminated\npart shines with an intense lustre which dazzles the sight;[13] yet she\nis of herself perfectly dark; and it was the discovery, that she\npresented the phases of the Moon, made by the telescope of Galileo,\nwhich gave the first impulse to planetary research. She is almost as\nlarge as the earth; almost as heavy. The light and heat which she\nreceives from the Sun must be about double those which come to the\nearth. We discern no traces of a gaseous or watery atmosphere\nsurrounding her. Perhaps if we could see her better, we might find that\nshe had a surface like the moon; or perhaps, in the nearer neighborhood\nof the sun, she may have cooled more slowly and quietly, like a glass\nwhich is annealed in the fire; and hence, may have a smooth surface,\ninstead of the furrowed and pimpled visage which the Moon presents to\nus. With this ignorance of her conditions, it is hard to say what kind\nof animals we could place in her, if we were disposed to people her\nsurface; except perhaps the microscopic creatures, with siliceous\ncoverings, which, as modern explorers assert, are almost indestructible\nby heat. To believe that she has a surface like the earth, and tribes of\nanimals, like terrestrial animals, and like man, is an exercise of\nimagination, which not only is quite gratuitous, but contrary to all the\ninformation which the telescope gives us; and with this remark, we may\ndismiss the hypothesis.\n\n30. Of Mercury we know still less. He receives seven times as much light\nand heat as the Earth; is much smaller than the earth, but perhaps more\ndense; and has not, so far as we can tell, any of the conditions which\nmake animal existence conceivable. If it is so difficult to find\nsuitable inhabitants for Venus, the difficulty for Mercury is immensely\ngreater.\n\n31. So far then, we have traversed the Solar System, and have found even\nhere, the strongest grounds that there can be no animal existence, like\nthat which alone we can conceive as animal existence, except in the\nplanet next beyond the earth, Mars; and there, not without great\nmodifications. But we may make some further remarks on the condition of\nthe several planets, with regard to what appears to us to be the\nnecessary elements of animal life.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] More recently, at the meeting of the British Association in\nSeptember, 1853, Professor Phillips has declared, that astronomers can\ndiscern the shape of a spot on the Moon's surface, which is a few\nhundred feet in breadth.\n\n[2] A person visiting the Eifel, a region of extinct volcanoes, west of\nthe Rhine, can hardly fail to be struck with the resemblance of the\ncraters there, to those seen in the moon through a telescope.\n\n[3] Bessel has discussed and refuted (it was hardly necessary) the\nconjecture of some persons (he describes them as \"the feeling hearts who\nwould find sympathy even in the Moon\") that there may be in the Moon's\nvalleys air enough to support life, though it does not rise above the\nhills.--_Populaere Vorlesungen_, p. 78.\n\n[4] The doctrine that the interior nucleus of the Earth is fluid,\nwhether accepted or rejected, does not materially affect this argument.\nIt appears, that in some cases, at least, the melting of substances is\nprevented, by their being subjected to extreme pressure; but the\ndensity, the element from which we reason, is measured by methods quite\nindependent of such questions.\n\n[5] Herschel, 512. Bessel, however, holds that the oblateness of Jupiter\nproves that his interior is somewhat denser than his exterior. _Pop.\nVorles._ p. 91.\n\n[6] Herschel, 513.\n\n[7] A difficulty may be raised, founded on what we may suppose to be the\nfact, as to the extreme cold of those regions of the Solar System. It\nmay be supposed that water under such a temperature could exist in no\nother form than ice. And that the cold must there be intense, according\nto our notion, there is strong reason to believe. Even in the outer\nregions of our atmosphere, the cold is probably very many degrees below\nfreezing, and in the blank and airless void beyond, it may be colder\nstill. It has been calculated by physical philosophers, on grounds which\nseem to be solid, that the cold of the space beyond our atmosphere is\n100 deg. below zero. The space near to Jupiter, if an absolute vacuum, in\nwhich there is no matter to receive and retain heat emitted from the\nSun, may, perhaps, be no colder than it is nearer the Sun. And as to the\neffect the great cold would produce on Jupiter's watery material, we may\nremark, that if there be a free surface, there will be vapor produced by\nthe Sun's heat; and if there be air, there will be clouds. We may add,\nthat so far as we have reason to believe, below the freezing point, no\naccession of cold produces any material change in ice. Even in the\nexpeditions of our Arctic navigators, a cold of 40 deg. below zero was\nexperienced, and ice was still but ice, and there were vapors and clouds\nas in our climate. It is quite an arbitrary assumption, to suppose that\nany cold which may exist in Jupiter would prevent the state of things\nwhich we suppose.\n\n[8] Herschel, 508.\n\n[9] It may be thought fanciful to suppose that because there is little\nor no solid matter (of any kind known to us) in Jupiter, his animals are\nnot likely to have solid skeletons. The analogy is not very strong; but\nalso, the weight assigned to it in the argument is small. _Valeat\nquantum valere debet._\n\n[10] Herschel, 522.\n\n[11] Herschel, 510.\n\n[12] According to Bessel, Schroeter _once_ saw one bright point on the\ndark ground, near the boundary of light in Venus. This was taken as\nproving a mountain, estimated at 60,000 feet high. _Pop. Vorles._ p. 86.\n\n[13] Herschel, 509.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHEORY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM.\n\n\n1. We have given our views respecting the various planets which\nconstitute the Solar System;--views established, it would seem, by all\nthat we know, of the laws of heat and moisture, density and attraction,\norganization and life. We have examined and reasoned upon the cases of\nthe different planets separately. But it may serve to confirm this view,\nand to establish it in the reader's mind, if we give a description of\nthe system which shall combine and connect the views which we have\npresented, of the constitution and peculiarities, as to physical\ncircumstances, of each of the planets. It will help us in our\nspeculations, if we can regard the planets not only as a collection, but\nas a scheme;--if we can give, not an enumeration only, but a theory. Now\nsuch a scheme, such a theory, appears to offer itself to us.\n\n2. The planets exterior to Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn especially, as the\nbest known of them, appear, by the best judgment which we can form, to\nbe spheres of water, and of aqueous vapor, combined, it may be, with\natmospheric air, in which their cloudy belts float over their deep\noceans. Mars seems to have some portion at least of aqueous atmosphere;\nthe earth, we know, has a considerable atmosphere of air, and of vapor;\nbut the Moon, so near to her mistress, has none. On Venus and Mercury,\nwe see nothing of a gaseous or aqueous atmosphere; and they, and Mars,\ndo not differ much in their density from the Earth. Now, does not this\nlook as if the water and the vapor, which belong to the solar system,\nwere driven off into the outer regions of its vast circuit; while the\nsolid masses which are nearest to the focus of heat, are all\napproximately of the same nature? And if this be so, what is the\npeculiar physical condition which we are led to ascribe to the Earth?\nPlainly this: that she is situated just in that region of the system,\nwhere the existence of matter, both in a solid, a fluid, and a gaseous\ncondition, is possible. Outside the Earth's orbit, or at least outside\nMars and the small Planetoids, there is, in the planets, apparently, no\nsolid matter; or rather, if there be, there is a vast preponderance of\nwatery and vaporous matter. Inside the Earth's orbit, we see, in the\nplanets, no traces of water or vapor, or gas; but solid matter, about\nthe density of terrestrial matter. The Earth, alone, is placed at the\nborder where the conditions of life are combined; ground to stand upon;\nair to breathe; water to nourish vegetables, and thus, animals; and\nsolid matter to supply the materials for their more solid parts; and\nwith this, a due supply of light and heat, a due energy of the force of\nweight. All these conditions are, in our conception, requisite for life:\nthat all these conditions meet, elsewhere than in the neighborhood of\nthe Earth's orbit, we see strong reasons to disbelieve. The Earth, then,\nit would seem, is the abode of life, not because all the globes which\nrevolve round the Sun may be assumed to be the abodes of life; but\nbecause the Earth is fitted to be so, by a curious and complex\ncombination of properties and relations, which do not at all apply to\nthe others. That the Earth is inhabited, is not a reason for believing\nthat the other Planets are so, but for believing that they are not so.\n\n3. Can we see any physical reason, for the fact which appears to us so\nprobable, that all the water and vapor of the system is gathered in its\noutward parts? It would seem that we can. Water and aqueous vapor are\ndriven from the Sun to the outer parts of the solar system, or are\nallowed to be permanent there only, as they are driven off and retained\nat a distance by any other source of heat;--to use a homely\nillustration, as they are driven from wet objects placed near the\nkitchen-fire: as they are driven from the hot sands of Egypt into the\nupper air: as they are driven from the tropics to the poles. In this\nlatter case, and generally, in all cases, in which vapor is thus driven\nfrom a hotter region, when it comes into a colder, it may again be\ncondensed in water, and fall in rain. So the cold of the air in the\ntemperate zone condenses the aqueous vapors which flow from the tropics;\nand so, we have our clouds and our showers. And as there is this rainy\nregion, indistinctly defined, between the torrid and the frigid zones on\nthe earth; so is there a region of clouds and rain, of air and water,\nmuch more precisely defined, in the solar system, between the central\ntorrid zone and the external frigid zone which surrounds the Sun at a\ngreater distance.\n\n4. _The Earth's Orbit is the Temperate Zone of the Solar System._ In\nthat Zone only is the play of Hot and Cold, of Moist and Dry, possible.\nThe Torrid Zone of the Earth is not free from moisture; it has its\nrains, for it has its upper colder atmosphere. But how much hotter are\nVenus and Mercury than the Torrid Zone? There, no vapors can linger;\nthey are expelled by the fierce solar energy; and there is no cool\nstratum to catch them and return them. If they were there, they must fly\nto the outer regions; to the cold abodes of Jupiter and Saturn, if on\ntheir way, the Earth did not with cold and airy finger outstretched\nafar, catch a few drops of their treasures, for the use of plant, and\nbeast, and man. The solid stone only, and the metallic ore which can be\nfused and solidified with little loss of substance, can bear the\ncontinual force of the near solar fire, and be the material of permanent\nsolid planets in that region. But the lava pavement of the Inner Planets\nbears no superstructure of life; for all life would be scorched away\nalong with water, its first element. On the Earth first, can this\nsuperstructure be raised; and there, through we know not what graduation\nof forms, the waters were made to bring forth abundantly things that had\nlife; plants, and animals nourished by plants, and conspiring with them,\nto feed on their respective appointed elements, in the air which\nsurrounded them. And so, nourished by the influences of air and water,\nplants and animals lived and died, and were entombed in the scourings of\nthe land, which the descending streams carried to the bottom of the\nwaters. And then, these beds of dead generations were raised into\nmountain ranges; perhaps by the yet unextinguished forces of\nsubterraneous fires. And then a new creation of plants and animals\nsucceeded; still living under the fostering influence of the united\npair, Air and Water, which never ceased to brood over the World of Life,\ntheir Nurseling; and then, perhaps, a new change of the limits of land\nand water, and a new creation again: till at last, Man was placed upon\nthe Earth; with far higher powers, and far different purposes, from any\nof the preceding tribes of creatures: and with this, for one of his\noffices;--that there might be an intelligent being to learn how\nwonderfully the scheme of creation had been carried on, and to admire,\nand to worship the Creator.\n\n5. But we have a few more remarks to make on the structure of the Solar\nSystem, in this point of view. When we say that the water and vapor of\nthe System were driven to the outer parts, or retained there, by the\ncentral heat of the Sun, perhaps it might be supposed to be most simple\nand natural, that the aqueous vapor, and the water, should assume its\nplace in a distinct circle, or rather a spherical shell, of which the\nSun was the centre; thus making an elemental sphere about the centre,\nsuch as the ancients imagined in their schemes of the Universe. Nor will\nwe venture to say that such an arrangement of elements might not be;\nthough perhaps it might be shown that no stable equilibrium of the\nsystem would be, in this way, mechanically possible. But this at least\nwe may say; that a rotatory motion of all the parts of the universe\nappears to be a universal law prevalent in it, so far as our observation\ncan reach: and that, by such rotation of the separate masses, the whole\nis put in a condition which is everywhere one of stable equilibrium. It\nwas, then, agreeable to the general scheme, that the excess of water and\nvapor, which must necessarily be carried away, or stored up, in the\nouter regions of the System, should be put into shapes in which it\nshould have a permanent place and form. And thus, it is suitable to the\ngeneral economy of creation, that this water and vapor should be packed\ninto rotating masses, such as are Jupiter and Saturn, Uranus and\nNeptune. When once collected in such rotating masses, the attraction of\nits parts would gather it into spheroidal forms; oblate by the effect of\nrotation, as Jupiter, or perhaps into annular forms, like the Ring of\nSaturn;[1] for such also is a mechanically possible form of equilibrium,\nfor a fluid mass. And these spheroids once formed, the water would form\na central nucleus, over which would hang a cover of vapor, raised by\nthe evaporating power of the Sun, and forming clouds, where the rarity\nof the upper strata of vapor allowed the cold of the external space to\nact; and these clouds, spun into belts by the rotation of the sphere.\nAnd thus, the vapor, which would otherwise have wandered loose about the\natmosphere, was neatly wound into balls; which, again, were kept in\ntheir due place, by being made to revolve in nearly circular orbits\nabout the Sun.\n\n6. And thus, according to our view, water and gases, clouds and vapors,\nform mainly the planets in the outer part of the solar system; while\nmasses such as result from the fusion of the most solid materials, lie\nnearer the sun, and are found principally within the orbit of\nJupiter.[2] To conceive planetary systems as formed by the gradual\ncontraction of a nebular mass, and by the solidification of some of its\nparts, is a favorite notion of several speculators. If we adopt this\nnotion, we shall, I think, find additional proofs in favor of our view\nof the system. For, in the first place, we have the zodiacal light, a\nnebulous appendage to the Sun, as Herschel conceives, extending beyond\nthe orbits of Mercury and Venus. These planets, then, have not yet fully\nemerged from the atmosphere in which they had their origin:--the\n_mother-light_ and _mother-fire_, in which they began to crystallize, as\ncrystals do in their mother-water. Though they are already opaque, they\nare still immersed in luminous vapor: and bearing such traces of their\nchaotic state being not yet ended, we need not wonder, if we find no\nevidence of their having inhabitants, and some evidence to the contrary.\nThey are within a nebular region, which may easily be conceived to be\nuninhabitable. And where this nebular region, marked by the zodiacal\nlight, terminates, the world of life begins, namely at the Earth.\n\n7. But further, outside this region of the Earth, what do we find in the\nsolar system? Of solid matter, if our views are right, we find nothing\nbut an immense number of small bodies; namely, first, Mars, who, as we\nhave said, is only about one-eighth the earth in mass: the twenty-six\nsmall planetoids, (or whatever number may have been discovered when\nthese pages meet the reader's eye,[3]) between Mars and Jupiter; the\nfour satellites of Jupiter; the eight satellites of Saturn; the six (if\nthat be the true number,) satellites of Uranus; and the one satellite of\nNeptune, already detected. It is very remarkable, that all this array of\nsmall bodies begins to be found just outside the Earth's orbit.\nSupposing, as we have found so much reason to suppose, that Jupiter, and\nthe other exterior planets, are not solid bodies, but masses of water\nand of vapor; the existence of great solid planetary masses, such as\nexist in the region of the Earth's orbit, is succeeded externally by the\nexistence of a vast number of smaller bodies. The real quantity of\nmatter in these smaller bodies we cannot in general determine. Perhaps\nthe largest of them, (after Mars,) may be Jupiter's third satellite;\nwhich[4] is reckoned, by Laplace, to have a mass less than 1-10,000th of\nthat of Jupiter himself; and thus, since Jupiter, as we have seen, has a\nmass 333 times that of the Earth, the satellite would be above 1-30th of\nthe Earth's mass.[5] That none but masses of this size, and many far\nbelow this, are found outside of Mars, appears to indicate, that the\n_planet-making_ powers which were efficacious to this distance from the\nsun, and which produced the great globe of the Earth, were, beyond this\npoint, feebler; so that they could only give birth to smaller masses; to\nplanetoids, to satellites, and to meteoric stones. Perhaps we may\ndescribe this want of energy in the planet-making power, by saying, that\nat so great a distance from the central fire, there was not heat enough\nto melt together these smaller fragments into a larger globe;[6] or\nrather, when they existed in a nebular, perhaps in a gaseous state, that\nthere was not heat enough to keep them in that state, till the\nattraction of the parts of all of them had drawn them into one mass,\nwhich might afterwards solidify into a single globe. The tendency of\nnebular matter to separate into distinct portions, which may afterwards\nbe more and more detached from each other, so as to break the nebulous\nlight into patches and specks, appears to be seen in the structure of\nthe resolvable nebulae, as we have already had occasion to notice. And\naccording to the view we are now taking, we may conceive such patches,\nby further cooling and concentration, to remain luminous as comets, and\nperhaps shooting stars; or to become opaque as planets, planetoids,\nsatellites, or meteoric stones. And here we may call to mind what we\nhave already said, that the meteoric stones consist of the same elements\nas those of the earth, combined by the same laws; and thus appear to\nbring us a message from the other solid planets, that they also have the\nsame elements and the same chemical forces as the earth has.\n\n8. It has already been supposed, by many astronomers, that shooting\nstars, and meteoric stones, are bodies of connected nature and origin;\nand that they are cosmical, not terrestrial bodies;--parts of the solar\nsystem, not merely appendages to the earth. It has been conceived, that\nthe luminous masses, which appear as shooting stars, when they are\nwithout the sphere of terrestrial influences, may, when they reach our\natmosphere, collapse into such solid lumps as have from time to time\nfallen upon the earth's surface: many of them, with such sudden\nmanifestations of light and heat, as implied some rapid change taking\nplace in their chemical constitution and consistence. If shooting stars\nare of this nature, then, in those cases in which a great number of them\nappear in close succession, we have evidence that there is a region in\nwhich there is a large collection of matter of a nebulous kind,\ncollected already into small clouds, and ready, by any additional touch\nof the powers that hover round the earth, to be further consolidated\ninto planetary matter. That the earth's orbit carries her through such\nregions, in her annual course, we have evidence, in the curious fact,\nnow so repeatedly observed, of showers of shooting stars, seen at\nparticular seasons of every year; especially about the 13th of November,\nand the 10th of August. This phenomenon has been held, most reasonably,\nto imply that at those periods of the year, the earth passes through a\ncrowd of such meteor-planets, which form a ring round the sun; and\nrevolving round him, like the other planets, retain their place in the\nsystem from year to year.[7] It may be that the orbits of these\nmeteor-planets are very elliptical. That they are to a certain extent\nelliptical, appears to be shown, by our falling in with them only once a\nyear, not every half year, as we should do, if their orbit, being nearly\ncircular, met the earth's orbit in two opposite points. That the\nshooting stars, thus seen in great numbers when the earth is at certain\npoints of her orbit, are really planetoidal bodies, appears to be\nfurther proved by this;--that they all seem to move nearly in the same\ndirection.[8] They are, each of them, visible for a short time only,\n(indeed commonly only for a few seconds), while they are nearest the\nearth; much in the same way in which a comet is visible only for a small\nportion of its path: and this portion is described in a short time,\nbecause they move near the earth. They are so small that a little change\nof distance removes them beyond our vision.\n\n9. Perhaps these revolving specks of nebulae are the outriders of the\nzodiacal light; portions of it, which, being external to the permanently\nnebulous central mass, have broken into patches, and are seen as stars\nfor the moment that we are near to them. And if this be true, we have to\ncorrect, in a certain way, what we have previously said of the zodiacal\nlight;--that no one had thought of resolving it into stars: for it would\nthus appear, that in its outer region, it resolves itself into stars,\nvisible, though but for a moment, to the naked eye.\n\n10. And thus, all these phenomena concur in making it appear probable,\nthat the Earth is placed in that region of the solar system in which the\nplanet-forming powers are most vigorous and potent;--between the region\nof permanent nebulous vapor, and the region of mere shreds and specks of\nplanetary matter, such as are the satellites and the planetoidal group.\nAnd from these views, finally it follows, that the Earth is really the\nlargest planetary body in the Solar System. The vast globes of Jupiter\nand Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, which roll far above her, are still only\nhuge masses of cloud and vapor, water and air; which, from their\nenormous size, are ponderous enough to retain round them a body of\nsmall satellites, perhaps, in some degree at least, solid; and which\nhave perhaps a small lump, or a few similar lumps, of planetary matter\nat the centre of their watery globe. The Earth is really the domestic\nhearth of this Solar System; adjusted between the hot and fiery haze on\none side, the cold and watery vapor on the other. This region only is\nfit to be a domestic hearth, a seat of habitation; and in this region is\nplaced the largest solid globe of our system; and on this globe, by a\nseries of creative operations, entirely different from any of those\nwhich separated the solid from the vaporous, the cold from the hot, the\nmoist from the dry, have been established, in succession, plants, and\nanimals, and man. So that the habitation has been occupied; the domestic\nhearth has been surrounded by its family; the fitnesses so wonderfully\ncombined have been employed; and the Earth alone, of all the parts of\nthe frame which revolves round the Sun, has become a World.\n\n11. Perhaps it may tend still further to illustrate, and to fix in the\nreader's mind, the view of the constitution of the solar system here\ngiven, if we remark an analogy which exists, in this respect, between\nthe Earth in particular, and the Solar System in general. The earth,\nlike the central parts of the system, is warmed by the sun; and hence,\ndrives off watery vapors into the circumambient space, where they are\ncondensed by the cold. The upper regions of the atmosphere, like the\nouter regions of the solar system, form the vapors thus raised into\nclouds, which are really only water in minute drops; while in the solar\nsystem, the cold of the outer regions, and the rotation of the masses\nthemselves, maintain the water, and the vapor, in immense spheres. But\nJupiter and Saturn may be regarded as, in many respects, immense clouds;\nthe continuous water being collected at their centres, while the more\nairy and looser parts circulate above. They are the permanent\nreceptacles of the superfluous water and air of the system. What is not\nwanted on the Earth, is stored up there, and hangs above us, far removed\nfrom our atmosphere; but yet, like the clouds in our atmosphere, an\nexample, what glorious objects accumulations of vapor and water,\nilluminated by the rays of the sun, may become in our eyes.\n\n12. These views are so different from those hitherto generally\nentertained, and considered as having a sort of religious dignity\nbelonging to them, that we may fear, at first at least, they will appear\nto many, rash and fanciful, and almost, as we have said, irreverent. On\nthe question of reverence we may hereafter say a few words; but as to\nthe rashness of these views, we would beg the reader, calmly and\ndispassionately, to consider the very extraordinary number of points in\nthe solar system, hitherto unexplained, which they account for, or, at\nleast reduce into consistency and connection, in a manner which seems\nwonderful. The Theory, as we may perhaps venture to call it, brings\ntogether all these known phenomena;--the great size and small density of\nthe exterior planets;--their belts and streaks;--Saturn's\nring;--Jupiter's oblateness;--the great number of satellites of the\nexterior planets;--the numerous group of planetoid bodies between\nJupiter and Mars;--the appearance of definite shapes of land and water\non Mars;--the showers of shooting stars which appear at certain periods\nof the year;--the Zodiacal Light;--the appearance of Venus as different\nfrom Mars;--and finally, the material composition of meteoric stones.\n\n13. Perhaps there are other phenomena which more readily find an\nexplanation in this theory, than in any other: for instance, the recent\ndiscovery of a dim half-transparent ring, as an appendage to the\nluminous ring of Saturn, which has hitherto alone been observed. Perhaps\nthis is the ring of vapor which may naturally be expected to accompany\nthe ring of water. It is the annular atmosphere of the aqueous annulus.\nBut, the discovery of this faint ring being so new, and hitherto not\nfully unfolded, we shall not further press the argument, which,\nhereafter, perhaps, may be more confidently derived from its existence.\n\n14. There are some other facts in the Solar System, which, we can hardly\ndoubt, must have a bearing upon the views which we have urged; though we\ncannot yet undertake to explain that bearing fully. Not only do all the\nplanetary bodies of the solar system, as well as the Sun himself,\nrevolve upon their axes; but there is a very curious fact relative to\nthese revolutions, which appears to point out a further connection among\nthem. So far as has yet been ascertained, all those which we, in our\ntheory, regard as solid bodies, Mercury, Venus, the Earth, and Mars,\nrevolve in very nearly the same time: namely, in about twenty-four\nhours. All those larger masses, on the other hand, which we, in our\ntheory, hold to be watery planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, revolve, not\nin a longer time, as would perhaps have been expected, from their\ngreater size, but in a shorter time; in less than half the time; in\nabout ten hours. The near agreement of the times of revolution in each\nof these two groups, is an extremely curious fact; and cannot fail to\nlead our thoughts to the probability of some common original cause of\nthese motions. But no such common cause has been suggested, by any\nspeculator on these subjects. If, in this blank, even of hypotheses, one\nmight be admitted, as at least a mode of connecting the facts, we might\nsay, that the compound collection of solid materials, water, and air, of\nwhich the solar system consists, and of which our earth alone, perhaps,\nretains the combination, being, by whatever means, set a spinning round\nan axis, at the rate of one revolution in 24 hours, the solid masses\nwhich were detached from it, not being liable to much contraction,\nretained their rate of revolution; while the vaporous masses which were\ndetached from the fluid and airy part, contracting much, when they came\ninto a colder region, increased their rate of revolution on account of\ntheir contraction. That such an acceleration of the rate of revolution\nwould be the result of contraction, is known from mechanical principles;\nand indeed, is evident: for the contraction of a circular ring of such\nmatter into a narrower compass, would not diminish the linear velocity\nof its elements, while it would give them a smaller path to describe in\ntheir revolutions. Such an hypothesis would account, therefore, both for\nthe nearly equal times of revolution of all the solid planets, and for\nthe smaller period of rotation, which the larger planets show.\n\n15. In what manner, however, portions are to be detached from such a\nrotating mass, so as to form solid planets on the one side, and watery\nplanets on the other, and how these planets, so detached, are to be made\nto revolve round the Sun, in orbits nearly circular, we have no\nhypothesis ready to explain. And perhaps we may say, that no\nsatisfactory, or even plausible, hypothesis to explain these facts, has\nbeen proposed: for the Nebular Hypothesis, the only one which is likely\nto be considered as worthy any notice on this subject, is too\nimperfectly worked out, as yet, to enable us to know, what it will or\nwill not account for. According to that hypothesis, the nebular matter\nof a system, having originally a rotatory motion, gradually contracts;\nand separating, at various distances from the centre, forms rings; which\nagain, breaking at some point of their circumference, are, by the mutual\nattraction of their parts, gathered up into one mass; which, when\ncooled down, so as to be opaque, becomes a planet; still revolving round\nthe luminous mass which remains at the centre. That such a process, if\nwe suppose the consistency, and other properties, of the nebulous matter\nto be such as to render it possible, would produce planetary masses\nrevolving round a sun in nearly circular orbits, and rotating about\ntheir own axes, seems most likely; though it does not appear that it has\nbeen very clearly shown.[9] But no successful attempt has been made to\ndeduce any laws of the distances from the centre, times of rotation, or\nother properties of such planets; and therefore, we cannot say that the\nnebular hypothesis is yet in any degree confirmed.\n\n16. The Theory which we have ventured to propose, of the Solar System,\nagrees with the Nebular Hypothesis, so far as that hypothesis goes; if\nwe suppose that there is, at the centre of the exterior planets,\nJupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, a solid nucleus, probably small,\nof the same nature as the other planets. Such an addition to our theory\nis, perhaps, on all accounts, probable: for that circumstance would seem\nto determine, to particular points, the accumulation of water and\nvapors, to which we hold that those planets owe the greater part of\ntheir bulk. Those planets then, Jupiter, Saturn, and the others, are\nreally small solid planets, with enormous oceans and atmospheres. The\nNebular Hypothesis, in that case, is that part of our Hypothesis, which\nrelates to the condensation of luminous nebular matter; while _we_\nconsider, further, the causes which, scorching the inner planets, and\ndriving the vapors to the outer orbs, would make the region of the earth\nthe only habitable part of the system.\n\n17. The belief that other planets, as well as our own, are the seats of\nhabitation of living things, has been entertained, in general, not in\nconsequence of physical reasons, but in spite of physical reasons; and\nbecause there were conceived to be other reasons, of another kind,\ntheological or philosophical, for such a belief. It was held that Venus,\nor that Saturn, was inhabited, not because any one could devise, with\nany degree of probability, any organized structure which would be\nsuitable to animal existence on the surfaces of those planets; but\nbecause it was conceived that the greatness or goodness of the Creator,\nor His wisdom, or some other of His attributes, would be manifestly\nimperfect, if these planets were not tenanted by living creatures. The\nevidences of design, of which we can trace so many, and such striking\nexamples, in our own sphere, the sphere of life, must, it was assumed,\nexist, in the like form, in every other part of the universe. The\ndisposition to regard the Universe in this point of view, is very\ngeneral; the disinclination to accept any change in our belief which\nseems, for a time, to interfere with this view, is very strong; and the\nattempt to establish the necessity of new views discrepant from these\nhas, in many eyes, an appearance as if it were unfriendly to the best\nestablished doctrines of Natural Theology. All these apprehensions will,\nwe trust, be shown, in the sequel, to be utterly unfounded: and in order\nthat any such repugnance to the doctrines here urged, may not linger in\nthe reader's mind, we shall next proceed to contemplate the phenomena of\nthe universe in their bearing upon such speculations.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Other speculators also have regarded Saturn's Ring as a ring of\ncloud or water. See _Cosmos_, III. 527 and 553.\n\n[2] Humboldt has already remarked _(Cosmos_, I. 95, and III. 427), that\nthe inner planets as far as Mars, and the outer ones beginning with\nJupiter, form two groups having different properties. Also Encke. (See\nHumboldt's Note.)\n\n[3] Printed Oct. 19, 1853.\n\n[4] Herschel, 540.\n\n[5] It is probable, from the small density of Jupiter's satellites, that\nthey also consist in a great measure of water and vapor. Only one of\nthem is denser than Jupiter himself.--_Cosmos_.\n\n[6] It has, in our own day, even in the present year, been regarded as a\ngreat achievement of man to direct the fiery influences which he can\ncommand, so as to cast a colossal statue in a single piece, instead of\ncasting it in several portions.\n\n[7] Herschel, 900-905.\n\n[8] Herschel, 901.\n\n[9] Besides the curious relation of the times of rotation of the\nplanets, just noticed, there is another curious relation, of their\ndistance from the Sun, which any one, wishing to frame an hypothesis on\nthe origin of our Solar System, ought by all means to try to account\nfor.\n\nThe distances from the Sun, of the planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars,\nthe Planetoids, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, are nearly as the numbers,\n\n    4, 7, 10, 16, 28, 52, 100, 196:\n\nnow the excesses of each of these numbers above the first are,\n\n    3, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96:\n\na series in which each term (after the first,) is double of the\npreceding one. Hence, the distances of the planets conform to a series\nfollowing this law, (_Bode's law_, as it is termed.) And though the law\nis by no means exact, yet it was so far considered a probable expression\nof a general fact, that the deviation from this law, in the interval\nbetween Mars and Jupiter, was the principal cause which led first to the\nsuspicion of a planet interposed in the seemingly vacant space; and thus\nled to the discovery of the planetoids, which really occupy that region.\nIt is true, that the law is found not to hold, in the case of the\nnewly-discovered planet Neptune; for his distance from the Sun, which\naccording to this law, should be 388, is really only 300, 30 times the\nEarth's distance, instead of 39 times. Still, Bode's law has a\ncomprehensive approximate reality in the Solar System, sufficient to\nmake it a strong recommendation of any hypothesis of the origin of the\nsystem, that it shall account for this law. This, however, the nebular\nhypothesis does not.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN.\n\n\n1. There is no more worthy or suitable employment of the human mind,\nthan to trace the evidences of Design and Purpose in the Creator, which\nare visible in many parts of the Creation. The conviction thus obtained,\nthat man was formed by the wisdom, and is governed by the providence, of\nan intelligent and benevolent Being, is the basis of Natural Religion,\nand thus, of all Religion. We trust that some new lights will be thrown\nupon the traces of Design which the Universe offers, even in the work\nnow before the reader; and as our views, regarding the plan of such\nDesign, are different, in some respects, and especially as relates to\nthe Planets and Stars, from those which have of late been generally\nentertained, it will be proper to make some general remarks, mainly\ntending to show, that the argument remains undisturbed, though the\nphysical theory is changed.\n\n2. It cannot surprise any one who has attended to the history of\nscience, to find that the views, even of the most philosophical minds,\nwith regard to the plan of the universe, alter, as man advances from\nfalsehood to truth: or rather, from very imperfect truth to truth less\nimperfect. But yet such a one will not be disposed to look, with any\nother feeling than profound respect, upon the reasonings by which the\nwisest men of former times ascended from their erroneous views of nature\nto the truth of Natural Religion. It cannot seem strange to us that man\nat any point, and perhaps at every point, of his intellectual progress,\nshould have an imperfect insight into the plan of the Universe; but, in\nthe most imperfect condition of such knowledge, he has light enough from\nit, to see vestiges of the Wisdom and Benevolence of the Creating Deity;\nand at the highest point of his scientific progress, he can probably\ndiscover little more, by the light which physical science supplies. We\ncan hardly hope, therefore, that any new truths with regard to the\nmaterial universe, which may now be attainable, will add very much to\nthe evidence of creative design; but we may be confident, also, that\nthey will not, when rightly understood, shake or weaken such evidence.\nIt has indeed happened, in the history of mankind, that new views of the\nconstitution of the universe, brought to the light by scientific\nresearches, and established beyond doubt, in the conviction of impartial\npersons, have disturbed the thoughts of religious men; because they did\nnot fall in with the view then entertained, of the mode in which God\neffects his purpose in the universe. But in these cases, it soon came to\nbe seen, after a season of controversy, reproach, and alarm, that the\nold argument for design was capable of being translated into the\nlanguage of the new theory, with no loss of force; and the minds of men\nwere gradually tranquillized and pacified. It may be hoped that the\nworld is now so much wiser than it was two or three centuries ago, that\nif any modification of the current arguments for the Divine Attributes,\ndrawn from the aspect of the universe, become necessary, in consequence\nof the rectification of received errors, it will take place without\nproducing pain, fear, or anger. To promote this purpose, we proceed to\nmake a few remarks.\n\n3. The proof of Design, as shown in the works of Creation, is seen most\nclearly, not in mere physical arrangement, but in the structure of\norganized things;--in the constitution of plants and animals. In those\nparts of nature, the evidences of intelligent purpose, of wise\nadaptation, of skilful selection of means to ends, of provident\ncontrivance, are, in many instances, of the most striking kind. Such,\nfor example, are the structure of the human eye, so curiously adapted\nfor its office of seeing; the muscles, cords, and pullies by which the\nlimbs of animals are moved, exceeding far the mechanical ingenuity shown\nin human inventions; the provisions which exist, before the birth of\noffspring, for its sustenance and well-being when it shall have been\nborn;--these are lucid and convincing proofs of an intelligent Creator,\nto which no ordinary mind can refuse its conviction. Nor is the\nevidence, which we here recognize, deprived of its force, when we see\nthat many parts of the structure of animals, though adapted for\nparticular purposes, are yet framed as a portion of a system which does\nnot seem, in its general form, to have any bearing on such purposes.[1]\nThe beautiful contrivances which exist in the skeleton of man, and the\ncontrivances, possessing the same kind of beauty, in the skeleton of a\nsparrow, do not appear to any reasonable person less beautiful, because\nthe skeleton of a man, and of a sparrow, have an agreement, bone for\nbone, for which we see no reason, and which appears to us to answer no\npurpose. The way in which the human hand and arm are made capable of\ntheir infinite variety of use, by the play of the radius and ulna, the\nbones of the wrist and the fingers, is not the less admirable, because\nwe can trace the representatives and rudiments of each of these bones,\nin cases where they answer no such ends;--in the foreleg of the pig, the\nox, the horse, or the seal. The provision for feeding the young\ncreature, which is made, with such bounteous liberality, and such\nopportune punctuality, by the breasts of the mother, has not any doubt\nthrown upon its reality, by the teats of male animals and the paps of\nman, which answer no such purpose. That in these cases there is\nmanifested a wider plan, which does not show any reference to the needs\nof particular cases; as well as peculiar contrivances for the particular\ncases, does not disturb our impression of design in each case. Why\nshould so large a portion of the animal kingdom, intended, as it seems,\nfor such different fields of life and modes of living;--beasts, birds,\nfishes;--still have a skeleton of the same plan, and even of the same\nparts, bone for bone; though many of the parts, in special cases, appear\nto be altogether useless (namely, the vertebrate plan)? We cannot tell.\nOur naturalists and comparative anatomists, it would seem, cannot point\nout any definite end, which is answered by making so many classes of\nanimals on this one vertebrate plan. And since they cannot do this, and\nsince we cannot tell why animals are so made, we must be content to say\nthat we do not know; and therefore, to leave this feature in the\nstructure of animals out of our argument for design. Hence we do not say\nthat the making of beasts, birds, and fishes, on the same vertebrate\nplan, proves design in the Creator, in any way in which we can\nunderstand design. That plan is not of itself a proof of design; it is\nsomething in addition to the proofs of design; a general law of the\nanimal creation, established, it may be, for some other reason. But\nthis common plan being given, we can discern and admire, in every kind\nof animal, the manner in which the common plan is adapted to the\nparticular purpose which the animal's kind of life involves.[2] The\ngeneral law is not all; there is also, in every instance, a special care\nfor the species. The general law may seem, in many cases, to remove\nfurther from us the proof of providential care; by showing that the\nelements of the benevolent contrivance are not provided in the cases\nalone where they are needed, but in others also. But yet this seeming,\nthis obscuration of the evidence of design, by interposing the form of\ngeneral law, cannot last long. If the general law supplies the elements,\nstill a special adaptation is needed to make the elements answer such a\npurpose; and what is this adaptation, but design? The radius and ulna,\nthe carpal and metacarpal bones, are all in the general type of the\nvertebrate skeleton. But does this fact make it the less wonderful, that\nman's arm and hand and fingers should be constructed so that he can make\nand use the spade, the plow, the loom, the pen, the pencil, the chisel,\nthe lute, the telescope, the microscope, and all other instruments? Is\nit not, rather, very wonderful that the bones which are to be found\nrudimentally, in the leg-bone of a horse, or the hoof of an ox, should\nbe capable of such a curious and fertile development and modification?\nAnd is not such development and modification a work, and a proof, of\ndesign and intention in the Creator? And so in other cases. The teats of\nmale animals, the nipples of man, may arise from this, that the general\nplan of the animal frame includes paps, as portions of it; and that the\nframe is so far moulded in the embryo, before the sex of the offspring\nis determined. Be it so. Yet still this provision of paps in the animal\nform in general, has reference to offspring; and the development of\nthat part of the frame, when the sex is determined, is evidence of\ndesign, as clear as it is possible to conceive in the works of nature.\nThe general law is moulded to the special purpose, at the proper stage;\nand this play of general laws, and special contrivances, into each\nother's provinces, though it may make the phenomena a little more\ncomplex, and modify our notion as to the mode of the Creator's working,\nwill not, in philosophical minds, disturb the conviction that there is\ndesign in the special adaptations: besides which, some other feature of\nthe operation of the Creative Mind may be suggested by the prevalence of\ngeneral laws in the Creation.\n\n4. There is, however, one caution suggested by this view. Since,\nbesides, and mixed with the examples of Design which the creation\noffers, there are also results of General Laws, in which we cannot trace\nthe purpose and object of the law; we may fall into error, if we fasten\nupon something which is a result of such mere general laws, and imagine\nthat we can discern its object and purpose. Thus, for instance, we might\npossibly persuade ourselves that we had discovered the use and purpose\nof the teats of male animals; or of the trace of separation into parts\nwhich the leg-bone of a horse offers; or of the false toes of a pig: all\nwhich are, as we have seen, the rudiments of a plan more general than is\ndeveloped in the particular case. And if, when we had made such a\nfancied discovery, it were found that the uses and purposes which we had\nimagined to belong to these parts or features, were not really served by\nthem; at first, perhaps, we might be somewhat disturbed, as having lost\none of the evidences of the design of the Creator, all which are,\nprecious to a reverent mind. But it is not likely that any disturbance\nof a reverent mind on such grounds as this, would continue long, or go\nfar. We should soon come to recollect, how light and precarious,\nperhaps how arbitrary and ill-supported by our real knowledge, were the\ngrounds on which we had assigned such uses to such parts. We should turn\nback from them to the more solid and certain evidences, not shaken, nor\nlikely to be shaken, by any change in prevalent zoological or anatomical\ndoctrines, which those who love to contemplate such subjects habitually\ndwell upon; and, holding ourselves ready to entertain any speculations\nby which the bearing of those general Laws upon Natural Religion could\nbe shown, in such a way as to convince our reason, we should rest in the\nconfident and tranquil persuasion that no success or failure in such\nspeculations could vitally affect our belief in a wise and benevolent\nDeity:--that though additional illustrations of his attributes might be\ninteresting and welcome, no change of our scientific point of view could\nmake his being or action doubtful.\n\n5. This is, it would seem, the manner in which a reasonable and reverent\nman would regard the proof of a Supreme Creator and Governor, which is\nderived from Design, as seen in the organic creation; and the mode in\nwhich such proof would be affected by changes in the knowledge which we\nmay acquire of the general laws by which the organic creation is\nconstituted and governed. And hence, if it should be found to be\nestablished by the researches of the most comprehensive and exact\nphilosophy, that there are, in any province of the universe,\nresemblances, gradations, general laws, indications of the mode in which\none form approaches to another, and seems to pass into and generate\nanother, which tend to obliterate distinctions which at first appeared\nbroad and conspicuous; still the argument, from the design which appears\nin the parts of which we most clearly see the purpose, would not lose\nits force. If, for instance, it should be made apparent, by geological\ninvestigations of the extinct fossil creation, that the animal forms\nwhich have inhabited the earth, have gradually approached to that type\nin which the human form is included, passing from the rudest and most\nimperfect animal organizations, mollusks, or even organic monads, to\nvertebrate animals, to warm-blooded animals, to monkeys, and to men;\nstill, the evidences of design in the anatomy of man are not less\nstriking than they were, when no such gradation was thought of. And what\nis more to the purpose of our argument, the evidences of the peculiar\nnature and destination of man, as shown in other characters than his\nanatomy,--his moral and intellectual nature, his history and\ncapacities,--stand where they stood before; nor is the vast chasm which\nseparates man, as a being with such characters as these latter, from all\nother animals, at all filled up or bridged over.\n\n6. The evidence of design in the inorganic world,--in the relation of\nearth, air, water, heat and light,--is, to most persons, less striking\nand impressive, than it is in the organic creation. But even among these\nmere physical elements of the world, when we consider them with\nreference to living things, we find many arrangements which, on a\nreflective view, excite our admiration, by the beneficial effect, and\nseemingly beneficent purpose. Our condition is furnished with the solid\nearth, on which we stand, and in which we find the materials of man's\nhandiworks; stone and metal, clay and sand;--with the atmosphere which\nwe breathe, and which is the vehicle of oral intercourse between man and\nman;--with revolutions of the sun, by which are brought round the\nsuccessions of day and night, through all their varying lengths, and of\nsummer and winter;--with the clouds above us, which pour upon the earth\ntheir fertilizing showers. All this furniture of the earth, so\nmarvellously adapting it for the abode of living creatures, and\nespecially of man, may well be regarded as a collection of provisions\nfor his benefit:--as _intended_ to do him the good, which they do. Nor\nwould this impression be removed, or even weakened, if we were to\ndiscover that some of these arrangements, instead of being produced by a\nmachinery confined to that single purpose, were only partial results of\na more general plan. For instance; we learn that the varying lengths of\ndays and nights through the year, and the varying declination of the\nsun, are produced, not, as was at first supposed, by the sun moving\nround the earth, in a complex diurnal and annual path, but by the earth\nrevolving in an annual orbit round the sun; while at the same time she\nhas a diurnal rotation about her own axis, which axis, by the laws of\nmechanics, remains always parallel to itself. When we learn that this is\nso, we see that the effect is produced by a mechanical arrangement far\nmore simple than any which the imagination of man had devised; but in\nthis case, the effect is plainly rather an increased admiration at the\nsimplicity of the mechanism, than a wavering belief in the reality of\nthe purpose. In like manner when, instead of supposing water to exist in\na continuous reservoir in a firmament above the earth, and to fall in\nthe earlier and in the latter rain, by some special agency for that\npurpose; men learnt to see that the water in the upper regions of the\nair must exist in clouds and in vapors only, and must fall in showers by\nthe condensing influence of cold currents of air; they needed not to\ncease to admire the kindness of the Creator, in providing the rain to\nwater the earth, and the wind to dry it; although the mechanism by which\nthe effect was produced was of a larger kind than they had before\nimagined. And even if this mechanism extend through the solar system: if\nthe arrangement by which the Earth's atmosphere is the special region in\nwhich there are winds hot and cold, clouds compact or dissolving,--be\nan arrangement which extends its influence to other planets, as well as\nto ours;--if this mixed atmosphere be placed, not only at the meeting\npoint of clear aqueous vapor above, and warmer airs below, but also at\nthe meeting point of a hot central region surrounding the Sun, and a\ncold exterior zone in which water and vapor can exist in immense\ncollected masses, such as are Jupiter and Saturn;--still it would not\nappear, to a reasonable view, that this larger expansion of the\nmachinery by which the effect is produced, makes the machinery less\nremarkable; or can at all tend to diminish the belief that it was\n_intended_ to produce the effect which it does produce. Hot and cold,\nmoist and dry, are constantly mixed together for the support of\nvegetable and animal life; and not the less so, if we believe that,\nthough elements of this kind pervade the whole solar system, it is only\nat the Earth that they are combined so as to foster and nourish living\nthings.\n\n7. But it will perhaps be said, that to suppose the whole Solar System\nto be a machine merely operating for the benefit of the Earth and its\npopulation, is to give to the Earth and its population an importance in\nthe scheme of creation which is quite extravagant and improbable:--it is\nto make the greater orbs, Jupiter and Saturn, minister to the less;\ninstead of having their own purpose, and their own population, which\ntheir size naturally leads us to expect. To this we reply, that, in the\nfirst place, we have shown good reason for believing that the Earth is\nreally the largest dense solid globe which exists in the solar system,\nand that the size of Jupiter and Saturn arises from their being composed\nmainly of water and vapor. And with regard to the difficulty of the\ngreater ministering to the less;--if by _greater_, mere size and extent\nbe understood, it appears to be the universal law of creation, that the\ngreater, in that sense, _should_ minister to the less, when the less\nincludes living things. Even if the planets be all inhabited, the sun,\nwhich is greater far than all of them together, ministers light and heat\nto all of them. Even on this supposition, the vast spaces by which the\nplanets are separated have no use, that we can discern, except to place\nthem at suitable distances from the sun. Even on this supposition, their\nsolid globes within, their atmospheres without are all merely\nsubservient to the benefit of a thin and scattered population on the\nsurface. The space occupied by men and animals on the earth's surface,\neven taking into account the highest buildings and the deepest seas, is\nonly a few hundreds, or a thousand feet. The benefit of this minute\nshell, interrupted in many places for vast distances, everywhere loosely\nand sparsely filled, is ministered to by the solidity and attraction of\na mass below it 20 millions of feet deep; by the influence of an\natmosphere above it 200 thousand feet high at least, and it may be, much\nmore. And this being so, if we increase the depth of the centre 20\nthousand times; if we carry the extreme verge of air and vapor to thirty\ntimes the radius of the earth's orbit from us, how does the construction\nof the machine become more improbable, or the disproportion of its size\nto its purpose more incongruous? Is mere size,--extent of brute matter\nor blank space,--so majestic a thing? Is not infinite space large enough\nto admit of machines of any size without grudging? But if we thus move\nthe centre of the Earth's peopled surface 20 thousand times further off,\nwe reach the Sun. If we carry the limit of air and vapor to the distance\nof 30 times the radius of the Earth's orbit we arrive at Neptune. Are\nthese new numbers monstrous, while the old ones were accepted without\nscruple? Is number such an alarming feature in the description of the\nUniverse? Does not the description of every part and every aspect of it,\npresent us with numbers so large, that wonder and repugnance, on that\nground are long ago exhausted? Surely this is so: and if the evidence\nreally tend to prove to us that all the solar system ministers to the\nearth's population; the mere size of the system, compared with the space\noccupied by the population, will not long stand in the way of the\nreception of such a doctrine.\n\n8. But the objection will perhaps be urged in another form. It will be\nsaid that the other Planets have so many points of resemblance with the\nEarth, that we must suppose their nature and purpose the same. They,\nlike the Earth, revolve in circles round the sun, rotate on their own\naxes, have, several of them, satellites, are opaque bodies, deriving\nlight and probably heat from the sun. To an external spectator of the\nSolar System, they would not be distinguishable from the Earth. Such a\nspectator would never be tempted to guess that the Earth alone, of all\nthese, neither the greatest nor the least, neither the one with the most\nsatellites, nor the fewest, neither the innermost nor the outermost of\nthe planets, is the only one inhabited; or at any rate the only one\ninhabited by an intelligent population. And to this we reply; that the\nlargest of the other planets, if we judge rightly, are _not_ like the\nEarth in one most essential respect, their density; and none of them, in\nhaving a surface consisting of land and water; except perhaps Mars: that\nif the supposed external spectator could see that this was so, he might\nsee that the earth was different from the rest; and he might be able to\nsee the vaporous nature of the outer planets, so that he would no more\nthink of peopling them, than we do, of peopling the grand Alpine ridges\nand vallies which we see in the clouds of a summer-sky.\n\n9. But even if the supposed spectator attended only to the obvious and\nsuperficial resemblances between one of the planets and another, he\nmight still, if he were acquainted with the general economy of the\nUniverse, have great hesitation in inferring that, if one of them were\ninhabited, the others also must be inhabited. For, as we have said, in\nthe plan of creation, we have a profusion of examples, where similar\nvisible structures do not answer a similar purpose; where, so far as we\ncan see, the structure answers no purpose in many cases; but exists, as\nwe may say, for the sake of similarity: the similarity being a general\nLaw, the result, it would seem, of a creative energy, which is wider in\nits operation than the particular purpose. Such examples are, as we have\nsaid, the finger-bones which are packed into the hoofs of a horse, or\nthe paps and nipples of a male animal. Now the spectator, recollecting\nsuch cases might say: I know that the earth is inhabited; no doubt Mars\nand Jupiter are a good deal like the Earth; but are they inhabited? They\nlook like the terrestrial breast of Nature: but are they really nursing\nbreasts? Do they, like that, give food to living offspring? Or are they\nmere images of such breasts? male teats, dry of all nutritive power?\nsports, or rather overworks of nature; marks of a wider law than the\nneeds of Mother Earth require? many sketches of a design, of which only\none was to be executed? many specimens of the preparatory process of\nmaking a Planet, of which only one was to be carried out into the making\nof a World? Such questions might naturally occur to a person acquainted\nwith the course of creation in general; even before he remarked the\nfeatures which tend to show that Jupiter and Saturn, that Venus and\nMercury, have not been developed into peopled worlds, like our Earth.\n\n10. Perhaps it may be said, that to hold this, is to make Nature work in\nvain; to waste her powers; to suppose her to produce the frame work, and\nnot to build; to make the skeleton, and not to clothe it with living\nflesh; to delude us with appearances of analogy and promises of\nfertility, which are fallacious. What can we reply to this?\n\n11. We reply, that to work in vain, in the sense of producing means of\nlife which are not used, embryos which are never vivified, germs which\nare not developed; is so far from being contrary to the usual\nproceedings of nature, that it is an operation which is constantly going\non, in every part of nature. Of the vegetable seeds which are produced,\nwhat an infinitely small proportion ever grow into plants! Of animal\nova, how exceedingly few become animals, in proportion to those that do\nnot; and that are wasted, if this be waste! It is an old calculation,\nwhich used to be repeated as a wonderful thing, that a single female\nfish contains in its body 200 millions of ova, and thus, might, of\nitself alone, replenish the seas, if all these were fostered into life.\nBut in truth, this, though it may excite wonder, cannot excite wonder as\nanything uncommon. It is only one example of what occurs everywhere.\nEvery tree, every plant, produces innumerable flowers, the flowers\ninnumerable seeds, which drop to the earth, or are carried abroad by the\nwinds, and perish, without having their powers unfolded. When we see a\nfield of thistles shed its downy seeds upon the wind, so that they roll\naway like a cloud, what a vast host of possible thistles are there! Yet\nvery probably none of them become actual thistles. Few are able to take\nhold of the ground at all; and those that do, die for lack of congenial\nnutriment, or are crushed by external causes before they are grown. The\nlike is the case with every tribe of plants.[3] The like with every\ntribe of animals. The possible fertility of some kinds of insects is as\nportentous as anything of this kind can be. If allowed to proceed\nunchecked, if the possible life were not perpetually extinguished, the\nmultiplying energies perpetually frustrated, they would gain dominion\nover the largest animals, and occupy the earth. And the same is the\ncase, in different degrees, in the larger animals. The female is stocked\nwith innumerable ovules, capable of becoming living things: of which\nincomparably the greatest number end as they began, mere ovules;--marks\nof mere possibility, of vitality frustrated. The universe is so full of\nsuch rudiments of things, that they far outnumber the things which\noutgrow their rudiments. The marks of possibility are much more numerous\nthan the tale of actuality. The vitality which is frustrated is far more\ncopious than the vitality which is consummated. So far, then, as this\nanalogy goes, if the earth alone, of all the planetary harvest, has been\na fertile seed of creation;--if the terrestrial embryo have alone been\nevolved into life, while all the other masses have remained barren and\ndead:--we have, in this, nothing which we need regard as an\nunprecedented waste, an improbable prodigality, an unusual failure in\nthe operations of nature: but on the contrary, such a single case of\nsuccess among many of failure, is exactly the order of nature in the\nproduction of life. It is quite agreeable to analogy, that the Solar\nSystem, of which the _flowers_ are not many, should have borne but one\n_fertile_ flower. One in eight, or in twice eight, reared into such\nwondrous fertility as belongs to the Earth, is an abundant produce,\ncompared with the result in the most fertile provinces of Nature. And\neven if any number of the Fixed Stars were also found to be barren\nflowers of the sky; objects, however beautiful, yet not sources of life\nor development, we need not think the powers of creation wasted or\nfrustrated, thrown away or perverted. One such fertile result as the\nEarth, with all its hosts of plants and animals, and especially with\nMan, an intelligent being, to stand at the head of those hosts, is a\nworthy and sufficient produce, so far as we can judge of the Creator's\nways by analogy, of all the Universal Scheme.\n\n12. But when we follow this analogy, so far as to speak of the mere\nmaterial mass of a planet as an _embryo world_;--a barren flower;--a\nseed which has never been developed into a plant;--we are in danger of\nallowing the analogy to mislead us. For a planet, as to its brute mass,\nhas really nothing in common with a seed or an embryo. It has no\norganization, or tendency to organization; no principle of life, however\nobscure. So far as we can judge, no progress of time, or operation of\nmere natural influence, would clothe a brute mass with vegetables, or\nstock it with animals. No species of living thing would have its place\nupon the surface; by the mere order of unintelligent nature. So much is\nthis so, according to all that our best knowledge teaches, that those\ngeologists who must most have desired, for the sake of giving\ncompleteness and consistency to their systems, to make the production of\nvegetable and animal species from brute matter, a part of the order of\nnature, (inasmuch as they have explained everything else by the order of\nnature,) have not ventured to do so. They allow, generally at least,\neach separate species to require a special act of creative power, to\nbring it into being. They make the peopling of the earth, with its\nsuccessive races of inhabitants, a series of events altogether different\nfrom the operation of physical laws in the sustentation of existing\nspecies. The creation of life is, they allow, something out of the\nrange of the ordinary laws of nature. And therefore, when we speak of\nuninhabited planets, as cases in which vital tendencies have been\ndefeated; in which their apparent destiny, as worlds of life, has been\nfrustrated; we really do injustice to our argument. The planets had no\nvital tendencies: they could have had such given, only by an additional\nact, or a series of additional acts, of Creative power. As mere inert\nglobes, they had no settled destiny to be seats of life: they could have\nsuch a destiny, only by the appointment of Him who creates living\nthings, and puts them in the places which he chooses for them. If, when\na planetary mass had come into being, (in virtue of the same general\nphysical law, suppose, which produced the earth,) the Creator placed a\nhost of living things upon the earth, and none upon the other planet;\nthere was still no violation of analogy, no seeming change of purpose,\nno unfinished plan. In the solar system, we can see what seem to be good\nreasons why he did this; but if we could not see such reasons, still we\nshould be yet further from being able to see reasons why he necessarily\nmust place inhabitants upon the other planet.\n\n13. It is sometimes said, that it is agreeable to the goodness of God,\nthat all parts of the creation should swarm with life; that life is\nenjoyment; and that the benevolence of the Supreme Being is shown in the\ndiffusion of such enjoyment into every quarter of the universe. To leave\na planet without inhabitants, would, it is thought, be to throw away an\nopportunity of producing happiness. Now we shall not here dwell upon the\nconsideration, that the enjoyment thus spoken of, is, in a great degree,\nthe enjoyment which the mere life of the lower tribes of animals\nimplies;--the enjoyment of madrepores and oysters, cuttle-fish and\nsharks, tortoises and serpents; but we reply more broadly, that it is\nnot the rule followed by the Creator, to fill all places with living\nthings. To say nothing of the vast intervals between planet and planet,\nwhich, it is presumed, no one supposes to be occupied by living things;\nhow large a portion of the surface of the earth is uninhabited, or\ninhabited only in the scantiest manner. Vast desert tracts exist in\nAfrica and in Asia, where the barren sand nourishes neither animal nor\nvegetable life. The highest regions of mountain-ranges, clothed with\nperpetual snow, and with far-reaching sheets of glacier ice, are\nuntenanted, except by the chamois at their outskirts. There are many\nuninhabited islands; and were formerly many more. The ocean, covering\nnearly three-fourths of the globe, is no seat of habitation for land\nanimals or for man; and though it has a large population of the fishy\ntribes, is probably peopled in smaller numbers than if it were land, as\nwell as by inferior orders. We see, in the Earth then, which is the only\nseat of life of which we really know anything, nothing to support the\nbelief that every field in the material universe is tenanted by living\ninhabitants.\n\n14. That vegetables and animals, being once placed upon the earth, have\nmultiplied or are multiplying, so as to occupy every part of the land\nand water which is suited for their habitation, we can see much reason\nto believe. Philosophical natural-historians have been generally led to\nthe conviction that each species has had an original centre of\ndispersion, where it was first native, and that from this centre it has\nbeen diffused in all directions, as far as the circumstances of climate\nand soil were favorable to its production. But we can see also much\nreason to believe that this general diffusion of vegetable and animal\nlife from centres, is a part of the order of nature which may often be\nmade to give way to other and higher purposes;--to the diffusion, over\nthe whole surface of the earth, of a race of intelligent, moral agents.\nThis process may often interfere with the general law of diffusion: as\nfor instance, when man exterminates noxious animals. And whatever may be\nthe laws which tend to replenish the earth, on which such centres of the\ndiffusion of life exist for animals and plants; according to all\nanalogy, these laws can have no force on any other planet, till such\norigins and centres of life are established on their surfaces. And even\nif any of the species which have ever tenanted the earth were so\nestablished on any other planet, we have the strongest reason to believe\nthat they could not survive to a second generation.\n\n15. Perhaps it may be said that we unjustifiably limit the power and\nskill of the Supreme Creator, if we deny that he could frame creatures\nfitted to live on any of the other planets, as well as in the\nEarth:--that the wonderful variety, and unexpected resource, of the ways\nin which animals are adapted for all kinds of climates, habitations, and\nconditions, upon the earth, may give us confidence that, under\nconditions still more extended, in habitations still further removed, in\nclimates going beyond the terrestrial extremes, still the same wisdom\nand skill may well be supposed to have devised possible modes of animal\nlife.\n\n16. To this we reply, that we are so far from saying that the Creator\ncould not place inhabitants in the other planets, that we have attempted\nto show what kind of inhabitants would be most likely to be placed\nthere, by considering the way in which animals are accommodated to\nspecial conditions in their habitation. In judging of such modes of\naccommodating animals to an abode on other planets, as well as the\nearth, we have reasoned from what we know, of the mode in which animals\nare accommodated to their different habitations on the earth. We believe\nthis to be the only safe and philosophical way of treating the question.\nIf we are to reason at all about the possibility of animal life, we\nmust suppose that heat and light, gravity and buoyancy, materials and\naffinities, air and moisture, produce the same effect, require the same\nadaptations, in Jupiter or in Venus, as they do on the Earth. If we do\nnot suppose this, we run into the error which so long prevented many\nfrom accepting the Newtonian system:--the error of thinking that matter\nin the heavens is governed by quite different laws from matter on the\nearth. We must adopt that belief, if we hold that animals may live under\nrelations of heat and moisture, materials and affinities, in Jupiter or\nVenus, under which they could not live on our planet. And that belief,\nas we have said, appears to us contrary to all the teaching which the\nhistory of science offers us.\n\n17. And not only is it contrary to the teaching of the history of\nscience, to suppose the laws, which connect elemental and organic\nnature, to be different in the other planets from what they are on ours;\nbut moreover the supposition would not at all answer the purpose, of\nmaking it probable that the planets are inhabited. For if we begin to\nimagine new and unknown laws of nature for those abodes, what is there\nto limit or determine our assumptions in any degree? What extravagant\nmixtures of the attributes and properties of mind and matter may we not\nthen accept as probable truths? We know how difficult the poets have\nfound it to describe, with any degree of consistency, the actions and\nevents of a world of angels, or of evil spirits, souls or shades,\nembodied in forms so as to admit of description, and yet not subject to\nthe laws of human bodies. Virgil, Tasso, Milton, Klopstock, and many\nothers, have struggled with this difficulty:--no one of them, it will be\nprobably agreed, with any great success; at least, regarding his\nrepresentation as a hypothesis of a possible form of life, different\nfrom all the forms which we know. Yet if we are to reject the laws\nwhich govern the known forms of life, in order that we may be able to\nmaintain the possibility of some unknown form in a different planet, we\nmust accept some of these hypotheses, or find a better. We must suppose\nthat weight and cohesion, wounds and mutilations, wings and plumage,\nwould have, either the effect which the poets represent them as having,\nor some different effect: and in either case it will be impossible to\ngive any sufficient reason why we should confine the population to the\nsurface of a planet. If gravity have not, upon any set of beings, the\neffect which it has upon us, such beings may live upon the surface of\nSaturn, though it be mere vapor: but then, on that supposition, they may\nequally well live in the vast space between Saturn and Jupiter, without\nneeding any planet for their mansion. If we are ready to suppose that\nthere are, in the solar system, conscious beings, not subject to the\nordinary laws of life, we may go on to imagine creatures constituted of\nvaporous elements, floating in the fiery haze of a nebula, or close to\nthe body of a sun; and cloudy forms which soar as vapors in the region\nof vapor. But such imaginations, besides being rather fitted for the\nemployment of poets than of philosophers, will not, as we have said,\nfind a population for the planets; since such forms may just as easily\nbe conceived swimming round the sun in empty space, or darting from star\nto star, as confining themselves to the neighborhood of any of the solid\nglobes which revolve about the central sun.\n\n18. We should not, then add anything to the probability of inhabitants\non the other planets of our system, even if we were arbitrarily to\nassume unlimited changes in the laws of nature, when we pass from our\nregion to theirs. But probably, all readers will be of opinion that such\nassumptions are contrary to the whole scheme and spirit of such\nspeculations as we are here presuming:--that if we speculate on such\nsubjects at all, it must be done by supposing that the same laws of\nnature operate in the same manner, in planetary, as in terrestrial\nspaces;--and that as we suppose, and prove, gravity and attraction,\ninertia and momentum, to follow the same rules, and produce the same\neffects, on brute matter there, which they do here; so, both these\nforces, and others, as light and heat, moisture and air, if, in the\nplanets, they go beyond the extremes which limit them here, yet must\nimply, in any organized beings which exist in the planets, changes,\nthough greater in amount, of the same kind as those which occur in\napproaching the terrestrial extremes of those elementary agents. And\nwhat kind of a population that would lead us to suppose in Jupiter or\nSaturn, Mars or Venus, the reader has already seen our attempt to\ndetermine; and may thence judge whether, when we go so far beyond the\nterrestrial extremes of heat and cold, light and dimness, vapor and\nwater, air and airlessness, any population at all is probable.\n\n19. Perhaps some persons, even if they cannot resist the force of these\nreasons, may still yield to them with regret; and may feel as if, having\nhitherto believed that the planets were inhabited, and having now to\ngive up that belief, their view of the solar system, as one of the\nprovinces of God's creation, were made narrower and poorer than it was\nbefore. And this feeling may be still further increased, if they are led\nto believe also that many of the fixed stars are not the centres of\ninhabited systems; or that very few, or none are. It may seem to them,\nas if, by such a change of belief, the field of God's greatness,\nbenevolence, and government, were narrowed and impoverished, to an\nextent painful and shocking;--as if, instead of being the Maker and\nGovernor of innumerable worlds, of the most varied constitution, we were\ncalled upon to regard him as merely the Master of the single world in\nwhich we live:--as if, instead of being the object of reverence and\nadoration to the intelligent population of these thousand spheres, he\nwas recognized and worshipped on one only, and on that, how scantily and\nimperfectly!\n\n20. It is not to be denied that there may be such a regret and\ndisturbance naturally felt at having to give up our belief that the\nplanets and the stars probably contain servants and worshippers of God.\nIt must always be a matter of pain and trouble, to be urged with\ntenderness, and to be performed in time, to untwine our reverential\nreligious sentiments from erroneous views of the constitution of the\nuniverse with which they have been involved. But the change once made,\nit is found that religion is uninjured, and reverence undiminished. And\ntherefore we trust that the reader will receive with candor and patience\nthe argument which we have to offer with reference to this view, or\nrather, this sentiment.\n\n21. We remark, in the first place, that however repugnant it may be to\nus to believe a state of any part of the universe in which there are not\ncreatures who can know, obey and worship God; we are compelled, by\ngeological evidence, to admit that such a state of things has existed\nupon the earth, during a far longer period than the whole duration of\nman's race. If we suppose that the human race, if not by their actual\nknowledge, obedience, and worship of God, yet at least by their\nfaculties for knowing, obeying, and worshipping, are a sufficient reason\nwhy there should be such a province in God's empire; still in fact, this\nrace has existed only for a few thousand years, out of the, perhaps,\nmillions of years of the earth's existence; and during all the previous\nperiod, the earth, if tenanted, was tenanted by brute creatures, fishes\nand lizards, beasts and birds, of which none had any faculty,\nintellectual, moral, or religious. By the same analogy, therefore, on\nwhich we have already insisted, we may argue that there is reason to\nbelieve, that if other planets, and other stars, are the seats of\nhabitation, it is rather of such habitation as has prevailed upon the\nearth during the millions, than during the six thousand years; and that\nif we have, in consequence of physical reasons, to give up the belief of\na population in the other planets, or in the stars; we are giving up,\nnot anything with which we might dwell with religious pleasure--hosts of\nfellow-servants and fellow-worshippers of the Divine Author of all:--but\nthe mere brute tribes, of the land and of the water, things that creep\nand crawl, prowl and spring;--none that can lift its visage to the sky,\nwith a feeling that it is looking for its Maker and Master. There have\nnot existed upon the Earth, during the immense ages of its praehuman\nexistence, beings who could recognize and think of the Creator of the\nworld: and if astronomy introduces us, as geology has done, to a new\norder of material structures, thus barren of an intelligent and\nreligious population, we must learn to accept the prospect, in the one\ncase, as in the other. Nor need we fear that on a further contemplation\nof the universe, we shall find every part of it ministering, though\nperhaps not in the way our first thoughts had guessed, to sentiments of\nreverence and adoration towards the Maker of the universe.\n\n22. The truth is, as the slightest recollection of the course of opinion\nabout the stars may satisfy us, that men have had repeatedly to give up\nthe notions which they had adopted, of the manner in which the material\nheavens, the stars and the skies, are to minister to man's feeling of\nreverence for the Creator. It was long ago said, that the heavens\ndeclare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork: that\nday and night, sun and moon, clouds and stars, unite in impressing upon\nus this sentiment. And this language still finds a sympathetic echo, in\nthe breasts of all religious persons. Nor will it ever cease to do so,\nhowever our opinions of the structure and nature of the heavenly bodies\nmay alter. When the new aspects of things become familiar, they will\nshow us the handiwork of God, and declare his glory, as plainly as the\nold ones. But in the progress of opinions, man has often had to resign\nwhat seemed to him, at the time, visions so beautiful, sublime, and\nglorious, that they could not be dismissed without regret. The Universal\nLord was at one time conceived as directing the motions of all the\nspheres by means of Ruling Angels, appointed to preside over each. The\nprevalence of proportion and number, in the dimensions of these spheres,\nwas assumed to point to the existence of harmonious sounds, accompanying\ntheir movements, though unheard by man; as proportion and number had\nbeen found to be the accompaniments and conditions of harmony upon\nearth. The time came, when these opinions were no longer consistent with\nman's knowledge of the heavenly motions, and of the wide-spreading\ncauses by which they are produced. Then \"Ruling Angels from their\nspheres were hurled,\" as a matter of belief; though still the poets\nloved to refer to imagery in which so many lofty and reverent thoughts\nhad so long been clothed. The aspect of the stars was most naturally\nturned to a lesson of cheerful and thoughtful piety, by the adoption of\nsuch a view of their nature and office; and thus, the midnight\ncontemplator of an Italian sky teaches his companion concerning the\nstarry host;\n\n    Sit, Jessica; look how the floor of heav'n\n    Is thick inlaid with patterns of bright gold.\n    There's not the meanest orb, which thou behold'st,\n    But in his motion like an angel sings,\n    Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubims;\n    Such harmony is in immortal souls.\n\nmeaning, apparently, the harmony between the immortal spirits that\ngovern each star, and the cherubims that sing before the throne of God.\nBut however beautiful and sublime may be this representation, the\nphilosopher has had to abandon it in its literal sense. He may have\nadopted, instead, the opinion that each of the stars is the seat, or the\ncentre of a group of seats, of choirs of worshippers; but this again, is\nstill to suppose the nature of those orbs to be entirely different from\nthat of this earth; though in many respects, we know that they are\ngoverned by the same laws. And if he will be content to know no more\nthan he has the means of knowing, or even to know only according to his\nbest means of knowing, he must be prepared, if the force of proof so\nrequires, to give up this belief also; at least for the present.\n\n23. Indeed, those who have not been content with this, and have sought\nto combine with the visible splendor of the skies, some scheme, founded\nupon astronomical views, which shall people them with intelligent beings\nand worshippers, have drawn upon their fancy quite as much as Lorenzo in\nhis lesson to Jessica; or rather, they have done what he and those from\nwhom his love was derived, had done before. They have taken the truths\nwhich astronomers have discovered and taught, and made the objects and\nregions so revealed, the scenes and occasions of such sentiments of\npiety as they themselves have, or feel that they ought to have. Even in\nShakspeare, the stars are already _orbs_, each orb has his _motion_, and\nin his motion produces the music of the spheres. More recent preachers,\nfollowing sounder views of the nature of these orbs and motions, have\nbeen equally poetical when they come to their religious reflection. When\nthe poet of the _Night Thoughts_ says,\n\n    \"Each of these stars is a religious house;\n    I saw their altars smoke, their incense rise,\n    And heard hosannas ring through every sphere.\"\n\nhe is no less imaginative than the poet of that _Midsummer Night's\nDream_, which we have in the _Merchant of Venice_. And we are compelled,\nby all the evidence which we can discern, to say the same of the\npreacher who speaks, from the pulpit, of these orbs of worlds, and tells\nus of the stars which \"give animation to other systems[4];\" when he\nsays[5] \"worlds roll in these distant regions; and these worlds must be\nthe centres of life and intelligence;\" when he speaks of the earth[6] as\n\"the humblest of the provinces of God's empire.\" But then we must\nrecollect that these thoughts still prove the religious nature of man;\nthey show how he is impelled to endeavor to elevate his mind to God by\nevery part of the universe; and it is not too much to say, that through\nthe faculties of man, thus regarding the starry heavens, every star does\nreally testify to the greatness of God, and minister to His worship.\n\n24. We may trust that this mere material magnificence does not require\ninhabitants, to make it lift man's heart towards the Universal Creator,\nand to make him accept it as a sublime evidence of His greatness. The\ngrandest objects in nature are blank and void of life;--the\nmountain-peaks that stand, ridge beyond ridge, serene in the region of\nperpetual snow;--the summer-clouds, images of such mountain tracts, even\nupon a grander scale, and tinted with more gorgeous colors;--the\nthunder-cloud with its dazzling bolt;--the stormy ocean with its\nmountainous waves;--the Aurora Borealis, with its mysterious pillars of\nfire;--all these are sublime; all these elevate the soul, and make it\nacknowledge a mighty Worker in the elements, in spite of any teaching of\na material philosophy. And if we have to regard the planets as merely\nparts of the same great spectacle of nature, we shall not the less\nregard them with an admiration which ministers to pious awe. Even merely\nas a spectacle, Saturn made visible in his real shape, only by a vast\nexertion of human skill, yet shining like a star, in form so curiously\ncomplex, symmetrical and seemingly artificial, will never cease to be an\nobject of the ardent and contemplative gaze of all who catch a sight of\nhim. And however much the philosopher may teach that he is merely a mass\nof water and vapor, ice and snow, he must be far more interesting to the\neye than the Alps, or the clouds that crown them, or the ocean with its\nicebergs; where the same elements occur in forms comparatively shapeless\nand lawless, irregular and chaotic.\n\n25. But perhaps there is in the minds of many persons, a sentiment\nconnected with this regular and symmetrical form of the heavenly bodies;\nthat being thus beautifully formed and finished they must have been the\nobjects of especial care to the Creator. These regular globes, these\nnearly circular orbits, these families of satellites, they too so\nregular in their movements; this ring of Saturn; all the adjustments by\nwhich the planetary motions are secured from going wrong, as the\nprofoundest researches into the mechanics of the universe show;--all\nthese things seem to indicate a peculiar attention bestowed by the Maker\non each part of the machine. So much of law and order, of symmetry and\nbeauty in every part, implies, it may be thought, that every part has\nbeen framed with a view to some use;--that its symmetry and its beauty\nare the marks of some noble purpose.\n\n26. To reply to this argument, so far as it is requisite for us to do\nso, we must recur to what we have already said; that though we see in\nmany parts of the universe, inorganic as well as organic, marks which we\ncannot mistake, of design and purpose; yet that this design and purpose\nare often effected by laws which are of a much wider sweep than the\ndesign, so far as we can trace its bearing. These laws, besides\nanswering the purpose, produce many other effects, in which we can see\nno purpose. We have now to observe further that these laws, thus ranging\nwidely through the universe, and working everywhere, as if the Creator\ndelighted in the generality of the law, independently of its special\napplication, do often produce innumerable results of beauty and\nsymmetry, as if the Creator delighted in beauty and symmetry,\nindependently of the purpose answered.\n\n27. Thus, to exemplify this reflection: the powers of aggregation and\ncohesion, which hold together the parts of solid bodies, as metals and\nstones, salts and ice,--which solidify matter, in short,--we can easily\nsee, to be necessary, in order to the formation and preservation of\nsolid terrestrial bodies. They are requisite, in order that man may have\nthe firm earth to stand upon, and firm materials to use. But let us\nobserve, what a wonderful and beautiful variety of phenomena grows out\nof this law, with no apparent bearing upon that which seems to us its\nmain purpose. The power of aggregation of solid bodies is, in fact, the\nforce of crystallization. It binds together the particles of bodies by\nmolecular forces, which not only hold the particles together, but are\nexerted in special directions, which form triangles, squares, hexagons,\nand the like. And hence we have all the variety of crystalline forms\nwhich sparkle in gems, ores, earths, pyrites, blendes; and which, when\nexamined by the crystallographers, are found to be an inexhaustible\nfield of the play of symmetrical complexity. The diamond, the emerald,\nthe topaz, have got each its peculiar kind of symmetry. Gold and other\nmetals have, for the basis of their forms, the cube, but run from this\ninto a vastly greater variety of regular solids than ever geometer\ndreamt of. Some single species of minerals, as calc-spar, present\nhundreds of forms, all rigorously regular, and have been alone the\nsubject of volumes. Ice crystallizes by the same laws as other solid\nbodies; and our Arctic voyagers have sometimes relieved the weariness of\ntheir sojourn in those regions, by collecting some of the innumerable\nforms, resembling an endless collection of hexagonal flowers, sporting\ninto different shapes, which are assumed by flakes of snow[7]. In these\nand many other ways, the power of crystallization produces an\ninexhaustible supply of examples of symmetrical beauty. And what are we\nto conceive to be the object and purpose of this? As we have said, that\npart of the purpose which is intelligible to us is, that we have here a\nforce holding together the particles of bodies, so as to make them\nsolid. But all these pretty shapes add nothing to this intelligible use.\nWhy then are they there? They are there, it would seem, for their own\nsake;--because they are pretty;--symmetry and beauty are there on their\nown account; or because they are universal adjuncts of the general laws\nby which the creator works. Or rather we may say, combining different\nbranches of our knowledge, that crystallization is the mark and\naccompaniment of chemical composition: and that as chemical composition\ntakes place according to definite numbers, so crystalline aggregation\ntakes place according to definite forms. The symmetrical relations of\nspace in crystals correspond to the simple relations of number in\nsynthesis; and thus, because there is rule, there is regularity, and\nregularity assumes the form of beauty.\n\n28. This, which thus shows itself throughout the mineral kingdom, or,\nspeaking more widely and truly, throughout the whole range of chemical\ncomposition, is still more manifest in the vegetable domain. All the\nvast array of flowers, so infinitely various, and so beautiful in their\nvariety, are the results of a few general laws; and show, in the degree\nof their symmetry, the alternate operation of one law and another. The\nrose, the lily, the cowslip, the violet, differ in something of the same\nway, in which the crystalline forms of the several gems differ. Their\nparts are arranged in fives or in threes, in pentagons or in hexagons,\nand in these regular forms, one part or another is expanded or\ncontracted, rendered conspicuous by color or by shape, so as to produce\nall the multiplicity of beauty which the florist admires. Or rather, in\nthe eye of the philosophical botanist, the whole of the structure of\nplants, with all their array of stems and leaves, blossoms and fruits,\nis but the manifestation of one Law; and all these members of the\nvegetable form, are, in their natures, the same, developed more or less\nin this way or in that. The daisy consists of a close cluster of flowers\nof which each has, in its form, the rudiments of the valerian. The\npeablossom is a rose, with some of its petals expanded into\nbutterfly-like wings. Even without changing the species, this general\nlaw leads to endless changes. The garden-rose is the common hedge-rose\nwith innumerable filaments changed into glowing petals. By the addition\nof whorl to whorl, of vegetable coronet over coronet, green and colored,\nbroad and narrow, filmy and rigid, every plant is generated, and the\nglory of the field and of the garden, of the jungle and of the forest,\nis brought forth in all its magnificence. Here, then, we have an\nimmeasurable wealth of beauty and regularity, brought to view by the\noperation of a single law. And to what use? What purpose do these\nbeauties answer? What is the object for which the lilies of the field\nare clothed so gaily and gorgeously? Some plants, indeed, are\nsubservient to the use of animals and of man: but how small is the\nnumber in which we can trace this, as an intelligent purpose of their\nexistence! And does it not, in fact, better express the impression which\nthe survey of this province of nature suggests to us, to say, that they\ngrow because the Creator willed that they should grow? Their vegetable\nlife was an object of His care and contrivance, as well as animal and\nhuman life. And they are beautiful, also because He willed that they\nshould be so:--because He delights in producing beauty;--and, as we have\nfurther tried to make it appear, because He acts by general law, and law\nproduces beauty. Is not such a tendency here apparent, as a part of the\ngeneral scheme of Creation?\n\n29. We have already attempted to show, that in the structure of animals,\nespecially that large class best known to us, vertebrate animals, there\nis also a general plan which, so far as we can see, goes beyond the\ncircuit of the special adaptation of each animal to its mode of living:\nand is a rule of creative action, in addition to the rule that the parts\nshall be subservient to an intelligible purpose of animal life. We have\nnoticed several phenomena in the animal kingdom, where parts and\nfeatures appear, rudimentary and inert, discharging no office in their\neconomy, and speaking to us, not of purpose, but of law:--consistent\nwith an end which is visible, but seemingly the results of a rule whose\nend is in itself.\n\n30. And do we not, in innumerable cases, see beauties of color and form,\ntexture and lustre, which suggests to us irresistibly the belief that\nbeauty and regular form are rules of the Creative agency, even when they\nseem to us, looking at the creation for uses only, idle and wanton\nexpenditure of beauty and regularity. To what purpose are the host of\nsplendid circles which decorate the tail of the peacock, more beautiful,\neach of them, than Saturn with his rings? To what purpose the exquisite\ntextures of microscopic objects, more curiously regular than anything\nwhich the telescope discloses? To what purpose the gorgeous colors of\ntropical birds and insects, that live and die where human eye never\napproaches to admire them? To what purpose the thousands of species of\nbutterflies with the gay and varied embroidery of their microscopic\nplumage, of which one in millions, if seen at all, only draws the\nadmiration of the wandering schoolboy? To what purpose the delicate and\nbrilliant markings of shells, which live, generation after generation,\nin the sunless and sightless depths of the ocean? Do not all these\nexamples, to which we might add countless others, (for the world, so far\nas human eye has scanned it, is full of them,) prove that beauty and\nregularity are universal features of the work of Creation, in all its\nparts, small and great: and that we judge in a way contrary to a vast\nrange of analogy, which runs through the whole of the Universe, when we\ninfer that, because the objects which are presented to our contemplation\nare beautiful in aspect and regular in form, they must, in each case, be\nmeans for some special end, of those which we commonly fix upon, as the\nmain ends of the Creation, the support and advantage of animals or of\nman?\n\n31. If this be so, then the beautiful and regular objects which the\ntelescope reveals to us; Jupiter and his Moons, Saturn and his Rings,\nthe most regular of the Double Stars, Clusters and Nebulae; cannot\nreasonably be inferred, because they are beautiful and regular, to be\nalso fields of life, or scenes of thought. They may be, as to the poet's\neye they often appear, the gems of the robe of Night, the flowers of the\ncelestial fields. Like gems and like flowers, they are beautiful and\nregular, because they are brought into being by vast and general laws.\nThese laws, although, in the mind of the Creator, they have their\nsufficient reason, as far as they extend, may have, in no other region\nthan that which we inhabit, the reason which we seek to discover\neverywhere, the sustentation of a life like ours. That we should connect\nwith the existence of such laws, the existence of Mind like our own\nmind, is most natural; and, as we might easily show, is justifiable,\nreasonable, even necessary. But that we should suppose the result of\nsuch laws are so connected with Mind, that wherever the laws gather\nmatter into globes, and whirl it round the central body, _there_ is also\na local seat of minds like ours; is an assumption altogether\nunwarranted; and is, without strong evidence, of which we have as yet no\nparticle, quite visionary.\n\n32. But finally, it may be said that by this our view of the universe,\nwe diminish the greatness of the work of creation, and the majesty of\nthe Creator. Such a view appears to represent the other planets as mere\nfragments, which have flown off in the fabrication of this our earth,\nand of the mechanism by which it answers its purpose. Instead of a vast\narray of completed worlds, we have one world, surrounded by abortive\nworlds and inert masses. Instead of perfection everywhere, we have\nimperfection everywhere, except at one spot; if even there the\nworkmanship be perfect.\n\n33. To this, the reply is contained in what we have already said: but we\nmay add, that it cannot be wise or right, to prop up our notions of\nGod's greatness, by physical doctrines which will not bear discussion.\nGod's greatness has no need of man's inventions for its support. The\nvery conviction that the Creation must be such as to confirm our belief\nin the greatness of God, shows that such a belief is more deeply seated\nthan any special views of the structure of the universe, and will\ntriumphantly survive the removal of error in such views. We may add,\nthat till within a few thousand years, this earth, compared with what it\nnow is, having upon it no intelligent beings, might be regarded as an\nabortive world; that all the parts of the solar system which we can best\nscrutinize, the moon, and meteoric stones, are inert masses; and\nfurther, that there is everywhere the perfection which results from the\noperation of law, and that _that_ seems to be the perfection with which\nthe Creator is contented.\n\n34. And perhaps, when the view of the universe which we here present has\nbecome familiar, we may be led to think that the aspect which it gives\nto the mode of working of the Creator, is sufficiently grand and\nmajestic. Instead of manufacturing a multitude of worlds on patterns\nmore or less similar, He has been employed in one great work, which we\ncannot call imperfect, since it includes and suggests all that we can\nconceive of perfection. It may be that all the other bodies, which we\ncan discover in the universe, show the greatness of this work, and are\nrolled into forms of symmetry and order, into masses of light and\nsplendor, by the vast whirl which the original creative energy imparted\nto the luminous element. The planets and the stars are the lumps which\nhave flown from the potter's wheel of the Great Worker;--the shred-coils\nwhich, in the working, sprang from His mighty lathe:--the sparks which\ndarted from His awful anvil when the solar system lay incandescent\nthereon;--the curls of vapor which rose from the great cauldron of\ncreation when its elements were separated. If even these superfluous\nportions of the material are marked with universal traces of regularity\nand order, this shows that universal rules are his implements, and that\nOrder is the first and universal Law of the heavenly work.\n\n35. And, that we may see the full dignity of this work, we must always\nrecollect that Man is a part of it, and the crowning part. The\nworkmanship which is employed on mere matter is, after all, of small\naccount, in the eyes of intellectual and moral creatures, when compared\nwith the creation and government of intellectual and moral creatures.\nThe majesty of God does not reside in planets and stars, in orbs and\nsystems; which are, after all, only stone and vapor, materials and\nmeans. If, as we believe, God has not only made the material world, but\nhas made and governs man, we need not regret to have to depress any\nportion of the material world below the place which we had previously\nassigned to it; for, when all is done, the material world _must_ be put\nin an inferior place, compared with the world of mind. If there be a\nWorld of Mind, _that_, according to all that we can conceive, must have\nbeen better worth creating, must be more worthy to exist, as an object\nof care in the eyes of the Creator, than thousands and millions of stars\nand planets, even if they were occupied by a myriad times as many\nspecies of brute animals as have lived upon the earth since its\nvivification. In saying this, we are only echoing the common voice of\nmankind, uttered, as so often it is, by the tongues of poets. One such\nspeaks thus of stellar systems:\n\n    Behold this midnight splendor, worlds on worlds;\n    Ten thousand add and twice ten thousand more,\n    Then weigh the whole: one soul outweighs them all,\n    And calls the seeming vast magnificence\n    Of unintelligent creation, poor.\n\nAnd as this is true of intelligence, with the suggestion which that\nfaculty so naturally offers, of the inextinguishable nature of mind, so\nis it true of the moral nature of man. No accumulation of material\ngrandeur, even if it fill the universe, has any dignity in our eyes,\ncompared with moral grandeur: as poetry has also expressed:\n\n    Look then abroad through nature, to the range\n    Of planets, suns, and adamantine spheres,\n    Wheeling unshaken through the void immense,\n    And speak, O man! Can this capacious scene\n    With half that kindling majesty exalt\n    Thy strong conception, as when Brutus rose\n    Refulgent from the stroke of Caesar's fate\n    Amid the band of patriots; and his arm\n    Aloft extending, like eternal Jove\n    When guilt calls down the thunder, call'd aloud\n    On Tully's name, and shook his crimson steel,\n    And bade the Father of his Country, Hail!\n    For lo! the tyrant prostrate in the dust,\n    And Rome again is free.\n\nThis action being taken, as it is here meant to be conceived, for one of\nthe highest examples of moral greatness. And however we may judge of\nthis action, we must allow that the characters which are implied in this\npraise of it,--the loftiest kinds of moral excellence,--are more\nsuitable to the highest idea of the object and purpose of a Deity\ncreating worlds, than would be any mere material structure of planets\nand suns, whether kept in their places by adamantine spheres, wheeling\nunshaken through the void immense, or themselves wheeling unshaken by\nthe power of a universal law. The thoughts of Rights and Obligations,\nDuty and Virtue, of Law and Liberty, of Country and Constitution, of the\nGlory of our Ancestors, the Elevation of our Fellow-Citizens, the\nFreedom and Happiness and Dignity of Posterity,--are thoughts which\nbelong to a world, a race, a body of beings, of which any one\nindividual, with the capacities which such thoughts imply, is more\nworthy of account, than millions of millions of mollusks and belemnites,\nlizards and fishes, sloths and pachyderms, diffused through myriads of\nworlds.\n\n36. We might illustrate this argument further, by taking actions of the\nmoral character of which there will be less doubt. If we look at the\ngreat acts which render Greece illustrious and interesting in our\neyes,--such as the death of Socrates, for instance, the triumph of a\nreverence for Law and a love of country;--can we think it any real\ndiminution of the glory of the universe, if we are reduced to the\nnecessity of rejecting the belief in a multitude of worlds, which\nthough, it may be, peopled with lower animals, contain none endowed with\nany higher principle than hunger and thirst?\n\n37. That the human race possesses a worth in the eyes of Reason beyond\nthat which any material structure, or any brute population can possess,\nmight be maintained on still higher and stronger grounds; namely, on\nreligious grounds: but we do not intend here to dwell on that part of\nthe subject. If man be, not merely (and he alone of all animals) capable\nof Virtue and Duty, of Universal Love and Self-Devotion, but be also\nimmortal; if his being be of infinite duration, his soul created never\nto die; then, indeed, we may well say that one soul outweighs the whole\nunintelligent creation. And if the Earth have been the scene of an\naction of Love and Self-Devotion for the incalculable benefit of the\nwhole human race, in comparison with which the death of Socrates fades\ninto a mere act of cheerful resignation to the common lot of humanity;\nand if this action, and its consequences to the whole race of man, in\nhis temporal and eternal destiny, and in his history on earth before and\nafter it, were the main object for which man was created, the cardinal\npoint round which the capacities and the fortunes of the race were to\nturn; then indeed we see that the Earth has a pre-eminence in the scheme\nof creation, which may well reconcile us to regard all the material\nsplendor which surrounds it, all the array of mere visible luminaries\nand masses which accompany it, as no unfitting appendages to such a\ndrama. The elevation of millions of intellectual, moral, religious,\nspiritual creatures, to a destiny so prepared, consummated, and\ndeveloped, is no unworthy occupation of all the capacities of space,\ntime, and matter. And, so far as any one has yet shown, to regard this\ngreat scheme as other than the central point of the divine plan; to\nconsider it as one part among other parts, similar, co-ordinate, or\nsuperior; involves those who so speculate, in difficulties, even with\nregard to the plan itself, which they strive in vain to reconcile; while\nthe assumption of the subjects of such a plan, in other regions of the\nuniverse, is at variance with all which we, looking at the analogies of\nspace and time, of earth and stars, of life in brutes and in man, have\nfound reason to deem in any degree probable.\n\n38. And thus that conjecture of the Plurality of Worlds, to which a wide\nand careful examination of the physical constitution of the Universe\nsupplied no confirmation, derives also little support from a\ncontemplation of the Design which the Creator may be supposed to have\nhad in the work of the Creation; when such Design is regarded in a\ncomprehensive manner, and in all its bearings. Such a survey seems to\nspeak rather in favor of the Unity of the World, than of a Plurality of\nWorlds. A further consideration of the intellectual, moral, and\nreligious nature of man may still further illustrate this view; and with\nthat object, we shall make a few additional remarks.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] The greatest anatomists, and especially Mr. Owen, have recently\nexpressed their conviction, that researches on the structure of animals\nmust be guided by the principle of _unity of composition_ as well as the\nprinciple of _final causes_. See Owen _On the Nature of Limbs_.\n\n[2] This has been termed by physiologists _The Law of the Development\nfrom the General to the Special_.\n\n[3] Every reader of physiological works knows how easy it would be to\nmultiply examples of this kind to any extent. Thus it is held by\nphysiologists, that the sporules of fungi are universally diffused\nthrough the atmosphere, ready to vegetate whenever an opportunity\npresents itself: and that a single individual produces not less than ten\nmillions of germs. It is held also that innumerable seeds of plants\nstill capable of vegetation, lie in strata far below the earth's\nsurface, finding the occasion to vegetate only by the rarest and most\nexceptional occurrences.--Carpenter, _Manual of Physiology_. 1851, Art.\n44.\n\n[4] Chalmers, p. 35.\n\n[5] Ibid. p. 21\n\n[6] Ibid. p. 119.\n\n[7] Dr. Scoresby, in his _Account of the Arctic Regions_ (1820) Vol. II.\nhas given figures of 96 such forms, selected for their eminent\nregularity from many more.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE WORLD.\n\n\n1. The two doctrines which we have here to weigh against each other are\nthe Plurality of Worlds, and the Unity of the World. In so saying, we\ninclude in our present view, a necessary part of the conception of a\n_World_, a collection of intelligent creatures: for even if the\nsuppositions to which we have been led, respecting the kind of\nunintelligent living things which may inhabit other parts of the\nUniverse, be conceived to be probable; such a belief will have little\ninterest for most persons, compared with the belief of other worlds,\nwhere reside intelligence, perception of truth, recognition of moral\nLaw, and reverence for a Divine Creator and Governor. In looking\noutwards at the Universe, there are certain aspects which suggest to\nman, at first sight, a conjecture that there may be other bodies like\nthe Earth, tenanted by other creatures like man. This conjecture,\nhowever, receives no confirmation from a closer inquiry, with increased\nmeans of observation. Let us now look inwards, at the constitution of\nman; and consider some characters of his nature, which seem to remove or\nlessen the difficulties which we may at first feel, in regarding the\nEarth as, in a unique and special manner, the field of God's Providence\nand Government.\n\n2. In the first place, the Earth, as the abode of man, the intellectual\ncreature, contains a being, whose mind is, in some measure, of the same\nnature as the Divine Mind of the Creator. The Laws which man discovers\nin the Creation must be Laws known to God. The truths,--for instance the\ntruths of geometry,--which man sees to be true, God also must see to be\ntrue. That there were, from the beginning, in the Creative Mind,\nCreative Thoughts, is a doctrine involved in every intelligent view of\nCreation.\n\n3. This doctrine was presented by the ancients in various forms; and the\nmost recent scientific discoveries have supplied new illustrations of\nit. The mode in which Plato expressed the doctrine which we are here\nurging was, that there were in the Divine Mind, before or during the\nwork of creation, certain archetypal Ideas, certain exemplars or\npatterns of the world and its parts, according to which the work was\nperformed: so that these Ideas or Exemplars existed in the objects\naround us being in so many cases discernible by man, and being the\nproper objects of human reason. If a mere metaphysician were to attempt\nto revive this mode of expressing the doctrine, probably his\nspeculations would be disregarded, or treated as a pedantic\nresuscitation of obsolete Platonic dreams. But the adoption of such\nlanguage must needs be received in a very different manner, when it\nproceeds from a great discoverer in the field of natural knowledge: when\nit is, as it were, forced upon _him_, as the obvious and appropriate\nexpression of the result of the most profound and comprehensive\nresearches into the frame of the whole animal creation. The recent works\nof Mr. Owen, and especially one work, _On the Nature of Limbs_, are full\nof the most energetic and striking passages, inculcating the doctrine\nwhich we have been endeavoring to maintain. We may take the liberty of\nenriching our pages with one passage bearing upon the present part of\nthe subject.\n\n\"If the world were made by any antecedent Mind or Understanding, that\nis by a Deity, then there must needs be an Idea and Exemplar of the\nwhole world before it was made, and consequently actual knowledge, both\nin the order of Time and Nature, before Things. But conceiving of\nknowledge as it was got by their own finite minds, and ignorant of any\nevidence of an ideal Archetype for the world or any part of it, they\n[the Democritic Philosophers who denied a Divine Creative Mind] affirmed\nthat there was none, and concluded that there could be no knowledge or\nmind before the world was, as its cause.\" Plato's assertion of\nArchetypal Ideas was a protest against this doctrine, but was rather a\nguess, suggested by the nature of mathematical demonstration, than a\ndoctrine derived from a contemplation of the external world.\n\n\"Now however,\" Mr. Owen continues, \"the recognition of an ideal exemplar\nfor the vertebrated animals proves that the knowledge of such a being as\nMan must have existed before Man appeared. For the Divine Mind which\nplanned the Archetypal also foreknew all its modifications. The\nArchetypal Idea was manifested in the flesh under divers modifications\nupon this planet, long prior to the existence of those animal species\nwhich actually exemplify it. To what natural or secondary causes the\norderly succession and progression of such organic phenomena may have\nbeen committed, we are as yet ignorant. But if without derogation to the\nDivine Power, we may conceive such ministers and personify them by the\nterm _Nature_, we learn from the past history of our globe that she has\nadvanced with slow and stately steps, guided by the archetypal light\namidst the wreck of worlds, from the first embodiment of the vertebrate\nidea, under its old ichthyic vestment, until it became arrayed in the\nglorious garb of the human form.\"\n\n4. Law implies a Lawgiver, even when we do not see the object of the\nLaw; even as Design implies a Designer, when we do not see the object of\nthe Design. The Laws of Nature are the indications of the operation of\nthe Divine Mind; and are revealed to us, as such, by the operations of\nour minds, by which we come to discover them. They are the utterances of\nthe Creator, delivered in language which we can understand; and being\nthus Language, they are the utterances of an Intelligent Spirit.\n\n5. It may seem to some persons too bold a view, to identify, so far as\nwe thus do, certain truths as seen by man, and as seen by God:[1]--to\nmake the Divine Mind thus cognizant of the truths of geometry, for\ninstance. If any one has such a scruple, we may remark that truth, when\nof so luminous and stable a kind as are the truths of geometry, must be\nalike _Truth_ for all minds, even for the highest. The mode of arriving\nat the knowledge of such truths, may be very different, even for\ndifferent human minds;--deduction for some;--intuition for others. But\nthe intuitive apprehension of necessary truth is an act so purely\nintellectual, that even in the Supreme Intellect, we may suppose that it\nhas its place. Can we conceive otherwise, than that God does contemplate\nthe universe as existing in space, since it really does so;--and subject\nto the relations of space, since these are as real as space itself? We\nare well aware that the Supreme Being must contemplate the world under\nmany other aspects than this;--even man does so. But that does not\nprevent the truths, which belong to the aspect of the world,\ncontemplated as existing in space, from being truths, regarded as such,\neven by the Divine Mind.\n\n6. If these reflections are well founded, as we trust they will, on\nconsideration, be seen to be, we may adopt many of the expressions by\nwhich philosophers heretofore have attempted to convey similar views;\nfor in fact, this view, in its general bearing at least, is by no means\nnew. The Mind of Man is a partaker of the thoughts of the Divine Mind.\nThe Intellect of Man is a spark of the Light by which the world was\ncreated. The Ideas according to which man builds up his knowledge, are\nemanations of the archetypal Ideas according to which the work of\ncreation was planned and executed. These, and many the like expressions,\nhave been often used; and we now see, we may trust, that there is a\ngreat philosophical truth, which they all tend to convey; and this truth\nshows at the same time, how man may have some knowledge respecting the\nLaws of Nature, and how this knowledge may, in some cases, seem to be a\nknowledge of necessary relations, as in the case of space.[2]\n\n7. Now, the views to which we have been led, bear very strongly upon\nthat argument. For if man, when he attains to a knowledge of such laws,\nis really admitted, in some degree, to the view with which the Creator\nhimself beholds his creation;--if we can gather, from the conditions of\nsuch knowledge, that his intellect partakes of the Nature of the Supreme\nIntellect;--if his Mind, in its clearest and largest contemplations,\nharmonizes with the Divine Mind;--we have, in this, a reason which may\nwell seem to us very powerful, why, even if the Earth alone be the\nhabitation of intelligent beings, still, the great work of Creation is\nnot wasted. If God have placed upon the earth a creature who can so far\nsympathize with Him, if we may venture upon the expression;--who can\nraise his intellect into some accordance with the Creative Intellect;\nand that, not once only, nor by few steps, but through an indefinite\ngradation of discoveries, more and more comprehensive, more and more\nprofound; each, an advance, however slight, towards a Divine\nInsight;--then, so far as intellect alone (and we are here speaking of\nintellect alone) can make Man a worthy object of all the vast\nmagnificence of Creative Power, we can hardly shrink from believing that\nhe is so.\n\n8. We may remark further, that this view of God, as the Author of the\nLaws of the Universe, leads to a view of all the phenomena and objects\nof the world, as the work of God; not a work made, and laid out of hand,\nbut a field of his present activity and energy. And such a view cannot\nfail to give an aspect of dignity to all that is great in creation, and\nof beauty to all that is symmetrical, which otherwise they could not\nhave. Accordingly, it is by calling to their thoughts the presence of\nGod as suggested by scenes of grandeur or splendor, that poets often\nreach the sympathies of their readers. And this dignity and sublimity\nappear especially to belong to the larger objects, which are destitute\nof conscious life; as the mountain, the glacier, the pine-forest, the\nocean; since in these, we are, as it were, alone with God, and the only\npresent witnesses of His mysterious working.\n\n9. Now if this reflection be true, the vast bodies which hang in the\nsky, at such immense distances from us, and roll on their courses, and\nspin round their axles with such exceeding rapidity; Jupiter and his\narray of Moons, Saturn with his still larger host of Satellites, and\nwith his wonderful Ring, and the other large and distant Planets, will\nlose nothing of their majesty, in our eyes, by being uninhabited; any\nmore than the summer-clouds, which perhaps are formed of the same\nmaterials, lose their dignity from the same cause;--any more than our\nMoon, one of the tribe of satellites, loses her soft and tender beauty,\nwhen we have ascertained that she is more barren of inhabitants than the\ntop of Mount Blanc. However destitute the planets and moons and rings\nmay be of inhabitants, they are _at least vast scenes of God's\npresence,_ and of the activity with which he carries into effect,\neverywhere, the laws of nature. The light which comes to us from them is\ntransmitted according to laws which He has established, by an energy\nwhich He maintains. The remotest planet is not devoid of life, for God\nlives there. At each stage which we make, from planet to planet, from\nstar to star, into the regions of infinity, we may say, with the\npatriarch, \"Surely God is here, and I knew it not.\" And when those who\nquestion the habitability of the remote planets and stars are reproached\nas presenting a view of the universe, which takes something from the\nmagnificence hitherto ascribed to it, as the scene of God's glory, shown\nin the things which He has created; they may reply, that they do not at\nall disturb that glory of the creation which arises from its being, not\nonly the product, but the constant field of God's activity and thought,\nwisdom and power; and they may perhaps ask, in return, whether the\ndignity of the Moon would be greatly augmented if her surface were\nascertained to be abundantly peopled with lizards; or whether Mount\nBlanc would be more sublime, if millions of frogs were known to live in\nthe crevasses of its glaciers.\n\n10. Again: the Earth is a scene of Moral Trial. Man is subject to a\nMoral Law; and this Moral Law is a Law of which God is the Legislator.\nIt is a law which man has the power of discovering, by the use of the\nfaculties which God has given him. By considering the nature and\nconsequences of actions, man is able to discern, in a great measure,\nwhat is right and what is wrong;--what he ought and what he ought not to\ndo;--what his duty and virtue, what his crime and vice. Man has a Law on\nsuch subjects, written on his heart, as the Apostle Paul says. He has a\nconscience which accuses or excuses him; and thus, recognizes his acts\nas worthy of condemnation or approval. And thus, man is, and knows\nhimself to be, the subject of Divine Law, commanding and prohibiting;\nand is here, in a state of probation, as to how far he will obey or\ndisobey this Law. He has impulses, springs of action, which urge him to\nthe violation of this Law. Appetite, Desire, Anger, Lust, Greediness,\nEnvy, Malice, impel him to courses which are vicious. But these impulses\nhe is capable of resisting and controlling;--of avoiding the vices and\npractising the opposite virtues;--and of rising from one stage of Virtue\nto another, by a gradual and successive purification and elevation of\nthe desires, affections and habits, in a degree, so far as we know,\nwithout limit.\n\n11. Now in considering the bearing of this view upon our original\nsubject, we have, in the first place, to make this remark: that the\nexistence of a body of creatures, capable of such a Law, of such a\nTrial, and of such an Elevation as this, is, according to all that we\ncan conceive, an object infinitely more worthy of the exertion of the\nDivine Power and Wisdom, in the Creation of the universe, than any\nnumber of planets occupied by creatures having no such lot, no such law,\nno such capacities, and no such responsibilities. However imperfectly\nthe moral law be obeyed; however ill the greater part of mankind may\nrespond to the appointment which places them here in a state of moral\nprobation; however few those may be who use the capacities and means of\ntheir moral purification and elevation;--still, that there is such a\nplan in the creation, and that any respond to its appointments,--is\nreally a view of the Universe which we can conceive to be suitable to\nthe nature of God, because we can approve of it, in virtue of the moral\nnature which He has given us. One school of moral discipline, one\ntheatre of moral action, one arena of moral contests for the highest\nprizes, is a sufficient centre for innumerable hosts of stars and\nplanets, globes of fire and earth, water and air, whether or not\ntenanted by corals and madrepores, fishes and creeping things. So great\nand majestic are those names of _Right_ and _Good_, _Duty_ and _Virtue_,\nthat all mere material or animal existence is worthless in the\ncomparison.\n\n12. But further: let us consider what is this moral progress of which we\nhave spoken;--this purification and elevation of man's inner being.\nMan's intellectual progress, his advance in the knowledge of the general\nlaws of the Universe, we found reason to believe that we were not\ndescribing unfitly, when we spoke of it as bringing us nearer to\nGod;--as making our thoughts, in some degree, resemble His thoughts;--as\nenabling us to see things as He sees them. And on that account, we held\nthat the placing man, with his intellectual powers, in a condition in\nwhich he was impelled, and enabled, to seek such knowledge, was of\nitself a great thing, and tended much to give to the Creation a worthy\nend. Now the moral elevation of man's being is the elevation of his\nsentiments and affections towards a standard or idea, which God, by his\nLaw, has indicated as that point towards which man ought to tend. We do\nnot ascribe _Virtue_ to God, adapting to Him our notions taken from\nman's attributes, as we do when we ascribe Knowledge to God: for Virtue\nimplies the control and direction of human springs of action;--implies\nhuman efforts and human habits. But we ascribe to God infinite Goodness,\nJustice, and Truth, as well as infinite Wisdom and Power; and Goodness,\nJustice, Truth, form elements of the character at which man also is, by\nthe Moral Law, directed to aim. So far, therefore, man's moral progress\nis a progress towards a likeness with God; and such a progress, even\nmore than a progress towards an intellectual likeness with God, may be\nconceived as making the soul of man fit to endure forever with God; and\ntherefore, as making this earth a prefatory stage of human souls, to fit\nthem for eternity;--a nursery of plants which are to be fully unfolded\nin a celestial garden.\n\n13. And to this, we must add that, on other accounts also, as well as on\naccount of the capacity of the human soul for moral and intellectual\nprogress, thoughtful men have always been disposed, on grounds supplied\nby the light of nature, to believe in the existence of human souls after\nthis present earthly life is past. Such a belief has been cherished in\nall ages and nations, as the mode in which we naturally conceive that\nwhich is apparently imperfect and deficient in the moral government of\nthe world, to be completed and perfected. And if this mortal life be\nthus really only the commencement of an infinite Divine Plan, beginning\nupon earth and destined to endure for endless ages after our earthly\nlife; we need no array of other worlds in the universe to give\nsufficient dignity and majesty to the scheme of the Creation.\n\n14. We may make another remark which may have an important bearing upon\nour estimate of the value of the moral scheme of the world which\noccupies the earth. If, by any act of the Divine Government, the number\nof those men should be much increased, who raise themselves towards the\nmoral standard which God has appointed, and thus, towards a likeness to\nGod, and a prospect of a future eternal union with him;--such an act of\nDivine Government would do far more towards making the Universe a scene\nin which God's goodness and greatness were largely displayed, than could\nbe done by any amount of peopling of planets with creatures who were\nincapable of moral agency; or with creatures whose capacity for the\ndevelopment of their moral faculties was small, and would continue to be\nsmall till such an act of Divine Government were performed. The\nInterposition of God, in the history of man, to remedy man's feebleness\nin moral and spiritual tasks, and to enable those who profit by the\nInterposition, to ascend towards a union with God, is an event entirely\nout of the range of those natural courses of events which belong to our\nsubject; and to such an Interposition, therefore, we must refer with\ngreat reserve; using great caution that we do not mix up speculations\nand conjectures of our own, with what has been revealed to man\nconcerning such an Interposition. But this, it would seem, we may\nsay:--that such a Divine Interposition for the moral and spiritual\nelevation of the human race, and for the encouragement and aid of those\nwho seek the purification and elevation of their nature, and an eternal\nunion with God, is far more suitable to the Idea of a God of Infinite\nGoodness, Purity, and Greatness, than any supposed multiplication of a\npopulation, (on our planet or on any other,) not provided with such\nmeans of moral and spiritual progress.\n\n15. And if we were, instead of such a supposition, to imagine to\nourselves, in other regions of the Universe, a moral population purified\nand elevated without the aid or need of any such Divine Interposition;\nthe supposed possibility of such a moral race would make the sin and\nmisery, which deform and sadden the aspect of our earth, appear more\ndark and dismal still. We should therefore, it would seem, find no\ntheological congruity, and no religious consolation, in the assumption\nof a Plurality of Worlds of Moral Beings: while, to place the seats of\nsuch worlds in the Stars and the Planets, would be, as we have already\nshown, a step discountenanced by physical reasons; and discountenanced\nthe more, the more the light of science is thrown upon it.\n\n16. Perhaps it may be said, that all which we have urged to show that\nother animals, in comparison with man, are less worthy objects of\ncreative design, may be used as an argument to prove that other planets\nare tenanted by men, or by moral and intellectual creatures like man;\nsince, if the creation of _one_ world of such creatures exalts so highly\nour views of the dignity and importance of the plan of creation, the\nbelief in _many_ such worlds must elevate still more our sentiments of\nadmiration and reverence of the greatness and goodness of the Creator;\nand must be a belief, on that account, to be accepted and cherished by\npious minds.\n\n17. To this we reply, that we cannot think ourselves authorized to\nassert cosmological doctrines, selected arbitrarily by ourselves, on the\nground of their exalting our sentiments of admiration and reverence for\nthe Deity, _when the weight of all the evidence which we can obtain\nrespecting the constitution of the universe is against them_. It appears\nto us, that to discern one great scheme of moral and religious\ngovernment, which is the spiritual centre of the universe, may well\nsuffice for the religious sentiments of men in the present age; as in\nformer ages such a view of creation was sufficient to overwhelm men with\nfeelings of awe, and gratitude, and love; and to make them confess, in\nthe most emphatic language, that all such feelings were an inadequate\nresponse to the view of the scheme of Providence which was revealed to\nthem. The thousands of millions of inhabitants of the Earth to whom the\neffects of the Divine Plan extend, will not seem, to the greater part of\nreligious persons, to need the addition of more, to fill our minds with\nsufficiently vast and affecting contemplations, so far as we are capable\nof pursuing such contemplations. The possible extension of God's\nspiritual kingdom upon the earth will probably appear to them a far more\ninteresting field of devout meditation, than the possible addition to it\nof the inhabitants of distant stars, connected in some inscrutable\nmanner with the Divine Plan.\n\n18. To justify our saying that the weight of the evidence is against\nsuch cosmological doctrines, we must recall to the reader's recollection\nthe whole course of the argument which we have been pursuing.\n\nIt is a possible conjecture, at first, that there may be other Worlds,\nhaving, as this has, their moral and intellectual attributes, and their\nrelations to the Creator. It is also a possible conjecture, that this\nWorld, having such attributes, and such relations, may, on that account,\nbe necessarily unique and incapable of repetition, peculiar, and\nspiritually central. These two opposite possibilities may be placed, at\nfirst, front to front, as balancing each other. We must then weigh such\nevidence and such analogies as we can find on the one side or on the\nother. We see much in the intellectual and moral nature of man, and in\nhis history, to confirm the opinion that the human race is thus unique,\npeculiar and central. In the views which Religion presents, we find much\nmore, tending the same way, and involving the opposite supposition in\ngreat difficulties. We find, in our knowledge of what we ourselves are,\nreasons to believe that if there be, in any other planet, intellectual\nand moral beings, they must not only be _like_ men, but must _be_ men,\nin all the attributes which we can conceive as belonging to such beings.\nAnd yet to suppose other groups of the human species, in other parts of\nthe universe, must be allowed to be a very bold hypothesis, to be\njustified only by some positive evidence in its favor. When from these\nviews, drawn from the attributes and relations of man, we turn to the\nevidence drawn from physical conditions, we find very strong reason to\nbelieve that, so far as the Solar System is concerned, the Earth _is_,\nwith regard to the conditions of life, in a peculiar and central\nposition; so that the conditions of any life approaching at all to human\nlife, exist on the Earth alone. As to other systems which may circle\nother suns, the possibility of their being inhabited by men, remains, as\nat first, a mere conjecture, without any trace of confirmatory evidence.\nIt was suggested at first by the supposed analogy of other stars to our\nsun; but this analogy has not been verified in any instance; and has\nbeen, we conceive, shown in many cases, to vanish altogether. And that\nthere may be such a plan of creation,--one in which the moral and\nintelligent race of man is the climax and central point to which\ninnumerable races of mere unintelligent species tend,--we have the most\nstriking evidence, in the history of our own earth, as disclosed by\ngeology. We are left, therefore, with nothing to cling to, on one side,\nbut the bare possibility that some of the stars are the centres of\nsystems like the Solar System;--an opinion founded upon the single\nfact, shown to be highly ambiguous, of those stars being self-luminous;\nand to this possibility, we oppose all the considerations, flowing from\nmoral, historical, and religious views, which represent the human race\nas unique and peculiar. The force of these considerations will, of\ncourse, be different in different minds, according to the importance\nwhich each person attaches to such moral, historical, and religious\nviews; but whatever the weight of them may be deemed, it is to be\nrecollected that we have on the other side a bare possibility, a mere\nconjecture; which, though suggested at first by astronomical\ndiscoveries, all more recent astronomical researches have failed to\nconfirm in the smallest degree. In this state of our knowledge, and with\nsuch grounds of belief, to dwell upon the Plurality of Worlds of\nintellectual and moral creatures, as a highly probable doctrine, must,\nwe think, be held to be eminently rash and unphilosophical.\n\n19. On such a subject, where the evidences are so imperfect, and our\npower of estimating analogies so small, far be it from us to speak\npositively and dogmatically. And if any one holds the opinion, on\nwhatever evidence, that there are other spheres of the Divine Government\nthan this earth,--other regions in which God has subjects and\nservants,--other beings who do his will, and who, it may be, are\nconnected with the moral and religious interests of man;--we do not\nbreathe a syllable against such a belief; but, on the contrary, regard\nit with a ready and respectful sympathy. It is a belief which finds an\necho in pious and reverent hearts;[3] and it is, of itself, an evidence\nof that religious and spiritual character in man, which is one of the\npoints of our argument. But the discussion of such a belief does not\nbelong to the present occasion, any further than to observe, that it\nwould be very rash and unadvised,--a proceeding unwarranted, we think,\nby Religion, and certainly at variance with all that Science\nteaches,--to place those other, extra-human spheres of Divine\nGovernment, in the Planets and in the Stars. With regard to the planets\nand the stars, if we reason at all, we must reason on physical grounds;\nwe must suppose, as to a great extent we can prove that the laws and\nproperties of terrestrial matter and motion apply to them also. On such\ngrounds, it is as improbable that visitants from Jupiter or from Sirius\ncan come to the Earth, as that men can pass to those stars: as unlikely\nthat inhabitants of those stars know and take an interest in human\naffairs, as that we can learn what they are doing. A belief in the\nDivine Government of other races of spiritual creatures besides the\nhuman race, and in Divine Ministrations committed to such beings, cannot\nbe connected with our physical and astronomical views of the nature of\nthe stars and the planets, without making a mixture altogether\nincongruous and incoherent; a mixture of what is material and what is\nspiritual, adverse alike to sound religion and to sound philosophy.\n\n20. Perhaps again, it may be said, that in speaking of the shortness of\nthe time during which man has occupied the earth, in comparison with the\nprevious ages of irrational life, and of blank matter, we are taking man\nat his present period of existence on the earth:--that we do not know\nthat the race may not be destined to continue upon the earth for as many\nages as preceded the creation of man. And to this we reply, that in\nreasoning, as we must do, at the present period, we can only proceed\nupon that which has happened up to the present period. If we do not\nknow how long man will continue to inhabit the earth, we cannot reason\nas if we did know that he will inhabit it longer than any other species\nhas done. We may not dwell upon a mere possibility, which, it is\nassumed, may at some indefinitely future period, alter the aspect of the\nfacts now before us. For it would be as easy to assume possibilities\nwhich may come hereafter to alter the aspect of the facts, in favor of\nthe one side, as of the other.[4] What the future destinies of our race,\nand of the earth, may be, is a subject which is, for us, shrouded in\ndeep darkness. It would be very rash to assume that they will be such as\nto alter the impression derived from what we now know, and to alter it\nin a certain preconceived manner. But yet it is natural to form\nconjectures on this subject; and perhaps we may be allowed to consider\nfor a moment what kind of conjectures the existing stage of our\nknowledge suggests, when we allow ourselves the license of conjecturing.\nThe next Chapter contains some remarks bearing upon such conjectures.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Among the most recent expositors of this doctrine we may place M.\nHenri Martin, whose _Philosophie Spiritualiste de la Nature_ is full of\nstriking views of the universe in its relation to God. (Paris. 1849.)\n\n[2] Most readers who have given any attention to speculations of this\nkind, will recollect Newton's remarkable expressions concerning the\nDeity: \"AEternus est et infinitus, omnipotens et omnisciens; id est,\ndurat ab aeterno in aeternum, et adest ab infinito in infinitum.... Non\nest aeternitas et infinitas, sed aeternus et infinitus; non est duratio et\nspatium, sed durat et adest. Durat semper et adest ubique, et existendo\nsemper et ubique durationem et spatium constituit.\"\n\nTo say that God by existing always and everywhere _constitutes duration\nand space_, appears to be a form of expression better avoided. Besides\nthat it approaches too near to the opinion, which the writer rejects,\nthat He _is_ duration and space, it assumes a knowledge of the nature of\nthe Divine existence, beyond our means of knowing, and therefore rashly.\nIt appears to be safer, and more in conformity with what we really know,\nto say, not that the existence of God constitutes time and space; but\nthat God has constituted _man_, so that _he_ can apprehend the works of\ncreation, only as existing in time and space. That God has constituted\ntime and space as conditions of man's knowledge of the creation, is\ncertain: that God has constituted time and space as results of his own\nexistence in any other way, _we_ cannot know.\n\n[3]\n    \"For doubt not that in other worlds above\n    There must be other offices of love,\n    That other tasks and ministries there are,\n    Since it is promised that His servants, there,\n    Shall serve Him still.\"--TRENCH.\n\n[4] For instance, we may assume that in two or three hundred years, by\nthe improvement of telescopes, or by other means, it may be ascertained\nthat the other planets of the Solar System are not inhabited, and that\nthe other Stars are not the centres of regular systems.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nTHE FUTURE.\n\n\n1. We proceed then to a few reflections to which we cannot but feel\nourselves invited by the views which we have already presented in these\npages. What will be the future history of the human race, and what the\nfuture destination of each individual, most persons will, and most\nwisely, judge on far other grounds than the analogies which physical\nscience can supply. Analogies derived from such a quarter can throw\nlittle light on those grave and lofty questions. Yet perhaps a few\nthoughts on this subject, even if they serve only to show how little the\nlight thus attainable really is, may not be an unfit conclusion to what\nhas been said; and the more so, if these analogies of science, so far as\nthey have any specific tendency, tend to confirm some of the\nconvictions, with regard to those weighty and solemn points,--the\ndestiny of Man, and of Mankind,--which we derive from other and higher\nsources of knowledge.\n\n2. Man is capable of looking back upon the past history of himself, his\nRace, the Earth, and the Universe. So far as he has the means of doing\nso, and so far as his reflective powers are unfolded, he cannot refrain\nfrom such a retrospect. As we have seen, man has occupied his thoughts\nwith such contemplations, and has been led to convictions thereupon, of\nthe most remarkable and striking kind. Man is also capable of looking\nforwards to the future probable or possible history of himself, his\nrace, the earth, and the universe. He is irresistibly tempted to do\nthis, and to endeavor to shape his conjectures on the Future, by what he\nknows of the Past. He attempts to discern what future change and\nprogress may be imagined or expected, by the analogy of past change and\nprogress, which have been ascertained. Such analogies may be necessarily\nvery vague and loose; but they are the peculiar ground of speculation,\nwith which we have here to deal. Perhaps man cannot discover with\ncertainty any fixed and permanent laws which have regulated those past\nchanges which have modified the surface and population of the earth;\nstill less, any laws which have produced a visible progression in the\nconstitution of the rest of the universe. He cannot, therefore, avail\nhimself of any close analogies, to help him to conjecture the future\ncourse of events, on the earth or in the universe; still less can he\napply any known laws, which may enable him to predict the future\nconfigurations of the elements of the world; as he can predict the\nfuture configurations of the planets for indefinite periods. He can\nforesee the astronomical revolutions of the heavens, so long as the\nknown laws subsist. He cannot foresee the future geological revolutions\nof the earth, even if they are to be produced by the same causes which\nhave produced the past revolutions, of which he has learnt the series\nand order. Still less can he foresee the future revolutions which may\ntake place in the condition of man, of society, of philosophy, of\nreligion; still less, again, the course which the Divine Government of\nthe world will take, or the state of things to which, even as now\nconducted, it will lead.\n\n3. All these subjects are covered with a veil of mystery, which science\nand philosophy can do little in raising. Yet these are subjects to\nwhich the mind turns, with a far more eager curiosity, than that which\nit feels with regard to mere geological or astronomical revolutions. Man\nis naturally, and reasonably, the greatest object of interest to man.\nWhat shall happen to the human race, after thousands of years, is a far\ndearer concern to him, than what shall happen to Jupiter or Sirius; and\neven, than what shall happen to the continents and oceans of the globe\non which he lives, except so far as the changes of his domicile affect\nhimself. If our knowledge of the earth and of the heavens, of animals\nand of man, of the past condition and present laws of the world, is\nquite barren of all suggestion of what may or may not hereafter be the\nlot of man, such knowledge will lose the charm which would have made it\nmost precious and attractive in the eyes of mankind in general. And if,\non such subjects, any conjectures, however dubious,--any analogies,\nhowever loose,--can be collected from what we know, they will probably\nbe received as acceptable, in spite of their insecurity; and will be\ndeemed a fit offering from the scientific faculty, to those hopes and\nexpectations,--to that curiosity and desire of all knowledge,--which\ngladly receive their nutriment and gratification from every province of\nman's being.\n\n4. Now if we ask, what is likely to be the future condition of the\npopulation of the earth as compared with the present; we are naturally\nled to recollect, what has been the past condition of that population as\ncompared with the present. And here, our thoughts are at once struck by\nthat great fact, to which we have so often referred; which we conceive\nto be established by irrefragable geological evidence, and of which the\nimportance cannot be overrated:--namely, the fact that the existence of\nman upon the earth has been for only a few thousand years:--that for\nthousands, and myriads, and it may be for millions of years, previous\nto that period, the earth was tenanted, entirely and solely, by brute\ncreatures, destitute of reason, incapable of progress, and guided merely\nby animal instincts, in the preservation and continuation of their\nraces. After this period of mere brute existence, in innumerable forms,\nhad endured for a vast series of cycles, there appeared upon the earth a\ncreature, even in his organization, superior far to all; but still more\nsuperior, in his possession of peculiar endowments;--reason, language,\nthe power of indefinite progress, and of raising his thoughts towards\nhis Creator and Governor: in short, to use terms already employed, an\nintellectual, moral, religious, and spiritual creature. After the ages\nof intellectual darkness, there took place this creation of intellectual\nlight. After the long-continued play of mere appetite and sensual life,\nthere came the operation of thought, reflection, invention, art,\nscience, moral sentiments, religious belief and hope; and thus, life and\nbeing, in a far higher sense than had ever existed, even in the highest\ndegree, in the long ages of the earth's previous existence.\n\n5. Now, this great and capital fact cannot fail to excite in us many\nreflections, which, however vaguely and dimly, carry us to the prospect\nof the future. The present being _so_ related to the past, how may we\nsuppose that the future will be related to the present?\n\nIn the first place, _this_ is a natural reflection. The terrestrial\nworld having made this advance from brute to human life, can we think it\nat all likely, that the present condition of the earth's inhabitants is\na final condition? Has the vast step from animal to human life,\nexhausted the progressive powers of nature? or to speak more reverently\nand justly, has it completed the progressive plan of the Creator? After\nthe great revolution by which man became what he is, can and will\nnothing be done, to bring into being something better than now is;\nhowever that future creature may be related to man? We leave out of\nconsideration any supposed progression, which may have taken place in\nthe animal creation previous to man's existence; any progression by\nwhich the animal organization was made to approximate, gradually or by\nsudden steps, to the human organization; partly, because such successive\napproximation is questioned by some geologists; and is, at any rate,\nobscure and perplexed: but much more, because it is not really to our\npurpose. Similarity of organization is not the point in question. The\nendowments and capacities of man, by which he is Man, are the great\ndistinction, which places all other animals at an immeasurable distance\nbelow him. The closest approximation of form or organs, does nothing to\nobliterate this distinction. It does not bring the monkey nearer to man,\nthat his tongue has the same muscular apparatus as man's, so long as he\ncannot talk; and so long as he has not the thought and idea which\nlanguage implies, and which are unfolded indefinitely in the use of\nlanguage. The step, then, by which the earth became, a _human_\nhabitation, was an immeasurable advance on all that existed before; and\ntherefore there is a question which we are, it seems, irresistibly\nprompted to ask, Is this the last such step? Is there nothing beyond it?\nMan is the head of creation, in his present condition; but is that\ncondition the final result and ultimate goal of the progress of creation\nin the plan of the Creator? As there was found and produced something so\nfar beyond animals, as man is, may there not also, in some course of the\nrevolutions of the world, be produced something far beyond what man is?\nThe question is put, as implying a difficulty in believing that it\nshould be so; and this difficulty must be very generally felt.\nConsidering how vast the resources of the Creative Power have been shown\nto be, it is difficult to suppose they are exhausted. Considering how\ngreat things have been done, in the progress of the work of creation, we\nnaturally think that even greater things than these, still remain to be\ndone.\n\n6. But then, on the other hand, there is an immense difficulty in\nsupposing, even in imagining, any further change, at all commensurate in\nkind and degree, with the step which carried the world from a mere brute\npopulation, to a human population. In a proportion in which the two\nfirst terms are _brute_ and _man_, what can be the third term? In the\nprogress from mere Instinct to Reason, we have a progress from blindness\nto sight; and what can we do more than see? When pure Intellect is\nevolved in man, he approaches to the nature of the Supreme Mind: how can\na creature rise higher? When mere impulse, appetite, and passion are\nplaced under the control and direction of duty and virtue, man is put\nunder Divine Government: what greater lot can any created being have?\n\n7. And the difficulty of conceiving any ulterior step at all analogous\nto the last and most wonderful of the revolutions which have taken place\nin the condition of the earth's inhabitants, will be found to grow upon\nus, as it is more closely examined. For it may truly be said, the change\nwhich occurred when man was placed on the earth, was not one which could\nhave been imagined and constructed beforehand, by a speculator merely\nlooking at the endowments and capacities of the creatures which were\npreviously living. Even in the way of organization, could any\nintelligent spectator, contemplating anything which then existed in the\nanimal world, have guessed the wonderful new and powerful purposes to\nwhich it was to be made subservient in man? Could such a spectator, from\nseeing the _rudiments of a Hand_, in the horse or the cow, or even from\nseeing the hand of a quadrumanous animal, have conjectured, that the\nHand was, in man, to be made an instrument by which infinite numbers of\nnew instruments were to be constructed, subduing the elements to man's\nuses, giving him a command over nature which might seem supernatural,\ntaming or conquering all other animals, enabling him to scrutinize the\nfarthest regions of the universe, and the subtlest combinations of\nmaterial things?\n\n8. Or again; could such a spectator, by dissecting the tongues of\nanimals, have divined that the Tongue, in man, was to be the means of\ncommunicating the finest movements of thought and feeling; of giving one\nman, weak and feeble, an unbounded ascendency over robust and angry\nmultitudes; and, assisted by the (writing) hand, of influencing the\nintimate thoughts, laws, and habits of the most remote posterity?\n\n9. And again, could such a spectator, seeing animals entirely occupied\nby their appetites and desires, and the objects subservient to their\nindividual gratification, have ever dreamt that there should appear on\nearth a creature who should desire to know, and should know, the\ndistances and motions of the stars, future as well as present; the\ncauses of their motions, the history of the earth, and his own history;\nand even should know truths by which all possible objects and events not\nonly are, but must be regulated?\n\n10. And yet again, could such a spectator, seeing that animals obeyed\ntheir appetites with no restraint but external fear, and knew of no\ndifference of good and bad except the sensual difference, ever have\nimagined that there should be a creature acknowledging a difference of\nright and wrong, as a distinction supreme over what was good or bad to\nthe sense; and a rule of duty which might forbid and prevent\ngratification by an internal prohibition?\n\n11. And finally, could such a spectator, seeing nothing but animals\nwith all their faculties thus entirely immersed in the elements of their\nbodily being, have supposed that a creature should come, who should\nraise his thoughts to his Creator, acknowledge Him as his Master and\nGovernor, look to His Judgment, and aspire to live eternally in His\npresence?\n\n12. If it would have been impossible for a spectator of the praehuman\ncreation, however intelligent, imaginative, bold and inventive, to have\nconjectured beforehand the endowments of such a creature as Man, taking\nonly those which we have thus indicated; it may well be thought, that if\nthere is to be a creature which is to succeed man, as man has succeeded\nthe animals, it must be equally impossible for us to conjecture\nbeforehand, what kind of creature _that_ must be, and what will be _his_\nendowments and privileges.\n\n13. Thus a spectator who should thus have studied the praehuman creation,\nand who should have had nothing else to help him in his conjectures and\nconceptions, (of course, by the supposition of a praehuman period, not\nany knowledge of the operation of intelligence, though a most active\nintelligence would be necessary for such speculations,) would not have\nbeen able to divine the future appearance of a creature, so excellent as\nMan; or to guess at his endowments and privileges, or his relation to\nthe previous animal creation; and just as little able may we be, even if\nthere is to exist at some time, a creature more excellent and glorious\nthan man, to divine what kind of creature he will be, and how related to\nman. And here, therefore, it would perhaps be best, that we should quit\nthe subject; and not offer conjectures which we thus acknowledge to have\nno value. Perhaps, however, the few brief remarks which we have still to\nmake, put forwards, as they are, merely as suggestions to be weighed by\nothers, can not reasonably give offence, or trouble even the most\nreverent thinker.\n\n14. To suppose a higher development of endowments which already exist in\nman, is a natural mode of rising to the imagination of a being nobler\nthan man is; but we shall find that such hypotheses do not lead us to\nany satisfactory result. Looking at the first of those features of the\nsuperiority of man over brutes, which we have just pointed out, the\nHuman Hand, we can imagine this superiority carried further. Indeed, in\nthe course of human progress, and especially in recent times, and in our\nown country, man employs instead of, or in addition to the hand,\ninnumerable instruments to make nature serve his needs and do his will.\nHe works by Tools and Machinery, derivative hands, which increase a\nhundred-fold the power of the natural hand. Shall we try to ascend to a\nNew Period, to imagine a New Creature, by supposing this power increased\nhundreds and thousands of times more, so that nature should obey man,\nand minister to his needs, in an incomparably greater degree than she\nnow does? We may imagine this carried so far, that all need for manual\nlabor shall be superseded; and thus, abundant time shall be left to the\ncreature thus gifted, for developing the intellectual and moral powers\nwhich must be the higher part of its nature. But still, that higher\nnature of the creature itself, and not its command over external\nmaterial nature, must be the quarter in which we are to find anything\nwhich shall elevate the creature above man, as man is elevated above\nbrutes.\n\n15. Or, looking at the second of the features of human superiority,\nshall we suppose that the means of Communication of their thoughts to\neach other, which exist for the human race, are to be immensely\nincreased, and that this is to be the leading feature of a New Period?\nAlready, in addition to the use of the tongue, other means of\ncommunication have vastly multiplied man's original means of carrying on\nthe intercourse of thought:--writing, employed in epistles, books,\nnewspapers; roads, horses and posting establishments; ships; railways;\nand, as the last and most notable step, made in our time, electric\ntelegraphs, extending across continents and even oceans. We can imagine\nthis facility and activity of communication, in which man so\nimmeasurably exceeds all animals, still further increased, and more\nwidely extended. But yet so long as what is thus communicated is nothing\ngreater or better than what is now communicated among men;--such news,\nsuch thoughts, such questions and answers, as now dart along our\nroads;--we could hardly think that the creature, whatever wonderful\nmeans of intercourse with its fellow-creatures it might possess, was\nelevated above man, so as to be of a higher nature than man is.\n\n16. Thus, such improved endowments as we have now spoken of, increased\npower over materials, and increased means of motion and communication,\narising from improved mechanism, do little, and we may say, nothing, to\nsatisfy our idea of a more excellent condition than that of man. For\nsuch extensions of man's present powers are consistent with the absence\nof all intellectual and moral improvement. Men might be able to dart\nfrom place to place, and even from planet to planet, and from star to\nstar, on wings, such as we ascribe to angels in our imagination: they\nmight be able to make the elements obey them at a beck; and yet they\nmight not be better, nor even wiser, than they are. It is not found\ngenerally, that the improvement of machinery, and of means of\nlocomotion, among men, produces an improvement in morality, nor even an\nimprovement in intelligence, except as to particular points. We must\ntherefore look somewhat further, in order to find possible characters,\nwhich may enable us to imagine a creature more excellent than man.\n\n17. Among the distinctions which elevate man above brutes, there is one\nwhich we have not mentioned, but which is really one of the most\neminent. We mean, his faculty and habit of forming himself into\nSocieties, united by laws and language for some common object, the\nfurtherance of which requires such union. The most general and primary\nkind of such societies, is that Civil Society which is bound together by\nLaw and Government, and which secures to men the Rights of property,\nperson, family, external peace, and the like. That this kind of society\nmay be conceived, as taking a more excellent character than it now\npossesses, we can easily see: for not only does it often very\nimperfectly attain its direct object, the preservation of Rights, but it\nbecomes the means and source of wrong. Not only does it often fail to\nsecure peace with strangers, but it acts as if its main object were to\nenable men to make wars with strangers. If we were to conceive a\nUniversal and Perpetual Peace to be established among the nations of the\nearth; (for instance by some general agreement for that purpose;) and if\nwe were to suppose, further, that those nations should employ all their\npowers and means in fully unfolding the intellectual and moral\ncapacities of their members, by early education, constant teaching, and\nready help in all ways; we might then, perhaps, look forwards to a state\nof the earth in which it should be inhabited, not indeed by a being\nexalted above Man, but by Man exalted above himself as he now is.\n\n18. That by such combinations of communities of men, even with their\npresent powers, results may be obtained, which at present appear\nimpossible, or inconceivable, we may find good reason to believe;\nlooking at what has already been done, or planned as attainable by such\nmeans, in the promotion of knowledge, and the extension of man's\nintellectual empire. The greatest discovery ever made, the discovery, by\nNewton, of the laws which regulate the motions of the cosmical system,\nhas been earned to its present state of completeness, only by the united\nefforts of all the most intellectual nations upon earth; in addition to\nvast labors of individuals, and of smaller societies, voluntarily\nassociated for the purpose. Astronomical observatories have been\nestablished in every land; scientific voyages, and expeditions for the\npurpose of observation, wherever they could throw light upon the theory,\nhave been sent forth; costly instruments have been constructed,\nachievements of discovery have been rewarded; and all nations have shown\na ready sympathy with every attempt to forward this part of knowledge.\nYet the largest and wisest plans for the extension of human knowledge in\nother provinces of science by the like means, have remained hitherto\nalmost entirely unexecuted, and have been treated as mere dreams. The\nexhortations of Francis Bacon to men, to seek, by such means, an\nelevation of their intellectual condition, have been assented to in\nwords; but his plans of a methodical and organized combination of\nsociety for this purpose, it has never been even attempted to realize.\nIf the nations of the earth were to employ, for the promotion of human\nknowledge, a small fraction only of the means, the wealth, the\ningenuity, the energy, the combination, which they have employed in\nevery age, for the destruction of human life and of human means of\nenjoyment; we might soon find that what we hitherto knew, is little\ncompared with what man has the power of knowing.\n\n19. But there is another kind of Society, or another object of Society\namong men, which in a still more important manner aims at the elevation\nof their nature. Man sympathizes with man, not only in his intellectual\naspirations, but in his moral sentiments, in his religious beliefs and\nhopes, in his efforts after spiritual life. Society, even Civil Society,\nhas generally recognized this sympathy, in a greater or less degree; and\nhas included Morality and Religion, among the objects which it\nendeavored to uphold and promote. But any one who has any deep and\ncomprehensive perception of man's capacities and aspirations, on such\nsubjects, must feel that what has commonly, or indeed ever, been done by\nnations for such a purpose, has been far below that which the full\ndevelopment of man's moral, religious, and spiritual nature requires.\nCan we not conceive a Society among men, which should have for its\npurpose, to promote this development, far more than any human society\nhas yet done?--a Body selected from all nations, or rather, including\nall nations, the purpose of which should be to bind men together by a\nuniversal feeling of kindness and mutual regard, to associate them in\nthe acknowledgment of a common Divine Lawgiver, Governor, and\nFather;--to unite them in their efforts to divest themselves of the evil\nof their human nature, and to bring themselves nearer and nearer to a\nconformity with the Divine Idea; and finally, a Society which should\nunite them in the hope of such a union with God that the parts of their\nnature which seem to claim immortality, the Mind, the Soul, and the\nSpirit, should endure forever in a state of happiness arising from their\nexalted and perfected condition? And if we can suppose such a Society;\nfully established and fully operative, would not this be a condition, as\nfar elevated above the ordinary earthly condition of man, as that of man\nis elevated above the beasts that perish?\n\n20. Yet one more question; though we hesitate to mix such suggestions\nfrom analogy, with trains of thought and belief, which have their proper\nnutriment from other quarters. We know, even from the evidence of\nnatural science, that God _has_ interposed in the history of this Earth,\nin order to place Man upon it. In that case, there was a clear, and, in\nthe strongest sense of the term, a _supernatural interposition_ of the\nDivine Creative Power. God interposed to place upon the earth, Man, the\nsocial and rational being. God thus directly instituted Human Society;\ngave man his privileges and his prospects in such society; placed him\nfar above the previously existing creation; and endowed him with the\nmeans of an elevation of nature entirely unlike anything which had\npreviously appeared. Would it then be a violation of analogy, if God\nwere to interpose again, to institute a Divine Society, such as we have\nattempted to describe; to give to its members their privileges; to\nassure to them their prospects; to supply to them his aid in pursuing\nthe objects of such a union with each other; and thus, to draw them, as\nthey aspire to be drawn, to a spiritual union with Him?\n\nIt would seem that those who believe, as the records of the earth's\nhistory seem to show, that the establishment of Man, and of Human\nSociety, or of the germ of human society, upon the earth, was an\ninterposition of Creative Power beyond the ordinary course of nature;\nmay also readily believe that another supernatural Interposition of\nDivine Power might take place, in order to plant upon the earth the Germ\nof a more Divine Society; and to introduce a period in which the earth\nshould be tenanted by a more excellent creature than at present.\n\n21. But though we may thus prepare ourselves to assent to the\npossibility, or even probability, of such a Divine Interposition,\nexercised for the purpose of establishing upon earth a Divine Society:\nit would be a rash and unauthorized step,--especially taking into\naccount the vast differences between material and spiritual things,--to\nassume that such an Interposition would have any resemblance to the\ncommencement of a New Period in the earth's history, analogous to the\nPeriods by which that history has already been marked. What the manner\nand the operation of such a Divine Interposition would be, Philosophy\nwould attempt in vain to conjecture. It is conceivable that such an\nevent should produce its effect, not at once, by a general and\nsimultaneous change in the aspect of terrestrial things, but gradually,\nby an almost imperceptible progression. It is possible also that there\nmay be such an Interposition, which is only one step in the Divine\nPlan;--a preparation for some other subsequent Interposition, by which\nthe change in the Earth's inhabitants is to be consummated. Or it is\npossible that such a Divine Interposition in the history of man, as we\nhave hinted at, may be a preparation, not for a new form of terrestrial\nlife, but for a new form of human life;--not for a new peopling of the\nEarth, but for a new existence of Man. These possibilities are so vague\nand doubtful, so far as any scientific analogies lead, that it would be\nmost unwise to attempt to claim for them any value, as points in which\nScience supplies support to Religion. Those persons who most deeply feel\nthe value of religion, and are most strongly convinced of its truths,\nwill be the most willing to declare, that religious belief is, and ought\nto be, independent of any such support, and must be, and may be, firmly\nestablished on its own proper basis.\n\n22. We find no encouragement, then, for any attempt to obtain, from\nScience, by the light of the analogy of the past, any definite view of a\nfuture condition of the Creation. And that this is so, we cannot, for\nreasons which have been given, feel any surprise. Yet the reasonings\nwhich we have, in various parts of this Essay, pursued, will not have\nbeen without profit, even in their influence upon our religious\nthoughts, if they have left upon our minds these convictions:--That if\nthe analogy of science proves anything, it proves that the Creator of\nman can make a Creator as far superior to Man, as Man, when most\nintellectual, moral, religious, and spiritual, is superior to the\nbrutes:--and again, That Man's Intellect is of a divine, and therefore\nof an immortal nature. Those persons who can, on any basis of belief,\ncombine these two convictions, so as to feel that they have a personal\ninterest in both of them;--those who have such grounds as Religion,\nhappily appealed to, can furnish, for hoping that their imperishable\nelement may, hereafter, be clothed with a new and more glorious apparel\nby the hand of its Almighty Maker;--may be well content to acknowledge\nthat Science and Philosophy could not give them this combined\nconviction, in any manner in which it could minister that consolation,\nand that trust in the Divine Power and Goodness, which human nature, in\nits present condition, requires.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes.\n\n\nSpelling irregularities where there was no obviously preferred version\nwere left as is. Variants include: \"embedded\" and \"imbedded;\" \"a\nhypothesis\" and \"an hypothesis;\" \"inexhausted\" and \"unexhausted;\"\n\"volcanos\" and \"volcanoes.\"\n\nChanged \"intelligencies\" to \"intelligences\" on page xvi: \"may be\nrational intelligences.\"\n\nChanged \"familar\" to \"familiar\" on page 43: \"had been familiar.\"\n\nChanged \"Chalmer's\" to \"Chalmers'\" on page 67: \"Chalmers' reasonings.\"\n\nInserted missing period after \"live in the sea\" on page 78.\n\nChanged \"disapear\" to \"disappear\" on page 82: \"at last they disappear.\"\n\nChanged \"natturally\" to \"naturally\" on page 84: \"we may naturally ask.\"\n\nChanged \"planets\" to \"plants\" on page 91: \"plants and animals.\"\n\nChanged \"intelligenee\" to \"intelligence\" on page 125: \"intelligence,\nmorality, religion.\"\n\nChanged \"crystaline\" to \"crystalline\" on page 126: \"of crystalline\npowers.\"\n\nChanged \"dissimiliar\" to \"dissimilar\" on page 128: \"perpetually\ndissimilar.\"\n\nChanged \"words\" to \"worlds\" on page 135: \"plurality of worlds.\"\n\nChanged \"insignificent\" to \"insignificant\" on page 151: \"insignificant\nand insensible.\"\n\nChanged \"tales\" to \"tails\" on page 170: \"tails of comets.\"\n\nChanged \"Chambers'\" to \"Chalmers'\" in the footnote on page 175:\n\"Chalmers' Astron. Disc.\"\n\nIn the footnote on page 177, \"the times of the warning\" might be a\ntypographic error for \"the times of the waning,\" but was not changed.\n\nChanged \"disaprove\" to \"disprove\" on page 185: \"prove or disprove.\"\n\nChanged \"one-thirteenth\" to \"one-thirtieth\" on page 194: \"be\none-thirtieth as large.\"\n\nChanged \"skeletous\" to \"skeletons\" on page 208: \"Can they have\nskeletons.\"\n\nIn the footnote from page 217, \"Schroeter\" appears with the oe-ligature;\nelsewhere it does not. The ligature was replaced by the two separate\ncharacters in the footnote.\n\nChanged \"how-however\" to \"however\" in the footnote from page 233: \"This,\nhowever.\"\n\nChanged \"hisorians\" to \"historians\" on page 253: \"natural-historians.\"\n\nChanged \"Meaning\" to \"meaning\" at the beginning of page 261, since it's\nnot a new sentence.\n\nChanged \"crystalizes\" to \"crystallizes\" and \"crystaline\" to\n\"crystalline\" on page 265: \"Ice crystallizes;\" \"crystalline aggregation.\"\n\nChanged \"Artic\" to \"Arctic\" in the footnote from page 265: \"Account of\nthe Arctic Regions.\"\n\nChanged \"kingdon\" to \"kingdom\" on page 267: \"the animal kingdom.\"\n\nChanged \"splendour\" to \"splendor\" on page 273: \"the material splendor.\"\n\nChanged \"hightest\" to \"highest\" on page 295: \"the highest degree.\"\n\nChanged \"deely\" to \"deeply\" on page 305: \"who most deeply feel.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Plurality of Worlds","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":96709}