and highest development; an eminent moral writer and academical teacher, and an orthodox clergyman in the Church of England, coming forward deliberately to commit himself to opinions which he acknowledges he does not publish "without some fear of giving offense: "-opinions at variance with those not only popularly held, but maintained by perhaps three-fourths of even scientific persons who have bestowed attention on the subject. Who can doubt his right to do so, especially in a calm and temperate spirit, as contradistinguished to one of arrogance and dogmatism? None but a fool would rush angrily forward, to encounter such an author with harsh and heated language, or derogatory and uncharitable insinuations and imputations. A philosophical and duly qualified opponent would act differently. He would say, In this age of free inquiry, no matter how bold and serious the attack on preconceptions and longestablished opinion and belief, if it be made in a grave and manly spirit of inquiry and argument, and especially by one whose eminent character, qualifications, and position, entitle his suggestions and speculations to deliberate consideration, that deliberate consideration they must have. "I have presented," says the writer of the Essay, in the Dialogue, "gravely and calmly, the views and arguments which occurred to my mind, on a question which many persons think an interesting one; and if any one will introduce any other temper into the discussion of this question, with him I will hold no argument; if he write in a vehement and angry strain, I will have nothing to say to him." The author is here alluding to Sir David Brewster, the author of the second of the three works placed at the head of this article. If, on the other hand, a man of great authority and reputation be unwise enough to run counter to opinions universally received, and that by persons of high scientific and literary reputation, merely as a sort of gladiatorial exercise, disturbing views rightly associated with religion and science, and with levity shaking the confidence of

mankind in conclusions arrived at by the profoundest masters of science, he must take the consequences of being deemed presumptuous and trifling, and encounter the stern rebuke of those whom he is not entitled to treat with disrespect.

Now, a careful and unprejudiced perusal of this Essay has satisfied us concerning several things. It is written with uncommon ability. The author has an easy mastery of the English language, and these pages abound in vigorous and beautifullyexact expressions. From beginning to end, also, may be seen indications of a subtle and guarded logic; a felicitous and masterly disposition of his subject; a thorough familiarity with the heights and depths of physics, divinity, and morals; and, above and infinitely beyond all, a reverent regard for the truths of revealed religion, and an earnest desire to advance its interests, by removing what, in his opinion, many deem a serious stumblingblock in the way of the devout Christian. That stumblingblock may be seen indicated in the audacious language which we have quoted from Thomas Paine. If this be the object which Dr Whewell has had in viewand who will doubt it?—his title to respectful consideration is greatly enhanced. He must be given credit for having deliberately counted the cost of what he was about to dothe amount of censure, ridicule, and contempt which he might provoke. It seems that he has felt himself strong enough to make the experiment; and here he sees a distinguished contemporary, Sir David Brewster, quickly ascribing "his theories and speculations to no better feeling than a love of notoriety;" who again stigmatises an argument of the Essayist as "the most ingenious though shallow piece of sophistry which we have ever encountered in modern dialectics."†

That Dr Whewell offers us, in his Essay and Dialogue, his real views and opinions, and that they have been long and deeply considered, we implicitly believe, on his own statement that such is the case. It may nevertheless be, that he is the uncon

+ Ibid., p. 202.

scious victim of an invincible love of paradox; and indeed Sir David Brewster unceremoniously characterises the Essayist's conjectures concerning the fixed stars as "insulting to Astronomy," and "ascribable only to some morbid condition of the mental powers, which feeds upon paradox, and delights in doing violence to sentiments deeply cherished, and to opinions universally believed;"* that having once conceived what he regards as a happy idea on a great question, he dwells upon it with such an eager fondness as warps his judgment; that having committed himself to what he has seen to be a false position, he defends it desperately, with consummate logical skill. Or he may believe himself entitled to the credit of having demolished bold and vast theories, and plucked up by the roots an enormous fallacy. It may be so, or it may not; but Dr Whewell's is certainly a very bold attempt to swim against the splendid stream of modern astronomical speculation. He would say, however, Is it not as bold to people, as to depopulate the starry structures? It is on you that the burthen of proof rests: you cannot see, or hear, inhabitants in other spheres; the Bible tells us nothing about them; and where, therefore, is the EVIDENCE on which you found your assertion, and would coerce me into a concurrence in your conclusions? I long for the production of sufficient evidence of so awful a fact as that God has created all the starry bodies for the purpose of placing upon them beings in any degree like man-moral, intellectual, accountable beings, of equal, higher, or lower degree of intelligence-consisting of that wondrous combination of matter and mind, body and soul, which constitutes man, existing in similar relations to the external world. The mere suggestion startles me, both as a man of science and a Christian believer, on account of certain difficulties which appear to me greater than perhaps even you may have taken into account. But, however this may be, I call upon you for proofs of so vast

More Worlds than One, p. 230.

a fact as you allege to exist, or the best kind and greatest degree of evidence which may justify me in assenting to the existence of such a fact. We are dealing with facts, probabilities, improbabilities; and I repudiate any intrusion of sentiment or fancy. If God has told me that the fact exists, I receive it with reverence; and wonder at finding myself a member of so immense a family, from all communication with which He has been pleased to cut me off in my present stage of existence. But if God has not told me the fact directly-and I feel no religious obligation to hold the fact to exist or not to exist-I will regard the question as one both curious and interesting, and weigh carefully the reasons which you offer me in support of your assertion. But will you, in return, weigh carefully the reasons I offer for asserting a fact which appears to me, however you may think erroneously, of incalculably greater personal moment to me as a member of the human family-namely, that "man's history and position are unique;-that the earth is really the largest planetary body in the solar system-its domestic hearth, and the only WORLD in the universe?" I am quite as much startled at having to receive your notion, as you may be to receive mine. My great engine of proof, says his opponent, is analogy: well, replies the other, there I will meet you; and the first grand point to settle is, whether there is an analogy;† when that shall have been settled in the affirmative, we will, as carefully as possible, weigh the amount of it.

This is the point at issue between Dr Whewell and Sir David Brewster; who resolutely undertakes to demonstrate "More Worlds than One" to be "the creed of the philosopher, and the hope of the Christian." It is to be seen whether this eminent member of the scientific world, also a firm believer in the Christian religion, has undertaken a task to which he is equal. He must present such an amount of proof as will require the plurality of worlds to be accepted as his CREED, by a PHILOSOPHER; that is, by a

+ Essay (2d edition), p. 261.

Baconian-one accustomed to exact and patient investigation of facts, and inferences deducible from them; who rigorously rejects, as disturbing forces, all appeals to our hopes or wishes, our feelings or fancy.

There are two questions before us; to which we shall add, on our own account, a third. The first is that asked in 1686 by the gifted and sprightly Fontenelle (whom Voltaire pronounced the most universal genius which the age of Louis XIV. produced), and echoed in 1854 by Sir David Brewster: Pourquoi non? Why should there not be a plurality of worlds? The second is that asked by Dr Whewell: Why should there be? "I do not pretend to disprove a plurality of worlds; but I ask in vain for any argument that makes the doctrine probable."* The third, is our own. And what if there be ?—a question of a directly practical tendency. We shall take the second question first, because it will bring Dr Whewell first on the field, as it was he who has so suddenly mooted this singular question. But we would at the outset entreat our readers, at all events our younger ones, to remember that we are dealing with a purely speculative subject, respecting which zealous partisans are apt to draw on their imaginations-to assert or deny the existence of analogy, on insufficient grounds; to overstrain or underrate its force; and lend to bare probabilities, or even pure possibilities, somewhat of the air of facts, where facts there are absolutely none.

I. Why should there be more worlds than one? "Astronomy," says Dr Whewell, "no more reveals to us extra-terrestrial moral agents, than religion reveals to us extra-terrestrial plans of Divine government;" and to remedy the assumption of moral agents in other worlds, by the assumption of some operation of the Divine plan in other worlds, is unauthorised and fanciful, and a violation of the humility, submission of mind, and spirit of reverence, which religion requires. He considers Dr Chalmers's allowance of astronomy's offering strong analogies in favour of such

*Dialogue, p. 37.

opinions as 66 more than rash" he regards such "analogies" as, "to say the least, greatly exaggerated; and by taking into account what astronomy really teaches us, and what we learn also from other sciences, I shall attempt to reduce such analogies to their true value." We have seen Dr Whewell, in 1833, expressing an opinion very doubtfully, with a "perhaps, that, as analogy would suggest, a few of the heavenly bodies appearing to be of the same nature as the earth, may be, like it, the seats of organised beings." He is now disposed to annihilate those analogies, so far as they are deemed sufficient to warrant such an immense conclusion. But that to which he is now disposed to come is equally immense. He says, "That the earth is inhabited, is not a reason for believing that the other planets are so, but for believing that they are not so." Her orbit "is the temperate zone of the solar system, where only is the play of hot and cold, moist and dry, possible. . The earth is really the largest planetary body in the solar system; its domestic hearth; adjusted between the hot and fiery haze on one side, the cold and watery vapour on the other. This region only is fit to be a domestic hearth, a seat of habitation; in this region is placed the largest solid globe of our system; and on this globe, by a series of creative operations, entirely different from any of those which separated the solid from the vaporous, the cold from the hot, the moist from the dry, have been established, in succession, plants, and animals, and MAN. So that the habitations have been occupied; the domestic hearth has been surrounded by its family; the fitnesses so wonderfully combined have been employed; and the earth alone, of all the parts of the frame which revolve round the sun, has become a WORLD."§ Now, let us here cite two or three passages of Scripture, one of them very remarkable. "The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's; but the earth hath he given to the children of men." || "Thus saith God the Lord, he that created

Ibid., pp. 299, 300. Psalm cxv. 16.

the heavens, and stretched them out; be that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, aud spirit to them that walk therein:* ... I have made the earth, and created man upon it; I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. . . . Thus saith the Lord, that created the heavens; God himself, that formed the earth, and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed IT to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." Here the Psalmist speaks of both the heaven and the earth, saying of the latter that he has given it to the children of men ; while the inspired prophet repeatedly speaks of the heavens and the earth, saying that God had given breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein; that he had created man upon it; that he had created the earth not in vain, but formed "it," to be inhabited. It is not said that he formed the heavens to be inhabited, but the earth. This passage Sir David Brewster has quoted as "a distinct declaration from the inspired prophet, that the earth would have been created IN VAIN, if it had not been formed to be inhabited; and hence we draw the conclusion, that as the Creator cannot be supposed to have made the worlds of our system, and those in the sidereal universe, in vain, they must have been formed to be inhabited."‡ Is not this a huge "conclusion" to draw from these premises? And do not the words tend rather the other way-to show that the earth, with its wondrous adaptations, would have been created in vain, if not to be inhabited; but that the heavens may be created for other purposes, of which man, in the present stage of existence, has not, nor can have, any conception?

We have spoken of Sir David Brewster's drawing a huge conclusion from a passage of Scripture in support of his views of the question before us; but we have to present a still huger conclusion, drawn by him from another glorious passage: "When I

* Isaiah, xlii. 5.

consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?" "This," says Sir David," is a positive argument for a plurality of worlds! We cannot doubt that inspiration revealed to the Hebrew poet the magnitude, the distances, and the final cause of the glorious spheres which fixed his admiration. . . . He doubtless viewed these worlds as teeming with life, physical and intellectual; as globes which may have required millions of years for their preparation, exhibiting new forms of beings, new powers of mind, new conditions in the past, and new glories in the future!" Dialogue Dr Whewell thus drily dismisses this extraordinary flight of his opponent: "That the Hebrew poet knew, or thought about, the plurality of worlds, is a fact hitherto unnoticed by the historians of astronomy; to their consideration I leave it."

In his

Let us now, however, follow Dr Whewell in the development of his idea, bearing in mind his own impressive statement, in his preface, that, "while some of his philosophical conclusions appear to him to fall in very remarkably with certain points of religious doctrine, he is well aware that philosophy alone can do little in providing man with the consolations, hopes, supports, and convictions which religion offers; and he acknowledges it as a ground of deep gratitude to the Author of All Good, that man is not left to philosophy for those blessings, but has a fuller assurance of them by a moredirect communication from Him."

"The two doctrines which we have here to weigh against each other," says Dr Whewell," are the plurality of worlds, and the unity of the world;" and he includes, as a necessary part of the conception of a 'WORLD,' a collection of intelligent creatures, where reside intelligence, perception of truth, recognition of moral law, and reverence for a Divine Creator and Governor." His Essay branches into three great divisions, in disposing of the conjectural plurality of worlds, More Worlds than One, p. 17.

and suggesting the reality of the unity of the world. First, he considers the constitution of man: secondly, that of the earth which he inhabits, its adaptation, structure, and position: lastly, its neighbours in the heavens-the solar system to which it belongs, the fixed stars, and the nebulæ; and as to these, he declares that " a closer inquiry, with increased means of observation, gives no confirmation to the conjecture which certain aspects of the universe at first sight suggested to man, that there may be other bodies, like the earth, tenanted by other creatures like man,-some characters of whose nature seem to remove or lessen the difficulties we may at first feel in regarding the earth as, in a unique and special manner, the field of God's providence and government."* This is not the order in which Dr Whewell proceeds, but it is that which we shall observe, in giving our readers such a brief and intelligible account as we can of this singularly bold Essay. He himself commences with a beautiful sketch of the state of" Astronomical Discoveries," with which Dr Chalmers dealt in his celebrated Discourses; by no means understating the amount of them, with reference principally to the number of the heavenly bodies"a countless host of worlds, arranged in planetary systems, having years and seasons, days and nights, as we have;" as to which," it is at least a likely suggestion that they have also inhabitants-intelligent beings, who can reckon those days and years-who subsist on the fruits which the seasons bring forth, and have their daily and yearly occupations, according to their faculties." If this world be merely one of innumerable other worlds, all, like it, the workmanship of God,-all the seats of life-like it, occupied by intelligent creatures, capable of will, law, obedience, disobedience, as manis, -to hold that it alone should have been the scene of God's care and kindness, and still more, of His special interposition, communication, and personal dealings with its individual inhabitants, in the way which religion teaches, is, the objector is conceived

Essay, p. 359.

§ Ibid., p. 103.

to maintain, in the highest degree extravagant, incredible, and absurd."‡ Such is, as we have seen, the assertion of Thomas Paine; and Dr Whewell proposes to discuss this vast speculative question, "not as an objection urged by an opponent, but rather as a difficulty felt by a friend of religion; "-" to examine rather how we can quiet the troubled and perplexed believer, than how we can triumph over the dogmatical and selfsatisfied infidel."§ But let our reader note well, at starting, the above mighty "IF:" which he may regard as the comet's nucleus, drawing after it an enormous and dismaying train of consequences, sweeping into annihilation man's hopes equally with his fears.

Dr Whewell gives a lucid and terse account of the scope of Dr Chalmers's eloquent declamation, his ingenious suggestions, and his astronomical or philosophical arguments, which he deems" of great weight; and, upon the whole, such as we may both assent to, as scientifically true, and accept as rationally persuasive. I think, however, that there are other arguments, also drawn from scientific discoveries, which bear in a very important and striking manner upon the opinions in question, and which Chalmers has not referred to; and I conceive that there are philosophical views of another kind, which, for those who desire and will venture to regard the universe and its Creator in the wider and deeper relations which appear to be open to human speculation, may be a source of satisfaction." || But " WHAT IS MAN?" is the pregnant question of the royal Psalmist; and Dr Whewell gives an account of man, at once ennobling and solemnising; in strict accordance, moreover, with revelation, and with those views of his moral and intellectual nature universally entertained by the believers in revealed religion. We know of no man living entitled to speak with more authority on such subjects than Dr Whewell; and we think it impossible for any thoughtful person to read the portions of his Essay relating to this subject, without feelings