the work of creation, the oasis in the desert of our system, there is nothing in this contrary to the analogy of creation."

That is, The Earth, the ATOM OF SPACE, is the only one of the planetary and sidereal worlds that is inhabited, because it was so long without inhabitants, and has been occupied only an ATOM OF TIME! If any of our readers see the force of this argument, they must possess an acuteness of perception to which we lay no claim. To us it is not only illogical ;-it is a mere sound in the ear, without any sense in the brain. What relation is there between the SHORT period of man's occupation of the Earth, and the SMALL portion which he occupies in space? If there is such a relation, that we can reason from the truth of the first to the probability of the second, then we can reason as justly from the truth of the second to the probability of the first. Now, let us suppose it to be as certain that the Earth is the only inhabited planet, as it is certain that Man has occupied the Earth only for the short period of 6000 years, could any rational being allege that because man occupied only an atom of space,

he therefore must live only an atom of time upon the Earth?

But even if we admit the result with regard to Man, the argument does not apply to other intellectual beings than Man-to an inferior or to a superior race that never occupied the Earth at all. If man is thus limited by a syllogism to the occupation of one planet, one atom of space, an angelic race, who never lived on the Earth at all, may be indulged with the оссираtion of Jupiter. But, farther, let us suppose that we learn by the telescope that every planet and satellite in the Solar system is inhabited by Man, he would still occupy but an atom of space, and our author's argument would go to prove that none of the fixed stars or binary

systems are inhabited. In like manner, if

we could prove that the binary systems were inhabited, the sum of them all would be but an atom of space, and our author would still rejoice in his conclusion, that the clusters of stars and nebula were uninhabited vapour.

If the reasoning which we have examined be sound in its nature, it would fail entirely by a change in the premises. If it is possible,

that the time of the Earth's preparation was comparatively short, or that intelligent beings occupied the Earth previous to man; and if it is probable that Man will continue to occupy the Earth during a period equal, or approximating to the period of the Earth's preparation, the whole of our author's argument has neither force nor meaning.

If the Almighty has occupied a million of years in preparing the crust of the Earth as a suitable residence for man, by the slow operation of secondary causes, and has deposited the remains of vegetable and animal life in each series of its formation, in order to enable man to read the history of his omnipotence and wisdom, is that any reason why the Earth, the residence of man, should, among countless and more glorious worlds than his own, be the only one that is inhabited? Reason and common sense dictate a very different opinion. If nearly infinity of time has been employed to provide for intellectual and immortal life so glorious an abode, is it not probable that nearly infinity of space will be devoted to the same noble purpose?

CHAPTER XII.

OBJECTIONS FROM THE NATURE OF NEBULA.

IN a preceding chapter on nebulæ, we trust we have satisfied the candid inquirer that all nebulæ are clusters of stars, and that there is no proof whatever, not even the shadow of proof, that in the sidereal regions there is what is called nebulous matter, either existing in a stationary condition, or aggregating into stars. The author of the Essay Of the Plurality of Worlds, whose astronomical objections to the doctrine of a plurality of worlds we are about to consider, very dexterously commences his argument with an attack upon that part of the doctrine which relates to nebulæ. He is not content with the statement of facts, but he attempts to throw ridicule upon his opponents by the application of words which are calculated to influence the minds of ignorant or inattentive

readers. By calling nebulæ clouds, and pieces of comets' tails, and the stars into which they are resolved, shining dots, pieces of bright curd, luminous grains, and lumps of light, he fancies that he has demolished the opinion of astronomers that these dots are suns; that they are "as far from each other as the dog-star" is from us; that each sun has its system of planets, and each planet its animal and vegetable life.

"An astronomer," says the Essayist, "armed with a powerful telescope, resolves a nebula, discerns that a luminous cloud is composed of shining dots-but what are these dots ? Into what does he resolve the nebula ? Into stars, it is commonly said. Let us not wrangle about words. By all means let these dots be stars, if we know about what we are speaking,—if a star merely means a luminous dot in the sky. But that these stars shall resemble in their nature stars of the first magnitude, and that such stars shall resemble our sun, are surely very bold structures of assumption to build on such a basis. Some nebulæ are resolvable-are resolvable into distinct points-certainly a very curious, probably a very important discovery. We