Page images
PDF
EPUB

astronomical hypothesis, we must beg to differ from this. For the facts of astronomy can offer no evidence of any weight on this point, and the suppositions, therefore, which the astronomer might be inclined to deduce from them, must be very carefully considered before they are received as true. It is to geology that we must have resort in the present case; and here, indeed, we shall find such facts as entirely counterbalance Sir D. Brewster's assumptions, and furnish us with strong probabilities against his bold yet undoubtedly fallacious theory. "The earth," says Dr. Whewell,* * "was brute and inert, compared with its present condition; dark and chaotic, so far as the light of reason and intelligence are concerned, for countless centuries before man was created. Why, then, may not other parts of creation be still in this brute, and inert, and chaotic state, while the earth is under the influence of a higher exercise of creative power? If the earth was for ages a turbid abyss of lava and of mud, why may not Mars and Saturn be so still?. We say, therefore, that the example of geology refutes the argument drawn from the supposed analogy of one part of the universe with another; and suggests a strong suspicion that the force of analogy, better known, may tend in the opposite direction."

Nothing could be stronger than this-nothing more conclusive against the hasty and impetuous decree of our great opponent. In fact, so absurd is the analogy which he has attempted to draw, that on the supposition of its truth, a position, almost universally confessed to be wrong, must be defended. We should, if consistent, be compelled to believe that man existed during all the immense space of time previous to Adam, because, agreeably to the principle of this hypothesis, we must suppose, that as the earth is now inhabited by man, so by analogy we may conclude it was always so. Indeed, even at this our opponent does not shrink, but coolly asks us, what harm there is in such a supposition, and enjoins us to find a future habitation, not only for the Adamic race of men, but also " for the races which preceded him!" Of course, we need scarcely reply, that both science and revelation are

* "More Worlds than One," p. 199. + Ibid, p. 18.

opposed to this, inasmuch as geologists have found no traces of such beings, and the Bible explicitly calls Adam the first man (1 Cor. xv. 45).

Our readers need not, however, be astonished at these philosophical blunders. No doubt, Sir D. Brewster has become so accustomed to the technicalities of his science as to lose his taste for common sense. We must accordingly warn those who may happen to read any of his works, to expect various species of extravagance and absurdity in them. For instance, he tells us, without the slightest compunction, that the Supreme Being is not likely to pay particular attention, or exhibit peculiar love towards us, since we are so small a part of his creation. Certainly, if Sir David would practise the principle of this theory in his everyday life, the most curious and original relations would spring up between himself and others. Supposing, according to this, that the extent of his care and affection must be limited by the extent of a given space, he cannot but entertain the warmest sentiments of love towards a fellow-creature of seven feet high, while his child, who is only two feet, must be treated like a dog. A thin man must be regarded as a fool when in the presence of a more corpulent companion, and a stout Pagan must be preferred to a slender and emaciated Christian!

It may be that Sir D. Brewster revels in such ideas as these, on account of their novelty and their consistency with his suppositions; but if so, he has to resist geology as well as common sense. Geology tells us most distinctly that God has bestowed particular care and attention upon man. He has conferred upon him alone, intelligence, morality, and religion. All ages prior to his creation have left no other traces of their existence except such as prove that they were made for man's benefit alone; although cen-. turies passed away when no rational being like ourselves was formed. If God has been thus bountiful to us in time, what philosophy, what science, what testimony, can refute the statement that he has been so in space? On this point Dr. Whewell has written so clearly, that we think it our duty to quote from him the following lines:

"If the earth, as the habitation of man, is a speck in the midst of an infinity of space, the earth, as the habitation of man, is

[graphic]
[graphic]

such facts Brewster's strong proba doubtedly says Dr. W compared and chaotic and intellige centuries befor then, may not thin this brute while the eart higher exerci earth was for and of mud, be so still? example of ge drawn from the of the univers a strong suspici

better known,

Nothing could thing more ca impetuous dec fact, so absur attempted to

of its truth, a confessed to e We should, E believe that

mense space

cause, agre hypothesis,

earth is now we may on even at th

but colly such as future

Tace of

Trece

also a speck at the end of an infinity of time. If we are as nothing in the surrounding universe, we are as nothing in the elapsed eternity, or rather, in the elapsed organic anti quity during which the earth has existed, and been the abode of life. If man is but one small family in the midst of innumerable possible households, he is also but one small family, the successor of innumerable tribes of animals, not possible only, but actual. Even, therefore, if astronomy could demonstrate all that her most fanciful disciples assume, geology would still have a complete right to claim an equal hearing to insist on having her analogies regarded. She would have a right to answer the questions of astronomy, when she asks, How can we believe this? and to have her answer accepted." What authority, then, has Sir D. Brewster, or any other person, to say that it is absurd to imagine that the entire universe was created for man, when geology tells him to the contrary? We maintain with confidence, that so far from its being unreasonable to entertain any such opinion, the facts of geology, and the analogy of nature, imperatively demand our assent to it.

[ocr errors]

Will it then be objected that God wastes all the other globes, and renders them useless, because he thus confers especial blessings upon mankind? But surely it does not become us to pass these strictures upon the works of the Almighty, as though we were criticising a book. They who do so, rank themselves, perhaps unconsciously, with infidels and blasphemers, and put themselves upon an equality with their Maker! For exactly the same waste is exhibited in our own world as in the universe.

6

"All its previous ages, its seas, and its continents, have been wasted' upon mere brute life; often, apparently, on the lowest, the least conscious forms of life:-upon sponges, coral, shell-fish. Why, then, should not the seas and continents of other planets be occupied with life of this order, or with no life at all? Who shall tell how many ages elapsed before this earth was tenanted by life at all? Will the occupation of a spot of land, or a little water, by the life of a sponge, a coral, or an oyster, save it from being wasted'? If a spot of rock or water be sufficiently employed by its being the

* "Essay," pp. 191, 192.

mere seat of organization, of however low and simple a type,-why not by its being the mere seat of attraction? cohesion? crystalline power? All parts of the universe appear pervaded by attraction, by forces of aggregation and atomic relation, by light and heat:-why may not these be sufficient, in the eyes of the Creator, to prevent the space from being 'wasted,' as during a great part of the earth's past history, and over vast portions of its mass in its present form, they are actually held by him to be sufficient, since these powers, or forces, are all that occupy such portions? This notion, therefore, of the improbability of there being in the universe so vast an amount of 'waste' spaces, or 'waste' bodies, as is implied in the notion that the earth alone is the seat of life, or of intelligence, is confuted by matter of fact, existing, in respect of vast spaces, waste districts, and especially waste times, upon our own earth. The avoidance of such waste,' according to our notions of waste, is no part of the economy of creation, so far as we can discern that economy in its most certain exemplification."*

Further, we are considerably enlightened by the statement of Sir D. Brewster, when he asserts that, "Wherever there is matter, there must be life:-life physical, to enjoy its beauties; life moral, to worship its Maker; and life intellectual, to proclaim his wisdom and his power." Agreeably to this, we must believe that during that chaotic state of creation intimated in the 1st verse of the 1st chapter of Genesis, animals must have been in existence, and indeed the moment God commanded the formation of matter, life also must coincidently have been introduced. No one, we believe, maintains this. If, therefore, mere animal life did not exist during the vast space between the 1st and 2nd verses of the 1st chapter of Genesis, a fortiori, rational life did not exist. The proposition, then, that "wherever there is matter there must be life," is erroneous; neither is life by any means a "property of matter."

Having thus shown that there is no improbability in that view which considers the rest of the universe, besides our earth, to be at present merely subservient to the temporal well-being of man, it is natural for us to advance a step further, and inquire what

"Blackwood's Magazine," Oct. 1854, p. 378.

But, filled as they are with this theological zeal, our opponents forget that they have been assuming all this while a most important point, viz., that the house is already finished and ready for occupation-that the planets and stars are now suitable for human habitation. We think, however, if everything else brought forward in our favour were shown to be false, this would at once terminate the triumph of our scientific antagonists, and effectually put a stop to their too hasty exhilaration. For the purpose of producing this desirable effect, we shall examine into it at as great a length as our remaining space will admit.

is to be the future use of the stars? The and thus (c), the man that makes the earth conjecture of Sir D. Brewster appears to us a speck in his astronomical scheme, makes exceedingly probable, viz., that they will be the same a mountain in his theological one, the abode of the pious, and form the μovai-characterizes it in the former as insignifi Toλai of our Saviour, and we believe that cant and mean; while in the latter he asit is for that purpose they were principally cribes to it all the glory, and maintains that created. These, however, are but supposi- it is facile princeps! * tions, in favour of which we can, as yet, offer no practical evidence. Our readers may, therefore, receive them or not, as they choose We have now come to our second division, and shall consider the moral arguments which appear to us to establish our opinion, and forbid the supposition that there are 66 more worlds than one." Let us bring before our minds the past and present history of such worlds, granting them to be inhabited. In the earliest stage of their existence, we should see them, like Adam, pure and holy, yet still liable to sin. After a few years, we should see them again, the same beings indeed, but with characters so changed, so sinful, so degraded, that it would be scarcely possible to recognize them. And here comes the absurdity. For, being in this abject and godless condition, they would, like ourselves, need a Redeemer to extricate them from it. Christ must thus have gone to all these different and numerous globes for which our opponents would claim inhabitants, offered to each the same salvation as he did to us, giving them the same revelation, received the same persecution, and endured the same death again and again! How unreasonable!

It is no objection to say that "the provision made for the redemption of man, by what took place 1800 years ago, may have extended its influence to other worlds." For, independently of the fact that it really concedes to us what we wish to establish, viz., the peculiar care bestowed by God upon this earth (for otherwise why should God select our's more than any other for a display of such remarkable love?) this hypothesis is (a) entirely without warrant or countenance in the revelation from which all our knowledge of the scheme of redemption is derived; it requires (b) a dozen auxiliary hypotheses to make it intelligible, for as the advent of our world was connected with events previous to it, so we must suppose it to have happened in the others, and thus the history of this world would be exactly the history of all those,-exhibiting a palpable absurdity;

Now, for the preservation of life, certain conditions are necessary, e. g., air, moisture, equable temperature, and a certain density of matter. A world wanting in one of these conditions is virtually wanting in all: but the rest of the universe, besides our earth, does not satisfy these conditions; therefore, it cannot support life, and consequently is not inhabited. Granting the two premises of this syllogism, the truth of the conclusion must also be acknowledged. The first no one will be bold enough to deny; the second we shall now endeavour to prove.

There is, at the very outset, a little point about the thirty planetoids, which we have no doubt will prove to those of our readers who do not agree with us, as pleasant as a hedge of thorns to a person who, instead of leaping over it, falls right into its midst. Our opponents cannot twist their imagination so violently as to suppose that these are inhabited; and consequently their argument that a planet must be inhabited because it is a planet, falls to the ground. If it be answered that they are not peopled simply because they are too small, we reply in the words of Dr. Whewell:-†

"There is, then, a degree of smallness which makes you reject the supposition of inhabitants. But where does that degree of

"Dialogue," pp. 62-64. + Ibid, p. 28.

« PreviousContinue »