try to ascertain the natural meaning of the term "unquenchable fire." It may mean that it is "unquenchable" by man, or by any other than God; but we rather understand it to mean, that so long as any souls need the purifying process thereby denoted, so long will this place or state continue. Not to trespass upon another subject under discussion, we may simply remark that there appears to us every reasonable assumption in favour of the "plurality of inhabited worlds" theory; and if sin be not confined to our world, what a vast regenerative process will have to be carried on! Measuring it by human computations, we may well term it "unquenchable." These remarks are equally applicable to Matt. xxv. 46; 2 Thess. i. 7—10, and several other passages. This suggests a difficulty which we should be glad to have explained by some friend on the other side:-How is it that so many persons reject the "fire and brimstone" as literal, while they retain the "everlasting" in its strictest application?

Psa. ii. 9, and Rev. ii. 26-27, have generally been regarded as indicative of destruction-total and irremediable; but we perceive in them a design worthy of God-the remodelling of these marred and shattered vessels. Jer. xviii. 1-10, and Rom. ix. 20-21, form a striking commentary on these passages. And who can conceive a more beautiful or appropriate figure? Those acquainted with the art referred to, will the better be able to realize the full force of the idea intended to be conveyed.

Prov. xvi. 4, and 2 Pet. ii. 9, have been sadly perverted; although we are at a loss to conceive how these passages can be made to sanction the doctrine of eternal punishment. Is it, then, supposed that this was the object which God had in view in creating men? But we shall have again to allude to this; and only remark here, that by some the first passage is rendered -"after the days of evil;" which to us appears consonant with the former part of the verse. This is only another instance of isolated passages being made to contradict the general scope of the Bible, as expressed in Psa. ciii; Lan. iii. 31-33, and Micah vii. 18-20.

II. We have now to consider sundry collateral points which demand attention.

1. Supposing the doctrine of eternal punishment true, what can we regard as the

future condition of the heathen? Perhaps our opponents will admit that the virtuous heathen, as the phrase is, who act according to what inward light they possess, may be accepted for what they have done; their own consciences being a law unto them. But of such, alas! how few! And what of the terrible-the overwhelming majority? What of the myriads who have been brought up in, and have cherished the very worst forms of polytheism, and who have long since passed away? What of the millions who, in our own day, are shrouded in superstition's blackest night-a "darkness that may be felt; "-who have never had an opportunity of listening to the heavenly proclamation of "good tidings of great joy;"-what of these? Oh! we have heard with horror good men, while pleading the cause of christian missions, endeavour to arouse sympathy by dwelling upon the eternal doom of the heathen. What! can I, dare I, think for one moment, that the God and the Father of my spirit would place them in such circumstances that, humanly speaking, no instruction could reach them, and then eternally condemn these miserable, ignorant beings for obeying their brute instincts? No; our soul recoils with a just horror from such an idea. We dare not charge God with this palpable injustice.

2. Again, supposing this doctrine true, who is there, possessed of even ordinary benevolence and good feeling, that would incur the fearful responsibilities of a parent, when possibly his children might be eternally separated from him? Why, procreation would be positively cruel under such circumstances; and the command of God, "Be fruitful and multiply," equally absurd and unkind. If those who avow this doctrine were to fully act out their belief, they must necessarily remain unmarried; but this, if universally practised, would be defeating another design of God; so here is a dilemma in which the advocates of this doctrine are placed!

3. But do our friends really and truly believe it; and are they willing to abide by the legitimate conclusions to which it leads? Of the great majority, we think not; and we will briefly state our reasons. How often do we hear among orthodox Christians the remark made, of some one who, they fear, died impenitent:-"Well; we must hope for

the best; although we do not know for certain what were his last feelings." Now, we respect, and would cherish, the motive which prompts such a hope; and while we arrive at exactly the same conclusion-rather, we should say, at something more confident-but by a very different course of reasoning, we accept it from them as indicative that they are more liberal than their creed. And even in cases where the utmost stretch of charity on the part of friends forbids them to hope, we shall find those dearest to the deceased, " hoping against hope;" their better nature refusing to admit of an eternal separation. We recently met with an instance-alas! too common-where a mother mourned an only son, whose waywardness had caused his ruin. He died with no friendly hand to administer to his wants, and no friendly voice to which he could listen in his last moments; nothing was known beyond that he died, where and as he lived. Acquaintances shook their heads, and, while pitying the mother, said it was a just judgment from God. A minister, acting out his convictions, spoke to her of the final doom of the impenitent; but the maternal heart refused to believe it in the case

of her child, trusting in that love and justice which were precious to her own soul. Now, we appeal to any reader who has had to part with some near and dear relative, but of whose spiritual fitness for a better world, little or nothing could be hoped. As you watched by that bedside, did you deliberately believe that the parting was eternal? Did you not cherish a hope-faint, it might be, but still a hope -that it would at some time terminate? If not, we set a very low estimate on such Christianity; nay, more, we think it has had the effect of deadening or destroying those natural feelings which God has implanted in every human breast.

There are several other and most interesting points which we might notice, did space permit; as-how far a pure, unselfish love to God can exist in harmony with a belief in this doctrine; and the connection between the avowal of such a belief and the prevalent infidelity or indifferentism of our time. We think, however, enough has been said fully and fairly to place the subject before our readers, and to their careful attention we again commend it.

SIGMA.

"It is more suitable to the wisdom, power, and greatness of God, to suppose that the fixt stars are all of them suns, with systems of inhabitable planets moving about them, to whose inhabitants he displays the marks of his goodness as well as to us, rather than to imagine that those very remote bodies, so little useful to us, were made only

for our sake."-Locke, Elements of Nat. Phil.

THE subject of a plurality of worlds has long been an interesting one to us, and we naturally took up the January number of the British Controversialist with much eagerness. With the article of "Philalethes" we were much pleased; but, expecting to discover an equal show of ability in the production of his opponent, we were grievously disappointed.

H. D. L. very kindly defines for us the

We do

terms of this debate; he may have defined them very much to his own satisfaction, but certainly he has not done it to ours. not see what right he-following the example of the essayist whom he seems so much to admire, and to whom he is so deeply indebted has to limit the words "plurality of inhabited worlds" to "more worlds than one inhabited by men." He appears to delude himself with the idea that we are going to allow such a definition; and then endeavours to prove that the notion of more worlds than one inhabited by men is not consistent with science and with revelation. Even with this interpretation, however, he has failed.

But we would not have it thought that we include as inhabitants of the orbs of the

universe "angelic beings, spiritual existences, or any ethereal forms;" but we would include various grades of animal life, as there have been on this our world (from the graptolite of the Silurian rocks to man in his pride and his glory). The forms, the numbers, the powers of these creatures we are unacquainted with, but that they minister to the wants of some intelligent being or beings is certain. We do not know anything about the number, form, or capabilities of these beings, nor do we need to know. There is no reason why their average height should be five feet six inches, or why they should possess two eyes, two ears, one mouth, &c. The Almighty could as easily put a soul in the frame of the mighty elephant, or an intellect or a conscience under the skin of the spotted lynx, or the feathers of the turtle dove, as place them in the possession of the genus homo. Therefore we would maintain, that the inhabitants of the heavenly orbs may be as small as Gulliver's Lilliputians, or as immense as the inhabitants of Brobdignag; or the intelligences of those worlds may not wear the guise of men at all.

Of course it is probable that some worlds are in a "brute and inert and chaotic state," as was our earth, when preparing for its occupation by man; just as it is probable that some have finished this preparation, and have received their last and best inhabitants, -for it is not likely that our world is of greater age than the other planets.

H. D. L. supports his own view of the matter by counterbalancing the facts of astronomy with those of geology. But what does geology prove-that God has been very kind to man? So he has been to all his sentient creatures. He has given to them all that is necessary to their comfort and happiness. But it proves that he has bestowed particular care upon man. So it is likely that an Omniscient Creator would be more careful for the welfare of an intelligent being than for the brutes which surround him. It is most consistent with his character as an Infinite Intelligence that he should be so.

But this proves nothing against our theory. For nothing upon this earth is or has been wasted.

"The zephyr playing with an aspen leaf; the earthquake that rendeth a continent; "The moonbeam silvering a ruined arch; the desert wave dashing a pyramid;

"The thunder of jarring icebergs; the stops of a shepherd's pipe;

"The howl of the tiger in the glen; and the wood-dove calling to her mate;

"The vulture's cruel rage; the grace of the stately swan;

"The fierceness looking from a lynx's eye; and the dull stupor of the sloth;

"To these, and to all, is there added each its use, though man considereth it lightly; "For Power hath ordained nothing which economy saw not needful." *

We say, then, that every atom of matter on this globe has its use in answering the design of its Creator, and in some way or other contributing to the well-being of man. But the orbs of heaven, which man could do without, are wasted if we consider them as tenantless. H. D. L. appears to have a pious horror of talking about "wasting;" but we cannot perceive why our declaration that if the planets are not inhabited they are wasted, can by any means rank us with "infidels and blasphemers." For while we behold the stars, and are acquainted with many facts concerning them, we have two suppositions respecting them, according to one of which the creation of those stars is entirely consistent with the character of God as revealed to us, but according to the other, such creation appears inconsistent with the Divine attributes, we are, then, surely justified in speaking as we do. In our opponent's first 'argument of a moral kind,"† he, reasoning from his own definition, asserts that if other worlds are inhabited, it would be needful for the Saviour to die over and over again, as an atonement for their inhabitants! Such a supposition involves several preliminary ones

that God follows out the same plan in all these worlds; that he should allow the inhabitants of all to be tempted; that all should fall, as did our first parents; and that God should have mercy to all who have fallen from their integrity. All this must be supposed, if we take H. D. L.'s own definition; but if we do not, how preposterous is the idea! Even as the faithful angels, some races of beings may have preserved their first estate. We are unable to discover

Tupper," Prov. Phil.," p.17, illustrated edition. + By the bye, H. D. L.'s article is sadly confused, for under the head "arguments derived from the outer world," he gives us several texts; aud under his second division, i.e., "arguments of a moral kind," he takes us a journey through space, finding the Sun too hot, and Neptune too cold, and the Moon too devoid of air, to contain inhabitants.

If they unfallen, yet remain True to their Maker, and for ever bask In the delicious pleasure of his smile, Drowned in the fullness of His mighty love; Or if sin dwelleth there, and all its train Of evils and of woes is dominant."

We may well use H. D. L.'s words with reference to his religious idea-" How unreasonable!"

But it is in his journey through the universe that our opponent reaches the apex of absurdity. We scarcely know what to think of him. His paper is written in an interesting and ornate style; he appears to understand his subject, and writes very confidently; but he makes strange statements, and so misrepresents facts. Has he studied astronomy or geology? or has he only read over the essay of that "anonymous author who so electrified us all," to prepare himself for this debate?

As to the planetoids, it is almost universally believed by astronomers that they are the fragments of some larger planet; and therefore the conjecture of Dr. Dick, that "the fate of the beings that inhabited the original planet must have been involved in the awful catastrophe,"* is probably correct. We do not wish to insist on the occupation, by intelligent beings, of the sun and moon; though we are able to prove that the former, at least, is capable of sustaining them. But were it not, it has a use and end" in its relations to the planets that surround it. It is the

66

"Informer of the planetary train, Without whose quickening glance, their cum

brous orbs

Were brute, unlovely mass, inert and dead, And not, as now, the green abodes of life."+ This is of sufficient importance to the inhabitants of the planets to account for its creation. So with the moon; she is of great use to us: "The moon has a particular duty to discharge. She is the circulating lampthe light-bearer of the earth. She is the lifter of our tides, and the purifier of our oceans." + After an imaginary tour through the planetary system, H. D. L. finds himself" obliged to hasten back to the only world suited to our nature, viz., the earth." Very likely it is the only world suited to our nature; the upholders of the doctrine of more worlds

* "Solar System," part ii., p. 30.
+ Thomson's "Seasons."
"British Quarterly," July, 1854.

than one do not suppose that the inhabitants of Mercury or Neptune are men; men like ourselves, who would be frozen to death at 100°, or burnt up at 300°, Fahr.!

Our opponent says, "Jupiter, whose bulk is 1,331 times greater than the Earth's, is in density only a quarter that of the latter. Being also five times the distance that we are from the Sun, the idea of persons living there of the same race as ourselves is most preposterous." We should like to know why. Were it not for its extreme lightness it would be impossible for beings like ourselves to dwell on Jupiter; "but, owing to the comparative lightness of the matter composing this great globe, the attraction which it exerts upon bodies placed upon its surface, though greater than upon the Earth, does not exceed terrestrial gravity in a proportion which requires the admission of any difference of organization of the inhabitants, exceeding what may be imagined without removing Jupiter from the general analogy of the Earth."* The difference as to heat, also, could be removed by the existence of a rather different atmosphere at Jupiter to that which surrounds our Earth. At last H. D. L., running counter to all the opinions of philosophers and the discoveries of science, almost denies that the fixed stars are suns; and adopts, with regard to the nebula, the absurd theory of the essayist, calling them ' vast masses of incoherent or gaseous matter!" Thus he spoils the universe for us, and laughs at the beauty he has defaced, the ruin he has caused!

66

With regard to science, then, we fearlessly assert that the notion of a plurality of inhateachings. We challenge our opponents to bited worlds is perfectly consonant with its will be found to uphold what we have just prove the contrary, feeling assured that many stated.

With regard to revelation, we would say a few words. We fully believe that the testiWe will endeavour to give, as briefly as posmony of revelation supports our position. sible, the grounds of our belief.

character of the Creator. I. It is most consistent with the revealed

in earth, and sea, and the orbs of heavenGod is almighty. We see this in his works in the varied grades of life. He that can

"Museum," i., 3, p. 30.