rational beings will ever cease to occupy the Earth. The age of the inhabited Earth is, therefore, continually approximating to that of the ancient Earth, and after becoming equal to it, will probably become greater, and approximate to infinity. In this way the scale of time in the geological argument of the Essayist is inverted. The atom of time has, in his language, become infinity, while the scale of space continues permanent as before. If this is not the case, we are involved in the inconceivable absurdity that the Architect of the universe took millions of years to make a world which was to be occupied only for a few thousands. To spend a thousand years in building and furnishing e house which was to be occupied only for one year, would be a supposition too ridiculous to be introduced into a volume of romance.

CHAPTER XIV.

OBJECTIONS FROM THE NATURE OF NEBULE.

IN

Na 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 its shadow, 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 a 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 may hereafter learn, that all nebulæ are resolvable into distinct points; that would be a still more curious discovery. But what would it amount to? What would be the simple way of expressing it without hypothesis and without assumption? Plainly this,—that the

substance of all nebulæ is not continuous but discrete;-separable and separate into distinct luminous elements; nebulæ are, it would thus seem, as it were, of a curdled or granulated texture; they have run into lumps of light, or have been formed originally of such lumps. Highly curious! But what are these lumps? How large are they? At what distances? Of what structure? Of what use? It would seem that he must be a bold man who undertakes to answer these questions. Certainly he must appear to ordinary thinkers to be very bold, who, in reply, says gravely and confidently, as if he had authority for his teaching, These lumps, O man, are suns; they are distant from each other as far as the dog-star is from us; each has its system of planets, which revolve around it; and each of these planets is the seat of animal and vegetable creation. Among these planets some, we do not yet know how many, are occupied by rational and responsible creatures like man; and the only matter which perplexes us, holding this belief on astronomical grounds, is, that we do not quite see how to put our theology into its due place and form in our system."1

This, surely, is neither the language nor the tone 1 Essay, &c. pp. 120-122.

of a man of science in search of truth, or holding in respect the great revelations of astronomy. The Essayist triumphantly asks four questions, and tells us that he would be a bold man that undertakes to answer them. We accept the challenge, and appeal to our readers.

Question 1. How large are the lumps of light, or the shining dots, into which the astronomer's powerful telescope has resolved the nebulæ? These lumps of light are admitted to be stars shining by their own light. Now, it has been shewn by the most distinguished astronomers, by Herschel and by Struve, that in the various orders of distances in space, the distances of the nebulæ are the greatest. According to the recent researches of Mr. Peters, as given by M. Struve,1 the following are the distances of the stars of different magnitudes, as ascertained by a process approximately correct :