Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-07-22


markable work in question We do not think that tn
essayist has fully made out his case, but pret
sure that Sir David has not completely answered tn
case as it is presented. The anonymous writer may
land we still incline to this opinion) in but hi
learned critic according to apprehension, has aile
to convict him Of it in way that can be deemed salts
factory and conclusive The interesting nature Of tn
speculations thus passed in review will, we hope b
deemed sufficient to justify in attempting condense
summary of the arguments by which it is sought bot
maintain and confute them for which purpose shall
combine together the reasonings on both sides Of tn
question exhibited in the two works before u.s. eav
ing our readers to draw their own conclusions.
The keyno of the first named work. {. The Plurality
of Worlds" is found in that passage of the Hebrew
psalmst in which he exclams Z" When / consider tn
heavens the work of Thy fingers the and the STAR
which Thou hast ordained, what is man that Thou ar
mindful of him and the Of man that Thou ysites
him :" This nterrogatory would seem to intimate tina
man is something whether discover il not, which
explains why it is that the Creator of all is not unmind
full of him. But if this world is merely of immune
rabe worlds, ALL like it, the workmanship of the same
God and ALL like it, the seats of life and perhaps the
abode of intelligent and moral beings, is not the ques
ton Of the psamis invested with superadded weight
of meaning Is there not conflict suggested between
religion and astronomy Can this earth be the centre Of
\ U
speck in the physical! Ia it reasonable to suppose that
the Supreme Governor mindful Of man as revealed
religion teaches He is if the world which nhabits
does occupy Insignificant place in the universe as is
assigned it by modern astronomy? @
This is the cavilling objection which Dr. Chalmers
dertakes to in his well known Astronomical Dis
We need not here rehearse the arguments of that
usrious divine and profound thinker they doubt
less familiar to every intelligent reader. Among the
other striking observations Of Dr. Chalmers he dwes
with force the fact that just about the time when
Economical science creating the doubts of in6del
spectators to Gods providence this dim spot in
the universe the newyinvened microscope revealed to
KEN in this world nnumerabe tribes Of living things
which had been all along enjoying the benefits of the
Creators much as those kinds with which
had been familiar from the beginning. This is pro-
nounced 81 striking reflection by anonymous essay
ist and indeed, when consider that it balances in
fny in direction about which We in doubt, by
an innity in another direction respecting which have
assured knowledge it must be admitted possess force
quite sufficient to take off the edge Of the directors
gument though it may fail to disprove it it must
silence him if it does not convince him. But it will be
observed that Chalmerss illustration only apply to
the possibility of animal life existing in other parts
of the universe well earth 1t fails if at
tempt to make it prove the existence of spiritual beings
IN Otner WORLDS DaVlu brewster re-
ecs the comparison altogether possessing cogency
with reference to the cavls which it seeks
But do both the objection and the answer
proceed upon very inadequate views of the divine omni
potence Isit conceivable as Sir David justly observes
that Theist Christian of the smallest mental
pacity could suppose that there degrees Of omnpotenes
and imagine that the Almighty might be prevented by
the many ,ords under His management from taking
of the earth and its inhabitants?
But MI not this conclusive reply, based the omni-
potence Of the Creator need modification expla
nation if suppose that there other planets and
in other systems not animals only Giving things, which,
however different from the animals of this EARTH yet
in way analogous to them, according to the differ
Of circumstances but also creatures analogous
man, intellectual creatures, living under moral law
sponsibe for transgresson and the subjects Of prov
Dental government? Win any difficulty be intro
duced into views of the divine by such
supposition? This, in nearly his words, is the
question propounded by the anonymous essayist Our
readers shall judge for themselves concerning its
The essayist thinks that considerable difficulty is
raised at by supposing intellectual nature like
mans belong the inhabitants Of other planets and
other systems This difficulty, according to his view,
springs both from the nature Of human knowledge and
from the of its development. The nature Of this
knowledge far as really knowledge be Of the
kaou Of all truth In SO far therefore, possesses
knowledge the operations Of his mind must resemble the
operations of the divine mind But the in which
this knowledge has been developed is slow progression
from the unknown the known and this progress
sarily implies beginning, tendency, and end; ane
it still further implies Governor and Director of thu
race as we'll as Creator and Preserver. Now consider
ing that the nature of this knowledge necessary, uni
versal and eternal because shared by man in
with the supreme and Interchangeable intelligence, au
thor asserts that conceive Of intellectual pro
gress like this which is not identical with it. And sine
the condition Of man upon the EARTH condition Of in
tellectual progress implies such special guidance an
exercised the by the author of hi
being as produces progress the writer declares that
authorized to form peculiar judgment with respec
to the mind lness Of God towards creature whom He
evidently conducting in way which makes his lot
state different from those Of all other creatures know
10 us.
Sir David Brewster, in attempting to meet this diff
Guilty complains that it is too unintelligble" to him
and that he feels the greatest difficulty in comprehend
ing it, and in quoting this head Of the esayss argu
ment he makes it apparent that this is something NOR
than the language Of modesty Sir David has failed I
comprehend the difficulty suggested. The essayist,
understand him. does not undertake in this stage
his argument much to question the existence Of oht
intellectual creatures in other spheres because is in
especial the subject Of Gods in this, br
seeks rather to show that is something deemed by
Creator worthy of special and governance and tn