offer me in support of your assertion. But will you, in return, weigh carefully the reasons I offer for asserting a fact which appears to me, however you may think erroneously, of incalculably greater personal moment to me as a member of the human family—namely, that “man’s history and position are unique;—that the earth is really the largest planetary body in the solar system—its domestic hearth, and the only WORLD in the universe?” I am quite as much startled at having to receive your notion, as you may be to receive mine. My great engine of proof, says his opponent, is analogy: well, replies the other, there I will meet you; and the first grand point to settle is, whether there is an analogy;[19] when that shall have been settled in the affirmative, we will, as carefully as possible, weigh the _amount_ of it. This is the point at issue between Dr Whewell and Sir David Brewster; who resolutely undertakes to demonstrate “_More Worlds than One_” to be “the _creed_ of the philosopher, and the _hope_ of the Christian.” It is to be seen whether this eminent member of the scientific world, also a firm believer in the Christian religion, has undertaken a task to which he is equal. He must present such an amount of proof as will require the plurality of worlds to be accepted as his CREED, by a PHILOSOPHER; that is, by a Baconian—one accustomed to exact and patient investigation of facts, and inferences deducible from them; who rigorously rejects, as disturbing forces, all appeals to our hopes or wishes, our feelings or fancy. There are two questions before us; to which we shall add, on our own account, a third. The first is that asked in 1686 by the gifted and sprightly Fontenelle (whom Voltaire pronounced the most universal genius which the age of Louis XIV. produced), and echoed in 1854 by Sir David Brewster: _Pourquoi non?_ Why should there _not_ be a plurality of worlds? The second is that asked by Dr Whewell: Why _should_ there be? “I do not pretend to disprove a plurality of worlds; but I ask in vain for any argument that makes the doctrine probable.”[20] The third, is our own. _And what if there be?_—a question of a directly practical tendency. We shall take the second question first, because it will bring Dr Whewell first on the field, as it was he who has so suddenly mooted this singular question. But we would at the outset entreat our readers, at all events our younger ones, to remember that we are dealing with a purely speculative subject, respecting which zealous partisans are apt to draw on their imaginations—to assert or deny the existence of analogy, on insufficient grounds; to overstrain or underrate its force; and lend to bare probabilities, or even pure possibilities, somewhat of the air of facts, where _facts_ there are absolutely none.