The manner in which these two propositions are set forth, is a model for the logician and for the student of _belles lettres_—yet the error into which the essayist has rushed headlong, is egregious. He attempts to deceive his readers, or has deceived himself, by confounding the nature of that proof from which we reason of the concerns of earth, considered as man’s habitation, and the nature of that evidence from which we reason of the same earth regarded as a unit of that vast whole, the universe. In the former case the _data_ being palpable, the proof is direct: in the latter it is purely _analogical_. Were the indications we derive from science, of the nature and designs of Deity, and thence, by inference, of man’s destiny—were these indications proof direct, no advance in science would strengthen them—for, as our author truly observes, “nothing could be added to the force of the argument which the mind finds in every beast, bird, or flower”—but as these indications are rigidly analogical, every step in human knowledge—every astronomical discovery, for instance—throws additional light upon the august subject, _by extending the range of analogy_. That we know no more to-day of the nature of Deity—of its purposes—and thus of man himself—than we did even a dozen years ago—is a proposition disgracefully absurd; and of this any astronomer could assure Mr. Macaulay. Indeed, to our own mind, the _only_ irrefutable argument in support of the soul’s immortality—or, rather, the only conclusive proof of man’s alternate dissolution and re-juvenescence _ad infinitum_—is to be found in analogies deduced from the modern established theory of the nebular cosmogony.[6] Mr. Macaulay, in short, has forgotten what he frequently forgets, or neglects,—the very gist of his subject. He has forgotten that analogical evidence cannot, at all times, be discoursed of as if identical with proof direct. Throughout the whole of his treatise he has made no distinction whatever. This third volume completes, we believe, the miscellaneous writings of its author. ----- [6] This cosmogony _demonstrates_ that all existing bodies in the universe are formed of a nebular matter, a rare ethereal medium, pervading space—shows the mode and laws of formation—and _proves_ that all things are in a perpetual state of progress—that nothing in nature is _perfected_. * * * * * _“Corse de Leon: or the Brigand.” A Romance. By G. P. R. James. 2 vols. Harper & Brothers._