An Expository Outline of the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation | Page 7

move from east to west in orbits highly inclined to that of their primary, and on both accounts are exceptions to the order of the other secondary bodies. Our author is so perplexed by this inconsistency that he first doubts the fact, and next tries to explain it by alleging that "it may be owing to a bouleversement of the primary." What is meant by the bouleversement of a planet none of his critics seem to apprehend, nor do we. But that the moons of Uranus are contrariwise to those of the other planets, Sir JOHN HERSCHEL has indubitably established; so that the author at any rate upon this point has sustained a bouleversement.
Our own moon forms a third exception to his theory. According to his system, this satellite is a slip or graft from our planet, and in constitution, it might be inferred, would partake of the elements of the parent. But the fact is otherwise. The moon has no atmosphere, no seas, or rivers, nor any water, and of course totally unfit for human inhabitants, or organic life of any kind. It must, then, have had a different origin, or be in some earlier stage of development than that through which our earth has passed.
Leaving these exceptions, we may next inquire into the relevant purposes of the nebular hypothesis, supposing its assumptions acquiesced in. Like the fanciful theories of the ancient philosophers, it seems only to involve a profitless topic of controversy, without solving natural phenomena. It does not unravel the mystery of the beginning, brings us no nearer to the first creative force. Like a good chemist, previous to analysis, the author first throws all matter into a state of solution; but granting him his fire-mist and nuclei in the midst, how or whence came this condition and arrangement of nature? What was its pre-existing state? or, if that be answered, how or whence was that preceding state educed, for it, too, must have had one prior to it? So that the mind makes no advances by such inquiries, is lost in a maze that can have no end, because it has no beginning; and, like Noah's messenger, for want of a resting place, is compelled to return to the first starting point. Easier, and quite as satisfactory, it seems to believe, as we have been taught to believe, that the celestial spheres were at once perfect and entire, projected into space from the hands of the maker, than that they were elaborated out of luminous vapour by gravity and condensation. Hopeless inquiry is thus foreclosed, an inquisition that cannot be answered, silenced, and removed out of the pale of discussion.
It is not from any attribute of the Deity being impugned that the hypothesis is objectionable. Design and intelligence in the creation are left paramount as before, and our impression of the skill exercised, and the means employed, only transferred to another part of the work. He who produced the primordial condition the author supposes, who filled space with such a mist, composed of such materials, subjected to such laws, such constitution, that sun, moon, and stars necessarily resulted from them, appears omnipotent as ever. But it does not advance inquiry, nor assist us in explaining the wonders we contemplate in our own globe. Suppose a planet formed by the author's process, what kind of a body would it be? Something, as Professor WHEWELL suggests, resembling a large meteoric stone. How after wards came this unformed mass to be like our earth, to be covered with motion and organization, with life and general felicity? What primitive cause stocked it with plants and animals, and produced all the surprising and subtle contrivances which we find in their structure, all the wide and profound mutual dependence which we trace in their economy? Is it possible to conceive, as the Vestiges inculcate, that man, with his sentiment and intellect, his powers and passions, his will and conscience, were also produced as the ultimate result of vapourous condensation?
One more conjecture of the author, in this division of his subject, we shall only notice. It is that "the formation of bodies in space is still in progress." What may be doing in the nebul?, in the region scarcely within reach of telescopic vision, in what may be considered the yet uninclosed and commonable waste of the universe, is a subject, we suspect, of much obscurity, and respecting which no precise intelligence has been received; but limiting attention to the solar system, which is nearer home and more within cognizance, the work seems finished, perfect, and unchangeable, and, like the Great Architect, made to endure for ever. This was the conclusion of LAPLACE; he proved that the state of our system is stable; that is, the ellipsis the planets describe will always remain