upon another Globe, that is to the first what the earth is to the microscopic speck that is visible only in the sunbeams; and I can say to myself that even that Globe were a mere atom—a nothing, in the universe. But have I I yet done more than to expose the weak finity-the poor inadequacy, of human conceptions?

Or am I called upon to think of Eternity, and of the Power that fills it ?--I have been told that light travels at the rate of a million of miles in five seconds; and I can imagine a star so far removed from our earth, that light, after it had so travelled during a million of centuries, should have traversed but, as it were, a hair's breadth of the distance. I can suppose a circle drawn at that star's inconceivable distance around the earth, and a Globe of sand of such stupendous dimensions, that its circumference should fill up that mighty circle. I can imagine each grain of that sand a million times less than the smallest animalcula that microscope ever made visible. I can imagine one of these imperceptible grains detached from that Globe at the expiration of each million of centuries, until the whole immeasurable mass should be thus dissolved, grain by grain. I can speak of the period that should elapse before that globe were thus dissolved. Nay, I can say more. I can speak of a globe thus formed and thus lessening; until, grain by grain, it disappear; then replaced by another of equal dimensions, in like manner to lessen and at last to pass away; and another, and another, and another, until hundreds should be added to hundreds, and thousands to thousands, and millions to millions, in the stupendous succession. And when I take the sum of these periods I can ask myself if I have obtained a tenth, a thousandth, a millionth part of ETERNITY? and I can answer No, not the smallest conceivable fraction!"

66

-But is not this only a mockery of language and of human reason? Is it not like seeking to measure the winds with a rod, or striving to take the cubical dimensions of Chaos?

For myself, except when forced upon these subjects, I never think of them. I use language where I can find prototypes; and when I approach the north pole of Mystery, where the needle of reason veers all round the compass and no longer points to any thing, I put about the helm of my thoughts, and steer back again into the temperate regions of Reality.

If I dream of a Pervading Spirit of order and beauty, filling Infinite Space and existing throughout Eternity, -if I imbody the Power or Powers of nature, and call up an image of that which

Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze,
Glows in the stars and blossoms in the trees,
Lives through all life, extends through all extent,
Spreads undivided, operates unspent-

-if I please myself in conjuring forth from the glowing regions of Fancy such an Image as this-it is, as I would dream of any other poetical personification; of the Spirit of the Winds, or the Genius of the Deep; of Virtue, as some fair ethereal Being; or of Vice, as a Form of fury and of darkness. I never introduce these poetical imaginations into grave discussions; not because I can assert that such conceptions are false, but only that (for man) they are idle.

In taking this stand, I repeat it, it is not for me to explain the system of the universe, or the creation of things, or the origin of man, or the eternity or non-eternity of the universe, or any other of the arcana of nature. I tell you

plainly, I pretend not to explain them.

If you do, I shall be glad to hear your explanation. It is for me to stand and doubt, where I cannot unriddle. If you can do more, you are wiser than I; and, in that case, the task of unriddling is yours. If you can tell me whether man eternally existed on the earth or not; whether all sprung from one pair or from a thousand; whether there was nothing but God in the universe ten thousand years ago; whether there are generations of Gods, or of Worlds, as well as generations of animals and men, or even whether the earth itself be not some Huge Animal; whether the earth's Creator may not be a Great Effect as well as a Great Cause;* nay--for if we enter the region of Imagination at all, we may be as excursive as we please-whether a God might not be supposed to create a Universe to establish its natural laws, to leave it to itself, and then, (if to an Immaterial Essence a term so merely human may be applied) to die!--in a word, if you can determine all the probabilities and possibilities in the range of unearthly imagination-ay! or even, satisfactorily to yourself, guess the solution of the Great Riddle-you are constituted differently from me.

With eyes and a telescope, like Newton, I am willing to study astronomy, and reason of the celestial motions. With ships at my command, and an unexplored hemis

*Your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, I cannot perceive the shadow of a reason why, if we are dissatisfied to conceive a Universe without a Maker, we should be satisfied to conceive a God without one. All causes of which we know any thing, are effects with reference to some still preceding and producing cause. The mind of man is no exception to the rule; and if there be (as the tendency of your argument goes to establish) analogy between things human and divine, why an exception in the case of the mind of God? Your argument makes man, who is himself a designer, also a design. Where, then, (on your own premises) is the "absurdity, contradiction, nonsense," of following up the idea, and supposing a greater Designer than man, himself, in turn, a Design? and so on, ad infinitum?

phere before me, I might have argued like Columbus. But when I have neither spiritual eyes to see, nor telescope to enlarge, nor spiritual ships to carry me whither I may solve my doubts and substantiate my theories, I rest satisfied without any unearthly conception or spiritual hypothesis.

ROBERT DALE OWEN.

TO ROBERT DALE OWEN.

LETTER IV.

New-York, March 5, 1831.

SIR,

LET theorists say what they may, still, experience shows, that it is disagreeable to believe some things; and among those things, it is disagreeable to some men to believe in future retribution:- so much so, that they do set their wits to work to disprove it, as some of them afterwards acknowledge. And the reason why this doctrine is to them so disagreeable, is, that they are conscious it will fare ill with themselves, in case it is true. This, Sir, is, in my opinion, the true source of almost all the Scepticism in existence. I say almost all; for I believe there are some cases of exception.

The introduction of Socrates on the part of a Sceptic, is most infelicitous. It was the very diffidence of that philosopher in his own knowledge, that induced him to admit. a God. He did not presume to prescribe rules for the regulation of the universe, and then, because he found that universe differently regulated, to deny that it had a Regulator. Not he. Conscious of his own limited wisdom, he did as every other genuine philosopher does: he supposed that what appeared to him disorder, seemed thus in consequence of his limited views, and that this was therefore no reason for supposing it to be so in reality. "What I understand," said this great philosopher, "I admire, and am fully convinced to be every way worthy of