622 MU. KAllKKEK’S REPLY TO MR. SPOONER 
liave their fulfilment in the present life; and I am inclined to 
believe with Sharon Turner, “that our earth is a nursery for the 
immaterial principle, that is brought into its first state of being in 
animal forms with a profusion that seems to us inexplicably lavish, 
in order that it may be elsewhere used in some advanced or ulte¬ 
rior condition, and in other modes of material existence.” 
I have already alluded to this subject in my previous paper, 
and must be excused if I extend it a greater length in this: for, 
when I reflect on the immense host of individual beings spread 
over every portion of our planet, of inconceivable variety of forms 
and constructions, of beasts, birds, fishes, insects, all revelling in 
the joyousness of existence, and they, as well as man, furnished 
with innumerable sources of enjoyment, passions, appetites, affec¬ 
tions, feelings, solitary, social, conjugal, parental, and to a certain 
extent intellectual and moral, my reason is led, among other pos¬ 
sible causes and uses of them, to regard them as so many depo¬ 
sitories of the immaterial principle. Such a multiplicity of living 
beings in our world is far more exuberant than any occasions 
for it will appear to require : the mind is, therefore, led to the 
recollection, that the planet w'e inhabit is not the only orb of life 
and substance in creation. We are but one of the uncounted 
hosts which surround the throne of the Great Parent of All; and 
of these there appears to be a few destined to form the innumer¬ 
able others, which are immediately and distinctly associated with 
us in our planetary system, and which revolve, as we do, round 
one common sun. 
The peculiar seclusion of these from all the rest, the appoint¬ 
ment of these only to be together, and their manifest combination 
into one system of being, apart from every other, and divided in 
space from every other by more myriads of miles than we can 
easily calculate, are, to me, clear and certain indications that we 
have some important relations with each other which have not yet 
been ascertained, and, perhaps, never will on this side of the grave. 
But, ere I conclude, I would beg to remark that your reply to 
my geological query, although it might suit your own opinions, 
does not exactly agree with the “ story of the earth.” Is it pos¬ 
sible that you can believe that our world has existed for such 
immense periods as its physical history teaches us, and during 
which eternity of time it was peopled with successive races of 
living beings, as wisely and curiously constructed as ourselves, for 
no other purpose “ than that it might he a fit and 'pro'per abode 
for man .?” And yet you argue “ that the same improving pro¬ 
cess is still going on, and the jungle and prairie are gradually be¬ 
coming the fertile plains.” The improvement is true enough ; but 
this is no argument “ that all the inferior animals are but tenants 
