cal speculation, there can be no scientific objection to the nebular hypothesis; for the data are assumed at will, and in such a manner, that the required results flow as a necessary sequence. When, however, it is attempted to elevate the hypothesis to the rank of a vera causa in nature, by the analogy of nebulous condensation in the remote regions of the universe, the proof entirely fails. The conclusion to which Sir John Herschel has come, after the light thrown upon the subject by recent revelations, is, that the nebular hypothesis is "a physical conception of processes which may yet, for aught we know, have formed part of that mysterious chain of causes and effects antecedent to the existence of separate, self-luminous solid bodies."' He views it not as an established theory, but as an ingenious hypothesis, still seeking that confirmation which it has hitherto wanted.
We are now in a position to understand the religious bearings of the question, and perhaps no astronomical point, since the time of Galileo, has given rise to keener theological discussion. By the atheistical inquirer, the hypothesis was hailed as the greatest triumph. He held that God might be dispensed with altogether, when the universe could be evolved so readily from this nebulous mist. It was argued, that the proofs of Divine wisdom, discerned in the constitution of the solar system, were at once dispelled, when the adaptation in question could be traced to a
