primordial unintelligent vapour. The nebular hypothesis was, in short, regarded as a satisfactory substitute for a God. It is to be regretted, that this cavil of the atheist should have been sometimes met by the defenders of Christianity in a manner so little satisfactory. Instead of inquiring whether the hypothesis, though granted, warranted such an inference, it was attempted to rob the atheist of the argument by proving the hypothesis to be altogether unfounded. This physical hypothesis was denounced as atheistical, and the question of a God was staked upon the refutation of it. No line of argument could be more unfortunate, and more uncalled for. The principle implied in such a position is, that the traces of a God disappear, as we reduce the instances of adaptation around us to general laws. Now the atheist, if this principle were granted, could afford to relinquish the nebular hypothesis. The granting of this principle would be tantamount to the admission, that the conception of a God must disappear, as a spectre, before the advancing light of science—the function of science being the reduction of special cases of adaptation to general laws. The atheist who appeals to the nebular hypothesis, can be met without making such a fatal admission. Instead of attacking the scientific theory, the proper attitude is to deny the theological inference. Instead of denouncing the theory as atheistical, the only tenable position is to shew that, though granted, it would not warrant the atheistical deduction.
