standing out in front of the nebula, that they are not sunk far behind, but that they do veritably lie at the heart of the nebula itself, the combined object forming one glorious organization. To simplify the application of the argument, let us assume that the visible heavens are constituted, not of hosts of stars and nebulae, but of one single star and one single nebula. Let us suppose that the nebula occupies an area of about one square degree, that is, about five times the area of the full moon, and let us suppose that from our point of view the star appears to lie within the confines of the nebula. Would it be more reasonable to believe that the presence of the star in that particular locality of the heavens was only an accidental circumstance due to the line of vision from the nebula to the star passing through the eye, or that it was due to the fact that there was some physical connection between the two bodies, in which case, of course, the star would lie within the confines of the nebula, and the contiguity would be real as well as apparent?
Suppose that the star and the nebula were both planted down absolutely at random on the surface of the heavens; then, as the nebula occupies a space of one square degree, and as there are forty thousand square degrees on the surface of the sphere, there are obviously forty thousand chances to one against the star happening to lie within the confines of the nebula, if the connection between the two bodies were merely casual and apparent. For the ordinary purposes of life, when we find that there are forty thousand chances to one against a particular phenomenon occurring, we generally exclude from the realm of practical duty the supposition that the unlikely event will occur. If a sum of
