was revolving on itself to get the light, according to the scope and purpose of the edict, from that sun.

A fixed luminary. A revolving world. Astronomical arrangement.

Be it observed, however, that it was only sun "light" which had reached the surface of the deep, not the sunshine in its strength. The text authorizes us only to say "light," only to understand that the "cloud-garment" (Job xxxviii. 9) had become less "thick"; that it was only translucent. This is confirmed by the fact that neither sun nor moon had yet been "set in the expanse - the heaven." And thus we may recognize only an imperfect light upon the deep-a light like that of dawn.1

Thus, for the several reasons given, we cannot resist the conviction that the statements about "light" and the "separating" standing as they do without any explanation, and addressed as they are to all people of all times and classes, who know no other world-light-do quietly point us to our sun as that light's source.

Yet we do not rest our opinion upon this particular textual reasoning alone. It stands here as on distinct and independent ground, to be sure; but it has also another basis to which we religiously adhere—the reasoning which we have pursued from the previous statement, that the world, before this point of light, was but one in the present astronomic family, and had once borne its burden of created life.

The two textual indications are harmonies. Each points out a harmonic system, glorious, of old, and never broken up. Each points out the same mute, but eloquent harmony of brilliant planets having a common central sun; one only blighted and shrouded, but not lost.

We say, then, that "in the beginning" there was a sun. We do not say it presumingly; we do not say it rashly. We

1 To show that we are not over-nice, we refer to Neh. viii. 3; and particularly to Job xxiv. 14 (Moses's writing?) where the same word "light" occurs which is here used. In the first text, it is translated "morning"; in the other, it evidently means early dawn.

say it upon authority, interpreting our authority by itself, honestly and as well as we can.

But our conclusions involve the astronomical arrangement of the world in the fullest sense. They involve not only the presence of the sun, but of the moon and stars in their present relations. They involve, too, the same veritable relations on the eve of the light's advent- to go no farther back. Yet while the cosmos, in all its fulness and strength, was round about, the world itself was then in darkness. The light, glowing all around, did not reach it. This indicates some light-excluding medium; and, if we do not misread, the testimony of God himself is, that the lightexcluding medium was a cloud-garment, or an envelope, in its position and effect like a cloud (Job xxxviii. 9).

Are we wrong? Do we mistake our premises? Do we misread our authority? Do its words mean that there were a sun and a sun's satellites and a revolving world? Or do they mean that there were not? We confess that we cannot read them otherwise than as we do, having gone only thus far in the Article before us. And this our conviction we shall feel bound in all honesty to retain, unless herein-after something shall appear to disprove or to qualify it. In such a case, we shall be afloat and bewildered as we look back upon the text we have examined; and in such a case we shall ask some questions hard to be answered in consistency with the record. Indeed, doubting, the while, whether we shall have such occasion, we will ask them now.

Here was fresh light upon the world. What light, save a sun, ever did give, or ever could have given, light to the world? What light precisely? What light, while yet on part of the world was no light? When any other such world-light shall have been proved (not conjectured) to have existed, or even to have been possible, then will it be time to discuss the possibility of its having been the light introduced to us here. Then will it be time to work up that light (if we can) into harmony with this previous and succeeding context.

An after-thought here occurs. It is conceded, we think, by all, that the first development of cosmic light was coëval with the first movement of cosmic matter. This is equivalent to saying that the first act of cosmic creating was the development of cosmic light. Very well.

Now, if the first sentence of this document expresses the creating of the cosmos, then does it deny that the words "Let light be," uttered long after, on the first of the six days, express the creating of light. Or else, if these words do express the creating of light on that "day," then do they deny that the first sentence expresses the creating of the cosmos. Either supposition makes the writer selfcontradictory.

But if "Let light be" does not express the creating of light, and if the first sentence does not express the creating of the cosmos, then we have a narrative consistent with itself and also in harmony with a chief rudiment of cosmic science.

§ 7. DAY.

We have largely anticipated the opinion of many meditative and gifted minds, that the creative text is laden with "wonderful language — strange, mystic talk." The opinion is radical. A corresponding interpretation ("strange") springs from it as a pure necessity.

A mystic"day" is one of its necessities. According to the foregoing exposition, be it right or be it wrong, instead of common words, household words, with strange meanings attached to them, and "above the common sense," we have only the common words, with the common meanings, and in the way of common sense. We hold that our mode of exposition is textually justifiable in its application to the word" day." We shall try to show this, so that we may be disentangled from this particular and acknowledged "mysticism" before going farther.

The mystic theory about this word (it is, confessedly, only theory) seems to claim that the creative days were "not common days," solar or natural; that they were "in

effable," "not comprehensible in their nature, only divisions in the great creative work." Be it so. What then?

1. Of course, the light here spoken of was ineffable, and not comprehensible; for God said that "day" and "light were one. The light was not solar light, nor cosmical light, nor phosphorescent light, nor auroral light, nor electric light, nor any other "common" or "natural" light. It was ineffable, which neither of these are.

From this it follows that so far as the words "day" and "light" are concerned, the writer, whom we regard as in loco Dei, ostensibly teaching us, gives us no teaching at all. By the confession involved, we do not know what the "light" was, that is, what the "day" was. Indeed, we do not know that the is, "light," was light at all, or anything like light; and, following out the word-anomaly, we do not know the meaning of any of the words here employed. For aught we know, every one is "strange, mystic talk.”

2. If the ineffable days were not natural-light days, then they were not topical days. But God commanded the light (day) to come where there was none- upon a definite topos, the surface of the deep. Whereas the ineffable light (day) was not there in any conceivable sense; being itself "not comprehensible," or being itself only "a division of a work." We cannot understand that it had any topos whatever. Thus the non-natural light or day and God's light or day do not agree.

3. If day or light was not natural-light day, then there was no natural-darkness night, either before or at or after the coming of the light. If the light was not natural light, then it had no natural negative, nor any other negative. "A division of a work" can have no negative; for a part has not a negative. But the creative light had a negative. It was on the deep. It was darkness-natural darkness; it was night no-light. It was a negative pregnant, affirming the co-existence of light or day, such as does not exist for

1 Perhaps it was "herbs." See Isa. xviii. 4, where it has this "strange mystic" translation.

the confirmation of a non-natural light or day. Therefore the creative light or day was not this light or day, incomprehensible, non-natural.

Or if on the deep there was natural darkness notwithstanding, yet it was in no degree mitigated, much less dispersed, during or by the days of non-natural light; more especially, if they were only so many "divisions of a work." A light which is not natural has no antagonism to a darkness which is natural. Ineffable day or light cannot come where effable night is, to drive it away or to neutralize it. Indeed, we cannot conceive of incomprehensible light or day as doing anything, changing anything, or bringing anything to pass. It is simply incomprehensible; of course, to the understanding, non-competent; and that is all we know about it. It certainly must be incompetent to take the place of darkness, to extinguish it, or to take any other place, or to demolish any other thing. It certainly is neither entity nor non-entity; therefore without place, without prowess, without potentiality.

4. If day was not natural light, making manifest natural things; if it was neither solar nor auroral, as it could not be, not being natural, then during those not-natural days there were no corresponding nights, effable or ineffable.

We do not mean to repeat, exactly, what we have already said. We mean, particularly, to confront these non-natural days with the fact, before commented upon, that in God's separating between the light and between the darkness, in his doing this by the very coming of light, there were produced on the world co-existing day and night. If the light which then came was non-natural, then it did not make manifest any natural things. And if it did not make manifest any natural things, then it did not leave unmanifested, at the same time, any other natural things. It did not effect, and could not have effected, any separation between itself and the natural darkness. It could not occupy in part the place of darkness, and leave another place-part unoccupied. Only some natural light was competent to this. Thus the