Yet, in his remarks on the sun, he embraces Dr. Herschell’s ideas of the sun’s real body being opake and habitable, surrounded by phosphoric clouds which are the source of our solar light. Of course the Doctor only transfers the source of light from the real body of the sun to these phosphoric clouds with which he is invested. Our solar light then comes by _impulsion_ from these clouds, and not from the sun’s real body. These clouds are supposed to give light to the _Solar_ inhabitants also, the intensity of which is regulated by a stratum of clouds placed _below_ the _outer_ phosphoric clouds, and which defends the sun’s real body from too great degree of light. This is Dr. Herschell’s supposition, and seems to be pretty well established. This ingenious theory solves the difficulty under notice, by supposing that _caloric_, and not light, is intended in the third verse, where God said, “Let there be light.” And by supposing latent light, as well as latent heat, it seems to provide for the well known existence of light in combination with many, if not all, terrestrial substances; and yet it refers to the sun as the principal source of light, which according to this interpretation, was not necessary to the existence of the substance intended in the third verse--“Let there be light, and there was light.” This theory has another most excellent suggestion, viz: that the heat excited by the sun at the earth’s surface, is produced by the luminous rays of the sun combining with the caloric in the atmosphere, and other substances at the surface of the earth. This suggestion supposes a very close affinity, if not identity in the matter of light and heat. Although this explanation approaches much nearer a satisfactory solution of the difficulty in question, yet it is by no means unembarrassed. In the first place it is built upon a singular translation of a word. The text, according to this theory, should be, “And God said let there be _caloric_, and there was caloric.” This may be the text; but I cannot help thinking, that a bias to a system of philosophy, and a strong desire to _cut_ the difficulty rather than _solve_ it, suggested this translation. The text seems to have been so generally and uniformly understood of light, it would be difficult to alter it. It would be better to suspect a defect in our knowledge of the source and nature of light. Again: this view seems to suppose a _consecutive_ creation, which is at variance with a seemingly well settled opinion, in regard to the _Solar System_, and even at variance with Dr. Clarke’s own remarks on Gen. chap. i, v. 2. On this verse he says: “God seems at _first_ to have created the elementary principles of _all things_.”