1. It is possible that the events of the fourth day may be described phenomenally--that up to this period the state of things on the earth had been to a great extent similar to that which we have reason to believe is still existing in the planet Jupiter- that the atmosphere was so charged with vapour that no direct rays from the heavenly bodies could penetrate it; but that at this time, owing to the declining heat, a great part of the aqueous constituents of this vapour had been precipitated in the form of rain, while other vapours had entered into chemical combinations with other elements to form the various minerals of the earth's surface, and the atmosphere had become first translucent, and then transparent. While this process was going on, no direct light from the sun, supposing it to be already in existence, could penetrate the veil. Diffused light only could reach the earth's surface, but when the atmosphere became clear the sun, moon, and stars would become visible. Against this view several objections may be brought. In the first place, as has been already noticed, we cannot treat the account of the Creation as derived from ordinary human sources. Either it is a revelation from the Creator or it is nothing. Now we can readily admit that a man, speaking of an event which lie had witnessed, but did not understand, would describe it as it appeared to him, but we cannot admit this supposition when the work is described by the Great Artificer Himself. In the next place, the temperature of the earth's surface must in this case have been affected by the sun, and must therefore have been more or less dependent upon latitude--and in the third place the distinction between day and night must have come into operation, whereas the narrative implies that it was yet incomplete.