126 
I have not here alluded to the “evening” of Gen. I., 
because Dr. Réville uses Moses’ 2nd enactment, from Sinai, 
as containing im ttself the verdict against “the lax inter- 
pretation” of those first-mentioned days, whose ‘mornings’ 
and ‘evenings’ are recorded. 
Without doubt, men, who have science at heart before 
everything else, have pressed the letter unfairly against 
Scripture; and by that letter have “tried the word to the 
uttermost.” 
Do men really believe that the mind of the Author 
of Genesis was so short-sighted as not to have perceived 
that, having declared the division between day and night 
as taken place before the evening of the first pertod, it was 
not until after the morning of the third period that he 
directly points to the exzstence of the sun as the ruler of 
the light, and darkness, of the day, and night. 
Moses mentions ¢hese divisions as taking place during 
the earliest period; and expressly says that the sun (not 
mentioned until the fourth period, unless under the general 
term, light, and God said, ‘‘ Let there be Light,” rules 
over, divides day and night; surely here is something, that 
required explanation, too glaringly apparent for so serious 
a charge of confusion, of ignorance of cause, and effect 
(both of which have been put forward) to be brought 
against the writer. 
Then as to the literal use of the word ‘the Day;’ the 
scientist, who expresses great faith in the subtle power of 
Hebrew Exegetes to supply new interpretations, might 
have paused to consider the force of the definite article 
‘the Day:’ this seems to suggest ‘of the week’ after the 
word: the first, the second day of the week: thus the 
Sunday school lad would doubtless readit; and to him no 
alternative could be expected to occur. 
And this rendering, accepted so readily, makes these 
