303 
of the Milky W ay require a period of 20,000 years for the transit of their 
light, according to the estimate of Herschel ; and the splendid nebula in Orion 
would absorb 60,000 years for the transit of light to our system. But the 
elder Herschel’s estimates were based on an assumption of the nearly equal 
size of all the stars, and their nearly even distribution, which all his 
own later discoveries and modern observations have completely disproved. 
His great discovery of binary and triple stars was the first blow to the 
system. The Magellanic clouds, as Sir John Herschel candidly 
admits, furnish a strong argument against the view that a nebulous appear- 
ance is the result of greater distance alone. Mr. Proctor’s reasonings and 
observations seem almost to prove that all the parts of the Milky Way are in 
physical connection with each other, and hence that there can be no immense 
disparity of the distance of its various parts from the sun. Again, the nebula 
in Orion is said to be 60,000 years of light distant from us, or 20,000 times 
as remote as the bright star of the Centaur. But 0 Orionis is a sextuple star, 
of which four components form a trapezium, and are of the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 
8th magnitudes. And within this trapezium, Sir J. Herschel remarks, there 
is no nebula. They are also in the neighbourhood of the opening of the jaws, 
a part where there is a void space of large extent. Hence there must be a strong 
presumption that this sextuple star has been condensed from the nebulous 
matter, where it is now missing. In this case, the distance of the nebula 
would correspond to that of stars between the 4th and 8th magnitudes ; or 
light might, perhaps, travel from it, not in 60,000, but in a time of from 20 
to 30 years. At least, the high numbers quoted from Sir W. Herschel and 
Professor Nichols have no solid warrant. When two causes, distance and 
inferior size, might equally occasion inferior optical magnitude, the reason- 
able course, in the absence of other data, is to assign it equally to both. 
Thus, instead of reckoning 20,000 years for the smallest distinct stars in the 
Milky Way, the more reasonable reckoning would be that they are really a 
hundred times smaller than a Centauri, and about a hundred times further 
off, or their distance answering to 200 or 300 years only. I wholly disagree 
with the statement (§ 79) that the mention of light as created before the 
sun is ‘ one of the strongest testimonies possible to the Divine authority of the 
Mosaic cosmogony.’ It is quite enough for believers in the inspiration of the 
Bible that it furnishes no argument against that authority. Mr. Savile refers 
to the conclusions of science that light may and does emanate from other 
sources. He seems to think that the sun may have existed for a time without 
its photosphere, and that this was added by a distinct act of creation. Now 
that is possible in the abstract, but wholly opposed to the general scope of 
modern scientific theory. The most simple and natural view is that the light 
of the sun depends on its immense mass .and the process of central condensa- 
tion. But Mr. Savile refers the beginning of the first day to the post-tertiary 
period, about 48,000 years ago. Now Mr. Croll’s theory, which he also 
adopts, ascribes the glacial period to great varieties of solar heat and light, 
due to the excentricity of the earth’s orbit 800,000, or at least 160,000 years 
earlier than this date. The two opinions are thus wholly irreconcilable. If 
the sun was not the light-giver fifty thousand years ago, the other hypothesis 
would be plainly excluded altogether. But even rejecting that theory, which 
I believe we ought to do, as quite baseless, there can be no doubt, I think, 
that the sun was really the source of light during the tertiary and pre-tertiary 
periods. If so, we are forced back to what I believe is the very consistent 
exposition, that the narrative is optical, that the light of verse 3 was really, 
but not visibly, sunlight, because sun, moon, and stars, as discs in the sky, 
had not yet become visible to a spectator upon earth. So the heavens and 
earth which are now, are contrasted with those before the Flood, which are 
spoken of as having perished, because they were wholly blotted out from 
