WCP3213

[1]

Steventon Vicarage, Berks[hire]

March 27. 1903.

Dear Sir

thank you very much for your reply to mine my doubt as to our getting light from invisible stars. I take it from the evidence of the photo-plates that the light of stars so distant as to be beyond telescopic view is c contributes to the stellar illumination we enjoy.

I am most interested in, & most charmed, by your reasoning[2] I think it accentuates the truth of the few hard[?] lines we read in I. Genesis.

Our universe, & we, were the main objective of creative energy, our sun ^{our earth} our moon, and [one word illeg] in the plenitude of omnipotency, dashed off as a lavish environment or ornamentation — "He made the stars also."

As you say the argument need not object to the imagination of other universes than ours, but I am inclined to think that such "a piece of work" as man is limited to the central planet depending[3] on the central sun of the one universe — there is so much in your article which confirms me in this "selfish" theology — you do not limit space — you dont[?] want to for your contentions. Infinite Space, if we can conceive the infinite, is the Divine Environment, the universe is rather in God than God in his universe. I take this from a Jewish source, at least I think so, and to my mind if we our conceptions of God[?] sh[oul]d be clarified & enlarged by scientific truths[?] God is a spirit, God is spirit[4] if from this definition we may use further similes why not say God is ether, God is electricity, that is to convey what xt[?]¹ intended, namely that God is everything except matter ^{and evil}, God is light, God is love, space is infinite as Gods Sphere of Action, and as His environment, and he has only two dwelling-places, one, space, the other man. You are right if you believe that it required a universe to being about a second possible habitation for the infinite Personality[5]² of infinite space

I am v truly yours

A. Lempriere Foulkes [signature]