304 
human view, and disappeared.* I cannot spare time to enter on two other 
main questions, — whether the six days are literal or figurative, and whether 
the world’s history can be the seventh day of Moses, or God’s Sabbath of rest. 
On both I wholly disagree with Mr. Savile, and have seen nothing to alter 
my conviction that the six days are literal days, and the sixth the first day 
of Adam’s lifetime. The strength of the argument for this view does not 
depend on an assertion that day can never have a figurative or extended 
meaning, that would be plainly absurd to affirm ; it rests on the double 
and triple fact, that this light- time is named day, just as the dry land is 
named earth, and the gathering of the waters is named seas, which fixes 
day, night, sky, earth, seas, to tlieir usual and customary sense ; that each 
of these days consists of an evening of darkness followed by a morning of 
light ; and that they are joined with ordinal numbers, of which no single 
instance, either in Scripture or other authors, can be found in the case of 
figurative or metaphorical days. And besides, if all the six days follow the 
tertiary period, as Mr. Savile, I believe rightly, affirms ; there is no gain what- 
ever for the reconciliation of Scripture with geological science, in extending 
their length to seven thousand years. — With thanks to Mr. Savile for his 
interesting and suggestive paper, I remain, yours respectfully, T. R. Birks. 
Cambridge, Feb. 2, 1870.” 
I have also received the following from Professor Challis, F.R.S., F.R.A.S., 
of Cambridge : — 
“ I have had some conversation respecting Mr. Savile’s paper with Professor 
Birks, who agrees with me in disapproval of some of the author’s views. 
For my own part, I never could accept Buckland’s idea of interposing an 
interval of long duration between the first and second verses of Genesis i. 
Mr. Birks agreed with me in the opinion that Croll’s theory of changes of the 
earth’s temperature, resulting from changes of the excentricity of its orbit, 
which Mr. Savile accepts without hesitation, is not adequate to account for 
the observed facts of geology. I think, too, that Mr. Savile has made too 
much of La Place’s nebular hypothesis, which is altogether speculative, not 
having received, and, as far as I can see, not being capable of receiving, any 
such confirmation as that on which Newton’s theory of gravitation rests. I have 
noticed an inaccuracy as to matter of fact in sec. 74. Lord Rosse’s telescope 
showed that a great number of minute stars are scattered about the great 
nebula in Orion, and thus 'partly resolved it; but the spectroscope has since 
proved that, in addition to these stars, there is a large portion of the nebula 
which is strictly nebulous or gaseous matter, and therefore quite irresolvable. 
Do what you please with these remarks. — I am, &c., J. Oiiallis.” 
The Rev. Prebendary Row. — There are some parts of Mr. Savile’s paper 
upon which I would wish to make a few observations ; and, first, as to the 
Jewish work, Zohar, I believe it is full of a greater mass of extravagance 
than any other book. Most certainly many other literary productions of 
that time are full of the wildest speculations. There is one thing which 1 
saw in section 51 of Mr. Savile’s paper which astonished me, and made 
This question was taken up by Dr. Dawson, F.R.S., who says ( Journal 
of Transactions, vol. ix. p. 178): “The Bible abounds in illustrative 
references to natural objects and phenomena. I think it is the conclusion 
of all competent naturalists who have carefully studied these, that they are 
remarkable for their precise truth to Nature, and for the absence of all 
theoretical or hypothetical views.” 
