311 
grand and sublime declaration that a Personal God created all things, 
and I dwell, not upon the particular order in which that creation may 
be related, but on the fact that God created those things.* We may, as a 
matter of interest and speculation, choose for ourselves something of a cos- 
mical theory, based on what we consider to be the proper meaning of 
Genesis, but at the same time we should hesitate before we call a theory, 
however clever and ingeniously managed, a Scriptural Cosmogony. I do not’ 
in the least believe in a Scriptural cosmogony. If we try to construct one, 
a number of scientific questions will arise which it will be impossible to 
settle, although they may contain valuable suggestions on many points. After 
all, we are not to base our faith in the truth of the Scriptural narrative upon 
any cosmical theory. It is not upon a cosmical theory, but upon the 
creation of the universe by a Personal Agent that Scripture earnestly and 
constantly insists. With regard to the question of the days, many and 
diverse theories have been propounded, and one appears very probable until 
it is overthrown and another takes its place. Whether we have got to the 
right solution of the question yet I do not know, and it does not much 
matter. Many such a speculation is interesting, but do not let us call it 
Scriptural, It is man’s ingenious theory, based upon certain words of 
Scripture, and it is as likely to be wrong as the theories of the ancient 
philosophers. There seems to be much truth in what Mr. Row said, as to 
taking the opinions of the heathen philosophers from Justin Martyr and 
the Fathers ; and, perhaps, when Mr. Savile comes to consider the question 
he will be inclined to admit so much. Justin Martyr is no authority for 
what Plato or Aristotle said. The Fathers were not deeply versed in ancient 
philosophy. Certainly Justin Martyr did not comprehend either Plato or 
Aristotle very clearly ; but I do not suppose Mr. Savile intended to lay 
much stress on that. What he desired was to draw out and state first 
certain ancient cosmical theories, and this he has done in a very interesting 
manner, showing how much they differed from the simplicity of Scrip” 
ture. That is really the point, and whether we devise a cosmogony or 
not is not of very great importance. What is important is not to imagine 
that any theory which we draw out from the words of Scripture as we in- 
terpret them, is a Scriptural cosmogony, to which we are bound to pin 
our faith. We base our faith on the simple, plain account that a 
Personal God created the world, and the rest is matter of specula- 
tion. I am sure we must all concur in thanking Mr. Savile for his 
* “ In common with all the most experienced geologists of this age and 
notion, and in agreement with the conclusions of Conybeare and the lectures 
of Buckland and Sedgwick, I see in the vast geological record, not an anti- 
Mosaic history of the creation of man, but pre-Mosaic tables of stone, in- 
scribed by the hand of the Divine Master, and bearing traces of His earlier 
works, earlier co-ordinations of the appointed powers of nature, earlier terms 
of the one creative series, whose latest period includes the history of man.” — 
J. Phillips, late Professor of Geology at Oxford. 
