358 
the fact that in such expressions we can invariably substitute 
a general term, as “ time,” without in the least affecting the 
sense. In this way we may speak of “ the day of creation,” 
as, indeed, is done in Gen. ii. 4, v. 1 ; but this plainly means 
no more than “ the time when God created,” the duration of this 
time being wholly left out of account. But that the six days 
are not to be thus taken is evident, — (l) from their being 
successive days, following one another in an orderly and 
natural manner ; (2) from the mention of “ evening ” and 
“ morning ” as the limits of the working portion of each ; and 
(3) from their being in the fourth commandment paralleled with 
the days of human toil, which unquestionably are periods of 
definite duration, and unquestionably of twenty-four hours' 
length. The notion, therefore, advocated by some that the 
word “ day” here is to be taken as intended to denote a period 
of long duration, must be met by the counter-assertion that 
nowhere in Scripture or elsewhere has the word “ day ” any 
such significance. To assume such a meaning merely to get 
over difficulties, is unwarrantable. 
Are we, then, to conclude that it was the intention of the 
cosmogony to teach us that in six literal days of twenty-four 
hours each the whole of creation was accomplished, from 
beginning to end ? Surely not. Such a doctrine would be 
wholly foreign to the spirit and design observable throughout. 
This may seem a somewhat paradoxical assertion, after what 
has just been said. A little consideration, however, will show 
that the paradox exists only in appearance. 
These “ days ” spoken of are not human days, but Divine ; 
not days of man's work, but of God's. Now, upon what 
principle does all Scriptural description of God's being and 
God's acts proceed ? It is ,upon that of accommodation. 
Human members, human feelings, human actions, are freely 
attributed to God, though literally most incongruous, just 
because in no other way could the human mind grasp the 
reality of that which was intended. To speak under the 
imagery of such ideas was no doubt to speak most inadequately 
and inaccurately, but at least the kind of notion was en- 
gendered which was required, and it was felt as a real thing. 
To have spoken abstractedly might have been theoretically 
more correct, but it would have been practically far more 
inadequate and faulty, because not only would the notions 
conveyed have been far more misty, but especially the all- 
important element of reality would have been wanting. The 
former method, therefore, rather than the latter, is that in- 
variably adopted (of course, carefully guarded against miscon- 
ception) by Scripture. Now, what effect has this upon inter- 
