361 
it, it is plain that very different impressions would be given 
at different times of the proportion between this time and 
work, leading, of course, to different conceptions of the energy 
of creative power. To those who knew little of the extent of 
creation, the time stated might seem superfluously large, 
creative activity therefore small ; and so a certain knowledge 
of science would have been indispensable to a right under- 
standing of the teaching of the cosmogony on this point. 
But if the other view be adopted, and the measure of time 
be taken as relative and representative only, then no such 
knowledge is necessary. Of course, a better acquaintance 
with creation must enlarge our conceptions both of the work 
and the worker, and was meant to do so ; but the character 
of our conception remains unaltered, the relation set forth 
being no longer, as before, that between so much work and so 
much time, but between the time spent on this work and the 
whole time of the worker's being. 
(3.) Not only does this view leave untouched the parallel- 
ism insisted on in the fourth commandment between the days 
of creation and the days of man's labour, but it makes it even 
truer and fuller than on the literal view. “ Days " are not 
the only things thus paralleled, but also “ work " and “ rest." 
That in the two latter items the comparison is of an ac- 
commodative character, none will deny : God's “ work " is not 
the same thing as man's work, nor His “ rest " the same 
as man's rest. If, then, the “ days " of work and rest are 
yet insisted on as identical in both cases, it is plain that 
the parallel halts ; since why, amidst such difference in the 
character of occupation, should the same absolute limits of 
time be observed by both parties ? But if “ days " are also 
representative terms, on the same scale as “ work " and 
“ rest," then the parallel is perfect, since all alike denote 
Divine realities, answering to human ones in precisely the 
same manner. As truly as God's work is similar to our 
work, and His rest to our rest, so are His days to our days. 
We can and ought to copy Him, because, although the 
actual character of each of these items is different in Him from 
what they are in us, yet the relation which each bears to the 
other (the essential point of the parallel) is the same. 
So far, then, as the principle of the matter goes ; so far as 
the design of the cosmogony, and its worth throughout all 
ages, is concerned ; so far as its use in the fourth command- 
ment bears witness, the testimony of all is strongly in favour 
of the representative view of “ day " rather than the literal. 
One thing more only can be demanded before this view be 
finally accepted as established. If what has been urged is 
