363 
ever, speaks of “ days ” in regard to creation. For 360 days, 
or one year, it says. Brahman lay concealed within the world- 
egg. But what are these days ? The same tradition tells us 
that Brahman’s days are not days of twenty-four hours 
each, but are equal each of them to 12,000,000 years. Such 
was the Hindu conception of the meaning of a human measure 
of time as applied to God’s creation. The traditions of Persia 
and Etruria are still more to the point, for here the partition of 
creation into six equal divisions of time has been preserved, as 
well as a general similarity in order. But what divisions ? Not 
days, but six successive 1,000 years, each of which answers 
in character and scope to a day in Genesis. Nothing can be 
plainer than this testimony. The days of creation were 
felt by ancient nations, knowing nothing of geology or 
scientific difficulties of any kind, to be but representative 
terms, really indicative of far longer periods. They could only 
have felt this from the principle of the representative character 
of all human terms as applied to God having been, at least at 
first, so thoroughly familiar as to need no explanation to make 
it apparent. But if so, then doubtless after this manner were 
the days understood by all those for whom the cosmogony 
was originally designed. 
It seemed necessary to go thus fully into the principle and 
evidence of the view here advocated, from the immense con- 
fusion of opinion which has hitherto prevailed upon this 
question of the time of creation, and the perpetual conflict in 
which what is thought by one or another to be the doctrine of 
the cosmogony is brought with the discoveries and conclusions 
of modern science. It is the old story over again, — men have 
put their theories in regard to Scripture in the place of its 
real teaching’, and then are alarmed and angry to find them 
opposed to the plain witness of facts. The narrative has been 
twisted and turned, this way and that, to make it harmonize 
with Science, but still discord has reigned triumphant. Inter- 
pretations have been altered, Science abused, Science per- 
verted, and still no better result. And no wonder, since all 
this while it was not the Bible that was clashing with Science, 
but the mistaken fancies of exegetical theorists. Putting 
these aside, and getting back at last to what has been shown 
to be the simple original meaning of the passage itself, what 
becomes of this much-vaunted contradiction between Genesis 
and Geology ? It has dissolved into thin air, and vanished 
altogether. Let Science pursue her way unmolested ; let her 
examine the records of the past, written in the rocks, with all 
possible assiduity ; let her deduce, on purely scientific grounds, 
the time which these have taken in formation ; let her fix, if 
vol. nr. 2 c 
