371 
time, as in the second chapter of Genesis, where “ the day of creation” is spoken 
of, and in other places, where we have “ the day of judgment,” and so on. 
He proceeds to show that the six days of creation are not intended to repre- 
sent longer periods of time, “ from their being in the fourth commandment 
paralleled with the days of human toil, which unquestionably are periods of 
finite duration, and unquestionably of 24 hours’ length.” And he goes on 
to say: — 
“ 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 diffi- 
culties, is unwarrantable.” 
That is a strong protest against the period theory, and Mr. Warington thinks 
he sees his way out of the difficulty by a hypothesis of his own, which I must 
say I consider to be inadequate. He brings into use a new interpretation of 
the word “ day,” one which, so far as I know, is perfectly original : at all 
events, I do not know if it is to be met with elsewhere. He says the days 
are not mere human days, but days in accommodation to our human under- 
standing. They are in fact periods, but I do not know of what duration — 
indeed I do not know how we are to interpret these “ God’s days.” They are 
periods in which God has laboured during one portion and rested during 
the other, and the plain interpretation we must put on the word “ day ” in 
the first chapter of Genesis is, that it is a term used for accommodation to 
the human understanding. All that that chapter tell us is, that there were 
six distinct periods in which God worked in creation, six successive periods, 
and that during the intervals between those periods He rested, which accounts 
for the use of the phrase “ and the morning and evening were of the first 
day,” and so on through the six stages of creation. The word “ day ” then, 
is used here, we are to believe, solely in accommodation to our knowledge, 
just as the Scriptures speak of God’s eyes and God’s ears — of His seeing, 
hearing, and speaking. Now I must confess, that unless Mr. Warington 
assumes that these days of God were periods which passed between successive 
periods of light and darkness, I cannot but think he is evading certain diffi- 
culties, in the same way in which he complains of others, who have assumed 
meanings merely to get over difficulties. With his interpretation I cannot 
conceive what definite notion I am to apply to the terms u and the evening 
and the morning were of the first day;” and so on. That we cannot compre- 
hend the whole of the Scriptural account of creation is perfectly true — we 
have no help from science at all. But the valuable portion of Mr. Warington’s 
paper is found in the admission it makes, that science is totally helpless in 
the matter of giving us an interpretation with regard to the cosmogony of 
creation. Science is altogether powerless in the matter, but I am afraid that 
Mr. Warington, like others, has in his mind a lingering fear of science — 
Mr. Warington. — No, no. 
Mr. Mitchell. — And he endeavours to meet what are now supposed 
to be scientific facts incapable of being controverted. Very hard measure 
