ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

the second section is identical with the Elohim of the first.

I have now explained the whole Biblical account of creation, with the exception of the statement that the creation took place in six days. This point is of peculiar importance, and it is especially so in the question of the relation between the Bible and natural science. I now turn to the discussion of this point, but I must ask you to remember that I am speaking for the present entirely as an exegete; that is, I do not at present intend to inquire whether the creation took place in six days or in a longer time, but only what Genesis says and what it does not say about the duration of the creative period. When we have ascertained what the Bible teaches concerning the chronology of the creation, we may proceed to inquire what natural science teaches on the same subject, and we can then find out how far the two statements agree or differ.

The subject of my next lecture then will be the question of the duration of the six days spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis. I will now only make one more preliminary remark. We shall have to decide whether the exegete may assume that the six days need not be considered as periods of twenty-four hours each, but may mean periods of uncertain and very long duration. I shall endeavour to prove that this question. may be honestly answered in the affirmative, and that this last theory concerning the six days is theologically and exegetically admissible, just as admissible as the

other.

You will observe that I do not merely say admissible, but just as admissible as the other theory. For, as I

L

shall show you, it is not a fact that the first and more literal conception of the six days is the one to which theology would cling if possible, and that the other is only a concession forced from her by the attacks of natural science, and for the sake of peace, which she would gladly retract if opposing science would allow. The case is sometimes so represented by ignorant persons, but this is quite erroneous. Even if there were no natural science, an exegete might believe that the six days meant a period of uncertain duration; and before there was any thought of a science of geology as it exists to-day, and without in the least anticipating any of the objections to the Hexameron, no less a person than S. Augustine propounded a theory concerning the six days which, as you will see when I mention it in the course of my discussion, will prove to be very different from the literal explanation.

With regard to this question of the meaning of the

1 Bosizio likewise adopts this point of view, and after him B. Jungmann, Institutiones theologica dogmatica specialis, Tractatus de Deo creatore, Regensburg 1871, pp. 30-32. He expressly admits, in "The Hexameron," p. 18, "the possibility of an interpretation of the six days of creation in a sense of the word 'day' different from the usual one;" but he thinks that we should depart from the plain and apparent meaning of the sacred text (the literal interpretation of the six days) only when and in so far as the geological statements that seem to be irreconcilable with the clear literal meaning of Scripture are absolutely proved. But, so long as this is not the case, we need and should not depart from the plain sense (207; cf. 216, 255). Bosizio wrongly appeals to Aug. de Gen. ad lit. ii. 8, to justify his point of view, as we can easily see if we read the passage connectedly, and add to it the warning given in the same book, c. 18: Nunc autum servata semper moderatione piæ gravitatis nihil credere de re obscura temere debemus, ne forte, quod postea veritas patefecerit, quamvis libris sanctis sive Testamenti Veteris sive Novi nullo modo esse possit adversum, tamen propter amorem nostri erroris oderimus. (Cf. above, p. 45.) The history of the exegetical contradiction of the Copernican system should have made Bosizio careful. (Theol. Lit.Bl. 1867, p. 752; 1869, p. 14.)

six days, the Catholic exegete is just as free as the non-Catholic. As you know, the Council of Trent claims for the Church the right of deciding on the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture in questions of faith and morality; and it declares that, in "questions of faith and morality," the interpretation of the Bible must not go against the unanimis consensus patrum, against the doctrines shown by the Fathers unanimously to belong to Christian revelation. I need not discuss whether the explanation of the six days at all affects "questions of faith and morality;" the following quotations from S. Augustine will show that there could be no question of a unanimis consensus patrum concerning it, or of an explanation of the six days handed down from the Fathers through the traditions of the Church. "It is very difficult, arduum et difficillimum est, to understand what Moses meant by these six days." "If any one wishes for any other explanation but that I have stated, let him seek it, and with God's help find it. It is not impossible that I myself may find another which agrees better with the words of Holy Scripture. For I do not confidently bring forward my present explanation, as if no other or no better one could be found."2 And in another passage of a later work he says: "It is difficult and almost impossible for us to imagine, much more to describe, the nature of these days." testifies to the fact that there is no consensus patrum with reference to this point. He begins his discussion of the six days with these words: "S. Augustine

1 De Gen. ad lit. iv. 1.

Civ. Dei, xi. 6.

S. Thomas also

2 De Gen. ad lit. iv. 23.

does not agree with other interpreters on this point." He then states both theories, and expressly observes that he does not wish to prejudice any one in favour of either, as the difference between them may be important exegetically, but not dogmatically.1

I may further remind you with regard to the theological admissibility of the broader view of the six days, that many Roman Catholic savants either have declared that their opinion alone is the right one, or, even while disputing it on other grounds, have allowed that it is admissible from an ecclesiastical point of view; and also that it has been stated in books printed in Rome, with every "imprimatur required by the rules of the Church. There can be no question of more or less orthodoxy with reference to these theories, for their connection with dogma is so slight that they cannot be the objects of an ecclesiastical decision. And if it is anti-ecclesiastical to advance theories which either directly or indirectly contravene the acknowledged doctrines of the Church, on the other hand it is neither ecclesiastical nor scientific to designate questions which are quite independent of the decision of the Church as 66 more or less orthodox, favoured by or admitted by the Church," etc. The Church is quite neutral with regard to this question, and we may therefore freely proceed to inquire how far the different theories about the six days may be scientifically and above all exegetically justified.

1 Summa Theol. i. q. 74, a. 2; cf. in 2. 1; Sent. dist. xii. q. 1, a. 2. Schanz, der h. Thomas und das Hexameron, Tübingen Quartalschr. 1878, p. 3.

[merged small][ocr errors]

X.

THE SIX DAYS.

I PROPOSE to inquire to-day what we are to understand by the six days of the Mosaic account of creation. This inquiry, however, will, as I have explained in my last lecture, be at first purely exegetical; that is, I shall for the present entirely leave aside all the teaching of natural science with reference to the duration of the period of creation, and simply ascertain what Genesis. tells us about it. We may therefore put the question in this form: What period of time must the exegete assume to have elapsed during the creation of things, between the first act of creation and its termination? or, What period of time does Genesis suppose to have elapsed between the beginning of God's creative activity and the creation of the last creature, man? or, As time begins with God's first creative act, what length of time was there according to Genesis before the appearance of man on the earth?

The first explanation of the six days which we find in both ancient and modern writers, is that according to which they each signify periods of twenty-four hours. As there are innumerable instances in Holy Scripture where the word day has this meaning, from an exegetical point of view there is nothing to prevent our so understanding it in the first chapter of Genesis. There

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »