Indeed, I would

Moses means us "learned com

further, "the ordinary reader actually understands the expression in the sacred text in another sense," that is, if he believes it to mean days of twenty-four hours, there is not much harm done. not even call this theory incorrect. to understand seven days,-this the mentator" must believe as well as the ordinary reader, -whether these days are to be taken literally or figuratively is a question quite irrelevant to the objects of Biblical revelation. The account given in the Book of Joshua of the sun standing still is understood by the commentator, as by ordinary readers in all times, to mean that that day was prolonged by God. But up to the time of Copernicus probably no reader of the Bible knew that this was not brought about by arresting the movement of the sun, possibly many do not know it now-and this without any harm to their souls. And therefore when I hear it said that "Moses might just as easily have written periods as days, and the divine inspiration surely would have preserved him from such an unfortunate choice of words," I can only answer that it was just as easy for the author of the Book of Joshua to write the day was prolonged, as the sun stood still; and the divine inspiration did not prevent his choosing the words. which he has employed. Besides, the choice of the word day for describing the separate parts which together make up the divine week of creation cannot be called unfortunate; rather the contrary, for the parallel between the divine week of creation and the human week could not have been more shortly and plainly expressed than by transferring the name of

the separate parts which make up the human week to the separate parts of its prototype. As I have already mentioned, the use of the word "day" in a figurative sense is justified by this circumstance, although we certainly have no parable" here. I certainly cannot admit that the Biblical expressions "Son of God," "everlasting fire," "heaven," etc., could be understood in the same way. Where matters of theological importance are in question, and the expression "Son of God," for instance, always comes in connection with such, the Bible should speak decidedly and unequivocally, and it does so; nor can any sufficient reason be found in such cases for departing from the literal meaning. Here, on the contrary, we have first of all found a reason for the use of the word "day" in a figurative sense, and, secondly, we have seen that, according to the custom of Holy Scripture, the matter of theological importance, namely, that the human week is the copy of the divine week of creation, is quite clearly and distinctly expressed, while the only matter which remains uncertain is whether the days of the divine week are twenty-four hours in length, and this is theologically unimportant.

We need not therefore understand the "days" of the first chapter of Genesis to mean periods of twentyfour hours. What then are we to understand them to mean? Most of the supporters of this theory answer that the six days mean six successive long periods in the history of creation, and that each of the periods of the earth's history which science has revealed corresponds to one day of the Mosaic Hexameron. Whether this correspondence is borne out, and if so, how, I

cannot discuss till I come to consider the results of geological inquiry; but, as has been said, no objection can be made to this, the "Concordistic theory" as it is usually called, from a theological or exegetical point of view. If the history of the earth, as it is taught us by geology, can in reality be divided into six periods, and if these periods in their development and process of formation successively correspond to the account given by Moses of the creation and formation of the earth, they may be perfectly described as the days of the

week of creation.1

But, besides the Concordistic theory, there is yet another, proceeding from the wider interpretation of the six days which has been shown above to be admissible. Its fundamental idea is alluded

to by S. Augustine."

S. Thomas Aquinas mentions

The Concordistic theory is supported by Cuvier, Marcel de Serres, Nicolas, Bishop Meignan, Hugh Miller, Pianciani, Bernuzzi, Pfaff, Delitzsch, Ebrard, Stutz, Zöckler, Godet, Dawson. Cf. Zöckler, Gesch. etc., ii. 497.

2 The interpretation which S. Augustine gives of another passage in the Old Testament has had no little influence on this theory. In Sir. xviii. 1 we find, "Qui manet in æternum, creavit omnia simul," that is, "The Eternal has created all things without exception;" see above, p. 108, n. 3. But S. Augustine understood this to mean "the Eternal has created all things at once, in one moment." If this interpretation is right, and S. Augustine erroneously held that it was right, the question arose, "How could Moses have been right in saying that God created in six days?" (de Gen. ad lit. iv. 33). S. Thomas, following S. Greg., M. Mor. xxxii. 12 (i. 1055), answers that the statement, that God created everything at once, refers to the bringing forth of things according to their substance, of which Moses says, in ver. 1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This does not exclude the fashioning by God during the six days of the material which had been brought forth by one act of creation. But I do not find in S. Augustine's works this really very evident solution of the seeming contradiction. He therefore found himself obliged to explain the temporal succession of the separate creations which is narrated in the Hexameron by another interpretation of the six days. Thus he adopts the theory that it is not a question of six successive and separate days, but

it; and it has been adopted by many modern men of science.2 The supporters of this theory differ considerably from one another in details; and I should probably find something to criticize in each of the different forms which this theory assumes in the hands of different authors, were I to explain them in detail. But no objection can be made to the fundamental idea of this theory, which is called not quite correctly the "Ideal theory;" and it will be sufficient for our object if we describe it generally, and in that form which I hold to be completely admissible.

The creative activity of God is represented by Moses to be the prototype of man's work in the week days, because the Sabbath is to be represented as the earthly

of only one day, which, in the narrative of Moses, is six times repeated, idem dies sexies repetitus (Civ. Dei, xi. 30). The works of the six days are therefore not to be understood as following each other chronologically, but only as logically distinguished from one another. We are taught that God created all things, that He separated the elements and realms of nature from one another, and that He adorned them, and caused them to bring forth life; but this is only meant as a logical explanation of the creative activity, not as a chronological and historical account of it. According to S. Augustine, in the statement six times repeated, "And the evening and the morning," etc., the word "day" does not represent the time, but the apprehension of the angels; the number six, applied to the days, represents the angelic apprehension of the six logical parts of the plan of creation; and the evening and the morning are figurative representations of the two parts of this apprehension, the apprehension which comes from the contemplation of reality, and the knowledge of the idea of things; the cognitio vespertina et matutina, as the schoolmen, on the strength of this theory of S. Augustine, call these kinds of apprehension. Baltzer gives a detailed account of this theory of S. Augustine, differing from the above notice, in the Bibl. Schöpfungsgesch. p. 63 seq.

1 Summa Theol. i. q. 74, a. 2; in 2. 1, Sent. dist. xii. q. 1, a. 2. 2 Waterkeyn, Michelis (Natur u. Off. i. 100, ii. 57, iii. 299, vii. 215), Schutz (Schöpfungsgesch. p. 329), Baltzer (Bibl. Schöpfungsgesch. p. 304; cf. Theol. Lit.-Bl. 1867, p. 234), Zollmann (Bibel und Natur, p. 76), Walworth (Brownson's Review, 1863, p. 213); cf. Zöckler, l.c. ii. 538.

copy of the divine rest after the creation of things. Therefore, because of this analogy, Moses is able to describe the creative activity of God as the work of six days. But this description is not only justified if the creative activity of God is spread over six successive periods, as is supposed in the Concordistic theory which has just been described, but also if, contemplated as a whole, it comprises six single moments which can be logically distinguished from one another, six divine thoughts or ideas which were realized in the creation. This can be easily proved. As I have already shown, the Hexameron naturally falls into two parts, which are a parallel to each other. S. Thomas Aquinas calls the works of the first three days "opera distinctionis;" of the last three days "opera ornatus; "1_the first three acts of the Creator are the separation of light from darkness, of the earthly from the heavenly waters, and of the land from the sea; the three following are the formation of the light-giving heavenly bodies, and the creation of the animals of the air, and the water, and of the land; and as the creation of plants was added to the work of the third day, so the creation of man is added to that of the sixth. The truth which Moses must have specially wished to bring out in his description of the creative activity of God is this, that the visible creation as it exists at present is a realization of divine ideas brought about by the divine will. If, then, he wished to include the creative activity of God within the limits of a week, he might perfectly represent the realization of the single divine thoughts, or the principal moments [Haupt-momente] of the creative activity 1i. q. 70, a. 1. Schanz, Tüb. Quartalschr. 1878, p. 16.

1