ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

of God as the work of six days. The succession of these single acts need not be looked upon as chronological in the sense that one moment of creative activity was completely closed, and one period was thus ended, before the realization of a new moment, and with it a new period, had begun. It would be quite possible to suppose that historically or chronologically the realization of the separate moments took place simultaneously; for instance, the separation of the waters and land might have actually extended over the time of the creation of the first plants and the first animals, and the creation of vegetation over the creation of the first animals. That, in Moses' description, each separate work is represented as being complete in itself, is explained by the fact that each forms a particular moment in the creative activity of God; and the succession in which these separate works are described to us is explained partly by the logical order into which they are brought, and partly by the dependence of each work in turn on those which preceded and conditioned it. It cannot be said that there is anything prejudicial to the historic character of the Mosaic record in this interpretation of the Hexameron, although it does, no doubt, put the historical character in the background. If, of two historians, one should describe the life of Charlemagne in strict chronological order, so that family and state affairs, battles, and the founding of churches should follow one another in confused variety; while the other should arrange the events which show forth the work of the great emperor under certain principal heads, and should therefore describe him successively in his private life as a conqueror, a lawgiver, a protector of the Church,

and so on, we should not deny historical accuracy to the latter description because the chronological point of view is made subservient to the logical or ideal.' As I have said, I do not hesitate to say that this theory of the Hexameron also is theologically admissible. There is no more justification here for the objection that the formula "the evening and the morning," etc., does not allow of such an interpretation of the days, than there was in the theory we examined before this one; if the single acts of creation were to be described as days, to speak of morning and evening was only a continuation of the image which had been chosen.2

I have now shown that four theories concerning the six days are exegetically admissible; according to two the days are understood literally, and according to the two others figuratively. To recapitulate once more, they are as follows:

(1.) The whole period treated of in the first chapter of Genesis comprises only six periods of twenty-four hours.

(2.) The six days, at least the last three at any rate, are periods of twenty-four hours each, but an indefinite period preceded the six days, which lies between the first day of creation and the beginning of the first of the six days. To this is attached the " Theory of Restitution."

1 Michelis, Natur und Offenbarung, i. 102.

Aug. de Gen. c. Man. i. 14. 20: Restat ergo, ut intelligamus, ipsas distinctiones operum sic appellatas, vesperam propter transactionem consummati operis et mane propter inchoationem futuri operis, de similitudine scilicet humanorum operum, quia plerumque a mane incipiunt et ad vesperam desinunt. Habent enim consuetudinem divinæ scripturæ de

rebus humanis ad divinas res verba transferre.

(3.) The six days are six successive periods of indefinite length; this is the "Concordistic theory."

(4.) Taken as a whole, the six days correspond to the whole series of periods which elapsed between the first beginning of things and the creation of man; but they do not mean six successive periods, but only six sides or phases of the creative activity of God; six principal heads under which the creating and forming acts of God can be brought. This is the "Ideal theory."

We shall see later which of these theories can be brought into harmony with the results of natural science, and which agrees with them best; my object to-day was only to point out those explanations of the six days which are theologically admissible.'

1 An interpretation of the six days, given according to Pianciani, Erläuterungen, p. 28 (Cosmogonia, pp. 35, 38), by the Barnabite, Herme negild Pini, is quite inadmissible. According to this, the six days are to be considered as the principal periods in the world's development; they need not have followed directly on one another, but may have been separated by long spaces of time; on six days the Creator interfered immediately in the development of the earth, between these days the development took its usual course; Moses mentioned the six days of divine creative activity in his narrative, but he passed over the periods of development in silence, because the former were of importance for the history of the redemption, but the latter only for the history of nature. According to this theory, the connection between the human Sabbath and the divine week of creation is put far too much in the background. And the statement, "The evening and the morning," etc., only retains its correct meaning if it is understood that the morning is the morning of the next day. The phrase, "and the morning," etc., carries one on to the next day, as I have shown above, p. 124, and Moses would have had to express himself quite differently, if he had not meant to imply that six directly consecutive days found their close in the divin Sabbath.

XI.

ASTRONOMY AND THE BIBLE.

THE discussion on the six days brings me to the end of the first half of my task, which is to lay down what the Bible teaches us concerning the origin of the visible creation; and it only remains for me now to compare the statements in the Bible with the results of scientific inquiry. It is, of course, neither necessary nor possible for me to collect all the scientific statements concerning the primeval world as thoroughly as I have collected and discussed the statements in the Bible. As I announced in the beginning, my lectures are only intended to prove that the Bible teaches about the primæval world nothing which has been shown to be incorrect by natural science. I need therefore only discuss those results of natural science which have been said to contradict the statements of the Bible. Any one defending the harmony between the Bible and science may adopt one of two ways of meeting such an assertion; he must either prove that what is supposed to be an assured result of scientific inquiry, and as such is opposed to the statements in the Bible, is not an assured result, but an error on the part of the man of science, and he must prove this, of course, on scientific and not on theological grounds;' or he must prove

1 "I observe that there are two ways of solving these and similar difficulties. The first is to deny the assumptions of geologists, and to reject them as being false, or at least not very credible. Not a few

that the asserted contradiction between the Bible and the results of scientific inquiry rests on an erroneous interpretation of the words of the Bible; that is, he first assumes that the results of scientific inquiry are true, and then shows either that the Bible asserts the same truth, or that there is nothing in its language to deny such a truth, or lastly, that it does not mention the matter in question at all, and so leaves it entirely to natural science.

You will agree with me in thinking that it would be presumptuous in me to adopt the first of these two ways, that is, to combat the statements which are regarded as assured by men of science, on scientific grounds. I could only dispute the asserted results of scientific inquiry, if men of science themselves put the weapons into my hands, that is, when two scientific opinions are opposed to each other. So long as men of science themselves-I am speaking, of course, of those who are recognised as the leaders-differ widely on any point, there can be no question of any definite scientific result, and we cannot therefore, of course, institute any comparison with the Bible. But in those cases where competent men of science are at one, I shall take care not to throw doubt on facts which they have recognised, and I shall then prove that the words of the Bible are in perfect harmony with these facts, and that the apparent contradiction is caused by an erroneous interpretation of the words of the Bible.

have adopted this way (in recent times Bosizio), but as I think with an unhappy result. It encounters most serious difficulties, which do not rest on suppositions or systems, but on many and carefully examined facts. The wiser and more learned among the theologians and apologists now adopt another course," etc. Pianciani, Erläuterungen, etc., p. 7.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »