Article 11. On Mosaic Cosmogony

112. The older theologians were accustomed in this place to expound the history of creation, as it is reported by Moses in Genesis, weighing the individual days of creation and all the works of each single day. Now, however, the custom has prevailed that a special treatment of this matter be had, which is commonly left to the interpreter of Sacred Scripture. Yet the general question concerning the days of creation is excepted, concerning which more commonly recent theologians treat in this place. We shall imitate this method.

113. No one is unaware that Moses writes for the Israelites the history of their race, and the Law given by God. In order to set down the foundation beforehand, in Genesis chapter 1 he describes the first origin of things, having especially three things before his eyes: 1. that he may assert that one God is the author of all things, and so establish the doctrine of monotheism, and the true foundation of any religion whatsoever; 2. that, consequently, he may turn the people away from the worship of stars, animals, and plants, teaching that all these things were founded on account of man: "And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him preside over the fishes of the sea, and the birds of heaven, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping thing which moves on the earth, etc.," Genesis 1:26 and following; 3. that he may, as it were, confirm the law of the Sabbath by the example of God. Hence it is read in Exodus 20:9-11: "Six days you shall work, and shall do all your works. But on the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: you shall do no work in it, you, and your son and your daughter, and your manservant and your maidservant, your beast, and the stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things which are in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the day of the Sabbath, and sanctified it." Compare also Exodus 31:15-17.

114. Although Moses describes the origin of all things, nevertheless he properly wishes to exhibit the history of the earth, either because man inhabits it, for whose utility all the other inferior creatures were founded, or also for other reasons which there is no leisure to pursue here. For this reason it is not strange if he presents the sun, moon, and stars as serving the advantages of the earth; for he treats of heavenly bodies only so much and insofar as they are referred to it.

115. On the occasion of describing the origin of things for the aforesaid ends, Moses says many other things which he does not directly intend. From this, indeed, one can understand why those things are set forth somewhat obscurely (although only heretics, who deny the infallible magisterium of the Church, defend the complete perspicuity of the Scriptures); but it in no way follows that the same things can be denied at pleasure. For since it is established that "the whole books of the Old and New Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the same Council [of Trent], and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical," if at the same time it is established that something was said by Moses in Genesis, it must be held as divinely inspired. Hence the mythical exposition of Genesis 1, now common among many Protestants, must be rejected, according to which a single truth underlies the Mosaic narrative, namely concerning God the Author of the universe, while the rest would have been devised for the sake of ornament and clothing. See Schwetz, Catholic Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, part 2, section 1, § 75.

116. With these things placed in safety, the diverse interpretations concerning the Mosaic days described in Genesis, which are still freely brought forward among Catholics, can be reduced to three principal ones: the allegorical or mystical; the obvious and common literal; and the more recent literal.

117. The allegorical interpretation worthy of mention is that which is proposed by St. Augustine in several places, and especially in City of God, book 11, c. 6 and following; and On Genesis Literally, book 4, c. 24 and following. The holy Doctor first admits the difficulty of the matter: "What sort of days those were," he says, "is either very difficult for us, or even impossible, to think, how much more to say." Nevertheless he proposes an opinion according to which God did not found the world in six true successive days, but in one instant, all things simultaneously. But if he is asked why things which were made in one instant are narrated as made over the space of six days, he especially gives a twofold reason. The first is: "Most suitably in that book, as though through intervals of delays, the ordered narration of things made by God is arranged, so that the very disposition, which could not be seen by weaker minds in stable contemplation, might, when set forth through this kind of order of speech, be discerned as though by those eyes." (On Genesis Literally, Unfinished Work, c. 7.) The other reason is that, although there is no distinction of days insofar as some works were made on one day, and others on another, nevertheless there is a certain mystical but true signification, according to which both the day in creation, and evening and morning in any given day, are distinguished.

He thinks that a distinction of this kind is made according to the account by which the Angels came into knowledge of creatures. For he notes (On Genesis Literally, book 4, c. 22): "The light which was first made is not corporeal, but spiritual"; and he explains this spiritual light (c. 32), saying: "God said: Let light be made, and that light itself followed, by which the angelic mind was formed, and was made in its own nature, and the created light adhered to the creating light, seeing that light, and itself in that light, that is, the ratio by which it was made." But just as he interprets light as the host of Angels, so he seeks the distinction of evening and morning repeated six times from the cognition of the Angels. For a twofold cognition of creatures must be admitted in the Angels: one which they have by contemplating things in themselves, yet not clinging to the beauty of these things, but referring them to the glory of God; the other by which they know things in the Word, in whom are the rationes of all things to be created. The first, as less perfect, he calls evening cognition; the other, more perfect, he calls morning cognition. "And so," he says (c. 26), "that day which God made through his works is itself repeated not by a bodily circuit, but by spiritual cognition, when that blessed society of Angels first contemplates in the Word of God what God said: let it be made, and therefore first it is made in his cognition, when it is said: and so it was made; and afterward it knows the thing itself made in itself, which is signified by evening having been made; and then it refers that cognition of the thing made to the praise of that truth, where it had seen the ratio of its being made, which is signified by morning having been made. And thus through all those days there is one day, not to be understood according to the custom of these days, which we see determined and numbered by the circuit of the sun, but in another certain way, from which also those three days, which are commemorated before the founding of those luminaries, cannot be alien."

Finally, because in the mind of the Angels morning cognition immediately succeeds evening cognition without ignorance and the darkness of errors, therefore, according to the holy Doctor, no mention is made of night. "Because," he says (c. 30), "evening is made there not by the withdrawal of the higher light, but by the distinction of lower cognition; nor does morning occur as though morning knowledge succeeds a night of ignorance, but because it lifts up even evening cognition to the glory of the Founder. Finally David also, with night not named, says: Evening and morning and midday I will narrate and announce, and he will hear my voice: here perhaps through changes of times, but nevertheless, as I think, signifying what would be accomplished without changes of times in the homeland for which his pilgrimage sighed."

118. This opinion of St. Augustine, as to creation completed in one instant, was also handed down by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, book 6); Origen (Against Celsus, book 6); St. Athanasius (Oration 3 against the Arians); Isidore of Seville (On the Highest Good, book 1); Cassiodorus (Divine Institutions, book 1, c. 22). Among theologians, however, some, such as Molina, Cornelius a Lapide, Arriaga, etc., rejected the same interpretation as quasi-erroneous; others, such as Estius, Natalis Alexander, etc., left it to its author as less probable; others, such as Sixtus of Siena, Albert the Great, Cardinal Noris, Berti, etc., embraced and defended it. St. Thomas (Sentences II, dist. 12, q. 1, a. 2) says: "the opinion of Augustine pleases me more"; and in Summa Theologiae I, q. 74, a. 2, after reporting the interpretation of St. Augustine and the other obvious literal one, he says: "therefore, so that prejudice be done to neither opinion, the arguments of each must be answered."

119. The common literal interpretation does not need exposition. Those who hold it understand by the name of days spaces of time similar to our days; from the fourth day they were determined by the rising and setting of the sun; but the spaces of the preceding days also had a vicissitude of light and darkness, but from another cause, as we shall say. This opinion was more common among the Fathers; for Theophilus of Antioch, St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, Theodoret, St. Gregory the Great, St. Jerome, etc., taught it. See Petavius, On the Work of the Six Days, book 1, c. 5. It was most common among the scholastic theologians, and even now is defended by not a few.

120. Regarding the more recent literal interpretation, it must be noted that the unbelievers of the last century, under the leadership especially of Voltaire, left nothing untried in order to show that the Mosaic narrative deviated from truth. The sum of their arguments, as to the present matter, comes back to this: that they maintain from the physical sciences, especially geology, that many hundreds of thousands of years were necessary for the terrestrial globe to be brought to that state in which it was when man was created. Arguments of this kind seemed to have great force to not a few Catholic authors, who therefore agree in this, that they defend the truth of Mosaic cosmogony by conceding a long series of ages for the formation of the earth. But they differ because some place this long period of years before the days described by Moses, while others judge that the days themselves are long periods of years.

121. Therefore the first group establish that in the first verse of Genesis, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," the origin of the whole universe is handed down; in the second verse, "But the earth was empty and void," the ruin of our earth is indicated; and in the following verses they think that what is described is not properly creation, but restoration of the earth. Hence they distinguish the first creation from the second in such a way that the former exhibits the true creation of the whole universe, verse 1, while the latter exhibits restoration, as is read in verse 3 and following. Between the two they place a very wide interval of time, in which many genera of plants and animals lived - which, from various revolutions of the earth, as they say, perhaps perished several times - while at the same time they think that the successive formation of the earth, which geology maintains, occurred. Finally, when by a universal and very great catastrophe the earth had been made uninhabitable and utterly collapsed, which they say is indicated in verse 2, it was restored by divine omnipotence; and Moses describes this restoration as made in the space of six days. That Moses ascribes the production of the sun and stars to the fourth day, they explain by saying that the sun and stars were produced in the first creation; and that Moses, while describing the second, teaches only that the present relation and influence of the stars with respect to the earth was constituted by divine omnipotence on the fourth day. This opinion, which for the sake of clarity we shall call the more recent less common one, many once embraced with Buckland, Cardinal Wiseman, etc.; now, however, the opinion immediately to be set forth seems to prevail.

122. Another exposition of the more recent interpretation is that the days themselves commemorated in Genesis are not ordinary days, but long periods of time. Therefore, except for certain creatures, such as, for example, living things and especially man, in whose formation the immediate intervention of divine action must be acknowledged, they say that God created matter from the beginning and permitted it itself, by the natural evolution of its powers, according to the first disposition of the most wise Artisan, gradually to form the earth. This opinion, which can be called the more recent more common one, is now maintained by several Catholic Doctors, and they use it to vindicate the narrative of Moses from the sophisms of the impious.

123. Upon the allegorical exposition, which the Church has never disapproved, no mark indeed can be inflicted, as is clear from the authorities recited; nevertheless authors very commonly seem rightly to recede from it.

124. Proof I. It seems to have no foundation in Scripture. For a twofold foundation is usually assigned. 1. That text of Ecclesiasticus 18:1, "He who lives forever created all things together"; where they say that "together" signifies at the same time, since the fact that there is nothing outside God which was not created by him is sufficiently expressed by that word "all things." 2. That text of Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of heaven and earth, when they were created, in the day in which the Lord God made heaven and earth: and every shrub of the field before it arose on the earth, and every herb of the region before it sprouted"; therefore, they say, all the productions narrated by Moses pertain to one and the same day, without there being any interval of time between the creation of heaven and earth and the third day, on which shoots and trees were produced.

But neither is valid. Not the first; for, according to the Greek text, that word "together" signifies all things as one, without exception (see Schwetz, cited place). Nor does it obstruct this that the same thing is sufficiently expressed by the word "all things"; since frequently in Sacred Scripture the same thing is confirmed by equivalent terms. Thus, for example, Psalm 13:3 says: "All have turned aside, together they have become useless"; and nearer to our matter, John 1 reads: "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made." Not the second, because that phrase "in the day" signifies in the time previously designated by Moses, or in the days, for the singular is often used for the plural in Sacred Scripture. See Petavius, book 1, c. 5.

Proof II. The very common opinion of the holy Fathers and Doctors adheres to the proper and literal sense. But the authority of St. Augustine does not seem to obstruct this consensus. For a) the holy Doctor proposes the allegorical interpretation while doubting. "Let anyone," he says (On Genesis Literally, book 4, c. 28), "seek in the enumeration of those days, not that opinion which according to our measure we have been able either to investigate or to suppose, but another, which may be understood better and properly, not figuratively in prophecy, but in this condition of creatures; let him seek, and, helped by God, let him find. For it can happen that I also perhaps may find another more congruent with these words of divine Scripture. Nor do I confirm this one in such a way that I would contend that one which should be preferred cannot be found." b) The holy Doctor himself (On Catechizing the Uninstructed, c. 17, n. 28) seems to admit the common literal interpretation; for he says: "Concerning this rest Scripture signifies and does not keep silent, that from the beginning of the world, from the time when God made heaven and earth and all things which are in them, he worked for six days, and on the seventh day he rested. For the omnipotent one could have made all things also in one moment of time. But he had not labored so that he should rest, when he spoke and they were made, he commanded and they were created; but so that he might signify that after the six ages of this world, in the seventh age, as on the seventh day, he would rest in his Saints." c) Speaking of the twelve books of On Genesis Literally (Retractations, c. 24), he says: "In this work more things were asked than found, fewer things were established; but the rest were posited in such a way as though they were still to be sought."

Proof III. It is a hermeneutic rule handed down by St. Augustine himself that one must not depart from the literal and proper sense of Sacred Scripture without a compelling reason. But in this case there is no compelling reason. Therefore.

The minor is proved. For a) no absurdity follows from the literal sense, and therefore no handle is given to unbelievers for calumniating the Mosaic narrative, which St. Augustine feared so greatly. This is clear from the fact that now they would rather suffer scandal if simultaneous creation, and not successive creation, were maintained.

b) Scripture itself does not teach that the literal sense must be abandoned, as we have proved by examining the places which are usually brought forward by the authors themselves of the allegorical interpretation. Indeed, it seems to suggest the contrary. For 1. all agree that the other things which are narrated there must be received in the proper sense. Whatever Cajetan may have said, the Apostle teaches that the creation itself of woman must be received in the proper sense, saying in 1 Corinthians 11:9: "For man is not from woman, but woman from man"; why, therefore, will the distinction itself of the days not be taken in the proper sense? 2. Moses, as all admit, is a historical writer; in the course of Genesis he narrates facts with a simple pen; at the beginning of Genesis he lays down the foundations of the law, as we have seen. But all these things seem to exclude difficult allegories from the narrative of the creation of the universe.

c) Finally, that tradition in no way favors the allegorical interpretation has already been demonstrated above.

125. It does not seem that one must adhere to the more recent less common opinion, which nevertheless is still free among Catholics. For a) according to the constant tradition of the holy Fathers and theologians, the Mosaic narrative is to be understood not of the restoration, but of the creation and formation of the earth, which previously had not existed.

b) The creation of heaven and earth seems to be joined immediately with the production of herbs in Genesis 2:4, recited above.

c) I shall report the observations of Fr. Pianciani (Commentary on the History of Mosaic Creation, p. 14). "In this opinion," he says, "which is tolerated by the Church, this is the inconvenience, that the second verse is separated too much from the first. He created ... the earth. But the earth was empty ... Here things seem to succeed one another immediately and the first face of the earth seems to be described, not the state into which, after many ages and very many vicissitudes, the earth had fallen back. Moreover it is rather hard for me to posit that light existed before the voice of God: Let light be made; plants and animals before God said: let the earth bring forth the herb ... let the waters swarm with creeping things ... let the winged thing fly over the earth, etc. Besides, it seems less likely that God destroyed the earth, created and so adorned and full of life, even by means of secondary causes, before he made man who could know him and contemplate his works. Nor does it appear, if they make the Mosaic days to be of 24 hours, why God perfected that ancient world which was destroyed before man by such prolonged fashioning and by the laws of nature operating, but refashioned this one which he granted to us so quickly and by his one omnipotent power." See also Miller, Testimony, p. 133; and Brownson's Quarterly Review, 1863, p. 207.

126. But the authors of the common literal interpretation, although they admit that the preceding interpretation can be freely defended by Catholics, nevertheless contend that this one must be preferred to it, for the following reasons.

a) Whatever may be learnedly discussed concerning the various significations of the word "day," it is certain that its proper and not derived or transferred sense is either the time of light insofar as it is opposed to the night of the same day, or a civil day of 24 hours. And the same thing must be said of the Hebrew word iom and the Arabic jaumun, which at last the authors themselves of the more recent interpretation expressly admit (1).

b) The words also hereb and boker, evening and morning, according to etymology can indeed signify confusion and disposition or order; nevertheless it is certain that in biblical usage they signify the same thing as among us. The same authors also admit this (2).

Hence they say: a derived or transferred sense of words can also be admitted, if there is need, but with the proper sense and the sense determined from biblical usage being retained first, unless some compelling reason persuades that this must be abandoned. But the proper sense of "day" is not an indeterminate time, but either the time of light in the day, or a civil day; and the sense determined from biblical usage of the words evening and morning is the same as among us. Therefore, if there is no compelling reason, one or the other sense of "day" must be retained. But in this case the first proper sense cannot be retained, since Moses says: "Evening and morning were made, one day ... second, etc." Therefore the other must be retained, namely, "day" must be taken for a civil day. But whether there is some reason for abandoning the proper sense will be clear from the following section.

c) It is established from biblical usage that the word "day" is taken for a civil day whenever several days are distinctly numbered. Thus, for example, no one doubts this signification in the book of Numbers, chapter 7, where it is read: "On the first day Nahasson offered his oblation"; verse 18: "On the second day Nathanael offered"; verse 24: "On the third day the prince of the sons of Zabulon, Eliab the son of Helon"; verse 30: "On the fourth day the prince of the sons of Ruben, Elisur the son of Sedeur"; verse 36: "On the fifth day the prince of the sons of Simeon, Salamiel the son of Surisaddai." And so onward up to the twelfth day. Similarly, chapter 29 says: "The first day shall be venerable and holy to you, etc."; verse 17: "On the second day you shall offer twelve calves from the herd, etc."; verse 20: "On the third day you shall offer eleven calves, etc."; verse 23: "On the fourth day you shall offer ten calves, etc."; and so up to the eighth day. But the same distinct enumeration of days is had in Genesis 1. Therefore.

d) Nor does it obstruct this that Genesis 2:4-5 says: "These are the generations of heaven and earth, when they were created, in the day in which the Lord God made heaven and earth: and every shrub of the field, etc." For from biblical usage, they say, when that word "in the day" is referred to a time previously determined, it receives from that time the determination which perhaps it would not have of itself. Thus, for example, in the cited chapter 7 of the book of Numbers, verse 84, it is read: "These things were offered by the princes of Israel in the dedication of the altar on the day on which it was consecrated"; where that phrase "on the day" evidently refers to the time of twelve days previously determined, and therefore expresses that. But similarly that phrase "in the day" in Genesis 2:4 refers to the days already enumerated in chapter 1. Therefore. Indeed, they say, if there is any obscurity in that phrase "in the day" in chapter 2, and in those phrases "one day," "second day," "third day," etc. in chapter 1, the explanation of that phrase "in the day" seems to be sought from chapter 1, and not conversely; since, while "in the day" presents some indetermination of itself, the word "day" in the cited verses of chapter 1 is sufficiently determined by the proper signification of the word, by the addition of evening and morning, and by the distinct enumeration.

e) It is read in Genesis 1:14-19: "And God said: Let luminaries be made in the firmament of heaven, and let them divide day and night, and let them be for signs and seasons, and days and years: that they may shine in the firmament of heaven, and illumine the earth. And it was made so. And God made two great luminaries: the greater luminary, that it might preside over the day, and the lesser luminary, that it might preside over the night: and the stars. And he placed them in the firmament of heaven, that they might shine over the earth, and preside over day and night, and divide light and darkness. And God saw that it was good. And evening and morning were made, the fourth day." Hence, they say: since it is said in the same way "one day was made ... second, etc." as it is said "the fourth day was made," if there is any difficulty in determining the true sense of the word "day" when Moses enumerates the six times of creation, it must be explained from clearer texts; but no description of a day can be desired more clear than that which Moses himself hands down while speaking of the fourth day. Therefore. But when it is said "and evening and morning were made, the fourth day," the word "day" signifies a civil day; for the civil day is described with such distinction and clarity that no greater seems able to be desired. Therefore the other days of creation also must be held to be civil days. Nor does it obstruct, they say, that in the preceding days the sun did not yet exist; for God made the two luminaries so that they might "preside over day and night, and divide light and darkness." But God could have obtained the vicissitude of light and darkness otherwise before the creation of the sun, through another medium (which is understood more clearly from the more recent theories concerning the nature of light), so that the analogy and the same duration of all the days would remain. Nor would Moses have given any occasion for error: for the duration of all the days would be the same; and he would have said sufficiently that in the first three days it in no way depended on the sun, by expressly placing the creation of the sun on the fourth day.

127. These are the principal biblical arguments by which the common literal interpretation is usually defended. It remains only to inquire whether anything absurd follows from it.

129. It is not part of our plan to weigh one by one all the things which are brought forward from the natural sciences to confirm the more recent interpretation; it will be enough for us to report the principal things. For from these anyone will easily understand what the force of all the arguments is; and to each we shall add observations of the contrary opinion, after certain general observations have been set down first, which can be fitted to almost all the arguments. But all the observations do not tend to demonstrate that the foundations of the more recent interpretation are false, but that they are uncertain.

First general observation. Geologists assume as a principle that from the beginning God created nothing except the matter of the world with its powers, from the natural evolution of which (we now prescind from man and living things) the earth was formed. But could God from the beginning produce dry land and water, himself divide the former from the latter, himself produce certain primitive mountains, metals, marbles, Lydian stones, etc., just as he produced man from the beginning in a perfect state? No one will deny that God could do this. But did he do so? This can seem more conformable to the Mosaic narrative in Genesis 1, especially verses 6-7 and 9-10. Nevertheless the authors of the more recent interpretation deny it, because such a mode of production would be miraculous, and miracles are not to be admitted as long as they are not proved. But in this case it would not have been a true miracle; for a miracle is what occurs outside the accustomed order of nature; but God by creating was establishing the order itself. Hence St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 105, a. 7, ad 1, says: "creation and the justification of the ungodly, although they are done by God alone, nevertheless, properly speaking, are not called miracles; because they do not occur outside the order of nature, since these things do not belong to the order of nature." And ad 2: "Similarly, a miracle is also called unusual, not because it does not happen frequently, but because it is outside natural custom." Therefore the assumed principle is altogether uncertain, and consequently no certain consequences can be deduced from it. Not a few among the cultivators of the natural sciences also admit this. (3)

Second general observation. Geologists assume another principle, by which they establish that all things which pertain to the formation of the earth and other phenomena existing in it must be explained from natural powers operating in the regular and ordinary mode which now obtains. But 1. there are certain agents in nature which are not common, or which are not frequently found; there are certain circumstances in which natural powers are exercised in a certain extraordinary mode. Thus, for example, everyone now knows that petrifications of plants and animals are sometimes made within a short interval of time. 2. Besides the regular and ordinary action of natural powers, certain great disturbances of the earth must be admitted, or, as they say, revolutions. Thus, besides the Noachic flood, they commonly acknowledge great revolutions (Wiseman, Conference VI), whether before or after the flood, partial indeed, but extending to several hundreds of miles. Therefore many effects, such as the formation of certain mountains, valleys, dry land occupied by the sea, etc., were produced within a brief interval, although otherwise they would have demanded a long period of years. This, and for another reason, many now admit: among others Hopkins, C. E., F. G. S. (4)

Third general observation. The things which are taken from the natural sciences, especially from geology, to prove the antiquity of the world are very uncertain because of the great imperfection of these sciences. (5) This imperfection appears especially under a twofold head: the first is that observations held thus far do not suffice for founding a universal conclusion (6); the other, that in conclusions, as in asserting facts, there is great disagreement among the cultivators of those sciences. Reusch illustrates the first point (cited work and edition, lecture IV) by the testimonies of several, such as Huxley, Humboldt, Lyell, Deutinger, Bischof, etc.; of whom some simply affirm the lack of sufficient observation; others affirm that, in the present state of geology, error is almost necessary; and finally others, such as Bischof, hold that geology in its essentials will always be hypothetical. Nor should it be thought that the aforesaid disagreement flourishes only as to certain facts and less principal conclusions; for some admit that only one thing is certain, namely that at some time the earth was occupied by the sea. (7) But if they seem commonly to agree as to asserting the antiquity of the world, nevertheless there is no foundation for this assertion, even a factual one, which they themselves do not overturn, as will be clear a little below. Therefore that assertion, although common, remains uncertain, just like its foundation.

Argument 1. The formation itself of the earth demands a long series of years before the creation of man. For the whole mass of created matter was originally in a liquid state according to the Neptunians and Plutonists; indeed not a few hold that an aeriform fluid state preceded this, according to the hypothesis which they call nebular. That it was in a liquid state they prove from the spheroidal figure of the earth, so that it is higher in the equatorial part and lower at the poles; namely, once the motion of revolution around its own axis is supposed, the earth has precisely that figure which, according to the laws of mechanics, a liquid body ought to acquire. For the hypothesis of the Plutonists, fire, which still exists in the center of the earth, is brought forward especially as proof, as is evident from volcanoes, thermal waters, and heat increasing proportionally as one descends into the depths. See, among others, Figuier, The World before the Deluge.

Observation. a) The greater part of geologists deny that the earth originally was in an aeriform fluid state. (8) b) Not a few geologists reject the hypothesis of central fire. (9) c) Even if central fire were shown, from it one would not argue with certainty to the fiery state of the whole mass of matter from the beginning, as is clear in itself and is admitted by the authors of the more recent opinion. See Reusch, La Bibbia e la Natura, lecture XV. d) The proof from the figure of the earth is weakened by the first general observation and by the authority of the adversaries. (10)

Argument 2. In the crust of the earth thus far subjected to experiments, strata are found which differ in thickness, hardness, and nature of substances; of these some are horizontal, others oblique, others vertical. The vertical or oblique strata are prior to the horizontal; and the latter could not have been penetrated by the former except in some commotion of the earth; and this commotion of the earth must have been universal, since the same strata are found everywhere in the same disposition. See Figuier, cited work.

Observation. a) This whole argument can be weakened from the first and second general observation. b) Hence vertical strata which penetrate and are superimposed on horizontal strata could also be explained from revolutions of the earth admitted by all. c) The uniform disposition of strata is reported by some not as a fact, but as a fact accommodated to theories already preconceived. (11) d) The irregularity of strata consists not only in this, that not all the diverse strata are found everywhere, as all admit, but also in this, that those which are found do not preserve the same disposition among themselves. (12) e) Prescinding from fossils, concerning which something will be said below, not a few think that strata prove nothing. (13)

Argument 3. There are carboniferous lands which demand a long time, either because they betray already mature vegetation, or because otherwise they could not be brought in such quantity to that state. Likewise concerning crystallizations. Especially a long epoch must be asserted for the lands which, as is clear from those things which are found in them, were occupied by the sea several times.

Observation. a) Mature vegetation requires a long series of years only insofar as plants are supposed not to have been immediately created by God in a perfect state. Recall the first general observation. b) A more rapid vegetation can, and perhaps must, be supposed in certain places, from particular circumstances, especially in the first times, as Reusch himself observes (cited work and edition, p. 302, vol. 1). c) Some show by experience that the conversion of plants into coal can sometimes be obtained in a short time. (14) d) The same must be said of crystallization. (15) The repeated occupation of the earth by the sea does not seem a firm argument, whether because it is not sufficiently proved from remains (16), or because it does not require so great a lapse of time (17), or finally because the Noachic flood and other partial revolutions of the earth before and after that flood can explain it, all the more because the smallest part of the earth, as we have seen, has been explored.

Argument 4, from fossils. (The name of fossils, from fossilis, dug up, is given to all organized bodies, animal or vegetable, buried naturally in the terrestrial strata, and more or less petrified, that is, turned to stone. Figuier, The World before the Deluge, edited and revised by H. W. Bristow, F. R. S., F. G. S.). Hence: In fossil-bearing lands plants and animals are found in great quantity so ordered that in the later strata no trace is found of those things which are found in the earlier strata. Now, in order that the individuals of each genus or species should be multiplied in this way and then be reduced to the state in which they now are, a long series of years was required. Human fossils, they used to say, are not found. Therefore.

Observation. a) It is often seen among geologists that they judge the relative antiquity of strata from fossils, and these in turn from strata. b) The order in which fossils are said to be disposed does not seem to be a certain fact. (18) c) Even supposing the absence of certain fossils, it can be explained otherwise, as the authors of the more recent interpretation concede. (19) d) The quantity of fossils - supposing that the smallest part of the earth has been explored, that before and after the flood there were several revolutions, and that the distribution of fossils is not the same in all cases - can also be explained through the hypothesis of translation, which geologists themselves admit in several cases. (20) e) As to human fossils, the matter is now placed beyond controversy. See, among other things, Annales de Philosophie chretienne, n. 47, November 1863, in the article "Paleontologie humaine."

Argument 5. Omitting astronomical difficulties, which are now refuted by the Astronomers themselves (see Perrone), they say only: many thousands of years are required for the light of the fixed stars to come to us. Therefore. Fr. Pianciani proposes this argument more fully in the cited work, n. 14.

Observation. It is enough to report what Schwetz has in the cited work, p. 371, although he follows the more recent interpretation. "We think," he says, "that those calculations set up concerning the propagation of the light of the stars rest on hardly solid reasons. For first, it has not been demonstrated that light of every kind and through all places, whether they are empty or finally filled with any transparent matter whatsoever, is propagated with the same speed as is assumed here. Next, the very nature of light is not established. For the hypothesis by which it is maintained that light is matter emanating from luminous bodies has rightly been abandoned by most physicists; but by the other hypothesis, called that of vibration, not all the phenomena of light can be explained, so that perhaps the opinion of those should be preferred who hold light to be a simple force or substance, whose speed of propagation depends only on the density of transparent bodies through which it is propagated. But if this were true, all the stars would be seen by us at almost the same moment of time, and there would be no need to think of so many myriads of years, which according to the opinion of the adversaries are required for light to complete the path from the fixed stars all the way to the earth."

130. From the things said in this article it follows, first, that the more recent interpretation is: 1. free among Catholics, so that it can be defended without any mark; 2. probable, since it is defended by not a few men well deserving of the Church and of science; 3. nevertheless not certain, as some contend. For a) the arguments on which it rests are not certain; b) many still defend the obvious literal interpretation; c) there are not lacking among the authors of the more recent interpretation those who admit this. And Fr. Pianciani seems sufficiently to intimate this, for example, when in the cited work, n. 12, he says: "Let us follow, therefore, the opinion which we have explained; if some insoluble difficulty, whether theological or physical, should bid us farewell to it, it will then remain open to us to take one or the other of the remaining two."

131. It follows, second, that the common interpretation: 1. remains probable, since it is weakened by no certain argument drawn from the natural sciences; 2. seems also theologically more probable, for not only is it truly literal and more obvious when considered exegetically, but it also has greater weight of authority from tradition. All the more because the few ancients do not properly favor the more recent interpretation, but rather seem to bring it about that tradition does not obstruct it: for those among the ancients who recede from the more common interpretation maintain not six epochs, but one instant in place of six civil days.

132. Hence Jungmann inclines toward this obvious literal interpretation; Knoll, Gatti, Bosizio, S.J., Fr. Laurentius, Provincial of the Capuchins, Geological, Philosophical, and Scriptural Studies on the Cosmogony of Moses, Paris 1863, Sorignet, Geology, etc., Keil, Veith, etc., follow the same. But the distinguished Fr. Perrone, after the more recent interpretation has been set forth, says: "This ... we neither embrace nor reject ... If evident observations compel us to recede from the common interpretation, Mosaic cosmogony suffers no detriment."

133. Since evident observations of this kind, from the things said, are still lacking, it will be lawful to adhere to the common, or obvious literal, interpretation. Yet at the same time we obey most fully the warning of St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 68, a. 1, which is also commended to the authors of the other opinion: "As Augustine teaches in On Genesis Literally, book 1, chapter 18, near the end, and Confessions, book 12, chapters 23 and 24, at the beginning, in questions of this kind two things are to be observed. First, that the truth of Scripture be held unshakenly. Second, since divine Scripture can be explained in many ways, that no one adhere so precisely to any exposition that, if by certain reason it is established that what someone believed to be the sense of Scripture is false, he nevertheless presume to assert it; lest Scripture be derided by unbelievers on this account, and lest the way of believing be closed off to them."