Chapter IV: Ecclesiastical authors wrongly invoked in favor of these systems

Unable to conceal from themselves that the interpretation of the texts of Moses belongs more to the domain of theology than to that of geology, all the defenders of these systems invoke in their support the Fathers, the doctors of the Church, and the theologians. Some maintain that their opinion is not new, that it was adopted and upheld by a great number of ecclesiastical authors. Others affirm with incredible assurance that they are doing nothing but reproducing the language of the holy Fathers and the doctors, leaving it to be understood that all or almost all share their ideas. Yet the number of those whom they take pleasure in citing is, in the final analysis, very limited.

We are going to enumerate them all here; we shall then assess the value of their words with respect to the

subject that occupies us, reporting them textually.

The following have been cited:

Saint Barnabas, - Saint Irenaeus, - Origen, - Saint Augustine;

Saint Athanasius, - Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, - Saint Basil;

Saint Eucherius, - Saint Caesarius, - Saint Hildegard;

Albert the Great, - Bossuet, - Frayssinous, - Pius VII;

Saint Clement of Alexandria, - Bishop Wiseman, - Perrone, - Rohrbacher, - Bishop Billet;

Bishop Gousset, - the editors of the Civiltà cattolicà;

Then some Jewish authors:

Josephus, - Cohen, - Philo, - Rabbi Abahu.

We find ourselves here rather embarrassed in translating our thought. After having read, reread, and examined all the passages cited from these authors, and consulted their works in order to know their opinion thoroughly, we have had to recognize, with astonishment, that of all these writers invoked by our adversaries, only one, Origen, whose doctrine we shall assess, is favorable to the systems that we combat. Too often one has confined oneself to seizing from an author an isolated passage which seemed more or less to favor these opinions, but which, in reality, does not render his true doctrine. One has stopped at the surface of

the phrase, without penetrating to the depth of the thought. These errors would have been avoided if longer quotations had been reported, and in their original language. A few lines of a writer reveal his thought only in a very incomplete manner, and often very inaccurately, especially when these lines lose their natural coloring beneath that which is given to them either by the version in a different language or by the translator’s particular style. Since these assertions may appear grave, we are going to try to justify them; and, so as not to deserve the reproach that we permit ourselves to address to our adversaries, we shall cite in extenso, together with the translation, the text of the authors.

SAINT BARNABAS

An epistle has been cited from this apostle in which, basing himself on this saying of the Psalmist, A thousand years are one day before you, “he says that the heavenly days have a duration of a thousand years. He even adds that man’s existence upon the earth must likewise comprise six of these heavenly days, in struggles, combats, and painful labor, then a seventh of rest.”

Apart from the fact that we do not know what consequences one might draw from this passage in the question of the days of Moses, Dom Cellier informs us,

according to Eusebius, that this epistle is not by Saint Barnabas.¹

SAINT IRENAEUS

The Civiltà cattolicà reports a text of the great bishop of Lyon in order to prove that the Holy Scriptures often employ the word day in an allegorical sense: something that no one has ever thought of contesting. And, by isolating it from the context and applying it to the question that occupies us, it presents this holy Father to its readers as an adversary of the literal sense. Here is this passage: Speaking of the threat made to Adam, Saint Irenaeus says “that Adam and Eve incurred death on the very day on which they ate the forbidden fruit, for the day of creation is one.²”

But if the quotation had been continued so as to make this Father’s thought clearly grasped, one would have seen that Saint Irenaeus admits the literal interpretation, as we are going to show by filling this gap. After the words reported above, Saint Irenaeus continues thus: “For there was an evening and a morning which formed one day; but on that very day Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and on that same day

they died. Now, if, referring to the circle and course of time, according to which one day is called the first, another the second, another the third, one wishes to know exactly on which of the seven days Adam incurred death, one has only to consult the dispensations of the Lord: Now, it is manifest that on the day when Adam incurred death by disobeying God, the Savior underwent it by obeying his Father. This is why the Savior, recalling this day to himself, suffered the Passion on the day before the sabbath, which is the sixth day of creation.³”

In another chapter, commenting on these words of Genesis: Thus were completed the heavens, the earth, and all that they contain. God completed on the sixth day all the works that he had made, and he rested on the seventh day, after having created all his works.⁴ Saint Irenaeus says: “Such is at once both the narrative of the works done, and

of how they were done; and the prophecy of future things. For if, for the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and if he took six days to accomplish all these works, it is clear that their duration supposes a duration of six thousand years.⁵”

ORIGEN

Of all the Greek and Latin Fathers, Origen is the only one who admitted other worlds than the one we inhabit. But the timidity with which he proposes this opinion, and the weakness of the reasons upon which he supports it, prove sufficiently that he was not convinced of it. “Just as,” he says, “after the destruction of this world, there will be another world, according to this saying of the prophet Isaiah: There will be a new heaven and a new earth which I shall cause to subsist in my presence, says the Lord; likewise we believe that other worlds existed before the present world; which Ecclesiastes has taught us by saying: *What is it

that has been? That which shall be. What is it that has been done? That which shall be done. Nothing new beneath the sun. No one can say: Behold a new thing; for already it has been in the ages elapsed before us.* These testimonies prove to us at once that there have been anterior ages, just as there will be posterior ones.⁶”

But it must be observed that, according to the interpreters, notably Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome, the object and purpose of the book of Ecclesiastes is to teach men true wisdom, the good way, the discernment of error and truth, and the vanity of the pleasures of this world; and to show them that the goods of the future life alone are solid and real, in order to inspire in them contempt for the former and love for the latter. The sense that Origen gives to these passages is therefore strange, to say the least.

In his commentaries on Genesis, this Father admits the two senses of the sacred text, the literal sense and the allegorical sense; here is what he says:

“God called the light day and the darkness night; and there was an evening and a morning which formed one day. According to the letter of the text, God called the light day, and the darkness night. But let us see what spiritual sense must be given to these words… Moses does not say that the evening and the morning formed the first day, but one day; because time did not exist before the world. Time began to exist only through the following days. Indeed, the second, the third, the fourth day, and the others thereafter served to designate time. God says: Let the earth bring forth verdant plants, with their seed, trees with fruits, each according to its species. According to the letter, the sacred historian is evidently speaking of the fruits that the earth produces. But let us apply this passage to ourselves. If, therefore, we have not become an arid and sterile earth, let us give God every kind of abundant fruit.⁷”

If, in his Periarchon, Origen combats the literal interpretation, it is because he does not conceive that there can be an ordinary day in the absence of the heavenly bodies: “What man of sense,” he exclaims, “can think that there was a first, a second, a third day, without sun, or moon, or stars?⁸”

Moreover, Origen’s opinion here carries very little weight, since, with respect to creation, he professed several opinions that were condemned by the Church.

Thus he first says “that it was not for himself, nor according to a primary intention, that God produced corporeal and visible beings; but that he first created souls, and that he afterward formed, on the occasion of sin, the bodies destined to be like the prisons into which sinful souls would be driven, in order to be punished and purified there.⁹”

He then says “that the souls of men are of the same nature as the angels.”

He maintains, in the third place, that “all the souls that are united to bodies had sinned beforehand.”

All these errors were condemned at the Council of the Lateran, under Leo X (eighth session), and at the fifth general synod.

Thus Saint Jerome pointed out these books of Origen, the Periarchon, or the treatise De Principiis, as infected with several errors. When Avitus begged him to send him the translation he had made of them: “You will receive what you have asked for,” the illustrious doctor replied to him; “but know well that many things deserving reprobation are encountered in them; and that one can walk there, according to the word of the Lord, only as one walks in the midst of scorpions and snakes.¹⁰”

SAINT AUGUSTINE

Saint Augustine being the doctor whom all the proponents of epochs have invoked in their favor, as having professed the same opinions, we are going, in order to assess his doctrine on this subject properly, to enter into developments that may be found a little long, but which we judge necessary. It is not astonishing, moreover, that ideas contrary to those he actually expressed are attributed to this great doctor; for he spoke of the days of creation in several of his works, and his assessments are not always the same. In order to formulate his doctrine exactly, we shall study it in his Genesi ad litteram and in his City of God, where he treated more particularly the question of creation in six days. Like several other Fathers, Saint Augustine gives the words of Moses a double sense, an allegorical sense and a literal sense; and, far from believing in epochs anterior to the Adamic world, he says and repeats, in several places, that God created the world in a single instant. When one attentively reads the first four books of his treatise Genesi ad litteram and the eleventh book of the City of God, one finds three ideas relating to the six days of creation clearly set forth there:

1. Saint Augustine does not believe that these days are

natural days, because the sun was not created until the fourth day:

“Why then,” he says, “was the sun made, to preside over the day that would shine upon the earth, if that light, which was itself called day, sufficed to produce the day?

“I know that it has been said that the Creator first caused the element of light to enter into his works, when he said: Let there be light, and light was; and that, when the heavenly bodies are afterward spoken of, what was made from this same light was reported in the order of the days in which it pleased the Creator to make all things. As for the nature of the light that eclipsed itself before evening, in such a way that night passed in its turn, God did not indicate it; and it seems very difficult to me to discover it. For one could not believe that this light was extinguished in order to make way for the darkness of night, and lighted anew in order to produce the morning, before this took place through the action of the sun; which began on the fourth day, according to the testimony of the same Scripture.¹¹”

2. Saint Augustine always explained the six days allegorically, considering the day as the creation and perfection of the thing created; the night as the cessation or interruption of the divine work; or else regarding the six days as the different degrees of knowledge through which the angels knew the world.

He says: “There was an evening and a morning which formed one day. From these words, it appears that this work of God was done in the space of one day, at the end of which evening arrived, that is, the beginning of night; passing in its turn, the night completed the entire day, until the morning of another day began, on which God was going to resume the continuation of his work.¹²”

And farther on, in the same book, he says: “Thus, this day, whose evening and morning can be explained in the manner indicated above, is understood, not of the

movement of the celestial bodies, but of the development and progression of spiritual knowledge. Indeed, the blessed society of the angels first contemplated, in the divine Word, the fiat that God pronounced; and, consequently, it was there also that it knew this word: and it was done thus. When the thing itself was made, the angels knew it in itself; which is signified by these words: and there was an evening; then they referred this knowledge of the accomplished work to the glory of the truth that had shown them its reason; which is signified by these words: and there was a morning. Thus, in all these days, there is only one day, which must not be compared to ordinary days, which are counted and determined according to the course of the sun; they were, on the contrary, determined in another certain manner common to the three days said to have preceded the appearance of the heavenly bodies.

“And let it not be thought that my ideas about this spiritual light, about the creation of this spiritual day, about the angelic beings, and about the contemplation that they enjoy in the divine Word, cannot be applied to the notion of day, evening, and morning in a proper sense, but only in a figurative and allegorical sense. For, if this light presents certain distinctive characteristics, whether at its decline, which we call evening, or at its new rising, which we call morning, why should we not give the name of evening to the moment when, from the

contemplation of the Creator, one descends into the view of the creature, and the name of morning to the moment when, from the knowledge of the creature, one rises to the glorification of the Creator?¹³”

3. Finally, Saint Augustine thought that the creation of all things was made at the same time, and he sought to explain how this does not contradict the succession of the six days, since, according to him, the succession of the days relates to the successive knowledge of the creatures that the angels had in the Word, and that solar days were made only to facilitate for us the understanding of the spiritual days, that is, of the degrees by which we can raise ourselves up to the Creator.

“The Creator,” he says, “of whom Scripture has reported that he completed all his works in six days, is the same of whom it said elsewhere, with the same reason, that he created all things at once. Consequently, he who made all things at once made at once his diverse works in those six or seven days, or rather in one day repeated six or seven times. Why, then, was it necessary to describe these six days in so distinct and express a manner? Because those who do not know how to understand these words, God created all things at once, would no more be able to arrive at the end to which these words ought to lead them if they were not permitted to pause a little over the details. How, then, have we said that, with respect to the knowledge obtained by the angels, the communication of this light had been made to them seven times, from evening to morning, since it sufficed for them to know once, and at the same time, the three things, that is, the day, the evening, and the morning?

“For they had had the day of knowledge when they had contemplated at once all the creatures in the Word, as soon as they had been made; and they had had its evening when they had

known them in their own nature. Furthermore, how were the things that are said to have been made in six days, some before and others afterward, able at the same time to have been made all at once? Because Scripture, whether it recounts the works of God accomplished during the said days or reports that he made all things simultaneously, is always truthful; and because, in both cases, it is one and the same Scripture, inspired by one and the same spirit of truth.¹⁴”

We find the same doctrine in the admirable work the City of God.

“It is very difficult for us, and even impossible,” Saint Augustine first says there, “to understand what the days of creation were; how much more so to explain them?¹⁵”

But, in the following chapter, he sets forth the sense in which he understands this explanation.

“We see,” he says, “that our ordinary days have an evening only through the setting of the sun, and a morning only through its rising. Now, the first three days passed without the sun, since the sun, according to Scripture, was created only on the fourth day. It is true that it shows us light made at the beginning by the word of God, and God separating it from the darkness, calling the light day and the darkness night. But what was this light, by what twofold movement did it successively produce evening and morning? This is what escapes our senses; we could not understand what it is; and nevertheless we must believe it without any hesitation.

“Indeed, either it is a corporeal light, whether it resides in the higher regions of the world, far from our sight, or whether it served later to kindle the sun; or else this name of light designates the holy city, the city of the holy angels and blessed spirits, of which the Apostle says: It is that Jerusalem above, our eternal mother in the heavens. - You

are all children of light, he says elsewhere, and children of the day: we are not the sons of night and darkness. This day, however, has in some manner its evening and its morning; for, in comparison with the knowledge of the Creator, the knowledge of the creature grows pale, like evening; it is light, it is morning, when it refers to the glory and love of the Creator; and it does not decline toward night so long as the creature does not refuse its love to the Creator. Finally, Scripture, in enumerating the days of creation in order, never employed the expression night. It says nowhere: Night was made; but: There was an evening and a morning which formed one day. Thus with the second day and the others. For the knowledge of the creature is weaker in itself, and, so to speak, paler, than when it is produced in the wisdom of God, as in the source from which it emanates. Thus the name of evening appears to it to be more suitable than the name of night, although, I repeat, this knowledge is transformed into morning when it refers to the glory and love of the Creator. And when the creature proceeds thus in the knowledge of itself, it is one day; in the knowledge of the firmament which, placed between the upper waters and the lower waters, is called heaven, it is the second day; in the knowledge of the earth and the sea, and of all the plants attached to the earth by their roots, it is the third day; in the knowledge of the two principal luminaries and of all the heavenly bodies, it is the fourth

day; in the knowledge of all the animals, birds or fishes, it is the fifth day; in the knowledge of all the terrestrial animals and of man himself, it is the sixth day.¹⁶”

It would be easy for us to draw from his works a multitude of other quotations that would confirm this doctrine of Saint Augustine concerning the nature of the six days. The passages that we have reported suffice to demonstrate that, far from having considered these days as epochs, this great doctor formally taught that all creatures had been made in a single stroke; and that, if he did not regard the days of Genesis as ordinary days, it was because, in his opinion, light did not exist without the sun. As for his mystical interpretation, it is evident that it cannot give any support to the thesis of indeterminate periods.

We shall conclude with an observation that confirms our assessments concerning the abuse that can be made of a text when it is taken in isolation and without reporting the context.

One cites above all, in favor of the allegorical sense of the word dies, these words of Saint Augustine: “However little one is versed in the study of the Holy Scriptures, one knows that it is their custom to use the word

day for that of time.” In recalling this passage of the holy bishop, after having invoked his authority as a proponent of epochs, one naturally gives it to be believed that it applies to the interpretation of Genesis. Yet it is nothing of the kind; and it is thus that readers are led into error. Saint Augustine is speaking here of the Last Judgment, which is the subject of the twentieth book of the City of God. “For how many days,” he says, “will this judgment last? We do not know; but those who devote themselves to the study of the Holy Scriptures know that the word day is often taken there for that of time. This is why, when we speak of the day of God’s judgment, we say the last day.¹⁷”

SAINT ATHANASIUS

When one reads this doctor’s commentaries on various passages of the Old Testament, one wonders how his testimony could have been invoked in favor of the allegorical sense of the words of Moses. He poses there several questions relating to the first chapter of Genesis, and the solution that he gives proves that he adopted the literal sense.

“1. What light,” he says, “designated day from night before the creation of the sun? For the sun and the other luminous bodies were made afterward. How, then, must these words be understood: and the evening and the morning formed one day, when the sun did not yet exist?

“Answer. Let there be light, said God, and light was. It was therefore that light which distinguished day from night; but that light was not the sun. Do you wish to know what it was? It was that morning light which appears with the dawn and which illuminates the world before sunrise. And let it not be believed, however, that it is that radiance of the sun which appears before the sun itself in order to illuminate the world; but it is that which Scripture mentions in these words: and God said: let there be light, and light was. Now, since that light was very great and very brilliant, God divided it into these diverse luminous bodies, namely the sun, the moon, and the others.¹⁸”

“2. Did time begin with night or with day? Which of the two existed first!

“Answer. From the original creation of the world, that is, from the time when Adam was formed, it is day that existed first, according to the very testimony of Scripture reporting that God said: let there be light, and light was; and that he called the light day, and the darkness night. It is the former that was produced in the first place, for it is through it that the first day existed, and it is this light, with which he began, that the darkness followed.¹⁹”

SAINT GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS

The writers who cited this doctor as favorable to their systems forgot to report the

passage from his works upon which they rely in order to claim his opinions for the benefit of these systems. In consulting the works of the illustrious bishop, we found that, on the contrary, he adopted the literal interpretation of the word day.

After having set forth that God himself was the light of the world he had just created, he adds: “What need had the things, whether visible or invisible, which enjoyed the higher light, of a second light? For it was fitting that the higher light should begin its work with light, which it caused to serve in dissipating and driving away the darkness, as well as that vast chaos and that confusion which reigned everywhere. And from the beginning, God did not bring forth in a single stroke the organized light of the sun, but an incorporeal light constituted without the sun, which was nevertheless afterward given to the sun in order to illuminate the universe; for, having observed with respect to other things an order such that first matter was created, and only afterward received its form, that is, the qualities, configuration, and magnitude assigned to each object, God seemed to wish here to make a greater prodigy shine forth, and assigned the form before creating the matter. Indeed, it is light that is the form of the sun, and he produced the matter in fabricating the sun, that eye of day. Thus, after the creation of light, the first, the second, the third day was counted among the days, and so on to the seventh day, and to the end of

the divine work; and it is these days that divided and distinguished the accomplishment of the works of creation.²⁰”

In the same discourse, Saint Gregory, speaking of the feast of the Dedication among the Jews and of its relations with Sunday, addresses this question to himself: “Why is this character given to Sunday today?” and he replies: “Just as the first creation began on a Sunday, which results clearly from the fact that the seventh day which followed it was a sabbath day; likewise the second creation also had to begin on a Sunday, in order that one day might be the first

of those that followed it and the octave of those that had elapsed: the sublime outdoing the sublime, and the marvelous the marvelous.²¹”

A few pages farther on, seeking the reasons that elevate the number seven in the Holy Scriptures above the other numbers, Saint Gregory says: “One may allege this great reason for it: that God, when he had produced, formed, and embellished matter with all its qualities and all its ornaments, in the space of six days, rested on the seventh day after the completion of his works.²²”

Finally, in his commentaries on his Discourses, Elias of Crete develops the doctor’s thought concerning the creation of light and the sun thus: “The sun is a composite, since it was made in part on the first day, when God said: let there be light and light was, and in part on the fourth day. Thus the sun is a composite of matter and

form; for the form of the sun is light itself, as Saint Gregory says, and its matter is the solar body itself.²³”

In summary, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, in his discussion with the Arians, lays down as a principle that the general creation was successive, but that the creation of each group of plants, quadrupeds, birds, fishes, etc., was simultaneous, and in all the days he understands the days in the literal sense.

SAINT BASIL

This doctor is also one of the Fathers invoked in favor of that world, or of those imaginary worlds which are claimed to have existed before the creation of the present universe. But here again one omits to cite the passages of his works that attest his adherence to such a doctrine. One confines oneself to making, magisterially, an analysis conforming to the thesis that one wishes to defend, and to declaring that such a quotation is taken from the second homily of his Hexaemeron.

We have read and reread this homily

both in the Benedictine edition and in that of M. Migne. Now, here are the only sentences that make allusion to these ideas, but they are far from sanctioning them.

After having reported some of the impious consequences that are drawn from a false interpretation of the sacred texts relating to creation, this holy doctor adds:

“It may be asked whether the darkness appeared at the same time as the world, or whether it existed before the light? and, in the latter case, why that which is inferior is more ancient? We do not doubt in the least that, if there was something before the creation of this sensible and perishable world, that something was in the light: for neither the angelic hierarchies, nor the whole heavenly host, nor any of the beings endowed with reason, whether or not they had a name, nor the spirits that were subordinate to them, were found in the darkness; they were found, on the contrary, in the light, in the fullness of an entirely spiritual joy, as befitted their state.²⁴”

It is clear that Saint Basil is speaking here of the heavenly spirits, supposing that they were created at the same time as heaven.

We shall recall here also the interpretation that he gives to this text already cited: God called the light day, and the darkness night, which, far from being favorable to the theories stated, militates in favor of natural days. He says:

“And God called the light day, and the darkness night. Now, this day which is designated after the creation of the sun is the air that the sun illuminates when it shines above the earth in our hemisphere. Night, on the contrary, comes from the earth, whose shadow replaces day when the sun withdraws. But before the creation of the sun, the day, to which night succeeded in its turn, was produced no longer by virtue of the movement of the sun, but by the effect of a certain primitive light, which at one time spread forth, at another suspended, its brightness, according to the measure fixed by God.”

“And there was an evening and there was a morning, which formed one day. The word evening is a term common both to day and to night, just as the word morning likewise marks that night approaches day. Therefore, in order to give to day, in the order of creation, its original prerogative, the sacred historian mentions first the end of the day itself, and only in

the second place the end of the night, which follows the day. For that first state of the world, prior to the appearance of the primitive light, was not called night, but darkness: the name night was given, in opposition to day, to that lapse of time which is distinguished from it. And there was an evening, and there was a morning, which formed one day: by these words Moses designates day and night more clearly.²⁵”

SAINT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

In the sixth book of his Stromata, this Father

speaks on various occasions of the days of creation, but never in the sense of our adversaries. After having developed at length the mystical significance of the numbers six and seven, he says: “The birth of the world was accomplished in six days, just as the course of the sun, which is effected by a double movement from one tropic to the other, is completed in six months; for the creations effected on these different days present this remarkable circumstance, that all the things that were made were created simultaneously in the divine thought.²⁶”

Dom Le Nourry, learned commentator on the Stromata, confirms our assessments of the doctrine of this Father. After having condensed everything that he wrote on the creation of the world, he concludes from it that Saint Clement believed in an instantaneous creation. He enumerates some of the reasons on which he based his opinion; then he adds: “Clement reports still other reasons to prove that God did not create the world successively, but simultaneously. He appears to follow Philo’s opinion on this question.²⁷”

SAINT EUCHERIUS

The Civiltà cattolicà cites this passage from Saint Eucherius: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth. One may without inconvenience understand these words in two ways, that is, either that God created them first, or that he created them in the principle which is Wisdom, in other words in his Word. We have read how the creation of heaven and earth was historically accomplished from the first beginning or principle: let us also see how the doctors understand it in the spiritual sense.”

One then reads: “God said: let there be luminous bodies in the firmament of heaven. If the luminous bodies were made only on the fourth day, how were there three days beforehand? It is to make us understand that this determination of time was intended to mark and distinguish the works: thus, evening marked the completion of the finished work; morning, the opening of the day to come, after the manner of the works of men, most of which begin in the morning and end in the evening.²⁸”

In order to grasp this commentator’s thought well, the following passage, which confirms our assertions instead of combating them, ought to have been added. Saint Eucherius says: “Such was the origin of the heavens and of the earth when they were created on the day when the Lord made the earth and the heavens. The sacred historian, who related above, day by day and distinctly, the formation of all things, then adds how all things were created in one day, in order to show that all beings existed simultaneously in substance, but not simultaneously, as to their appearance, in their species. Indeed, the elements of things were all created at once, but without the species being formed; and the beings that existed simultaneously as to substance and matter did not appear simultaneously in their species or their form. Thus, in saying that heaven and earth were created

at the same time, both spiritual substances and bodies are designated together; everything that comes from heaven and everything that the earth produces are indicated as having been created at once. The heavenly bodies were afterward formed in heaven only on the fourth day. Nevertheless, the beings that passed into their species on the fourth day existed in heaven, as to the conditions of their substance. It was the same for the other creatures.²⁹”

SAINT CAESARIUS

The Dialogues of this worthy brother of Saint Gregory of Nazianzus are cited; but, as usual, his words are not reported. Now, Feller informs us that these Dialogues are wrongly attributed to Saint Caesarius; but

they do not belong to him, although they are found in the Library of the Fathers.³⁰

SAINT HILDEGARD

We shall mention, for the record, a few words of this saint that we find in the Review previously cited. She says in one of her letters: “The six days of creation are six works or operations; for the name day is given to the beginning and the completion of each work.³¹”

By way of sole reply, we shall report the judgment that Saint Bernard, her contemporary, and the author of the Universal History of the Church passed upon the visions and revelations of this saint. The former says: “The writings of Saint Hildegard are not conceived in a human manner, and mortal man could not understand them unless divine love had already reformed him inwardly and in his soul in the image of God.³²”

The latter observes that “in the collection of her books entitled The Ways of the Lord, there are historical errors that come, one knows not whence, whether from the saint, who might not have distinguished her private opinions from supernatural revelations; whether from her brother, who might have added them to his sister’s account; or else from a foreign hand, which might have inserted them afterward. But from whatever quarter these errors or these difficulties come, it remains the case that they greatly impair the authority of the whole collection. In truth, since these private revelations have not been examined and approved in a special manner by the Church, one can scarcely rely upon them to establish either theological dogmas or facts of history.³³”

ALBERT THE GREAT

This illustrious child of Saint Dominic professes no personal opinion concerning the sense that ought to be given to the days of Genesis: he confines himself to saying that he believes he ought, on this question, to take the side of Saint Augustine.³⁴

BOSSUET

We do not understand, in truth, how anyone

thought of invoking the authority of this great bishop against the literal interpretation of the days of Genesis. We do indeed read, in his Fifth Elevation on the Mysteries, that “God’s design in creation and in the description of it which his Holy Spirit dictated to Moses is to make himself known first as the almighty and entirely free Creator of all things. He who could, with a single stroke of his hand, so to speak, have put both the sketch and the finished work into his picture, nevertheless wished to suspend the efficacy of his action in an orderly manner, and to do in six days what he could have done in an instant. After having made, as it were, the ground of the world, he wished to make its ornament with six different progresses, which he wished to call six days.”

Such language cannot be hostile to our cause, all the less because the Bishop of Meaux speaks here as a moralist and a mystic, and not as a historian like Moses.

The expression progress which he used is alleged as favorable to the system of periods; but what signification did Bossuet wish to give to this word progress? To learn it, let us consult Bossuet himself. In his Universal History, where he speaks of the works of creation no longer as a moralist but as a historian, he employs only the words days and successive acts, and not the word progress: “Moses,” he says, “has taught us that this powerful architect, to whom things cost so little, wished to make them in several successive acts, and to create the universe in six

days, in order to show that he does not act from a necessity, or through a blind impetuosity, as some philosophers have imagined… In making the world by his word, he shows that nothing causes him effort; in making it in several successive acts, he makes it seen that he is master of his matter, of his action, and of his whole undertaking… It pleased this great workman to create light even before reducing it to the form that he gave it in the sun and in the heavenly bodies, because he wished to teach us that these great and magnificent luminaries had of themselves neither the precious and brilliant matter of which they were composed, nor the admirable form to which we see them reduced… If, according to the order established in nature, one thing depends upon another, for example the birth and growth of plants upon the heat of the sun, it is because this same God, who made all the parts of the universe, wished to bind them to one another and to make his wisdom shine forth through this marvelous connection.³⁵”

The thought of the great historian appears to us here clearly expressed and favorable to our thesis.

FRAYSSINOUS

In his Conference on Moses Considered as a Historian of Primitive Times, the illustrious bishop

of Hermopolis, after having reported the opinion of the geologists who supported indeterminate periods, adds: “Far removed from every spirit of system, I shall pronounce neither for nor against this opinion. If it is not the most common, it nevertheless has its supporters.

“I could cite modern theologians who have embraced it, or who at least regard it as uncertain: all that it is important to know is that it is not condemned, and that it may be defended without offending the orthodox faith.”

It is not useless to observe that Frayssinous used this language forty years ago. One sees clearly that, without pronouncing openly, the celebrated lecturer inclined rather toward the literal sense; and nevertheless one does not fail to cite him as an author favorable to the allegorical sense.

PIUS VII

The Revue du monde catholique invokes another still more imposing testimony, that of Pope Pius VII. It concerns a reply that this immortal pontiff is said to have made to the celebrated naturalist Georges Cuvier. We read there that:

“Pope Pius VII, having come to Paris for the emperor’s coronation in 1804, received the delegations of all the bodies of the State. That of the Institute was presided over by

Cuvier, who, in the address that he made to the Holy Father, told him that he had found, in the study of strata, positive proofs of the certainty of the Flood, but that previously the earth bore the imprint of several revolutions and appeared very ancient. The Pope replied to him that the existence of these revolutions and of the long duration of the globe did not concern the Catholic faith in any way, and that it was perfectly permissible to regard the days of creation as successive periods, the length of which nothing determined.³⁶”

We sought this reply in vain; we examined all the works of the great naturalist, all the memoirs of the Institute, in whose name he had the honor of speaking, and all the issues of the Moniteur of that period; there we found the addresses made to the Pope by the various bodies of the State… all except the one that the learned writer of the Review attributes to Cuvier. Does not this gap point to an error?

We made another observation, to which it is permissible to attribute a certain significance. In reporting these various tributes word for word, the Moniteur does not reproduce the replies of Pius VII, apparently for the reason that, since these replies had been made in Italian or in Latin, it was difficult to retain their text, especially since one did not then have the

aid of stenography. It is therefore regrettable that the Review did not cite the original text, or at least indicate the source from which it drew so precious a document; everyone could have assured himself of the characteristics and guarantees of authenticity that it presents, as well as of the fidelity of the translation.

Without any doubt, the honorable reporter of this reply neither invented nor falsified it; but there is no one who cannot easily be mistaken about the true thought of an author whose words pass and pass again through the often unfaithful mouths of those who transmit it, and reach our ears only after so many years. In the course of this work, we have had occasion many times to recognize how important, and even necessary, it is to have recourse to the primitive texts, and the wisdom of the advice with which Chevalier Drach ended his criticism of an erroneous citation concerning the Talmud: “I shall not cease repeating it,” he said, “verify, verify, and do not trust citations.”

But even admitting the words of the sovereign pontiff just as they are, we do not see what argument can be drawn from them in favor of day-periods. In so solemn a circumstance, when it was a question of consecrating the reconciliation of France with the Church, in the person of the hero who was its promoter, could the Pope, taken unawares on a question with which people concerned themselves very little at that time, have used any other language without offending the

proprieties, without exciting certain susceptibilities, without even directly confronting the opinion generally adopted by the learned body that bowed respectfully before His Holiness? And, on the other hand, Pius VII remained within the truth in replying that the question to which allusion was made does not concern the Catholic faith, that is, dogma, since the Church has not placed the literal interpretation of the days of Genesis among dogmatic truths.

CARDINAL WISEMAN

In reading attentively his third Discourse on the Natural Sciences, in which he sets forth his whole thought on the various geological systems and their relations with the Mosaic account, one recognizes that the illustrious cardinal hesitates to pronounce upon the two hypotheses that we combat, and appears disposed to adopt both at once. There would result from this a mixed system, a system apart, as we have already pointed out, which would admit an indefinite time either between the creation of the first elements of the world and their coordination, or between the various days designated by Moses for this arrangement.

Here, indeed, is what he says first:

“What repugnance is there in supposing that, from the first creation of the crude embryo of this so beautiful world until the moment when it was clothed with all its ornaments, Providence wished to maintain a

gradual course, in such a way that life advanced progressively toward perfection? Or who will dare affirm that this plan contradicts the sacred word, when it leaves us in complete obscurity concerning that indefinite period in which the work of gradual development is placed? The Fathers of the Christian Church appear to have had exactly similar views; for Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Basil, Saint Caesarius, and Origen suppose an indefinite period between creation and the first regular arrangement of all things.”

That is for the first system. Speaking of the second, the learned prelate says: “The authors to whom I have alluded suppose that the days of creation signify longer periods and of indefinite duration, during which a certain number of animate beings existed. That this supposition is plausible is something I could not contest; philologically or critically speaking, I see no objection to it; but it does not appear absolutely necessary to me. Nevertheless, in admitting the hypothesis set forth above, that all the requirements of modern science are satisfied in the intervening space, it is not said how, between the creation and the organization of the earth under its present forms, it could be that periods longer than a day were still necessary, if we suppose that the laws of nature were abandoned to their ordinary course. For then a longer

interval would have been necessary for the plants to cover themselves with flowers and fruits and to reach their complete development, as we must suppose that this took place before man was placed in their midst. But it may also be that it pleased God to produce them in all their grandeur and all their beauty from the first instant of their existence.”

“In making these remarks,” he adds, “I am not guided by any personal predilection, by any system. I make no claim whatever to the title of geologist; I have studied this science rather in its history than in its practical principles; rather in order to watch its bearing upon researches wholly religious than in any hope of explaining it personally. I do not claim—it would be presumptuous of me to claim it—to judge between the two methods or to pronounce upon the reasons that each may produce. But I am concerned to make it seen that, without touching the faith, space is not lacking for everything that modern geology may have the right to demand. I am concerned to show—and the great authorities that I have just cited reassure me perfectly on this point—that everything that has been claimed by this science was formerly granted by those men who were the ornament and the light of primitive Christianity, and who assuredly would not have sacrificed one letter of Scripture.³⁷”

We believe that we can, without failing in the consideration due to the eminent writer, present the following observations:

1. The Fathers of the Church—Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint Justin, Saint Basil, Saint Caesarius, and Origen—cited by the author as appearing to suppose an indefinite interval between creation and the first day, in reality profess a contrary opinion, as we established previously.

2. After having cited in favor of the epochs the authority of Origen, who exclaimed: “What man of sense can think that there was a first, a second, and a third day without sun, moon, or stars?” Bishop Wiseman adds: “Assuredly, the time between two settings of the sun would be a great anomaly if there were no sun.” But we can add in our turn that, since the time when the illustrious cardinal delivered his discourses, nearly thirty years ago, the progress of astronomy has disposed of this error of Origen by establishing that light does not take its source from the sun and that it is an independent fluid which that heavenly body merely sets in motion.

3. The two principal geological proofs that he adduces in favor of his system—that of a constant symmetry in the mode of deposition for each layer of fossils, which would suppose a regular succession of actions exerted upon different materials, and that of central fire—are today without foundation; for these hypotheses have been contradicted by the discovery of new facts.

4. Bishop Wiseman supposes that ordinary days would not have sufficed, and that a longer interval was necessary for the plants to cover themselves with flowers and fruits and to reach their complete development, as we must suppose took place before man was placed in their midst. Here the author calls into doubt what is attested formally, explicitly, by the sacred text, namely that God created the plants in all their grandeur and all their beauty from the first instant of their creation; that they were not created in the state of germ, nor of seed that needs time to develop, but in the adult, complete state, fit to produce seeds and fruits and to perpetuate themselves by generation; for we read: “And God said: Let the earth produce verdant plants with their seed, trees with their fruits, which, each according to its species, contain within themselves their seed in order to reproduce themselves upon the earth.³⁸”

5. In order to prove the existence of a pre-Adamic world, Bishop Wiseman gratuitously lends to the sacred historian ideas that we do not find in his account: “If,” he says, “Scripture had admitted no

interval between the creation and the organization of the world, but had declared that these were simultaneous or immediately consecutive acts, we might perhaps have been embarrassed to reconcile these assertions with modern discoveries. But, instead of that, it leaves an indeterminate interval between the two, and even teaches us that there was a state of confusion and struggle, of devastation and darkness; it shows us the sea deprived of a suitable basin, and thus covering now one part of the earth, now another. Hence we can say with truth that the geologist reads, in these few lines, the history of the earth as its monuments have established it: a series of rents, elevations, and dislocations; sudden irruptions of an element restrained by nothing, burying successive generations of amphibious animals; a sudden lowering of the waters, calm but unexpected, embalming in their various beds myriads of aquatic inhabitants. Then, when the earth had been sufficiently broken by that magnificent diversity which God wished to give it, the work was suspended, and the earth remained in that state of lethargic inertia from which it was delivered by the reproduction of light and the subsequent work of the six days of creation.”

And this history of confusion and struggle, of devastation and darkness, of rents, elevations, dislocations, sudden irruptions of the sea, of burials of generations, etc., etc., is read in these words of Genesis: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth. The earth was formless and bare, and darkness covered the face of the abyss, and the Spirit of God was borne over the waters.³⁹”

In extenuation of the learned and pious cardinal, we must inform our readers that, as he himself informs us, these grand pictures, drawn by a poetic imagination, belong to M. de La Bêche.⁴⁰

CARDINAL BILLIET

The Revue du monde catholique counts among the defenders of the periods this eminent cardinal, from whom it cites the following passage from a discourse delivered in 1844 during the session of the Geological Society of France at Chambéry: “If anyone in this audience could be alarmed by this admission, we could reassure him somewhat by teaching him that, with the exception of the Flood of which Moses speaks to us in Genesis, all the other great upheavals experienced by the surface of the globe took place in what it has been agreed to call geological times. Now, these geological times preceded the creation of man, and consequently also the chronology of Moses, which begins only with Adam. These ancient revolutions must have buried, at different depths, the plants and animals which then already existed; man could not have been their victim, since he had not been created. Indeed, in digging into the bowels of the earth, remains of plants and animals are found there in abundance, never human bones. Thus, the discoveries of geology confirm the account of Genesis instead of contradicting it.⁴¹”

No one recognizes more than we do the great scientific authority of the Archbishop of Chambéry; but we permit ourselves to observe that these lines were written nearly twenty years ago, and we have reason to think that His Eminence would not profess the same doctrine today. What geologist, since the discoveries made by science during this long lapse of time, has not modified, changed his ideas? M. Martinet, whom we have already cited and whom we shall cite again, visibly inclined, at the same period, toward the system of periods, as is seen in his Solution of the Great Problems; and today, in his Theology, he supports the interpretation

of the days in the literal sense. We ourselves, in a work that we published then, seduced and carried away rather by the prestige of Cuvier, de Beaumont, etc., than by conviction, bent ourselves to an opinion that seemed to tend to become more and more general; but, we confess it, this kind of connivance always weighed upon our conscience like remorse; and we experience a true satisfaction in today making the counterpart of the past.

Moreover, the passage cited, and the lines with which the author of the article in the Review follows it, authorize us to suppose that the learned cardinal, as we have already said, abandoned the theory that he formulated in 1844. We read there, indeed, that the principal reason on which his adherence to the ideas of our adversaries rested was found in the absence of fossil human bones. Now, on the same page, the author of the article demolishes this proof of geological times by saying: “Fifteen years later, the Marquis de Vibraye discovered, in excavating the caves of Arcy, a fossilized human jaw in a bed of this terrain, which by habit continues to be called diluvium, a name that Cuvier had given it and which is recognized today to have been deposited during a period called Quaternary.”

Far from being surprising, this change of opinion would be the natural consequence of the discovery reported by M. de Vibraye, a discovery that a multitude

of others came to confirm, and these discoveries undermine the system of periods at its base.

CARDINAL GOUSSET

This eminent theologian passes upon the system of periods the following judgment, which is far from favorable to it:

“It is true,” he says, “that, in order better to explain in their manner the phenomena presented to us by the internal structure of the globe, several modern naturalist scholars or geologists, among whom is the celebrated Cuvier, have advanced that the days of creation of which Moses speaks were not ordinary days, but epochs or periods more or less long and indeterminate, while seeking to reconcile their systems with Genesis, which they respect as a sacred book. They say that the word day, in the language of Scripture, does not have a fixed and invariable sense, and that it does not always signify the space of twenty-four hours, but that it corresponds to the words time, epoch, period.

“But this hypothesis, however well founded it may appear, is not yet in the state of demonstration; and it is likely that it will never arrive there, in view of the ease with which the different geological systems modify themselves, combat one another, and destroy one another with time.⁴²”

FATHER PERRONE

Before formulating his opinion on the systems that occupy us, this illustrious religious of the Society of Jesus first sets forth the reasons on which the proponents of the epochs rely.

He says:

“Not all are agreed on the question of knowing whether the six days of which Genesis speaks with regard to creation are really six natural days, or rather six indeterminate and indefinite periods, whether of several days or of several years. Indeed, the proponents of this latter opinion observe that the word day in the sacred books does not imply a certain and invariable notion, but that it sometimes expresses the duration of light (and God called the light day, Gen., ch. I)—sometimes an indeterminate space of time, as when Moses himself writes in Genesis: Such was the origin of heaven and earth, on the day when the Lord made heaven and earth, and all the plants of the fields, etc.; on the day, that is, at the time, a locution used, says Petau, among the Greeks and Romans no less than among the Hebrews.

“They observe in addition that the first three days could not have been similar to ours, since it was only on the fourth day that the heavenly bodies were made,

so that they might preside over day and night—which must with still greater reason be true of the seventh day, on which God is said to have rested from all the works that he had made and that he preserves. Certainly, they add, if not only Philo the Jew, but Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Procopius of Gaza, and above all Saint Augustine, believed that they could, without injuring the faith, give an allegorical sense to the six days of creation and maintain that the whole work of creation was accomplished in an instant; if Saint Eucherius of Lyon, Conti, Serryus, Mondo, Bertius, and others were able to defend the same opinion without being accused of temerity; if Cajetan and Melchior Canus were able with impunity to explain the first chapter of Genesis in an analogous manner, it follows evidently that nothing prevents the interpretation of indeterminate periods from being admitted.⁴³”

Here is the learned theologian’s personal opinion:

“As for us,” he says, “we neither adopt nor reject this interpretation, to which many modern Catholic theologians and commentators have attached themselves.⁴⁴ Let it suffice us to observe that their opinion has not been proscribed by the Church, and that it can be maintained not only without injuring the faith, but even without incurring the reproach of temerity, provided it rests upon serious reasons. If, therefore, evidently true observations force us to depart from the common interpretation, they cannot cause the slightest injury to the Mosaic cosmogony, which,

in that case, can be perfectly reconciled with them. If, on the contrary, observations of this kind are lacking, the adversaries of the Mosaic cosmogony would be wrong to wish to oppose other observations to it.⁴⁵”

It follows from these passages:

1º That, since the evidently true reasons required by the learned Jesuit in order to range himself on the side of the proponents of the periods do not exist, he embraces the more common opinion, that of the literal interpretation;

2º That the authors cited thought that God created everything simultaneously, and that they thereby condemn the system of epochs;

3º And that, if they did not admit natural days, it was because of the absence of the sun.

ROHRBACHER

The Civiltà cattolica cited an extract from this great historian of the Church’s address of reception into

the Royal Society of Nancy, in which he says: “The six days of creation can be regarded as six periods of greater or lesser length, and the first words of Genesis indicate an interval of time anterior to the work of the six days, an indefinite interval between the primitive creation of matter and its successive transformation into the present world.⁴⁶”

We have read this address, and we did indeed find in it the passage reported above. But from the time, now long past, when he delivered this address to that when he wrote his history, M. Rohrbacher changed his opinion. In the first pages of volume I, he begins by expressing his doubts with respect to the two systems; he says:

“There are indeed six epochs in the history of creation; but were these epochs, called days, lunar days, days of twenty-four hours? Or were they periods of time whose duration we do not know and which may be supposed more or less long?”

He does not yet resolve this question; he limits himself to citing a passage from Saint Augustine concerning the difficulty.

A few lines farther on, he adds: “Before the present world, had there already been another? Was this shapeless state of the earth, plunged or as though dissolved in

the waters, its first creation? Or was it a destruction of something anterior? Moses says neither yes nor no.⁴⁷”

Up to this point the author leaves us ignorant of his personal ideas; but soon he will reveal them to us. We read, indeed, on page 18:

“God said: Let there be light, and there was light. God, therefore, by his word made light spring forth from darkness. Then the first day began; for there is no day without light. It was not the day of heaven, a day without decline, without cloud, because it is the splendor of God himself; it was a day of the earth, such as the man who was to inhabit it: successive, never remaining in the same state, an image and shadow like him.

“And there was an evening and there was a morning, that is, a succession of light and darkness, of day and night. As soon as there was light, the earth turning upon itself, or the light turning around it, the first day began with morning, noon, evening, midnight, according as the different parts of the earth were illuminated or in shadow. This succession has continued down to us, and will continue until the day of the Lord, a great and terrible day, when he will dissolve the present universe by fire in order to make from it new heavens and a new earth.⁴⁸”

This language is too clear to require commentaries.

THE CIVILTÀ CATTOLICA

The learned editors of this review, in treating natural cosmogony compared with Genesis, begin by warning their readers that they will limit themselves to reporting the arguments of the two systems, without declaring themselves either for one or for the other: “We do not know,” they say, “whether it is necessary to warn that we are merely reporters and in no way defenders of these systems, as will be perceived better in what follows.⁴⁹”

Despite this preliminary statement, a few pages farther on, in the same article, they momentarily abandon this neutrality to declare themselves timidly, but clearly enough, against the periods:

“We do not wish to condemn what the Church tolerates and what such men adopt. But, to tell the truth, it also seems somewhat difficult to believe that the Creator should have willed—even by means of secondary causes—to destroy all vegetable and animal life upon our earth before forming there a creature in his image and allowing him to contemplate

his works; that he should have willed to annihilate an entire world of living beings before imposing upon it the perfection that constitutes rational life.⁵⁰”

JEWISH AUTHORS

JOSEPHUS

This celebrated Jewish historian speaks, it is said, in several places in his works, of a book that he proposed to write on Jewish traditions. To this book he refers the explanation of this passage from the beginning of Genesis: “And there was an evening and a morning, one day. Such was,” he says, “the first day; but Moses does not express himself thus: he calls it only one day. I could give the reason for it,” he continues, “but I propose to do so in a special work, in which I shall give the reason for many things.⁵¹”

Now, here are the somewhat strange conclusions that the authors whom we have in view draw from this work, which did not appear.

“The treatise on Jewish traditions either was not composed or has not come down to us; so that we do not have the formal explanation of this enigma. But, if one reflects upon it ever so little, the sense is clear enough: Josephus, opposing unity to primacy and observing that Moses did not wish to call this day the first, could have done so only because this day was not really the first of creation; whence it follows that, according to Josephus, there had been days, and consequently creations, anterior to that of the first day of Genesis.⁵²”

A complaisant will can indeed accommodate itself to such reasoning; but logic rejects it.

COHEN

The illustrious author of the Studies on Christianity invokes the authority of this Israelite, who, he says, in his translation of the Bible from the Hebrew text, practiced and defended, in notes, the interpretation of the word day considered as expressing a long period of time.⁵³ But M. Nicolas doubtless does not know that this Bible of Cohen is on the Index among the Jews, as M. le chevalier Drach assured us. And when M. l’abbé Glaire asked a Jew whether he read

this Bible, he was answered: “I should believe my house lost if this bad book were found there.”

This version of Cohen is also vigorously opposed by M. Sylvestre de Sacy.

PHILO

To this Jewish writer belongs the first idea of a creation made in a single stroke. In his work on the formation of the world, he develops this thought in the following manner:

“Moses says that the world was formed in six days; not that the Creator had need of a space of time, for it is known that God operates all things at once, not only by an express command, but even by a single thought; but because it was necessary that creation be made in a certain order. Now, number is proper to order, and among numbers, the senary number reproduces itself very frequently in the laws of nature. It was therefore necessary that the world, which is the aggregate of creatures, be composed according to a perfect number, such as that of six. This is why Moses attributes to each of the six days a particular portion of the universe.⁵⁴”

A few pages farther on, having arrived at the explanation of the work of the sixth day, he adds: “It would be gross ignorance to think that the world was created in six days, or in any time whatever, since time is nothing other than the space of days and nights, which the sun necessarily traverses in its movement above and below the earth.—Indeed, if the Creator had not made all things at once, there would have been less order among the creatures clothed in such great beauty; for there is nothing beautiful in confusion.⁵⁵”

RABBI ABAHU

We read in the Civiltà cattolicà that Rabbi Abahu, cited by Moses Maimonides in his Moré-Nevokim, taught, concerning the beginning of

Genesis, “that God constructed worlds and then destroyed them.⁵⁶”

Here is the reply that we owe to the extreme obligingness of M. le chevalier Drach:

“This proposition nunc habemus, etc., does not belong to Maimonides. This rabbi cites it in his Moré-Nevokim, the Guide of the Perplexed, only as having been advanced by Abahu. He reproves and condemns it, deciding that it is contrary to the first principles of the faith. It is blasphemous and offensive to the divine majesty. Indeed, how can one admit: 1º that almighty God had need to employ thousands of centuries to form the earth? 2º that the God of all knowledge did not foresee that he would have to destroy his first trials and begin his work again?⁵⁷ Yet this is what a Christian scholar, a proponent of epoch-days, is obliged to come to: ‘It was only after many transformations of matter,’ says M. Desdouits, ‘many creations perhaps, which God successively destroyed, like a workman dissatisfied with or disdainful of his trials.⁵⁸’”

“Moses Maimonides,” adds M. le chevalier Drach, “is surnamed the great eagle of the synagogue. It is on the basis of his decision that the latter reproved Abahu’s decision. This shows that Abahu is far from being an authority.”