In order to know the language of Christian tradition concerning the first verses of Genesis, we consulted the Patrology of M. l’abbé Migne, and, thanks to the admirable indexes that crown this colossal work, we were able to discover and read all the commentaries of the Fathers and Doctors on this subject. Well then! We do not fear to affirm it: apart from a very small minority, all these writers, whose genius was still illuminated by the splendors of sanctity, adopted and defended the literal interpretation of the days of Genesis. And those who compose the contrary, very small minority did not declare themselves in this sense because, like Origen and Saint Augustine, they did not succeed in accounting for the existence of light before the creation of the

sun. But, far from admitting an ante-Genesic world or indeterminate periods, they believed with Saint Augustine that God had created everything in a single stroke.

To the Fathers and Doctors already cited, and whose testimonies militate in our favor, we shall add:

1º The Council of Palestine, held under Pope Victor in 179. We have already cited the Councils of the Lateran and of Trent.

2º The Doctors and Fathers:

Saint Cyprian—Saint Jerome—Saint Ambrose.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa—Saint Leo, pope—Saint John Chrysostom.

Saint Gregory the Great—Saint Thomas—Saint Bonaventure.

Saint Justin, martyr—Saint Ephrem—Saint John Damascene.

Lactantius—the Venerable Bede—Raban-Maur.

Bruno of Asti—Marius Victorinus.

Hugh of Saint-Victor—Honorius of Autun.

3º The most authoritative interpreters of Holy Scripture:

Corneille de La Pierre—Dom Calmet—Tyrinus.

De Vence—Menochius—Carrière—l’abbé Glaire.

4º The greatest theologians:

Bellarmin—Suarez—Petau.

Perrone—Martinet—Albert Knol.

COUNCIL OF PALESTINE

Pope Victor had charged Theophilus, bishop of Caesarea and of Palestine, with fixing the time at which it was right that all the Catholic Churches should celebrate the feast of Easter, there where the Lord and Savior of the world had passed his mortal life. In virtue of this mission, Theophilus convoked all the bishops, not only of his province, but also of several other regions. As soon as this multitude of priests was assembled, the bishop of Caesarea read in the presence of this solemn assembly the letters by which the sovereign pontiff conferred upon him the mission of convoking and presiding over this council, and set forth to it its principal object. Immediately all the bishops said with one unanimous voice that it was impossible to fix with certainty the celebration of the feast of Easter before first determining from what day the origin of the world dated.

Here begins the remarkable dialogue that was established between the delegate of the sovereign pontiff and the members of the council.

The bishops. What day do we believe to have been the first day of the world, if not Sunday?

Bishop Theophilus replied: Prove what you say.

The bishops. According to the testimony of Scripture, there was an evening and a morning that formed one day, then the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the seventh.

On this seventh day, which he called the sabbath, God rested from all his works. If, therefore, the sabbath is marked in the last place, and as the last day, what can be the first, if not Sunday?

Bishop Theophilus. You have well proved that the first day was Sunday; but what do you think of the time or the season? Indeed, four seasons are counted: spring, summer, autumn, winter. Now, what was the first season of the world?

The bishops. It is written: Let the earth produce green plants with their seeds, according to their kind, and trees producing fruits according to their kind. Now, these things take place in spring.

Bishop Theophilus. At what point do you place the origin of the world? Is it at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the season?

The bishops. On the eighth day of the equinox of the calends of April.

Bishop Theophilus. Prove what you say.

The bishops. It is written that God made the light, that he called the light day and the darkness night, and that he made an equal division between the light and the darkness.

Bishop Theophilus. You have spoken well of the day and the season; but what do you think of the moon?

Was it created by the Lord while waxing, or already full, or else while waning?

The bishops. Already full.

Bishop Theophilus. Prove what you say.

The bishops. God made two great heavenly bodies and placed them in the firmament of heaven, so that they might illuminate the earth: the greater for the direction of the day, the lesser for the direction of the night; it was therefore necessary that the moon be full. We have thus investigated how the world was made from its origin, and we see that it was on a Sunday, in spring, on the eighth day of the equinox of the calends of April, at a full moon, when the seasons begin and the elements are reanimated.

Bishop Theophilus. It is now a question of fixing the time at which we must celebrate the feast of Easter.

The bishops. We must celebrate it on Sunday, which has been sanctified by so many and such great blessings.¹”

Doctors and Fathers

SAINT CYPRIAN

In his computation concerning Easter, the holy Doctor, proposing to show in what month and on what

day Easter must be celebrated, begins by citing this text of Genesis: And God separated the light from the darkness, and he called the light day and the darkness night; and there was an evening and a morning that formed one day. Then he adds: “When, therefore, Holy Scripture reports and announces to us that the Lord himself separated the light from the darkness, that is, the day from the night, it shows us evidently that this was the first day, followed by the first night, between which the author of all things divided the time equally, that is, exactly.

“If, therefore, we wish to go back, without error, to the first month and to show its beginning and end, let us return to Genesis, which teaches us that God himself separated the first day from the first night. There we see that nothing, except God himself, marked the limits of the second and third days, as well as of the second and third nights; and that from the fourth day onward he charged the sun and the moon with this role. For God made two great luminous bodies: the greater

to mark the beginning of the day, the lesser to mark the beginning of the night.²”

SAINT JEROME

Independently of his Divine Library, where all the texts of Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy that relate to the days of creation repeat the same word, dies, we find in his works several passages that leave no doubt concerning the literal sense that he gave to this expression. Thus, in the Book of Hebrew Questions, he comments in these terms upon the first verse of Genesis, In principio Deus creavit, etc. [In the beginning God created, etc.]:

“Several think that the Hebrew version has: God created through his Son and in his Son heaven and earth; this is false, as the reality of the fact proves;

for in the Hebrew text one finds the word bresith, which Aquila interprets as in the beginning, and not the word baben, which would signify in his Son. This sense results both from the first lines of Genesis, which is the first of all the books, and from the beginning of the Gospel of Saint John, which says: In the beginning was the Word. This is why the Son says of himself in the Psalter: It is written of me at the head of the book, that is, in the first lines of Genesis.³”

And concerning this text, And God finished on the sixth day all the works that he made, he says:

“In place of the sixth day, one reads in the Hebrew: the seventh day. We therefore have the right to say to the Jews, who glory in the rest of the sabbath, that this sabbath was already abolished at the beginning, since God, according to their version, worked on the seventh day and blessed it because on that day he had finished all his works.⁴”

SAINT AMBROSE

Already, as we have observed, all the philological and scriptural difficulties that the adversaries of the literal sense have raised in order to combat it were addressed and resolved by the Fathers. The great Archbishop of Milan gives us a new proof of this in his Hexameron: “One might be astonished,” he says, “to read in the account of Moses: Let there be luminous bodies that illuminate the earth and that divide the day from the night, since he has already said above, in speaking of the creation of light: God separated the light from the darkness, and there was an evening and there was a morning, which formed one day. But it must be considered that the light of day is one thing and the light of the sun, the moon, and the stars another, since the sun itself seems to add the brilliance of its rays to the diurnal light that day can produce, whether at its rising or at its setting; for, before the appearance of the sun, the day undoubtedly shines, but it does not gleam.

“There are also some who ask why Scripture

spoke first of the evening, then of the morning? Perhaps so as not to appear to designate the night before the day. But they do not observe that it gave priority to the day by saying: And God called the light day and the darkness night; and that the evening is the end of the day, as the morning is the end of the night. Thus the beginning of the day is indicated by this word of God: Let there be light, and there was light. Now, the evening is the end of one day, and the following day succeeds it at the end of the night. As for the intention of God, it results evidently from the fact that he called the light day in the first place, and the darkness night in the second place; and by this very fact he established the law in virtue of which the name day is given only to the duration of the twenty-four diurnal and nocturnal hours—and they formed one day—as if he had said: The measure of twenty-four hours forms the duration of one day.⁵”

SAINT GREGORY OF NYSSA

In his Hexameron, this Father observes first that several have not rightly understood the purpose that Moses proposed to himself in the account that he gave of the work of the six days; and that, consequently, they wrongly reproach him for not having explained himself in a clearer manner concerning the sun, by saying how, after the first three days, it was created with the other heavenly bodies.

“For,” he says, “in order that the space of a day may elapse between morning and evening, it is not necessary that the sun mark either the evening by setting or the morning by rising. This is what Moses stated in the course of his historical narration in these words: God saw that the light was good, and separated the light from the darkness; and there was an evening and a morning. But as soon as this succession of light

and darkness had been accomplished in the lower regions, after an equal lapse of time, Moses, not wishing the origin of any of the things that followed in a regular order to be attributed to chance or to some other cause, traces the denomination of day and night back to God himself: God called the light day, and the darkness night. For, if it was naturally impossible for light to lose its power of illuminating upon arriving at the zenith in the upper regions, it was necessary that the lower regions grow dark because of their coarser nature, which causes them to repel the rays of light. God therefore called the absence of light evening. But when the light again traversed the upper part of the circle and illuminated the upper regions, he called this very fact morning.⁶”

SAINT LEO, POPE

This holy Doctor does not treat the question of creation ex professo; he nevertheless speaks of it, but very briefly, in one of his discourses. The passage that we are about to cite suffices, moreover, to reveal his thought clearly to us:

“God said: Let there be luminous bodies in the firmament of heaven, so that they may shine upon the earth, etc. But what is the sun, what is the moon, if not elements of visible creation and of material light? For, just as diurnal time is one thing and nocturnal time another, so the Creator constituted the luminous bodies with different qualities, although, before they existed, there had already been days without the intervention of the sun and nights without the intervention of the moon.⁷”

SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

This great patriarch of Constantinople devotes

several of his homilies to commenting upon the first chapter of Genesis. He first applies himself to establishing that the days of Moses are ordinary days, as is proved by the passages that we are about to cite:

“And God called the light day, and the darkness night.

“From the beginning, God assigned limits to each thing, which each thing kept invariably without exception; but after God had given their names to the light and the darkness, the sacred historian brings them together to say: And there was an evening, and there was a morning, which formed one day. He spoke expressly of both day and night in order to establish a certain order and a certain connection among visible things and to prevent all confusion.”

“And there was an evening, and there was a morning, which formed the second day.

“You see with what care, calling evening the end of the light, morning the end of the night, and day the union of the one and the other, he instructs us, enlightens us, and puts us on guard against the opinion of those who allow themselves to be influenced by human reasonings, lest we regard evening as the end of the day, and so that we may know well that the duration of day and night constitutes the entire day. This is,

indeed, what divine Scripture wishes to express in saying: There was an evening, and there was a morning, which formed one day.⁸”

Farther down, in applying these words to the third day, the illustrious Doctor says:

“You see how Moses applies himself, by the frequent repetition of his teaching, to making it penetrate our mind well. You see how he says of each of these days: There was an evening and a morning, which formed the third day, etc.; not simply and without reason, but so that we may not confuse the order, and may not think that the day comes to an end through the encroachment of evening; and so that we may know that evening is the end of light and the beginning of night, just as morning is the end of night and the beginning of day. For this is what Moses wishes to teach us by saying: And there was an evening, etc.⁹”

SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT

This holy pope develops at length the distinction made by the majority of the Fathers between the creation of matter and the creation of form. He says:

“If one gives a minute account of the very origin of things, one soon recognizes that the substance of beings was created at once, but that the species were not formed simultaneously; so that what existed at the same time with respect to the substance of matter did not appear at the same time under the form of the species. Thus, when the sacred historian describes the simultaneous creation of heaven and earth, he retraces at once that of spirits and bodies, at once that of everything that comes from heaven,

and at once that of everything that the earth produces. For the sun, the moon, and the heavenly bodies were, he says, placed in heaven on the fourth day; but what showed itself on the fourth day in a particular species existed from the first day through creation in the very substance of heaven.

“It is also said that the earth was created on the first day, and that the shrubs developed on the third day, as did everything that grows green upon the earth; but what showed itself on the third day in its species was enclosed, from the first day, in the substance of the earth, whence each of these species came forth. This is why Moses, after having distinctly reported, day by day, all the works of creation, nevertheless added that all things had been made at once, saying: 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, and all the plants of the fields. (Gen., II, 4 and 5.) Thus, the historian who had related the creation of heaven and earth, of the plants and the herbs, as accomplished on different days, now testifies that all this was made in one day, in order to show clearly that all creatures existed simultaneously with respect to substance, although they did not simultaneously assume the form of their particular species.¹⁰”

SAINT THOMAS

As we observed in our Introduction, the Angelic Doctor devotes numerous pages in his Summa to the first chapter of Genesis, where he establishes by the most convincing proofs that the days of creation must be considered natural days. Before citing him, we believe we must point out to those who are not familiar with Saint Thomas that, after

having posed a question, he reports the arguments of his adversaries before giving it his personal solution.

Question. Is it fitting to place the creation of light on the first day?

It seems that the production of light cannot fittingly be placed on the first day, for by light night is distinguished from day; this is done by the sun, created only on the fourth day, etc.

Answer. But it must be said, as Saint Denis has already said in his work On the Different Names (first part, lect. III), that this light was the same as that of the sun, but that it was still incomplete. For, although of the same substance as the sun and endowed with a general power of illuminating, it did not yet have that special and determinate power which was afterward given to it to produce particular effects. Now, this light already sufficed to effect the difference of days and nights.

“A double movement must therefore be recognized in heaven: one general movement for the whole heaven, which brings day and night and which was established on the first day; then another movement which varies according to the different celestial bodies; and it is these movements that cause the differences that days, months, and years present among themselves. This is why on the first day mention is made only of the distinction of day and night produced by the

general movement; whereas on the fourth day mention is made of the difference of days, seasons, and years, when it is said: that they may mark the seasons, the days, and the years. Now, it is this difference that the proper movements of the celestial bodies produce.¹¹”

Question. Can the cause of the appearance of the luminous bodies be fittingly determined?

It does not seem that the cause of the appearance of the luminous bodies can be fittingly determined, for the distinction of seasons and days

began from the first day; the luminous bodies were therefore not made to mark the seasons, the days, and the years.

Answer. “But it must be said, on the contrary, that it is from the first day that the general division of time into day and night was established, as a consequence of the diurnal movement that is common to the entire heaven and that began on the first day; whereas the particular differences of days and seasons, according to which a given day is longer than another, a given season or a given year also longer than another, are produced by the particular movements of the heavenly bodies, which may be supposed to have begun only on the fourth day.¹²”

Question. Do all these days form only a single day?

It seems that the affirmative must be adopted. For one reads in Genesis: Such was the origin of the heavens and of

the earth, on the day when the Lord made the earth and the heavens and all the plants of the fields. It is therefore in one day that he made heaven and earth and all the plants of the fields, although he made earth and heaven on the first day and the plants of the fields on the third. The first and the third day therefore form a single day, and, for the same reason, as much must be said of the others.

Answer. But it is the contrary that must be said, for we read in Genesis: There was an evening and a morning that formed one day, then a second, a third, a fourth day, etc. There was therefore not only one day. On this question, Saint Augustine departed from the opinion of the other interpreters; for he maintains that what are called the seven days are a single day designated seven times by different things. The other interpreters think, on the contrary, that these days were seven distinct days and not a single one.

It must therefore be said that on the day when God created heaven and earth, he also created all the plants of the fields in actuality, but before they appeared upon the earth, that is, potentially: Saint Augustine assigns to the third day what the other interpreters trace back to the first formation of things.

One also objects what is read in Ecclesiasticus (XXIII, 1): He who lives eternally created all things together. Now, this could not be if several days had been employed for the works of creation, for several

days do not elapse together. There were therefore not several days, but a single one.

But it must be answered that God created all things together with respect to their substance, in some fashion formless, but not together with respect to their completion under the relation of their character and their ornaments; and it is for this reason that the sacred historian makes particular use in this place of the word created: Creavit omnia simul [He created all things together].¹³”

Question. “Does Scripture employ suitable expressions to describe the works of the six days?

“It seems that the negative must be admitted. For the expressions evening and morning do not suffice to mark the divisions of the day, since the day is also composed of other parts. Thus, strictly speaking, one cannot say that the evening and the morning formed the second or the third day. Furthermore, it is the word first, and not the word one, that would correspond exactly to the words second and third. One should therefore have said: There was an evening and a morning that formed the first day, instead of saying: that formed one day.”

Answer. “It must first be said with Saint Basil that it is fitting to derive the name of any given time from its principal part, that is, from the day. Evening and morning are taken as the two termini of the day, of which morning is the beginning and evening the end; or because by evening one designates the beginning of night, and by morning the beginning of day. Now, in order to trace the first division of things, it sufficed to designate only the beginnings of the times; if evening was spoken of first,

it is because, the day beginning with light, the end of the light—that is, evening—arrives before the end of the darkness and of the night, which is morning; or else, according to Saint John Chrysostom, it is to indicate that natural days end, not with evening, but with morning.¹⁴”

SAINT BONAVENTURE

In one of his most remarkable works, in his

Breviloquium, which Gerson said had been composed with divine art, the Seraphic Doctor devotes several chapters to the creation of the world. In treating the nature of bodies, he first considers them from the point of view of their formation.

“It must be admitted,” he says, “that this formation was accomplished in six days, in such a manner that God created heaven and earth in the beginning, before every other day. Light was formed on the first day; the firmament was established in the midst of the waters on the second day; the earth was separated from the waters, and these were gathered into their basin on the third day; heaven was adorned with the luminous bodies on the fourth day; air and water were peopled with birds and fishes on the fifth day; the animals and men were created on the sixth day; and on the seventh God rested.

“To understand the reason for this order, it must be recalled that the distinction of the bodies of the world must be considered in three ways; this is why it was established in three days. There is the distinction of luminous nature from that which is not luminous; and this was made on the first day, when God separated light from darkness. There is the distinction of liquid nature from that which is similar to it; and this distinction was made on the second day, when the waters were separated from the waters. Finally, there is the distinction of liquid nature from solid nature; and this was made on the third day, when the

earth was separated from the waters. This distinction therefore had to be made during three days.

“And since adornment corresponds to distinction, it likewise had to be made in three days. Indeed, there is the adornment of luminous nature, and this was made on the fourth day, when God formed the sun, the moon, and the stars; there is the adornment of fluid nature, and this was made on the fifth day, when God created the birds and the fishes, to adorn the air and the waters; there is the adornment of solid nature, that is, the earth, and this was given to it on the sixth day, when God created man and the animals.

“Although God could have created all these things in an instant, nevertheless he preferred to create them in a succession of times, whether to manifest his power and his goodness, or to establish a fitting correspondence between the days and the works. To these six days of labor is added a seventh, that of rest. If we do not read that this day had an evening, like the others, it is not that this day was not followed by night; but it was to represent to us the rest of souls, which will never have an end.¹⁵”

SAINT JUSTIN

In his Conferences to the Orthodox, this holy

martyr presents the following objection relating to creation, which he immediately resolves:

“If the creation of the heavenly bodies,” he says, “took place on the fourth day, and if they were charged with marking the number of the days, how would the three days prior to the formation of these heavenly bodies not cast a certain doubt upon the number of the subsequent days?

“No,” he replies, “for it is the production of light that served to distinguish light from darkness, and it is this latter distinction that made day and night. Before the creation of the heavenly bodies, and in conformity with the order of God, the increase of light brought day, and the increase of darkness night. But since the creation of the heavenly bodies, God has willed that they fulfill this office, the one presiding over light and day, the other over darkness and night. And what the light of day now does with a luminous body, it likewise did before the creation of the heavenly bodies, according to the end and the order of God, who limited its duration to that of twelve hours.¹⁶”

SAINT EPHREM

In commenting on this text: On the fourth day, God made two great luminous bodies, that they might illuminate the earth, this Father says:

“God gathered and enclosed in a luminous body the light which, during the three preceding days, circulated on every side, spread afar throughout the entire universe. Indeed, it was necessary that these first three days should everywhere be determined by light; nevertheless, its course was not marked by the distinct limits of the hours: it did not divide the day into certain parts, but, suspended after the manner of a shining cloud, without designating the number of the hours, without causing, by its own movement, either the dawn or the decline of day, without receiving any influence from the celestial sphere, it poured forth at the very instant when dawn was to appear, approximately like the heavenly body that is charged with producing day.¹⁷”

Here, next, is how Saint Ephrem explains this text: And the evening and the morning formed the third day:

“Although the works accomplished before the fourth day must be made to begin in the evening, reason itself convinces us that the works of the fourth day were begun in the morning. Indeed, the third day must be regarded as having ended after these words: And there was an evening and a morning that formed the third day. Consequently, it was not in the evening that God created the two great luminous bodies.¹⁸”

SAINT JOHN DAMASCENE

In his treatise On the Orthodox Faith, the Saint Thomas of the East, as he is called, comments on this text: Let there be light, and there was light, in the following manner:

“Thus, in the beginning, that is, on the first day, God created light, which constitutes the beauty and the adornment of all visible creatures. Now, God called the light day, and the darkness night. But it is not night that was created first; it is day; so that it is day that appeared in the first place, and night in the second place. Night therefore succeeded day, and it is from the beginning of one day until the following day that one day must be counted, including night in it. Indeed, Scripture says: And the evening and the morning formed one day. And as for the first three days, day and night were made first by the diffusion and then by the retraction of the light, which arrived or withdrew according to the sovereign order of God.

“Saint Basil teaches that, in the days that preceded the formation of the celestial luminous bodies, it was by the diffusion or by the withdrawal of the light that day and night were made. After the creation of the sun,” he says, “day appears when the air is illuminated by the sun, in the part of the terrestrial hemisphere above which it shines, and night comes through the shadow of the earth, when the sun is hidden. As for the first three days, day was produced, not by the solar movement, but by the gushing forth of that primitive light, which poured itself out according to the measure determined by God, and then

withdrew to make place anew for night. Nevertheless, Latin authors think that this light created on the first day produced day and night by a circular movement, as the sun now produces them, which, on the fourth day, was formed from this light. Thus, by its movement above our hemisphere, it would have made day, and, by its translation beneath it, it would have made night.¹⁹”

LACTANTIUS

In his Book of the Divine Institutes, Lactantius combats the error of Plato and of several other philosophers, who claimed that a great number of thousands of centuries had elapsed since the creation of the world: “Let the philosophers know,” he says, “that the world was created in the space of six days, according to the teachings of Holy Scripture, and that God sanctified the seventh day, on which he rested from his works. Consequently, all the works of God having been accomplished in six days, it is necessary that the world remain in this state for six thousand years. And just as God labored for six days to make such great things, so religion and truth must combat, for six thousand years, against the evil that too often prevails over good.²⁰”

BEDE

This venerable religious, whose erudition was so vast, so universal, that one could call him the encyclopedia of the eighth century, poses for himself a multitude of questions relating to creation, which he answers himself. The numerous details into which he enters prove that this question of the days of Genesis already keenly occupied minds at that time. He comments first upon the text: There was an evening, there was a morning, which formed one day.

“There was an evening, because the light diminished little by little, when the time of its diurnal duration had been accomplished, and because it descended into the lower parts of the world; which now takes place through the ordinary course of the sun. There was a morning, because the same light returned little by little over the earth to give birth to another day, and it is at this moment that a day of twenty-four hours ended. The sacred historian takes care to express himself thus so that we may know that, after its decline, the light visited the lower parts of the globe. It is again for this reason that he preferred to say: There was an evening and a morning, rather than: There was a night and there was a day; in order to make it understood that the circulation of the primitive light then produced what the sun is now known to produce by its diurnal

and nocturnal course; with this difference, however, that after the creation of the heavenly bodies, night was illuminated by its own light, although to a lesser degree than day.²¹”

Here now are the questions of which we have spoken:

Question. Must the three days that preceded the one on which God placed the heavenly bodies in heaven be considered as days, or must they not?

Answer. They must be regarded as days, seeing that the authority of Scripture surpasses all possible reasonings of the human mind.²²”

Question. You have said that day is air illuminated by the sun; nevertheless, we read that at the beginning of things there were three days before the creation of the sun.

Answer. It is true that at the origin of things darkness covered the face of the abyss; and God said: Let there be light, and there was light, and God called the light day. Thus the light, rising in the east, dispelled the darkness and spread its brilliant splendors equally over the whole earth. It is this light which, appearing and disappearing like the sun, made the first three days.

Question. What were day and night originally?

Answer. A day like any other, since from the first day God created light, as Saint Isidore says and Saint Augustine confirms.

Question. Why then does Scripture speak at once of day and night?

Answer. It is seen in divine Scripture, in the place where it is written: And there was an evening, that is, a night, and a morning that formed one day. It thereby proves that day and night together compose what is called a day.

Question. How was the beginning of the day fixed among the Hebrews, the Chaldeans, the Egyptians, the Romans, and the Persians?

Answer. Among the Hebrews, the day began at the sixth hour of the day, because they counted the hours according to the course of the moon; it began

among the Chaldeans and the Persians at sunrise, and among the Egyptians at sunset.

Question. At what time of the year did the first day of the world appear?

Answer. On the fifteenth of the calends of April, since we believe that it was then that light was created; and thus the first three days had elapsed without any determination of an hour measured by the heavenly bodies, which did not yet exist. But on the fourth day, that is, on the twelfth of the calends of April, the sun and the heavenly bodies were created, so that they might serve as signs to mark the times, the days, and the years.

Question. Who, then, composed and named the first week and the days of the week?

Answer. God, without doubt, who made all creatures in six days and rested on the seventh day. This is why he himself says in the law: You shall labor six days, and you shall do all that you have to do; but the seventh day, which is the Sabbath of the Lord your God, you shall do no work; for the Lord made in six days heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that they contain, and he rested on the seventh day.²³”

RABAN-MAUR

This celebrated abbot of Fulda, who later became Archbishop of Mainz, treated at length the question

that occupies us, both in his commentaries on Genesis and in his book of Computus. We shall extract from them the following passages:

“Inspired by the divine spirit, blessed Moses, in order to refute in advance the various errors of the philosophers concerning the world, begins his account with these words: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. He thus spoke at once of the origin of things, of the author of the world, and of the creation of matter, in order to show that God himself was the origin of the universality of things: In the beginning. This latter expression relates to the beginning of time, that is, to that in which God made heaven and earth. It is therefore at the beginning of time that God made heaven and earth.

“And there was an evening and a morning that formed one day.

“There was an evening, that is, the light diminished little by little after the completion of the duration of a day, and descended into the lower parts of the world; which the ordinary course of the sun now produces during the night. And there was a morning, when this same light returned little by little over the earth and began another day; and it is at this moment that an entire day, a day of twenty-four

hours, ended. By these words Scripture makes us understand clearly that we must say that, after its decline, the light, such as it was made, visited the lower regions of the globe. For, if it were otherwise—if, at the arrival of evening, the light, diminishing little by little, ended by going out, in order to be rekindled little by little in the morning by appearing anew in creation—it is not at the morning of the following day, but rather at the evening of the first day, that the sacred historian would say that an entire day had elapsed. This is why he preferred to say: There was an evening and a morning, rather than: There was a day and a night, in order to mark that the revolution of the primitive light had then produced what is known to be produced at present by the revolution of the sun, during the day and during the night.²⁴”

“Let there be luminous bodies in heaven that serve as signs to mark time and the days and the years.

“There are therefore luminous bodies to serve as signs; not that the beginning of time depended upon their appearance, since they took their course from the moment when God made heaven and earth, or that the beginning of the days and the years depended upon it, since, as is known, their origin goes back to the moment when God said: Let there be light, and there was light; but because it is the rising and the setting of these heavenly bodies that determined the order of time, of the days, and of the years.

“As for the words that follow: Such was the origin of heaven and earth, when they were created, on the day when the Lord made heaven and earth, they must in no way appear contrary to the opinion stated above; for they make it clearly understood that Scripture designates in this place, by the word day, all the time during which the primary

creation was accomplished. Indeed, it is not on any one of the six days that heaven was made or illuminated by the heavenly bodies, and that the earth was separated from the waters and covered with herbs and plants, etc.; but Scripture gave the name day to all that time.²⁵”

BRUNO OF ASTI

This learned abbot of Monte Cassino comments thus upon this text: And the evening and the morning formed one day.

“God therefore made in the beginning heaven, earth, and light, and it was after all this was made that evening arrived, the preceding morning having been continued until evening. One day was thus formed, and then God separated light from darkness, and

when the day ended, evening succeeded it. For it was not during the day that God made night; but he willed that, according to order, night should come after day. As for what is said: The evening and the morning formed one day, and not the first day, this is because these words first and second are relative, and one cannot be conceived without the other. Now, since there had not yet been a second day, there had, by that very fact, been only one day; which consequently could not be called the first day.”

And upon this text: Such was the origin of heaven, etc., on the day when the Lord made earth and heaven, he exclaims:

“What, then! Did God create all things in one day and not in six? He created everything in one day, because he created at once the matter of all things, that is, heaven and earth; but he made them in six days, because he spent all that time forming from this same matter all things according to their different genera.²⁶”

MARIUS VICTORINUS

This writer, of whom Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine

speak with the greatest praise, asks himself, concerning these words of Scripture: And the evening and the morning formed one day, whether it was in the evening or in the morning that the day began:

“Let us beware,” he replies, “of refusing to believe that by these words the sacred historian designated one day; for what follows proves that he wished to indicate a span of twelve hours. Indeed, the day of the Lord cannot be conceived without the number of hours that compose it. Thus, when you speak of a day, you thereby suppose all the hours elapsed until evening. Thus Moses, our master, says that light was called day, in order to make us understand that it was not without intention that such a name was given to the customary duration of twelve hours. If then, my friend, day is now composed in this manner, why should we not give credence to the prophet who tells us that at the beginning of things there occurred what

occurs today? Evening continues until morning, being completed by the hours of the night, and thus makes an entire day, until the moment when a morning begins that belongs no longer to the first, but to the second day.²⁷”

We shall close this long series of testimonies of the Fathers in favor of the literal interpretation of the days of Genesis with those of Hugh of Saint-Victor and Honorius of Autun. Trithème represents the former to us as a man very versed in the Holy Scriptures, unequaled among the ancients in philosophy, and as the most celebrated doctor of his time. The great Library of the Fathers places the latter in the first rank of the learned men of his century.

HUGH OF SAINT-VICTOR

“It must first be remarked,” he says, “that, in the

first book of Genesis, Moses is a historian setting forth the facts from the beginning of the world until the death of Jacob.²⁸

“On the first day God separated fire from the other elements, and this is what he himself announces by this word: Let there be light. Now, the fire, once separated, furnished the lower world with a certain light endowed with a circular movement; which, similar to a luminous cloud, described an orbit, as the sun does now. The appearance and disappearance of this light constituted the first three days and the first three nights; this is what Scripture sufficiently gives us to understand by designating the natural day by two extreme terms, saying: And there was an evening, to mark the end of the artificial day; then, and there was a morning, to mark the end of the night.

“It will perhaps be said that it was not fitting for God to make, after the manner of man, something imperfect or badly ordered or irregular. To this it may be answered that if God, who could make everything in a single moment, distributed his works over six days, it was not through powerlessness, but for the instruction and example of his rational creatures. For, just as he first gave things

to be, and afterward to be beautiful, likewise he willed to distribute his work over six days, so that the mind of man might find a lesson in this conduct.²⁹”

HONORIUS OF AUTUN

“And he separated the light from the darkness, and he called the light day and the darkness night; in such a way that the light might shine twelve hours over the earth and twelve hours beneath it; and that likewise the darkness, dispersed by the light, might take refuge for twelve hours beneath the earth and remain for as many hours above it.

“And there was an evening and a morning that formed one day. Evening is the end of day, just as morning is the end of

night. The one and the other joined together last twenty-four hours and form an entire day. The first three days that elapsed before the appearance of the sun were subject to the equinox, that is, they presented an equal duration of day and night.³⁰”

Theologians

SUAREZ

Following the example of the Doctors and the Fathers, our great theologians attached to the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis an importance whose magnitude is revealed to us by the long studies they devoted to it.

To this question: Were the natural days of the creation of the world really six in number, as they are counted in Genesis? Suarez replies:

“It must be said that, since Moses spoke of the natural and visible day, he also spoke of the true number

of the six days that actually elapsed in succession, and that, on each of these days, God made a part of his work, as Moses related it in a true sense. This proposition must be proved.

“The first and principal foundation upon which it rests is the clear and simple letter of Scripture. Indeed, the reason for which one must adhere to the true signification of the natural day is a general reason that does not permit the words of Scripture to be given a metaphorical sense, especially in a historical account belonging to the instruction of faith, unless one is forced to do so or the necessity for it results from Scripture itself. Now, this reason obliges one to understand in the proper sense the number no less than the kind of the day; for otherwise, in one manner no less than in the other, injury would be done not only to the sincerity but even to the truth of the history.

“This is fully confirmed by other passages of Scripture in which mention is made of these six days as true and distinct. Thus one reads in chapter XX of Exodus: You shall labor six days and you shall do all that you have to do; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. And farther on: For the Lord made in six days heaven and earth, and the sea and all that they contain. The same thing is repeated in chapter XXXI.

“In these passages, the proper sense of the expressions

results from comparison with the context; for when it is said: You shall labor six days, these words can be taken only in the most proper sense. Moreover, it is not likely that the people could have understood these words in another sense, and it is, on the contrary, incredible that, in promulgating his precepts, God would have used expressions that would have deceived the people by insinuating a false sense to them, if God had not accomplished his works in six true days.

“A third reason is drawn from the common interpretation of the Fathers, such as Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Bede, Strabo, Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, Damascene, etc., who all interpreted in this literal sense the days and the number of the days of Genesis.

“The Church also professes this doctrine when she says in the hymn of Sunday vespers: God of goodness, author of light, who renew for us each day its benefit, and who began with it the creation of the world. And at matins: On the first day on which the blessed Trinity created the world.

“It remains to explain this passage from the second chapter of Genesis: Such was the origin of heaven and earth when they were created, on the day when the Lord made earth and heaven and all the plants of the fields. These words admit of two interpretations, one of which would apply to the first day alone. It is to this one, although from a different point of view, that Cajetan and Canus adhered. Thus Cajetan thinks

that in this place there is question only of the first moment of the day on which God created heaven and earth, whereas Canus applies it to the whole duration of that day. Both, moreover, understood that these last words: And all the plants of the fields, designated all the works of the six days. But this interpretation is not literal. Indeed, in this passage of the second chapter, Moses recapitulates everything that he has already related in the first, as results from these words: Such was the origin of the heavens and earth; for this pronoun such recalls all the works previously described; and, to explain more clearly that in speaking of heaven and earth he intends to include all the rest in them, he adds: And all the plants of the fields, designating all the works of creation under one particular species.

“Thus, according to the second and common interpretation, it is not any determinate day that is designated in this recapitulation of the second chapter by this clause: the day on which God created; but these words apply to each day on which one of the works of creation was made, whether that day was or was not the same, whether there was only one or several. For it often occurs in Holy Scripture that the singular is employed for the plural; and, according to a fairly customary manner of speaking, things done at different intervals are frequently designated under a single time, or a single word, solely for brevity; as, for example,

when one says: On the day of the Nativity of Jesus Christ, of the Virgin, or of Saint John the Baptist, such or such a thing takes place, one does not mean that this thing takes place on one and the same day; but the logical repetition of the word is understood: on Christmas day, on the day of the Nativity of the Virgin, etc.

“Thus, then, although the word day is employed in the singular in the first and second chapters of Genesis, it must be understood indefinitely for each day and for several days; so that, when it is said in the first chapter: God called the light day; let there be luminous bodies that divide day from night; God placed the greater luminous body that it might preside over the day, this word day is always taken indifferently for any day whatsoever. Likewise, in the second chapter, day is first spoken of in the singular, with the addition that the seventh day is in question; when afterward there is question of the works of all these days in general, it is said indefinitely: On the day when the Lord made, in order to show that each of those days on which the Lord worked before the seventh day is in question. It is entirely natural that Moses, briefly recapitulating the works of creation, should also include within the indication of a single day the various days on which God accomplished them.³¹”

PETAU

The Civiltà cites two passages from this theologian which, by the manner in which they are reported, can

only lead the reader into error concerning his true opinion with regard to Mosaic cosmogony. Taken in the middle of a paragraph whose subject is not indicated, it is difficult to give them the author’s meaning.

The first, couched in these terms: “It is impossible, by any calculation, to specify what this interval must

have been,³²” is invoked in support of the existence of a pre-Genesis world; and the second, which reads: “Here the word day is taken for the duration of the six days during which God created—that is, elaborated—heaven and earth,³³” is cited to prove that the word day is also employed to designate an indeterminate epoch. It would consequently follow that this theologian was a partisan of these

two ideas. And yet the contrary is true! Is proof of it desired? Let the paragraphs from which these two phrases are taken be read from one end to the other. Here is the first:

“There is no doubt that, from the account of Moses, one must naturally conclude that before the second day nothing existed but earth and the waters. For one has every reason to believe, with Severianus, that on the first day God drew all things out of nothing, and that on the other days he made use of things already existing; this is why Moses does not limit the first day to the creation of light, but also assigns to it what was made before the light, that is, heaven and earth. It is impossible, by any calculation, to specify what this interval must have been; but I do not believe that those bodies of the world which I have said existed before all the others—that is, the waters and earth—were fashioned on the same day on which the production of light took place, as certain authors have thought, relying too lightly upon what Moses says at the end of the seven days: Such is the origin of heaven and earth, when they were created on the day when God made heaven and earth, as though it were necessary that heaven and earth should have been produced on a certain day and that this day should have been the first. But here the word day is taken for the span of the six days in which God created—that is, elaborated—this whole universality of things, and gave them their particular form. For it is thus that these

words must be interpreted: In the beginning God created heaven and earth.³⁴”

Here now is the second passage:

“After having devoted the whole first chapter of Genesis to the description of the works of the six days, Moses, in the following chapter, recapitulating it in its entirety, though briefly, says: Such is the origin of heaven and earth, when they were created on the day when the Lord God made heaven and earth. These words do not apply to one day, despite the opinion of those who think that they designate the first day, on which those works would have been made, in addition to the

light, according to what Moses explains in the first lines of his book, saying: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. But we in no way adopt this opinion, and we have already recalled that in this place the word day is employed for the word time, according to a usage common to the Greeks, the Romans, and the Hebrews. When, therefore, Moses said: On the day when heaven and earth were made, it is as though he had said: in the time—that is, in the duration of the six consecutive days—during which they were elaborated and perfected.³⁵”

BELLARMINE

This illustrious cardinal speaks in several places in his Treatise on the Day of Sunday of the days of creation, but always in the natural sense. On this text:

There was an evening and a morning which formed one day, he observes that “it is a very common Hebraism to employ the word one for the word first, as in the first chapter of Genesis, where one reads: There was an evening and a morning which formed one day, that is, the first day, since it is followed by the second, the third, the fourth, etc.³⁶”

He says elsewhere: “The Sabbath was the feast par excellence, because, although all feasts are celebrated either in memory of past benefits or with reference to the future, the Sabbath surpassed them in both respects. Indeed, as regards the past, it was observed in memory of the first benefit, the most general benefit, that is, the creation of the world. For, as Philo writes in his book On the Construction of the World, just as kings order the birthday of their children to be celebrated, so God willed that the birthday of his work—that is, of the world—should be celebrated.

“The day of Sunday,” he continues, “recalls, as does the day of the Sabbath, the memory of the creation of the world. For it is on the day of Sunday that the creation of the world began, and it is even on that day that the principal parts of the

world, such as heaven, earth, the angels, and light.³⁷”

MARTINET

We have already reported the question that this theologian poses concerning the systems that we combat, and the answer that he gave to it. Here are the reasons upon which he bases himself:

“Is it fitting that theologians should stop at these hypotheses, or at other similar ones, in order to make biblical cosmogony more credible?

“I answer negatively; for theologians must fear exposing themselves to the danger with which Isaiah threatens, saying: Behold, you rely upon a reed, upon a broken reed… It will enter into the hand of the man who leans upon it, and will pierce it (XXXVI, 6). Indeed, these geological hypotheses are reeds agitated by the wind. If new discoveries come to make them fall into ridicule, as very often happens, one must fear that the questions whose proofs rest upon them may themselves be given over to derision. Moreover, there are two things that turn us away from opinions of this kind: on the one hand, the difficulty of reconciling them with a sound interpretation of the biblical account, and on the other, the weakness of the geological reasons alleged in order to defend them. Let us examine these two points rapidly:

“1º The Mosaic account, if it is understood in the proper and literal sense, scarcely admits either the existence of a pre-Adamic world or the conversion of the days into indefinite periods. For: 1º although the word day (in Hebrew yom), taken in an absolute sense, often signifies an indeterminate time, nevertheless, whenever its limits are fixed by the designation of evening and morning, as in the first chapter of Genesis, it denotes a natural day. 2º The law that divides time into a week of seven days, of which the first six must be consecrated to work and the last to rest and religion, is founded upon this motive: The Lord made in six days heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that they contain, and he rested on the seventh day; this is why the Lord blessed the day of the Sabbath and sanctified it (Exod., XX, 2 and elsewhere). Now, this reason for the precept of the sanctification of the Sabbath, repeated several times by Moses, would have been very weak if the Hebrews had not thought that the days of creation were natural days. 3º If one admits,

as in the aforementioned hypotheses, that light, the sun, the moon, and the stars preexisted the Adamic world, how is one to understand these words: Let there be light, and light was… let there be luminous bodies in the firmament of heaven… and God made two great luminous bodies and the stars, and he placed them in the firmament of heaven? The defenders of these hypotheses apply these words neither to creation properly so called nor to the arrangement of preexistent matter, but only to the dissipation of the vapors and clouds that surrounded the earth and rendered it inaccessible to the sun’s rays. Now, everyone sees how little this interpretation accords with the force of the expressions of the text. Such, among others, are the considerations that prove that all these hypotheses depart from the proper and literal sense of the divine word, to which, nevertheless, one must adhere whenever the obvious sense indicated by the letter is contrary neither to Catholic doctrine nor to other passages of Scripture.³⁸”

ALBERT KNOL

This learned religious, whom his Theological Institutions

have just placed in the first rank of Italian theologians, after having combated, with all the power of his dialectic, the reasons alleged for refusing the Mosaic days their natural sense, concludes thus:

“What we have said proves how little solidity there is in the arguments by which one seeks to demonstrate that the age of the world is much greater than that which Moses assigns to it. But once these arguments are set aside, there remains absolutely no reason either to convert the six days into incalculable periods or to place an immense span of time between the first and second creation, making only the latter date from the restoration of the overturned earth. Moreover, it is evident that these theories introduce new difficulties; for it is difficult to understand how the nebulous vortices would merely have rarefied the clouds and driven them into the other regions of the air, without nevertheless rendering the sun visible for three days. If they are admitted, one could no longer say in any sense that God made the luminous bodies on the fourth day; for, in the ordinary language of men, one does not say that the sun comes into being when the disappearance of the clouds permits it to be seen. It is known, moreover, that the holy Fathers, as well as the theologians and the most ancient interpreters, were of one unanimous opinion in understanding the Mosaic account not of a restoration, but of a creation

and formation of the earth, as not existing previously.

“This explanation is confirmed even by the passage of Holy Scripture in which the creation of heaven and earth is connected immediately with the production of trees and plants; for one reads: Such was the origin of the heavens and earth when they were created, on the day—that is, at the time—when God made earth and the heavens, and all the plants of the fields, when there were none upon the earth, and all the herbs of the countryside, when the earth produced none.³⁹”

Modern Commentators on Holy Scripture

Among the commentators on Holy Scripture, we have had to place in the first rank the Doctors and Fathers of the Church. The modern interpreters who have compiled the works of those who preceded them in this field give the days of Genesis the same interpretation as the ancients. We shall confine ourselves to citing the most esteemed and best known.

CORNEILLE DE LA PIERRE

On this text: Let there be light, and light was, he says:

“It is certain that this luminous body was, during the first three days of the world and before the sun was created on the fourth day, moved by an angel from east to west; and that, after the manner of the sun and in the same time as it, it traversed and illuminated the two hemispheres of heaven, as that heavenly body now does,

that is, in twenty-four hours. For it is this light that, by its movement, determined and distinguished the first three days of the world, just as the sun afterward determined the others by its course and distinguished them from one another.”

He comments in the same sense upon the following text: And there was an evening and a morning which formed the second day.

“One must not think,” he says, “that God was occupied throughout the whole day, after the manner of a workman, with the construction of the firmament and then with his other works; one must think, on the contrary, that he made them without interruption, in an instant, and that during all the remainder of the day he confined himself to preserving them.

“It is still more true that the world was created at the spring equinox: 1º because such is the teaching of all the Fathers, as may be seen in Molina and Pereira, and even the opinion of the poets, among others Virgil, who says, speaking of the first origin of the nascent world (book II of the Georgics): ‘It was spring; the immense universe enjoyed spring, and the winds of winter held back their breath…’ 2º because this point was defined by the Council of Palestine, held in the time of Pope Victor, under the presidency of Theophilus, in the year of grace 198. It was a particular and not a general council, so that its definitions are not matters of faith; but they have no less a great authority. This council bases its decision: 1º upon the word germinet (let [the earth] bring forth plants, etc.); now, germination begins in the spring;

2º upon the fact that God separated light from darkness, giving them equal parts, and that this division takes place at the equinox; 3º the same council adds that the first day of the world was the eighth day before the Kalends of April, that is, March 25.

“It is, moreover, certain that this day was Sunday.⁴⁰”

DOM CALMET

This celebrated Benedictine professes the same opinion in his commentaries upon the following texts:

“From evening and morning was made the first day.

“The artificial day is composed of a night and a day. Thus, from the night and the natural day was made the first artificial day. On this day, as on all the others, the night preceded the day. The Hebrews counted their days from one evening to another. Evening denotes night, and morning signifies day. This night of the first days denotes the darkness that preceded the creation of light. The text reads: one day, instead of: the first day; it is a Hebraism.

“And God finished on the seventh day the work that he had made, and he rested on the seventh day, after having finished all his works. It is asked here whether one must recognize in the account of Moses a successive creation or a simultaneous creation, that is,

whether all creatures were formed in the state of perfection in which we see them, all at once and in one moment, or whether they were produced and put into the form in which they are only over the span of seven days. The interpreters agree that God drew all the matter of the universe out of nothing in one moment, by a single fiat, by a very simple act of his almighty will. But they are divided upon the question just proposed. Some maintain that sensible beings were brought to their perfection only over the span of seven consecutive days, and they have on their side the account of Moses, which appears decisive. It is readily understood that the chaos could be disentangled only through a succession of diverse movements, which separated the parts of a foreign and incompatible nature and form and united those that were of the same form and the same nature. In order to compose the heavens, the stars, the waters, and the earth, all these diverse parts could separate themselves from one another and arrange themselves suitably only over a more or less long span of time.

“We do not deny, however, that God, by his omnipotence, could have supplied for all those successive movements that produced the various arrangements and separations of the homogeneous and heterogeneous parts of nature; but one must not multiply miracles without necessity,⁴¹ especially

when one has a text of Scripture that fixes our opinion, which has nothing contrary either to the laws of nature or to the idea of God. We also confess that God alone is the author of the movement imparted to matter, and that it is by the order of his sovereign wisdom that all the parts of the universe were formed, arranged, and disposed in the order in which we see them, lest we be charged with attributing all these opinions to a certain purely natural movement.

“Finally, we recognize that, besides those beings which appear to have been formed by a regulated movement and according to the natural laws established by God, there are an infinity of others that can only be the work of a particular will of the Creator, who produced man, animals, and plants, and who disposed their parts, organs, and springs with so much art and wisdom that they might reproduce, multiply, and preserve themselves through laws that are beyond the penetration of the human mind.

“Philo, Origen, Saint Augustine, and some others, fearing that consequences contrary to the immutability and omnipotence of the Creator might be drawn from the opinion that maintains successive creation—as though, not having been able to make his work all at

once, he had been obliged to make it at various times and finally to rest on the seventh day, as though wearied by so great a labor—believed that one should recognize in the whole account of Moses only a succession of order and reason, and that he spoke of a successive creation only in order to proportion himself to the capacity of the people and to give them a more distinct idea of creation. For this purpose, it was necessary to explain to them how the development of the parts of the chaos and the arrangement of those that compose the universe took place. It is this that Moses had in view in his account; but it is far from being the case that the thing happened in the same manner. God created all things at once, as the Wise Man says: He who lives eternally created all things at once. Matter, always compliant with the orders of the Almighty, had no need of preparation in order to obey his will. It is contrary to the idea that we ought to have of his omnipotence to say that he returned to work every morning for six days in succession, and that finally he rested on the seventh day. These sorts of expressions, which are contrary to piety, must always be explained in a favorable manner.

“But this latter opinion has been abandoned by almost all commentators. The passage of Ecclesiasticus denotes nothing else except that God is the creator of all creatures without exception. There are, in truth, in the account of Moses some terms that require a favorable explanation:

it is agreed that it is not true that God created the world on six separate occasions, nor that he needed to rest on the seventh day. But one is not obliged on that account to depart from the order of Moses’ account, which so clearly denotes a successive creation. It is enough to say that God, by an entirely free determination of his will, judged it fitting to place this number of six days in the work of creation, without our being able to penetrate its true cause.⁴²”

TIRIN

On this text: God separated light from darkness, this commentator says:

“The Doctors take this text literally; they say that the source of this light was found not in the sun, which was created only on the fourth day of the world, but in another subcelestial body which, during the first three days of the world, traversed and illuminated the two hemispheres in twenty-four hours, as the sun now does, and which thus constituted day and night in turn.⁴³”

Elsewhere, in his Sacred Chronology, Tirin recalls “that he demonstrated above that the world was created in the month of March, at the spring equinox.⁴⁴”

DE VENCE

“Nothing is simpler,” this illustrious Doctor of the Sorbonne says in his commentaries, “than the account that Moses gives of the creation of the universe: In the beginning God created heaven and earth… Then God said: Let there be light, and light was; and he separated light from darkness, and he gave to the light the name of day and to the darkness the name of night. This is the work of the first day. After this, the Lord made the firmament, and he separated the lower waters from the upper waters by means of this firmament, to which he gave the name heaven; this is what was done on the second day. On the third day, God ordered all the waters to withdraw into one place; that the earth should appear and that it should produce all sorts of herbs and trees, and it was done so. On the fourth day, he made the heavenly bodies to illuminate the earth by day and by night; he therefore created a

great luminous body to preside over the day: this is the sun; and another great body of light to preside over the night with the stars: this second luminous body is the moon. On the fifth day the fish and the waters were created; on the sixth, terrestrial animals and man. This is what Moses teaches us.

“It is not surprising that so concise an account was susceptible of so many different senses, and that each philosopher believed that he found his hypothesis in Moses. This legislator represents the Lord to us as an almighty workman who, having first prepared all the matter upon which he wishes to work, disposes and arranges it over the course of a certain number of days, after which he rests. He tells us that God created light and distinguished night and day before the production of the sun and the other luminous bodies; this was not easy to conceive before physicists had considered light as a fluid spread through space and whose existence does not necessarily depend upon that of the sun and the other luminous bodies.⁴⁵”

The learned abbé comments in the same sense upon the following text:

“And evening and morning formed one day.

“These two words, which are going to be repeated here several times, are taken substantively; this is why they must not have an accent. Evening denotes

night, and morning signifies day. Moses says: one day and not: the first day, because this day, still unique, could not be first.⁴⁶”

And finally, speaking of the division of the day among the Hebrews, de Vence says:

“The day was reckoned from one evening to the next. Moses denotes the day by these two terms, evening and morning. The day was composed only of an evening and a morning; evening or night went before the day that is called morning.⁴⁷”

DE CARRIÈRES AND MENOCHIUS

The Bible of Carrières, with the commentaries of Menochius, leaves no doubt concerning the adoption, by one and the other, of the literal sense of the word day. We read there:

“In the beginning God created heaven and earth. In the beginning, that is, at the primordial origin or at the beginning, not of eternity and the ages, but of time.

“He called the light day. For this light moved, as the sun now does, in order to distinguish the days from the nights.

“And there was an evening and a morning which formed one day.

This light was created toward noon; this is why, by its revolution, it brings on evening and then the following morning. One day is equivalent in Scripture to a first day; thus, in Saint John, chap. XX, day one of the Sabbath signifies the first day of the week.

“He rested on the seventh day. The work of creation had therefore been begun on Sunday.

“Such was the origin of heaven and earth, on the day when the Lord, etc.

“The origin (or, word for word, the generations, that is, the creations), on the day when, that is, during the whole span of the six days.⁴⁸”

ABBÉ GLAIRE

In his Holy Books Vindicated, this learned Hebraist

defends the literal interpretation by the following arguments:

“The word day, in Hebrew yom, is found repeated twice in the fifth verse and is evidently taken in two different senses. First, it is considered as a synonym of light, since it is said: And God called the light day. It is the part of time during which it is light, and which the Latins expressed by dies. It is again in this sense that it is taken in Zechariah, chap. XIV, verse 7, and perhaps also in Job, chap. III, verse 5. In the second place, it is employed as a certain duration of time, the span embraced by evening joined to morning, or the span of twenty-four hours, which among us is comprised between noon and midnight, and midnight and noon; it is the nuchthêmeron of the Greeks.

“It has been desired to understand this word, taken in the latter sense, as a long span of indeterminate time, an epoch. But it has not been considered that in this case the Hebrew word would necessarily have to be in the plural. Thus it is with reason that Rosenmüller concludes from the account of Moses that it would be difficult to express, in a more precise and clearer manner, that a natural day is in question here, and by no means a span that would embrace a great number of days or years. It is true that the word day is taken fairly often in Scripture for a moment or an indeterminate time, which also takes place in other languages; but then there is always in the

context some indication of this acceptation. Thus one frequently says: one day it happened that; a day will come; on the day when; for a certain time, it happened; a time, a moment will come; when. We shall not insist further upon this point; in our opinion, it cannot present a serious difficulty to a Hebraist.⁴⁹”

We could add still many links to this long chain of imposing testimonies that attest the truth of the thesis we maintain. Those whom we have just cited suffice to permit us to establish that the whole Christian tradition, that so sure interpreter of the word of God,⁵⁰ condemns the systems of our adversaries; and that, among so many Doctors, Fathers, theologians, and commentators, there is not a single one whom they can invoke in their favor. At the end of the work, we shall draw the consequence that results from this general teaching of the Church given by her most worthy organs, and which we regard as decisive. Beforehand, it remains for us to indicate how, without the aid of those limitless centuries, the formation of the globe as we know it today could have taken place.

PART FOUR

CAUSES OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE GLOBE

Dixerunt Episcopi: Quem credimus factum fuisse in mundo primum, nisi dominicum diem. Theophilus Episcopus dixit: Probate quod dicitis. Responderunt Episcopi: Secundum Scripturæ auctoritatem factum est vespere et mane dies primus, deinde secundus, tertius, quartus, quintus, sextus, septimus. In quo septimo requievit Deus ab omnibus operibus suis, quam diem Sabbatum appellavit. Ergo cum novissimum diem signet Sabbatum, quis potest esse primus, nisi dominicus dies? Theophilus Episcopus dixit: Ecce de die dominico, quia primus sit probastis; de tempore enim quid dicitis? Quatuor enim mundi tempora accipiuntur: Ver, Estas, Autumnus, Hiems. Quod ergo tempus primum factum in mundo? Episcopi responderunt: Vernum. Theophilus Episcopus dixit: Probate quod dicitis. Episcopi responderunt: Scriptum est: Germinet terra fæni herbam secundum genus suum, et lignum fructiferum ferens fructum suum. Hoc autem temporibus Vernis accipitur. Theophilus Episcopus dixit: In quo loco caput mundi esse creditis? In principio temporis, an in medio tempore, aut in fine? Episcopi responderunt: In æquinoctio octavo calendarum aprilium. Theophilus Episcopus dixit: Probate quod dicitis. Episcopi responderunt: Scriptum est quia fecit Deus lucem, et vocavit Deus lucem diem et tenebras noctem: et divisit inter lucem et tenebras æquas partes. Theophilus dixit: Ecce de die vel tempore probastis, de luna quis vobis videtur? Utrum crescentem ac jam plenam, aut imminutam, a Deo fuisse consecratam? Episcopi responderunt: Plenam. Theophilus Episcopus dixit: Probate quod dicitis. Episcopi responderunt: Et fecit duo luminaria magna, et posuit ea in firmamento cœli, ut luceant super terram; luminare majus in inchoationem diei; luminare minus in inchoationem noctis; non poterat aliter nisi esset plena. Nunc ergo investigabimus quomodo in principio factus fuit mundus, id est die dominico; verno tempore in æquinoctio quod est octavo calendarum aprilium; luna plena, per ipsum tantummodo tempus et elementa resurgunt. Theophilus dixit: Nunc igitur agendum est de ordinatione, quomodo debeamus Pascha tenere. Episcopi dixerunt: Numquid potest dies dominicus præteriri, ut in eo Pascha minime celebretur, qui tot et totibus benedictionibus sanctificatus est. [The bishops said: What do we believe to have been made first in the world, if not the Lord’s day? Bishop Theophilus said: Prove what you say. The bishops replied: According to the authority of Scripture, evening and morning were made the first day, then the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh. On that seventh day God rested from all his works, which day he called the Sabbath. Therefore, since the Sabbath marks the last day, what can be the first, if not the Lord’s day? Bishop Theophilus said: Behold, concerning the Lord’s day, you have proved that it was first; but what do you say concerning the season? For four seasons of the world are recognized: spring, summer, autumn, winter. What season, therefore, was first made in the world? The bishops replied: Spring. Bishop Theophilus said: Prove what you say. The bishops replied: It is written: Let the earth bring forth the herb of hay according to its kind, and the fruit-bearing tree bearing its fruit. This, moreover, is understood of the spring season. Bishop Theophilus said: In what place do you believe the beginning of the world to be? At the beginning of the season, in the middle of the season, or at the end? The bishops replied: At the equinox, on the eighth day of the calends of April. Bishop Theophilus said: Prove what you say. The bishops replied: It is written that God made light, and God called the light day and the darkness night; and he divided equal parts between the light and the darkness. Theophilus said: Behold, you have proved the matter of the day or season; what seems to you concerning the moon? Whether waxing and already full, or waning, was it consecrated by God? The bishops replied: Full. Bishop Theophilus said: Prove what you say. The bishops replied: And he made two great lights, and placed them in the firmament of heaven, that they might shine upon the earth; the greater light for the beginning of the day; the lesser light for the beginning of the night; it could not be otherwise unless it were full. Now, therefore, we shall investigate how the world was made in the beginning, that is, on the Lord’s day; in the spring season, at the equinox, which is on the eighth day of the calends of April; at the full moon, through that very time alone the seasons and the elements rise again. Theophilus said: Now, therefore, the ordering must be considered: how we ought to observe Easter. The bishops said: Surely the Lord’s day cannot be passed over so that Easter should by no means be celebrated on it, which has been sanctified by so many and such great blessings.] (Bede, De ordinatione feriarum Paschalium per Theophilum Episcop. Cæsariensem et reliq. Episcop. Concilium.) ↩
Referendo igitur et insinuando nobis sancta Scriptura ipsum Dominum divisisse inter lucem et inter tenebras, id est inter diem et noctem, evidenter ostendit hunc esse primum diem, et sequentem ejus noctem, inter quos omnium artifex æqualiter, hoc est irreprehensibiliter, divisit. Volentes igitur hunc mensem vere ostendere, unde incipiat et ubi finiat, revertamur ad Genesim quæ retulit nobis ipsum Deum divisisse inter primum diem et primam noctem. Unde recognoscimus, et inter secundum et inter tertium diem et noctem, neminem, nisi ipsum Deum divisisse, et sic a quarto die hoc officium soli et lunæ injunxisse: Et fecit Deus luminaria magna, luminare majus initium diei, luminare minus initium noctis. [Thus, by relating and intimating to us that the Lord himself divided between light and darkness, that is, between day and night, Holy Scripture shows evidently that this is the first day and that its night follows it, between which the artificer of all things divided equally, that is, faultlessly. Wishing, therefore, to show truly whence this month begins and where it ends, let us return to Genesis, which related to us that God himself divided between the first day and the first night. Hence we recognize that no one except God himself divided between the second and the third day and night, and that in this way, from the fourth day onward, he enjoined this office upon the sun and the moon: And God made the great lights, the greater light for the beginning of the day, the lesser light for the beginning of the night.] (De Pascha computus, p. 745.) ↩
Plerique existimant in Hebræo haberi: In Filio Deus fecit cœlum et terram; quod falsum esse ipsius rei veritas comprobat. Nam in Hebræo scriptum est Bresith, quod Aquila interpretatur: in capitulo; et non Baben quod appellatur: in Filio. Isti sensus tam et ipsa fronte Geneseos, quæ caput omnium librorum est, quam etiam in principio Joannis Evangelistæ, ubi legitur: In principio erat Verbum, approbatur. Unde in Psalterio Filius de seipso ait: In capite libri scriptum est de me, id est in principio Geneseos. [Several think that the Hebrew has: In the Son God made heaven and earth; the truth of the matter itself proves this to be false. For in the Hebrew is written Bresith, which Aquila interprets: at the beginning; and not Baben, which is called: in the Son. This sense is confirmed both by the very front of Genesis, which is the head of all the books, and also at the beginning of John the Evangelist, where one reads: In the beginning was the Word. Hence in the Psalter the Son says of himself: At the head of the book it is written of me, that is, at the beginning of Genesis.] (Liber hebraïcarum quæstion. in Gen., ch. I, v. 1.) ↩
Et consummavit Deus in die sexto opera sua quæ fecit. Pro die sexto, in Hebræo habet diem septimum. Arctavimus igitur Judæos, qui de otio Sabbati gloriantur, quod jam tunc in principio Sabbatum dissolutum sit, dum Deus operatur in Sabbato, complens opera sua in eo, et benedicens ipsi diei: quia in illo universa compleverit. [And God completed on the sixth day his works that he made. In place of the sixth day, the Hebrew has the seventh day. We have therefore constrained the Jews, who glory in the repose of the Sabbath, because already then, in the beginning, the Sabbath was dissolved, while God works on the Sabbath, completing his works on it and blessing that day itself, because on it he had completed all things.] (Ibid., ch. II, v. 2.) ↩
Movere autem potest quod ait Moyses: Fiant luminaria ad illuminationem super terram, quæ discernant inter diem et noctem; quia super jam ubi lumen fecit dixerat: separavit Deus lucem et tenebras, et factum est vespere et mane dies unus; sed consideremus quia aliud est lumen diei, aliud lumen solis, lunæ et stellarum, eo quod sol ipse radiis suis fulgorem diurno lumine videatur adjungere, quod vel ortus diei potest prodere vel occasus. Nam ante solem lucet quidem, sed non refulget dies. Quærunt aliqui cur prius vespere, postea mane Scriptura memoravit? Ne forte noctem prius quam diem significare videatur. Nec advertunt primo quod præmiserit diem, dicendo: Et vocavit Deus lucem diem et tenebras vocavit noctem: deinde quod vespere finis diei sit, et mane finis sit noctis. Principium ergo diei, vox Dei est: Fiat lux et facta est lux; finis diei vesper est. Jam sequens dies ex noctis fine succedit. Sententia autem Dei evidens est, quia diem primo vocavit lucem, et secundo vocavit tenebras noctem. Sic legem statuit ut viginti quatuor horæ diurnæ ac nocturnæ diei tantum nomine definiantur, et fit dies unus, sicut dixerat viginti quatuor horarum mensura unius diei tempus est. [One may, however, be troubled by what Moses says: Let there be lights for illumination upon the earth, which may distinguish between day and night; because above, as soon as he had made light, he had said: God separated light and darkness, and evening and morning were made one day; but let us consider that the light of day is one thing and the light of the sun, moon, and stars another, because the sun itself seems by its rays to add brilliance to the diurnal light, which either the rising or the setting of the day can reveal. For before the sun, the day indeed shines, but does not gleam. Some ask why Scripture mentioned evening first and morning afterward. Lest it seem to signify night before day. Nor do they observe, first, that it placed day first, saying: And God called the light day and called the darkness night; then, that evening is the end of day and morning is the end of night. The beginning of the day, therefore, is the voice of God: Let there be light, and there was light; the end of the day is evening. Then the following day succeeds from the end of night. The intention of God, however, is evident, because he first called the light day and secondly called the darkness night. Thus he established the law that the twenty-four diurnal and nocturnal hours are defined only by the name of a day, and one day is made, as it had said: the measure of twenty-four hours is the time of one day.] (Bk. IV, ch. III.) ↩
Quasi fieri nequeat, ut mane et vespera diurnum spatium constituatur, nisi omnino sol et occidens, vespere et oriens mane conficiat. Quod autem in genere narrationis historicæ a Mose conscriptum est: Vidit Deus lucem esse bonam, et divisit inter lucem et tenebras, et factum est vespere et factum est mane. Hac autem lucis tenebrarumque successione, æquis temporis intervallis, in regione inferiore peracta, Moses, ut nihil eorum quæ ordine consecuta sunt, aut fortuito, aut ab alia causa principium habuisse declararet, diei noctisque denominationem Deo tribuens, appellavit, inquit, lucem diem et tenebras noctem. Nam, cum illustrandi vis naturaliter non possit quiescere ubi lux per summam circuli partem transiens ad superiora pervenit, necesse fuit ut inferiora obscurentur, crassiore natura ut par est, splendorem non admittente. Lucis igitur absessum vesperam nominavit. Rursus autem, cum lux supremum circulum percurreret, et superioribus lumen afferret, illud ipsum factum vocavit mane. [As though it could not happen that morning and evening constitute the daily span unless the sun, altogether, setting, makes evening and, rising, morning. But what was written by Moses in the manner of historical narration is: God saw that the light was good, and divided between light and darkness, and there was evening and there was morning. Now, when this succession of light and darkness had been accomplished in the lower region at equal intervals of time, Moses, in order to declare that none of the things that followed in order had its beginning either by chance or from another cause, attributing the denomination of day and night to God, says that he called the light day and the darkness night. For, since the power of illuminating cannot naturally cease when the light, passing through the highest part of the circle, arrives at the upper regions, it was necessary that the lower regions be darkened, their coarser nature, as is fitting, not admitting the radiance. He therefore named the absence of light evening. But again, when the light traversed the uppermost circle and brought light to the upper regions, he called that very fact morning.] (In Hexameron sancti Basilii explicatione.) ↩
Dixit Deus: Fiant luminaria in firmamento cœli, ut luceant super terram, etc. Quid autem est sol, vel quid est luna, nisi visibilis creaturæ et corporeæ lucis elementa? Sicut enim alia diurna, alia nocturna sunt tempora, ita diversam in luminaribus qualitatem Creator instituit, cum tamen, priusquam hæc fierent, et dies sine solis officio, et noctes sine lunæ ministerio præcessissent. [God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, that they may shine upon the earth, etc. But what is the sun, or what is the moon, if not elements of visible creation and corporeal light? For just as diurnal times are one thing and nocturnal times another, so the Creator established a different quality in the lights, although, before these were made, both days without the office of the sun and nights without the ministry of the moon had preceded them.] (Eighth Sermon.) ↩
Et vocavit Deus lucem diem, et tenebras noctem. Ab initio cuique suos terminos præfixit, quos perpetuo absque impedimento custodivit. Sed postquam utrique suum nomen dedit, utrumque in unum copulans dixit: Et factum est vespere et factum est mane dies unus. Finem diei et finem noctis unum expresse nominavit, ut ordinem aliquam et consequentiam statueret visibilium, nullaque fieret confusio. Et factum est vespere, et factum est mane dies secundus. Vides quanta diligentia nos docet, finem lucis vesperam vocans et finem noctis mane, et totum illud diem, ut hoc accurate docti non incidamus in eorum sententiam qui humanis ratiociniis moventur, neque putemus vesperam finem esse diei, sed manifeste sciamus utriusque spatium unum diem implere. Hoc enim vult divina Scriptura manifestare dicens: Et factum est vespere et factum est mane dies secundus. [And God called the light day and the darkness night. From the beginning he fixed for each its limits, which each kept perpetually without impediment. But after he gave to each its own name, joining both into one, he said: And there was evening and there was morning, one day. He expressly named the end of day and the end of night one, so that he might establish an order and a succession of visible things and that no confusion might arise. And there was evening, and there was morning, the second day. You see with what diligence he teaches us, calling the end of light evening and the end of night morning, and that whole [span] day, so that, accurately instructed in this, we may not fall into the opinion of those who are moved by human reasonings, nor think that evening is the end of the day, but may know manifestly that the span of both completes one day. For this is what divine Scripture wishes to manifest when it says: And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.] (Homily on Genesis.) ↩
Vides quomodo iterando frequenter doctrinam, menti nostræ dictorum vim infligere vult. Vides quomodo de singulis diebus sic dicat: Et factum est vespere et factum est mane dies tertius, non simpliciter nec absque causa; sed ne ordinem confundamus, neque putemus, vespera ingruente, finem accepisse diem; sed sciamus vesperam finem esse lucis, et principium noctis; mane autem finem noctis et complementum diei. Hoc enim docere nos vult beatus Moses dicens: Et factum est, etc. [You see how, by frequently repeating the teaching, he wishes to impress the force of the words upon our mind. You see how he speaks thus of each day: And there was evening and there was morning, the third day, not simply nor without cause, but lest we confuse the order or think that, with evening coming on, the day has received its end; but so that we may know that evening is the end of light and the beginning of night, while morning is the end of night and the completion of day. For this is what blessed Moses wishes to teach us, saying: And it was, etc.] (Homily on Genesis.) ↩
Quod tamen citius agnoscimus, si ipsas causas originum subtiliter indagamus. Rerum quippe substantia simul creata est; sed simul species formata non est; et quod simul extitit per substantiam materiæ, non simul apparuit per speciem formæ. Cum enim simul factum cælum terraque describitur, simul spiritalia atque corporalia, simul quidquid de cœlo oritur, simul factum quidquid de terra producitur, indicatur. Sol quippe, luna et sidera quarto die in cælo facta perhibentur; sed quod quarto die processit in specie, primo die in cæli substantia extitit per conditionem. Primo die etiam creata terra dicitur, et tertio arbusta condita, et cuncta terræ virentia describuntur. Sed hoc quod die tertio se in specie protulit, nimirum primo die in ipsa de qua ortum est terræ substantia conditum fuit. Hinc est quod Moyses distincte per singulos dies condita omnia retulit, et tamen simul omnia creata subjunxit, dicens: Istæ sunt generationes cæli et terræ, quando creata sunt in die quo fecit Dominus cœlum et terram, et omne virgultum agri. (Gen., II, 4 et 5.) Qui enim diversis diebus creatum cælum et terram, virgultum, herbamque narraverat, nunc uno die facta manifestat, ut liquide ostenderet quod creatura omnis simul per substantiam extitit, quamvis non simul per speciem processit. [Yet we recognize this more quickly if we investigate subtly the very causes of origins. For the substance of things was created simultaneously; but the species was not formed simultaneously; and what existed simultaneously through the substance of matter did not appear simultaneously through the species of form. For when heaven and earth are described as made simultaneously, it is indicated that spiritual and corporeal things were made simultaneously, everything that arises from heaven simultaneously, and everything that is produced from the earth simultaneously. For the sun, moon, and stars are reported to have been made in heaven on the fourth day; but what came forth in species on the fourth day existed by creation in the substance of heaven on the first day. The earth also is said to have been created on the first day, the shrubs founded on the third, and all the green things of the earth are described. But what brought itself forth in species on the third day had assuredly been founded on the first day in the very substance of the earth from which it arose. Hence Moses distinctly related all things founded on the individual days and nevertheless added that all things were created simultaneously, saying: These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, on the day when the Lord made heaven and earth, and every shrub of the field. (Gen., II, 4 and 5.) For he who had narrated that heaven and earth, the shrub and the herb, were created on different days, now manifests that they were made in one day, so that he might show clearly that every creature existed simultaneously through substance, although it did not come forth simultaneously through species.] (Moralia, bk. XXXII, ch. II.) ↩
Utrum convenienter lucis productio in primo die ponatur. Videtur quod inconvenienter lucis productio in primo die ponatur. Est enim lux qualitas quædam, etc. Sed est dicendum quod, ut Dionysius dicit cap. IV de Diver. nom. (part. I, lect. III) illa lux fuit lux solis, sed adhuc informis quantum ad hoc quod jam erat substantia solis, et habebat virtutem illuminativam in commune; sed postmodum data est ei specialis et determinata virtus ad particulares effectus. Poterat itaque illa lux efficere diversitatem dierum et noctium. Et ideo dicendum est, quod duplex est motus in cœlo: Unus communis toti cœlo, qui facit diem ac noctem; et iste videtur institutus primo die. Alius autem est qui diversificatur per diversa corpora; secundum quos motus fit diversitas dierum ab invicem, et mensium et annorum. Et ideo in primo die fit mentio de sola distinctione noctis et diei, quæ fit per motum communem; in quarto autem die fit mentio de diversitate dierum, et temporum, et annorum, cum dicitur: Ut sint in tempora, et dies et annos; quæ quidem diversitas fit per motus proprios. [Whether the production of light is fittingly placed on the first day. It seems that the production of light is unfittingly placed on the first day. For light is a certain quality, etc. But it must be said that, as Dionysius says in chapter IV of De Diver. nom. (part I, lect. III), that light was the light of the sun, but still formless insofar as it was already the substance of the sun and had the power of illuminating in general; but afterward a special and determinate power was given to it for particular effects. That light could therefore effect the diversity of days and nights. And therefore it must be said that there is a double movement in heaven: one common to the whole heaven, which makes day and night, and this seems to have been established on the first day. The other, however, is one that is diversified through the different bodies; according to these movements the diversity of days from one another, and of months and years, is made. And therefore on the first day mention is made only of the distinction of night and day, which is made through the common movement; but on the fourth day mention is made of the diversity of days, seasons, and years, when it is said: That they may be for seasons, and days and years; which diversity is indeed made through the proper movements.] (Question LXVII, art. 4.) ↩
Utrum convenienter causa productionis luminarium describatur. Videtur quod inconvenienter causa productionis luminarium describatur. Nam distinctio temporum et dierum incepit a primo die. Non ergo facta sunt luminaria in tempora, et dies, et annos, id est in horum distinctionem. Sed dicendum est in contrarium quod in primo die facta est communis distinctio temporis per diem, et noctem secundum motum diurnum, qui est communis totius cœli, qui potest intelligi incepisse primo die. Sed speciales distinctiones dierum et temporum, secundum quod dies est calidior die, et tempus tempore, et annus anno, fiunt secundum speciales motus stellarum, qui possunt intelligi quarto die incepisse. [Whether the cause of the production of the luminous bodies is fittingly described. It seems that the cause of the production of the luminous bodies is unfittingly described. For the distinction of seasons and days began from the first day. Therefore the luminous bodies were not made for seasons, days, and years, that is, for the distinction of these. But it must be said to the contrary that on the first day the common distinction of time by day and night was made according to the diurnal movement, which is common to the whole heaven and which may be understood to have begun on the first day. But the special distinctions of days and seasons, according as one day is hotter than another day, and season than season, and year than year, are made according to the special movements of the stars, which may be understood to have begun on the fourth day.] (Question LXX, art. 2.) ↩
Utrum omnes isti dies sint unus dies. Videtur quod omnes isti dies sint unus dies. Dicitur enim: (Gen., XI, 24.) Istæ sunt generationes cæli et terræ, in die quo fecit cælum et terram et omne virgultum agri. Unus ergo est dies, in quo fecit cælum et terram et omne virgultum agri. Sed cælum et terram fecit in primo die, virgultum autem agri tertio die. Ergo unus est primus dies, et tertius, et pari ratione omnes alii. Sed contra est quod Genesi dicitur: Factum est vespere et mane dies secundus, et dies tertius; et sic de aliis. Secundum autem et tertium dici non potest, ubi est unum tantum. Ergo non fuit unus dies tantum. In hac quæstione Augustinus ab aliis expositoribus dissentit. Vult enim quod omnes qui dicuntur septem dies, sunt unus dies septempliciter rebus præsentatus. Alii vero expositores sentiunt quod fuerunt septem dies diversi, et non unus tantum. Dicendum est ergo quod in die in quo Deus creavit cœlum et terram, creavit etiam omne virgultum agri, in actu, sed antequam oriretur super terram, id est potentialiter: quod Augustinus adscribit tertiæ diei, alii vero primæ rerum institutioni. Dicitur quod legitur in Eccli: Qui vivit in æternum creavit omnia simul. Sed hoc non esset, si dies horum operum essent plures, quia plures dies non sunt simul. Ergo non sunt plures dies sed unus tantum. At dicendum quod Deus creavit omnia simul, quantum ad rerum substantiam, quodammodo informem, sed quantum ad formationem quæ facta est per distinctionem et ornatum, non simul; unde signanter utitur verbo creationis. [Whether all these days are one day. It seems that all these days are one day. For it is said: (Gen., XI, 24.) These are the generations of heaven and earth, on the day when he made heaven and earth and every shrub of the field. There is therefore one day on which he made heaven and earth and every shrub of the field. But he made heaven and earth on the first day, and the shrub of the field on the third day. Therefore the first day and the third are one, and by equal reason all the others. But to the contrary is what is said in Genesis: There was evening and morning, the second day, and the third day; and so concerning the others. But second and third cannot be said where there is only one. Therefore there was not only one day. On this question Augustine dissents from the other expositors. For he wills that all those called the seven days are one day presented sevenfold by things. But the other expositors think that there were seven different days and not only one. It must therefore be said that on the day on which God created heaven and earth, he also created every shrub of the field in actuality, but before it arose upon the earth, that is, potentially: Augustine ascribes this to the third day, but the others to the first institution of things. It is said, as is read in Ecclesiasticus: He who lives eternally created all things together. But this would not be so if the days of these works were several, because several days are not together. Therefore there are not several days, but only one. But it must be said that God created all things together with respect to the substance of things, in some fashion formless, but not together with respect to the formation that was made through distinction and adornment; hence he pointedly uses the verb of creation.] (Question LXXIV, art. 2.) ↩
Utrum Scriptura utatur convenientibus verbis ad exprimendum opera sex dierum. Videtur quod Scriptura non utatur convenientibus verbis ad exprimendum opera sex dierum. Nam vespere et mane non sufficienter dividunt diem, cum sint plures partes diei. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur quod factum est vespere et mane dies secundus vel tertius. Præterea secundo et tertio non convenienter correspondet unum, sed primum. Debuit ergo dici: factum est vespere et mane dies primus, ubi dicitur dies unus. Sed dicendum est ad primum, cum Basilio in Hexameron, totum tempus convenit denominari a principaliori parte, scilicet a die. Vespere autem et mane ponuntur ut termini diei cujus mane est principium, sed vespere finis. Vel quia per vespere designatur principium noctis, per mane principium diei. Congruum autem fuit ut ubi commemoratur prima distinctio rerum, sola principia temporum designarentur. Præmittitur autem vespere: quia cum a luce dies inceperit, prius occurrit terminus lucis, quod est vespere, quam terminus tenebrarum, et noctis, quod est mane. Vel secundum Chrysostomum ut designetur quod dies naturalis non terminatur in vespere sed in mane. [Whether Scripture uses suitable words to express the works of the six days. It seems that Scripture does not use suitable words to express the works of the six days. For evening and morning do not sufficiently divide the day, since there are more parts of the day. Therefore it is unfittingly said that there was evening and morning, a second or a third day. Furthermore, one does not fittingly correspond to second and third, but first does. Therefore it ought to have been said: There was evening and morning, the first day, where one day is said. But it must be said in reply to the first, with Basil in the Hexaemeron, that it is fitting for the whole time to be named from its more principal part, namely, from the day. Evening and morning, however, are posited as the termini of the day, of which morning is the beginning, but evening the end. Or because by evening the beginning of night is designated, and by morning the beginning of day. It was fitting, however, that where the first distinction of things is commemorated, only the beginnings of the times should be designated. Evening, however, is put first because, since the day began from light, the terminus of light, which is evening, occurs before the terminus of darkness and of night, which is morning. Or, according to Chrysostom, so that it may be designated that the natural day is terminated not in evening but in morning.] (Question LXXIV, art. 2.) ↩
De natura corporea hæc specialiter tenenda sunt, scilicet quod sex diebus sit in esse producta, ita quod in principio ante omnem diem creavit Deus cælum et terram. Primo vero die formata est lux; secunda, firmamentum factum est in medio aquarum; tertia die separatæ sunt aquæ a terra, et congregatæ in locum unum; quarto vero die cœlum ornatum est luminaribus; quinto aer et aqua volatilibus et piscibus; sexto terra animalibus et hominibus; septimo vero die requievit Deus. Ratio ad intelligendum prædictorum hæc est: quia distinctio corporum mundi, attenditur secundum triplicem modum, ideo facta fuit per triduum. Est enim distinctio naturæ luminosæ a perspicua et opaca, et hæc facta est in primo die, in divisione lucis ac tenebris; et est distinctio naturæ perspicuæ a perspicua, et hæc facta est secundo die, in divisione aquarum ab aquis; et est distinctio naturæ perspicuæ ab opaca, et hæc facta est tertio die, in divisione aquarum a terris. Sic igitur distinctio fieri debuit per triduum. Et quia ornatus correspondet distinctioni ideo similiter tribus diebus debuit consummari. Est enim ornatus naturæ luminosæ, et hic factus est quarto die, in formatione solis, lunæ et stellarum; et est ornatus naturæ perspicuæ et hic factus est quinto die, in quo ex aquis facti sunt pisces et aves ad ornatum aeris et aquæ; et est ornatus naturæ opacæ, scilicet terræ, et hic factus sexto die, in quo factæ sunt bestiæ, et facta est natura humana. Hæc autem omnia, licet potuerit Deus facere in instanti, maluit tamen per successionem temporum, tum propter distinctam repræsentationem potentiæ, sapientiæ, bonitatis; tum propter convenientem correspondentiam dierum et operationum. Et hinc est, quod sex diebus operum additur septimus quietis; qui dies non scribitur habere vesperam, non quia non habuit dies illa noctem succedentem, sed ad præfigurandum animarum quietem quæ nunquam habebit finem. [Concerning corporeal nature these things are especially to be held, namely, that it was brought into being in six days, in such a way that in the beginning, before every day, God created heaven and earth. On the first day, indeed, light was formed; on the second, the firmament was made in the midst of the waters; on the third day the waters were separated from the earth and gathered into one place; on the fourth day heaven was adorned with luminous bodies; on the fifth, air and water with flying creatures and fishes; on the sixth, earth with animals and men; but on the seventh day God rested. The reason for understanding the foregoing is this: because the distinction of the bodies of the world is considered according to a threefold mode, it was therefore made over three days. For there is the distinction of luminous nature from transparent and opaque nature, and this was made on the first day, in the division of light and darkness; and there is the distinction of transparent nature from transparent nature, and this was made on the second day, in the division of waters from waters; and there is the distinction of transparent nature from opaque nature, and this was made on the third day, in the division of waters from lands. Thus, therefore, the distinction had to be made over three days. And because adornment corresponds to distinction, it likewise had to be completed in three days. For there is the adornment of luminous nature, and this was made on the fourth day, in the formation of the sun, moon, and stars; and there is the adornment of transparent nature, and this was made on the fifth day, on which fishes were made from the waters, and birds for the adornment of air and water; and there is the adornment of opaque nature, namely, of earth, and this was made on the sixth day, on which the beasts were made and human nature was made. But all these things, although God could have made them in an instant, he nevertheless preferred to make through a succession of times, both because of the distinct representation of power, wisdom, and goodness, and because of the fitting correspondence of days and operations. And hence it is that to the six days of works is added a seventh of rest; which day is not written to have an evening, not because that day did not have a succeeding night, but to prefigure the rest of souls, which will never have an end.] (Chap. II, On Corporeal Nature.) ↩
Si quarto die luminarium facta est creatio, et ipsis autem dierum constituitur numerus, quomodo tres ante luminarium productionem dies non indubium dierum post illorum productionem numerum vocant? Responsio. Ex productione lucis distinctio facta est lucis et tenebrarum; et ex distinctione lucis et tenebrarum, dies extitit et nox. Ante luminaria condita, ex præscripto Dei, lux invalescens diem, et tenebræ invalescentes noctem constituere. A luminaribus vero conditis dispositum est ut potestatem illam obtinerent, alterum lucis et diei, alterum tenebrarum ac noctis. Et qualis nunc diei lux cum luminari efficit, tales quoque ante luminarium creationem efficiebat juxta finem et præscriptum Dei, qui ditionem ejus duodecim horis definivit. [If the creation of the luminous bodies was made on the fourth day, and by them, moreover, the number of the days is established, how do the three days before the production of the luminous bodies not call into doubt the number of the days after their production? Answer. From the production of light a distinction of light and darkness was made; and from the distinction of light and darkness there came to be day and night. Before the luminous bodies were founded, by the command of God, light increasing constituted day, and darkness increasing constituted night. But after the luminous bodies had been founded, it was arranged that they should obtain that power, the one of light and day, the other of darkness and night. And such as the light of day now effects with a luminous body, such things it also effected before the creation of the luminous bodies, according to the end and command of God, who defined its dominion by twelve hours.] (Question LXII, To the Ortodox.) ↩
In his porro luminaribus contraxit et circumscripsit Deus totam lucem quæ tribus ante diebus per universum latissime diffusa, vagabatur. Illos namque dies priores luce ubique distinctos fuisse oportuit: at illa nec discretis horarum terminis definiebatur, neque diem in certo spatio dividebat; sed in modum luce nubis suspensa, nec horarum numerum designabat, nec ortum nec occasum proprio motu afferebat, neque ullam ab orbe cœlesti impressionem patiebatur; sed repente sub diluculum fundebatur, eadem tamen illius luminaris proprium cujus est efficere diem. [Now, in these luminous bodies God contracted and circumscribed all the light which, during the three preceding days, wandered, most widely diffused throughout the universe. For it was necessary that those earlier days should have been distinguished everywhere by light; but it was neither defined by distinct limits of the hours nor did it divide the day into a fixed space; but, suspended in the manner of a cloud of light, it neither designated the number of the hours nor brought sunrise or sunset by its own movement, nor did it undergo any influence from the celestial sphere; but it was suddenly poured forth toward dawn, yet the same as the property of that luminous body whose task it is to effect day.] (Interpretation on Genesis.) ↩
Quamvis initium operum quæ facta sunt ante quartum diem, a vespera desumendum sit, opus tamen quarti diei a mane inchoatum fuisse ratio ipsa convincit. Cum enim tertius dies completus esse intelligatur post illa verba: Factum est vespere et mane dies tertius, Deus duo illa luminaria horis vespertinis non condidit. [Although the beginning of the works that were made before the fourth day must be taken from evening, reason itself nevertheless proves that the work of the fourth day was begun in the morning. For since the third day is understood to have been completed after those words, There was evening and morning, the third day, God did not create those two luminous bodies in the evening hours.] (Ibid.) ↩
Et dixit Deus: Fiat lux et facta est lux. In principio igitur, hoc est die primo, Deus lucem quæ visibilium creaturarum omnium decus est atque ornamentum, procreavit. Vocavit autem Deus lucem diem et tenebras noctem. Nec vero nox prius creata est, sed dies, ac proinde dies prior extitit, nox posterior. Diem ergo nox sequitur, atque ab unius diei ortu usque ad alium diem unum est, hoc est dies unus cum nocte conjunctus. Ait enim Scriptura: Et factum est vespere et mane dies unus. Et quidem tribus primis diebus, luce Dei jussu atque imperio, tum esse diffundente, tum rursus contrahente, dies et nox fiebant. In his diebus, luminarium cœlestium formationem antecedentibus, lucis diffusione diem, hujusdem vero contractione noctem fieri, ut ait Basilius dicens: Post solis creationem dies est, cum a sole illuminatus est aer, in eo quod super terram est hemispherio relucente, et nox umbra terræ, occultato sole. Tribus autem primis diebus, non secundum motum solarem, sed refuso principali lumine illo, et rursus contracto, secundum determinatam a Deo mensuram, dies generabatur, et nox rursum inducebatur. Verumtamen auctores latini censent lucem illam primo die creatam, diem fecisse et noctem motu circulari, quemadmodum et nunc sol qui ex ea luce quarto die formatus latione sui sub nostro hemispherio, noctem. [And God said: Let there be light, and there was light. In the beginning, therefore, that is, on the first day, God brought forth light, which is the beauty and adornment of all visible creatures. God, however, called the light day and the darkness night. Nor indeed was night created first, but day, and accordingly day came forth earlier, night later. Night therefore follows day, and from the rising of one day until another day is one, that is, one day conjoined with night. For Scripture says: And there was evening and morning, one day. And indeed, on the first three days, as the light, by God’s command and rule, now diffused its being, now contracted again, day and night were made. In these days, which preceded the formation of the celestial luminous bodies, day was made by the diffusion of light, but night by its contraction, as Basil says, speaking thus: After the creation of the sun it is day when the air is illuminated by the sun, the hemisphere that is over the earth shining, and night is the shadow of the earth, the sun being hidden. But on the first three days, not according to solar movement, but with that principal light poured forth and again contracted, according to the measure determined by God, day was generated and night was again brought on. Nevertheless, the Latin authors think that that light, created on the first day, made day and night by circular movement, just as also now the sun, which was formed from that light on the fourth day—[the printed Latin lacks the words required to complete this clause]—by its motion beneath our hemisphere, night.] (On the Orthodox Faith, bk. II, chap. VII.) ↩
Sciant igitur Philosophi, qui ab exordio mundi sæculorum millia enumerant, mundum Deus, sicut arcanis sacræ Scripturæ continetur, sex dierum spatio consummavit; diemque septimum, quo ab operibus suis requieverat, sanxit. Ergo, quoniam sex diebus cuncta Dei opera perfecta sunt, per sæcula sex, id est annorum sex millia manere hoc statu mundum necesse est. Et sicut Deus sex illos dies in tantis rebus fabricandis laboravit: ita et religio et veritas in his sex millibus annorum laboret necesse est, malitia prævalente ac dominante. [Let the philosophers, therefore, who number thousands of centuries from the beginning of the world, know that God completed the world, as is contained in the mysteries of Holy Scripture, in the space of six days; and he sanctified the seventh day, on which he had rested from his works. Therefore, since all God’s works were completed in six days, it is necessary that the world remain in this state for six ages, that is, six thousand years. And just as God labored during those six days in fashioning such great things, so it is necessary that religion and truth labor during these six thousand years, wickedness prevailing and ruling.] (On the First and Last Times of the World, chap. XIV.) ↩
Factum est vespere occidente paulatim luce post expletum spatium diurnæ longitudinis, atque inferiores mundi partes subeunte, quod nunc usitato solis circuitu noctibus agi solet. Factum est mane, redeunte eodem paulatim super terras, atque alium diem iniante, et huc usque dies expletus est unus, viginti scilicet et quatuor horarum: hujus commendatione verbis Scriptura vigilanter admonet, ut lucem quæ facta est inferiora orbis occasu suo lustrasse discamus. Unde etiam vespera et mane quam noctem et diem factam dicere maluit, ut insinuaret tunc primariæ lucis actum esse circuitu, quod nunc circuitu solis die nocteque geri constat; præter hoc solummodo quod post creata sidera nox quoque tum sua etsi minori quam dies luce perfunditur. [There was evening, the light gradually setting after the span of diurnal duration had been completed and entering the lower parts of the world, which now is customarily done at night by the usual circuit of the sun. There was morning, the same gradually returning over the lands and beginning another day, and up to this point one day was completed, namely, of twenty-four hours: by the commendation of these words Scripture watchfully admonishes us, that we may learn that the light which was made traversed the lower parts of the globe by its setting. Hence also it preferred to say that evening and morning were made rather than night and day, in order to intimate that what was then done by the circuit of the primitive light is now known to be carried on day and night by the circuit of the sun; with this sole exception, that after the heavenly bodies were created night also was then bathed in its own light, although a lesser light than day.] (On the Hexaemeron, bk. I.) ↩
Interrogatio. Et tres dies qui præcesserunt, antequam sidera in cælo posuisset, pertinent ad dies an non? Responsio. Id intelligendum est quia pertinent ad dies, quia major est Scripturæ auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas. [Question. And do the three days that preceded, before he had placed the heavenly bodies in heaven, belong to the days or not? Answer. It must be understood that they belong to the days, because the authority of Scripture is greater than every capacity of human ingenuity.] (On the Creation of the Six Days.) ↩
Interrogatio. Dixisti diem esse aerem a sole illustratum; cum principio creaturarum legimus tres esse dies ante solem conditum. Responsio. Verum est; in primordio creaturarum tenebræ erant super faciem abyssi dixitque Deus: Fiat lux et facta est lux; et vocavit Deus lucem diem. Igitur lux ab Oriente emersa, fugatis tenebris, latitudinem sui fulgoris per totam terram æqualiter perfulsit. Primos ternos dies oriendo et occidendo, velut sol terminavit. Interrogatio. Quid primitus fuit dies aut nox? Responsio. Dies utique, quia prima die condidit Deus lucem, ut Isidorus ait, et Augustinus confirmat. Interrogatio. Quid ergo demonstrat quod dies et nox simul dicitur? Responsio. In Scriptura divina ostenditur ubi legitur: et factum est vespere, hoc est nox, et mane dies unus. Tunc ostendit quod nox et dies simul dies nuncupantur. Interrogatio. Quomodo dies habet initium apud Hebræos et Chaldæos, et Egyptios, et Romanos et Persas? Responsio. Dies, secundum Hebræos, a sexta hora diei incipit, quia Hebræi secundum lunam numerant; secundum Chaldæos et Persas ab ortu solis; secundum Egyptios ab occasu solis. Interrogatio. Quo in loco primus dies mundi extitit? Responsio. Quinto decimo calendarum aprilium, quo videlicet die lucem formatam primitus credimus; et sic tres illos dies primos, absque ullis horarum dimentionibus, utpote nondum factis sideribus cucurrisse; quarto demum die, hoc est duodecimo calendarum aprilium, sol et sidera condita sunt, ut essent in signa et tempora et dies et annos. Interrogatio. Quis ergo primam septimanam et dies septimanæ composuit, et nuncupavit? Responsio. Deus sine dubio, qui in sex diebus omnes creaturas creavit, et in septimo die quievit. Hinc ipse in lege dixit: Sex diebus operaberis, et facies omnia opera tua; septimo autem die Sabbatum Domini Dei tui est: non facies in eo omne opus. In sex enim diebus fecit Dominus cœlum et terram, mare et omnia quæ in eis sunt, et requievit die septimo. [Question. You have said that day is air illuminated by the sun; whereas at the beginning of creatures we read that there were three days before the sun was founded. Answer. It is true; at the beginning of creatures darkness was upon the face of the abyss, and God said: Let there be light, and there was light; and God called the light day. Therefore the light, having risen from the East, the darkness having been put to flight, shone equally over the whole earth with the breadth of its brilliance. By rising and setting like the sun, it bounded the first three days. Question. What was originally, day or night? Answer. Day, certainly, because on the first day God founded light, as Isidore says and Augustine confirms. Question. What, therefore, does it show that day and night are spoken of together? Answer. It is shown in divine Scripture where it is read: And there was evening, that is, night, and morning, one day. It then shows that night and day together are called a day. Question. How does the day have its beginning among the Hebrews and Chaldeans, and Egyptians, and Romans and Persians? Answer. The day, according to the Hebrews, begins at the sixth hour of the day, because the Hebrews number according to the moon; according to the Chaldeans and Persians, from sunrise; according to the Egyptians, from sunset. Question. In what place did the first day of the world come forth? Answer. On the fifteenth of the calends of April, on which day, namely, we believe that light was first formed; and that thus those first three days ran without any measurements of hours, since the heavenly bodies had not yet been made; finally, on the fourth day, that is, on the twelfth of the calends of April, the sun and the heavenly bodies were founded, that they might be for signs and times and days and years. Question. Who, therefore, composed and named the first week and the days of the week? Answer. God, without doubt, who created all creatures in six days and rested on the seventh day. Hence he himself said in the law: For six days you shall work, and you 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. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all things that are in them, and he rested on the seventh day.] (On the Method of Computation, chap. III, On the Day.) ↩
Divino spiritu prævidens sanctus Moyses philosophorum errores diversos circa mundum repellens, in exordio sermonis sic ait: In principio, etc… Initium rerum, auctorem mundi, creationem materiæ comprehendens, ut Deum cognosceret ipsum esse initium universorum: In principio. Principium refertur ad tempus, id est, in quo tempore fecit Deus cœlum et terram. In principio itaque temporis Deus fecit cœlum et terram. Factumque vespere et mane dies unus, factum est vespere, id est occidente paulatim luce post expletum spatium diurnæ longitudinis, atque inferiores partes mundi subeunte, quod nunc usitato solis circuitu noctibus agi solet. Factum est mane redeunte eadem paulatim supra terras, atque alium diem initiante; et huc usque dies expletus est unus, viginti scilicet et quatuor horarum. Cujus commendatione verbi, Scriptura vigilanter admonet ut lucem quæ facta est inferiora orbis occasu suo lustrasse dicamus. Nam si hoc non faceret, sed magis facto vespere paulatim tota periret, ac rursum mane paulatim in re creata resurgeret, non jam in mane diei sequentis, sed potius in vespera primi unum diceret esse diem in perfectum. Unde magis vesperam et mane quam noctem ac diem factum dicere maluit, ut insinuaret tunc primariæ lucis actum esse circuitum, quod nunc circuitu solis die noctuque fieri constat. [Holy Moses, foreseeing by the divine spirit and repelling the various errors of the philosophers concerning the world, says thus at the beginning of his discourse: In the beginning, etc… Comprehending the beginning of things, the author of the world, and the creation of matter, so that he might know God himself to be the beginning of all things: In the beginning. Beginning refers to time, that is, to the time in which God made heaven and earth. Therefore, at the beginning of time God made heaven and earth. And there was evening and morning, one day: there was evening, that is, the light gradually setting after the span of diurnal duration had been completed and entering the lower parts of the world, which now is customarily done at night by the usual circuit of the sun. There was morning, the same light gradually returning above the lands and beginning another day; and up to this point one day was completed, namely, of twenty-four hours. By the commendation of this word, Scripture watchfully admonishes us to say that the light which was made traversed the lower parts of the globe by its setting. For if it did not do this, but rather, when evening was made, wholly perished little by little and again in the morning gradually arose anew among created things, he would say that one full day existed not now in the morning of the following day, but rather in the evening of the first. Hence he preferred to say that evening and morning were made rather than night and day, in order to intimate that what was then done was the circuit of the primitive light, which is now known to be done by the circuit of the sun by day and by night.] (Commentary on Genesis, chaps. I and II.) ↩
Fiant luminaria ut sint in signa et tempora et dies et annos. Sunt ergo luminaria in signa, tempora, etc… non quod a conditione earum tempora cœperunt, quæ constat cæpisse a principio quo Deus fecit cœlum et terram, vel dies et anni, qui originem sumpsisse noscuntur ex quo dixit Deus: Fiat lux et facta est lux; sed quia per ortus eorum sive transitus, temporum ordo dierumque annorumque signatur. Quod vero sequitur: Istæ sunt generationes, etc… in die quo fecit Dominus cœlum et terram, nequaquam memoratæ Dei sententiæ videri debet ad versum, sed aperte intelligi, quia diem hoc loco Scripturæ pro omni tempore illo posuit, quo primordiali creatura formata est. Neque enim in unoquolibet sex dierum cælum factum, vel sideribus illustratum, et terra est separata ab aquis, atque arboribus et herbis consita, sed more sibi solito Scriptura diem pro tempore posuit. [Let there be luminous bodies, that they may be for signs and times and days and years. There are therefore luminous bodies for signs, times, etc… not because the times began from their creation—which are established to have begun from the beginning when God made heaven and earth—or the days and years, which are known to have taken their origin from when God said: Let there be light, and there was light; but because through their risings or passages the order of the times, days, and years is marked. But what follows: These are the generations, etc… on the day when the Lord made heaven and earth, ought in no way to appear contrary to the stated judgment of God, but to be understood plainly, because Scripture in this place employed day for all that time in which the primordial creation was formed. For heaven was not made on any one of the six days, or illuminated by the heavenly bodies, and the earth separated from the waters and planted with trees and herbs; but, according to its customary manner, Scripture employed day for time.] (Commentary on Genesis, chaps. X and XI.) ↩
The printed label lacks its closing parenthesis. Factumque est vespere et mane dies unus. Fecitque Deus in principio cœlum et terram et lucem, quibus patratis factum est vespere, usque hoc præcedente mane continuato. Factus est dies unus, et tum quidem a tenebris lucem divisit, quo finito die, factum est vespere. Neque enim in die noctem fecit, sed suo ordine post diem fieri præcepit. Quod autem dictum est: factus est dies unus, et non dicitur factus est dies primus, ad hoc valet quod primus et secundus relativa sunt, neque sine altero alter esse potuit. Cum igitur nondum esset secundus, erat utique dies unus; ipse tamen unus primus dici non poterat. Istæ sunt generationes, etc. — In die quo fecit Dominus cœlum et terram. Quid igitur? Numquid uno et sex diebus creavit omnia? uno quidem creavit, quia simul materiam omnium creavit, nempe cœlum et terram, et sex diebus fecit quia ex ipsa materia in diversas species cuncta formavit. [And there was evening and morning, one day. And God made in the beginning heaven and earth and light; when these had been accomplished, evening was made, the preceding morning having been continued up to this point. One day was made, and then indeed he divided light from darkness; when this day was ended, evening was made. For he did not make night during the day, but commanded it to be made after day according to its order. But what was said, One day was made, and it is not said, The first day was made, serves to show that first and second are relative, and neither could exist without the other. Since, therefore, there was not yet a second, there was certainly one day; yet that one itself could not be called first. These are the generations, etc.—On the day when the Lord made heaven and earth. What, therefore? Did he create all things in one and in six days? He indeed created them in one, because he created the matter of all things together, namely heaven and earth; and he made them in six days because from that very matter he formed all things into different species.] (Exposition on Genesis, chap. I.) ↩
Absit a nobis nolle requirere manente prædicto nomine diem appellari: quod subsecutus est utique duodecim horarum spatio conclusit significare. Nec enim dies, si dominica appellatur, sine horis competentibus definitur. Cum ergo diem dicis, horam quamcumque definitam usque ad vesperam statuis. Ita Dominus meus Moyses lucem vocatam dicit esse diem, ut nos non sine officio duodecim horarum usum quotidianum dignum fuisse dignosceremus. Igitur, amice, si hodie dies ita definiatur, quare non credamus prophetæ dicenti ipsum in initio factum esse quod hodie fiat? Manet vespera usque in matutinum, noctisque horas adimplens, et sic una dies definita appellatur, in quo matutinum non primi diei dicatur sed secundi. [Far be it from us to be unwilling to require that, while the aforesaid name remains, it be called day: what followed certainly concluded that it signified by a span of twelve hours. For day, if it is called the Lord’s, is not defined without its appropriate hours. When, therefore, you say day, you posit any given hour defined as far as evening. Thus my lord Moses says that the light was called day, so that we might recognize that everyday usage was deemed fitting not without the office of twelve hours. Therefore, friend, if day is thus defined today, why should we not believe the prophet saying that what is done today was itself made in the beginning? Evening remains until morning and, filling out the hours of the night, is thus called one defined day, in which morning is said to belong not to the first day but to the second.] ↩
Primo tenendum est quod Moyses in hoc primo libro Genesis est historiographus texens historiam a principio mundi usque ad mortem Jacob. [It must first be held that Moses, in this first book of Genesis, is a historiographer weaving the history from the beginning of the world until the death of Jacob.] (Illuminating Annotations on the Pentateuch, chap. III.) ↩
Prima die distinxit Deus ignem a cæteris elementis, et hoc est quod ipse dixit: Fiat lux. Ignis vero distinctus lumen præbuit mundo inferiori qualecumque et motum habens circularem; quasi quædam lucida nubes circumferebatur, sicut modo sol. Ortu et occasu illius fecit tres primos dies et noctes: quod caute innuens Scriptura distinguit naturalem diem per duos extremos articulos, ita: et factum est, inquit, vespere, quod est finis artificialis diei; et factum est mane, quod est finis noctis. Si dicitur quod Deo non convenit ad modum hominis aliquid imperfectum facere, aut inordinatum, aut deforme. Respondetur quod Deus qui in momento poterat omnia facere, sex diebus distinxit opera sua, non propter impotentiam, sed propter rationabilium creaturarum instructionem et exemplum, sicut enim prius rebus dedit esse, et postea pulchrum esse, ita sex diebus voluit distinguere opus suum, ut in hoc haberet homo animum occupatum. [On the first day God separated fire from the other elements, and this is what he himself said: Let there be light. But the separated fire furnished the lower world with a light of some kind and having a circular movement; it was carried around like a certain luminous cloud, as the sun is now. By its rising and setting it made the first three days and nights: cautiously intimating this, Scripture distinguishes the natural day by two extreme points, thus: And there was, it says, evening, which is the end of the artificial day; and there was morning, which is the end of night. If it is said that it is not fitting for God, after the manner of man, to make something imperfect, or disordered, or misshapen, it is answered that God, who could make all things in a moment, distinguished his works over six days, not because of powerlessness, but for the instruction and example of rational creatures; for just as he first gave things being and afterward beautiful being, so he willed to distinguish his work over six days, so that man might have his mind occupied in this.] (On the Works Distinguished over Six Days, chap. VI.) ↩
Et divisit lucem ac tenebras, appellavitque lucem diem et tenebras noctem, scilicet ut lux duodecim horas super terram, duodecim sub terra splendesceret; tenebræ quoque a luce fugatæ duodecim horas sub terra totidemque super terram delitescerent. Factumque est vespere, dies unus. Vespere est finis diei; mane autem finis noctis: quæ duo juncta viginti quatuor horæ fiunt, et unum diem conficiunt… Primi autem tres dies, qui ante solis exortum transierunt æquinoxiali lege, id est æquali diei ac noctis spatio, præterierunt. [And he divided light and darkness, and called the light day and the darkness night, namely, so that the light might shine twelve hours over the earth and twelve beneath the earth; and that the darkness, put to flight by the light, might lie hidden twelve hours beneath the earth and as many above the earth. And there was evening, one day. Evening is the end of day; but morning is the end of night: these two joined together make twenty-four hours and complete one day… But the first three days, which passed before the rising of the sun, passed under an equinoctial law, that is, with an equal span of day and night.] (Hexaemeron, chap. II.) ↩
Utrum dies naturales creationis mundi reipsa sex fuerunt, sicut enumerantur in Genesi? Dicendum est, sicut Moyses de die naturali et sensibili locutus est, ita etiam de vero numero sex dierum in re existentium, et sibi succedentium fuisse locutum, et in singulis illorum diebus aliquod opus esse factum, prout a Moyse in aliquo vero sensu narratum est. Hæc assertio probanda est. Primum et præcipuum ejus fundamentum est plana et sincera littera Scripturæ. Ratio enim retinendi veram significationem diei naturalis est illa communis quod verba Scripturæ non sunt ad metaphoras transferenda, nisi vel necessitas cogat, vel ex ipsa Scriptura constat, et maxime in historica narratione, et ad instructionem fidei pertinente. Sed hæc ratio non minus cogit ad intelligendum proprie dierum numerum quam diei qualitatem, quia non minus uno modo quam alio destruitur sinceritas et veritas historiæ. 2º Hoc valde confirmant alia Scripturæ loca, in quibus hi sex dies tanquam veri et inter se distincti commemorantur, ut Exod. XX, dicitur: Sex diebus operaberis et facies omnia opera tua; septimo autem die Sabbatum Domini Dei tui est. Et infra: Sex enim diebus fecit Dominus cælum et terram, et mare et omnia quæ in eis sunt, et idem repetitur in capite XXXI. In quibus locis sermonis proprietas colligi potest tum ex æquiparatione; nam cum dicitur: Sex diebus operaberis, propriissime intelligitur; tum quia non est verisimile potuisse populum intelligere illa verba in alio sensu, et contra incredibile est Deum in suis præceptis tradendis, illis verbis ad populum fuisse locutum quibus deciperetur, falsum sensum concipiendo, si Deus non per sex veros dies opera sua fecisset. 3º Accedit communis intelligentia Patrum. Ita docent Basilius, Chrysostomus, Ambrosius, Beda, Gregorius Naz,, Athanasius, Damascenus et alii. Sententiam hanc amplectitur Ecclesia in hymno dominico ad vesperas dicens: Lucis Creator optime, etc.; et ad matut.: Primo die quo Trinitas, etc. Supersunt explicanda verba illa, cap. II, Gen.: Istæ sunt generationes cæli et terræ, quando creata sunt, in die quo fecit Deus cœlum et terram, etc. Quæ verba duas habent expositiones: una est ut intelligantur de primo die tantum, ut intellexerunt Cajetanus et Canus, licet diverso modo. Nam Cajetanus intelligit illud solum ratione primi instantis illius diei quo creavit Deus cœlum et terram. Canus vero de toto tempore illius diei illum exponit, et uterque intellexit per illa ultima verba: et omne virgultum agri, indicata esse omnia opera sex dierum. Sed hæc expositio non est litteralis; nam revera in illis verbis, cap. II, recapitulat Moyses omnia quæ narraverat in primo capite, ut patet ex illis verbis: Istæ sunt generationes cæli et terræ; nam pronomen istæ omnes productiones prius narratas designat; et, ut clarius explicaret sub cœlo et terra comprehendere cætera, addidit: et omne virgultum agri, sub uno specifico opera alia insinuans. Quapropter secunda et communis expositio est in illa recapitulatione, cap. II, particula in die qua creavit Deus, non designari unum certum diem, sed sumi pro quocumque die in quo aliquid ex istis operibus factum sit; sive illa dies fuerit idem, sive diversus, sive unus, sive plures. Frequens est enim in Scriptura sacra, ut singulare pro plurali ponatur, et in modo loquendi satis usitato, res diversis temporibus factæ, brevitatis causa sub uno singulari voce temporali comprehendi; ut si quis dicat: die Nativitatis Christi, Virginis aut Joannis-Baptistæ fit hoc vel illud, non significat in uno et idem die id fieri sed sub intelligitur virtualis repetitio in die Natalis Christi, etc., in die nativitatis Virginis, etc. Sic ergo in cap. I et II, Gen. ubi sumitur pro singulari die, ponitur indefinite quamcumque diem et plures significat, ut cum dicitur in cap. I: Appellavitque lucem diem; fiant luminaria et dividant diem et noctem; posuit Deus luminare majus ut præesset diei, etc. In quibus omnibus locis pro quocumque die indifferenter vox illa sumitur: sic in cap. II prius est sermo de singulari die cum additione septimi diei. Postea vero cum generatim fit sermo de operibus illorum dierum, indefinite dicitur: In die quo fecit Dominus. Ut indicetur sermonem esse de quocumque illorum dierum in quibus Deus operatus est ante septimum diem. Nec mirum est quod Moyses, cum summatim opera recapitulat, dies etiam in quibus facta sunt, uno etiam diei nomine comprehendat. [Were the natural days of the creation of the world really six, as they are enumerated in Genesis? It must be said that, just as Moses spoke of the natural and sensible day, so also he spoke of the true number of six days existing in reality and succeeding one another, and that on each of those days some work was made, as was related by Moses in some true sense. This assertion must be proved. Its first and principal foundation is the plain and sincere letter of Scripture. For the reason for retaining the true signification of the natural day is that common principle that the words of Scripture are not to be transferred to metaphors unless either necessity compels it or it is established from Scripture itself, and especially in a historical account pertaining to the instruction of faith. But this reason compels us no less to understand properly the number of the days than the quality of the day, because the sincerity and truth of the history is destroyed no less in one manner than in the other. 2º This is strongly confirmed by other places of Scripture in which these six days are commemorated as true and distinct from one another, as it is said in Exodus XX: For six days you shall work and do all your works; but on the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. And below: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea and all things that are in them; and the same is repeated in chapter XXXI. In these places the proper sense of the discourse can be gathered both from the comparison—for when it is said, For six days you shall work, it is understood in the most proper sense—and because it is not likely that the people could have understood those words in another sense; and, on the contrary, it is incredible that God, in handing down his precepts, would have spoken to the people in words by which they would be deceived, conceiving a false sense, if God had not made his works over six true days. 3º To this is added the common understanding of the Fathers. Thus teach Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Bede, Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, Damascene, and others. The Church embraces this opinion in the Sunday hymn at vespers, saying: Best Creator of light, etc.; and at matins: On the first day on which the Trinity, etc. There remain to be explained those words, Genesis, chap. II: These are the generations of heaven and earth, when they were created, on the day when God made heaven and earth, etc. These words have two expositions: one is that they are understood only of the first day, as Cajetan and Canus understood them, although in different ways. For Cajetan understands it solely by reason of the first instant of that day on which God created heaven and earth. Canus, however, expounds it of the whole time of that day, and each understood that by those last words, and every shrub of the field, all the works of the six days were indicated. But this exposition is not literal; for in truth, in those words of chapter II, Moses recapitulates all the things that he had related in the first chapter, as is clear from those words: These are the generations of heaven and earth; for the pronoun these designates all the productions previously related; and, in order to explain more clearly that he comprehended the other things under heaven and earth, he added: and every shrub of the field, intimating the other works under one specific thing. Therefore, the second and common exposition is that, in that recapitulation of chapter II, the clause on the day on which God created does not designate one certain day, but is taken for any day on which something of those works was made; whether that day was the same, whether different, whether one, or whether several. For it is frequent in Holy Scripture for the singular to be put for the plural, and, in a sufficiently customary manner of speaking, for things done at different times to be comprehended, for the sake of brevity, under one singular temporal word; as if someone were to say: On the day of the Nativity of Christ, of the Virgin, or of John the Baptist, this or that occurs, he does not signify that it occurs on one and the same day, but a virtual repetition is understood: on the day of the Nativity of Christ, etc.; on the day of the Nativity of the Virgin, etc. Thus, therefore, in chapters I and II of Genesis, where it is taken for a singular day, it is posited indefinitely and signifies any day and several days, as when it is said in chapter I: And he called the light day; let there be luminous bodies and let them divide day and night; God placed the greater luminous body that it might preside over the day, etc. In all these places that word is taken indifferently for any day whatsoever; thus in chapter II the discourse is first about a singular day with the addition of the seventh day. But afterward, when the discourse is made generally about the works of those days, it is said indefinitely: On the day when the Lord made. So that it may be indicated that the discourse is about any of those days on which God worked before the seventh day. Nor is it surprising that Moses, when he briefly recapitulates the works, should also comprehend the days on which they were made under the name of one day.] (On the Work of the Six Days, chap. XII.) ↩
Quod intervallum quantum fuerit, nulla divinatio potest assequi. [How great that interval was, no conjecture can attain.] (De Opificia sex dierum, book I, chap. X.) ↩
Dies hoc loco pro tempore sumitur dierum sex quibus cœlum et terram creavit. [Day in this place is taken for the time of the six days during which he created heaven and earth.] (Ibid.) ↩
Nec dubium est, quia Mosis historia in eam sit partem propensior, quæ nihil præter aquas et terram, ante diem secundum fuisse memorat. Nam illud Severiani valde probatur: primo die ex nihilo Deum omnia creasse; reliquis autem diebus, ex jam extantibus. Ubi primum diem non lucis tantum creatione circumscribit; sed quod ante illum factum est, id eidem tribuit. Quod intervallum quando fuerit nulla divinatio potest assequi. Neque vero mundi corpora illa, quæ prima omnium extitisse docui, aquam et terram, arbitror eadem, in quam ortus incidit, fabricata esse die, ut quibusdam placet, haud satis firma ratione, quod Moyses scribat in fine septem dierum: Istæ sunt generationes cæli et terræ quando creata sunt in die quo fecit Deus cœlum et terram. Quasi necesse sit in aliquo die cœlum et terram esse condita; adeoque primo. Sed dies hoc loco pro tempore sumitur dierum sex, quibus cœlum et terram creavit, id est elaboravit, ac digessit Deus totam hanc rerum universitatem. Sic enim interpretenda hæc esse: In principio creavit Deus cœlum et terram. [There is no doubt that the history of Moses inclines more toward that view which relates that nothing except the waters and earth existed before the second day. For this statement of Severianus is greatly approved: that on the first day God created all things out of nothing; but on the remaining days, from things already existing. Here he does not circumscribe the first day by the creation of light alone, but attributes to the same day what was made before it. When that interval was, no conjecture can attain. Nor indeed do I think that those bodies of the world which I have taught existed first of all—water and earth—were fashioned on the same day upon which the rising [of light] fell, as it pleases certain persons to hold, on the insufficiently firm ground that Moses writes at the end of the seven days: These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, on the day when God made heaven and earth. As though it were necessary that heaven and earth should have been founded on some day, and therefore on the first. But day in this place is taken for the time of the six days during which he created heaven and earth; that is, God elaborated and ordered this whole universality of things. For these things are thus to be interpreted: In the beginning God created heaven and earth.] (Ibid.) ↩
Postquam Moyses sex dierum opificium toto primo capite descripsit, mox in sequenti summatim universeque colligens: Istæ sunt, inquit, generationes cæli et terræ, quando creata sunt, in die quo fecit Deus cœlum et terram. Quæ verba non in unius diei faciunt, ut quibusdam videtur, qui primum diem designari putant. In quo factum illud est, præter lucem, quod initio libri Moyses explicat: In principio creavit Deus cœlum et terram. Sed eam nos opinionem minime probamus, ac supra docuimus diei nomen istic usurpari pro tempore, quod apud Græcos Latinosque, non minus quam Hebræos usitatum est. Igitur cum dixisset in die, id est tempore illo factum esse cœlum et terram, hoc est perpolitum et elaboratum esse sex continuis diebus. [After Moses described the work of the six days throughout the whole first chapter, immediately in the next, summarily and comprehensively collecting it, he says: These are the generations of heaven and earth, when they were created, on the day when God made heaven and earth. Those words do not make [the work] that of one day, as it seems to some, who think that the first day is designated. On that day, besides light, there was made that which Moses explains at the beginning of the book: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. But we in no way approve that opinion, and above we taught that the name day is there employed for time, which is customary among the Greeks and Latins no less than among the Hebrews. Therefore, when he said on the day, [he meant] that heaven and earth were made in that time—that is, were polished and elaborated over six consecutive days.] (Ibid., book I, chap. XIV.) ↩
Est hebraismus frequentissimus dicere unum pro primo, ut in Genesi: Factum est vespere et mane dies unus, id est primus; nam postea sequitur dies secundus, dies tertius, dies quartus, etc. [It is a very frequent Hebraism to say one for first, as in Genesis: There was evening and morning, one day, that is, the first; for afterward follows the second day, the third day, the fourth day, etc.] (De cultu sanctorum, book III, chap. II.) ↩
Erat autem sabbatum festum excellentissimum, quia cum omnia festa celebrentur, vel in memoria beneficii præteriti, vel ad significandum aliquid futurum, Sabbatum in utroque excellebat. Namquantum ad præteritum, celebratur in memoria primi et communissimi beneficii, id est creationis mundi. Nam, ut ait Philo in libro de Opificio mundi, quemadmodum reges coli jubent diem natalem suorum filiorum, ita Deus coli voluit diem natalem operis sui, id est mundi. Dies dominica repræsentat etiam memoriam creationis mundi, non minus quam Sabbatum. Nam die dominico cœpit mundus fieri; imo eo die sunt factæ omnes principales mundi partes, cœlum, terra, angeli et lux. [The Sabbath, moreover, was the most excellent feast, because, although all feasts are celebrated either in memory of a past benefit or to signify something future, the Sabbath excelled in both respects. For, as regards the past, it is celebrated in memory of the first and most universal benefit, that is, the creation of the world. For, as Philo says in the book On the Fabrication of the World, just as kings order the birthdays of their sons to be honored, so God willed the birthday of his work, that is, of the world, to be honored. Sunday also represents the memory of the creation of the world, no less than the Sabbath. For on Sunday the world began to be made; indeed, on that day all the principal parts of the world were made: heaven, earth, the angels, and light.] (Ibid.) ↩
Decetne theologos illis aut similibus hypothesibus insistere, ut cosmogoniam biblicam credibiliorem faciant? Responsio. Negative, ne incurrant theologi in periculum de quo Isaïas: Ecce confidis super baculum arundineum confractum illum… Cui si innixus fuerit homo, intrabit in manu ejus, et perforabit eam. Sunt enim hypotheses geologicæ arundines vento agitatæ, quæ, si novis inventis in derisum vertantur, ut sæpissime fit, verendum est ne demonstrationes illis innixæ videantur, nec non res demonstrata. Cæterum duo nos deterrent hujusmodi opinionibus: difficultas conciliandi eas, cum recta interpretatione biblicæ narrationis, levitas rationum geologicarum quæ alligantur. Quæ duo summatim perstringamus: 1º Mosaïca narratio ad sensum proprium et naturalem si exigatur, nec mundum præadamicum, nec conversionem dierum in periodos indefinitas facile admittit: 1º Licet vox dies (hebraïce yom) absolute sumpta, tempus indeterminatum sæpe significet, quoties tamen limites ejus definiuntur, vespere et mane, ut fit in citato cap. I, Gen. diem naturalem designat. 2º Lex de tempore dividendo in hebdomadas septem dierum, quorum sex priores impendantur operæ, septima vero requiei et religioni, hac de causa firmatur: Sex enim diebus fecit Dominus cælum et terram, et mare, et omnia quæ in eis sunt, et requievit in die septimo; idcirco benedixit Deus diei sabbati et sanctificavit eum. Quæ ratio præcepti de sabbato sanctificando, pluries a Moyse recitato, levis admodum fuisset, nisi existimassent Hebræi dies creationis fuisse naturales. 3º Posito, ut fit in præfatis hypothesibus, lucem, solem, lunam et stellas præextitisse mundo adamico, intellectu difficillima sunt verba illa: Fiat lux et facta est lux… Fiant luminaria in firmamento cæli… Fecitque Deus duo luminaria magna et stellas. Hoc non de creatione proprie dicta, nec de efformatione ex materia præexistente, interpretantur hypothesim defensores, sed tantum de dissipatione vaporum et nubium quibus circumfusa tellus solaribus radiis inaccessa erat. Quæ interpretatio quam parum concordet vi verborum neminem fugit. Hæc aliaque suadent prædictas hypotheses recedere a sensu proprio et litterali verbi divini, cui tamen standum est, quoties sensus obvius et litteralis doctrinæ catholicæ non repugnat, aliisve Scripturæ locis. [Is it fitting that theologians should insist upon those or similar hypotheses, in order to make biblical cosmogony more credible? Answer. Negatively, lest theologians incur the danger concerning which Isaiah says: Behold, you trust upon that broken reed staff… If a man leans upon it, it will enter into his hand and pierce it. For geological hypotheses are reeds agitated by the wind; if they are turned into ridicule by new discoveries, as very often happens, it must be feared lest the demonstrations resting upon them, and likewise the thing demonstrated, should appear [ridiculous]. Moreover, two things deter us from opinions of this kind: the difficulty of reconciling them with a right interpretation of the biblical account, and the lightness of the geological reasons which are attached [to them]. Let us touch briefly upon these two things: 1º If the Mosaic account is required according to the proper and natural sense, it scarcely admits either a pre-Adamic world or the conversion of the days into indefinite periods: 1º Although the word day (in Hebrew yom), taken absolutely, often signifies an indeterminate time, nevertheless, whenever its limits are defined by evening and morning, as is done in the cited chapter I of Genesis, it designates a natural day. 2º The law concerning dividing time into weeks of seven days, of which the first six are devoted to labor and the seventh to rest and religion, is established for this reason: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore God blessed the day of the Sabbath and sanctified it. This reason for the precept concerning sanctifying the Sabbath, recited several times by Moses, would have been very slight if the Hebrews had not thought that the days of creation were natural. 3º Supposing, as is done in the aforementioned hypotheses, that light, the sun, the moon, and the stars preexisted the Adamic world, those words are most difficult to understand: Let there be light and light was… Let there be luminous bodies in the firmament of heaven… And God made two great luminous bodies and the stars. The defenders of the hypothesis interpret this neither of creation properly so called nor of formation out of preexistent matter, but only of the dissipation of the vapors and clouds by which the earth was surrounded and was inaccessible to the sun’s rays. No one fails to see how little this interpretation agrees with the force of the words. These and other things show that the aforementioned hypotheses depart from the proper and literal sense of the divine word, to which nevertheless one must adhere whenever the obvious and literal sense is repugnant neither to Catholic doctrine nor to other places of Scripture.] (Theologiæ præambula, book II, art. 2.) ↩
Ex dictis patet omni soliditate carere argumenta, quibus probare quidam tentant, mundi ætatem longe majorem esse illa, quæ a Moyse ipsi tribuitur. Sublatis autem his argumentis, nulla prorsus ratio suppetit, vel sex dies in longissimas periodos commutandi, vel maximum temporis spatium inter primam et secundam creationem, hancque solum decollapsæ terræ restauratione exponendi. Hæc sane expositio novas difficultates involvit. Vix enim intelligi potest quomodo vehementissimus ventus nubes solum extenuaverit, et in altum sustulerit, quin tamen per tres dies sol aspectabilis redderetur. Et quarta die in nullo sensu luminaria a Deo facta diei possit; nam neque, juxta communem hominum loquendi modum, sol factus dicitur, si remotis nubibus conspicuus fit. Constat quoque, tum SS. PP., tum theologos, et interpretes antiquiores unanimi consensu narrationem mosaïcam, non de restauratione, sed de creatione et de formatione terræ quæ prius non extiterat, explicasse. Hæc explicatio etiam per locum sacræ Scripturæ Gen. confirmatur, in quo creatio cæli et terræ immediate conjungitur cum productione herbarum, dicitur enim: Istæ sunt generationes cæli et terræ, quando creata sunt in die (id est tempore) quod fecit Dominus Deus cælum et terram, et omne virgultum agri, ante quam oriretur in terra, omnemque herbam regionis, antequam germinaret; non enim pluerat Deus super terram, etc. [From what has been said, it is clear that the arguments by which some attempt to prove that the age of the world is far greater than that which is attributed to it by Moses are devoid of all solidity. But when these arguments have been removed, no reason whatever remains either for changing the six days into exceedingly long periods or for placing a very great span of time between the first and second creation and explaining the latter solely by the restoration of the collapsed earth. This explanation assuredly involves new difficulties. For it can scarcely be understood how a most violent wind merely thinned the clouds and raised them on high, without nevertheless rendering the sun visible for three days. And on the fourth day the luminous bodies can in no sense be [said to have been] made by God; for neither, according to the common manner of speaking among men, is the sun said to be made if it becomes visible when the clouds have been removed. It is also established that both the holy Fathers and the theologians and more ancient interpreters, by unanimous consent, explained the Mosaic account not of the restoration, but of the creation and formation of an earth that had not previously existed. This explanation is also confirmed through a place of Holy Scripture in Genesis, in which the creation of heaven and earth is immediately joined with the production of plants; for it is said: These are the generations of heaven and earth, when they were created, on the day (that is, the time) when the Lord God made heaven and earth, and every shrub of the field before it arose upon the earth, and every herb of the region before it germinated; for God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, etc.] (Institutiones theologiæ theoreticæ, seu dogmatico-polemicæ a P. Alberto Knol, ordinis Minorum Capucinorum [Institutions of Theoretical Theology, or Dogmatic-Polemical Theology, by Father Albert Knol, of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin], 2nd ed., 7 octavo volumes of about 550 pages, published by Poussielgue-Rusand, 27 rue Cassette, Paris.) ↩
Fiat lux et facta est lux. Hoc lucidum corpus primo mundi triduo, scilicet antequam quarto die crearetur sol, ab angelo motum fuisse ex oriente in occidente; atque eodem modo et tempore quo sol, viginti quatuor horis utrumque cæli hæmispherium circumgyrasse et illuminasse uti jam facit sol. Lux enim hos primos tres mundi dies suo motu descripsit et distinxit, sicuti cæteros deinde sol suo motu descripsit, et in dies describit et distinguit: Et factum est vespere etmane dies secundus. Nec cogites Deum instar artificis, toto die in hac firmamenti fabrica, aliisque deinceps occupatum fuisse; sed fecisse eam subito, in instanti, ac per totum reliquum tempus eamdem conservasse. Verius est mundum creatum esse in æquinoctio verno: 1º quia id docent passim omnes Patres quos vide apud Molinam et Pereirum; quin et poetæ, ut Virgilius (lib. II, Georg.) loquens de prima nascentis origine mundi: Ver (ait) illud erat; ver magnus agebat. Orbis, et Hiberni parcebant flatibus Euri. 2º Quia id definivit concilium Palestinum habitum sub Victore Pontifice, præside Theophilo, anno Christi 198. Hoc concilium fuit particulare, non generali, ac proinde definitiones ejus non sint de fide; sunt tamen magnæ auctoritatis. Hanc sententiam concilium probat: 1º ex verbo germinet; in vere enim terra germinare incipit; 2º Ex eo quod Deus divisit lucem a tenebris, scilicet in æquales partes, quæ divisio fit in æquinoctio. 3º Addidit idem concilium primum diem mundi fuisse viii calendas aprilis, id est 25 martii. Rursum certum est hunc diem fuisse dominicum. [Let there be light and light was. This luminous body, during the first three days of the world—that is, before the sun was created on the fourth day—was moved by an angel from east to west; and, in the same manner and time as the sun, circled and illuminated both hemispheres of heaven in twenty-four hours, as the sun now does. For light by its movement traced and distinguished these first three days of the world, just as the sun afterward traced the others by its movement, and day by day traces and distinguishes them: And there was evening and morning, the second day. Do not think that God, after the manner of an artisan, was occupied for the whole day in this construction of the firmament and thereafter in the other things; but that he made it suddenly, in an instant, and preserved the same thing through all the remaining time. It is truer that the world was created at the spring equinox: 1º because all the Fathers everywhere teach it—see them in Molina and Pereira—and even the poets, such as Virgil (book II, Georgics), speaking of the first origin of the nascent world: It was spring, he says; the great world was passing through spring, and the East Winds refrained from wintry blasts. 2º Because the Council of Palestine, held under Pope Victor, with Theophilus presiding, in the year of Christ 198, defined it. This council was particular, not general, and accordingly its definitions are not matters of faith; nevertheless, they are of great authority. The council proves this opinion: 1º from the word let it germinate; for in spring the earth begins to germinate; 2º from the fact that God divided light from darkness, namely, into equal parts, which division occurs at the equinox; 3º the same council added that the first day of the world was the eighth day before the Kalends of April, that is, March 25. Moreover, it is certain that this day was Sunday.] (Commentary on Genesis, chap. I.) ↩
Here again, may we be permitted an observation. Whatever God did in creating the world, there was, in reality, no miracle—that is, no deed contrary to the present laws of nature—since those laws were not yet established then; and we do not even know precisely when they were established in their entirety. ↩
Commentary on Genesis, chap. II. ↩
Divisit Deus lucem a tenebris. Quam lucem doctores ad litteram explicant fuisse non in sole qui, in quarto die mundi creatus est, sed in alio corpore sub, cœlesti, quod primo mundi triduo viginti quatuor horis, eodem modo quo nunc sol, utrumque hæmispherium circumgyrabat, et sic diem vicissim et noctem constituebat. [God divided light from darkness. The Doctors explain literally that this light was not in the sun, which was created on the fourth day of the world, but in another subcelestial body, which during the first three days of the world revolved around both hemispheres in twenty-four hours, in the same manner as the sun now does, and thus constituted day and night in turn.] (Commentary on Genesis, chap. I.) ↩
Ostendimus supra mundum creatum fuisse mense martio in æquinoctio verno. [We showed above that the world was created in the month of March, at the spring equinox.] (Chronichum sacrum, chap. IX.) ↩
Commentary, chap. XXIII, p. 445. ↩
Commentary II, chap. II, p. 70. ↩
Chronology of the Hebrews, vol. I, p. 245. ↩
In principio creavit Deus… In principio; id est, in primordio seu initio, non æternitatis nec ævi, sed temporis. Vocavit lucem diem… Nam lux illa ferebatur sicut nunc sol, distinguens dies ac noctes. Factumque est vespere et mane dies unus… Circa meridiem hæc ux creata est: exinde suo motu vesperam facit et mane sequens. Dies unus, dies primus: phrasis Scripturæ; sic una sabbati apud Joan. (cap. XX). Primam hebdomadæ diem significat. Requievit die septimo… Itaque dominico die opus creationis inchoatum fuit. Istæ sunt generationes, etc… Generationes, id est creationes. In die quo, etc… Id est toto sex dierum spatio. [In the beginning God created… In the beginning; that is, at the primordial origin or beginning, not of eternity or the age, but of time. He called the light day… For that light moved as the sun now does, distinguishing days and nights. And there was evening and morning, one day… This light was created about noon: thence by its movement it makes evening and the following morning. One day, the first day: a phrase of Scripture; thus one of the Sabbath in John (chap. XX) signifies the first day of the week. He rested on the seventh day… Therefore the work of creation was begun on Sunday. These are the generations, etc… Generations, that is, creations. On the day when, etc… That is, during the whole span of the six days.] (Holy Bible, chap. I.) ↩
The Holy Books Vindicated, vol. I, p. 18. ↩
Tradition, says an author who is not suspect, the Protestant Beausobre, when it is well verified, is a solid proof of the certainty of facts and the certainty of doctrine. (Bergier, Theological Dictionary.) ↩

Chapter V: Ecclesiastical Writers Who Defended the Literal Interpretation of the Days of Moses