Dogmatic Cosmology: First and Second Creation; the Hexaemeron

Part II: Creation Passively Considered — The Created Universe

Chapter I: Dogmatic Cosmology

PART II By Creation in the passive sense (creari s. creatum esse) we understand the created universe or world (mundus). This, as its Greek name (oV/u>«) indicates, is not a chaos, but a well-ordered, graduated, and articulated whole, consisting of three kingdoms, which rise one above the other: (i) The material universe, which embraces animals and plants, (2) the human race, and (3) the Angels.1 Accordingly we shall treat of Creation passively considered, i. e.y the created universe, in three Chapters, entitled respectively: (1) Cosmology, (2) Anthropology, and (3) Angelology. l Cfr. Cone, Vatican., Sess. Ill, cap. I (quoted supra, pp. 29 sqq). 97 CHAPTER I i. Definition of Terms. — In respect of matter, both inorganic and organic, God’s creative operation is divided into two logically and really distinct functions, viz.: ( I ) The creation of primordial matter out of nothing, and (2) the formation of chaotic matter, i. e., the fashioning of earth and heaven, oceans and continents, plants and animals out of the primitive world-stuff. The former of these two functions is called first creation (creatio prima). It is creation in the proper sense of the term. The second (creatio secunda) can be called creation only in a figurative or metaphorical sense. Creatio secunda may be said to partake of the nature of creation proper, inasmuch as no one but God in His omnipotence was able to fashion and form the cosmos. Active formation 2 has for its term or object pas2 ” Formation is an operation their own proper forces, and or which, from already created matter, dains them towards an end.” moulds different natures, fittingly (Humphrey, “His Divine Majesty” compounds them, collects them into p. 262.) one synthesis, furnishes them with

First and second creation 99 sive formation, i. e., the things formed or fashioned. In this passive formation St. Thomas discriminates between distinctio and ornatus. The work of distinction or differentiation which God performed on the first three days of the Hexaemeron consisted in the separation of light from darkness, of the firmament from the waters below, and of the solid land from the sea. The work of ornamentation, which took place on the last three days, consisted in the allocation of the various celestial and terrestrial bodies, supplying the water with fishes, the air with birds, and the continents with plants and animals.

2. The Teaching of Divine Revelation. — Revelation furnishes a sufficient basis for the distinction between first and second creation. a) The book of Genesis begins by describing how God created all things out of nothing. Before He undertook the work of formation, which took six ” days,” the earth was ” void and empty,” and the light as yet undivided from the darkness; in other words, the universe was still in a chaotic state. To this twofold condition there corresponded a twofold operation on the part of the Almighty, viz.: creare and formare, which we call first and second creation. It is characteristic of the conception existing in the mind of the Sacred Writer that He does not describe the act of mere formation or ordering by the verb tfja, which he employed in the first verse, but by such verbs as rtfe^J and which are capable of being construed with a materia ex qua.3 The only exceptions to this rule are Gen. I, 21: ” Creavit Deus cete grandia — God created the great whales; ” and Gen. I, 27: ” Et creavit Deus 2 Supra, p. 15. loo DOGMATIC COSMOLOGY hominem … masculum et feminam creavit (N??) eo$ — And God created man, … male and female he created them/’ With regard to these two passages it should be noted that in the one there is question of a true creation, viz.: the creation of the human soul; while the other is specially designed to show forth God’s omnipotence, which manifests itself with special grandeur in the creation of the huge ocean monsters. The playful ease with which the Creator produced these gigantic beings, proves that He is absolutely independent of matter and, therefore, at least indirectly demonstrates His creative power. For a further confirmation of the distinction between first and second creation we may quote from Wisd. XI, 1 8 the phrase * ex materia invisa (scil. informi, i£ ayu6pov iJAi^).* 4 It is no argument against our thesis that a distinction is made in Gen. I, i between ” heaven ” and ” earth,” for heaven and earth were present at the Creation of the universe only with regard to their substance; they were not as yet divided off and moulded into shape, — this took place later (Gen. I, 7-8). b) The distinction between first and second creation is quite common in the writings of the Fathers. Thus Severian of Gabala (+ after 408) says: “On the first day God created out of nothing (c#c pJq 6vTmv) whatever He has made; but on the following days He did not create out of nothing (ov#c & fxrj 6vt

FIRST AND SECOND CREATION 101 St. Augustine very distinctly insists on the concept of creatio secunda.7 In determining the nature of the materia informis out of which God gradually fashioned the cosmos in the course of six days, the Fathers were entirely dependent on the scientific theories prevalent in their day. In expounding these theories, needless to say, they do not represent Tradition, but merely the inadequate notions of an unscientific age, and we are not bound by their speculations. St. Chrysostom’s 8 or St. Ephrem’s9 explanations of the process of Creation in the light of the peripatetic theory of the four elements (earth, water, air, and fire), have no more authority than the Patristic or Scholastic defense of the geocentric system of the universe, and we Catholics of the twentieth century are free to substitute for the crude hypotheses of the Patristic period the more solidly established conclusions of modern science, e. g., to regard the molecules as the proper object of the creatio prima and the various chemical compositions as the objects of the creatio secunda. While, as we have shown, Revelation offers a solid basis for a real distinction between first and second creation and their products, it remains an open question whether or not the two processes were separated by a temporal interval. The great majority of the Fathers not only admit but positively assert an intermission between creatio prima and creatio secunda. It was only the great authority of St. Augustine that preserved later theologians from unduly limiting freedom of interpretation in regard to a question which, because of its relations to natural science, must be handled with the greatest 7 Supra, p. 14. 8 Horn, in Gen., 3. • In Gen., L reserve. St. Augustine’s own interpretation 10 has, it is true, been generally rejected as forced and artificial; but St. Thomas,11 though himself a defender of the theory of temporal succession, invariably speaks of the Augustinian theory with great respect, and many later theologians, especially those who in some form or other prefer the so-called ideal interpretation, base their right to espouse a less slavishly literal view upon the example of the learned and pious Bishop of Hippo.12 Readings: — Palmieri, De Creatione et Praecipuis Creaturis, thes. 14-15, Romae 1910. — Stentrup, De Deo Uno, thes. 78-79, Oeniponte 1875. — Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. II, § 144, Freiburg 1878 (Wilhelm-Scanneirs Manual, Vol. I, pp. 383 sqq.). — Oswald, Schopfungslehre, pp. 42 sqq., Paderborn 1885. — G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theol, Vol. II, pp. 461 sqq., Paris 1895. — Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogtnat., Vol. Ill, 3rd ed., pp. 32 sqq., Friburgi 1908. — Among the commentaries on Genesis we recommend especially those by Lamy, Hummelauer, and Hoberg. 10 Basing on Ecclus. XVIII, i: * Creavit omnia simul (icoivjj) — He created all things together,* Augustine contracts the six days of Creation into one day, nay, into one single moment of time, and interprets “evening” as referring to the cognitio vespertina of the Angels. 11 S, Theol., 1 a, qu. 74, art. 2. i2Cfr. Petavius, De Opere Sex Dierum, I, 5; Grassmann, Die Schopfungslehre des hi. Augustinus und Darwins, Ratisbon 1889. SECTION 2 THE HEXAEMERON IN ITS RELATION TO SCIENCE AND EXEGESIS

Article 1: The Mosaic Account of the Creation and Physical Science

THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE This subject properly belongs to higher apologetics or fundamental theology.1 In the present (purely dogmatic) treatise it will suffice to lay down certain leading principles which theologians and scientists must constantly keep before them in order to safeguard the sacred rights of revealed religion without trenching on the just claims of science. Thesis I: Nature and the Bible both tell the history of Creation, and consequently the assured results of scientific investigation can never contradict Holy Writ. Explanation. The Word of God, rightly interpreted, cannot clash with the firmly established conclusions of science, because both Sacred Scripture and science have God for their author. Any apparent contradiction l Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Qpfl: ffis Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, p. 7 sq. 103 between the two must be traceable either to some false and unproved claim on the part of science, or to an incorrect interpretation of Holy Writ. A thorough investigation of all the data involved usually lays bare the source of error. The Galilei controversy is a case in point.2 There can be no doubt that the various natural sciences — astronomy, geology, palaeontology, etc. — furnish, or at least are able to furnish, valuable aids to the exegete who undertakes to interpret the Mosaic cosmogony. The prudent theologian will not spurn these aids. On the contrary, the respect he owes to the Almighty Creator, whose vestiges these sciences seek to trace, will prompt him to welcome their co-operation and to pay due regard to whatever evidence they may have to offer. God has, as it were, set down an objective commentary on the Bible in the ” Book of Nature,” to which the theologian can and should devote most careful attention. All true scientists are after a fashion exegetes,8 and therefore friends, not enemies, of the theologians. Those among them who antagonize revealed religion,4 have deserted the solid ground of science for moors and fens in which they gleefully chase deceptive will-o’-the-wisps. Of course, Science has a perfect right to follow her own methods, and the fact that her representatives conduct their researches without constantly trying to square themselves with the Bible does not argue that they mistrust religion or despise Christianity. The history of the inductive sciences shows that in many cases an undue 2 The most recent and the best account of the Galilei case is that by Adolf Muller, S. J., in his two excellent volumes: Galileo Galilei and Der Galileiprozess (Freiburg 1909), which deserve to be translated into English. Cfr. also G. V. Leahy, Astronomical Essays, pp. 181 sqq., Boston 191 o; J. Gerard, S. J., The Church vs. Science, pp. 22 sqq., London 1907. 3 Some of them, like Cuvier, Linn6, Newton, Secchi, consciously; others, like Lyell, Kolliker, Virchow, unconsciously. 4£. g. Vogt, Buchner, Hackel. THE HEXAEMERON AND SCIENCE 105 regard for certain favorite interpretations of Scripture has misled science and bred false theories which it took ages to get rid of. We may instance the Copernican system,8 the debate between Neptunists and Plutonists,6 the problem of the geological deluge,7 etc. Unfortunately, too, there have always been over-zealous though perfectly well-intentioned theologians who were ready to add to the confusion by supplying ” theological arguments” for unproved and unprovable hypotheses. This explains the existence and animus of such works as J. W. Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science* Thesis II: The proper purpose of the Mosaic narrative is not scientific, but strictly religious; hence we must not seek astronomy, physics, geology, etc., in the Hexaemeron, but chiefly religious instruction. Explanation. The grounds for this proposition are quite evident. The Bible is not a text-book of science. Had it been written to teach a supernaturally revealed system of physics, chemistry, astronomy, or geology, it would be a sealed and unintelligible book, nay, it would have proved positively dangerous to the faith of the masses, because scientific views and terms are subject to constant change. Consequently, in order to accomplish its purpose, it was necessary that the Bible in matters of natural science should adopt the language of the common people, who derive their views of nature from external appearances. This popular idiom is ever 5 Cfr. G. V. Leahy, Astronomical Essays, pp. 45 sqq. 6 Cfr. A. M. Clerke, Modern Cosmogonies, London 1905. 7 Prestwich, On Certain Phenomena Belonging to the Close of the 8 Last Geological Period, New York 189s”. 8 New York 1889. A splendid antidote to this venomous book is Fr. Lorinser’s Das Buch dcr Natur, 7 vols., Ratisbon 1876-80. io6 DOGMATIC COSMOLOGY true, because it employs relative standards in the contemplation of nature, and remains forever intelligible to the masses, because it makes no claim to describe absolute facts. Even at the present day, despite the universal adoption of the Copernican system, certain popular modes of expression, based upon ocular observation of the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies, retain the geocentric color which they had in the days of Ptolemy. Even learned astronomers still speak of the summer and winter solstices, still refer to the sun as rising and setting, and so forth. ” We must remember,” says St. Thomas, “that Moses addressed himself to an uncultivated people, and, condescending to their ignorance, proposed to them only what was obvious to the senses.” 9 Moses’ chief purpose was to impress the Jews and the nations that were to come after them, with four fundamental truths, viz.: (i) The existence of one true God, Lord of heaven and earth; (2) the creation of all things out of nothing, which implied the falsity of the Egyptian animal and star worship no less than of and Pantheism; (3) the duty of keeping holy the Sabbath day, after the example of the divine Artificer, who created the universe in six days, and rested on the seventh;10 (4) that all the things which God made were originally good.11 We do not mean to say, of course, that the purely scientific portions of the Bible have no claim to divine authority, or to deny that they are absolutely infallible. As part of the Inspired Word they embody divine revelation. However, since the Hexaemeron is susceptible of many different explanations, and the infallible Church has never given an authentic interpretation of it, but, on the contrary, has 9 S. TheoU, 1a, qu. 68, art. 3. 11 * And God saw that it was 10 Cfr. Exod. XX, 8 sq. good.* Gen. I, 25. THE HEXAEMERON AND SCIENCE 107 granted full liberty to exegetes, Science is nowise hampered in her peculiar field of enquiry. St. Augustine went so far as to contend that the creation of the universe was simultaneous with its formation and that what Sacred Scripture calls six days was in reality but a single moment of time.12 Thesis III: The relationship between the Mosaic narrative and natural science may, in principle, be defined thus: The Hexaemeron constitutes a negative, but not a positive guiding principle for scientists. Explanation. By a positive guiding principle (norma positiva) we mean a rule, the conscientious observance of which guarantees the immediate possession of truth, while its non-observance entails error. Thus the multiplication table is a positive guiding principle in all mathematical calculations and in the affairs of everyday life. A negative guiding principle merely requires that, while enjoying the greatest possible latitude in a certain sphere, we avoid forming any conclusion which directly contradicts said principle. Thus the axiom of parallel lines is a negative guiding principle in geometry, because any proposition that runs counter to it must inevitably prove false. That the Mosaic Hexaemeron does not prescribe what route science must travel is plain from the fact that the true sense of Genesis I, 1 has never been defined either by the infallible teaching office of the Church or by scientific exegesis. Hence the Mosaic narrative is not a positive norm for the guidance of the 12 De Gen. ad Lit., IV, 22; De Civ. Dei, XI, 9. Supra, pp. 10 1 sq. Cfr. Fr. Schmid, De Inspirations Bibliorunt Vi et Ratione, Brix. 1895; P. Dausch, Die Schriftinspiration, Freiburg 1891; K, Holzhey, Die Inspiration der hi. Schrift in der Anschauung des Mittelalters von Karl dem Grossen bis sum Konzil von Trient, Miinchcn 1895; Chr. Pesch, De Inspiratione S. Scripturae, Friburgi 1906. io8 DOGMATIC COSMOLOGY naturalist. The very multiplicity of attempted interpretations which the Church has countenanced at various times, confirms this proposition. All that can justly be demanded, therefore, is that the scientist refrain from positively contradicting the Word of God, e. g., by defending such propositions as: ” Matter is eternal; ” ” Matter and energy are the sole principles of the universe; ” ” The world originated by mere chance,” and so forth. In all other matters, such as the nebular hypothesis,13 the evolution of species, etc., he may hold any conclusions that seem warranted. The exegete, on his part, is free to interpret the sacred text in accordance with the rules of hermeneutics and in harmony with each particular author’s peculiar style and with the context. Grammar, syntax, and the dictionary are quite as valuable scientific aids as the telescope, the microscope, and the testing tube. It will not do to impose the conclusions of physical science as a positive norm upon exegesis and to demand that the Hexaemeron be interpreted in accordance with constantly changing hypotheses. Modern exegetes, especially of the last half-century, have been justly charged with paying too much attention to science and too little to the Mosaic text. Though the scientists have an undeniable right to be heard,14 they have no authority to dictate how the Hexaemeron must be interpreted. All they can reasonably demand is that exegetes accept the established conclusions of science as a negative guiding principle and refrain from advocating as certain, or even probable, any theory that contradicts clearly ascertained facts.15 13 Cfr. Leahy, Astronomical Essays, pp. 231 sqq.; Clerke, Modern Cosmogonies, pp. 21 sqq. l* Supra, Thesis I. 15 Such are, for instance, the Restitution and the Deluge theories {v. infra, p. 112). On this question of principle cfr. Kaulen, ” Grundsatzliches zur kath. Schriftauslegung ” in the Lit, Handweiser, 1895, Nos. 4 and 5; and A. Schopfer, Bibel und Wissenschaft, Brixen 1896. THE HEXAEMERON AND SCIENCE 109 Thesis IV: Those theologians and scientists who deny that the so-called fossils or petrifactions are real remains of plants and animals, representing them as mere freaks of nature (lusus naturae), needlessly expose the Word of God to ridicule. Explanation. There have been and still are theologians who, in order to save the literal interpretation of the Mosaic narrative, regard the palaeontological finds in the lower strata of the earth as specially created products of divine omnipotence, rather than as real remains of primordial organisms. Nothing is so apt to excite ridicule on the part of infidels and indignation in the camp of educated Catholic laymen, as recourse to such pitiable hypotheses, which are altogether unworthy of a true theologian. To assume that the Creator leads truth-seeking man into invincible error, is to stamp Him a cruel deceiver, who makes it His business to lay annual rings around carbonized trees found standing erect in coal-mines, and to fashion in perfect detail large and small trilobites in siluric deposits — some of them even contain well-developed embryos — all mere lusus naturae! St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas vigorously protested against this curious way of ” reconciling ” faith and science. Noteworthy for all time is the principle which St. Augustine lays down in his famous treatise De Genesi ad Literam: “In rebus obscuris atque a nostris oculis remotissimis, si qua inde scripta etiam divina legerimus, quae possint salva fide, qua imbuimur, alias atque alias parere sententias, in nullam earum nos praecipiti a/firmatione ita proiiciamus, ut, si forte diligentius discussa Veritas earn rede labefactaverit, corruamus; non pro sententia divinarum Scripturarum, sed pro nostra no DOGMATIC COSMOLOGY ita dimicantes, ut earn velimus Scripturarum esse, quae nostra est, cum potius earn, quae Scripturarum est, nostrum esse velle debeamus” 16 With equal earnestness the Saint censures the stupidity of those who, in the mistaken interest of faith, provoke the sarcastic ridicule of learned infidels: ” Turpe est autem nimis et perniciosum ac maxime cavendum, ut Christianum de his rebus quasi secundum Christianas litteras loquentem ita delirare quilibet infidelis audiat, ut … risum tenere vix possit. Et non tarn molestum est, quod errans homo deridetur, sed quod auctores nostri ab Us, qui foris sunt, talia sensisse creduntur et cum magno eorum exitio, de quorum salute satagimus, tamquam indocti reprehenduntur atque respuuntur” 17 These sentiments of the greatest among the Fathers were shared and re-echoed by the most eminent of the Church’s theologians. (< Dicendum est,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, ” quod sicut Augustinus docet, in huiusmodi quaestionibus duo sunt observanda: primo quidem, ut Veritas Scripturae inconcusse teneatur; secundo, cum Scriptura divina multipliciter exponi possit, quod nulli expositioni aliquis ita praecise inhaereat, ut, si certd ratione constiterit hoc esse falsum, id nihilominus asserere praesumat, ne Scriptura ex hoc ab infidelibus derideatur et ne eis via credendi praecludatur” 18 St. Thomas rightly distinguishes between such Scriptural truths as appertain to the substance of faith, and such as are altogether secondary. “Si ergo circa mundi principium aliquid est, quod ad substantiam fidei pertinet, scil. mundum incepisse creatum, et hoc omnes Sancti concorditer dicunt. Quo autem modo et or dine f actus sit, non pertinet ad fidem nisi per accidens, inquantum in Scriptura traditur, cuius veritatem diversa 16 De Genesi ad Literom, I, 18, 17 Op. cit., I, 19, 39. 37. 18 5*. Theol., ia, qu. 68, art. x. THE HEXAEMERON AND SCIENCE in expositione Sancti salvantes diversa tradiderunt” 19 The Creator, when He established nature, also laid down the laws by which it is governed, hence we must not have recourse to miracles except where no natural explanation suffices: ” Scriptura in principio Genesis commemorat institutionem naturae, quae postmodum perseverat. Unde non debet dici, quod aliquid tunc factum fuerit, quod postmodum desierit” 20 And again: ” In prima institutione naturae non quaeritur miraculum, sed quid natura rerum habeat, ut Augustinus dicit.” 21 Thesis V: Since the true interpretation of the Hexaemeron with regard to the origin of the universe is uncertain, theologians and scientists are free to adopt whatever theory they prefer, provided only it be reasonable and moderate, and not evidently opposed to Scripture. Explanation. This is merely a corollary from the preceding theses. It is scarcely necessary to point out that scientists have vied with theologians in making liberal use of the privilege named. During the last half of the nineteenth century innumerable theories designed to harmonize science and the Bible have sprung up, and the end is not yet in sight. Most of these theories are 19 Comment, in Quatuor Libros Sent., II, dist. 12, art. 2. 20 S. TheoL, ia, qu. 68, art. 4. 21 Ibid, ad 3. Cfr. Aug., De Gen. ad Lit., II, 1. On the whole subject see Leo XIII’s admirable Encyclical ” Providentissimus Deus,” of Nov. 18, 1893, of which an English translation can be found in Seisenberger’s Practical Handbook for the Study of the Bible, pp. 159 sqq., New York 1911, and also in Archbishop Messmer’s translation of Briihl’s Bibelkunde (Outlines of Bible Knowledge, pp. 257 sqq., Freiburg and St. Louis 19 10). Cfr. also Zanecchia, Divina Inspiratio SS. Scripturarum ad Mentem Divi Thomae, Rome 1898; C. Chauvain, L’Inspiration des Divines Ecritures, Paris 1896; Chr. Pesch, De Inspiration Sacrae Scripturae, Friburgi 1906. tissues of more or less airy conjectures, and not a few evince a woeful lack of consistency. The Hexaemeron has become a playground where imagination runs amuck. The Church evidently apprehends no real contradiction between the Mosaic narrative and the established conclusions of science. Among the forty or fifty theories which have been thus far contrived, it is reasonable to assume that one or two can be used for exegetical purposes without straining the sacred text. The number and variety of these theories is so great that they cannot easily be grouped in logical categories. For the following rough classification we are indebted to Msgr. Gutberlet.22 1. The Verbal theory interprets ” day ” literally as a period of twenty-four hours. ” This,” says Suarez, ” is the more common opinion of the Fathers; … it is also favored by the Scholastics, though, on account of the authority of St. Augustine, they treat his divergent interpretation very modestly and with great reserve.” 28 To-day this theory is generally called the Deluge theory, for the reason that most of its modern defenders ascribe the origin of the geological strata and their organic deposits to a catastrophe caused by the Deluge.24 In this hypothesis the Hexaemeron would antedate the so-called geological epochs. It is now quite generally held that the creation and formation of the cosmos must have required millions of years, and the Verbal theory no longer has any eminent defenders. 2. The Restitution theory (held by Buckland, Wiseman, A. Wagner, Hengstenberg, Vosen, and others), 22 C. Gutberlet, Das Sechstage- 24 Thus Keil, Bosizio, Veith, Sovoerk, Frankfurt 1882. rignet, Laurent, Trissl. 23 Suarez, De Opere Sex Dierum, I, 11, 33 

THE HEXAfiMERON AND SCIENCE 113 assumes that the ante-diluvian flora and fauna antedates the chaos described in Genesis (tohu-vabohu) and was destroyed by a great catastrophe, following which God recreated the world, forming the present cosmos in the course of six natural days. According to this theory the Hexaemeron postdates the geological epochs. A. Westermayer 25 represents the chaos as the work of the fallen angels. Restitutionism was revamped by A. Stenzel, but it has now been quite generally abandoned in view of the fact that the undisturbed position of the fossils found in the lower strata of the earth makes it improbable that all living organisms were buried by a sudden catastrophe. To attribute such a catastrophe to the fallen angels almost verges on superstition. Stenzel, moreover, confused the tohu-vabohu with the Deluge. 3. The numerous Concordance theories seek to synchronize the successive geological periods with the “days” of the Hexaemeron. They place the Hexaemeron either between the different geological periods, or within them. Hence the names of u Interperiodism ” and ” Periodism.” 26 ” Interperiodism,” which is a rather obscure system, divides the Hexaemeron into six ordinary days of twenty-four hours each, separated by long intervening periods, which contain the millions of years demanded by geology. According to ” Periodism ” the six days of Genesis coincide with the geological periods, and the word ” day ” means an epoch or period of time. There is an older and a more recent Periodism. The former27 construes a strict parallelism between the six 25 Erschaffung der Welt und der periodism.” Cfr. v. Hummelauer, Menschen und deren Ceschichte bis Nochtnals der biblische Schopfungsnach der SUndflut, Schaffhausen bericht, p. 54, Freiburg 1898. 1 86 1. 27 It was held by Cuvier, Fraas, 26 The Deluge theory might anal- Pfaff, Hugh Miller, Guyot, Dana, ogously be called ’* Anteperiodism,” Pianciani, Dawson, etc. and the Restitution theory ” Postll4 DOGMATIC COSMOLOGY days of Creation on the one hand and six ” geological epochs ” on the other. Modern Periodism, seeing the impossibility of such a close parallelism, has adopted a more or less idealistic Concordism.28 Among recent champions of Periodism the following deserve to be mentioned: J. Brucker,29 F. Vigouroux,80 M. Seisenberger,31 and Bourdais.82 From this idealistic Concordism to pure Idealism is but one step.33 4. The Idealist theories disregard the chronological sequence of the different stages of Creation and interpret the first chapter of Genesis in a purely religious sense. This puts the Bible and science on different planes; there are no points of contact between them, and a conflict is therefore impossible. The Hexaemeron transcends the geological periods and has absolutely nothing to do with them. Let the exegete and the scientist each pursue his own way in peace ! ” Idealism,” says Hummelauer,84 ” does not interpret the six days as necessarily meaning six consecutive periods of time, but as six logically distinct, outstanding momenta of God’s creative activity, or as six divine ideas realized in Creation. Cannot the historian truly assert that the Romans subjugated Europe, Asia, and Africa? Or that Goethe wrote prose and poetry? Similarly the inspired writer describes for us how God created light and the firmament, land and sea, plants, stars, and animals.* 28 C. Guttler; cfr., however, this writer’s article * Hexaemeron ” in Herder’s Kirchenlexikon, Vol. V, col. 1980 sqq., Freiburg 1888. 20 Questions Actuelles d’Ecriture Sainte, Paris 1895. 80 Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris 1895 sqq. 31 Der biblische Schopfungsbericht, 2nd ed., Freising 1882. 82 ” Le Jour GSnisiaque,” in La Science Catholique, 1889, PP^ 550 sqq. 88 Compare, e. g., the first with the fourth edition of Reusch’s work Bibel und Natur (4th ed., Bonn 1876). ZiNochtnals der biblische Schdp’ fungsbericht, p. 73. THE HEXAEMERON AND SCIENCE 115 The simplest and most acceptable form of Idealism regards the Hexaemeron as a treatise arranged according to purely logical points of view, with its main emphasis upon the ” week,” and the seventh day as the Sabbath. Cfr. Exod. XXIII, 12: “Sex diebus operaberis, sep~ timo die cessabis — Six days thou shalt work: the seventh day thou shalt cease.” The divine week of creation is the model upon which man should pattern his week of labor, the divine Sabbath is the exemplar of his day of rest, which he is to consecrate to God. The introduction of the figure six is not arbitrary; nor is it due to chronological considerations; it is based upon the pragmatism of God’s creative activity, in which the number three of the work of distinction corresponds to a like number in the ornamentation of the universe. This hypothesis has the twofold advantage of safeguarding the historic character of the Hexaemeron and of avoiding a slavish Concordism. Science can find nothing objectionable in an account of the Creation which is arranged pragmatically rather than chronologically.36 Allegorism, Poetism, and Liturgism virtually destroy the historic character of the Hexaemeron, and it is not surprising, therefore, that they have met with small favor.36 5. The most widely discussed among the so-called Idealistic theories just now is the Vision theory advocated by Kurtz, Hummelauer, Hoberg, and others. It regards the six days of Creation as so many visions of Adam. In six living pictures or tableaux, symbolizing six natural days, there passed before the mental vision of our ecstatic progenitor the history of creation, which could 85 Thus Michelis, Baltzer, Reusch, theories may be mentioned: Stopand others. pani, Hauser, Clifford, and De 86 Among the advocates of these Gryse. n6 DOGMATIC COSMOLOGY be known to no one but God. The facts thus revealed to Adam were handed down by Primitive Tradition to Moses, who faithfully recorded them in the Book of Genesis. ” It can truly be said,” remarks Hummelauer, ” that the universe was created in six days, that is in a vision, like as the heroes of a drama engage in combat on the stage.” 87 This theory claims to eliminate even the possibility of a clash between Revelation and science. “The Vision theory,” to quote Hummelauer again, “meets all objections by pointing to the difference which must naturally exist between a vision of the creative act and that act itself. Science and the Bible do not deal with precisely the same object; a difference between them, therefore, does not necessarily argue contradiction.” 88 But what becomes of the historic character of the Mosaic narrative ? ” What is there to correspond to the six days of Adam’s vision ? Six ordinary days ? or six periods of time? or six logical momenta? — or nothing? ” 99 Here is the weak spot of the Vision theory. Hummelauer frankly advocates ” a theory of Vision sans phrase/’ and refuses to accept Periodism in any shape or form.40 But if there is no reality corresponding to the consecutive days of Adam’s vision, the division of time into six days of labor and one day of rest is based on a mere dream, and the Sabbath has no foundation in fact, despite the solemn declaration in Exodus XX, 1 1: “Sex enim diebus fecit Dominus coelum et terram et mare et omnia, quae in iis sunt, et requievit in die septimo; idcirco benedixit Dominus diei Sabbati et sane87 Nochmals der biblische Schopfungsbericht, p. 112. 88 Ibidem, pp. 113 sq. «»J. Kern, S. J., in the Zeitschrift fUr katholische Theologie, Innsbruck 1895, p. 730. 40 Nochmals der biblische Schdp fungsbericht, p. 123. THE HEXAEMERON AND EXEGESIS 117 tificavit eum — For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.” We must not forget that this revealed truth has been formally proclaimed a rule of human conduct: “Sex diebus operaberis, septimo die cessabis — Six days thou shalt work, the seventh day thou shalt cease” (Exod. XXIII, 12). Obviously the Creator instituted this particular order not because Adam had six visions, but because the universe was actually created in the course of six days. To deny the objective truth of this fact is to do violence to the sacred text. One might as consistently adopt the extreme Idealistic theories. Hence we cannot admit that moderate Concordism and moderate Idealism have lost their raison d’etre. The Vision theory, in our humble opinion, can be successfully defended only on the assumption that the six days of Adam’s vision are based on some kind of objective reality.41

Article 2: The Hexaemeron and Exegesis

THE HEXAEMERON AND EXEGESIS Exegetically those interpretations that deviate from the literal sense of the Mosaic narrative — we have in mind chiefly moderate Concordism and Idealism — can be justified only on the assumption that the Hebrew word Dfr does not 41 On this controversy the student schen Schopfungsbericht, Paderborn may profitably consult K. Holzhey, 1907; F. E. Gigot, Special IntroSchopfung, Bibel und Inspiration, duction to the Study of the Old Stuttgart 1902; N. Peters, Glau- Testament, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 142 ben und Wissen im erst en bibli- sqq.. New York 1903. n8 DOGMATIC COSMOLOGY necessarily mean an ordinary day of twenty-four hours, but may signify a longer period of time. i. Concordism and Idealism can claim the high authority of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, which every Catholic exegete has a perfect right to follow. We have already adverted to the fact that the eminent Bishop of Hippo regarded the whole week of the Hexaemeron as one single moment, and that St. Thomas approved of this interpretation. As the Church has never disowned the teaching of St. Augustine, it cannot fairly be claimed that ecclesiastical Tradition compels us to take the Hebrew D^ in the sense of an ordinary day of twenty-four hours. Origen and Athanasius anticipated the teaching of Augustine. While the Fathers and Scholastics generally preferred to adhere to the literal sense, they never condemned the Augustinian interpretation. St. Thomas says: “Moyses rudem populum de creatione mundi instruens per partes divisit, quae simul facta sunt. Gregorius vero … et alii Sancti ponunt ordinem temporis in distinctione rerum servatum; et haec quidem positio est communior, et magis consonare videtur litterae quantum ad superHciem; sed prior est rationabilior, et magis ab irrisione iniidelium sacram Scripturam defendens, quod valde observandum docet Augustinus,1 ut sic Scripturae iDe Gen. ad Lit., I, 19, 39. \ THE HEXAEMERON AND EXEGESIS 119 exponantur, quod ab iniidelibus non irrideantur; et haec opinio plus mihi placet” 2 Under these circumstances the all but universal consensus of the Fathers and Scholastics in favor of the literal interpretation of the Mosaic narrative has no binding force. 2. There are also intrinsic reasons for rejecting the literal interpretation of the word “day.” In the first place geology, palaeontology, and astronomy all maintain that the formation of the universe, including our own planet, cannot have taken place within the limits of one natural week. Palaeozoic coal, for example, mesozoic chalk, and the so-called tertiary formations postulate immense periods of time. It is to be noted, also, that the first three “days” of the Hexaemeron cannot have been solar days in the strict sense of the term, because the sun was not created until the fourth day. St. Augustine observes that it is practically impossible to define the exact nature of these ante-solar days.3 In another portion of his writings he says that it is highly improbable, not to say incredible, that the earth should have brought forth full-grown trees in fruitage within the short space of twenty-four hours. 2 Comment, in Quatuor Libros dies cuiusmodi sint, aut perdifficile Sent., II, dist. 12, qu. art. 2. nobis aut impossibile est cogitate, zDe Civit. Dei, XI, 6: ’ Qui quanto magis dicer e.’* 120 DOGMATIC COSMOLOGY A decisive argument for our contention is found in the fact that the word D^ is frequently employed by Sacred Scripture in a wider sense, to denote an indefinite period of time.4 In Gen. II, 4 the entire period of six days is referred to as “one day.” “Istae sunt generationes coeli et terrae, quando creata sunt in die (D^?) quo fecit Dominus Deus coelum et terram — These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth.” Ezech. VII, 7 we read: “Venit tempus, prope est dies occisionis — The time is come, the day of slaughter is near.” Here “time” and “day” are evidently synonymous. Amos VIII, 13 has this passage: “In die ilia deficient virgines — In that day [i. e., at that time] the fair virgins … shall faint.” “Day” as a synonym for “time” is also frequent in such Scriptural phrases as dies vanitatis (day of vanity),5 dies tribulationis (day of tribulation),6 dies peccatoris (the sinner’s day),7 dies frigoris (day of frost),8 etc. If Di* does not mean an ordinary ” day,” ” evening ” (vespera, l^JJ) and ” morning,” (mane, “IP3) must like4 St. Hilary already took notice 6 Eccles. VII, 16. of this. ” Diem frequenter signifi- 6 4 Kings XIX, 3. cari pro aetate cognovimus,” he 7 Ps. XXXVI, 13. says, ” ut ubi dies tot a est, illic 8 Nah. Ill, 17. omne vitae tempus ostensum sit/’ (I* Ps. LVt n. 2.) THE HEXAEMERON AND EXEGESIS 121 wise be capable of a figurative interpretation. Ereb etymologically means ” mixture, confusion.” It is analogously applied to matter in a chaotic state, i. e., awaiting formation. Boker, on the other hand, which originally means “opening” or “revelation,” may be interpreted as signifying the work of seven days reduced to perfect order. This distinction is at least as old as St. Augustine, who says: ” Cum dixit: ’ Facta est vespera/ materiam informem commemorat; cum autem dicit: ’ Factum est mane I speciem, quae ipsa operatione impressa est materiae/‘9 But why did Moses choose the term ” day ” to describe the periods of Creation? Why did he not employ some such word as Dpj or D^JJ, to indicate that he meant indefinite periods of time? The week of the Creation with its six periods crowned by the Creator’s day of repose — which was surely not an ordinary day, since it still continues — was intended to typify man’s week of labor which terminates with the Sabbath. Between a type and that which it figures there generally obtains a relation of real similarity, which by virtue of the laws of analogy justifies the use of the same concept and the same term.10 3. Nor does the assumption of the moderate Idealists, that the Hexaemeron must be regarded as history written from the pragmatic rather than the chronological point of view, necessarily run counter to the principles of sound Biblical hermeneutics. Secular historians often refer to something done on a certain day briefly as ” day ” (e. g., the day of Waterloo, or dies Alliensis for pugna 9 Op, Imperfect, de Gen., c. 15. 10 Cfr. Corluy, Spicil. DogmaticoBibl., t. I, pp. 163 sqq., Gand. 1884; Chr. Fesch, Praelect. Dogmat., t. Ill, ed. 3a, pp. 39 sqq., Friburgi 1908; Duilhe-Braig, Apologie des Christentums, pp. 178 sqq., Freiburg 1889. Alliensis). In like manner Holy Scripture sometimes employs the word ” day ” to describe some particular event (as, for instance, dies Madian,11 dies occisionis,12 dies Domini,13 dies magnus irae),1 irrespective of duration. Similarly, in the Book of Genesis ” day ” may mean act, work, operation, or performance, regardless of duration. The analogous terms ” evening ” and ” morning ” probably signify the completion of one and the beginning of another action, just as we sometimes speak of the evening of life or the dawn of a better future.15 Readings: — Kurtz, Bibel und Astronomie, Berlin 1847. — J. B. Pianciani, Erl’duterungen zur mosaischen Schopfungsgeschichte, Ratisbon 1853. — A Bosizio, Das Hexaemeron und die Geologie, Mainz 1865. — *F. H. Reusch, Bibel und Natur, 4th ed., Bonn 1876. — *Hummelauer, Der biblische Schopfungsbericht, Freiburg 1877. — *C. Guttler, Natur forschung und Bibel, Freiburg 1877. — F. E. Gigot, Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, I, pp. 142 sqq., 2nd ed., New York 1903. — F. Pfaff, Schopfungsgeschichte mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung des biblischen Sch’6pfungsberichtes, 2nd ed., Frankfurt 1877. — B. Schafer, Bibel und Wissenschaft, Minister 1881. — J. W. Dawson, The Origin of the World according to Revelation and Science, New York 1880. — F. N. Moigno, Les Splendeurs de la Foi, 3rd ed., 5 vols., Paris 1883. — A. Stoppani, Sulla Cosmo gonia Mosaica, Milano 1887. — De Gryse, De Hexa’emero secundum Caput Primum Geneseos ad 11 Is. IX, 4. 12 Ezech. VII, 7. 13 Joel I, 15. iApoc. VI, 17. 15 * Restat ergo,’ says St. Augustine (De Gen. contr. Manich., I, 14, 20), * ut intelligamus, in ipsa quidem mora temporis ipsas distinctiones operum sic [scil. dies] appellatas, vesperam, propter transactionem consumtnati operis, et mane propter inchoationem futuri operis: de similitudine scil. humanorum operum, quia plerumque a mane incipiunt et ad vesperam desinunt. Habent enim consuetude nem divinae Scripturae, de rebus humanis ad divinas res verba transferred’ Cfr. Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. II, pp. 461 sqq., Paris 1895; Reusch, Bibel und Natur, 4th ed., pp. 250 sqq., Bonn 1876; F. Kaulen, Der biblische Schopfungsbericht (Gen. 7, 1-2, 3) erklart, Freiburg 1902. THE HEXAEMERON AND EXEGESIS 123 Literam, Bruges 1889. — J. McCosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, New York 1890. — Mir y Noguera, La Creadon, Madrid 1890. — C. Guttler, Wissen und Glauben, 2nd ed., Miinchen 1904. — A. Trissl, Das biblische Sechstagewerk, 2nd ed., Ratisbon 1894. — W. D. Strappini, S. J., “What Were the Days of Genesis?” in the Month, Jan. 1881. — A. Stenzel, Weltschopfung, Sintfiut und Gott, Braunschweig 1894. — C. Braun, S. J., Kosmogonie vom Standpunkte christlicher Wissenschaft, 3rd ed., Minister 1905. — *A. Schopfer, Geschichte des Alten Testaments mit besonderer Rucksicht auf das Verhaltnis von Bibel und Wissenschaft, 5th ed., Brixen 1913. — Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, s. v. “Cosmogonie Mosaique,” Paris 1898.— F, v. Hummelauer, Noch einmal der biblische Schopfungsbericht, Freiburg 1898. — Zapletal, Der Schopfungsbericht der Genesis, Freiburg 1902. — P. Schanz, Apology, Vol. I, 4th ed., New York, s.a. — M. Seisenberger, Practical Handbook for the Study of the Bible (Engl. tr. by Buchanan), pp. 260 sqq., New York, 191 1. The older theologians, like Suarez, Billuart, Tournely, etc., treat the Hexaemeron, and Dogmatic Cosmology generally, under the title * De Opere Sex Dierum in connection with the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, ia, qu. 65-74.