For ourselves, therefore, we frankly avo_Geology and Revelation or, the Ancient History of the Earth, considered in the geological facts and revealed religion.

but little importance to the mere conjectures and speculations of

Geological writers; while we look with doubt and suspicion on many

plausible theories commonly enough adopted at the present day; and

while we consider that the discoveries of modern times, wonderful

though they are, have given rise to far more problems than they are

yet able to solve; yet we do fully assent to those general principles

which we have been attempting to develop and to illustrate in this

Volume. Absolutely metaphysical certainty we have not; but we have a

firm and rational conviction. We feel quite satisfied that the great

Creator of the Universe did not bring suddenly into existence the

withered remains and broken fragments of animals which had never lived;

that He did not stamp upon the massive rocks, buried in the profound

recesses of the earth, the impress of a luxuriant vegetation which had

never flourished; that He did not, in short, create under millions of

forms, the delusive appearances of things which had never been, and

scatter them through this world of ours in wild profusion, well knowing

that after many centuries they would come to light to bewilder human

reason, and to lead it into error. This conclusion, of course, we are

prepared to abandon if it should be found to clash with any certain

truth or with any demonstrated fact. But, in the mean lime, it seems

to us as well grounded and as fairly established as the conclusions

we are accustomed to accept without hesitation in the matter of other

sciences, and in the common business of life.

It is argued, however, that Geological theory is, in fact, at variance

with the very highest order of truth; with that truth which comes to

us on the authority of God Himself. The Bible tells us that the world

first came into existence about six or eight thousand years ago:

Geology, on the contrary, tells us that six or eight thousand years are

but as yesterday in the history of the revolutions through which our

Globe has passed. This is the argument to which we are now about to

address ourselves; and it well deserves our best attention, not only

from its intrinsic importance, but also from the interesting nature of

the discussion to which it has given rise.

In the first place, we fully admit that the extreme Antiquity of the

Earth is a necessary consequence of our theory. Setting out from the

present stage of the world’s existence, Geology carries us back from

epoch to epoch, through a long succession of ages, each extending over

many thousand years, until the mind is lost in the seeming infinity of

the past. It may be asked, perhaps, in what way Geology can testify to

the great length of each successive period in the history of the Globe.

A familiar example will furnish the most convenient reply to such a

question.

Let the reader call to mind what we have already explained about the

origin and formation of Coal; and then let him examine the structure

of the Carboniferous Rocks. In the great Coal-fields of Wales, for

instance, he will find, in a depth of 12,000 feet, from fifty to

a hundred distinct beds of coals, spread out one above another,

with intervening strata of clay several feet thick. Now each one of

these beds represents an ancient forest which must have grown up

and flourished and decayed; or else an immense and varied mass of

Drift-wood, transported from a distance by the action of moving water,

and deposited near the mouth of some great river. In either case a

considerable lapse of time would have been necessary for such an

accumulation of vegetable matter as would furnish the elements even of

a single seam of Coal. And, when that period came to an end, only one

little stage in the long series had been accomplished: one stratum of a

few feet had been laid down in that great Formation which was to reach

at length a height of more than two miles. A new condition of things

then ensued. This layer of vegetable matter, sunk below the waters, was

gradually covered over with a thick deposit of clay, which, in course

of time, was to emerge, and become dry land, and give birth to a second

forest, destined in its turn to wither and decay. Or, at least, when

the stratum of clay had been deposited, it was to be overlaid, in some

way or another, with a second layer of vegetable matter sufficient

for the production of a second bed of coal. And so this process must

have gone on, doubtless with many and long interruptions, for a hundred

times in succession.

Then it must be remembered that the Coal-bearing strata represent

but one of many periods, and that not the longest in the Geological

Calendar. Before the age of the Coal, England was for centuries at the

bottom of the sea, while the Old Red Sandstone was slowly spread out

over its existing surface. And after the age of the Coal, England was

again submerged, and gigantic Ichthyosaurs with their companions of the

deep, sported in the waters that rolled over her plains and covered

the tops of her mountains; and, when they had run their course, left

their remains buried in the clays of Oxfordshire and Warwickshire and

Dorsetshire.

Furthermore, the beds in which these monstrous reptiles are entombed

were overlaid by a stratum of calcareous ooze, now forming a solid

mass of Chalk Rock, often a thousand feet in thickness. This Chalk,

as we have seen, is nothing else than a vast accumulation of shells,

so minute that millions of them would fit together on the blade of a

small pen-knife, and hundreds of millions are carried about by every

carpenter in his waistcoat pocket. How many generations of animalcules

it took to pile up such an immense thickness of rock, by the action of

their vital powers, and how many ages were consumed in the process it

is beyond the reach of science to calculate, almost beyond the power

of imagination to conceive. And yet the Chalk itself was followed by

the various Formations of the Tertiary Age; while the last of these is

separated by the Drift and Boulder Clay from the superficial deposits

which correspond with the period of history, and which go by the name

of Recent.

This topic has been illustrated in a lively and striking manner by

Professor Huxley, in a Lecture delivered not long ago before the

working-men of Norwich. “At Cromer,” he says, “one of the most

charming spots on the coast of Norfolk, you will see the Boulder Clay

forming a vast mass, which lies upon the Chalk, and must consequently

have come into existence after it. Huge boulders of chalk are, in fact,

included in the clay, and have evidently been brought to the position

they now occupy by the same agency as that which has planted blocks of

syenite from Norway side by side with them.

“The Chalk, then, is certainly older than the Boulder Clay. If you ask

how much, I will again take you no further than the same spot upon

your own coasts for evidence. I have spoken of the Boulder Clay and

Drift as resting upon the Chalk. That is not strictly true. Interposed

between the Chalk and the Drift is a comparatively insignificant layer,

containing vegetable matter. But that layer tells a wonderful history.

It is full of stumps of trees standing as they grew. Fir-trees are

there with their cones, and hazel-bushes with their nuts; there stand

the stools of oak and yew trees, beeches and alders. Hence this stratum

is appropriately called the Forest-bed.

“It is obvious that the Chalk must have been upheaved and converted

into dry land before the timber trees could grow upon it. As the trunks

of some of these trees are from two to three feet in diameter, it is no

less clear that the dry land thus formed remained in the same condition

for long ages. And not only do the remains of stately oaks and

well-grown firs testify to the duration of this condition of things,

but additional evidence to the same effect is afforded by the abundant

remains of elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, and other great

wild beasts, which it has yielded to the zealous search of such men as

the Reverend Mr. Gunn.

“When you look at such a collection as he has formed, and bethink

you that these elephantine bones did veritably carry their owners

about, and these great grinders crunch in the dark woods of which the

Forest-bed is now the only trace, it is impossible not to feel that

they are as good evidence of the lapse of time as the annual rings of

the tree-stumps.

“Thus there is a writing upon the wall of cliffs at Cromer, and whoso

runs may read it. It tells us with an authority which cannot be

impeached, that the ancient bed of the Chalk sea was raised up and

remained dry land until it was covered with forest, stocked with the

great game whose spoils have rejoiced your Geologists. How long it

remained in that condition cannot be said; but the ‘whirligig of time

brought its revenges’ in those days as in these. That dry land, with

the bones and teeth of generations of long-lived elephants hidden away

among the gnarled roots and dry leaves of its ancient trees, sank

gradually to the bottom of the icy sea, which covered it with huge

masses of Drift and Boulder Clay. Sea-beasts, such as the walrus,

now restricted to the extreme north, paddled about where birds had

twittered among the topmost twigs of the fir-trees. How long this state

of things endured we know not, but at length it came to an end. The

upheaved glacial mud hardened into the soil of modern Norfolk. Forests

grew once more, the wolf and the beaver replaced the reindeer and the

elephant; and at length what we called the history of England, dawned.

“Thus evidence which cannot be rebutted, and which need not be

strengthened, though, if time permitted, I might indefinitely increase

its quantity, compels you to believe that the Earth from the time of

the Chalk to the present day, has been the theatre of a series of

changes as vast in their amount as they were slow in their progress.

The area on which we stand has been first sea and then land for at

least four alternations, and has remained in each of these conditions

for a period of great length.

“Nor have these wonderful metamorphoses of the sea into land, and of

land into sea, been confined to one corner of England. During the Chalk

Period not one of the present great physical features of the Globe was

in existence. Our great mountain ranges, Pyrenees, Alps, Himalayas,

Andes, have all been upheaved since the Chalk was deposited, and the

Cretaceous sea flowed over the sites of Sinai and Ararat.

“All this is certain, because rocks of Cretaceous or still later

date have shared in the elevatory movements which gave rise to these

mountain chains, and may be found perched up, in some cases, many

thousand feet high upon their flanks. And evidence of equal cogency

demonstrates that, though in Norfolk the Forest-bed rests directly upon

the Chalk, yet it does so, not because the period at which the forest

grew immediately followed that at which the Chalk was formed, but

because an immense lapse of time, represented elsewhere by thousands of

feet of rock, is not indicated at Cromer.

“I must ask you to believe that there is no less conclusive proof that

a still more prolonged succession of similar changes occurred before

the Chalk was deposited. Nor have we any reason to think that the first

term in the series of these changes is known. The oldest sea-beds

preserved to us are sands and mud and pebbles, the wear and tear of

rocks which were formed in still older oceans.”[105]

It is needless to pursue this subject further, or to seek for other

illustrations. We may reject Geology if we will: but if we put any

faith even in its main principles, we must believe that the Crust of

the Earth has passed through an indefinite series of revolutions,

during which the Stratified Rocks were slowly built up by the action of

natural causes. And it would be utterly ridiculous to suppose that the

history of these revolutions can be compressed into the narrow compass

of six thousand years.

Turning now to the other side of the question, we maintain that this

extreme Antiquity of the Earth, which we have learned from Geology,

is perfectly consistent with the historical narrative of the Bible.

The Bible, indeed, does fix the Chronology of the Human Race at a

comparatively recent period; but as for the Chronology of the World

itself, the Bible simply tells us that, “In the beginning God created

the Heavens and the Earth.” For all that appears to the contrary, this

Earth of ours may have been in existence for millions of years before

man was introduced upon the scene; and during that time may have been

peopled with those countless tribes of plants and animals which play

so important a part in the records of Geology. This view, which is not

only fully tolerated by the Church, but now largely supported by her

Divines and Commentators, we hope to bring home clearly to our readers

in the following pages; and thus to satisfy them that, as regards

the Antiquity of the Earth, the discoveries of Geology can offer no

prejudice to our religious belief.

At the outset it is of some importance to understand clearly the

nature of that system of Chronology which is gathered from the Bible.

Nowhere in the Sacred Text is the age of the human race explicitly set

forth. But various data are found scattered here and there through

the historical narrative, which afford us sufficient materials to

compute the years that elapsed from the Creation of Adam to the Birth

of Christ. Unfortunately, however, these data are in some respects

obscure, and in some respects uncertain. And thus it has come to pass

that many different systems of Chronology have come into vogue, even

amongst those who profess to be guided entirely by the authority of the

Bible.

The whole period may be conveniently divided into two parts;--from the

Creation of Adam to the Call of Abraham; and from the call of Abraham

to the Birth of Christ. As regards the latter interval, the difference

of opinion between Chronologists is not very substantial; the length

of the period may be roughly set down at about 2,000 years. But in the

computation of the former interval a very wide difference prevails,

arising from a diversity of reading in the earliest versions of the

Pentateuch.

The materials for the computation are derived from two genealogical

lists, one extending from Adam to Noah,[106] the other from Noah to

Abraham.[107] In these lists we have not only the direct line of

descent from father to son, extending through the whole period in

question, but, moreover, we have the age of each individual member of

the genealogy at the time when the next in succession was born. As,

for example:--“Adam lived _a hundred and thirty years, and begot a

son_ to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. And the

days of Adam, after he had begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and

he begot sons and daughters. And all the time that Adam lived came to

nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. Seth also lived _a hundred

and five years, and begot Enos_. And Seth lived, after he begot Enos,

eight hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. And all

the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died. And

Enos lived _ninety years, and begot Cainan:_”[108] and so on. Now it

is plain, according to this statement, that from the Creation of Adam

to the birth of Seth was a hundred and thirty years; to the birth of

Enos, a hundred and thirty, more a hundred and five years; to the

birth of Cainan, a hundred and thirty, more a hundred and five, more

ninety years. And in this way, following the genealogies of the Book

of Genesis, we may easily compute the time from the Creation of Adam

to the Birth of Abraham. Adding seventy-five years to this period, we

reach the epoch known as the Call of Abraham; for we are told that

“Abraham was seventy and five years old when he went forth from

Haran.”[109]

Now every one knows that when a long catalogue of names and numbers is

copied and recopied from age to age, errors are very likely to creep in

and be perpetuated. And so it has been in the present case. The three

earliest versions of the Pentateuch are the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and

the Septuagint: and between these three versions there is a very great

discrepancy with regard to the figures in question; so great, indeed,

as to make up, on the whole, a difference of 1500 years, or more, in

the age of the human race. In the table that appears on the following

page, for which we are mainly indebted to the work of a modern

writer,[110] this diversity of reading is set forth in a very simple

and intelligible form.

It is plain that of these three different versions, one only can

represent the true age of the human race when Abraham went forth, at

the command of God, from his country and his kindred and his father’s

house, to go into the land of Canaan: and at this distance of time,

it is impossible to determine with anything like certainty, which of

the three has the greatest claim on our acceptance. The Church has not

pronounced upon the subject; and the question is freely discussed among

Biblical scholars. But the details of this controversy have little to

do with our present argument. Enough it is for us to know that, from

the Creation of Adam to the Birth of Christ, cannot have been more than

six thousand years at the highest computation, nor much less than four

thousand at the lowest. Adding 1869 years of the Christian Era, the

present age of the Human Race according to the data of the Bible would

seem to lie between six and eight thousand years.

GENEALOGIES OF GENESIS.

LIST OF AGE OF EACH WHEN THE NEXT

PATRIARCHS. WAS BORN.

ACCORDING TO

Septuagint. Hebrew. Samaritan.

Adam, 230 130 130

Seth, 205 105 105

Enos, 190 90 90

Cainan, 170 70 70

Malaleel, 165 65 65

Jared, 162 162 62

Henoch, 165 65 65

Mathusala, 167 187 67

Lamech, 188 182 53

Noe, 500 500 500

Sem, 100 100 100

From the creation of Adam to the } ---- ---- ----

birth of Arphaxad, two years after } 2242 1656 1307

the Flood,[111] } ---- ---- ----

Arphaxad, 135 35 135

Cainan,[112] 130 -- --

Sale, 130 30 130

Heber, 134 34 134

Phaleg, 130 30 130

Reu, 132 32 132

Sarug, 130 30 130

Nachor, 79 29 79

Thare, 70 70 70

Abraham called by God, 75 75 75

---- ---- ----

From the Flood to the Call of } 1145 365 1015

Abraham, } ---- ---- ----

From the Creation of Adam to }

the Call of Abraham, } 3387 2021 2322

The Bible, then, does determine, though with some vagueness and

uncertainty, the age of the Human Race. We have now to consider

whether, in fixing the age of the Human Race, it fixes likewise the age

of the World itself. For this purpose we must turn our attention to the

first chapter of Genesis, in which is briefly set forth the origin and

early history of our Globe from the Creation of the Heavens and the

Earth in the beginning to the Creation of Man at the close of the Sixth

Day. If it should appear that these two events were comprised within a

very narrow limit of time, as is not unfrequently supposed, then indeed

the age of the world must agree pretty nearly with the age of the Human

Race. But if on the other hand, between these two events the Sacred

Record allows us to suppose an interval of indefinite length, then it

plainly follows that the age of the Human Race, as set forth in the

Bible Genealogies, can afford no evidence against the Antiquity of the

Earth. The question is thus brought within very narrow limits. We have

simply to take up the First Chapter of Genesis, and inquire whether or

no it is there conveyed that the Creation of Man, which is described

toward the close of the chapter, followed after the lapse of only a few

days upon the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth, which is recorded

in the first verse.

For many centuries this question received but little attention from

the readers of the Bible. It was commonly assumed that, as the various

events of the Creation are traced out in rapid succession by the

Inspired Writer, and strung together into one continuous narrative, so

did they follow one another, in reality, with a corresponding rapidity,

and in the same unbroken continuity. The progress of Physical Science

had not yet shown any necessity for supposing a lengthened period of

time to have elapsed between the Creation of the World and the Creation

of Man: nor was there anything in the narrative itself to suggest such

an idea. Thus it was generally taken for granted, almost without

discussion, that when God had created the Heavens and the Earth in the

beginning, He _at once_ set about the work of arranging and furnishing

the universe, and fitting it up for the use of man; that He distributed

this work over a period of six ordinary days, and at the close of the

sixth day, introduced our First Parents upon the scene: and that,

therefore, the beginning of the Human Race was but six days later than

the beginning of the World.

These notions about the history of the Creation continued to prevail

almost down to our own time. It is to be observed, however, that they

were not founded on a close and scientific examination of the Sacred

Text. The hypothesis of a long and eventful state of existence prior to

the Creation of Man may be said rather to have been overlooked, than

to have been rejected, by our Commentators. There was no good reasons

for entertaining such a speculation, and so they said nothing about

it. But now that the world is ringing with the wonderful discoveries

of Geology, which seem to point more and more clearly every day to

the extreme Antiquity of the Earth, it becomes an imperative duty to

examine once again with all diligence and care the Inspired narrative

of the Creation, and to consider well the relation in which it stands

with this new dogma of Physical Science.

We are not the first to enter upon the inquiry. Already it has engaged

the attention and stimulated the industry of Theological writers

for more than half a century. Many eminent men, distinguished alike

for their extensive acquirements and for their religious zeal, have

protested warmly against the opinion of Geologists, concerning the

Antiquity of the Earth, as one that cannot be reconciled with the

historical accuracy of the Bible. But, on the other hand, there are

writers no less illustrious, and no less sincerely attached to the

cause of religion, who contend that there is nothing in the Sacred

Text to exclude the supposition of a long and indefinite interval--an

interval if necessary of many millions of years--between the first

creation of matter and the creation of man. Thirty years ago this

opinion was defended by Cardinal Wiseman with great learning, and

with great felicity of illustration, in his famous Lectures on the

Connection between Science and Revealed Religion. The eminent Roman

Jesuit, Father Perrone, has followed the same line of argument in his

Prælectiones Theologicæ, which, as every one knows, has long since

become a classic work in schools of Theology. It has been yet more

fully discussed, and supported by more elaborate reasoning, in a work

entitled Cosmogonia Naturale Comparata col Genesi, lately published in

Rome at the press of the Civiltà Cattolica, by another distinguished

Jesuit, John Baptist Pianciani. Amongst Protestant writers, too, this

view of the Mosaic narrative has found no inconsiderable number of able

advocates. It is defended by Doctor Buckland, the eminent Geologist,

in his celebrated Bridgewater Treatise, by Doctor Chalmers in his

Evidences of the Christian Revelation, by Doctor Pye Smith in his

dissertations on Geology and Scripture, by the eloquent and original

Hugh Miller in his interesting work on the Testimony of the Rocks; and

by a host of others scarcely less distinguished than these.

But these learned writers are not altogether of one accord as to the

precise point in the First Chapter of Genesis, at which we may suppose

a long interval of time to have intervened. Some, with Doctor Buckland,

Doctor Pye Smith, and Doctor Chalmers, consider that this interval may

best be introduced between the beginning of all time, when God created

the Heavens and the Earth, and the beginning of the First Day, when

He set about preparing the world as a dwelling-place for man. Sacred

Scripture, they say, simply records these two events, (1) that “In

the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth,” and (2) that,

at some subsequent time, “God said: Let there be light: and light

was made.” But Sacred Scripture does not tell us what length of time

elapsed between these two great acts of Divine Omnipotence. For aught

we know from Revelation, it may have been but a single day, or it may

have been a million of years. Others again, as for instance Pianciani,

prefer to suppose that each one of the Six Days may have been itself a

period of indefinite, nay of almost inconceivable duration. So that,

between the beginning of the world and the creation of man six great

ages of the Earth’s history may have rolled by, each one distinguished

by a new manifestation of God’s power, and the introduction of new

forms of life. These writers even fancy that they can discover a close

analogy between the successive acts of creation recorded in Genesis,

and the gradual development of organic life exhibited in the great

Epochs of Geology.

To us it seems that either one or the other of these two systems, or

both together, may be fairly admitted without any undue violence to the

text of the Inspired narrative: and this, we would observe in passing,

is the opinion to which Cardinal Wiseman appears to have inclined,

thirty years ago, in his Lectures on the Connection between Science and

Religion. We maintain, then, in the first place, that there is nothing

in the Mosaic narrative, when carefully examined, at variance with the

hypothesis of an indefinite interval between the creation of the world

and the work of the Six Days. And, in the second place, we contend that

it is quite consistent with the usage of Sacred Scripture to explain

these Days of Creation as long periods of time.

* * * * *

It may appear, perhaps, to some of our readers that this is dangerous

ground on which we are about to venture. They may have been accustomed

all their lives to view the history of Creation through the medium

of those notions that commonly prevailed before the discoveries of

Geology: and from the influence of long association they may have

come, in the end, to regard their own interpretation with scarcely less

veneration than the Inspired Text itself. Such persons will naturally

be disposed to look upon our undertaking with disfavor and suspicion.

They will think us guilty of irreverence toward Holy Scripture when

we seek to modify our views about its meaning, in deference to the

conclusions of Physical Science; and they may be tempted even to charge

us with putting the idle interpretations of men into the balance

against the Inspired Word of God.

To this line of objection we would answer, that we cannot be guilty of

irreverence to the Holy Scripture, when we are only striving, with due

submission to the authority of the Church, to discover the true meaning

of an obscure and difficult passage, on which the Church has pronounced

no definite judgment. Nor can we be said to make light of the Word

of God, when we are but attempting to defend its unerring veracity

from the assaults of infidel writers. Furthermore we would add, that,

if it is a dangerous thing to modify the received interpretation of

certain parts of Scripture, when the progress of science enables us to

see physical phenomena under a new light, it is a far more dangerous

thing to persist in imputing to Scripture a doctrine that, in a very

short time, may be proved to be false, beyond the possibility of

contradiction.

These sentiments are not altogether our own. They have come to us, in

great part, from an illustrious Doctor of the Church; and we are glad,

at this early stage of our discussion, to be able to shelter our humble

efforts under the authority of his venerable name. It is now more than

fourteen centuries and a half since Saint Augustine set about the

literal interpretation of Genesis, which he accomplished in a Treatise

of twelve books. Toward the close of the first book he expatiates at

some length on the difficulty of his undertaking, and on the variety of

diverse interpretations, which prevailed even in his time. From this

he takes occasion to warn his readers that, “if we find anything in

Divine Scripture that may be variously explained without any injury to

faith, we should not rush headlong by positive assertion either to one

opinion or the other; lest, if perchance the opinion we have adopted

should afterward turn out to be false, our faith should fall with it;

and we should be found contending, not so much for the doctrine of the

Sacred Scriptures as for our own; endeavoring to make our doctrine

to be that of the Scriptures, instead of taking the doctrine of the

Scriptures to be ours.”[113] And a little further on he again exposes

the imprudence of such a proceeding, in words that cannot but be

considered peculiarly applicable to our present subject:--

“It often happens that one who is not a Christian hath some knowledge

derived from the clearest arguments or from the evidence of his senses

about the earth, about the heavens, about the other elements of this

world, about the movements and revolutions, or about the size and

distances of the stars, about certain eclipses of the sun and moon,

about the course of the years and the seasons, about the nature of

animals, plants, and minerals, and about other things of a like kind.

Now it is an unseemly and mischievous thing, and greatly to be avoided,

that a Christian man speaking on such matters, as if according to the

authority of Christian Scripture, should talk so foolishly that the

unbeliever, on hearing him, and observing the extravagance of his

error, should hardly be able to refrain from laughing. And the great

mischief is, not so much that the man himself is laughed at for his

errors, but that our authors are believed by people without the Church

to have taught such things, and so are condemned as unlearned, and

cast aside, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we are so

much concerned. For, when they find one belonging to the Christian

body falling into error on a subject with which they themselves are

thoroughly conversant, and when they see him, moreover, enforcing

his groundless opinion by the authority of our Sacred Books, how are

they likely to put trust in these Books about the resurrection of the

dead, and the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, having

already come to regard them as fallacious about those things they had

themselves learned from observation or from unquestionable evidence?

And, indeed, it were not easy to tell what trouble and sorrow some

rash and presumptuous men bring upon their prudent brethren, who, when

they are charged with a perverse and false opinion by those who do

not accept the authority of our Books, attempt to put forward these

same Holy Books in defence of that which they have lightly and falsely

asserted; sometimes even quoting from memory what they think will suit

their purpose, and putting forth many words, without well understanding

either what they say, or what they are talking about.”[114]

And many ages after, Saint Thomas, the great luminary of the schools,

appeals to this wise admonition of Saint Augustine, and applies it

to the circumstances of his own times. Writing about the work of

the Second Day, he says that “in questions of this sort there are

two things to be observed. First, that the truth of Scripture be

inviolably maintained. Secondly, since Scripture doth admit of diverse

interpretations, that we must not cling to any particular exposition

with such pertinacity, that if what we supposed to be the teaching of

Scripture should afterward turn out to be clearly false, we should

nevertheless still presume to put it forward; lest thereby we should

expose the Inspired Word of God to the derision of unbelievers, and

shut them out from the way of salvation.”[115]

Under the sanction of two such illustrious Saints and Doctors we

need not hesitate to proceed in our attempt to reconcile the Inspired

narrative of the Creation with the doctrine of the Antiquity of the

Earth, as set forth by the advocates of Geology. Let it be remembered,

however, that we do not undertake to prove the extreme Antiquity of

the Earth from the language of Scripture; but simply to show that

the language of Scripture leaves the Antiquity of the Earth an open

question. The Geologist holds that this Globe of ours has been in

existence for hundreds of thousands, perhaps for millions of years; and

our object is to show that, while maintaining this opinion, he may,

nevertheless, accept the historical truth of the Bible narrative.

As before explained, two points arise for discussion: first, can we

suppose an interval of indefinite length to have elapsed between the

Creation of the World, and the work of the Six Days? and secondly, is

it lawful to explain these Days in the sense of long periods? We shall

take these two questions in succession, dealing with each upon its own

merits; and if we fail to enforce conviction, we hope, at least, to

vindicate our right to toleration.

[Illustration]

CHAPTER XIX.

FIRST HYPOTHESIS;--AN INTERVAL OF INDEFINITE DURATION BETWEEN THE

CREATION OF THE WORLD AND THE FIRST MOSAIC DAY.

_The heavens and the earth were created before the first Mosaic

day--Objection from Exodus, xx. 9-11--Answer--Interpretation of

the author supported by the best commentators--Confirmed by the

Hebrew text--The early fathers commonly held the existence of

created matter prior to the work of the Six Days--Saint Basil,

Saint Chrysostom, Saint Ambrose, Venerable Bede--The most

eminent doctors in the schools concurred in this opinion--Peter

Lombard, Hugh of Saint Victor, Saint Thomas--Also commentators

and theologians--Perrerius, Petavius--Distinguished names

on the other side, A Lapide, Tostatus, Saint Augustine--The

opinion is at least not at variance with the voice of

tradition--This period of created existence may have been of

indefinite length--And the earth may have been furnished then

as now with countless tribes of plants and animals--Objections

to this hypothesis proposed and explained._

The opening verses of the Mosaic history may be rendered thus literally

from the Hebrew Text:--

(1) “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

(2) “And the Earth was waste and empty; and darkness was upon the face

of the deep; and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

(3) “And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.

(4) “And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided the light

from the darkness.

(5) “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

And the evening was, and the morning was, the first day.”

Now it appears to us that the great event with which this narrative

begins, the creation of the Heavens and the Earth, is not represented

as a part of the work that was accomplished within the Six Days. It

is not said that _on the first day_ God created the Heavens and the

Earth, but _in the beginning_. Besides, the Sacred writer, uniformly

throughout the chapter, employs one and the same peculiar phrase to

introduce the work of each successive day. In describing the operations

of God on the second day, he begins: “_And God said_, Let there be a

firmament in the midst of the waters:” on the third day, “_And God

said_, Let the waters that are under the Heavens be gathered together

into one place:” on the fourth, “_And God said_, Let there be lights

in the firmament of the Heavens to divide the day from the night:” on

the fifth, “_And God said_, Let the waters bring forth the creeping

thing having life:” on the sixth, “_And God said_, Let the earth bring

forth the living creature after its kind.” Hence, when we meet this

same phrase for the first time in the third verse, “_And God said_,

Let there be light,” we may reasonably suppose that the work of the

first day began with the decree which is set forth in these words. If

so it plainly follows that we may allow the existence of created matter

before that particular epoch of time which, in the language of Moses,

is styled the First Day: for, before the creation of light, the Heavens

and the Earth were already in existence, and the Earth was waste and

empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of

God moved upon the face of the waters.

An objection is sometimes raised from the words of God in the

promulgation of the third commandment:--“Six days shalt thou labor

and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord

thy God; thou shalt do no work on it.... For _in six days the Lord

made the Heavens and the Earth_ and the sea, and all that is in them,

and resteth the seventh day.”[116] It is argued that the creation of

the Heavens and the Earth is here set forth as a part of the work

accomplished within the Six Days; which is directly against our

opinion. This difficulty would be simply insurmountable, if it could be

proved that the text refers to that _first act of creation_ by which

the Heavens and the Earth were brought into existence out of nothing.

We think, however, that the phrase may fairly be understood to mean,

in six days the Lord _fashioned_ the Heavens and the Earth; that is to

say, gave to them that form and shape and outward character which they

now possess. In this sense the words would apply, not to the first act

of creation out of nothing, but rather to that subsequent series of

operations by which the Earth was fitted up and furnished for the use

of man.

And this interpretation is supported by the authority of our best

Commentators. Perrerius formally discusses the point, and maintains

that God may truly be said to have made the Heavens and the Earth in

Six Days, although the Heavens and the Earth, as far as regards their

substantial matter, had been created before the First Day: for it was

only within the Six Days that they were adorned and completed and

perfected. Tostatus is not less explicit. In this passage, he says, the

word _made_ is very properly employed; for the Heavens and the Earth

which are here referred to, and the other things that are included

under this general designation, were all _made from matter already

existing_, but this matter itself was not _made_, it was _created_.

Petavius also adopts this view in his remarks upon the fourth verse of

the second chapter of Genesis.[117]

We may add that this mode of explaining the passage receives no small

support from the Hebrew text. When it is said, in the first chapter

of Genesis, that “In the beginning God _created_ the Heavens and the

Earth,” the word used by the Sacred writer is ‏ברא (_Bara_), which

strictly means to create out of nothing; whereas, in describing the

operations of the Six Days, he commonly uses the word עשה (_Hasah_),

which means to _form_ and _fashion_, or to produce something out of

pre-existing materials.[118] Now, in the text of Exodus we find the

word עשה (_Hasah_), to _fashion_ or _produce_, and not the word ברא

(_Bara_), to _create_. We do not want to insist very rigorously upon

this distinction between the two words ברא (_Bara_) and עשה (_Hasah_),

nor would we deny that they are sometimes interchanged as regards their

meaning. We think they are related to one another pretty nearly as the

corresponding words to _create_ and to _make_ in English, and we know

that the distinction between these two words is not always strictly

observed. Thus, we sometimes say that God _made_ the world, meaning

that he brought it forth from nothing, and we speak of the _creation_

of peers; and Shakspeare says:--

“Now is the time of help; your eye in Scotland

Would _create_ soldiers, make our women fight

To doff their dire distresses.”--_Macbeth_, Act iv., Sc. iii.

Nevertheless, when we compare two such passages as these:--“In the

beginning God _created_ the Heavens and the Earth,” and “In Six Days

the Lord _made_ the Heavens and the Earth and the sea, and all that in

them is,” we think the studied contrast of expression is a fair ground

for supposing that, while the one refers to the Divine decree by which

matter was first brought into existence out of nothing, the other may

be understood of those subsequent operations by which it received its

present form and shape.

We see no difficulty, then, as far as the Sacred Text is concerned,

in supposing a condition of created existence prior to the period of

the Six Days. But since this opinion is the foundation on which our

whole argument rests, we should wish to show, moreover, even at the

risk of being tedious, that it has been put forward and defended by

the most eminent writers in every age of the Church. Amongst the early

Fathers, Saint Basil reasons after this manner when commenting upon the

passage, “There was evening and there was morning the first day:”--“The

evening is the common term of day and night; and, in like manner, the

morning is the point of union between night and day. Wherefore, in

order to signify that to the day belonged the prerogative of being the

first begotten, the sacred writer first commemorates the close of day,

and afterward the close of night; implying thereby that _the day was

followed by the night_. As to the condition of the world _before the

formation of light_, that is not called Night, but simply Darkness;

whereas that period which is distinguished from day and opposed to it,

is called night.”[119] This great Doctor, therefore, teaches that the

First Day began with a period of light which is called day, and ended

with a period of darkness which is called night; and he recognizes a

previous state of existence which was no part of the First Day. So,

too, Saint Chrysostom, in his third Homily upon Genesis, lays down that

the Earth was first created a rude and shapeless mass, without form or

ornament; that _afterward_ light was made, and that, _with the creation

of light, the First Day began_.[120]

In the Western Church, Saint Ambrose adopts the same line of

interpretation. He sets forth that God first created the world, in the

beginning; and afterward during the Six Days furnished and adorned it;

just as a skilful workman first lays the foundation of a building,

and afterward raises the superstructure, and superadds the ornament.

And elsewhere, he says that, when the voice of God went forth, “Let

light be made,” in the same moment the First Day began. It follows,

therefore, that the world existed before the beginning of the First

Day. In another place he gives a new turn to the same idea, telling

us that in the beginning God made the world; and with the world, time

began. But not with time did the First Day begin: for the First Day is

not the beginning of time, it is rather an epoch of time.[121]

Passing on to the middle ages, we find our view supported by the

authority of Venerable Bede, in several parts of his writings. His

notion is that, during the Six Days, God formed and fashioned the

world out of shapeless matter; but, before the Six Days began, He

had made this shapeless matter itself out of nothing. “Two things,”

he says, “did God make before all days, the angelical nature, and

shapeless matter.” And again, he dresses up this opinion in the form

of a dialogue:--“_Disciple._ Tell me the order in which things were

made throughout the Six Days? _Master._ First, in the very beginning

of created existence, were made heaven and earth, the angels, air, and

water. _Disciple._ Continue the order of creation? _Master. In the

beginning of the First Day_ light was made; on the second was made the

firmament,” etc.[122] Nothing can be more plain than the distinction

here set up between the beginning of all time, when the Heavens and the

Earth were made, and the beginning of the First Day, when light was

made.

And when we come to still more recent times, we find this

interpretation was taken up and defended by the great masters in the

schools of Theology. Peter Lombard, the famous Magister Sententiarum,

referring to the first verse of Genesis, says that “in the beginning

God created Heaven, which means the Angels, and the Earth, which means

confused and unshapely matter, the same that is called Chaos by the

Greeks; _and this was before any day_.” Not less clearly speaks out

Hugh of Saint Victor, who for his profound and varied erudition, was

called the second Augustine. In explaining the history of the Six Days,

he says: “The first of the Divine operations was the creation of light.

But the light was not then created from nothing, it was formed from

pre-existing matter. This was the work that was accomplished on the

First Day: but the material of this work had been created _before the

First Day_. Directly with the light the day began; for before the light

it was neither night or day, though time already existed.”[123]

Later still, St. Thomas himself clearly leans to this view when he

says: “It is better to maintain that the creation was before any day.”

And Perrerius, the most learned, perhaps, of all our commentators

on Genesis, argues with us that the world was created before the

production of light, and before the commencement of the First Day. Nay,

he adds that he cannot tell how long that primeval state of existence

may have endured before the Six Days began; nor does he think it can

be known except by a special revelation. Petavius, too, is with us.

He does not indeed accept our interpretation of the first verse. When

it is said, “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth,”

he holds that these words do not describe any one particular act of

God, but represent, as it were in a brief summary, the whole work

of creation. Thus we are informed, at the outset, that the Heavens

and the Earth as we see them now are the work of God; and afterward,

the various parts that make up this great whole are described, and

the order in which they were accomplished is set forth. According to

Petavius, then, the creation of the Heavens and the Earth, recorded in

the first verse, was not a distinct act from the operations of the Six

Days, but rather includes them all. Nevertheless, he maintains, as we

do, that the earth, at least, and water, were in existence before the

creation of light; and that, therefore, some period of time must have

elapsed before the beginning of the Six Days. Furthermore, he says in

the same spirit as Perrerius, that it is beyond our power to conjecture

how long that period may have lasted.[124]

Our opinion, then, is not open, in the slightest degree, to the

imputation of novelty or singularity. On the contrary, it would seem

rather to reflect the prevailing tradition of the Church. We think

it right, however, to add that there are great names against us. A

Lapide, for instance, who considers that the Heavens and the Earth

were created at the beginning of the First Day.[125] And Tostatus, who

incidentally notices our view, and contents himself with saying that it

is unreasonable. For himself he seems to waver between two opinions. He

thinks the primeval darkness, described in the second verse, may have

been the night belonging to the First Day; and that during that night,

which probably lasted about twelve hours, we may suppose the Heavens

and the Earth to have been created. Or else, he says, we may allow that

the First Day of the Mosaic narrative began with the creation of light;

but in that case we must hold that the Heavens and the Earth were

created at the same time with light.[126]

Saint Augustine, too, we must reluctantly give up; or, at least, we

must be content to regard him as neutral. If he is not a decided

opponent, he is certainly not a consistent advocate, of our opinion.

No doubt he is often quoted in its favor; and it would be easy to

select passages from his works which seem to enforce it in the plainest

terms. As for example: “In the beginning, O my God, _before any day_,

Thou didst make the Heavens and the Earth.”[127] But, in truth, this

opinion is utterly irreconcilable with the well known and very singular

teaching of Saint Augustine concerning the creation of the world.

He held that all the great works recounted in the first chapter of

Genesis were, in fact, accomplished in a single instant. There was no

real succession, according to him, in the order of time, between the

production of the Heavens and the Earth, of light and the firmament,

of the sun, moon, and stars, of plants, trees, and animals. In one and

the same instant of time all these came into existence together. As to

the description given by Moses, it is accommodated to the capacity of

a rude people; and the succession there set forth is intended only to

exhibit the several parts of a great whole, in the manner best suited

to the conceptions of human intelligence.[128]

This view of the creation is repeated again and again by Saint

Augustine in his numerous works upon Genesis, and illustrated in

diverse ways, so as to leave no doubt that he held it deliberately

and persistently. With regard to such passages as that quoted above,

in which he says that God created the Heavens and the Earth _before

any day_, it may be maintained that Saint Augustine was not always

consistent with himself, and that he held different opinions at

different times; or even that he put forward opposite opinions at the

same time, not setting them forth as true, but only as possible and

legitimate.[129]

We think, however, that his consistency, in this case at least, can be

defended, and that he has himself sufficiently explained in what sense

he wished these passages to be understood. He tells us that we must

distinguish two kinds of succession: succession in the order of time,

and succession in the order of our conceptions. Thus, for example,

in the order of time there is no succession between the sound of the

voice in singing and the musical note that is sung: the sound is, in

fact, the note, and the note is the sound. But in the order of our

conceptions we first apprehend a thing according to its substance, and

then according to its qualities. We first conceive the sound itself, as

a sound, and then we conceive it as having that peculiar quality which

makes it a musical note. Such as this is the succession Saint Augustine

seems to admit in the order of the creation. He tells us, no doubt,

that God first created shapeless matter, and afterward gave to it form

and beauty: and certainly this statement, if standing alone, would,

according to the ordinary use of language, imply a real succession

in the order of time. But then, a little further on, he expressly

repudiates the idea of a succession in point of time, and says that

the priority he ascribes to shapeless matter is only a priority in

the order of our conceptions. We must first conceive matter to exist

before we can conceive it to have this or that particular form; and the

Inspired Writer follows the order of our conceptions, in order to adapt

his narrative to the mental feebleness of our present condition.[130]

With the truth or falsehood of these views we are not concerned just

now. We have dwelt upon them rather from an honest desire of showing

that Saint Augustine is not so clearly on our side in this question,

as might be supposed from some isolated passages of his writings. He

says indeed that the world was created before light, and before the

beginning of the First Day; but then again he tells us that this is

only a way of speaking, and that, in reality, all things were created

together.

But although these high authorities--A Lapide, Tostatus, Saint

Augustine--and some others less illustrious than these, are unfavorable

to our interpretation, we think it is supported by a preponderance of

the best interpreters, both in ancient and modern times. At all events,

with such an array of venerable names as we have been able to bring

forward in its behalf,--and they are but a few chosen out of many,--no

one can deny that we are fairly entitled to hold it without any note of

censure, without any suspicion of Theological error. Setting out, then,

from this point, that there was a state of created existence prior to

the Six Days of the Mosaic history, the question naturally arises, how

long did that state of existence endure? Was it for an hour? a day?

a week? a month? a century? a million of years? We cannot tell. To

these questions the Sacred Text gives no reply. It simply records that

in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, and that, at

some subsequent epoch of time, His decree again went forth, Let there

be light, and light there was. One thing, however, is plain, that, if

this period existed at all, it might just as well have lasted a hundred

millions of years as a hundred seconds. It would be folly to attempt to

measure the succession of God’s acts, when he does please to produce

effects in succession, according to our petty standards of time. “One

day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one

day.”[131]

And it is not a little remarkable that, long before the discoveries of

Geology had suggested any necessity for allowing the lapse of many ages

between the first creation of the world and the creation of man, the

sagacity of our commentators led them to observe that the duration of

this interval is left undefined in the Sacred Record. “How long that

interval may have lasted,” says Petavius, “it is absolutely impossible

to conjecture.” And Perrerius, as we have seen, declared that it

could not be known except by a special revelation. And five centuries

earlier, at the very dawn of Scholastic Theology, Hugh of Saint Victor

raised the same question, and expressed his opinion that it could not

be solved from Scripture. Citing the passage, In the beginning God

created the Heavens and the Earth, he says, “From these words it is

plain that in the beginning of time, or rather with time itself, the

original matter of all things came into existence. But how long it

remained in this confused and unshapely condition the Scripture clearly

does not tell us.”[132]

We may go further still. If we are at liberty to admit an interval of

indefinite length between the creation of the world and the work of the

Six Days, there is certainly nothing which forbids us to suppose that,

during this period, the earth should have undergone many revolutions,

and have been peopled by countless tribes of plants and animals, which,

as age rolled on after age, came into existence, and died out, and

were succeeded by new creations. We cannot, perhaps, see the use of

all this, nor can we penetrate the motives the Great Creator might

have had in bringing into existence such a boundless profusion of

organic life. Granted: but then we have studied the Sacred Text to

little purpose if we have not yet realized the solemn truth that, to

our poor and feeble intellects, His judgments are incomprehensible,

and his ways unsearchable. Did He not set His stars in the remotest

regions of space, far beyond the reach of unaided human vision, and did

they not shine there for ages, though man could see them not? And for

ages, too, did not the wild flowers spring up, and bloom, and decay, in

many a fair and favored spot of this beautiful Earth, where there was

none to admire their splendor, none to inhale their sweetness? Then

again, look at that marvellous kingdom of minute animalcules, in number

almost infinite, which only within the last few years the microscope

has revealed to our wondering eyes. They swarm around us in the air,

in the earth, in the water. Millions of them would fit in the hollow

of your hand; many hundreds might swim side by side, without crowding,

through the eye of a cambric needle. And they too, we can hardly doubt,

must have flourished for centuries in countless myriads, unseen and

unknown by man. It is impossible for us, in our present imperfect

state, to understand the motives of an All-wise Creator in this profuse

expenditure of his goodness, this lavish display of His power. How

then can we presume to say that He may not have good reasons, though

inscrutable to us, for peopling this Earth with many tribes of plants

and animals, through a long cycle of ages, before it pleased Him to fit

it up for the habitation of man? “Who is he among men that can know

the counsel of God? or who can find out His designs? For the judgments

of mortal men are hesitating, and uncertain are our thoughts. For the

corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly dwelling

presseth down the mind that museth upon many things. And hardly do we

guess aright at things that are upon earth: and with labor do we find

the things that are before us. But the things that are in heaven who

shall search out?”[133]

We have heard it sometimes objected that plants and animals could

not have existed without light; and that light was not created until

the beginning of the First Mosaic Day. Many curious and interesting

facts are adduced in support of this argument. For example, we are

reminded that certain Fossil animals belonging to the earliest

Geological Periods, are shown by the clearest evidence, to have had

eyes constructed on the same optical principles, and accommodated to

the same optical conditions, as the eyes of those animals that have

flourished on the Earth during the period of history: and such eyes,

it is contended, plainly import the existence of light. The answer to

this objection may be stated in a very few words. We freely admit that

the hypothesis we have been defending would be of little use to account

for Geological phenomena, if it did not include the existence of light,

during that Period of indefinite duration which we suppose to have

elapsed between the first creation of the world and the work of the Six

Days. But in truth there is no difficulty in supposing that, during

such an interval, light may have prevailed upon the earth, and air, and

all the other conditions of organic life, pretty much as they do at

the present day. Afterward, at the close of the period, when, perhaps,

ages innumerable had rolled by, this planet of ours would have appeared

in that condition which is described in the second verse of Genesis:

“And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was upon the face of

the deep.” Then the command of God would have gone forth, “Let there

be light:” and at once the darkness would have been dispelled, a new

era of existence would have commenced, and the Earth would forthwith

have been set in order and furnished, in a special manner, for the

habitation of man.

Even as regards the Sun, Moon, and Stars, they too may have existed

before the work of the Six Days began. We read, no doubt, that on the

Fourth Day, God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the

heavens to divide the day from the night:” and a little farther on it

is added that “God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the

day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.” But then

it must be remembered that some of our best Commentators, without any

reference to Geology, have taught that, before this command was given,

the heavenly bodies were already in existence for three days, and were

already discharging the office of dividing day and night. They explain

the passage by saying that the Sun, Moon, and Stars, are represented

as having been made on the Fourth Day, not because they were then

produced for the first time out of nothing, but because the vapors by

which they had been obscured were, on that Day, dissipated, and they

began to shine visibly in the Firmament of Heaven. If this line of

interpretation is admissible, and it seems to us not unreasonable,

then we are certainly at liberty to hold, consistently with the Mosaic

narrative, that the Heavenly bodies may have been created with the

Heavens and the Earth in the beginning of all time; and that on the

Fourth Day they were made manifest in the Firmament to rule over the

day and the night, and to regulate the course of the years and the

seasons.[134]

Again it is urged against our hypothesis that Moses could not have

passed over in complete silence such a long and eventful era in the

history of the world. Certainly not, we admit, if he professed to

write a complete history of the Earth and all its revolutions. But

this was not his purpose. Every book, whether sacred or profane, must

be examined and interpreted according to the end for which it was

designed. Now the end and scope of the Book of Genesis was not to

instruct mankind about the movements of the heavenly bodies, or the

physical changes of the Earth’s surface, or the laws which govern the

material universe. It was, first of all, to impress on the minds of

the Jewish people that this world of ours is the work of one only God,

distinct from all creatures, and Himself the Creator of sun, moon,

and stars, and of every other object which pagan nations were wont to

worship: and in the next place, to set forth, briefly and simply, the

story of God’s dealings with man in the first ages of the human race.

Whatever we may hold, therefore, about the revolutions and changes of

the Earth’s surface previous to the work of the Six Days, it is plain

that the history of these phenomena did not appertain to the object

which the Sacred writer had in view. Consequently he cannot be said, by

the omission of these events, to lead his readers into error; he simply

allows them to remain in ignorance. What it was his purpose to tell,

he tells truly: what did not belong to his purpose, he passes by in

silence.

But it is further argued that this long interval of time we have

been contending for, is incompatible with the use of the copulative

conjunction, by which the several clauses of the narrative are

connected together. The Sacred text runs thus:--“In the beginning God

created the Heavens and the Earth. _And_ the Earth was waste and empty:

and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved

upon the face of the waters. _And_ God said, Let there be light; and

there was light.” Is it possible, we are asked, to admit a period of

indefinite length between events thus closely linked together? Our

answer is that, according to the idiom of the Hebrew language, the

conjunction וְ or וָ (_ve_ or _va_), which is here employed, while it

serves to connect together the clauses of a narrative, does not of

necessity imply the immediate succession of the events recorded. The

very wide and indefinite signification which belongs to this little

particle is well known to all who are familiar with the Hebrew text. It

is sometimes copulative, sometimes adversative, sometimes disjunctive,

sometimes causal. Very frequently it is used simply for the purpose of

_continuing the discourse_;[135] and this we believe is the true force

of the word in the passage under discussion.

An example very much to the point occurs in the Book of Numbers,

twentieth chapter and first verse:--“_And_ the children of Israel, the

whole congregation came into the desert of Sin.” Here the narrative

opens with the connecting particle ויבואו בני ישראל כל העדה—:ו. And

yet the reader will find, if he carefully examine the passage, that

the event thus introduced by the sacred writer was separated by a

period of eight-and-thirty years from those which had been related in

the preרceding chapter. This conjunction, therefore, does not exclude

an interval of eight-and-thirty years between the events which it

links together in history. And that being so, there is no good reason

for supposing that it should, of necessity, exclude an interval of

indefinite length.

The Weakness of this objection may be made even more strikingly

manifest by an inspection of the opening words in the first chapter

of Ezechiel:—ריהי בשלשים שנה. So little did the notion prevail that

the conjunction ו (_ve_) could be used only to connect together events

closely associated in point of time, that here it actually _begins_ the

narrative, and is, in fact, the first word of the whole book. In the

Douay version the passage is not inaptly rendered after this manner:

“Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the

fifth day of the month, when I was in the midst of the captives by the

River Chobar, the heavens were opened, and I saw the visions of God.”

* * * * *

We have now brought to a conclusion the first part of our inquiry.

We have endeavored to show that there is nothing in Scripture or

Tradition which forbids us to admit a long interval of time between

the Creation of the world and the work of the Six Days. It remains to

examine what was the nature of these Six Days themselves. Were they, as

Saint Augustine maintained, one single indivisible instant of time? or

were they days of twenty-four hours, as is more commonly supposed? or

were they simply periods of time of which the duration is left wholly

undetermined in the Sacred Text?

[Illustration]

_CHAPTER XX._

SECOND HYPOTHESIS;--THE DAYS OF CREATION LONG PERIODS OF TIME.

_Diversity of opinion among the early fathers regarding the

days of creation--Saint Augustine, Philo Judæus, Clement

of Alexandria, Origen, Saint Athanasius, Saint Eucherius,

Procopius--Albertus Magnus, Saint Thomas, Cardinal

Cajetan--Inference from these testimonies--First argument in

favor of the popular interpretation; a day, in the literal

sense, means a period of twenty-four hours--Answer--This word

often used in Scripture for an indefinite period--Examples

from the Old and New Testament--Second argument; the days of

creation have an evening and a morning--Answer--Interpretation

of Saint Augustine, Venerable Bede, and other fathers of the

church--Third argument; the reason alleged for the institution

of the Sabbath-day--Answer--The law of the Sabbath extended to

every seventh year as well as to every seventh day--The seventh

day of God’s rest a long period of indefinite duration._

No one who will take the trouble to investigate, with any reasonable

diligence and research, the nature of the Mosaic Days, can fail to be

struck with the remarkable diversity of opinion that existed on the

subject among the early Fathers of the Church. Yet this diversity of

opinion is often overlooked by modern writers. They fancy that the

meaning of the word Day is so plain as to leave no room for doubt

or controversy; that a day can be nothing else than a period of

twenty-four hours, marked by the succession of light and darkness; and

that in this sense the Mosaic narrative was universally understood

until quite recently, when a new explanation was invented, to meet the

requirements of modern science. All this is far from true. The meaning

of the Mosaic Days has been, in point of fact, a subject of controversy

from the earliest times. And Saint Augustine tells us that the question

appeared to him so difficult that he could pronounce no decisive

judgment upon it. “As to these Days,” he says, “what kind they were, it

is very difficult, nay, it is impossible to imagine, and much more so

to explain.”[136]

Nevertheless, this great Doctor, having long pondered over the subject,

and considered it on many sides, does not hesitate to express his own

opinion. And he departs very widely, indeed, from the literal and

obvious interpretation. He maintains, at great length,[137] as we had

before occasion to observe, that God created all things in a single

instant of time, according to the words of Ecclesiasticus, “He who

liveth forever created all things at once.”[138] Thus he is led to

infer that the Six Days commemorated by Moses were, in reality, but one

day; and this not such a day as those which are now measured by the

revolution of the sun, for we find three successive days recorded by

Moses before the sun appeared in the Heavens. It was, in fact, nothing

else than that one single instant of time in which all things were

created together.[139]

Nor was this opinion peculiar to Saint Augustine. At the very dawn of

the Christian Era it was set forth by Philo the Jew; and afterward it

was maintained by Clement of Alexandria, and by Origen. The great Saint

Athanasius seems to throw the weight of his authority in the same

direction, when he says, speaking of the Creation, that “no one thing

was made before another, but all things were produced at once together

by the self-same command.” And after the time of Saint Augustine this

figurative interpretation was defended by Saint Eucherius, Bishop

of Lyons, in the course of the fifth century, and by Procopius of

Gaza in the sixth. In the days of the schools we find it approved by

Albertus Magnus, and treated respectfully by Saint Thomas; and later

still, adopted by Cardinal Cajetan, in his commentary on the Book of

Genesis.[140]

It will be said, perhaps, that we are here arguing against ourselves:

these eminent writers are in favor of reducing the days of Creation to

one single point of time; whereas it is our purpose to stretch them

out to periods of indefinite length. But no: our object just now is

not precisely to establish our own hypothesis, but rather to prepare

the way for its discussion. We want to show that we are quite free to

abandon the popular view of the Mosaic Days if there be good reason for

our doing so. And it seems to us that we have abundantly established

this point by a long list of eminent ecclesiastical writers, who,

without any note of censure, have diverged very widely from the common

interpretation. No doubt they have shortened the time, and we want to

lengthen it. But in this they agree with us, that the days of Creation

are not of necessity days in the ordinary sense of the word. Nay, Saint

Augustine goes farther, and maintains, from the evidence of the Sacred

Text itself, that they cannot be understood in this sense.[141]

Having thus cleared away a serious difficulty that seemed to obstruct

our path, we may proceed without hesitation to the direct object of

our inquiry. The burden of proof, let it be remembered, is not with

us, but rather with those who contend for Days of twenty-four hours.

They must prove that this word Day in the first chapter of Genesis

means a period of twenty-four hours, and _can mean nothing else_. If it

_may_ be understood in a wider sense, consistently with the usage of

Scripture, that is quite enough for us. We are perfectly at liberty to

adopt an interpretation which, on the one hand, the Sacred Text fairly

admits, and on the other, the discoveries of Natural Science would seem

to demand. Let us examine, then, the arguments that are usually adduced

in favor of the popular interpretation.

Throughout the first chapter of Genesis the Hebrew word יוֺם (_yom_)

is everywhere employed by Moses to designate the Days of Creation.

And many writers contend that the use of this word is, in itself,

evidence enough that he spoke of days in the common sense of the term.

It is plain, they say, from the usage of Scripture, that the word יוֺם

(_yom_) had a fixed and certain meaning in the Hebrew language; the

same precisely as that which we now attach to the English word Day.

Sometimes, when contra-distinguished from night, it was applied to

the period of light, from sunrise to sunset; otherwise, it meant the

civil day of twenty-four hours, measured by the revolution of the Sun.

Moreover, it had unquestionably attained this meaning at the time when

Moses wrote, and therefore it could not have been employed by him in

any other sense.

This argument rests upon a false foundation. It is true, no doubt,

that the word יוֺם (_yom_) was more usually employed in one or other

of the two senses just explained;--that is to say, (1) for the period

of light from sunrise to sunset, or (2) for the period of twenty-four

hours corresponding to a complete revolution of the Sun. But, for the

validity of the argument, it would be necessary to show that, beside

these two senses, there is no other in which the word may be fairly

understood, conformably to the usage of the Hebrew language. Now this

has never yet been proved. On the contrary, the Scripture affords

abundant evidence that the word יוֺם (_yom_) had a third meaning quite

different from the other two; that it was freely used to designate

a period of time much longer than a common day, and generally of

uncertain and indefinite duration. A few examples will be interesting,

we hope, to our readers.

In the second chapter of Genesis, Moses, having completed his account

of the Creation, says (v. 4): “These are the generations of the Heavens

and the Earth when they were created, in the _Day_ יוֺם, (_yom_) that

the Lord God created the Earth and the Heavens: (v. 5), and every

plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the

field before it grew.” There is a good deal of controversy about the

precise meaning of this passage. But one thing at least appears to be

plain, that the word יוֺם (_yom_), is not used to designate a day of

twenty-four hours; nor yet the period of light from sunrise to sunset;

but rather the whole period of the Creation.

On this point almost all our best commentators are agreed. “It is

manifest,” says Venerable Bede, “that in this place the sacred writer

has put the word Day for all that time during which the primeval

creation was brought into existence. For it was not upon any one of

the Six Days that the sky was made and adorned with stars, and the

dry land was separated from the waters, and furnished with trees and

plants. But, _according to its accustomed practice_, Scripture here

uses the word day in the sense of time.” Saint Augustine gives even a

wider expansion to the word when he writes: “Seven Days are enumerated

above, and now that is called one Day in which God made the Heavens

and the Earth, and every green thing of the field; by which term we

may well suppose that _all time is meant_. For God then made all time

when He made creatures that live in time; and these creatures are

here signified by the Heavens and the Earth.” Molina on the same

passage says: “Learned writers tell us commonly that Moses in this

place puts the word Day in the sense of Time, just as in the passage

of Deuteronomy, ‘The day of perdition is at hand.’... And elsewhere in

Scripture Day is often used for Time.” Bannez, too, concurs in this

opinion. “The word Day,” he says, “can be understood _for any duration

whatsoever_.” Perrerius, answering an objection taken from this text,

says that “Day is put for Time, as is _frequently done in Scripture_.”

And Petavius not only adopts this interpretation, but contends that it

is conformable to the usage even of the Greek and Latin writers. He

gives an example from Cicero against Verres: “Itaque cum ego _diem_ in

Siciliam perexiguam postulavissem, invenit iste qui sibi in Achaiam

_biduo breviorem diem_ postularet.”[142] Here, then, is an instance in

which Moses himself uses the word Day (יוֺם, _yom_) not in the ordinary

sense, but for a long period of time;--for all that time, whatever it

may have been, which elapsed from the first act of creation to the

close of the Six Days.

Another striking example occurs in the prophet Amos. “Behold, the days

are coming, saith the Lord God, and I will send forth a famine into

the land: not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing

the word of the Lord. And they shall wander from sea to sea and from

the north to the east; they shall go about seeking the word of the

Lord, and shall not find it. In that _day_ (יוֺם, _yom_) shall the fair

virgins and the young men faint for thirst.”[143] Every one will see

at a glance that the word Day in the latter part of this passage does

not mean a day of twenty-four hours. It evidently refers to the whole

period during which the calamities here foretold were to be inflicted

on the Jewish people. What that period was may be a question of

dispute. By some it is taken for the time of the Babylonian captivity;

by others, for the present age of the world, in which the Jews are

wanderers on the face of the earth, without a prophet and without a

pastor, thirsting for the word of God, and seeking it in vain. But, in

any case, it is clear from the opening words: “Behold, the days are

coming,” that it was a period not of one day only, but of many.

Then we have those well known words addressed by God the Father to His

Eternal Son: “Thou art my Son, this _day_ (יוֺם, _yom_) have I begotten

thee.”[144] The Son of God was begotten of the Father before all ages;

and the _day_, therefore, on which he was begotten, cannot be a common

day of twenty-four hours, but must rather be the long day of Eternity,

without beginning and without end.

This text, we know, is sometimes applied to the day of our Lord’s

Resurrection; and sometimes, too, to the day of His Incarnation:

nor do we want to deny that it may be thus rightly explained in a

secondary and mystical sense. But in its literal sense we think it

plainly refers to the Eternal Generation of the Son. This meaning is

sufficiently implied by the word _begotten_, which cannot be understood

with propriety, except of that Generation by virtue of which our Divine

Lord was from Eternity the natural Son of God. Moreover, this is the

sense in which the passage is adopted by Saint Paul in his Epistle to

the Hebrews. Wishing to show that Our Lord has received by inheritance

a name more excellent than any given to the Angels, he argues thus:

“For to which of the Angels hath he said at any time, Thou art my Son,

this day have I begotten thee?”[145] Now it seems to us that, unless

we understand these words of the Eternal Generation, the point of

the Apostle’s argument is completely lost. The Angels are sometimes

called in Scripture the sons of God; but they were only the _adopted

sons_, whereas Our Lord was the _natural Son_ in virtue of His Eternal

Generation. Consequently it was no other than the Eternal Generation

which made the name of Son more excellent when applied to Christ than

the same name when applied to the angels.

Again, it is quite a common thing, with the prophets generally, to use

the word (יוֺם, yom) for the season of tribulation and affliction,

though the same may have extended over a period of many days or even

many years. Jeremias employs it in this sense when he describes so

vividly the manifold calamities that were impending over the ill-fated

Babylon. “I have caused thee to fall into a snare, and thou art taken,

O Babylon, and thou wast not aware of it: thou art found and caught

because thou hast provoked the Lord. The Lord hath opened His armory,

and hath brought forth the weapons of his wrath: for the Lord the God

of hosts hath a work to be done in the land of the Chaldeans. Come ye

against her from the uttermost borders: open, that they may go forth

that shall tread her down: take the stones out of the way, and make

heaps, and destroy her: and let nothing of her be left. Destroy all

her valiant men, let them go down to the slaughter: woe to them, for

their _day_ (יוֺם, yom) is come, _the time_ of their visitation. The

voice of them that flee, and of them that have escaped out of the

land of Babylon: to declare in Sion the revenge of the Lord our God,

the revenge of His temple. Declare to many against Babylon, to all

that bend the bow: stand together against her round about, and let

none escape; pay her according to her work: according to all that she

hath done, do ye to her: for she hath lifted up herself against the

Lord, against the Holy One of Israel. Therefore shall her young men

fall in her streets: and all her men of war shall hold their peace in

that _day_ (םךׄר, _yom_), saith the Lord. Behold I come against thee,

O proud one, saith the Lord the God of hosts: for the _day_ (םךׄר,

_yom_) is come, the _time_ of thy visitation. And the proud one shall

fall, he shall fall down, and there shall be none to lift him up: and

I will kindle afire in his cities, and it shall devour all round about

him.”[146] And in the following chapter:--“Thus saith the Lord: Behold,

I will raise up as it were a pestilential wind against Babylon, and

against the inhabitants thereof who have lifted up their heart against

me. And I will send to Babylon fanners, and they shall fan her, and

shall destroy her land: for they are come upon her on every side in the

_day_ (םךׄר, _yom_) of her affliction.”[147]

In another place the same prophet applies the word םךׄר (_yom_) to the

whole duration of a long campaign carried on by Nabuchodonosor against

Pharao Nechao, king of Egypt. “Prepare ye the shield and buckler, and

go forth to battle. Harness the horses, and get up, ye horsemen: stand

forth with helmets, furbish the spears, put on coats of mail. What

then? I have seen them dismayed, and turning their backs, their valiant

ones slain: they fled apace, they looked not back: terror was round

about, saith the Lord. Let not the swift flee away, nor the strong

think to escape: they are overthrown and fallen down, toward the north

by the river Euphrates. Who is this that cometh up as a flood: and

his streams swell like those of rivers? Egypt riseth up like a flood,

and the waves thereof shall be moved as rivers, and he shall say: I

will go up and will cover the earth: I will destroy the city and its

inhabitants. Get ye up on horses, and glory in chariots, and let the

valiant men come forth, the Ethiopians and the Lybians, that handle the

shield, and the Lydians that handle and bend the bow. For this is the

_day_ (םךׄר, _yom_) of the Lord the God of hosts, a _day_ of vengeance

that He may revenge Himself of His enemies: the sword shall devour,

and shall be filled, and shall be drunk with their blood: for there

is a sacrifice of the Lord God of hosts in the north country, by the

river Euphrates.... Furnish thyself to go into captivity, thou daughter

inhabitant of Egypt: for Memphis shall be made desolate, and shall be

forsaken and uninhabited. Egypt is like a fair and beautiful heifer:

there shall come from the north one that shall goad her. Her hirelings

also that lived in the midst of her, like fatted calves are turned

back, and are fled away together, and they could not stand: for the

_day_(םךׄר, _yom_) of their slaughter is come upon them, the _time_ of

their visitation.”[148]

The prophet Ezechiel, too, furnishes a forcible illustration when

he thus foreshadows the course of a second expedition against Egypt

undertaken by the same prince:-- “Therefore thus saith the Lord God:

Behold I will set Nabuchodonosor the king of Babylon in the land of

Egypt: and he shall take her multitude, and take the booty thereof for

a prey, and rifle the spoils thereof: and it shall be wages for his

army; and for the service he hath done me against it: I have given

him the land of Egypt, because he hath labored for me, saith the Lord

God. In that _day_ (םךׄר, _yom_) a horn shall bud forth for the house

of Israel, and I will give thee an open mouth in the midst of them:

and they shall know that I am the Lord.”[149] And a little further

on:--“For the _day_ (םךׄר, _yom_) is near, yea the _day_ of the Lord

is near: a cloudy _day_, it shall be the _time_ of the nations. And

the sword shall come upon Egypt: and there shall be dread in Ethiopia,

when the wounded shall fall in Egypt, and the multitude thereof shall

be taken away, and the foundations thereof shall be destroyed. Ethiopia

and Lybia, and Lydia, and all the rest of the crowd, and Chub, and

the children of the land of the covenant, shall fall with them by the

sword.... And they shall know that I am the Lord: when I shall have

set a fire in Egypt, and all the helpers thereof shall be destroyed.

In that _day_ (םךׄר, _yom_), shall messengers go forth from my face in

ships to destroy the confidence of Ethiopia, and there shall be dread

among them in that _day_ (םךׄר, _yom_) of Egypt: because it shall

certainly come.”[150]

Once more, this word is applied to the period of Our Lord’s life

upon earth, and even to the whole duration of the Christian Church.

Sophonias, for example, thus foretells the coming of the kingdom

of Christ. “Wherefore expect me, saith the Lord, in the day of my

resurrection that is to come, for my judgment is to assemble the

Gentiles, and to gather the kingdoms.... From beyond the rivers of

Ethiopia shall my suppliants, the children of my dispersed people,

bring me an offering. In that _day_ (םךׄר, _yom_) thou shalt not be

ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against me:

for then I will take away out of the midst of thee thy proud boasters,

and thou shalt no more be lifted up because of my holy mountain....

Give praise, O daughter of Sion: shout, O Israel: be glad and rejoice

with all thy heart, O daughter of Jerusalem. The Lord hath taken away

thy judgment, he hath turned away thy enemies: the King of Israel the

Lord is in the midst of thee, thou shalt fear evil no more. In that

_day_ (םךׄר, _yom_) it shall be said to Jerusalem: Fear not; to Sion:

Let not thy hands be weakened. The Lord thy God in the midst of thee is

mighty, He will save: He will rejoice over thee with gladness, He will

be silent in His love, He will be joyful over thee in praise.”[151]

And Isaias: “Is it not yet a very little while, and Libanon shall be

turned into a charmel, and charmel shall be esteemed as a forest? And

in that _day_ (םךׄר, _yom_) the deaf shall hear the words of the book,

and out of darkness and obscurity the eyes of the blind shall see. And

the meek shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor men shall

rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.”[152] That this passage refers to

the time of the Christian Church there can be no doubt; for our Lord

himself appeals to it in proof of His divine mission: “Go and relate to

John what you have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the

lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have

the Gospel preached to them.”[153]

We may trace this use of the word even in the New Testament. Our Lord

says, arguing with the Jews: “Abraham your father rejoiced that he

might see my _day_: he saw it and was glad.”[154] Saint Paul, too,

though writing in the Greek language to the Corinthians, does not

hesitate to adopt a passage from Isaias, in which the same meaning is

conspicuously brought out: “And we helping do exhort you, that you

receive not the grace of God in vain. For he saith: In an accepted

time have I heard thee, and in the _day_ of salvation have I helped

thee. Behold, now is the _acceptable time_: behold, now is the _day of

salvation_.”[155] And finally, Our Divine Lord, in His last touching

address to the city of Jerusalem, applies the word _day_ to the season

of grace and mercy: “When he drew near, seeing the city, He wept over

it, saying: If thou also hadst known, and that in this thy _day_,

the things that are to thy peace: but now they are hidden from thy

eyes. For the days shall come upon thee; and thy enemies shall cast a

trench about thee, and compass thee round, and straiten thee on every

side.”[156]

So much, then, for the first argument. From the numerous examples we

have given it is plain enough that the word word יוֺם (_yom), in

Scripture language, was often used for a period of many days, and even

many years; nay sometimes for a period of many centuries. If so, Moses

was free to use it in this sense. And consequently, as far as the word

itself is concerned, it affords no conclusive proof that the Days

of Creation were days of twenty-four hours only: we may hold them to

belong and indefinite periods of time, without departing in any degree

from the established usage of Scripture.

But it is urged--and this is the second argument,--that, whatever

may be the meaning of the word word יוֺם (_yom) elsewhere, in the

first chapter of Genesis it must mean a day of twenty-four hours. For

we are not merely told that there was a First Day, and a Second Day,

and a Third Day; but each day is in a manner analyzed by the sacred

writer, and its component parts set forth for our instruction. _There

was evening and there was morning_, he says, the First Day; _there

was evening and there was morning_ the Second Day; _there was evening

and there was morning_ the Third Day; and so on. Now if the word were

understood of those indefinite periods we have been speaking about,

there would be no meaning in this analysis: for it could hardly be

maintained that each of those periods had but one evening and one

morning like an ordinary day. Furthermore, it is argued that there is

a peculiar appropriateness in this phrase, which goes far to confirm

the common interpretation. Amongst the Jews it was usual to compute

the civil day from sunset to sunset. The civil day began then with the

evening. And accordingly Moses, in describing the Days of Creation,

puts the evening first, and says: There was evening and there was

morning the First Day; there was evening and there was morning the

Second Day; and so for the rest.

All this reasoning seems to us unsatisfactory and inconclusive. In

the first place, it is not a fact, as would seem to be supposed, that

the civil day is made up of evening and morning. The evening and the

morning do not make the whole day; they are only certain periods of

the day. Neither do they mark the limits of the day: for, though it is

quite true that, in the computation of the Jews, the civil day began

with the evening, it certainly did not end with the morning. If, then,

by the word Day, Moses here meant the civil day of twenty-four hours,

how is this clause to be understood, There was evening and there was

morning the First Day? It cannot mean that the evening and the morning

put together made up the First Day: for this is not a fact. It cannot

mean that the evening marked the beginning of the day, and the morning

marked its close: for the period included between the evening and the

morning is not the day but the night. What does it mean, then?

Many writers seem to suppose that the evening and the morning are

intended by Moses to designate the night and the day;--that is to say,

the whole period of darkness and the whole period of light, which

put together make up the civil day of twenty-four hours. If the text

could be explained in this way, it would fit in, no doubt, much more

appropriately with the theory of ordinary days than with the theory of

indefinite periods. But the text _cannot_ be explained in this way. The

evening is _not_ the whole period of darkness, and the morning is _not_

the whole period of light. No English writer could say, with propriety,

that the Day is made up of the evening and the morning. Neither could

Moses have meant to say this in the first chapter of Genesis: for the

Hebrew words ערב (_Ghereb_) _and_ בקר (_Boker_) which are found in the

original text, have a meaning not less fixed and definite than the

corresponding words Evening and the Morning in the English language.

To prove the truth of this assertion by an investigation of all the

passages in the Hebrew Bible, in which these words are found, would

be a tedious and uninteresting task. But it may be easily tested in

another way. If the words ערב (_Ghereb_) and בקר (_Boker_) were ever

used to mean, not strictly the evening and morning, but the whole

period of night and the whole period of day, this fact would surely

have become known in the course of time to some of the many eminent

and accomplished Hebrew lexicographers. We ask, then, is there one

Hebrew lexicon of note which assigns the sense of _night_ to the word

ערב (_Ghereb_) and the sense of _day_ to the word בקר (_Boker_). For

ourselves, we have searched several of the best of them, and we have

not found a single one that even hints at such an explanation.

Perhaps, however, some of our readers might be unwilling to accept

the authority of lexicons as conclusive on a point of this kind;

seeing that lexicons very often represent but imperfectly the full

power of a language. Well, then, there is another process, and a

simple one enough, by which they may demonstrate the inaccuracy of our

statement, if inaccurate it be. Let them produce any passage from the

Hebrew Bible in which the words ערב (_Ghereb_) and בקר (_Boker_) are

employed to designate the whole night and the whole day. If they fail

to do so,--and as far as we are aware, no such passage has yet been

discovered,--then surely we may fairly contend that the interpretation

which thus explains the words in the first chapter of Genesis

cannot be regarded as certain: nor can the argument founded on that

interpretation be received as conclusive.

There is a text in the eighth chapter of the prophet Daniel which

might, perhaps, appear at first sight to militate against our opinion.

The prophet had a vision in which it was foreshadowed that Antiochus

Epiphanes should come and prevail against the Jews, and should profane

the temple of God, and should abolish the daily sacrifice. One of the

Angels in the vision is heard asking of another, for how long should

the daily sacrifice cease, and the sanctuary remain desolate. And

the answer is given in these words: “Unto _evening-morning_ (עד ערב

בקר, ghad ghereb boker) two thousand three hundred; then shall the

sanctuary be cleansed.”[157] Now, this is commonly understood to mean

that the daily sacrifice should be abolished for two thousand three

hundred _days_. And therefore, it would seem that, in this passage,

the _evening and morning_ are used to signify the _whole civil day_ of

twenty-four hours.

We will not dispute the correctness of the interpretation which is here

set forth, although the words of the Angel are explained in a very

different sense by many eminent commentators. But we think that the

passage, even when understood according to this interpretation, cannot

fairly be brought in evidence against us. The evening and the morning

do not make up the whole day: but they occur once, and only once, in

each day. Therefore a period of many days may be properly signified

by noting the recurrence of the evening and morning a certain number

of times. And in point of fact, a usage of this kind seems to prevail

in most languages. The common word _fortnight_, in English, affords a

good illustration. It signifies a period of fourteen nights and days:

yet it does not specify the recurrence of fourteen days, but only the

recurrence of fourteen nights. Again, the poet says:

“Fair was she to behold, that maiden of seventeen _summers_.”

Nobody would argue from these examples that the word _summer_ means a

period of twelve months; or that the word _night_ means a period of

twenty-four hours. And so, in the case before us, the recurrence of the

evening and morning two thousand three hundred times may be pointed

out to mark a period of two thousand three hundred days, although the

evening and morning are not the whole day, but only certain parts of

the day. Nay, more; we fancy we can see a good reason why the Angel in

the vision should single out the evening and the morning for special

notice. He had been asked about the profanation of the sanctuary, and

the abolition of the daily sacrifice. Now it was in the evening and the

morning that the daily sacrifice was wont to be offered. And the Angel

seems to answer: The evening and the morning shall return two thousand

three hundred times; and there shall be no evening and morning

sacrifice: but, after that time, the sanctuary shall be cleansed and

sacrifice restored.

So far we have been arguing from the common usage of Scripture that

the evening and the morning mentioned in the history of the Creation

cannot mean the whole night and the whole day. But there is a special

objection against this interpretation from the history of the Creation

itself. The fifth verse in the first chapter of Genesis runs thus:

“And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And

there was evening and there was morning the First Day.” In the first

sentence it is recorded that God, having divided the light from the

darkness, gave to each its proper name: He called the light, Day;

and the darkness, Night. Is it not highly improbable that, after

this announcement, the sacred writer would himself, in the very next

sentence, employ names altogether different, if he wished to designate

the period of light and the period of darkness?

We are not maintaining that the phrase under consideration--“there

was evening and there was morning the First Day”--cannot be explained

on the hypothesis that the Days of Creation were days of twenty-four

hours. But we do contend that it affords no conclusive proof in favor

of that hypothesis; because even in that hypothesis the meaning of

the phrase is still doubtful and obscure. For ourselves, we candidly

confess we can offer no explanation that seems to us, in any system of

interpretation, altogether satisfactory. We may be allowed, however, to

call attention to an opinion put forward by Saint Augustine, which fits

in very appropriately with the doctrine that the Days of Creation were

long periods of time. The distinctions of evening and morning, he says,

are not to be understood in reference to the rising and setting of the

Sun, which, in point of fact, was not created until the Fourth Day;

but rather in reference to the works themselves that are recorded to

have been produced. In this way the evening will naturally represent

the bringing to an end of the work that had been accomplished; and the

morning, on the other hand, the coming in of the work that was to be.

This opinion was afterward adopted by Saint Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons,

who seems almost to borrow the very words of Saint Augustine; and also

by Venerable Bede, who says: “What is the evening, but the completion

of each work? and the morning, but the beginning of the next?” In

the twelfth century we find it again set forth by Saint Hildegarde,

who was considered by Saint Bernard, as well as by Pope Eugenius the

Third, to have been gifted with the spirit of prophecy.[158] This

interpretation, it is true, does not explain the words _evening_ and

_morning_ according to their literal signification: but then the

metaphorical sense it ascribes to them is both simple and appropriate;

more especially if we understand the word Day in the sense of a long

and indefinite period. As the morning literally means the break of day,

and the evening its decline, the Sacred Writer might, not inaptly, have

employed these words to represent metaphorically the opening and the

close of the various works which are ascribed to each successive period

in the history of the Creation.

It may be observed, moreover, that this explanation seems quite in

accord with the etymology of the Hebrew words עֶרֶב (_Ghereb_), and

בּקר (_Boker_). The latter is formed from the root בּקֶר (_Bakar_), _to

lay open_, and used to signify the morning, because in the morning

the light of the sun is, as it were, unveiled, and _laid open_ to

the earth. Hence, the word might be applied with much propriety, in

a metaphorical sense, to the unfolding of the various works of God,

as each new period was, in its turn, ushered in with a new act of

Creation. On the other hand, עֶרֶב (_Ghereb_) seems to be derived from

ערב (_Gharab_), _to mingle_, and has probably come to signify the

evening, as the famous Hebrew scholar, Aben Ezra, suggests, because,

in the uncertain light of evening, the forms of external objects

lose their distinctness of outline, and become, in a manner, blended

together. And so this word might have been employed, not unfitly, to

represent the close of each period in the creation, which was marked,

as Geologists tell us, by the gradual dying out or extinction of the

various forms of life peculiar to that period. Anyhow, in following the

opinion of so ancient and so venerable an authority as Saint Augustine,

we cannot be charged with unduly straining the Sacred Text to meet the

exigencies of modern science.

* * * * *

The next argument is founded on a passage in Exodus, to which we have

already had occasion to refer: “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all

thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou

shalt do no work on it, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy

man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger

that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made the Heavens

and the Earth, and the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the

seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified

it.”[159] We are to work upon six days, and to rest upon the seventh;

_because_ in six days God accomplished all the works of the creation,

and rested on the seventh. There can be no mistake as to the meaning

of this commandment. The six days on which it is lawful to labor are,

beyond all doubt, six days in the common sense of the word; six days of

twenty-four hours each: and the seventh day, on which it is forbidden

to work, is a day of the same kind. But the example of God’s labor and

God’s rest is set forth, in the text, as the pattern after which this

law of the Sabbath was framed. And therefore, the six days in which God

furnished and embellished the earth must have been likewise six days of

twenty-four hours each. This argument is regarded by many writers as

decisive.

To us, on the contrary, it seems by no means necessary to understand

the days on which God labored and rested, in precisely the same sense

as the days on which it is enjoined that we should labor and rest. The

examples of God is, no doubt, represented in the Sacred Text as the

reason for the Jewish Sabbath: “Six days shalt thou labor, and rest

upon the seventh; _for_ in six days the Lord made the Heavens and the

Earth, and rested on the seventh.” But, suppose for a moment that the

days of creation were long periods of time, will not the significance

of this reason remain unchanged? As God, in the great work of the

creation, labored for six successive periods, and then rested for a

seventh, so shall you likewise do all your work during six of those

successive periods into which your time is divided, and rest upon the

seventh.

In support of this view, we may observe that the Jews were commanded to

abstain from work, not only every seventh _day_, but also every seventh

_year_. “Six years thou shalt sow thy ground, and shalt gather the corn

thereof; but the seventh year thou shalt let it alone, and suffer it

to rest, that the poor of thy people may eat, and whatsoever shall be

left, let the beasts of the field eat it: in like manner shalt thou

do with thy vineyard and thy oliveyard. Six days shalt thou work: the

seventh day thou shalt cease, that thy ox and thy ass may rest; and

the son of thy handmaid and the stranger may be refreshed.”[160] And

in another place we read: “When you shall have entered into the land

which I will give you, observe the rest of the Sabbath to the Lord.

Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune

thy vineyard, and shalt gather the fruits thereof; but in the seventh

year there shall be a Sabbath to the land, of the resting of the Lord;

thou shalt not sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. What the ground

shall bring forth of itself thou shalt not reap: neither shalt thou

gather the grapes of the first fruits as a vintage; for it is a year of

rest to the land: But they shall be unto you for meat; to thee, and to

thy man-servant, and to thy maid-servant, and to thy hireling, and to

the strangers that sojourn with thee, to thy beasts of burden, and to

thy cattle, all things that grow shall be for meat.”[161] The seventh

year, then, according to Divine command, was a year of rest among the

Jews, just as the seventh day was a day of rest; and it is evident

that the one precept, no less than the other, was founded on the great

example of God’s rest when He had finished the work of Creation. We

are satisfied, therefore, that whatever may have been the length of

those six days in which God labored, and of the seventh day on which He

rested, His example might still be properly set forth as the model on

which the law of the Sabbath was founded.

It is urged, however, that in this passage of Exodus, we have the same

word יוֺם (_yom_) applied in the very same context to the six days of

the Creation and to the six days of the week; and it can hardly be

supposed that the inspired writer would pass thus suddenly from one

meaning of the word to another, and a very different meaning, without

giving any intimation to his readers of such a transition. If this

argument is a good one, we can only say that it completely oversets the

opinion of those against whom we are contending. In the fifth verse

of the first chapter of Genesis we read: “And God called the _light_

_Day_, and the _darkness_ he called _Night_. And there was evening and

there was morning the first _Day_.” Now, those who reject the theory

of long periods, maintain that by the word Day in the latter part of

this verse, is meant the whole civil day of twenty-four hours; while it

is plain that, in the earlier part of the verse, the same word Day is

emphatically applied to only a part of that period--that is, to the

time of light as distinguished from the time of darkness. Therefore,

they are themselves, in fact, upholding an interpretation which

supposes the inspired writer to pass from one meaning of the word Day

to another, without any intimation of a change of meaning.

But we do not want to shrink from dealing with this argument on its

merits. The principle on which it is founded seems to us unsound and

inconsistent with the evidence of the Sacred Books themselves. It is

quite a common thing, we contend, in Scripture, for the writer to pass

from one meaning of a word to another without any explicit indication

of such a transition, when, as in the case before us, the two senses,

though different, are analogous: the one being, as it were, the figure,

or the symbol, or the pattern, of the other. A few examples will make

this clear. In the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, we

read as follows: “For the charity of Christ presseth us: judging this,

that if one _died_ for all, then all were _dead_; and Christ _died_ for

all.”[162] Here, when it is said that “all were _dead_,” the meaning

is, that all men were _dead spiritually_ by sin; whereas, in the clause

immediately preceding, and in the clause immediately following, the

same word is used in its literal sense for the death of Christ upon

the cross. And yet the Apostle, though he thus passed from the literal

to the metaphorical sense of the word, and then back again from the

metaphorical sense to the literal, gives no express indication of these

transitions.

Again, in the Gospel, when a certain man, being called by our Lord,

said: “Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father,” Jesus reproved

him in these words: “Let the _dead_ bury their _dead_; but go thou and

preach the kingdom of God.”[163] There is some difference of opinion

amongst commentators as to the exact meaning of this phrase. But

whatever interpretation be adopted, it seems evident from the context

that the _dead to be buried_ were those who were literally dead;

whereas, the _dead_ who were to _bury them_ were manifestly _not_ those

who were literally dead, but those who were dead in some analogous or

metaphorical sense. Another example occurs in the twentieth chapter of

Saint John. Christ says to His Apostles: “I ascend to my Father and

your Father, to my God and your God.”[164] When He says, “I ascend

to my Father,” the meaning is, “to Him who has begotten me from all

eternity.” When He adds, “and your Father,” the meaning is, “to Him who

has _adopted_ you for His children.” Here, then, the word Father is

first used in the sense of a natural father, and immediately after in

the sense of a father by adoption, without any explicit declaration of

a change in meaning.

The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans furnishes an instance in which

the transition from one meaning to another occurs in the case of the

word Day itself: “The night is passed, and the _day_ is at hand. Let

us, therefore, cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armor of

light. Let us walk honestly as in the _day_.”[165] The word Day, in

the earlier part of this passage, is used by Saint Paul for the Day of

Eternity which is to follow the darkness of this life; while, in the

next sentence, it means clearly the period of light between sunrise

and sunset. Another illustration of the same kind occurs in the first

Epistle to the Thessalonians. “But you, brethren, are not in darkness

that that _day_ should overtake you as a thief; for you are all the

children of light and the children of the _day_.”[166] No one familiar

with the language of Scripture can doubt that the first _day_ here is

the Day of Judgment; and it is quite plain that the second _day_ is

_not_ the Day of Judgment.

Our next example, and one most appropriate to our purpose, is taken

from the prophet Amos: “And it shall come to pass in that _day_, saith

the Lord God, that I will make the sun go down at noon, and I will

darken the earth in the clear _day_.”[167] This prophecy is commonly

referred by the Fathers to the time of our Lord, when the earth was

darkened in the clear day on the occasion of His crucifixion; but some

eminent authorities, with Saint Jerome at their head, explain it of the

Captivity in Babylon. Either interpretation will suit our argument. The

sacred writer first employs the word Day for a long period of time, and

afterward proceeds to use it in its more ordinary sense, without giving

his readers any express intimation of such a transition.

We hope it is now pretty clear that neither the reason assigned for

the institution of the Sabbath Day, nor the particular form of words

in which that ordinance is set forth, offers any insurmountable

obstacle to the opinion we are defending. And this is quite enough for

our purpose. For we would again remind our readers that we are not

attempting to prove from the Sacred Text that this opinion _must_ be

true, but only that it _may_ be true. Our object has been sufficiently

attained if we have succeeded in showing that the hypothesis which

makes the Days of Creation long periods, is not inconsistent with the

language of Scripture.

We are tempted, however, in the case of this objection, to go somewhat

further than the scope of our argument strictly demands. The text we

have just been discussing brings before us, in fact, a consideration

of great weight in favor of the system of long periods. “In six days

the Lord made the Heavens and the Earth and the sea, and all that in

them is, and rested on the seventh day.” Now, what was this Seventh Day

on which God rested? Was it a common day of twenty-four hours? or was

it not rather a long and undefined period of time? Saint Augustine

answers plainly enough: “The seventh day,” he says, “is without an

evening, and has no setting.” And Venerable Bede, asking why the sacred

writer had assigned no evening to the seventh day, gives this answer:

“Because it has no end, and is shut in by no limit.”[168]

The common sentiment of Theologians, as far as we know, seems to point

in the same direction. They tell us that God is said to have rested,

inasmuch as He ceased from the creation of new species; and they

hold that since the close of the Sixth Day no new species have been

brought into existence. But whether this be true or not, it would be

very difficult, we think, to point out any sense in which God can be

said to have rested after the work of the Six Days, and in which He

is not resting at the present moment. If so, the day of His rest is

still going on; and it is not a period of twenty-four hours only, but

a period of many thousand years. Now, if the Seventh Day on which God

rested is a period of many thousand years, are we not fully justified

in supposing that the Six Days on which He formed and furnished the

Heavens and the Earth were likewise periods of many ages?

[Illustration]

_CHAPTER XXI._

APPLICATION OF THE SECOND HYPOTHESIS TO THE MOSAIC HISTORY OF

CREATION--CONCLUSION.

_Summary of the argument--Striking coincidence between the

order of creation as set forth in the narrative of Moses

and in the records of Geology--Comparison illustrated

and developed--Scheme of adjustment between the periods

of Geology and the days of Genesis--Tabular view of this

scheme--Objections considered--It is not to be regarded as an

established theory, but as an admissible hypothesis--Either

the first hypothesis or the second is sufficient to meet the

demands of Geology as regards the antiquity of the earth--Not

necessary to suppose that the sacred writer was made acquainted

with the long ages of geological time--He simply records

faithfully that which was committed to his charge--The

Mosaic history of creation stands alone, without rivals or

competitors._

Geology and Revelation or, the Ancient History of the Earth, considered in the geological facts and revealed religion. · 第 21 / 22 章

For ourselves, therefore, we frankly avow that while we attach