Appendix. — Extracts From the Fathers and Theologians. — Referred to in This Volume
(1.) Saint Augustine — p. 297
“Et in rebus obscuris atque a nostris oculis remotissimis, si qua inde scripta etiam divina legerimus, quae possunt salva fida qua imbuimur, alias atque alias parere sententias; in nullam earum nos praecipiti affirmatione ita projiciamus, ut si forte diligentius discussa veritas eam recte labefactaverit, corruamus: non pro sententia divinarum Scripturarum, sed pro nostra ita dimicantes, ut eam velimus Scripturarum esse, quae nostra est; cum potius eam quae Scripturarum est, nostram esse velle debeamus.”—De Genesi ad Litteram, lib. i. cap. 18, n. 37.
(2.) Idem — p. 298
“Plerumque enim accidit ut aliquid de terra, de coelo, de caeteris hujus mundi elementis, de motu et conversione vel etiam de magnitudine et intervallis siderum, de certis defectibus solis ac lunae, de circuitibus annorum et temporum, de naturis animalium, fruticum, lapidum atque hujusmodi caeteris, etiam non christianus ita noverit, ut certissima ratione vel experientia teneat. Turpe est autem nimis et perniciosum ac maxime cavendum, ut christianum de his rebus quasi secundum christianas Litteras loquentem, ita delirare quilibet infidelis audiat, ut, quemadmodum dicitur, toto coelo errare conspiciens, risum tenere vix possit. Et non tam molestum est, quod errans homo deridetur, sed quod auctores nostri ab eis qui foris sunt, talia sensisse creduntur, et cum magno eorum exitio de quorum salute satagimus, tanquam indocti reprehenduntur atque respuuntur. Cum enim quemquam de numero christianorum in ea re quam optime norunt, errare deprehenderint, et vanam sententiam suam de nostris Libris asserere; quo pacto illis Libris credituri sunt, de resurrectione mortuorum, et de spe vitae aeternae, regnoque coelorum, quando de his rebus quas jam experiri, vel indubitatis numeris percipere potuerunt, fallaciter putaverint esse conscriptos? Quid enim molestiae tristitiaeque ingerant prudentibus fratribus temerarii praesumptores, satis dici non potest, cum si quando de prava et falsa opinione sua reprehendi, et convinci coeperint ab eis qui nostrorum Librorum auctoritate non tenentur, ad defendendum id quod levissima temeritate et apertissima falsitate dixerunt, eosdem Libros sanctos, unde id probent, proferre conantur, vel etiam memoriter, quae ad testimonium valere arbitrantur, multa inde verba pronuntiant, ‘non intelligentes neque quae loquuntur, neque de quibus affirmant’ (1. Tim., i. 7).”—Ibid., cap. 19, n. 39.
(3.) Saint Thomas — p. 298
“Dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus docet, in hujusmodi quaestionibus duo sunt observanda. Primo quidem, ut veritas Scripturae inconcusse teneatur. Secundo, cum Scriptura divina multipliciter exponi possit, quod nulli expositioni aliquis ita praecise inhaereat, ut si certa ratione constiterit hoc esse falsum quod aliquis sensum Scripturae esse credebat id nihilominus asserere praesumat; ne Scriptura ex hoc ab infidelibus derideatur, et ne eis via credendi praecludatur.”—Summa Theologica, Pars Prima, Quaest. lxviii. art. primus.
(4.) Perrerius — p. 302
“Quod autem in xx. et xxxi. cap. Exod. dictum est, Deum sex diebus fecisse coelum et terram, et omnia quae in eis sunt, non est huic opinioni contrarium: illud enim spatium temporis ante primum diem annumeratur sex diebus, quia fuit quam brevissimum, et fuit continuata Dei operatio: nec sane plures dies naturales consumpti sunt quam sex: ac licet ante primum diem, coelum et elementa facta sint secundum substantiam, tamen non fuerunt perfecta et omnino consummata, nisi spatio illorum sex dierum; tunc enim datus est illis ornatus, complementum, et perfectio.”—Comment. in Genes., cap. 1, v. 4, n. 80.
(5.) Tostatus — p. 302
“Sex diebus fecit Dominus coelum et terram. Recte dicitur his facere, quia coelum et terra, quae hic nominantur, et omnia alia, quae nomine eorum subintelliguntur, ista quidem omnia de materia prima facta sunt: materia autem non facta sed creata est.”—Comment. in Exod., cap. 20, quaest. 15.
(6.) Petavius — p. 302
Writing on the phrase In die quo fecit Dominus Deus coelum et terram, he says, “hoc est, perpolitum et elaboratum esse sex continuis diebus, id enim faceindi vox Hebraeis ipsis interpretibus significare videtur.”—De Opificio Sex Dierum, lib. cap. 14, sect. 1.
(7.) Saint Basil — p. 304
“Et facta est vespera, et factum est mane, dies unus. Vespera igitur diei ac noctis est communis terminus: et similiter mane, est noctis cum die vicinitas. Itaque ut prioris generationis praerogativam diei tribueret, prius commemoravit finem diei, deinde noctis, velut insequente diem nocte. Nam qui status in mundo fuit ante lucis generationem, is non erat nox, sed tenebrae: quod autem a die distinguebatur, eique opponebatur, id nox appellatum est.”—Homilia ii. in Hexaemeron; Edit. Bened. p. 20; Edit. Migne, Patr. Graec. Cursus Completus, tom. 29, p. 47.
(8.) Saint Chrysostom — p. 304
“Ostendimus enim heri, ut meministis, quomodo beatus Moses enarrans nobis horum visibilium elementorum creationem et opificium, dixerit: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram: terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita: et vos causam docuimus, quare Deus terram informen et nullis figuris expolitam creaverit; quae, opinor, omnia mente tenetis; necessarium est igitur nos ad ea quae sequuntur hodie progredi. Nam postquam dixit, Terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita, nos accurate docet, unde invisibilis erat et inculta, dicens: Et tenebrae erant super abyssum, et Spiritus Dei superferebatur super aquam.... Quandoquidem igitur diffusa erat magna universi visibilis informitas, praecepto suo Deus, optimus ille artifex, deformitatem illam depulit, et immensa lucis visibilis pulchritudo producta tenebras fugavit sensibiles, illustravitque omnia.”—In Cap. i. Genes. Homil. iii.; Edit. Migne, Patr. Graec. Cursus Completus, tom. 53, p. 33. Here Saint Chrysostom plainly teaches that the world existed before the creation of light. In his Fifth Homily he is equally clear that the First Day of the Mosaic narrative began with a period of light, and not with a period of darkness: “Vide quomodo de singulis diebus sic dicat: Et factum est vespere, et factum est mane, dies tertius: non simpliciter nec absque causa: sed ne ordinem confundamus neque putemus vespera ingruente finem accepisse diem; sed sciamus vesperam finem esse lucis, et principium noctis: mane autem finem noctis, et complementum dici. Hoc enim nos docere vult beatus Moses, dicens: Et factum est vespere, et factum est mane, dies tertius.”—Edit. Migne, p. 52.
(9.) Saint Ambrose — p. 305
“Terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita. Bonus artifex prius fundamentum ponit: postea, fundamento posito, aedificationis membra distinguit, et adjungit ornatum. Posito igitur fundamento terrae, et confirmata coeli substantia, duo enim ista sunt velut cardines rerum, subtexuit: Terra autem erat inanis et incomposita.”—Hexaemeron, Lib. i. cap. 7; Edit. Bened. p. 13; Edit. Migne, Patr. Lat. Cursus Completus, tom. 14, p. 135.
“Principium ergo diei, vox Dei est: fiat lux; et facta est lux.”—Lib. i. cap. 10; Edit. Bened. p 21; Edit. Migne, p. 144.
“In principio itaque temporis coelum et terram Deus fecit. Tempus enim ab hoc mundo, non ante mundum: dies autem temporis portio est, non principium.”—Lib. i. cap. 6; Edit. Bened. p. 10; Edit. Migne, p. 132.
(10.) Venerable Bede — p. 305
“Scriptura ait: Qui fecisti mundum de materia informi. Sed materia facta est de nihilo, mundi vero species de informi materia. Proinde duas res ante omnem diem et ante omne tempus condidit Deus angelicam videlicet creaturam et informem materiam.”—In Pentateuch. Comment.; sub. cap. 1: Edit Migne, Patr. Lat. Cursus Completus, tom. 91, p. 191. In another place, citing the words of Ecclesiasticus, Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul, he says, “hoc utique ante omnem diem hujus saeculi fecit, cum in principio coelum creavit et terram.”—Hexaemeron, Lib. i. in Genes, ii. 4; Edit. Migne, tom. 91, p. 39.
“Discipulus. Da ordinem per sex dies factarum rerum? Magister. In ipso quidem principio conditionis facta sunt coelum, terra, aer, et aqua.... Discipulus. Sequere ordinem generationis? Magister. In principio diei primae lux facta est; secunda vero factum firmamentum;” etc.—Quaestiones super Genesim; Edit. Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. 93, p. 236. This work is classed by Migne among the Dubia et Spuria of Bede. The critics, however, seem to be agreed that it belongs to a period not later than the tenth century. If it is not the genuine composition of Bede, which is considered more probable, then it only follows that we have, besides Bede, another ancient authority in favor of our opinion.
(11.) Peter Lombard — p. 306
“Cum Deus in sapientia sua angelicos condidit spiritus, alia etiam creavit, sicut ostendit supradicta Scriptura, quae dicit in principio Deum creasse coelum, id est, angelos, et terram scilicet, materiam quatuor elementorum adhuc confusam et informem, quae a Graecis dicta est chaos, et hoc fuit ante omnem diem. Deinde elementa distinguit Deus, et species proprias atque distinctas singulis rebus secundum genus suum dedit; quae non simul, ut quibusdam sanctorum Patrum placuit, sed per intervalla temporum ac sex volumina dierum, ut aliis visum est formavit.”—Sentent. Lib. ii. Distinct. 12; Edit. Migne, Patr. Latin. Cursus Completus, tom. 192, p. 675.
(12.) Hugh of Saint Victor — p. 306
“Principium ergo divinorum operum fuit creatio lucis, quando ipsa lux non materialiter de nihilo creata est; sed de praejacenti illa universitatis materia formaliter facta est ut lux esset, et vim ac proprietatem lucendi haberet. Hoc opus prima die factum est; sed hujus operis materia ante primam diem creata. Moxque cum ipsa luce dies cœpit; quia ante lucem nec nox fuit nec dies, etiamsi tempus fuit.”—De Sacram. Lib. i. Pars i. cap. 9: Edit. Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. 176, p. 193.
(13.) Saint Thomas — p. 307
“Sed melius videtur dicendum quod creatio fuerit ante omnem diem.” In II. Sentent. Distinct. xiii. Art. 3, ad tertium: see also ibidem ad primum, and ad secundum. And again in the Summa he says: “Coelum et terram fecit in prima die, potius ante omnem diem.”—Pars i. Quaest. lxxxiv. Art. 2.
(14.) Perrerius — p. 307
“Licet ante primum diem, coelum et elementa facta sint secundum substantiam, tamen non fuerint perfecta et omnino consummata, nisi spatio illorum sex dierum: tunc enim datus est illis ornatus, complementum, et perfectio. Quanto autem tempore status ille mundi tenebrosus duraverit, hoc est, utrum plus an minus quam unus dies continere solet, nec mini compertum est, nec opinor cuiquam mortalium nisi cui divinitus id esset patefactum.”—Comment. in Genesim, cap. 1, v. 4, n. 80.
(15.) Petavius — p. 307
“Nostra itaque sententia haec est; prima ilia Geneseos verba: In principio creavit Deus coelum et terram; non peculiare opus aliquod continere, quod initio, et ante dies sex molitus sit Deus: quasi ante lucem, ac reliquas deinceps opificii partes, qualecumque coelum ac terram creaverit. Sed esse generale quoddam effatum, quo omnia, quae sunt a Deo facta, complexus est. Etenim Moses, ut initio dicebam, Judaeos statim edocere voluit; totam illam aspectabilem rerum universitatem a Deo conditore profectam esse. Quare ita pronuntiavit, tanquam diceret: Quidquid videtis et quodcumque coeli ac terrae comprehendit ambitus, una cum coelo ipso, terrâque, id omne fabricatus est initio Deus. Postea vero per partes, ac singillatim, ut quaeque est elaborata, decripsit.”—De Opificio Sex Dierum, Lib. i. cap. 2, sect. 10.
“Imprimis ante dierum sex initium solam cum aqua terram extitisse credimus:.... Habet haec opinio fidem ex Mosis narratione; qui ante coelum id est firmamentum, terram, et aquarum abyssum extitisse refert.... Nam illud Severiani valde probatur, prima die Deum omnia creasse: reliquis autem diebus, ex jam extantibus: Ubi primam diem non lucis tantum creatione circumscribit: sed quod ante illam factum est, id eidem tribuit. Quod intervallum quantum fuerit, nulla divinatio posset assequi. Neque vero mundi corpora illa, quae prima omnium extitisse docui, aquam et terram, arbitror eodem, in quem lucis ortus incidit, fabricata esse die; ut quibusdam placet, haud satis firma ratione.”—Ibid., cap. 10, sect. 6.
(16.) A Lapide — p. 307
“S. Basilius et Beda putant coelum et terram non primo die, sed paulo ante primum diem, utpote ante lucem, create esse. Verum haec non ante, sed ipso primo die, puta initio primae diei, antequam lux produceretur, creata esse, patet Exodi xx. v. 11.”—Comment. in Genes., cap. 1, v. 1.
(17.) Saint Augustine — p. 308
“Fecisti ante omnem diem in principio coelum et terram.”—Confess. Lib. xii. cap. 12: see also Lib. xii. cap. 8. And again, De Genesi ad Litteram, Lib. i. cap. 9, he writes:—“Atque illud ante omnem diem fecisse intelligitur, quod dictum est, In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram;... Terrae autem nomine invisibilis et incompositae, ac tenebrosa abysso, imperfectio corporalis substantiae significata est, unde temporalia illa fierent, quorum prima esset lux.”
(18.) Petavius — p. 311
“Quod intervallum quantum fuerit, nulla divinatio posset assequi.”—De Opific. Sex Dierum, Lib. i. cap. 10, sec. 6.
(19.) Perrerius — p. 311
“Quanto autem tempore status ille mundi tenebrosus duraverit, hoc est, utrum plus an minus quam unus dies continere solet, nec mihi compertum est, nec opinor cuiquam mortalium, nisi cui divinitus id esset patefactum.”—Comment. in Genes., cap. 1, v. 4.
(20.) Hugh of Saint Victor — p. 311
“Fortassis jam satis est de his hactenus disputasse, si hoc solum adjecerimus quanto tempore mundus in hac confusione, prius quam ejus dispositio inchoaretur, perstiterit. Nam quod illa prima rerum omnium materia, in principio temporis, vel potius cum ipso tempore exorta sit, sonstat ex eo quod dictum est: in principio creavit Deus coelum et terram. Quamdiu autem in hac informitate sive confusione permanserit, Scriptura manifeste non ostendit.”—De Sacram., Lib. i., pars i. cap. 6.
(21.) Saint Augustine — p. 319
“Qui dies cujusmodi sint, aut perdifficile nobis, aut etiam impossibile est cogitare; quanto magis dicere.”—De Civitate Dei, Lib. xi. cap. 6.
Again: “Arduum quidem et difficillimum est viribus intentionis nostrae, voluntatem scriptoris in istis sex diebus mentis vivacitate penetrare.”—De Genesi ad Litteram, Lib. iv. cap. 1.
(22.) Idem — p. 319
“Ac sic per omnes illos dies units est dies, non istorum dierum consuetudine intelligendus, quos videmus solis circuitu determinari atque numerari; sed alio quodam modo, a quo et illi tres dies, qui ante conditionem istorum luminarium commemorati sunt, alieni esse non possunt. Is enim modus non usque ad diem quartum, ut inde jam istos usitatos cogitaremus, sed usque ad sextum septimumque perductus est; ut longe aliter accipiendus sit dies et nox, inter quae duo divisit Deus, et aliter iste dies et nox, inter quae dixit ut dividant luminaria quae creavit, cum ait, ‘Et dividant inter diem et noctem.’ Tunc enim hunc diem condidit, cum condidit solem, cujus praesentia eumdem exhibet diem: ille autem dies primitus conditus jam triduum peregerat cum haec luminaria illius diei quarta repetitione creata sunt.”—De Genesi ad Litteram, Lib. iv. cap. 26. “De quo enim Creatore Scriptura ista narravit, quod sex diebus consummaverit omnia opera sua, de illo alibi non utique dissonanter scriptum est, quod creaverit omnia simul (Eccles. xviii. 1). Ac per hoc et istos dies sex vel septem vel potius unum sexies septiesve repetitum simul fecit qui fecit omnia simul. Quid ergo opus erat sex dies tam distincte dispositeque narrari? Quia scilicet ii qui non possunt videre quod dictum est, ‘Creavit omnia simul;’ nisi cum eis sermo tardius incedat ad id quo eos ducit, pervenire non possunt.”—Ib. cap. 33.
(23). Philo Judæus — p. 320
“Tum igitur omnia simul sunt condita. In quo quidem universali opificio necesse erat servari ordinem.”—De Mundi Opificio; Edit. Francofurti, p. 14. This passage may, at first sight, appear somewhat obscure; but the meaning of it is made clear enough, when we read elsewhere in the same writer: “Rusticanae simplicilatis est putare, sex diebus, aut utique certo tempore mundum conditum.... Ergo cum audis: ‘Complevit sexto die opera, intelligere non debes de diebus aliquot, sed de senario perfecto numero.’”—De Legis Allegor.; Edit. Francofurti, p. 41.
(24). Clement of Alexandria — p. 320
Stromatum, Lib. vi. Edit. Benid. p. 291; Edit. Migne, Patrum Graec. Cursus Completus, vol. 9, pp. 370-5. See also Dissertatio de Libris Stromatum, by the learned Benedictine, Nicholas le Nourry, cap. viii. artic. 1.
(25). Origen — p. 320
“Quod autem prima die lucem, secunda firmamentum creaverit, tertia aquae quae sub coelo erant, in suis fuerint collectae receptaculis, atque ita terra solius naturae administratione suos fructus protulerit; quod quarta creata fuerint luminaria et stellae, quinta vero natatilia, sexta demum terrestria et homo, haec omnia, prout facultas tulit, in nostris in Genesim commentariis explicavimus. Quin et supra contra eos qui obvio sensu Scripturam interpretantes asserunt sex dies ad creationem mundi insumptos fuisse, adduximus hunc locum: ‘Iste est liber generationis coeli et terrae quando creata sunt, in die quo fecit Deus coelum et terram,’”—Contra Celsum, Lib. vi. Edit. Bened. pp. 678, 679; Edit. Migne, Patr. Graecor. Cursus Completus, vol. 11, p. 1390: for the passage referred to at the close of the extract see p. 1378. The Commentary upon Genesis of which Origen here speaks no longer exists, but the following passage has been preserved. “Aliqui jam absurdum existimantes Deum architecti more non aliter, quam plurium dierum, labore, fabricam valentis absolvere, intra multos dies mundum perfecisse uno cuncta momento ac simul extitisse aiunt, et hinc illud adstruunt; ordinis autem causa, et ut series constet, dierum et rerum quae in illis factae sunt, numerum dictum putant. Hi probabiliter sententiam stabiliunt ea auctoritate qua dictum est: ‘Ipse dixit et facta sunt; ipse mandavit, et creata sunt.’”—Selecta in Genesim, Edit. Bened. p. 27; Edit. Migne, Patr. Graec. Cursus Completus, vol. 12, p. 98. Again, in his Treatise De Principiis, Lib. iv., he says: “Quis igitur sanae mentis existimaverit primam et secundam et tertiam diem, et vesperam, et mane, sine sole, luna, et stellis, et eam quae veluti prima erat, diem sine coelo fuisse?” Edit. Bened. p. 175; Edit. Migne, vol. 11, p. 378. See also P. Danielis Huetii Origeniana, Lib. ii. cap. 2, Quaest. 8, § 6; Edit. Migne, vol. 17, p. 979.
(26.) Saint Athanasius — p. 320
“Cum ex supra dictis constet, nullam e rebus creatis prius altera factam esse, sed res omnes factas uno eodemque mandato simul extitisse.”—Oratio ii. Contra Arianos, n. 63. Edit. Bened. p. 418. New Edition, p. 528. Edit. Migne, Patr. Graecor. Cursus Completus, p. 275.
(27.) Saint Eucherius — p. 320
Speaking strictly we should rather say the author of a Commentary upon Genesis belonging to a very early period of the Church, ascribed by some to Saint Eucherius, and usually published with his works. This author says, no doubt, that God first, in the beginning, created the substance of all things, and afterward developed the various forms on successive days (Gen. ii. 4): but then he tells us expressly that the substance did not precede the forms by any priority of time, but only by priority of origin (Gen. i. 2). Thus his view coincides pretty nearly with that of Saint Augustine, whose words, indeed, he seems to borrow. “‘Terra autem erat inanis et vacua.’ Id est, adhuc informis erat ipsa materia: quia necdum ex ea coelum et terra, necdum omnia formata erant, quae formari restabant: haec enim materia, ex nihilo facta, praecessit tamen res ex se factas, non quidem aeternitate vel tempore, sicut praecedit lignum arcam; sed sola origine, sicut praecedit vox verbum, vel sonus cantum: nam ‘qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul.’”—Edit. Migne, Patr. Latin Cursus Completus, vol. 50, p. 894.
(28.) Procopius of Gaza — p. 320
We quote this writer on the authority of Perrerius, from whom the following passage is taken. “Idem censet hoc loco Procopius Gazæus: Mozen enim, inquit, in describendo mundi opificium, sex dierum distinctione usum esse docendi gratia ob tarditatem, videlicet, ruditatemque Judæorum, quibus hæc scribebat: qui quæ Deus simul fecerat, ob tantam eorum multitudinem atque varietatem simul et indiscrete capere et comprehendere, ut erant angustissimis ingeniis nequaquam potuissent.”—In Genes., cap. 2, vers. 4, 5, 6, n. 179.
(29.) Albertus Magnus — p. 320
“Videtur mihi Augustino consentiendum.”—Summa P. 1, Quæst. 12, art. 6. See Pianciani, Cosmogonia Naturale, p. 23.
(30.) Saint Thomas — p. 320
Summa Pars. 1. Quæst. 74, art. ii.; also in an earlier work, Super Libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi Commentarius, Distinct. xii. art. i. and iii. Having explained the opinion of Saint Augustine that there was no real succession in the order of time between the various works of the creation, but that all were created together; and also the opinion of other Holy Fathers, that there was a real succession, he continues thus: “Prima ergo opinio [Sancti Augustini] magis convenit rationi, nec est contra Scripturam; quia ea quae in Scriptura ordinem temporis importare videntur, ad ordinem naturae Augustinus refert: secunda vero magis convenit Scripturae secundum suam superficiem. Quia ergo utraque a Sanctis patrocinium habet, utramque sustinendo, objectionibus hinc inde factis respondendum est.”—Loco citato, art. i. Solutio.
(31.) Cardinal Cajetan — p. 320
We are again indebted to Perrerius for the views of Cardinal Cajetan. He writes thus: “Accedit huic sententiæ Cajet. in Comment. super i. cap. Genes., et distinctionem sex dierum putat in id positam a Mose, quo facilius declararet naturalem rerum ordinem, consequentiam et dependentiam. Sic enim res suaptè natura inter se aptæ et connexæ sunt, ut si mundum successivè voluisset Deus facere, non alio ordine vel successione, quàm ut hic narratur, facturus eum fuisset.”—In Genes., cap. ii. vers. 4, 5, 6, n. 179.
(32.) Venerable Bede — p. 323
“Aperte intelligi quia diem hoc loco Scriptura pro omni illo tempore ponit quo primordialis natura formata est. Neque enim in unoquolibet sex dierum coelum factum est et sideribus illustratum, et terra est separata ab aquis, atque arboribus et herbis consita; sed more sibi solito Scriptura diem pro tempore ponit; quomodo Apostolus, cum ait, ‘Ecce nunc dies salutis,’ non unum specialiter diem, sed totum significat tempus hoc quo in praesenti vita pro aeterna salute laboramus.”—Hexaemeron, Lib. i. in Gen. ii. 4; Edit. Migne, Patr. Lat. Cursus Completus, vol. 91, p. 39.
(33.) Saint Augustine — p. 323
“Superius septem dies numerantur, nunc unus dicitur dies, quo die fecit Deus coelum et terram, et omne viride agri, et omne pabulum, cujus diei nomine omne tempus significari bene intelligitur. Fecit enim Deus omne tempus simul cum omnibus creaturis temporalibus, quae creaturae visibiles coeli et terrae nomine significantur.”—De Genesi contra Manichaeos, Lib. ii. cap. 3, n. 4.
(34.) Molina — p. 323
“Dicunt Doctores communiter, Moysem eo loco sumpsisse diem pro tempore juxta illud Deuteronomii xxxii., juxta est dies perditionis,... et alibi saepe, in Scriptura sumitur dies pro tempore.”—In primam partem, De opere sex dierum, D. I. See Pianciani, Cosmogonia Naturale, p. 27.
(35.) Bannez — p. 323
“Dies potest accipi pro quacumque duratione et mensura.”—In Summa, Pars 1. Quæst. 73.
(36.) Perrerius — p. 323
“Nec officit huic sententiae, quod paullo superius ex cap. ii. Geneseos prolatum est, ‘In die quo fecit Dominus Deus coelum et terram.’ Ibi enim dies pro tempore, sicut crebro fit in Scriptura, positus est.”—In Gen. cap. i. v. 4, n. 80; see also cap. ii., n. 186.
(37.) Petavius — p. 323
“Postquam Moyses sex dierum opificium toto primo capite descripsit, mox in sequenti summatim universeque colligens, ‘Istae sunt,’ inquit, ‘generationes coeli et terrae, quando creata sunt, in die quo fecit Dominus Deus coelum et terram.’ Quae verba non unius diei mentionem faciunt, ut quibusdam videtur; qui primum diem designari putant, in quo factum illud est, praeter lucem, quod initio libri Moyses explicat, ‘In principio creavit Deus coelum et terram.’ Sed eam nos opinionem minime probamus, ac supra docuimus, diei nomen istic usurpari pro tempore: quod apud Graecos Latinosque, non minus quam Hebraeos, usitatem est. Exemplo sit Ciceronis illud ex libro secundo in Verrem: ‘Itaque cum ego diem in Siciliam inquirendi prexiguam postulavissem, invenit iste, qui sibi in Achaiam biduo breviorem diem postularet.’ Igitur cum dixisset, in die, id est tempore illo, factum esse coelum et terram, hoc est perpolitum et elaboratum esse sex continuis diebus,” etc.—De Opificio Sex Dierum, Lib. i. cap. 14, sect. 1.
(38.) Saint Augustine — p. 335
“Tres enim dies superiores quomodo esse sine sole potuerunt, cum videamus nunc solis ortu et occasu diem transigi, noctem vero fieri solis absentia, cum ab alia parte mundi ad orientem redit? Quibus respondemus, potuisse fieri ut tres superiores dies singuli per tantam moram temporis computarentur, per quantam moram circumit sol, ex quo procedit ab oriente quousque rursus ad orientem revertitur. Hanc enim moram et longitudinem temporis possent sentire homines etiamsi in speluncis habitarent, ubi orientem et occidentem solem videre non possent. Atque ita sentitur potuisse istam moram fieri etiam sine sole antequam sol factus esset, atque ipsam moram in illo triduo per dies singulos computatam. Hoc ergo responderemus, nisi nos revocaret, quod ibi dicitur, ‘Et facta est vespera et factum est mane,’ quod nunc sine solis cursu videmus fieri non posse. Restat ergo ut intelligamus, in ipsa quidem mora temporis ipsas distinctiones operum sic appellatas, vesperam propter transactionem consummati operis, et mane propter inchoationem futuri operis; de similitudine scilicet humanorum operum, quia plerumque a mane incipiunt, et ad vesperam desinunt. Habent enim consuetudinem Divinae Scripturae de rebus humanis ad divinas res verba transferre.”—De Genesi contra Manichaeos, Lib. i. cap. 14, n. 20.
(39.) Saint Eucherius — p. 335
It is uncertain, as we before observed, if this commentary is the genuine work of Saint Eucherius; at all events it is the production of some learned and Catholic writer of the fifth or sixth century. His words run thus: “Vespere conditae creaturae terminus; mane initium condendae creaturae alterius.”—Comment. in Genes. cap. i. v. 4; Edit. Migne, Patr. Latin. Cursus Completus, vol. 50, p. 897. And again in v. 10 et seqq.:—“Si quarto die facta sunt luminaria, quomodo tres dies jam ante fuerunt? nisi ut intelligamus, in ipsa hora temporis ipsas operum distinctiones ita appellatas; vesperam propter transactionem consummati operis; mane propter inchoationem futuri diei; in similitudinem humanorum operum quod plerique mane incipiunt et in vesperam desinunt.”—Ib. p. 899.
(40.) Venerable Bede — p. 335
“Quid est vespere nisi ipsa perfectio singulorum operum? et mane, id est inchoatio sequentium?”—De Sex Dierum Creatione, De Prima Die; Edit. Migne, Patrum Lat. Cursus Completus, vol. 93, p. 210.
In another place he says: “Vespere autem in toto illo triduo, antequam luminaria essent, consummati operis terminus non absurde fortasse intelligitur; Mane autem futuræ operationis significatio.”—In Pentateuchum Comment. Gen. cap. i.; Edit. Migne, vol. 91, p. 194.
(41.) Saint Hildegarde — p. 335
“Sex enim dies, sex opera sunt; quia inceptio et completio singuli cujusque operis dies dicitur.”—Epist. ad Colonienses. See Pianciani, Cosmogonia, p. 34.
(42.) Saint Augustine — p. 342
“Dies autem septimus sine vespere est nec habet occasum.”
—Confess. Lib. xiii. cap. xxxvi.
(43.) Venerable Bede — p. 342
“Quia finem non habet, neque ullo termino clauditur.”—De Sex Dierum Creatione, De Die Septima; Edit. Migne, Patr. Lat. Cursus Completus, vol. 93, p. 218. And elsewhere he says: “Septimus dies coepit a mane et in nullo vespere terminatur.”—In Pentateuch Comment., Gen. ii.; Edit. Migne, vol. 91, p. 203.
(44.) Saint Augustine — p. 355
“Eligat quis quod potest: tantum ne aliquid temere atque incognitum pro cognito asserat; memineritque se hominem de divinis operibus quantum permittitur quærere.”—De Genesi Liber Imperfectus, cap. ix., n. 80.
APPENDIX TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
From Prof. J. D. Dana’s Manual of Geology. [8vo. Philadelphia: T. Bliss & Co.] By permission of the author.
Cosmogony
The science of cosmogony treats of the history of creation.
Geology comprises that later portion of the history which is within the range of direct investigation, beginning with the rock-covered globe, and gathering only a few hints as to a previous state of igneous fluidity.
Through Astronomy our knowledge of this earlier state becomes less doubtful, and we even discover evidence of a period still more remote. Ascertaining thence that the sun of our system is in intense ignition, that the moon, the earth’s satellite, was once a globe of fire, but is now cooled and covered with extinct craters, and that space is filled with burning suns,—and learning also from physical science that all heated bodies in space must have been losing heat through past time, the smallest most rapidly,—we safely conclude that the earth has passed through a stage of igneous fluidity.
Again, as to the remoter period: the forms of the nebulæ and of other starry systems in the heavens, and the relations which subsist between the spheres in our own system, have been found to be such as would have resulted if the whole universe had been evolved from an original nebula or gaseous fluid. It is not necessary for the strength of this argument that any portion of the primal nebula should exist now at this late period in the history of the universe: it is only what might have been expected that the nebulæ of the present heavens should be turning out to be clusters of stars. If, then, this nebular theory be true, the universe has been developed from a primal unit, and the earth is one of the individual orbs produced in the course of its evolution. Its history is in kind like that which has been deciphered with regard to the earth: it only carries the action of physical forces, under a sustaining and directing hand, further back in time.
The science also of Chemistry is aiding in the study of the earth’s earliest development, and is preparing itself to write a history of the various changes which should have taken place among the elements from the first commencement of combination to the formation of the solid crust of our globe.
It is not proposed to enter either into chemical or astronomical details in this place, but, supposing the nebular theory to be true, briefly to mention the great stages of progress in the history of the earth, or those successive periods which stand out prominently in time through the exhibition of some new idea in the grand system of progress. The views here offered, and the following on the cosmogony of the Bible, are essentially those brought out by Professor Guyot in his lectures.
Stages of progress.—These stages of progress are as follow:—
(1.) The BEGINNING OF ACTIVITY IN MATTER.—In such a beginning from matter in the state of a gaseous fluid the activity would be intense, and it would show itself at once by a manifestation of light, since light is a resultant of molecular activity. A flash of light through the universe would therefore be the first announcement of the work begun.
(2.) The development of the EARTH.—A dividing and sub-dividing of the original fluid going on would have evolved systems of various grades, and ultimately the orbs of space, among these the earth, an igneous sphere enveloped in vapors.
(3.) The production of the EARTH’S PHYSICAL FEATURES,—by the outlining of the continents and oceans. The condensible vapors would have gradually settled upon the earth as cooling progressed.
(4.) The introduction of Life under its simplest forms,—as in the lowest of plants, and perhaps, also of animals. As shown on page 396, the systems of structure characterizing the two kingdoms of nature, the Radiate of the Vegetable kingdom, and the Radiate, Molluscan, Articulate, and Vertebrate of the Animal, are not brought out in the simplest forms of life. The true Zoic era in history began later. As plants are primarily the food of animals, there is reason for believing that the idea of life was first expressed in a plant.
(5.) The display of the Systems in the Kingdoms of Life,—the exhibition of the four grand types under the Animal kingdom, being the predominant idea in this phase of progress.
(6.) The introduction of the highest class of Vertebrates—that of the Mammals (the class to which Man belongs), viviparous species, which are eminent above all other Vertebrates for a quality prophetic of a high moral purpose,—that of suckling their young.
(7.) The introduction of Man,—the first being of moral and intellectual qualities, and one in whom the unity of nature has its full expression.
There is another great event in the Earth’s history which has not yet been mentioned, because of a little uncertainty with regard to its exact place among the others. The event referred to is the first shining of the sun upon the earth, after the vapors which till then had shrouded the sphere were mostly condensed. This must have preceded the introduction of the Animal system, since the sun is the grand source of activity throughout nature on the earth, and is essential to the existence of life, excepting its lowest forms. In the history of the globe which has been given on page 196, it has been shown that the outlining of the continents was one of the earliest events, dating even from the Azoic age; and it is probable, from the facts stated, that it preceded that clearing of the atmosphere which opened the sky to the earth. This would place the event between numbers 3 and 5, and as the sun’s light was not essential to the earliest of organisms, probably after number 4.
The order will, then, be—
(1.) Activity begun,—light an immediate result.
(2.) The earth made an independent sphere.
(3.) Outlining of the land and water, determining the earth’s general configuration.
(4.) The idea of life expressed in the lowest plants, and afterward, if not contemporaneously, in the lowest or systemless animals, or Protozoans.
(5.) The energizing light of the sun shining on the earth,—an essential preliminary to the display of the systems of life.
(6.) Introduction of the system of life.
(7.) Introduction of Mammals, the highest order of Vertebrates,—the class afterward to be dignified by including a being of moral and intellectual nature.
(8.) Introduction of Man.
Cosmogony of the Bible.—There is one ancient document on cosmogony—that of the opening page of the Bible—which is not only admired for its sublimity, but is very generally believed to be of divine origin, and which, therefore, demands at least a brief consideration in this place.
In the first place, it may be observed that this document if true, is of divine origin. For no human mind was witness of the events; and no such mind in the early age of the world, unless gifted with superhuman intelligence, could have contrived such a scheme;—would have placed the creation of the sun, the source of light to the earth, so long after the creation of light, even on the fourth day, and, what is equally singular, between the creation of plants and that of animals, when so important to both; and none could have reached to the depths of philosophy exhibited in the whole plan.
Again, If divine, the account must bear marks of human imperfection, since it was communicated through man. Ideas suggested to a human mind by the Deity would take shape in that mind according to its range of knowledge, modes of thought, and use of language, unless it were at the same time supernaturally gifted with the profound knowledge and wisdom adequate to their conception; and even then they could not be intelligibly expressed, for want of words to represent them.
The central thought of each step in the Scripture cosmogony—for example, Light,—the dividing of the fluid earth from the fluid around it, individualizing the earth,—the arrangement of its land and water,—vegetation,—and so on—is brought out in the simple and natural style of a sublime intellect, wise for its times, but unversed in the depths of science which the future was to reveal. The idea of vegetation to such a one would be vegetation as he knew it; and so it is described. The idea of dividing the earth from the fluid around it would take the form of a dividing from the fluid above, in the imperfect conceptions of a mind unacquainted with the earth’s sphericity and the true nature of the firmament,—especially as the event was beyond the reach of all ordinary thought.
Objections are often made to the word “day,”—as if its use limited the time of each of the six periods to a day of twenty-four hours. But in the course of the document this word “day” has various significations, and, among them, all that are common to it in ordinary language. These are—(1) The light,—“God called the light day,” v. 5; (2) the “evening and the morning” before the appearance of the sun; (3) the “evening and the morning” after the appearance of the sun; (4) the hours of light in the twenty-four hours (as well as the whole twenty-four hours), in verse 14; and (5) in the following chapter, at the commencement of another record of creation, the whole period of creation is called a “day.” The proper meaning of “evening and morning,” in a history of creation, is beginning and completion; and, in this sense, darkness before light is but a common metaphor.
A Deity working in creation like a day-laborer by earth-days of twenty-four hours, resting at night, is a belittling conception, and one probably never in the mind of the sacred penman. In the plan of an infinite God, centuries are required for the maturing of some of the plants with which the earth is adorned.
The order of events in the Scripture cosmogony corresponds essentially with that which has been given. There was first a void and formless earth: this was literally true of the “heavens and the earth,” if they were in a condition of a gaseous fluid. The succession is as follows:
(1.) Light.
(2.) The dividing of the waters below from the waters above the earth, (the word translated waters may mean fluid.)
(3.) The dividing of the land and water on the earth.
(4.) Vegetation; which Moses, appreciating the philosophical characteristic of the new creation distinguishing it from previous inorganic substances, defines as that “which has seed in itself.”
(5.) The sun, moon, and stars.
(6.) The lower animals, those that swarm in the waters, and the creeping and flying species of the land.
(7.) Beasts of prey (“creeping” here meaning “prowling”)—
(8.) Man.
In this succession, we observe not merely an order of events, like that deduced from science; there is a system in the arrangement, and a far-reaching prophecy, to which philosophy could not have attained, however instructed.
The account recognizes in creation two great eras of three days each,—an Inorganic and an Organic.
Each of these eras opens with the appearance of light: the first, light cosmical; the second, light from the sun for the special uses of the earth.
Each are ends in a “day” of two great works,—the two shown to be distinct by being severally pronounced “good.” On the third “day,” that closing the Inorganic era, there was first the dividing of the land from the waters, and afterward the creation of vegetation, or the institution of a kingdom of life,—a work widely diverse from all preceding it in the era. Soon the sixth “day,” terminating the Organic era, there was first the creation of Mammals, and then a second far greater work, totally new in its grandest element, the creation of Man.
The arrangement is, then, as follows:—
1. The Inorganic Era.
1st Day.—LIGHT cosmical.
2d Day.—The earth divided from the fluid around it, or
individualized.
3d Day.—{ 1. Outlining of the land and water.
{ 2. Creation of vegetation.
2. The Organic Era.
4th Day.—LIGHT from the sun.
5th Day.—Creation of the lower orders of animals.
6th Day.—{ 1. Creation of Mammals.
{ 2. Creation of Man.
In addition, the last day of each era included one work typical of the era, and another related to it in essential points, but also prophetic of the future. Vegetation, while, for physical reasons, a part of the creation of the third day, was also prophetic of the future Organic era, in which the progress of life was the grand characteristic. The record thus accords with the fundamental principle in history that the characteristic of an age has its beginnings within the age preceding. So, again, Man, while like other Mammals in structure, even to the homologies of every bone and muscle, was endowed with a spiritual nature, which looked forward to another era, that of spiritual existence.—The seventh “day,” the day of rest from the work of creation, is man’s period of preparation for that new existence; and it is to promote this special end that—in strict parallelism—the Sabbath follows man’s six days of work.
The record in the Bible is, therefore, profoundly philosophical in the scheme of creation which it presents. It is both true and divine. It is a declaration of authorship, both of Creation and the Bible, on the first page of the sacred volume.
There can be no real conflict between the two Books of the Great Author. Both are revelations made by Him to man,—the earlier telling of God-made harmonies coming up from the deep past, and rising to their height when man appeared, the later teaching man’s relations to his Maker, and speaking of loftier harmonies in the eternal future.
Footnotes
1 Twelve Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revealed Religion, by Nicholas Wiseman, D.D., Principal of the English College, and Professor in the University of Rome. Andover: Gould & Newman, 1837.
2 Prelectiones Theologicæ.
3 Cosmogonia Naturale comparata Col Genesi.
4 A Manual of Geology; treating of the Principles of the science with special reference to American Geological History, etc., by James D. Dana, M. A., LL. D., etc., 8vo, pp. 998. Philadelphia: Thos. Bliss & Co.
5 January and July, 1856, and April and July, 1857, covering in all 219 pages, 8vo.
6 The Six Days of Creation, or the Scriptural Cosmology; with the Ancient Idea of Time Worlds in Distinction from Worlds in Space, by Tayler Lewis, Professor of Greek in Union College. 12mo, pp. 407. Schenectady, 1855.
7 Man in Genesis and Geology; or, the Bible account of Man’s Creation tested by Scientific Theories of his Origin and Antiquity, by Joseph P. Thompson, D. D., LL. D. New York, 12mo, pp. 149. 1870.
8 The Chemical History of the Six Days of Creation, by John Phin, editor of the Technologist. American News Company, New York, pp. 95, 12mo, 1870.
9 Genesis, or the First Book of Moses, together with a General Theological and Homitetical Introduction to the Old Testament, by John Peter Lange, D. D., Professor in Ordinary of Theology in the University of Bonn. Translated from the German, with additions by Professor Tayler Lewis, LL. D., Schenectady, New York, and A. Gosman, D. D., Lawrenceville, N. J. New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 654 Broadway. 1868. 8vo, pp. 665.
10 2 Cor. vi. 1.
11 2 Pet. iii. 10.
12 Rom. i. 18.
13 It may be useful once for all to inform the reader that the term Rock is employed by Geologists in a technical sense. It is applied to every large mass of mineral matter that goes to form the Crust of the Earth, whether it be hard and strong, or soft and plastic. Thus, for example, gravel and clay, coal and slate, are called Rocks, just as well as limestone and granite. “Our older writers endeavored to avoid offering such violence to our language, by speaking of the component materials of the Earth as consisting of rocks and soils. But there is often so insensible a passage from a soft and incoherent state to that of stone, that Geologists of all countries have found it indispensable to have one technical term to include both, and in this sense we find roche applied in French, rocca in Italian, and felsart in German. The beginner, however, must constantly bear in mind, that the term rock by no means implies that a mineral mass is in an indurated or stony condition.”—Lyell’s Elements of Geology, p. 4.
14 Lyell’s Elements of Geology, p. 7.
15 See Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 411-413.
16 See Jukes, The Student’s Manual of Geology, p. 125.
17 Professor Tyndall, Odds and Ends of Alpine Life.
18 Ecclesiastes, i. 7.
19 Page, Advanced Text-Book of Geology, p. 55.
20 See on this subject, Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 458, and pp. 480-3; Jukes, Manual of Geology, pp. 105-11; Page, Advanced Text-Book of Geology, pp. 52-56.
21 Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 356-7.
22 Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 360.
23 See Jukes, Manual of Geology, pp. 108-10; Hopkins, Presidential Address to the Geological Society of London, 1852, p. xxvii.
24 For these facts see Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 349, 350; Quarterly Journal of Science, No. xiii., New Series; The English Cyclopædia, Natural History Division, Alluvium.
25 For these facts illustrating the destructive action of the waves of the sea we are chiefly indebted to the following authorities: Hibbert, Description of the Shetland Isles; Phillips, Rivers, Mountains, and Sea-coast of Yorkshire; Geology of Yorkshire, by the same author; Pennant’s Arctic Zoology, vol. i.; Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. i., chapters xx. and xxi.; Gardner’s History of the Borough of Dunwich; the English Cyclopædia, Alluvium.
26 Rennell’s Investigation of the Currents in the Atlantic Ocean; Maury’s Physical Geography of the Sea, chapters ii. and iii.; Humboldt’s Cosmos; The English Cyclopædia, Atlantic Ocean; Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. i., chapter xx.
27 Mantell’s Wonders of Geology, p. 70.
28 In his notes to the translation of Humboldt’s Cosmos, p. xcvii.
29 A Hymn before Sunrise in the Vale of Chamouni, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge.
30 Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 374-5.
31 Voyage in 1822, p. 233.
32 Elements of Geology, pp. 145, 146.
33 Captain Horsburg, On Icebergs in Low Latitudes. Phil. Trans., 1830.
34 Agassiz, Etudes sur les Glaciers; Tyndall, Glaciers of the Alps; also Heat as a mode of Motion, by the same Author; Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., chapter xvi.; Elements of Geology, chapters xi., xii.; Wallace, Ice Marks in North Wales, in the Quarterly Journal of Science, No. xiii.
35 Elements of Geology, p. 38.
36 Mantell, Wonders of Geology, vol. i., p. 102.
37 Lyell, Elements of Geology, p. 42; also Principles, vol. i., p. 410.
38 Mantell’s Wonders of Geology, pp. 70, 81, 82, 83.
39 Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 431.
40 Id. ib., p. 429.
41 The figures given by Sir Charles Lyell, and derived from the observations of Mr. Everest, are these: total discharge during the four months of rain, 6,082,041,600 cubic feet; total discharge during the three months of hot weather, 38,154,240 cubic feet.—Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 481.
42 From a Special Correspondent, in the Times Newspaper, December 7, 1866.
43 Horner, Alluvial Land of Egypt, Phil. Trans., part I., for 1855; Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 431-9.
44 The English Cyclopædia, Alluvium.
45 Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., chapters XVIII., XIX.
46 Consolations in Travel, p. 127.
47 Handbook of Rome and its Environs: Murray, 1858, p. 325.
48 Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., 400-3.
49 Jukes, Manual of Geology, p. 127.
50 See his Lecture On a Piece of Chalk, delivered during the Meeting of the British Association at Norwich, 1868.
51 Lyell, Elements of Geology, p. 318.
52 Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. ii., chap. xlix.; Mantell, Wonders of Geology, Lecture vi.; Jukes, Manual of Geology, pp. 130-3.
53 Sacred Philosophy of the Seasons, by the Rev. Henry Duncan, D.D.; Summer, p. 168.
54 Ps. xcix. 3.
55 Kotzebue’s Voyages, 1815-18, vol. iii., pp. 331-33.
56 Wonders of Geology, p. 648.
57 Organic Remains of a Former World, vol. ii., p. 16.
58 Carbonic acid gas contains two equivalents of oxygen to one of carbon, the chemical expression for the compound being CO2; carburetted hydrogen, which is the gas we employ in illuminating our streets and houses, contains four equivalents of hydrogen to two of carbon, and is chemically expressed by the symbols C2H4; water is composed of one equivalent of oxygen, and one of hydrogen, the symbolic form being HO.
59 See Jukes, Manual of Geology, pp. 138-141; Lyell, Elements of Geology, p. 500.
60 Jukes, Manual of Geology, p. 140.
61 See Mantell, Wonders of Geology, pp. 680-2; also 760; Lyell, Elements of Geology, 464, 465.
62 Elements of Geology, p. 488.
63 Mantell, Wonders of Geology, p. 67.
64 Mantell, Wonders of Geology, p. 66.
65 Id. Ib.
66 Chemical Technology, Ronalds and Richardson, vol. i., p. 32.
67 See Lyell, Elements of Geology, 477-81; Jukes, Manual of Geology, 138, 149-53; The English Cyclopædia, Natural History Department, Article, Coal; Mantell, Fossils of the British Museum, Chapter i., Part I.
68 Page, Advanced Text-Book of Geology, n. 7, pp. 20, 21.
69 From the Latin Fossilis, dug up.
70 Elements of Geology, p. 38.
71 Elements of Geology, p. 40.
72 Manual of Geology, p. 375.
73 Lyell, Elements of Geology, pp. 40-41. The reader will find a singularly clear and simple exposition of this subject in Doctor Haughton’s Manual of Geology, Lecture III.; an exposition which it was not our good fortune to have read until our own brief summary was already in type.
74 Buckland, Bridgewater Treatise, vol. i., p. 123; Mantell, Wonders of Geology, p. 269; Lyell, Elements of Geology, p. 687.
75 Mantell, Wonders of Geology, Lecture IV., Fossils of the British Museum, chapter V.; see, also, Medals of Creation, and Fossils of the South Downs, by the same Author.
76 Owen’s Palæontology, pp. 200-9; Buckland, Bridgewater Treatise, vol. i., pp. 168-186; Mantell, Wonders of Geology, pp. 576-581; Lyell, Elements of Geology, pp. 420-425; Jukes, Manual of Geology, pp. 598-599.
77 Buckland’s Bridgewater Treatise, vol. i., pp. 202-14; Owen’s Palæontology, 223-232.
78 Buckland, Bridgewater Treatise, vol. i., pp. 139-164; Owen’s Palæontology, pp. 390-2; Mantell, Wonders of Geology, pp. 166-9; Fossils of the British Museum, pp. 465-480; The English Cyclopædia, Natural History Division, Article, Megatheridæ.
79 Lyell, Elements of Geology, p. 4.
80 Wonders of Geology, p. 400.
81 See Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 31, who refers to Da Vinci’s MSS. now in the Library of the Institute of France.
82 See Lyell, Elements of Geology, pp. 94-96; Principles of Geology, p. 116; Jukes, Manual of Geology, pp. 410, 411.
83 Elements of Geology, p. 95.
84 Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 115.
85 Lyell, Elements of Geology, p. 100.
86 Principles of Geology, vol. i., p. 312.
87 Ib. 313.
88 Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 321, 322.
89 Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects: London, 1867; pp. 9, 10.
90 It would be more strictly correct to say that the rate of increase varies considerably in different places, though the main fact is everywhere palpably apparent that the deeper we descend into the Earth the higher the temperature becomes. Sir Charles Lyell records a number of careful experiments made in England, France, Germany, and Italy, which seem to show that an increase of one degree Fahrenheit for every sixty-five feet of descent would represent pretty correctly the general average. See his Principles of Geology, vol. ii., pp. 205, 206.
91 See Sir John Herschel, Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects, pp. 26, 27.
92 See the elaborate work of Sir William Hamilton, entitled Campi Phlegraei, in which he gives a full account of the formation of Monte Nuovo, accompanied with colored plates. He has preserved two interesting narratives of the eruption written at the time by eye-witnesses. See also Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. i., pp. 606-616.
93 Sir John Herschel, Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects, p. 34; see also Lyell, Principles of Geology, chap. xxvii.; Mantell, Wonders of Geology, pp. 872-4.
94 See Herschel, Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects, pp. 34-6. Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. ii., pp. 104-6.
95 Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects, pp. 31, 32.
96 Principles of Geology, vol. ii., pp. 59, 60.
97 Principles of Geology, vol. ii. pp. 69, 70.
98 For the account of these various Earthquakes we are mainly indebted to the indefatigable industry of Sir Charles Lyell, who has collected the facts with great care partly from the descriptions of eye-witnesses, and partly from authentic documents written upon the spot. See his Principles of Geology, vol. ii., chap, xxviii., xxix., xxx. See also Mr. Mallet’s Earthquake Catalogue; and the first of Sir John Herschel’s Lectures on Familiar Subjects.
99 The following are the sources from which we have chiefly derived our information regarding the Peruvian Earthquake of 1868: (1) a series of letters written upon the scene of the catastrophe, and published in The Times of September 26, 1868; amongst them is one from the British Vice-consul, and one from the agent of the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, who were both at the time residents of Arica: (2) a letter of Mr. Clements Markham in The Times of September 15, 1868: (3) Captain Powell’s Report to the Admiralty, dated September 14, 1868.
100 Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. ii., p. 176.
101 Id. ib.
102 Letter from C. Hullmandel, Esq.; see Mantell, Wonders of Geology, Appendix G., p. 470. For a full and elaborate disquisition on the Temple of Jupiter Serapis, see also Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. ii., chap. xxv.
103 Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. ii., chap. xxxi.
104 Ibid.
105 On a Piece of Chalk: A Lecture to Working Men.
106 Genesis, v. 3-32.
107 Ib., xi. 10-26.
108 Ib., v. 3-9.
109 Genesis, xii. 4.
110 The Genesis of the Earth and Man, Edited by Reginald Stuart Poole: London; Williams and Norgate; 1860.
111 “Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood.”—Genesis, xi. 10.
112 This second Cainan does not appear in the Hebrew or the Samaritan version.
113 Appendix (1).
114 Appendix (2).
115 Appendix (3).
116 Exodus, xx. 9-11.
117 Appendix (4), (5), (6).
118 See Gesenius, sub vocibus.
119 Appendix (7).
120 Appendix (8).
121 Appendix (9).
122 Appendix (10).
123 Appendix (11) (12).
124 Appendix (13) (14) (15).
125 Appendix (16).
126 In Genes. cap. i. Quæst. xiv.
127 Appendix (17).
128 See his various works upon Genesis, passim; in particular de Genesi ad Literam, Lib. i. cap. xv., Lib. iv. cap. xxxiii.; De Genesi Liber Imperfectus, cap. vii. and cap. ix.
129 This latter view might be fairly maintained in conformity with the principles which Saint Augustine professes to follow in the interpretation of Genesis. See De Genesi ad Literam, Lib. i. cap. xxi. and cap. xxii.
130 See De Genesi ad Literam, Lib. i. cap. xv.; De Genesi Liber Imperfectus, cap. vii.; Confess., Lib. xii. cap. xxix.
131 2 Peter, iii. 8.
132 Appendix (18) (19) (20).
133 Wisdom, ix. 13-16.
134 See Pianciani, Cosmogonia, pp. 384-90.
135 See Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures; in voce. He thus explains the first meaning of this word: “copulative, and serves to connect both words and sentences, especially in continuing a discourse.”
136 Appendix (21).
137 See De Genesi ad Literam, Lib. iv. capp. xxvi.-xxxv., Lib. v. cap. i. n. 3, and cap. iii. n. 6.
138 Ecclesiasticus, xviii. 1.
139 Appendix (22).
140 Appendix (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31).
141 See De Genesi ad Literam, Lib. iv. capp. xxvi., xxvii.; also Lib. i. capp. x., xi., xii.
142 Appendix (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37).
143 Amos, viii. 11, 12.
144 Psalm ii. 7.
145 Heb. i. 5.
146 Jeremias, cap. l. vv. 24-32.
147 Jeremias, li. 1, 2.
148 Jeremias, xlvi. 3-10, 19-21.
149 Ezechiel, xxix. 19-21.
150 Ezechiel, xxx. 3-9.
151 Sophonias, v. 8-11, 14-17.
152 Isaias, xxix. 17-19.
153 Matth. xi. 4, 5.
154 John, viii. 56.
155 2 Cor. vii. 1, 2.
156 Luke, xix. 41-43.
157 Dan. viii. 14.
158 Appendix (38) (39) (40) (41).
159 Exodus, xx. 9-11.
160 Exodus, xxiii. 10-12.
161 Leviticus, xxv. 2-7.
162 2 Cor. v. 14, 15.
163 Matt. viii. 22; Luke, ix. 60.
164 John, xx. 17.
165 Rom. xiii. 12, 13.
166 I. Thessal. v. 4, 5.
167 Amos, viii. 9.
168 Appendix (42) (43).
169 Gen. i. 11, 12.
170 The Testimony of the Rocks, p. 125.
171 Genesis, i. 20, 21.
172 Testimony of the Rocks, p. 126.
173 Genesis, i. 24, 25.
174 Testimony of the Rocks, pp. 127, 128.
175 Elements of Geology, p. 100.
176 “Aliquid esse a Deo conditum, de quo sileat liber Genesis, nihil repugnat.” Saint Augustine, Confess. Lib. xii., cap. xxii.
177 Appendix (44).
178 Ecclesiastes, iii. 2.