Geology and Revelation: or, the Ancient History of the Earth, considered in the geological facts and revealed religion.Molloy, Gerald
Religion
Geology and Revelation: or, the Ancient History of the Earth, considered in the geological facts and revealed religion.
Molloy, Gerald
Bible and geology; Bible and science
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]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account