HEXAEMERON
315
HEXAEMERON
while it safeguards the veracity of the inspired record.
It is urged that the idea of Adam's learning the history
of the origin of the world in a vision was suggested by
Chrysostom (P. G., LIII, 27), Severianus Gabalitus
("Or. V", P. G., LVI, 431), and Junilius Africanus
("Instit. regularia ", lib. I, iii sq., in P. L., LXVIII,
i7),fortheytaughtthatMo.ses learned the cosmogony
by means of a prophetic light illuminating past, in-
stead of future, events. Similar views concerning
the origin of the Biblical cosmogony are advanced Ijy
Basil (P. G., XXIX, 5), Ambrose (P."L.,XIV, 131 sqq.),
Eustathius (P. L., LIII, 869), Gregorv of Nvssa (P.
G., XLIV, 65), Procopius (P. G., LXXXVII, 28), and
other early writers. In more recent times the vision
theory has been explained and partly defended by
such writers as I. H. Kurtz (" Bibel und Astronomic ",
Berlin, 1842), H. Miller ("The Testimony of the
Rocks", Edinburgh, 18.57), F. W. Schultz ("Die
Schopfungsgeschichte nach Naturwissenschaft und
Bibel", Gotha, 1865), H. Reusch (" Bibel und Natur",
Freiburg, 1S70), F. de Rougemont (" Le surnaturel
ddmontr^ par les sciences naturelles", Neuchatel,
1870), B. Schafer ("Bibel und Wissenschaf t ", Miin-
ster, 1881), Moigno ("Les splendeurs de la foi ", Paris,
1877), E. Bougaud ("Le christianisme et les temps
presents", Paris, 1878), M. I. Scheeben (" Handbuch
der katholischen Dogmatik", Freiburg, 1S7S), von
Hummelauer ("Der biblische Schopfungsbericht ",
Freiburg, 1877; "Stimmen aus Maria Laach ", XXII,
1882, p. 97), V. Becker (" Studien op godsdienstig, wet-
enschappeliik en letterkundig gebied ", Brussels and
Bar-le-Duc, 1879), I. Corluy ("Spicil. dogm.-bibl. ", I,
880 sqq., Ghent, 1884; "La science catholique",
15 July, 1889), W. Gray Elmslie ("The First Chapter
of Genesis" in "Contemporary Review", 1887), and
some anonymous authors ("The Mosaic Record in
Harmony with the Geological", London, 1855; the
" Katholik ", 1, 1879, p. 2.50 sqq.). Still, there are other
interpreters who take exception to the vision theory;
they urge that in other parts of the Bible the presence
of a vision is always indicated, that such a practical
precept as the observance of the Sabbath cannot be
based on a mere vision, etc.
(f ) The Poetic Theory. — We omit here the view that the Hexaemeron is merely an inspired record of a Semitic myth or a profane tradition (cf. F. Lenor- mant, " Origines ", I) ; this theory has been considered above. In a modified form it has been adopted by those writers who consider the Biblical cosmogony as a poem incorporated by Moses in the Book of Gene- sis. G. E. Paulus ("NeuesRepertorium", Jena, 1790) calls Gen., i, a Sabbath hymn; Rorison ("Replies to Essays and Reviews", 1861), a creation psalm; Hux- table (The Sacred Record of Creation), a parable in- tended to teach the keeping of the Sabbath; Bishop Clifford ("Dubhn Review", 1881, I, p. 311 sqq.; II, p. 498 sqq.; "The London Tablet", 1881, April to July), a scheme to consecrate each day of the week to a particular creative act of God, so as to do away with the previous consecration of the weekdays to the several heathen gods. But both the setting of the Hexaemeron in the Book of Genesis and the constant tradition concerning its literary character agree in proclaiming its historicity; the poetic theory is at variance with this testimony.
B. AUerjorical Explanations. — Philo maintained the eternity of matter, identified the light of the first day with the angels, and gave a similar allegorical explana- tion of the other cosmogonic days. Origen, too (" Hom. in Hex. " in P. G., XII, 145 sqq.; "Deprinc. ", lib. IV, n. 16, and "C. Cels. ", hb. VI, 60, in P. G., XI, 376 sq., 13S0), follows an allegorical explanation — the light of the first day denotes the angels, the abyss is hell, the upper and lower waters are the good and bad angels, the sun and the moon are Christ and His Church, etc. The world was created simultaneously, the various days denote only the diversity of created
objects. Athanasius ("Or. II, c. Arian. ", n. 60, in P. G.,
XXVI, 276) also appears to maintain a simultaneous
creation of the world ; Procopius ("Comment. " in P. G.,
LXXXVII, 28 sqq.) regards the days of the Hexaeme-
ron as purely ideal, indicating the order of created
things. St. Augustine attempted three different times
to explain the Hexaemeron in a literal sense, but each
time he ended with an allegorical exegesis. In 389 ("De
Gen. c. Manich. " in P. L., XXXIV, 173) he arrived at
the conclusion that the cosmogonic evening and morn-
ing denote the completion and the inception of each
successive work. In 393 ("De Gen. ad lit.lib.imperf."
in P. L., XXXIV, 221) the great African Doctor starts
again with a literal explanation of Gen., i, but is soon
perplexed by the questions: Did God consume the
whole day in creating the various works? — How could
there be days before there were heavenly luminaries?
— How could there be light before the existence of the
sun and the stars? — This leads him to adopt simul-
taneous creation, to identify the light of the first day
with the angels, and to explain the evening and morn-
ing by the limitation and the beauty of the various
created objects. In 401 Augustine began the third
time to explain the Hexaemeron (" De Gen. ad lit. libr.
XII" in P. L., XXXIV. 245; cf. "Retract.", II, 24;
"Confe.ss. ", lib. XII sq., in P. L., XXXII, 825), but
puljlished his results only fifteen years later. He
admits again a simultaneous formation of the world,
so that the six days indicate an order of dignity —
angels, the firmament, the earth, etc. Morning and
evening he refers now to the knowledge of the angels,
assuming that they denote respectively the angehc
vision of things in the Word of God, and the vision of
the objects themselves. The opinion of Augustine
was followed by p.seudo-Eueherius ("Comm. in Gen."
in P. L., L, 893), Isidore (" Qua?st. in Gen. "; " Sent.",
I, 10, in P. L., LXXXIII, 207, ir53), pseudo-Augus-
tine ("De mirab. script, s. " in P. L., XXXV, 2149),
another pseudo-Augustine ("Quaest. ex V. et N. T. "
in P. L., XXXV, 2213), Alcuin ("Interr. et respons.
in Gen. " in P. L., C. 515), Scotus Eriugena (" De divis.
natur. " m P. L., CXXII, 439), Rupertus ("De Trinit.
et oper. ejus" in P. L., CLXVII, 199), and Abelard
("Expos, in Hex." in P. L., CLXXVIII, 7.31). In
the sixteenth century, too, Cajetan and Melchior Cano
adhered to the view of a simultaneous creation (cf.
" Loc. theol.", Salamanca, 1563). In the following
centuries this allegorical interpretation developed into
two main branches: —
(a) The Concordists.— I. Kant (1755) and P. S. Laplace (1796) suggested that the stars were formed under the influence of the force of gravity by the rota- tion of the primitive body of matter around its own axis. G. Cuvier ("Discours sur les revolutions du globe", Paris, 1812) divided the ages of geological formation into six periods and separated one from the other by great catastrophes. He was followed in this by M. de Serres (De la cosmogonie de Moise), J. F. Kriiger ("Geschichte der Urwelt", Quedlinburg and Leipzig, 1822), D. A. de Frayssinous ("Defense du christian- isme", Paris, 1825), A. Nicolas ("Etudes philoso- phiques sur le Christianisme", Paris, 1842), and I. B. Pianciani ("In historiam creationis mosaicam com- mentatio", Naples, 1851). C. Lyell (1836-38) denied the occurrence of the six great catastrophes, substi- tuting an imperceptibly slow process of geological for- mation in their place. Still, there remains the general division into the palaeozoic, the mesozoic, and the ccenozoic strata; the first are characterized by their remains of carboniferous plants; the second by traces of amphibious and fish life; the third show remnants of mammals. These periods correspond, therefore, roughly speaking, to the third, fifth, and sixth days of the Hexaemeron. Similarly, there appear to be astro- nomical periods which correspond to the first, second, and fourth days of Gen., i. It is not surprising, there- fore, that the so-called Concordists have found these
