DISPUTATION: Whether the world was founded over the intervals of six days, or all at once in a single point of time? — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

LatineEnglish

DISPUTATION: Whether the world was founded over the intervals of six days, or all at once in a single point of time?¹

DISPUTATIO: Utrum mundus per sex dierum intervalla, an simul totus uno temporis puncto sit conditus?

Sed absoluta divinorum operum (excepto homine de cuius creatione separatim libro quarto disputabimus) quae sex primis diebus effecta sunt, explanatione: restat ut duas perquam gratias ac nobiles disputationes pertractemus, alteram, an mundus per sex dierum intervalla sit factus, an uno temporis momento simul totus sit conditus: alteram...

But the explanation of the divine works (man excepted, of whose creation we shall dispute separately in the fourth book) which were effected in the first six days being now finished, it remains for us to treat two most pleasing and noble disputations: one, whether the world was made over the intervals of six days, or was founded all at once in a single moment of time; the other...²

...ram vero, cur de creatione Angelorum nullum hoc loco Moses verbum fecerit. Vetus et perquam gravis quaestio est apud Patres et doctos viros, an opificium mundi, universum simul, eodemque puncto temporis factum et consummatum fuerit, an vero paulatim et particulatim per sex dies, id quod narratio Mosis prae se fert, sit absolutum. Philo Iudaeus in lib. de Allegoriis legis Mosaicae, rusticanae inquit esse simplicitatis, existimare mundum decursu, ac mora sex dierum esse conditum: cum distinctio et successio dierum atque noctium, et ratio ipsius temporis constare nequeat, ante mundum conditum, sed motum Caeli maxime vero Solis et Lunae consequatur. Cum igitur Moses ait Deum sex diebus absoluisse mundi fabricam, non est id, auctore Philone, ad intervalla sex dierum referendum, sed intelligendum est, illo dierum numero, significari mundi perfectionem, quae per numeri senarii perfectionem designatur. Idem censet hoc loco Procopius Gazaeus: Mosen enim inquit, in describendo mundi opificium, sex dierum distinctione usum esse, docendi gratia ob tarditatem videlicet, ruditatemque Iudaeorum, quibus haec scribebat: qui quae Deus simul fecerat, ob tantam eorum multitudinem atque varietatem simul et indiscrete capere et comprehendere, ut erant angustissimis ingeniis, nequaquam potuissent. Accedit huic sententiae, Caietanus in Comment. super 1. cap. Geneseos, et distinctionem sex dierum, putat in id positam a Mose, quo facilius declararet naturalem rerum ordinem, consequentiam et dependentiam.

...the other, why Moses made no word in this place about the creation of the Angels. It is an old and very grave question among the Fathers and learned men, whether the fabric of the world, the whole at once and in the same point of time, was made and consummated, or whether it was finished gradually and part by part over six days, which the narrative of Moses presents on its face. Philo the Jew, in the book On the Allegories of the Mosaic Law, says that it is of rustic simplicity to think that the world was founded over the course and delay of six days, since the distinction and succession of days and nights, and the reckoning of time itself, cannot exist before the world was founded, but follow the motion of the Heaven, and most of all of the Sun and the Moon. When therefore Moses says that God finished the fabric of the world in six days, that—according to Philo—is not to be referred to the intervals of six days, but it is to be understood that by that number of days is signified the perfection of the world, which is designated by the perfection of the number six. The same Procopius of Gaza holds in this place: for he says that Moses, in describing the fabric of the world, used the distinction of six days for the sake of teaching, namely on account of the slowness and rudeness of the Jews, for whom he was writing these things—who could by no means have grasped and comprehended at once and confusedly the things which God had made at once, on account of their so great multitude and variety, being of the narrowest understandings. To this opinion Cajetan accedes, in his commentary on the first chapter of Genesis, and he thinks the distinction of six days was set down by Moses for this, that he might the more easily declare the natural order, sequence, and dependence of things.³

Sic enim res suapte natura inter se aptae et connexae sunt, ut si mundum successive voluisset Deus facere, non alio ordine vel successione, quam ut hic narratur, facturus eum fuisset.

For things are by their own nature so fitted and connected among themselves that, if God had willed to make the world successively, he would have made it in no other order or succession than as it is here narrated.⁴

Verum enimvero inter Theologos, huius opinionis princeps et auctor fuit Augustinus: qui cum aliis locis, tum aliquot disertissime lib. 4. de Genesi ad litteram, cap. 21. et sequentibus capitibus usque ad finem eius libri, similius vero ac multo probabilius, et tam rationi quam divinae Scripturae congruentius, omnes mundi partes simul esse perfectas, quam per successionem aliarum post alias, et per intervalla temporum, arbitratur. Is porro nomine diei interpretatur cognitionem rerum quam habent Angeli a Deo, mentibus ipsorum impressam, nam quaecunque Deus fecit in mundo, ea prius, aut certe simul expressit, in Angelorum intelligentia. Mane est cognitio rerum in Verbo: vespere est earundem rerum in ipsismet rebus. Angeli namque dupliciter res noverunt, et in Verbo cognitione clarissima, et in ipsismet rebus, per infusas sibi a Deo species intelligibiles. Sex dierum distinctio, est cognitio rerum sexies in Angelo secundum sex genera rerum a Deo conditarum multiplicata. Atque haec est Augustini sententia: quae partim nonnullis Scripturae testimoniis, partim etiam quibusdam rationibus confirmatur. In libro Ecclesiastici capite 18. sic est, Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul. Ecce simul ait Scriptura esse omnia facta, quid potuit pro opinione Augustini...

But in truth, among the theologians, the chief and author of this opinion was Augustine; who, both in other places and most eloquently in the fourth book On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 21 and the following chapters to the end of that book, judges it more likely and much more probable, and more agreeable both to reason and to divine Scripture, that all the parts of the world were perfected at once, than by the succession of some after others and through intervals of time. He, moreover, by the name 'day' interprets the knowledge of things which the Angels have from God, impressed on their minds; for whatever God made in the world, he expressed it beforehand, or at least at the same time, in the intelligence of the Angels. The 'morning' is the knowledge of things in the Word; the 'evening' is [the knowledge] of the same things in the things themselves. For the Angels knew things in two ways: both in the Word, by a most clear knowledge, and in the things themselves, through the intelligible species infused into them by God. The distinction of six days is the knowledge of things multiplied sixfold in the Angel, according to the six kinds of things founded by God. And this is the opinion of Augustine, which is confirmed partly by some testimonies of Scripture, partly also by certain reasons. In the book of Ecclesiasticus, chapter 18, it is thus: He that liveth for ever created all things together. Behold, Scripture says that all things were made together—what could be said for Augustine's opinion...⁵

...Augustini vel explicatius, vel illustrius, vel fortius dici? Deinde in cap. 2. lib. Geneseos ita legitur, In die quo fecit Dominus Deus caelum et terram, et omne virgultum agri: in eodem igitur die, caelum, terra et plantae sunt creatae: atqui creatio plantarum exposita est a Mose, in tertia die; quare distinctio illa dierum revera ad unum et eundem diem pertinet. Ad hoc Dominus apud Iob cap. 40. Ecce, inquit, Behemoth, quem feci tecum: Per Behemoth fere Patres exponunt diabolum: sunt igitur diabolus et homo simul creati: sed ille creatus dicitur ante primum diem; hominem autem narrat Moses factum sexto die; ergo enumeratio illa sex dierum, veram distinctionem et successionem temporum minime denotat. Accedit his, cum Deus sit infinitae potentiae ad agendum, et omnia producta sint ex nihilo, quod nullam prorsus habet vim resistendi aut retardandi actionem opificis; videtur profecto consentaneum, Deum non creasse res ex nihilo paulatim et per moras temporum, sed, quod magis congruit eius omnipotentiae, fecisse eas simul omnes et unico temporis momento.

...more explicitly, or more illustriously, or more strongly for Augustine's opinion? Then in the second chapter of Genesis it is read thus: In the day that the Lord God made heaven and earth, and every shrub of the field: in the same day, therefore, heaven, earth, and the plants were created; but the creation of the plants was set forth by Moses on the third day; wherefore that distinction of days in fact pertains to one and the same day. To this [add] that the Lord, in Job chapter 40, says: Behold Behemoth, which I made with thee. By Behemoth the Fathers generally expound the devil; therefore the devil and man were created together; but the former is said to have been created before the first day, and Moses narrates that man was made on the sixth day; therefore that enumeration of six days by no means denotes a true distinction and succession of times. Add to these that, since God is of infinite power for acting, and all things were produced out of nothing, which has no power at all of resisting or retarding the action of the maker, it seems indeed agreeable that God did not create things out of nothing gradually and with delays of time, but, what more befits his omnipotence, made them all at once and in a single moment of time.⁶

Verumtamen contrariam Augustino sententiam, equidem non modo probabiliorem iudico, sed etiam certae ac indubitatae veritatis censeo. Haec enim fuit sententia fere omnium Patrum et Doctorum Ecclesiae, quotquot fuerunt ante Augustinum, quinetiam complures Theologorum, ceteroqui doctrinae Augustinianae studiosissimi et acerrimi defensores, veluti Beda in Hexameron, Hugo de S. Victore in 1. lib. de Sacramentis, Rupertus in libro 1. de Operibus Trinitatis cap. 37. et lib. 2. cap. 18. Magister sententiarum in lib. 2. dist. 12. et ibidem Bonaventura, aliique permulti in hoc desciverunt ab Augustino: et ante omnes S. Gregorius lib. 32. Moralium, cap. 10. his verbis,

Nevertheless the opinion contrary to Augustine I for my part judge not only more probable, but I reckon it of sure and undoubted truth. For this was the opinion of nearly all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, as many as there were before Augustine, and also of very many theologians—otherwise most zealous and keen defenders of the Augustinian teaching—such as Bede in the Hexameron, Hugh of St Victor in the first book On the Sacraments, Rupert in the first book On the Works of the Trinity, chapter 37, and book 2, chapter 18, the Master of the Sentences in book 2, distinction 12, and there too Bonaventure, and very many others who in this departed from Augustine; and before all, St. Gregory in the thirty-second book of the Morals, chapter 10, in these words:⁷

“Again it must be asked how God founded all things together, while Moses, with the change of six days varying, describes them as created distinctly; which, however, we more quickly understand if we subtly investigate the very causes of their origins. For the substance of things was created together, but the species was not formed together; and what existed together by the substance of matter did not appear together by the species of form. For when heaven and earth are described as made together, it is indicated that the spiritual and the corporeal [were made] together, that whatever arises from heaven [was made] together, that whatever is produced from earth was made together. The sun, moon, and stars are reported to have been made in heaven on the fourth day; but what came forth in species on the fourth day existed on the first day in the substance of heaven by its founding. The earth is said to be created on the first day, and on the third the shrubs founded, and all the green things of the earth are described; and this which on the third day brought itself forth in species, was without doubt founded on the first day, in that very substance of the earth out of which it arose. Hence it is that Moses both related all things as founded distinctly through the several days, and yet subjoined that all were created together, saying: These are the generations of heaven and earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord made heaven and earth, and every shrub of the field before it sprang up in the earth, and every herb of the field. For he who had narrated heaven and earth, shrub and herb, as created on different days, now manifests them as made in one day; that he might clearly show...”⁸

Rursum quaerendum est, quomodo Deus cuncta simul condidit, dum Moyses sex dierum mutatione variante, distincte creata describat, quod tamen citius agnoscimus, si ipsas causas originum subtiliter indagamus. Rerum quippe substantia simul creata est, sed simul species formata non est: et quod simul extitit per substantiam materiae, non simul apparuit per speciem formae. Cum enim simul factum caelum terraque describitur, simul spiritalia atque corporalia, simul quicquid de caelo oritur, simul factum quicquid de terra producitur, indicatur. Sol quippe, luna, et sydera quarto die in caelo facta perhibentur: sed quod quarto die processit in specie, primo die in caeli substantia extitit per conditionem. Primo die creata terra dicitur, et tertio arbusta condita, et cuncta terrae virentia describuntur, et hoc quod die tertio se in specie protulit, nimirum primo die, in ipsa de qua ortum est terrae substantia conditum fuit. Hinc est, quod Moyses et distincte per dies singulos condita omnia retulit, et tamen simul omnia creata subiunxit, dicens, Ista sunt generationes caeli et terrae, quando creata sunt in die quo fecit Dominus caelum et terram et omne virgultum agri, antequam oriretur in terra, omnemque herbam regionis. Qui enim diversis diebus creatum caelum et terram virgultum herbamque narraverat, nunc uno die facta manifestat; ut liquido ostende-...

...ostende[ret], quod creatura omnis simul per substantiam exstitit, quamvis non simul per speciem processit. Haec Magnus Gregorius. At licet B. Thomas in 2. parte q.74 art.2, exposita utraque opinione, noluerit suffragio et iudicio suo utra sit probabilior decernere, attamen si quis bene perpendat disputationis eius progressum, ad hanc nostram potius quam ad illam Augustini sententiam propendere eum animadvertet. Idem S. Thomas, quarta quaestione De potentia Dei articulo 2, dicit opinionem Augustini esse subtiliorem et commodiorem ad liberandam Scripturam ab irrisione infidelium, licet contraria sit planior et litterae Mosis convenientior. Certe Dionysius Areopagita in libro De divinis nominibus, parte prima capitis 4, de luce solis verba faciens, sic ait:

...so as to show plainly that every creature came into being simultaneously in respect of substance, although it did not proceed forth simultaneously in respect of species. Thus the great Gregory. But although St. Thomas, in the Second Part, question 74, article 2, having laid out both opinions, was unwilling to decide by his own vote and judgment which is the more probable, nevertheless, if one weighs carefully the course of his discussion, he will observe that Thomas inclines rather to this view of ours than to that opinion of Augustine. The same St. Thomas, in the fourth question of De potentia Dei, article 2, says that Augustine's opinion is the subtler and the more convenient for delivering Scripture from the mockery of unbelievers, although the contrary opinion is plainer and more in keeping with the letter of Moses. Indeed Dionysius the Areopagite, in his book On the Divine Names, in the first part of chapter 4, speaking of the light of the sun, says thus:⁹

This light too is the measure and number of the hours, the days, and of all the passing course of time. For it is that very light (although it was then unformed, as the divine Moses also declares) by which He distinguished and defined the first triad of our days.¹⁰

Haec quoque mensura et numerus est horarum, dierum totiusque labentis temporis lux. Ipsa est enim ea lux (etsi tunc erat informis, quod et divinus Moses ait) qua primam distinxit et diffinivit dierum nostrorum trinitatem.

Vult igitur Dionysius tres primos dies a luce solis tunc informi esse diffinitos et peractos; quare sententiae eius repugnat quisquis sex illorum dierum temporalem distinctionem et successionem e medio tollit.

Dionysius means, then, that the first three days were defined and completed by the light of the sun, then still unformed; and therefore whoever does away with the temporal distinction and succession of those six days contradicts his judgment.

VERUM quanta sit huius sententiae probabilitas, multis atque validis rationibus demonstrabo. Primo, haec doctrina Mosis de creatione mundi est quaedam historica narratio tradita rudi populo Iudaeorum, simplici ratione docens quae a Deo facta sunt in opificio mundi; quare quae in ea traduntur, sic accipienda sunt ut verba ipsa sonant; et illa existimanda est melior interpretatio, quae verbis Mosis secundum propriam et usitatam significationem eorum sumptis magis congruere et consonare reperietur. Moses autem explicatissime ac distinctissime percenset sex dies in fabricando mundo transactos; quin particulatim edocet quid quoque illorum dierum factum fuerit. Nec, si cogitate Moses et ex professo ostendere voluisset mundum non simul sed per sex dies esse creatum, id quam nunc docet apertius et enucleatius docere potuisset. Quod si voluit significare mundum esse factum simul, non potuit uti oratione et verbis proposito suo magis alienis, dissentaneis atque contrariis. Nec illud probandum est quod respondent quidam, Mosen ita esse locutum ut scriptionem suam attemperaret et accommodaret ad captum rudium Iudaeorum, quorum intelligentia et memoria confusa et perturbata fuisset, si eis Moses simul esse omnia a Deo facta proposuisset, nec potuisse Mosen simul dicere quae potuit Deus simul facere: hoc, inquam, minime probandum est. Potuit enim Moses distincte ac separatim tradere genera omnium rerum quas Deus condidit, sine ulla distinctione aut commemoratione dierum; potuit docere, licet partes huius mundi multae ac diversae essent, simul tamen omnes ex nihilo a Deo esse conditas; potuit, immo vero debuit, occasionem omnem erroris praecidere Iudaeis, qui verba Mosis ita ut per se sonant intelligentes haud dubie credituri erant non simul, sed per diversa dierum intervalla, mundum esse a Deo fabricatum.

BUT how great the probability of this view is I shall demonstrate by many and weighty arguments. First, this teaching of Moses about the creation of the world is a kind of historical narrative delivered to the unschooled people of the Jews, teaching in a plain manner what was made by God in the fashioning of the world; and therefore what is set down in it must be taken just as the words themselves sound, and that is to be reckoned the better interpretation which shall be found to agree and harmonize best with the words of Moses taken according to their proper and customary signification. Now Moses recounts most explicitly and most distinctly the six days spent in building the world; indeed he teaches in detail what was done on each of those days. Nor, had Moses deliberately and of set purpose wished to show that the world was created not all at once but over six days, could he have taught it more openly and more lucidly than he now does. Whereas, if he had wished to signify that the world was made all at once, he could not have employed language and words more alien, more discordant, and more contrary to his purpose. Nor is that to be accepted which certain men reply, that Moses spoke as he did in order to adapt and accommodate his writing to the grasp of the unschooled Jews, whose understanding and memory would have been confused and disturbed had Moses set before them that all things were made by God at once, and that Moses could not say all at once what God was able to do all at once: this, I say, is by no means to be accepted. For Moses could have set forth distinctly and separately the kinds of all the things God founded, without any distinction or mention of days; he could have taught that, although the parts of this world were many and diverse, yet they were all founded out of nothing by God at once; he could, indeed he ought to have, cut off from the Jews every occasion of error, who, understanding the words of Moses just as they sound of themselves, would without doubt have believed that the world was fashioned by God not all at once but over diverse intervals of days.

DEINDE, potentissimum adversus istos argumentum est, quod Moses in Exodo capite 20 et 31, cum daret Iudaeis praeceptum observandi diem Sabbathi, causam cur eum Iudaei tam sancte ac religiose colere deberent hanc unam reddat: quod sicut Deus mundum et omnia quae sunt in mundo sex diebus creavit, septimo autem die vacavit et requievit ab omni opere quod patrarat, ita quoque Iudaeos debere per sex dies hebdomadae in operando et laborando versari, die autem septimo ad exemplum et imitationem Dei ab omni opere servili laboreque feriari. Haec autem ratio Mosis, quis non videt quam sit infirma, futilis et frivola, si Deus non per sex dies, sed simul et uno temporis momento res omnes fecisset? Postea, nec fidem nec rationem habet ullam voluisse Mosen opificium mundi quod exponebat Hebraeis tam obscure et aenigmatice describere, per cognitiones videlicet Angelorum matutinas et vespertinas, vix Theologis ipsis hodieque liquido perspectas et cognitas. Sane, si figurate ac mystice hos sex dies interpretamur, cur non itidem cetera huius narrationis Mosaicae allegorice cum Origene intelligamus? cum reliqua melius deflecti et applicari possint ad sensum mysticum; quo fiet ut nihil in hac doctrina Mosis ratum et certum habere queamus.

NEXT, a most powerful argument against those men is this, that Moses, in Exodus chapters 20 and 31, when he gave the Jews the precept of observing the Sabbath day, assigns this one cause why the Jews ought to keep it so holily and religiously: that, just as God created the world and all that is in the world in six days, but on the seventh day ceased and rested from every work He had accomplished, so too the Jews ought to spend the six days of the week in working and laboring, but on the seventh day, after the example and imitation of God, to rest from every servile work and toil. Now this reasoning of Moses—who does not see how weak, futile, and frivolous it would be, if God had made all things not over six days, but at once and in a single moment of time? Furthermore, it has neither warrant nor any reason that Moses should have wished to describe the fashioning of the world, which he was expounding to the Hebrews, so obscurely and enigmatically, namely by means of the morning and evening cognitions of the Angels, things scarcely clearly understood and known even by theologians to this day. Surely, if we interpret these six days figuratively and mystically, why should we not likewise understand the rest of this Mosaic narrative allegorically, with Origen? since the remainder can be turned and applied better to a mystical sense; whence it would follow that we could hold nothing fixed and certain in this teaching of Moses.¹¹

AD HOC, opinio Augustini cum probata omnium Theologorum consensu doctrina minime congruit. Qui enim dicit omnia quae per sex dies facta narrantur simul esse facta, necessario etiam dicere debet simul creatum esse caelum, hoc est naturam Angelicam, ut exponit Augustinus; simul esse creatam lucem, hoc est Angelos bonos per conversionem suae voluntatis ad Deum fuisse in gratia confirmatos atque consummatos; denique simul divisas esse tenebras a luce, hoc est malos Angelos a bonorum consortio esse segregatos. Si autem haec omnia simul facta sunt, necessario concluditur inter creationem Angelorum eorumque vel merita et glorificationem vel peccatum et damnationem nullam prorsus interfuisse moram, sed eodem momento omnes esse creatos, et alios quidem meruisse gloriam eamque accepisse, alios vero peccasse et in aeterna inferni supplicia esse detrusos. Hoc autem doctrinae omnium Theologorum, nec non et ipsius Augustini, Scripturae item atque rationi adversatur. Adde quod Augustinus sumit Angelos, simul ut creati sunt, habuisse cognitionem omnium rerum in Verbo perfectissimam, quam ipse vocat matutinam; atqui cognitio rerum in Verbo est beatifica, quam Angeli in primo instanti suae creationis non habuerunt.

TO THIS, Augustine's opinion does not at all square with a doctrine approved by the consensus of all theologians. For whoever says that all the things which are narrated as made over the six days were made at once, must of necessity also say that heaven, that is the Angelic nature, was created at once, as Augustine expounds it; that light was created at once, that is, that the good Angels, through the turning of their will toward God, were at once confirmed and consummated in grace; and finally that the darkness was divided from the light at once, that is, that the evil Angels were at once cut off from the fellowship of the good. But if all these things were made at once, it necessarily follows that between the creation of the Angels and their merit and glorification, or their sin and damnation, there intervened no delay whatever, but that all were created in the same moment, and that some indeed merited glory and received it, while others sinned and were thrust down into the eternal torments of hell. This, however, is contrary to the doctrine of all theologians, and indeed of Augustine himself, and likewise to Scripture and to reason. Add that Augustine assumes the Angels, the moment they were created, to have had a most perfect cognition of all things in the Word, which he calls morning cognition; but cognition of things in the Word is beatific, which the Angels did not possess in the first instant of their creation.

Verum quid isti dicere habent de homine, quem Moses sub finem primi capitis perspicuis verbis narrat marem et feminam die sexto a Deo esse creatum? At quomodo potuit eodem puncto temporis formari homo extra paradisum, et postea introduci in paradisum, ibique gravi somno corripi, tum ex costa eius dormientis produci Eva? Quin adiciunt nonnulli eodem die sexto imposuisse Adamum nomina cunctis animantibus, et tentatum esse a serpente, lapsumque in peccatum, et ex paradiso eiectum.

But what have these men to say about man, whom Moses, near the end of the first chapter, in plain words relates to have been created by God, male and female, on the sixth day? Yet how could man have been formed, in the same point of time, outside paradise, and afterward led into paradise, and there seized by a deep sleep, and then Eve produced from the rib of him as he slept? Indeed some add that on the same sixth day Adam imposed names on all living creatures, and was tempted by the serpent, and fell into sin, and was cast out of paradise.

SED ENIM, adversus opinionem Augustini, extremo utar hoc argumento. Enumeratio et distinctio sex dierum a Mose tradita vel denotat ordinem temporis, quo res aliae prius, aliae posterius sunt conditae; aut ordinem dignitatis, quo aliae praestantiores sunt aliis; vel ordinem naturae, quo secundum naturam aliae sunt priores aliis, quoniam aliae sunt causae aliarum, aliaeque dependent ab aliis; vel denique denotat ordinem rerum, prout ipsae res cognoscuntur ab Angelo, ita ut numerus illorum dierum indicet multitudinem aut successionem cognitionum Angeli circa eiusmodi res. Atqui nihil eorum probabiliter dici potest praeter primum: ergo fatendum est universum mundi opificium non simul, sed per intervalla temporis esse conditum. Etenim, si distinctio illorum dierum denotaret ordinem dignitatis rerum conditarum, proculdubio ante alia omnia homo, mundi huius princeps, creari debuisset; quem tamen in sexto die ultimum Dei operum esse factum narrat Moses. Sin autem enumeratio dierum demonstraret ordinem naturae quem res creatae habent inter se, profecto solis et astrorum creatio prius fuerat commemoranda quam stirpium, quibus illa sunt ordine naturae priora, namque incorruptibilem habent naturam et plantarum sunt causae. Quod si per numerum illorum dierum insinuatur ordo earum rerum prout cognoscuntur ab Angelis, non esset utique talis distinctio dierum vel rationi congruens, vel etiam cum modo cognitionis angelicae concordans.

BUT INDEED, against Augustine's opinion, let me use this final argument. The enumeration and distinction of the six days handed down by Moses either denotes an order of time, by which some things were founded earlier, others later; or an order of dignity, by which some are more excellent than others; or an order of nature, by which according to nature some are prior to others, since some are causes of others and others depend upon others; or finally it denotes an order of things as they are known by an Angel, such that the number of those days indicates a multitude or succession of an Angel's cognitions concerning things of this kind. But none of these can be plausibly asserted except the first: therefore it must be confessed that the whole fashioning of the world was founded not all at once, but over intervals of time. For if the distinction of those days denoted an order of dignity among the things founded, then without doubt before all others man, the prince of this world, ought to have been created; yet Moses relates that he was made on the sixth day, the last of God's works. But if the enumeration of the days demonstrated the order of nature which created things have among themselves, then surely the creation of the sun and the stars ought to have been recorded before that of plants, to which they are prior in the order of nature, since they have an incorruptible nature and are causes of plants. And if by the number of those days the order of things as they are known by the Angels is implied, then certainly such a distinction of days would be neither agreeable to reason nor in accord with the mode of angelic cognition.

Cognitio siquidem angelica duplex est, ut diximus, matutina et vespertina: matutina, ut quae non est aliud re ipsa quam visio Dei beatifica, nullam habet in se cogitationum multitudinem aut successionem, sed est unica mentis actio perpetua et omnino invariabilis; vespertina autem cognitio, qua res cognoscuntur in seipsis, non multiplicatur secundum multitudinem et varietatem rerum, possunt enim Angeli, praesertim qui superiores ac nobiliores sunt, unica mentis agitatione et quasi prospectu multa rerum genera simul comprehendere. Adiice quod, si res naturales ordinem aliquem haberent in cognitione angelica, non alium habere possent quam vel temporis, vel dignitatis, vel naturae seu causalitatis; cum quo tamen, ut ante dixi, ordo dierum quem designat Moses nullo modo consentit.

For angelic cognition is twofold, as we have said, morning and evening: morning cognition, since it is in reality nothing other than the beatific vision of God, has in itself no multitude or succession of thoughts, but is a single, perpetual, and wholly unchangeable act of the mind; evening cognition, however, by which things are known in themselves, is not multiplied according to the multitude and variety of things, for the Angels, especially those that are higher and nobler, can by a single movement of the mind and as it were at a single glance comprehend many kinds of things at once. Add that, if natural things had any order in angelic cognition, they could have none other than that of time, of dignity, or of nature (that is, of causality); with which, however, as I said before, the order of days that Moses sets out in no way agrees.

Iam vero si mundus in die solis, qui nunc dominicus est, fuit conditus, quod Augustinus ipse cum plurimis Patribus affirmat, et si omnia simul et uno temporis puncto sunt facta, quomodo verum erit Deum requievisse ab omni opere quod patrarat die septimo qui est sabbathi? cum inter diem dominicum, quo mundus est conditus, et diem sabbathi quinque dies intercedant. Adde quod Ecclesia videtur, posthabita opinione Augustini, hanc nostram secuta; siquidem in hymnis quos canit in vespertinis precibus singulorum dierum hebdomadis, laudat Deum de singulis operibus quae particulatim ipse per singulos dies perfecit.

Now indeed, if the world was founded on the day of the sun, which is now the Lord's Day, as Augustine himself affirms together with very many of the Fathers, and if all things were made at once and in a single point of time, how will it be true that God rested from every work He had accomplished on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath? since between the Lord's Day, on which the world was founded, and the Sabbath day, five days intervene. Add that the Church seems, having set aside Augustine's opinion, to have followed this view of ours; since in the hymns which she sings at the evening prayers of each day of the week, she praises God for the individual works which He severally accomplished on each particular day.

RESTAT ut rationes pro confirmatione opinionis Augustini superius adductas brevissime dissolvamus. Primo locum illum ex capite 18 Ecclesiastici, Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul, quo maxime permotus est Augustinus, eum Bonaventura et S. Thomas sic interpretantur: Triplicem fuisse Dei operationem in opificio mundi. Prima fuit creatio, hoc est productio ex nihilo illius massae corporalis quam Moses caeli, terrae et aquae nomine describit; et quia ex his, vel creata memorantur in his tribus corporibus, facta sunt quaecumque postea per sex dies, ideo dicuntur creata omnia simul, hoc est secundum illam primaevam materiam et massam totius mundi. Altera operatio Dei fuit trium praedictorum corporum distinctio et digestio, per tres priores dies facta. Tertia fuit eorundem corporum ornatus et consummatio, in quo tres posteriores dies consumpti sunt. Atque haec ipsa est sententia B. Gregorii in libro 32 Moralium capite 9, et Bedae super Hexameron, ut supra diximus. Rupertus libro 2 De Trinitate et operibus eius capite 18, nova et admirabili sed parum probabili interpretatione, quam superius tetigi, locum hunc Ecclesiastici exponit.

IT REMAINS that we very briefly dissolve the arguments adduced above for confirming Augustine's opinion. First, that passage from chapter 18 of Ecclesiasticus, He who lives forever created all things together, by which Augustine was chiefly moved, Bonaventure and St. Thomas interpret thus: that there was a threefold operation of God in the fashioning of the world. The first was creation, that is, the production out of nothing of that bodily mass which Moses describes under the name of heaven, earth, and water; and because out of these (or because they are recorded as created in these three bodies) were made whatever things came afterward over the six days, therefore all things are said to be created together, that is, with respect to that primeval matter and the mass of the whole world. The second operation of God was the distinction and arrangement of the three aforesaid bodies, accomplished over the first three days. The third was the adornment and consummation of those same bodies, in which the three latter days were spent. And this very view is that of the blessed Gregory in book 32 of the Morals, chapter 9, and of Bede on the Hexameron, as we have said above. Rupert, in book 2 of On the Trinity and His Works, chapter 18, expounds this passage of Ecclesiasticus by a new and remarkable but scarcely probable interpretation, which I touched on above.¹²

Alii dicunt propterea dici omnia creata simul, quia creatio omnium brevissimo temporis intervallo, id est sex tantum dierum, divisa est, et toto illo tractu temporis quodammodo continuata, ut quae illo sexiduo facta sunt quasi facta simul memorantur; nam et Dominus, Marci capite 10, dixit fecisse Deum ab initio creaturae hominem marem et feminam; et Ioannes capite 8 inquit diabolum fuisse homicidam ab initio, cum haec tamen non ante sextum diem evenerint.

Others say that all things are said to be created together for this reason, that the creation of all things was spread over a very short interval of time, that is, of only six days, and was in a manner continuous throughout that whole stretch of time, so that the things made in that span of six days are recorded as though made together; for the Lord too, in Mark chapter 10, said that God made man, male and female, from the beginning of creation; and John in chapter 8 says that the devil was a murderer from the beginning, although these things nevertheless did not happen before the sixth day.¹³

Alii locum illum Ecclesiastici sic interpretantur: Omnia creata sunt simul, ea nempe quae sunt proprie loquendo creata, id est ex nihilo facta; haec autem simul omnia uno instanti sunt condita, caelos dico, Angelos et quatuor Elementa. Sed verum et germanum illorum verborum Ecclesiastici intellectum reddit verbum Graecum ibi positum κοινῇ, quod noster Interpres vertit Latine Simul: significat enim idem quod pariter seu communiter vel universaliter, ut proprius eius loci sensus sit Deum omnia pariter vel sine ullius rei exceptione creasse. Similiter ut dicit Ioannes de Verbo divino, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil.

Others interpret that passage of Ecclesiasticus thus: All things were created together—namely those which are, properly speaking, created, that is, made out of nothing; and these all were founded together in a single instant, I mean the heavens, the Angels, and the four Elements. But the true and genuine sense of those words of Ecclesiasticus is rendered by the Greek word there set down, κοινῇ, which our Translator renders into Latin as Simul (‘together’): for it signifies the same as ‘alike’ or ‘in common’ or ‘universally,’ so that the proper sense of the passage is that God created all things alike, or without exception of any single thing. Similarly, as John says of the divine Word, All things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing that was made.¹⁴

Quare Latina illa vox, Simul, non denotat eo loco simultatem temporis, ut putavit Augustinus, sed simultatem collectionis seu universalitatis, qua significatione alias non raro ponitur in Scriptura, velut Levitici 25: Numerabis, inquit, septem hebdomadas annorum, id est septies septem, quae simul faciunt annos quadraginta novem; et in libro Numerorum capite 25 vox Simul, eadem significatione sumpta, ter quaterve legitur; nec non in Psalmo 13: Omnes declinaverunt, simul inutiles facti sunt, non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum; et Psalmo 48: Simul insipiens et stultus peribunt.

Wherefore that Latin word Simul does not in that passage denote simultaneity of time, as Augustine supposed, but simultaneity of collection or universality, in which signification it is elsewhere not uncommonly set in Scripture, as in Leviticus 25: You shall number, it says, seven weeks of years, that is, seven times seven, which together make forty-nine years; and in the book of Numbers, chapter 25, the word Simul, taken in the same signification, is read three or four times; and also in Psalm 13: They have all turned aside, they have together become unprofitable, there is none that does good, there is not so much as one; and in Psalm 48: Together the foolish and the senseless shall perish.¹⁵

Illud autem ex capite 2 Genesis, In die in quo fecit Deus caelum et terram et omne virgultum agri, facilem habet explicatum. Illud namque In die dictum est singulariter pro plurali in diebus: numerum enim pluralem pro singulari, et contra singularem pro plurali, saepe usurpat Scriptura. Vel illud, In die, dictum est pro eo quod est in tempore, sic enim frequentissime est apud Prophetas, qui nomen [diei]...

That passage, too, from chapter 2 of Genesis, In the day in which God made heaven and earth and every shrub of the field, has an easy explanation. For that phrase In the day is said in the singular for the plural in the days: for Scripture often uses the plural number for the singular, and conversely the singular for the plural. Or else that phrase, In the day, is said for that which is ‘in time’; for so it very frequently is among the Prophets, who [the name of day]...¹⁶

...[diei] vel horae, usurpant pro tempore. Bonaventura censet illud In die supponere confuse pro diversis diebus, ita ut sigillatim applicari debeat cuique diei.

...[of day] or of hour, employ it for ‘time.’ Bonaventure holds that the phrase In the day stands confusedly for the several days, so that it ought to be applied to each day individually.¹⁷

NIHILOMINUS facile est ad explicandum illud Iob, Ecce Behemoth quem feci tecum: nam esto per Behemoth significetur diabolus, ut multis visum est, non tamen continuo efficitur ut illud Tecum idem valeat quod eodem tempore quo te; quin longe aliud significat, videlicet vel pariter creavi illum ac te, ambo estis opera mea; vel feci similem tui, hoc est mentis compotem, liberi arbitrii, ad mei similitudinem et imaginem, capacem boni et mali aeternaeque felicitatis; denique, sicut te non creavi malum sed bonum et rectum, sic et illum. Quanquam Hebraei, et Christianorum professi linguae Hebraeae notitiam et studium, atque in his Eugubinus et Franciscus Titelmanus, per Behemoth significari putant, secundum sensum litteralem, animal omnium terrestrium mole corporis maximum et robore valentissimum, ipsum, inquam, Elephantem, quem propterea Scriptura vocat Behemoth, id est bestias, quod propter ingentem corporis proceritatem atque firmitatem instar sit multarum bestiarum; quo fit ut eo loco pro voce Hebraea Behemoth posuerit Chaldaeus Paraphrastes Beira, id est Bestias seu pecudes, LXX vero Interpretes verterint θηρία, id est feras. Dicitur autem Quem feci tecum, quoniam eodem die, sexto videlicet et ultimo, tam homo quam cunctae terrestres animantes creatae sunt a Deo; vel ut esset apud te, tuis usibus, obsequiis et oblectamentis inserviens; vel omnium animantium feci eum tui simillimum: plus enim rationis, consilii, sollertiae et docilitatis apparet in Elephante quam in ceteris.

NONETHELESS, it is easy to explain that passage of Job, Behold Behemoth whom I made with thee: for granting that by Behemoth the devil is signified, as many have thought, it does not at once follow that the word With thee means ‘at the same time as thee’; rather it means something quite different, namely either ‘I created him alike with thee, you are both my works’; or ‘I made him like to thee,’ that is, possessed of a mind, of free will, after my likeness and image, capable of good and evil and of eternal happiness; or finally, ‘just as I did not create thee evil but good and upright, so also him.’ Although the Hebrews, and those Christians who profess a knowledge of and devotion to the Hebrew tongue—among them Eugubinus and Franciscus Titelmans—think that by Behemoth, according to the literal sense, is signified the animal greatest of all land creatures in bodily bulk and mightiest in strength, namely, I say, the Elephant, which Scripture for that reason calls Behemoth, that is ‘beasts,’ because on account of its huge bodily height and firmness it is as it were like many beasts; whence it comes that in that place, for the Hebrew word Behemoth, the Chaldee Paraphrast set ‘Beira,’ that is Beasts or cattle, while the Septuagint translators rendered it θηρία, that is wild beasts. And it is said Whom I made with thee, because on the same day, namely the sixth and last, both man and all land animals were created by God; or, ‘that he might be with thee, serving thy uses, services, and delights’; or, ‘of all animals I made him most like to thee’: for more of reason, counsel, cleverness, and docility appears in the Elephant than in the rest.¹⁸

Quod vero sequitur, Ipse est principium viarum Dei, propter quod et Caietanus et quidam alii existimarunt non posse intelligi per Behemoth aliud aliquid quam diabolum, perbelle congruit elephanti. Etenim videtur ipse inter animalia praecipuum ac principale Dei opus, ut quo non sit aliud vel mole maius, vel robore valentius, vel docilitate praestantius. Appellat autem Scriptura vias Dei opera eius et creaturas corporales, cuiusmodi sunt animalia terrestria, ut pote per quae quasi per vias quasdam videtur Deus quodammodo extra se ire, suam bonitatem communicando cum aliis, suamque potentiam et sapientiam in his quae facit extra substantiam suam apertissime declarando. Sed locum hunc Iob nos in quarto libro Commentariorum nostrorum in Danielem, quos superioribus annis edidimus, tractantes illum versiculum Cantici trium puerorum, Benedicite omnes bestiae et pecora Domino, copiose et diligenter explanavimus.

But that which follows, He is the beginning of the ways of God—on account of which both Cajetan and certain others judged that by Behemoth nothing else could be understood than the devil—fits the elephant most aptly. For it seems to be among the animals the chief and principal work of God, inasmuch as there is none other greater in bulk, or mightier in strength, or more excellent in docility. Now Scripture calls God's works and bodily creatures His ‘ways’—such as the land animals are—inasmuch as through them, as it were through certain roads, God seems in a manner to go forth out of Himself, communicating His goodness to others and most openly declaring His power and wisdom in the things which He makes outside His own substance. But this passage of Job we have copiously and diligently expounded in the fourth book of our Commentaries on Daniel, which we published in earlier years, when treating that verse of the Canticle of the Three Children, Bless the Lord, all you beasts and cattle.¹⁹

VERUM expediamus postremum argumentum. Aiunt non fuisse conveniens Dei omnipotentiae mundum tam lente, per sex nimirum dies, fabricari. Sed respondemus moram illam in creando mundo positam non arguere impotentiam Dei tanquam indigentis tempore ad agendum, sed propterea esse factam ut liquido cerneretur ordo...

BUT let us dispatch the last argument. They say it was not befitting God's omnipotence that the world should be built so slowly, namely over six days. But we reply that the delay set in creating the world does not argue any impotence in God, as though He needed time in order to act, but was made for this reason: that there might be clearly discerned the order...²⁰

...ordo et connexio quae est inter res a Deo productas, et dependentia omnium a Deo, et cognosceretur triplex status mundi: primus creationis, secundus distinctionis, tertius exornationis et expletionis; in quorum primo elucet Dei omnipotentia, in altero sapientia, in tertio bonitas. Porro diversis mundi statibus diversi dies respondent: semper enim per subsequens opus vel novus mundo status, vel novae perfectionis in eodem statu facta est accessio. Adde quod cuiusque diei opus puncto temporis perfectum est: qua ex re omnipotentia Dei clarissime pernotuit. Mora igitur in creando nec accidit ex materiae resistentia, nec ex agentis imbecillitate, sed ex summa ratione et consilio et sapientia opificis, omnia libere provide ac sapienter agentis. Hinc enim luce clarius fit Deum summa suae voluntatis libertate mundum fecisse: nam et quando voluit eum fecit, cum ante potuisset facere; et fecit quomodo et quo voluit ordine, quin praeter ordinem quem ipsa rerum natura poscere videbatur. Siquidem caelos fecit sine ulla luce, et lucem caeli prius fecit imperfectam et posterius eam perfecit, creatis quarto die in caelo astris; plantas item creavit ante sidera; ut perspicuum sit Deum sine causis secundis res sublunares efficere et conservare posse, et illas multo magis a Deo quam a caelis et astris pendere. Maneat igitur mundum non simul totum, sed particulatim per sex dies esse factum.

...and connection which exists among the things produced by God, and the dependence of all things upon God, and that the threefold state of the world might be known: the first of creation, the second of distinction, the third of adornment and completion; in the first of which God's omnipotence shines forth, in the second His wisdom, in the third His goodness. Moreover, to the diverse states of the world the diverse days correspond: for always through a subsequent work there was added either a new state to the world, or a new perfection within the same state. Add that the work of each day was completed in a point of time: from which fact God's omnipotence became most clearly known. The delay, therefore, in creating arose neither from the resistance of matter, nor from any weakness in the agent, but from the supreme reason, counsel, and wisdom of the Maker, who does all things freely, providently, and wisely. For from this it becomes clearer than light that God made the world by the supreme liberty of His will: for both He made it when He willed, though He could have made it before; and He made it in what manner and in what order He willed, indeed beyond the order which the very nature of things seemed to demand. Since He made the heavens without any light, and first made the light of heaven imperfect and afterward perfected it, the stars being created in heaven on the fourth day; he likewise created plants before the heavenly bodies; so that it is evident that God can make and preserve sublunary things without secondary causes, and that they depend much more on God than on the heavens and stars. Let it stand fixed, therefore, that the world was made not all at once and whole, but piecemeal over six days.

CUR autem nec pluribus nec paucioribus quam sex diebus factus fuerit, quis mortalium, nisi cui forte sit a Deo patefactum, explicare queat? Equidem reor, sicut a sapientissimo opifice, qui nihil non summo consilio et ratione agit, temere factum id esse fas non est credere, sic cur factum sit veram ac propriam rationem iniri a nobis non posse. Non me fugit Augustinum et Bedam et ante hos Philonem prodidisse numerum senarium esse perfectum, quippe qui primus suis partibus conficitur et completur, sexta videlicet parte quae est unum, et tertia parte quae sunt duo, et dimidia parte quae sunt tria: unum enim et duo atque tria sex efficiunt. Sex igitur diebus perfecit Deus mundum, ut, qui omnia facit in mensura et numero et pondere (ut Scriptura docet), ipso numero quo mundum fabricabat eum declararet opus esse perfectum atque consummatum. Pluribus verbis hoc persequitur Philo in libro De opificio mundi. Augustinus certe in primis septem capitibus libri quarti De Genesi ad litteram copiosissime de senarii numeri perfectione disputat, et in libro 11 De civitate Dei capite 30. Eusebius vero libro 11 De praeparatione evangelica capite 12 Clementem producit ex libro 6 Stromatum testem, qui testificatur duplicem a Graecis et Barbaris tradi mundum, alterum intelligibilem alterum sensibilem, illum archetypum hunc divini exemplaris imaginem, illum attribui unitati hunc hexadi, quem Pythagorei, quod sit fecundissimus numerus, Connubium appellarunt. Porro sicut senarius uno, duobus et tribus, quae sunt eius partes, conficitur, ita mundus tria continet rerum genera, videlicet...

But why it was made in neither more nor fewer than six days, what mortal, save one to whom perhaps it has been revealed by God, could explain? For my part I judge that, just as it is not lawful to believe that anything was done rashly by a most wise Maker, who does nothing without supreme counsel and reason, so the true and proper reason why it was done cannot be reached by us. I am not unaware that Augustine and Bede, and before them Philo, taught that the number six is perfect, inasmuch as it is the first that is made up and completed of its own parts—namely of a sixth part, which is one, and a third part, which is two, and a half part, which is three: for one and two and three together make six. God therefore completed the world in six days, so that He who makes all things in measure and number and weight (as Scripture teaches) might by the very number with which He built the world declare it to be a finished and consummate work. Philo pursues this at greater length in his book On the Making of the World. Augustine, to be sure, in the first seven chapters of the fourth book On Genesis according to the Letter, disputes most copiously about the perfection of the number six, and so too in book 11 of The City of God, chapter 30. Eusebius, moreover, in book 11 of The Preparation for the Gospel, chapter 12, brings forward Clement, from book 6 of the Stromata, as a witness, who testifies that a twofold world is handed down by the Greeks and the Barbarians, one intelligible, the other sensible—the former the archetype, the latter the image of the divine exemplar; the former assigned to unity, the latter to the hexad, which the Pythagoreans, because it is a most fruitful number, called ‘Marriage.’ Furthermore, just as the senary is made up of one, two, and three, which are its parts, so the world contains three kinds of things, namely...²¹

...videlicet naturam incorpoream quae est in Angelis, et corpoream, et utriusque participem quae est in homine: prima denotatur per unitatem, secunda per binarium, tertia per ternarium. Verum haec, ut sunt ingeniose inventa et argute tradita, curiosi tamen et docti lectoris animum fortasse non explebunt.

...namely the incorporeal nature, which is in the Angels; the corporeal; and that which partakes of both, which is in man: the first is denoted by unity, the second by the binary, the third by the ternary. But these things, ingeniously devised and subtly handed down as they are, will perhaps not satisfy the mind of a careful and learned reader.

NON est silentio praetereundum, sed prodendum est hoc loco, quia est a multis proditum, fuisse olim non paucos nec ignobiles auctores qui, sicut mundus sex diebus est factus, ita eum duntaxat sex annorum millibus duraturum existimaverint. Vetus est traditio, ut praenotavit Genebrardus in sua Chronologia, a quodam Helia, non illo Thesbite propheta, sed a quodam alio nobili Iudaeorum Rabbino profecta, quemadmodum traditur in Talmudicis voluminibus ordine 4 tractatu 4, cui titulus est Sanedrim, hoc est Iudicium, ubi sic est scriptum: Sex millibus annorum erit mundus, et iterum destruetur; duo millia fuerunt inanitatis et vanitatis, duo millia legis Mosaicae, et duo millia erunt dierum Messiae. Quam opinationem quibusdam coniecturis fulcire voluit Rabbi Isaac, super primum caput Geneseos: aut primum versum libri Geneseos, qui continet summam totius mundi, sexies habere litteram Aleph, quae Hebraeis denotat millenarium numerum; tum, inquit, Deum sex diebus fecisse mundum et septimo die requievisse, apud Deum autem mille anni computantur dies unus, sic enim dixit David Psalmo 89, Mille anni ante oculos tuos tanquam dies hesterna quae praeteriit (simile est apud Petrum in capite 3 posterioris epistolae: Unus dies, inquit, apud Dominum sicut mille anni, et mille anni sicut dies unus). Addit etiam primos sex homines in generatione Adam, unde genus omne hominum propagatum est, scilicet Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Malaleel, Iared, fuisse mortuos, septimum autem Henoch vivum esse translatum; quasi per hoc insinuetur post sex millenarios annorum, quibus labor et mors in mundo regnaverint, in septimo millenario initium futurum quietae et immortalis vitae. Verum istis Hebraeis sua illa sex mille annorum distributio et computatio non bene constat. Namque ante legem transierunt ab origine mundi bis mille quadringenti octoginta tres anni; tempus autem legis Mosaicae usque ad mortem Christi, per quam lex Mosaica est abolita, non pluribus constat annis quam mille quingentis septuaginta.

It must not be passed over in silence, but rather disclosed in this place—since it has been reported by many—that there were once authors, neither few nor obscure, who, just as the world was made in six days, so judged it would last only six thousand years. It is an old tradition, as Génébrard noted in his Chronology, which proceeded from a certain Elias—not that Tishbite prophet, but from another, a noble Rabbi of the Jews—as it is handed down in the Talmudic volumes, in order 4, tractate 4, whose title is Sanhedrin, that is ‘Judgment,’ where it is written thus: For six thousand years the world will be, and again it will be destroyed; two thousand were of emptiness and vanity, two thousand of the Mosaic Law, and two thousand will be the days of the Messiah. This opinion Rabbi Isaac wished to prop up with certain conjectures, on the first chapter of Genesis: namely, that the first verse of the book of Genesis, which contains the sum of the whole world, has the letter Aleph six times, which among the Hebrews denotes the number of a thousand; then, he says, God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh day, and with God a thousand years are reckoned as one day, for so David said in Psalm 89, A thousand years before thy eyes are as yesterday, which is past (the like is in Peter, in chapter 3 of his second epistle: One day, he says, with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day). He adds also that the first six men in the line of Adam, from whom the whole race of mankind was propagated—namely Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared—died, but that the seventh, Enoch, was translated alive; as though by this it were hinted that, after six thousand years, in which labor and death have reigned in the world, in the seventh millennium there would be the beginning of a quiet and immortal life. But for these Hebrews their distribution and computation of those six thousand years does not square well. For before the Law there passed, from the origin of the world, two thousand four hundred eighty-three years; and the time of the Mosaic Law down to the death of Christ, by which the Mosaic Law was abolished, consists of no more than one thousand five hundred seventy years.²²

VERUM non miror placuisse hoc commentum Hebraeis, quos non nisi fabularum et mendaciorum portenta delectant; illud equidem demiror, placuisse etiam viris in Christiana disciplina propter vetustatis auctoritatem et doctrinae ac sanctimoniae laudem nobilissimis. Hoc enim censuit et tradidit Iustinus Martyr, respondens ad quaestionem orthodoxorum septuagesimam secundam, et Irenaeus libro quinto Adversus haereses capite ultimo, Lactantius quoque libro 7 Divinarum institutionum capite 14, Hilarius item canone 17 in Matthaeum, necnon et Hieronymus in Epistolari expositione Psalmi octogesi[mi noni]...

But I do not wonder that this fiction pleased the Hebrews, whom nothing delights save the monstrous prodigies of fables and lies; this, however, I do greatly wonder at, that it pleased even men most noble in Christian learning for the authority of their antiquity and the renown of their doctrine and holiness. For Justin Martyr held and handed down this view, in answering the seventy-second of the questions of the orthodox, and Irenaeus in the fifth book Against Heresies, in the last chapter, and Lactantius too in book 7 of the Divine Institutions, chapter 14, Hilary likewise in canon 17 on Matthew, and also Jerome in the Epistolary exposition of the eighty-[ninth] Psalm...²³

...[octogesimi noni] ad Cyprianum, et in commentariis suis super Michaeam 4 cap. explicans, eandemque traditionem commemorat Augustinus libro 20 De civitate Dei capite 7. Germanus vero Episcopus Constantinopolitanus, in libro De theoria rerum ecclesiasticarum, testimonio Hippolyti et Cyrilli, ex libris quos isti scripserunt de Antichristo, confirmat mundum sex millibus annorum superque quingentis duraturum; et hoc significari ait cum Pontifex populum benedicens digitos attollit, ad demonstrationem numeri sex millium quingentorum annorum compositos et aptatos. Sed sua istos coniectura et computatione annorum falsos esse eventus declaravit: affirmant enim Christum venisse in mundum initio sexti millenarii, eoque completo fore mundi huius consummationem et finem; atqui post adventum Christi ad praesentem annum 1588 annos mille ac prope sexcentos praeteriisse cernimus.

...[the eighty-ninth] to Cyprian, and in his commentaries on chapter 4 of Micah, where he expounds it and recalls the same tradition, as also does Augustine in book 20 of The City of God, chapter 7. Germanus, moreover, Bishop of Constantinople, in his book On the Contemplation of Ecclesiastical Things, confirms, on the testimony of Hippolytus and Cyril—from the books which these wrote concerning the Antichrist—that the world will last six thousand years and five hundred more; and he says this is signified when the Pontiff, blessing the people, lifts up his fingers, set and fitted to the demonstration of the number of six thousand five hundred years. But the outcome has declared these men to be in error by their own conjecture and reckoning of years: for they affirm that Christ came into the world at the beginning of the sixth millennium, and that, this being completed, would come the consummation and end of this world; yet we perceive that after the coming of Christ, down to the present year 1588, one thousand and nearly six hundred years have passed.²⁴

S. Ambrosius libro 7 suorum Commentariorum in Lucam propterea sibi probari negat eiusmodi traditionem, quod suo tempore iam exacta essent ab exordio mundi plusquam sex annorum millia, falsa, ut opinor, Chronologia persuasus. Beda in libro De ratione temporum capite 65 eandem traditionem libere contemnit, eandemque reiicit Augustinus in enarrando Psalmum 89, ceu minime congruentem Scripturae, quae negat tempus consummationis mundi posse sciri ab Angelis, nedum a mortalibus. Si autem certum esset mundum sex annorum millibus duntaxat duraturum, sciri etiam posset quantum temporis ad eius consummationem esset reliquum: computatis enim ab origine mundi ad praesentem annum annis iam transactis circiter quinquies mille sexcentis, profecto ad finem usque mundi non plures superessent anni quam quadringenti.

St. Ambrose, in book 7 of his Commentaries on Luke, refuses to approve a tradition of this kind, for the reason that in his own time more than six thousand years had already elapsed from the beginning of the world—persuaded, as I think, by a false chronology. Bede, in his book On the Reckoning of Time, chapter 65, freely scorns the same tradition, and Augustine rejects it in expounding Psalm 89, as by no means in keeping with Scripture, which denies that the time of the consummation of the world can be known by the Angels, much less by mortals. But if it were certain that the world would last only six thousand years, it could also be known how much time was left until its consummation: for, reckoning the years already elapsed from the origin of the world to the present year at about five thousand six hundred, surely there would remain until the end of the world no more than four hundred years.²⁵

Quanquam autem traditum est a Patribus in sex aetates distinctum esse mundum, sextam atque ultimam aetatem a Christi adventu incepisse et ad consummationem usque mundi protrahendam, non ob id tamen cognitum esse potest quam longa futura sit haec sexta aetas, cum priores quinque omnes disparis fuerint durationis. Prima siquidem ab Adamo ad diluvium consumpsit annos mille sexcentos quinquaginta sex; secunda, a diluvio ad ortum Abrahae, ducentos nonaginta duos, vel comprehensa generatione Cainan trecentos viginti duos; tertia, ab Abraham usque ad David, nongentos quadraginta duos; quarta, a David usque ad captivitatem Babylonicam, quadringentos septuaginta tres; quinta, a captivitate usque ad Christi domini adventum, secundum Bedam in libro De sex aetatibus mundi quingentos octoginta novem, at secundum veriorem certioremque Chronologiam sexcentos triginta; sexta, ab ortu Domini nostri usque ad finem mundi, incertae et incompertae mortalibus durationis est.

But although it has been handed down by the Fathers that the world is distinguished into six ages, and that the sixth and last age began at the coming of Christ and is to be prolonged until the consummation of the world, yet not on that account can it be known how long this sixth age will be, since all the prior five were of unequal duration. For the first, from Adam to the Flood, consumed one thousand six hundred fifty-six years; the second, from the Flood to the birth of Abraham, two hundred ninety-two, or, including the generation of Cainan, three hundred twenty-two; the third, from Abraham to David, nine hundred forty-two; the fourth, from David to the Babylonian Captivity, four hundred seventy-three; the fifth, from the Captivity to the coming of Christ the Lord, according to Bede in his book On the Six Ages of the World five hundred eighty-nine, but according to a truer and surer chronology six hundred thirty; the sixth, from the birth of Our Lord to the end of the world, is of a duration uncertain and undiscovered by mortals.²⁶

Nam coniectura illa quorundam, argumentantium extremam hanc aetatem, sicut aliis multis rebus sic etiam duratione, parem et aequalem fore primae aetati, futilis est et infirmo subnixa fundamento; quae profecto si vera esset, non...

For that conjecture of certain men, who argue that this last age—as in many other respects, so also in duration—will be matched and equal to the first age, is futile and rests upon a weak foundation; which indeed, if it were true, would not...²⁷

...non longe abesset consummatio mundi: non enim plures quam octo et sexaginta anni superarent. At enimvero, cum tam gravi oratione Christus reprehenderit curiosam Apostolorum sciscitationem de futuris temporibus, dicens eis, Non est vestrum nosse tempora vel momenta quae Pater posuit in sua potestate, et alio loco inquit, De die autem illa et hora nemo scit, neque Angeli caelorum, nisi solus Pater: profecto valde temerarium et perquam absurdum est de futura mundi duratione quicquam explorati certique velle describere.

...the consummation of the world would not be far off: for no more than sixty-eight years would remain. But in truth, since Christ with so grave a speech rebuked the curious questioning of the Apostles about future times, saying to them, It is not yours to know the times or the moments which the Father has put in His own power, and in another place says, But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the Angels of heaven, but the Father alone—it is surely most rash and utterly absurd to wish to lay down anything explored and certain about the future duration of the world.²⁸

Translator’s notes

Section heading. The first of two disputations closing the literal commentary on the six days: whether creation was successive (over six days) or instantaneous. ↩
The decorated initial begins 'Sed.' The literal six-days commentary being complete, Pererius closes Book I with two disputations (the six-days question, and why Moses omits the angels). The creation of man is reserved for his book 4. Sentence continues onto p. 184. ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Whether the world was made wholly in an instant, or not.' The instantaneous-creation view: Philo (De allegoriis—'rustic simplicity' to think otherwise; the six = the perfect number), Procopius of Gaza (six days for the Jews' dullness), and Cajetan (six days to show the natural order). ↩
Cajetan's reasoning continued: the order Moses gives is the very order nature itself would require, were creation successive. ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Augustine thought the world was made whole at once in a single point of time.' Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram 4.21ff.): all parts made at once; the 'days' = the angels' sixfold knowledge (morning = in the Word, evening = in the things). Confirmed by Ecclesiasticus 18:1 ('He created all things together'). Sentence continues onto p. 185. ↩
Further arguments for Augustine's view: Genesis 2:4 (heaven, earth, and plants 'in one day'); Job 40:15 (Behemoth = the devil, made 'with' man); and God's infinite power (creation from nothing meets no resistance, so the instant befits omnipotence). ↩
Marginal glosses: 'That the truer opinion is that the world was created part by part, and over the intervals of six days'; and 'A notable opinion of Gregory, holding that all things were made at once as to the substance of the matter, but not as to the manner and property of the form.' Pererius's own view (six days, not all at once), held by nearly all the Fathers before Augustine and many theologians (Bede, Hugh, Rupert, Lombard, Bonaventure), above all Gregory (Morals 32.10), quoted next. ↩
Quotation from Gregory the Great, Moralia 32.10 (on Job): all things created together as to the substance of matter, but unfolded over the six days as to the form/species (the sun existed in heaven's substance on day 1, came forth in species on day 4; the plants in the earth's substance on day 1, sprang forth on day 3). Genesis 2:4 ('in the day') is cited. Continues onto p. 186 (catchword 'ostende[ret]'). ↩
Continues the quotation of Gregory, Moralia in Iob 32.10 (al. 32.12) from the previous page. Aquinas references: ST I q.74 a.2 (cited here as '2. parte'; the treatise on the work of the six days is in fact in the Prima Pars) and De potentia q.4 a.2. ↩
Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus 4. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Validissimum argumentum adversus opinionem Augustini" (‘A most cogent argument against Augustine’s opinion’). Exodus 20:8–11; 31:17. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Explicatur locus Ecclesiastici cap. 18" and "Triplex fuit Dei operatio in opificio mundi" (Ecclus./Sirach 18:1). Sources: Bonaventure, In II Sent.; Aquinas; Gregory, Moralia 32.9 (al. 32.12); Bede, In Hexaemeron; Rupert of Deutz, De sancta Trinitate et operibus eius 2.18. ↩
Mark 10:6; John 8:44. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Ioan. 1" (John 1:3). The Greek of Ecclus./Sirach 18:1 is κοινῇ (‘in common, collectively’), which the Vulgate renders simul. ↩
Leviticus 25:8; Numbers 25 (locus cited loosely); Psalm 13[14]:3 (cf. Rom. 3:12); Psalm 48[49]:11. ↩
Genesis 2:4. Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘diei’). ↩
Completes the sentence broken at the foot of the previous page (the Prophets use the word ‘day’ for ‘time’). Bonaventure, In II Sent. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Exponitur locus Iob 40" (Job 40:15, Behemoth). Eugubinus = Agostino Steuco of Gubbio; Franciscus Titelmans. The Chaldee (Targum) renders Behemoth ‘Beira’ (beasts); the Septuagint renders it θηρία (wild beasts). ↩
Job 40:19 (‘He is the beginning of the ways of God’). Cajetan. Pererius refers to his own earlier Commentaries on Daniel, on the Canticle of the Three Children (Dan. 3:81, Benedicite). ↩
Marginal gloss: "Cur Deus non simul et uno temporis puncto, sed per intervalla et moras sex dierum mundum condiderit" (‘Why God founded the world not all at once and in a single point of time, but through the intervals and delays of six days’). Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘ordo’). ↩
Marginal glosses: "Cur sex diebus factus sit mundus" and "Senarii perfectio." Wisdom 11:21 (‘in measure, number, and weight’). Philo, De opificio mundi; Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 4.1–7 and De civitate Dei 11.30; Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 11.12, citing Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6. The Pythagoreans called six ‘Connubium’ (marriage), as the first perfect number. Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘videlicet’). ↩
Marginal gloss: "An mundus sex duntaxat annorum millibus sit duraturus." Gilbert Génébrard, Chronologia. The tradition of ‘Elias’ (a Rabbi, not Elijah the Tishbite) from the Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a: the world lasts six thousand years—two thousand of chaos, two thousand of the Law, two thousand of the Messiah. Psalm 89[90]:4; 2 Peter 3:8. The six patriarchs Adam–Jared died; the seventh, Enoch, was translated alive (Gen. 5). ↩
Justin Martyr, Responsiones ad orthodoxos q.72; Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 5 (final chapter); Lactantius, Divinae institutiones 7.14; Hilary, In Matthaeum, canon 17; Jerome. Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘octogesi-’). ↩
Jerome, on Psalm 89 (epistle to Cyprian) and on Micah 4; Augustine, De civitate Dei 20.7; Germanus of Constantinople, De theoria rerum ecclesiasticarum, citing Hippolytus and Cyril on the Antichrist. Pererius gives the present year as 1588, nearly 1,600 years after Christ—disproving the 6,500-year reckoning. (This dates the composition; the volume itself was published in the 1590s.) ↩
Ambrose, Expositio in Lucam 7; Bede, De ratione temporum 65; Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmum 89. Cf. Acts 1:7; Mark 13:32 (the time is hidden even from the Angels). ↩
Marginal gloss: "Distinctio sex aetatum mundi, et cuiusque earum durationis determinatio." The six ages of the world (after Augustine): I Adam–Flood (1656 yrs); II Flood–birth of Abraham (292, or 322 counting Cainan); III Abraham–David (942); IV David–Babylonian Captivity (473); V Captivity–Christ (589 per Bede, De sex aetatibus mundi, or 630 per a truer chronology); VI Christ–end of the world (of unknown duration). ↩
Marginal gloss: "Refutatur quorundam inanis coniectura de duratione mundi" (‘The empty conjecture of certain men about the world's duration is refuted’). Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘non’; foot of page: ‘Comm. in Gen. Tom. 1.’, signature B). ↩
Completes the sentence broken at the foot of the previous page (only ~68 years would remain if the world lasted 6,000 years). Marginal citations: Acts 1:7; Matthew 24:36. ↩