v ME. DARWIN'S CRITICS 137 



pro sua modestia subterfugere vim argument! 

 potius quam aperte Augustinum inconstantiae 

 arguere." 



Finally, Suarez decides that the writer of 

 Genesis meant that the term " day " should be 

 taken in its natural sense ; and he winds up the 

 discussion with the very just and natural remark 

 that " it is not probable that God, in inspiring 

 Moses to write a history of the Creation which 

 was to be believed by ordinary people, would 

 have made him use language, the true meaning of 

 which it is hard to discover, and still harder to 

 believe." l 



And in chapter xii. 3, Suarez further ob- 

 serves : 



" Ratio enim retinendi veram significationem diei naturalis 

 est ilia communis, quod verba Scripturse non sunt ad metaphoras 

 transferenda, nisi vel necessitas cogit, vel ex ipsa scriptura 

 constet, et maxime in historica narratione et ad instructionem 

 fidei pertinente : sed hsec ratio non minus cogit ad intelligendum 

 proprie dierum numerum, quam diei qualitatem, QUIA NON 



MINUS UNO MODO QUAM ALIO DESTRUITUR SINCERITAS, IMO ET 



VERITAS HISTORIC. Secundo hoc valde confirmant alia Scripturse 

 loca, in quibus hi sex dies tanquam veri, et inter se distinct! 

 commemorantur, ut Exod. 20 dicitur, Sex diebus operabis et 

 fades omnia opera tua, septimo autem die Sabbatum Domini Dei 



1 ' ' Propter hsec ergo sententia ilia Augustini et propter nimiam 

 obscuritatem et subtilitatem ejus difficilis creditu est : quia 

 verisimile non est Deum inspirasse Moysi, ut historiam de 

 creatione mundi ad fidem to tins populi adeo necessarian! per 

 nomina dierum explicaret, quorum significatio vix inveiiiri et 

 difficillime ab aliquo credi posset." (Loe. tit. Lib. I. cap. xi. 

 42.) 



