v MR. DARWIN S CRITICS 137 



pro sua modestia subterfugere vim argument! 

 potius quam aperte Augustinum inconstantiae 

 arguere.&quot; 



Finally, Suarez decides that the writer of 

 Genesis meant that the term &quot; day &quot; should be 

 taken in its natural sense ; and he winds up the 

 discussion with the very just and natural remark 

 that &quot; 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.&quot; 1 



And in chapter xii. 3, Suarez further ob 

 serves : 



&quot;Ratio enim retinendi veram significationem diei naturalis 

 est ilia comimmis, quod verba Scripturne non sunt ad metaphoras 

 transferenda, nisi vel necessitas cogit, vel ex ipsa scriptura 

 constet, et maxime in historica narratione et ad instructioncm 

 fidei pertinente : sed hsec ratio non minus cogit ad intelligendum 

 proprie dieiiim numerum, quam diei qualitatem, QUIA NON 



MINUS UXO MODO QUAM ALIO DESTRUITUR SINCEKITAS, IMO ET 



VERITAS HISTORIC. Secundo hoc valde confirmant alia Scripturae 

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

 commemorantur, ut Exod. 20 dicitur, Sex diebus oj)crabis ct 

 fucics omnia opera tua, scptimo autcm die Sabbaium Domini Dei 



1 Fropter hsec ergo sententia ilia Augustini et propter nimiam 

 obscuritatem et subtilitatem ejus difficilis creditu est : quia 

 verisimile non est Deum inspirasse Moysi, ut historian! de 

 creatione mundi ad iidem totius populi adeo necessariam per 

 nomiua dierum explicaret, quorum significatio vix inveniri et 

 diflieillime ab aliquo credi posset.&quot; (Loc. cit. Lib. I. cap. xi. 

 42.) 



