III. COLET ON THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION (1497?).

III. COLET ON THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION (1497?).

It would seem that one of Colet’s friends, named _Radulphus_, had been attempting to expound ‘_the dark places of Scripture_,’ and that in doing so he had commenced with the words of Lamech in the fourth chapter of Genesis, as though this were the first ‘dark place’ to be found in the Bible!

[Sidenote: Letters of Colet on the Mosaic account of creation.]

Out of this circumstance arose a correspondence on the meaning of the first chapter of Genesis, which Colet thought required explanation as much as any other portion of Scripture. Four of Colet’s letters to Radulphus, containing his views on the Mosaic account of the creation, have fortunately been preserved, bound up with a copy of his manuscript exposition on the Epistle to the Romans, in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.[102] Colet seems to have thought them worth preserving, as he did the letter to the Abbot of Winchcombe; and as any attempt to realise the position and feelings of Colet, when commencing his lectures at Oxford on St. Paul’s epistles, would have been very imperfect without the story of the priest’s visit, so these letters to Radulphus, apart from their intrinsic interest, are especially valuable as giving another practical illustration of the position which Colet had assumed upon the question of the inspiration and interpretation of the Scriptures; as showing, perhaps, more clearly than anything else could have done, that the principles and method which he had applied to St. Paul’s writings, were not hastily adopted, but the result of mature conviction,--that Colet was ready to apply them consistently to the Old Testament as well as to the New, to the first chapter of Genesis as well as to the Epistle to the Romans.

[Sidenote: First letter to Radulphus.]

Colet begins his first letter by telling Radulphus how surprised he was that, whilst professing to expound the ‘dark places of Scripture,’ he should, as already mentioned, have commenced with the words of Lamech, leaving the first three chapters of Genesis untouched; for these very chapters, so lightly passed over by Radulphus, seemed to him, he said, ‘so obscure that they might almost in themselves be that “_abyss_” to which Moses alluded when he wrote that “darkness covered the face of the deep.”’[103]

[Sidenote: Use of a knowledge of Hebrew.]

After admitting the impossibility of coming to an accurate understanding of the meaning of what Moses wrote without a knowledge of Hebrew and access to Hebrew commentaries, ‘which Origen, Jerome, and all really diligent searchers of the Scriptures have appreciated,’ he goes on to say that, notwithstanding their extreme obscurity, and the possibility that Radulphus might be able to throw more light upon them than he himself could, he would nevertheless give him some of his notions on the meaning of the verses from ‘In the beginning,’ &c. to the end of the ‘first day.’

He then began his explanation by saying that, though not unmindful of the manifold senses of Scripture, he should confine himself to rapidly following _one_;[104] and this seems to be the only allusion in these letters to the prevalent theory of the ‘manifold senses.’ Taken in connection with the full expression of his views upon the subject on a future occasion, the words here made use of probably must be construed rather as showing that he did not wish at that moment to enter into the question with Radulphus, than as intended to give any indication of what his views were upon it.

[Sidenote: All things created at once in eternity.]

Then he proceeds to state his conviction that the first few verses of Genesis contain a sort of summary of the whole work of creation. ‘First of all, I conceive,’ Colet wrote, ‘that in this passage the creation of the universe has been delivered to us in brief (_summatim_), and that God created all things _at once_ in his eternity[105]--in that eternity which transcends all time, and yet is less extended than a point of time, which has no division of time, and is before all time.’

The world consists primarily of _matter_ and _form_, and the object of Moses was, Colet thought, to show that both matter and form were created _at once_ (_simul_). And therefore Moses began with saying, ‘In the beginning (i.e. in eternity) God created heaven (i.e. form) and the earth’ (i.e. matter).[106] Matter was never without form, but that he might point out the order of things, Moses added, that ‘the earth (matter) was empty and void[107] (i.e. without solid and substantial being), and darkness covered the face of the deep’ (i.e. the matter was in darkness, and without life and being).[108] Then the text proceeds, ‘The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ ‘See how beautifully’ (wrote Colet), ‘he proceeds in order, showing at one view the creation and union of form with matter,[109] using the word “water” to express the unstable and fluid condition of matter.’ Then follow the words, ‘Let there be light’ (i.e. according to Colet, things assumed form and definition[110]).

Having thus explained the opening verses of Genesis as a statement in brief--_a summary_--of the whole work of creation, Colet concluded this first letter by saying, ‘What follows in Moses is a repetition and further expansion of what he has said above--a distinguishing in _particular_ of what before was comprehended in the _general_. If you think otherwise, pray let me have your views. Farewell.’[111]

[Sidenote: Second letter.]

[Sidenote: Colet takes into account the rude multitude for whom Moses wrote.]

[Sidenote: And that his object was to give them a moral lesson, not a scientific one.]

Radulphus having, apparently in reply to this letter, requested Colet to proceed to explain the _other_ days, Colet, in the _second_ letter, takes up the subject where he left it in the first. Having spoken of form and matter, Moses proceeds, he says, in proper order, and treats of things in particular, ‘placing before the eye the arrangement of the world; which he does in this way, in my opinion’ (wrote Colet), ‘that he may seem to have regard to the understanding of the vulgar and rude multitude whom he taught.’[112] Thus, as when trying to understand the Epistle to the Romans, Colet took down his ‘Suetonius,’ and studied the circumstances of the Roman Christians to whom the epistle was written, so, in trying to understand the book of Genesis, Colet seems to have regarded it as written expressly for the benefit of the children of Israel, and to have called to mind how rude and uncivilised a multitude Moses had to teach; and he seems to have come to the conclusion that the object of Moses was not to give to the learned of future generations a scientific statement of the manner and order of the creation of the universe, but to teach a _moral_ lesson to the people whom he was leading out of the bondage and idolatry of Egypt.

And thus, in Colet’s view, Moses, ‘setting aside matters purely Divine and out of the range of the common apprehension, proceeds to instruct the unlearned people, by touching rapidly and lightly on the order of those things with which their eyes were very palpably conversant, that he might teach them what men are, and for what purpose they were born, in order that he might be able with less difficulty to lead them on afterwards to a more civilised life and to the worship of God--_which was his main object in writing_.[113] And that this was so is made obvious by the fact, that even amongst things cognisable to the senses, Moses passed over such as are less palpable, as _air_ and _fire_, fearing to speak of anything but what can easily be seen, as land, sea, plants, beasts, men; singling out from amongst stars, the sun and moon, and of fishes, “great whales.” Thus Moses arranges his details in such a way as to give the people a clearer notion, and he does this _after the manner of a popular poet_, in order that he may the more adapt himself to the spirit of simple rusticity, picturing a succession of things, works, and times, of such a kind as there certainly could not be in the work of _so great a Workman_.’[114]

[Sidenote: Moses accommodated himself to the rude minds of the people.]

This recognition by Colet of _accommodation_, on the part of Moses, to the limited understanding of the rude people whom he taught, occurs over and over again in these letters; _so_ often, indeed, that in one letter he apologises to Radulphus for the repetition, being aware, as he says, that _he_ is not addressing a ‘muddle-headed Hebrew’ (lutulentum Hebræum), but a most refined philosopher! Thus he explains the difficulty of the creation of the firmament on the second day by saying, ‘This was made before, but that simple and uncivilised multitude had to be taught in a homely and palpable way.’[115]

[Sidenote: Third letter.]

In the third letter Colet proceeds to speak of the third day--the separation of the waters from the dry land, and the creation of plants and herbs. Here again everything is explained on the principle of accommodation. ‘Since the untutored multitude, looking round them, saw nothing but the sky above, and land and water here below, and then the things which spring from land and water, and live in them, so Moses suits his order to their powers of observation.’

[Sidenote: Colet believes in a sort of development of things.]

The firmament or sky was spoken of in the second day; now, therefore, on the third day, Moses mentions land and water, and the things which spring from them. Plants and herbs are thus spoken of almost as though they were a part of land and water; and here Colet gives Radulphus what he speaks of as a notion of his own, hard, perhaps, for his friend to receive, but nevertheless his own conviction, that, [instead of each element being separately created, as it were, out of nothing] ‘fire springs from ether, air from fire, water from air, and from water, lastly, earth.’ And Moses probably in speaking of the creation of plants &c. on the third day, before he came to other things, intended thereby to show, Colet thought, that the earth is spontaneously productive of plants. He also thought that Moses mentioned the creation of plants before the heavenly bodies, in order to show that the germinating principle is in the earth itself, and not, according to the vulgar idea, in the sun and stars.

[Sidenote: Moses divided the creation into six days, after the manner of a poet, by a useful and most wise poetic figment.]

At the end of the third letter, Colet naturally stumbles on the difficulty of explaining how, if all things were created _at once_ ‘in the beginning,’ before all time, Moses could say at the end of each stage of his description of the creation, ‘and the evening and the morning were the first, second, third, &c. _day_:’ and, after fairly losing himself in an attempt to solve this difficulty, he ends by urging Radulphus to leave these obscure points, which are practically beyond our range, and to bear in mind throughout what he had before spoken of, viz. that whilst Moses wished to speak in a manner not unworthy of God, he wished, at the same time, in matters within the knowledge of the common people, to satisfy the common people, and to keep to the order of things; above all things, to lead the people on to the religion and worship of the one God.[116] ‘The chief things known to the common people were sky, land and water, stars, fishes, beasts, and so he deals with them. He arranged them in six days; _partly_ because the things which readily occur to men’s minds are six in number:[117]--(1) What is above the sky, (2) sky itself, (3) land, surrounded by water, and productive of plants, (4) sun and moon in the sky, (5) fish in the water, (6) beasts inhabiting earth and air, and _man_, the inhabitant of the whole universe;--and _partly_ and _chiefly_, that he might lead the people on to the imitation of God, whom, _after the manner of a poet_, he had pictured as working for six days and resting the seventh, so that they also should devote every seventh day to rest and to the contemplation of God and to worship.’[118] ‘For, beyond all doubt,’ Colet proceeds to say, ‘Moses never would have put forward a number of days for any other purpose than that, by

this most useful and most wise poetic figment, the people might be provoked to imitation by an example set before them, and so ending their daily labours on the sixth day, spend the seventh in the highest contemplation of God.’[119] Colet ends his third letter by saying, ‘Thus you have my notions upon the work of the third day, but what to make of it I know not. It is enough, as I have said, to have touched upon it lightly. Farewell.’

[Sidenote: Fourth letter.]

[Sidenote: Colet confesses his uncertainty.]

From the commencement of the fourth letter it would seem that Radulphus had been from home four days, and Colet jokingly tells him that _he_ had spent all those four days in getting through _one_ more of the Mosaic days. ‘And indeed whilst you have been working in the day under the sun, I, during this time, have been wandering about in the night and the darkness; neither did I see which way to go, nor do I know at what point I have arrived.’ And then he went on to tell Radulphus that, while in this perplexity himself, he seemed to have caught Moses also in a great mistake, for in concluding each day’s work with the words, ‘the evening and the morning were the second day, the third day,’ and so on, he ought not to have said _day_ but _night_. What intervenes between the evening and the morning must of necessity be _night_! For a _day_ begins in the morning and ends with the evening! And he went on jokingly to say that there was a still more pressing reason why Moses, dividing his subjects into days, might have rather called them _nights_; viz. that ‘they are so overwhelmed with darkness that nothing could be more like _night_ than these Mosaic _days_!’ Then looking back upon his attempts to explain their obscurity, he was obliged to confess that ‘perhaps while he had been trying to throw some light upon them, he might, after all, have increased the darkness;’ and he entreated Radulphus ‘to pour into the darkness some of his light, that he might be enabled thereby to see Colet, and Colet together with him to see Moses.’[120]

[Sidenote: All things must have been created at once.]

[Sidenote: Accommodation on the part of God to man.]

[Sidenote: Moses uses a most honest and pious poetic figure.]

After this candid confession of uncertainty, Colet tried to explain the work of the fourth day, and the words, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven;’ but the only way he could do so was by resorting again to the principle of accommodation, which he did in these words: ‘As we have said, all these were created at once. For it is unworthy of God, and unbecoming in us, to think of any one thing as created after any other, as though He had been unable to create them all at once. Hence in Ecclesiasticus, “He who dwells in eternity created all things _at once_.” But Moses, _after the manner of a good and pious poet_,[121] as Origen (against Celsus) calls him, was willing to invent some figure, not altogether worthy of God, if only it might but be profitable and useful to men; which race of men is so dear to God, that God himself emptied himself of his glory, taking the form of a servant, that he might accommodate himself to the poor heart of man.[122] So all things of God, when given to man, must needs lose somewhat of their sublimity,[123] and be put in a form more palpable and more within the grasp of man. Accordingly, the high knowledge of Moses about God and Divine things and the creation of the world, when it came to be submitted to the vulgar apprehension, savoured altogether of the humble and the rustic, so that he had to speak, not according to _his_ own power of comprehension, but according to the comprehension of the multitude. Thus, accommodating himself to _their_ comprehension, Moses endeavoured, by this most honest and pious poetic figure, at once to allure them and draw them on to the worship of God.’[124]

Here the manuscript abruptly ends[125] in the middle of a reference to the works of Macrobius, whose sanction Colet was apparently about to quote in support of his attempt to explain the first chapter of Genesis by reference to the principle of accommodation.[126]

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Where Colet got these views.]

The question may be asked:--‘Whence came this doctrine of accommodation which Colet here used so boldly?’ It was at least no birth of the nineteenth century, nor of the fifteenth. It belonged to a period a thousand years earlier, when men had (as in Colet’s days and in ours) to reconcile reason and faith--to find a firm basis of _fact_ for Christianity, instead of resting upon mere ecclesiastical authority.

It will have been noticed that the two authors cited by Colet in these letters were Origen and Macrobius. Traces of Dionysian influence are also apparent.[127]

It has already been pointed out, that when, after a thousand years’ interval of restless slumber, the spirit of free enquiry was reawakened by the revival of learning in Italy, the works of the pre-scholastic fathers and philosophers were studied afresh. The works of Origen, Macrobius, and, more than all, of Dionysius, were constantly studied and quoted by such men as Ficino and Pico. And thus it came to pass that the doctrine of accommodation, with other apparently new-fangled but really _old_ doctrines, floated, as it were, in the air which Colet had recently been breathing in Italy.

[Sidenote: The _Heptaplus_ of Pico.]

The immediate source of some of the views contained in the letters to Radulphus was evidently Pico’s ‘Heptaplus’[128] on the six days’ creation; a work published in beautiful type, shortly before Colet’s visit to Italy, and dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici.[129] Comparing this treatise of Pico’s with Colet’s letters, the small verbal coincidences are too striking to leave any doubt of the connection.

Nor does this tracing of Colet’s thoughts to their source detract from his originality so much as might at first sight appear.

Colet found many different germs of thought in Pico. Falling into congenial soil, this one attained a vigorous growth in his mind, which it never attained with Pico. Other germs which flourished under Pico took no root with Colet. The result was, that the spirit of the letters to Radulphus had little in common with that of the ‘Heptaplus.’ Colet showed his originality and independence of thought by seizing one rational idea contained in Pico’s treatise, and leaving the rest. He caught and unravelled one thread of common sense which Pico had contrived to interweave with a web of learned but not very wise speculation.