removed by the infiltration of subterranean waters; then the upper strata, being deprived of their support, sink down and fall in, and the concussions thus produced are radiated by shocks, as is the case with waves. In this manner it is supposed that earthquakes can be explained, especially when they occur in regions where no volcanoes are to be found near at hand.

Such are the principal points of the Neptunian theory, which was originated by the founder of scientific geology in Germany, A. J. Verner (17801817), and which has been developed and of course considerably modified by more recent writers. In the course of the history of geology it appeared to be gradually losing ground, but latterly the application of chemistry to the history of the earth's formation has afforded it a new support. The theory has been principally developed in this direction by G. Bischof and O. Volger; besides these, Neptunism has been defended by Nepomuk von Fuchs, von Schafhäutl, and especially by Andreas Wagner.1

I am neither able, nor have I the inclination, to consider which of these theories is to be preferred. For our object it is only necessary that we should be acquainted with both theories, and know that up to this time neither the one nor the other has been proved to be alone scientifically correct. This is admitted by geologists themselves. Geology" says Pfaff, himself

66

1 Geschichte der Urwelt, i. 18 seq. "Betrachtungen uber den gegenwärtigen Standpunkt der Theorieen der Erdbildung nach ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung in den letzten funfzig Jahren," in the Report of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Science for 1860, p. 375 seq. Cf. Stutz, Schöpfungsgeschichte, p. 6. Allg. Lit. Anz. für das evang. Deutschland, 1867, p. 17.

a Plutonist," is at present in a state of transition with reference to these questions; the encroachments of Plutonism have necessarily caused a reaction in favour of Neptunism, and we cannot yet calculate whither it will lead us, and what the end of it will be."1 And Karl Vogt says in his sketch of geology: "The theories as to the formation of the solid crust of the earth in general, and of the mountains in particular, are at present in an unsettled condition; out of which two diametrically opposed views seem to stand out, which would include all other less divergent opinions." He then sketches these two views, which he calls the physical and the chemical theories; they are the two theories which I have discussed under their usual names of Neptunism and Plutonism, and I have based my description principally on this sketch of Vogt's. "These two opposing theories," he continues, "contradict one another on most points to such an extent that it would be hardly possible to reconcile them." He rightly thinks that such a reconciliation would not be impossible, but it has not been accomplished hitherto, nor does there even seem to be any prospect of it. To use Vogt's own words: "It is necessary here, as in so many branches of scientific observation, to inquire minutely into each particular case, and to make known the causes which produce it; not to fall back on the general application of absolute theories, which might be valid for one case, but would not be justified in another." 2

I have already said that the Plutonic theory is that preferred by most geologists. I must not omit to add

1

Schöpfungsgeschichte, p. 422.

* Grundriss der Geologie, p. 340.

that G. Bischof, the very geologist who has most decidedly and successfully opposed the Plutonic theory, in discussing the origin of the separate constituent parts of the earth, has declared himself against the assumption that a watery or paplike substance formed its original condition. He expresses himself as follows: "The condition of igneous fusion in which the earth is supposed to have existed during the period of creation, is not incompatible with any of the phenomena, and it explains some indubitable facts, such as the increase of temperature as we get deeper into the earth, the hot springs and volcanic phenomena, in the simplest and most natural manner."1

You see that under these circumstances there would be danger, if, as many commentators have asserted, the Bible really taught that the earth was formed by the action of water. We might no doubt still say in this case that the Bible did not contradict any certain results of geological inquiry; for the contest between Plutonists and Neptunists is not yet decided; but still the situation would be disturbing. It is possible, at all events, and many think it probable, that the Plutonists will at length win a decided victory, and that further geological inquiries will conclusively prove fire to be the original and determining force in the formation of the earth. Nor is it impossible that an entirely new theory should become scientifically important, and that thus both Plutonism and Neptunism may be set aside. Considering the rapid progress made by the natural sciences in our century, it is even possible that before very long, perhaps in our lifetime, Plutonism or some

1 Lehrb. der chem. und physik. Geol., 2nd ed. i. p. 7 seq. Cf. p. 479.

other theory, which is not Neptunism, may be opposed to the Bible, no longer as a hypothesis, but as a system substantiated by science. What then?

All these fears are groundless. I may say that I am ready to prove this; for the question is exegetical and not geological, and therefore it is one which, unlike those I have till now been discussing, is within my province.

A learned geological writer, a moderate Plutonist, Quenstedt, says briefly: "Moses was a Neptunist." He thinks that he can even explain this circumstance, and excuse it from his point of view by adding: "The home of the patriarchs in the land of Ur (in Chaldæa) and afterwards in Egypt presented so few volcanic phenomena, and the power of the waters in the countries of the great rivers must have been so striking, that the forming agency of the watery element was only too apparent." Against this we may observe first, that assuming, but not admitting, that Moses ever occupied himself in investigating the geological condition of the countries in which he lived and with which he was acquainted, and again assuming, but not admitting, that in consequence of these investigations, or in consequence of the opinions of others which were known to him, Moses held the Neptunian theory, this can be of little interest to the exegete. The latter need only ask whether the Neptunian theory is advanced in the book which Moses wrote with the supernatural aid of the Spirit of God; for the exegete need not assume the opinions of Moses, but only the statements in the Bible, to be true. But we cannot expect that the Bible should

'Sonst und Jetzt, p. 194.

advance the Neptunian theory; for as the object of the Bible is to convey to us religious truths, but not to teach us scientific things, it clearly cannot mean to decide against Plutonism and in favour of Neptunism. The utmost we can concede as possible is this: in stating religious truths concerning the creation of things by God, the Biblical writers may have occasion to use expressions which indirectly imply that the earth was formed in one or other particular way. We cannot allow that Quenstedt's statement means more than this; that the Biblical description of the formation of the earth appears to rest on the Neptunian theory, or to favour that theory by the way in which it is expressed.

One of the most decided Neptunists, Andreas Wagner, thus sums up the question. He says: "Those who hold the Neptunian theory, believe with Moses, the world's most ancient geologist, and with another unusually gifted wise man of antiquity, the Apostle Peter, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water,' and they are in a position to justify that assertion scientifically.""

Neptunists will do well to confine themselves to science, and not to appeal to Moses or S. Peter. The former cannot with any accuracy be called the world's most ancient geologist, and it is just as incorrect to call S. Peter an unusually gifted wise man of antiquity. His gifts, so far as they interest us, were supernatural, received through the Spirit of God, and therefore his

1 Geschichte der Urwelt, i. 142. K. von Raumer also appeals to 2 Pet. iii. 5 seq. Kreuzzüge, ii. 20: "The words in ver. 5 bear out the Neptunian theory of the formation of mountains; ver. 10 refers Plutonists to a future burning up of the earth."