Moses says absolutely nothing; his words are true provided the formation of the mountains had progressed so far on the third day as to allow the dry land to come forth from the waters. From an exegetical point of view, therefore, we must refrain from fixing any time for the formation of the mountains, and we have no more right to say that it happened during the third day, than to say that it happened in the period of the thohu wabohu. It is simply not mentioned in the account of the creation given by Moses, and is only indirectly alluded to as being at least partly accomplished, in so far as it is implied by the separation of water and land.

The way in which quotations from the 104th Psalm and other passages from the poetical books of the Old Testament have been adduced in this controversy is still more blameworthy. Evidently the Psalmist is only poetically amplifying the short description given by Moses of the separation of water and land on the third day, when he says: "Thou laidest the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment the waters stood above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled, at the voice of Thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains ; they go down by the valleys into the place which Thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth." Who would think of seeking for information concerning the formation of the mountains from poetical words such as these?

We may judge of the lengths to which Keerl's zeal

1 Ps. civ. 5 sq.

1

leads him, from the fact that he even taxes some of the Neptunists with heresy,-those, namely, who believe that the earth may have existed in a partially fluid and partially solid condition. Such a condition as this, Keerl thinks, "would not be consistent with the declaration of Scripture, which says that the whole mass of the earth originated out of water, and in water." The original condition of the earth, therefore, was water, and nothing but water, and all the other substances were "dissolved or swallowed up in water;" for it is written, "the earth standing out of the water, and in the water." I call that straining a passage in the Bible, in questions on which it has no bearing. S. Peter and Moses do not intend to give us information about the scientific process by which the earth was formed, and we therefore have no right to learn more from their words than this: that the earth was formerly covered with water, and that the waters were separated from the land on the surface of the earth by the word of God. But this may be reconciled both with the Neptunian aud Plutonic systems, and Delitzsch is therefore quite right in saying that the Biblical account of creation' does not in the least oblige us to oppose Plutonism with such apologetic zeal as Keerl thinks necessary. On the other hand, I cannot think Delitzsch is right in adding, that the statement, "the earth was without form, and void," might denote an igneous condition, and the next statement, "and darkness was upon the face of the deep," the condition which followed, in which the earth was either fluid or covered with water, so that after all we might find a Biblical 2 Genesis 3rd ed. p. 611 (4th ed. p. 529).

1 P. 434.

confirmation of Plutonism. It is clear that in the three statements made in the second verse-" And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters "-there is no intention of describing two or three consecutive conditions, but one condition of the earth, the condition of ἄμορφος ὕλη, in contrast to the order and the form which was brought about by the work of the six days.

We therefore maintain that Genesis and the Bible generally only say that in the most ancient times water once formed the surface of the earth. No geologist can object to this; for even the Plutonists admit, as we have seen, that at least the so-called stratified rocks were formed by watery deposits. On this point then geologists agree with each other, and with Moses. If some geologists affirm that there were, besides and before these Neptunian processes, other Plutonic processes of formation, while others assert that these also were Neptunian, and if therefore geologists themselves are at variance here, it is clear that this is just the point on which there can be no contradiction between the Bible and geology, because the Bible does not mention the subject. Genesis therefore need fear nothing whether Plutonism, or Neptunism, or yet a third system is victorious, for Genesis takes no part in the contest. The narrative begins at a time concerning which geologists agree, and it confines itself to subjects which even geologists consider to admit of no discussion.

1 Genesis, 3rd ed. p. 611. In the 4th ed. p. 529, he only says that the thohu wabohu leaves room for an igneous condition anterior to the fluid condition.

XIII.

THE THEORIES AS TO THE FORMATION OF THE EARTH.

GEOLOGISTS Conclude from the following facts that the earth was originally in a fluid condition :-1. The form of the earth, apart from the unevennesses of the surface, is that of a figure resembling a ball, a spheroid flattened at the poles; 2. The polar diameter is two and four-fifths of a geographical mile shorter than the equatorial diameter; 3. It is believed that a fluid mass revolving round its own axis invariably assumes such a spheroidal shape. And, as I have shown in my last lecture, most geologists assume that the earth existed originally in a state of igneous fusion. Many, however, do not stop here, but think it likely that another nebulous or gaseous condition had preceded the fiery state; and some have even gone farther than this, and have supposed that our whole solar system could be traced back to such a nebulous, gaseous vapour. Kant first suggested this theory.1 Herschel, Laplace, and others have tried to support it scientifically. Before I inquire what, according to Biblical revelation, we should think of this theory, I must first

1 Kant developed this theory in his book, Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels, as early as 1755. Herschel first discussed it in 1784 (in the Philosophical Transactions), and Laplace in 1796, (Exposition du système du monde). Pfaff, Die neuesten Forschungen,

p. 35.

shortly explain the history of the earth according to it.1

The solar system was originally one enormous ball of gas. In this, through the concentration of substances, a centre was formed which became later a solid nucleus. To this some external force imparted a motion round its own axis, and by degrees the whole of the gaseous matter surrounding it took part in this motion, so that the whole ball of gas rotated round itself. This motion, which was at first slow, grew quicker and quicker in consequence of the increasing density of the mass and the accompanying diminution of its volume; the form of the ball of gas became more and more spheroidal and lentiform, because the centrifugal force increased with the quicker motion. In consequence of the increasing density of the whole, and of the greater tendency in the outside parts to fly off from the centre, it was inevitable that at some period the centrifugal force should prevail over the centripetal, and that a ringshaped part should be separated from the whole. Later on, this girdle or ring was broken by disturbances which took place in it, it was torn in one or in several places, and rolled itself up into as many balls, which now retained their separate existence. The result of this was either to form one new large spheroid with a double motion, a revolution round its own axis and a revolution round the original gaseous ball, or a number of small spheroids, which rolled on with the same double movement at about an equal distance from the centre. I may say here that in the first way were

1 Burmeister, Gesch. der Schöpfung. p. 123 seq., also Nöggerath, Ges. Naturwiss. iii. 312 seq.