must assume that, putting aside the historic strata which may have been formed after the creation of plants and animals, the earth was created essentially in the same condition as that in which it now exists during the three first days of the Hexameron. Although I am by no means inclined to adopt this view, I should not like to assert that it is evidently incompatible with the assured results of geological research. The following arguments may be used in its defence.

Geologists conclude from the spheroidal shape of the earth, and from the flattening at the poles, that the earth was originally in a fluid condition; yet it is not in the least necessary to suppose this. The earth may have received this shape by other means, or may have had it from the beginning. In this form, for some reason, it may have been created by God. The theologian need not regard this view as being scientifically inadmissible, for no less a man than the great English geologist Sir Charles Lyell rejects the theory that the earth had originally another form as an unproved hypothesis.'

It is supposed that the earth was originally in a state of igneous fusion, because of the existence of the central fire, the igneous nucleus of the earth. But the existence of this central fire is itself only a hypothesis, and it is one which is supposed by eminent geologists, not only by A. Wagner and other Neptunists, but also by Lyell, Greenough, and others, to belong to the

3

1 Principles of Geology (4th ed.), ii. 352, 372.

2 Geschichte der Urwelt, i. 81.

3 Principles, etc., ii. 356.

⚫ Address delivered at the Anniversary Meeting of the Geological Society of London. By G. B. Greenough, London 1834, p. 22. Cf. C. B. Geology, etc., p. 170

Volcanoes,

class of geological myths and fancies. earthquakes, and hot springs are no doubt geological facts; but as we have seen, they are explained by many geologists without the hypothesis of a fiery centre. The same holds good of the increase of warmth in the interior of the earth. And if the interior of the earth really is in a state of igneous fusion, why should not God have created the earth as a fluid nucleus surrounded by a solid crust? Because the interior of the earth is in a state of igneous fusion, it does not necessarily follow that the whole earth was originally in such a condition.

And as to the idea that the whole solar system was originally in a gaseous condition, from which the earth was developed in the manner that has been described, no geologist would seriously assert that it ought to be considered even as a strictly scientific hypothesis. A series of weighty objections has been made to this hypothesis by many eminent scientific men, and it has been described as scientifically unsatisfactory, or even impossible. Karl Vogt calls this part of the earth's history "the mythical period; " and G. Bischof says

1 A. Wagner, Gesch. der Urwelt, i. 81. Those geologists who support the Neptunian theory assume that the warmth of the earth is caused by chemical and physical processes in its crust. Cf. Pfaff, Grundriss,

p. 16.

2 Cf. Ulrici, Gott und die Natur, p. 344. Huber, Zur Kritik moderner Schöpfungslehren, p. 28.

"The geologist who wishes to discover the earth's history must begin his more direct task from the inoment when, by the deposit of different strata on the surface of the earth, a solid crust is formed, and fixed epochs are marked out. We find here a relation somewhat similar to that which obtains in the history of the human race (of one people); the real history only begins from the period when chronological information, drawn from documents, gives a more solid foundation; before this everything is lost in the darkness of legend. The documents of geology are stratified rocks

2

that geology should not go back farther than the time when the earth was either a ball of fire or of water; it should not venture into a region where all facts cease, as even within its rightful boundaries its explanations are often hypothetical.' Even the theory that the earth was originally in a fluid condition must only be considered as an extremely probable hypothesis; the theory of an originally gaseous condition of the earth is "against the laws of chemistry," and like other similar theories, "it is full of difficulties and contradictions, to remove which fresh arbitrary assumptions are required." "This," he adds, "is the inevitable result if we go beyond the limits of experience. All such theories must therefore be regarded as deviations into the realm of fancy, and are, strictly speaking, out of place in a science which should endeavour more and more to get rid of all that is arbitrary, in order by degrees to obtain the honour of being classed among the exact sciences.'

We should therefore be contradicting no assured result of geological inquiry if we were to assume that God in a few days had created the world in a state of general completeness, that is, in the condition in which

in their order of superposition. The mythical period of the earth's history is that for which records are still wanting. . . . An exact science, resting on facts, like geology, cannot remain content with brilliant fancies, but must base its conclusions on observation; it should rather admit its ignorance than eke out the poverty of the facts by groundless assumptions." Vogt, Lehrb. der Geologie, ii. 330.

1 Lehrb. der chem. und phys. Geologie, 1st ed. i. p. 3.

2 Op. cit. 2nd ed. i. p. 7.

3 Op. cit. 1st ed. p. 6 seq. Cf. i. p. 584. "Is it not much simpler to suppose the composite, as we find it, has come forth from the hand of the Creator? To us the creation of the composite seems not less admirable than that of the simple."

it was when man first appeared; and the hypothesis of geologists that granite, gneiss, mica slate, etc., existed in the beginning in a fluid state, and not in their present form, is one which is incapable of proof. All that geologists can prove is that these rocks may have reached their present form after passing through a fluid condition; they cannot prove that this has actually been the process of formation, that the fluid condition which may have preceded the present state must have done so. If geologists follow up the history of the earth's formation from its present condition to the most elementary state possible, they can show what series of changes must have taken place under the dominion of the laws of nature, but they cannot prove that the earth must actually have passed through the whole series of changes as they appear in geological theories; or that God, who foresaw the whole series of the different possible conditions of the earth, could not have begun in the middle instead of with the first most elementary condition, and, as it were, omitting the first stages, have created the earth in a latter stage of its existence.

A few examples will make the matter clearer. We see many people of different ages, from childhood to old age; from these empirical observations we derive certain rules by which we judge of the age of men, and by means of these rules we are able to say of any entire stranger we may see, that he is about such an age. We may not always be quite right, but no one will say that a grown-up man is one year old. These rules hold good for all men except for two; Adam and Eve were created as grown-up people; and therefore, according

to analogy, any one who had seen them on the day of their creation would have said that they must be at least from fifteen to twenty years of age; and yet they were not yet one day old. With respect to every other individual who is similarly grown up and developed, we conclude from his present condition that he has passed through a series of changes before growing up to be a man; but this does not hold good of the first man and woman, for they passed through no childhood and youth such as

ours.

We can compute the age of a tree from its rings, and even from its size; from our observations, and according to analogy, we we can at least say that an oak which we cannot encircle with our arms has stood for more than ten years. But could we apply these conclusions to the trees of Paradise? Would it not be at any rate possible that God should have created Paradise, and all the first vegetation of the earth, in a moment, out of nothing; and with it oaks and cedars which would have appeared to us as giants one hundred years old, whereas in reality they had only existed one day? Chateaubriand expresses this thought very poetically in the following words: "If the earth was clothed with vegetation by God, and was peopled with living beings, and at last man was created, in the course of a few days, it was part of the perfection and harmony of the nature which was displayed before man's eyes, that the deserted nests of the last year's birds should be seen on the trees, and that the sea-shore should be covered with shells which had been the abode of fish. And yet the