The formation of species is still a secret to us, and recently Darwin and others have tried to prove that species are not created and unchangeable, but derived and changeable.' The fact that no fossil remains of human beings have been found in the older strata does not prove that when those strata were formed no human beings existed; for the crust of the earth has not been by any means thoroughly examined, and the interior of Asia, man's first dwelling-place, has not been touched. Thirty years ago Cuvier laid stress on the fact that no fossil apes had been found; since then apes belonging to still existing species have been found in the tertiary formation. It is therefore very possible that remains of men, which have been already found in the so-called Cainozoic period, may be discovered in strata which geologists assign to the Mesozoic and Palæozoic periods, and this would furnish a proof that these strata also were deposited at a time when the whole creation was completed and the race of Adam walked on earth.2

There is, from the exegetical point of view, just as little objection to be made to this theory as to that of the literal interpretation of the six days. Nor would it be right to oppose to this theory the fact that in its account of the earlier history of mankind the Bible mentions no geological catastrophe but the Deluge. There was no reason why such catastrophes should be mentioned unless they had stood in the same

This Darwinian argument of Keil's was first adopted by Veith (Die Anfänge, etc., p. 364), but he gave it up again afterwards (Prophezie und Glaube, p. 20).

2 Keil, see Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1861. Veith, Die Anfünge, etc., p. 364. Bosizio, pp. 94, 453.

direct relation to man as did the flood in the days of Noah. The only question which must be considered in examining this theory is the following, Can it be brought into harmony with the assured results of geological, and especially of paleontological inquiry? And I may at once state my conviction that this question must be answered decidedly in the negative. I need not show you at length that it hopelessly contradicts all that I have described in my last lecture as the teaching of modern geologists; the only question is, which of the two is erroneous and must be given up, the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as given by those theologians, or the history of the palæontological periods as it is represented by nearly all modern geologists. Of course, if one of the doctrines of divine revelation were in question, there could be no doubt that a true Christian must believe it under any circumstances, but this is not a question of revealed doctrine, but only of the interpretation of a passage in Holy Scripture which some theologians believe to be correct, but which is only one of several interpretations, all, as I have already proved, theologically admissible. Theologically, therefore, we are quite unfettered in the question which is now before us; we need not say, nay we must not say, that the teaching of paleontology is false because it contradicts the first chapter in Genesis, we must say rather, that if the teaching of palæontology is right in the main, the literal interpretation of the six days is wrong; must therefore be given up, and one of the other interpretations which have been shown to be exegetically admissible must be adopted. This no doubt is the

it

point at which we must decide whether the literal theory is tenable or not, for hitherto our comparison of the Hexameron with the results of scientific inquiry has not shown that it is untenable.

I have intentionally once more laid stress on the fact that as exegetes or theologians we are not compelled to insist on this interpretation. We must remember this in order that we may remain quite unprejudiced in our examination of the question before us. As theologians we are not obliged to prove that the palæontological theories are untenable in order to defend the truth of the Biblical statements, but we are obliged to prove that the Biblical statements, rightly understood, do not contradict the assured results of palæontological inquiry; in order to attain this object we must first ascertain what the Biblical narrative, which is undoubtedly true, really does mean, and as we have recognised several interpretations as admissible from a theological point of view, we must inquire in the second place which of these interpretations are found to be tenable, and which untenable, when they are compared with the assured results of palæontological inquiry. We shall therefore have done all that is necessary apologetically, if we can prove that at least one of the interpretations of the Hexameron which are theologically admissible, is compatible with the approved teaching of paleontology.

The most decided supporter of the theory which has just been mentioned above, the Jesuit Bosizio, has himself, although without intending it, pronounced its severest condemnation as a justification of the Mosaic account of creation. He says quite rightly,

that nothing is gained in the endeavour to smooth away the apparent contradiction between theology and geology, unless the theory set up by theologians is acknowledged to be admissible by all geologists, or at least by all the leaders in this science.' It is true

that he only sets up this rule in order to prove that its conditions are not fulfilled in the case of another attempt to reconcile the Bible and science. But what is true of one is true of the other; "nothing is gained" by Bosizio's attempt at reconciliation, if it is not recognised as admissible by all, or at any rate by the most eminent geologists. And he must admit that this is not the case. He mentions the following savants who support his theory; first Leibnitz, then Nikolaus Steno and Scheuchzer, who both lived in the 17th century (I have already spoken of the latter); and in order to meet the objection that "these learned men lived and wrote in a time when there was very little geognostical or paleontological knowledge," he brings forward "one of our most modern men, of great merit in all geognostical and palæontological inquiry," in the person of the Petersburg professor, Stephen Kutorga. But the fact that this geologist for Bosizio mentions no other-supports his theory does not justify him in asserting that “the theory has been recognised by learned savants in modern times;" and although Kutorga propounded

1 Das Hexameron, p. 129.

2

2 The work so often and so emphatically quoted by Bosizio (see pp. 264 seq., 277 seq., 327, 332 seq., 408, 453) is a little pamphlet of 25 pages 8vo: Einige Worte gegen die Theorie der stufenwiese Entstehung der organischen Wesen auf der Erde, by Dr. Stephen Kutorga, Prof., etc., Bonn, Konig 1839.

his theory in an assembly of savants (at Bern in 1839), and assured them "that it was not the desire of novelty, but an earnest and continuous study of nature, which had gradually called forth this idea in him," yet again Bosizio is not justified in laying stress on the fact that his theory "was not rejected by an assembly of savants, but, on the contrary, was propounded and justified as the result of continuous and earnest geological study, free from preconceived theories." I do not indeed know what judgment the assembly in question passed on Kutorga's theory; he himself declared his belief that savants would rather oppose than support it; and as far as I can judge from my knowledge of modern scientific literature, he stands pretty well alone in his opinion.1

If, then, we wished to retain the theory in question, we should have to say that although the geological conclusions which are believed to be certain by the most eminent geologists of the present time contradict our interpretation of the Hexameron, yet we may expect that the further progress of geological inquiry will prove that what is now regarded as correct is erroneous, and will lead to conclusions which are in harmony with our interpretation of the Hexameron. But, as you will easily see, this is rather a dangerous position for the Biblical apologist, and he should only have recourse to it in cases when the expressions in

1 Bosizio might also have quoted Count Franz v. Marenzi, who expresses himself to the same effect about paleontology in his book, Zwölf Frag mente über Geologie (3rd ed., Trieste 1865); but this writer calls himself an unlearned person, and in a supplement to his book he calculates that the "age of the earth" is 8, 10, or 12,000 years; "of which figures everybody is free to choose the one he likes best."