12. § 31. The Material World.
§ 31. The Material World.
. Besides the spiritual there also exists a material world. But while the angels in their existence and essence are known only from revelation and are hidden from reason and science, the material world is beheld by all and is discussed both in philosophy and in theology, both in religion and in science. Here therefore difference and collision are possible at every moment. To be sure, both, philosophy and theology, speak about the material world in a different sense. The former investigates the origin and the nature of all things, but the latter proceeds from God, and leads everything back to Him; it has to do with the creatures only insofar as they are works of God and reveal something of His virtues; thus, even where it treats of the creatures, it is and remains always theology, Thomas, S. c. Gent
II c. 2 sq. Polanus, Synt. theol. V c. 7. But even though there is so important a distinction, theology and philosophy nevertheless deal with the same world. In order to avoid collision between the two, a separation of property has often been proposed: science would investigate the visible things and leave to religion and theology nothing but the religious-ethical world; or
still more strictly, all that is would belong to science and only in valuejudgments would religion be allowed to speak. But such a separation is both theoretically and practically impossible. Just as every scientific system in the end always is rooted in religious convictions, so there is no single religion that does not bring with it [457] a definite view of the created. All religions have their cosmogonies, which have not arisen from philosophical reasoning but rest on tradition. Genesis 1 too is by no means a philosophical worldview, but a tradition, which in many respects agrees with the cosmogonies of the other religions and yet also in a remarkable way deviates from them. The agreement consists in this, that in all cosmogonies the formation of the world is ascribed to God, that the first state was an undeveloped and chaotic one, that the formation of the world proceeds in some periods of time, ascends from lower to higher and ends in man, who is akin to God, cf. above p. 386. But the points of difference are much greater still. The pagan cosmogonies are all at the same time also theogonies, all assume a primal matter and teach a chaos in the proper sense. The narrative in Genesis, on the other hand, is strictly monotheistic, it teaches a creation out of nothing, and knows no chaos in the proper sense. Therefore it is also unbelievable that the Jews would have taken over this narrative from the Babylonians in the exile. For, in the first place, creation was already known to the Israelites even before the exile. Next, this was also already the case with the seven-day week, which is grounded on the days of creation. Then it is improbable that the Jews would have taken over so important a part of their doctrine from their conquerors. And finally, the pagan cosmogonies were so thoroughly polytheistic, that they had rather to repel than to attract the monotheistic people of Israel and also could not be reworked just like that into a fair, monotheistic narrative such as Gen. 1. Rather, everything
pleads for the fact that in Genesis we possess a tradition that originates from the oldest times, has gradually been corrupted among the other peoples, and has been preserved by Israel in its purity, Delitzsch, Neuer Comm. z.
Genesis S. 41. 42.
2. In the narrative of Gen. 1 the first verse must be understood as the description of a distinct fact. In verse 2 the earth already exists, though in a desolate and empty condition. And verse 1 relates the origin of that earth; it was created by God at once as earth. After in verse 1 heaven was only briefly mentioned alongside the earth, verse 2 immediately turns to the earth, [458] the cosmogony becomes geogony. And that earth is from the first moment onward earth; no ὑλη in the Aristotelian sense, no materia prima, no chaos either in the sense of the pagan cosmogonies. Ein geschaffenes Chaos ist ein Unding (Dillmann). The earth is indeed now described to us as ֹתהּו ָו ֹבהּו, as a ְתהֹום, over which the darkness spread. But this expresses something wholly different from what is usually understood under chaos. The word ֹתהּו occurs several times, especially in Isaiah, and everywhere calls to mind a space that is empty; a place where there is no way and everything is untracked and unformed. The word ֹבהּו is still found in Isa. 34:10 and Jer. 4:23, both times in connection with ֹתהּו, and expresses the same thought. The condition of the earth in Gen. 1:2 is not that of a positive devastation but of a not-yet-formed being. There is no light, no life, no organic being, no form and shape of things. Still more closely it is explained by the fact that it was a ְתהֹום, a roaring mass of water, shrouded in darkness. The earth is ἐξ ὑδατος και δι' ὑδατος, 2 Petr. 3:5, Ps. 104:5, 6.
This unformed, undeveloped condition has, according to the intention of Genesis, certainly lasted some time, however short it may have been. No mere logical supposition is described in it, but a factual condition. Only
then the question arises, how long this condition lasted. This now again depends entirely on whether the creation of heaven and earth, of which Gen. 1:1 speaks, falls before or within the first day. Genesis gives no other impression than that the creation of heaven and earth in verse 1 and the unformed condition of the earth in verse 2 precedes the first day. For, in verse 2 there is still darkness and no light; now the day is not and does not begin with darkness but with light; only through the creation of the light verse 3 does the day become possible; God therefore also did not call the darkness but the light day and the darkness He called night, verse 5; the alternation of light and dark, of day and night could only with the creation of the light make a beginning; only after the light had been, could it become evening and thereafter again morning, and with this morning the first day ended, for Gen. 1 counts the day from morning to morning. The work of the first day thus consisted not in the creation of heaven and earth, not in the letting-continue of the unformed condition, but in the creation of the light
[459] and the separation of light and darkness. Against this exegesis there would now also be absolutely no objection, if it were not written elsewhere that God created heaven and earth in six days, Ex. 20:11, 31:17. This, however, cannot be understood otherwise than of the creatio secunda. For, in these two texts the emphasis does not fall on the fact that God has brought forth everything out of nothing, but that He has been active with the forming of heaven and earth for six days, and this is set before us as an example. Clearly there is a distinction between what God, Gen. 1:1 "in the beginning", cf. Joh. 1:1 and what He, Gen. 1:3v. speaking, does in the six days; the unformed condition of Gen. 1:2 separates both from one another.
The creatio prima is immediate, immediata, it is a bringing forth of heaven and earth out of nothing, it presupposes absolutely no material at hand, it
has taken place cum tempore. But the creatio secunda, which begins with verse 3, is not direct and immediate, it presupposes the material created in verse 1 and attaches itself thereto, and it takes place specifically in tempore and indeed in six days. Hence this creatio secunda already anticipates the works of preservation and government; it is already in part preservation and no longer a mere creation. Moreover, in the same moment as heaven and earth in verse 1 are created by God, they are also preserved by Him. The creatio passes at once and immediately over into the conservatio and gubernatio. But nevertheless the work of the six days, Gen. 1:3v., must still be reckoned as belonging to creation. For all the creatures which have been brought forth in those six days, light, firmament, sun, moon, stars, plant, animal, man, have according to Genesis not proceeded from the existing material by immanent forces according to fixed laws in the way of evolution. That material was powerless to bring forth all that by itself along a natural way, by immanent development. It did not have in itself the suitability, the potentia for it; it had only a potentia obedientialis. God brought forth, from the primal material of Gen. 1:1, speaking, creating, the whole cosmos. With each new formation He did indeed attach Himself to what already existed, but the higher nevertheless did not proceed from the lower solely by immanent power. Each time a creative word of God's omnipotence was needed in addition. [460]
3. The work of creation has been divided by Herder et al. into two ternaries, in such a way that the works of the second ternary correspond to those of the first. There is indeed correspondence between the work of the first and of the fourth day; but the second and fifth, and likewise the third and sixth, do not stand in such parallelism. On the fifth day, after all, not only the birds in the firmament, but also the fish and water-animals are
created, which corresponds much more with the work of the third day. Yet in the works of creation there is clearly a progress perceptible from the lower to the higher, from the general presuppositions for organic life to this organic life itself in its different forms. Better therefore is the old division of the whole work of creation into three parts: creatio Gen. 1:1, 2, distinctio on the first three days, between light and darkness, heaven and earth, land and sea, and ornatus on the fourth to the sixth day, population of the prepared earth with all kinds of living beings. Thomas, S. Th. I qu. 74. Yet this division too is not meant as a strict separation, for the plants, created on the third day, also serve for adornment etc. The distinctio and ornatus put an end to the tohoe wabohoe of the earth. The unformed and undeveloped condition of the earth, of which verse 2 speaks, must, however, not for a moment be thought of as passive. However long or short it may have existed, there lay forces and operations in it. For we read that God's Spirit hovered over the waters. The verb רחף means: to hover with the wings over something, Deut. 32:11, and the use of this word proves that with רּוַח ֱא ֹלִהים one must think not of the wind but specifically of the Spirit of God, to whom also elsewhere the work of creation is ascribed, Ps. 33:6, 104 vs. 30.
The Spirit of God, as the principle of creaturely being and life, works formatively, life-awakeningly upon the water-mass of the earth and thus meets the creative word of God, which on the six days, in connection with what exists, calls the different formations of the creatures into being. The work of the first day now consists in the creation of the light, in the separation of light and darkness, in the alternation of day and night, thus also in movement, change, becoming. Light is namely, according to the now most accepted hypothesis of Huygens, not a substance, but an enormously rapid undulation [461] or vibration of the ether-atoms, and thus nothing but
movement. It is therefore to be well distinguished from the light-givers, sun, moon and stars, and according to Genesis precedes them. Light is also the most general presupposition for all life and development. While the alternation of day and night is only still necessary for animal and man, the light is already also a need for the plant world; it moreover gives form, shape, colour to all things. On the second day distinction is made between the firmament, the airand cloud-heaven, which according to optical appearance is often called a curtain, Ps. 104:2, a veil, Isa. 40:22, a sapphire,
Ex. 24:10, Ezek. 1:22, a mirror, Job 37:18, a roof and vault over the earth, Gen. 7:11, Deut. 11:17, 28:12, Ps. 78:23 etc., and the earth with its waters,
Ps. 24:2, 136:6. The work of separation and distinction, begun on the first day, is continued on the second; the distinction of light and darkness, of day and night, is now made serviceable to the separation of heaven and earth; of air and clouds above, of earth and water below. At the end of the second day the words are lacking: God saw that it was good. From this one has inferred that the number two was an ominous number or also that on that day hell was created; but the reason is probably this, that the work of the second day is most closely connected with that of the third day, and is completed only in the separation of the waters; thereafter then the divine approval follows.
On the third day, after all, the separation is carried through between earth and water, land and sea; thereby the earth has become a cosmos, with continents and seas, mountains and valleys, lands and streams. Without doubt all these formations have not taken place except under the most tremendous operations of the mechanical and chemical forces lying in nature. These have been awakened by the mighty word of God and by the animation of the Spirit and have given to the earth its cosmic form. From now on other, namely organic, forces also appear. The earth is still naked
and bare. Therefore this day does not end before also in general the green is created, which then especially splits into two kinds, namely into herbs and trees, which each have their own seed and thus propagate themselves. This plant world could now do without the light, but not without the sun. But it is not so with the animal and human world; before these are created, therefore, on the fourth day sun, moon and stars must first be prepared. It is not implied here that the material mass for these planets was only then created, but only that all those thousands of planets now first on this day became what they henceforth would be for the earth; that together they fulfil the place of the light and are for the earth for signs of wind and weather, of events and judgments; for regulation of fixed times for agriculture, navigation, feasts, the life of man and animal; and finally for calculation of days and months and years. The fourth day thus relates the appearance of the starry heaven for the earth; day and night etc. are henceforth regulated by the sun; the earth becomes a member, a part of the universe; it is set in harmony with all other planets. Now the earth as dwelling-place of the ensouled, living beings, of animals and men, is ready. On the fifth day the waters themselves by the mighty word of God bring forth all water-animals, and the air is filled with all kinds of birds. Of both kinds of animals a great multitude is created, in all kinds and number. And then on the sixth day follows the creation of the land-animals, which at God's command come forth from the earth, specifically in three kinds, wild animals, cattle and creeping animals; and finally also the creation of man, who after a definite counsel of God is formed as to his body out of the earth and as to his soul is created directly by God. Thus the whole creation was completed. God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good. He had a good pleasure in his own work. Therefore He rested on the seventh day. His rest is a
consequence of his satisfaction and good pleasure in his works, which now as works of creation are completed, but is at the same time positively a blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day, in order that the creation, continuing in that seventh day, blessed by God with all kinds of powers, sanctified by God to his service and honour, may henceforth itself develop under the providence of the Lord and correspond to its destination.
4. This hexaemeron has been treated by Christian theology with [463] particular predilection. The literature is astonishingly rich, but has been almost completely processed in the important book by Dr. Zöckler,
Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft mit besondrer Rücksicht auf die Schöpfungsgeschichte, 2 Theile, Gütersloh
1877/79. The oldest Christian exposition of the hexaemeron has been preserved in the second book of Theophilus' writing ad Autolycum c. 9-38.
It is also discussed more or less extensively by Tertullianus, adv. Hermog. c.
19 sq., by Origenes in his homily on the hexaemeron as the beginning of his 17 homilies of Genesis, then especially by Basilius, in Hexaemeron homiliae IX, Gregorius of Nyssa, Apolog. in Hexaemeron, Damascenus, de fide orthod. lib. II; in the West especially by Lactantius, Inst. div. II c. 8-12,
Ambrosius, in Hex. libri VI, Augustinus, especially the Genesi ad lit. l. XII, de civ. XI 4 sq. Conf. XI-XIII etc. These works were exploited by Isidorus,
Beda, Alcuinus and others and then remain the foundation of the treatment of the hexaemeron in scholasticism, Lombardus, Sent. II dist. 12-18,
Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 44-102, Bonaventura, Sent. II dist. 12-18. Brevil. II c. 1-5 etc. Also after the Reformation the same worldview and the same conception of the hexaemeron continue to prevail both in Roman Catholic and in Protestant theology. On the Roman Catholic side the principal treatments are those of Cajetanus, in his commentary on Genesis,
Eugubinus in his Cosmopoeia 1535, Catharinus in his elucidations on the first 5 chapters of Genesis, Pererius in his four-volume work on the first book of Moses, Lapide in his well-known commentary, Molina in his tractatus de opere sex dierum, Suarez in his commentary on the first part of the Summa, Petavius in his theol. dogm., tract. de sex primorum mundi dierum opificio, Becanus, Theol. schol. tr. IV de operibus sex dierum etc.
Of the Lutherans the principal ones are: Luther's commentary on Genesis, Melanchthon's annotations on Gen. 1-6, Chemniz, Loci Theol. 1610 pag.
109-123, Quenstedt, Theol. did. pol. I 431 sq. Hollaz, Syst. Theol. p. 361373. The literature among the Reformed is even richer. Not only in commentaries on Genesis, by Calvijn, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Musculus,
Martyr, Piscator, de Dieu, Coccejus etc., is this material treated. And also not only in dogmatic works such as those of Polanus, Gomarus, [464]
Heidegger, Mastricht, Maresius, Moor etc. does it come up; but also many separate treatises were devoted to it, such as by Capito, Hexaemeron Dei opus explicatum 1539, Danaeus, Physice christiana, seu christ. de rerum creatarum origine et usu disputatio 1575, Zanchius, de operibus Dei intra spatium sex dierum creatis, Op. III 217-480. Voetius, Disp. I 552-881. V 148-241, Rivetus, Exerc. theol. et schol. in 1 libr. Mosis, Op. 1651 I p. 1 sq.
Hottinger, Κτισις ἑξαημερος, i.e. Historiae creationis examen theol.-philol.
Heid. 1659, cf. further, Walch, Bibl. theol. sel. I 242, Mart. Vitringa II 93.
All these works take the standpoint of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic worldview. The earth rests immovably in the center of the universe; all the stars and the whole heaven move around it. That those stars moved freely in the air-space could not be conceived; one represented it to oneself thus, that each star was fastened in a sphere. One therefore had to assume as many heavenly spheres as one observed stars of unequal motion and period of
revolution. And now it was not the stars but the spheres which moved and carried along the stars fastened therein. The vault of heaven thus consists of a system of eight or more concentric spheres, which are slid into one another without empty intermediate spaces; the highest, outermost sphere is that of the fixed stars, the "first heaven", as Aristotle called it. The earth was conceived as a globe or as a disk, surrounded by water. Only a few assumed that antipodes could exist and that there was also still land on the other side of the ocean; as a rule both of these were rejected. This Ptolemaic worldview now naturally also had influence on the exegesis of the hexaemeron. In it two directions are clearly to be distinguished. The one rejects the temporal character of the six days, ascribes to them at most visionary significance, lets everything be created at once and simultaneously, and often arrives at all kinds of allegorical explanations. It is represented already by Philo and later in the Christian church by Clemens, Origenes, Athanasius, Augustinus, Erigena, Abaelard, Cajetanus,
Canus, Gonzalez etc., also by Mozes Maimonides, More Nebochim II c. 30.
The other direction holds fast to the literal sense of the creation narrative, specifically also of the six days; it was followed by Tertullianus, Basilius,
Gregorius [465] Nyss., Ephraem, Damascenus, and thereafter in scholasticism, in Roman Catholic and Protest. theology almost to exclusive dominion, although the other exegesis of Augustinus was always discussed with respect and never anathematized, Lombardus, Sent. II dist. 15, 5.
Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 74 art. 2. In spite of this important difference in the exegesis of Gen. 1, there was nevertheless in the worldview complete agreement. The Ptolemaic system still held its ground in more recent times, long after Copernicus had come forward with his explanation of the motion of the heavenly bodies. It was absolutely not the church and orthodoxy as
such, which resisted the more recent worldview, as one so gladly represents it, e.g. Draper in his Gesch. van de worsteling tusschen godsd. en wet.
Haarlem 1887. But it was Aristotelianism, which on every terrain, both on that of science and of religion, of art as of church, sought to maintain itself against the more recent time. Hence it is that the Christian church and theology, although they have now generally exchanged the Ptolemaic for the Copernican hypothesis, have nevertheless remained in existence up to the present day and toward the end of this century by no means yet appear to be written off for death. It is a proof that church and theology are not so bound to these worldviews, that they would stand and fall with these.
Indeed it is not to be seen why the Copernican hypothesis, if it otherwise sufficiently explains the astronomical phenomena, should have to be rejected by Christian theology as such. For indeed Scripture always speaks geocentrically and also relates the origin of things from the standpoint of the earth, but in doing so it employs that same language of daily experience in which we still always speak, even though we have a wholly different conception of the motion of the heavenly bodies than that which generally prevailed in the time when the books of the Bible were written. One can even without hesitation acknowledge that the biblical writers also had no other worldview than that which was then generally accepted; for there is after all a distinction between auctoritas historiae and auctoritas normae, cf. deel I 371-373. From this language of Holy Scripture it is to be explained that the miracle which is related in Jos. 10:12, 13 and 2 Kon. 20:9, Jes.
38:8, is indicated by the standing still and returning of the sun. [466] Thereby it is by no means decided that the miracle itself consisted in an objective standing still and returning of the sun. Without its being exegeted away rationalistically, it can be and has also been explained in very many
ways, cf. Dilloo, Das Wunder an den Stufen des Achaz. Amst. 1885. We too would now express the same phenomena in the same way; Scripture relates the miracle as fact, it does not say in what way it came about. But even stronger; even if in an astronomical sense the earth is for us no longer the center, it is nevertheless indeed so in a religious and ethical sense, and it remains so for all human beings without distinction; science can change nothing about this. Man is in a certain sense the weakest of all creatures; the strength of many an animal, the power of nature far surpasses his; and yet he is the king of the earth, the crown of creation; he is weak as a reed, but he is a roseau pensant. And thus may the earth be thousands of times smaller than many planets; it is and remains in an ethical sense the center of the universe, it is the only planet suitable as a dwelling place for higher beings; here the kingdom of God is established, here the struggle between light and darkness is fought, here God prepares for himself in the congregation an eternal dwelling. We therefore continue from this earth to look upward to above, whence both in a physical and ethical sense the rain and the sunshine and the growth must come, without our thereby determining in an astronomical sense the place of heaven or knowing its position in the universe. It is, however, certainly said rather superficially, that scientific investigation would have deprived God and the angels of their dwelling. For even if Lalande presumed to say that he had searched the whole universe and nowhere had found God; the universe with its immeasurable spaces is for our limited gaze still one riddle, and whoever does not find God in his immediate proximity, in conscience and heart, in word and congregation, will also not find Him in the universe, even if he arms his eye also with the best telescope, Ebrard, Het geloof aan de H.
Schrift en de uitkomsten van het onderzoek der natuur, Vert. door Dr. A. v.
d. Linde, Amst. 1862. Paul Wigand, Die Erde der Mittelpunkt der Welt.
Heft 144 van de Zeitfr. des chr. Volkslebens. [467] 5. The Copernican worldview therefore encounters no objection on the part of Christian theology. Quite different, however, is the case with the hypotheses which nowadays are accepted by science for the formation of our planetary system and of the earth. With respect to the former, Kant and Laplace proposed the hypothesis that our planetary system and actually even the entire universe had originally been one gaseous chaos, of very high temperature and rotating from the West to the East around its own axis. This rotation had as a consequence that pieces flew off, which, because they continued to move in the same direction, gradually assumed the form of spheres, Haeckel, Natürl. Schöpfungsgesch., 5te Aufl. 1874 S. 285 f. Fr.
Pfaff, Schöpfungsgesch. mit bes.
Berücksichtigung des bibl.
Schöpfungsberichts, 3te Ausg. 1881 8. 190 f. Büchner, Kraft u. Stoff, 16e Aufl. 1888 S. 130 f. Now it deserves first of all remark, that this hypothesis, however deistically conceived, was by Kant absolutely not advanced in order to set God aside, but he judged that this chaotic condition of all materials was the simplest that could follow upon nothing, and that those materials themselves were all so formed by God as the first cause, that they could by immanent forces, according to fixed laws, bring forth the present world-system without any miraculous intervention of God. This hypothesis, however, is further insufficient for explanation of the origin of the universe, of motion, of organic beings. In general it must be remarked, that however primitive and chaotic that first condition of all matter may be conceived and however many millions of years it may be set back, it nevertheless affords no rest for thought. One will then either with Kant have to acknowledge that this very first condition of the creature in its entirety depends
immediately on God and follows upon nothing, or one will in that chaotic condition have to see not only the beginning of the present world-system, but also the end and the destruction of a preceding world, and so in infinitum, and thus have to eternalize matter and motion, Lange, Gesch. des
Mater. II 522. Strauss, Der alte u. d. neue Glaube 225. Büchner, ib. 133.
Haeckel ib. 288. But further this hypothesis is burdened by many objections and it does not explain the phenomena. All of them need not be discussed here, e.g. not the fact [468] that there are also heavenly bodies which have a retrograde motion and rotate not from the West to the East, but from the East to the West. They are, however, so weighty that they are also acknowledged by Haeckel. Only let it be recalled that, given the gaseous nebular mass and given also the mechanical motion, this is still by no means sufficient to explain this world-system. For motion and matter is not enough. There must also be direction in that motion and besides matter there must also have existed something else in order to explain the world of spiritual phenomena. Why did this world-system arise out of that nebular mass, which everywhere betrays order and harmony and which would collapse at the slightest deviation? How could the universe come into being through an unconscious, purposeless motion of atoms? The chance of such a world-whole out of such a chaotic condition is in the highest degree improbable, and actually wholly impossible. And in addition there then comes still, that this hypothesis, even if it explained the phenomena, would nevertheless remain a hypothesis. For what conclusion is there to draw from possibility to actuality? A posse ad esse non valet consequentia. What proof can be adduced that the world-system now could not have arisen in that way, but has in fact arisen? There is a great difference between a logical supposition and an actual condition that would once have existed. When
natural science investigates the phenomena, it attempts to reduce them to their simplest form. It therefore in the end assumes very primitive and very simplest data, atoms, aether, chaos etc. But these are logical suppositions to which it arrives. That such atoms once purely as atoms, in a most primitive condition, have existed, in a condition that followed upon nothing, that is thereby absolutely not proved. Just as the original elements of things
(atoms, dynamids, monads), so also the primitive conditions which one lets precede the formation are nothing but auxiliary representations, no reality. It is with them as with that religionless condition which nowadays in the investigation into the origin of religion is assumed, cf. deel I 208, or as with the state of nature of Rousseau, out of which by contrat social the state has arisen. Perhaps all such hypotheses as auxiliary representations in thought, like the auxiliary lines in the [469] mathesis, can render some service, but they are therefore still no real explanations, no factual principia of what exists. Finally, what no science can teach, revelation teaches, which is moreover confirmed by the tradition of all peoples, namely that it has pleased God in the formation of the world to proceed from the imperfect to the perfect, from the simple to the composite, from the lower to the higher.
There lies a truth in the theory of evolution, which is also acknowledged by Scripture. Gen. 1:2 expresses that clearly. But the condition of creation there is a real condition; no chaos in the proper sense, no ὑλη in the Aristotelian sense, no prima materia without forma, no unthinkable mass of pure atoms, but a condition of formlessness of earth and heaven, which existed for a time, in which the Spirit of God was active, hovering and brooding. It therefore will not do, with many Christian apologists, to adopt the hypothesis of Kant-Laplace without any form of criticism and then to be grateful that one has been able to insert it so well into Gen. 1:2. Rather,
Scripture relates to us a real condition and science speaks of suppositions which are scientifically not tenable, Pfaff, Schöpfungsgesch. S. 731 f.
Ulrici, Gott und die Natur, 2e Aufl. 1866 S. 334-353. Reusch, Bibel u.
Natur, 4te Aufl. 1876 S. 179 f. T. Pesch, Die grossen Welträthsel, 2te Aufl.
1892 II 327-352. Braun, Die Kant-Laplace'sche Weltbildungstheorie, in Neue Kirchl. Zeitschr. III 9tes Heft. Steudel, Christenthum und
Naturwissenschaft, Gütersloh 1895 S. 142 f. Schanz, Ueber neue Versuche der Apol. Regensburg 1897 S. 211 f.
6. The same difference as in the formation of our world-system also presents itself in the developmental history of the earth. Geology, on the basis of the strata of the earth and of the fossils of plants, animals, and humans found therein, has built a hypothesis concerning the developmental periods of the earth. According to it, the oldest period is the azoic, or that of the Urformation, in which especially the eruptive kinds of rock have been formed and as yet no trace of organic life is found. Thereupon followed the palaeozoic period, or that of the primary formation, in which, besides all kinds of kinds of rock, especially also the coal is formed, and also already plants of the lowest kind and all classes of animals [470] except birds and mammals are encountered. In the third, mesozoic period, or that of the secondary formation, there falls, inter alia, the chalk formation, and all kinds of plants and animals, also the first egg-laying and mammals, are found. The tertiary or kainozoic formation following upon that runs from the chalk formation up to the ice age and, besides plants and landand freshwater animals, especially also brings forth the predatory animals and many of the extinct mammals. According to a single one, e.g. Burmeister,
Gesch. der Schöpfung 7te Aufl. 1872 S. 612, the human being likewise already lived contemporaneously with these in the tertiary period; but
according to most, the human being first appeared at the end of this period, after the ice age, in the quaternary period, Pfaff, Schöpfungsgesch. S. 485 f.
Ulrici, Gott u. die Natur S. 353 f. Reusch, Bibel u Natur 184 f. Zittel, Aus der Urzeit, 2e Aufl. 1875 S. 537. This doctrine of the geological periods undoubtedly stands on a much firmer ground than Kant's hypothesis; it rests on data which the investigation of the strata of the earth provides. Here the struggle between revelation and science therefore also bears a much more serious character. On many points there is difference and contradiction.
First, in the time, and second, in the order, in which the different creatures have arisen. As regards the time, the difference is very great. The chronology of the LXX deviates considerably from that of the hebr. text.
The church fathers often adhered to the Greek translation and then calculated the time from the creation of the world to the taking of Rome by the Goths at 5611 years, Eusebius, Augustinus de civ. XII 10. In later time, especially since the Reformation, one generally gave preference to the chronology of the hebr. text and then calculated that the creation of the world had taken place in 3950 B. C. (Scaliger), or 3984 (Kepler, Petavius),
3943 (Bengel), 4004 (Usher); the Jews now count the year 5658, cf.
Zöckler, Die Lehre vom Urstand des Menschen 1879 S. 289 f. Schanz, Das Alter des Menschengeschlechts, Freiburg 1896 S, 1 f. But one attempted an even more exact calculation. There was serious dispute over whether the creation had taken place in the spring or in the autumn; the former was the opinion of Cyrillus, Basilius, Beda, Cajetanus, Molina, Lapide, Luther,
Melanchton, Gerhard, Alsted, Polanus, G. J. Vossius etc.; the latter was defended by Petavius, Calvisius, Calov, [471] Danaeus, Zanchius, Voetius,
Maresius, Heidegger, Turretinus et al. Sometimes the date was determined still more closely, on 25 March or on 26 October, Voetius Disp. I 587.
Hagenbach, D. G. 630 note. Over against that the geologists and natural scientists of this time place their calculations, which are built on the rotation of the earth in connection with its flattening at the poles, the heat of the earth steadily decreasing toward the surface, the formation of the deltas on Nile and Mississippi, the formation of the strata of the earth, of the different kinds of rock, especially of the coal, etc. They are fabulous numbers, just as among some heathen peoples, which are thus assumed for the age of the earth. Cotta speaks of an unbounded span of time, Lyell of 560 million,
Klein of 2000 million, Helmholtz of 80 million, and even Pfaff of at least 20 million years, Pfaff, Schöpf. 640-666, Id. Das Alter der Erde, in de
Zeitfr. des chr. Volkslebens VII. Peschel, Völkerkunde, 5te Aufl. S. 42-52.
Haeckel, Nat. Schöpf. S. 340 f. But in the second place there is also very great difference between the creation narrative in Genesis and the opinions of many scholars with respect to the order in which the created beings have arisen. To mention only a few points: according to Scripture, the light is indeed already created on the first day, but our solar system is first formed on the fourth day, after on the second and third day the earth was already prepared and covered with a luxuriant plant growth; according to the geologists the order is precisely the reverse. According to Genesis, the plant kingdom is indeed created on the third day, but animals are first created on the fifth day; geology, however, teaches that in the primary or palaeozoic period animals of a lower kind and fishes also already occur. Genesis relates that all water animals and all birds were created on the fifth, and all land animals with the human being on the sixth day, but according to geology some mammals also already belong to the secondary or mesozoic period.
Thus it appears, therefore, that on many weighty points difference exists.
7. Naturally, various attempts at reconciliation have been tried. First let the ideal theory be mentioned, so called, because it adheres only to the idea, not to the letter of the creation narrative. It sees in Gen. 1 no historical narrative [472] but a poetic description of the creative act of God. The six days are not chronologically ordered periods of longer or shorter duration, but only different points of view, from which the one created world is each time considered, in order thus to give to the limited gaze of man a better overview of the whole. To palaeontology, therefore, it is left entirely to determine the time, the manner, and the order of the origin of the different periods. One can say that this theory has been prepared by the allegorical exegesis, which from ancient times in the Christian church with respect to Gen. 1 was customary. Following Philo and with appeal to Sir. 18:1, Deus omnia simul creavit, Origen, Augustine, and many others taught that God had created all things at once and simultaneously; the six days are not really successive periods but they indicate only the causal connection, the logical order of the creatures, and describe how the angels successively have obtained knowledge of the whole of creation. And also with those who held fast to the literal sense of the creation narrative, the allegory nevertheless each time still played a great role; the chaos, the light, the term one day instead of first day; the absence of the divine approval at the end of the second day, paradise, the creation of Eve, etc. gave occasion to ingenious spiritualizations. Such allegorizing, mythologizing, and rationalizing explanations of the creation narrative came especially into favor after the awakening of natural science and were applied by Hobbes, Spinoza,
Beverland, Burnet, Bekker, Tindal, Edelmann, J. L. Schmidt, Reimarus e. a.
Herder, Aelteste Urkunde des Menschengeschlechts, saw in Gen. 1 a beautiful poem of the oldest humanity, which, proceeding from the dawning
day, sang of the seven-day week. Modern philosophy and theology has advanced still further, has rejected along with the creation narrative even the concept of creation, and sees in Gen. 1 a myth, which at most still contains a religious core. Christian theologians have not gone so far but have nevertheless often, in order to reconcile religion and science, returned to the allegorical conception of Augustine and give up the literal and historical conception of Genesis I. To that belong very many Roman
Catholic theologians, Michelis, Entw. der beiden ersten Kapitel der Genesis 1845 and various [473] articles in his journal Natur u. Offenbarung 1855 f.
Reusch, Bibel u. Natur S. 251 f. Schanz, Apol. des Christ. I 293 f.
Scheeben, Dogm. II 105 f. H. Lüken, Die Stiftungsurkunde des Menschengeschl.
1876.
Güttler, Naturforschung u.
Bibel 1877.
Hummelauer, B. Schäfer e. a. cf. Hettinger, Apol. III7 S. 206 etc.; but also numerous Protestant theologians such as Zollmann, Bibel u. Natur in der
Harmonie ihrer Offenbarungen 1869 S. 52 f. Dillmann, Comm. op Genesis.
Riehm, Christ. und Naturwiss. Leipzig, Hinrich 1896. Steudel, Christ. u.
Naturw. Gütersloh 1895. Vuilleumier, La première page de la Bible, Revue de théol. et de philos. Juillet 1896 p. 362-377. Sept. p. 393-418.
A second attempt at reconciliation is the restitution theory. This seeks agreement between revelation and science by separating Gen. 1:2 and 3, ascribing to the chaos a long duration of existence and placing in it all those phenomena which geology provides. The hexaemeron, which begins with verse 3, relates only the restoration and preparation of the earth for man.
Such a rather long span of time between Gen. 1:1 and 2 was already assumed by Episcopius, Instit. theol. IV sect. 3 c. 3, Limborch, Theol.
Christ. II c. 19-21 e. a., in order thus to obtain room for the fall of the angels. It was taken over in the previous century by the rationalists J. G.
Rosenmüller, J. D. Michaelis, Reinhard; found entrance especially in this century among the theosophists Oetinger, Hahn, St. Martin, Baader,
Schelling, Fr. v. Meyer, Steffens, Schubert, Keerl, who placed in it the fall of the angels and the devastation of creation caused thereby; and has also been taught by Chalmers, kardinaal Wisemann, Zusammenhang zw. Wiss. u. Offenb., deutsch von Haneberg, 3te Aufl. 1866 S. 263 f. Vigouroux, het livres saints III 442. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. I 474 enz.
A third theory, the concordistic, seeks to obtain harmony of Scripture and science by conceiving the days of creation as periods of longer duration.
The exegesis of the six days already early yielded objection. Sun, moon, and stars were first created on the fourth day; the three days preceding that therefore had in any case to be of a different nature than the last three. Basil explained it thus, that God effected the first three days by an emission and contraction [474] of the light created on the first day, Strauss, I 621. But this explanation did not satisfy all, e.g. not Augustine, who sometimes deviates from his own Simultan-theory, de Gen. ad lit. I 16. Moreover, there was still difference over whether the work of creation on each day was completed in one moment, or whether it first came into being successively in the course of each day. Descartes had namely said that out of the chaos, without any act of creation of God, the res pure naturales could have come forth. The idea of development was thereby given a handle. Some Cartesian theologians, such as Wittichius, Allinga, Braun, therefore taught that each work of creation took up a day, cf. M. Vitringa II 95. Moor II 212. And Whiston already said that the days must be conceived as years, and was followed in that by others. But father of the concordistic theory has been the abbot Jerusalem. It was taken over by natural scientists such as de Luc,
Cuvier, Hugh Miller, Pfaff etc., by theologians such as Lange, Delitzsch,
Rougemont, Godet, Ebrard, Der Glaube an die H. Schrift und die Ergebnisse der Naturforschung 1861. Luthardt, Apol. Vorträge, 8 Aufl.
1878. Zöckler among others in Herzog2 13, 647, Brandt in Bew. d. Gl. 1867
S. 339 f., Hengstenberg, cf. Bew. d. Gl. 1867 S. 400 f., also Roman Catholics such as Heinrich, Palmieri, Simar, Dogm. 249, Pesch, Prael. III 40 etc. Quite often many have connected this theory with the restitutiontheory, and then still have contented themselves with an agreement in main points. Hugh Miller e.g. let the azoic period coincide with Gen. 1:3, the palaeozoic with Gen. 1:6-13, the mesozoic with Gen. 1:14-23, the cainozoic with Gen. 1:24, Zöckler, Gesch. II 544.
The fourth theory, finally, which has indeed been called the antigeological one, holds fast to the literal and historical view of Genesis I, and seeks to place the results of geology partly in the six days of creation, partly also thereafter in the time from Adam to Noah, especially also in the flood.
From ancient times the flood was regarded as of great significance. People reasoned about the total or partial character, which has always been in dispute, about the construction of the ark, about the height of the flood, etc.
Zöckler II 122 f. But the flood first acquired geological significance after Newton; Thomas Burnet in 1682 published his Theoria sacra telluris and in it assumed a very great distinction [475] between the time before and after the flood; with him this becomes the destruction of an old and the birth of an entirely new world. It was a tremendous catastrophe, which changed the whole surface of the earth, gave oceans and mountains their appearance, put an end to the mild spring climate, to the luxuriant fertility, to the extraordinary lifespan of human beings before that time, and above all brought it about that the earth's axis, which previously stood parallel to the axis of the sun, came to stand obliquely to the earth's orbit. This entirely
new theory was fiercely contested, inter alia by Spanheim and Leydecker, but was nevertheless further developed by Whiston, Clüver and many others, Zöckler II 143-192. Toward the end of the previous century this diluvialistic theory was more and more abandoned, but it nevertheless still remained in honor among many orthodox, both Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians, cf. Keil, on Genesis, and furthermore others in Zöckler, II 470-482, 788 f. The proponents of this attempt at reconciliation continue to identify the flood of the Bible with the diluvium or the ice age of geology and judge in connection therewith that the flood was universal and extended over the whole earth. Most geologists and theologians, such as Sedgwick, Greenough, Buckland, Hitchcock, Hugh Miller, Barry,
Dawson, Diestel, Dillmann, Pfaff, Kurtz, Michelis, Reusch, Guttler, also Kuyper, Heraut 929. 930. 962, are now in recent times indeed of the opinion that the flood of the Bible was a wholly different one than the diluvium of geology and therefore must also be understood as partial; universal it can only be called insofar as the whole human race perished by it, although even this latter is still denied by some, such as Cuvier. But the debate over this important and difficult question has by no means yet been decided in favor of this latter opinion; the most recent study on the flood, by Martin
Gander, is a powerful plea for the diluvialistic view. Cf. Zöckler, Gesch. der Bez. II 784-791. Id. in Herzog2 13, 645 f. Diestel, Die Sintflut, Deutsche
Zeitu. Streitfragen, n. 137. Kosters, The Bibl. Flood narratives compared with the Babyl., Theol. Tijdschr. 1885 p. 161v. 321v. Reusch, Bibel u. Natur
289 f. Schanz, Apol. I 341 f. Vigouroux, Les livres saints IV 239. Suess, Die Sintfluth, Leipzig 1883. Jürgens, War die Sintflut eine Erdbebenwelle?
St. aus Maria Laach 1884. Howorth, Das Mammut und die Fluth, [476] 1893. Girard, Etudes de géologie biblique. Le déluge devant la critique
histor. I Freiburg 1893. Schwarz, Sintflut und Völkerwanderungen, Stuttgart 1894. C. Schmidt, Das Naturereigniss der Sintfluth, Basel 1895. Zöckler,
Neue Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1895, Heft 3 en 4. Martin Gander, Die Sündflut in ihrer Bedeutung für die Erdgeschichte, Münster 1896.
8. These four attempts to bring Scripture and science into agreement are not in every respect opposed to one another. Even in the first-mentioned ideal theory there still lies some truth. For by all it is conceded that Scripture does not speak the language of science but that of daily experience, that it also, in the narrative of creation, stands on a geoor anthropocentric standpoint, and that it thereby does not wish to give a lesson in geology or any other science, but that also, in the narrative of the origin and the becoming of all creatures, it remains the book of religion, of revelation, of the knowledge of God. Non legitur in Evangelio dominum dixisse: mitto vobis paracletum qui vos doceat de cursu solis et lunae; christianos enim facere volebat, non mathematicos, August. de actis c.
Felice Man. I 10. Moses rudi populo condescendens secutus est, quae sensibiliter apparent, Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 70 art. 4. S. Scriptura ex professo non tractat eas res, quas in philosophia cognoscimus, Alsted,
Praecognita 181, cf. Voetius, Disp. V 131. Hettinger, Apol. III 196. But if Scripture then nevertheless, from its standpoint, precisely as book of religion, comes into contact with other sciences and also lets its light shine upon them, then it does not suddenly cease to be God's word but remains that. Also when it speaks about the formation of heaven and earth, it gives no saga or myth or poetic fantasy, but then too it gives, according to its clear intention, history, which deserves faith and trust. And therefore
Christian theology also, with only a few exceptions, held fast to the literal, historical conception of the creation narrative. Yet it is remarkable that no
single confession determined anything about the hexaemeron and that also in theology all kinds of explanations alongside one another were tolerated.
Augustine already admonished, on this terrain, not to deem something too quickly to be in conflict with Scripture, not to speak about these difficult subjects except after serious study, and not through ignorance to make oneself ridiculous in the eyes of unbelieving science, de Gen. ad lit. I 18.
19. 20. 21, cf. also Thomas, S. Th. I qu. 68 art. 1. The warning has not always been faithfully taken to heart by the theologians. And yet geology can render us excellent service in the explanation of the creation narrative.
Just as the Ptolemaic world-view has pressed theology to another and better explanation of the standing still of the sun in Jos. 10; just as Assyriology and Egyptology are precious contributions for the interpretation of Scripture; just as history many times first makes prophecy known in its true meaning; so also the geological and palaeontological investigations in this century serve for better understanding of the creation narrative. Let one indeed well consider that the creation and preparation of heaven and earth is a divine work par excellence, a miracle in the absolute sense, full of hidden things and mysteries. And yet in Genesis this work is narrated in so simple and sober a manner, that there almost seems to exist a disharmony between the fact itself and the description of it. Behind every feature in the creation narrative lies a world of wonders and mighty deeds of God, which by geology are displayed before our eyes in an immeasurable series of phenomena. Of the facts brought to light by geology and palaeontology,
Scripture and theology therefore have nothing to fear. Also the world is a book of which all the pages have been written by God's almighty hand. The conflict arises only because both the text of the book of Scripture and that of nature are often so badly read and understood. The theologians are not
free from blame here, and have often, in the name not of Scripture but of their own incorrect conception, condemned science. And the natural investigators have repeatedly interpreted the facts and phenomena which they discovered in a manner and placed them in the service of a world-view which was justified neither by Scripture nor by science. For the present it would deserve recommendation that geology, which relatively is still such a young science and indeed has already investigated much but nevertheless still has so endlessly much to investigate, should limit itself to the collecting of material and should refrain from building conclusions and from setting up hypotheses. It is absolutely not yet in a position to do that and must still exercise patience for a long time, before it is authorized and competent to do so.
9. When these preliminary remarks are now taken to heart, then in the first place it is probable that the creation of heaven and earth in Gen. 1:1 preceded the work of the six days in verse 3 ff. by a shorter or longer time.
The restitution theory has certainly gone astray, if it placed in Gen. 1:2 the fall of the angels and the devastation of the earth. For of this there is not a word; it also does not say that the earth became waste and empty, but that it was that and that it was created thus; and the waste and emptiness by no means implies that the earth was devastated but that it, although already earth, was nevertheless still unformed, without form or shape. But otherwise it is correct that the creation of heaven and earth and the waste and empty condition of the earth cannot be placed within the first day; this began only and by the nature of the case could only begin with the light.
The first day is not formed by the original darkness and by the light created thereafter, but it is formed by the first alternation of evening and morning, which entered after the creation of the light. The darkness of which Gen.
1:2 speaks was not the first evening; but only after the light had been created did it become evening and thereafter morning. And with that morning the first day was finished, which had begun with the creation of the light; the day in Genesis begins and ends with the morning, cf. Keil,
Delitzsch e. a. on Genesis. Also Augustine, Conf. XII 8, Lombardus, Sent.
II dist. 12, 1. 2, Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 74 art. 2, Petavius, de sex dier. opif.
I c. 9 n. 2 e. a. therefore judged rightly, that the creation of heaven and earth and the waste condition of the earth took place ante omnem diem. Thus also only does it come into its own, that the creation in Gen. 1:1 is simply narrated as a fact without any further description, but that the preparation of the earth, Gen. 1:3 ff. is narrated at length. Gen. 1:1 says only that God is the Creator of all things, but makes no mention of the fact that God created them through his Word and Spirit. Naturally this is not denied; but it nevertheless is not there; and likewise it is not there, in how much [479] time and in what manner God created heaven and earth, and how long the unformed condition of the earth lasted. Only when the six-day work begins is it said that also that unformed earth was maintained and made fruitful by God's Spirit, Gen. 1:2, and that all things on and in that earth have been brought into being by the Word of God, Gen. 1:3ff.; in the distinctio and ornatus of the earth during the six days God's wisdom comes forth, Calvin on Gen. 1:3. But even if one, with a view to Ex. 20:11, 31:17, wanted to bring what is narrated in Gen. 1:1 and 2 within the first day, then thereby only would be obtained that the first day would have been a wholly unusual one. It would then have begun in the moment of creation, and would first for a time have been dark, Gen. 1:2. In any case this exegesis does recognize as true that there is enclosed in it the concordistic theory mentioned above in the second place. Let it be fully conceded that the
conception of the creation days as periods of time has arisen on the occasion of geology. Thereby, however, it is absolutely not judged; the question is only whether Scripture, without violence being done to its sense, allows this conception. Formerly one considered Jos. 10:12 incompatible with the Ptolemaic world-view, now on that ground it is no longer rejected by anyone; everyone acknowledges that the words of Scripture allow another conception than that which formerly was held to be the only true one. The prophetic expectations prove in reality to extend over much longer spans of time than the words in which they are clothed, at the first reading, lead one to suppose. The day of Ihvh comprises a much longer period of time than the word itself contains. The apostles spoke of a little time, the end, the last time, the last hour, etc., and yet since their word eighteen centuries have sped by. With a view to this wholly peculiar standard, which Holy Scripture repeatedly applies in time determinations, it is a priori not impossible that also the days in Gen. 1 are to be understood as periods of time. But there are also positive data, which make this exegesis not necessary but nevertheless possible. On the expressions occurring repeatedly in Scripture: in the days of, at the end of days (= after many years), all the day (= always), in the day that (= when) etc., too much emphasis is often laid in this connection; the figurative meaning of [480] the word day in Old and New Test. e.g. Isa. 2:2, 11, 13:6 etc., Mt. 24:22,
Luk. 10:12, Joh. 9:4, Acts 2:20, 17:31, Rom. 2:16, 1 Cor. 3:13, 1 Thess. 5:2, 4, likewise has insufficient probative force; and the appeal to Ps. 90:4 and 2
Petr. 3:8 also has little bearing on the matter. But the following is indeed of importance. First, as was shown above, it is in conflict with Gen. 1 to bring the creatio prima in the unformed condition of the earth into the first day. If, however, one nevertheless does that, this first day in any case becomes a
wholly unusual one, which begins with the darkness and whose duration cannot be calculated. Second, the first three days of the creatio secunda also according to the intention of Genesis are calculated by a wholly different standard than the following three. The essence of day and night does not consist in a shorter or longer duration but in the alternation of light and darkness. This alternation for the first three days was not effected by the sun, which was created only on the fourth day, but has in another way been brought about by the light created in verse 3. If, however, this is the case, the length of those first three days is also not to be determined. Third, it follows from that that also the following three days in the same way and in agreement with the first three days can be understood as periods of time.
For indeed on the fourth day sun, moon, and stars were created and it is in itself thus possible that the second set of three days was determined by the rotation of the earth. But the creation narrative does say that sun, moon, and stars were then made and obtained their destination for the earth, but it does not say a word that that destination on that same day at once was fully attained. The creation period itself was in wholly different circumstances than those which entered after the completion of the work of creation. Only then was everything finished and determined. Fourth, it is very difficult to place on the sixth day all that Gen. 1 and 2 let happen on it. On that day must then fall the creation of the animals, Gen. 1:24, 25, the forming of Adam, Gen. 1:26, 2:7, the planting of the garden, Gen. 1:8-14, the proclamation of the probationary command, Gen. 2:16, 17, the leading of the animals to and their naming by Adam, Gen. 2:18-20, the sleep of Adam and the creation of Eve, Gen. 2:21-23. This may now not be impossible,
[481] yet it is not probable. Yes, if Scripture in Gen. 1:26-31 mentions the creation of Adam and Eve in one breath and of all that the second creation
narrative inserts between them makes not the least mention and then nevertheless places all that on the sixth day, Gen. 1:31, thereby the possibility that the days are periods of time is sufficiently proven. Fifth, it is not the intention of Genesis to show that the creation of all things took place precisely in 6 × 24 hours, not a minute shorter or longer. But day in the creation narrative denotes the time in which God was active creating.
With each morning he gives a new world its appearance; the evening enters when he has brought this into being. The creation days are God's workdays.
Through a sixfold renewed labor he has prepared the whole earth and changed the chaos into a cosmos. This is set before us as an example in the sabbath commandment. As for God, so also for man after six-day labor rest enters. With Israel that creation time was also the foundation for the division of the ecclesiastical year. And for the whole world it remains a type of the aeons of this dispensation, which once ends in the world-sabbath, in the eternal rest, Hebr. 4. Sixth finally, on each creation day much more has happened than the sober words of Genesis lead us to suppose. As in the decalogue one single sin comprehends many others under itself, so also in the creation narrative of each day only the principal thing is named, that which for man is the best known and the most important. Scripture itself proves that, for the first creation narrative contains nothing of paradise, the naming of the animals, Adam's sleep, etc., which are mentioned only in the second creation narrative. And further natural investigation teaches us to know all manner of creatures, of which the writer of Genesis did not think for a moment; all manner of chemical elements, many minerals and plants, and various kinds of animals, insects, infusoria, bacteria, are not named in Genesis. Yet they must nevertheless have been created, and thus find a place in the hexaemeron. On each day the work of creation has certainly been
much greater and richer than Genesis reports to us in its simply sublime narrative.
10. With this view of the creation narrative the [482] results of geological research can very well be brought into agreement. But one must then certainly know what those results are. As soon as, however, one undertakes a somewhat more precise investigation into that, one runs up against all kinds of objections and everything becomes all the more uncertain, the more deeply one investigates and the further one penetrates. Naturally no one has, and can have, any objection to the facts which geology brings to light. Those facts are just as much words of God as the content of Holy
Scripture, and thus to be accepted by every believer. But from those facts the exegesis which the geologists present of them must be very strictly distinguished. The phenomena which the earth displays are one thing; the combinations, hypotheses, conclusions which are connected with them by the investigators of the earth are another. Apart now from the absolutely not imaginary possibility that the observation, ascertainment, and description of the geological facts and phenomena also sometimes indeed stands under the influence of an a priori worldview, geology today teaches unanimously that the earth's surface is composed of different layers, which all clearly bear the marks of having been deposited in water; that these earth layers, where and insofar as they are present anywhere, always occur in a certain order, so that, e.g., a lower formation never lies in between higher ones; and finally that these earth layers contain a great mass of fossils, which again are not scattered motley and mixed through all layers, but are of a lower kind the lower they occur in lower sediments. Those are the facts; and upon them all those long geological periods have then been built by the geologists, which were already enumerated earlier. But precisely against these geological
periods there exist very serious objections. 1o. First of all it deserves consideration that geology is still a young science. It is not yet a hundred years old. In the first half of its existence it was, with men such as von
Buch, de Saussure etc., absolutely not hostile to Scripture; only when Lyell et al. placed it in the service of the theory of evolution did it become a weapon for combating the biblical creation narrative. This consideration already admonishes to caution; if geological science becomes older and richer, it will on this point probably revise itself. 2o. Geology one may call the archaeology of the earth. It teaches us [483] to know conditions in which the earth formerly was. But it naturally tells us about the cause, the origin, the duration etc. of those conditions as good as nothing. To want to construct a history of the earth from the phenomena of the earth seems a priori an undertaking just as hazardous as to want to make up the history of a people from the archaeological remains of a people. As an aid archaeology may be very useful; it cannot replace history. Geology offers important data, but it can of course never deliver a Schöpfungsgeschichte.
Whoever attempts that must at every moment take refuge in conjectures. All birth, said Schelling, is from darkness to light. All origins lie in the dark. If one does not tell us who our parents and forefathers were, then we do not know it. If there is no creation narrative, the history of the earth is and remains unknown to us. 3o. Geology can therefore also never reach as far as the creation narrative; it stands of itself on the foundation of the created and does not approach Gen. 1; it can ascertain what it observes, but the origins of it only suspect. Very rightly and beautifully the geologist Ritter von
Holger says: Wir haben das Unangenehme, dass wir erst ins Theater gekommen sind, nachdem bereits der Vorhang gefallen ist. Wir müssen das
Schauspiel das gegeben wurde, aus dem auf der Bühne zurückgebliebenen
Dekorationen, Versatzstücken, Waffen u. s. w. (das sind namentlich die paläontologischen Entdeckungen oder die Versteinerungen) zu erraten suchen, daher ist es sehr verzeihlich, wenn wir uns irren, bij Trissl, Das bibl. Sechstagewerk 1894 S. 73. 4o. Although the earth layers, where and insofar as they occur anywhere, lie in a certain order, yet it is equally a fact that they nowhere occur all together and complete, but some are found here, others elsewhere. Wir haben nirgends ein vollständiges Exemplar des
Buches der Erde, sondern verstreut über dieselbe eine grosse Menge von defecten Exemplaren von dem verschiedensten Formate und auf sehr verschiedenem Materiale, Pfaff, Schöpf. 5. 5o. The series and the order of the earth layers and thus also of the geological periods built upon them is therefore not immediately given by the facts, but rests on a combination of facts, which is exposed to all kinds of conjecture and error. There belongs, according to the acknowledgment of the geologists themselves, much patience and effort to it, [484] in order to establish the correct order of the earth layers, Geikie, Geologie, deutsch von O. Schmidt, Strassburg 1886 S.
55. Pfaff, Schöpf. 5. 5o. Of the surface of the earth only a very small portion has yet been investigated, especially England, Germany, and France. Of the other parts of Europe still little, of the greatest part of Asia,
Africa, New Holland etc. still as good as nothing is known. Even Häckel concedes that scarcely the thousandth part of the earth's surface has been palaeontologically investigated, Nat. Schöpf. 1874 S. 355. And this calculation is certainly not estimated too low. Later investigations can therefore still bring all kinds of other facts to light. The hypotheses and conclusions of geology are thus in any case built on an insufficient number of data. 6o. It is a fact, which finds more and more recognition from the side of geology, that the time of the formation of the earth layers absolutely
cannot be determined from the nature and the quality of those layers. Die Beschaffenheit der Schichten, says Pfaff, t. a. p. 5, giebt durchaus keinen
Anhaltspunkt an die Hand, um über die Zeit ihrer Bildung einen Aufschluss zu erhalten. Under the influence of Darwinism, which wanted to explain everything by infinitely small changes in infinitely great spans of time, one has indeed spoken of millions of years. But those are simply mythological numbers, for which all ground is lacking, Schelling, Werke, II 1 S. 229. The geologists still absolutely do not know whether formerly the same or rather other circumstances prevailed. And even under equal circumstances everything grows in youth much faster and stronger than in later years.
Moreover, all the grounds on which the geologists up to now built their numbers have proved untenable. The delta formations, the uplifts and subsidences of the mainland, the coal formations etc. have all again been abandoned as a basis of calculation. Sober natural investigators today therefore also speak entirely differently. Es fehlet uns jeder exacte Massstab zur Berechnung vorhistorischer Ereignisse, Zittel, Aus der Urzeit, 2e Aufl.
1875 S. 556. 7o. Also the order in which the earth layers occur can be no standard for calculating the time and the duration of their formation.
Naturally in a particular place the lowest layer is older than the uppermost, but all right is lacking to join together the different earth layers of different places and thus to form a series of formations and periods [485] . Wie jetzt in unseren Meeren an einer Stelle sich Kalkniederschläge bilden, während zu derselben Zeit an anderen Orten sich Lagen von Sand oder Lehm übereinander absetzen, so haben sich auch in früheren Zeiten an verschiedenen Orten gleichzeitig verschiedenartige Schichten gebildet, und wieder gleichartige zu verschiedenen Zeiten, Pfaff, ib. The layers from socalled different periods are not constantly different, and those which are
held to be equally old are not always qualitatively equal, Trissl 61. In the same time in different parts of the earth equal formations can have taken place, just as that still today often happens. 8o. The time of the formation of the earth layers and the order of their position is therefore today almost exclusively determined according to the petrifactions which are found in them, cf. art. Geognosie bij Brockhaus. Geology has become dependent on palaeontology, and this today stands almost entirely in the service of the theory of evolution. In advance it is assumed as proven that the organic beings have developed from the lower to the higher; and upon that the order and the duration of the sediment formations is then built. Conversely one then used the order of the sediments again as a proof for the theory of evolution and thus made oneself guilty of a circulus vitiosus. Now, however, the theory of evolution is much more refuted than favored by palaeontology. For in the different layers different fossils of plants and animals do not occur in some few specimens and kinds. But with every layer geology at once and suddenly stands before an immeasurably rich world of organic life, distinguished in kinds and supplemented by no transitional forms. Even petrifactions of plants and animals are found which have since become extinct, surpass all later formations in size and strength, and as it were make nature known to us in her first creative power, in her luxuriant fertility, Pfaff, Schöpf. 667-709. 9o. Now it is indeed true that the fossils are not scattered motley and mixed through all layers, but that in certain layers as a rule certain plants and animals also occur. Yet also from this neither for the theory of evolution nor for the geological periods is anything to be inferred with certainty. For the different kinds of plants and animals were and are distributed over the surface of the earth in accordance with their nature and conditions of life [486] ; they lived in different places
and zones, and they thus also had to petrify in the different sediments which were formed in different places. The petrifactions are therefore not representatives of the time of origin of the organic beings, but of the higher or deeper zones in which they lived. Suppose, after all, that the plants and animals now living over the whole earth were suddenly buried in earth layers and petrified, then neither from the distinct kinds of fossils nor from the different layers in which they occurred would any conclusion be drawn with respect to the time of their origin. And besides that there then still come all kinds of other circumstances which make the division and calculation of the geological periods almost impossible, such as, e.g., that the distinct kinds of plants and animals in the first time were not so spread over the whole earth as later; that of many plants and animals in the different layers no petrifactions have been preserved; that manifold causes can have brought some plants and animals into places and zones in which they did not live by nature; that the same earth layers indeed usually but by no means always contain the same kinds of fossils, and that therefore earth layers which are qualitatively equal and were first placed in the same time were later again assigned elsewhere, because one found new and other petrifactions in them, etc. 10o. The geologists themselves often acknowledge that the geological periods are not strictly to be separated.
Especially with the tertiary and quaternary period this comes out. Here almost everything is uncertain. Uncertain is the boundary, the beginning, the end, the duration of those two epochs. Uncertain is the cause, the extent, the duration of the so-called ice period; there is difference over whether one or more ice times must be assumed; and even the whole existence of an ice time is still subjected to serious doubt. Uncertain is the cause, the time and the manner in which the great prehistoric animals perished, whose fossils
are sometimes still preserved wholly uninjured. Uncertain is the appearance of man, before or after the ice time, in the tertiary or quaternary period, at the same time with or after the mammoth, mastodon and rhinoceros.
Uncertain is the cause of the diluvial formations and of their extension over the whole earth. Uncertain is the cause and the time of the mountain and [487] glacier formations, in which only the fact that the displacements of the glaciers from the North to the middle of Europe would require for the Scandinavian mountains a height of 44000 meters offers an almost insurmountable objection etc. 11o. Besides that there finally comes still that Scripture and the unanimous tradition of almost all peoples relates an aweinspiring flood, which has brought a tremendous reversal in the whole condition of the earth. According to Scripture after the flood an entirely different condition enters in for man and earth. Humanity before the flood distinguished itself by great intellect, vigorous spirit of enterprise, titanic courage, long lifespan, strong bodily development, dreadful godlessness.
And without doubt nature, the plant and animal kingdom, was in accordance with that. But in the flood almost all people perish, many kinds of plants and animals die out, nature is put under restraint, a gentler dispensation enters in, the dispensation in which we live. These testimonies of Scripture are confirmed on all sides by geology. Man from the tertiary period has not yet been found, and it is not probable that he will ever be found; humanity then before the flood probably was not yet spread over the earth; the flood explains that of the people before that time no fossils remain; the skulls and bones which have been found of people here and there were all from the quaternary time and not different from ours. Further, geology teaches clearly that man has still lived simultaneously with the mammoth, the hebr. behemoth, Job 40 vs. 10, and that the mammoth thus
still belongs in the historical time. The universality of the diluvial formations proves that the flood must have extended over the whole earth.
The mountains for a great part arose in the historical time. The causes of the ice period, if it has existed at all, are completely unknown and thus can very well have lain in the flood and in the lowering of the temperature which thereafter entered everywhere. Only through and after the diluvium has the earth received its present form. Against the identification of diluvium and flood there is actually only one serious objection, and that is the time.
Geology usually places the ice time and the diluvium some thousands of years before Christ. [488] But on the one hand it is to be remarked against that that the chronology of Scripture also is by no means yet fixed. One need not go so far as de Sacy, who said: il n'y a pas de chronologie biblique, in order nevertheless to agree with Voetius, when he declared: ex
S. Scriptura exacta supputatio haberi non potest, Disp. V 153. It is not impossible that sometimes generations have been skipped and personal names have been meant as tribal names. And on the other hand the geological calculations, as was said above, are far too uncertain for an objection against the above view to be derived from them. 12o. When we summarize all this and take it into account, then Scripture from the moment of creation onward in Gen. 1:1 up to the flood offers a more than sufficient span of time for the placing of all those facts and phenomena which geology and palaeontology in this century have brought to light. It is not to be seen why these all could not find a place in that time. More theology now also has not to do; it has not to concern itself with the causes of those phenomena; the explanation of the facts remain to geology! But perhaps
Scripture can thereby nevertheless render better service than natural science usually suspects. For it points out to us that creation is a Divine work par
excellence. In the origin and the formation of things forces have worked, up to the flood conditions have existed, and in that flood a catastrophe has taken place such as after this time have no longer occurred. Becoming is always governed by other laws than development. The laws of the creature are not the rule of creation and much less those of the Creator. Further, theology should hold only to the indisputable facts which geology makes known, but should beware of the hypotheses and conclusions which the geologists add to them. Therefore it refrains from every attempt to identify the so-called geological periods with the six days of creation. For it is nothing other than an unprovable opinion that those periods have followed one another successively and in that order. Thereby it is not denied that, e.g., the azoic formations already began from the moment of creation.
Rather everything points to it that they then under the working of all kinds of mechanical and chemical forces already [489] made a beginning. But geology knows nothing of it that they did not also later take place simultaneously with the palaeozoic etc., and it conjectures both as to the causes and as to the manner of their origin. And so it is with all other periods. It is very probable that the so-called tertiary epoch reaches still up to the flood, and that diluvium and ice time coincide with this catastrophe.
Next, by the simultaneous occurrence of plant and animal fossils in the socalled palaeozoic period nothing is decided for the order of their origin. For geology knows nothing of the origin of those organic beings; it only finds them but does not penetrate to their origin. And it too must assume that the plant kingdom arose before the animal kingdom, for the simple reason that the animals live from the plants. Insofar as geology can say anything about the order of origin of things, it agrees completely with Scripture. First the inorganic creation; then the organic, beginning with the plant kingdom;
thereafter the animal kingdom and this again in the same order, first the water, then the land animals, and among them especially the mammals,
Pfaff, Schöpf. 742. Thus we as Christians and as theologians await the certain results of natural science with some confidence. For thorough and all-sided investigation theology need not be afraid. It should only beware of attaching too great value to an investigation which is still entirely new, inaccurate, and incomplete and therefore is repeatedly supplemented by conjectures and suppositions. Let it be on its guard against making too hasty concessions to and seeking agreement with so-called scientific results which can be overthrown every day and by deeper investigation can be shown in their untenability. And let it as a science of the Divine and eternal things have patience until the science which combats it has investigated more deeply and more broadly and, as it goes and has gone in most cases, corrects itself. Thus theology better maintains its dignity and honor than by continually bending to the opinions of the day. Cf. Howorth, The mammoth and the flood 1887. Bosizio, Das Hexaemeron und die Geologie, Mainz
1865. Trissl, Das bibl. Sechstagewerk vom Standp. der kath. Exegese u. v.
Standp. der Naturw. 2e Aufl. Regensburg 1894. Id. Sündfluth oder Gletscher 1894. Hahn, Die Entstehung der Weltkörper, Regensburg 1895.
[490]