e of the world; _e.g._, the eschatological
hope of Christians is often enough contested, or as the laws of nature are
called eternal in the absolute sense of the word, although natural science
is only led to a recognition of the duration of the same, which is
congruent with the circumstances and duration of this present course of the
world.

We are perfectly aware of all these possibilities of a collision, and of
all the difficulties of their prevention and reconciliation; but we
nevertheless know of no other way for their avoidance than that simple
principle of agreement which, on account of its simplicity and clearness,
seems to us to be perfectly able to maintain the peace between the two
parties interested, or where it is disturbed, to restore it. {294}

Thus, we wholly agree that in the question of creation the investigation of
the succession and of all modalities in the appearance of the single
elements of the world, is entirely left to natural science, and that the
biblical records should on the one hand be investigated wholly, and even to
their remotest consequences, from a literary, historical, and exegetical
point of view, and on the other hand be tested with equal fullness and
completeness as to their religious contents. The literary and exegetical
examination of the Mosaic account of creation will reveal that its
conceptions of that which in the creation of the world belongs entirely to
the natural process, do not go beyond that which otherwise belongs to the
sphere of knowledge and views of antiquity, as well as of immediate
perception of nature in general; and that we cannot expect any scientific
explanation from it, because man really came last on the stage of earth,
and is therefore not able to say anything, founded upon autopsy, about the
origin of all the other creatures which preceded his appearance. Just as
little could the first men possess and deliver to their offspring a
remembrance of the first beginnings of their own existence. Moreover, the
literary and exegetical interpretation of the Bible will also refer to
other passages of the Holy Scripture which entirely differ from the
succession of creations, as they are related in Genesis I; so, _e.g._,
besides Job XXXVIII, 4-11, the second account of creation in Genesis II,
4-25: again a proof that what we read in the Biblical record of creation
about the succession in the appearance of creatures is not binding upon us.
Religion can have nothing to s