The pre-Adamites.

— A letter we received contains the following passage:

“I must agree that the teaching given to you by the Spirits rests upon a morality absolutely in conformity with that of Christ and even much more developed than that found in the Gospel, because you show the application of that which, very often, is found there only as general precepts. As for the question of the existence of the Spirits and of their relations with men, for me it is not the object of any doubt. I would be convinced merely by the testimony of the Fathers of the Church, had I not the proof of my own experience. I therefore raise no objection in this regard. The same does not hold for certain points of your doctrine, which are evidently contrary to the testimony of the Scriptures. I shall limit myself, for today, to a single question, the one relating to the first man. You say that Adam is neither the first nor the only one to have populated the Earth. If this were so, it would be necessary to admit that the Bible is in error, since the point of departure would be in dispute. See, for a moment, to what consequences this leads us! I confess that this thought cast some confusion into my ideas. Since, however, above all I am for the truth, and faith can gain nothing if built upon an error, I beg you the kindness of giving some clarifications in this regard, if your spare hours permit. I shall be most grateful to you if you can set my conscience at ease.”

ANSWER.

The question of the first man, in the person of Adam, as the sole stock of Humanity, is not the only one upon which religious beliefs have had to modify themselves.

At a certain time the movement of the Earth seemed so much in opposition to the text of the Scriptures that there was no form of persecution for which this theory did not serve as a pretext; and yet, one sees that Joshua, stopping the Sun, could not prevent the Earth from turning. It turns in spite of the anathemas, and no one today would contest it without offending against reason itself.

The Bible likewise says that the world was created in six days, fixing the date at about 4,000 years before the Christian era. Before that, the Earth did not exist, having been drawn from nothing. The text is explicit. And behold, positive, inexorable science comes to prove the contrary. The formation of the globe is written in imprescriptible characters in the fossil world, and it is proven that the six days of Creation represent as many periods, perhaps of several hundreds of thousands of years. This is not a matter of a system, of a doctrine, of an isolated opinion, but of a fact as constant as the movement of the Earth, which Theology cannot help but admit. Thus, it is only in the small schools that it is taught that the world was made in six times twenty-four hours, evident proof of the error into which one can fall by taking literally the expressions of a language that is often figurative. Would the authority of the Bible have been diminished in the eyes of the theologians? Not at all. They yielded to the evidence and concluded that the text could admit of another interpretation. Reviewing the archives of the Earth, science has recognized the order in which the different living beings appeared on its surface. Observation leaves no doubt as to the organic species belonging to each period, and this order is in agreement with what is indicated in Genesis, with the difference that this work, instead of having come miraculously from the hands of God in a few hours, was accomplished, always by His will, but according to the laws of the forces of Nature, over several million years. Will God, on account of this, be lesser and less powerful? Will His work be less sublime for not having the prestige of instantaneity? Evidently not. It would be necessary to form a very mean idea of the Divinity not to recognize His omnipotence in the eternal laws established by Him to govern the worlds.

Like Moses, Science places man in the last order of the creation of living beings; but Moses places the universal flood in the year 1654 of the world, whereas geology shows us this great cataclysm prior to the appearance of man, considering that, up to that day, no trace of his presence is found in the primitive strata, nor of animals of the same category, from the physical point of view. But nothing proves that this is impossible. Several discoveries have already cast doubt in this regard. It is possible, then, that from one moment to the next the certainty of this anteriority of the human race may be acquired. It remains to be seen whether the geological cataclysm, whose traces are throughout the whole Earth, is the same as the flood of Noah. Now, the law of the duration of the formation of the fossil strata does not permit them to be confused, the first dating back, perhaps, a hundred thousand years. The moment traces of the existence of man before the great catastrophe are found, it will be proven that Adam is not the first man, or that his creation is lost in the night of time. Against the evidence no reasonings are possible. The theologians will thus have to accept the fact, as they accepted the movement of the Earth and the six periods of the creation. It is true that the existence of man before the geological flood is still hypothetical, but this is of minor importance. Granting that man appeared for the first time on the Earth 4,000 years before Christ, if 1,650 years later the whole human race was destroyed, with the exception of a single one, it is concluded that the population of the Earth can date only from Noah, that is, from 2,350 years before our era. Now, when the Hebrews emigrated to Egypt, in the eighteenth century B.C., they already found this country quite populated and with a very advanced civilization.

History proves that, at this period, the Indies and other regions were equally flourishing. It would then be necessary that, from the fourteenth to the eighteenth centuries, that is, in the span of 600 years, not only would the posterity of a single man have managed to populate all the immense regions then known, but that, in this short interval, the human species would have been able to rise from the absolute ignorance of the primitive state to the highest degree of intellectual development, which contradicts all anthropological laws. Everything is explained, on the contrary, by admitting the anteriority of man, the flood of Noah as a partial catastrophe, confused with the geological cataclysm, and Adam, who lived 6,000 years ago, as having populated an uninhabited region. Once again, nothing could prevail against the evidence of the facts. This is why we judge it prudent not to take a false position against doctrines that, sooner or later, like so many others, may reveal the lack of reason of those who combat them. Far from losing, religious ideas grow greater by walking together with Science. It is the means of not giving room to skepticism, by showing it the vulnerable side. What would religion have become, had it obstinately set itself against the evidence and persisted in anathematizing those who did not accept the letter of the Scriptures? It would result from this that one cannot be Catholic without believing in the movement of the Sun, in the six days of creation, and in the 6,000 years of the existence of the Earth. Let one calculate what would remain of Catholics today. Would you also proscribe those who do not take literally the allegory of the tree and its fruit, of the rib of Adam, of the serpent, etc.? Religion will always be strong when it marches in accord with science, because it will be bound to the enlightened part of the population. It is the only means of belying the prejudice that makes it be considered, by superficial people, as an antagonist of progress. If religion never repelled the evidence of the facts, it would not estrange serious men nor provoke schisms, since nothing could prevail against the evidence. Thus, high theology, which counts men eminent for their learning, on many disputed points admits an interpretation in conformity with sound reason. It is only regrettable that it reserves its interpretations for the privileged and continues to teach literally in the schools. From this it results that the letter, accepted at first by children, is later rejected by them when the age of reason arrives. Having nothing in compensation, they repel everything, increasing the number of absolute unbelievers. On the contrary, give children only what reason can admit later on; as reason develops, the children will be strengthened in the principles that have been inculcated in them. Speaking thus, we believe we are serving the true interests of religion; it will always be respected when it is shown in conformity with reality and when it is not made to consist in allegories whose reality good sense cannot admit.