98 
Universe itself, we are foreed to believe that there is something 
beyond the visible.” From this it would appear that the 
Universe, taking it as a whole, (and not simply the visible 
Universe ”), is eternal ; St. Paul, as our authors think, asserting 
much the same in the words, “the things that are seen are 
(TrprWenpa) temporal, and the things that are not seen are 
(aluivia) eternal.” * “If the visible Universe were all that 
exists,” then the first abrupt manifestation of it was as truly 
a break of Continuity as its final overthrow. But abrupt- 
seeming beginnings need not be breaches of Continuity, it we 
consider the whole eternal Universe. 
16. To illustrate this position let us not fear to take certain 
facts of Christianity. Apply what has been said to the mar- 
vellous life of Christ Himself. “ What Christ accomplished 
was not in defiance of law, hut in fulfilment of it ; 
marvellous and that He was able to do so much, was simply 
Law ofcon! due to the fact that His position with reference to 
tiuuity. the Universe was different from that of any pther 
jnan”— “ Babbage’s machine,” e.g., having long worked accord- 
ing to a particular method of procedure, suddenly 
(See ante, manifested a breach in its method, and then re- 
p. 30 of* our sunied, having been so made as to keep to, its oi igina 
authors.) law> To guggest as possible that Christ’s life may have 
(p. 62) occupied some such position, (by Divine arrangement), 
and therefore in no way interfere with the Law of Continuity, 
which goes on as before, may be better than to suppose “a break ; 
still they regard Babbage’s explanation as altogether incomplete. 
In what sense real “ Creation” is admitted in a Universe so 
Continuous and Eternal, we are scarcely informed ; (comp. p. 
167). “ Creation” seems an ambiguous term, covering simply 
the general idea of manifestation : a really “abrupt beginning 
of the Visible Universe, or denovo Creation, is, as our 
Cmvtion f con. authors say, against theprinciple of Continuity. Crea- 
PnncS h of ls tion is noUimply “ pushed back,”— but pushed back 
continuity. forever. — (But is not “this intellectual confusion' r) 
It may sound strange, “ that it is the duty of the man of science 
to push back, (as our authors express it), the Great First Cause 
in time as far as possible ” (p. 65) ; but science demands that 
“the part this Great First Cause has to play” must be so 
pushed back. This is not, they say, an attempt to “ drive the 
Creator out of the field altogether.” It is only regarding the 
Universe as an “ illimitable avenue leading up to God.” “The 
extreme scientific school” seem to limit the Principle of Con- 
* 2 Cor. iv. 18. The ordinary interpretation of this phrase refers it to 
our Divine dwelling, iv roTc Inovpnvioic (Eph. ii. 6). 
