342 
facts in regard to nature which are alleged should be scienti- 
fically irreproachable. That there are not more facts is no 
valid objection. 
A moment's glance at the details of the cosmogony is suffi- 
cient to show how exactly these anticipations are realized. 
Take a couple of examples by way of illustration. Among the 
natural objects finding place in the history of creation are, of 
necessity, the celestial bodies— sun, moon, and stars. In what 
aspect are these regarded ? Exclusively in their relation to 
the earth, as luminaries. Nothing else is said of them, or 
hinted concerning them. And why ? Plainly, because thus 
only were they familiarly known to those for whom the nar- 
rative was intended. It was no part of the design of the 
cosmogony to teach men more about the sun, moon, and 
stars scientifically, than they already knew ; but only to deter- 
mine the relation of these bodies to God, that so men, in 
beholding them, and enjoying the benefits they conferred, 
might learn from them certain lessons in natural theology. 
Within the limits of men's ordinary views concerning these 
heavenly bodies, then, does the cosmogony necessarily move. 
So, once more, the narrative treats of the various living 
things inhabiting the earth. How does it denote them ? Pre- 
cisely according to those natural divisions which, without 
making the slightest claim to scientific character, are familiar 
to everybody. The “ sprouting things " or plants, are divided 
into “ herbs " and ‘ { trees " ; the inhabitants of the waters 
into “ swarming things " and “ monsters " ; the terrestrial 
animals into “ cattle," “wild beasts," and “ creeping things." 
Not the slightest pretence to scientific classification anywhere, 
but simply the natural groups into which living things would 
be sure to fall in the human mind everywhere, and throughout 
all time. To teach zoology or botany was no object of the 
cosmogony, but only to exhibit the position and relations of 
plants and animals as creatures of the one true God. To have 
introduced scientific ideas here would have been altogether 
beside the mark. 
To all such limited and non- scientific views, then. Science is 
wholly incompetent to make objection, since, so far as they 
go, they are plainly correct enough ; while that the cosmogony 
goes no further is attributable to the close and exclusive 
attention everywhere bestowed upon its proper aim. 
By these preliminary remarks, the field of inquiry before 
us has been very materially narrowed, the points of contact 
between science and Genesis much diminished in number, a 
large proportion of the matter ordinarily brought into the 
discussion rejected as irrelevant. Still, however, some points 
