344 
knows, and can know, nothing. The most advanced scientific 
generalization yet put forth — the doctrine of continuity — fails 
confessedly to touch this great question of origin. It may be 
pushed back so far as to be for a time lost sight of, but 
it is not solved, and ever and anon springs up again, the 
greatest problem of all, which Science would most delight to 
unravel, yet before which she stands ever hopelessly silent 
and baffled. 
Science knows nothing of the destruction of matter or 
force ; she knows equally nothing of their creation : — the dogma 
is often hurled in our teeth as if it involved the disproof of 
the possibility of either. Yet, in truth, it is a dogma essentially 
harmonious with the belief in creation as taught by Scripture. 
Could Science point to physical origination as a possibility, 
either in matter or force, the necessity for referring these to 
a spiritual cause would be at an end ; the fundamental doc- 
trine of the dependence of all things on God would be shaken 
well-nigh to overthrow. But she cannot. It is admitted that 
there is not in all the world of nature which Science has 
examined any power or principle capable of creating. The 
Biblical doctrine remains, then, not only untouched, but con- 
firmed and supported by the negative testimony of Science. 
2. God’s independence of His creatures .— Most carefully is 
this complementary truth set forth in the cosmogony. It is 
not enough to say that God created each successive member 
of the universe; but having created. He “beholds'” them, 
approves of them, gives them “ names ; ” thus implying in 
the most forcible way their absolute distinctness from Him- 
self. In respect to life, where confusion between creature 
and Creator was most liable to occur, the narrative is espe- 
cially guarded. All such ideas as emanation, all pantheistic 
notions of the one Divine Life appearing under diverse forms 
in every variety of creature, are forbidden at once by the 
terms of the narrative: — “the earth brought forth,” “the 
waters brought forth,” not “ God brought forth.” While 
with respect to man, not even the expression of the second 
chapter (added by a later hand) of God “ breathing into his 
nostrils the breath of fife,” is tolerated ; but it is strictly “ in 
God’s image,” “after His likeness” — resemblance of nature 
merely, not participation. To Israel, where God’s personality 
was sufficiently guarded in other ways, the intimate connexion 
of man’s life with God’s might be freely, because safely, 
spoken of. But for the world at large God’s absolute inde- 
pendence of all other life or existence- must be strenuously 
insisted on in every particular. 
The entire agreement of Science with Scripture on this 
