350 
goes on without one, — why may it not always have done so ? 
Neither the question thus put, nor the answer by which it 
must be met, are properly any part of demonstrative science, 
and need npt therefore be here discussed. Two remarks only 
shall be made. First, in the analogical case of man’s works 
the principle here contended for certainly does not hold good. 
A watch is a wonderful piece of mechanism, but it requires 
constantly winding up. Could man make a watch that should 
be ever winding itself up as fast as it ran down, would this be 
considered an article less evidently the result of skilled work- 
manship than an ordinary dial ? Would it not rather be con- 
sidered to involve proof of far greater and more perfect skill ? 
J ust so the universe, ever returning on and sustaining itself, is 
intuitively felt to be a greater evidence of creative power and 
wisdom than it would have been if so constituted as perpe- 
tually to need its Creators interfering hand to keep it in 
action. Secondly, had the case been indeed thus, and the 
world been less self-reliant than it is, the doctrine of the 
cosmogony would have been proved false ; for the rest into 
which God entered at the close of creation would have been 
shown to be not final, not lasting, not perfect. As it is. 
Science in this very doctrine, which has been hailed by some 
as getting rid of the Creator altogether, has but borne a 
powerful, though unknowing testimony, to the Scriptural 
truth of the perfection of - that creation which such have 
thought to ignore. God has rested from His work and does 
rest, and His rest is not only the cessation from labour ended, 
but the satisfied beholding of a perfected design ; a sabbatical 
rest, holy and blessed. 
It is needless to summarize the results of this comparison in 
respect to principles. The absolute concord of Science and 
Scripture throughout has been too self-evident to require in- 
sisting on. We proceed, therefore, at once to the second 
division of the subject — the facts in creation alleged in 
connexion with these principles, and their agreement with 
those discovered by natural science. 
Here especially is it necessary to bear in mind the warning 
given at starting, to distinguish between scientific conclusions 
based upon facts, and scientific theories, since it is with the 
former only that the statements of Genesis can fairly be com- 
pared. We shall consider — 1st, a few detailed facts asserted 
in the cosmogony ; 2nd, the order of creation there set forth ; 
3rd, the time of creation ; concluding, 4th, with a few remarks 
on its testimony as to the 'manner of creation. 
1st. The detailed facts . — But few of these come in contact 
with science, owing to the principles on which the cosmogony 
