CHARLES B. WARRING. 1438 
The friends of this account may object to such in- 
tense literalism, but certainly its opponents will not. 
Prof. Huxley’s criticisms are based upon the assumed 
existence in the Mosaic account, of acertain ‘‘central 
idea, the maintenance of which,” he says, ‘‘is vital, and its 
refutation fatal,’ viz: ‘‘That the animal species which 
compose the water population, the air population, and 
theland population, respectively, originated during three 
distinct and successive periods of time.’ This ‘‘central 
idea’’ is, as every geologist knows, false, therefore, he 
says, the story is not of superhuman origin. But does the 
Mosaic account contain that ‘‘central idea’’? Is it his 
‘tidea,’’? or is it Prof. Huxley’s, or rather, a tradition, 
which Prof. Huxley has accepted without examination 4 
The only fair way to decide this is by an examination 
of the story itself. 
It says that at a certain time the waters swarmed with 
water creatures, among which were ‘‘whales”’ and fowl. 
Prof. Huxley’s ‘‘ central idea”’ needs to interpolate ; 
‘Cand there never was any life in the waters, norany fowl], 
before that.”’ The Mosaic statement is true; as to 
previous life, it is silent. Prof. Huxley ventures to fill 
the hiatus with what he thinks Moses would have said, 
if he had said anything about it. 
I read farther on, that at a certain time the earth 
brought forth cattle, beasts, and creeping things. Prof. 
Huxley’s ‘‘centralidea’’? needs to interpolate; ‘‘and 
there were no land animals before that.” 
He places a physical falsehood in the mouth of 
Moses, and then says: ‘‘How unworthy of scientific 
notice; how utterly false ; two statements in a few lines, 
which every geologist knows are not true. Hence it is 
plain that the story is a myth.” 
But Moses is not responsible for what any one may 
have said, or believed. By our rules we are to take 
his account as it stands. Nothing is plainer than that 
27, 
