148 INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS. 
To this literal rendering of the account it may be ob- 
jected that it runs counter to the belief of the world, for 
it has been held that Moses recorded the introduction 
of life, and not the close of the long series of ‘‘ horizons” 
which preceded the present. 
But to scientists, such as Prof. Huxley, and those of 
similar belief, this will have little weight, since, being 
embarrassed with no theological bias, the question with 
them will be—or at least ought to be—Does the story 
say what has been attributed to it? and is Prof. Hux- 
ley’s ‘‘central idea’’ an interpolation for which the 
author of this account is in no wise responsible ? 
That it is an interpolation follows from the spirit of 
the rules laid down by us. ‘‘ The account is responsible 
only for what is in it.’”’ To make the injustice of Prof. 
Huxley’s claim more evident I add his ‘‘ central idea”’ 
to each statement. It then becomes glaring. 
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the 
herb yielding seed, and the tree bearing fruit whose seed 
is in itself, and it was so. And this was the first vege- 
table life on the earth. 
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly 
the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may 
fly in the expanse of heaven. And this was the begin- 
ning of animal life on the earth. No water, air, or 
land animals had lived till then. 
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living 
creature after his kind, cattle, creeping things 
and beasts of the earth. And it was so. And 
these were the first land animals in the whole earth. 
Very small geological knowledge will suffice to show 
that the falsehood, that ‘‘by which the account must 
. fall,’ is wholly in the added, ‘‘ central idea.”’ 
If not that, what, then, is the central idea? SofarasI 
can see, it is simply God’s creatorship of all things. It 
shows itself everywhere, and markedly in those cases 
32 
