426 LIFE OF PROFESSOR HUXLEY CHAP. XVlt 



p. 195), not allowing the succession of phenomena to 

 represent an evolutionary notion, as suggested, of a 

 progress from lower to higher in the scale of being, a 

 notion assuredly not in the mind of the writer, but 

 deducing this order from such ideas as, putting aside 

 our present knowledge of nature, we may reasonably 

 believe him to have held. 



A vast subsidiary controversy sprang up in the 

 Times on Biblical exegetics ; where these touched him 

 at all, as, for instance, when it was put to him whether 

 the difference between the " Kehmes " of Genesis and 

 " Sheh-retz " of Leviticus, both translated " creeping 

 things," did not invalidate his argument as to the 

 identity of such " creeping things," he had examined 

 the point already, and surprised his interrogator, who 

 appeared to have raised a very pretty dilemma, by 

 promptly referring him to a well-known Hebrew 

 commentator. 



Several letters refer to this passage of arms. 

 On December 4, he writes to Mr. Herbert 

 Spencer : 



Do read my polishing off of the G.O.M. I am proud 

 of it as a work of art, and as evidence that the volcano 

 is not yet exhausted. 



To LORD FARRER 



4 MARLBOROUGH PLACE, 

 Dec. 6, 1885. 



MY DEAR FARRER From a scientific point of view 

 Gladstone's article was undoubtedly not worth powder and 



