106 
.»« °< T -« - ■• 
dust, ) th P er of exegesis than a question 
.1 ,11 certain tic. tie, ... J ^ th „ tb . .0, O,™,! «.» 
Neither is it quite certain that the har „ accordino . to modern 
it would not be classed with t e run ""“ ;ce m j dem definitions, now 
definition, having four stomachs. T Moses wrote . I remember an 
recognized, were, of course, not inv™ ® w [ iat j mean . In a paper 
analogous circumstance, also, whic wi l Mr Hower accused 
read before the Royal Society a year or 8 • > the parts of 
Professor Owen of being ignorant of some n ' C " n from a work 
^oolog^cal ‘classification, where certainly the 
distinction in question was not noticed. 
answerable reply to that accusation, y ^ X P ^1 & rticu i ar , and by 
he had not thought it necessary to allude t ^ yearg before (and 
referring to another work of bis, P u which the distinction in 
from which Mr. -Flower had himself quoted) m wh b^ ^ ^ 
question was plainly recognize . . 0A ^ e f modern distinctions— 
tions of a technical or scientific kind -and stm l^s^tor ^ ^ be n0 
in the brief allusions to such things 1 *- P nQ> the « ruminant 
question that the hare would not y us * c ' nevertheless, the hare 
animals,’’ as now defined. But am not it » the hare 
may not chew the cud. At all even s, exeo-esis. It had been 
which is alluded to ; and this is rea y a qu whether scientific or 
stated by Mr. Warington that many of the objections, 
given up ; hut that particular lines of ™ ' caU 
attention to the fact that, although the paper purports to deal 
or answers, now given up. naner although, only a 
to which Mr. Warington forward as the grind and principal 
few years ago, it was, I may y, P allude to the nebular theory 
scientific objection to the Mosaic ’ wbb which Mr. Warington 
of Laplace It is “^^ ^h he may not have adopted it as actually 
is very well acquainted , for t „ ^ we] [. known Actonian Prize Essay, as 
a proTable hypothesis. Its omission 
— g to thlt theory, the world originally 
