I04 Specific Genesis 



objects. Having, however, considered his remarks with that 

 care which my esteem for his opinions makes incmnbent on 

 me, I venture to express my belief that, neglecting minor 

 matters, his criticism is mainly directed to the assertion of 

 two points. 



One of these is, that I have misrepresented Mr. Darwin's 

 views, and have been guilty of involuntary injustice with 

 respect to the natural forces which, according to that 

 naturaHst, have determined specific forms. 



The other is, that I have attributed an irreligious tendency 

 to Mr. Darwin's ^vritings which they do not, in fact, possess ; 

 and that this is in part owing to my defective knowledge, in 

 part to early prejudices. 



Thus Mr. Wright speaks of my 'theological education' 

 and my 'schooling against Democritus.' It is a matter of 

 wonder to me who could have so misled Mr. Wright. 

 Though reluctant, in the extreme, to obtrude such private and 

 personal matters before the public, I must nevertheless, in 

 justice, observe, that my schooling has been of the very 

 opposite character, and perfectly in unison with that which 

 Mr. Darwin himself would favour. Only at length, and with 

 difficulty, have I struggled out of that philosophy of 

 'nescience,' the evils and the fallacies of which are so 

 apparent to me because, at one time, its doctrines so com- 

 pletely possessed my assent. 



With regard to Mr. Darwin's theory of the origin of 

 species, I should hasten eagerly to acknowledge my error if 

 I had been guilty of injustice with respect to it, and also to 

 thank any critic who had been so kind as to call my attention 

 to such unintentional unfairness. I must confess, however, 

 that I cannot detect that misrepresentation in my Genesis of 

 Species which Mr. Wright seems to there discover. 



In common with so many others I was, at one time, a 

 hearty and thoroughgoing disciple of Mr. Darwin, and I 



