CHAP. XIV.] A POSTSCRIPT. 429 



Accordingly, in my book on the Genesis of Species I had 

 in view two main objects. My first was to show The Genesi8 

 that the Darwinian theory is untenable, and that ofS P ecies &amp;gt; 

 &quot; Natural Selection &quot; is not the origin of species. My second 

 was to demonstrate that nothing even in Mr. Darwin s theory 

 (as put forth before the publication of his Descent of Man ), 

 and, a fortiori, nothing in Evolution generally, was necessarily 

 antagonistic to Christianity. 



I did so by distinguishing between primary and derivative 

 creation, and by showing that the distinction, far from being 

 a novel subtlety of my own devising, had been discussed, and 

 the principles on which it reposed accepted, by distinguished 

 theologians centuries before Evolution was heard of. 



It was, no doubt, a great surprise and disappointment to 

 Professor Huxley to find it clearly demonstrated AndProfes . 

 that his favourite doctrine of Evolution, far from sorHuxle y- 

 being in &quot; unmistakable antagonism &quot; with Christianity, ac 

 tually harmonized with it, thus altogether losing what he 

 tells us he deemed to be &quot; one of its greatest merits.&quot; 



Accordingly he combated my arguments in a paper 

 which appeared in the Contemporary Review for November 

 1871. This attack he has since republished, and I will 

 therefore restate here my reply to it, first noticing the rea 

 sonings offered by my opponent, and afterwards saying some 

 words as to his mode of conducting the controversy. 



As I. have said, my second object in my Genesis of 

 Species was to demonstrate that there is no necessary anta 

 gonism between the Christian revelation and evolution. 



In meeting me on this ground (to discuss what seems na 

 turally to have interested the Professor more than anything 

 else in my book), he endeavours to create a prejudice against 

 my arguments, and to narrow my base, by representing me 

 as a mere advocate for specially Catholic doctrine.* 



* At p. 454, Professor Huxley gives the words &quot; Catholic theology &quot; with 

 marks of quotation as if mine, though in fact they were not so. This typo 

 graphical error does not misrepresent my substantial meaning, but it none 

 the less tends to create a prejudice against my statements in the mind of the 

 public. 



