PREFACE.
Vll.
exclusiveness as the whole truth. . . . Hence, even in revolu
tions of opinion, one part of the truth usually sets while another rises.
. . . Such being the partial character of prevailing opinions, even
when resting on a true foundation, every opinion which embodies
somewhat of the portion of truth which the common opinion omits,
ought to be considered precious, with whatever amount of error
and confusion that truth may be blended.”—{Ibid. pp. 26, 27.)
When I reflect upon the fact that opposition to popular
theories of the day is apt to be met with no sympathy
and sometimes with slight courtesy, I feel sorely tempted
to represent myself as a mere Devil’s Advocate. In cer
tain ecclesiastical circles that functionary plays, as is
well known, a striking part. A great and good man
is thought worthy of canonisation. But it is important—
vitally important—that such distinction should not be con
ferred on the unworthy. And hence some one assumes
the part of detractor. He tries to find out all that can
be said against the individual singled out for the highest
distinction. Of course he does not succeed in his attempt.
Unless he is an envious cynic, who does not believe in
any human goodness at all, he does not wish to succeed.
It has occurred to me that I might play this part with
respect to the theory of Natural Selection and its eminent
supporters, and show that there is something to be said
on the other side, in order that I might be refuted and
that the popular theory might be duly glorified. If, in
such case, the argument were weak, the failure would be
forgiven, seeing there was so little to be said against the
truth. If the reasons adduced seemed to be of some force
it would only be understood that I was doing the system
the compliment of applying to it the severest test which
I was able to produce. I suppose such an effort would
be described as well-meaning or as clever, according to
the amount of ability which it displayed ; but I should
at least escape the charge of scientific heresy.
