124 MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS 
It looks, at first, as if this meant, that Mr 
Darwin’s views being false, the opposition to 
“religion” which flows from them must be need- 
less. But I suspect this is not the right view of 
the meaning of the passage, as Mr. Mivart, from 
whom the Quarterly Reviewer plainly draws se 
much inspiration, tells us that “the consequences 
which have been drawn from evolution, whether 
exclusively Darwinian or not, to the prejudice o} 
religion, by no means follow from it, and are in 
fact illegitimate ” (p. 5). 
I may assume, then, that the Quarterly 
Reviewer and Mr. Mivart admit that there is no 
necessary opposition between “ evolution whether 
exclusively Darwinian or not,” and religion. But 
then, what do they mean by this last much- 
abused term? On this point the Quarterly 
Reviewer is silent. Mr. Mivart, on the contrary, 
is perfectly explicit, and the whole tenor of his 
remarks leaves no doubt that by “religion” he 
means theology ; and by theology, that particular 
variety of the great Proteus, which is expounded 
by the doctors of the Roman Catholic Church, and 
held by the members of that religious community 
to be the sole form of absolute truth and of saving: 
faith. ; 
_ According to Mr. Mas the greatest and most 
orthodox authorities upon matters of Catholic — 
doctrine agree in distinctly asserting “ derivative ; 
creation” or evolution ; “and thus their teachings 
| 
