“ie 
v MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 141 
- opinions at great length, and his final judgment 
_ may be gathered from the following passage :— 
**35. Tertio dicendum est, hee animalia omnia his diebus 
| producta esse, IN PERFECTO STATU, IN SINGULIS INDIVIDUIS, SEU 
SPECIEBUS SUIS, JUXTA UNIUSCUJUSQUE NATURAM.... 
ITAQUE FUERUNT OMNIA CREATA INTEGRA ET OMNIBUS SUIS 
- MEMBRIS PERFECTA.” 
As regards the creation of animals and plants, 
therefore, it is clear that Suarez, so far from 
_ “distinctly asserting derivative creating,” denies 
it as distinctly and positively as he can; that 
he is at much pains to refute St. Augustin’s 
opinions; that he does not hesitate to regard 
the faint acquiescence of St. Thomas Aquinas in 
_ the views of his brother saint as a kindly subter- 
fuge on the part of Divus Thomas; and that he 
affirms his own view to be that which is supported 
by the authority of the Fathers of the Church. 
So that, when Mr. Mivart tells us that Catholic 
theology is in harmony with all that modern 
science can possibly require ; that “to the general 
theory of evolution, and to the special Darwinian 
form of it, no exception ... need be taken on 
the ground of orthodoxy;” and that “law and 
regularity, not arbitrary intervention, was the 
Patristic ideal of creation,’ we have to choose 
between his dictum,-as a theologian, and that 
of a great light of his Church, whom he him- 
self declares to be “widely venerated as an 
