yS Evohttion and its Conseqtiences, 



Moreover, ' wide veneration ' and ' orthodoxy/ by no means 

 imply authority in the sense of binding consciences. Many 

 Catholic teachers altogether reject the teaching of Suarez on 

 certain points, though they none the less consider him an 

 authority to be respectfully consulted, indeed, but by no means 

 to be necessarily followed. 



Multitudes of teachers, all agreeing in matters of faith, 

 yet belong to very different theological schools, and the idea 

 that any one of them can bind the others, is simply laughable 

 to those who know anything about the matter. 



Professor Huxley seems to imagine that in showing that 

 Suarez (Hke most teachers of his day, Catholic or not, e.g, 

 Tycho Brahe) adopts an extreme literalism of Scripture 

 interpretation, he has made a notable discovery. But (as 

 before remarked) I referred to Suarez for principles of 

 interpretation with regard to derivative creation, and his 

 views as to the historical facts of Genesis are quite beside the 

 question. St. Thomas explains the diversity of opinion 

 among theologians in a way which exactly meets my pur- 

 pose: 'Quoad mundi principium, aliquid est quod ad 

 substantiam fidei pertinet scilicet mundum incepisse creatum 

 et hoc omnes sancti concorditer dicunt. Quo autem modo et 

 ordine factus sit non pertinet ad fidem nisi per accidens, in 

 quantum in Scriptura traditur, cujus veritatem diversa 

 expositione sancti salvantes diversa tradiderunt ' (2 Sent., dist. 

 12, q. 1, a. 2). 



My critic also appears to think that, because one side 

 of a question is perfectly orthodox, its contradictory cannot 

 be so likewise. If he knew the A B C of Catholic doctrine, 

 he would know that in open questions it is perfectly allowable 

 to maintain either side. 



Professor Huxley says that Suarez in this question (as in 

 other matters) is in opposition to St. Augustin. He is so ; 

 but other theologians of equal weight severely took him to 



