124 MR. DARWIN S CRITICS v 



It looks, at first, as if this meant, that Mr. 

 Darwin s views being false, the opposition to 

 &quot; religion &quot; 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 so 

 much inspiration, tells us that &quot; the consequences 

 which have been drawn from evolution, whether 

 exclusively Darwinian or not, to the prejudice of 

 religion, by no means follow, from it, and are in 

 fact illegitimate&quot; (p. 5). 



I may assume, then, that the Quarterly 

 Reviewer and Mr. Mivart admit that there is no 

 necessary opposition between &quot; evolution whether 

 exclusively Darwinian or not,&quot; 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 &quot; religion &quot; 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. Mivart, the greatest and most 

 orthodox authorities upon matters of Catholic 

 doctrine agree in distinctly asserting &quot; derivative 

 creation &quot; or evolution ; &quot; and thus their teachings 



