Cn. XIV.] 1861—1871. 277 



Mivart's Genesis of Species. What follows is taken from Mr. 

 Huxley's article. The Quarterly reviewer, though to some 

 extent an evolutionist, believes that Man " differs more from an 

 elephant or a gorilla, than do these from the dust of the earth 

 on which they tread." The reviewer also declares that 

 Darwin has M with needless opposition, set at naught the first 

 principles of both philosophy and religion." Mr. Huxley 

 passes from the Quarterly reviewer's further statement, that 

 there is no necessary opposition between evolution and religion, 

 to the more definite position taken by Mr. Mivart, that the 

 orthodox authorities of the Roman Catholic Church agree in 

 distinctly asserting derivative creation, so that "their teach- 

 ings harmonize with all that modern science can possibly 

 require." Here Mr. Huxley felt the want of that " study of 

 Christian philosophy" (at any rate, in its Jesuitio garb), 

 which Mr. Mivart speaks of, and it was a want he at once set 

 to work to fill up. He was then staying at St. Andrews, 

 whence he wrote to my father : — 



" By great good luck there is an excellent library here, with 

 a good copy of Suarez,* in a dozen big folios. Among these I 

 dived, to the great astonishment of the librarian, and looking 

 into them * as careful robins eye the delver's toil ' (vide Idylls), 

 I carried off the two venerable clasped volumes which were 

 most promising." Even those who know Mr. Huxley's un- 

 rivalled power of tearing the heart out of a book must marvel 

 at the skill with which he has made Suarez speak on his side. 

 " So I have come out," he wrote, " in the new character of a 

 defender of Catholic orthodoxy, and upset Mivart out of the 

 mouth of his own prophet." 



The remainder of Mr. Huxley's critique is largely occupied 

 with a dissection of the Quarterly reviewer's psychology, and 

 his ethical views. He deals, too, with Mr. Wallace's objections 

 to the doctrine of Evolution by natural causes when applied to 

 the mental faculties of Man. Finally, he devotes a couple of 

 pages to justifying his description of the Quarterly reviewer's 

 treatment of Mr. Darwin as alike " unjust and unbecoming." f 



* The learned Jesuit on whom Mr. Mivart mainly relies. 



t The same words may be applied to Mr. Mivart's treatment of my 

 father. The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June 17th, 

 1874) refers to Mr. Mivart's statement {Lessons from Nature, p. 144) that 

 Mr. Darwin at first studiously disguised his views as to the " bestiality 

 of man":— 



"I have only just heard of and procured your two articles in the 

 Academy. I thank you most cordially for your generous defence of me 

 aguinst Mr. Mivart. In the Origin I did not discuss the derivation of 

 any one species ; but that I might not be accused of concealing my opinion, 



