+ villi 
—, 
142 MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS vo 
authority, and whose orthodoxy has never been 
questioned.” | 
But Mr. Mivart does not hesitate to push his 
attempt to harmonise science with Ae 
orthodoxy to its utmost limit; and, while 
assuming that the soul of man “arises from 
immediate and direct creation,” he supposes that 
his body was “formed at first (as now in each 
separate individual) by derivative, or secondar 7 
creation, through natural laws ” (p. 331). 
This means, I presume, that an animal, having 
the corporeal form and bodily powers of man, may 
have been developed out of some lower form of 
life by a process of evolution; and that, after i 
anthropoid animal had oxisted for a longer 
shorter time, God made a soul by direct creation, 
and put it into the manlike body, which, hereto- 
fore, had been devoid of that anima rationalis, 
which is supposed to be man’s Coma : 
character. | 
This hypothesis is incapable of either proof off 
disproof, and therefore may be true; but if 
Suarez is any authority, it is not Catholic 
doctrine. “ Nulla est in homine forma educta de 
potentia materiz,” * is a dictum which is absolutely 
inconsistent with the doctrine of the natural 
evolution of any vital manifestation of the human 
body. : 
Moreover, if man existed as an animal before 
1 Disput. xv. § x. No. 27. 
‘ 
= 
4 
4 
