MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 143 
he was provided with a rational soul, he must, in 
accordance with the elementary requirements of 
_ the philosophy in which Mr. Mivart delights, have 
_ possessed a distinct sensitive and vegetative soul, 
_ or souls. Hence, when the “ breath of life” was 
breathed into the manlike animal’s nostrils, he 
- must have already been a living and feeling 
- ereature. But Suarez particularly discusses this 
point, and not only rejects Mr. Mivart’s view, but 
adopts language of very theological strength 
regarding it. 
**Possent preterea his adjungi argumenta theologica, ut est 
‘illud quod sumitur ex illis verbis Genes. 2. Formavit Deus 
hominem ex limo terre et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum 
vite et factus est homo in animam viventem : ille enim spiritus, 
quam Deus spiravit, anima rationalis fuit, et PER EADEM FACTUS 
EST HOMO, VIVENS, ET CONSQUENTER, ETIAM SENTIENS. 
| ** Aliud est ex VIII. Synodo Generali que est Constantinopol- 
itana TV. can. 11, qui sic habet. Apparet quosdam in tantum 
| _ impictatis venisse ut homines duas animas habere dogmatizent : 
talis igitur impietatis inventores et similes sapientes, cum Vetus 
et Novum Testamentum omnesque Ecelesie patres unam animam 
rationalem hominem habere asseverent, Sancta et universalis 
Synodus anathematizat.” + 
Moreover, if the animal nature of man was the 
result of evolution, so must that of woman have 
been. But the Catholic doctrine, according to 
Suarez, is that woman was, in the strictest and 
most literal sense of the words, made out of the 
rib of man. 
* Disput. xv. ‘‘ De causa formali substantiali,” § x. No. 24. 
