76 EvohUion and its Consequences. 



est major ratio de quibusdam quam de aliis. Consequens est 

 incredihile.' He then instances certain insects, but as far as 

 the principle of evolution in itself is concerned he might as 

 well have selected crocodiles. 



Moreover, with respect to certain vegetable productions 

 he says (ih. c. vi. n. 1), ' an vero hujusmodi herbse sint factse 

 hoc die tantum in potentia vel etiam in actu magis dubitari 

 potest.' Finally, even with regard to the production of 

 animals altogether, he tells us that it was not a real creation 

 (c. X. n. 3), 'sed ex prsejacente materia modo tamen proprio 

 auctoris naturse.' It is strange that Professor Huxley should 

 have overlooked these passages, which so directly contradict 

 his assertions. 



Nevertheless these passages are not, let it be recollected, 

 adduced to show that Suarez held the doctrine of evolution, 

 or that he maintained as a fact that species were evolved, 

 except in peculiar cases, or that he took St. Augustin's view 

 as to the fact of creation ; but to demonstrate that he 

 distinctly admits principles compatible with evolution, and 

 that even where he asserts direct and immediate divine 

 action, yet that even there the exceptions he admits bring 

 out still more clearly how completely I was justified in 

 adducing him as a witness to the compatability of evolution 

 with the principles of the scholastic philosophy. 



So much then for the teaching of Suarez as to the nature 

 of the creative act and the admission of the evolution of even 

 certain new organic forms by natural causes. 



Let us turn now to a much more important subject. 



Besides and in addition to this view it is a most remark- 

 able circumstance that ideas should have been expressed of a 

 distinctly evolutionary character by the highest theological 

 authority, even as regards the very fact of creation, as an 

 historical event. 



Few things seem to me more striking than that such an 



