Evolution and its Consequences, 79 



task for his expressions on this subject, as I shall proceed to 

 show, and there is not the slightest difficulty in bringing 

 forward many theological authorities, both before and since 

 the time of Suarez, who approve or positively affirm the 

 position which St. Augustin took. Therefore, even if I had 

 made the mistake which Professor Huxley supposes I had, it 

 would not be of the sUghtest moment, and my thesis could 

 repose as securely on the support of other theologians. 



Thus I may mention St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, 

 Albertus Magnus, Denis the Carthusian (1470), Cardinal 

 Cajetan (1530), Melchior Canus (1560), Bannes (1580), 

 Vincentius Contenson (1670), Macedo and Cardinal Noris 

 (1673), Tonti (1714), Serry (1720), Berti (1740), and others 

 down to the present day. 



St. Bonaventure calls St. Augustin's exposition 'multum 

 rationabilis et valde subtilis,' and speaks of his method as a 

 ' via philosophica ' ; nay, he calls the contrary opinion ' minus 

 rationabilis quam aha ' (Librum secund. Sent. dist. xii. qusest. 

 ii. art. 1 conclusio). 



St. Thomas, as I have shown, supports and approves St. 

 Augustin, but he even admits (' Summ.' par. i. qusest. Ixxiii. art. 

 1, ad. 3) the possibility of the evolution of new species. He 

 says : — ' Species etiam novae si quae apparent, prseextiterunt in 

 quibusdam activis virtutibus sicut et animalia ex putrefactione 

 generata producuntur ex virtutibus stellarum et elementorum 

 quas a principio acceperunt, etiam si novae species talium 

 animahum producuntur.' 



Professor Huxley will hardly dispute the weight and 

 significance, in this controversy, of the distinct adoption of 

 St. Augustin's view by an eminent Koman Cardinal of the 

 latter part of the seventeenth century. 



Yet Cardinal Noris (Vindicice Angus., c, iv. §ix. ; see 

 Migne's Patrologice Gursus Completus, torn, xlvii. p. 719) 

 speaks in the following uncompromising words : — 



