Evolution and its Consequences 85 



He then answers the objection that we should thus have 

 three souls superposed, which he says is false because : — 



'Nulla forma substantialis accipit majus aut minus, sed super- 

 additio majoris perfectionis facit aliam speciem sicut additio unita- 

 tis facit aliam speciem in numero. . . . Ideo dicendum quod cum 

 generatio unius sit corruptio alterius, necesse est dicere quod tam in 

 homine quam in animalibus aliis, quando perfectior forma advenit fit 

 corruptio prioris, ita tamen quod sequens forma habet quidquid habe- 

 bat prima et adhuc amplius. ... Sic igitur dicendum quod anima 

 intellectiva creatur a Deo in fine generationis humanae quae simul est 

 et sensitiva et nutritiva corruptio formis praeexistentibus.' 



Now I am not saying anything about the truth of this 

 doctrine, but only that it perfectly harmonises with the 

 hypothesis thrown out ; while that it was the doctrine gener- 

 ally held in Suarez's day should be known to every one who 

 writes upon such a subject at all. This agreement between 

 the doctrine and the hypothesis will readily be apprehended, 

 for if Adam was formed in the way of which I suggested the 

 possibility, he would, till the infusion of the rational soul, be 

 only animal vivens et sentiens, and not ' homo ' at all. But 

 when the rational soul was infused, he thereby, as Suarez 

 justly says, ' f actus est homo vivens, et consequenter, etiam 

 sentiens.' 



The dictum 'Nulla est in homine forma educta de 

 potentia materise ' is nothing to the point, because I never 

 supposed that the ' forma rationalis ' was in potentia materise, 

 but only the ' forma sentiens,' which would disappear and 

 become non-existent as soon as the ' animal,' by the infused 

 rationality, becomes ' homo.' Thus, so far from being incon- 

 sistent with my hypothesis, it supports it ; for the dictum 

 must have been applied by Suarez to every child, the * forma 

 sentiens' of which he must have allowed to be 'educta de 

 potentia materise.' Professor Huxley has read Suarez ad hoc, 

 and evidently without the guidance of any one familiar with 

 that author, or with his philosophy, and the necessary 



