CREATION AND CREATIANISM. 79 



The opposition is here in the case of the individual 

 exactly what we have already noted in the creation 

 of the world. Traducianism is creation which is 

 intelligible, which can be expressed in terms of 

 reason, which can be paralleled by every-day 

 familiar processes however mysterious. Creatianism 

 is creation which is unintelligible, which is known 

 only as the negation of traducianism. If_there.is 

 no such thing as creatianism, if all creation can be 

 expressed in terms of traducianism, no doubt the 

 opposition ceases. It ceases because one of the 

 opposing terms is destroyed. But the two opposites 

 cannot approximate to or shade off the one into 

 the other. Those who can express creation as 

 evolution can of course express creatianism as 

 traducianism. But are we prepared to do this ? 

 If not, it is no use speaking "with bated breath 

 and whispering humbleness " of that which Catholic 

 antiquity, as well as modern Roman Catholic evolu- 

 tionists, like Mivart, call creatianism. 



There are many who suppose that creatianism 

 implies a scholastic view of the soul as a "thing" 

 put into the body, 1 and they would propose to 



1 Thus Hegel commits himself to the statement (Logic, 34) 

 that the pre-Kantian metaphysic viewed the soul as a "thing" 

 which is "an immediate existence, such as is evident to the senses" 

 or a "processless ens." But this is perfectly untrue of scholastic 

 metaphysics in which the soul, though an "ens" which has been 

 created "de non ente," was in its essence an activity, though not 

 in the same sense as God, who is "actus purus." In scholastic 



