442 LESSONS FKOM NATUEE. [CHAP. XIV. 



Prelect. Theol., vol. i. p. 678 (edit. Migne, 1842). But it 

 is really needless to speak of writers during the last few 

 years, for books are daily printed at Eome with the permis 

 sion of authority such as Perrone, just mentioned, also Ton- 

 giorgi and Pianciani ( Cosmogonia Naturale, p. 24), before 

 referred to. In English we have Cardinal Wiseman s Science 

 and Kevealed Eeligion, Lectures v. and vi., and only last 

 year a similar work was published in London by the Kev. 

 Dr. Gerald Molloy. 



So much for the question of the six days. But before 

 An utter leaving the subject of Christianity and evolution, 

 there is yet one more point which it may be well 

 to notice. With respect to the hypothesis I advanced that 

 Adam s body might have been formed by evolution like those 

 of other animals, the soul being subsequently infused. Pro 

 fessor Huxley remarks : 



&quot; If Suarez is any authority, it is not Catholic doctrine. Nulla est 

 in homine forma educta de potentia materise is a dictum which is 

 absolutely inconsistent with the doctrine of the natural evolution of 

 any vital manifestation of the human body. Moreover, if man existed 

 as an animal before 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 man-like animal s nostrils, he must have already been a living 

 and feeling creature. But Suarez particularly discusses this point, 

 and not only rejects Mr. Mivart s view, but adopts language of very 

 theological strength regarding it. &quot; 



Professor Huxley then quotes from Suarez a passage end 

 ing &quot; ille enim spiritus, quern Deus spiravit, anima rationalis 



fuit, et PER EAMDEM FACTUS EST HOMO VIVENS, ET CONSE- 



QUENTER, ETIAM SENTIENS,&quot; and a conciliar decree con- 

 demning the assertion of the existence of two souls in man. 



It is surely not less prudent than it is just to refrain from 

 speaking authoritatively of that which we have not studied 

 and do not comprehend. The fact is that Professor Huxley 

 has completely misapprehended the significance of the pas 

 sages he quotes. No wonder if reasoning perfectly lucid 



