CHAP. XIV.] A POSTSCKIPT. 443 



to those who have the key appears a mere &quot; darkening of 

 counsel &quot; to those who have not mastered the elements of the 

 systems they criticise. 



To say that Suarez &quot; rejects Mr. Mivart s view &quot; is absurd, 

 because no such view could by any possibility have been 

 present to the mind of any one of his day. To say that any 

 thing in the passage quoted is, even in the faintest degree, 

 inconsistent with that view, is an utter mistake. This is 

 plain, from the doctrine as to the infusion of every soul into 

 every infant, which was generally received at the period 

 when Suarez wrote. 



This doctrine was that the human foetus is at first animated 

 by a vegetative soul, then by a sentient soul, and only after 

 wards, at some period before birth, with a rational soul. Not 

 that two souls ever coexist, for the appearance of one coin 

 cides with the disappearance of its predecessor the sentient 

 soul including in it all the powers of the vegetative soul, and 

 the rational soul all those of the two others. The doctrine 

 of distinct souls, which Professor Huxley attributes to me as 

 a fatal consequence of my hypothesis, is simply the doctrine 

 of St. Thomas himself. He says (qusest. Ixxvi. art. 3, ad. 3) : 

 &quot; Dicendum quod prius embryo habet animam quse est sensi- 

 tiva tantum, qua ablata advenit perfectior anima quse est 

 simul sensitiva et intellectiva ut infra plenius ostendetur.&quot; 

 Also (qusBst. cxviii. art. 2, ad. 2) : &quot; Dicendum est quod 

 anima preeexistit in embryone, a principio quidem nutritiva, 

 postmodum autem sensitiva et tandem intellectiva.&quot; 



He then answers the objection that we should thus have 

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



&quot; Nulla forma substantial accipit majus aut minus, sed superadditio 

 majoris perfectionis facit aliam speciem sicut additio unitatis facit 

 aliam speciem in numero. . . . Ideo dicendum quod cum generatio 

 unius sit corruptio alterius, necesse est dicere quod tarn in homine 

 quam in animalibus aliis, quando perfectior forma advenit fit corruptio 

 prioris, ita tamen quod sequens forma habet quidquid habebat prima et 

 adhuc amplius. ... Sic igitur dicendum quod anima intellectiva 

 creatur a Deo in fine generationis humanfe quae simul est et sensitiva 

 et nutritiva corruptio formis prseexistentibus.&quot; 



