v MR. DARWIN S CRITICS 143 



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 &quot; breath of life &quot; was 

 breathed into the manlike 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;Possent praeterea his adjungi argumenta theologica, ut est 

 illud quod sumitur ex illis verbis Genes. 2. Fonnavit Dcus 

 homincm ex limo terrce ct inspiravit in faciem cjus spiraculum 

 vita ct factus est homo in animam viventcm : ille enim spiritas, 

 quam Deus spiravit, anima rationalis fuit, et PER KAHKM FACTUS 



EST HOMO VIVENS, ET CONSQUENTER, ETIAM SENTIKNS. 



&quot; Aliud est ex VIII. Synodo General! quae est Constantinopol- 

 itana IV. can. 11, qui sic habet. Apparet quosdam in tantuin. 

 impwtatis venissc ut homines duos animas habcre dogmatizcnt : 

 talis igitur impwtatis invcntores et similes sapientes, cum Vctus 

 et Novum Tcstamentum omncsquc EcclcsicK patres unam animam 

 rationalcm homincm habcre asscvcrcnt, Sancta ct univcrsalis 

 Sy nodus anathcmatizat.&quot; l 



Moreover, if the animal nature of man was the 

 result of evolution, so must that of woman have 

 been. But the Catholic doctrine, according to 

 Suarez, is that woman was, in the strictest and 

 most literal sense of the words, made out of the 

 rib of man. 



1 Disput. xv. &quot; De causa formali substantial!,&quot; x. No. 24. 



