358 EVOLUTION AND DOGMA. 



From what precedes, it is evinced that the 

 Evolution of the body of man, according to 

 Mivart's view, and the subsequent infusion into 

 this body, by God, of a rational soul, is not neces- 

 sarily antagonistic to the teachings of St. Thomas. 

 The theory may, indeed, encounter certain grave 

 difficulties in the domains of metaphysics and 

 Biblical exegesis, but I do not think it can abso- 

 lutely be asserted that such difficulties are insup- 

 erable. 1 



At all events, whatever one may be disposed 

 to think of the theory, it is well always to bear 

 in mind that it has never been condemned by 

 the Church, although it has been publicly dis- 

 cussed and defended for full five-and-twenty years. 

 If it were as dangerous as some have imagined, 

 and, still more, if it were heretical, as others have 

 thought, it is most probable that the " Genesis of 

 Species " would have been put on the Index long 

 ago. 



est nobilior et magis distans a forma elementi, tanto oportet esse 

 pluras formas intermedias, quibus gradatim ad formam ultimam 

 veniatur et, per consequens, plures generationes medias; et ideo 

 in generatione animalis et hominis, in quibus est forma perfect- 

 issima, sunt plurimae forma? et generationes intermediae, et per 

 consequens corruptiones, quia generatio unius est corruptio alte- 

 rius. Anima igitur vegetabilis, quae primo inest, cum embryo 

 vivit vita plantse, corrumpitur, et succedit anima perfectior, qua? 

 est nutritiva et sensitiva simul, et tune embryo vivit vita ani- 

 malis ; haec autem corrupta, succedit anima rationalis ab extrin- 

 seco immissa, licet precedentes fuerint virtute seminis." " Con- 

 tra Gentiles," Lib. II, cap. LXXXIX. 



1 For a consideration of some of the difficulties alluded to, 

 consult Padre Mir's "La Creacion," cap. XL, DierckVL'Homme- 

 Singe," pp. 91 et seq., and Cardinal Gonzales' " La Biblia y la 

 Ciencia," torn. I, cap. xi, art. in, iv and v. 



