234 CRITIQUES AND ADDRESSES. [x. 



But Suarez proceeds to refute Augustin's opinions at 

 great length, and his final judgment may be gathered 

 from the following passage : 



" 35. Tertio dicendum est, haec animalia omnia his diebus producta 



CSSe, IN PERFECTO STATU, IN SINGULIS INDIVIDUIS, SEU SPECIEBUS SUIS, 

 JUXTA UNIUSCUJUSQUE i NATURAM .... IlAQUE FUERUNT OMNIA CREATA 

 INTEGRA ET OMNIBUS SUIS MEMBRIS PERFECTA." 



As regards the creation of animals and plants, there- 

 fore, it is clear that Suarez, so far from " distinctly 

 asserting derivative creation," denies it as distinctly 

 and positively as he can ; that he is at much pains 

 to refute St. Augustin's opinions ; that he does not 

 hesitate to regard the faint acquiescence of St. Thomas 

 Aquinas in the views of his brother saint as a kindly 

 subterfuge on the part of Divus Thomas ; and that he 

 affirms his own view to be that which is supported by 

 the authority of the Fathers of the Church. So that, 

 when Mr. Mivart tells us that Catholic theology is in 

 harmony with all that modern science can possibly 

 require ; that " to the general theory of evolution, 

 and to the special Darwinian form of it, no exception 

 . . . need be taken on the ground of orthodoxy ; " and 

 that " law and regularity, not arbitrary intervention, 

 was the Patristic ideal of creation," we have to choose 

 between his dictum, as a theologian, and that of a great 

 light of his Church, whom he himself declares to be 

 " widely venerated as an authority, and whose orthodoxy 

 has never been questioned." 



But Mr. Mivart does not hesitate to push his attempt 

 to harmonize science with Catholic orthodoxy to its 

 utmost limit; and, while assuming that the soul of 

 man " arises from immediate and direct creation," he 

 supposes that his body was "formed at first (as now 

 in each separate individual) by derivative, or secondary 

 creation, through natural laws " (p. 331). 



