268 CRITIQUES AND ADDRESSES. [xi. 



This means, I presume, that an animal, having the 

 corporeal form and bodily powers of man, may have 

 been developed out of some lower form of life by a 

 process of evolution ; and that, after this anthropoid 

 animal had existed for a longer or shorter time, God 

 made a soul by direct creation, and put it into the 

 manlike body, which, heretofore, had been devoid of 

 that anima rationalis, which is supposed to be man's 

 distinctive character. 



This hypothesis is incapable of either proof or disproof, 

 and therefore may be true; but if Suarez is any authority, 

 it is not Catholic doctrine. " Nulla est in homine forma 

 educta de potentia materise," 1 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 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. 



"Possent prseterea his adjungi argumenta theologica, ut est illud 

 quod sumitur ex illis verbis Genes. 2. Formavit Deus hominem ex limo 

 terrce et inspiravit in faciem ejm spiraculum mice et factus est homo in 

 animam viventem: ille enim spiritus, quam Deus spiravit, anima 

 rationalis fuit, et PER EADEM FACTUS EST HOMO VIVENS, ET CONSE- 



QUENTER, ETIAM SENTIENS. 



" Aliud est ex VIII. Synodo Generali quae est Constantinopolitana 

 IV. can. 11, qui sic habet. Apparet quosdam in tantum impietatis 

 venisse ut homines duas animas habere dogmatizent : talis igitur impie- 

 tatis inventores et similes sapientes'cum Vetus et Novum Testamentum 



Disput. xv. x. No. 27. 



