FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207  
208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   >>   >|  
ITAQUE FUERUNT OMNIA CREATA INTEGRA ET OMNIBUS SUIS MEMBRIS PERFECTA." As regards the creation of animals and plants, therefore, 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). 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 materiae,"[1] is a dictum which is absolutely inconsistent with the doctrine of the natural evolution of any vital manifestation of the human body. [Footnote 1: Disput. xv. Sec. x. No. 27.] Moreover, if man existed as an animal before he was provided with a rational soul, he must, in a
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207  
208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

creation

 

orthodoxy

 

animal

 

Catholic

 

authority

 

evolution

 
hesitate
 

Thomas

 

natural

 

doctrine


dictum
 

existed

 

Mivart

 

Church

 

distinctly

 

derivative

 

Suarez

 

direct

 
science
 

developed


process

 
anthropoid
 

separate

 

individual

 

formed

 
supposes
 

secondary

 
corporeal
 

bodily

 

presume


powers

 

manlike

 

homine

 

educta

 

Footnote

 

manifestation

 

inconsistent

 
absolutely
 

potentia

 

Disput


materiae
 
disproof
 

Moreover

 
heretofore
 
devoid
 
rational
 

longer

 

shorter

 

provided

 

hypothesis