« 이전계속 »
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 esse, IN PERFECTo statu, INSINGULIS INDIVIDUIs, sou SPECIEBU’s SUIS, JUKTA UNIUSCUJUSQUE NATURAM . . . . ITAQUE FUERUNT oxsix IA. CREATA INTEGRA ET own IBUs suis MEMBRIs PERFECTA.”
As regards the creation of animals and plants, therefore, it is clear that Suarez, so far from “distinctly asserting derivative creating," 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 harmonise 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,” 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 * Disput. xv. § x. No. 27.
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 distimct 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 regardingit.
** Possent præterea his adjungi argumenta theologica, ut est illud quod sumitur ex illis verbis Genes. 2. Formavit Deus fiominem eæ limo terræ et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitæ et factus est homo in animam viventem : ille enim spiritus, quam Deus spiravit, anima rationalis fuit, et PER EADEM FAcTus EST HOMO VIVENS, ET CONSQUENTER, ETIAM SENTIENS.
** Aliud est ex VIII. Synodo Generaliquæ est Constantinopolitana IV. can. 11, qui sic habet. Apparet quosdam in tantum impietatis venisse ut homines duas animas habere dogmatizent: talis igitur impietatis inventores et similes sapientes, cum Vetus et Novum Testamentum omnesque Ecclesiæ patres unam animam qrationalem hominem habere asseverent, Sancta, et universalis Synodus anathematizat.'*
Moreover, if the animal nature of man was the result of evolutiom, so must that of womam 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.
* Disput. xv. ** De causa formali substantiali,” § x. No. 24.
* Nihilominus sententia Catholica est, verba illa Scripture esse ad literam intelligenda. Ac PROLNDE VERE, AC REALITER, rtisse Deum Costam ADAME, ET, Ex ILLA, corpus Evie For Masse.” +
Nor is there any escape in the supposition that some woman existed before Eve, after the fashion of the Lilith of the rabbis; since Suarez qualifies that notion, along with some other Judaic imaginations, as simply “damnabilis.”
After the perusal of the “Tractatus de Opere.” it is, in fact, impossible to admit that Suarez held any opinion respecting the origin of species, except such as is consistent with the strictest and most literal interpretation of the words of Genesis. For Suarez, it is Catholic doctrine, that the world was made in six natural days. On the first of these days the materia prima was made out of nothing, to receive afterwards those “substantial forms ” which moulded it into the universe of things; on the third day, the ancestors of all living plants suddenly came into being, full-grown, perfect, and possessed of all the properties which now distinguish them ; while, on the fifth and sixth days, the ancestors of all existing animals were similarly caused to exist in their complete and perfect state, by the infusion of their appropriate material substantial forms into the matter
-- o de Opere, Lib. III. “De hominis creatione,” cap. 11. No. 5. * 1bid. Lib. III. cap. iv. Nos. 8 and 9
which had already been created. Finally, on the sixth day, the anima rationalis—that rational and immortal substantial form which is peculiar to man was created out of nothing, and “breathed into” a mass of matter which, till then, was mere dust of the earth, and so man arose. But the species man was represented by a solitary male individual, until the Creator took out one of his ribs and fashioned it into a female. This is the view of the “Genesis of Species” held by Suarez to be the only one consistent with Catholic faith: it is because he holds this view to be Catholic that he does not hesitate to declare St. Augustin unsound, and St. Thomas Aquinas guilty of weakness, when the one swerved from this view and the other tolerated the deviation. And, until responsible Catholic authority—say, for example, the Archbishop of Westminster— formally declares that Suarez was wrong, and that Catholic priests are free to teach their flocks that the world was not made in six natural days, and that plants and animals were * created in their perfect and complete state, but have been evolved by natural processes through long ages from certain germs in which they were potentially contained, I, for one, shall feel bound to believe that the doctrines of Suarez are the only ones which are sanctioned by Infallible Authority, as represented by the Holy Father and the Catholic