L

756

]

EVOLUTION AND FAITH.
N a previous article on Darwinism1 the present writer
contended that the evolution theory was an unproved
hypothesis ; mainly, a mass of groundless assumptions, and
gratuitous assertions, and that its advocates “ beg the
question” by ignoring Revelation,and by taking for granted
the points that are most vital to the theory. The facts
alleged by Mr. Darwin and his disciples may be facts, or
may be fictions; but the evolution theory they do not prove.
Mr. Mivart, a distinguished Catholic writer, holds, as
decidedly as Darwin docs, that the higher organisms now
existing have been evolved from lower ; but his explana­
tion of the system differs much from Darwin’s. Mr. Mivart
saw clearly, and exposed fully, the weak points in Darwin’s
theory; and he claims for himself the merit of finding a
remedy for them. He says, “the problem then is by what
combination of natural laws does a new “ common nature ”
appear upon the scene of realized existence Î i.e., how is
an individual embodying such new characters produced.”
(Genesis of Species, p. 2.) And after acknowledging our
indebtedness to Darwin and Wallace for enabling us to
. approximate to a soluti on of this problem, Mr. Mivart states,
that the object of his book is i( to maintain the position
that “Natural Selection,” acts, and, indeed, must act; but
that still, in order to account for the production of known
kinds of animals and plants, it requires to be supplemented
by the action of some other natural law, or laws, as yet
undiscovered.” (p. a.) This “undiscovered” “unknown”
internal “ law,” which at present science is utterly incom­
petent to explain” (p. 207) is the principal factor in
Mr. Mivart’s evolution theory, and he refers to it very
frequently, both in the Genesis of Species, and in the
Lessons from Nature. (See Genesis of Species, p. 5, 23, 270,
274, 311, 333, and Lessons from JNature, chap, ix., &c.)
According to Mr. Mivart, then, “ Natural Selection ”
acts its part in the evolution of new organisms, but that
part is secondary. The evolution mainly “ depends on
some unknown, internal law, which determines variation
at special times, and in special directions.” (p. 311.) The
action of this internal law is not, however, uniform, and
long periods sometimes pass without any sensible indication
of its energy. But when conditions favourable to the

I

»1. E. Record (Third Series), vol. v., p. 584 (Sept.).

« i
Ji I

■

Evolution and Faith.

751

evolution present themselves, then sudden changes,—
“jumps,”—are noticed, and those are so considerable as to
be, “in fact, sensible stops such as discriminate species
from species.” (p. 275.) Thus do new species arise,
according to Mr. Mivart. By this theory docs he account
for all the organisms that have come into being, the body of
the first man among them (p. 319), and he tells us that this
theory is, “ without any doubt, perfectly consistent with the
strictest, the most orthodox, Christian theology” (p. 5).
Now, laying aside for a moment, the theological aspect
of this theory, wo may ask what is its advantage, from a
scientific stand-point, over Darwinism pure ami simple?
Like Darwinism if. has to meet the opinion*of distinguished
naturalists that species arc immutable. It is intended to
meet the difficulties of “ Natural Selection,” and it does
so, by rushing into a difficulty quite as formidable as any
of those it seeks to evade,-—namely, the assumption, in a
scientific hypothesis, of a law unknown to science. Wo
know that “Natural Selection” can induce some changes,
though they are inconsiderable; but what the alleged
“internal law” can do, is, to us, like the law itself,
absolutely unknown. It is an assumption, without proof,—·
a conjecture. If this unknown law be in existence, how
strange that it has shown no sign of its energy since man
first appeared ! How strange that conditions favourable
to its operation have not appeared during all that long
period! If this “unknown law,” plus “Natural Seinetion,” and “favourable conditions” be competent to
introduce new species, why is the theory at a stand-still
for seven thousand years ? Why has evolution stopped
with man? The alleged “jumps,” are then “ few and
far between and as man has never witnessed any of them,
wo have reasonable grounds for being sceptical about
them. To meet these difficulties evolutionists will have to
“ try again.”
In dealing with Air. Darwin, and his disciples, the
theological aspect of evolution is easily settled. Darwin’s
theory is not incompatible with the primary creation of
matter, though he makes no clear reference to it, and he
cautiously avoids the question of the origin of life. But
the end and aim of his theory is to refute the idea of
intelligent design in the production of any species of
organism., lie clearly intended his theory to supplant
Revelation which he completely ignores. lie ignores the
existence of the soul. He holds that man’s mental facul-

■
'

I
, j
;
■:
?; ·■
.·
h j
·',
j
. ■? ■
>9 :·
·:· i
.
■
·.

:

■ ■

:
i

I
I
I
.
I
fl
fl
fl
fl
I
I
,
a
■
■
■
I
fl
fl
; fl
: ' fl
·
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl

/

3ES58S#

758

'.Evolution and Faith,

ties and powers differ only in kind from those of file lower
animals, and are subject to the same process of evolution
as man’s body. Between the affection of a dog for bis
master, and the love, reverence, and adoration we pay to
God, ho sees merely a difference in degree. For such a
theory it is clear that failli can have no toleration. For
1°. To deny intelligent design in creation is to remove the
very foundation of faith. 2°. The special creation of
Adam’s soul is a dogma of faith.
It is practically
certain, also, that the special creation of the soul of each
individual, is a dogma of Catholic faith. It is true that an
opinion onco prevailed to some extent, according to which
the soul like the body was supposed to come from the
parents. This view has been revived in recent times by
Frohscbammer and some other German theologians of very
questionable orthodoxy. And strangely enough Mr. Lilly
in his recent work Ancient lieligiou and Modern Thought,
seems to regard it as still tenable. It is not tenable.
It is notoriously opposed to the almost unanimous
teaching of the Fathers, and of all eminent theo­
logians; it is set down as an error in a letter of Popo
Benedict XII. to the Armenian Bishops, given in Raynaldus, A.D. 1341 ; and it is dearly opposed to the voice of
the ordinary magisteriam· of the Church. The opinion is
therefore altogether untenable, and consequently Faith
tolerates no evolution theory with reference to man’s soul.
But the question, still remains, what may, or may not,
be held with reference to. the bodies of, our first parents,
and to the other works of creation specified in Genesis.
May the evolution theory’ be applied to them, and if so how
far docs Faith permit us to go Ί
As already stated,
Mr. Mivart holds, that tho evolution theory may bo applied
fully to the bodies of our first parents, and of course to all
lower organisms as well, lie does not “include in tho
process of evolution the soul of man” (page 319). He
admits tho creation in the striet senso of each individual
soul, but he docs hold that it is allowable to teach thattho
body of the first man was produced by evolution from
some lower animal, and that when the process of evolution
had reached the desired perfection, God infused into the
species so perfected the human soul.
And this theory
Mr. Mivart tells us repeatedly “ is perfectly consistent with
the strictest, the most orthodox Christian theology.” (p. 5.)
Some few months ago, a writer in the Tablet referring
to evolution seemed to class Mr. Mivart in the same

Evolution and Faith.

759

category as Darwin and other well-known enemies of
Revelation. No classification could bo more unfair to
Mr. Mivart; and it is difficult to see how anyone who has
read his works could confound the systems or compare
the men. In fact no -writer has yet dealt such a blow to
Darwin’s system as Mr. Mivart has. Darwin applies his
theory to man in his totality, body, mind and soul. Mivart
applies it only to the body of the first man. Darwin
excludes all intelligent design in the production of organisms,
Mivart maintains the necessity of intelligent design : and he
has demonstrated tho existence of an intelligent first cause,
in such a manner as to merit· the gratitude of all believers.
Darwin’s system depends altogether on external accidental
circumstances ; Mivart’s theory depends mainly on internal
laws, which are nothing else than the laws of nature
instituted and maintained in harmony by Almighty God.
And therefore to confound the theories and their authors
betrays cither a lamentable want of knowledge or an
absence oi that spirit of fair play which is duo to any
adversary. One system is the onslaught on Revelation of
a professed enemy the other is a well-meant, if mistaken,
effort of a loyal son of the Church to defend Revelation
against the alleged difficulties of science. To admit so much
. is but bare justice to Mr. Mivart, though it is very far from
admitting the orthodoxy of his theory. His theory is that
man and all ol her organisms wore produced by “derivativo
creation,” which,/«? says means merely, “that the pre-existing
matter has been created with the potentiality to evolve
from it, under suitable conditions, all tho various forms it
subsecpiontly assumes” (Genesis of Species, 291). It is, he
says, “ simply the Divine action by and through natural
Jaws” (p. 801), “the operation’of laws which owe their
foundation, institution and maintenance” to God (p. 318).
it is, he says, “the creation by God of forms, not as existing,
but in. jwtentia, to bo subsequently evolved into actual
existence by the duo concurrence and agency of tho various
powers of nature.” (Lessons from Fature 481.) Thus, then
according to this view, tho creation of man and of other
organisms implies no iimnediate action, on the part of God,
other than his co-operation with the laws of nature in
evolving from matter certain powers inserted in it at its
first creation. And this view, Mr. Mivart holds, satisfies
fully all the requirements of faith. This is certainly going
very far with evolution. The Abbé Moigno the latest and
a very able Catholic authority on the subject, thinks that

760

Evolution and Faith.

it is going too far. After stating Mivart’s views, he says,
“pour moi c’est déjà trop” (fiplendeurs dû la Foi, vol. 2,
Appendix c. page 14). Now in testing the orthodoxy of
this theory there is, happily, no need to discuss orchids and
troglodytes, or the various families of the Lomuridae ; we
need not trouble ourselves with the whereabouts of the
“ missing link we can apply to it the unerring rule, “ quod
semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus;” and if, tested by this
rule Mr. Mivart’s theory be found wanting, then his scientific
speculations must be unsound. There are of coui’se many
scientific theories of which Revelation takes no account,
but the question at issue here—the origin of man—is one
essentially and directly within the province of Revelation,
and consequently if Catholic teachingon the point be clear,
it must be also decisive. Now Catholic teaching doos
seem clear on this point to such an extent as to forbid the
application of the evolution theory to man.
We may not
be able to point to a solemn definition of a General Council
or to any authoritative decree of a Roman Pontiff, asserting
the immediate formation of the bodies of our first parents:
but this is by no means necessary. For if that immediate
formation be asserted by the voice of the ordinary magis­
terium of the Church—the ordinary teaching body—then,
are we as strictly bound to believe it, as if it had been
defined by a General Council or by a Pope teaching cm
Cathedra. This is clear from the Constitution “ Dei Filius ”
of the Vatican Council: “Porro fide Divina et Catholica
ea omnia credenda sunt quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito
continentur, at ab Ecclesia sive solemni judicio sive
ordinàrio et universali magisterio, tauquam divinitus revelata
credenda proponuntur.” (cap. iii.) And Pius IX. in a letter
bearing date December 21st, 1863, and addressed to the
Archbishop of Munich, says that we owe the obedience of
faith not merely to the solemn definition of Councils and
Popes, but also to the voice of the ordinary magisterium
of the Church, reaching us through the constant and
universal teaching of Catholic Theologians ; “ ad ea quoque
extendenda quae ordinario totius Ecclesiae per orbem
dispersae magisterio, tauquam divinitus revelata traduntur
ideoque universali et constanti consensu, a catholicis theologis
ad fidem pertinere retinentur.” This same truth is implied
in the condemnation of the 22nd proposition of the
“ Syllabus.” Now the theologians, and teachers of the
Catholic Church assert with the most extraordinary unani­
mity, the immediate formation of the bodies of our firstparents

Evolution and Faith.

761

and by that formation they understand an action, distinct
both from the primary creation of matter, and from the
concurrence which God affords to the working out of
Nature's laws, Such unanimous teaching is, according to
the Vatican Council, and Pius IX. obligatory upon us, and
consequently we are not free to hold the evolution theory
even -with reference to the body of the first man.
So direct, so precise, so circumstantial, is the Scriptural
account of man’s creation, that, if the evolution theory
were true, the sacred writers, if they intended to deceive
us, could not have chosen language better calculated to
effect that end: “And the Lord Godformed man out of
the slime of the earth,"--Gen. c. 2, v. 7. “ Thy hands have
made me, and fashioned me.”—Job. c. 10, v. 8. Now the
ordinary meaning of such texts (and they arc very ,
numerous) is unquestionably the immediate formation by
God of the bodies of Adam and Eve. And on this ordi­
nary meaning we can insist, unless the evolutionists show
that there is sufficient reason for departing from it.
This
they have not done. And consequently the prima facie
Scriptural view of man’s creation need not be abandoned
for that “series infinita ” of hypotheses, and conjectures,
and possibilities, which make up the sum total of the
evolution theory.
The teaching of the Fathers on this question has been
analyzed by an exceedingly able writer in the Dublin
Jlevie.w for July, 1871. lie sums up as follows: “ There is
no need to say that the whole school of Fathers, which has
been called the School of St. Basil, takes for granted that
Adam’s body was formed by the immediate act of God.”
(p. 19.) And to say the whole of this school is, he says,
“ nearly the same as saying the whole ‘ traditio Fatrumd ”
And, after discussing the views of St. Augustine, this ■
writ nr concludes thus: “All those reasons combined
would make it—we are inclined to think—at least rash
and dangerous to deny that the body of Adam unis formed
inmmdiatcly by God, and quasi-instantancously out of
the earth.” (p. 22.) An examination of the writings of the
Fathers xvill unquestionably bear out the statements of
this able writer. We shall find the numerous followers of
St. Basil holding the literal meaning of Gen. c. 2, v. 7.
Wo shall find all the Fathers without exception accord­
ing to Suarez, holding the immediate formation of the
body of Eve. We shall find many of them, like Tertullian,
St. Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, admiring the

;·

:i

.

■

1
i
;
r

762

Evolution and Failli.

formation of man’s body as a special work of Divine Omni­
potence—a special work of God’s own hands. Again, we
shall find many of them discussing the question whether the
ministration of angels might have been employed in
forming the body of the first man. The vast majority of
them deny such ministration, and regard man’s body as
the work of God alone. But even those who favour the
ministration, of the angels, imply that man's body was
formed by a special action, distinct from the first creation
of matter, and distinct also from the ordinary operation of
nature’s laws. The only one of the Fathers, with regard
to whom there can be any hesitation, is St. Augustine,
who is regarded by “ Christian evolutionists” as I,fie main­
stay of their orthodoxy. In explaining his theory of
, simultaneous creation, St. Augustine holds that, at the
primary creation of matter, God created all things ; not,
certainly, in the perfect state in which they subsequently
appeared, but in what he calls their “ rationes seminales," or
“ causales." The difficulty, then, is to determine what
St. Augustine meant by those “ rationes seminales." Flo
himself does not tell ns. His language is obscure. He
hesitates. He admits the difficulty of the subject he is
treating. They were in some sense the germs of future
organisms ; but he does not anywhere say that these germs,
by the sole powers then imparted to nature, developed
into all the forms of organic life that subsequently arose.
On the contrary, he .makes statements which are quite
incompatible with any such view. He holds the special
and immediate formation of the body of Eve. He clearly
insinuates that Adam first appeared as a full-grown man.
And in the very treatise from which the difficulty arises,
ho has the following- remarkable passage: “Et elementa
mundi hujus corporei habent definitam vim qualitatemque
suam quid unumquodque valeat vel non valeat, quid de
quo fieri possit, vel non possit- Ex his velut primordiis
rorum, omnia quae gignuntur suo quoque tempore exortus
processusque sumunt, fiuesquo et decessiones sui cujusquo
generis. Unde fit ut de grano tritici non nascatur faba, vel
de faba triticum, vel de pecore homo, vel de homine pecus."
(Gen. ad Lit. c. 16, lib. 9.) This is a olear assertion that
in the ordinary course of nature species are fixed—
unchangeable—and fixed in such manner as to be quite
incompatible with the evolution theory. The saint then
goes on to refer to the extraordinary changes which may
occur in organisms ; and these, he says, are due, not to

Evolution and Faith.

h
h*

1

763

any natural energy in the organisms, but to the fact that
at their creation then, nature was made obedient to a
higher will : “ Ut non hacc haberent in motu naturali, sed
in eo in quo ita creata cssent, ut corum natura voluntati
potentiori amplius subjaceret.” (fx-·. vit.) It would scum
then, that according to hr. Augustine, matter, at its
creation was endowed with what theologians call
“potentia obediemtalisf—an aptitude, in virtue of which it
may be formed into any organism which God may deter­
mino to create. And it is in this .'lise precisely that
St. Thomas understands the expressi
Ht. Augu;stine. In the “Summa ’’ (p. 1, q. !)1, a. 2),
St. Thomas maintains the immediate creation of Adam’s
body; and lie quotes, as an objection, the expression of
St. Augustine,, which he disposes of as follows: “Ad
quartum dicendum quod sccmidmn rationes causales in
creaturis dicitur aliquid pre-existerc dupliciter; uno modo
secundum potentiam activam ut passivam, ut non solum
ox materia pre-existenti fieri possit, sed etiam ut aliqua
pre-existens creatura, hoc facere possit. Alio modo secundum,
potentiam passivam tantum ut scilicet de materia prae-existenti
fieri possit a Deo : et hoc modo, secundum Augustinum, corpus
hominis prae-existit in operibus productis secundum causales
rationes.’: This aptitude in matter is not an active energy.
It pre-supposes the action of a, competent cause in the
formation of organisms. No one, of course, thinks of
saying that St. Augustine held the doctrine of evolution.
No such doctrine could have occurred to him. But
Hr. Mivart, who relics on him, as well as on St. Thomas
and Suarez, as establishing the orthodoxy of the evolution
theory, says oï all of them : “ These writers asserted
abstract principles such as can perfectly harmonize with
the requirements of modern science, and have, as it were,
provided for the reception of its most advanced
speculations.” (Lessons from Nature, p. 433.)
But if
St. Augustine merely taught (as his own words seem to
indicate, and as St. Thomas distinctly asserts) that God
created, matter with a “potentia obedientalis,” or an innate
aptitude for the formation of organisms, pro-supposing a
competent cause—then such a view lends no support,
affords no foundation, to the evolution theory.
And
whatever St. Augustine’s principles ivere, it is not fair to
quote him for the orthodoxy of tenets that go altogether
beyond his principles, and that contradict doctrines
which he explicitly maintained. It follows, then, that

764

Evolution and Faith.

St. Augustine cannot be quoted as opposed to the “ traditio
Patrum,” asserting the immediate formation of the bodies
of our first parents.
Passing from the Fathers on to the great Catholic
theologians, testimony to the immediate formation of the
body of the first man becomes more direct and explicit.
Many of the Fathers referred to the question only indirectly
and accidentally. The theologians treat it professedly.
St. Thomas, as already stated, maintains the doctrine, and
explains the·, apparent difficulty of St. Augustine's expres­
sion in the language given, above. Suarez maintains it,
and Holds it to be Catholic, doctrine. (Opera Sex Dieruin,
lib. 3, c. 1). St. Thomas and Suarez are quoted as asserting
“ principles that can perfectly harmonize” with evolution;
but it is perfectly clear they have hold doctrines which
cannot, “ harmonize'’ with evolution at all. Bcrti, a zealous
disciple of St. Augustine, held the doctrine of immediate
formation. lie says, “ fuit praeterea Adae formatio opus
solius Dei;” and after quoting St. Augustine himself, to
provehis views, he adds, “Hoc aliisque exemplis, probat
Sanctus Pater, Opificem omnium statini formasse
hominem adultum ” (lib. 12, c. 2).
And yet Berti
is quoted for opposite views by Mr. Mivart ! Estius
(Sent., lib. 2, d. 17), Becanus, Bilhiart, Widman, all hold
this doctrine of immediate formation. And it is no small
satisfaction to find a distinguished Irish theologian, John.
Punch, of Cork, bearing the following explicit testimony
to the same truth, Iu his Theologiae Cursus Integer (De
Op. Sex Dierum, disp. 17, q. 3, c. 2), he says, “Dico, si Deus
ipse sine ministerio Angelorum creavit reliqua animantia, ita
dicendum etiam de homine.” The testimony of theologians
to this truth may be multiplied a hundred-fold.
But
it is needless. It is the teaching, express or implied, of
them all. But, inasmuch as the authorities already quoted
could not have contemplated the evolution theory, it is
worth while to quote some who have written since that
theory arose, and who have discussed its theological
bearings. Perrone, a writer as remarkable for moderation,
as for accuracy in stating Catholic doctrines, maintains theimmediate formation of the bodies of our first parents,
and says that it appertains to Faith, “Propositio spectat ad.
fidem ” (De Deo. Cr. p. 3, c. 1, Prop. 1.) Ubakli, the present
distinguished Professor of Scripture in the Propaganda,
holds the doctrine (In. in Sac. Scrip., vol. 1st). Mazzella,
the distinguished Jesuit Professor of Dogmatic Theology, ■

765

Evolution and Faith·

at the Roman College, has studied and mastered the
evolution theory ; and in his book “Do Deo Creanto,” ho
quotes largely from Mr. Mivart, as well as from Darwin,
Wallace, and Thompson. In answer to the question, how
the first human body was formed, he says : “ Cui quaestioni
theologi, insistente» auctoritati S. ‘Scripturae cx unanimi SS.
Patrum interpretatione intellectae, uno ore respondent, corpus
hominis primo eformatum fuisse per directum et immediatam
Dei actionem, distinctam tum a prima .materiae creatione, tum
concursu quem Deus, causa prima, praebet secundarum
causarum operationibus.” (Disp. 3, Art. ) And a few pages
later on (p. 340) ho plainly states, that denial of this
doctrine is either heresy, or very closely allied to it.
Professor Lamy of Louvain, who is also well read in
the literature of evolution, says in his Commentary on
Genesis, vol. i., p. 155 : “ Erroneo igitur putavit, ut mihi
quidem videtur, doctus vir Georgius Mivart, doctrinam
asserentem corpus hominis torminum fuisse cujusdam
transformationis animalis v. g. Simii, cui Deus infuderit
animam immortalem, non repugnaro narrationi creationis
hominis.” And at page 179, he lays down the doctrine of
immediate creation in the words already quoted from
Mazzella ; and he adds, “ Unde sequitur errare omnes trans­
formistes, qui volunt entia omnia viventia, etiam hominem,
i>rovenire ab aliquot formis inferioribus, vel cellulis, quas
•)eus creaverit."
Professor Jungman, of the same
University, says: “Absque dubio dogma Catholicum hoc
est, primos homines immediate a Deo conditos esse” (De
Deo Creat., p. 151). And at p. 157, he quotes the opinion
of Air. Mivart, and says of it : “ Hand dubium nobis est,
illam opinionem penitus esse rejiciendam, nec salva doctrina
Theologica sana eam teneri posse.”
Now, in the face of this consensus of Catholic teaching',
what becomes of the boasted “ orthodoxy ” of the evolution
theory? What becomes of the assertion, “ that the strictest
Ultramontane Catholics are perfectly free to hold the
doctrine of evolution?" (Lessons from Nature, 430.) Be it
freely granted, that the authorities cited above are not as
deeply read in biological science as arc the advocates of
evolution ; but if the teaching of the Catholic Church be
what the above-named authorities say it is (audit certainly
is so), then no Catholic can admit the truth or the orthodoxy
of the evolution theory as applied to man. That theory
denies in the formation of the first man’s body any imme­
diate action of God, other than the primary creation of
VOL. V.

.3 L

766

Evolution and Faith.

matter, endowed with certain powers, and His co-operation
with the working of Nature’s laws. On the other
hand, Scripture, Fathers, Theologians, Preachers, all
tpanb nnrl tbn Rimnlo fai+bftil bnvr ;iI ways unhesitatingly
mned by a direct
ct distinct from the
God’s concurrence
the Vatican Council,
lotcd, such constant
doctrine infallibly
diurch : and therehis teaching has no
. It follows, then,
jrned, soul or body,
ohition system,
Olution theory to
not much, if at all,
Review, says that it
he does not admit,
jcs he believe that
lisms. It certainly
leal of variation is
ies from another is
t ho b es t a u t h oriti es,
icstion Theologians
h Professors Lamy
it the application of
animals mentioned
iieaning of the text.
what has science
h the independent
Is there any prob­
ture? Very many
mt. Arc we then
.■ the dream ings of
sent day, who are
o bend and strain
wen well-meaning
cry fresh accession
s the votaries and
linds them, in the
;h for knowledge
“ Catholici earum’
relationem, veluti
oportet, qua prae-

The “Anima Christi.”

767

lucente, sibi, a syrtibus et erroribus caveant ” (Letter to
Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, .1883.) The Church has
seen many enemies, has witnessed many revolutions, lias
braved many storms; and whenever science, “falsely
so called,” clashes with her deposit of faith, she meets it
with bold defiant front. Hhe docs not tolerate it, nor docs
she fear it. And from the issue of such con/h’cts in the
past, wo can well infer what shall be the issue of any such
in the future. When many of the biological speculations
of our time will have gone down info the grave in which
Gnosticism lies mouldering, forgotten....the Church of God
will be what she has ever been since her foundation, the
sole faithful, fearless, witness, teacher, and guardian of all
revealed truth. That some of the advocates of evolution
mean well to the Church is quite certain; but the adoption
of this theory by ( 'atholics is “ a new fashion of an old sin.”
It is an instance of a tendency that is becoming too
common—that of minimizing Catholic doctrine—of diluting
it, so as to suit flic lastcs of a class of persons from whom
the Church has nothing to expect and nothing to fear.
“At talem consuetudinem non habemus neque Ecclesia
Dei.”
J. Murphy.

THE “ANIMzl CHRISTI.”
RAYER, as we know, is one of the principal duties of
man to his (beator; and it is as a duty that men
commonly regard it. Yet it is well to remember that
besides being a duty it is also a privilege, ami the more
privilege of prayer is something very wonderful. Drayer
is one of the great elemental forces of the spiritual order,
and, perhaps, because it is so, it scums to follow the law
of the great physical forces of the universe, in that it
attracts very little notice, or at all events, very lit tic
express notice from those who are most familiar with it.
The sunrise and the sunset—the multitudinous growth
that goes on night and day upon the face of the earth—
all that is most beautiful, and all that is most powerful,
have become so commonplace, that they are scarcely
noticed. Those who see them oftencst are least struck
by them, and never seem to dream of their beauty and
their power.

P

;

I