THE IRISH

ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

AUGUST, 1885.

FAITH AND EVOLUTION.

INCE the publication of my Article on Faith and Evolution in the RECORD of last December, the subject has attracted a good deal of attention. It has led to a somewhat lengthened discussion in the columns of the Tablet, and in the last number of the RECORD, the subject is re-opened by the Rev. John S. Vaughan. I appreciate fully and respect very highly the motive which has prompted Fr. Vaughan to write-namely, "the hope that a free ventilation of conflicting opinions may throw some additional light" on a matter to which theologians cannot be indifferent. And if the subject is discussed as it is by Fr. Vaughan, with good taste, good temper, and ability, the discussion cannot fail to serve the cause of truth. With reference to the correspondence in the Tablet, I deem it right to say that I did not inaugurate the discussion in that journal. I felt all along that the discussion was out of place in a public journal intended for general readers; and this feeling became a settled conviction when I saw one of my critics stating, as a perfectly orthodox supposition, that "Adam grew from an embryo located in the womb of some lower animal to a man.” However theologians may discount a statement like this, it must be a severe shock to the faith of ordinary Catholics.

Now, I set out by expressing my decided conviction that not one proposition contained in my Article has yet been seriously threatened. The Scriptural account of man's creation, taken in the ordinary meaning of the words, clearly points to the doctrine of the immediate formation of the first man's body-a doctrine that is incompatible with Evolution. The Fathers of the Church, with scarcely an

VOL. VI.

2 N

exception, interpret Scripture in that same sense. Coming down along the line of Catholic Tradition we find our great theologians teaching the same doctrine in language still more precise and clear. And as we come to our own time when this strange Evolution theory is first distinctly heard of, we find the best theologians, our most reliable guides, reprobating it in most unmeasured terms. Thus, I say, in such teaching we must recognise the voice of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church forbidding in no doubtful tones the application of the Evolution theory to

man.

Now, Fr. Vaughan does not deny this doctrine of immediate formation; he does "not even go so far as positively to deny my right to contend that Adam's immediate creation is of Faith" (page 416), but he maintains that it is "sufficiently uncertain to give the opposite opinion at least a probable liceity. And he regards my" attempt " to rob us of the freedom to which such a doubt alone can entitle us," as "the only regrettable part" of my Article. I assure Fr. Vaughan that no one can contend more earnestly that I do for the motto, “in dubiis libertas." But my doctrine is not mine; I allowed my authorities to speak for themselves, and anything I said was fair comment on them. They held the immediate formation of the first man's body to be a revealed doctrine. an integral part of the Divine deposit of Faith. And if it be such, and if we have sufficient knowledge that it is so, then neither Fr. Vaughan, nor I, nor anyone else, can dispense in the obligation of believing it. To state this (and this is all that I have done), I cannot regard as in any sense "regrettable." At all events my critics have to deal rather with my authorities than with myself.

Father Vaughan's article may, I think, be comprised under the following heads:-1. That the question of immediate or mediate formation is in reality a matter "of minor importance." 2. That analogy renders the doctrine of immediate formation doubtful. 3. That the doctrine of immediate formation is either not revealed at all, or, if revealed, that the fact of its revelation is too uncertain to deprive opponents of the "liberty of holding opposite views."

That God formed man's body of the dust or slime, and that He breathed into that body a living soul, are, as Fr. Vaughan rightly says, points that admit of no discussion among Catholics. But the question as to the "manner'

in which God formed Adam's body is, he says, " of quite minor importance." (p. 414) "It is not a matter that can materially affect our duties to God, or our religious attitude, or in any way be needful for us to know." It is "a curious and hidden part of the history of our race, but to suppose that it has any deep-rooted connection with our religious interests, or that it can affect in any appreciable way our attitude towards God, or towards each other, is surely a profound mistake." (p. 414.) Now, the word "manner" used here is an equivocal term; it may be taken in many senses, but the sense here is whether God Himself formed the first man's body, or whether it is the outcome of natural causes, instituted, set in motion, controlled, and directed by God. Now, Suarez actually does say that the "manner" "modum creationis eius" is laid down by Moses in the second chapter of Genesis." (Op. Sex. Die., lib. 3, c. 1.) Again the following questions are equivocal-Fr. Vaughan asks, "Was it in an instant or during a protracted period of many years?" "Was Adam's body ere yet his soul had been breathed into it instantly prepared for its reception by the command. of God, or only slowly and by a gradual process of greater and greater development ?" Now, whatever answer may be given to these questions, it in no way whatever affects the doctrine of immediate formation. For in this matter "immediate" is used not at all as equivalent to instantaneous, not with any reference to time, but to the exclusion of intermediate causes. For Evolutionists the question of time is, of course, of vital importance, but for their opponents the sole question is whether the formation of the first man's body is or is not the immediate act of the primary cause, no matter whether that formation may have occupied countless ages, or be accomplished in the "twinkling of an eye.' It is necessary that this should be borne in mind, because theologians have been quoted. in this discussion as against immediate formation, who are merely discussing the totally different question of instantaneous formation.

If this doctrine be in reality "of quite minor importance" how comes it that most of our dogmatic and scholastic theologians discuss it at great length? and how comes it, that at present, it has within a few weeks attracted so much attention? The importance of a doctrine like this is not a matter to be decided off-hand. If the doctrine be revealed, then is its revelation a sufficient warrant of its

importance. It is a revealed doctrine that God made man of the slime of the earth. Now it is the true, full, and accurate meaning of this proposition that is important for us to know, and that God wishes us to know, and to believe. And my contention is that the true, full, and accurate meaning of that proposition directly includes the immediate formation of the first man's body: and consequently to say that the doctrine is unimportant is simply to beg the question, by implying that it is not revealed. So also, to say that this doctrine does not affect our duties to God is an assertion that cannot be maintained unless we are prepared to disprove its revelation. If it bet revealed, and if we know it to be so, then to believe it is one of our "duties to God," and the discharge of that duty has a most " most "deep-rooted connection with our religious interests." If a Lutheran were to appear before the Fathers of the Council of Trent to protest against Transubstantiation, and to urge the counter claims of con-substantiation, he might with a considerable show of reason urge the argument adduced here by Fr. Vaughan. He might say that it was of "quite minor importance," "not a matter which can materially affect our duties to God, or our religious attitude, or in any way be needful for us to know." He might say that "all that is really expedient for us to believe" is that our Lord's Body, and blood, soul and Divinity, are really and truly present, and that in receiving the Blessed Sacrament, we really and truly receive the source and fountain of all grace. "What does it matter from a religious point of view," he might say, whether the substance of bread and wine remains, or does not remain, after consecration, if our Lord be really and truly present there"? This line of argument would not have weighed much with the Fathers of Trent. They would inform the disciple of Luther that, Consubstantiation would not verify the revealed proposition "this is my body," and they would appeal to Fathers and theologians to bear them out in that assertion. My answer is just the same. It is a revealed proposition that God made man of the slime of the earth, and Evolution is incompatible with that proposition taken in its ordinary meaning, and Fathers and theologians so interpret this proposition so as to exclude Evolution. The question for us then is, not which of two conflicting doctrines is the more practically useful, but which of them is true.

66

To discuss the argument from analogy would, in reality,

be a waste of time, for it is no argument at all. Mr. Mivart, quoting Darwin, admits this in the current number of the Nineteenth Century (p. 44). The question for us is not, how this world came to be what it is, nor how men come into existence now, but how the first man came to be. And if analogy were to be followed in this matter, it would carry Father Vaughan much farther with the Evolutionists than he is prepared to go. We have strong grounds for believing that "the earth was slowly and gradually prepared to receive the body of our first parent," but we have stronger ground for believing that that body was formed immediately by God. We cannot of course say that God "gives immediately to the beasts their food," for experience bears testimony to the ocntrary, and wherever experience is our sole guide we can make no assertion which it does not warrant. We can have no experience, surely, of the manner in which the first of our race was formed, but a better guide better guide we have in Revelation, teaching us that the first man is the immediate work of God. And the text from St. Thomas, as well as the quotation from the eloquent and learned Bishop of Birmingham are altogether beside the question. Indeed, it would be quite easy to quote from Dr. Ullathorne's admirable book words that must be unpleasant reading for Evolutionists.

At page 14, Dr. Ullathorne says, "the Divine Artist moulds the body of man, not from some preexisting animal, but from the finer particles of the earth." And after this statement Dr. Ullathorne is quoted as countenancing Evolution!

"What do the theologians teach in regard to the subject before us"? asks Father Vaughan (page 416). And before answering he gives certain characteristics which must belong to teaching of theologiaus, before that teaching can have much authority. "It is not enough that theologians have been unanimous in teaching a certain doctrine," if they teach it only "incidentally and per transennam;" if they teach only "generally, and merely as the common opinion of their time." Then the doctrine must concern faith or morals, and in interpreting authoritative teaching we must "grasp the sentence in its entirety." Now all this I admit freely with the exception of that part which asserts that incidental, and per transennam, teaching "cannot command much respect or claim much authority.' How much of the evidence in favour of the Immaculate