to thank you, not only for the patient attention with which you have
listened to me so long to-day, but also for the uniform kindness with
which, for the past two years, you have rendered my endeavours
to perform the important, and often laborious, functions of your
President a pleasure instead of a burden.
X.
MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS.[1]
The gradual lapse of time has now separated us by more than a decade
from the date of the publication of the "Origin of Species"--and
whatever may be thought or said about Mr. Darwin's doctrines, or the
manner in which he has propounded them, this much is certain, that,
in a dozen years, the "Origin of Species" has worked as complete
a revolution in biological science as the "Principia" did in
astronomy--and it has done so, because, in the words of Helmholtz, it
contains "an essentially new creative thought."[2]
[Footnote 1: 1. "Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection."
By A.R. Wallace. 1870.--2. "The Genesis of Species." By St. George
Mivart, F.R.S. Second Edition. 1871.--3. "Darwin's Descent of Man."
_Quarterly Review_, July 1871.]
[Footnote 2: Helmholtz: "Ueber das Ziel und die Fortschritte der
Naturwissenschaft." Eröffnungsrede für die Naturforscherversammlung zu
Innsbruck. 1869.]
And as time has slipped by, a happy change has come over Mr. Darwin's
critics. The mixture of ignorance and insolence which, at first,
characterized a large proportion of the attacks with which he
was assailed, is no longer the sad distinction of anti-Darwinian
criticism. Instead of abusive nonsense, which merely discredited its
writers, we read essays, which are, at worst, more or less intelligent
and appreciative; while, sometimes, like that which appeared in the
_North British Review_ for 1867, they have a real and permanent value.
The several publications of Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mivart contain
discussions of some of Mr. Darwin's views, which are worthy of
particular attention, not only on account of the acknowledged
scientific competence of these writers, but because they exhibit an
attention to those philosophical questions which underlie all physical
science, which is as rare as it is needful. And the same may be said
of an article in the _Quarterly Review_ for July 1871, the comparison
of which with an article in the same Review for July 1860, is perhaps
the best evidence which can be brought forward of the change which has
taken place in public opinion on "Darwinism."
The Quarterly Reviewer admits "the certainty of the action of natural
selection" (p. 49); and further allows that there is an _à priori_
probability in favour of the evolution of man from some lower animal
form, if these lower animal forms themselves have arisen by evolution.
Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mivart go much further than this. They are as
stout believers in evolution as Mr. Darwin himself; but Mr. Wallace
denies that man can have been evolved from a lower animal by that
process of natural selection which he, with Mr. Darwin, holds to have
been sufficient for the evolution of all animals below man; while
Mr. Mivart, admitting that natural selection has been one of the
conditions of the evolution of the animals below man, maintains that
natural selection must, even in their case, have been supplemented by
"some other cause"--of the nature of which, unfortunately, he does
not give us any idea. Thus Mr. Mivart is less of a Darwinian than Mr.
Wallace, for he has less faith in the power of natural selection. But
he is more of an evolutionist than Mr. Wallace, because Mr. Wallace
thinks it necessary to call in an intelligent agent--a sort of
supernatural Sir John Sebright--to produce even the animal frame of
man; while Mr. Mivart requires no Divine assistance till he comes to
man's soul.
Thus there is a considerable divergence between Mr. Wallace and Mr.
Mivart. On the other hand, there are some curious similarities between
Mr. Mivart and the Quarterly Reviewer, and these are sometimes so
close, that, if Mr. Mivart thought it worth while, I think he
might make out a good case of plagiarism against the Reviewer, who
studiously abstains from quoting him.
Both the Reviewer and Mr. Mivart reproach Mr. Darwin with being, "like
so many other physicists," entangled in a radically false metaphysical
system, and with setting at nought the first principles of both
philosophy and religion. Both enlarge upon the necessity of a sound
philosophical basis, and both, I venture to add, make a conspicuous
exhibition of its absence. The Quarterly Reviewer believes that man
"differs more from an elephant or a gorilla than do these from the
dust of the earth on which they tread," and Mr. Mivart has expressed
the opinion that there is more difference between man and an ape than
there is between an ape and a piece of granite.[1]
[Footnote 1: See the _Tablet_ for March 11, 1871.]
And even when Mr. Mivart (p. 86) trips in a matter of anatomy, and
creates a difficulty for Mr. Darwin out of a supposed close similarity
between the eyes of fishes and cephalopods, which (as Gegenbaur and
others have clearly shown) does not exist, the Quarterly Reviewer
adopts the argument without hesitation (p. 66).
There is another important point, however, in which it is hard to say
whether Mr. Mivart diverges from the Quarterly Reviewer or not.
The Reviewer declares that Mr. Darwin has, "with needless opposition,
set at nought the first principles of both philosophy and religion"
(p. 90).
It looks, at first, as if this meant, that Mr. Darwin's views being
false, the opposition to "religion" which flows from them must be
needless. But I suspect this is not the right view of the meaning of
the passage, as Mr. Mivart, from whom the Quarterly Reviewer plainly
draws so much inspiration, tells us that "the consequences which have
been drawn from evolution, whether exclusively Darwinian or not, to
the prejudice of religion, by no means follow from it, and are in fact
illegitimate" (p. 5).
I may assume, then, that the Quarterly Reviewer and Mr. Mivart admit
that there is no necessary opposition between "evolution, whether
exclusively Darwinian or not," and religion. But then, what do they
mean by this last much-abused term? On this point the Quarterly
Reviewer is silent. Mr. Mivart, on the contrary, is perfectly
explicit, and the whole tenor of his remarks leaves no doubt that by
"religion" he means theology; and by theology, that particular variety
of the great Proteus, which is expounded by the doctors of the Roman
Catholic Church, and held by the members of that religious community
to be the sole form of absolute truth and of saving faith.
According to Mr. Mivart, the greatest and most orthodox authorities
upon matters of Catholic doctrine agree in distinctly asserting
"derivative creation" or evolution; "and thus their teachings
harmonize with all that modern science can possibly require" (p. 305).
I confess that this bold assertion interested me more than anything
else in Mr. Mivart's book. What little knowledge I possessed of
Catholic doctrine, and of the influence exerted by Catholic authority
in former times, had not led me to expect that modern science was
likely to find a warm welcome within the pale of the greatest and most
consistent of theological organizations.
And my astonishment reached its climax when I found Mr. Mivart citing
Father Suarez as his chief witness in favour of the scientific freedom
enjoyed by Catholics--the popular repute of that learned theologian
and subtle casuist not being such as to make his works a likely place
of refuge for liberality of thought. But in these days, when Judas
Iscariot and Robespierre, Henry VIII. and Catiline, have all been
shown to be men of admirable virtue, far in advance of their age,
and consequently the victims of vulgar prejudice, it was obviously
possible that Jesuit Suarez might be in like case. And, spurred by Mr.
Mivart's unhesitating declaration, I hastened to acquaint myself
with such of the works of the great Catholic divine as bore upon
the question, hoping, not merely to acquaint myself with the true
teachings of the infallible Church, and free myself of an unjust
prejudice; but, haply, to enable myself, at a pinch, to put some
Protestant bibliolater to shame, by the bright example of Catholic
freedom from the trammels of verbal inspiration.
I regret to say that my anticipations have been cruelly disappointed.
But the extent to which my hopes have been crushed can only be fully
appreciated by citing, in the first place, those passages of Mr.
Mivart's work by which they were excited. In his introductory chapter
I find the following passages:--
"The prevalence of this theory [of evolution] need alarm no one, for
it is, without any doubt, perfectly consistent with the strictest and
most orthodox Christian[1] theology" (p. 5).
[Footnote 1: It should be observed that Mr. Mivart employs the term
"Christian" as if it were the equivalent of "Catholic."]
"Mr. Darwin and others may perhaps be excused if they have not devoted
much time to the study of Christian philosophy; but they have no right
to assume or accept without careful examination, as an unquestioned
fact, that in that philosophy there is a necessary antagonism between
the two ideas 'creation' and 'evolution,' as applied to organic forms.
"It is notorious and patent to all who choose to seek, that many
distinguished Christian thinkers have accepted, and do accept, both
ideas, i.e. both 'creation' and 'evolution.'
"As much as ten years ago an eminently Christian writer observed: 'The
creationist theory does not necessitate the perpetual search after
manifestations of miraculous power and perpetual "catastrophes."
Creation is not a miraculous interference with the laws of nature, but
the very institution of those laws. Law and regularity, not arbitrary
intervention, was the patristic ideal of creation. With this notion
they admitted, without difficulty, the most surprising origin of
living creatures, provided it took place by _law_. They held that
when God said, "Let the waters produce," "Let the earth produce," He
conferred forces on the elements of earth and water, which enabled
them naturally to produce the various species of organic beings. This
power, they thought, remains attached to the elements throughout all
time.' The same writer quotes St. Augustin and St. Thomas Aquinas,
to the effect that, 'in the institution of nature, we do not look for
miracles, but for the laws of nature,' And, again, St. Basil speaks
of the continued operation of natural laws in the production of all
organisms.
"So much for the writers of early and mediaeval times. As to the
present day, the author can confidently affirm that there are many
as well versed in theology as Mr. Darwin is in his own department
of natural knowledge, who would not be disturbed by the thorough
demonstration of his theory. Nay, they would not even be in the least
painfully affected at witnessing the generation of animals of complex
organization by the skilful artificial arrangement of natural forces,
and the production, in the future, of a fish by means analogous to
those by which we now produce urea.
"And this because they know that the possibility of such phenomena,
though by no means actually foreseen, has yet been fully provided
for in the old philosophy centuries before Darwin, or even centuries
before Bacon, and that their place in the system can be at once
assigned them without even disturbing its order or marring its
harmony.
"Moreover, the old tradition in this respect has never been abandoned,
however much it may have been ignored or neglected by some modern
writers. In proof of this, it may be observed that perhaps no
post-mediaeval theologian has a wider reception amongst Christians
throughout the world than Suarez, who has a separate section[1] in
opposition to those who maintain the distinct creation of the various
kinds--or substantial forms--of organic life" (pp. 19-21).
[Footnote 1: Suarez; Metaphysica. Edition Vivés. Paris, 1868, vol. i.
Disput. xv. § 2.]
Still more distinctly does Mr. Mivart express himself, in the same
sense, in his last chapter, entitled "Theology and Evolution" (pp.
302-5).
"It appears, then, that Christian thinkers are perfectly free to
accept the general evolution theory. But are there any theological
authorities to justify this view of the matter?
"Now, considering how extremely recent are these biological
speculations, it might hardly be expected _à priori_ that writers of
earlier ages should have given expression to doctrines harmonizing
in any degree with such very modern views; nevertheless, this is
certainly the case, and it would be easy to give numerous examples.
It will be better, however, to cite one or two authorities of weight.
Perhaps no writer of the earlier Christian ages could be quoted whose
authority is more generally recognized than that of St. Augustin. The
same may be said of the mediaeval period for St. Thomas Aquinas: and
since the movement of Luther, Suarez may be taken as an authority,
widely venerated, and one whose orthodoxy has never been questioned.
"It must be borne in mind that for a considerable time even after
the last of these writers no one had disputed the generally received
belief as to the small age of the world, or at least of the kinds of
animals and plants inhabiting it. It becomes, therefore, much more
striking if views formed under such a condition of opinion are found
to harmonize with modern ideas concerning 'Creation' and organic Life.
"Now St. Augustin insists in a very remarkable manner on the merely
derivative sense in which God's creation of organic forms is to
be understood; that is, that God created them by conferring on the
material world the power to evolve them under suitable conditions."
Mr. Mivart then cites certain passages from St. Augustin, St. Thomas
Aquinas, and Cornelius à Lapide, and finally adds:--
"As to Suarez, it will be enough to refer to Disp. xv. sec.
2, No. 9, p. 508, t.i. edition Vivés, Paris; also Nos. 13--15.
Many other references to the same effect could easily be
given, but these may suffice.
"It is then evident that ancient and most venerable
theological authorities distinctly assert _derivative_
creation, and thus their teachings harmonize with all that
modern science can possibly require."
It will be observed that Mr. Mivart refers solely to Suarez's
fifteenth Disputation, though he adds, "Many other references to the
same effect could easily be given." I shall look anxiously for these
references in the third edition of the "Genesis of Species." For the
present, all I can say is, that I have sought in vain, either in
the fifteenth Disputation, or elsewhere, for any passage in Suarez's
writings which, in the slightest degree, bears out Mr. Mivart's views
as to his opinions.[1]
[Footnote 1: The edition of Suarez's "Disputationes" from which the
following citations are given, is Birckmann's, in two volumes folio,
and is dated 1630.]
The title of this fifteenth Disputation is "De causa formali
substantiali," and the second section of that Disputation (to which
Mr. Mivart refers) is headed, "Quomodo possit forma substantialis
fieri in materia et ex materia?"
The problem which Suarez discusses in this place may be popularly
stated thus: According to the scholastic philosophy every natural body
has two components--the one its "matter" (_materia prima_), the other
its "substantial form" (_forma substantialis_). Of these the matter
is everywhere the same, the matter of one body being indistinguishable
from the matter of any other body. That which differentiates any one
natural body from all others is its substantial form, which inheres
in the matter of that body, as the human soul inheres in the matter
of the frame of man, and is the source of all the activities and other
properties of the body.
Thus, says Suarez, if water is heated, and the source of heat is then
removed, it cools again. The reason of this is that there is a certain
"_intimius principium_" in the water, which brings it back to the
cool condition when the external impediment to the existence of that
condition is removed. This _intimius principium_, is the "substantial
form" of the water. And the substantial form of the water is not only
the cause (_radix_) of the coolness of the water, but also of its
moisture, of its density, and of all its other properties.
It will thus be seen that "substantial forms" play nearly the same
part in the scholastic philosophy as "forces" do in modern science;
the general tendency of modern thought being to conceive all bodies as
resolvable into material particles and forces, in virtue of which last
these particles assume those dispositions and exercise those powers
which are characteristic of each particular kind of matter.
But the Schoolmen distinguished two kinds of substantial forms,
the one spiritual and the other material. The former division is
represented by the human soul, the _anima rationalis_; and they affirm
as a matter, not merely of reason, but of faith, that every human soul
is created out of nothing, and by this act of creation is endowed with
the power of existing for all eternity, apart from the _materia
prima_ of which the corporeal frame of man is composed. And the _anima
rationalis_, once united with the _materia prima_ of the body,
becomes its substantial form, and is the source of all the powers and
faculties of man--of all the vital and sensitive phenomena which he
exhibits--just as the substantial form of water is the source of all
its qualities.
The "material substantial forms" are those which inform all other
natural bodies except that of man; and the object of Suarez in the
present Disputation, is to show that the axiom "_ex nihilo nihil
fit_," though not true of the substantial form of man, is true of the
substantial forms of all other bodies, the endless mutations of which
constitute the ordinary course of nature. The origin of the difficulty
which he discusses is easily comprehensible. Suppose a piece of bright
iron to be exposed to the air. The existence of the iron depends on
the presence within it of a substantial form, which is the cause of
its properties, e.g. brightness, hardness, weight. But, by degrees,
the iron becomes converted into a mass of rust, which is dull, and
soft, and light, and, in all other respects, is quite different from
the iron. As, in the scholastic view, this difference is due to the
rust being informed by a new substantial form, the grave problem
arises, how did this new substantial form come into being? Has it been
created? or has it arisen by the power of natural causation? If the
former hypothesis is correct, then the axiom, "_ex nihilo nihil fit_,"
is false, even in relation to the ordinary course of nature, seeing
that such mutations of matter as imply the continual origin of new
substantial forms are occurring every moment. But the harmonization of
Aristotle with theology was as dear to the Schoolmen, as the smoothing
down the differences between Moses and science is to our Broad
Churchmen, and they were proportionably unwilling to contradict one
of Aristotle's fundamental propositions. Nor was their objection to
flying in the face of the Stagirite likely to be lessened by the fact
that such flight landed them in flat Pantheism.
So Father Suarez fights stoutly for the second hypothesis; and I quote
the principal part of his argumentation as an exquisite specimen of
that speech which is a "darkening of counsel."
"13. Secundo de omnibus aliis formis substantialibus (sc.
materialibus) dicendum est non fieri proprie ex nihilo, sed
ex potentia praejacentis materiae educi: ideoque in effectione
harum formarum nil fieri contra illud axioma, _Ex nihila
nihil fit_, si recte intelligatur. Haec assertio sumitur ex
Aristotele 1. Physicorum per totum et libro 7. Metaphyss.
et ex aliis authoribus, quos statim referam. Et declaratur
breviter, nam fieri ex nihilo duo dicit, unum est fieri
absolute et simpliciter, aliud est quod talis effectio fit ex
nihilo. Primum propriè dicitur de re subsistente, quia ejus
est fieri, cujus est esse: id autem proprie quod subsistit et
habet esse; nam quod alteri adjacet, potius est quo aliud est.
Ex hac ergo parte, formae substantiales materiales non fiunt
ex nihilo, quia proprie non fiunt. Atque hanc rationem reddit
Divus Thomas I parte, quaestione 45, articulo 8, et quaestione
90, articulo 2, et ex dicendis magis explicabitur. Sumendo
ergo ipsum _fieri_ in hac proprietate et rigore, sic fieri
ex nihilo est fieri secundum se totum, id est nulla sui parte
praesupposita, ex quo fiat. Et hac ratione res naturales
dum de novo fiunt, non fiunt ex nihilo, quia fiunt ex
praesupposita materia, ex qua componuntur, et ita non fiunt,
secundum se totae, sed secundum aliquid sui. Formae autem
harum rerum, quamvis revera totam suam entitatem de novo
accipiant, quam antea non habebant, quia vero ipsae non fiunt,
ut dictum est, ideo neque ex nihilo fiunt. Attamen, quia
latiori modo sumendo verbum illud _fieri_ negari non potest:
quia forma facta sit, eo modo quo nunc est, et antea non erat,
ut etiam probat ratio dubitandi posita in principio sectionis,
ideo addendum est, sumpto _fieri_ in hac amplitudine, fieri
ex nihilo non tamen negare habitudinem materialis causea
intrinsecè componentis id quod fit, sed etiam habitudinem
causae materialis per se causantis et sustentantis formam quae
fit, seu confit. Diximus enim in superioribus materiam et esse
causam compositi et formae dependentis ab ilia: ut res ergo
dicatur ex nihilo fieri uterque modus causalitatis negari
debet; et eodem sensu accipiendum est illud axioma, ut
sit verum: _Ex nihilo nihil fit_, scilicet virtute agentis
naturalis et finiti nihil fieri, nisi ex praesupposito
subjecto per se concurrente, et ad compositum et ad formam,
si utrumque suo modo ab eodem agente fiat. Ex his ergo rectè
concluditur, formas substantiales materiales non fieri ex
nihilo, quia fiunt ex materia, quae in suo genere per se
concurrit, et influit ad esse, et fieri talium formarum;
quia, sicut esse non possunt nisi affixae materiae, a qua
sustententur in esse: ita nec fieri possunt, nisi earum
effectio et penetratio in eadem materia sustentetur. Et haec
est propria et per se differentia inter effectionem ex nihilo,
et ex aliquo, propter quam, ut infra ostendemus, prior modus
effciendi superat vim finitam naturaliam agentium, non vero
posterior.
"14. Ex his etiam constat, proprie de his formis dici non
creari, sed educi de potentia materiae."[1]
[Footnote 1: Suarez, _loc. cit_. Disput. xv. § ii.]
If I may venture to interpret these hard sayings, Suarez conceives
that the evolution of substantial forms in the ordinary course of
nature, is conditioned not only by the existence of the _materia
prima_, but also by a certain "concurrence and influence" which
that _materia_ exerts; and every new substantial form being thus
conditioned, and in part, at any rate, caused, by a pre-existing
something, cannot be said to be created out of nothing.
But as the whole tenor of the context shows, Suarez applies this
argumentation merely to the evolution of material substantial forms
in the ordinary course of nature. How the substantial forms of animals
and plants primarily originated, is a question to which, so far as
I am able to discover, he does not so much as allude in his
"Metaphysical Disputations." Nor was there any necessity that he
should do so, inasmuch as he has devoted a separate treatise of
considerable bulk to the discussion of all the problems which arise
out of the account of the Creation which is given in the Book of
Genesis. And it is a matter of wonderment to me that Mr. Mivart, who
somewhat sharply reproves "Mr. Darwin and others" for not acquainting
themselves with the true teachings of his Church, should allow
himself to be indebted to a heretic like myself for a knowledge of
the existence of that "Tractatus de opere sex Dierum," I in which
the learned Father, of whom he justly speaks, as "an authority widely
venerated, and whose orthodoxy has never been questioned," directly
opposes all those opinions, for which Mr. Mivart claims the shelter of
his authority.