other, the latter act of the former; yet the two, together with their mutual relations, be constituted by the one adequate act of creation.

PROLEGOMENON II.

According to Suarez1, who holds an opinion differing from that which is here defended, there are four different kinds of efficient action. The first is productive, and not unitive; and has for its term a physically simple entity. The creation of an Angel or of a human soul may be taken as an instance. The same Doctor adds that, in his opinion, such was the creation of primordial matter. Since he likewise maintains that primordial matter could be preserved in existence apart from any Form by the Divine Omnipotence, (about which we shall see later on), he is herein consistent with himself; but for those who follow the teaching of St. Thomas, who denies the possibility of the independent existence of matter, the opinion of Suarez is beset with insuperable difficulties. The second kind of efficient action is only unitive, and not productive of the constituents of the union. Such is the generation of man; wherein the generation of the body and the creation of the soul are presupposed. Thirdly, there is another efficient action which produces the composite in such wise as simultaneously to comproduce and unite the components. Such, according to Suarez, was the creation of the heavens, which evidently was primarily terminated to the composite, and concomitantly to the matter and the Form.' Such, (as is here maintained), was the creation of the primordial elements. The fourth and last kind of efficient action is at once comproductive of one component part of the composite, and, the other component part being presupposed,-is unitive of the two. Such, according to Suarez, is the eduction of the substantial Form and the constitution of the element. How far this doctrine of Suarez can be accepted, will be understood from the declaration of the Thesis. Meanwhile, the knowledge of it will not be without its advantage.

The present Proposition consists of two Members. In the first it is asserted that, in the creation of the primordial elements, the substantial Forms were educed,-in all essential respects as these Forms now are,-out of the potentiality of matter, according to the explanation given in an earlier part of this Article. In the second it is maintained, that the Creative Act by which these

elements were produced, was equivalent to what we may conceive as two partial actions,-the one terminated to the concreation of matter, the other to the concreative eduction of the Form.

I. THE FIRST MEMBER declares that in the creation of the primordial elements the substantial Forms were educed out of the potentiality of matter. This proposition is supported by the following arguments. First of all, it was more consistent with the harmony of the physical order. It is plain from what has gone before, that all material substances, the primordial elements included, are essentially composed of two constituents,-matter, and a substantial Form. It is further admitted that, in the instance of all the other material substances, the Form is educed out of the potentiality of the matter. It seems, then, more consistent with the infinite Wisdom of the First Cause,-in the absence of any grave reasons to the contrary, to suppose that the primordial elements, which are the sole foundation of the whole visible universe, should be constituted on precisely the same principles as all the other substances which have been gradually evolved out of them. It is true that this argument is not, strictly speaking, demonstrative; nevertheless, it must be allowed to have its weight. But, secondly, the proposition can be demonstrated from the constant corruption and generation of these elements. For the sake of illustration we will suppose with modern chemists, that phosphorus is one of these elements, or simple bodies. We know that by due combination with oxygen phosphoric anhydride is obtained. The phosphorus in this process is corrupted, as the metaphysician would say; in other words, its substantial Form is displaced to make way for the form of the new compound. On the other hand, the Form of phosphorus only exists potentially in the phosphates that are so abundant in bones; but by chemical analysis the phosphorus can be isolated, or (as the Scholastic philosopher would say) the Form of phosphorus can be educed out of the potentiality of the matter. Let us take one more instance. Among the credited elements of modern chemistry, there is not one whose title to a place among them is so unquestioned as hydrogen. Now, if hydrogen be combined with chlorine, the Forms of both substances recede into the potentiality of the matter, and the Form of hydrochloric acid supervenes. Hence, hydrogen can be corrupted. If, again, you plunge a piece of zinc into sulphuric acid, the hydrogen is liberated, as the physicist would say; to speak metaphysically, the Form of

hydrogen is evolved out of the potentiality of the matter. Hence, hydrogen can be generated. If, then, the Forms of phosphorus and hydrogen can be now educed out of the potentiality of matter, now expelled from the same matter by the introduction of another Form; it follows,-unless we are prepared to adopt the strange hypothesis, that God originally created the nature of the elements in one way and afterwards entirely changed it,-that God so created the element as that its Form should be evolved out of the potentiality of the matter. A confirmation of this argument is derived from the final cause of the elements; for they were created to be the one basis of all physical evolution. But this they could not be, unless they were constituted, like all other material substances, by Forms dependent on matter for their genesis and continued existence in other words, on Forms that were educed out of the potentiality of matter.

II. IN THE SECOND MEMBER of the Proposition it is affirmed, that the Creative Act by which the elements were produced was equivalent to what we may conceive as two partial actions,—the one terminated to the concreation of the matter, the other to the concreative eduction of the Form. It will be more intelligible to the reader if, in a question which is not a little abstruse, the declaration should be so methodized as to proceed, step by step, from that which is comparatively clear to that which is more obscure. Wherefore,

i. As we have seen in the preceding Thesis, it is quite evident and, indeed, is not disputed, that there was no priority of time in the production of primordial matter. Hence, at one and the same instant God created the element, concreated the matter and educed the Form.

ii. It is equally evident and is also universally admitted, that the adequate term of the Divine operation is the element itself. The two constituents, the matter and the Form, are only partial and secondary terms; for these latter are for the sake of the composite, while the composite is for itself.

iii. The Divine act of creation by which these elements were constituted in existence may be considered as virtually embracing two actions which we may conceive as distinct, though partial. There are two apparently solid arguments which have been adduced in favour of this position. The one is derived from the Divine act of preservation by which all contingent entities are retained in being for such time as each exists. Now, as will be

seen in Natural Theology, the Divine act of preservation is nothing more or less than the Divine act of creation or production persevering, so far as it is terminated, of course, to those entities which have been created or produced by God. Hence, we are perfectly safe in arguing from the characteristics of the things preserved to the characteristics of the same things as originally created or produced. But we find a marked difference between the law of Divine preservation in the instance of matter and in the instances of the Form and composite. Matter is preserved immutable throughout time. It is incapable of generation and corruption. The conservation, on the other hand, of Form and composite is for a time only. There are continuous changes of both Forms and composites. The latter are subject to generation and corruption; the former to eduction and expulsion,-to coming and going. But, if by one and the same Divine action the matter, Form, and composite were created indifferently; there could not be these marked differences in the Divine preservation of the three. The other argument is derived from the respective natures of matter, Form, and composite; for nothing can be more sure than that they must have been produced by the Divine Wisdom according to the nature of the entity which they now possess. But matter, as we have seen, is absolutely the first Subject. It presupposes nothing beyond itself. Consequently, it must have been created in the strictest sense of the word; because it must have been produced out of the nothingness of itself and of Subject, that is to say, absolutely out of nothing. The Form, on the other hand, though produced (so to speak) out of the nothingness of itself, is evolved out of the matter as its Subject; while the composite is the conjunction of the two. But evolution and production are distinct acts from creation. Hence it would seem to follow that, properly speaking, nothing was created but primordial matter.

iv. Though there is some foundation of truth in these arguments and in their conclusion, (otherwise, there would have been no need for the present Thesis); yet there is a certain exaggeration in the way they are expressed and sundry latent assumptions emanating from the particular theory maintained by Suarez, as will appear from the following exposition of this Member of the Proposition.

v. It is plain, as has been noted, that the composite element was the primary and adequate term, the matter and Form partial and

secondary terms, of the Divine act of creation. We say, then, with St. Thomas, that the two constituents were concreated and that the composite was created;-or, more accurately, that the constituents, Form and matter, were concreated in the creation of the composite. To explain and illustrate the meaning of this assertion:-God in the beginning created the element, and by so doing, concreated in the element the matter and the Form, each according to the special exigency of its own partial entity. Now, it is true that matter, as first Subject, must in the strictest sense of the word be created, if matter can by itself become the term of any productive action. But this is impossible. If produced, it would be actual; so that in such a hypothesis it would be actual without its act, which is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, in order to exist it must be concreated,-that is to say, must be created by one and the same action together with its Form. In other words, its actual creation essentially included that of the substantial Form. The two were concreated by one and the same Divine operation. But, if so, how in any real sense can these Forms of the elements be said to have been educed out of the potentiality of the matter? Here it is that Suarez seems to exaggerate by implication. He makes too much of these material Forms. It should be remembered that they are simply the acts of matter,—that they are that by which the composite is, rather than entities themselves, as St. Thomas is so frequent in enforcing. Consequently, if the Form was to be concreated at all,-which is the same as saying, if the composite element was to be created at all, it must be produced as act of the matter, according to its nature. Matter was concreated in act; therefore, the Form was concreated in the matter as its act. Whence it follows, that there is no need of a unitive action such as Suarez has invented; for existence in the matter is of the essence of the Form. To exist is to be united; because it is essentially and exclusively the act of matter. But, if so, what then,-to return to the original question, -about its being educed out of the potentiality of matter? Let us see. There are two elements in the concept of eduction, as we know of it from natural generation. The one is positive, real, essential; viz. that the Form should be produced in dependence on the matter both in its production and in the perfected constitution of the composite. The other is negative, an extrinsic denomination, and accidental; viz. that the subject should not be com