A second conclusion is that the essential term of a created being

may be considered under two aspects--viz., as to the _reality_ it

borrows from its act, and as to the _potentiality_ it inherits from

its previous nothingness. Hence such a term must be called a _real

potency_; the word _real_ expressing the fact of its actuation, and

the word _potency_ expressing its ulterior actuability. Reality and

potentiality constitute _passivity_.

It is not unusual to confound substance with the term actuated by a

substantial act. Of course, the term cannot be thus actuated without

the substance becoming actual; but, though this is true as a matter

of fact, it does not follow that substance can be confounded with its

intrinsic term. Sphericity actuates a centre; and yet the centre thus

actuated is not a sphere, but only the intrinsic term of sphericity. In

like manner the act actuates its potency; but this potency is not the

substance itself; it is only one of its constituents.

The potential term, such as it is found in material substance, is

called _the matter_. Hence all that plays the part of potency in

any being whatever is called its _material_ constituent, although

such a being may not contain matter properly so called. Thus we say,

for instance, that the genus is the _material_ part of an essential

definition, because the genus is potential respecting some specific

difference, by which it may be further determined. In such cases the

word _material_ stands for "that which receives any determination,"

whether it receives it in fact or in thought only. In English, the

words _material_ and _immaterial_ are sometimes used in the sense of

important and unimportant. This meaning may be perfectly justifiable,

but is not adopted in philosophy.

With regard to the _act_ by which the essential term of a being is

first actuated, it is necessary fully to realize the fact that this

act is neither God's creative power nor God's creative action, but

something quite different. It is true that all actions are measured or

valued by their effects, that is, by the acts in which they end; thus

we measure the amount of motive action by the quantity of movement[281]

produced. Nevertheless, it is quite evident that the production of a

thing, and the thing produced, cannot be confounded with one another.

And, since action is nothing but the production of an act, the action

and the act produced cannot be confounded with one another, even though

they are represented by one and the same word. Thus the action of a

painter is not the painting (substantive), although such an action is

also called "painting" (participle). Again, the momentum of a falling

drop of rain is not the action of the earth, although it is directly

from it. And in the same manner the act produced by the Creator is not

his creative action, though it is directly from it. Still less can we

confound the act produced with the power by which it is produced; for

though every effect is virtually contained in its efficient power,

we know that it is not contained formally; otherwise the painting

should pre-exist within the painter, and the momentum of the falling

drop within the earth. As, then, the momentum of the falling drop has

no formal existence in the earth, but only in the drop itself while

it is falling, so also the act which proceeds from God has no formal

existence in God, but only in the term actuated. To say that a created

act is God's creative action or creative power, is no less a blunder

than to say that a circle described on a blackboard is the power or the

action of describing it.

The act which actuates its essential term, in the case of material

substance, is called _the form_. Hence all that plays the part of an

act in any being whatever is called its _formal_ constituent. Thus we

say that the specific difference is the _formal_ part of the essential

definition, because the difference is conceived as actuating the genus

into species. In such cases the word _formal_ stands for "that which

gives any determination," whether it gives it in fact or in thought

only.

Finally, the _actuality_ of the created being corresponds, as we

have already explained in the preceding article, to the finality

of creation, inasmuch as it perfects the essence into being. This

actuality has received different names, according to the different

light in which it can be viewed and the different connotations of which

it affords the ground. It is called the _complement_ of the essence,

its _formal existence_, its _formal unity_, its _individuality_. It

is called "complement" of the essence, inasmuch as it satisfies all

its requirements, and completes it into actual being; its "formal

existence," inasmuch as it is the formal result of active and passive

actuation; its "formal unity," inasmuch as it arises from two

principles conspiring into unity of essence, and therefore of existence

also; its "individuality," inasmuch as it is the unity of a _concrete_

being; for individuality is nothing but "that on account of which a

thing is formally _one_ in its concrete being."

Some philosophers of the Scotistic school hold that "individuality"

and "formal unity" are different things. They say that formal unity

is not individual, but universal; because it does not include in its

conception the individuative notes. They accordingly teach that the

universal is to be found to exist _formally_ in the individual; whence

they have been surnamed _Formalists_, or _Ultra-realists_.[282] But

it is not true that the formal unity does not include in itself the

individuative notes. In fact, all existing essence contains in its own

principles the adequate reason of its individuation, and therefore it

cannot, by the real conspiration of its principles, be formally _one_

without being _individual_ also. Accordingly, formal unity, though

universal in our conception, is individual in the thing itself.

It is evident that the actuality resulting from the act _giving_,

and the term _receiving_, existence, exhibits itself as existence

_given_ and _received_--that is, as _complete_ real existence. On

the other hand, all real result has a real opposition to the formal

principles of its resultation; for all that really proceeds has a real

relative opposition to that from which it proceeds. A real relative

opposition is therefore to be admitted between the real essence and

its formal existence; and consequently essence and existence must be

considered as really distinct. Not that the essence of a real being

does not imply its existence; but because in the essential act and the

essential term existence is contained only radically or virtually, not

formally, in the same manner as the conclusion is virtually contained

in the premises from which it follows, or as equality is contained

in the quantities from whose adequation it results. Hence, as in the

logical order the formal conclusion is distinct from the premises in

which it is virtually implied, so also in the real order is the formal

existence of any being to be distinguished from the real principles

of the essence in which it is virtually implied. As, however, the

act and the term, notwithstanding their real relative opposition and

distinction, identify themselves really, though inadequately, with the

_essence_ of the actual being, so also the actuality of the being,

though having a real relative opposition to the act and the term from

which it results, identifies itself really, yet inadequately, with the

complete _being_ of which it is the actuality.[283] Whence we conclude

that every primitive being, though strictly one in its physical entity,

consists of three metaphysical constituents _really_ distinct from one

another on account of their real relative opposition.

We must here notice that the last of these three

constituents--actuality--is scarcely ever mentioned by the scholastic

philosophers. They, in fact, consider all natural beings as constituted

of _act_ and _potency_ only. It may have appeared to them that by

simply stating the fact of the concurrence of act and potency into

one actual essence, the fact of the unity and actuality of that

essence would be sufficiently pointed out. They may have had another

reason also for omitting the mention of our third principle; for in

speculative questions it is the essence of things, and not their

existence, that comes under consideration; and essence, as such,

involves two principles only--viz., the _act_ and the _term_, as we

have stated above. It is obvious, then, that in their analysis of

the "quiddity" of beings, they had no need of mentioning our third

principle. A third reason may have been that the act and the potency,

or the form and the matter, in the opinion of those philosophers,

were two things separable, as the Aristotelic theory of substantial

generations implied; whereas the actuality of the being was not

considered as a third thing separable from either the form or the

matter, and therefore was not thought worthy of a separate mention.

But, the reality of this third principle being universally admitted,

there can be no doubt about the convenience, and even the necessity,

of giving it a distinct and prominent place in the constitution of any

complete being. This has been already shown in the preceding pages;

but, for the benefit of those who have never paid special attention to

the subject, we will give a summary of the principal reasons why in

metaphysical treatises the actuality of being should be methodically

granted as distinct a place among the intrinsic principles of things as

is allotted to the essential act and its term.

First, then, all being that has existence in nature is something

complete, not only _materially_--that is, by having its term--but also

_formally_, by having its own complete constitution or actuality.

The difference between material and formal completion will be easily

understood by an example. The sculptor carves the marble and makes a

statue. The marble is the _material_ term, and the figure resulting

in the marble is the _formal_ term, of his work. Hence the work of

carving is _materially_ complete in the marble and _formally_ complete

in the figure,[284] which is the actuality of the statue as such.

And it is evident that, in speaking of a statue, such a figure is as

worth mentioning as the marble and the carving. And therefore, as in

the analysis of being we give a prominent place to the term which

completes the act, we should do the same with regard to the actuality,

which completes the essence. A writer in the _Dublin Review_, who

has cleverly treated this subject, makes the following remark: "The

constituents _actus_ and _terminus_, or _forma_ and _materia_, are

recognized in the schools. The third constituent is not expressly

mentioned there. But you hear of _essentia_ and _esse_; and _esse_ is

the _complementum_. I have a fancy that the much-canvassed distinction

between the ἐνέργεια and the ἐντελέχεια of Aristotle is really this,

that ἐνέργεια is the _actus_, and ἐντελέχεια the _complementum_."[285]

This remark is very judicious; for it is as certain that the complete

being consists of essence and existence as it is certain that the

essence consists of act and term; and, moreover, there is no less a

distinction between the essence and its existence than between the act

and its term. Hence the same reasons that led metaphysicians to give

a conspicuous place to the act and its term in the analysis of the

essence, show that a similar place should also be given to essence and

its actuality in the analysis of the being.

In the second place, the formal complement of being is the only ground

on which many different and opposite things can be predicated of one

and the same being; as, for instance, activity and passivity, action

and passion, to be, to be one, to be good, etc. It is, therefore,

important not to leave in the shade that principle, without which no

unity of being can be conceived.

Thirdly, an explicit knowledge and mention of such a complement is

indispensable, in a great number of cases, when we have to explain how

accidental modes _not received_ in a substance can _intrinsically_

belong to that substance--a thing which will never be radically

explained without an explicit reference to the formal complement of the

being in which those modes are to be found.

Fourthly, in the intellectual as well as in the sensitive nature the

appetitive faculty cannot be accounted for, nor distinguished from the

cognoscitive, unless we have recourse to this same formal complement,

which constitutes the _affectibility_ of the same natures--a truth

which we must here simply state, as its demonstration belongs to

special metaphysics.

Fifthly, it is unwise to expose the reader to the danger of confounding

things having a metaphysical opposition to one another; for instance,

the uniting with the union accomplished, the constituting with the

complete constitution, the actuation with the actuality. But if the

actuality is kept out of view when we give the principles of beings,

such confusion will be almost unavoidable. I believe that it is owing

to the omission of this third principle that even great philosophers

have not unfrequently mistaken attitudes for acts, and actualities for

forms.

Sixthly, after we have analyzed a primitive complete being, and

found it to consist of three intrinsic principles, it is nothing

but reasonable to keep them all equally in sight, and to make them

all serve in their turn for the simplification of metaphysical

investigations; especially as the distinct recollection of the act, of

its term, and of the actuality of both will also draw the student's

attention to the corresponding extrinsic principles--viz., to the

creative power from which that act proceeds, to the nothingness out

of which that term was educed, and to the last end for which that

actuality obtained a place in the real order of things.

Lastly, by the consideration that these _three_ intrinsic and

relatively opposite principles constitute _one_ primitive complete

being, it becomes possible to account philosophically for the known

fact that every creature bears in itself, _in vestigio_ at least, as

S. Thomas puts it, a more or less imperfect image of God's unity and

trinity--a topic on which much might be said, were this the place for

discussing the analogy between beings of different orders.

_A few corollaries._ From the resolution of complete beings into

their intrinsic principles, and from the different character of these

principles and of their principiation, a number of useful corollaries

can be drawn, among which the following deserve a special attention:

1. It is a great mistake, and one which leads straight to pantheism,

to assert, as Gioberti did, that creatures are not _beings_, but only

_existences_. For if creatures have their own actual essence, they

are not _mere_ existences, but complete beings; and, if they have

no essence, they cannot exist; as all existence is the actuality of

some essence. Hence to assert that creatures are not beings, but only

existences, amounts to saying that creatures have no essence, and that

their existence is the existence of nothing--that is, _non-existence_.

Moreover, mere existence is a simple actuality, and does not exhibit

an intelligible ratio; hence, if creatures were mere existences, they

would be intrinsically unintelligible, not only to us, as Gioberti

pretends, but to God himself, who certainly does not understand what is

intrinsically unintelligible. There is no need of insisting on such an

unavoidable conclusion.

That the same assertion leads straight to pantheism is likewise

evident. In fact, the absurdity of admitting existences which would be

existences of nothing could not be escaped but by trying to pin them

on the substance of God himself, and by saying, with the pantheist,

that all such existences are nothing but divers actualities, or

attitudes, or forms assumed by the divine substance. Thus, to escape

one absurdity, we would fall into another.

2. Inasmuch as the actuality of a given essence makes a given thing

formally complete, one, and perfect according to its entitative degree,

it is to such an actuality that everything owes that it is formally

good, and that it answers to the finality of its creation. Such a

goodness implies two things: the first, that every creature is good in

its _absolute_ being, for it is in such a being that God's design is

fulfilled of communicating his goodness outside of himself; the other,

that every creature is good in its _relative_ being also--that is, in

its intrinsic aptitude and determination to manifest God's perfections

in a manner and degree proportionate to the kind and degree of its

entity. Accordingly, every created being is good not only as it is

a _thing_, but also as it is _a principle of action_. In the first

capacity it fulfils the immediate end of its creation, and in the

second it fulfils by its action the ultimate end for the sake of which

it has been made to exist.

3. Hence we further infer, that the essence of every created being is

its _nature_ also. For _nature is a principle of motion_, according to

Aristotle, whether motion is taken as the action proceeding from that

nature itself, or as the reception of an action proceeding from an

extrinsic agent. Now, we have seen that all creatures are manifestative

of God's perfections, and therefore that they have in themselves an act

which is a principle of action; on the other hand, we have also seen

that every creature has its potential term, and therefore passivity,

or receptivity of new determinations. Accordingly, every created

being, by the very nature of its essential constituents, is a complete

principle of motion. Essence and nature are, therefore, the same

thing in reality, though they are distinguished from one another in

our conception. S. Thomas considers that these three words, _nature_,

_essence_, and _quiddity_, apply to one and the same thing viewed under

three distinct aspects; the word _nature_ meaning the essence of the

thing as connoting operation, since there is no natural being without

active power; whereas the word _quiddity_ means the same essence viewed

as an object of definition; and the word _essence_ is used to express

the fact that in it and through it a thing has its own being.[286]

Whence it follows that a complete being is no sooner endowed with

existence than with activity, and is no sooner a being than an

individual nature. And therefore a complete being and a concrete nature

are really one and the same thing. Malebranche's theory, denying that

creatures have any true causality, is therefore utterly untenable, as

it cannot be reconciled with the first principles of metaphysics.

4. The entity of the active power contained in the nature of any

being cannot be anything else than its essential act; that is, the

very act produced by God in its creation. In fact, we have just

seen that in all creatures the essence and the nature are the same

reality, and that the constituents of the nature are nothing but the

constituents of the essence. Accordingly, the nature of every creature

consists of an essential act and an essential term; the one being its

principle of activity, as the other is its principle of passivity.

"The form," says S. Thomas, "is that by which the agent acts," and

"By what a thing is, by that it acts," and "The principle of being is

the principle of acting," and "Every agent acts inasmuch as it is in

act." These axioms are accepted by all real philosophers. Hence the

active principle of any complete being, and its essential act, are the

same thing in reality, though they are distinguished from one another

in our conception, in the same manner as are nature and essence; for

the _essential act_ connotes the intrinsic term of the essence, to

which the act is essentially terminated, whilst the _active principle_

connotes any extrinsic term to which the action proceeding from the

same act is, or can be, accidentally terminated. This is what S. Thomas

means when he says that "a natural form is a principle of operation,

not inasmuch as it is the permanent form of the thing to which it gives

existence, but inasmuch as it has a leaning towards an effect."[287]

Such a _leaning_ (_inclinatio_) should be taken to mean a natural

_ordination_ or _determination_ to act.

Philosophers agitate the question, whether created substances act by

themselves immediately, or by the aid of accidents. The Scotistic

school holds the first opinion, whilst the Thomistic supports the

second. For reasons which it would take too long to develop in this

place, we are inclined to believe that natural accidents are not

active, and that their bearing on the action of substance is not of an

efficient, but of a formal, character; by which we mean that accidents

have no play in the production of effects, except inasmuch as their

presence or absence entails a different formal determination of the

conditions in which the agent is to exert its power. It is true,

indeed, that created substances never act independently of accidental

conditions; but it is true, at the same time, that they always act

by themselves without the aid of accidents, inasmuch as the active

power they exert is so exclusively owned by them that it cannot even

partially reside in any of their accidents.

As the active principle is really nothing else than the act by which

the agent is, so also the passive principle is really nothing else

than the essential term by which that act is completed. Here again

the same reality presents itself under two distinct aspects; for the

phrase _essential term_ connotes the essential act by which the term is

essentially actuated, whilst the phrase _passive principle_ connotes

any accidental act by which the same term is liable to be accidentally

actuated.

5. Since a being possessing its three intrinsic principles is so fully

and adequately constituted as to require nothing additional to exist,

it is obvious that such a being contains in its perfect constitution

the sufficient reason of its aptitude to exist _non in alio et non

per aliud_, but _in se et per se_; that is, in itself and by itself.

Now, to exist in itself is to be a _substance_, and to exist by

itself is to be what philosophers call _suppositum_--_i.e._, a thing

having separate subsistence; and, therefore, such a being, if simply

left to itself, will be both a substance and a suppositum. In fact,

the essential act of a created being, though always needing positive

conservation on account of its contingency, needs no termination to, or

sustentation from, a subject, as it already holds under itself its own

intrinsic term, by which it is sufficiently terminated and sustained.

And in the same manner, the essence of a complete being needs no union

with any extraneous nature to be made completely subsistent, as it

is already sufficiently complete on account of its formal actuality

and individuality. Thus it is manifest that _nothing positive is to

be added_ to a complete being in order to make it a substance and a

suppositum; it suffices to leave it alone without further sustentation

and without further completion. By the first of these two negations,

the being will exist _non in alio_, but in itself; and by the second it

will subsist _non per aliud_, but by itself. Hence it is that the first

negation is called _the mode of substance_, and the second _the mode of

the suppositum_.

6. To be, to be true, to be one, to be good, to be a thing or a being,

are convertible expressions so far as their real objective meaning

is concerned, and are distinct only on account of their different

connotations. A thing is called _a being_, inasmuch as it has

existence. It is called _true_, inasmuch as its act suits its term,

and _vice versa_. For the objective truth of things--_i.e._, their

metaphysical truth--is nothing but their intelligibility; and the whole

intelligibility of a being consists in the agreement of an essential

act with its essential term; that is, in this: that the one adequately

satisfies the wants of the other, and thus constitutes with it one

perfect intelligible ratio or essence. Hence the termination of the

proper act to the proper term makes a thing objectively true; just as

the application of the proper predicate to the proper subject makes

true a proposition. This objective or metaphysical truth is perfectly

independent of our knowledge of it; it has, however, the reason of

its being in God's intellect, in which the archetypes of all that is

intelligible are contained, and to which the whole ideal order is to be

traced as to its original source. A thing is called _one_ on account

of the formal unity of its essence and of its existence. It is called

_good_, objectively and metaphysically, inasmuch as it is materially

and formally complete in the manner above described, and consequently

perfect, so as to require no further intrinsic endowment to exist.

The objective goodness of any being arises from its truth; for it is

the mutual fitness of the essential act and of the essential term that

accounts for their mutual agreement in unity of existence; whence it

follows that the being will naturally exist in itself, and subsist by

itself, without any further addition, as though finding rest in its

own reality. But, that in which anything finds rest is its own good;

and therefore everything that exists in itself completely is good

to itself, while its act and its term, as the intrinsic factors of

such a goodness, are good also, but only of an initial and relative

goodness--viz., so far as the one is good to the other. Lastly, the

word _thing_ expresses the whole being as it is in its concrete

essence--that is, the whole reality implied in its three intrinsic

principles. _Thing_ in Latin is _res_; and _res_, as well as _ratio_,

are connected with the verb _reor_ (to judge) in the same manner as

_pax_ (peace) and _pactio_ (compact) are connected with the verb

_paciscor_ (to make a compact); and accordingly, as peace implies the

compact, of which it is the result, and by which its conditions are

duly determined, so also _res_ implies the _ratio_, of which it is the

concrete result, and by which it is confined between the bounds of a

determinate quiddity. Whether the English words _thing_, _thought_, and

_to think_ bear to one another the same relation as the Latin _res_,

_ratio_, and _reor_, we are not ready to decide.

7. The verb _to be_ has not exactly the same meaning, when applied

to a complete being, as when applied to its constituent principles.

Of the complete being we say that _it is_ simply and completely. Of

the essential act we also say that _it is_, but not absolutely nor

completely, because it has no existence apart from its term; existence

being the result of the position of the one in the other. Of the

essential term we should not say precisely that _it is_, but rather

that _it has being_. This adjective predication is here employed,

because the being of the term is wholly due to its act, without which

the term would be nothing, as we have already shown; and therefore the

term _is not a being_, but only _has the being_ borrowed from its act,

just as the geometric centre has no being but that which it receives

from the circumference. Of the complement we do not say that _it is_,

or that _it exists_, because the complement is the formal existence,

not of itself, but of the being of which it is the complement, and

therefore must be predicated of the existent being, not of itself. Thus

we cannot correctly say that _loquacity talks_, nor that _velocity

runs_: and for the same reason we should not say that _existence

exists_; for as it is _the woman_ that talks by her loquacity, and _the

horse_ that runs with its velocity, so it is _the complete being_ that

exists by its own existence.

Nevertheless, the verb _to be_, when used in a logical sense to express

the existence of an agreement between a predicate and a subject, or

any other mental relation between objects of thought, applies equally

to all things conceived, whatever their degree of reality; because,

inasmuch as such things are actually known, they are all equally actual

in our intellectual faculty.

And now, with regard to the essence itself of a complete being, the

question arises whether it should be held _to be_, or to _have being_,

in the sense of the distinction already made. S. Thomas seems to

hold that the essence of creatures cannot be said _to be_, but only

_to have being_; for he teaches that in creatures the essence is to

its existence as a potency is to an act. If this doctrine were to

be applied to _possible_ essences only, we might admit it without

discussion; but the holy doctor seems to apply it to the _actual_

essence also; for "_to be_," says he, "is the most perfect of all

realities, because it performs the parts of an act with regard to them

all; as no thing has actuality but according as it is; and therefore

_to be_ is the actuality of all things, even of the forms themselves;

and for this reason existence is not compared to any existing thing as

a recipient to that which is received, but rather as that which is

received to its recipient. For when I mention the existence of a man,

or of a horse, or of anything else, _existence_ stands for something

formal and received, and not for that to which it belongs."[288]

It is clear, however, that the actuality of anything is not an act

really received in the essence of the thing as in a potency. For,

according to S. Thomas himself, nothing is educed from potency into

act, except through an act which is not originated by that potency;

and therefore _no potency contains in itself the formal reason of its

actuation_, but all potency is actuated by an act originated by an

extrinsic agent. Now, such is not the case with _real_ essences; for

every _real_ essence contains in itself all that is required to give

rise to its actuality, as we have proved; and consequently, as soon as

the essential act actuates the essential term, the actuality of the

essence springs forth by spontaneous resultation, as the consequence

from the premises, with no need of an extrinsic agent producing a new

act. Granting, then, that existence is something _formal_, as S. Thomas

truly says, yet it does not follow that it is _an act received_; it

is only a _resulting actuality_. And therefore the real essence is

not the potency of existence, but its formal reason. Existence is the

complement of real essence, and presupposes it; and consequently gives

it nothing but the real _denomination_ of existent--and, perhaps,

this is all that S. Thomas intended to teach, though his words seem to

imply a great deal more. For, on the one hand, he very often employs

the word _potentia_, not in the sense of passive potency, but in

that of virtuality; and, on the other, he frequently gives the name

of forms to those formalities from which things receive their proper

denomination, and considers them as received in the things to which

they give such a denomination. But in such cases their reception is of

course only logical, not real, and accordingly the thing denominated by

them is only a logical, not a real, potency, as it already possesses

the reality of that by which it receives its special denomination. Thus

we say that in man rationality is to animality as act is to potency;

but this is true in a logical sense only, because man's animality

implies in its constitution a rational soul, and therefore is already

in possession of rationality.

To conclude: the essence of all actual beings is to be said _to be_

or _to exist_ rather than _to have being_ or _to have existence_; and

in the same manner the essence of a possible being is to be called a

potency _of existing_ rather than _of receiving existence_, so far, at

least, as it is considered in connection with its intrinsic principles.

The reader, if not accustomed to metaphysical investigations, will

think that we, in this last question, have only amused ourselves

with splitting hairs; to correct such a judgment, he has only to ask

himself whether between _being rich_ and _holding borrowed riches_ the

difference be important or trivial.

TO BE CONTINUED.

FOOTNOTES:

[276] CATHOLIC WORLD, Feb., 1874, page 578.

[277] S. Thomas says _intus-legere_, "to read within," which amounts to

the same.

[278] This third proof and the following apply to created beings

only; but creatures, as we hope to explain later, inasmuch as they

are _beings_, are so many imperfect likenesses of their Creator, and

unmistakably show that he himself is an infinite Act actuating (out

of himself, not out of nothing) an infinite Term, and possessing an

infinite Actuality. And accordingly, what we have said of the intrinsic

constitution of a created being must be true, in an eminent manner, of

the Creator also.

[279] _Omne agens agit in quantum est in actu; et omne patiens patitur

in quantum est in potentia._--S. Thomas, _passim_.

[280] Pure potency is _quod potest esse et non est_, according to S.

Thomas, _Opusc. De Princ. Naturæ_.

[281] We say _movement_, not _motion_, though we know that these two

words are considered as synonymous. Motion corresponds to the Latin

_motio_, whilst movement corresponds to the Latin _motus_. _Motio_

means the motive action--that is, motion properly--both as proceeding

actively from the agent, and as passively received in the patient;

_motus_, on the contrary, signifies the result of the _motio_ given

and received; and this result is movement. As in philosophy we have

to distinguish between action and its result, we must keep up a

distinction between the words also. Very probably movement and motion

would never have been accepted as synonymous, had the verb _to move_

exclusively retained its original active signification; but, as people

imagined that movement was a kind of action, they thought it right to

say not only that the horse moves the cart, but also that the cart

_moves_, instead of saying that it is moved. Even Newton has been so

misled by the popular use of this verb as to write more than once

_corpus movet_, instead of _corpus movetur_. It was but natural that

"movement," too, should be transformed into "motion." Are we too late

to restore to these two words their distinct meanings?

[282] See Kleutgen, _The Old Philosophy_, diss. 2, c. 4.

[283] We cannot here explain the different kinds of identity; but we

hope we shall take up this matter in one of our future articles.

[284] The same distinction may be very properly expressed by saying

that the carving is _materially_ terminated to the marble, and

_formally_ to the statue.

[285] _Dublin Review_, January, 1873, pp. 70, 71.

[286] Nomen naturæ videtur significare essentiam rei secundum quod

habet ordinem vel ordinationem ad propriam operationem rei; quum nulla

res propria destituatur operatione. Quidditatis vero nomen sumitur

ex hoc quod per definitionem significatur. Sed essentia dicitur

secundum quod per eam et in ea res habet esse.--S. Thomas, _De Ente et

Essentia_, c. 1.

[287] _Summa Theol._, p. 1, q. 14, a. 8.

[288] _Esse_ est perfectissimum omnium; comparatur enim ad omnia ut

actus; nihil enim habet actualitatem nisi in quantum est; unde ipsum

_esse_ est actualitas omnium rerum, et etiam ipsarum formarum; unde

non comparatur ad alia sicut recipiens ad receptum, sed magis sicut

receptum ad recipiens. Quum enim dico _esse_ hominis, vel equi, vel

cujuscumque alterius, ipsum _esse_ consideratur ut formale et receptum,

non autem ut illud cui competit esse.--_Summa Theol._, p. 1, q. 4, a. 1.

THE JANSENIST SCHISM IN HOLLAND.

JANSENISM IN THE CHURCH OF UTRECHT.

FROM LES ETUDES RELIGIEUSES. BY C. VAN AKEN.

CONCLUDED.

II.

Such was the system of Jansenius, at least as to its main points; its

five famous propositions forming the most important conclusions of the

system. If they are not all to be found, _in so many words_, in the

_Augustinus_--which neither pope nor theologian has ever pretended

they are--they are the soul of the book, in the words of Bossuet. This

soul, this breath of error, is revived in Quesnel and in the false

Synod of Pistoia. Now, are the proofs called for of its existence in

the pretended church of Utrecht? Then we have only to let the hierarchy

intruded in Holland speak for itself through its letter addressed to

Scipio Ricci. So far as I know, this letter has never before been

published. We give it as faithfully transcribed from the original in

the archives at Florence:[289]

"MONSEIGNEUR:

"We have just read with astonishment a bull of Pope Pius VI., in

which the Synod of Pistoia, held by you in 1786, is condemned, and

your episcopal administration calumniated, upon grounds which are

incomprehensible. Conduct such as this in regard to a bishop and an

ecclesiastical assembly of the highest repute in the church, and

the spirit of partisanship which characterizes the bull generally,

have certainly not been imitated from the great Doctor of Grace,

S. Augustine, whom the latter seems intended to honor, since it is

dated on his feast.

"Your synod, monseigneur, was for years, as the public well knew,

under examination by Roman censors; and it is evident that they

would not have occupied themselves with it for so long a time[290]

if, instead of laboriously seeking for pretexts to condemn it, they

had sought in it for that truth which is everywhere displayed in

it with clearness, dignity, and unction. We need not, therefore,

have expected a confirmation of this synod as the result of such

an examination. We are no longer in the days when the popes used

the authority of their see only for edification, and not for

destruction. Your synod, monseigneur, reveals nothing which is

unworthy of the full approbation of the head of the church, and

which would not have been cordially received by the popes of former

times. But God permits that those of later times should be swayed

by prejudices and by the dominating influence of a court which,

although foreign and even contrary to the divine institution of the

Holy See, pretends, nevertheless, to identify itself with the chair

of S. Peter, and has consequently taken upon itself to dictate the

bulls of the popes conformably to its own interests--interests

often greatly opposed to those of the church and of the Holy

See.[291] It finds that these human interests have not been made

much of by the Synod of Pistoia, which kept in view only the good

of souls and the disinterested exercise of the functions of the

pastorate. It could not, therefore, approve this synod, since its

decrees preach the new covenant, of which we are ministers, in the

spirit and not in the letter. The ancient one, in which the spirit

was sacrificed to the letter, and in which God was honored by the

lips, while the heart was far from him, is the only one in accord

with the political maxims and views of a court entirely devoted

to the _éclat_ of the pontifical throne, and to the externals of

religion. The fathers of the synod, most reasonably convinced

that the true and only object of the ministry established by

Jesus Christ is to give to God adorers in spirit and truth, have

endeavored, so far as these evil times permitted, to bring back

Christian worship to its primitive purity and simplicity. But this

could not be suffered by a court which applies itself exclusively

to fostering abuses in ecclesiastical discipline and in the

administration of the sacraments, and to all the new devotions and

superstitions[292] which give a false idea of Christian piety,

and cause the faithful to forget the true spirit of Christianity;

not reforming, as it ought, this Judaical worship, but making its

profit of it, and taking it under its protection, on all occasions.

"In the synod you held, monseigneur, there were useful reforms

proposed, and even commenced. Still greater ones were desired. If

the wise regulations made in it were put in practice and everywhere

adopted, as they deserve to be; if its wishes were attended

to, true piety would flourish again, the church would possess

good ministers, their labors would produce abundant fruits, the

observance of the canons would restore the salutary discipline of

the early days, the hierarchical order would enjoy all its rights,

its head, the Holy See, would be listened to and respected, but

the Roman court would become nothing. It is this, monseigneur,

which excites its resentment against you and your synod. It is the

court alone which has produced this extraordinary bull, which is

an injury to the chair of S. Peter, more even than to the Synod of

Pistoia, and the Pope has been dishonored by causing him to adopt

it.

"It was already sufficiently a scandal that Rome alone gave no sign

of approving this synod, while it was receiving praises everywhere

else; that she alone seemed to take no interest in the good

results of which it was susceptible, and appeared even aggrieved

and offended at that which gave joy to all true children of the

church.[293] But this was not enough for the jealous and vindictive

policy of the Roman court. It wished to brand, by a public and

solemn censure, the acts of the Synod of Pistoia; and although it

must have been infinitely painful to the censors to find no matter

for condemnation, yet, by condemning, at whatever detriment to

itself, that which all the world approved, it has capped the climax

of scandal--_scandali mensuram implevit_.

"Injustice vainly attempts a disguise: it often betrays itself

by the clumsy precautions it takes to disguise itself. This,

monseigneur, is what we see in the bull of August 28, in which God

permitted that its compilers should, against all prudence, depart

from their ordinary method of making qualifications _in globo_,

so convenient, and even so necessary, where there is question of

condemning good books. By applying to each of the propositions

censured by them particular qualifications, they have thought

to give to their censure an appearance of greater rectitude and

equity, and by this very means they have rendered evident to all

the spirit of deception and bad faith which characterizes them.

In fact, monseigneur, if the use of this kind of censure be even

just and equitable in itself, it would be impossible to abuse it

more grossly than they have done in the matter of your synod.

Every one knows that, when propositions are bad and condemnable,

they are so in themselves and in the sense they express. It is,

then, in themselves and in reference to this sense that they

should be condemned.[294] This, however, is not what has been

done in regard to the greater number of the propositions drawn

from the Synod of Pistoia. They are not condemned in themselves

nor in their proper sense, but relatively to the imaginary sense

attributed to them. The truths they express are passed over, in

order to condemn the errors they do not express; and while it

would be against all evidence to attribute to them an erroneous

sense, to which the words are repugnant, they are nevertheless

condemned conditionally--that is to say, by virtue of a gratuitous

and often absurd supposition that this erroneous or in some

wise reprehensible sense may be conveyed therein. They dare not

condemn Jesus Christ, or, what is the same thing, the truth in its

own name; but they give him the name and the dress of Barabbas,

in order to have the right of sending him to punishment as a

malefactor--_Et cum iniquis reputatus est_.

"We have just said, monseigneur, that the bull violated grossly in

your regard good faith and justice by this indirect and captious

manner in which it condemns the greater number of the propositions

drawn from your synod. But there are others, in the censure of

which the interests of the faith and of the teachings of the

church are equally disregarded. They do not hesitate to sacrifice

these to the pernicious opinions of obnoxious theological schools,

the defence of which is taken up against your decrees, under

the pretext that the Holy See tolerates them under the name of

Molinism--a _Pelagian doctrine_[295] rejected by all tradition.

Thus error, or rather a number of most dangerous errors, is put

on a level with truth; and the hand of Pius VI. is made use of to

replace beside the ark that idol of Dagon so often overturned to

its base by the censures of the church and the writings of her

doctors. What idea have they, then, of the teachings of the church,

and of the rights of bishops and their co-laborers in reference to

this doctrine? Because Paul V. did not choose to do in regard to

the doctrine of Molina _that which his successors did in regard to

the doctrine of S. Augustine in their bulls against Jansenius and

Quesnel_;[296] because they have not published, with condemnation,

the system of equilibrium, of _gratia sufficiens_, of the state

of pure nature, of the _scientia media_, of limbo, etc.; and have

allowed to be taught the sufficiency of attrition without the

love of God, and the ignorant devotion to the Sacred Heart to

be practised, shall pastors no longer be permitted to oppose to

these novelties the principles and the language of Scripture and

tradition? And shall they no longer warn the faithful of the snares

spread for their faith and piety, because those who spread them

have not yet been declared heretics by the Sovereign Pontiffs?

"They have not contented themselves, monseigneur, with making a

crime of your private sentiments, however irreproachable, but

have quarrelled with you for having, in your synod, adhered to a

doctrine so authoritative, so precious in all churches and all

states, as that contained in the four articles of the assembly of

the clergy of France in 1682. They have so poor an opinion of the

present clergy and of the Gallican Church itself as to imagine that

this clergy would feel offended at the praises you give to the

celebrated declaration of that assembly, and to take the insertion

you have made of it in the acts of the Synod of Pistoia as an

injury. But if the synod does an injury to the French clergy by

adopting its maxims, what does the Pope's bull do, which rejects

and condemns them?

"You may be sure, monseigneur, that a bull like this--a censure as

manifestly unjust at bottom as singular and indecent in form--is

not likely to shake or diminish in the least either our attachment

for you or our esteem and admiration for the acts of your synod,

_in the doctrine of which our clergy recognize their own_, through

the chapter of Utrecht, whose act of adhesion was sent to you

in November, 1789,[297] shortly after the French publication of

the synod. The efforts which are now being made to cry down its

results, and to render them abortive, are so much more a motive for

our confirming this adhesion, and of renewing to you the expression

of our interest in your cause, afflicted, as we are, to the bottom

of our heart, that our Holy Father, Pope Pius VI., who ought to

show us the example of like sentiments, shows himself in his bull

entirely opposed to them. We sympathize with you, monseigneur, no

less in the personal offence that has been offered you than in the

annoyances which cannot fail to arise to you as well as to the

faithful clergy of your ancient diocese. But God, who has enabled

you long to foresee these things, and who has already prepared you

for them by preliminary trials, will give you grace to bear all

this with continued courage and confidence in his protection and

assistance.

"Considering the affair in itself, nothing can be weaker than the

attack that has been made upon you by this bull, which is more

likely, in view of its whole contents, to justify your doctrine

than to render it an object of suspicion. But if we pay attention

to the fact that it is the very purity of this doctrine, and

your enlightened zeal for the house of God, that have drawn upon

you this unjust treatment; that it is the testimony you render

fearlessly and without disguise to the most important truths, so

combated in our days, of dogma, of morals, and of discipline in the

church, which renders the Synod of Pistoia odious to the enemies of

these truths, nothing can be grander nor more worthy of a bishop

than the cause you will have to defend. Consequently, nothing can

impel us more to invoke upon you, monseigneur, by our prayers,

and upon all those whom divine Providence will associate with you

in the same defence, the lights and graces of the Holy Ghost.

Ask them also for us, who long preceded you in the same career of

tribulations and trials, and whose cause has not been separated

from yours, since it has been attempted to injure your synod by

comparing it, in the new bull, to our council--a comparison most

just and natural, and which cannot but do honor to both.

"We are, with respect and tender attachment in our Lord Jesus

Christ, monseigneur, your most humble and obedient servants,

✠ GAULTH. MICH.,

_Archbishop of Utrecht_.

✠ ADRIEN JEAN,

_Bishop of Harlem_.

✠ NICHOLAS,

_Bishop of Deventer_.[298]

"UTRECHT, October 31st, All-Saints' Eve."

This letter renders evidence against the clergy of Utrecht that may

justly be called crushing, and would be sufficient in itself to

close the debate. It sheds light, also, on the whole history of the

schismatical church of the United Provinces. Now, to complete the

demonstration entered upon, let us retrace our steps, and make research

into the origin and the peculiar character of the Jansenism of Holland.

III.

In the beginning of the XVIIth century the University of Louvain

was in a most flourishing condition; the purity of doctrine that

prevailed there, its attachment to the Holy See, and the example of

loyal and perfect submission it had recently given before the world

by repudiating the errors of Baius, gained for it the respect and

good wishes of all Christendom. Some of its professors, however,

had not entirely renounced Baianism; and unhappily, in their case,

distinguished talents were joined with uncommon activity. The most

eminent of these men was Jacques Janson, who was the professor and,

as it were, the father of Jansenius. He made the third of the party

of whom the future Bishop of Ypres and the Abbé de Saint-Cyran were

the other two. Louvain then became the centre of a set of ideas of

which the doctrines of Baius formed the basis, and which were ripened

and developed by Jansenius during nearly thirty years, to be finally

brought forth in his famous _Augustinus_. It was also at the school of

Jacques Janson that Philip Rovenius and several eminent individuals

among his clergy received their theological training; they therefore

drank of Jansenism at its very source.

The _Augustinus_ was issued in 1640 from the press of Jacques Zegers,

of Louvain. Immediately, Philip Rovenius, Archbishop of Philippi, _in

partibus infidelium_, and Vicar Apostolic of the United Provinces; Jean

Wachtelaer, his vicar-general; Baudoin Catz, afterwards the successor

of Jacques de la Torre; Leonard Marius, professor in the College

Hollandais at Cologne, and several besides, gave a public and entire

approval to the book of Jansenius, coupled with the most flattering

praises. There was at once in Belgium, as well as in Holland, and on

the part of many virtuous and well-meaning priests, an infatuation,

an enthusiasm, exhibited for the _Augustinus_, of which the reception

given almost in our day to the first volume of the _Essai sur

l'Indifference_ will give only a faint idea. But Holland distinguished

herself in this concert of praises; S. Augustine himself, people said,

had spoken by the mouth of Jansenius; Jean Wachtelaer averred that the

Netherland priests were never wearied with reading and meditating

this incomparable work; Rovenius went further, and formed a league

with the Canon of Furnes, a nephew of Jansenius, and several other

partisans of the new doctrines, to prevent the Council of Brabant from

putting in execution the first measures taken by the Holy See against

the _Augustinus_. These were the circumstances that preceded the bull

_In eminenti_, published at Rome on the 19th of June, 1643, in which

the famous work was proscribed as containing propositions previously

condemned;[299] we are thus made aware of the sentiments of the clergy,

and the spirit in which the young Levites of the United Provinces were

formed. Rovenius submitted to the pontifical definition; in his book

on the Christian Republic,[300] printed at Anvers, in 1648, he even

renders solemn homage to the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ. This

important doctrine was then, as always, held in honor at the University

of Louvain. Rovenius had learned it there, and to this powerful

preservative he owed the honor and fidelity that attended his last days.

The clergy of Holland seemed at first to imitate the humble obedience

of its chief; but it soon became evident that this submission was

neither as general nor as perfect as was desirable. Left to its ancient

traditions of respect for the Holy See, the Church of Holland would

perhaps have escaped shipwreck; but it shortly received as vicar

apostolic a man of whom Sainte-Beuve has truly said that he was "the

great auxiliary of Port Royal in Holland."[301] Jean Neercassel,

priest of the Oratory, had had a share in the government of the mission

since the year 1652. Consecrated Bishop of Castoria, _in partibus_, in

1662, he shortly after became, by the death of Baudoin Catz (1663), the

sole vicar apostolic in the United Provinces, and continued so to be

for the long period of twenty-three years. The illustrious Archbishop

of Malines, who knew, by a painful but glorious experience, how greatly

firmness and devotion on the part of a chief pastor were needed in

those sad times, said: "I shall always commiserate those bishops

who are even on terms with a single one of these innovators."[302]

Neercassel invited these innovators all to Holland, and made it a

place of refuge for them. Arnauld, du Vaucel, Gerberon, Quesnel, and a

multitude of apostate monks and fugitive priests, all in revolt against

the decisions of the church, cast themselves upon the poor mission

as upon a prey provided for them. From Arnauld's correspondence, and

the papers found on Gerberon, Quesnel, and others, we see that the

direction of the most important affairs of the vicariate apostolic then

passed into the hands of the patriarchs of Jansenism. In this school,

the clergy of the Netherlands learned the wretched distinction between

_right_ and _fact_ (le _droit_ et le _fait_). As this distinction tion

forms one of the bases of the resistance offered by that clergy to

the definitions of the Holy See, it would be proper to give a brief

explanation of it.

The five famous propositions having been referred to the tribunal of

the Sovereign Pontiff by eighty-five French bishops, the so-called

disciples of S. Augustine sent a deputation to Rome to defend the sense

of Jansenius. They prepared, on this occasion, the celebrated _Ecrit

à trois Colonnes_, in order, said they, "to show fully the state of

the controversy, and to furnish the Pope with the means of knowing

exactly upon what he had to give judgment." For each proposition

there is distinguished, 1st, the sense of Luther or of Calvin, which

is condemned; 2d, the natural sense, _prout a nobis defenditur_, the

sense of Jansenius--in a word, that said to be the sense of the church

and of S. Augustine;[303] 3d, and last, the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian,

which is rejected like the first. At this time, then, the party

acknowledged, in an official and authentic document, that it defended

the five propositions in the sense of Jansenius, and that this sense

was the only natural and legitimate one. The whole question was to know

if this sense were heretical or not. It was upon this point that the

Pope's decision was invoked both by the bishops and by the partisans of

Jansenius.

The decision was given the 31st of May, 1653, in the bull _Cum

occasione_, which condemned the five famous propositions. The church

evidently aimed a blow at the spirit of the book, which alone conveyed

the error. The Jansenists understood it as every one else did at the

time, and were confounded by it. But in their farewell audience, the

deputies of the party asked the Pope if he had been understood to

condemn the opinion in regard to efficacious grace by itself--the

doctrine of S. Augustine. Certainly not, replied the Holy Father. The

whole of Jansenism was embraced in this equivocal question; for the

Jansenists reasoned thus: the _Augustinus_ contains nothing but the

pure doctrine of S. Augustine; we can therefore submit to the bull

without rejecting the sense of Jansenius.

To prevent and eliminate in advance every pretext for disobedience,

Pope Alexander VII., in 1665, ordered, in a new bull, that the

condemnation of the five propositions in the sense of Jansenius should

be subscribed to; he directed at the same time, according to the

ancient usage of the church, that the signature should be attached to a

formula in these words: "I,----, submit to the Apostolic Constitution

of Pope Innocent X., dated the 30th of May, 1653, and to that of the

Sovereign Pontiff Alexander VII., dated the 16th of October, 1665; I

condemn and reject heartily and in all sincerity the five propositions

taken from the _Augustinus_ of Cornelius Jansenius in the same manner

as they are condemned by the said constitutions; I condemn them in

the sense of that author; thus I swear. May God help me and this holy

Gospel!"

Then it began to be said in the camp of Jansenius: The pope and the

bishops may well decide if the propositions are heretical; it is a

question of _right_. _Créance au droit!_ But _are_ the propositions

taken from the _Augustinus_, and do they convey its sense? That is a

question of _fact_, in regard to which the church might be mistaken.

Nevertheless, _respect au fait_! After this, it was signed, excluding

(_en exceptant_) the sense of Jansenius. The more determined refused

their signature; after the time of Pierre Codde, the successor of

Neercassel, this was the general rule.

No one, in my opinion, has more fully set forth the state of

this question than the author of the _Provincial Letters_, whose

genius demonstrates conclusively the absurdity of this celebrated

distinction.[304] He thus expresses himself in a passage wherein he

maintains his opinion against Arnauld, Nicole, and others: "The whole

dispute is in ascertaining if there be a fact and a right disconnected

from one another, or if there be only a right; that is, if the sense

of Jansenius ... does nothing but indicate the right. The Pope and the

bishops are on one side, and they claim that it is a point of right and

of faith to say that the five propositions are heretical in the sense

of Jansenius; and Alexander VII. declares in his constitution that, to

be in the true faith, we must say that the words, 'sense of Jansenius,'

express only the heretical sense of the propositions, and that thus _it

is a fact which carries with it a right_, and makes an essential part

of the profession of faith; as if we should say: The sense of Calvin on

the Eucharist is heretical, _which is certainly a point of faith_."[305]

Nothing could be better said. But what is the conclusion? It is this,

and Sainte-Beuve himself says the same in other words:[306] the church

must be denied all infallibility on the question of right; we must

allege that she can be mistaken even as to the true and natural sense

of her own decrees, if we would maintain that she could err as to the

fact in Jansenius. In a word, we must either completely break with the

church, or condemn the sense of Jansenius.

M. Réville seems to know very little of the question of fact as regards

Jansenius. One might say that, to form his opinion on this point, he

had consulted only a report of the Jansenist Bishop of Utrecht, which

contains an account of the latter's interview in 1828 with the Papal

nuncio, Mgr. Capaccini. In this, the representative of the Holy See is

made to use absurd and ridiculous language; the author of _Port Royal_,

who was not any too well versed in theology, had a better knowledge

of the question than this nuncio. How could M. Réville regard this as

a serious relation? Has a witness who could neither understand the

Catholic theologians nor Pascal himself the right to be believed on

his word when he reports, word for word, a long conversation with his

opponent, a kind of diplomatic passage-at-arms, wherein it was greatly

to his interest to make the best figure for himself? And, besides, what

guarantee of exactitude have we in a relation published for the first

time twenty-three years after the interview, and six after the death of

Cardinal Capaccini, the only person able to rectify the assertions of

his interlocutor?[307]

That a Protestant or a free-thinker should encourage the "Friends of

Holland" in resisting the Holy See, that he should even go so far as

to do honor to that resistance, I can conceive; but that he should

share in the inveterate obstinacy of the Jansenists concerning fact

and right defies logic and common sense. M. Réville seems likewise to

confound the bull _Unigenitus_ with that of Alexander VII. concerning

the formulary. This leads us to speak of the second point on which the

opposition of the clergy of Utrecht to the Holy See is founded.

The Jansenist discussions on _le fait_ and _le droit_ were still

proceeding, when the patriarch of the sect, the ex-Oratorian, Pasquier

Quesnel, threw off the mask, and in his _Réflexions Morales_ renewed

the principal dogmas of Baius and Jansenius.[308] Pope Clement XI.

ordered the book to be examined; he proceeded in this affair, says

Döllinger, "with perfect prudence and deliberation. The Jesuits had

been charged with being bitterly opposed to the _Réflexions_; he

chose examiners from religious orders whose teachings had the least

affinity with those of the Society of Jesus. He himself presided at

twenty-three sessions of the examiners, and the discussion lasted

for nearly two whole years.[309] Finally, on the 8th of September,

1713, the bull _Unigenitus_ appeared, condemning one hundred and one

propositions taken from Quesnel's book. Among them are some which at

first sight appeared inoffensive; but they cunningly convey Jansenist

error, and intimately coalesce with the system; in others, expressions

are skilfully worded to infect the reader with prejudices against

the teachings or the general discipline of the church; many clearly

announce the dogmas of Jansenius."[310]

Here, seeing that the one hundred and one propositions were found

word for word in the condemned book, the distinction of right and of

fact (_du droit et du fait_) was impossible. Quesnel, on hearing of

the decree condemning it, exclaimed: "The Pope has proscribed one

hundred and one truths!" The whole party echoed this exclamation, and

our Netherland sectaries followed the impulse given by the patriarch

of Jansenism. This, then, in two words, is the attitude of Jansenism

in Holland: it refuses to condemn the sense of Jansenius by signature

to the formulary of Alexander VII.; it refuses adherence to the bull

_Unigenitus_. All the efforts made by the Holy See to bring back the

Jansenists of Utrecht to Catholic unity have failed, from a persistence

in this double refusal. Among these efforts at reconciliation, there is

one which deserves special mention.

In 1826, Mgr. Nazalli, Papal nuncio, opened a conference with the

Holland Jansenists. He announced to them that Rome exacted of them

nothing more than an adhesion pure and simple to the constitutions of

Innocent X., Alexander VII., and Clement XI., and he proposed for

their signature the formula previously referred to, with the following

addition: "I moreover submit, without distinction, reticence, or

explanation, to the constitution of Clement XI., dated September 8,

1713, and beginning with the word _Unigenitus_; I accept it purely and

simply, and thus I swear. May God help me and this holy Gospel!"[311]

The bull _Unigenitus_ was, even under the Gallican point of view,

obligatory on all Catholics, since it had been accepted by the entire

episcopate with that _moral unanimity_ of which so much was said about

the time of the last council. However, the schismatic archbishop and

bishops of Holland declined the overtures of the Sovereign Pontiff.

Their reply is a true model of Jansenist style; every member of a

phrase hides a restriction or an equivocation:

"We replied frankly (_honnêtement_) that none of the bishops or

clergy would hesitate to recognize with sincerity, by means of an

unequivocal declaration in _general_[312] terms, all that the Holy See

_might_ exact on their part, and that they would have no difficulty

in declaring, for example, that they agree, and that they even swear,

if needs be, to accept, without any exception whatever, all the

articles of the Holy Catholic faith: not to maintain nor to teach,

now or hereafter, any opinions but those which have been established,

determined, and published at all times by our holy mother, the church,

_conformably to Scripture, tradition, the acts of œcumenical councils,

and, lastly, to that of Trent_; that, besides, they especially

reprehend, reject, and condemn the five propositions which the Holy

See has condemned, _and which are pretended to be found in the book of

Jansenius, known as the Augustinus_." All the rest is in this spirit.

But what follows was quite unforeseen:

"We therefore leave it to the decision of the world whether a

declaration so frank and so sincere ... does not offer incontestable

proof of entire submission to the Holy See; and whether the general

terms in which it is conceived do not embrace all the specialties of

which acknowledgment can reasonably be expected from us, but into the

details of which we are not permitted to enter by citing bulls which

we cannot in conscience accept--bulls which have not been recognized

by the government, and which we are therefore not permitted to mention

without incurring grave penalties.... It is, in fact, sufficiently well

known that the said constitutions (of Innocent X., Alexander VII.,

and Clement XI.) are not only not adopted nor obligatory in several

countries, but that they cannot be adopted or enforced in a country

where they have never received the _placet_ of the government, and

where their acceptance as such is interdicted under threat of severe

punishments. In the northern countries, to the jurisdiction of which

the clergy of Utrecht belonged, such acceptance was strictly forbidden

by the edicts of the 24th February and 25th May, 1703, the 14th

December, 1708, and of the 20th and 21st September, 1730--edicts in

which the principle was established _that it belongs to the sovereign

alone to permit the publication and execution of such bulls_, and that

without his _visa_ or _placet_ neither is permitted."[313]

Can one imagine baser or more servile language? In presence of a

heterodox power, the pretended successors of S. Boniface, of the

martyrs and victims of Calvinist persecution, dare to take sides

with power, and to concede to it a right to dominate over faith and

ecclesiastical discipline! At that very time William I. was oppressing

his Catholic subjects, and endeavoring to deprive the bishops of

the right of bringing up in their seminaries young aspirants to the

priesthood. Need it be added that no law in vigor in 1826 interdicted

the acceptance pure and simple of the Apostolical Constitutions of

Alexander VII. and Clement XI.?

The Revolution had overridden ancient laws, and not a single Catholic

was molested on account of his adhesion to the decrees of the Holy

See. But the worship of the state as God makes progress in proportion

as respect for the church is banished. For a bishop especially

independence is impossible; when he refuses to walk in the royal way of

submission to the Vicar of Christ, he becomes, by a just punishment,

the plaything of a party or the slave of the secular power.

And this is the church which the neo-Protestants declare is calumniated

when the accusation of Jansenism is brought against it; the church

which, infected with this poison at the very sources whence it poured

itself abroad on the world, has always kept its arms open to receive

the followers of Jansenius; which has always shown its readiness to

sign formularies like those of Quesnel and Ricci, and has obstinately

rejected the profession of Catholic faith; this, in fine, is the church

which precipitated itself into schism in order to remain faithful to

the errors of Jansenius, and of Saint-Cyran, and of Quesnel!

FOOTNOTES:

[289] Ricci Collection, vol. xcvii., No. 226. I have done nothing but

add explanatory notes and underline the more important passages.

[290] When the popes hasten to condemn an error, they are accused of

acting precipitately or from the influence of some passion; when they

take their time, they are still found fault with.

[291] This distinction between the court of Rome and the Holy See,

when there is question of solemn acts of pontifical authority, is

highly ridiculous. The so-called "Old Catholics" of Germany have never

committed the error of imitating the Jansenists in this.

[292] Evidently an allusion to the decrees of the synod concerning the

devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the _cultus_ and invocation of

the saints, etc.

[293] Aside from the Jansenists of Holland, who always took good

care to be on good terms with their Calvinist government, we find

none in communion with Ricci except a small number of worshippers

of power in Tuscany, Austria, Portugal, and Spain. As to the French

constitutionals, their approbation was a just chastisement for the

Jansenists. De Potter, after stating that Ricci received on all

sides the most flattering adhesions, cites as authorities only the

schismatics of Utrecht and Prof. Le Bret, of Tübingen.

[294] From the time of Arnauld, the Jansenists, in order to maintain

their doctrine intact in the _sense of Jansenius_, the spirit of

(_à l'âme de_) his book, pretend to interdict the church from the

condemnation of errors according to their sense in a system and in

a book--that is to say, in an assemblage of propositions--as if the

grammatical construction alone of every phrase completely determined

the sense conveyed. In this time especially, when there is question of

delicate matter treated by men who are constantly crying out, "Truth,

truth!" but who ever have equivocations on their lips, no one, not

even Sainte-Beuve, the titled panegyrist of Port Royal, has dared to

exculpate the Jansenists for their indirect and tortuous course since

1653.

[295] This is a characteristic complaint in the camp of Jansenius.

Between the Molinism which the church tolerates and the Jansenism she

rejects there are other opinions tolerated, especially the Catholic

doctrine professed by the Thomists and Augustinians in common with the

disciples of Molina.

[296] After this declaration, if Döllinger still pretends that his

friends in Holland are not Jansenists, he ought to maintain that

neither Quesnel nor Jansenius ever were. _O science Allemande!_

[297] We find also in the Ricci archives (vol. xci. part 11, No. 136)

the letter accompanying this act of adhesion. It bears the signature

of "Gabriel du Pac de Bellegarde, ancien comte et chanoine de l'église

primatiale de Lyon." It begins thus: "Monseigneur the Archbishop

of Utrecht, messeigneur's his suffragans, and the messieurs of the

Metropolitan Chapter of Utrecht, have given me, monseigneur, the

honorable and agreeable commission of addressing to you _the act of

adhesion to your holy synod of 1786_."

[298] Gautier Michel van Nieuwenhuizen, Adrien Jean Brœckman, Nicholas

Nelleman.

[299] The bull is dated March 6, 1641--that is to say, 1642, the year

beginning March 25--and was received in the Low Countries in 1643. The

last signature of the clergy of Utrecht in favor of the _Augustinus_ is

dated Feb. 10, 1642.

[300] _Reipublicæ Christianæ_, _libri duo_, p. 102 _et seq._

[301] _Port Royal_, vol iv. p. 20, in note.

[302] Archives of Malines, MS. volume entitled _Monumenta originalia et

authentica de Jansenismo_, No. 32. The more I study facts by the light

of these and several other documents preserved in the same archives,

the more I am persuaded that historians have greatly overlooked the

credit due to Humbert de Precipiano, while exalting that of his

successor, the Cardinal of Alsace. Humbert de Precipiano inflicted

terrible blows upon Jansenism in the Low Countries; he died just as the

triumph for which he had prepared the way began.

[303] They added: "We are prepared to prove by Scripture, the councils,

the testimony of the fathers, and especially by the authority of S.

Augustine, that the doctrine set forth in this second column is the

true doctrine of the church." This promise was not carried out until

after the condemnation of Quesnel's _Réflexions Morales_; the monstrous

book of the _Hexaples_ is the principal effort the Jansenists have

attempted with this view.

[304] In the _Provinciales_, xvii. and xviii., Pascal himself

defended the distinction between faith and right. (See Maynard, _Les

Provinciales_.)

[305] _Œuvres_, ed. Bossutel biblioth. Mazarine, T., 2199.

[306] _Port Royal_, vol. iii. p. 92 and further.

[307] The French account of this interview was communicated, it is

said, by the archbishop himself to Dr. Tregelles, who translated it

into English, and inserted it in the _Journal of Sacred Literature_,

No. 13, 1851. Neale reproduces it in his history. A Dutch translation

was published at Utrecht in 1851--_Jaarbocken van Wetensch. Theol._,

p. 749, etc. Capaccini died June 19, 1845, only a few months after his

elevation to the cardinalate.

[308] See above, our general analysis of the Jansenist system.

[309] An author, unfortunately too well known, but who had before him

all the original documents of this celebrated case, states in his

_Breve Istoria delle Variazioni del Giansenismo_ (see also _Analecta

Juris Pontificii_, 4th series, vol. ii. p. 2, col. 1251) that the Pope

consulted with all the cardinals of the Holy Office, one after the

other; that he himself took note of all the votes, which are still

preserved. "The opinions of the Pontiff alone," he observes, "fill more

than six large folio volumes."

[310] _Handbuch_, ii. 2, p. 827. _Cours_, manuscript of 1855.

[311] _Declaration_ addressed by the Archbishop of Utrecht and his

suffragans to the Catholic world in 1826. This document is written in

Latin; parallel with it is a French translation, from which this is

taken.

[312] This word is italicized in the _Declaration_.

[313] _Declaration_, pp. 17, 19, 21.

A LOOKER-BACK.

"For as he forward mov'd his footing old

So backward still was turn'd his wrinkled face."--_Faerie Queene._

II.

Leaving Christ's Hospital, and rambling on, one soon comes to a

church partly covered with ivy, in a yard filled with shrubbery and

autumn flowers. It is S. Sepulchre's, the burial-place of Captain

John Smith, the Virginia pioneer. It is almost a sacred duty to pay

a passing tribute to his memory, notwithstanding a lifelong grudge

against him for not rounding off his romantic career by wedding the

dusky Pocahontas. The clock of this church has the sad distinction

of regulating the hanging of criminals at Newgate. The tower has

four pinnacles, each one bearing a vane with its own notions as to

rectitude, which has given rise to the saying that "unreasonable people

are as hard to reconcile as the vanes of S. Sepulchre's tower, which

never looked all four upon one point of the heavens."

In old times, the bell of this church was tolled as criminals passed

to Tyburn, and the bell-man cried: "All good people, pray heartily

unto God for these poor sinners, who are now going to their death;"

for which he received the sum of one pound, six shillings, and eight

pence. A hand-bell was likewise rung for them to stop for a nosegay of

flowers. It must have been a great consolation to them! And yet who

knows but such silent messengers of God might not have spoken to many a

heart inaccessible to human tongue?

In the XVIIth century a legacy of fifty pounds was left to S.

Sepulchre's on condition that, before execution-day, some one should go

to Newgate in the dead of night, and give twelve solemn tolls with a

hand-bell by way of calling attention to the following appeal:

"All you that in the condemned hole do lie,

Prepare you, for to-morrow you must die:

Watch, all, and pray, the hour is drawing near

That you before the Almighty must appear:

Examine well yourselves, in time repent,

That you may not t' eternal flames be sent;

And when S. Sepulchre's bell to-morrow tolls,

The Lord have mercy on your souls!

Past twelve o'clock!"

Plucking an ivy-leaf from the wall of S. Sepulchre's, our pilgrim

kept on his way. West Smithfield at the corner of a street brought

our friend Fox and his martyrs to mind, and he turned down towards

the square where John Rogers met his fate. A tablet of Scotch granite

fastened to the wall of S. Bartholomew's Hospital marks the spot. This

tablet is protected by a grating, the upright rods of which terminate

in gilded flames of most portentous brightness. He did not see any such

tablet around London recording the numberless Catholic martyrs of Henry

VIII. and Queen Elizabeth's time.

No dispassionate reader of history can regard the church as

responsible for the sufferings of the so-called "Marian Martyrs."

But let us thank God that such severe penalties are now obsolete in

Catholic and Protestant lands alike!

Smithfield was the ordinary place of execution before Tyburn was used.

The patriot Wallace was executed here on S. Bartholomew's eve, 1305.

Shakespeare makes Henry V. say: "The witch in Smithfield shall be

burned to ashes." In Henry VIII.'s time, poisoners were here boiled to

death, as the old chronicles of the Grey Friars testify. Here is one

quotation: "The x day of March was a mayde boyllyd in Smythfelde for

poysing of divers persons." Evelyn records as late as 1652: "Passing by

Smithfield, I saw a miserable creature burning, who had poisoned her

husband."

But there are pleasanter memories connected with Smithfield, or

Smoothfield, as it was originally called. It was once a famous

tilting-ground. Froissart tells us how in 1393 "certain lords of

Scotland came into England to get worship by force of arms in

Smithfield." Here Edward III. celebrated the victories of Cressy and

Poitiers by jousts and feats of arms; and Richard II., at the time of

his marriage, ordered here a tournament of three days.

Passing through Smithfield market, one soon comes to the Charter House

(a corruption of the French word Chartreuse), the old monastery of

the Carthusians. The arched gateway is the original entrance into the

realm of silence of those old monks. Over it two lions grotesquely

carved support an en-tablature. The lion is typical of solitude and the

wilderness, and is often found represented beside the hermits of the

desert. A porter leads the way at once to the chapel by a passage paved

with tombstones and hung with memorial tablets. One familiar name on

the wall makes the heart leap, though a modern name:

GULIELMUS MAKEPEACE THACKERAY,

CARTHUSIANI CARTHUSIANO.

H. M. P. C.

Natus, MDCCCXI. Obiit, MDCCCLXIII.

Alumnus, MDCCCXXII-MDCCCXXVI.

Beside this white marble slab is one precisely like it in memory of

John Leech.

The Elizabethan chapel is solemn and interesting with its dark oaken

pews, its arched roof, on the keystones of which are carved the Charter

House arms, and the monumental tombs here and there. A bright coal-fire

in an open grate gives it a comfortable, homelike aspect that must be

grateful to the aged pensioners. And there are hassocks of straw for

them all to kneel upon. Over one of the doors is an arch of modern

stained glass, but with colors of unusual richness, or seemed so,

coming in from the neutral tints of a dense fog. There is Magdalen with

her golden hair, and the other Maries, with beautiful faces and purple,

red, and amber robes.

At the north of the chancel is the tomb of Thomas Sutton, the founder

of the Charter House Hospital, in the style of James I.'s reign. He

lies, cut in marble, on a marble tomb, with ruff and long gown, and

hands folded palm to palm as peacefully as if they never itched to

acquire riches. Two men in armor support an inscription attesting his

beneficence. Some persons of a qualifying turn do say that he was, like

many others who are very charitable with their money when they see the

impossibility of keeping it any longer in their grasp, guilty of what

has been called the "good old gentlemanly vice of avarice," and was

the original of _Volpone the Fox_. However that may be, the many who

are sheltered here have reason to roar as loudly as they can, and as

we are told they do, on the 12th of December, with cracked voices and

half-palsied tongues, the chorus of the Carthusian melody:

"Then blessed be the memory

Of good old Thomas Sutton,

Who gave us lodging--learning,

And he gave us beef and mutton."

Catholics, however, cannot forget that when young he took part in the

Italian wars, and was present at the sacking of Rome. At a later period

he commanded a battery as a volunteer at the siege of Edinburgh, when

that city held out for poor Queen Mary. And he aided in the expedition

against the Spanish Armada by fitting out a ship named Sutton for

himself, which captured a Spanish vessel worth twenty thousand pounds.

When he came to London to reside, it was reported that his purse was

fuller than Queen Elizabeth's exchequer, and in time he became the

banker of London, and had the freedom of the city.

On the 12th of December there is a great festival here in honor of

the _Fundator_, and before it is over the pensioners and school-boys

assemble in the chapel, which is lighted, as Thackeray tells, "so the

founder's tomb, with its grotesque carvings, monsters, and heraldries,

darkles and shines with the most wonderful shadows and lights."

At the south end of the chapel is a fine statue of Lord Ellenborough by

Chantrey, in a sitting posture, robed as chief-justice. He was buried

here at his own request, having been educated in the Charter House,

and one of its governors.

As at Christ's Hospital, the visitor is allowed to wander alone through

cloisters and quadrangles, as hushed and peaceful as when occupied

by the Carthusians themselves. The pensioners (the school has been

removed) seem to lead a kind of friar-life here, and in their seclusion

ought to taste something of the peace of the cloister. They only lack

the consecration of religion. One of them in cloak and cap came up,

bowing with remarkable flexion of body considering his years, and

politely offered to show the way with quite an air of proprietorship.

His manner was gentlemanly, and he looked as if he might be some

"disabled invalide from the campaign of vanity." In these days, when

old people are apt to be regarded as unduly persistent about living, it

is delightful to feel there are places of refuge for them like this,

which confer a kind of dignity on fallen fortunes and declining life

which is always a certain going down in the world.

We wonder if there is any service in the English ritual when these old

gentlemen take shelter here. There surely ought to be. Some _Vade in

pace_ ought to follow them under these arches, dying away little by

little with the hours and fragrance of life, and leaving behind silence

and repose of soul.

There is a touching custom here of giving the bell at night a number of

strokes corresponding to the number of pensioners; and when one of them

dies, his decease is notified by one stroke less than on the preceding

evening. It was at the evening hour, as the chapel-bell began to toll,

that Col. Newcome lifted up his head, said _Adsum_ with a smile, and

died.

A bell like this must always have a knell-like solemnity of tone. It is

a kind of curfew-bell, reminding the brothers that the evening of life

has come, and its fires must be put out before lying down to rest. We

can fancy them counting the strokes one by one every night, to learn if

some light is for ever extinguished. The thought often occurs how we

old people will find heaven--whether a place all youth, and freshness,

and beauty. Are there to be no shades and gradations in Paradise, no

stars differing from one another in glory, or faces in sweetness and

serenity? Are the very angels that are to minister to us there all so

full of grace and loveliness, and perfection of form, and crowned with

everlasting youth? "Will there not be some comforting ones, shabby and

tender, whose radiance does not dazzle nor bewilder; whose faces are

worn perhaps, while their stars shine with a gentle, tremulous light

more soothing to our earth-bound hearts than the glorious radiance of

brighter spirits?" Who that is old and sorrow-stricken, or belongs to

the poor and unloved ones of this world, does not feel the need of some

such spirits to greet him there--need of some shadowy, sequestered

spot where the brightness and love of that ineffable region will be

tempered for us who have had but little cheer on earth, at least till

our unaccustomed souls are fitted for loftier heights?

Many such--perhaps too human--dreams of heaven flitted across the

mind while sitting on a bench beside some old graves in a yard at

the Charter House that gloomy afternoon. Weary with climbing old

staircases, going through old passages and old halls, where one only

breathed the atmosphere of old times, perhaps the soul had become

infected by the gloom of the place.

Borders of dull chrysanthemums grew along the gravelled

walks--apparently a favorite flower in England, for they are to be

found everywhere. A few trees with blighted leaves, instead of bright

autumn foliage as in America, stood around with nothing in the world to

do but look well, any more than Voltaire's trees, but, like many poor

mortals, did not succeed very well. They looked weary of the struggle,

and had a certain bowed, resigned look that was pathetic. How could

anything look fresh and vigorous in that field of death? One cannot

imagine the place peopled with boys full of life and fun, as it used to

be.

The land on which the Charter House stands was a graveyard at the time

of the great plague, five hundred years ago, being consecrated to that

purpose by Bishop Stratford, of London, in 1348. Distressed that so

many of his flock should be buried out of consecrated ground during

the prevalence of the plague, he bought three acres of land called "No

Man's Land" for a burial-ground, and erected a chapel thereon, where

Masses could be said for the repose of the dead. The place became

known as Pardon Churchyard and Chapel. We read of an early instance of

lynching on No Man's Land previous to this time. A wealthy merchant,

one Anthony of Spain, so exasperated the public by an excessive duty on

wine that a mob dragged him barefoot to this spot, and here beheaded

him, in November, 1326--doubtless on just such a dismal, foggy day as

this, supremely adapted to give one desperate views, and aggravate the

natural ferocity of the human animal.

The plague continuing to increase, the churchyard was enlarged through

the charity of Sir Walter Manny, of knightly fame, who purchased a

piece of land adjoining. An old ballad says:

"Thou, Walter Manny, Cambray's lord,

The bravest man those times record,

Didst pity take on the wand'ring ghosts

Of thy departed friends,

Didst consecrate to the Lord of Hosts

Thy substance for religious ends."

The next Bishop of London, Michael de Northburg, when he died, in

1361, bequeathed two thousand pounds, with all his leases, rents, and

tenements, towards the foundation of a Carthusian monastery at Pardon

Churchyard, together with an enamelled vessel of silver for the Host,

another for holy water, a silver bell, and all his theological works.

Sir Walter Manny, desirous of co-operating in this work, petitioned

for a royal license to build a monastery here, to be called "The House

of the Salutation of the Mother of God," and gave to it the land he

had bought for a graveyard, consisting of thirteen acres and one rod.

Sir Walter's charter was witnessed by the Earl of Pembroke, Edward

Mortimer, Earl of March, and others. The monastery was completed in

1370, and was the fourth of the Carthusian Order in England.

The London Charter House was furthermore endowed by several other

persons. Two hundred and sixty marks were bestowed in perpetual

frank-almoign to build a cell for a monk who should offer daily

suffrages for the souls of Thomas Aubrey and Felicia his wife, as

well as all the faithful departed. Richard Clyderhowe, in 1418, gave

up, "from reverence to God and the Blessed Virgin Mary, and for the

health of his own soul and that of his wife Alicia, who was buried in

the church of the convent, a lease of land he held in Rochester, that

these religious might, in their orisons, remember him, his soul, the

soul of his wife, the souls of his relations, children, and all his

benefactors, and devoutly recommend them to God."

It is pleasant to find the Charter House interchanging charitable

offices with its neighbor, the priory of S. John of Jerusalem. They

exchange lands, and the prior of the Charter House offers a trental of

Masses "that the soul of Brother William Hulles, Prior of the Hospital

of S. John of Jerusalem, might the sooner be conveyed, with God's

providence, into Abraham's bosom."

In the XVth century the Charter House became, for the space of four

years, the residence of Sir Thomas More, who here gave himself up to

devotion and prayer without taking upon himself any vow.

This monastery flourished about three centuries with a constant

reputation for strict observance of the rules of the order and for

holiness of life. It was during the time of Prior John Houghton, in

1534, that it was visited by the royal commissioners appointed by Henry

VIII. to inspect all the monasteries of the kingdom, and draw up an

account of their rules, customs, and revenues.

Most of the monks refused to subscribe to the king's supremacy, and

the prior and procurator were committed to the Tower. They afterwards

yielded to advice which they respected, but, suspected of disaffection,

were summoned to renew the oath, and the prior was arraigned for

speaking too freely of the king's proceedings, and, with two other

Carthusians, was condemned to be hung, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn

for refusing to acknowledge the king head of the church in England.

As they were leaving the Tower to be executed, they were perceived by

Sir Thomas More, imprisoned there for the same reason, who said to his

favorite daughter, as if envying them: "Lo, dost thou not see, Meg,

that these blessed fathers be now as cheerfully going to their deaths

as bridegrooms to their marriage?" This was not long before his own

martyrdom. There is at the South Kensington Museum a painting of Sir

Thomas and his daughter, depicting this very scene. He stands looking

down through the grated window. Margaret, tall and stately, with her

father's left hand in hers, has her deep violet eyes raised steadfastly

to heaven with the most appealing expression; her whole face calm and

holy, but inexpressibly sad.

The heads of these monks were suspended over London Bridge--a bridge

built, too, by religious--and Prior Houghton's mangled body was hung

up over the gate of the Charter House. The next month three more monks

of this house were executed for a like reason, and the remainder were

called upon three times in one year to take the oath of supremacy--a

proof that they were regarded as specially loyal to the pope. Of the

ten who had subscribed two years before, nine now refused, and were

committed to prison at Newgate, where they were chained in a filthy

dungeon and starved to death. Their end was announced to Cromwell as

"by the hand of God." Their keeper, Bedyll, gave him a list of these

poor martyrs, adding: "There be one hole." This _whole_ one survived an

imprisonment of four years, only to be executed at last.

All this did not take place without some supernatural manifestations

to fortify the poor monks. It is recorded that "unearthly lights were

seen in their church," and, at the burial of one of their number, all

the lamps of the church were miraculously lighted, and one of the

deceased brethren appeared to the monk who had nursed him in his last

illness, saying that "the angells of pease did lamment and murn wᵗowt

measur," and that my "lord of Rochester" and "oʳ Father" (Houghton)

were "next unto angells in hevyn."

The remainder of the English Carthusians went to Bruges, where

they remained till the accession of Mary, who, at the suggestion

of Philip, it is said, invited them back, and gave them the old

Carthusian monastery at Shene, near Richmond. They were exiled again in

Elizabeth's reign, and returned to Belgium.

The south wall of the present chapel formed part of the old church in

which were buried Sir Walter Manny, and Margaret his wife, and many

other knights and dames. Prior Houghton's remains are supposed to be

buried somewhere within the wall now marked by a cross and a huge I.

H. It is recorded of him that he was so meek and humble that if any

one addressed him as "my lord," or with any unusual deference, he

immediately rebuked him, saying: "It is not lawful for poor Carthusian

monks to make broad their phylacteries, or to be called rabbi by their

fellow-men."

The Charter House was given to John Bridges, yeoman, and Thomas Hale,

groom, as a reward for the safe keeping of the king's tents and

pavilions which had been deposited here, but it afterwards passed

through several hands. While owned by Lord North, Queen Elizabeth

spent four days here, which so diminished his lordship's resources that

he was obliged to live in retirement the rest of his life. James I.

also passed a few days here when it was in possession of Lord Thomas

Howard, in order to show his respect for a family that had aided and

suffered for his mother. While here, he knighted more than eighty

gentlemen--let us hope less awkwardly than he knighted Sir Richard

Monopilies, of Castle Collop!

The Charter House was finally purchased by Thomas Sutton, the founder

of the hospital. It is delightful to step from the noise and bustle

of the streets into these secluded courts with grass-plots to refresh

the eye, lime-trees to give shade, here a fountain in the midst of a

garden, and there some old tombs, perhaps of the monks; on this wall

some holy symbol left here ages ago, but not in vain, for it still

speaks to the heart; and scattered around are seats for the pensioners

to enjoy the sun and air.

The kitchen fireplace is capacious enough to roast fifteen surloins.

What extensive means are always used to provide for the body which

perisheth! If at least equal provision were made, as in the times of

the old monks, to supply the needs of the soul! Does that get its three

meals a day, and now and then a lunch or some refreshing draught? Are

there none who labor day after day to supply the soul's hunger, as

multitudes do to satisfy the cravings of the body? Yes, thank God!

there is still an army of such spiritual people in the cloister and

in the world, who only live to feed their higher natures. If they

care for the body, it is merely enough to enable it to serve the

soul. The world may call them "drones," but they are necessary in

order to preserve the moral balance of the world, as an offset to the

materiality of the day. Yes, the hermit, the contemplative, contributes

in his degree to sustain the world, and this is why the suppression of

such a class is an irreparable loss to society.

A BLOCK OF GOLD.

"France paid the Prussian indemnity like a proud debtor; it seemingly

did not cost her any trouble to do so. Few nations could do as France

has done within the past two years; none have ever excelled her in

cancelling a monetary obligation." One hears such remarks occasionally;

they were quite common a few months past. But what was the French

indemnity? Five milliards of francs--that is, five thousand millions of

francs, or one thousand millions of dollars in gold! To think of the

sum is to make one feel covetous of a chip of the block; to see the

whole sum in one block of gold is almost enough to make one cry out

with Timon--

... "Thou valiant Mars!

Thou ever young, fresh, lov'd, and delicate wooer."

"_Ce que c'est que cinq milliards en or monnaye!_"

Well, we did not exactly know what five milliards of francs in gold

or copper were. The cool February evening in the year of grace 1873,

we were accosted in front of No.--Boulevard St. Denis by the above

question. At the same time a polite French boy hands us a handbill,

which told us that _un bloc d'or_, eight metres long, five metres

high, and three and two-third metres deep, could be seen for fifty

centimes--ten cents. This cube of one hundred and fifty metres

contained one hundred thousand _rouleaux_ of fifty thousand francs

each; each one of the rolls--_rouleaux_--contained two thousand five

hundred pieces of twenty francs, and the whole two hundred and fifty

million (250,000,000) pieces.

We paid the admission fee, and were ushered into the room where the

gilded cube stood. A stout lady sat near the door knitting; the master

of ceremonies was young and thin. We were the only visitor at 8 P.M. on

the evening of February, 1873. We surveyed the cube, and admired the

ingenuity displayed in its make-up; but it occurred to us at the time

that, as a speculation, it was a failure. People, I thought, who have

to pay a large debt don't care about being told the length, breadth,

and height of their indebtedness; that it would be, perhaps, a success

at Berlin. We thanked the thin master of ceremonies for his attention,

respectfully bowed to the stout woman plying her knitting-needles; and

walked along the boulevard with our back to the Pont St. Denis, asking

ourselves what we could or would do with one or five milliards of

dollars.

The other day we saw an old copy of the New Orleans _Propagateur

Catholique_. It contained an article on the five milliards, which

it credits to the Christian Brothers--_Les Frères des Ecoles

Chrétiennes_. It recalled our ten-cent investment of last February, and

is so interesting, especially to all who are mathematically inclined,

that we translate it.

In bank-notes of one thousand francs, the weight of each note being

estimated at two grams,[314] the five milliards in paper would weigh

ten thousand kilograms;[315] in gold, one million six hundred and

twelve thousand nine hundred; in silver, twenty-five millions; in

copper, five hundred millions. It would take one hundred men to carry

the five milliards in bank-notes of one thousand francs each, allowing

one hundred kilograms to each man; sixteen thousand one hundred and

twenty-nine, in gold; two hundred and fifty thousand, in silver; five

million, in copper. It would take a man to count the five milliards, at

the rate of ten hours per day, and counting every minute sixty notes of

one thousand francs--fifty pieces of twenty francs, sixty pieces of one

franc, sixty pieces of five centimes--to count the notes, four months

and nineteen days; the gold, nineteen years and ten days; the silver,

three hundred and eighty years, six months, and eight days; the copper,

seven thousand six hundred and ten years, four months, and seven days.

To remove this great sum of money in bank-bills one wagon would

suffice, it being capable of bearing ten thousand kilograms; in

gold, one hundred and sixty-one and one-third wagons; in silver,

two thousand five hundred; in copper, fifty thousand. Allowing ten

metres[316] to each wagon, those carrying the gold would extend sixteen

hundred and ten metres; the silver, twenty-five thousand metres; the

copper, five hundred thousand metres.

Placing the notes of one thousand francs one upon another, and giving

each one a space of one tenth of a millimetre,[317] they would ascend

to a height of five hundred metres. The diameter of the five-franc

piece being equal to thirty-seven millimetres, the five milliards

placed in the same direction, side to side, would form a chain

thirty-seven millions of metres in length--almost the circumference of

the earth, which is forty millions. With one-franc pieces placed as

the preceding, they would encircle the globe twice and seven-eighths;

with fifty centimes--ten-cent pieces--four times and one-half; with

sous--cents--sixty-two times and one-half!

The Franco-Prussian war did not commence till July, 1870. Inside of

three years the greatest of modern battles have been lost and won, and

the heaviest fine ever laid upon a nation paid, and without interfering

with the commercial classes or any important interest or branch of

business in the fair land. Great in science, in war, in religion, she

has given the world a proof of her magnificent resources, and that her

children are still proud of _la belle France_, and filled with the

"_sacré amour de la patrie_."

FOOTNOTES:

[314] Nearly equal to fifteen and one-half grains Troy.

[315] Equal to two pounds three ounces and 4.65 drams.

[316] The metre is equal to 39.37 inches.

[317] The thousandth part of a metre.

VIGIL.

Mournful night is dark around me,

Hushed the world's conflicting din;

All is still, and all is tranquil,

But this restless heart within!

Wakeful still I press my pillow,

Watch the stars that float above,

Think of One, for me who suffered--

Think, and weep for grief and love!

Flow, ye tears! though in your streaming

Oft yon stars of his grow dim;

Sweet the tender grief he wakens,

Blest the tears that flow for him!

R. S. W.

LENT, 1874.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

LOUISE LATEAU OF BOIS D'HAINE: HER LIFE, HER ECSTASIES, AND HER

STIGMATA. A Medical Study. By Dr. F. Lefebvre, Professor of

General Pathology and Therapeutics in the Catholic University of

Louvain, Honorary Physician to the Lunatic Establishment in that

town, Titular Member of the Royal Academy of Medicine of Belgium.

Edited by J. Spencer Northcote, D.D. London: Burns & Oates. 1873.

(New York: Sold by The Catholic Publication Society.)

We enjoy very much the chagrin and discomfiture of sceptical

physicians, scientists, and other materialists, both learned and

vulgar, in view of the great number of preternatural facts, both divine

and diabolical, which have been thrust upon their unwilling sight

during this present half-century. Heaven and hell appear to rival each

other in startling the shallow self-complacency and incredulity of the

hard-headed set who have filled the world with their boastful pretence

to have overcome the superstitions of ages by their experiments and

inductions. They have tried hard to ignore all the supernatural or

preternatural facts and phenomena of the mystic order which have

multiplied around them and challenged their investigation. But this

proves to be a signal failure. Especially when men who belong to their

own professional fraternity, whose learning and ability in their own

class of sciences are undoubted, exhibit the results of careful study

and investigation by means of experiment and induction from observed

facts, as proving, on their own principles, the folly of their stubborn

unbelief, do they cut a very sorry figure by persisting in ignoring

and giving the _transeat_ to that which will not be ignored or passed

over. The puerile banalities in vogue, such as "manifest imposture,"

"unscientific absurdity," "something which no intelligent person can

believe," merely show to what straits the individuals are reduced

who are forced to use them. They are like allusions to the color of

an opponent's hair, or the shape of his nose, or the behavior of his

relatives.

The effort at some kind of scientific explanation of the strange

phenomena of spiritism, or the wonders of the divine mystical order

which the former class of manifestations ape, which is occasionally

attempted, fares no better. It breaks down at a certain point. Up

to that point there is a common ground of physiology, psychology,

and the higher spiritual science; and many things which appear to be

beyond natural power or law may be explained and accounted for without

supposing preternatural causes. But, ill-defined and uncertain as the

boundary line may be, there is one, and one cannot pass it very far

without being aware of the fact. We do not complain of scientists for

being critical and difficult in respect to facts and evidence. We do

not, in reference to the present case, inculpate their refusal to

believe on motives of pure faith. The charge against them is that they

are recreant to their own avowed method of investigation by experiment,

observation, and induction.

No one can prove this so conclusively, or rout them so completely on

their own ground, as one of themselves, who is conversant with physics,

and at the same time has some logic, philosophy, and sound theology

in his head; in a word, is, what they are not, a completely educated

man. The volume before us is a specimen of what we are speaking of. We

need not enlarge on the case of Louise Lateau, of which we have spoken

before, and which is generally known. Sufficient to say that the book

before us is a treatise on her remarkable ecstasies and stigmata by

a physician, and written after the method of medical science, which

establishes beyond a doubt their miraculous cause and origin.

THE HOLY MASS: The Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead. By

Michael Müller, Priest of the Congregation of the Most Holy

Redeemer. New York and Cincinnati: F. Pustet. 1874.

This is a work written in the true spirit of S. Alphonsus. It is

not a reprint of the work entitled _The Holy Eucharist our Greatest

Treasure_, by the same author, but an entirely new treatise. Its

theology is sound and solid, its spirit most devout, and its style

simple and popular. It is surprising that so hard-working a priest as

F. Müller has been able to write so many excellent and edifying books,

in a language, too, which is to him a foreign tongue. Every pious

Catholic who reads this book will be charmed with it, and will find it

most instructive and profitable. We are happy to be able to give it

our unqualified commendation, and to recommend it in the most earnest

manner to all the faithful, as well as to Protestants who are seeking

for the truth.

THE LIFE OF THE VEN. ANNA MARIA TAIGI. Edited by Edward Healy

Thompson, M.A. London: Burns & Oates; New York: F. Pustet. 1874.

Mr. Thompson's biographies are of the first class in every respect.

This one has a special interest on account of the relation which the

life and prophecies of the venerable Roman matron sustain to recent

and pending events of the greatest moment in human history. It is

unfortunate that a most meagre and imperfect life of Anna Maria Taigi,

which contains serious misstatements, afterwards discovered and

regretted by the author, Mgr. Leuquet, has been already translated and

circulated in this country. That life states that its subject fell

into a grievous sin against her marriage vows, and remained without

confession for a considerable time afterwards. This is proved to be

false, and the fact is fully established that Anna Maria was pious and

irreproachable throughout her whole life, and especially so during her

whole career as a wife and the mother of a large family.

Apart from her supernatural gifts, the sanctity and virtue displayed by

this wonderful and admirable matron, in a laborious and humble sphere,

present a most beautiful picture and a most engaging example to woman

in the married state.

The extraordinary graces granted to Anna Maria Taigi, her supernatural

knowledge, and her remarkable predictions, have made her name famous

throughout the world. This part of his subject Mr. Thompson has treated

fully and judiciously. The exact fulfilment of the predictions she is

known to have made of events already passed, especially those relating

to Pius IX., who was elevated to the pontifical throne nine years

after her death, has awakened a most intense curiosity respecting some

others attributed to her regarding the present time and the approaching

future. These are under the hands of the commission engaged with the

process of her beatification, and have not been officially published.

Those which are certainly known are inserted in the _Life_, and others,

which are probably genuine, are added in the appendix.

The appendix closes with the following very apposite remarks, extracted

from an extremely able and interesting article on modern current

prophecies which appeared some time ago in the _Civiltà Cattolica_:

"It cannot be denied that the agreement of so many and various

presages in divining events the expectation of which is in the

hearts of the greater number of Catholics, possesses a persuasive

force, and is a kind of seal of high probability, if not certainty.

Wise Christians are unanimous in admitting that the church is a

prey to a diabolical and universal persecution hitherto unexampled;

wherefore God must come to her aid with succors proportioned to

the need, that is extraordinary. We find ourselves in this extreme

case: that the salvation of society, no less than of the church,

requires an unaccustomed intervention of Omnipotent power. If this

be so, how should we not believe that come it will?"

PLEADINGS OF THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS. From the French, with

Introduction by a Catholic Priest. New York: The Catholic

Publication Society. 1874.

This little work bears the imprimatur of Cardinal Cullen. The

introduction states the devotion to the Sacred Heart succinctly. The

work itself consists of a reading for every day in the month. Each

reading contains an instruction followed by a "reflection" and a

"practice," together with a suitable example. Everything is excellent.

We most warmly recommend the book to all who have or wish to acquire

true devotion to the Sacred Heart.

LENTEN SERMONS. By Paul Segneri, of the Society of Jesus. Vol. II.

New York: The Catholic Publication Society. 1874.

The present volume seems to us to contain a better selection of sermons

than the one published two years ago. Those on "Avoiding the Occasions

of Sin," on "Gaining a Brother," on "The Love of God in Afflicting

us," on "The Cure of Disquieting Thoughts about Predestination," and

"Encouragement to the Greatest Sinners to become the Greatest Saints,"

are perhaps especially remarkable. A translation necessarily labors

under some disadvantages, but we think that the work has really

been well done in the present case, and that small blemishes and

misconceptions of the author's meaning are not more frequent than must

always be expected when a work is rendered from one language into

another. The English style of the book is good.

All those who have the first volume will, we think, desire to supply

themselves with the second; and those who get the second will no doubt

send for the first also. Another volume, to complete the set, will, we

believe, be prepared.

THE DOVE OF THE TABERNACLE; or, The Love of Jesus in the Most Holy

Eucharist. By Rev. T. H. Kinane, C.C., Templemore. With a Preface

by His Grace the Most Rev. Dr. Leahy, Archbishop of Cashel. New

York: P. M. Haverty. 1874.

Though several very good manuals of devotion to the Blessed Sacrament

have lately appeared, this little book will not be a superfluity. It

seems to us the most practical of them all, and the best calculated to

induce the faithful to frequently hear Mass and worthily receive Holy

Communion. In these latter days of the world and of the church, the

sacraments are more than ever the special channels of God's grace, and

every word tending to increase devotion to the Most Holy Eucharist is

peculiarly valuable.

MEMORIAL OF THOMAS EWING OF OHIO. New York: The Catholic

Publication Society. 1873.

Without being a formal biography, this book presents us with the

leading and many of the minor incidents in the life of an eminent

statesman and jurist covering a period of over fourscore years. The

scope of the work embraces an autobiography, a brief biography by the

Hon. Henry Stanbery, and a judicious collocation of original letters

and selections from current journals, thus enabling the reader to trace

with little difficulty the various stages of a remarkable career, and

form an estimate of an equally remarkable character. The value of the

volume is enhanced by some delicate sketches, original and selected,

prepared by the daughter of the subject, and editor of the _Memorial_,

Mrs. Ellen Ewing Sherman, wife of Gen. W. T. Sherman.

The life of Thomas Ewing furnishes a very interesting study to

the rising youth of our country, showing, as it does, how great

difficulties may be overcome by industry and perseverance, how purity

of character and a noble ambition win enduring fame, and, above all,

how one who was singularly free from the corruptions of worldly

prosperity, and undebased by the temptations of power, found at last

the grace and strength which the sacraments of the church impart.

The child of an industrious frontiersman, whose first lessons were

conned by the light of a pine knot, and whose primary education was

paid for by his labor as a salt-boiler in Virginia, Mr. Ewing rose to

the first rank at the American bar, was twice elected United States

senator, and made a member of two successive Cabinets. Without wealth

or friends, but with what to him was better, brains, industry, and an

unstained reputation, he ascended to some of the highest positions in

the land, and left them with ever-increasing honor. As a lawyer, he

stood at the head of his profession before half his life was spent; in

the Senate, he was the compeer of Webster✠ Calhoun, Clay, and Benton;

as Secretary of the Treasury under Harrison, and of the Interior under

Taylor, his foresight, honesty, and executive ability were freely and

fully acknowledged by his associates.

But great as was his life--if genius and goodness constitute

greatness--he was even greater in his death. For nearly forty years

he had been contemplating the possibility of becoming a Catholic;

for, though entertaining a profound respect for Christians of all

denominations, he could not satisfy his acute and logical mind with

the teachings of any of the sects. It was, however, only a week before

his death that the grace of communion was vouchsafed him, and then, at

his own request, he was admitted into the church, and shortly before

his death received the last sacraments from the hands of the Most Rev.

Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati. His long years of conscientious

study and examination, his sincere prayers and unostentatious charity,

were at length rewarded, and he was made a child of the church to

which his beloved wife (long since deceased) belonged, and of which

his children are faithful members. In these days of doubt and official

dishonesty, few better examples could be held before the coming

statesmen of the country.

We cannot close this notice without calling attention to the very

elegant manner in which the _Memorial_ has been brought out. The paper

is superior, the type large and distinct, the illustrations excellent,

and the binding in rare good taste.

THE WORKS OF S. AUGUSTINE. Vol. IX. On Christian Doctrine, The

Enchiridion, etc. Vol. X. Lectures on S. John, Vol. I. Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark. 1873. (New York: Sold by The Catholic Publication

Society.)

We have expressed our opinion so fully of the value of the previous

translations in this series, that we only deem it necessary to say that

the high reputation already achieved is well sustained by the present

issues.

BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS RECEIVED.

From DICK & FITZGERALD, New York: The Only Complete Ready Reckoner.

18mo, pp. 213.

From P. O'SHEA, New York: The Pride of Lexington. By William Seton.

12mo, pp. 365.

From KELLY, PIET & CO., Baltimore: In Six Months. By Mary M.

Meline. 18mo, pp. 299.

From BURNS & OATES, London (Sold by The Catholic Publication

Society, New York): True to Trust. 12mo, pp. 344.

From SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO., New York: My Kalula. By Henry M.

Stanley. 12mo, pp. xiv.-432.

From THE SOCIETY: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Session of the

American Philological Society, held at Easton, Pa., July, 1873.

8vo, paper, pp. 34.

From THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR: Annual Report of the Operations

of the Department for the year 1873. 8vo, paper, pp. 36.

From J. R. DALY & CO., St. Louis: Response of the Hon. John Manvers

to a Resolution of the National Labor Council; also, An Address

by the Hon. R. F. Wingate on American Finance. 8vo, paper, pp. 32.

From P. F. CUNNINGHAM & SON, Philadelphia: A Sermon by the V. Rev.

James O'Connor, D.D., preached at the Month's Mind for the V.

Rev. Edward McMahon, Nov. 12, 1873. 8vo, paper, pp. 15.

From T., New York: Truth. 12mo, paper, pp. 46.

From THE AUTHOR: Speech of Alderman Samuel B. H. Vance in Relation

to the Nomination of Police Justices for the City of New York.

8vo, paper, pp. 21.

From HURD & HOUGHTON, New York: Cæsarism. By "Burleigh," of the

_Boston Journal_. 8vo, paper, pp. 36.

From MASTERS, LEE & STONE, Syracuse: College of Fine Arts of the

Syracuse University. 8vo, paper, pp. 11.

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES

P. 288 sentence ends abruptly with no

continuation on following page. See

https://archive.org/stream/catholicworld18pauluoft#page/286/mode/1up.

Silently corrected simple spelling, grammar, and typographical

errors.

Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed.

Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.