lOHE 5(
other oditiimB vuy, and contain the ClemeDtine text exclusively; that oF Lyons (1616), with notes and indexea by Madur, came out uncorrected; the Mains 1853 ^ition Was adapted to actual necessities. "Com- mentarii in Propbetas IV yeremiaSj Baruch, Eiecbiel, Daniel): ExpoeitioFsalmilX: Epiatola de Collatione Sedanenm" (Lyons, 1609; Paris, 1610, etc.). "Eie- chiel" is in Migne, "Curs. Script.", XIX, 654-1016, and since 1693 "Commentarii in pnecipuos Sacra Scripturs libroa V. T." have been added. "Disputa- tionum ac controversiarum decisanim et circa septem Ecclesite RomaMS Sacramenta " (2 vols., Lyons, I6I4). This Work is incorrect and wasplaced on the Spanish Index in 1667; but not on the Roman Index. Dubois and Faure published a corrected edition in "Opera varia theolo^ca " (3 vols., folio, Paris, 1877), together with "De libero arbitrio, gratia, peccato orii^oali, providentia, justitia, justificatiooo; a disputation ■' De Fide ", the existence of which is doubted W Som- inervogel; "De Cffiremoniis Tractatus", I-CCXj in Vol. Ill of Zaccaria'a " Biblioth. rituaL" Simon gives extracts in "Lettres choisies", Apocrypb*' *™- "Traict^des anges et demons", a translation of some of Maldonado's expositions collected by one of his pupils, and "Summula R. P. Maldonati , a compila- tion made by Martin Codognat, placed on the Index, 16 December, 1605. Manuscnpts, cxegetical and theological. altribut«d to. Maldonado, are preserved in many libraries of France {especially the National), Switierland, Italy, and Spain; many of them are copies made by his pupils.
Phat, Maldonal H rOnireriiU dr Parii au XVI' tiidi: (Pa™, 18M>; Salvuni. La Vie da P. Jran Maldcmat in AptTid. aux Utmoira du Pirt BroH {Le Puy, 1885); Nieheubkbq, Honor Jtl Oran Fatriarta S. lanarHa de Loyola (Madrid. 1640). 4 J3-S5; Htveh. MaUonat H U> comxifnrcmrtUi dp fUnit^iiti dc Paal- a-MouHon (Nancy. 1873]; Alcuah, Chrono-HiOoria de la Camlia*iadeJaiiMcnlaPn>vinTiadeTeUdi>,n (Madrid, 1710). 42-4A; Baktuktes, Apttraio BibiioorJfico pom la HxtLoria de Bxtrtmadura (Madrid, I8TS}, 460-408: Astrain, HiMoria de lo CompaAia de Jet^i m la itaiifFncia dt Etparia.^ll (Modri '
gnie de Jine en
r^,,.- —A Foc<iVTn/Li, HietoiredetaCompoffni
. .met. I (Paris, IBIO), 572 etc.; Hdktbb, >feiTi«i..„ _
nu> (Inoabruck, 1802), 1-80; Sokhehtoqil. BibtioMoue de la Cimpatnie de Jitut, V (Pbim, 1894). col. 403-4J2; IX. ml. 031: Diu T Peru, Diccumario de BMnmeAoi Ihulree, II (Miidrid, 1884), e.
A. I'^REZ GOTBNA.
Holebianctae, Nicolas, philosopher and theolo- pan priest of the Oratory of St. PhihpNeri; b. at Paris, e Aug., 1638; d. 13 Oct., 1715. He was the youngest child of NicolasMalebmncbe, secretary to Louis XIII; being slightly deformed in person and of a weak consti- tution, he received his early education from a domestic tutor, until he was old enough to enter the course ot philosophy at the College de La Marcbe, whence he passed to the Sorbonne tor the study of theology. On the completion of his studies, declining a canonry at Notre-Dame, he joined the Paris houise of the Oratory, 1660. There he was first engaged on ecclesiastical history, but neither his talents nor his taste lay in thia direction, and on the recommendation of Richard Simon he turned to the study of Scripture, only to find this study equally uncongenial. A chance reading of Descartes' "Traits de I'bomme on de la formation du fcelus" determined his future careor, and he became an enthusiastic Cartesian. He published "Recherche dela V^rit4"in 1674, and his suDsequenl works repre- aent developments or special aspects ot the same doc- Sensation and imagination, he maintains, are produced not by the objects but by God, and ate intended to serve man's practical needs only, and not to reveal the nature of things, the essence of matter being extension and its only real property motion. 'The real nature of the external world must be found in ideas. Now in accordance with Deficartcs' divorce of mind and matter, matter cannot act on mind; and mind cannot produce its own ideas, for thoy are spirit- ual bein|[s whose creation requires a greater power
18 ItALKBEAMOBX
evui than the creation of thin^ material. Tberefora we see all things in God. God Himself, he argues, sees all thin^ in His own perfections, and lie is so closely united to the soul b^ His Presence that He may be said to be the place of spirila, as space is the place of bodies. Aad so the mind may see in God all the woi^ of God, supposing God willing to reveal them. That God should so will seems more m accord with His economy in Datuie, where He works by the most direct and simple methods. But the strongest proof of all, Male- brancbe finds in the idea we have ot the Infinite; for it must be prior to the idea of the finite, and all partie- ular ideas are participations of that general idea of the Infinite, just as God derives not His Being from crea- tures but all creatures ha ve their subsistence f romHim. Thus of all the things that come under our knowledge, we know none but God in Himself wit bout the media- tion of any idea' bodies and tiieir properties are seen m God and by their ideas. As for our own soul, he adds, it is known onlyoy conscious- ness, that is, by
that, though we knowtheexist^nce of our soul better than the existence of our body or of the things about
perfect a knowl- edge of the nature of the soul. As for the souls of other men, we know them only by con- iecture(Recherehe,
bk.lll,pt.ii,cc. 1-S). ItisobviousthatMalebranche's occasionalism not only makes our certainty of the ex- temalworlddcpenduponGod'srevclation; it suggests the objection that there is no purpose in a material uni- verse which is out of all contact with human thought and volition. WhBtispcculiar,however, to his system is its Ontolof^sm, and its consequences; for (jod is made not only the immediate cause of our sensations, but also the "place of our ideas", and moreover our first idea is of the infinite. From this it would appear to follow that we see God's Essence, though Male- branche protested explicitly against this consequence. And, if, as Malebrancne maintains, the essence of mimd consists only in thought, as the essence of matter oon- aista only in extension, there is at least a suggestion of the Pantheism which he so vigorously repudiated.
With regard to free-will also, the desire of Male- branche to emphasise the union of the soul with its Creator exposed him to many objections. The soul, he says, has the capacity of withholding its consent t<i a particular abject, so that the intellect may recognise the lower a.s tl^ higher good. But volition, according to him, being an effect of God's action on the soul, it was objected that God was thus the author of mn. To this Malebranche answered that sin was due to an intermission of activity; therefore sin is nothing and though Goddoes all He is not the author of sin. This account of evil Malebranche utilizes to maintain asort of Optimism in his account of creation. Finite crea- tion as such would be unworthy of God; it is made a worthy object of God's will by the Incarnation; and as for the evil that is in creation, it is due to particular wills, and it does actually enhance the real good.
Antiune Amauld waa the first to attack Male*
