Images de page
PDF
ePub

actuali, then undoubtedly existence forms part of the notion obtained, but by essentia in statu reali, this is not what we mean at all. As we have elsewhere said, we mean pura potentia subjectiva in ordine ad esse, just as by materia prima we mean pura potentia subjectiva in ordine ad formam. And if the validity of such a notion be attacked; if one insists that the distinction between actuality and reality is a figment without foundation in fact, then the only retort we can make is to ask him what is his notion of materia prima? What kind of existence can a thing have which is nec quid, nec quale, nec quantum ?

Another objection against our argument is sometimes framed as follows. It does not follow that a given perfection is really distinct from a thing to which we attribute it, even if it be not found in the definition of this latter, for animality and rationality in the case of man are identical really, yet in the definition of the one we do not find the other contained. This objection is usually made by Scotists who are anxious to work in their distinctio formalis ex natura rei. In reply we totally deny the parity. In the case adduced in example we are dealing with a characteristic which determines a given singular essence, or class of essence, in such a way as to render it (or them) different specifically from other essences, which do not possess this characteristic. Man, by being a rational animal, is essentially different from other animals which are not rational. Rationality with regard to human nature is not an actus but a constitutive note. Esse, on the other hand, is not designaturum essentiae; its office is merely to hold the essence outside its causes. Furthermore, esse (existence) is, as we have seen, an actus, and therefore is in no wise parallel with rationality and animality. In fact, we have here in germ another argument for the Real Distinction, but lest we might become tedious we will leave the reader who has followed us so far, to evolve it for himself.

Although we have defended the Real Distinction even ex professo, this was not the principal idea of our essay. Rather it was to make a few suggestions concerning the study of this problem; how it is studied as a matter of fact, and how it should be studied. We began by showing that some of those who deny the Real Distinction do not grasp the point at issue at all. Next we endeavoured to give some arguments in favour of this same doctrine which

appeared to us cogent in themselves, and which have hitherto received no conclusive reply from opponents. Our next attempt will be to prove that if we deny the Real Distinction, certain problems in scholastic philosophy and theology will receive no intelligible answer at all, while if we admit it, we shall be enabled to solve the difficulties in question clearly and decisively. Lastly, we shall try to say something on the use and abuse of authority in this matter-especially that of Aquinas and incidentally indicate what we believe to be the opinion of the Doctor Angelicus on the subject.

R. B. TAYLOR, o.c.c.

THE PASSING OF VALOIS

BY D. T. BARRY, M.D., F.R.C.S. (Eng.)

VII

THE period of civil tumult, par excellence, of internecine polemical upheaval in France, was that of the third generation of Valois. Disputants had been active during the first and second, as we have seen, and propagandists gave to riot and revolt a certain recondite religious hue, but open rupture on matters of faith and worship had been shunned. Excluding such actions as the extermination of the Vaudois by Francis I, and the riots at Guyenne and La Rochelle, wherein many novateurs were prominent, the first unadulterated religious combat was an irregular affair at Vassy in 1562. Building on the enmity existing between the Lutherans and Calvinists the disconsolate Guise, crestfallen since the death of Francis II, tried to effect an alliance with the former. Returning from the interview with a large retinue he came upon a knot of Huguenots, to the number of 600, in political conclave. An interchange of compliments between the parties, such as an Antrim resident will readily picture, led to an interchange of more tangible missiles, and ended in a sanguinary encounter. The Calvinists, coming second best out of the scrap,' pronounced it a massacre; their opponents, pleading provocation, refer to it as an accident.

[ocr errors]

Francis II succeeded his father Henry in 1559, at the age of fifteen. A weakling in constitution and character alike, he fell an easy victim to the machinations of Guise, whose niece, Mary Stuart, he married. He was fine by defect and delicately weak.'

[ocr errors]

The Court moved to Orleans, where the inhabitants, at the bidding of Guise, were disarmed. Protestants had become very numerous in France and considerable liberty of action was accorded them. Their first church, directed by La Rivière, a preacher from Geneva, had been recognized in Paris in 1555. Other churches soon followed at

Meaux, Poitiers, Blois, Tours, etc. Claude Haton, a priest of the time, reckoned that one quarter of France was Protestant, but this estimate is believed to be greatly exaggerated. However, there is no doubt that Calvinism had made enormous strides, and its votaries were greatly emboldened. They had been secretly arming, their chief being Louis, Prince of Condé, brother to the King of Navarre, of a collateral branch of the House of Bourbon.

It is contended by Catholic apologists for subsequent events that the Calvinists were becoming intolerant, aggressive, outrageous, where their preponderance rendered them immune to Catholic retaliation, and that the intolerance and aggressiveness of Catholics in the converse situation constituted in the main a form of reprisal. But abuses without excuses existed on both sides; the proverbial blows and knocks were considered essential to the orthodoxy of all doctrines. Catholic writers like Vieilleville and Castlenau condemn the breach of faith with the Protestant prisoners at Amboise, when large numbers perished on the scaffold or in the oubliettes.

The leniency extended to certain Catholic malefactors in the persecution of their opponents sometimes detracted from the liberties accorded to the latter. Catholics there were in great number, however, of nobler quality, who succoured the hard-pressed Huguenots, like their prototypes of Arragon in the thirteenth century, when the system of the Inquisition proved a harsh one. The Inquisition, which dates from the Council of Verona in the twelfth century, was instituted in France under Pope Paul III, by special Bull. In its revived form, with the ostensible object of suppressing irreligious books and methods injurious to Catholic teaching, it was a milder institution than in Spain and Italy. But abuses crept in, and hardships were a feature of it also in France.

The three-cornered contest between Catherine de Medicis, the Guises, and the Bourbons was acutely waged at Orleans and Blois. Since the taking of Calais Balafré (Guise) had been a popular idol. His right hand now was the young queen, Mary Stuart, who, though a neophyte in intrigue, gave him much satisfaction. The Guises were masters of the Army, the Church, and Finance, and their undue influence with the young King induced his mother to attempt a secret understanding with the Bourbons, which failing she made overtures to the Huguenots, or,

rather, accepted theirs. The messenger from Condé, a court tradesman, who found an easy entrance to the château, was detected by Mary Stuart. Torture failed to elicit a confession from this emissary, but circumstances warranted Catherine's arrest and confinement as a prisoner, at the instigation of Guise.

As her dealings with them bear testimony the attitude of Catherine towards the Huguenots was one of pacific intent and toleration. Only when the menace from Protestant disaffection and unrest became too pronounced, when it seemed to portend revolutionary strife of serious import, did she yield to the stern necessity of the sword. And war had never proceeded far before she showed anxiety for peace. Every treaty signed in which she had a controlling voice, contained most favourable terms and concessions to the reformers. Remonstrance from Rome and ingratitude from the favoured ones, made her lot as peacemaker an unenviable one. Her efforts at peace and tolerance were attributed to ulterior motives; her leniency was ascribed to fear of Catholic leaders, to whom a decisive victory would give undue power and ascendancy. The fact remains that, through her agency, pacific relations were often established which mitigated horror and diminished bloodshed in these stupid wars. Catherine certainly had reason to fear Catholic leaders who exhibited arrogance as occasion arose; and her selection of l'Hôpital as Chancellor was influenced by these considerations.

L'Hôpital, the most impartial of men, condemned all insensate strife, whatever its religious aspect. He, a Catholic, and his wife, a Huguenot, were both independent and above suspicion. Their only bias was in favour of justice and equity. But the partisans of Guise did not appreciate this successful move to check them. Guise had shown the need of a check by his unwarrantable dictatorship after foiling the conspiracy of Amboise. This conspiracy is stated, on the one hand, to have been directed from Geneva against the Catholics as a whole, including the King, while the Calvinists maintained that its object was restricted to the silencing of Guise and his more prominent adherents. It was set on foot by the returned exile, La Renaudie, and resolved itself into an attempt to surprise the chateau (1560). La Renaudie was killed in the skirmish. Captured Huguenot spies, from whom information was extracted on the rack, revealed the conspirators' plans.

« PrécédentContinuer »