The Catholic encyclopedia (Volume 9); an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline and history of the Catholic Church . stion ofthe Pantheism which he so vigorously repudiated. With regard to free-will also, the desire of Male-branche to emphasize the union of the soul with itsCreator exposed him to many objections. The soul,he says, has the capacity of withholding its consent toa particular object, so that the intellect may recognizethe lower as the higher good. But volition, accordingto him, being an effect of Gods action on the soul, itwas objected that tJod
The Catholic encyclopedia (Volume 9); an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline and history of the Catholic Church . stion ofthe Pantheism which he so vigorously repudiated. With regard to free-will also, the desire of Male-branche to emphasize the union of the soul with itsCreator exposed him to many objections. The soul,he says, has the capacity of withholding its consent toa particular object, so that the intellect may recognizethe lower as the higher good. But volition, accordingto him, being an effect of Gods action on the soul, itwas objected that tJod was thus the author of this Malebranche answered that sin was due to anintermission of activity; therefore sin is nothing andthough God does all He is not the author of sin. Thisaccount of evil JIalebranche utilizes to maintain a sortof Optimism in his accoimt of creation. Finite crea-tion as such would l)e unworthy of God; it is made aworthy object of Gods will by the Incarnation; andas for the evil that is in creation, it is due to particularwills, and it does actually enhance the real good. Antoine Arnauld was the first to attack Male-. MALEDICTION 569 MALHERBE branches system, and he was supported by Bossuetwho styled the system pulchra, nova, falsa . Natu-rallyachief topic of discussion wasthe question of grace,though the Jansenist and the Oratorian both claimedthe authority of St. Augustine. The discussion grad-ually became very bitter, and ended not altogether tothe credit of Malebranches orthodoxy, for it Was Male-branche who had been on his defence, and his workhad been censured at Rome. Among other opponentsof Malebranche were Pierre Silvain Regis and DomFrangois Lamy, who attacked his explanation ofpleasure and of good. His answer in Traits deIamour de Dieu was well received in Rome and hadthe further good fortune of reconciling him with Bos-suet. His Entretiens dun philosophe chr^tien etdun philosophe chinois sur Iexistence de Dieu, inwhich he accused the Chi
Size: 1247px × 2003px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, books, booksubjectcatholicchurch
