Page:Mind (Old Series) Volume 12.djvu/283

 270 F. WINTEETON: them, one very easy, and another much less so. As already stated, they never for an instant thought of making his system theirs, either at once or by degrees. But were they to allow it in the Order as a defensible theory ? or had they to exclude it from their teaching altogether ? This could hardly be answered off-hand. There is a decree dated from about a year before Descartes' death that runs thus : " Complaints have been brought against Professors of Philosophy that they lose time over useless questions, that they disturb the order of the matters which they teach, that they take too much liberty in choosing their opinions. But the judgment of the Congregation is, that nothing else is required save the vigilance of Provincials and Eectors." * In this decree, several things are to be noted. First of all, the date. Secondly, the complaints (such as had never been made before) that coincide with that date ; and the matter of complaint also points to the perturbation produced by Descartes' system. His methodical doubt, his denial of the vital principle in animals, his vortex-theory, his inquiry after the place of the soul, must have appeared to the Scholastics very " useless questions," to say the least. His new theory " disturbed the order " of metaphysical disquisi- tions much more than it altered their results. And if anything was needed still to point out Descartes, it is the complaint of the " too great liberty " the Latin has it licentiam which his adherents were wont to take. Thirdly, we may note, in conjunction with the date, the refusal of the Society to put down obnoxious Cartesians that were to be found amongst its members. And lastly, the somewhat disdainful tone of the remark that the vigilance of local Superiors was quite sufficient to obviate any inconvenience that might otherwise result from this tolerance. But toler- ance was one thing, acceptance was another. As to the question whether Cartesians ought to be tolerated, the Jesuits had to refer to their first principle of conduct, and inquire whether the doctrine brought forward by Descartes was, neither in itself nor in its results, contrary to the Catholic faith. Cartesianism could certainly be understood in a manner that was not incompatible with the doctrines of the Church, and Descartes himself was a living proof of that ; but could it not be understood otherwise ? And worse still was it not possible that the very principles of the system led surely, when fully matured, to an irreconcil- able hostility between Keason and Faith ? This was to be seen ; and this was what the Society waited for, ready to 1 9 Congr. Gen. Deer, xxiii., 1649.