Letter VII. To a Benedictine Monk of the Order of Feuillants

Suggestions as to the method of composing a Summa of Theology.

ANNECY, 15^ November 1617.

MY REVEREND FATHER — It is the truth that I love your congregation, though with a love unfruitful up to now. May God make it as effective as it is affectionate, and not only at N., but in two or three worthy mon asteries of this diocese, we shall see flourish again the sacred piety which the glorious friend of God and Our Lady, St. Bernard, had planted there.

I see indeed in your letter that you are ailing, since you say to me: He whom thou lovest is sick; * but still my compassion for you has an extreme sweetness,

• Johii xi. 3.

LET. VIL] Further Letters Outside Visitation. 285 inasmuch as this sickness is not to death, but that the works of God may be manifested. For behold, he who loves is sick because he languishes with love* And therefore I am very glad to fill the office of a daughter of Jerusalem, and will go tell thy Beloved — behold he who loves and whom thou lovest is sick. And do you, my dear Father, in return, implore for me and over me the assistance of which, in these waters, I have so much need. Many waters, many peoples: Save me, 0 Lord, for man hath trodden me under foot; and deliver me from many waters^

I have seen with an extreme pleasure the design of your Summa of Theology, which is, to my taste, well and judiciously done. If you favour me by sending me a section of it I will read it lovingly and tell you my opinion frankly and simply, cost what it may. And to give you some assurance of this at once, I say that my idea is that you should omit, as far as possible, all methodic words, which, though they must be used in teaching, are superfluous, if I mistake not, and unseasonable, in writing. What need is there, for example, of: "In this difficulty three questions occur to us: the first question is, what is predestination? the second, to whom does predestination belong? the third, &c.? " For, since you are extremely methodical, it will be clearly seen that you do these things one after another, without your giving notice beforehand. Similarly: " On this question there are two opinions: the first opinion is, &c." For is it not enough to give the statement of the opinions at once, beginning with a number, in this way: —

I. Scotus, Mayronis, and their followers, &c. 2.

• Cant. v. 8. t Ps. lv., cxliii.

Ocham, Aureolus, and the Nominalists. 3. St. Thomas, however, and St. Bonaventure — and so on.

Then instead of saying: " The three conclusions must now be replied to, of which the first is, &c.," is it not enough to say: " I now then say first, &c.; " 2. " I say; " 3. " I say, &c.? " So again with making prefaces in continuing subjects: " Having treated of God as one, it is proper that we now treat of God as threefold, or of the Trinity, &c.: " this is good for persons who go without method, or who need to make their method known because it is extraordinary or involved. Now this will largely hinder your Summa from swelling: it will be all juice and marrow, and according to my idea it will be all the more tasty and agreeable.

I add that there is a large number of questions quite useless except to furnish matter of argument. Certainly there is no great need of knowing " Whether angels are in a place by essence or by operation, whether they move from term to term without traversing intermediate space," and the like: and although I should wish to have nothing forgotten, yet it seems to me that in such questions it should suffice to express clearly your opinion, and to base it on a good foundation, and then at the end or beginning to say simply: " so and so have thought otherwise; " thus leaving more room for enlarging a little more on questions of consequence, in which you must take care to instruct your reader thoroughly.

Further, I know that when you please you have ao affective style; for I have a lively recollection of your Benjamin at the Sorbonne. I should approve that in the places where it can suitably be done you should

LET. vii.] Further Letters Outside Visitation. 287 expose the arguments for your opinions in that style; as in the question, " Whether the Word would have taken flesh if Adam had not sinned." In either view you can draw out the opinions in the affective style.. In that question, " Whether predestination is after the foreseeing of merit," whether one hold the opinion of the holy Fathers who have preceded St. Ambrose, or that of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, or that of others, the arguments can be formed in affective style without amplifying, indeed, rather the contrary; and instead of saying, " The second argument is," simply put the number 2. Again, it is a great ornament to give some good authorities, when they are full and brief; otherwise, a little with a reference.

Well now, my dear Father, what do you think of my heart? Does it not act simply with yours? But still, believe me, I am not so simple that with another I should act like this. I call to mind your meekness, natural, moral, and supernatural; I have my imagination full of your charity which endureth all things* and how you willingly suffer the foolish while you yourself are wise^C wherefore I speak in my foolishness. May God make you prosper in his holy love. I am in him, unto extremity, my Reverend Father, your, &c.

• i Cor. xiii. 7. t 2 Cor. xi. 19.