Journal of the History of Philosophy

BOOK REVIEWS 467 only God--therefore a third entity is sought in which both aspects are combined. But even if the third is called being for itself, it must still be explained why it should be just "natures" which gain their concrete seN-existence in the hypostatic unity. It could be objected that I have criticized Leontius and not Otto. But what is the value of a historical study which does not ask for the truth itself? Leontius has invented the objections of his opponents, so that one must ask whether his opponents are only phantoms and whether his own position could stand against the real doctrine of his opponents. Leontius does not see what the justification might be for challenging the Chalcedouian creed. The analogy of the two natures of the incarnate 'Loges' with the two natures of man is vulnerable at exactly the point at which the Nestorians resisted Chalcedon: Jesus as an individual man is the human aspect, whereas the human soul never possesses an analogous individuality. The mere adoption of the Platonic doctrine of soul against the Aristotelian doctrine of entelechy cannot be made true by a confession of faith, i.e., Chalcedon! What is human individuality "in spirit and freedom" if the concrete, and that is the corporeal appearance, is left out of consideration? Therefore I stay with M. Richard: "Cette rodomontade ne doit pas 8tre du gottt de tout le monde." Otto was not able to convince me of the contrary. I hope to have indicated the topics which ought to be reconsidered. Er,~smu~ M~n~o School of Theology at Claremont, California William Chalmers, 1596-1678, dtude biobibliographique avec des textes inddits (Le mouvement des iddes au xvn~ si~cle, s6rie No. 7). By Francis Ferrier. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1968. Pp. 196) The Oratorian, William Chalmers (Camerius), took part in a controversy between the Jesuits Francois Annat and Th6ophile Raynaud, and the Oratorian leader, Guillaume Gibieuf. This study explores the life of Chalmers and his ideas. Chalmers was a Scottish Catholic born in Aberdeen who fled as a youth from Protestant persecution, studied at the Jesuit Scottish college at Rome and then became a Jesuit, apparently planning to go back to Scotland to help the Catholics still there. After completing his studies at Pont-~-Mousson, he was assigned to teach at Chalons. A letter of his to the Jesuit general of 1624 indicates that he wanted to present certain Scotist doctrines in his classes. Around two years later, under mysterious circumstances, Chalmers quit the Jesuits and fled to Vaison, a Scottish refugee community in France with a Scottish bishop. In the be~nning of 1627, he joined the Oratory, perhaps the only Jesuit to do so, and taught at their schools at Angers, Nantes and Saumur. Around 1635 he left the Oratory, becoming a simple priest in Saint-Male. During his Oratorian period, Chalmers published Selectae Disputationes Philosophicae (1630). In this, Chalmers entered into the quarrels of the time concerning the relationship between human liberty and divine grace. He rigorously refuted the Molinist position and presented a predeterminist view, siding with the theory developed in Gibieuf's De Libertate Dei et Creaturae. The Jesuits Father Annat and Raynaud attacked the Oratorian leader and directed a little of their fire against Chalmers, to which Chalmers replied in 1634 in his ,4ntiquitatis de Novitate Victoria rive ]usta defenMo praemotionis physicae contra impetitiones Pseudo Eugenii PhUadelphi (Annat). Chalmers' theory was presented in scholastic form, trying to show logically the untenability of the Molinist thesis. Chalmers attempted to root his own view in St. Thomas and to develop a theory of the prdmotion physique to explain God's role 468 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY in the actions of all creatures. Ferrier analyses Chalmers' theory and questions whether, in spite of the author's pretensions, it was really Thomist, or whether it actually was a form of Scotism applied to the issues of the day. In pressing the logic of God's omnipotence vis-a-vis the liberty of his creatures, Ferrier suggests that Chalmers ignored the metaphysical and theological levels of the problem. His logical scholasticism lacked the power of the Augustinian mysticism of Gibieuf...