i3 
the second conclusion at which I have arrived, namely, that the Seventh 
part, though extending to more than ninety folio pages, is yet imperfect 
in the Dublin manuscript. This I did not at first suspect. There is 
indeed no “‘ Explicit” at the end of the manuscript, which closes at the 
middle of the page; but that might be an accidental omission; and in 
the sense of the concluding passage there is nothing, at first view, to 
indicate an abrupt termination. The final words, ‘‘ Et quid potest homo 
plus petere in hac vita?’ might even seem not inaptly to mark the com- 
pletion of the great edifice. But, on further examination, using the lights 
supplied by M. Cousin’s account of the ‘‘ Opus Tertium,”’ I have arrived 
~ at the conclusion that there is a deficiency at the end of the manuscript. 
A few brief quotations will best indicate the general plan of the 
moral treatise which forms the Seventh part. After some excellent in- 
troductory observations on the relation between moral philosophy and 
the preceding sciences, he goes on to enumerate the several heads or 
branches of the subject to be successively treated :—‘‘ Heec scientia primo 
docet componere leges et jura vivendi, secundo docet ea credi et probari, 
et homines exhortari ad operandum et vivendum secundum illas leges.’’ 
He proceeds to state the subdivision of the first head into three :— 
‘‘ Prima pars dividitur in tres, nam primo naturaliter occurrit ordinatio 
hominis in Deum et respectu substantiarum angelicarum, secundo ad prox- 
imum, tertio ad seipsum.’’ And accordingly these three branches of moral 
duty are the subjects of the first three divisions of the treatise. Thus, 
haying spoken in the first of our duty to God, in fol. 210 he commences 
the second division with the words,—‘‘ Secunda pars descendit ad leges 
et statuta hominum inter se.”” This division is very brief, occupying 
only two pages. Then begins the third, which is thus characterized : 
—‘‘ Tertia vero pars scientize moralis et civilis est de moribus cujuslibet 
persone secundum se, ut honestas vite in quolibet habeatur, et turpitudo 
vitiorum relinquatur propter futuram felicitatem et horrorem eterne 
pene.” This division is of great extent, abounding in lengthened quo- 
tations from the ancient ethical writers, particularly Seneca, with some 
-of whose works the author says he had recently met for the first time. 
“‘ Protraxi,” he proceeds, in fol. 240, ‘‘ hance partem Philosophiz moralis 
gratis propter pulchritudinem et utilitatem sententiarum moralium, et 
propter hoc quod libri raro inveniuntur a quibus erui has morum radices, 
flores, et fructus.” ‘Nunc autem volo accedere ad partem quartam 
hujus scientiz.” And in the fourth division the question is considered, 
what sect is to be adopted and followed by mankind,—in other words, 
what is the true religion? Having proved Christianity to be the faith 
which the human race ought to receive, he proceeds to establish that 
doctrine of the Christian faith which he says most requires to be de- 
fended, ‘‘ eo quod quidam negant et aliis est dubium, alii cum difficul- 
tate recipiunt, quibusdam durum videtur, alii imperfecte sentiunt, pauci 
de facili et cum plena pace et suavitate animi tenent, et est hoc sacra- 
mentum altaris.”” And then follows a discourse on the doctrine of the 
Eucharist, with which the treatise ends. 
R. I, ACAD. PROC.—VOL. VII. D 
