authorship, were, for the most part, obliged to draw their materials from their own genius and memory, being destitute of all other succours..

Much opposition made to

the scholastic

VIII. The opinions which these philosophical divines instilled into the minds of the youth, appeared to the votaries of the ancient fathers highly dangerous and even pernicious; and hence they used doctors. their utmost efforts to stop the progress of these opinions, and to diminish the credit and influence of their authors. Nor was their opposition at all ill grounded; for the subtile doctors of the school not only explained the mysteries of religion in a manner conformable to the principles of their presumptuous logic, and modified them according to the dictates of their imperfect reason, but also propagated the most impious sentiments and tenets concerning the Supreme Being, the material world, the origin of the universe, and the nature of the soul. And when it was objected to these sentiments and tenets, that they were in direct contradiction to the genius of Christianity, and to the express doctrines of Scripture, these scholastic quibblers had recourse, for a reply, or rather for a method of escape, to that perfidious distinction, which has been frequently employed by modern Deists, that these tenets were philosophically true, and conformable to right reason, but that they were indeed theologically false, and contrary to the orthodox faith. This kindled an open war between the Biblicists, or Bible divines, and the scholastic doctors, which was carried on with great warmth throughout the whole course of this century, particularly in the universities of Oxford and Paris, where we find the former loading the latter with the heaviest reproaches in their public acts and in their polemic writings, and accusing them of corrupting the doctrines of the gospel, both in their public lessons, and in their private discourse. Even St. Thomas himself was accused of holding opinions contrary to the truth; his orthodoxy, at least, was looked upon as extremely dubious by many of the Parisian doctors.

b See Matth. Paris, Histor. Major, p. 541. Boulay, Hist. Acad. Paris. tom. iii. p. 397, 430, 433, 472, &c. c See Jo. Launoii Histor. Gymnas. Navarreni, part iii. lib. iii, cap. cxvi. tom. iv. opp. part i. p. 485. Boulay, Histor. Acad. Paris. tom. iv. p. 204. Petri Zornii Opuscula Sacra, tom. i. p. 445. R. Simon, Lettres Choisies, tom. ii. p. 206. Echardi Scriptor. Ore din. Prædicator. tom. i. p. 435. VOL. II.

52

He accordingly saw a formidable scene of opposition arising against him, but had the good fortune to conjure the storm, and to escape untouched. Others, whose authority was less extensive, and their names less respectable, were treated with more severity. The living were obliged to confess publicly their errors; and the dead, who had persevered in them to the last, had their memories branded with infamy.

The Mystics oppose the schoolmen.

IX. But the most formidable adversaries the scholastic doctors had to encounter, were the Mystics, who, rejecting every thing that had the least resemblance of argumentation or dispute about matters of doctrine and opinion, confined their endeavours to the advancement of inward piety, and the propagation of devout and tender feelings, and thus acquired the highest degree of popularity. The people, who are much more affected with what touches their passions, than with what is only addressed to their reason, were attached to the Mystics in the warmest manner; and this gave such weight to the reproaches and invectives which they threw out against the schoolmen, that the latter thought it more prudent to disarm these favourites of the multitude by mild and submissive measures, than to return their reproaches with indignation and bitterness. They accordingly set themselves to flatter the Mystics, and not only extolled their sentimental system, but employed their pens in illustrating and defending it; nay, they associated it with the scholastic philosophy, though they were as different from each other as any two things could possibly be. It is well known that Bonaventura, Albert the Great, Robert Capito, and Thomas Aquinas contributed to this reconciliation between mysticism and dialectics by their learned labours, and even went so far as to write commentaries upon Dionysius, the chief of the Mystics, whom these subtile doctors probably looked upon with a secret contempt.

Christian

x. Both the schoolmen and Mystics of this century treated, in their writings, of the obligations of moThe state of rality, the duties of the Christian life, and of the morality. means that were most adapted to preserve or deliver the soul from the servitude and contagion of vice; but their methods of handling these important subjects were, as may be easily conceived, entirely different.

We

may form an idea of mystical morality from the Observations of George Pachymeres upon the writings of Dionysius, and from the Spiritual Institutes, or Abridgment of Mystic Theology, composed by Humbert de Romanis, of which productions the first was written in Greek, and the second in Latin. As to the scholastic moralists, they were principally employed in defining the nature of virtue and vice in general, and the characters of the various virtues and vices in particular; and hence the prodigious number of sums, or systematical collections of virtues and vices, that appeared in this century. The schoolmen divided the virtues into two classes. The first comprehended the moral virtues, which differ in no respect from those which Aristotle recommended to his disciples. The second contained the_theological virtues, which, in consequence of what St. Paul says, 1 Cor. xiii. 13, they made to consist in Faith, Hope, and Charity. In explaining and illustrating the nature of the virtues comprehended in these two classes, they seemed rather to have in view the pleasure of disputing than the design of instructing; and they exhausted all their subtilty in resolving difficulties which were of their own creation. Thomas Aquinas shone forth as a star of the first magnitude, though, like the others, he was often covered with impenetrable fogs. The second part of his famous sum was wholly employed in laying down the principles of morality, and in deducing and illustrating the various duties that result from them; and this part of his learned labours has had the honour and misfortune of passing through the hands of a truly prodigious number of commentators.

XI. It is absolutely necessary to observe here, that the moral writers of this and the following centuries An important

ting to

treating mo

century.

the

must be read with the utmost caution; and with remark refaa perpetual attention to this circumstance, that manner of though they employ the same terms that we find rats in this in the sacred writings, yet they use them in a quite different sense from that which they bear in these divine books. They speak of justice, charity, faith, and holiness; but as these virtues are illustrated by these quibbling sophists, they differ much from the amiable and sublime duties, which Christ and his disciples have inculcated under the same denominations. A single example

will be sufficient to render this evident beyond contradiction. A pious and holy man, according to the sense annexed by our Saviour to these terms, is one, who consecrates his affections and actions to the 'service of the Supreme Being, and accounts it his highest honour and felicity, as well as his indispensable duty, to obey his laws. But in the style of the moral writers of this age, he was a pious and holy man, who deprived himself of his possessions to enrich the priesthood, to build churches and found monasteries, and whose faith and obedience were so implicitly enslaved to the imperious dictates of the Roman pontiffs, that he believed and acted without examination, as these lordly directors thought proper to prescribe. Nor were the ideas which these writers entertained concerning justice, at all conformable to the nature of that virtue, as it is described in the holy Scriptures, since in their opinion it was lawful to injure, revile, torment, persecute, and even to put to death, a heretic, i. e. any person who refused to obey blindly the decrees of the pontiffs, or to believe all the absurdities which they imposed upon the credulity of the multitude.

controversial

XII. The writers of controversy in this century were The state of more numerous than respectable. Nicetas Acopolemic or minatus, who made a considerable figure among theology. the Greeks, attacked all the different sects in his work, entitled The Treasure of the Orthodox Faith; but he combated after the Grecian manner, and defended the cause he undertook to maintain, rather by the decrees of councils, and the decisions of the fathers, than by the dictates of reason and the authority of Scripture. Raymond of Pennafort was one of the first among the Latins, who abandoned the unchristian method of converting infidels by the force of arms and the terrors of capital punishments, and who undertook to vanquish the Jews and Saracens by reason and argument." This engaged in the same controversy a considerable number of able disputants, who were acquainted with the Hebrew and Arabic languages; among whom Raymond Martin, the celebrated author of the Sword of Faith, is unquestionably entitled to the first rank. Thomas Aquinas also appeared with dignity among

d Echard et Quetif in Scriptoribus Ordinis Prædicator. tom. i. § xiii. p. 106.

e Bayle's Dictionary, at the article Martini. Pauli Colomesii Hispania Orient. p. 209.

the Christian champions; and his book against the Gentiles' is far from being contemptible; nor ought we to omit mentioning a learned work of Alan de l'Isle, which was designed to refute the objections of both Jews and pagans. The writers, who handled other more particular branches of theological controversy, were far inferior to these now mentioned in genius and abilities; and their works seemed less calculated to promote the truth, than to render their adversaries odious.

The contro versy between the Greeks

XIII. The grand controversy between the Greek and Latin church was still carried on; and all the efforts that were made, during this century, to bring it to a conclusion, one way or another, and Latins proved ineffectual. Gregory IX. employed the continued. ministry of the Franciscan monks to bring about an accommodation with the Greeks, and pursued with zeal this laudable purpose from the year 1232, to the end of his pontificate, but without the least appearance of success. Innocent IV. embarked in the same undertaking in the year 1247, and sent John of Parma, with other Franciscan friars, to Nice for the same purpose; while the Grecian pontiff came in person to Rome, and was declared legate of the apostolic see.' But these previous acts of mutual civility and respect, which could not but excite the hopes of such as longed for the conclusion of these unhappy discords, did not terminate in the reconciliation that was expected. New incidents arose to blast the influence of these salutary measures, and the flame of dissension recovered new vigour. Under the pontificate of Urban IV. the aspect of things changed for the better, and the negotiations for peace were renewed with such success, as promised a speedy conclusion of these unhappy divisions. For Michael Palæologus had no sooner driven the Latins out of Constantinople, than he sent ambassadors to Rome to declare his pacific intentions, that thus he might establish his disputed dominion, and gain over the Roman pon

f Jo. Alb. Fabricius, Delect. Argumentorum et Scriptor. pro veritate Relig. Christian. p. 270.

Libra contra Judæos et Paganos.

h See Wadding. Annal. Minor. tom. ii. p. 279, 296, and Echard, Scriptor. Ordin. Prædicator. tom. i. p. 103, 911. Add to these Matth. Paris, Histor. Major, p. 386. i See Baluzii Miscellan. tom. vii. p. 370, 888, 393, 397, 497, 498. Wadding. Annal.'

Minor. tom. iii. and iv. p. 37.