they bear in these divine books. They speak of C 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 Savour 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 pontifs, 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 pontifs, or to believe all the absurdities which they imposed upon the credulity of the multitude.

E N T.

XIII. PART II.

or contro

XII. The writers of controversy in this cen-The state tury were more numerous than respectable. NI- of polemic CETAS ACOMINATUS, who made a considerable versial thefigure among the Greeks, attacked all the dif- ology. ferent 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,

XIII.

CEN T. councils, and the decisions of the fathers, than by PART II. 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 [d]. 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 [e], is unquestionably entitled to the first rank. THOMAS AQUINAS also appeared with dignity among the Christian champions; and his book against the Gentiles [f] 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 [g]. 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 con

troversy between

XIII. The grand controversy between the Greek and Latin church was still carried on; and all the efforts that were made, during this cenand Latins tury, to bring it to a conclusion, one way or anocontinued. ther, proved ineffectual, GREGORY IX. employ

the Greeks

ed the ministry of the Franciscan monks to bring about an accommodation with the Greeks, and

pursued

[d] ECHARD et QUETIF in Scriptoribus Ordinis Prædicator. tom. i. sect. xiii. p. 106.

[e] BAYLE'S Dictionary, at the article MARTINI.-PAULI COLOMESII Hispania Orient. p. 209.

[f] Jo. ALB. FABRICIUS, Delect. Argumentorum et Scriptor pro veritate Relig. Christian. p. 270.

[g] Liber contra Judaeos et Paganos.

XIII. PART II.

pursued with zeal this laudable purpose from the CENT. year 1232 to the end of his pontificate, but without the least appearance of success [b]. INNOCENTIV. 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 pontif came in person to Rome, and was declared legate of the Apostolic see [i]. 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 negociations for peace were renewed with such success, as promised a speedy conclusion of these unhappy divisions. For MICHAEL PALEOLOGUS 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 pontif to his side [k]. But, during the course of these negociations, URBAN's death left matters unfinished, and suspended once more the hopes and expectations of the public. Under the pontificate of GREGORY X. proposals of peace were again made by the same emperor, who, after much opposition from his own clergy, sent ambassadors to the council that was assembled at Lions Vol. III.

S

in

[b] See WADDING. Annal. Minor. tom. ii. p. 279. 296. & 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. 388. 393. 397. 497. 498.---WADDING. Annal. Minor. tom. iii. & iv. p. 37. [k] WADDING. Annal. Minor. tom. iv. p. 181. 291. 223. ·269. 303.

:ra

CENT in the year 1274 [7], and there, with the solemn XIII. consent of JOHN VECCUS, patriarch of ConstantiPART II. nople, and several Greek bishops, publicly agreed to the terms of accommodation proposed by the Roman pontif [m]. This re-union, however, was not durable; for the situation of affairs in Greece and Italy being changed some years after this convention, and that in such a manner as to deliver the former from all apprehensions of a Latin invasion, ANDRONICUS, the son of MICHAEL, assembled a council at Constantinople, in the palace of Blacherna, A. D. 1284, in which, by a solemn decree, this ignominious treaty was declared entirely null, and the famous VECCUs, by whose persuasion and authority it had been concluded, was sent into exile [n]. This resolute measure, as may well be imagined, rendered the divisions more violent than they had been before the treaty now mentioned; and it was also followed by an open schism, and by the most unhappy discords among the Grecian-clergy.

XIV.

[1] See WADDING. Annal. Minor. tom. iv. p. 343. 371. tom. v. p. 9. 29. 62.-COLONIA, Hist. Litter, de la Ville de Lyon, tom. ii. p. 284.

[m] JOSEPH, and not VECCUS, was patriarch of Constantinople, when this treaty was concluded. The former had bound himself by a solemn oath never to consent to a reconciliation between the Greek and Latin churches; for which reason the emperor, when he sent his ambassadors to Lions, proposed to JOSEPH the following alternative: that, if they succeeded in bringing about an accommodation, he should renounce his patriarchal dignity; but, if they failed in their attempt, he was to remain patriarch, advising him, at the same time, to retire to a convent, until the matter was decided. The ambassador succeeded, JOSEPH was deposed, and VECCUS elected in his place; when, and not before, this latter ratified the treaty in question by his solemn consent, to the ignominious article of supremacy and pre-eminence, which it confirmed to the Roman pontif.

[2] LEO ALLATIUS de perpetua consensione Eecles. Orient. et Occident. lib. ii. c. xv. xvi. p. 727.-FRED. SPANHEIM de perpet. dissensione Græcor, et Latin, tom, ii. opp. p. 488, &c.

XIII.

The dis

putes con

Christ's bo

continued.

XIV. We pass over several controversies of a CENT more private kind and of inferior moment, which PART II have nothing in their nature or circumstances that deserves the attention of the curious; but we must not forget to observe that the grand dispute cerning the concerning the eucharist was still continued in presence of this century, not only in France, but also in se- dy in the veral other places. For though INNOCENT III. had, eucharist in the council held at the Lateran in the year' 1215, presumptuously taken upon him to place Transubstantiation among the avowed doctrines of the Latin church, yet the authority of this decree was called in question by many, and several divines had the courage to maintain the probability of the opinions that were opposed to that monstrous doctrine. Those who, adopting the sentiments of BERENGER, considered the bread and wine in no other light, than as signs or symbols of the body and blood of CHRIST, did not venture either to defend or profess this opinion in a public manner. Many, also, thought it sufficient to acknowledge, what was termed a real presence, though they explained the manner of this presence quite otherwise than the doctrine of INNOCENT had defined it [o]. Among these JOHN, surnamed PUNGENS ASINUS, a subtile doctor of the university of Paris, acquired an eminent and distinguished name, and, without incurring the censure of his superiors, substituted Consubstantiation in the place of Transubstantiation towards the conclusion of this century [p].

[o] PET. ALLIX. Præf. ad F. Jobannis Determinat. de Sacramento Altaris, published at London in 8vo, in the year 1686.

[p] The book of this celebrated doctor was published by the learned ALLIX abovementioned. See BALUZI Vitæ Pontif. Avenion. tom. i. p. 576.-DACHERII Spicileg. Veter. Scriptor. tom. iii. p. 58.-ECHARDI Scriptores Dominicani, tom. i. p. 361.