E N T. XIV. among themselves, were furiously engaged in disputations with each other concerning many PART II. points. The flame of their controversy was, in - མཁབི this century, supplied with plentiful accessions of fuel, by JOHN DUNS SCOTUs, an Englishman, of the Franciscan order, who was extremely eminent for the subtilty of his genius, and who, animated against the Dominicans by a warm spirit of jealousy, had attacked and attempted to disprove several doctrines of THOMAS AQUINAS. Upon this, the Dominicans, taking the alarm, united from all quarters to defend their favourite doctor, whom they justly considered as the common leader of the scholastics; while the Franciscans, on the other hand, espoused with ardour the cause of SCOTUS, whom they looked upon as a divine sage sent down from heaven to enlighten bewildered and erring mortals. Thus these powerful and flourishing orders were again divided; and hence the origin of the two famous sects, the Scotists and Thomists, which, to this day, dispute the field of controversy in the Latin schools. The chief points about which they disagree are, the Nature of the divine co-operation with the human will, the Measure of divine grace that is necessary to salvation, the Unity of form in man, or personal identity, and other abstruse and minute questions, the enumeration of which is foreign to our purpose. We shall only observe, that what contributed most to exalt the reputation of Scotus, and to cover him with glory, was his demonstration and defence of, what was called, the Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, against the Dominicans, who entertained different notions of that matter [g]. VI. A prodigious number of the people, de- The Mysnominated Mystics, resided and propagated their tics tenets [g] See WADDINGUS, Annal. Mingr. tom. vi. p 52 CENT. tenets in almost every part of Europe. There XIV. were, undoubtedly, among them many persons PARTII. of eminent piety, who endeavoured to wean men Moral wri ters. from an excessive attachment to the external part of religion, and to form them to the love of God, and the practice of genuine virtue. Such, among others, were TAULERUS, RUYSBROCIUS, Suso, and GERARD of Zutphen [b], who, it must be confessed, have left many writings that are. exceedingly well calculated to excite pious dispositions in the minds of their readers; though want of judgment, and a propensity to indulge enthusiastic visions, is a defect common to them all. But there were also some senseless fanatics belonging to this party, who ran about, from place to place, recommending a most unaccountable extinction of all the rational faculties, whereby they idly imagined the human mind would be transfused into the divine essence; and thus led their proselytes into a foolish kind of piety, that in too many cases bordered nearly upon licentiousness. The religious frenzy of these enthusiasts rose to such a height, as rendered them detestable to the soberer sort of Mystics, who charged their followers to have no connexions with them [i]. VII. It is needless to say much concerning those who applied themselves to the study of morality, seeing their merit is much of the same kind with that of the authors whom we have already mentioned; though it may be proper to mention [6] Concerning these authors, see PETR. POIRET. Biblioth. Mysticorum; and GODOFR. ARNOLD, Histor. et descriptio Theol. Mystic. Concerning TAULERUS and SUSO, EChardus treats expressly in his Scriptor. Prædicat. tom. i. p. 653. 677. See also Acta Sanctor. Januar. tom. ii. p. 652. [] JOH. RUYSBROCIUS inveighed bitterly against them, as appears from his Work published by LAUR. SUUS, p. 50. 378. as also from his treatise De vera contemplatione, cap. xviii. p. 608. XVI. mention two circumstances, by which the reader CEN T. may ascertain the true state of this science. The PART II. first is, that about this time, more writers than in any former century made it their business to collect and solve, what they stiled, Cases of conscience; by which ARTESANUS, an Italian, Monaldus, and BARTHOLOMEW of St CONCORDIA, acquired a reputation superior to any of their contemporaries. This kind of writing was a of piece with the education then received in the schools, since it taught people to quibble and wrangle, instead of forming them to a sound faith and a suitable practice. A second thing worthy of notice is, that moral duties were explained, and their practice enforced, by allegories and comparisons of a new and whimsical kind, even by examples drawn from the natures, properties, and actions of the brute creation. These writers, began, for instance, by explaining the nature and qualities of some particular animal, and then applied their description to human life and manners, to characterize the virtues and vices of moral agents. The most remarkable productions of this sort are NIEDER'S Formicarius, a treatise concerning Bees by THOMAS BRABANTINUS, HUGO DE St VICTOR'S dissertations upon Beasts, and a tract of THOMAS WALLEY'S, entitled, The Nature of Brute Animals moralized. VIII. The defenders of Christianity in this age Controverwere, generally speaking, unequal to the glori- sialists. ous cause they undertook to support; nor do their writings discover any striking marks of genius, dexterity, perspicuity, or candour. Some productions, indeed, appeared from time to time, that were not altogether unworthy of notice. The learned BRADWARDINE, an English divine, advanced many pertinent and ingenious things towards the confirmation of the truth of Christianity in general, in a Book upon Providence. The book, XIV. 66 CENT book, intitled, "Collyrium Fidei contra HæretiPART II." Cos, or Eye-salve of Faith against the Heretics," shews that its author ALVARUS PELAGIUS was a well meaning and judicious man, though he has by no means exhausted the subject in this performance. NICHOLAS LYRA wrote against the Jews, as did also PORCHETUS SALVATICUS, whose treatise, intitled, "The Triumph of Faith," is chiefly borrowed from the writings of RAYMOND MARTIN. Both these writers are much inferior to THEOPHANES, whose " Book against the Jews, and his Harmony between the Old and New Testament," contain many observations that are by no means contemptible. sy between State of the IX. During this century, there were some controver promising appearances of a reconciliation bethe Greeks tween the Greeks and Latins. For the former, apand Latins, prehending they should want the assistance of the Latins to set bounds to the power of the Turks, which about this time was continually increasing, often pretended a willingness to submit to the Latin canons. Accordingly, A. D. 1339, ANDRONICUS, the Younger, sent BARLAAM as his ambassador into the west, to desire a reconciliation in his name. In the year 1349, another Grecian embassy was sent to CLEMENT VI. for the same purpose, and, in 1356, a third was dispatched upon a like errand to INNOCENT VI. who resided at Avignon. Nor was this all; for in the year 1367, the Grecian patriarch arrived at Rome in order to negociate this important matter, and was followed, in the year 1369, by the emperor himself, JOHN PALEOLOGUS, who undertook a journey into Italy, and, in order to conciliate the friendship and good-will of the Latins, published a confession of his faith, which was agreeable to the sentiments of the Roman pontif. But, notwithstanding these prudent and pacific measures, the major part of the Greeks could. XIV. could not be persuaded by any means to drop C E N T. the controversy, or to be reconciled to the church PART II. of Rome, though several of them, from views of interest or ambition, expressed a readiness to submit to its demands; so that this whole century was spent partly in furious debates, and partly in fruitless negotiations [k]. tention be tween the of Paris and Occasioned by Monte X. In the year 1384, a furious controversy a- The conrose at Paris, between the university there and the Dominican Order. The author of it was university JOHN DE MONTESONO, a native of Arragon, a the DomiDominican friar and professor of divinity, who, nicans pursuant to the decisions and doctrine of his Order, publicly denied that the blessed Virgin MARY was conceived without any stain of original sin; and moreover asserted, that all who believed the immaculate conception were enemies of the true faith. The quarrel occasioned by this proceeding would certainly have been soon com- sorus. promised, had not JOHN, in a public discourse, delivered some time in the year 1387, revived this opinion with more violence than ever. For this reason the college of divines, and afterwards the whole university, condemned this and some other tenets of MONTESONUS. For it may be proper to inform the reader, that the university of Paris, principally induced thereto by the discourses of JOHN DUN SCOTUS, had from the beginning almost of this century, publicly adopted the doctrine of the sinless conception of the holy Virgin [1]. Upon this, the Dominicans, together with their champion MONTESONUS, appealed [k] See HENR. CANISII Lectiones Antique, tom. iv. p. 369. -LEO. ALLATIUS, De perpetua consensione eccles. Orient. et Occident. lib. ii. cap. xvi. xvii. p. 782.-Luc. WADDINGUS, Annal. Minor. tom. viii. p. 29. 40. 107. 201. 289. 303. 312. -STEPH. BALUZII Vita Pontif. Avenion. tom. i. p. 348. 380. 388. 403. 407. 410. 772. [1] See WADDINGI Annal. Minor. tom. vi. p. 52. s. VOL. III. B b from |