XIV,

CENT. from the sentence of the university to pope CLEPART II.MENT VII. at Avignon, and raised an outcry, that St THOMAS himself was condemned by the judgment passed upon their brother. But, before the pope could decide the affair, the accused friar fled from the court of Avignon, went over to the party of URBAN VI. who resided at Rome, and thus, during his absence, was excommunicated. Whether or no the pope approved the sentence of the university of Paris we cannot say. The Dominicans, however, deny that he did, and affirm, that MONTESONUS was condemned purely on account of his flight [m]; though there are many others, who assert that his opinion was also condemned. And as the Dominicans would not acknowledge the sentence of the university to be valid, they were expelled in the year 1389, and were not restored to their ancient honours in that learned body till the year 1404 [n].

CHA P. IV.

Concerning the rites and ceremonies used in the
Church during this century.

The aftera.İ.

tion of the

jubilee.

WE

E must confine ourselves to a general and superficial view of the alterations that were introduced into the ritual of the church during this century, since it cannot reasonably be expected we should insist largely upon this subject within the narrow limits of such a work as this. One of the principal circumstances that strikes us here,

[m] See JAC. ECHARDI Scriptor. Prædicator. tom. i. p. 691. [2] CES. EGASS. DE BOULAY, Hist. Acad. Paris. tom. iv. p. 599. 618. 638. STEPH. BALUZII Vita Pontif. Avenion, tom. i. P. 521. tom. ii. p. 992.---ARGENTRE, Collectio judicior. de novis errorib. tom. i. p. 61.---JAC. DE LONGUEVAL, Hist. de l'Eglise Gallicane, tom. xiv. p. 347.

XIV.

here, is the change that was made in the time ofC E N T. celebrating the jubilee. In the year 1350, CLE-PART II. MENT VI. in compliance with the requests of the people of Rome, enacted that the jubilee, which BONIFACE VIII. had ordered to be held every hundredth year, should be celebrated twice in every century [o]. In favour of this alteration, he might have assigned a very plausible pretext; since it is well known that the Jews, whom the Roman pontifs were always ready to imitate in whatever related to pomp and majesty, celeb ated this sacred solemnity every fiftieth year. But URBAN VI. SIXTUS VI. and other popes, who ordered a more frequent celebration of this salutary and profitable institution, would have had more difficulty in attempting to satisfy those who might have demanded sufficient reasons to justify this inconstancy.

II. INNOCENT V. instituted festivals sacred to Festivals, the memory of the lance with which our Saviour's side was pierced, the nails that fastened him to the cross, and the crown of thorns he wore at his death [p]. This, though evidently absurd, was nevertheless pardonable upon the whole, considering the gross ignorance and stupidity of the times. But nothing can excuse the impious fanaticism and superstition of BENEDICT XII. who, by appointing a festival in honour of the marks of CHRIST'S Wounds, which, the Franciscans tell us, were imprinted upon the body of their chief and founder by a miraculous interposition of the divine power, gave credit to that grossly ridicu lous and blasphemous fable. Pope JOHN XXII. Prayers. besides the sanction he gave to many other superstitions,

Bb 2

[0] BALUZII Vita Pontif. Avexion. tom. i. p. 247.287. 312. 887.-MURATORII Antiquit. Ital. tom. iii, p. 344. 481.

[p] See Jo. HENR. A SEELEN, Diss. de festo Lanceæ et clavorum Christi.-BALUZII Vit. Pontif. Avenion. tom. i. p. 328. Miscellan. tom. i. p. 417.

CEN Ttions, ordered Christians to add to their prayers XIV. those words with which the angel GABRIEL saluted the Virgin MARY.

PART II.

CHAP. V.

Concerning the divisions and heresies that troubled the Church during this century.

Controver- I.

sies excited

by the

URING some part of this century the

D Hesychasts, or, as the Latins call them,

Quietists. the Quietists, gave the Greek church a great deal of trouble. To assign the true source of it we must observe, that BARLAAM, a native of Calabria, who was a monk of St BASIL, and afterwards bishop of Gieraci, in Calabria, made a progress through Greece to inspect the behaviour of the monks, among whom he found many things highly reprehensible. He was more especially offended at the Hesychasts of mount Athos, in Thessaly, who were the same with the Mystics, or more perfect monks, and who, by a long course of intense contemplation, endeavoured to arrive at a tranquillity of mind entirely free from every degree of tumult and perturbation. These Quietists, in compliance with an ancient opinion of their principal doctors (who imagined that there was a celestial light concealed in the deepest retirements of the mind), used to sit every day, during a certain space of time, in a solitary corner, with their eyes eagerly and immoveably fixed upon the middle region of the belly, or navel; and boasted, that, while they remained in this posture, they found in effect, a divine light beaming forth from the soul, which diffused through their hearts inexpressible sensations of

pleasure

XIV.

pleasure and delight [q]. To such as inquired C E N T. what kind of light this was, they replied, by way P A & T II. of illustration, that it was the glory of God, the same →→→→ celestial radiance that surrounded CHRIST during his transfiguration on the mount. BARLAAM, entirely unacquainted with the customs and manners of the Mystics, looked upon all this as highly absurd and fanatical, and therefore styled the monks, who adhered to this institution, Massalians, and Euchites [r], and also gave them the

new

[9] We have no reason to be surprised at, and much less to disbelieve this account. For it is a fundamental rule with all those people in the eastern world, whether Christians, Mahometans, or Pagans (who maintain the necessity of abstracting the mind from the body, in order to hold communion with God, which is exactly the same thing with the contemplative and mystic life among the Latins), that the eyes must be steadily fixed every day for some hours upon some particular object; and that he who complies with this precept will be thrown into an extasy, in which, being united to God, he will see wonderful things, and be entertained with ineffable delights. See what is said concerning the Siamese monks and Mystics by ENGELB Kæmpfer, in his History of Japan, tom. i. p. 30. and also concerning those of India, in the Voyages of Bernier, tom. ii. p. 127. Indeed, I can easily admit, that they who continue long in the abovementioned posture, will imagine they behold many things which no man in his senses ever beheld or thought of. For certainly the combinations they form of the unconnected notions that arise to their fancy while their minds are in this odd and unnatural state, must be most singular and whimsical; and that so much the more, as the rule itself which prescribes the contemplation of a certain object as the means of arriving at a vision of the Deity, absolutely forbids all use of the faculty of reason during that extatic and sublime interval. This total suspension of reason and reflection, during the period of contemplation, was not, however, peculiar to the eastern Quietists; the Latin Mystics observed the same rule, and inculcated it upon their disciples. And from hence we may safely conclude, that the many surprising visions, of which these fanatics boast, are fables utterly destitute of reason and probability. But this is not the proper place for enlarging upon prodigies of this nature.

[r] The Massalians (so called from a Hebrew word which signifies prayer, as Euchites from a Greck word of the same signification) formed themselves into a sect, during the fourth cen

Bb 3

tury,

XIV.

CENT. new name of Umbilicani [s]. On the other hand, PARTI GREGORY PALAMAS, archbishop of Thessalonica, defended the cause of these monks against BARLAA [t].

ver

and E. a

The state of II. In order to put an end to this dissension, a the council was held at Constantinople in the year 1341, tween the in which the emperor himself ANDRONICUS the Hesychasts younger, and the patriarch, presided. Here PAamites. LAMAS and the monks triumphed over BARLAAM, who was condemned by the council; whereupon he left Greece, and returned to Italy. Not long after this, another monk, named GREGORY ACINDYNUS, renewed the controversy, and, in opposition to the opinion maintained by PALAMAS, denied that God dwelt in an eternal light distinct from his essence, as also that such a light was beheld by the disciples on mount Tabor. The dispute was now no longer concerning the monks, but turned upon the light seen at mount Tabor, and also upon the nature and residence of the Deity. Nevertheless, he was condemned as a follower of BARLAAM, in another council held at Constantinople. Many assemblies were convened about this affair; but the most remarkable of them all, was that, held in the year 1351, in which the Barlaamites and their adherents received such a fatal wound, in consequence of the severe decrees enacted against them, that they were forced to yield, and leave the victory to PALAMAS. This prelate maintained, that God was incircled, as it were, with an eternal light, which might be styled his energy or operation, and was distinct from his nature and essence; and that he favoured the three disciples

with

tury, under the reign of CONSTANTIUS. Their tenets resembled those of the Quietists in several respects.

[+] Ομφαλόψυχοι

[] For an account of these two famous men, BARLAAM and GREGORY PALAMAS, see, in preference to all other writers, Jo. ALB. FABRICIUS, Biblioth. Graca, tom. x. p. 427 and 454.