[248] Of John XXI, who had in 1276 condemned the doctrine of a twofold truth. [↑]

[249] Cp. Gebhart, Origines de la Renaissance, pp. 29–44. And see above, p. 308. [↑]

[250] Berington, Lit. Hist. of the Middle Ages, p. 245. See above, p. 310. [↑]

[251] See the Summa of the Inquisitor Bartholomæus Fumus, Venet. 1554, s.v. Infidelitas, fol. 261, § 5; and the Summa of Thomas, Secunda Secundæ, Quæst. X, Art. 2. [↑]

[252] It is sometimes described as a formidable product of doubt; and again by M. de Rémusat as “consecrated to controversy rather than to skepticism.” Cp. Pearson, Hist. of England in the Early and Middle Ages, 1867, i. 609. The view in the text seems the just mean. Cp. Lea, Hist. of the Inquisition, i. 57. In itself the book is for a modern reader a mere collection of the edifying contradictions of theologians; but such a collection must in any age have been a perplexity to faith; and it is not surprising that it remained unpublished until edited by Cousin (see the Ouvrages inédits, intr. pp. clxxxv–ix). That writer justly sums up that such antinomies “condamnent l’esprit à un doute salutaire.” The Rev. A. S. Farrar pronounces that “the critical independence of Nominalism, in a mind like that of Abailard, represents the destructive action of freethought, partly as early Protestantism, partly as skepticism” (Crit. Hist. of Freethought, p. 12). [↑]

[253] Lea, Hist. of the Inquisition, i, 421–22, 556–58, 575; U. Burke, Hist. of Spain, Hume’s ed. 1900, ii, 351–52. For a detailed description of the methods of ecclesiastical torture, Burke refers to the treatise, De Catholicis Institutionibus, by Simancas, Bishop of Beja, Rome, 1575, tit. lxv, De Tormentis, p. 491 sq. [↑]

[254] Torture was inflicted on witnesses in England in 1311, by special inquisitors, under the mandate of Clement V, in defiance of English law; and under Edward II it was used in England as elsewhere against the Templars. [↑]

[255] Istorie fiorentine, iv, 29. [↑]

[256] See below, p. 325. [↑]

[257] Villari, Two First Centuries of Florentine History, Eng. tr. 1901, pp. 110–12. [↑]