DISTINCTION OF THE HUMAN AND DIVINE IN PROPHECY. 391 uniformity in dogmatical expression, by exhibiting to view the opposition of opinions that existed amongst the most important churchteachers themselves. He wanted to show those who were ready to fix the stigma of heresy on any dogmatical propositions that deviated from the common form, how easy it was to find offensive things even in the most highly revered teachers of the church. Perhaps not without some reference to the conduct of his adversaries towards himself, he says: "Who does not see how impertinent it is for one man to set himself up as judge over the sense and understanding of another, when it is to God alone that the hearts and thoughts of all men lie open; and when he warns us against this arrogant presumption, saying, 'Judge not, that ye be not judged'? And the apostle says: Judge nothing before the time, till the Lord come, who shall bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make known the secrets of the heart." As if he had plainly said: 'In such matters, leave him to judge who alone knows all things, and explores the very thoughts of men." "2 We have already seen, on a former page, how the remarks of Abelard, on the relation of the apostles to one another, were based on a view of inspiration that deviated from the common one, a view that forbade him to extend the immediate suggestion of the Holy Spirit to all in like measure, and led him to make a more distinct separation of the divine from the human. Now that which we must recognize as lying at the basis of Abelard's earlier remarks, is clearly expressed by him in the prologue to this book. "It is plain," says he, "that the prophets themselves sometimes failed of possessing the gift of prophecy, and that, from the custom of prophesying, they uttered some things, when they supposed they had the spirit of prophecy, which were erroneous, and the product of their own minds. And this was permitted in them, that it might serve to keep them humble, and that they might learn more clearly to distinguish between what they were by their own minds, and what they were by the Spirit of God, and understand that it was a gift of God, when the Spirit of the Infallible dwelt in them. Nor even when they possessed this Spirit did he work everything in them after the same manner, or cause them to see alike; for as he does not bestow all gifts at once on the same individual, so neither does he enlighten the soul of him whom he fills on all subjects, but reveals sometimes this and sometimes that, and in revealing one thing hides another.3 If, therefore, it is manifest that the prophets and apostles themselves were not wholly exempt from error, how can we be surprised to find that, in the voluminous writings 11 Corinth. 4: 5. * See the Prologue to the book "Sic et non," p. 5, ed. Cousin. 3 Constat vero, et prophetas ipsos quandoque prophetiae gratia caruisse, et nonnulla ex usu prophetandi, cum se spiritum prophetiae habere crederent, per spiritum suum falsa protulisse; et hoc eis ad humilitatis custodiam permissum esse, ut sic videlicet verius cognoscerent, quales per spiritum Dei et quales per suum existerent, et se eum, qui mentiri vel falli nescit, ex dono habere, cum haberent. Qui etiam eum haberent, sicut non omnia uni confert dona. ita nec de omnibus mentem ejus, quem replet, illuminat, sed modo hoc, modo illud revelat et cum unum aperit, alterum occultat. 392 ABELARD'S CRITICISM ON THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS. of the church-fathers, many things have been erroneously stated.1 But though many things may have been erroneously stated by them, yet such statements are not falsehoods, but errors of ignorance. It was their belief that by such statements they should best subserve the edification of others. They acted by the impulse of charity; and God looks at the intention.' It was one of Abelard's favorite sayings, that the "intention" is the "eye of the mind," to which he would add also that fine remark of Augustin, often cited by him: "Habe caritatem et fac quicquid vis." “Al We have said already that Abelard distinguished, in the truths transmitted by the sacred writings, those properly belonging to faith and the religious interests generally, and those having no immediate concern with these interests. So, too, in the sayings of the churchfathers, he distinguishes the errors that stand in no necessary connection with these interests from errors which affect the vital essence of the faith and this distinction led him, perhaps, to conclude that the idea of inspiration, also, in the sacred Scriptures, was not to be applied to the portion that treats of such indifferent matters. though God," he remarks here, "left holy men themselves to commit mistakes in things tending to no injury of the faith, yet even this is not without its benefit to those to whom all things work together for good. The church-teachers themselves were conscious of this liability, and therefore felt themselves bound to make many corrections in their own works, and by so doing have conceded also to those who come after them the right of correcting them, or, of refusing to follow them, when it was not in their power to retract or correct their own errors." At the close of this prologue, he observes that he had compiled this collection of opposite statements with a view to incite the reader to the search after the truth, and to sharpen his faculties by the labor of investigation. And here he appeals to the words of Aristotle that "it is not easy for a man to assert anything with confidence unless he has first repeatedly examined into the matter; and that it is not without its use to have doubted of everything."2 "For doubt," he adds, "leads us to inquiry, and by inquiry we arrive at the truth, as the very Truth himself says: Seek, and ye shall find.' Christ himself, when, at the age of twelve, he instead of teaching sat and inquired in the temple, would teach us by his own example that we should learn by inquiry." It is obvious in what contrariety to the repose of childlike faith, that characterizes the religious spirit of his time, the tendency expressed in these words must have stood. A critical direction. in opposition to implicit faith, and aiming to arrive at the knowledge of the truth through doubt, was a foretoken of developments which could beat their way through only at a much later period. 6 1 Quid itaque mirum, cum ipsos etiam prophetas et apostolos ab errore non penitus fuisse constat alienos, si in tam multiplici sanctorum patrum scriptura nonnulla propter supra positam causam erronee prolata seu scripta videantur? 2 Aristotle's Categories, § 7, ed. Bekker, i, p. 8. Dubitando enim ad inquisitionem venimus, inquirendo veritatem percipimus. ABELARD DENOUNCED AS A HERETIC. 393 We have seen before, that Abelard could not present a full exhibition of his doctrinal system in his "Theologia Christiana." But in his lectures he had given to his hearers his complete system of the doctrines of faith; and of these lectures many copies were in circulation, and contained matter which tended to increase the inclination to put down Abelard as a heretic. To be sure, he had a right to complain when extracts from those copies of his lectures on theology, which his opponents had contrived to get into their hands, were used in the same way as if they had been so written out by himself, although it must have been altogether a matter of uncertainty how far his hearers had rightly understood him, and faithfully taken down his remarks.' Thus the new writings published by Abelard himself, the widely dispersed copies of his lectures, and the high encomiums of his scholars scattered through all France, drew upon him once more the attention of those who believed themselves called to watch over the interests of the orthodox faith; and that, to his injury. William, once abbot of St. Thierry, now a monk in the Cistercian abbey at Signy, first stood forth to complain against him. He sent to Gottfried bishop of Chartres, and to Bernard abbot of Clairvaux, certain papers filled with invectives against Abelard, and professing to expose his heresies in a number of theses taken from his work on theology. In an accompanying letter, he expatiated on the danger which threatened the church from the writings of one who exercised the great influence of Abelard: "Abelard once more writes and teaches new doctrines. His books pass beyond the seas and over the Alps; his new opinions about the faith are disseminated through the provinces and the empire, 1 Concerning the propositions of Abelard which were accused of being heretical, it was said: Haec capitula partim in libro Theologiae magistri Petri, partim in libro sententiarum ejusdem, partim in libro, cujus titulus est: "Scito te ipsum," reperta sunt. But Abelard, in his apology, complained that a book, called the Sentences, was cited as his, when he had never written such a book. He attributes the false charge to ignorance or ill-will. But also Walter of Mauretania, in his work, "Contra quatuor Galliae Labyrinthos," cites what, without any doubt, is the same work, of which he says that it has the title, " Incipiunt sententiae divinitatis," ("The Theological Sentences.") Yet Walter himself was uncertain to what extent this work belonged to Abelard, since he says: Fertur hic liber Petri Abelardi fuisse, aut ex libris ejus excerptus. From this, we may gather that the opponents of Abelard must at least have had a certain appearance of right, in making use of this book as one that came from him; but that Abelard also must have had good grounds for affirming that he had never written such a book. Now professor Rheinwald, who has done so much towards giving an account of the literary labors of Abelard, published in 1835, from manu This scripts in the library of Munich, a book 2 We find this writing complete in the Bibliotheca Cisterciensis of Tissier, t. iv, f. 112, seqq. are frequently held forth, and boldly defended; so that they are said to have authority even in the Roman curia (scholars of his, even amongst the cardinals)." One proof of the blind zeal that governed this man, is the fact that Abelard's two tracts, the "Scito te ipsum," and the "Sic et non," looked already suspicious on account of their, to him, "extraordinary titles ;" and because these books had not been so greatly multiplied by transcripts as the work on Theology, and he himself had never got sight of them, he gathered from this that they shrunk from the light.2 Bernard had his attention directed also, from other quarters, to the erroneous doctrines spread by Abelard and his school; and several other offensive propositions were pointed out to him in Abelard's Scito te ipsum, and in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. At first, he is said to have expostulated with Abelard in a private manner, and exhorted him to desist from holding forth such doctrines, and also to prevent his scholars from repeating them. But the two men differed too much from each other in the whole bent of their minds, and perhaps also were already too much excited against each other, to have it in their power to come to any mutual understanding. Personal contact would serve, therefore, only to increase the alienation already existing between them.3 When Abelard was compelled to hear that he had been stigmatized as a heretic,believing that it was in his power to defend himself against all the charges brought against his orthodoxy, he determined to anticipate the condemnation which threatened him,- and, applying to the archbishop of Sens, demanded to be heard before a synod, and to be allowed to defend himself against his accusers. Archbishop Senglier, therefore, invited the abbot Bernard to appear with Abelard at the synod, which was held in the year 1140, at Sens. Bernard was at the beginning not inclined to enter into a dispute with his rival. He did not consider himself to be a match for one who had been a practised dialectician from his youth. It was the concern of the bishops to judge with regard to doctrines; nothing more was required than simply to look at Abelard's writings, which amply sufficed to establish a complaint against him. The doctrines of faith had been fixed and settled once for all; and must not be made to depend on human disputations. But he did not persist in declining this invitation, if indeed he was serious in declining it at all; and perhaps he might foresee that the bishops would never allow the matter to come to a dispute between him and Abelard. Many of the dialectic theologians attended this synod. It was a contest not barely between two indi 'De quibus timeo, ne sicut monstruosi sunt nominis, sic etiam monstruosi sint dogmatis. Sicut dicunt, oderunt lucem nec etiam quaesit a inveniuntur. In the third account of Bernard's life (c. v, 11), it is related that, by his mild and amiable language, he had already brought Abelard to that state, that he had retired into himself, and promised, according to Bernard's opinion, to correct every thing in his works. But this saying of an ABELARD'S CONDEMNATION. HIS APPEAL TO THE POPE. 395 viduals, but between two opposite directions of the theological spirit, and both parties were eagerly watching for the issue. Though Bernard's zeal in this affair sprung from a purely Christian interest, yet his mode of procedure seems not to have been so wholly unobjectionable; as, indeed, the zeal of polemical controversy but rarely knows how to preserve itself altogether pure. While his object was to procure the condemnation of Abelard at the council, he professed nothing but that charity which seeks the recovery of a brother in error; yet, under the cloak of this sacred name, he scattered seeds of hatred. In the name of Christian love he called on the people, in his sermons, to pray for Abelard's conversion, but at the same time stirred up the popular fury against him as a godless heretic, presenting him in this light before men who were incapable of understanding a single one of the complaints brought against him, and before whom he could not defend himself. With good reason, perhaps, might the youthful Berengar, who warmly stood forth as a witness and advocate in defence of his teacher Abelard, attach to such conduct the suspicion of hypocrisy, a sin which is so very apt to mix in, even when they are unconscious of it, with the polemics of pious men, and not of such only. With good reason might he tell Bernard, that Christian charity would have rather prompted him to pray for Abelard in silence. Although the satirical account which Abelard's enthusiastic disciple has given of this council is not to be implicitly relied on, yet this much of truth doubtless lies at the bottom of it, that the assembly was one incapable of entering into a calm investigation. More partial to the general views and spirit of Bernard than to the opposite, they were easily governed by his authority. The propositions of Abelard, as stated to them by him, were soon condemned as heretical. On the next day, however, Abelard was asked whether he acknowledged that such propositions had been advanced by him, whether, acknowledging them to be his, he was ready to defend or to correct them. But as Abelard had no reason to expect a calm trial from men who, without hearing what he had to say, had already pronounced sentence of condemnation on the propositions attributed to him, he did not attempt replying to these interrogatories, but appealed to the pope; most probably relying on his pupils or on the friends of his school, amongst the cardinals. Now it was not necessary, it is true, that all further proceedings of the council against him should be arrested by this appeal. According to the old ecclesiastical laws, and according to the principles of the Gallican church, they were not required to acknowledge as 1 The words of Berengar in his tract in defence of Abelard: Concionabaris ad populum, ut orationem fanderet ad Deum pro eo, interius autem disponebas eum proscribendum ab orbe Christiano. Quid vulgus faceret? Quid vulgus oraret, quum pro quo esset orandum nesciret? Tu vir Dei, qui miracula feceras, qui ad pedes Jesu cum Maria sedebas, purissimum sacrae orationis thus coram supernis obtutibus adolere deberes, ut reus tuus Petrus resipisceret. 2 The council contradicts itself, in saying of Abelard, in its letter to the pope (ep. 337): Visus diffidere et subterfugere, respondere noluit, sed quamvis libera sibi daretur audientia, tutumque locum et aequos haberet judices, and yet declaring that Abelard's pretended theses had already been condemned the day before. |