396 THE LETTER OF THE COUNCIL TO ROME. of any validity an appeal made before judgment was pronounced, from a tribunal to which the appellant himself had first applied. They concluded, however, to follow the custom which then prevailed, and which was favored by the Roman court, according to which appeals to Rome were to be admitted without limitation. It was necessary, in fact to avoid everything that might tend to favor his cause at the Roman court, where Abelard was not without his friends; and therefore, both parties had recourse to the pope. The council addressed him a letter, in which they complained, that not alone by students in the schools, but publicly, in all places, disputes were held upon the Trinity. They besought the pope to confirm their sentence of condemnation on the propositions alleged to have been advanced by Abelard, of which, however, they sent him but a portion; that he would pass sentence against all who persisted in obstinately defending them; that he would condemn Abelard's writings, command him to be silent, and forbid him for the future either to lecture or to write.5 The abbot of Clairvaux himself, also wrote a private letter to the pope, to which he added a list of the propositions of Abelard found to be heretical, together with a full exposition of his principal errors. He says of him, that, wishing to explain everything on grounds of reason, even that which is beyond reason, he acted as contrary to reason as he did to faith; for what was more contrary to reason, than for one to attempt with reason to go beyond reason; and what more contrary to faith, than to refuse to believe that which is unattainable by reason? 6 In opposition to Abelard, who applied 7 to that blind faith which is not the result of examination, the words of the Preacher (c. 19), Bernard affirms, that Solomon says this, not with reference to faith in God, but with reference to men's credulity in their relations to one another; for pope Gregory the Great (H. xxvi, in Evang.) says, the faith that reposes on arguments of reason has no merit whatever; while he praises the apostles, who followed our Lord at the bidding of a word. The disciples were blamed, because it was so difficult for them to believe. Zacharias was punished (Luke i,) because he required reasons for believing. He referred, moreover, to the example of faith in Mary and in Abraham. But it is evident, from the explanations already given, that Abelard also acknowledged the faith that proceeds from a submission of the heart to be acceptable to God, and indispensable to true piety. It was only to the preparatory inquiry, which precedes such faith, to the way and mode of attaining to such faith, suited to certain individualities of character, and to the intellec To this the words refer in the letter of the council: Licet appellatio ista minus canonica videretur. Cum per totam fere Galliam in civitatibus, vicis et castellis, a scholaribus non solum intra scholas, sed etiam triviatim nec a literatis et provectis tantum, sed a pueris et simplicibus aut certe stultis de sancta trinitate disputaretur. 3 Quaedam, ut per haec audita reliqui corpus operis facilius aestimetis. 4 Without any accurate designation of the works intended, with the altogether arbitrary explanation : Libros ejus perverso sine dubio dogmate respersos condemnaret. Ep. 337. 5 Quid enim magis contra rationem, quam ratione rationem conari transcendere? Et quid magis contra fidem, quam credere nolle, quicquid non possis ratione attingere. 7 See page 375. BERNARD'S LETTERS TO ROME. ABELARD'S LETTER TO HELOISE. 397 tion (intellectus) that grew out of such faith, that the controversy related. Yet Bernard attributed the errors of Abelard to his desire of comprehending that which is above reason, and reserved to faith alone. Moreover, he accused him of saying that faith was mere opinion; of representing it as something quite unsettled and wavering. He here took the liberty of converting his own inferences into actual positions of Abelard, for the purpose of showing that, by Abelard's doctrine, the whole foundation of Christian faith and Christian hope was left tottering. But we have already seen that, in the place referred to, Abelard is only speaking of the scientific mode of apprehending a dogma, not of the essential contents of the faith itself. Bernard, on the other hand, says: "Far be it from us to suppose that anything in our faith, or in our hope, depends on doubtful opinions or conjectures, that all does not much rather repose on a sure and settled foundation of truth, as it has been established by God's own declarations, by miracles, the birth of the Virgin, the blood of the Saviour, and the majesty of his resurrection. To this is added, finally, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, which testifies with our spirit, that we are the children of God. Who, then, can call faith an opinion, but he who has not as yet received that spirit, or who has no knowledge of the gospel, or who holds it to be a fable ?" He refers to the passage in Heb. 11: 1, acknowledging that Abelard also had made use of those words. The term substance, in this passage, he says, denotes something certain and fixed, as opposed to the unsettledness of human opinion. Bernard wrote also to the cardinals in Rome several letters, in which he directed their attention to the dangers threatening the simplicity and purity of the faith, and complained that Abelard felt confident he had followers in the Roman court itself. But how very far Abelard was from any intention of doing injury to the Christian faith, appears evident from his own declarations, made during the time of these disputes to the abbess Heloise, who seems to have been disturbed by the reports concerning his erroneous doctrines. He guards himself against the eulogies of those who expressed a high estimation of his intellect, but not of his faith,-who recognized in him the philosopher, but not the Christian. Christianity, the Bible, he here declares to be the matters of highest interest for him, besides which all others fall into comparative insignificance; for to him Christ is the sole foundation of salvation. And he then proceeds to lay down a full confession of his orthodoxy.2 In those hopes which he had placed on his friends at Rome, Abelard found himself wholly disappointed. The influence of Bernard there was too powerful, to allow any chance for the adherents of Abelard to Nolo sic esse philosophus, ut recalci trem Paulo. Non sic esse Aristoteles, ut secludar a Christo, non enim aliud nomen est sub coelo, in quo oporteat me salvum fieri. VOL. IV. 34 Abelard's disciple Berengar has cited this letter in his tract written in Abelard's defence. Opp. p. 308. 398 ABELARD CONDEMNED BY THE POPE. HIS CONFESSION. effect anything against it; and we must admit, also, that his peculiar theological bent was not of a character suited to fall in with the reigning spirit of the church in these times. If it was not checked, if it should be allowed freely to develop itself, it would be continually coming more and more into collision with the church system. Moreover, the connection between Abelard's cause and that of Arnold of Brescia, could not fail of contributing to make the tendency which he represented appear suspicious, and fraught with danger. When he arrived at Lyons, on his way to Rome, the decision which had already been given there reached him. The pope issued two briefs to the archbishops of Rheims, and of Sens, and to the abbot Bernard. In one of them, he declared the propositions of Abelard, that had been sent to him, and — which really, for an ecclesiastical decision, was extremely loose and indefinite language all his perverse doctrines which were not specified however, to be condemned; on himself, as a heretic, was imposed the duty of perpetual silence. Sentence of excommunication was pronounced on all his adherents. By a second writing, Innocent bestowed on the three persons above mentioned, full powers to confine Abelard, and Arnold of Brescia, in separate monasteries, and to burn all their writings. But the forsaken Abelard found refuge with Peter, the venerable abbot of Cluny. This person, who, above all other pious men, was distinguished for gentleness, and an open sense for every good trait in others, highly respected Abelard's zeal for science, and his great talents, and could discern the marks of piety, even in an individuality of character so different from his own. He was desirous of making the mental gifts and scientific attainments of the great scholar useful to his monks, while at the same time he provided, in their midst, a secure and peaceful restingplace for the evening of his unsettled and distracted life. With the assistance of the abbot of Citeaux, he effected a reconciliation between Bernard and Abelard. He procured for him the pope's absolution, and adopted him amongst his monks at Cluny. Abelard afterwards published a Confession, which he thus begins: "Everything, however well said, may be perverted. I myself, though I have composed but a few treatises, and those of small extent, have not been able to escape censure; though in truth, in the things on account of which I have been violently attacked, I can (as God knows) see no fault whatsoever on my part; and if any such fault can be discovered, I have no disposition to defend it obstinately. I have perhaps, from mistake, written many things not after the right manner; but I call God to witness that, in the things for which I am accused, I have maintained nothing out of a malicious will, or out of pride. In my lectures, I have said many things before many. Publicly, I have spoken what seemed to me calculated for the edification of faith, or of morals; and what I have written, I have cheerfully communicated to all, that I might have them for my judges, and not for my pupils." Many of the propositions found to be offensive, he 1 Lib. iv, ep. 4. THE DIALOGUE ON THE SUPREME GOOD. 399 explained in a milder sense; with regard to others, he protested against the conclusions derived from them, which he would not admit. In the history of particular dogmas, we shall compare Abelard's original teachings with the explanations presented in this apology. It is our intention to cite here only his explanation with regard to the abovepresented ethical propositions. "Sins committed through ignorance, amount to guilt, particularly when, from negligence, we know not that which we ought to know. I affirm that the crucifiers of Christ committed the greatest crime. I affirm that all who equally love God, and their neighbor, — all who are equally good,— are equals in merit, and nothing of merit is lost in the sight of God, when a good will fails of an opportunity to execute its purposes." It is plain, that the ethical principles before presented, are here also held fast by him; only, they are more cautiously expressed, and guarded against the extravagant statements to which he had given occasion. In general, we find no evidence that a change had really taken place in his mode of thinking, or that he was visited, as some asserted, with remorse, on account of the course he had pursued. The contrary rather may be gathered from a larger work (under the title Apologia), written in justification of himself; where he defends his doctrines, at length, against the charges of Bernard, and accuses the latter of misrepresenting and perverting them; - saying of him, that he thrust himself forward as a judge on matters which he did not understand.1 How far Abelard was in spirit from yielding to his opponents, how completely, on the contrary, he triumphed over them, in his own consciousness, might be gathered, moreover, from a dialogue that appeared under his name, "On the Supreme Good," in which a philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian are the interlocutors, for this production must have been composed after the events just described; and yet we find in it the same bold assertions respecting the relation of fides to ratio, as in the works already cited, and they are carried out with the same degree of acuteness. It may admit of a question, however, whether this production did not proceed from some one of his enthusiastic and free-spirited scholars.3 See the Disputatio anonymi against Abelard, in the Bibliotheca Cisterciensis, t. iv, f. 239. Here the author objects to him, quod abbatem literatissimum et, quod majus est, religiosissimum vocat inexpertum artis illius, quae magistra est disserendi. Petri Abaelardi Dialogus inter philosophum, Judaeum et Christianum, e codicibus bibliothecae Caesarea Vindobonensis ed. Rheinwald. Berolini, 1831. In the life prefixed to this Dialogue we find nothing which does not agree perfectly with Abelard's mode of thinking. All the propositions scattered through his writings which have been cited, that gave offence to his opponents, were here introduced in the course of the conversation; but still, it cannot be gathered from this, that he himself was the author of it: for he had ready-witted scholars, who had made his doctrines and his mode of thinking wholly their own, could present them in a talented manner, and in their youthful pride rose, still more than their master, above all regard to circumstances; as, for instance, that clergyman Pierre Berengar, the bold and witty defender of Abelard. Now it is to be remarked, that there are preserved in different libraries (See Hist. lit. de la France, t. xii, p. 132), two manuscript works under the name of Abelard, a dialogue of a philosopher with a Jew, and a dialogue of a philosopher with a Christian. If they are rightly ascribed to him, then these two separate dialogues are works distinct from the one published by Rheinwald. Perhaps the two former pieces formed the basis of the last; and if 400 IMPORTANCE OF THE CONDEMNATION OF ABELARD. After Abelard had labored for a while among the monks of Cluny, his activity was arrested by an illness, and the abbot Peter, whose esteem and love for him had been increased by personal intercourse, removed him to an appropriate place for the recovery of his health, in the priory of St. Marcel, at Chalons on the Saone; where he enjoyed the benefit of careful nursing; and here he died, on the 21st of April, A. D. 1142. The abbot Peter drew up, in a letter to the abbess Heloise, a report of his truly Christian walk during the last years of his life, and of the devout manner in which he died. He calls him the servant of Christ, the true Christian philosopher.2 An important sign of the times, an event attended with grave consequences for the next succeeding course of the development of theology, was such a termination of this controversy between the representatives of the antagonistic tendencies of spirit. At the same time, however, it should not be so understood, as if the whole tendency of the dialectic, speculative theology had expired in the person of Abelard. Even Abelard's opponents themselves were by no means in favor of condemning this tendency in itself considered. Even Bernard recognized its rights; and this tendency of spirit was too closely inwoven with the very being of the times to be suppressed by magisterial denunciations. One point only was decided, that this tendency should be checked and moderated; that the rational element should not have an undue preponderance to the prejudice of the ecclesiastical and practical direction; that it should not be rent from its connection with the other spiritual forces that determined the character of the age. Men in whom was to be found this harmonious union of spiritual elements, stood high in the general esteem, and in intimate connection with Bernard himself, when Abelard was condemned; and their orthodoxy was disputed by no one. Amongst these was Hugo, a canonical of the church of St. Victor at Paris. He was born at Ypres, towards the close of the eleventh century, and came, when a boy, to Halberstadt, where his uncle was the two single dialogues came from Abelard, this may not have been the case with the dialogue which was formed out of the blending together of those two. In addition to this, we find, in the collective edition of Abelard's works, p. 326, after several letters of Berengar, something that does not belong to those letters, the fragment of a dialogue containing Abelard's ideas concerning the relationship betwixt the ancient philosophy and Christianity, rep resenting the Christians as disciples of the Logos, as the genuine logicians, and Christianity as the true logic, - a dialogue between P.A. (Peter Abelard,) and P (perhaps Peter Berengar). Perhaps this dialogue may be one of the two that still remain hidden in manuscript; and this clue, if followed out, might lead us to consider Berengar as the author of the dialogue here mentioned, perhaps also of the one published under the name of Abelard. It 2 He says of him: Qui singulari scientiae magisterio toti paene orbi terrarum no tus et ubique famosus erat, in illius disci pulatu, qui dixit: discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde, mitis et humilis perseverans, ad ipsum, ut dignum est credere, sic transivit. In the inscription, which he placed on his tomb: Noster Aristoteles, logicis, quicunque fuerunt, Aut par aut melior, studiorum cognitus orbi |