Letter CCXXXV. To Pope Celestine in the Case of the Disputed Election at York

(A.D. 1143.)

Bernard begs the intervention of the Pope against the odious and Simoniacal intrusion at York.¹

1. It behoves you according to the righteousness which is of the law to raise up seed to your dead brother. This you will worthily fulfil if you maintain the good actions and perfect the incomplete works of Pope Innocent, to whose place in the heritage of the Lord you have succeeded. You have a case before you in which you may do this. Is there anyone who knows not that the cause of the Church of York was settled by him? I wish that no one knew how the order which went from his lips has been executed. \Vho can prevent it from being told in Gath, from being published in the streets of Askelon? (2 Sam. i. 20). But to make a short story for one who is much occupied, let my Lord hear briefly what was said and what has so far been done. When the man who impiously sought his election to the primacy of the Church of York was accused of many faults the whole controversy was at length ordered to cease according to the testimony of the illustrious William,² Dean of the same Church, so that his ambition might fail of all its attempts unless the Dean should remove by his oath the charge of intrusion which, amongst other charges, was made against him. But this was done, not by way of sentence, but from mercy, for he himself had asked for it. Surely a most mild sentence, when he was charged with very many grievous faults, which he utterly refused to rebut. But it were well if matters had remained there, for even if justice was not satisfied, at all events the Church was set free from scandal. I do not speak of the remission of the sentence; that did no harm. But this indulgence, though too great, yet availed the adversary nothing, inasmuch as he was unable to carry out what he had himself come forward to promise, for the Dean, on whose support he seemed to reckon, failed him and refused to perjure himself. For when would a good man act as sponsor for a man whom common rumour and his well-known actions alike held up to detestation? What then happened? The one refused to swear, and the other is Bishop.

2. Oh! it is a matter to be kept from th£ knowledge of everyone, and, if it were possible, it should be condemned to perpetual silence. But that is too late. The triumph of the devil, alas! has become known to the world. The shouts of the uncircumcised mingle on all sides with the lamentations of good men, because wickedness seems to have overcome wisdom. The shame of our mother Church is pointed at by the finger. Our father Innocent still lives in you, though a worthless servant thinks him dead, and exposes and scoffs at that in him which decency would cover. If this was to be the end of it all, why was this most detestable cause dragged from so far to Rome, when it was more worthy of darkness and a corner? Why was so toilsome a journey over sea and land undertaken by many? Why were the religious summoned from the ends of the earth to accuse him, and why were the purses of Christ's poor drained by the expenses of the long journey? Could not so base and infamous a man have been made Bishop (with unwillingness and grief I say it) without Rome having to know the things at which England was horrified, and for which France abominated him? How much better would it have been if his case had never been brought before the Roman Curia, and if this horrible polluter of everything had never reached even its sacred threshold. How much more tolerable it would have been if the Apostolic see had never heard of this intolerable evil, which now, that it has been manifested, it tolerates. With what rashness was it brought about! The man was publicly spoken against, accused before the judge, not cleared — nay, convicted: and yet consecrated. Let him who after all this laid hands on him see whether I should not say, execrated,³ rather than consecrated. For he will not deny that these things are so; he will not deny that he found them so stated in the Apostolic letters directed to him on the very subject. Some one, perhaps, may say that since sentence was not given he was not convicted. But I say that he confessed. For to escape judgment he of his own accord elected to have recourse to the testimony of William the Dean, and then since he failed him, what is this but giving judgment against himself, and being condemned by his own mouth?

3. Since these things are so, see, my lord and father, that your heart lean not to any work of wickedness, for, as the Prophet says, As for such as turn aside to their crooked •ways, the Lord shall lead them -with the workers of iniquity (Ps. cxxv. 5). Otherwise do you advise those unhappy Abbots whom the Apostolic command dragged to Rome for the purpose of accusing him, as well as the very numerous Religious in that diocese, that they are to obey him and receive the sacraments from a man twice intruded on them— first, by the King, secondly, by the legate? When he could not enter by the door he forced his way in with a silver axe, as they say, and so was impudently intruded by the legate into the sanctuary of God, against right and justice, against the command of the Supreme Pontiff, to the injury of the highest See and of the whole Roman Curia. If I mistake not, they will resign their posts rather than pay homage to this idol, unless your authority forcibly intervene. But with how much more holy zeal and how much more worthy of your apostleship would it be for you to draw the sword of Phinehas against the two who are so disgracefully committing fornication rather than to allow so many holy men to leave their posts, or to force them to remain against their consciences?

Footnotes

1. The case is described by William of Newburgh (de Rebus Angl. lib. i. c. 17); by H rancis Godwin (Lib. de Episc. Angl. on Ebor. n. 29); and by Roger Hoveden, in the last part of his Annals. The matter in brief is this: In A.D. 1 140 Thurstan, Archbishop of York, died. There was a disputed election for his successor. Some voted for William, nephew of King Stephen, treasurer of the Church of York, others for Henry Murdach, Abbot of Fountains, a former disciple of S. Bernard's at Clairvaux. William was consecrated Bishop by Henry, Bishop of Winchester, but was refused the pall by the Pope when he applied for it. Stephen, indignant at the refusal, would not receive Henry, though confirmed by the Pontiff, and in possession of the pall. Moreover, the citizens followed the King, and refused to acknowledge Henry as their Bishop. At last, however, the King was won over, Henry was recognized by his diocese, and governed it for ten years, and finally died A.D. 1153 at Sherborne. In the meanwhile William was living with Henry of Winchester. But after the deaths of Eugenius and Bernard, on the death of Archbishop Henry, he went to Rome, and at length, by the help of Cardinal Gregory, he obtained from Anastasius, the successor of Eugenius, his confirmation and the pall. But he did not live long after it, as he died A.D. 1154, not without a suspicion of having been poisoned. Godwin says that he was placed in the roll of saints, and that many miracles were wrought at his tomb. But he also adds: " Let who will believe it; let him also remember that, holy as he may have been, he was certainly driven out from his See by Bernard, or, at all events, by his efforts." Cf. epp. 238-240, 252, 346 el seq. for this York election. ↩

2. He was called William of S. Barbara, and was afterwards Bishop of ↩

3. This word execrate is similarly used as the antithesis to consecrate in ep. 1 66, n. i, 223, n. 2, and in Duchesne, ep. 300, Vol. iv., which is a Letter of Drogo, Bishop-Elect of Lyons, to Louis the Younger. ↩