Letter CCCXXVI. From Abbot William to Geoffrey, Bishop of Chartres, and to Bernard, Abbot or Ci.AiRVArx

- (Circa A.I). 1139.)

Abbot William begs them to defend the cause of God and of the Church against Peter Abaelard, and cites several of his erroneous propositions.¹

To the Reverend Lords and Fathers in Christ, GEOFFREY, Bishop of Chartres, and BERNARD, Abbot of Clairvaux, health and prosperity.

1. I am rilled with confusion before you, my lords and fathers, as God knows, by finding myself constrained to draw your attention to a subject of grave necessity, and relating to the common interest of the Church. But as you and others to whom it belongs to speak keep silence, I, though a very humble person, venture to address you. For I see the faith on which rests our common hope gravely and dangerously compromised, no one resisting or object ing; and yet Christ consecrated it for us with His Blood, and the Apostles and martyrs strove for it even until death, the holy doctors defended it with the greatest labour and industry, and handed it down even to our depraved times whole and incorrupt. I reflect on this with great regret, and am obliged by my inward distress and sorrow to speak at least a few words on behalf of that for which, if it were needful, I should wish even to lay down my life. Nor are these attacks made on doctrines of small importance, but on the faith of the Holy Trinity, on the Person of the Mediator, the Holy Spirit, the grace of God, on the sacrament of our common redemption. For Peter Abaelard is again teaching and publishing novelties; his books cross the seas, pass the Alps; new speculations concerning the doctrines of the faith, and new dogmas are spread through out provinces and realms, are openly preached and freely defended; it is even said that they have partisans in the Curia of Rome. I say to you that your silence is dangerous, as well for yourselves as for the Church of God. We are regarding it as a matter of no account that the Faith is being corrupted, although it is for the Faith that we have renounced our own selves, and in order that we may not be attacked we do not fear to offend God. I say to you that this evil is as yet only in process of birth; unless it be dealt with beforehand, it will burst out into a basilisk, nor will it be easy to find an enchanter who can prevail against it. Give your attention, therefore, to what I have to relate.

2. A little while ago I read by accident a certain treatise of that man, entitled, Theologia of Peter Abaelard. I confess that the title made me curious to read it. I have two copies containing almost the same, except that the one may be a little more lengthy than the other. In it I found certain statements by which I was greatly shocked; 1 have taken notes of them, and subjoined my reasons for objection. These I have sent you, with the books themselves, so that you may judge whether I was right in my disapproval. And since my disapproval was founded on the unheard-of novelties of phrase which he applies to matters of faith, as well as to the novel senses which he puts upon received terms, and since I had no one to whom I might pour out my suspicions, I have found no one but yourselves to whom I might turn, and upon whom I might call in the cause of God and of the whole Latin Church. For you even that man fears and pays respect to. If you shut your eyes, whom will he have any fear of? And since he says what he does even now, what will he not say when he has no critic to fear? Almost all of the great masters of theology have been taken from the Church by death.² An enemy belonging to our own house, as it were, burst in upon the empty territory of the Church, and arrogated to himself the sole right of teaching within it.

He proceeds in treating of the Holy Scripture, as he is accustomed to do in dialectics; he brings in his own devices, his recurring novelties; he makes" himself a critic of the Faith, and not a disciple; an improver of it, instead of a follower. 3. These, then, are the propositions collected from his works which I have thought it advisable to submit to you: — 1. He defines Faith as an opinion about things that are not seen.

2. That the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are improper in God, but only serve for a description of the fulness of the Supreme Good.

3. That the Father is all Power; the Son, a certain Power; but the Holy Ghost, not a Power.

4. That the Holy Spirit is not of the substance of the Father and the Son, as the Son is of the substance of the Father.

5. That the Holy Spirit is the soul of the world (anima mundi}.

6. That we are able both to will and to act rightly by the power of our free will alone, without the help of Divine grace.

7. That it was not in order to free us from the yoke of the devil that Christ assumed flesh and suffered death.

8. That Jesus Christ, who is God and Man, is not one of the Three Persons in the Trinity.

9. That in the Sacrament of the Altar the form of the earlier substance remains in the air.

10. That the devil inspires his suggestions into men by physical means.

11. That what we derive from Adam is not the fault of original sin, but the punishment of it.

12. That there is no sin, except in consenting to sin, and in contempt of God.

13. That no sin is committed in concupiscence, or by delectation, or by ignorance; there is no sin in these, but only a fact of nature.

4. These are the propositions, collected out of the books of Abaelard, which I considered I ought in the first place to put under your eyes; both to arouse your zeal, and to convince you that I have not been disturbed without reason. These, and others which depend upon them, 1 shall attempt, with the help of Him in whose hands are both we and our discourses, to remark upon at greater length; and I shall regard it as of small account to displease you by my style, provided that I satisfy you in the statement of my faith. I hope, too, if I can by any means show that I have rightly formed an unfavourable opinion of these propositions, to carry you also with me in so doing; so that you will not shrink fiom sacrificing, in order to save the head, if need be, the foot (as we may call that man), the hand, or even the eye. For I have both loved him, and would wish still to love him, God is my witness; but in this cause no one shall ever [gain partiality from me as being] neighbour or friend. Now that the evil has become so patent, and presses itself upon public notice, it is no longer a question of private warning or correction. For there are, as I hear, some other treatises of his besides, of which the names are Sicct Non, Scito te ipsum, and some others, about which I fear that their doctrines may be as monstrous as their titles are strange; but, as I am told, they hate the light, and cannot be found even when sought for.

But to return to our subject... etc.

Footnotes

1. This Letter was prefixed by way of preface to the disputation of the same William, Abbot of S.Thierry at Rheims, with Abaelard, which is printed in Vol. iv. of the Billiotheca Cistercicnsis. It is apparent from the first lines of this Letter that it was written before all those of Bernard against Abaelard, and therefore before the year 1 140. ↩

2. Hugo Metellus, in his fourth Letter to Pope Innocent against the same Abaelard, expresses himself in a very similar way: " After the death of Anselm of Laon, and of William, of Champeaux, it seemed that the light of the word of God failed upon the earth," etc. ↩