Chapter LXXXVI: Book I: Chap. 8 (2)

"For this reason princes should examine with scrupulous attention whether contributions are just; for if they are not, doctors decide that they cannot, without manifest injustice, thus more or less infringe on the rights of their subjects. This doctrine is so Catholic and certain, that men holding sound doctrine affirm that, in this case, princes cannot impose fresh tributes, even though necessary, without the consent of the nation. For, say they, the prince not being (which he certainly is not) the master of his subjects' property, cannot make use of it without the consent of those from whom he is to receive it. This custom has been long in practice in the kingdom of Castile, where the laws of royalty prohibit the levying of any new impost without the intervention of the Cortes: after having received the sanction of the Cortes, the impost is submitted to the vote of the towns; and the prince does not consider his demand granted till it has received the sanction of the majority of the towns. Edward I. of England made a similar law, according to many authors of weight; and Philip of Commines says, that it was the same in France till the time of Charles VII., who, urged by an extreme necessity, suppressed these formalities, and levied a tax without waiting for the consent of the States, and this inflicted on the kingdom so deep a wound, that it will long continue unhealed. If we may credit certain affirmations, this author reports, that it was then asserted that the king had escaped from the guardianship exercised by the kingdom; but that his own opinion is, that kings cannot, without the consent of their people, exact a single farthing; princes acting otherwise, says he, fall under the Pope's excommunication; no doubt that of the bull _In Cœna Domini_. For my own part, I ought to confess that I do not find this in Philip de Commines.... With respect to this second point, it is evident, that the prince cannot, on his own authority, impose new tributes without the consent of the nation, whenever this nation shall have acquired by any of the reasons mentioned a contrary right, which I consider to be the case in Castile. No one, in fact, will deny that kingdoms at their commencement have a right to choose their kings on this condition, or render them such services as to obtain in return that no new imposts shall be laid on them without their consent. Now, in either case, there will be a compact made, from which kings cannot depart; and it is of no consequence, as some imagine it to be, whether they have obtained their kingdoms through the election of their subjects, or by mere force of arms. Although it is probable, indeed, that a State yielding itself of its own accord, will obtain greater privileges and better conditions than those acquired by a just war, it would not, however, be impossible for a State, in choosing a king, to confer upon him all its power in an absolute manner, and without this restriction, with a view to lay him under greater obligations, and to testify to him a greater degree of devotedness; and, on the other hand, a king, who had subjected a kingdom by force of arms, might nevertheless voluntarily grant it this privilege, with a view to obtain its gratitude, and more affectionate obedience on its part. The positive rule, therefore, for this particular right, will be the contract made, whether virtually or expressly, between the State and the prince; a contract which should be inviolable, especially if it is sealed by an oath."

_The Prince, or Christian Magistrate._

(Liv. ii. ch. xxxix. § 2.)

"Princes, it is said, may compel their subjects to sell at half-price, or to give gratuitously, a part of their property. This opinion is generally founded on the law which ordains that, when a ship in a tempest has been saved by throwing overboard a part of the cargo, the proprietors of the remaining part are obliged to make a proportionate contribution to indemnify the sufferers for the loss they have sustained. Bartholus and other authors have inferred from this, that in a time of necessity and famine the monarch may require his subjects to give gratuitously, and _a fortiori_ to sell at a lower price, a portion of their property to those in need. The monarch, say they, might, without any doubt, render property common, as it was before the establishment of social rights; he may consequently take it from one of his subjects and give it to another.

"It is certainly said in the laws of the kings of Israel, that he who should be chosen by God might seize upon the vineyards and property of his subjects, to confer them on his own servants; but the doctors do not support their arguments on this text. In fact, as we have said in chapter 16th, book i., the question does not concern the rights of a good prince, but the tyrannical acts of a bad one. Now, a careful study of the Scriptures will shew, that this passage must be favourable to one or other of the two opinions; for, if it were intended to establish that kings would possess in conscience the authority set forth in this passage, they would certainly have the right of seizing the property of one of their subjects to give it to another. If this passage is merely meant as a declaration of the injustices, of the extortions, and the tyrannies of wicked monarchs, it is no less certain that in Scripture the deed is considered unjust; for this deed is alleged as an example of what tyrants would do; now if it had been permitted to a good king, it would not have been quoted as an example of tyranny, as the Scriptures suppose it.

"Thus, this text alone, even were there no other in support of this doctrine, would satisfy me, that kings cannot lawfully compel their subjects to relinquish their property for less than its value, not even under pretext of the public good. In fact, were this pretext valid, it would not have been difficult for the kings of Israel to find an excuse for their tyranny; they might have alleged, that it was important to the public good to reward servants whose fidelity was so advantageous to the interests of the kingdom. Further, King Achab might have urged, that the amusements of the prince formed a part of the public good, since the people are so much interested in the health of the prince; and under this pretext might have deprived Naboth of his vineyard in order to enlarge his gardens. We find, however, that this pretext did not justify him in compelling Naboth even to sell his vineyard; the king, although grieved, was not offended by this man's refusal, neither was it his intention to seize the vineyard, had not the impious Jezabel furnished him with the means of doing so.

"Reason is evidently in favour of this opinion. Kings are the ministers of justice, and have been appointed to administer and uphold justice among the people. As St. Thomas teaches, the contract in buying and selling is only just in proportion as the price is equivalent to the thing purchased. Public, it is true, should be preferred to individual interest; in case, therefore, that a State is in danger of dissolution, the monarch might demand property at a less price, or even for nothing, just as he might compel the citizen to expose his life, which is of still greater value, in defending the common cause in a just war. This case, however, as P. Molina observes, is impossible, since the monarch would always be able to indemnify the individual for the loss he sustained, by levying for this purpose a general tax, a just tribute, and one that the State would be bound to pay. To prove this still more clearly, let us imagine the most urgent case possible; let us suppose that the king is besieged in his capital by a tyrant; the tyrant is about to enter sword and torch in hand; he offers to raise the siege on condition of receiving a statue of gold of great value, formerly the property of his ancestors, which a subject of the besieged king, the commander-in-chief of his armies, had taken in the plunder of a town, and made the inalienable property of the eldest son of his family. To render the case still more pressing, let us suppose that the tyrant has a dearly-cherished relation in the service of the besieged king, and that he will be satisfied if a rich lord of the kingdom, possessing a great number of estates, be despoiled, and his property conferred on his relation. It cannot be doubted that, in order to purchase the lives of all, this arrangement might be entered into; and that the king would be justified in acceding to the demand, in taking the statue, or even the whole of this property, to confer it on the tyrant's relation. But no one will assert that the lord should suffer the whole loss. The State would be under the obligation of indemnifying him for the loss, by taking upon itself the indemnification, the lord merely contributing his quota; for this reason, that it would be opposed to natural justice for the burdens of the whole body to fall upon a single member, which would be the case according to the law proposed by the opponents. If, in a case of shipwreck, all the cargo were thrown overboard to save the ship and the lives and fortunes of all, the obligation being common to all, it would not be just that it should fall exclusively upon the owners; because the cargo could best be thrown overboard and most endangered the ship's safety: the loss should be borne by all, even by those who had with them things only of little weight, as jewels or diamonds, for instance; since neither these latter proprietors nor the vessel herself could be saved without lightening her by throwing overboard the heavier portion of the cargo.

"The law decrees also that the owner of the vessel shall pay his quota. Not that he is obliged to indemnify the owners of the merchandise lost, because he sees them in need; it may be supposed, indeed, that these parties are rich, and, although their present loss is extreme, they will nevertheless be under the obligation of returning what would then have been lent to them; for, as the doctors decide, there is no obligation of giving to the rich man when he suffers a heavy loss, when a loan will answer the same end. But it is said that the obligation of the master of a ship is founded on the fact, that all the passengers and the proprietors being interested in saving their lives and their property, the risk and the loss of what was thrown overboard ought to fall on all, and not exclusively on the owners of what was lost. As a proof that this is the correct interpretation, it will be sufficient to notice the summary of the title, and the very words of the law, which are: _Eo quod id tributum servatæ mercedes deberent_.

"But, except in this case, or in others equally pressing, if the ruin of the State would not result from the mere fact of an individual refusing to yield up his house to the prince, the latter could not compel the proprietor to give it up for a less price than its just value, and still less for nothing; for so long as the persons and the property of the State are safe, it is of no importance to the body corporate whether such or such persons are rich or poor; no one, in fact, in the general community possesses a fixed degree from which he can neither descend nor rise. This instability observable among the members of the same State, some losing what others gain, and _vice versâ_, is inseparable from the state of society, such is the instability of temporal affairs; and the public good, generally speaking, neither loses nor gains by it."

NOTE 39, p. 382.

Some persons imagine, that in speaking of the loss of liberty in Spain, the question may be readily reduced to one point of view, as if the kingdom had always possessed the unity which it only acquired in the eighteenth century, and only then in an incomplete manner. A perusal of history, and especially of the codes of the different provinces of which the monarchy was composed, will convince us that the central power has been created and fortified among us very slowly; and that at the time when this difficult task was nearly accomplished in Castile, much still remained to be done in Aragon and Catalonia. Our constitutions, our customs, our manners, in the seventeenth century, evidently prove that the monarchy of Philip II., such as we conceive it, strong and irresistible, was not yet established in the crown of Aragon. I will abstain from adducing here documents and quoting facts with which every one is acquainted; the dimensions of this volume require me to be brief.

NOTE 40, p. 388.

The immortal work of Count de Maistre, in which he so ably refutes the calumnies of the enemies of the Apostolic See, is well known. Among so many and such profound observations, there is one deserving of particular attention: that on the moderation of the Popes in every thing relating to the extension of their dominions, when he points out the difference between the Roman and the other European Courts. "It is," says he, "a very remarkable circumstance, but either disregarded or not sufficiently attended to, that the Popes have never taken advantage of the great power in their possession for the aggrandisement of their States. What could have been more natural, for instance, or more tempting to human nature, than to reserve a portion of the provinces conquered from the Saracens, and which they gave up to the first occupant, to repel the Turkish ascendency, always on the increase? But this, however, they never did, not even with regard to the adjacent countries, as in the instance of the Two Sicilies, to which they had incontestable rights, at least according to the ideas then prevailing, and over which they were nevertheless contented with an empty sovereignty, which soon ended in the _haquenée_, a slight tribute, and merely nominal, which the bad taste of the age still disputes with them.

"The Popes may have made too much, at the time, of this universal sovereignty, which an opinion equally universal allowed them. They may have exacted homage; may indeed, if you will, have too arbitrarily imposed taxes. I do not wish to enter into these points here, but it still remains certain that they have never sought to increase their dominions at the expense of justice, whilst all other governments fell under this anathema; and, at the present time even, with all our philosophy, our civilization, and our fine books, there is not perhaps one of the European powers in a condition to justify all its possessions before God and reason." (_Du Pape_, book ii. chap. 6.)

NOTE 41, p. 350.

I will here insert some passages in which St. Anselm explains the motives that induced him to write, and the method which he intended to follow in his writings.

_Præfatio beati Anselmi Episcopi Cantuariensis in Monologuium._

Quidam fratres sæpe me studioseque precati sunt, ut quædam de illis, quæ de meditanda divinitatis essentia, et quibusdam aliis hujus meditationi cohærentibus, usitato sermone colloquendo protuleram, sub quodam eis meditationis exemplo describerem. Cujus scilicet scribendæ meditationis magis secundum suam voluntatem quam secundum rei facilitatem aut meam possibilitatem hanc mihi formam præstituerunt: quatenus auctoritate scripturæ penitus nihil in ea persuaderetur. Sed quidquid per singulas investigationes finis assereret, id ita esse plano stylo et vulgaribus argumentis simplicique disputatione, et rationis necessitas breviter cogeret, et veritatis claritas patenter ostenderet. Voluerunt etiam ut nec simplicibus peneque fatuis objectionibus mihi occurrentibus obviare contemnerem, quod quidem diu tentare recusavi, atque me cum re ipsa comparans, multis me rationibus excusare tentavi. Quanto enim id quod petebant, usu sibi optabant facilius: tanto mihi illud actu injungebant difficilius. Tandem tamen victus, tum precum modesta importunitate, tum studii eorum non contemnenda honestate, invitus quidem propter rei difficultatem, et ingenii mei imbecillitatem, quod precabantur incæpi, sed libenter propter eorum caritatem, quantum potui secundum ipsorum definitionem effeci. Ad quod cum ea spe sim adductus, ut quidquid facerem illis solis a quibus exigebatur, esset notum, et paulo post idipsum ut vilem rem fastidientibus, contemptu esset obruendum, scio enim me in eo non tam precantibus satisfacere potuisse, quam precibus me prosequentibus finem posuisse. Nescio tamen quomodo sic præter spem evenit, ut non solum prædicti fratres sed et plures alii scripturam ipsam, quisque eam sibi transcribendo in longum memoriæ commendare satagerent, quam ego sæpe tractans nihil potui invenire me in ea dixisse, quod non catholicorum patrum, et maxime beati Augustini scriptis cohæreat.

Idem. _Quod hoc licet inexplicabile sit, tamen credendum sit._ (Cap. lxii.)

Videtur mihi hujus tam sublimis rei secretum transcendere omnem intellectus aciem humani: et idcirco conatum explicandi qualiter hoc sit, continendum puto. Sufficere namque debere existimo rem incomprehensibilem indaganti si ad hoc rationando pervenerit, ut eam certissime esse cognoscat, etiamsi penetrare nequeat intellectu quomodo ita sit, nec idcirco minus his adhibendam fidei certitudinem, quæ probationibus necessariis nulla alia repugnante ratione asseruntur, si suæ naturalis altitudinis incomprehensibilitate explicari non patiantur. Quid autem tam incomprehensibile, quam id quod supra omnia est? Quapropter si ea quæ de sua essentia hactenus disputata sunt necessariis rationibus sunt asserta, quamvis sic intellectu penetrari non possint ut quæ verbis valeant explicari: nullatenus tamen certitudinis eorum nutat soliditas. Nam si superior consideratio rationabiliter comprehendit incomprehensibile esse, quomodo eadem summa sapientia sciat ea quæ fecit de quibus tam multa non scire necesse est; quis explicet quomodo sciat aut dicat se ipsam, de qua aut nihil, aut vix aliquid homini sciri possibile est?

Incipit proœmium in Prosologuion librum Anselmi, Abbatis Beccensis, et Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis.

Postquam opusculum quoddam velut exemplum meditandi de ratione fidei, cogentibus me precibus quorumdam fratrum in persona alicujus tacite secum ratiocinando quæ nesciat investigantis edidi, considerans illud esse multorum concathenatione contextum argumentorum, cœpi mecum quærere: si forte posset invenire unum argumentum, quod nullo alio ad se probandum, quam se solo indigeret, et solum ad astruendum quia Deus vere est; et quia est summum bonum nullo alio indigens, et quo omnia indigent ut sint et bene sint, et quæcumque credimus de divina substantia sufficeret. Ad quod cum sæpe studioseque cogitationes converterem, atque aliquando mihi videretur jam capi posse quod quærebam, aliquando mentis aciem omnino fugeret: tandem desperans volui cessare, velut ab inquisitione rei quam inveniri esset impossibile. Sed cum illam cogitationem, ne mentem meam frustra occupando ab aliis in quibus proficere possem impediret, penitus a me vellem excludere, tunc magis ac magis nolenti et defendenti, se cœpit cum importunitate quadam ingerere. Quadam igitur die cum vehementer ejus importunitati resistendo fatigarer, in ipso cogitationum conflictu sic se obtulit quod desperabam, ut studiose cogitationem amplecterer, quam sollicitus repellebam. Æstimans igitur quod me gaudebam invenisse, si scriptum esset alicui, legenti placiturum. De hoc ipso et quibusdam aliis sub persona conantis erigere mentem suam ad contemplandum Deum, et quærentis intelligere quod credit, subditum scripsi opusculum. Et quoniam nec istud nec illud cujus supra memini, dignum libri nomine, aut cui auctoris præponeretur nomen judicabam: nec tamen sine aliquo titulo, quo aliquem in cujus manus venirent, quodammodo ad se legendum invitarent, dimittenda putabam, unicuique dedi titulum: ut prius exemplum meditandi de ratione fidei, et sequens fides quærens intellectum diceretur. Sed cum jam a pluribus et his titulis utrumque transumptum esset, coegerunt me plures et maxime reverendus Archiepiscopus Lugdunensis Hugo nomine, fungens in Gallia legatione apostolica, prœcepit auctoritate, ut nomen meum illis præscriberem. Quod ut aptius fieret illud quidem Monologuium, id est Soliloquium, istud vero Prosologuion, id est Alloquium nominavi.

* * * * *

I have said that St. Anselm excelled Descartes in his manner of proving the existence of God: let the reader, indeed, peruse the following passages. I do not, however, intend to pronounce an opinion on the merits of this demonstration; my business is, to notice the progress of the human mind, and not to resolve philosophical questions.

PROSOLOGUIUM D. ANSELMI.

_Quod Deus non possit cogitari non esse._

Quod utique sic vere est, ut nec cogitari possit non esse. Nam potest cogitari esse aliquid, quod non possit cogitari non esse, quod majus est quam quod non esse cogitari potest. Quare si id, quo majus nequit cogitari, potest cogitari non esse: id ipsum, quo majus cogitari nequit, non est id quo majus cogitari nequit; quod convenire non potest. Sic ergo vere est aliquid, quo majus cogitari non potest, ut nec cogitari possit non esse. Et hoc es tu, Domine Deus noster. Sic ergo vere es, Domine Deus meus, ut nec cogitari possis non esse. Et merito. Si enim aliqua mens posset cogitare aliquid melius te, ascenderet creatura super Creatorem; et judicaret de Creatore, quod valde est absurdum. Et quidem quidquid est aliud præter solum te, potest cogitari non esse. Solus igitur verissime omnium, et ideo maxime omnium habes esse, quia quidquid aliud est non sic vere est, et idcirco minus habet esse. Cur itaque, _dixit insipiens in corde suo non est Deus?_ Cum causa in promptu sit rationali menti, te maxime omnium esse? Cur, nisi stultus et insipiens?

_Quomodo insipiens dixit in corde suo quod cogitari non potest._ (Cap. iv.)

Verum quomodo dixit insipiens in corde suo quod cogitare non potuit, aut quomodo cogitare non potuit quod dixit in corde, cum idem sit dicere in corde, et cogitare. Quod si vere, imo quia vere, et cogitavit: quia dixit in corde et non dixit in corde, quia cogitare non potuit; non uno tantum modo dicitur aliquid in corde vel cogitatur. Aliter enim cogitatur res, cum vox eam significans cogitatur: aliter cum idipsum, quod res est, intelligitur. Illo itaque modo, potest cogitari Deus non esse: isto vero, minime. Nullus quippe intelligens id quod Deus est, potest cogitare quia Deus non est; licet hæc verba dicat in corde, aut sine ulla, aut cum aliqua extranea significatione. Deus enim, est id quo majus cogitari non potest. Quod qui bene intelligit, utique intelligit id ipsum sic esse, ut nec cogitatione queat non esse. Qui ergo intelligit sic esse Deum, nequit eum non esse cogitare. Gratias tibi, bone Domine, gratias tibi, quia quod prius credidi te donante, jam sic intelligo te illuminante; ut si te esse nolim credere, non possim non intelligere.

_Ejusdem beati Anselmi liber pro insipiente incipit._

Dubitanti, utrum sit; vel neganti quod sit aliqua talis natura, qua nihil majus cogitari possit; tamen esse illam, huic dicitur primo probari; quod ipse negans vel ambigens de illa, jam habeat eam in intellectu, cum audiens illam dici, id quod dicitur intelligit: deinde, quia quod intelligit necesse est, ut non in solo intellectu, sed etiam in re sit. Et hoc ita probatur; quia majus est esse in intellectu et in re, quam in solo intellectu. Et si illud in solo est intellectu, majus illo erit quidquid etiam fuerit in re, at si majus omnibus, minus erit aliquo, et non erit majus omnibus quod utique repugnat. Et ideo necesse est ut, majus omnibus, quod est jam probatum esse in intellectu, et in re sit; quoniam aliter majus omnibus esse non poterit. Responderi potest, quod hoc jam esse dicitur in intellectu meo, non ob aliud, nisi quia id quod dicitur intelligo.

* * * * *

The passages I have just quoted will have shewn to my readers that thought was not oppressed in the Catholic Church. The most eminent doctors were accustomed to reason on the most important subjects with a just and reasonable independence; and although with profound respect for the teaching of the Catholic Church, they nevertheless surveyed, as well as Abelard and better, the field of true philosophy. We cannot expect from human intelligence at this epoch more than is to be found in St. Anselm. How is it, therefore, that such eulogiums have been passed upon Roscelin and Abelard, without ever mentioning this holy doctor? Why present a picture of the intellectual movement so incomplete, and not insert in it so noble and beautiful a figure?

If you would know how incorrect it is that Abelard, as M. Guizot affirms, abstained from attacking the doctrines of the Church--how incorrect M. Guizot is in his statement of the causes which excited the zeal of the pastors of the Church against Abelard, read the letter of the Bishops of Gaul to Pope Innocent, in which you will find a complete recital of the origin and cause of this important affair. Here is the letter:

EPISTOLA CCCLXX.

_Reverendissimo Patri et Domino, INNOCENTIO, Dei gratia summo Pontifici, Henricus Senonensium Archiepiscopus, Carnotensis Episcopus, Sanctæ Sedis Apostolicæ famulus, Aurelianensis, Antissiodorensis, Trecensis, Meldensis Episcopi, devotas orationes et debitam obedientiam._

Nulli dubium est quod ea quæ Apostolica firmantur auctoritate, rata semper existunt; nec alicujus possunt deinceps mutilari cavillatione, vel invidia depravari. Ea propter ad vestram Apostolicam Sedem, Beatissime Pater, referre dignum censuimus quædam quæ nuper in nostra contigit tractari præsentia. Quæ quoniam et nobis, et multis religiosis ac sapientibus viris rationabiliter acta visa sunt, vestræ serenitatis expectant comprobari judicio, simul et auctoritate perpetuo roborari. Itaque cum per totam fere Galliam in civitatibus, vicis, et castellis, a Scholaribus non solum intra Scholas, sed etiam triviatim: nec a litteratis, aut provectis tantum, sed a pueris et simplicibus, aut certe stultis, de Sancta Trinitate, quæ Deus est, disputaretur: insuper alia multa ab eisdem, absona prorsus et absurda, et plane fidei catholicæ, sanctorumque Patrum auctoritatibus obviantia proferrentur; cumque ab his qui sane sentiebant, et eas ineptias rejiciendas esse censebant, sæpius admoniti corriperentur, vehementius convalescebant, et auctoritate magistri sui Petri Abailardi, et cujusdam ipsius libri, cui _Theologiæ_ indiderat nomen; nec non et aliorum ejusdem opusculorum freti ad astruendas profanas adinventiones illas, non sine multarum animarum dispendio, sese magis ac magis armabant. Quæ enim et nos, et alios plures non parum moverant ac læserant; inde tamen quæstionem facere verebantur.

Verum Dominus Abbas Claræ-vallis, his a diversis et sæpius auditis, immo certe in prætaxato magistri Petri _Theologiæ_ libro, nec non et aliis ejusdem libris, in quorum forte lectionem inciderat, diligenter inspectis; secreto prius; ac deinde secum duobus aut tribus adhibitis testibus, juxta Evangelicum præceptum, hominem convenit: Et ut auditores suos a talibus compesceret, librosque suos corrigeret, amicabiliter satis ac familiariter illum admonuit. Plures etiam Scholarium adhortatus est, ut et libros venenis plenos repudiarent et rejicerent: et a doctrina, quæ fidem lædebat Catholicam, caverent et abstinerent. Quod magister Petrus minus patienter et nimium ægre ferens, crebro nos pulsare cœpit, nec ante voluit desistere, quoad Dominum Clara-vellensem Abbatem super hoc scribentes, assignato die, scilicet octavo Pentecostes, Senonis ante nostram submonuimus venire præsentiam: quo se vocabat et offerebat paratum magister Petrus ad probandas et defendendas de quibus illum Dominus Abbas Clara-vallensis, quomodo prætaxatum est, reprehenderat sententias. Cæterum Dominus Abbas, nec ad assignatum diem se venturum, nec contra Petrum sese disceptaturum nobis remandavit. Sed quia magister Petrus interim suos nihilominus cœpit undequaque convocare discipulos; et obsecrare, ut ad futuram inter se, Dominumque Abbatem Clara-vallensem disputationem, una cum illo suam sententiam simul et scientiam defensuri venirent; Et hoc Dominum Clara-vallensem minime lateret; veritus ipse, ne propter occasionem absentiæ suæ tot profanæ, non sententiæ sed insaniæ, tam apud minus intelligentes, quam earumdem defensores majore dignæ viderentur auctoritate, prædicto quem sibi designaveramus die, licet eum minime suscepisset, tactus zelo pii fervoris, imo certe Sancti Spiritus igne succensus, sese nobis ultro Senonis præsentavit. Illa vero die, scilicet octava Pentecostes, convenerant ad nos Senonis Fratres et Suffraganei nostri Episcopi, ob honorem et reverentiam sanctarum, quas in Ecclesia nostra populo revelaturos nos indixeramus, Reliquiarum.

Itaque præsente glorioso Rege Francorum Ludovico cum Wilhelmo religioso Nivernis Comite, Domino quoque Rhemensi Archiepiscopo, cum quibusdam suis suffraganeis Episcopis nobis etiam, et suffraganeis nostris, exceptis Parisiis et Nivernis, Episcopis præsentibus, cum multis religiosis Abbatibus et sapientibus, valdeque litteratis clericis adfuit Dominus Abbas Clara-vallensis; adfuit magister Petrus cum fautoribus suis. Quid multa? Dominus Abbas cum librum Theologiæ magistri Petri proferret in medium, et quæ annotaverat absurda, imo hæretica plane capitula de libro eodem proponeret, ut ea magister Petrus vel a se scripta negaret, vel si sua fateretur, aut probaret, aut corrigeret: visus est diffidere magister Petrus Abailardus, et subterfugere, respondere noluit, sed quamvis libera sibi daretur audientia, tutumque locum, et æquos haberet judices, ad vestram tamen, sanctissime Pater, appellans præsentiam, cum suis a conventu discessit.

Nos autem licet appellatio ista, minus Canonica videretur, Sedi tamen Apostolicæ deferentes, in personam hominis nullam voluimus proferre sententiam: Cæterum sententias pravi dogmatis ipsius, quia multo infecerant, et sui contagione adusque cordium intima penetraverant, sæpe in audientia publica lectas et relectas, et tam verissimis rationibus, quam Beati Augustini, aliorumque Sanctorum Patrum inductis a Domino Clara-vallensi auctoritatibus, non solum falsas, sed et hæreticas esse evidentissime comprobatas, pridie ante factam ad vos appellationem damnavimus. Et quia multos in errorem perniciosissimum et plane damnabilem pertrahunt, eas auctoritate vestra, dilectissime Domine, perpetua damnatione notari; et omnes qui pervicaciter et contentiose illas defenderint, a vobis, æquissime Pater, juxta pœna mulctari unanimiter et multa precum instantia postulamus.

Sæpe dicto vero Petro, si Reverentia vestra silentium imponeret, et tam legendi, quam scribendi prorsus interrumperet facultatem, et libros ejus perverso sine dubio dogmate respersos condemnaret, avulsis spinis et tribulis ab Ecclesia Dei, prevaleret adhuc læta Christi seges succrescere, florere, fructificare. Quædam autem de condemnatis a nobis capitulis vobis, Reverende Pater, conscripta transmisimus, ut per hæc audita reliqui corpus operis facilius æstimetis.

Observe how St Bernard explains the system and errors of the celebrated Abelard. In chapter 1 of the treatise which he wrote, _De erroribus Petri Abailardi_, he says:

"Habemus in Francia novum de veteri magistro Theologum, qui ab ineunte ætate sua in arte dialectica lusit; et nunc in scripturis sanctis insanit. Olim damnata et sopita dogmata, tam sua videlicet quam aliena suscitare conatur, insuper et nova addit. Qui dum omnium quæ sunt cœlo sursum, et quæ in terra deorsum, nihil præter solum Nescio nescire dignatur; ponit in cœlum os suum, et scrutatur alta Dei, rediensque ad nos refert verba ineffabilia, quæ non licet homini loqui. Et dum paratus est de omnibus reddere rationem, etiam quæ sunt supra rationem, et contra rationem præsumit, et contra fidem. Quid enim magis contra rationem, quam ratione rationem conari transcendere? Et quid magis contra fidem; quam credere nolle, quidquid non possit ratione attingere?"

In chapter 4, he sums up, in a few words, the aberrations of the dialectician:

"Sed advertite cætera. Omitto quod dicit spiritum timoris Domini non fuisse in Domino: timorem Domini castum in future seculo non futurum: post consecrationem panis et calicis priora accidentia quæ remanent pendere in aere: dæmonum in nobis suggestiones contactu fieri lapidum et herbarum, prout illorum sagax malitia novit; harum rerum vires diversas, diversis incitandis et incendendis vitiis, convenire: Spiritum Sanctum esse animam mundi: mundum juxta Platonem tanto excellentius animal esse, quanto meliorem animam habet Spiritum Sanctum. Ubi dum multum sudat quomodo Platonem faciat Christianum, se probat ethnicum. Hæc inquam omnia, aliasque istiusmodi nænias ejus non paucas prætereo, venio ad graviora. Non quod vel ad ipsa cuncta respondeam, magnis enim opus voluminibus esset. Illa loquor quæ tacere non possum.

"Cum de Trinitate loquitur," says he in his letter 192, "sapit Arium, cum de Gratia sapit Pelagium, cum de persona Christi sapit Nestorium."

Pope Innocent, condemning the doctrines of Abelard, says: "In Petri Abailardi perniciosa doctrina, et prædictorum hæreses, et alia perversa dogmata catholicæ fidei obviantia pullulare cœperunt."