A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

CHAP. VII. (Book 7)

The History of Peter Abaelard, of his Writings, Errors and Con∣demnation.

THE famous Peter Abaelard has himself given us an account of his Life and Adventures, which * 1.1 are both Diverting and Singular. We have the Relation thereof in his first Letter written to one of his Friends, of which we now give you the Abstract. He was born in the Village call'd Le Palais, about three Leagues from the City of Nantes. His Father Berengarius, though a Man of Arms, was yet somewhat given to Study, and took care to give all his Children Learning. Abae∣lard who was the Youngest, and very much inclin'd to Letters, renounc'd the Profession of War, to give himself up wholly to the study of Philosophy. With this design he left his Native Coun∣try, and after he had frequented several Schools, came to Paris, where that Science was then in Vogue, and chose for his Master William of Champeaux Arch Deacon of Paris, the most famous Professor of that time. After he had liv'd for some time with him in good Repute, he incurr'd his Displeasure, because he undertook to refute his Opinions, and to dispute against him with so much Strength, that he sometimes seemed to have the Advantage over him. The great Opinion which he had of his own Parts, made him though but young, very desirous of teaching others and of seeking out a convenient place where he might profess publickly. The Castle of Melun, which was then a Royal Seat, was pitch'd upon by him as very proper for his Purpose, because of its being near to Paris. He obtain'd a License to teach there publickly, in spite of the Opposi∣tion which William of Champeaux made, who did not like that Abaelard should teach so near Paris, for fear that the Reputation which he acquir'd would lessen his. In effect Abaelard had no sooner begun to teach Logick, but the Reputation of William began to sink, which inclin'd Abae∣lard to go and settle at Corbeil, that so being nearer Paris, the Disputes might be more frequent. Some time after, this Abaelard was constrain'd by a Sickness contracted by his great Application to Study to return to his own Country. During his Absence, William was made Regular Canon in the Monastery of St. Victor, that so (as was suppos'd) he might with greater ease obtain a Bishop∣rick, as happened accordingly, being within a short time after elected Bishop of Chalons. Whilst he stay'd at Paris he continued his Lectures in St. Victor; and Abaelard being returned to that City, had studied Rhetorick under him, and renewed the Disputes in Philosophy, which he had formerly with him, especially concerning that Universal à Parte rei, which he urged so far, that William was forc'd to change his Opinion, which acquir'd Abaelard so much Credit, that the Person who had suc∣ceeded William in teaching Logick at Paris, surrendred his place to him. William soon after outed both of them, so that Abaelard return'd to Melun, from whence he soon came back to Paris, and held his publick Lectures at St. Genevieve, where he had a great many Pupils, who were very frequently engag'd in Disputes with the Scholars of William. But when his Father became Monk, and his Mother Lucia was desirous likewise to live retiredly, Abaelard was forc'd to take a Journey into his own Countrey. At his return, he found that William was made Bishop of Chalons, and he went to that City to study Divinity ••under Anselm, Canon and Dean of the Church of Laon, who profe••s'd it with a great deal of Repute. Abae∣lard did not find that this Man's Learning answer'd the Fame thereof, and soon left off going to his Lectures. Several of the Scholars having ask'd him what he thought of reading the Holy Scriptures; he reply'd, that it was a very useful Study, but that he wonder'd that Men of Learning should not be satisfyd with the Commentaries and Glosses of the Holy Fathers, without having re∣course to other Masters. When they smil'd at the Proposal, he told them that he was ready to make it appear to them that it was Possible, and to give them an Experiment by explaining to them the most difficult Books of the Scriptures, with one single Commentator. They took him at his Word, and made choice of the Prophecy of Ezekiel. He began to explain it on the Morrow, and those who were present at his Explication, thought he had acquitted himself so well, that they brought a great many others to hear his ensuing Lectures. Anselm began to grow jealous of him, and moved thereto by Alberic of Rheims. and Lotulplus or Leutaldus of Novar, who had the repute of being his best Scholars. He forbid Abaelard to continue his Lectures, under a pretence, that if he should advance any erroneous Opinion, it might be imputed to him. Hereupon Abaelard return'd to Paris, where for some time he profess'd very quietly, continuing to expound the Holy Scrip∣tures. The Repose which he enjoy'd, the Applauses which he receiv'd, and the Money which he got by this Profession, puff'd him up with Pride, and cast him into a debauch'd course of Life. But God punish'd him for both, by permitting him to be depriv'd of those parts which had serv'd as an instrument to his Lust, and to be constrain'd to burn with his own Hands that Book which he prided himself most upon; so that he became Chast by necessity, and humble by Force. We will give you now an account how this came about. There was at Paris a young Wo∣man nam'd Helloissa, Niece to Fulbert, Canon of Paris, handsome and well shap'd, whom her Unckle who lov'd her tenderly, brought up to Learning. Abaelard who was her Tutor, imme∣diately fell passionately in Love with her, and that he might the more easily enjoy her, he pray'd

the young Woman's Unckle to take him to Board, under a pretence that he could bestow more * 1.2 time upon her, lodging in the same House, that besides he would do him a Kindness by easing him of the Trouble of House-Keeping, which was not suitable to a studious Man. The Unkle who neither distrusted the Virtue of his Niece, nor the prudence of Abaelard, who had hitherto liv'd very regularly, accepted freely of the Proposal, and intrusted him with Helloissa, whom A∣baelard courted so much the more easily, because the pretence of study furnish'd him with an op∣portunity of being often alone with her. Sub occasione disciplinae (says Abaelard himself) amori peni∣tus vacabomus, & secretos recessus, quos Amor optabat, studium Lectionis offerebat: Apertis ita{que} Libris plura de Amore quam de Lectione verba se ingerebant, plura erant oscula quam sententiae. i. e. Under the pretence of Learning we had our fill of Love, and our study afforded those private Recesses which our Love required. We opened our Books indeed, but Love not the Lesson was the Bur∣then of our Discourse, and more Kisses were intermingled than Sentences read. The young Woman it seems was not so hard-hearted, but she answered his Flame, and in a short time the Business was known to every Body; besides the Unckle who was the last that found it out. As soon as he was inform'd of it, he turn'd Abaelard out of Doors; within a few days time after, Helloissa, whose Love was still the same, notwithstanding this Separation, writ word to Abaelard that she was with Child. He brought her off from her Unckle's House, and carryed her to his own Countrey, dis∣guis'd in the Habit of a Nun, where she was brought to Bed of a Boy, who was nam'd Astrolabe. The Unkle of Helloissa overwhelm'd with Grief at the loss of his Niece, would have reveng'd the Affront upon Abaelard's Person, had he not been affraid that she would have underwent the same Fate. Abaelard to pacifie him, went to wait upon him, and offered to marry his Niece, pro∣vided the Marriage were kept secret. The Unkle consented to it, and Abaelard went away im∣mediately to fetch her and make her his Wife. She oppos'd the Resolution a long time, foreseeing that she should be the Ruine of the Fortune, and the Reputation of a Person whom she passionately lov'd. At last, yielding to the pressing Importunities of Abaelard, she return'd with him to Paris, where she was marryed privately in a Church in the presence of her Unckle, and of several of their Friends. After they were marryed they parted, and came together very seldom and very privately. The Unkle and his Friends immediately publish'd the Marriage abroad; but Helloissa who preferr'd the Honour and Interests of Abaelard to her own, and who fear'd that if the Marri∣age were discover'd, he would lose a Prebend which he had, and his Reputation too; swore that nothing could be falser. This gave her Unkle an occasion of abusing her, so that Abaelard resolv'd upon putting her into the Monastery of Argenteuil, where she had been formerly Educated, and making her take upon her the Habit of a Nun, but without the Veil. This made her Unkle and her Relations believe that he mock'd them, and design'd to abandon her; whereupon they resolv'd upon being reveng'd of him after a most barbarous manner, and in effect, enter'd the Chamber of L'Auberge, where he was; and punish'd him, by depriving him of those parts whereby he had injur'd them. It cannot be imagined what Confusion Abaelard was in, to see himself in that Con∣dition. He owns that it was this more than Devotion, which induc'd him to embrace the Mona∣stick Life, after he had perswaded Helloissa to become a Nun. They both made profession at the same time; Abaelard at St. Denys, and Helloissa at Argenteuil. The Disgrace which Abaelard fell into, did not hinder several Persons from waiting upon him at St. Denys, and intreating him to continue his Lectures to them; so that the Abbot and the Religious of St. Denys made use of this pretence, to send him to teach School in one of their Houses, that so they might be free from the Reproaches which he cast upon them for their Disorders. His Reputation drew thither so many Scholars from all parts, that the place where he was, was not capable of receiving them, nor the Country of providing for them. He taught them the Liberal Arts and Theology. This great con∣course of Scholars, soon rais'd the Jealousie and Envy of other Masters against Abaelard, who to suspend him from all sorts of Professions, gave out that it was not proper for a Monk to teach the Liberal Arts, and that he could no longer expound the Holy Scriptures, since he had learn'd it without a Master.

The Treatise which he composed about the Unity of God and about the Trinity, gave his Adversaries an occasion of accusing him of Error. Alberic and Lotulphus who taught at Rheims, * 1.3 and who would after the Death of William of Champeaux and Anselm of Laon, succeed alone to their Reputation, being jealous of Abaelard, excited Rodulphus Arch-Bishop of Rheims against him, who having sent for Conon Bishop of Palestrina the Pope's Legat in France, held a Council at Soissons, in the Year 1121. and cited Abaelard thither, ordering him to bring his Book along with him. He obey'd that Order, presented his Book to the Pope's Legat, and submitted it to his Judgment, assuring him, that if he had written any thing contrary to the Catholick Faith, he was ready to correct it, and to make Satisfaction. The Legat order'd him to put his Book in∣to the hands of the Arch-Bishop of Rheims, who ordered it to be shown to his two Adversaries, who read it over and over, to see if they could find any Error in it. Alberic met with a passage, wherein Abaelard deny'd that God could be said to generate himself. Abaelard justifi'd it by the Authority of St. Augustin, which he had cited, and maintained to his Face, that if he should assert the contrary, he would fall into the same Heresie with those who believed that the Fa∣ther was the Son of himself. Alberic was not satisfi'd with this Reply, but continu'd his Prose∣cutions against Abaelard. In the last Session of the Council, they put it to the Question, what Order they should make about his Book and about his Person. Geofrey Bishop of Chartres said, that they ought to interrogate Abaelard, and give him liberty to make his Defence, but his Adversaries would not venture to stand it out with him. The Legat thought it adviseable to refer

this Affair to a more numerous Council; and in the mean time to send Abaelard back to his Mo∣nastery, * 1.4 where he should be tryed. But his Adversaries made the Legat alter his mind, and per∣swaded him to condemn his Book, to order it to be burnt publickly, and to shut up the Author for ever in a Monastery; saying there was sufficient Grounds to condemn him for having under∣taken to ••each publickly, without having had a Mission from the Pope or the Church. When the Bishop of Chartres perceived that this Resolution was taken, he advertised Abaelard of it, and advised him to suffer it patiently, and the rather, because this Violence would be more prejudi∣cial to his Enemies than to himself, assuring him that he should not be long confin'd, because the I egat who did all this against his Will, would quickly set him at liberty. Upon this Promise he came into the Council, cast his Book into the Fire with his own Hand, and there recited St. Athanasius's Creed as a Declaration of his Faith. Afterwards he was shut up in the Abby of St. Me∣dard of Soissons. The Monks of that Monastery treated him very civilly, and did what they could to comfort him, but he was a great deal more concern'd at the Affront which had been then offer'd him, than at that Misfortune which happened to him formerly. However the Legat kept to the Promise which the Bishop of Chartres had made him, and within a few days after sent him back to his Monastery. He was as unacceptable to his fellow Monks, as he had for∣merly been, and they took occasion to give him fresh Disturbance, because he had asserted that St. Denys of France was not the Areopagite, founding his Assertion on what Bede says, that the Areopagite had been Bishop of Corinth, whereas 'tis believed that Denys of France had been Bishop of Athens. This Proposition did so far incense the Abbot and the rest of the Religious against him, that he not thinking himself secure in that Abby, made his escape by Night, and retired into the Terri∣tories of Thibaud, Count of Champagne, and dwelt in Provence in an Hospital belonging to the Monks of Troyes, the Prior whereof was one of his Friends. His Abbot would sain have had him out again, but dy'd within a short time after. Abaelard with much ado, obtain'd leave by the Interest of some great Lords to live in what place of Solitude he would, provided he would not enter into any other Monastery. After he had obtain'd this leave, he retir'd to a Solitude near Troyes, where he built a Chappel in a Field, which was given him by some private Persons of the place, by consent of the Bishop of Troyes. He was no sooner settled there, but he was fol∣low'd by a great number of Scholars, who built little Cells round about his Lodge, so that one would have thought that they were rather Hermits than Scholars. They furnished him with all that he had occasion for, either for his Nourishment or Refreshment, and built him a Church which was dedicated to the Holy Trinity. Abaelard gave it the Title of Paraclete, in memo∣ry of the Consolation which he had received in that place. His Adversaries found fault at that Appellation, pretending that one could not dedicate a Church to the Holy Ghost alone. Upon this Abaelard observes, that the name of Paraclete might be very well applyed to all the three Per∣sons of the Trinity; and that if it were only the peculiar Title of the Holy Ghost, yet one might without any scruple dedicate a Temple to the Holy Ghost, though it might not be so Customa∣ry. His Enemies perceiving that they were not strong enough of themselves to ruin him, stirred up two great Persons against him, who were Men of the highest Esteem. One was the restorer of the ancient Life of the regular Canons, and the other of the Life of the Monks. ('Tis St. Nor∣bert and St. Bernard which he here means.) These two Men declaim'd against both his Life and Morals, before the Ecclesiastical and Secular Powers. To escape this Storm, he accepted of the Abby of St. Gildors of Ruy's in the Diocess of Nantes in Bretagne, though the Monks thereof were very Barbarous and Cruel, with whom it was very difficult for him to converse. This happened at the same time when the Abbot of St. Denys took to himself the Abbey of Argen∣tevil, and the Nuns of that place being dispers'd, Abaelard gave to Helloissa, who was Prioress thereof, and to several other of the Religious who had follow'd her, the Church of the Paraclete and its Dependencies. This Donation was confirmed by the Bishop of Troyes, and by Pope Inno∣cent II. and by Degrees, this Covent which was very poor at its first Rise, was plentifully endow∣ed by the liberality of the Faithful. Abaelard went often thither to assist them in their Needs, which gave occasion to the Malicious of accusing him, of having still a Passion for Helloissa, and of at∣tributing to the Motions of his fleshly Lusts, what he did out of a pure motive of Charity, or to avoid the ill treatment of his Monks, who perpetually sought for an Opportunity to get rid of him.

This Letter of Abaelard fell into the Hands of Helloissa, whereupon she sent him word, that having known his Hand-writing, she could not forbear to read it over with all the eagerness which the Passion * 1.5 she had for him could inspire into her. That it was but very reasonable since she had ruin'd him, that she might at least receive some Consolation by the reading of his Letters. That this however had very much afflicted her, by putting her in mind of the Miseries which had happened to him, and letting her know of the Danger wherein he was: That she conjur'd him to send her often word how he did, that so she might partake with him either in his Grief or his Joy: That since he had been pleased for the satisfaction of his Friend to send him an account of his Misfortunes, he lay under greater Obligations to write to her and her Religious, whom he ought to esteem not only as his Friends, but as Persons entirely at his Devotion; not as Companions, but as his own Daugh∣ters, who were beholden to him alone for the Monastery which they were in possession of: That it was he who first rendred that solitude Habitable, and was the Founder of that House: That it was his Duty likewise to bestow all his Cares upon it; and that having done so much for others, it was very reasonable he should be serviceable to them also. That he was farther oblig'd thereto, upon Consideration of the Relation she had to him, of the extream Love which she always

had for him, and the great loss which she had suffer'd by parting from him. Afterwards she ex∣presses the Sentiments of her quo••dam Passion to him, so as not only to say that she never lov'd a∣ny thing in him beside his own Person, but also that the name of Concubine seemed more Eligible to her than that of Wife, because it would wound his Reputation ••ess, and have made her a grea∣ter Sacrifice. She adds, that when the Emperor would have had her in Marriage, and bestow∣ed the whole Empire upon her; yet she chose to be Abaelard's Mistress, rather than Empress. (By this you may perceive the Violence of a Womans Passion.) To this she subjoyns the Remembrance of several other reciprocal Testimonies of Love, which they had given each other; and afterwards she upbraids him for that, though in Obedience to him she was made a Nun; yet that he had so far slighted or rather forgot her, that she had received no Refreshment by his Visits, nor Comfort by his Letters. Is it (says she) because the Bond which tyed you to me was rather the Heat of Lust than the Force of Love? She avows, that it was not out of Devotion, but in Obedience to her Hus∣band's Commands, that she had embrac'd the Monastick Life; that she could not expect any Re∣ward from the Lord for it, for whose Sake she had not done it: That she had follow'd, or rather preceeded her Husband, and that one of those things which troubled her most was, that he had ingag'd her to dedicate her self to God, before he had resolv'd upon it himself, as if he had some distrust of her Fidelity. She assures him, that even at present, she had him still in her Mind, and lov'd him still. She intreats him to consider what a piece of Ingratitude it would be in him to refuse to visit her, and comfort her with his Letters, since that would be a means of her serving God with the less Detraction. And lastly, that since he had formerly writ so many ••ove Letters to excite a dishonourable Passion in her, it was very reasonable that he should write some to her now to incline her to God.

Abaelard return'd an Answer, That it was not out of Negligence that he had deferr'd writing * 1.6 to her, but because he had so much Confidence in her Piety and Learning, as to think that she stood in no need of his Advice: That if she thought that she wanted it, she might inform him of the Points wherein she desir'd his Instruction, and that he would satisfie her therein. He thanks her for being so kind as to participate in his Afflictions, and recommends himself to her Prayers, and the Prayers of her Fraternity. From this he takes an occasion to shew how grateful the Pray∣ers of Holy Virgins are to God. In particular he takes notice to her of a Form of Prayers which he desired, that they would say for him at the Close of the Canonical Hours; and tells her, that after his Death, he would have his Body be brought to their Monastery to be there interr'd, that they might pray to God for the quiet of his Soul.

This Letter very sensibly affcted Heloissa, because Abaelard therein speaks of his Death, as if * 1.7 near at Hand. She had so much Affction for him, that she could not bear this thought, without being very much disturbed at it. She declares those thoughts to him in a very pathetical manner in the Letter, which she sent back to him, wherein she could not forbear reflecting upon the Mis∣fortune which had happened to Abaelard through her means. She desir'd that she might undergo a Penance worthy of her Fault, and owns that she is still so weak, as not to efface out of her Me∣mory the remembrance of past Pleasures, but that they continually present themselves to her Mind, which gives her great cause of Humiliation, and of rejecting the Praises which he had bestowed upon her.

Abaelard endeavoured to comfort her by excusing himself of the Reproaches which she had cast * 1.8 upon him in that Letter, which he reduced to four Heads. The first was about the Complaint which she made of his having nam'd her first in the Inscription of this Letter. The Second about the Reproach which she had cast upon him, of having increased her Grief, rather than afforded her any Consolation. The Third about the Reflections which she had made upon their past Mis∣fortunes. And the last about her refusal of the Praises which he had given her. As to the first Head, he satisfyed her by saying, that since she was become the Spouse of Jesus Christ, she was according to St. Jerom's Phrase his Mistress, and that upon that account, he had reason to name her first. From thence he took an occasion to give her some Instructions about the Virtues re∣quisite for the Spouse of Jesus Christ. Upon the Second Head, he says that he had not mention'd any thing of his Death, or the Danger wherein he was in his Letter, if she had not conjur'd him to do it. Upon the third Head, he approves of her rejecting all Praises, provided it were sincere, and if she did not contemn them out of a principle of Pride. As to the Fourth Head, he intreats her to make no farther Complaints of a Misfortune which he really deserv'd, as due to his Sins, whereof he was throughly sensible. He advises her rather to give God Thanks for the favour he had shewn to both of them, by bringing them out of a disorderly Course of Life, to lead a more regular one. He look'd upon that Pain which had been inflicted on him as very light, in Comparison of the Crimes which he had committed, and thought himself very happy in being de∣liver'd from that which had been the cause of his Sin. He concludes with a Prayer which the Religious of the Nunnery of Paraclete ought to say for him and Heloissa.

In the next Letter Heloissa in Obedience to the Order which Abaelard had given her, made no * 1.9 more mention of their Misfortunes, but intreated him on behalf of her self and her Religious, in the first place to inform them of the Original of their Order, and of the Authority thereof. In the Second place, to compose a particular Rule, and such as might he proper for them, which had not as yet been done, the Monks and Nuns professing the same Rule of St. Benedict, wherein were a great many things which were only applicable to Men; as for instance, that which is said about Habits, Functions, the Abbot, the entertaining of Strangers, Manufactures, and other practises which their Sex was not capable of: That if according to the Intention of St. Benedict, the Rule

ought to be moderated in favour of the Weak, it was very reasonable to do so in favour of the Vir∣gins; that the external Exercises which are such as they were the least capable of, were likewise the least necessary. For this Reason she exhorts Abaelard to draw up a Discretionary Rule for them, which might be suited to their Weakness, particularly with relation to the Fasts and Service of the Church, it being very reasonable that he who under God was the Founder of their Monastery, should be likewise the Institutor of their Rule.

Abaelard answers the first Question of Heloissa in the Seventh Letter, wherein he pretends that the Monastical Orders as well of Men as of Women, drew its Original from themanner of Jesus Christ's * 1.10 livi••g here on Earth. That there were several Examples of this in the Old Law: That the Women who attended our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin, who liv'd in common with the Apostles; the Virgins and Widows of the Primitive Church, led a Religious Life. Afterwards he enlarges himself on the Praises of the Sex, and particularly on those of Virgins, of whom he makes a learned Encomi∣um throughout the whole Letter.

He satisfied Heloissa in her second Demand, by sending to her a full instruction about Conti∣nence, voluntary Poverty▪ Silence and Solitude, to which are annex'd particular Constitutions for the Abbess, and for the other Officers of the Covent, and about the Order which they ought to observe in the Divine Service, in Meats, in Habits, and in reading of the Holy Scriptures, to which he advises them above all things. This Rule is full of very useful Instructions, and of fine Passages out of Scripture, and the Writings of the Fathers apply'd very much to ••he purpose. There is to be found in the Manuscript of the Abbey of Paraclete another Collection of particular Rules which are attributed to Heloissa.

••u••••us Prior of Deuil ••ore likewise a share in the Misfortune which happened to Abaelard, and * 1.11 wrote him a Consolatory Letter upon that Subject, wherein he advises him to stay in his Mona∣stery, and not to undertake a Journey to Rome to demand justice of the Canon, who had been the Cause of his being so abus'd. This is the first Letter of the second Collection which relate to Abaelard.

The Second is a Memoir of Abaelard, directed to Adam, Abbot of St. Denys, and to the Monks of that Monastery, and to prove against the Testimony of Bede, that Denys the A••copagite was not Bishop of Corinth, but Bishop of Athens.

In the Third directed to a ••••gular Canon, who despis'd the Monks and extoll'd the Regular Clerks, and maintained that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…nastical O••der was inferiour to the Clerical; Abaelard takes t•…•… M••••ks p••••t, and maintains 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Mon••stical Order was not in the lea•••• inferiour to ••hat of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••g••••ar Canons, wheth••r one r••gard the F••gure which they make among Men, or ••••at which Religi•…•… gives them in the sight of God. The Reasons which he alledges for this were, that we see ev•…•…y day Clerks who embrac'd the Monastical Life, and that after they had done so, were not pe••mitted re-enter into the Clerical Order. That the Monks who were made c••oice of to execute the Clerical Functions, never quit their Habit: That they often made choice of Monks to make them Bishops, whereas they never chose Clerks to preside ove•• Monasteries: That in the Litanies and Prayers of the Church, the suffrages of the Monks were implor'd: That the Monks are advanc'd to Holy Orders, and even to Pries••hood it self: That St Jerom pr••f•••••• the Monasti∣cal State to that of Clerks, as being more perfect: That St. John Bapt••st quitted the Priesthood to lead a solitary Life: That the Monks are in less danger of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Salvation, than the Clerks who are oblig'd to converse so much with the World: That the M••n•• embrace the Conte••plative Life which our Saviour preferr'd before the Active Life: That the Regul•••• Canons who••e Institu∣tion was but new, imitate the Monks in living in Common in Cloysters: That lastly, the Life of Monks is more painful and more Au••••ere than that of the Clerks.

The fourth Letter is against those who condemn the use of ••ogick. Abaelard compares them to the Fox in the Fable, who slighted the Fruit at which he could not get. He says, that those Do∣ctors do in the ••••me manner despise Logick, because they have not a Genius to comprehend it. He makes it appear, that the Holy Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine have commended this Art, and thought it necessary for the right Explication of the Holy Scriptures. He owns that one ought to avoid the love of Disputing, and the de••••re of deceiving others by Sophisms; but he would have Men have an insight both into Logick and Sophistry, to discern good Argumentati∣ons from false Ones. He maintains, that without Logick 'tis very difficult to refute Here∣ticks.

The Fifth is writ to St. Bernard, about the Intelligence which Abaelard had received from He∣loissa Abbess of Paraclete, that that Saint coming to that Monastery, had observed them to repeat the Lord's-Prayer quite different from what was done in other Churches, and looked upon it as a Novelty, which he though Abaelard had introduc'd. All the difference consisted in that they said our Super-substantial Bread, instead of our Daily Bread. Abaelard observes, that the first Phrase be∣ing in the Text of St. Matthew, who has given us the Lord's-Prayer more entire and compleat than Saint Luke, and whose Phrases are follow'd except in this; it seem'd more reasonable to change nothing in the Text, and to make use of the Phrase which St. Matthew has used, than to insert in∣to St. Matthew's Text a Phrase taken out of St. Luke's Gospel. That therefore one ought not to accuse those of a Novelty, who in repeating the Lord's-Prayer, say, Give us our Super-substantial Bread, instead of our Daily Bread, since they are the very Words used by St. Matthew, whose Form was follow'd. That however he did not blame the contrary Usage; but that he did not believe this Us••ge was to be prefer••'d to the Truth, and the rather, because the Greek Church had re∣tain'd the proper Terms of St. Matthew's Gospel. That St. Bernard had the least reason of any

Man to find fault with this Alteration, since there were in his Order a great many Novelties contrary to the Ancient Customs and Usages of the Monks and Clerks, even in the Divine Ser∣vice; such as for instance the Singing of New Hymns, the Singing of the same Hymn on different Festivals; the not repeating the Suffrages which were elsewhere said after the Lord's Prayer; the omitting the Commemoration of the Virgin and of the Saints at the End of the Office; the ha∣ving excluded almost entirely the Usage of Processions; the Singing Allelujah even to Quinqua∣gesima-Sunday; the not reciting the Apostles Creed at Prime and the Vespers, and the Singing of the Invitatory, the Hymn and the Gloria Patri the last three days in the holy Week. Tho' those Practices were contrary to the common Usage of the Church, yet Saint Bernard did not think himself oblig'd to leave them, because he esteem'd them more reasonable and more Con∣formable to the Rule. From hence Abaelard concludes, that upon a stronger Reason one could not well disapprove the Alteration which he had made in the Lord's Prayer, tho' it might seem a Novelty; and the Rather because the Novelties which are prohibited are not those of Ex∣pressions, but those of Opinions, since the Church has invented new Phrases to explain our My∣steries: That Lastly there be a World of different Customs in the Church with respect to Ce∣remonies; That in Rome no Church beside the Lateran observes the ancient Usage of the holy See: That in Milan only the Cathedral Church observes its ancient Rites: That the Church of Lions is the only Church which has retain'd it's Ancient Office; and that the Diversity of Cere∣monies has likewise it's Advantages. Lastly he concludes by saying that every one might abound in his own Sense, and repeat the Lord's Prayer in the way which he should think most proper: That he does not pretend to perswade others to imitate him therein: That he left those who would at their Liberty to change the Words of Jesus Christ, but for his part he would endeavour all he could to keep to the proper Terms of Jesus Christ, as well as to his Words.

The sixth Letter is an Exhortation to the Religious of Paraclete to study that they might be capable of Reading and understanding the Holy Scriptures: It hardly consists of any thing else but passages out of Saint Jerom upon that Subject. He congratulates their Happiness in ha∣ving such a Learned Abbess as was able to teach them Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; the Languages which were necessary for their rightly understanding of the Scriptures. He recommends to them the having recourse to the Original Text which is the foundation of all Versions, and to study Hebrew and Greek, the Study whereof he complains was very much neglected in his Time. He wishes that those Nuns would recover that Learning, which the Men had suffer'd to be lost. And takes notice that they might apply themselves to it the more easily, because they were less Capable of working with their Hands than Men, and were the more oblig'd to it by the Quietness and Sedateness of their Lives, and because the Weakness of their Sex render'd them more, liable to temptations, which they might divert by being thus employ'd.

The Seventh is a Panegyrick on Saint Stephen dedicated to the Nuns of Paraclete.

From the year 1121. wherein Abaelard was forc'd in the Council of Soissons to cast his Book * 1.12 of Theology into the Fire, he had met with no disturbance about his Doctrine, tho' he had still continu'd to write and teach the same things as before. The first who renew'd the Charge of Errors against him was Wiliam Abbot of Saint Thierry, who having read two Books of Theology compos'd by Peter Abaelard, and therein found such Propositions as put him to some distur∣bance, and which he thought to be contrary to sound Doctrine, sent an account of them to Geofrey Bishop of Chartres and to Saint Bernard Abbot of Clairvaux; exhorting them to declare themselves against those Novelties and to get them to be condemn'd. His Letter is the three hundred and twenty sixth among the Letters of Saint Bernard. He therein says that he is very much abash'd to speak his mind at a time wherein those whose duty it was to do it held their Peace; but that he could not be silent when he saw the Faith of the Church corrupted by Very Dangerous Errors, and the rather because the Contest was about the Faith which related to the Trinity, the Person of our Mediator, the Holy Ghost, the Grace of Jesus Christ, and the Sacrament of our Redemption; and because the New Notions which Peter Abaelard taught and writ, were spread through the World, and taught and Maintain'd publickly, and had (as 'tis said) some repute even in the Court of Rome. He exhorts Geofrey and Saint Bernard to un∣dertake the Defence of the Faith, and tells them that he apply'd himself more particularly to them, because Abaelard fear'd them more than all the World beside. He afterwards relates thirteen Propositions which he said he had taken out of the Writings of Abaelard: viz. (1.) That the defin'd Faith to be the Idea of things not seen. (2.) That he asserts that the Names of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are not properly applicable to God. But that 'tis only a Description of the Plentitude of the Soveraign Good. (3.) That the Father is a full Power, the Son a Certain Power, and the holy Ghost no Power at all. (4.) That the Holy Ghost does not partake of the Substance of the Father and the Son, in the same manner as the Son does of the Substance of the Father. (5.) That the Holy Ghost is Anima mundi, i. e. the Soul of the World. (6.) That one may do either Good or Evil by one's own free Will without the Influence and Assistance of the Grace of God. (7.) That Jesus Christ was not made man, and did not suffer to deliver us from the Bondage of the Devil. (8.) That Christ as God-Man is not one of the three persons of the Trinity. (9.) That in the Sacrament of the Altar, the form of the Substance of Bread and Wine which was there before the Consecration, remains the same afterwards. (10.) That he maintains that the Suggestions of the Devil are infus'd into Man by Physical Causes. (11.) That we do not contract the Guilt, but the punishment

only of Original Sin. (12.) That there is no Sin, unless in the Consent we give to Sin, and in the Contemning of God. (13.) That there is no sin of Concupiscence, Lust or Ignorance. These are the Articles which William Abbot of Thierry says that he drew out of the Book of Abaelard's Divinity. He adds that he heard say that he had written likewise several other Opu∣scula, whereof one was Intituled the Yea, and the No; another, Know thy self, and several others, the Doctrine of which he was affraid was as Monstrous as the Titles were extraordinary and singular. After this Letter William writes a Treatise levell'd expressly against those Errors, which is to be met with in the Library of Cisteaux, and to which this Letter serves as a Preface.

Saint Bernard return'd William this Answer, that he perceiv'd that the Zeal which he express'd against the Errors of Abaelard was reasonable and necessary, and that the Book which he had compos'd to refute him seem'd very useful, tho' he had not as yet time but only to read it cursorily, and not exactly; but that since this was a business of great Consequence, he desir'd to have a Conference with him about it, which yet he thought could not be before Easter, for fear of interrupting his Devotions in the Season of Lent. That besides he would not have been so long silent, if he had had a perfect Knowledge of the Errors of Abaelard,

When he was inform'd of them and had examin'd Abaelard's Book himself, he very charitably admonish'd him to retract his Errors and to correct his Books, and advis'd his Disciples to read them no more. This Admonition serv'd only to exasperate Abaelard, who made loud complaints against Saint Bernard: So that this Saint perceiving that the private Admonition which he had given him prov'd ineffectual, he thought it his Duty to tell it the Church, and wrote against him to Innocent II. and to several Prelates of the Court of Rome, accusing him of making Degrees in the Trinity with Arius, of preferring Free-Will before Grace with Pelagius, of dividing Jesus Christ with Nestorius, by excluding him out of the Number of the persons of the Trinity. He exhorts them warmly to oppose those Errors and Condemn them. This is the Subject matter of the hundred and Eightieth, the three hundred and thirtieth, the three Hundred and thirty first, thirty second, thirty third, thirty fourth, thirty fifth, and thirty sixth Letters of Saint Bernard.

Abaelard seeing himself thus accus'd, made his Application to Henry Arch-Bishop of Sens, and * 1.13 intreated him that he would summons Saint Bernard to the Council which was to be held, that so he might enter into dispute with him about the Principal Errors which he imputed to him. The Arch-Bishop of Sens wrote to Saint Bernard to come on the day appointed on the Octave of Pentecost in the year 1140 to the Synod, that he might enter into a Conference with Abaelard in presence of the Bishops. Saint Bernard made some Scruple at first of coming thither, whether he thought (as he said) that he was too strong for him in Disputes, or whether he thought that the truths of the Christian Faith ought not to be expos'd to the Argumentation of Humane Reaso∣nings. He at first answer'd that the Writings of Abaelard were sufficient to convince him, and that it was not his Business, but the Bishops to whom of right did belong the Determination of the Doctrines of Faith. Abaelard made an Advantage of this Refusal, and spread abroad that he would be at Sens on the day appointed to answer Saint Bernard. Upon this, Saint Bernard's Friends fearing that his Absence would prove an Offence to the People, and create a Confidence in his Adversary, and confirm his Error, advis'd him to go to the Council of Sens. He adverti∣ses the Bishops and his Friends of it in a Circular Letter, which is his hundred and Eighty seventh, and exhorted them to undertake the Defence of a Cause which was more properly their than his own.

The Bishops met at Sens on the Octave of Whitsontide, when the Relicks were to be shown in the Cathedral Church of that City. All the Bishops of the Province of Sens met there, except the Bishops of Nevers and Paris, viz: Geofrey of Chartres Legate of the holy See, Elias of Orleans, Hugh of Auxerre, Hatto of Troyes, Manasses of Meaux. Sampson Arch-Bishop of Rheims was likewise there with three of his Suffragans, viz: Josselin Bishop of Soissons, Geofrey of Chalons, and Alvisus of Arras; a great many Abbots, Deans and persons of Learning and Piety were like∣wise there. The King himself (Lewis the Young) was likewise present with William Count of Nevers. The Council being set, Saint Bernard produc'd there Peter Abaelard's Book, recited the Erroneous or Absurd Propositions which he had extracted thence, and urg'd Peter Abaelard either to disown that he had writ them, or if he would acknowledge them to be his, to prove or retract them. Peter Abaelard had recourse to shifts, and would not answer expresly, thô' he had Liberty given him to do it, had very favourable Judges, and was in a place where he need not to fear any thing: But whether he fear'd an Insurrection of the People, if Otho of Frisingen's Word be to be taken in the Case, or whether he thought he should have greater Advantage at Rome, where were Cardinals and Prelats who thought it an honor to be his Disciples, he appeal'd to the Pope, and afterwards withdrew from the Assembly attended with those of his Party. Thô' the Bishops were of Opinion that this Appeal was not Regular, because he appeal'd to Judges of his own Choosing; yet out of Respect to the holy See, they would not pronounce any sentence against his person; but they condemn'd his Opinions after they had been read over several times and refuted Publickly by Saint Bernard. This Sentence being pass'd, the Arch-Bishop of Sens and his Suffragans, and the Arch-Bishop of Rheims with his three Suffragans who were at the Synod wrote severally to Pope Innocent II. to desire him to confirm the Sentence which they had pass'd against the Errors of Abaelard and to intreat him to prevent his teaching any Longer, and his having any Countenance at the Court of Rome. Their Letters are the hundred and Ninety first,

and the three hundred and thirty seventh among the Letters of Saint Bernard, who doubtless com∣pos'd them himself. He wrote likewise in his own Name to the Pope the hundred and Eighty Ninth Letter wherein he earnestly exhorts him to proscribe the Errors of Abaelard, and to hinder him from having any Countenance in the Court of Rome. He likewise sent him the Heads which he had found fault with in Abaelard's Book, with an Ample Refutation of his Errors. This is the hundred and Ninetieth, or Ninty first Opuscule. Lastly to prevent Abaelard from ma∣king use of that Credit which he had at Rome in his favour, he wrote to three Cardinals his Friends, to do what they could, that Abaelard might not succeed in his Designs. This is the Subject Matter of the hundred and second, the hundred and third and three hundreth and thirty Eighth Letters.

The Pope return'd Answer to the Prelates of the Council of Sens, and to Saint Bernard, that he * 1.14 commended the Zeal which they had express'd against the Errors of Abaelard: That after he had advis'd with the Bishops and Cardinals he had condemn'd the Heads which they had sent him, and all the Errors of Peter Abaelard with the Author of them, on whom he impos'd a per∣petual silence as on a Heretick, and that he had adjudg'd that all the Followers and Defenders of his Errors ought to be Excommunicated. This Letter which is the hundred and Ninty fourth among Saint Bernard's bears dare July the 16th in the Year 1140. In an Order of the same or the foregoing day, directed to the same Bishops and Saint Bernard, he joyns Peter Abaelard to Arnulphus of Bresse, and orders the Bishops to imprison them, and to burn their Books where-ever they found them.

Abaelard to justify himself compos'd an Apology, or rather a Confession of Faith, wherein after * 1.15 he had taken Notice, that it was a hard matter, when one writ, to avoid reproach; he protests in the presence of God, that he is not at all sensible of being guilty of those things whereof they accus'd him; and that if he were satisfied of his having advanc'd any Error, he was resolv'd to maintain it no longer: That it might happen that by carelessness he might have writ what he ought not to have writ; but that he calls God to Witness, that as to those Points whereof he was accus'd he had advanc'd nothing out of an ill Design, or Pride; That he always spoke in Publick, and never conceal'd his Writings: That if in that great Number of Lectures which he had held, he had faln into any extravagancies, he would never be stiff in the Maintenance of them, but would be always ready to give satisfaction by Correcting or blotting out what he might have advanc'd improperly: But that as it was his Duty to correct the faults which he had com∣mitted, he was likewise oblig'd to refute those Accusations of Error which had been fasly laid to his Charge, because as Saint Augustine says, he who is negligent of his Reputation is an Enemy to himself, and silence is a kind of Confession: That 'tis for this Reason that he Answers those Heads which are publish'd against him, to let all the Faithful know that he is a true Son of the Church; that he receiv'd whatever it receiv'd; that he rejected whatever it rejected, and that he always continu'd in the Union of the Church, tho' he were not equal to others in the sanctity of his Life. He thereupon in this Apology rejects the Errors whereof he was accus'd, and professes the Contrary Truths, by declaring (1.) That he abhorr'd the Proposition which had been maliciously imputed to him, That the Father had a perfect Power, that the Son had only a Certain Power, and that the holy Ghost had no Power at all; and he professes that he believes that the Son and Holy Ghost are of the same Substance with the Father, and that they have the same Power, and the same Will, and pretends that it was either out of Malice or Ignorance that they had accus'd him of having said that the Holy Ghost was not of the same Substance with the Father. (2.) That he professes to believe that the Only Son of God was made man to deliver us from the Slavery of Sin and from the Bondage of the Devil, and to open an Entrance to us to Heaven by his Death. (3.) That Jesus Christ is the true and only Son of God, Born of the Substance of the Father before all Worlds; and that the holy Ghost is the third person of the Trinity who proceeded from the Father and the Son. (4.) That the Grace of God is so ne∣cessary to all men▪ that neither Nature, nor Free-will are sufficient to Salvation, because Grace Prevents us that we may Will, follows that we may do what we Will, and accompanies us that we may persevere. (5.) That God cannot do any thing but what is agreeable to his Nature for him to do, and that he has indeed Power of doing a great many things which he will never do. (6.) That there are sins of Ignorance, especially when it proceeds from an Omission of ha∣ving learn'd what we are oblig'd to know. (7.) That God often hinders Evils, either by pre∣venting the Evil Wills of Wicked men, or by changing them. (8.) That we have All con∣tracted the Guilt and Punishment of Adam's Sin, which has been the Cause and Original of all our Sins. (9.) That those who crucified Jesus Christ committed a notorious sin by nailing him to the Cross. (10.) That the Perfection of Charity was in Jesus Christ. (11.) That the Power of Binding or Unbinding was granted to the Apostles and their Successors, and that all Bishops be they Worthy or Unworthy have that Power, so long as the Church acknowledges them as Bishops. (12.) That all those who are equal in Charity, are equal likewise in Perfection and Merit. (13.) That the Father is as Wise as the Son, and the Son as Beneficent as the holy Ghost, because the Glory of the three persons of the Trinity is coequal. (14.) That one cannot Attribute to the Father the last Judgment or Advent. (15.) That the Soul of Jesus Christ did not only descend into Hell in Power, but likewise really and substantially. (16.) That he had not maintain'd, that neither Action, nor the Will, nor Lust, nor Pleasure were sins, and that we ought not to pray for the quenching of our Lusts. Lastly he asserts that they did him wrong attributing a Book of Sentences to him which he had never compos'd; and conjures all the

Faithful not to injure his Innocence, which the Truth shelters from all the faults ascribed to him, and the rather because Charity requires us to put the best Sense on Doubtful matters.

After he had publish'd this Apology, he set out on his Journey towards Rome; but being ar∣riv'd at Cluny, he was detain'd there by Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny. Whilst he was * 1.16 there, the Abbot of Cisteaux coming thither likewise, endeavour'd to bring him to make his Peace with Saint Bernard. Peter the Venerable urg'd the same thing to him also, perswaded him to go and Wait upon him with the Abbot of Cisteaux, and advis'd him that in case he had said or writ any thing which might be Offensive to the Ears of the Catholicks, to advance no such thing for the future, and to strike it out of his Books. He took his Advice, waited upon Saint Ber∣nard, and was reconcil'd to him by the Mediation of the Abbot of Cisteaux. He return'd after∣wards to Cluny, where he resolv'd to spend the rest of his Days in Repose free from the Hurry and fatigue of the Schools. Peter the Venerable thought himself oblig'd to allow this favour to his Age, to his Weakness and to his Piety; not questioning withall but that his Learning would be very advantageous for the Instruction of his Monks. He wrote about it to Pope Innocent and pray'd him to grant that Abaelard might spend the remainder of his Life with them. 'Tis to be believed that the Pope granted him that favour; for Abaelard resided in that Community till he dy'd, and behav'd himself with a great deal of Piety and Humility for two Years together. Towards the End of his Life he found himself very much oppress'd with Infirmities, and was sent to the Monastery of Saint Marcellus of Chalons upon the Seyne, as being a more healthful and pleasant place, where he dy'd in the year 1142. in the sixty third year of his Age. Peter the Ve∣nerable acquainted Heloissa of his Death by a Letter, wherein he gives her an Encomium of his manner of Living ever since he had retreated to their Society, annexes thereto an Epitaph in his praise, and sent his Body to the Abbey of Paraclete to be there interr'd. He afterwards went himself to visit that Abbey, where he said Mass, made an Exhortation to the Religious in the Chapter house, gave them the Eucharist, and promis'd Heloissa to put up Prayers to God for her in the Society of Cluny for thirty days together after her Death. She thank'd him for all those Fa∣vours in a Letter which she sent to him, and at the same time intreats him to send her Abaelard's Absolution, and to procure a Prebend for her Son Astrolabe. Peter the Venerable sent her this Ab∣solution, and promis'd her to do his best for the procuring a Prebend for her Son, tho' the Bishops were very Scrupulous in granting those Sort of Benefices.

The Works of Abaelard which are now extant are the Letters which we have mention'd in the Course of his History, Expositions of the Lords Prayer, of the Apostles Creed, and of the * 1.17 Creed of Saint Athanasius, A Reply to the Questions or Problems propos'd by Heloissa, a Book about Heresies, a Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans divided into five Books, thirty two Sermons on the Festivals of the year, an Introduction into Theology divided into three Books, the last of which is imperfect. Those which are lost, or have not as yet been printed, are his Logick, of which he makes mention in his first Letter and in the third Book of his Theology; his Notes upon Ezekiel, his Morals intituled Nosce Teipsum, Know thy self; another Book intituled, Sic & Non, Yea and No, which is to be met with in Manuscript in the Library of Saint Germain of Prez, so intitul'd, because 'tis a Collection of such Sentences out of holy Writ, as are in appearance contrary to each other, and a Treatise of the Creation of the World, dedicated to Heloissa, which is likewise a Manuscript in the same Library.

In abstracting his Works we will begin with his Introduction into Theology; which is the Book which has made so great a Noise in the World, it being that which Con∣tains the Principles of his Doctrine, and the Heads upon which he was reprehended and condemn'd.

He begins the First Book with the Explication of Faith, Hope and Charity; he says that there are three things necessary to Salvation, Faith, Charity, and the Sacrament; for he be∣lieves that Hope is comprehended in Faith, as a Species in its Genus. He defines Faith to be the Estimation or Idea of Invisible things; and Hope the Expectation of some Good Faith, according to him, has Respect to Good and Evil, both present and future; whereas Hope has only regard to future Good. He defines Charity to be an honourable Love directed to its due End or Object; and Lust on the Contrary to be a shameful and dishonourable Love. Love in General is that Good Will and Affection which one has for another, whereby one wishesto an other some Good upon the Sole Esteem which he has for him: Charity is the Love of God; Lust or Concupiscence is the Love of the World: God is the Ultimate End or Object of the former, Man is the Ultimate End or Object of the Latter. He observes that Man is the Cause, but ought not to be the End of his Actions, and that what he does for himself ought to have a Respect to God. As for the Sacra∣ment he defin'd it to be an outward and Visible Sign of the Invisible Grace of God: Thus for instance (says he) when a man is baptiz'd the outward washing of the Body which we behold, is the sign of the Inward Washing of the Soul. Faith is the Foundation of other Virtues, be∣cause we only hope for what we believe: For which reason 'tis defin'd by the Apostle Heb. 11. 1. to be the Substance, i. e. the Foundation and Origin of things hop'd for; things Invisible or future are properly the Object of Faith, tho' sometimes we apply this Term to things which are seen. Among the things which may be believ'd, there be some which t'is no matter whether they be believ'd or no; such as whether it please God it should or should not rain to morrow: But when one speaks of Faith, one means only that which relates to such things which we are oblig'd to believe under the Pain of Damnation; and which belong to the Catholick or Universal Faith, the which is so necessary that without it no man can be sav'd. This Faith has for it's Object the Nature of God and his Benefits shown to mankind. In the first place 'tis requisite to retreat of

that which relates to the Nature of God, and to explain how there is but one God and three persons. * 1.18

After he had Establish'd the Unity, Simplicity, and Immutability of God, he treats of the Trinity of Persons. He says that one of the Divine Persons is not the Other; That the Father, for Instance, is not the Son, nor the Son the holy Ghost, because they are of the same nature and distinguish'd only personally; That the Property of God the Father is, not to be begotten: That of the Son, to be begot••en, but not made nor Created; That of the holy Ghost, to proceeed from the Father and the Son, but not made nor Created. The Names of the three person•• comprehend the Essence which is supremely or infinitely perfect. The Power of God is denoted by the Name of Father, the Wisdom by that of the Logos or the Son, and the Love of God to∣wards men by that of the Holy Ghost, the three things which make up the Supreme Good. The Distinction of these three persons serves to perswade men, to render to God the Worship and Adoration which they ow to him; for two things inspire into us Respect, viz, Fear and Love: The Power and Wisdom of God make us to fear him, because we know that he is our Judge; that he can punish▪ us, and that nothing is hid from his Eyes; and his Goodness makes us to love him, because 'tis but just and reasonable to love him who does us so much Good. This likewise serves to render the Works of God the more admirable; since he can do whatsoever he pleases; that he knows how to preserve what he has made, and Wills that every thing should be made and subsist in its Order. He takes notice that yet we ought not to believe that those Attributes do so agree to each of the Divine Persons, but that they may be common to them all; so that we are not to believe that the Father is only Powerful, the Son Only Wise, and the holy Ghost only Merciful; but on the Contrary that these three persons have the same Power, Wisdom and Mercy: That these three Properties are only attributed to the three Divine Persons in an Especial Manner, as their particular Operations are attributed to them, tho' all the Divine Operations which relate to the Creatures, are Common to all the three Persons, namely the Creation to the Father, the Incarnation to the Son, and the Regeneration to the holy Ghost. Afterwards he proves the Mystery of the Trinity by several passages out of the Old Testament, and by the Testimonies of the heathen Philosophers of whom be quotes a great many.

He foresaw that these Citations out of the Heathen Philosophers concerning the Mystery of the Trinity would seem extraordinary, and displease a great many People, therefore he makes use of part of the Second Book to justifiy himself in this particular. (1.) By the Example and Testimonies of Saint Jerom and the other Fathers. (2.) By demonstrating that Logick and the other Sciences are not useless to Religion, provided a right use be made of them. (3.) By showing that 'tis usefull to explain Mysteries as well as one can, by Instances and Com∣parisons, and to demonstrate that they are not contrary to Reason, especially when they were to treat with Jews, Heathens, and Hereticks. (4.) By refuting those who maintain'd that one ought not to make use of Reason, but only Authority to prove the Mysteries of Faith. (5.) By maintaining that one might have some Knowledge of Mysteries, and that as we have Terms whereby to explain them, 'tis requifite likewise that we have Ideas to answer those Terms. (6.) Because without taking any Notice of Jews and Pagans, there are likewise some Hereticks or Persons erroneous about our Mysteries; viz. a certain Laick nam'd Tac••eline in Flanders, who caused himself to be stil'd by the People the Son of God; and Peter of Bruis in Provence, who had so far subverted the Order and Discipline of the Church, as to oblige a great many People to be rebaptiz'd, and taught that one ought not to Celebrate the Sacrament of the Altar any Longer, nor make use of the Cross; That it was not requisite any longer to pass by in silence the Publick Professors who taught Errors contrary to the Catholick Faith and Sound▪ Doctrine, among whom he opposes four, one in France, another in Burgundy, a third in Angers, and a Fourth in Bourges. He gives a particular account of their Errors, which it may not be amiss to insert here.

The first (says he) asserts that several of those who liv'd before the Coming of Jesus Christ were sav'd without having believ'd his future Coming; That our Saviour proceeded out of the Vir∣gins Womb after the same manner as Other Men, and that God begat himself. The Second tea∣ches that the three Properties which distinguish the three Divine Persons, are three Distinct Essen∣ces of the same Person, and of the Divine Nature: That the Body of our Saviour did not increase, but was of the same Bigness in the Virgins Womb and in the Manger, as it was upon the Cross. That the Marriages of Monks or Nuns are Valid, and that one ought not to di∣vorce them, but only to injoyn them Penance. The third not only maintains that the Attri∣butes of the Divine Persons are things distinct from the Godhead, but likewise that all the other Attributes, such as Justice, Mercy, &c. are Qualities and things distinct from God. The fourth has been so Extravagant, as to assert that since things may happen otherwise than God foresaw they would, 'tis possible for him to be deceiv'd.

From this Digression he returns to his Subject, and treats of the Divine Nature. He says that God is not an Accident, nor properly a Substance, if you take that word to signifie an Es∣sence which supports Accidents; that he may be call'd an Essence; that he is not comprehended under any of Aristotle's Ten Categories; that we want proper Terms whereby to express his Nature and Perfections, but that we make use of Energical and figurative Terms, and give Examples and Similitudes to explain imperfectly what agrees to this ineffable Nature. He produces several of these about the Mystery of the Trinity, and in the first place observes that things may be One, either by Resemblance, or in Number, or in Propriety, and that as in one and the same thing there are a great many properties, so in one and the same Divine Essence there are three distinct Persons who have distinct Properties, because the Father begets; the Son is begotten, and

Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. That 'tis true indeed, that we have not among * 1.19 created Beings any Instance wherein one and the same Essence are three Persons; but that we are not to seek for a perfect Resemblance, since 'tis sufficient to bring some Comparisons. He produces that of a Seal, composed of the Material, and the Figure engraven thereon. The Seal is neither the simple Material, nor the simple Figure, but a sort of an Integer composed of both, and yet in reality the Seal is nothing else but the Material, thus or thus engraven, though the Figure is not the Material, nor the Material the Figure.

After this he distinguishes between the procession of the Holy Ghost, and the Generation of the Word, in that the Logos being Wisdom, partakes of the power of the Father, and may therefore be said to be of the substance of the Father; whereas the Holy Ghost being denoted by the Name of Love or Charity, which is not a Power, is not of the substance of the Father. He im∣mediately corrects the Notion of Arianism, which those Words seem to imply, by saying that the Holy Ghost is of the substance of the Father, in the Sence that he so proceeds from him, as to have the same substance with him; but that though he be Consubstantial to the Father, yet properly speaking, he is not begotten of his substance. (This is a hard and improper Expression, contrary to the manner of the Father's speaking, and conformable to that of the Arians, though Abaelard rejects their Error.) He says that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, because Love, or rather the effect of Love proceeds from Power and Wisdom, since the Reason of God's doing Good, is because he has Power to do it, and Wisdom to know that it is Good.

This gives him an occasion of refuting the Opinion of the Greeks concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son alone, and of shewing that one might add something to the Creed, provided it were not contrary to the Faith. He explains the Coeternity of three Divine Persons, by the Instance of the Light and Rays which proceed from the Sun, and which exist the same moment with the Sun. Lastly, he pretends that the Heathen Philosophers have acknowledg'd the Trinity.

In the Third Book he treats particularly of the Power of God, and maintains that God cannot do any thing but what he does do, and cannot do all that he does not do, because God can only do what he Wills; but he cannot Will to do any thing but what he does do, because it is necessary for him that he should Will whatever is convenient; from whence it follows, that whatever he does not do is not convenient; that he cannot Will to do it, and consequently cannot do it. He himself owns, that this is his own particular Notion, that scarce any Body else is of this Opinion, that it seems contrary to the Doctrine of the Saints and to Reason, and to derogate from the greatness of God. Hereupon he starts a very difficult Objection.

A Reprobate (says he) may be sav'd; for he knows no Being but what God does save, wherefore God may save him, and consequent∣ly do something which is not necessary to be done.

To this he replys, that one might very well assert that such a Man may be sav'd by the Relation to the possibility of Human Nature, which is capable of Salvation; but that it could not be affirm'd that God could save him, if we have respect to God himself, because 'tis impossible that God should do any thing, but what he ought to do. He ex∣plains this by several Examples: A Man who speaks may hold his Tongue, but that 'tis impossible for one who speaks to be at the same time silent. A Man's Voice may be heard, but one who is Deaf cannot hear it. A Field may be Cultivated and Till'd, though a Man may not cultivate it, &c.

From the Power of God he proceeds to his Immutability; he says that God does not change himself when he produces new effects, because in him there are not such new Motions and new In∣clinations as are in us, but only new effects proceeding from an Eternal Will; that he cannot change Places, since he is Omni-present, and that when 'tis said that he descended into the Virgin's Womb, 'tis to denote his Humiliation; but that in being made Man, he was not chang'd, because the Divine Substance is united to the Humane Nature without a change of its Nature; and that the Person of Jesus Christ is a Compound of the Divine Logos, the Soul, and of the Flesh; That those three Natures are united in such a manner as that they retain each their own Nature; and that as the Soul is not chang'd into Flesh, so the Divine Nature is not chang'd, though it be per∣sonally united to the Soul and the Flesh. Lastly, he treats of the Divine Knowledge and Wisdom. He says that God has foreseen and pre-ordained all things; and so with respect to God nothing happens by chance, though his prescience does not destroy Free-Will. He defines it to be a free Determination of the Will, and asserts that it has been frequently experienc'd, that the Will is not constrain'd by any Violence, and that it has a power of doing or not doing a thing. He observes that this kind of Freedom in the Will does not relate to God, but only to Men, who may alter their Will, and do or not do a thing. He produces the Opinion of some who believ'd that this Freedo'm consists in a Power of doing both Good and Evil; but he maintains that those who are so happy as to have no power of Sinning, are nevertheless Free, and are so the more because of their being delivered from the servitude of Sin. From hence he concludes, that generally and properly speaking Free-Will is when one may voluntarily and without constraint accomplish that which it has resolved upon; a Liberty which is in God as well as in Men, and in all who are not destitute of the Faculty of Willing. He adds several Philosophical Niceties about the Prescience and Deter∣mination of Propositions concerning future Contingencies.

The Explications of the Lord's-Prayer, and of the Creeds of the Apostles, and of St. Athanasi∣us, contain nothing in them which is very remarkable.

The Problems or Questions which were propos'd to him by Heloissa, are almost all of them up∣on hard Texts of Scripture, which Abaelard explains with a great deal of Justice and Accuracy.

The Book of Heresies is a summary Account of the principal Errors of the Hereticks, against

which he produces several Passages out of the Holy Scriptures. He therein particularly refutes the * 1.20 Errors against the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Baptism, against the Administration of Pe∣nance, against the Ceremonies of the Church, and against the Invocation of Saints. Some have thought that this Piece was not Abaelard's; but 'tis not unworthy of him, and there is nothing to hinder us from thinking it to be his.

The Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans, is a literal Explication of that Epistle, where∣in he shews the Coherence and Consequence of the Apostle's Discourse, and renders his Terms in∣telligible by paraphrasing upon them.

Abaelard's Sermons are not very Eloquent, but such Discourses as contain in them Reflections upon the Words of Scripture, which agree to the Mysteries whereof he Treats, together with se∣veral Moral Instructions. The Sermon upon St. John the Baptist, is a very sharp Satyr against some Monks, and several Canons of his time, and particularly against St. Norbert.

St. Bernard in the general, accuses Peter Abaelard of treating of the Trinity like Arius, * 1.21 of Grace like Pelagius, and of the Incarnation like Nestorius; of having bragg'd that he was igno∣rant of nothing, and of being never willing to say, Nescio, i. e. I do not know; of being willing to expound inexplicable things, and to comprehend incomprehensible Mysteries: Of giving a rea∣son for that which was above Reason; of believing nothing but what Reason discovers to us, of placing Degrees in the Trinity, Terms and Limits to the Majesty of God, and Numbers in Eter∣nity. These are the general Reflections which he cast upon him.

In particular, he finds fault with those Expressions of Abaelard concerning the Holy Ghost, viz. That he is not of the same substance with the Father, as the Son is. He is astonish'd to find him on one side, owning that he is Consubstantial to the Father and the Son; and on the other side, denying that he proceeds from the substance of the Father and the Son. He maintains that the absolute Attributes of God, such as his Omnipotence, Wisdom and Mercy, does not agree more to one than to another of the Three Divine Persons. He opposes Abaelard's Comparison taken from a Seal and the material whereof 'tis made. He finds fault with the Definition of Faith which Abaelard makes use of, because he therein gives to Faith the name of Estimation, which is of too loose a Signification.

He omits speaking to several other Propositions of Abaelard; that Jesus Christ had not the Spi∣rit of Fear: That the fear of God will not subsist in the other Life: That the Accidents of the Bread and Wine after the Consecration are in the Air: That the Demons do not tempt Men, but only by the Virtue of some Stones, and of some Herbs, which they know and make use of: That the Holy Ghost is the Soul of the World. Proceeding afterwards to what relates to the Incarna∣tion, he in the first place cites the Proposition wherein Abaelard maintain'd that Jesus Christ did not come into the World on purpose to redeem Mankind; upon this he urges the Business very home to him, and shews, that neither Scripture nor Tradition acknowledge any other end of the Incar∣nation, beside the redeeming of Mankind from the Bondage of the Devil, into which they had faln by the Sin of their first Parent. He charges him with such things as he only advanc'd in his Com∣mentary by way of Query. He demonstrates in opposition to Abaelard, that the end of Redemp∣tion does not consist in the Love of Jesus Christ, since Infants are redeem'd by Baptism, before they arrive to the use of Reason, and consequently before they are capable of loving at all. Lastly, he considers three things in the Incarnation: The example of Humility which God has given us by thus abasing himself; The measure of Charity, which he extended so far as to the Death upon the Cross; and the Sacrament of Redemption, whereby he has deliver'd Men from Death by his Death. These are the Heads whereof St. Bernard treats in his large Letter against Abaelard, di∣rected to Pope Innocent II. which makes the Eleventh of his Opuscula.

But to come to an exact knowledge of all the Errors charg'd upon Peter Abaelard, 'tis sufficient only to consult the Collection of the Propositions extracted out of his Works, which was read in the Council of Sens, and sent to the Pope. It consists of Fourteen Propositions. The first is the Comparison which he makes of a Seal of Copper, to explain the mystery of the Trinity. The se∣cond is that which he says of the Holy Ghost, viz. That the Holy Ghost is not a Power, nor of the substance of the Father, though the Three Persons of the Trinity are of the same substance. The third, that God cannot do any thing else but what he does do. The fourth, that the end of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, was not only to redeem Mankind, but to inlighten the World with the Lustre of his Wisdom. The fifth, that speaking properly and without a Figure, we cannot say that Jesus Christ is a third Person of the Trinity. The sixth, that God has not given more Grace to him who is sav'd, than to him who is not, before the former has cooperated with his Grace; that he offers his Grace to all the World, and that it depends on the Freedom of Men's Will, whether they will make use of it or reject it. The seventh, that God ought not nor cannot hinder Evil. The eighth, that when 'tis said that Infants contract Original Sin, this ought to be understood of the Temporal and Eternal Punishment, which is due to them because of Adam's Sin. The ninth, that the Accidents which remain after the Consecration of the Eucharist, are not joyn'd to the sub∣stance of the Body of Jesus Christ, as they were to the Bread and Wine, but are in the Air: That the Body of Jesus Christ retains its Figure and Lineaments, and that what we see are false ap∣pearances under which the Body of Jesus Christ is hid. The tenth, that 'tis not the outward Action, but the Will and the Intention which render Men either Good or Bad. The eleventh, that the Jews who crucified Jesus Christ in ignorance and out of Zeal for the Law, did not commit any Sin in so doing, and shall not be condemn'd for this Action, but for their former Sins which me∣rited this Blindness. The twelfth, that those Words, whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall

be bound in Heaven, are to be understood thus: Whatsoever you shall bind in this present Life, * 1.22 shall be bound in the present Church: That none but the Apostles had this Power, and that if it had been communicated to their Successors, 'tis to be understood only of those who have the Ho∣ly Ghost. The thirteenth, that neither the Suggestion nor the Pleasure which follows it are sin∣ful, but the consenting to an Evil Action, and the contempt of God. The fourteenth, that Om∣nipotence belongs only to the Father as a Personal Attribute.

Abaelard in his Apology disowns the Heretical meaning of those Propositions, but the Question which still remains is to know in what Sense he advanc'd them. It cannot be deny'd, but that he had Catholick Notions about the mystery of the Trinity, and did believe that the Three Divine Persons were of the same Nature. The Comparison of a Seal which he makes use of to explain this Mystery is not altogether exact, nor does he pretend that it is; but he owns that we can find nothing among the Creatures, which perfectly resembles this incomparable Mystery. Nor does he deny that Power, Wisdom and Love are such Attributes as are common to the Three Divine Per∣sons; he declares the contrary even in express Terms; but he attributes Power to the Father, Wisdom to the Son, and Love to the Holy Ghost, only by way of Appropriation; wherein he seems not to disagree from the Doctrine of the Fathers and Divines. But in the third Proposition, he does not agree with others in the manner of thinking and expressing his Thoughts; wherein he says that God can only do what he does do, and cannot do what he doth not do. This does not proceed from his dis-believing, that the Power of God in its own Nature can extend it self to other Objects; but he pretends that it being consider'd as joyn'd to the Wisdom and Will of God, he could not do any thing beside what he Wills, nor does any thing besides what he Wills and actually does.

As to that which relates to the end of the Incarnation, (which is the fourth Proposition) 'tis not to be believ'd that he deny'd that Jesus Christ had redeemed and deliver'd Men from the slavery of Sin by his Death; he asserts the contrary in several places; but he might have pretended that this redemption of Mankind from the Captivity of Sin and the Devil, was not the only Motive of the Incarnation, nor the only Advantage which Men reap'd from thence, and the Divine Logos was like∣wise come into the World to enlighten the Nations thereof, and to give them an Example of Virtue; the Holy Fathers have said the same thing in a great many places of their Writings.

The fifth Proposition is only a Question about a Name. He owns that the Divine Logos is one of the Persons of the Trinity; but disapproves of this Expression, viz. That Jesus Christ is a Third Person in the Trinity, a way of speaking which is not usual in the Fathers or the School-men.

The sixth Proposition about Grace, is not agreeable to St. Augustine's Principles, nor is it Pelagi∣anism nor Semipelagianism, since he acknowledges the Necessity of Grace for the producing of any Good in us, and only maintains that God has given equal Grace to all Men, whereof every one might make a good use or reject.

The seventh Proposition is a Consequence from his way of speaking in the third.

The eighth is not to be met with in Abaelard's Writings which are now extant; he acknowledges on the contrary in his Apology, that Original Sin consists in the Guilt.

The Ninth depends upon a Philosophical Dispute about the nature of Accidents, and is of no prejudice to the Faith about the mystery of Transubstantiation, which Abaelard own'd; and when he says that they are false Appearances, by this he understands that they resemble Bread which is not there.

The Tenth may be taken in a good Sense, so that by Works we understand only the external Actions, which are not expresly Good or Bad, but as they become Voluntary.

The eleventh Proposition is insufferable.

The twelfth is an extraordinary and intolerable Exposition of our Saviour's Words about the Power of Binding and Loosing.

He disowns the thirteenth as that which he never writ.

With respect to the Fourteenth we have explained in what sence he attributes Power to the Per∣son of the Father. He declares in his Apology, that when he deny'd the Fear of God to be in Jesus Christ and in his Elect, he thereby only understood a servile Fear and not a filial Fear, which he owns will last to all Eternity: And he therein maintains that he had never deny'd that the Soul of Jesus Christ descended really into Hell. By the Name of Estimation which he applys to Faith, he does not mean an uncertain Opinion, but an Idea which we form to our selves of the My∣steries which are reveal'd to us, and which we firmly believe.

As to the General Reflections which are cast upon him, it must be own'd that his Way of speaking and explaining the Mysteries was Novel; that he rely'd too much upon his own Reasonings; and that he was for prying too curiously into Incomprehensible Mysteries. But at the same time it must likewise be own'd that he happen'd to be in such times when this kind of Learning was in its Infancy; and that if in some places he swerv'd from the Truth, yet he argues very justly and very solidly on a great many Subjects. In a Word no body can deny but that he had great parts, much Learning and Logick, a profound Genius and penetration of Thought. We have only one Edition of his Works publish'd by the care of Francis Amboesa Councellor of State, and printed at Paris in 4••••, in the Year 1616.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Life and Adven∣tures of Abaelard.
• * 1.2

  The Life and Adven∣tures of Abaelard.
• * 1.3

  The Coun∣cil of So∣issons.
• * 1.4

  The Life and Ad∣ventures of Abaelard.
• * 1.5

  The Letters of Helloissa to Abae∣lard.
• * 1.6

  Abaelard's Letter to Heloissa.
• * 1.7

  Another Letter of Heloissa.
• * 1.8

  Abaelard•• Reply.
• * 1.9

  The Letter of Heloissa▪
• * 1.10

  Ab••••l••••ds R••ply ••o Helo••ssa.
• * 1.11

  The Letters of A••ae∣lard.
• * 1.12

  The Charge brought agai••st A∣baelard.
• * 1.13

  The De∣crees of the Coun∣cil of Sens against A∣baelard.
• * 1.14

  The Confir∣mation of the Sen∣tence pass'd by the Council of Sens by the Pope.
• * 1.15

  Abae∣lard's A∣pology.
• * 1.16

  The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Ab••••ard to Clu••y and his Death.
• * 1.17

  The Works of Abae∣lard.
• * 1.18

  The Works of Abae∣lard.
• * 1.19

  The Works of Abae∣lard.
• * 1.20

  Abaelards Doctrine examin'd.
• * 1.21

  Abelaard's Doctrine Examined.
• * 1.22

  Abaelard's Doctrine examin'd.