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. VIII. (Book 8)

An Account of the Errors and Condemnation of Gillebert de la Porree, Bishop of Poitiers.

GILLEBERT DE LA PORREE, a Native of Poitiers, after having been Professor of * 1.1 Divinity in that City, was chosen Bishop of the same Diocess, A. D. 1141. He had the most able Divines of his time for his Tutors, viz. Hilary at Poitiers, Bernard at Chartres, Anselm and Radulphus at Laon; but forasmuch as it is difficult, when one takes too great a Latitude in Philosophizing on the Mysteries of the Christian Religion, not to wander out of the right way; he maintain'd in his Commentaries on the Book of Psalms, on St. Paul's Epistles, and on the Works of Boethius, certain Propositions about the Godhead, which gave Offence to those who were not accustomed to handle Theological Matters after such a man∣ner. He was more especially censur'd for asserting four Points concerning the Godhead, viz. 1. That the Divine Essence was not God. 2. That the Properties of the Divine Persons were not the Persons themselves. 3. That the Divine Persons were not an Attribute in any Propo∣sition. 4. That the divine Nature was not incarnate; as also upon account of two other Ar∣ticles, which were look'd upon as less considerable, viz. That there is none that Merits but Jesus Christ, and that the Elect only are truly Baptiz'd.

Gillebert continuing to maintain this Doctrine, even when advanc'd to the Episcopal Dig∣nity, and not forbearing to assert those Propositions, in a Discourse that he made to his Cler∣gy; an Information was brought against him by his two Arch-deacons, Arnold and Calon to Pope Eugenius III. who was then at Sienna, ready to set forward in his Journey to France. The Pope deferr'd the taking cognizance of the Affair till his arrival in that Kingdom; and the Arch-deacons in the mean while engag'd St. Bernard on their side.

The Examination of Gillebert's Doctrine was begun at Auxerre in an Assembly conven'd there in the beginning of the Year 1147. and continued in another held at Paris on the Fe∣stival * 1.2 of Easter in the same Year. Gillebert appear'd in the latter before the Pope, the Car∣dinals, the Bishops and the other Prelates of the Assembly, whilst two Doctors, viz. Adam de Petit Pont Canon of Paris, and Hugh de Champfleuri, the King's Chancellor vigorously op∣pos'd him, deposing upon Oath, That they had heard him justifie some of the Errors of which he was accus'd; but St. Bernard was the first and principal of his Accusers. Gillebert deny'd that he maintain'd those Opinions that were laid to his charge, and some of the Bishops, who had been his Pupils, were call'd to Witness on his behalf, among whom were Raoul or Ra∣dulphus Bishop of Evreux, and Ives Doctor of Chartres, who declar'd that they never heard him assert any thing of the like nature. Therefore to convict him, his Adversaries demand∣ed that his Commentary on Boethius's Book of the Trinity might be produc'd, in which (as they averr'd) those Errors were laid down in divers places. But this Book not being to be found, certain Propositions were alledg'd, taken out of the loose Papers of his Scholars, and amongst others, That as Man is call'd Wisdom, by reason of the Form of Wisdom; after the same manner, God is said to be his Goodness, his Wisdom, &c. St. Bernard oppos'd that Expression, and Gillebert continu'd to deny, that he ever taught or wrote, That the Godhead was not God, or that there was in God any Form or any Essence that was not God himself. He prov'd what he said, by the Testimony of the two Persons but now mention'd, and nevertheless maintain'd in the heat of the Dispute, That that which constituted God the Father, was different from that which constituted him God: This Expression gave Offence to Josselin Bishop of Scissons. Gillebert was likewise censur'd for calling the three Di∣vine Persons, in a Prose or Hymn on the Trinity, three SINGULARS; and Hugh III. Arch-bishop of Rouen on the contrary affirm'd, that it ought to be said, That God was a SINGULAR. The Pope wearied with these Disputes, which continued two days, and not having at hand, Gille∣bert de la Porree's Book, that was call'd in question, thought fit to refer the determination of that Affair to the Council of Rheims, which was held in Lent in the following Year.

In the mean while Gillebert sent his Commentary on Boethius's Book of the Trinity to Pope Eugenius, who deliver'd it to be examined by Gotescalchus Abbot of Mount St. Eloy, of the Order of Premontre, afterwards ordain'd Bishop of Arras, who having carefully perus'd it, made an Extract of some Propositions, which he judg'd to be erroneous, and annex'd to them certain Passages of the Fathers contrary to those Opinions: He presented this Memorial to the Pope with Gillebert de la Porree's Book. Alberic Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, and Legate of the See of Rome in Aquitaine, in like manner made an enquiry into Gillebert's Life and Con∣versation, and about the Errors that he had spread abroad; but he died before the meeting of the Council of Rheims. In that Council, the Propositions contain'd in the Memorial which * 1.3 the Abbot Gotheschalchus had drawn up, were examin'd, but in regard that he had not a ready

Tongue, the Pope caus'd the said Paper to be put into St. Bernard's Hands. The Council was compos'd of the Pope, the Cardinals, and divers Bishops of France, Germany, England and Spain; the chiefest among those of France were Geffery de Loroux Arch-bishop of Bourges, Gillebert's Metropolitan, Milo Bishop of Terouane, Josselin Bishop of Soissons, and Suger Abbot of St. Denis, who had the Administration of the Government in the absence of King Lewis the Young, during his Expedition in the Holy Land. These Prelates publickly condemn'd Gillebert de la Porree's Propositions, except Geffrey, who acted more cautiously, because he had heard it given out, that the principal Cardinals were inclin'd to be favourable to the accus'd Party.

On the first day of the Assembly, Gillebert caus'd large Volumes of his Works to be brought, saying, That his Adversaries only produc'd a few mutilated and mis-interpreted Passages ta∣ken * 1.4 out of them. Then a certain Proposition found in his Book, was alledg'd, viz. That the Name of God does not signify the Substance that is, but that by which he is. When that Proposition began to be debated, St. Bernard told Gillebert de la Porree, That 'twas not necessary to enter upon such Disputes, and that the Scandal proceeded only from hence, that many were persuaded that he was in an Error, and that he gave it out, That the Essence, or the Nature of God, his Godhead, Wisdom, Goodness, and Omnipotence is not God, but the Form by which he is God. Now declare (said he to him) whether this be your Opinion or not? Gillebert had the boldness to reply, That the Form of God, or the Godhead by which he is God, is not God himself. Then St. Bernard said, we have an Answer to our Question, let this De∣claration be committed to Writing: The Pope order'd the same thing, and Henry of Pisa, Cardinal brought Pen, Ink and Paper. Gillebert, as he was writing, cry'd out to St. Ber∣nard, Write that the Godhead is God: St. Bernard answer'd without any hesitation, Yea, let it be written with a Steel-pen and on a Diamond, or let it he engrav'd on Stone, That the Divine Essence, Form, Nature, Godhead, Goodness, Wisdom, Virtue, Omnipotence and Greatness is truly God. Afterwards that Proposition was debated, and St. Bernard press'd Gillebert de la Porree, telling him, That if the Form of God were not God, it would be more perfect than God. He likewise cited divers Proofs out of St. Augustin's Works, which he sent for from the Li∣brary of the Church of Rheims, in which that Saint assures us, That the Goodness, Omnipo∣tence and other Attributes of God, are not different from God himself. Geffrey, afterwards Abbot of Clairvaux, objected against Gillebert, that he disown'd the preceding Year the same Proposition that he now asserted. Gillebert reply'd, That whatever he said then, he maintain'd it at present.

Afterwards they pass'd from that Proposition to a second, viz. That one God is not the three Persons, nor the three Persons one Thing; altho' they be one God by the same Godhead, as far as they are one by the same Thing. This Proposition was likewise committed to writ∣ing, and St. Bernard oppos'd divers Passages of the Fathers. The next day, they continued to produce many other Testimonies of the Fathers contrary to that Doctrine; and then the other two Articles were propos'd and written, viz. That the Personal Properties and the Eter∣nal Attributes of God, are not God, and that it cannot be said, That the Divine Nature as∣sum'd the Humane Nature, but that it ought to be said, That the Person of the Son took our Nature. When they had disputed for a long time about those Propositions, the Cardinals de∣clar'd in the end of the Assembly, that after having duly consider'd what was alledg'd on both sides, they would decide the Matter, and determine what ought to be believ'd. The Arch-bishops and Bishops being justly offended, that the Cardinals should take upon them ar∣bitrarily to pass their Judgment in that Affair, and fearing lest they should acquit Gillebert de la Porree, whom they apparently favour'd; went the next day to meet St. Bernard: Then they drew up with his Advice, a Writing that contain'd Gillebert's Propositions, as also a contrary Confession of Faith; and after having Sign'd it, put it into the Hands of Hugh Bishop of Aux∣erre, and of Milo of Terouane, with Orders to make application to the Abbot Suger, to get it presented to the Pope and the Cardinals; and to acquaint them, that they had patiently heard several Discourses which ought not to have been made, purely out of respect to their Cha∣racter; but being inform'd that they design'd to proceed to Sentence, they thought fit to of∣fer them their Confession of Faith, to the end that they might be enabl'd to pass a right Judg∣ment between both Parties: Lastly, That their Eminences already had Gillebert's Confession, who deliver'd it with a Protestation to Correct it, if they should judge it expedient; but as for their parts, they protested that they would not suffer any alteration to be made in their Form. The Cardinal at first took it very ill, that the Bishops and St. Bernard had prepar'd a Confession of Faith before-hand, and by that means prevented their Judgments; imagining, that it be∣long'd only to the Holy See to make such Forms, and to judge definitively of Matters of Faith. But St. Bernard qualify'd their Resentments, by remonstrating to them. That neither he, nor the Bishops pretended to exhibit a final Decision, but only an Explanation of their Sen∣timents. Whereupon the Pope declar'd that they all approv'd the Doctrine contain'd in the Bi∣shops Confession of Faith, and that if some of the Cardinals were favourable to Gillebert's Per∣son, yet none approv'd his Errors. However, he did not confirm this Determination by a solemn Decree, but contented himself only to cause Gillebert to appear in an Assembly held in the Arch-bishop's Palace at Rheims; and after having oblig'd him to retract his four Pro∣positions,

he condemn'd them, and forbid the reading or the transcribing of his Book, till it were corrected by the Church of Rome. Gillebert promis'd to do it, but the Pope answer'd, that he should not be left at liberty to correct it at his pleasure: But nothing was decreed against his Person, so that he return'd to his Diocess reconcil'd with his Arch-deacons. St. Ber∣nard was satisfy'd, that his Recantation was sincere, and that he really acquiesc'd in the Judg∣ment of the Synod; nevertheless, some of his followers could not be persuaded to abjure his Opinions, but still persisted to maintain them, and therefore St. Bernard endeavours to con∣fute those Miscreants, in his 80th Sermon on the Canticles, and treats them as Hereticks. Those erroneous Doctrines were likewise impugned by Geffrey Abbot of Clairvaux, in a Treatise written purposely on that Subject, in which he collects divers Passages of the Fathers, directly opposite to Gillebert's four Propositions.

Some other Errours were also attributed to him, but forasmuch as they were not found in his Books, 'twas judg'd sufficient to tear in pieces the loose Papers that were in the Hands of his Scholars or Pupils, and in which they were written. Geffrey cites a passage taken out of this Author's Gloss on the Psalms, in which he asserts, that the Humanity of Jesus Christ ought not to be ador'd with a Worship of Latria, but with that of Dulia; as also another ex∣tracted out of his Gloss on St. Paul's Epistles, where he says, That the name of God, and of the Son of God, is not attributed to the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, unless by Adop∣tion.

The Works of Gillebert de la Porree, were never as yet Printed, except one Letter on the * 1.5 Eucharist, publish'd by Father Luke Dachery in the Notes on Guibert de Nogent. His Com∣mentaries on the Psalms, and on St. Paul's Epistles, and his Theological Treatise of the Trini∣ty, are extant in Manuscript in divers Places; but we may judge by the Passages that are cited out of them, that the too great subtilty of that Man's Genius, caus'd him to fall into Expres∣sions contrary to the simplicity of the Faith; a Misfortune that very frequently happens to those, who deviate from the Scripture and Tradition to Philosophize on the Mysteries of the Christian Religion. He died, A. D. 1154.

The Letter but now mention'd, is directed to Matthew Abbot of St. Florin, who had con∣sulted * 1.6 him to know what ought to be done, in reference to a certain Priest, who thro' inadver∣tency had perform'd the Consecration, when there was no Wine in the Chalice, and having perceiv'd his mistake, made a new Consecration of the Bread and Wine. He returns for An∣swer, that 'twas requisite that that Priest should forbear saying Mass for some time, and that he should do Pennance for his Transgression. For the rest, that he had done ill, in making a new Consecration of the Bread and Wine, because the Body of Jesus Christ is altogether entire under each Species, and in regard that his Body and Blood was under the Species of Bread, altho' no Wine were consecrated: And that therefore the Communion might have been administer'd with the consecrated Bread; as Children receive it under the single Species of Wine, and sick Persons under that of the Bread. This Letter is very remarkable.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The parti∣cular Opi∣nion of Gillebert de la Por∣ree.
• * 1.2

  The Coun∣cil of Pa∣ris about the Affair of Gille∣bert de la Porree.
• * 1.3

  A Council at Rheims.
• * 1.4

  The Con∣demnation of Gille∣bert de la Porree, in the Coun∣cil of Rheims.
• * 1.5

  The Wri∣tings of Gillebert de la Por∣ree.
• * 1.6

  Gillebert de la Por∣ree's Let∣ter.