ABELARD. The history and amours of Abelard and Heloisa are so well known, that the details of Bayle in that respect would possess little novelty. This article therefore only supplies a few of his remarks or explanations which have been deemed incidentally illustrative or amusing. ⁴

The explication of the Trinity,

The occasion which induced Abelard to write upon this subject was, that his scholars demanded from him a philosophical account of it. “ They were not satisfied with words—they desiredideas—and declared loudly, that it was impossible for them to believe what they did not understand, and that it was an imposition upon mankind, to preach up a doctrine equally incomprehensible to the teachers and the hearers; which was as if the blind should lead the blind, according to our Saviour himself Abelard's Works, page 20. Bernard's Epist. p 190 ⁵." Upon which he set himself to explain to them the Unity of God, by comparisons drawn from human things. Pasquier accuses him of maintaining, that we ought not to believe a thing, of which we can give no reason; “ which,” adds he, “ is in plain terms, to destroy the general foundation of our faith.” I do not ask this author, who told him that a professor approves all the conceits of his scholars, when he is so complaisant as to prevent, to the utmost of his power, the ill consequences of them. It is indeed probable that Abelard did not

disapprove of the maxims which he ascribes to his hearers; but the passage quoted by Pasquier is no proof of this; we ought rather to found it upon these words of St Bernard: “ Quid magis contra fidem, quam credere nolle quidquid non possis ratione attingere? Denique exponere volens (Abæ-lardus) illud sapientis,Qui credit cito levis est corde, cito credere est, inquit, adhibere fidem ante rationem.”----“ Can any thing be more contrary to faith, than to refuse assent to every thing which reason cannot reach? Abelard having to explain the saying of the wise man, He who believes hastily is light of heart,—to believe hastily, says he, is to give assent before reason.” The treatise which Abelard wrote upon this subject was universally approved, except by those of the same profession with himself, I mean the divinity professors. They were so chagrined that another had explained and illustrated what they could not, that they cried out he was an heretic, and alarmed the people so much, that Abelard narrowly escaped being stoned.— “ My two forementioned rivals so blackened me, both to the clergy and laity, that upon the first day of my arrival, with a few of my scholars, the people were near stoning us; crying out, as it has been insinuated to them, that I both preached and writ, that there were three Gods Abelard’s Works, p. 10. ⁶.” Their cabals were so powerful, as to extort from the pope’s legate a condemnation. They made it believed, that Abelard admitted of three gods: nevertheless it is certain that he was very orthodox in the mystery of the Trinity, and that all the accusations brought against him in this affair were wretched chicanery, and proceeded either from malice or ignorance. The comparison he drew from logic—for logic was his strong hold—tended rather to reduce the divine persons to one, than to multiply the essence of God into three; and yet he was accused, not of Sabellianism, but of Tritheism. His comparison is, that as the three propositions of a syllogism are but one truth, so the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are but one essence. “ Sicut eadem oratio est propositio, assumptio, et conclusio; ita eadem essentia est Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus.” The inconveniences arising from this analogy are not equal to, at least do not exceed, those which flow from a comparison of the Trinity with the three dimensions of matter. Therefore, as no one disputes the orthodoxy of Mr Wallis, the Oxonian mathematician, who laid great stress on the analogy of the three dimensions, neither ought we to doubt of Abelard’s, on account of his comparison of the syllogism. By the way, neither the syllogism, nor the three dimensions, account for the mystery of the Trinity, although a certain Protestant divine made use of the parallel of the three dimensions in the year 1685. See Examen of Mr Jurieu’s Theology, by Mr Saurin, page 831.

Artifice employed against Abelard by the Monks.Abelard, on the condemnation of his book on the Trinity, was commanded to return to the convent of St Denis, where the liberty he had taken of censuring the corrupt manners of the monks had exposed him to the hatred of them all. Happening to say that he did not believe their St Denis to be Dionysius the Areopagite, mentioned in scripture, the observation was immediately carried to the abbot, who was greatly pleased at the opportunity to accuse him, not only of false doctrine, but of offence to the state. This artifice has been so often made use of since the Jews employed it against Christ, that it is strange any one should venture at present to put it in practice. Ought it not to be expected,

that so worn out a contrivance as this should be incapable of success? No: the world is too unteachable, to profit by the follies of past ages. Every age behaves as if it were the first; as the spirit of persecution and revenge has hitherto endeavoured to engage princes in its private quarrels, it will endeavour to do the same to the end of the world: and we may apply to this purpose the saying of Solomon—“ The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done, is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun Eccles, i. 9. ⁷.” Our posterity may say, as well as we,—

Qui méprise Cotin, n’estime point son Roi,
Et n’a, selon Cotin, ni Dieu, ni Foi, ni Loi.
Who slights Cotin, affronts his master too,
No pardon to such insolence is due:
All crimes into that one Cotin can draw; “The wretch,” says he, “regards nor God nor law It will be seen by the accompanying Summary of the life of Bayle, how feelingly he must have made this observation, the truth of which is as obvious as even—Ed. ⁸.”

Policy of Abelard to get released from the Abbey of St Denis.

Abelard, not being able to obtain from the abbot of St Denis permission to retire, had recourse to the engines of policy. He knew, that the more the monks of St Denis plunged themselves into irregularity, the more authority the court exercised over this abbey, and the greater profit they drew from it. He therefore gave the king to understand, that it was not for his majesty’s interest that a religious as he was, who was perpetually censuring the bad lives of these monks, should continue long among them. The meaning of this was understood at half a word; and orders were given to one of

the chiefs of the court, to inquire of the abbot and of his confidants, for what reason they would retain a monk by force, whose life did not agree with theirs, and who for that reason was not serviceable to them, and might easily procure them some disgrace. The conclusion was, that Abelard retired. Let us however quote his own words: “ By the intervention of friends, this matter was represented to the king and his council, by which means I obtained my desire. For Stephen, the king’s cupbearer, demanded of the abbot and his brethren, why they detained me against my will, since my manner of life was so different from theirs, that it might reflect disgrace upon them, and could not prove to their advantage. I knew very well, that the king’s council were of my opinion, that the more irregular the abbey was, the more subject would it be to the king in regard to temporal profit. I imagined therefore, that the king and his council would readily consent to my petition; which fell out accordingly.” A few pages after, he says that a certain Breton lord had taken occasion, from the vicious lives of the monks of Ruis, to seize on their possessions. To take from men who by the sanctity of their lives have acquired the veneration of the people, what the charity of the faithful has given them, is no easy attempt; but there is no great danger in robbing those who are a scandal to the public But some difficulty; for whatever the palpable nature of the frauds by which much of the property in question has been obtained, or however misused, in violation of the intention of those who have bestowed it, the least symptom of nationally dealing with it uniformly produces an uproar. On these occasions, even Protestant divines and Anti-Catholics can feel for monks and Jesuits. Property of this kind should be transferred to thetrue church, not be restored to the people.—Ed. ⁹.

Further Treatment of Abelard by the Monks.

Abelard at length obtained leave to live monastically where he pleased; on which he chose his retirement in the diocese of Troyes, and there built an oratory which he named the Paraclete. A great number of scholars followed him thither; which again awakened the envy that had so often pursued him. But in this encounter he fell into the most dangerous hands in the world; I mean, he was exposed to the attacks of two pretended restorers of ancient discipline, and grand zealots, St Norbert and St Bernard; who, like new apostles, had insinuated themselves into the favour of the people. They spread so many falsehoods concerning him, that they corrupted the principles of his friends, and obliged even those who continued to love him to conceal it from him. They so imbittered his life, that he was upon the point of abandoning Christendom; but his fate permitted him not to procure to himself this repose, and engaged him afresh with Christians and monks, worse than Turks. The monks of the abbey of Ruis, in the diocese of Vannes, chose him for their superior. He hoped he had met with an asylum in this place; but he found that he had only varied his misery. The incorrigible behaviour of the monks, and the oppression of a certain lord who robbed them of the best part of their revenues, insomuch that they were obliged to maintain their concubines and children out of their private incomes, exposed him to a thousand disquiets, and even to great dangers. The monks frequently endeavoured to poison him; and, not being able to accomplish their design in his ordinary food, by reason of the precautions he took, they sought to poison him in the bread and wine of the sacrament. One day, not having eaten

of a particular dish which was prepared for him, he saw his companion, who had tasted it, drop down dead. The excommunications which he thundered against the most mutinous among the religious, did not remedy the disorder. At length, he was more in fear of assassination than of poison, and compared himself to him whom the tyrant of Syracuse placed at his table under a sword which hung only by one thread. It must be admitted, that the misfortune of Abelard, and the cause of it» made certain censures proceed from his mouth with a very bad grace. His remonstrance and his excommunications might be regarded as the mere virtues of impotence; and it was very natural for them to exclaim—“ Our abbot only blames us because he cannot resemble us, and excommunicates us because he is deprived of the power from which we derive such infinite satisfaction.”

Representation of Foulques, Prior of Devil, to Abelard, of the rapacity of the Court of Rome in the 12th Century .

Foulques speaks so much to the disadvantage or the court of Rome, that if he has not been placed in the catalogue of the witnesses of truth, it is not his fault. He says that the avarice of the Romans is insatiable, and that if Peter Abelard visits the pope without good store of money, his journey will turn to no account. Let us hear his own words:— “Have you never heard of the avarice and corruption of the chiefs at Rome? Who ever could glut a courtesan’s all-craving appetite with his substance? Or who from his purse could fill the bags of Rome’s restless desires? —Your stock of wealth, which cannot be great, and may be nothing, is far from being sufficient to defray the expenses of a visit to the Roman pontiff. Wherewith will you answer the cravings of the papal court? If money should fail

when you come to your journey's end, every body knows what success you will meet with. Whoever in our times has undertaken such an expedition before he has laid in an immense store, has had the mortification to see himself baffled, and his suit rejected.” This mischief continues to this very day, if we may believe Mr Hallier, in his letter from Rome to father Dinet the Jesuit, dated the 16th of June, 1653. Mr Hallier was one of the deputies that solicited the condemnation of Jansenism. “It would be very just,” says he, “that they should have a greater regard for us, after the extraordinary charge we have been at on this occasion. You cannot imagine how much money goes away in presents and bribes. Every little saint must have his fee. The Jansenists have spent here above a hundred thousand livres, perhaps above a hundred and fifty thousand. So much for the mainspring of infallible decision.—Ed. ¹⁰ ”

The partial Socinianism of Abelard.

Abelard taught plainly, that Jesus Christ did not die to redeem us from the tyranny of the devil; but that the love which God showed to mankind by the incarnation of his Son, should incline us to love him reciprocally, and to follow the instructions and the example of an incarnate God. This doctrine is half Socinian, and, according to St Bernard, whoever maintains it deserves less to be confuted than to be cudgelled. “ An non justius os loquens talia fustibus tunderetur, quam rationibus refelleretur?” Here also is another offensive doctrine; namely, that things which never were, nor ever shall be, are not possible. This was without doubt Abelard's opinion; and I do not see that they who say that God is determined by his infinite wisdom to do what is most worthy of himself, can

consistently with themselves deny the doctrine. The Protestants are more inclined to condemn Abelard than many Catholics. Hornbeck, at the beginning of his “ Apparatus ad controversias et dis-putationes Socinianas,” notices Abelard’s heresies. Perizonius, in his “ Specimen Apolegeticum anti-Gualterianum,” gives likewise an ample description of Abelard and of his opinions, and shows at large— “ Pontificios, et nominatim Jesuitas, in multis cum Abailardo convenire:—That the Roman Catholics, and particularly the Jesuits, agree in many things with Abelard.” He draws a parallel between them, and shows in another place, “ Quàm pulchrè Socinianis præluxerit, minimi obscurum est:—That it is well known how he prepared the way to Socinianism.” Beckmannus, in his “ Theological Exercitations,” Exercit. 2, says that Socinus borrowed this error (that Christ did not die for our sins) from the ancients; since in the year 1140 Peter Abelard taught the same in France.

Miracles at the Tomb of Abelard.

Abelard died on the 21st April 1142, at the age of sixty-three. His body was sent to Heloise, who caused it to be interred in the Paraclete. A manuscript of Tours relates, that when the corpse of Heloise was placed in the same tomb, Abelard opened his arms and closely embraced her. At that time he had been dead more than twenty years, in the way of objection a mere trifle, as the following and other examples of similar wonders evince: —Gregory of Tours relates a story of two married persons, who nevertheless respectively maintained their virginity, and were called by the inhabitants of the country “ the Two Lovers.” The wife died first; and the husband, when burying her, thus exclaimed:—“ I thank thee, my Lord and my God, that I have returned thee this treasure in the

same parity thou wert pleased to commit it to me.” On which the dead woman arose, smiling upon her bier, and said to him, “ Why inform people of that about which they do not inquire?” The husband died soon after, and was buried over-against his spouse; but on the morrow their bodies were found both in the same grave. That blunt interrogatory of the deceased female might give occasion to some of the profane to think, that the virgin wife was not willing the world should know her husband had been so very cold. She confined herself to the merit of her continence, without wishing to be exposed to opinions that might be prejudicial to her charms. Ten chapters after, the same chronicler relates that a senator of Dijon, called Hilary, having been buried a whole year, lifted up his hand to embrace his wife’s neck, when she was laid in the same tomb.—Arts.Abelard, Berenger, Foulques,andHeloisa.