616 THE MIDDLE AGES. A.D. 1049-1294.
But Abselard was not destined to have peace. The final period of his restless career now opens. Bernard was at that time the most imposing religious personality of Europe, Abselard was its keenest philosophical thinker. The one was the representative of churchmanship and church au thority, the other of freedom of inquiry. A clash between these two personalities was at hand. It cannot be regarded as an historical misfortune that these two men met on the open field of controversy and on the floor of ecclesiastical synods. History is most true to herself when she represents men just as they were. She is a poor teacher, when she does not take opportunity to reveal their infirmities as well as their virtues.
Abselard was as much to blame for bringing on the con flict by his self-assertive manner as Bernard was to blame by unnecessarily trespassing upon Abrelard's territory. William, abbot of St. Thierry, addressed a letter to Bernard and Geoffrey, bishop of Chalons, announcing that Abselard was again teaching and writing doctrinal novelties. These were not matters of mean import, but concerned the doctrine of the Trinity, the person of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God's grace. They were even receiving favor in the curia at Rome. William adduced no less than thirteen errors.1
The first open sign of antagonism was a letter written by Abselard, brimming over with self-conceit. On a visit to Heloise at the Paraclete, Bernard had taken exception to the use of the phrase " supersubstantial bread" in the Lord's Prayer, instead of " daily bread " as given by Luke. Abselard heard of the objection from Heloise, and, as if eager to break a lance with Bernard, wrote to him, showing he was in error. He became sarcastic, pointing out that, at Clairvaux, novelties were being practised which were otherwise
1 Ep. Bernardi, 326 ; Migne, 132. 531 sqq. William sent to Bernard Abselard's Theologia and other works to make good his charges. He feared Abselard would become "a dragon" whom no one could destroy. Kutter, in his Wilhelm von St. Thien*y, pp. 34, 36, 43, 48, insists, as against Deutsch, that William was the exciting originator of the trial of Abselard, which was soon to follow, and that Bernard preferred silence and peace to conflict, and was aroused to action by William's appeal.
§ 99. PETER AB^ELAPwD. 617
unknown to the Church. New hymns were sung and cer tain intercessory prayers left out as it' the Cistercian monks did not stand in need of intercession also.1
So far as we know, Bernard did not answer this letter. After some delay, he acted upon the request of William of Thierry. He visited Abselard in Paris and sought to secure from him a promise that he would retract his errors.2
The difference was brought to open conflict at the synod of Sens, 1141, where Abtelard asked that his case might be presented, and that he might meet Bernard in argument. Arnold of Brescia seems to have been among those present.3 Bernard was among friends and admirers. Abselard had few friends, and was from the first looked upon with suspi cion. Bernard had come to the synod to lay the whole weight of his influence against Abselard. He had sum moned the bishops as friends of Christ, whose bride called to them out of the thicket of heresies. He wrote to the cardinals and to Innocent II., characterizing Abrelard as a ravenous lion, and a dragon. With Arnold as his armorbearer at his side, Abrelard stood like another Goliath calling out against the ranks of Israel, while Bernard felt himself a youth in dialectical skill.
At a preliminary meeting with the bishops, Bernard went over the case and it seems to have been decided, at least in an informal way, that Abselard should be condemned.4 The
1 Ep. Alxiel., X.; Migne, 178. 335.
2 Bernard's biographer, Gaufrid, states that Abtelard promised amend ment. No reference was made to such a promise in the charges at Sens, an omission difficult to understand if the promise was really made. See Remusat, I. 172, and Poole, p. 163.
3 Ep. Bernardi, 189 ; Migne, 182. 355. Bernard describes the meeting and sets forth the danger from Abselard's influence, Epp. 187-194, 330-338. For an account of this trial, see my art., "St. Bernard the Churchman" in Princeton Rev., 1903, pp. 180 sqq.
4 This preliminary meeting rests upon the testimony of Berengar and upon a passage in John of Salisbury, Hist. Pontif., chap. VIII. 9. John, in describing the trial of Gilbert of Poictiers, says Bernard wanted to have Gilbert's case prejudged in a preliminary sitting and by the same method he V had resorted to in the case of Abselard, — arte siinili magistrum Petrum agressus erat. Berengar's defence of Abaelard descends to passionate invec-