bited the veneration of the Cross. Fourth. He rejected the sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacrament of the Eucharist. Fifth.-He rejected prayers and suffrages for the dead. It is very likely, Graveson says (2), that these errors were condemned in the Third Canon of the Council of Toulouse, in the year 1119, at which Pope Celestine II. presided, and that they were again condemned in the Second Council of Lateran, under Innocent II. It is the opinion of some, that Peter of Bruis was a follower of the Manichean doctrine; but Noel Alexander and Cardinal Gotti (3) are of the contrary opinion, because he baptized with water, made use of flesh-meat, and venerated both the Old and New Testaments, all which the Manicheans rejected. He had a horrible death. He collected together a great number of crosses on Good Friday, in the town of St. Giles, in the diocese of Nismes, and making a great fire with them, he caused a great quantity of meat to be roasted at it, and distributed it to his followers, but the Archbishop of Arles got him into his power some time after, and sentenced him to be burned alive (4).

7. After the death of this unfortunate man, another monk, named Henry, some say an Italian, others a Provenceal (5), took his place, and about the year 1142 increased the numbers of the sect, and added new errors to those of his master. He was highly esteemed for his learning and piety, and on that account disseminated his errors most extensively in several places, especially in the diocese of Mans; but before he proceeded to that city himself, he sent two of his disciples, bearing, like himself, a cane with an iron cross on the top, and they obtained leave for him to preach in that city, from the Bishop Ildebert. When he began to preach, his eloquence soon drew crowds after him, and he so excited the fury of the populace against the priests that they looked on them as excommunicated, and would have burned down their dwellings, robbed them of their property, and even stoned them to death, if the principal people of the city had not opposed these violent proceedings. The Bishop Ildebert himself was not allowed to pass free by Henry's followers, so he banished him from his diocese, and received two of his disciples, whose eyes were opened to his errors, and abandoned him (6). After his banishment from Mans, he first went to Poictiers, and next to Toulouse, where he principally added to his followers. St. Bernard describes (Epis. 241) the ruinous consequences that ensued from his preaching in that city; the priests, the churches, the festivals, the sacraments, and all holy things, were treated with supreme contempt; people died without confession, and without the Viaticum; and baptism was refused to children. He even adds,

(2) Graves. Hist. t. 3, sec. 12, coll. 2. (3) Nat. Alex. t. 14, sec. 12, c. 4, art. 4; Gotti, Ver. Rel. t. 2, c. 89, s. 1. (4) Gotti, loc. cit. n. 10, l. 69, n. 24; N. Alex. loc. cit.; Graves. loc. cit. (6) Nat. Alex. cit. art. 7; Fleury,

(5) Gotti, c. 79, sec. 2.

cit. n. 24.

that Henry himself shamelessly spent what he got at his sermons at the gaming-table, and that so great was his depravity, that he frequently, after preaching in the day, spent the night in houses of ill fame. When the Pope, Eugene III., learned that the number of the heretics was daily increasing in Toulouse, he sent thither, as Legate, the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, Alberic, and he took along with him, Godfrey, Bishop of Chartres, and St. Bernard, who, by his sermons, conferences, and miracles, converted many from their evil ways, and accordingly, in his epistle to the people of Toulouse, in 1147 (Ep. 242), he says: "We thank God that our sojourn among you was not an idle one, and although we tarried but a short time with you, still our presence was not unprofitable."

8. The Legate, Alberic, published a sentence of excommunication against all holding any communication with the Henricians, or with their protectors. St. Bernard promised Henry himself that he would receive him as a monk into Clairvaux, in case it was his wish to retire and do penance (7); but the unfortunate man always shunned him. The saint still continued to follow his traces, and wherever he went and preached, went after him and preached likewise, and generally re-converted those who had fallen by him. He was taken at last, and put in chains into the hands of the bishop, and he, as Noel Alexander tells us, delivered him up to the Legate Apostolic, and it is supposed that he was by him condemned to perpetual imprisonment, that he might not have any longer an opportunity of preaching his heresy (8).

9. Peter Abelard was born in 1079, in the village of Palais, three leagues from Nantes. At first he taught philosophy and theology with great credit, but the disastrous consequences of an intrigue with Heloise, the niece of Fulbert, a canon of Paris, drove him from the world, and he retired, to bury his shame and regret in the Abbey of St. Denis, and took the monastic habit at the age of forty years (9). He soon got tired of the life of the cloister, and went to the territories of the Count of Champagne, and opened a school which soon became celebrated, and it was there he published his book, filled with several errors concerning the Trinity. His work was condemned by Conon, Bishop of Palestrina, the Pope's Legate, in a Council held in Soissons in 1121, and Abelard was summoned there, and obliged to cast the book into the fire with his own hands, and was then given into the keeping of the Abbot of St. Medard of Soissons, who received orders to keep him in close custody in a monastery (10).

10. Notwithstanding all this, Abelard continued for eighteen years teaching theology and writing works tainted with various errors. St. Bernard, when this came to his knowledge, endeavoured

(8) Nat. Alex. loc. cit.

(7) Fleury, n. 25. (9) Fleury, t. 10, l. 67, n. 22. (10) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 21; Nat. Alex. t. 15, diss. 7, a. 7.

to get him to change his sentiments, without giving him any pain; but though Abelard promised amendment, there was no change, and knowing that there was soon to be a Council at Sens, he called on the archbishop, and complained that St. Bernard was privately speaking against his works, and begged the archbishop to summon the saint to the Council, promising publicly to defend his writings. St. Bernard at first refused; but finally conquered his repugnance, and although not prepared for the dispute, attended on the appointed day, the 2nd of June, 1140. He produced Abelard's book in the assembly, and quoted the errors he marked in it; but Abelard, instead of answering, judging that the Council would be opposed to him, appealed to the Pope previous to the delivery of the sentence, and left the meeting. Though the bishops did not consider his appeal canonical, still, out of respect for the Pope, they did not condemn Abelard in person; but St. Bernard having proved that many propositions in the book were false and heretical, they condemned these, and then forwarded an account of the whole proceedings to Innocent II., requesting him to confirm their condemnatory sentence by his authority, and to punish all who would presume to contravene it (11). St. Bernard wrote to the same effect to Innocent, and the Pope not only condemned the writings of Abelard, but his person likewise, imposing perpetual silence on him as a heretic, and excommunicating all who would attempt to defend him (12).

11. Ábelard was on his way to Rome to prosecute his appeal, but happening to pass by Clugni, he had a meeting with Peter the Venerable, the Abbot of that monastery, and with the Abbot of Citeaux, who came on purpose to reconcile him with St. Bernard. The Abbot of Clugni joined his entreaties to those of his brother of Citeaux, and persuaded him to go and see St. Bernard, and retract the errors this holy doctor charged him with. Abelard yielded at last; he went to Citeaux, became reconciled to St. Bernard and returned to Clugni, and being there informed that the condemnation of the Council was confirmed by the Pope, he resolved to abandon his appeal, and to remain in that abbey for the remainder of his life. The abbot offered to receive him with all his heart, if the Pope had no objection. Abelard wrote to the Pope, and obtained his consent, and then became an inmate of the Abbey of Clugni. He lived there for two years, wearing the habit of the convent, and leading a life of edification, and even gave lessons to the monks; but he was obliged, on account of a heavy fit of sickness, to go change of air to the Priory of St. Marcellus, in Burgundy, and he died there on the 21st of April, in the year 1142, the 63rd of his age, and went to enjoy, we hope, eternal happiness (13).

(11) Fleury, t. f0, l. 68, n. 61, 62; Nat. Alex. c. 1. Nat. Alex. art. 8 in fine.

for

(12) Fleury, loc. cit. n. 67; (13) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. art. 12, & Fleury, loc. cit.

12. The following errors were attributed to Peter Abelard: First. He said that the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are improperly attributed to God, and that they only describe the plenitude of the Supreme Good. Second.-That the Father has a plenary power, the Son a certain power, but that the Holy Ghost has not any power. Third.-That the Son is of the substance of the Father, but that the Holy Ghost is not of the substance of the Father and the Son. Fourth.-That we can do good without the assistance of grace. Fifth.-That Jesus Christ, as God and man, is not a third Person of the Trinity. Sixth.-That mankind derives from Adam the penalty alone, but not the fault of original sin. Seventh.That no sin is committed with desire or with delectation, or with ignorance (14). Graveson (15) says that Abelard asserted in his Apology that these errors were falsely attributed to him by the ignorance or malice of others, and Berenger, Bishop of Poictiers, one of his disciples, also wrote an Apology in defence of his master. But then the authority of St. Bernard, the Decrees of the Council, and the condemnation of Innocent II., should have more weight with us than these Apologies. Graveson and Alexander justly remark, that although Abelard may undoubtedly have been the author of these heretical propositions, still, that he cannot be called a heretic, as he repented and abjured them. Cardinal Gotti (16), speaking of him, says: "There is no doubt but that he rendered himself suspected in explaining the Articles of the Faith, so that at one time he seems an Arian, then a Sabellian, next a Macedonian, now a Pelagian, and frequently a founder of a new heresy altogether; but he finally wiped away all stains by his retractation."

13. Arnold, of the city of Brescia, in Italy, lived also in this century. He went to study in Paris under Abelard, and was infected with his master's errors. He then returned to Brescia, and to gain an opinion of sanctity, took the monastic habit, and, about the year 1138 (17), began to preach and dogmatise against the truth of the Faith. He was more flippant than profound, and always attached to new opinions. His sentiments regarding Baptism and the Eucharist were not Catholic, but his principal declamations were against monks, priests, bishops, and the Pope. Those monks, he said, would be damned who possessed estated propertythe priests who held property also-and the bishops who were in possession of lordships or feudalties would share the same fate; the clergy, he said, should live on the tithes and oblations of the people alone. The effect of his sermons of this nature was to cause the clergy of Brescia and the neighbouring cities to be despised and contemned by the people, and he was, therefore, charged by his

coll. 3.

(14) Fleury, n. 61, Alex. art. 5, ex Ep. St. Bernar. (15) Graveson, t. 3, sec. 12, (16) Gotti, Ver. Rel. t. 2, c. 90, s. 3, cum Baron. Aun. 1140, n. 11, & seq. (17) Nat. Alex. t. 14, s. 12, c. 3, art. 8.

bishop and others, before the Second Council of Lateran, held in 1139, by Pope Innocent II.; and the Council condemned and imposed perpetual silence on him (18). When Arnold heard of this sentence, he fled to Zurich, in the diocese of Constance, and did a great deal of harm there, as the austerity of his life gave authority to his words, and he was, besides that, supported by the nobles of the country. When St. Bernard heard this, he wrote to the Bishop of Zurich (Epis. 195), exhorting him to be on his guard against so dangerous a character, and to put him in prison, as the Pope had commanded, because if he rested satisfied with only banishing him out of his own diocese, he would be allowing the plague to infect some other place. He also wrote to Guido, the Pope's Legate, with whom it was said Arnold had taken refuge (Epis. 146), putting him on his guard in like manner.

14. In the first year of the Pontificate of Eugenius III., 1145, Arnold went to Rome, and blew up the coals of a sedition already enkindled. He went about saying that the dignity of the Senate and the Order of Knights should be re-established, and that the Pope had no right to the government of Rome, as his power was spiritual alone. The Romans, excited by these discourses, rose up against the authority of the Prefect of Rome, tore down some of the houses of the nobility and cardinals, and maltreated, and even wounded, some of them (19). While Arnold was stirring up this sedition, he was taken prisoner by Gerard, Cardinal of St. Nicholas, but was rescued by the Viscounts of the Campagna, and fell into the hands of Frederic Barbarossa, then King of the Romans, and when he went to Rome he was met by three cardinals, sent to him by Adrian IV., and they, in the Pope's name, demanded that Arnold should be delivered up to them. Frederic gave him up at once, and he was brought back to Rome, and according to the sentence passed on him by his judges, was burned to death in public, and his ashes cast into the Tiber. Such was the end of this disturber of Rome and of the world, as Van Ranst calls him, in 1155 (20).

15. Gilbert de la Poree, a native of Poictiers, was at first a canon of that city, and afterwards its bishop, in 1141. From the very first day he began to study philosophy, he was so taken with logical subtleties, that when he afterwards applied himself to scholastic theology, which was then just beginning to be developed, he wished to judge everything by the rules of philosophy, and to use them as a standard for the articles of the Faith; and hence the origin of his errors. He said that the Divine Essence was not God, and that the proprietates of the Persons are not the Persons themselves; that the Divine Nature did not become incarnate, but only

(19) Nat. (20) Van Ranst, Hist. p. 148;

(18) Fleury, t. 10, l. 68, n. 55; Gotti, loc. cit. s. 1; Nat. Alex. loc. cit. Alex. loc. cit.; Fleury, t. 10, l. 69, n. 10; Gotti, loc. cit. Fleury, t. 10, l. 70, n. 1; Nat. Alex. & Gotti, loc. cit.