Letters471 Letter CDLXXI

Gerulf to S. Brenard. 3 To the venerable B., Abbot of Clairvaux, Brother Gerhoch: Klagenfurt.

1 faleratis—phaleratis.

2 Parabolarium. The word is not to be found in either the lexicon of Forcellini, or the Glossaries of Ducange or Spelman.

(E.)

3 This letter is preserved in the Parchment Codex, No. 138, in the Public Library of S. Omer, a folio MS. in three columns, of the beginning of the 13th century, partially defective (from fol. 185) and which originally belonged to the Cistercian Abbey of Clairmarais in the diocese of S. Omer, which was founded in 1140.

The author of these letters is the celebrated Augustinian Abbot, Gerhoch of Reichersberg. This man occupied an important position in the German Church of the twelfth century; and To Dom Bernard, the venerable Abbot of Clairvaux, Brother Gerulf, health in Christ.

his share in the spiritual movement of that time, can in many ways be compared with that of Bernard, although in extent and brilliancy is does not approach the latter. Like Bernard Gerhoch was consumed by a burning zeal for the House of God. His whole outward activity was devoted to maintaining the purity of the faith and practice of the Church. His accusations against the worldly conduct and the covetous grasping at money of the Papal Court are expressed with the same honest openness which adorns Bernard’s letter De Consideratione. A similar courage made him maintain to the face of the Emperor Frederick the correctness of the election of Alexander III., although the swords of the princes are lifted against him as they were against Bernard, “mucro barbaricus” on the court day at Luttich. The likeness between these two recurs in various circumstances of their lives. Like Bernard Gerhoch drew a number of his brethren and relatives with him into the monastery; and like him he enjoyed the friendship of Eugenius III. On the other hand, differences between them are not wanting. The undercurrent of self-love in the one is contrasted with the disinterestedness of the other (Bernard). The dispositions of the two are entirely different. Gerhoch’s nature shows an inclination to extremes: his incessant contests against error and corruption led him to onesided doctrinal statements and impracticable reforms: the many writings in which he contends for these ideas are wordy and not always clear, yet emphatic and able. They show great learning, as also great knowledge of ancient, as well as of contemporary literature; so much so that the writings of Bernard in this point cannot stand in comparison. These writings of Gerhoch bear witness to the reverence the author had for Bernard. Words like—vir sancte Abbas—nominis ac vitce illustris columna ecclesice ac luminare fulgidum, oraculum divinitatis, are in the mouth of this sincere and celebrated man, of double weight These expressions are accompanied by a large knowledge and use of the tracts and sermons of Bernard. Lengthy portions of them were mixed up with his texts, with or without a reference. Gerhoch, besides the reform of the Clergy, had his ig APPENDIX TO LETTERS.

In the Court at Babenberg 1 I was unable to enjoy your longed-for presence according as I wished. For the tumult thoughts and his pen incessantly occupied on two difficult doctrinal points, of which the second has become a watchword in the theological disputes of that time. It is this: the question of the efficacy and authority of the Sacraments dispensed by simoniacs and schismatics, and also of the Eucharistic sacrifice, as well as of the Christological question, de gloria et honore ■filii hominis. Gerhoch’s assertions, which cannot be exactly discussed here, are directed on the one part against the teaching of the schismatics from the time of the dispute respecting the investitures, and of Peter Leonis; and on the other hand against the ideas of the celebrated Abaelard who in so dangerous a manner influenced the French, German and Italian dialectics. Gerhoch not only opposed those false doctrines most strenuously, he also by the harsh expression of his opinions, caused serious scruples to moderate Realists, as also to Bernard. The Saint has in none of his writings taken up a definitive side in these questions. Gerhoch was under the impression that there were certain contradictions in the teaching of the schismatics respecting the Sacraments, when he resolved to fully explain his teaching to one whom he venerated so highly as Bernard.

The writing resulting from this, called De Simoniacis, has up till now only been known in fragments, for in the MS. of the Belgian cloister, Les Dunes, from which Martene printed, the commencement of the tractate is missing. Fortunately, however, the mixed Codex 261 of S. Omer, a Quarto from the Monastery of S. Bertin, of the 13th century, contains the complete writing as also Gerhoch’s letter of dedication to Bernard. The letter, here placed in the fifth position, after a Gospel history and several works by Bernard, commences with a complaint of the mass of business on the Babenberg court day—which made it impossible to have a quiet exchange of opinion. This was the more to be regretted, as it often estranged friends, and they had not in all things the same opinions. He must at least Habebergensi: Codex.

of causes was such a hindrance, that but few things could be touched upon, and of many upon which I was desirous of your fatherly advice, so that by my questions and your answers in turn, my inquiries by your kindness, might be brought to a final issue; and we might be able to think and to speak the same thing until, if in anything we thought otherwise, God should reveal it to us. But I do not say this, because I suppose that you think in any way otherwise than corresponds to the truth of the case, but, because it greatly disturbs many persons that we who have been sent forth, as it were, as forerunners by Our Lord, do not on all subjects hold one and the same language. For as formerly when Joshua and Caleb were encouraging the people of Israel to exterminate the dwellers in the Land of Promise, other forerunners who had been with them said: We be not able to go up against the people for they are stronger than we. (Num. xiii. 31); so also now when Nicholas II. Leo IX. Alexander II. Gregory VII. and other Popes of the Roman See, their successors, down to Pope ascertain what was Bernard’s view relative to Simoniacs, as the latter in the discussions of that question had not clearly expressed himself for or against. He therefore sends this treatise under seal to Bernard, so that his judgment through D.om Adam, may decide what shall be done with it. In the introduction Gerhoch goes back to the Babenberg contest of words. Bernard had in that laid stress upon two texts, probably as a warning against self-conceit, that everyone should well weigh what fruit their own labour had ripened in the service of God. This admonition causes Gerhoch to doubt himself, but also directs his look to the highly meritorious work of Bernard, etc. The time of the writing of the letter and treatise De Simoniacis, most probably is 1135, as both directly refer to the meeting at Babenberg. What reception this writing found with Bernard, whether he sent an answer through Adam of Ebrach, is not known. (E.)

igB APPENDIX TO LETTERS.

Innocent in our time, were encouraging the people of God to the extermination of Simoniacs and others to whom ecclesiastical offices and other benefits are now forbidden, as from those others the Land of Promise was taken away by the judgment of God; when those Popes, I say, were encouraging the people of God to the driving forth of such persons, there were not wanting learned readers of the Scriptures, as it were explorers of the Land of Promise, who said in agreement with those other explorers: We be not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we. There we saw certain giants, the sons of Anak, which are of the race of giants, compared with whom we seemed as grasshoppers (Num. xiii. 33). Notwithstanding against these, by the mouths of a few, cried out the spirit which was in Joshua and Caleb: Fear not the people of this land; for as bread are we able to devour them; every defence is departed from them, and the Lord is with us, fear them not (Num. xiv. 9). As then I am desirous rather to be in agreement with truth with a few, than to err with many, I am anxious to be instructed by your fatherly wisdom, whether in what the following treatise shall contain, I speak the words of. sobriety and truth or whether it seem otherwise to you, as it is thought by some, on which account in the Court at Babenberg you supported neither me, nor my opponents very strongly. For I wish that this treatise, which is enclosed by my seal, should come to you thus untouched, that you may be, if you so determine, the only reader of it. But if it should seem good to the Spirit of piety which dwells in your breast that it ought to come to the knowledge of many persons, then I earnestly beg that whatever in it ought to be corrected, you would either yourself correct or suggest to me how it should be done. For you are able to transmit to me whatever writings you wish through Dom Adam. And I earnestly beg that you will not find it too great a trouble to do this, since I love your writings and am accustomed to give thanks to the Spirit of Truth which convinces the world by your means. From this expression of thanks, then, let the introduction of my treatise commence, and may God rule my mind and my pen.

The beginning of the Treatise of Brother Gerulf to Abbot Dom Bernard respecting simoniacs.

I give thanks to the Spirit of Truth, who by your writings convinces the world of sin and of righteousness (S. John xvi. 8): of sin, because they believe not in Christ, since while confessing Him in words, they deny Him by their actions and of righteousness, because you so attribute it to Divine grace, that it is no more permitted to man to boast respecting the righteousness conferred upon him from above, than of the obedience of Christ, from which hangs all our righteousness. For what is that obedience except that which He Himself points out when He says, I go to my Father and ye see Me no more (S. John xvi. 10). For this He said in the same night in which He was betrayed; going to His Father through this very obedience unto death, and leaving the whole advantage of His obedience to his followers. For in that obedience of Christ consists the entire righteousness of Christians, according to the saying of the Apostle: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous (Rom. v. 19). What righteous man, then, will boast of a righteousness of his own which he has in himself, when neither human effort nor freewill, but the obedience of Christ alone, has brought about his righteousness? That obedience without doubt in which He went to the Father and now we see him no more. On account of that obedience then which was so great, grace is bestowed upon those who believe in Christ by their own freewill, and for the sake of this obedience itself, upon those who love Him, that a spontaneous intention may be implanted in them, to follow of their own freewill that which is both discerned by their freewill, and approved, as the right action to be done, by; the free working of their mind: so that the righteousness of men itself is undoubtedly derived from the prsesignalized obedience of Christ. Wherefore the Spirit of Truth rightly convinces the world of this righteousness, not only in those who neglect it, but also and even much more, in those, who ascribe it to their own powers: namely, because they are inexcusable on account of their will, which as you assert in a certain treatise, is constrained by no necessity, and because of their desire for a vain glory, they are liable to condemnation. For truly, after Christ drew near to the Father by the way of obedience, and because He exists as the fountain and efficient cause of our justification; whosoever, now that the history of Christ is made known, hereafter serves sin, acts just as if, when the giant Goliath had been overthrown and the whole army of the Philistines put to flight, the people of Israel had preferred to submit to and serve the Philistines, rather than enjoy the liberty acquired for them by their brave champion David. But those who arrogate to themselves the victory of Christ, or ever so little of the righteousness which followed that victory, or even of the praise and glory which is due to it, are found to be like the proud Saul, who envied too much the humble David, and desired to arrogate to himself the glory which was David’s. For Saul was wroth and said; To me they have ascribed but a thousand, and to David ten thousand (i Sam.

xviii. 8). Thus many are angered also now, if the glory which is due to God alone is not offered to them, because they receive glory from one another, and neglect the glory which comes from God alone. These, as I have said, the spirit of truth convinces, as well in your words as in your writings: showing that the righteousness of man is to be attributed solely to the grace of God. I recall that saying of the Apostle which was vehemently pressed upon me by you in the Court at Babenberg: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God alone, be honour and glory (1 Tim. i. 17), and that of the Angels: Glory to God in the highest (S. Luke ii. 14). Which two testimonies, drawn from Apostolic and Angelic lips, you perhaps pressed upon me under the idea, that I unhappy, in grasping at the glory due to God alone, might lose the grace of peace, pronounced upon men of good will (S. Luke ii. 14. Vulgl). I rejoice, most pious and reverend father, in your solicitude for me, but yet I thank God that I am not conscious to myself of any greedy desire for human and vain glory. I am not conscious to myself, I say; yet am I not thereby justified: for He that judgeth me is the Lord, whose is this very gift which is in me, so that to me it is a very small thing, that I should be judged by you or in the day of man. For neither do I judge my own self (1. Cor. iv. 3—5), but await in fear and trembling the Divine judgment upon all my actions, words and even thoughts: a trembling which is increased by your admonition, reverend father, in which you say that each of us ought to consider, how much fruit, and of what kind, comes of his labour in the word of God. This you are able securely to say, as being conscious of the abundant fruits which have come of your planting and watering; God giving truly the increase to your labour which you have undergone in preaching the word of God. But I reflect with trembling on this your saying; for I recollect out of much labour which have done, but a few scanty bands [of converts], in comparison with those who draw after them a great flock of disciples either to the eremitic life or to another manner of life, very different from that in the world, and similar to the life of those who, with Elijah the Prophet, lived in solitude upon the herbs of the field, when, because of the many fornications of the wicked Jezebel, they could have no place for living holily in the cities. Or as when idolatry was reigning in Jerusalem itself, the city of God, the holy city, through Athaliah, the daughter of the before mentioned Jezebel and wife of Joram, King of Judah, because of whose uncleanness, while she raged in the Kingdom of Judah, three kings, viz., Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah, were cut off from the book of the generations of Jesus Christ according to Matthew, where it is said: Joram begat Ozias (S. Matt. i. 8). At that time then such great ungodliness of kings and queens ruled in the cities of Judah and Israel that under them preachers of the word of God had not liberty to teach nor even to live, as is shown by the complaint of Elijah and by the death of Zecharias the Prophet, who was slain between the temple and the altar, and by the fact that there were many prophets, of whom Elijah and Elisha were the chief, who wandered about in mountains, in dens and caves, whose example you, my father, and those like you seem to follow, in dwelling apart in the woods and inviting those whom you are able to persuade, to do the same thing. For if the austerity of dress and simplicity in food which you practise be considered, why should the example of Elijah be supposed to be wanting to you of ancient precedents? Unless perhaps the excessive zeal, with which he himself pursued the priests of Jezebel, of whom he slew in one day eight hundred and fifty, 1 yet not before he showed that their sacrifices were wanting in the Divine fire, be considered too extreme. For neither the king, nor the people being deceived by the same false prophets would have easily permitted so many priests to have been slain unless it had first been shown how great a difference there was between the sacrifice of Elijah and that of these men. But this being demonstrated by the fire of God not consuming their sacrifice, neither the King nor the people defended them: and as they were deprived of all help, Elijah slew them Would that you had his zeal, in the first place in rendering useless the sacrifices of the heretics, and in the next in slaying them with that same sword of the Word, with which you are so powerfully armed. For to mention one leader of the schismatics or heretics: in what way do you intend to separate from Peter Leonis, the people who adhere to him as long as, though he himself is cut off from the Church, he is believed to offer the same sacrifice which we offer, and not to differ from us more than good and evil priests differ in the Church; and these appear indistinguishable in sacrificing from the good, efficiency unto salvation only excepted? For it is not sufficient for the expulsion of heretics that we distinguish them from evil Catholics by this, because their sacrifices neither profit themselves nor those who communicate with them, whilst in the Church there are evil priests not yet interdicted, and whose ministrations are not beneficial to themselves, yet are means of grace and salvation to those who hear or communicate at their Masses. This does not, I say, 1 Octingentos. This is apparently just a mistake on the part of the writer; as the Vulgate reads like other versions quadring enti et quinquaginta,—four hundred and fifty. (1. Kings xviii. 22) (E.)

2 [Vexillifer.]

suffice, since the heretics glory in that alone in which the Magi of Pharaoh also formerly gloried, namely, that they are entirely similar in outward signs, except in so far as the finger of God alone distinguishes them. For what are sacraments, except the signs of sacred things with which Pharaoh and the whole of Egypt are deceived by the Simoniac heretics and others separated from the Church, that is, etc. [Migne 194. Col. 1335. sqq.]