contained the germs of all heresies, of course in various
degrees, just as truly as it did of the beliefs accepted as
orthodox. On this point no controversy arose in the
schools; every one agreed that the demands of reason
and of authority, both rightly understood, could not but
be in harmony. It was only in the heat of polemical
detraction that one disputant charged another with
contravening the authority of the Bible; and the charge
was never in a single instance admitted: the answer was
uniformly to explain how the opinions in question had
been mistaken or wilfully wrested, and that in this respect
conflict was impossible.
Authority, however, it must be remembered, was a very elastic term. It was generally understood as co-extensive with the church-tradition ; but the uncritical habit of the medieval mind was also disposed to broaden it so as to include all documents bearing the stamp of antiquity, and we continually find the classical authors cited, even in theological treatises, with the same marks of reverence as the Bible or the fathers. Abailard himself indeed, though he might occasionally fall into the error, was far from countenancing it. The Bible, he said, must be true ; if we find difficulties in it, either the text is corrupt or we have failed to grasp its meaning : but as to the fathers, whose authority is much less, we are free to exercise criticism.[1] Besides this, he drew a careful distinction between sacred and secular literature, and a applied him- a self with much elaboration to establish the dignity of the latter as an indispensable auxiliary to theological studies. How, he asked, can we reject its aid when the Bible itself
- ↑ Sic et non, prol. p. 14, ed. Hcnko et Lindenkohl; cf. Theo- log. Christ, iv., Opp. 2. 538 sq., ed. Cousin. [Abailard is almost repeating what saint Augustin 1 said, ep. Ixxxii ad Hieron. 3, vol. 2. 190 : Si aliquid in eis offendero litteris quod vidcatur Icontrarium veritati, nihil aliud jquam vel meiidosum esse codi- jcem, vel interpretem non as- sequutum esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse, non ambigam. Alios autem ita lego ut quanta libet sanctitate doctrinaque praepolleant, non ideo verum putem quia ipsi ita sen- serunt, sed quia mihi, vel per illos auctores canonicos, vel probabili ratione, quod a vero non abhor- reat, per.suadere potuerunt. Cf. ibid., p. 245 E.]
