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 applied himself 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. Henke et Lindenkohl; cf. Theolog. Christ. iv., Opp. 2. 538 sq., ed. Cousin. [Abailard is almost repeating what saint Augustin said, ep. lxxxii ad Hieron. § 3, vol. 2. 190: 'Si aliquid in eis offendero litteris quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud quam vel mendosum esse codicem, vel interpretem non assequutum esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse, non ambigam. Alios autem ita lego ut quanta libet sanctitate doctrina que praepolleant, non ideo verum putem quia ipsi ita senserunt, sed quia mihi, vel per illos auctores canonicos, vel probabili ratione, quod a vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt.' Cf. ibid., p. 245 E.]
