TWO LETTERS CONCERNING ROSCELIN ANSELM of
CANTERBURY
COMPLETE PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL TREATISES
Anselm of Canterbury
TO JOHN THE MONK
Brother Anselm, to lord and beloved brother
John:
May he always make progress toward the better
things. Because I have been wanting to speak
about the matter morefully, I have delayed
so long in replying to the letter which Your
Love sent me regarding that man [viz., Roscelin,]
who makes the following claim: "In God,
either the three persons are three things
or else the Father and the Holy Spirit were
incarnate with the Son."
But being hindered by many demands upon my
time since receiving your letter, I have
not been at liberty [to write at length].Thus,
for the moment, I send a brief reply about
this matter. However, I intend to deal with
the topic more fully in the future, if God
will deign to grant me the opportunity.
As for his claim, then, that the three persons
are three things: he wants it to be interpreted
either in accordance with three relations
(i. e., in accordance with the fact that
God is spoken of as the Father and the Son
and the spirit who proceeds from the Father
and from the Son) or else in accordance with
that which is called God [i. e., in accordance
with God's deity].
Now, if he is saying that the three relations
are three things, he is saying it superfluously.
For no one denies that in this respect the
three persons are three things-provided we
carefully discern in what sense these relations
are called things, and what kind of things
they are, and whether or not they affect
the substance, as do many accidents. Yet,
because of his adding that the will or power
of the three persons is one, he seems not
to understand in the foregoing respect the
three things of which he is speaking. For
these three persons have their will or power
not in accordance with their relations but
in accordance with the fact that each of
the persons is God. Now, if he says that
the three persons are three things with respect
to the fact that each of them is God, then
either he wants to establish three gods or
else he does not understand what he is saying.
May these remarks temporarily satisfy Your
Love as an indication of what I believe regarding
the aforementioned claim.
And may you continue always to fare well.
Concerning your request to dwell with me
before you set out for Rome: as far as regards
my love for Your Honor, be assured that I
would gladly consent. But, as I see it, [your
sojourn] would be of little use to you, on
account of my busy schedule; and, in fact,
it would be a hindrance to you. For I am
absolutely certain that unless you remain
with the bishop [viz., with Fulk, bishop
of Beau-vais] until you set out, he will
be of little or no assistance to you with
respect to what you are obliged to do. Nor
am I able to do anything which would be of
benefit for the journey you are to undertake.
TO FULK, BISHOP OF BEAUVAIS
To his lord and very dear friend Fulk, venerable
bishop of Beauvais: brother Anselm, by title
abbot of Bec, [sends] greeting. I hear-but
nevertheless cannot entirely believe-that
the cleric Roscelin makes the following claim:
"In God, either the three persons are
three things-[existing] in separation from
one an-other (as do three angels) and yet
[existing] in such way that there is one
will and power-or else the Father and the
Holy Spirit were incarnate. Moreover, [the
three persons] could truly be called three
gods if custom allowed ' it."
He maintains that Archbishop Lanfranc (of
venerable memory) was of this opinion and
that I am presently of it. I have been told
that on account of all this a council is
to be called in the near future by Rainald,
venerable archbishop of Rheims. Accordingly,
since I anticipate that Your Reverence will
be present there, I want to instruct you
on how you ought to answer on my behalf if
the matter needs [my response].
Archbishop Lanfranc's life, known to many
religious and wisemen, sufficiently excuses
him from the above charge (for no such thing
was ever before said about him); and his
absence and death prohibit any new accusation
concerning him. Concerning me, however, I
wish all men to have the following true opinion.
I hold those doctrines which we confess in
the creeds when we say: "I believe in
God the Father Almighty, Creator [of heaven
and earth]"; and "I believe in
one God, Father Almighty, Maker [of heaven
and earth]"; and "Whoever wishes
to be saved: before all things it is necessary
that he hold the Catholic faith." [And
I hold] the doctrines which follow [from
these creeds]. I believe with my mind and
confess with my mouth these three bases of
the Christian confession which I have just
mentioned. [And I so believe and confess
them] that I am certain that whoever wishes
to deny any part of them, and whoever expressly
asserts as true the blasphemy which I mentioned
having heard that Roscelin is stating, is
anathema-whether he be a human being or an
angel. And I will say by way of confirmation:
as long as he persists in this obstinacy
let him remain anathema, for he is not at
all a Christian. But if he was baptized and
was brought up among Christians, then he
ought not at all to be given a hearing.
No explanation for his error should be demanded
of him, and no explication of our truth should
be presented to him. Rather, as soon as his
falsehood is known beyond doubt, either let
him anathematize the poison which he produces
and spews forth or let him be anathematized
by all Catholics unless he recants. For it
is pointless and most foolish to call back
into the uncertainty of unsettled questions
that which is most firmly established upon
a solid rock-[to do so] on account of every
single man who lacks understanding. For our
faith ought to be rationally defended against
the impious, but not against those who admit
that they delight in the honor of the name
"Christian." From these latter
it must be rightly demanded that they hold
firmly to the pledge made at baptism, but
to the former it must be demonstrated rationally
how irrationally they despise us.
For a Christian ought to advance through
faith to understanding, instead of proceeding
through understanding to faith or withdrawing
from faith if he cannot understand. But when
he is able to attain to understanding, he
is delighted; but when he, is unable, he
reveres what he cannot apprehend.
I request that this letter of mine be taken
by Your Holiness to the council already mentioned;
or, if perhaps you are not going, I ask that
it be sent through one of your men of learning.
If the matter has need of my name, then let
my letter be read aloud in the hearing of
the entire assembly. But if [the matter does]
not [have need of my name], there will be
no necessity for making my letter public.
Farewell.
|