129. To The Monk John.
The Letters of St. Anselm
and the three souls, Saint Augustine's metaphor of trinity and unity, using the sun, which is one and the same thing and which holds heat and splendor inseparably within it entirely contradicts his [Roscelin's] comparison of trinity and identity.
May your integrity be preserved unharmed now and in the future by God whose trinity and unity are being dis cussed. Amen. c. 1090.
NOTES 1. See Ep 125; Dom John is at Beauvais.
2. Roscelin, born about 1050 at Compiegne, died about 1120/23. He was a canon and a teacher of theology and philosophy at various cathedral schools in France, e.g. Tours and Loches, where Abelard was his pupil. At the synod of Soissons in 1092 his theories about the Trinity were condemned. For Roscelin's theories and Anselm's reply, see Epp
129, 136, and Epistola de incamatione Verbi; also J. Hopkins, A Compan ion to the Study of St Anselm (Minneapolis, 1972) 100-107.
129. TO THE MONK JOHN.
Anselm replies to Dom John about Roscelin's theory of the Trinity and refutes it. He discourages him from coming to Bee before returning to Rome.
TO HIS FELLOW-MONK AND BELOVED BROTHER JOHN1: BROTHER
ANSELM, WISHING THAT HE MAY ALWAYS PROGRESS TOWARDS
BETTER THINGS.
I HAVE DELAYED A LONG TIME in replying to the letter your love sent me about the man2 who says that in God the three persons are three things, or that the Father and the Holy Spirit became incarnate with the Son, because I wanted to speak at some length on the matter.3 But as this was not permitted to me, hindered by many activities since receiving your letter, I am therefore answering you briefly in the meantime. In the future, however, if God deigns to
The Letters of St. Anselm grant me the opportunity, I have every intention of deal ing with the matter at greater length.
About what he says, therefore, that three persons are three things: either he intends it to be understood that they are three relations, that is to say, that God is said to be Father and Son and the Spirit proceeding from the Father and from the Son, or referring to God as he is said to be God. But if he says that these three relations are three things, then his assertion is superfluous. For nobody denies that in this way three persons are three things. Thus, however, it may be properly understood how these relations can be called things and what kind of things [they are], and whether or not these relations have any effect on the substance—as many accidents do. Yet it seems that he does not under stand the three things to which he refers in this way be cause he adds that the three persons are one in will or power. For these three persons do not have will or power according to their relationships but rather according to the fact that each single person is God. But if he says that the three persons are three things insofar as each person is God, he either wants to set up three Gods or does not under stand what he is saying. These reflections may suffice for the moment to show your love what I think about the problem as stated. May you always fare well.
As to your request to be able to spend some time with me before you set out for Rome, you should know that as far as my love for your honor is concerned, I would be very glad of it. But as far as I can see it would be of little use to you because of my numerous engagements and it might even be a nuisance to you. I have fully realized that unless you stay with the bishop4 until you set off for Rome, either he will be of no use to you, or of very little, in what you have to do. And I cannot do anything for you which might be useful for your journey. c. 1091.