136. TO FULK, BISHOP OF: Beauvais.
The Letters of St. Anselm
136. TO FULK, BISHOP OF
BEAUVAIS.
Anselm states his position on the Trinity against Roscelin to Bishop Bulk of Beau vais and asks him to publish this statement if need arises.
TO HIS LORD AND DEAREST FRIEND, FULK1 THE REVEREND BISHOP
OF BEAUVAIS: BROTHER ANSELM, STYLED ABBOT OF BEC,
GREETINGS.
I HEAR—SOMETHING I cannot believe without scepticism—that the cleric Roscelin2 says the three persons in God are three things separate from each other, just as three angels are, but in such a way that there is one will and one power; furthermore, that the Father and the Holy
Spirit became incarnate with the Son; and if custom allowed, one could speak of three Gods. He claims that this was the opinion of Archbishop Lanfranc,3 of venerable memory, and is now mine. I have been told that a council4 is to be called in the near future by the venerable Archbishop Rainald5 of Rheims to deal with this matter. Since I think your rever ence will be present there, I want you to be informed about what you should answer in my stead should the situation demand.
As far as Archbishop Lanfranc is concerned, his life is known to many religious and wise men; since no such thing has ever been reported of him, he is sufficiently cleared of this accusation, and his absence and death disallow all these new accusations about him. As far as I am concerned, however, I want all men to be aware of my real opinion:
I hold what we confess in the Creed when we say 'I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator',6 and 'I believe in one
God, the Father almighty, the maker,7 and 'Whoever would be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith',8 and all that follows. I say in this way and I believe with my heart and confess with my lips these three opening phrases of Christian creeds I have here set forth, so that I am sure that anyone who wishes to deny any part
The Letters of St. Anselm
of them, and anyone—be he man or angel—who expressly states, instead of truth, the blasphemy that I, as I stated above, have heard to be said by Roscelin, he is anathema;9 and confirming this I say: as long as he persists in this ob stinacy, he is anathema. He is no Christian at all. Even though he was baptized and brought up as a Christian, he should not be listened to at all, nor should any grounds for his error be asked of him, nor should we be required by him to offer any arguments for our truth. But once his per fidiousness has been proven beyond doubt, he should either anathematize the poison he has vomited up in his discourses or, if he does not regain his senses, be anathematized by all catholics.
It is utterly foolish and absurd, for the sake of someone lacking understanding, to submit once more to the uncer tainty of repeated questioning something which has been very firmly founded on solid rock. Our faith has to be defended by reason against the impious, not against those who admit rejoicing in the honor of being called Christians.
Of these, one can justly demand that they hold unshaken the pledge given in baptism; but the former must be shown by reason how irrationally they scorn us. A Christian should progress through faith to understanding, not reach faith through understanding or, if he cannot understand, fall away from faith. Indeed, someone who can attain under standing should rejoice, but someone who cannot under stand should venerate what he is unable to comprehend.
I request your holiness to take this letter to the afore mentioned council, or if perchance you do not go to send it by one of your scholars. If a reason is demanded in my name, this should be read out in the hearing of the whole assembly; if not, there is no need for it to be shown.
Farewell. c. 1091/92.