Page:Illustrations of the history of medieval thought and learning.djvu/187

Rh in the papal register or in the Acts of the council, and only lit upon it at last in that work of Geoffrey's, which he temperately describes as written in an elegant style but vitiated by the singular bitterness of its tone. He proceeds to comment, with the same surprise as he expressed at the beginning of his narrative, upon the manner in which Bernard continued to attack Gilbert even after the latter's absolution by the council. Yet Bernard once made overtures to him,—and John, the friend of both, was the intermediary,—to hold a friendly discussion on certain questions raised by the writings of saint Hilary. The bishop declined with grave asperity: it was sufficient that they had contended thus far, and if the abbat desired a full understanding of Hilary, he must first get better instructed in liberal learning and other matters pertaining to the discussion: for, explains Salisbury, Bernard, however great as a preacher, knew little of secular letters, wherein, as it is believed, the bishop was surpassed, by no one of our time.

Still the council had really decided nothing. Whether Bernard, says Otto, was deceived by human infirmity or Gilbert outwitted the council, it is not our place to enquire or judge. The talk was, says John of Salisbury, that the bishop was more adroit than candid. But John is loyal to his old master: because, he says, he could not be understood by his opponents, they maintained that he hid his perfidy in guile and obscure words. Nor did Gilbert profess himself satisfied with the result. He wrote a new preface to his Commentary, to prove its substantial harmony with the confession of faith which Bernard had put before the council. It was impossible, he declared, to write anything that should not be open to misunderstanding. Is the Bible heretical because Arius and Sabellius read their heresies in it? Was Gilbert to supply his readers with brains? There is no doubt that the apologist