Translated from The Magdeburg Centuries, Century 12, ON HERESIES
“Peter de Bruis, and Henry who succeeded him, brought certain opinions to light, whence refuters pressed heresy upon them, branding it with their very names. Both were, it seems, men not unlearned nor devoid of all piety. For they saw many absurdities openly being proposed everywhere in the churches. Then they perceived with keen judgment that which was against all [biblical] warrant, superstitions in their [Catholic] temples of worship which were built at great expense; such as the Mass, invocations of dead creatures, with foul idolatry growing immensely. Therefore, condemning certain false opinions and abuses, they incurred the hatred and reproach of those who either would not correct them or feared, lest their very great profits should collapse and be diminished. Afterwards, many more things were added to these warnings (as very often happens in this corrupt/wicked world): they were afflicted / more troubles were heaped upon them,”(Peter of Cluny, Epistle 2).
These men taught in Gaul in the dioceses of Septimania, Arles, Avignon, Die, and Vapiciac. Driven from there, they filled the province of Novempopulana, or Gascony, and Narbonne with their doctrine; but primarily they had a public place for teaching in Toulouse, as Peter of Cluny testifies, from which most of our sources are to be drawn.
For about twenty years thereafter, Peter of Bruys publicly denounced such matters, as the Cluniac chronicler notes. If only Peter’s own writings had survived, we could judge far more accurately from them than from those who conspired in defense of the papal abominations.
After Peter de Bruis was condemned and burned, Henry, with a resolute spirit, suffered the same fate. For he was a co-worker of Peter and had many others of like mind concerning his doctrine. The Cluniac chronicler writes that he added several dogmas along with his associates, as is usually the case: on this matter more later.
ALLEGED PETROBRUSSIAN PROPOSITIIONS:
ON BAPTISM
1. Infants are not to be baptized or saved by another’s faith, but ought to be baptized and saved by their own faith, that is, their proper faith, (Peter of Cluny, Epistle 1). Or: Baptism without proper faith does not save, (Epistle 2).
2: Faith, by itself, is powerless without Baptism.
3: Little ones constituted below the age of understanding cannot be saved by the Baptism of Christ (Cluniac, Epistle 1).
4. Baptized in infancy, they are later to be baptized again as adults: yet not that they are to be rebaptized, but rather that they are to be properly baptized, (Cluniac, Epistle 2).
ON THE LORD’S SUPPER
5. The Body and Blood of Christ in the theatrical Mass are not to be offered, nor is that offering to be made for the salvation of souls, (Cluny, 1st epistle). Likewise, altars are to be destroyed, (Cluny, 2nd epistle).
6. The doctrine of the species of the sacrament, with the substances themselves evidently changed, is false (Cluny, 2nd epistle).
7. The holy Supper should not be administered now to people, since Christ gave it only once, to the Apostles alone, (Cluny 2 epistle).
ON PRAYERS AND MASSES FOR THE DEAD
8. Sacrifices, that is, Masses, prayers, alms, and other works of the living on behalf of the dead, are foolish and wicked, and do no good, (Cluny, 1 epistle).
ON MARRIAGE
9. Priests and monks should take wives rather than commit fornication or debauchery, (2nd Epistle of Cluniac).
ON THE CROSS
10. Crosses are not to be adored or venerated. And so many crosses serving superstition are to be removed rather than retained, (Cluny 1 epistle).
ON TEMPLES/HOLY PLACES
11. Temples erected at such great expense (perhaps not necessary for sacred assemblies in which the word of God is heard) should be demolished, (Cluny, Epistle 1).
ON SONGS AND INSTRUMENTS
12. By those songs in the temples which monks or priests perform God is mocked. God cannot be appeased by musical melodies.
13. On the Lord’s Day, as well as other days, it is lawful to eat meat, (Cluny 2nd epistle).
ON SCRIPTURE
14. They have a reputation, says Cluny, for not accepting the entire canon, that is, not all the writings of the Old and New Testament. Likewise, he says, they receive only the Gospel, (Cluny, 2nd epistle). [N. B. They rejected the Apocrypha.]
[The Centuriators add]: Peter of Cluny attributes these views specifically to himself. Yet if people claim the writings of those preachers still survive, perhaps those very men could vindicate themselves entirely — or certainly in some particulars — from the accusation of heresy. Indeed, not everything ascribed to them deserves to be condemned as heresy; a certain amount of qualification (or mitigation) will need to be applied afterward.
REFUTATION BY PETER OF CLUNY
Peter of Cluny [Peter the Venerable, Abbot of the Benedictine abbey in Cluny; d. 1156] undertook the refutation of those opinions, bearing great zeal. For he judges that not only should the pen be used to oppose those teachers, but, as his words run, they themselves must also be expelled by force through laymen, (1st epistle.) For he poured out two extremely vehement invectives against those preachers which still exist. Let us now examine each of the hypotheses and consider briefly what that abbot replied.
ON THE FIRST PROPOSITION
Undoubtedly, these men have brought forward [as their first argument] that in Habakkuk 2 and Romans 3: “The righteous shall live by his faith,” with particular emphasis on the pronoun “his.” Then, secondly, Christ says, “Whoever believes and is baptized….” Thirdly, faith is the instrument by which that eternal salvation is apprehended, as Christ says: “Whoever believes in me has eternal life.” Fourthly, they also warned that one must be careful not to cast a man into the deserts of doubt in such a way that he should rely on another’s faith. For nowhere does Sacred Scripture say that anyone is saved by the faith of the Church, that is, by a foreign faith, or receives forgiveness of sins and righteousness before God.
What does the Cluniac say to this? First, he says the ruler, by faith, obtained health for his son; the synagogue’s leader for his daughter; Martha for her brother; the bearers for the paralytic. Then, secondly, he says it is impious to believe that, leaving the souls, the Savior saved only the bodies. Thirdly, he lists testimonies from Holy Scripture which state all things are possible to the believer. “Whatever you ask believing, you will receive.” “If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed.” Fourthly, Peter resurrected Tabitha by faith. Likewise: “an unbelieving man [husband] is saved [‘sanctified’] through a faithful woman [wife].”
But it does not follow that “Faith obtains benefits for others,” concluding that by another’s faith, another is also saved. The faith of another person certainly prays on behalf of someone else asking that it be granted that the other may obtain either spiritual or bodily gifts; and most importantly, that others as well may come to have their own faith, through which they can be saved. For the clearer text says: “The just shall live by faith,” that is, by his own faith. Then this was true not only concerning the faith of the paralytic’s bearers, but also for all those with whom Christ had a concern who included some in the crowd, as well as the sick. Therefore, Christ thus addresses him: “Take heart, son, your sins are forgiven you.” How, they say, could he have taken heart if he had been deprived of his own first faith? Moreover, although bodily benefits were obtained before conversion, afterwards it was established that everyone who attained salvation also received forgiveness of sins through Christ by their own faith. Who does not see that the other points which the Abbot brought up are irrelevant?
Furthermore, infants and boys who are baptized are not without any faith whatsoever, as these testimonies show: Matthew 18, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to stumble.” Likewise, he says: “The kingdom of heaven belongs to such.” But the kingdom of heaven, that is, where there is the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, cannot be received without faith. Also, Christ is the most certain witness, saying, “Whoever believes in me has eternal life; but whoever does not believe (hear [and take note], whoever does not believe) does not have eternal life, but the wrath of God remains on him,” (John 3). However, Christ makes no distinction of any age there.
ON THE SECOND PROPOSITION
It scarcely seems believable that those doctors were so ignorant as to openly deny that there can be no salvation without Baptism where Baptism cannot be received. Therefore, through an unfair collection [of out of context quotes], as is customary, it seems that such a [error] was imposed on them. But if any among them asserted these things, they are rightly reproved by the examples of the martyrs.
ON PROPOSITIONS THREE & FOUR
Thus, whether these men taught that children baptized in infancy must be baptized again after they have grown up is not certain. For some malevolent individuals have fabricated certain faulty consequences. But if there were any who felt or taught thus, the Abbot rightly refutes them, saying that “little ones die in Adam, but no one lives except in Christ.” Likewise: he says, “therefore, little ones do not have righteousness unless they live in Christ. But if they have been assisted by the sacraments instituted by Christ, they do not remain unjust: because according to the aforementioned authorities, only through Christ are men justified; nor do they remain dead because in Christ they live,” (Cluny, 2nd epistle). Likewise: “Let the world learn this, let the heretic understand this, let the Catholic recognize this from the people of the Savior, who saves his people from their sins, compelled by reason itself that little sinners cannot be excluded, since even great sinners deserve to be admitted within the most ample bosom of his mercy,” (ibidem).
ON THE FIFTH PROPOSITION
The reasoning of the Petrobrusians against the sacrifice of the Mass was that, according to Paul, Christ completed the holy sacrifice with a single offering and so there is no need for Christ to be offered repeatedly to the heavenly Father through sacrifice, nor is this commanded anywhere. For these doctors saw and detested the abominable idolatry of the papal Church in this matter.
The Cluniac, however, directs all his efforts to making them heretics even in this matter, while he himself defends the sacrifice of the Mass, the most abominable heresy of all, partly shamelessly, partly stupidly: for the Reader to see this, let him pay attention for a moment.
(1) He says, sacrifices were in use for all ages: Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, Moses and the priestly order, Solomon and Elijah sacrificed. Therefore, we must also sacrifice now. “Why,” the Cluniac asks, “are children forbidden to follow their fathers?” Likewise: “It is strange if Christians are prevented from offering sacrifices to the one God, when Patriarchs, Prophets, Jews, Gentiles, and the faithful are compelled by God Himself to sacrifice to God. It is indeed strange that now for the first time in the world divine sacrifices are being taken away, when never before in past generations has the world existed without sacred sacrifices.”
(2) “There are four sects in the world: Christians, Jews, Saracens, and Pagans. But the Jews, Saracens, and Pagans do not have true sacrifices. Therefore, it is necessary for Christians to observe them. The reason is coherence because Christians were received in place of the Jews. Moreover, the argument from the staff [i.e., the starting point] to the corner [i.e., the conclusion] holds.”
3. [Peter of Cluny]: “Proclaim to the Lord of the nations, proclaim to the Lord glory and honor, proclaim to the Lord glory and to His name, offer sacrifices and enter His courts,” [Psalm 96]. And Isaiah: “All flesh shall come to worship before My face, says the Lord,” [Isaiah 66]. And Malachi: “From the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts,” [Malachi 1].
We reply: Truly, David speaks according to the custom of his time, while Isaiah, indeed, speaks of worship; Malachi calls the propagation and confession of evangelical doctrine an offering. You hear nothing in these scriptures about the offering of Christ to be made by priests.
4. “Just as the law, so also the sacred sacrifices and worship were transferred from the Jews to the Gentiles,” (Cluny, 2nd epistle). “Therefore, Christ must be sacrificed on the altar.”
We reply: O foolishness. Christ said: The Law and the Prophets were until John.
5. [Cluniac]: “Do this in remembrance of me, says Christ. Therefore, Christ must be sacrificed on the altar.”
We reply: Let no one laugh at these absurdities, for the serious Abbot speaks seriously. Moreover, to the Abbot, both remembrance and sacrifice are the same, although in the distribution of the Supper, Christ did not sacrifice Himself to the heavenly Father but distributed to the disciples His body and blood to be eaten and drunk.
[Cluniac]: “He thus proves the repetition of the sacrifice, for after He said, Do this, He immediately adds, In remembrance of me. Therefore, this is the reason for the sacrament being the commemoration of Christ.”
We reply: But what do these words have to do with the repetition of the sacrifice? For they clearly pertain to those who distribute, as well to those who eat and drink, not to those who offer.
Later, Transubstantiation, that is, the conversion of bread into Christ’s body and wine into His blood, is asserted by a certain person, and the Abbot contends that it is possible with God. However, he does not prove that it takes place according to the testimony of holy Scripture. For the dispute is not about the omnipotence of God, but whether God wills that Transubstantiation should take place.
The reasons by which the Abbot attempts to defend Transubstantiation:
(1) [Cluniac] “Because He willed it. For He said, this must be done in remembrance of Him.”
We reply: Note the Monastic grammar. The memory of Christ and the sacrifice of Christ are the same to him.
(2) “From the fact it is a miracle: For He was able to change water into wine.”
(3) “From aerial examples: because hail, snow, and rain are generated from clouds, that is, one thing is transformed into another.”
(4) “From aquatic examples: because coral turns into stone. Note the physical phenomenon.”
(5) “From terrestrial examples: because glass is made from hay and fern, and crystal from water.”
(6) “From man: because bread in man becomes flesh.” O most brilliant example. Here the Cluniac, delving into the secrets of physics and the anatomy of man, sings a triumph with all his inflated trumpets.
Therefore, he says, bread and wine are also changed in their substance at the Supper, or transubstantiated. Who, indeed, could dream up or jokingly invent arguments more absurd than what this monastic declaimer seriously utters? For he does not clearly prove that Christ wills transubstantiation to occur. And all the other examples do not convince that the same transformation happens in the sacred Supper. Surely Paul says that the substances of the elements remain in their use when he says, “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” Therefore, while the Abbot laboriously and ignorantly tries to combat heresies, he himself produces gross heresies and utters a ridiculous bombast of words.
ON THE SIXTH PROPOSITION
“The species [i.e., outward appearance] and the form remain,” says the Cluniac, “although the substance of bread and wine is changed:” he also laboriously proves that this is possible with God, by similar examples: so that from water crystal is made, that is to say, a stone, while the appearance/species of water remains. In the same way, rock salt is a stone, even though it was water, and yet the appearance of water still remains. The same judgment applies to vinegar.” But the question is not about the possibility with God, but whether God wills this to happen in His Supper. Nor is there proven a single syllable that Christ wills the substances of the elements to be changed, with only their residue remaining. Thus, the monk leaps over the barriers.
ON THE SEVENTH PROPOSITION
It is greatly to be feared that either from uncertain rumors or unjust accusations, this has been attributed to those doctors. For they opposed the sacrifice or oblation of the Mass and taught that it was accomplished once for all through Christ, and that it is not lawful to repeat it. Hence, as is to be feared, some have accused them of taking away from the use of the holy Supper and at the same time the same works of the Church of Christ. But if they indeed thought and taught thus, that the holy Supper is not to be offered to any Christian because Christ completed everything by the single action in which He distributed it to the Apostles, they have been rightly reproved, and rightly the Abbot opposes due to these words of Christ, “Do this in remembrance of me.” And he adds the reason: Baptism and the Gospel having been granted, it is necessary that the sacrament of the altar (thus he names it) be granted also. Likewise: What then? Was the Apostle Paul present at that Lord’s Supper about which we speak? Was it said to the disciples, “Take and eat, this is my body,” and “Take and drink, this is my blood,” and “Do this in remembrance of me”? What then does he say in the epistle to the Corinthians? Listen: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of the Lord?” Did even the Corinthians themselves partake in that already mentioned Supper? Yet the Apostle himself says to them: You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. Do you see the Apostle, after the Lord’s ascension, blessing the cup of blessing to those converted by faith, and calling that cup a communion of the blood of Christ? Do you see him breaking the same bread, and calling that bread a participation of the body of Christ? Do you hear that the Corinthians can indeed drink the cup of the Lord, but not with the cup of demons? That they can be partakers of the table of God, but not of the table of demons? Yet the Apostle Paul, consecrating the body and blood of the Lord, did not partake in the Lord’s Supper: nor did the Corinthians partake in that same Supper by receiving the same body and blood from the Lord’s table, (Cluniac epistle 2). Also: Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And consequently: Let a man examine himself and so eat of that bread and drink of that cup. What have you to do with these things? Whoever eats, whoever drinks. Not this or that one, but whoever. And let a man examine himself, not only a Corinthian man, not a Roman man, not a Greek man, not a Latin man, but a man. And what else but every man? For what he placed indefinitely, what else does it show but the infinite man? (Ibid.)
Peter of Cluny further teaches that there are great reasons why he instituted this supper for the eating of His body and the drinking of His blood: on this matter elsewhere.
ON THE EIGHTH PROPOSITION
The Abbot brings forward [what he claims is the] only reason used by these teachers against the accepted [Catholic] error concerning prayers for the dead: namely, because the dying carry away all merit with them, which cannot be diminished nor increased. But undoubtedly, many other arguments were presented which he either knowingly passed over or ignored. It is also worthy of note that he himself voluntarily admits three times in that very letter that some Catholics doubt about sacrifices and prayers for the dead.
Now hear his refutation of the truth and the reasons by which he establishes falsehood.
(1) Because the Gospel says that sins are forgiven not only in this world but also in the future, Matthew 12.
However, he commits the crime of falsehood here. Christ does not affirm this at all, but instead says, they will not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the future world: that is, as Mark interprets, never means forever.
(2) From the examples: Because Christ, living, benefited the dead, and dead, benefited the living. Therefore, sacrifices and prayers must be offered for the dead.
Oh, foolish argumentation!
(3) Whatever is handed down by that Church, which transmits the Gospel, together with the Gospel handed down, must be received with invincible reason compelling it (thus he speaks).
But that Church teaches that the faithful living in the flesh are to help others, who are deprived of the body, with the sign of Christian faith and hope, by divine sacrifices, sacred prayers, and other works of piety.
Therefore, he claims one must sacrifice, pray, and perform works for the departed. However, the major premise falters, as per the saying: ‘If anyone teaches a different gospel…’ (Galatians 1). Now, let us observe the foundations of the minor premise.
(4) From the testimonies of Holy Scripture: 2 Maccabees 2, Judas made a collection of twelve thousand drachmas, so that an offering might be made for the dead in Jerusalem. We reply: But are not all the deeds of the saints to be approved? You give the deed; rather give the rule. Moreover, the book itself wavers in its authority.
Isaiah 8: ‘Should not a people seek unto their God for the living and for the dead?’ But this allegation of the text is false. There is no ‘and’ (ac) in the actual text; instead, it’s ‘to the dead’ (ad mortuos), or as the ancient translation renders it, ‘for the living from the dead’ (pro vivis a mortuis). Indeed, the prophet is criticizing the stupidity of people who, bewitched, prefer to consult the dead via sorcerers about their own matters rather than the living.
1 Corinthians 15: ‘What are they doing, those who are baptized for the dead?’ But the text reads ‘ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν’ — ‘over the dead.’ Indeed, Paul is touching upon a custom whereby baptism was performed over the tombs of the departed, as a witness to the resurrection of the dead.
Acts 9: Peter raises Tabitha by prayer; chapter 20: Paul raises Eutychus. Therefore, sacrifices and prayers should be offered for the dead. Do likewise, my Abba, and you will be Peter and Paul.
John 14: Whoever believes in me will do the works that I do and will do greater than these. Therefore, the dead must be helped by the prayers of the living. But who will agree to this [interpretation]?
(5) From the examples of the Church after the Apostles: Fronto of Petrogorensis, sent by the Apostle Peter into Aquitaine, raised to life his companion Georgius who had been dead for over ten days, by using the staff of the Apostle. Maurilius of Angers restored to life a boy named Renatus, who had lain in the tomb for seven days.
We reply: But where are the authentic testimonies of these matters? In the incense of the monks, of course. Therefore, he says, sacrifices must be offered and prayers made for the deceased. Thus, indeed, the Abbot babbles; but hold your laughter friends, this is the consequence of monasticism.
(7) Ambrose, Augustine, Paulinus and Gregory teach sacrifices, prayers, and alms for the dead. Therefore, it is so. We respond: But on what foundations? Here the venerable father is silent.
(8) This is the custom of the Church. We reply: However, if anyone should argue the opposite, it is a flaw or error on the part of those who only in name desire to be the Church. Moreover, the Abbot affirms the invocation of dead men.
These things are brought forth in view, so that the foundations may be judged according to the word of God, and no one may allow themselves to be bewitched or led astray by custom, whether fairly new or ancient, by a person, whether of low or high status. Rather, let the heavenly voice have its place: Hear Him.
ON THE TENTH PROPOSITION
The Petrobrusians, with just and pious reasons, seem to have reproached the foul abuse or superstition in the adoration and worship of crosses, which was growing immensely. But the common people, not having rightly grasped the foundations of things, perhaps carried things to an extreme in this matter. The Pontiffs seizing upon their superstition used this as a means to preserve idolatry as a perpetual custom of mixing heaven and earth. Thus, our Cluniac’s vehement and utterly effusive invective was instituted, as he attempts to prove the cross of Christ is both venerable and to be adored, and does so with such cold arguments that exposes itself as idolatrous rather than convincingly rebuking the rightful adoration and worship of the wooden cross. But hear the Abbot’s froth.
Moses, he says, marked the doors of the Hebrews with the sign of the cross: he threw wood into the water: he struck the rock twice. [A widow of] Sarepta collected two pieces of wood. In Ezekiel, the foreheads are marked with the letter Tau. These are from the Old Testament. Therefore, the cross is to be adored and venerated.
We respond: Oh, foolish consequence, and worthy of a rotten sheep. For what do these things have to do with the matter?
From the New Testament the Abbot brings forth: The enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction: Philippians 3. Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of Christ: Galatians 6. He reconciled both in one body to God through the cross: Ephesians 2. What is the breadth of his cross: Ephesians 3. The sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven: Matthew 24. Therefore, the cross is to be adored and worshipped.
We reply: But who does not see that this inference is very foolish? For Paul accepts the cross metonymically for the passion and merit of Christ. The Abbot, however, interprets these Scriptures as the [literal] crossbeams fitted crosswise, such as the architect prepared for the construction of the cross from which the Lamb of God was suspended. Although he somewhat tries to downplay the adoration of the wooden cross, so it is not so much the wood but the one who hung on it that should be adored for the grace of salvation for the whole world; yet he confirms idolatry because the wood is also to be worshipped and adored; and indeed, not only with dulia [veneration], but also with latria [worship], which otherwise belongs to God alone. Accordingly, he states: “This privilege has been conferred upon the Lord’s Cross so that, among all created things, only after the Son of Man—who is also the Son of God—it may be regarded as worthy of veneration. This is based on the understanding that through the death of God, who endured suffering on the cross, the ultimate purpose and highest attainment of human salvation have been fulfilled. Furthermore, these certain and principal symbols of humility instruct us not to feel any shame, as non-believers might, regarding his cross and death,” (Epistle 2). We reply: Observe, reader, the woodpecker whose life is found in dead wood.
Moreover, the Abbot refutes this reasoning of the Petrobrusians: that crosses are not to be adored or venerated because the cross was the torture of Christ; just as the sword by which a parent was killed should not be held in honor. Here we say he begins a tragedy, teaching at length that not the instruments, but rather the authors of evildoers are worthy of hatred and punishment. But this was perhaps but one reason among others of those Petrobrusian doctors, which were much more serious and which the refuter passed over with a dry foot [i.e., without stepping in a pit which would drown his countering arguments]. And the Abbot would make it seem the Petrobrusians opposed the Catholic reasoning only due to the foolish and impious adoration of the wooden cross. Truly, it appears sufficiently from these epistles that the Cluniac Abbot did not so much refute all the writings of those men or confront them face to face, as he did receiving rumors or reports from adversaries, which is proven to be usual throughout history; or he received only mutilated writings and soon poured out all his bile upon them.
ON THE ELEVENTH PROPOSITION
And those doctors rightly reproached the multitude of useless buildings and expenses, demolishing those deemed pointless. However, it appears they retained the necessary houses for holding public assemblies. They offered reasons because the Church of God is not constituted by a multitude of coherently joined stones, but by the unity of the faithful gathered together.
Similarly, they considered altars, however costly and superstitious, unnecessary.
But the pompous Abbot simply wages a great war on behalf of temples and altars—but how? He collects altars from the Old Testament. Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob built altars, he says, as did Moses many also. Therefore, altars must also be built by Christians.
We reply: But the reasoning is not the same. For sacrifices were abolished by Christ, therefore, those altars also. Regarding the temple, the Abbot says David wished to build a temple, but Solomon built it. Christ and the Apostles ascended into the temple. Christians of all ages have built temples. Indeed, Peter built and constructed a temple in Rome, (if it can be believed). Thus, his successors.
We respond: Therefore, obviously so prodigious a number of temples must be erected and at immense expense which would be more rightly placed on the poor. These arguments are partly ill-suited, partly foolish and partly false, which any Christian can easily judge.
ON THE TWELFTH PROPOSITION
It appears that these Petrobrusian doctors have not so much reproached the very hymns themselves, which are piously sung in the known language in churches according to the rite of that time, as they have reproached the singing in churches, according to certain laws, in a foreign language, not understood, only for the sake of worship. For by this abuse of the divine name, they rightly asserted that God is mocked: because without understanding, without mind, without faith, they were empty bellowings of oxen or brayings of donkeys. The Abbot sets forth their reasoning thus: “God is mocked by ecclesiastical chants, which delight only those with pious affections, and cannot be called with lofty voices nor can He be soothed by musical measures.” This is his statement.
What does our fellow say to their objections? He artfully dodges the real state of affairs and simply insists that singing is required — and from the Psalms no less: ‘Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth,’ ‘Sing to the Lord and bless His name,’ ‘Sing to the Lord a new song, for He has done marvelous things,’ ‘Clap your hands, all you nations; shout to God with joyful voice,’ and in the same psalm: ‘Sing praises to our God, sing praises; sing praises to our King, sing praises, for God is King over all the earth; sing praises with wisdom and skill, sing praises to Him with shouts of joy’ — and countless similar passages. This is all about singing with a human voice, of course. But to prove that the braying of crude asses — mindless, faithless lowing beasts — does not mock God? That needed to be demonstrated plainly. Yet he is afraid to touch even his own guts with the merest fingertip, for that would have been a capital offense. And that it is lawful also to play freely on musical instruments, he likewise teaches from the Psalms: “Sing to the Lord with the harp, and with the voice of a psalm; with trumpets and the sound of the horn.” And again: “Praise him with the sound of the trumpet; praise him with the psaltery and harp. Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe. Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with cymbals of rejoicing” — and a thousand similar passages. He also produces Moses blowing the trumpet, David playing the harp, Elisha singing. But if no song in the known language is interposed, the Petrobrusian preachers rightly placed that as a fault, (Cluniac Epist. 2).
Finally, hear how these holy and gentle fathers converted Peter de Bruys. For when he could not apply his pipes to their dance, he was burned with flames near Saint Giles. The Abbot recounts this with insolence.
END