Sermons on the Song of Songs

With good reason, therefore, did Pope Eugenius and the other bishops, at the council recently held by his Holiness at Rheims, condemn as perverse and open to suspicion of heresy, the explanation which Gilbert, Bishop of Poitiers, gives in his book to the most orthodox and Catholic words of Boethius concerning the Holy Trinity. The commentary runs thus, “The Father is Truth, that is to say, the Father is true; the Son is Truth, that is to say, the Son is true; The Holy Ghost is Truth, that is to say, the Holy Ghost is true; and these three are not three Truths but one Truth, that is to say, They are one True.” O most obscure and perverse exposition! How much better and truer had it been to speak thus contrariwise. “The Father is true, that is to say, the Father is Truth; the Son is true, that is to say, the Son is Truth; the Holy Ghost is true, that is to say, the Holy Ghost is Truth; and these Three are one True, that is to say, They are one Truth.” In this way indeed would Gilbert have spoken had he condescended to imitate St. Fulgentius, who says, “The one Truth of the one God, or rather the one Truth which is the one God, does not suffer the creature to share in the service and worship which belongs to the Creator.” A faithful instructor this, who spoke most truly of Truth, and entertained pious and Catholic sentiments respecting the pure and perfect simplicity of the Divine Substance, in Which nothing can be found that is not Itself, nor is Itself anything distinct from God. But there are several other passages in that same Commentary of Bishop Gilbert’s, wherein he seems to depart even more manifestly from the orthodox faith. I shall just mention one by way of example. Boethius writes, “When we hear the words, ‘God, God, God,’ the reference is to the Divine Substance,” to which our Commentator subjoins, “He means not any substance which itself is God, but the Substance by which God is.” Heaven forbid that the Catholic Church should ever admit such a doctrine, should ever admit either a substance or anything else by which God is and which is not itself God!

However, I am not now speaking against Gilbert himself, because in the aforesaid Council of Rheims he had the humility to submit to the verdict of the bishops, and with his own mouth condemned both these and all other blameworthy opinions found expressed in his writings. But I speak against those who, in defiance of the apostolic interdict, promulgated in the same Council, are said to be still reading and transcribing his book, obstinately persisting in the error which its author has abjured, and more willing to imitate the example of his transgression than that of his repentance. And not only on their account, but for your sakes also, my brethren, I have thought it worth while to make this digression, taking occasion from the distinction which I was pointing out between the Image and the soul made according to the Image; so that if any of you should have ever happened to drink a draught of these stolen waters (to whose sweetness the Book of Proverbs bears testimony) he may now, after receiving the antidote, vomit forth the poison. Then, having purged his mind of everything unwholesome, let him come to hear what, according to my promise, remains still to be said concerning the likeness of the soul to the Word and to “draw (purer) water with joy (not out of mine, but) out of the fountains of the Saviour,” the Bridegroom of the Church, Jesus Christ Our Lord, Who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen.