University scholastic employed rational thinking to analyze and resolve conflicting authorities from the decrees of councils and popes. Teachers operated their classes using a ‘reading-question-disputation’ format. They were operating under the presumption that logic was the necessary tool to master university curriculum, and that that, “the conflicts among the authorities were resolvable, by and large, by careful semantic and logical differentiation” (Madigan 273). According to Madigan, scholastics used grammar, logic and other ‘dialectical methods to resolve these textual conflicts. The logic being used was primarily Aristotelian in nature. This intertwining of logic, science and theology influenced the character of the Church (Madigan 271). Peter Abelard suggested a similar method in resolving the conflicts of authoritative texts. Madigan writes, “it was scholars like Abelard that… helped along the process by which… theology became… a science that aspired to understand more deeply, by the exercise of rational thought, what had been given, and believed, in the vehicles of revelation” (Madigan 265). Essentially, Abelard sought to rationalize revelation by going through texts concerning the questions of revelation with a fine tooth comb. This meant in depth semantic readings, determination of authenticity of texts and so forth. Bernard of Clairvaux couldn’t stand Abelard or his theological presumption. He writes a letter of grievances in which he states, “outwardly he appears a monk, but within he is a heretic” (Madigan 265). Clairvaux brought him to trial at Sens in 1141.

Abelard first gives the advice to his students to be wary of the author of the text. He claimed that certain passages in the Bible and other books and texts are corrupt because the real authors may have attributed the work to one of the Father’s to give them authority. He also suggests critically looking at the underlying purpose of the opinions given in texts that contradict each other. He advises to gain a temporal understanding of the text so as to recognize when authorities contradict one another due to a change in time and cultural norms. He also asserts that we can’t be surprised, “that some matters have been stated by the Fathers as opinions rather than the truth” (Anderson & Bellenger 232). If, when the authoritative views are analyzed, two authors opinions contradict too much to be resolved, the text with the heaviest backing will be accepted. Abelard urges students to search for the truth. He writes, “it is by doubting that we come to investigate, and by investigating that we recognize the truth” (Anderson & Bellenger 232). Essentially, the goal of the study Abelard is conducting is to understand the truth in a deeper, more analytical way. The advice Abelard gives reflects the scholastic interest in resolving apparent contradictions in text in the kind of critical thinking and rationale he implores his students to employ. Abelard promotes the “reason” side in the problem of reason and revelation in the study of authoritative texts. He wants students to understand the reconciled version of several truths given by Fathers. It’s almost as if this is the beginning of some sort of completion of refined truths that do not contradict other truths.

Bernard backlashes in an aggressive letter. He undermines the theological basis of Abelard’s scholastic method of approach to reading the Bible. He calls it a, “wild, baseless [speculation] about the Bible” (Anderson & Bellenger 233), and claims that he is trying to revive false ideas. Bernard is frustrated over Abelard’s apparent audacity to give a reason for everything, when not everything can even be given a reason. He asks condescendingly, “for what is more unreasonable than to try by reason to transcend reason?” (Anderson & Bellenger 233). Bernard contemptuously calls Abelard’s theology ‘foolology’ that describes faith as private judgment. He calls Abelard a heathen and refers to his numerous other ‘silly stories’. In short, Bernard goes one step further than to criticize just his theology. He goes further, and condescendingly attacks Abelard’s character and writes him to be laughable. The church tradition and biblical texts support his position in the reason- revelation debate by involving the clergy in the trial of Abelard. The king of France, nobles, bishops, and abbots attended the legal trial. The abbot of Citeaux prosecuted Abelard himself. Abelard’s writings were then burned in a church in Rome.