we are now in a position to study more closely the documents from which an estimate may be formed of the beliefs and practices of those whom the church exerted its full strength to destroy. our task is not a simple one, because, as already stated, there was not one heresy, but many, and we are dependent for our knowledge of their tenets almost entirely upon their enemies whose odium theologicum discounts their trustworthiness.

§ 1. eymeric

it may simplify our task if we set down the fourteen heads under which the inquisitor eymeric in his "directorium inquisitorum"[22] classifies what he calls "recentiorum manicheorum errores."

(1) they assert and confess that there are two gods or two lords, viz. a good god, and an evil creator of all things visible and material; declaring that these things were not made by god our heavenly father ... but by a wicked devil, even satan ... and so they assume two creators, viz. god and the devil; and two creations, viz. one of immaterial and invisible things, the other of visible and material.

(2) they imagine that there are two churches, one good, which they say is their own sect, and declare to {31} be the church of jesus christ; the other, however, they call an evil church, which they say is the church of rome.

(3) all grades, orders, ordinances and statutes of the church they despise and ignore, and all who hold the faith they call heretics and deluded, and positively assert (dogmatizant) that nobody can be saved by the faith (in fide) of the roman church.

(4) all the sacraments of the roman church of our lord jesus christ, viz. the eucharist, and baptism performed with material water, also confirmation and orders and extreme unction and penance (poenitentia) and matrimony, all and singular, they assert to be vain and useless.

(5) they invent, instead of holy baptism in water, another spiritual baptism, which they call the consolation (consolamentum)[23] of the holy spirit.

(6) they invent, instead of the consecrated bread of the eucharist of the body of christ, a certain bread, which they call "blessed bread," or "bread of holy prayer," which, holding in their hands, they bless according to their rite, and break and distribute to their fellow-believers seated.

(7) instead of the sacrament of penance they say that their sect receives and holds a true penance (poenitentia), and to those holding the said sect and order, whether they be in health or sickness, all sins are forgiven (dimissa), and that such persons are absolved from all their sins without any other satisfaction, asserting that they themselves have over these the same and as great power as had peter and paul and the other apostles ... saying that the confession of sins which is made to the priests of the roman church is of no avail whatever for salvation, and that neither the pope nor any {32} other person of the roman church has power to absolve anyone from his sins.

(8) instead of the sacrament of carnal matrimony between man and woman, they invent a spiritual matrimony between the soul and god, viz. when the heretics themselves, the perfect or consoled (perfecti seu consolati), receive anyone into their sect and order.

(9) they deny the incarnation of our lord jesus christ from mary ever virgin, asserting that he had not a true human body, etc., but that all things were done figuratively (in similitudinem).

(10) they deny that the blessed virgin mary was the true mother of our lord jesus christ; they deny also that she was a woman of flesh (carnalem). but they say their sect and order is the virgin mary, and that true penance (poenitentia) is a chaste virgin who bears sons of god when they are received into their sect and order.

(11) they deny the future resurrection of human bodies, imagining, instead, certain spiritual bodies.

(12) they say that a man ought to eat or touch neither meat nor cheese nor eggs, nor anything which is born of the flesh by way of generation or intercourse.

(13) they say and believe that in brutes and even in birds there are those spirits which go forth from the bodies of men when they have not been received into their sect and order by imposition of hands, according to their rite, and that they pass from one body into another; wherefore they themselves do not eat or kill any animal or anything that flies.

(14) they say that a man ought never to touch a woman.

§ 2. ademar

the earliest mention of the heterodox as manichees is found in ademar, a noble of aquitaine, who says: "shortly afterwards (a.d. 1018) there arose throughout {33} aquitaine manichees, seducing the people. they denied baptism and the cross, and whatever is of sound doctrine. abstaining from food, they appeared like monks and feigned chastity, but amongst themselves they indulged in every luxury and were the messengers of anti-christ, and have caused many to err from the faith."[24]

§ 3. council of orleans

these "manichees" may have fled from the theological school at orleans where heresy had been detected and punished only the year before, although neither glaber radulf[25] nor agono, of the monastery of st. peter's, chartres,[26] both contemporaries, denominates them manichees. the proceedings of the council of orleans, though beyond our area, is of interest to us, because of the eminence and influence of its theological school, and also because the queen, constance, was daughter of raymond of toulouse, she having married robert after he had been compelled to divorce his first wife, bertha. the heresy, by whatever name it reached or left orleans, probably affected southern france, for it is stated that the heresy was brought into gaul by an italian woman "by whom many in many parts were corrupted." the "depravity" of the heretics was spread secretly, and was only disclosed to the king by a nobleman of normandy, named arefast, who became acquainted with the existence of the heresy through a young ecclesiastic, heribert. at the council (a.d. 1022) which the king summoned, and which consisted of many bishops, abbots and laymen,[27] the three ringleaders, stephen, the queen's confessor, heribert, who had filled the post of ambassador {34} to the king of france, and lisois, all famous for their learning, holiness and generosity, declared that everything in the old and new testaments about the blessed trinity, although authority supported it by signs and wonders and ancient witnesses, was nonsense; that heaven and earth never had an author, and are eternal; that jesus christ was not born of the virgin mary, did not suffer for men, was not placed in the sepulchre, and did not rise again from the dead; that there is no washing away of sins in baptism; that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of christ at the consecration by a priest; intercessions of saints, martyrs and confessors are valueless. arefast, the informer, said he asked wherein then he could rest his hope of salvation; he was invited to submit to their imposition of hands, then he would be pure from all sin, and be filled with the holy spirit who would teach him the depths and true meaning (profunditatem et veram dignitatem) of all the scriptures without any reserve. he would see visions of angels who would always help him, and god his friend (comes) would never let him want for anything.[28] they were like the epicureans, and did not believe that flagitious pleasures would be punished, or that piety and righteousness—the wealth of christians—would receive everlasting reward. arefast also brings against them the odious charges of extinguished lights and promiscuous intercourse; the children thus begotten were solemnly burnt the day after their birth, their ashes preserved and given to the dying as a viaticum. threatened with death by fire, they boasted that they would escape from the flames. sentenced to death, the king feared lest they should be killed in the church and commanded queen constance to stand on guard at the door. but the queen herself got out of hand, for as the condemned {35} heretics came forth she gouged out (eruit) with a staff the eye of stephen, her late confessor. as soon as they felt the fire, they cried out that they had been deceived by the devil, and that the god and lord of the universe, whom they had blasphemed, was punishing them with torture temporal and eternal. some of the bystanders were deeply moved and endeavoured to rescue them, but in vain. the number who perished varies between fourteen and ten. "a like fate met others who held a like faith," says glaber, "and thus the catholic faith was vindicated and everywhere shone more brightly."

the council's investigations also brought to light the fact that a canon of orleans, and precentor, called theodotus (dieudonné), had three years before died in heresy, although he pretended to live and die in the communion of the church. on this deception being discovered, his body was exhumed by order of bishop odalric and thrown away. it will be noted that the council does not call them manichees or any other name. in fact, with the exception of ademar, no one for nearly a century identifies the heretics with manicheism. they are not labelled at the council of charroux in a.d. 1028 (or 1031). at the council of rheims in a.d. 1049 they are vaguely spoken of as "new heretics who have arisen in france." the council of toulouse in a.d. 1056 condemned in its thirteenth canon certain heretics, but does not specify their errors. in a.d. 1110 in the diocese of albi, bishop sicard and godfrey of muret, abbot of castres, attempted to seize some heretics already excommunicated, but were prevented by nobles and people; but they are only colourlessly described as:

astricti satanae qui sunt anathemate diro,

noluntque absolvi restituique deo.[29]

{36}

§ 4. council of toulouse

another council held at toulouse in a.d. 1119, presided over by the pope, callistus iii, is more precise, but does not denominate them. by its third canon it enacted: "moreover, those who, pretending to a sort of religion, condemn the sacrament of the body and blood of the lord, the baptism of children, the priesthood and other ecclesiastical orders and the compacts of lawful marriage, we expel from the church of god as heretics and condemn them, and enjoin upon the secular powers (exteras potestates) to restrain them. in the bonds of this same sentence we include their defenders until they recant."

§ 5. peter de bruis

a new heresiarch now comes upon the scene in the person of peter de bruis, of whom nothing previous is known, except that according to alfonso à castro he was a gaul of narbonne. we first hear of him from maurice de montboissier, better known as petrus venerabilis, abbot of cluny, who addressed an open letter "to the lords, fathers and masters of the church of god, the archbishops of arles and embrun" and certain bishops. as the abbot died in a.d. 1126(7), and the heresiarch laboured for twenty years in promulgating his teaching, he was contemporary with the council of toulouse of a.d. 1119,[30] and its condemnation may have been directed in part against his followers, who were called petrobrusians. the letter of the abbot has a preface which is not his, but which was written after his death. this preface sums up the tenets of the petrobrusians under five heads:

(1) they deny that little children under years of {37} discretion (intelligibilem aetatem) can be saved by the baptism of christ, and another's faith cannot benefit those who cannot use their own ... for the lord said, "whosoever believed and was baptized was saved."

(2) temples and churches ought not to be built, and those already built ought to be pulled down, and sacred places for praying were not necessary to christians, since equally in tavern or church, in market or temple, before altar or stall, god, when called upon, hears and hearkens to those who deserve.

(3) all holy crosses should be broken up and burnt, since that instrument by which christ was so fearfully tortured and so cruelly put to death was not worthy of adoration, veneration or any other worship, but in revenge for his torments and death should be dishonoured with every kind of infamy, struck with swords and burnt.

(4) not only do they deny the truth of the body and blood of the lord in the sacrament daily and continually offered up in the church, but declare that it is absolutely nothing and ought not to be offered to god.

(5) they deride sacrifices, prayers, alms and other good things done by the faithful living for the faithful departed, and affirm that these things cannot help any of the dead in the smallest degree.[31] also "they say god is mocked by church hymns, because he delights in pious desires, and cannot be summoned by loud voices or appeased by musical notes."[32]

in the letter itself peter venerabilis points out to the prelates that in their parts the people were re-baptized, churches profaned, altars thrown down, crosses burnt. meat was publicly eaten on the very day of the lord's passion, priests were scourged, monks imprisoned and compelled by terrors and tortures to marry. "the {38} heads, indeed, of these pests by god's help as well as by the aid of catholic princes you have driven out of your territories. but the slippery serpent, gliding out of your territories, or rather driven out by your prosecution, has betaken itself to the province of narbonne, and whereas with you it used to whisper in deserts and hamlets in fear, it now preaches boldly in great meetings and crowded cities. but let the most distant shores of the swift rhone and the champaign adjacent to toulouse, and the city itself, more populous than its neighbours, drive out this opinion; for the better informed the city is, the more cautious it ought to be against false dogma." peter de bruis was burnt by the faithful in revenge for the crosses which he had burnt.

§ 6. henry of cluny

but "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church," whether that church be true or false, and the mantle of peter de bruis fell strangely upon henry, a fellow monk at cluny of peter venerabilis. henry, "haeres nequitiae ejus," with many others "doctrinam diabolicam non quidem emendavit sed immutavit," and wrote it down in a volume which peter himself had seen, and that not under five heads, but several. "haeres," however, must be loosely interpreted with regard to both time and teaching. for henry had already been wonderfully successful as a revivalist elsewhere, and his teaching did not entirely coincide with that of peter de bruis. for instance, whereas the latter burnt the cross, henry had one carried before him and his followers when he entered towns and villages, and made it the emblem and inspiration of a life of self-denial, to which his own monastic training would predispose him. so far from calling for the destruction of sacred buildings, he used them, when he obtained {39} permission—as he did from bishop hildebert—for his mission preaching. he insisted upon the celibacy of the clergy, but regulated in minute detail the marriage of the laity. in fact, it is not easy to see how his teaching could be called heretical, unless it were his opposition to saint-worship, and doubtless he would have been allowed to move about freely had he not denounced the luxurious lives of the clergy and exposed them to the contempt and insults of the people. arrested in a.d. 1134 he was condemned for heresy at the council of pisa, and imprisoned there; but he was released and returned to france, where he laboured in and around toulouse and albi, and met with remarkable success, not only amongst the laity, but even amongst the clergy; so much so, indeed, that the churches were emptied of both, in order that priest and people might join the sect, which, after its leader, was called henricians. not until a.d. 1148 was he finally suppressed. brought before a council at rheims he was sentenced to imprisonment for life, a punishment which goes to shew that he was not regarded as a heretic, but as a firebrand whose inflammatory activity must, for the peace of the church, be extinguished. reform of life rather than reform of doctrine was the aim of henry's mission.

§ 7. ralph ardens

but although that mission was successful, it did not absorb all the anti-church movements. the dualistic creed still obtained in many parts of southern france, as radulf ardens[33] ("sermons," p. 325) declared: "such to-day, my brethren, are the manichean heretics, for {40} they have defiled our fatherland of agen. they falsely assert that they keep to the apostolic life, saying that they do not lie or swear at all; on the pretence of abstinence and continence they condemn flesh-food and marriage. they say that it is as great a sin to approach a wife as it is a mother or daughter. they condemn the old testament, and receive only some parts of the new. but what is more serious is they preach that there are two authors of nature (rerum), god the author of things invisible, and the devil the author of things visible. hence, they secretly worship the devil, because they believe him to be the creator of their body. they say that the sacrament of the altar is plain (purum) bread. they deny baptism. they preach that no one can be saved except by their hands. they deny also the resurrection of the body."

§ 8. bernard of clairvaux

bernard of clairvaux (b. a.d. 1091), however, refuses to connect the heretics with any human founder, mani, peter de bruis, or henry. "these" (heretics), he exclaims,[34] "are sheep in appearance (habitu), foxes in cunning, wolves in cruelty. they are rustics, ignorant and utterly despicable, but you must not deal with them carelessly.... they prohibit marriage, they abstain from food. the manicheans had mani for chief and instructor, the arians arius, etc. by what name or title do you think you can call these? by none, for their heresy is not of man, and they did not receive it through man. it is by the deceit of devils.... still some differ from the rest, and profess that marriage should be contracted only between bachelors and virgins (inter solos virgines). they deny that the fire of purgatory remains after death."

{41}

§ 9. council of tours

but something more official, more imposing than separate and isolated denunciations and condemnations of individuals was demanded by reason of the rapid and extensive growth of these heresies. accordingly a council met at tours in a.d. 1163, the title of the fourth canon of which is: "that all should avoid the company (consortium) of the albigensian heretics." here, for the first time, i believe, we meet with the name albigenses as a distinct religious sect. the heresy is, if the title is authentic, directly and officially connected with these people, although toulouse, and not albi, is specifically mentioned in the canon itself. the fourth canon says: "in the parts of toulouse a damnable heresy has lately arisen, and like a canker is slowly diffusing itself into the neighbouring localities, and has already infected gascony[35] and many other provinces. the bishops and priests of the lord in those parts we enjoin to be on their guard and under threat of anathema forbid anyone {42} to receive any known to be followers of that heresy." they were to boycott them. catholic princes were to arrest them and confiscate their goods. their conventicles were to be carefully sought for, and, when discovered, forbidden. but it is remarkable that what this "damnable heresy" consisted of is not defined, and, however damnable, the penalties are comparatively mild—neither prison nor death.

§ 10. council of lombers

whether the tolosan authorities resented being dictated to by a council of tours, or whether they connived at the heresy they were directed to suppress, we cannot say. but, at any rate, the canon proved ineffective, and it was found necessary to call another council, and that in the infected area itself. but it was deemed inadvisable to summon it to meet in any of the large towns, either, because in the quietness of a small town the business could be transacted with greater thoroughness (cf. nicea in preference to byzantium) or because the feeling against the church in the large centres of population made it unsafe. accordingly lombers, a small town in the diocese of albi, was decided upon, and here the most important council which had so far met, to deal with this "damnable heresy," assembled, either in a.d. 1165 or a.d. 1176,[36] but the earlier date is probably correct. amongst those who were present were the archbishop of narbonne, the bishops of nimes, agde, toulouse and lodève, eight abbots, four of whom were of the diocese of albi, as well as trenve?al, viscount of albi, béziers and carcassonne. other princes were conspicuous by their absence. binius honours it with the title of "the {43} gallican council against the albigenses," as if all southern france were represented; while the official account says that its sentence was directed against those who called themselves "boni homines."[37] now, for the first time apparently, an official inquiry was held. the matter was not left to hearsay, but the heretics were given an opportunity to speak for themselves. certain of their leaders, of whom olivier was the chief, were cited to appear before the council, and the examination was conducted by gaucelin, bishop of lodève, at the instance of gerald, bishop of albi. (1) they answered that they rejected the whole of the old testament, but accepted "the gospels, the epistles of paul, the seven canonical (catholic?) epistles and the acts of the apostles and the apocalypse." (2) they would say nothing about their creed unless they were forced. (3) as for the baptism of little children, and whether they were saved, they would say nothing, but would quote from the gospels and epistles. (4) questioned on the sacrament of the body and blood of the lord as to where it was consecrated, through whom they received it, and who received it, and whether the consecration was affected by the good or evil character of him who consecrated, they replied that those who received it worthily were saved, and those who received it unworthily acquired to themselves damnation, and added that it was consecrated by every good man, whether clerical or lay. further than this they would not answer, maintaining that they ought not to be compelled to answer concerning their creed. (5) about matrimony they answered evasively, sheltering themselves behind a quotation from st. paul's epistle. (6) with regard to penance, whether it is efficacious for salvation at the end of life, whether soldiers, mortally wounded, would be saved if they repented at the end, {44} whether each one ought to confess his sins to the priests and ministers of the church, or to any layman whatever, or of whom st. james spake: "confess ye your sins one to another," they said it sufficed for the weak to confess to whomsoever they would; and as for soldiers they would say nothing, because st. james says nothing, but only about the sick. gaucelin inquired whether, in their opinion, contrition of heart and oral confession were alone sufficient, or whether it was necessary that reparation be made after penance by fasts, scourgings, alms and lamentation for their sins, if opportunity for such presented itself. their reply was that james said only this—that they should confess and be saved, and they did not wish to be better than the apostle. many things they volunteered, as that we should swear not at all, as jesus said in the gospel and james in his epistle; that paul said in his epistle what sort of men were to be ordained bishops and presbyters, and if men of other character were ordained, they were not bishops and presbyters, but ravening wolves and hypocrites and seducers ... wearing white robes and gemmed rings of gold; and therefore obedience should not be given them, since they were bad men, not good teachers, but mercenaries. the council pronounced them guilty, and drew up a refutation of their errors taken from the new testament only. they retorted that the bishop who pronounced the sentence was himself a heretic, and turning to the people they said: "we believe"—and here they rehearsed the articles of the apostles' creed, but omitting "the holy catholic church." "we believe in confession of heart and mouth. we believe that he who does not eat the body of christ is not saved, and that it is not consecrated except in the church, and by a priest, good or evil, and that it is not better done by a good priest than by an evil. we believe that {45} no one is saved except by baptism, and that little children are saved by baptism. we believe that married people are saved." they further declared that they would believe anything that could be proved from the gospels and epistles, but that they would swear to nothing.

the result, or rather lack of results, of this council is perplexing. either gaucelin was a poor examiner, or was afraid to press his examination too far. had he been a better or a bolder examiner, he must have quickly discovered that the differentiation between the old and the new testaments was due to strong dualistic tendencies. also, this council was the most formidable array of the powers that be which the heretics had had to face. yet no penalties are imposed, much less inflicted upon the guilty. the council contents itself with a mere refutation. the most probable explanation is that the people were not overawed by the move of the church authorities from tours to lombers, and the latter were not ready for an explosion. the heretics candidly avowed that their answers were ad captandum vulgus, "propter dilectionem et gratiam vestri," and the council did not venture further than the mild objection: "vos non dicitis, quod propter gratiam domini dicatis."

§ 11. a preaching experiment

no help was to be expected at this time from the pope in the suppression of heresy either in the south of france or the north of italy, for he had more than he could manage in his struggle with barbarossa and his anti-pope. the council had done little more than advertise its own weakness and the strength of the heretics. the church therefore determined upon new methods, meeting preaching by preaching. persuasion is better than force, but persuasion is more effective when coupled with force—or {46} hints of severe penalties for contumacy. the kings of france and england sent out the cistercian monk, peter chrysogonus, cardinal and legate, with certain archbishops and bishops "ut praedicatione sua haereticos illos ad fidem christianam converterent," raymond, count of toulouse and raymond, count of castranuovo, and others lending them secular support. this move proved more successful than the council, and many yielded. sometimes the commission would summon or invite the heretics to be more explicit as to their creed, granting them a safe conduct eundi et redeundi. under these conditions two heresiarchs came forward, called raymond and bernard, and produced a certain paper in which they had drawn up the articles of their faith. but they could scarcely speak a word of latin, and the court "condescended" to hold the discussion in the vulgar tongue. they answered, "sane et circumspecte, ac si christiani essent;" so much so indeed, that they were charged with deliberate lying, and accused of holding the usual erroneous opinions with which previous investigations have made us familiar. this they strenuously denied. they even asserted their belief that "panis et vinum in corpus et sanguinem christi vere transubstantiabantur." but to this creed they would not swear, deeming oaths unlawful. the court regarded this avowal as a mere cloke of duplicity and condemned and excommunicated them. this sentence peter chrysogonus justified in an open letter, and henry of clairvaux, who accompanied him, in a similar letter declared that if they had deferred their visit for three years scarcely anyone would have remained orthodox.

§ 12. third lateran council

alexander iii, having composed his differences with frederick barbarossa and the anti-pope, summoned, {47} in a.d. 1179, the third lateran council. it was described as "a magnificent diet of the christian world." over one thousand bishops and abbots (amongst them english[38], irish[39] and scotch), were present, besides many of the inferior clergy and representatives of emperor and kings. by its twenty-seventh canon it condemned the heretics of gascony, albi and the parts about toulouse, going under several names. if they died in sin no masses were to be said for their souls, nor were they to receive christian burial.[40] one incident, however, at this council, which received but scant notice at the time, has an important bearing upon our subject. this was a deputation of two waldenses who begged official recognition of their movement from the pope. we are concerned here only with their doctrines, which they professed to draw entirely from the bible and the authoritative utterances of the saints (auctoritates sanctorum). had alexander iii been a pope of statesmanlike prescience, the preaching orders which eventually saved the church might have been anticipated by some thirty years. these waldenses had no certain dwelling-place, travelled barefoot, wore woollen clothes only, had no private property, but "had all things in common," they followed naked the naked christ. the pope, to whom they gave a book containing the text of the psalter with notes {48} and several other books of "either law," approved of their vow of voluntary poverty, but refused them permission to preach, unless the clergy (sacerdotes) asked them. walter mapes, an englishman, afterwards a franciscan, tells us ("de nugis" i. 31) that he met the waldenses in rome. he calls them ignorant and unlearned, and by command of the pope entered into conversation with them, asking them at first the easiest questions, e.g. "did they believe in god the father? and in the son? and in the holy ghost?" to each they answered, "we believe." "and in the mother of christ?" but when they answered again, "we believe," they were greeted with a general shout of laughter, and retired in confusion, "et merito, quia a nullo regebantur et rectores appetebant fieri, phaetonis instar, qui nec nomina novit equorum." the abbot of urspegensis, in his chronicle (a.d. 1212), also mentions this petition of the waldenses for papal recognition, adding that they wore capes, like the "religious," and had long hair, unless they were "laymen." men and women travelled together, which caused considerable scandal. yet they asserted all these things came down from the apostles.

§ 13. a papal decree

two years later lucius iii, on becoming pope, issued a decree against the heretics under various names, including "cathari, patarini et ii qui se humiliati vel pauperes de lugduno falso nomine mentiuntur." they were banned with a perpetual anathema, and were to be destroyed by the secular arm; but no errors are specified.

§ 14. alan de insulis

at the third lateran council was present alan, bishop of antissiodorensis, otherwise known as alan de insulis, {49} alan the great, alan the universal doctor. he was born a.d. 1114 at lille in flanders, although others, e.g. demster, identify de insulis with mona (man or anglesea). as a boy he entered clairvaux under bernard, and in a.d. 1151 was made a bishop. in a.d. 1183, by command, he wrote a work in four books, dedicated to "his most beloved lord, william, by the grace of god count of montpelier." the title of the work is, "de fide catholica contra haereticos sui temporis praesertim albigenses." the albigenses, however, are not mentioned by name throughout the work. the second book is entitled, "contra waldenses," in which he says: "the waldenses are so called from their heresiarch, waldus, who, of his own will (suo spiritu ductus), not sent by god, started a new sect, presuming forsooth to preach without the authority of a bishop, without the inspiration of god, without learning. they assert that no one should be obeyed but god only (which is explained by what he states later—that it was their opinion that obedience should be given to good prelates only and to the imitators of the apostles). neither office nor order avails anything for consecrating or blessing, for binding or loosing. where a priest is not available, confession may be made to a layman. on no account must one take an oath. on no account must a man be killed." alan charged them with holding docetic views of our lord, and with declaring that the virgin mary was created in heaven and had no father or mother.

bernard, the praemonstratensian, abbot of fontcaud, wrote in a.d. 1190 a book "against the sect of the waldenses," but adds nothing to our knowledge. nor does bonacursus, writing later in the same year, except some gross and preposterous distortion of their belief on the monthly motions of the moon, and the statement that they held that christ was not equal to the father. {50}

ten years later ermengard wrote a tract,[41] also entitled "against the sect of the waldenses," but they are not named in it, and those whom he attacks are not the original or genuine waldenses, for he charges them with (1) dualistic opinions; (2) teaching that the law of moses was given by the prince of evil spirits; (3) docetic views; (4) stating that in "hoc est corpus meum," "hoc does not refer to the bread which he (our lord) held in his hands and blessed and brake and distributed to his disciples, but to his body which was performing all these things.... and there are some heretics who believe that by hearing the word of god they eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood." he gives an interesting account of the consolamentum, but this will be described later.

§ 15. peter de vaux-sarnai

in the "historia albigensium" of the cistercian peter de vaux-sarnai we pass from scattered references to a work devoted specifically to their doctrines and doings. it is dedicated to innocent iii, the pope who passed from words to deeds, working out a definite policy for their absolute extinction. the monk claims to set down "the simple truth in a simple way," and we may add "for simple readers," if the following description of raymond, count of toulouse, is a sample of his claim: "a limb of the devil, a son of perdition, the first-born of satan, an enemy of the cross and persecutor of the church, defender of heretics, suppressor of catholics, servant of perdition, abjurer of the faith, full of crime, a store-house of all sins." several of his statements about their doctrines and practices lack confirmation from any other source, especially some too blasphemous {51} to be repeated here. after the usual charge of the two gods, good and evil,[42] he says that they accepted only those parts of the old testament which are quoted in the new. john the baptist was one of the greater demons. there were two christs—the bad one was born in bethlehem and crucified in jerusalem. the good christ never assumed real (veram) flesh, and never was in this world, except spiritually in the body of paul. the heretics imagined a new and invisible earth, and there, according to some, the good christ was born and crucified. the good god had two wives, colla and coliba, and had sons and daughters. others say there is one creator who had as sons christ and the devil. they say, too, that all the creators were good, but that all things were corrupted by the daughters spoken of in the apocalypse. almost the whole of the roman church is a den of thieves, and is "illa meretrix" mentioned in the apocalypse. on the sacraments they held views already ascribed by eymeric to the manichees, and mentioned by others, "instilling into the ears of the simple this blasphemy, that, had the body of christ been as large as the alps, it would long ago have been consumed by the partakers thereof."[43] "some, denying the resurrection of the flesh, said that our souls were those angelic spirits which, after being thrust out of heaven through the pride of apostasy, left their glorified bodies in the air, and after a seven-times succession in certain terrestrial bodies as a sort of penance returned to their own bodies that had been left." some are called "perfecti" or "boni homines," others "credentes." the "perfecti" wear black and profess (though they lie) chastity. the {52} "credentes" live a secular life and do not attain to the life of the "perfecti," though one with them in faith and unfaith (fide et infidelitate). however wickedly they have lived, yet they believe that if, "in supremo mortis articulo," they say a pater noster and receive imposition of hands from their "masters," they will be saved; no credent about to die can be saved without this imposition of hands. they call their masters deacons and bishops. if any "perfect" sin a mortal sin, e.g. by eating the very smallest portion of meat, egg or cheese, all who have been "consoled" by him lose the holy spirit and ought to be "consoled" again. the waldenses also are evil, but much less so than the other heretics. "in many things they agree with us: in some disagree." they omit many of the others' infidelities. they carry sandals, and say that so long as a man carries these, if need arise, he can without episcopal ordination make (conficere) the body of christ.

§ 16. reinéri saccho

peculiar interest attaches to the statements of reinéri saccho[44] because he had once been a catharist (but not a waldensian), and wrote as an inquisitor (a.d. 1254). he distinguishes between catharist and waldensian, but his remarks refer primarily to the heretics of lombardy, although he is careful to point out that their opinions differ little from catharists in proven?e and other places. he charges the waldensians with thirty-three errors, amongst which are:

(2) belief in traducianism. "the soul of the first man was made materially from the holy spirit, and the rest through it by traduction."

{53} (6) any good man may be a son of god in the same way as christ was, having a soul instead of a godhead.

(8) to adore or worship the body of christ, or any created thing, or images or crosses, is idolatry.

(9) final penance (poenitentia) avails nothing.

(11) the souls of good men enter and leave their bodies without sin.

(12) the punishment of purgatory is nothing else than present trouble.

(14) prayers for the dead avail nothing.

(15) tenths and other benefactions should be given to the poor, not to the priests.

(18) they derided church music and the canonical hours.

(19) prayers in latin profit nothing, because they are not understood.

(23) the roman church is not the head of the church. it is a church of malignants.

(31) any man may divorce his wife and follow them, even if his wife is unwilling to be divorced, and e converso.

(33) no one can be saved outside their sect.

in addition to these he mentions other of their errors: infant baptism profits nothing—priests in mortal sin cannot consecrate—transubstantiation takes place in the hand, not of him who consecrates, but of him who worthily receives: consecration may be made at an ordinary table (quoting mal. i. 11)—mass is nothing, because the apostles had it not—no one can be absolved by a bad priest—a good layman has power to absolve: he can also remit sins by the imposition of hands, and give the holy spirit—public penance is to be reprobated, especially in the case of women—married persons sin mortally, if they come together without hope of {54} offspring—holy orders, extreme unction and the tonsure were derided—every one without distinction of sex may preach—holy scripture has the same effect in the vulgar tongue as in latin—the waldenses knew by heart the text of the new testament, and a great part of the old—they despised decretals, excommunications, absolutions, indulgences, all saints but the apostles, canonizations, relics, crosses, times and seasons—they said in general that the doctrines of christ and his apostles were sufficient for salvation without the statutes of the church.

with regard to the catharists he observed that they were divided into three divisions—albanenses, concorezenses and bognolenses. there were others in tuscany, the marquisate of treves and in proven?e who differed very little, if at all, from those previously mentioned. the opinions common to them all were:

(1) the devil made the world and all things in it.

(2) all the sacraments of the church are of the devil, and the church itself is a church of malignants.

(3) carnal marriage is always a mortal sin.

(4) there is no resurrection of the flesh.

(5) it is mortal sin to eat eggs, flesh and such-like.

(6) it is mortal sin for the secular power to punish heretics or malefactors.

(7) there is no such thing as purgatory.

(8) whoever kills an animal commits a great sin.

(9) they had four sacraments: (a) imposition of hands, called consolamentum, but by that imposition of hands and the saying of the lord's prayer there is no remission of sins if the person officiating be in mortal sin; (b) benediction of the bread; (c) penance; (d) orders.

to the catharists of toulouse he ascribes the following {55} doctrines (which they held in common with the albanenses):

(10) there are two principles, good and evil.

(11) there is no trinity in the catholic sense, for the father is greater than the son and the holy ghost.

(12) the world and all that is in it were created by the evil god.

(13) they held some valentinian ideas.

(14) the son of man was not really incarnate in the virgin mary, and did not eat—in short, docetism.

(15) the patriarchs were the servants of the devil.

(16) the devil was the author of the old testament, except job, psalms, proverbs, wisdom, ecclesiasticus and the major and minor prophets.

(17) the world will never end.

(18) the judgement is past.

(19) hell is in this world.

this detailed examination of the heresy is of great importance, not only on account of the peculiar advantages which reinéri saccho possessed as both heretic and inquisitor, but because it shews that even at this late stage, catharist and waldensian had not been welded into one under the blows of a persecution directed equally against both. at one in their hatred of the roman church and all its works, there is a marked difference in their deism. the waldensian, according to saccho's classification, knows nothing of dualism, is sound on the doctrine of the trinity, and believes both old and new testaments to be the word of god. the catharist, on the other hand, believes in a good and an evil god, the latter being the creator of the world of matter, which therefore is itself evil. hence, whatever perpetuates matter, e.g. marriage, is also evil; but the world being the work of a god must also, like its maker, {56} be endless. that part of the old testament which describes its beginning and its development into kingdoms and hierarchies, together with all their chief representatives, be they patriarchs, princes or priests, has the evil god for its author. only the poets and the prophets who took a more spiritual view of things earthly, are inspired by the good god.

§ 17. inquisitions

by the middle of the thirteenth century the coercive measures which rome took for the suppression of heresy had proved successful. no longer was there any need for councils to examine and pass judgment upon it, nor defenders of the faith to write against it. it had become une chose jugée. henceforth the church dealt with individuals, and by means of ecclesiastical courts, called the inquisition, arrested, questioned and decided whether a person, charged with heresy, was guilty or not. unfortunately for the cause of history the earlier records, or acta, of these inquisitions were, in their brief spells of resurgence, destroyed by the catharists and waldenses, as containing dangerous evidence against them. only the later ones have survived. limborch, who made the inquisition his special study, published the "book of the sentences" which the inquisition of toulouse (a.d. 1300) pronounced against the waldenses and albigenses, and he came to the conclusion that while they had some dogmas in common, they had different opinions and were separate sects. according to him the waldenses and albigenses had only three opinions in common: (1) all oaths are unlawful; (2) any good man can receive a confession, but only god can absolve from sin; (3) no obedience is due to the roman church. the following opinions he ascribes to the albigenses, and not to the waldenses: (1) there are two gods, good and evil; {57} (2) the sacraments of the church of rome are vain and unprofitable—the eucharist is merely bread—a man is saved by the imposition of their hands—sins are remitted without confession and satisfaction—baptism avails nothing; baptism by water is of no benefit to children, since they are so far from consenting to it that they weep—the order of st. james, or extreme unction, made by material oil, signifies nothing; they prefer imposition of hands—repudiate the constitution of the whole roman church, and deny to all the prelates of it the power of binding and loosing, on the ground that they are greater sinners than those whom they claim to bind and loose; but they (the albigenses) can give the holy spirit—matrimony is always sinful, except spiritual matrimony; (3) christ did not take a real human body, but only the likeness of one—the virgin mary is not and was not a real woman; the virgin mary is true penitence whereby people are born into their church; (4) there is a kind of spiritual body or inner man whereby persons rise from the dead; (5) the cross is the sign of the devil, and should not be adored, since no man adores the gallows on which his father was hanged; (6) souls are spirits banished from heaven on account of their sins; (7) they deny purgatory altogether.

opinions ascribed to the waldenses, but not to the albigenses: (1) all judgement is forbidden of god, and therefore it is a sin for any judge to condemn a man to any punishment (st. matt, vii.); (2) indulgences are worthless; (3) purgatory exists only in this life, and therefore prayers cannot profit the dead; (4) the church has only three orders—bishops, priests and deacons; (5) laymen can preach; (6) matrimony is sinful only when people marry without hope of offspring.

the records of the several inquisitions are helpful in {58} the particulars which they furnish of the government, organization and services of the albigenses and waldenses. unfortunately in many cases their dates and places are missing, and hence they fail us in an attempt to trace any change or development in their doctrines. the general date of these acta is the beginning of the fourteenth century, and from these and certain scraps of other inquisitions which have been preserved, we are able to amplify somewhat limborch's conclusions. thus the report of the inquisition of carcassonne treats separately "de manichaeis moderni temporis" and "de waldensibus moderni temporis," whose origin they trace to a certain citizen of lyons, valdesius or valdens, in a.d. 1170, and who spread to lombardy, "et praecisi ab ecclesia, cum aliis haereticis se miscentes et eorum errores imbibentes, suis adinventionibus antiquorum haereticorum errores et haereses miscuerunt." as the report adds "quia olim plures alios habuerunt," we cannot say whether in the opinion of the court the balance was or was not in favour of the waldenses, but it does mark a change, by subtraction and addition, in the total. the inquisitors complained that the waldenses were very slippery and evasive under examination. when driven into a corner, they would plead that they were unlearned, simple folk and did not understand the question. then they contended that to take an oath was a clear violation of christ's words in st. matthew v., and therefore a grievous sin; yet according to the report of the inquisition of carcassonne they pleaded that they might swear if by so doing they could escape death themselves or screen others from death by not betraying their friends or revealing the secrets of their sect. their defence was that they were filled with the holy ghost and were doing his work; to injure or cut short that work was to sin the sin against the holy {59} ghost, which hath never forgiveness. thus in a lawsuit a heretic might take the oath, because refusal meant revelation; he would be absolved on confession. but when they were ordered to take the oath, "juro per ista sancta evangelia quod nunquam didici vel credidi aliquid quod sit contra fidem veram quam sancta romana ecclesia credit et tenet," with uplifted hand and touching the gospels, i.e. ex animo, they prevaricated. another instance of this evasiveness was their outward conformity to the established religion. they would attend church and behave with the utmost decorum; in conversation with a known catholic their speech was most orthodox and prudent. although they would not touch a woman, or even sit on the same bench with her, however great the distance between them, they travelled with them, because it would be then supposed that they were their wives, and hence that they themselves were not heretics. they denied that prayers of saints or to saints were of any avail, yet they abstained from work on saints' days, unless they could work unobserved. a "perfect" must not be married, but if he burn, he could satisfy the lust of the flesh so long as he remained pure in heart. this concession they, however, kept secret from the credents, lest they should fall in their esteem. in another inquisition at carcassonne, held in a.d. 1308 and 1309, "contra albigenses," peter and james autéri, who with other members of their family, were the last leaders of the albigenses, declared that true matrimony is not between male and female, for that is two kinds of flesh, not one, whereas god said, "they two shall become one flesh." the true matrimony is between the soul and the spirit. "for in paradise there was never a corruption of the flesh nor anything which was not simply (merum) and purely spiritual, and god made matrimony itself for this end—that {60} souls which had fallen from heaven through pride in ignorance and were in this world should return to life by (cum) the matrimony of the holy spirit, viz. by good works and abstinence from sins, and 'they two would become one flesh' (in carne una)."[45]

the testimony of raymond de costa given before the inquisition of languedoc is so divergent from all other evidence and so subversive of the fundamental principles and practices of the waldenses that, although he was a waldensian deacon, his statements may be received with suspicion. according to him the credents were instructed to obey the curés of the roman church and to attend mass because there they could see the body of jesus christ and adore it (or him), and pray for a good end and forgiveness of sins. their sacraments and those of the roman church were equally valid. peter was the head of the church after christ, and the roman pontiffs after peter, and their own "majors" were under the pope; if the roman church disappeared, they would all become pagans. the chief points on which their "majors" differed from the roman church were purgatory and oaths, and the church would grievously sin if it excommunicated him for not swearing, or for not believing that purgatory was in the other world. under further examination, and with time for reflection, he revoked some of his former opinions, from which we may perhaps conclude they were his own rather than waldensian. thus, at the first examination he maintained that, in face of st. john iii., not even a martyr was saved if he had not been baptized with {61} water, but this he afterwards withdrew, as also the statement that no one who was married could be ordained in their sect; but he would swear to neither.[46]

we have seen that the heretics believed in the absolute sanctity of human life, and declared that not even a judge had power to condemn any man to death. if the positions were reversed, and they were the stronger party, they would not put to death even the most obstinate catholic. yet this was only theory, and often yielded under a necessity which knows no law. thus raymond valsiera of ax, a "manichee," declared that he had been taught by william autéri that it was wrong to kill either man or animal; nevertheless, he ought to kill a catholic who persecuted them; and as a matter of fact, raymond issaura acknowledged to the inquisition of carcassonne "against the albigenses," a.d. 1308, that his brother, william, with three others, had waylaid a beguin who confessed that he had been plotting the capture of peter and william autéri, and that they had killed him and thrown his body into a crevasse. and on the question of revenge generally, the theory of its sinfulness was argued differently by catharists and waldenses, according to the book called "supra stella."[47] the waldenses maintained that revenge was allowed by god in old testament times, but the catharists maintained that that god was the evil god. both parties appealed to christ's words in st. matt. v. 38, "ye have heard that it was said by them of old time ... but i say unto you," the waldenses arguing that jesus accepted revenge as permissible under the old covenant, and the catharists {62} that jesus knew that that law originated from the evil god and therefore substituted another. the same arguments were used by each with regard to oaths.

when once the persecutions had got the heretics "on the run," they found it difficult not only to maintain their interdenominational union, but also denominational unity of doctrine. differences manifest themselves amongst the scattered groups of the waldenses themselves. thus those who are described as "the heresiarchs of lombardy," probably to be identified with those waldenses who had mixed themselves with other heretics there,[48] sent a rescript to the leonists (i.e. poor men of lyons) in germany, informing them of the points of controversy between themselves and those whom they called "ultramontanos dictos valdesii socios," i.e. those who had remained in southern france. it states that the chief point of difference is on the sacraments. the ultramontane waldenses did not believe anyone could be saved unless he were baptized with water. marriage could not be dissolved, except by consent of both parties, or on some ground which commended itself to the community. they held that peter waldo was in the paradise of god, and they could have no communion with any who denied it. with regard to the holy communion they maintained that "the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of christ by the sole utterance (prolatio) of the lord's words,"[49] adding: "we attribute the virtue not to man, but to the words of god;" to which those of lombardy objected: "anyone, whether jew or gentile, by uttering these words may make (conficiat) the body and blood of christ." they carried their objection {63} further, because the ultramontane associates of waldesius "held that no one could baptize who could not make (valet conficere) the body of christ;" and as it was agreed that anyone might baptize, it would follow that anyone could consecrate, whether layman or laywoman, however wicked. but the ultramontanes guarded themselves against this inference by laying it down that the breaking of the bread could only be done by a presbyter; and further that the actual change (transubstantiatur) of the substance of the visible bread and wine is made by neither a good man nor a bad man, but only by him who is god and man, i.e. by christ. in that view the lombards agreed, but disagreed in the opinion that the prayer of an adulterer or any other evildoer was heard by god in that sacrament. the fact of transubstantiation depended upon valid ordination of the minister and upon god hearing his prayer. when these two essentials are present, then after benediction transubstantiation takes place. if the minister himself is reprobate, his prayer affects adversely himself only, and not the worthy communicant.

a religion which claims the faith and obedience of man is bound to offer to man some explanation of his nature, or in other words, of that dualism of good and evil of which every man is conscious. the early christian fathers, as against the dualistic theology of the gnostics—a good and evil god—and consequently a dualistic anthropology—the good soul and the evil flesh—drew a distinction between the ????? and the ???????, or the ε?κ?ν and the ?μο?ωσι? of the one god in which that one god created man—the "image" being that which man essentially is, and the "likeness" that to which he arrives by a right use of his original capacities. the heretics, while presenting a creed fundamentally dualistic, either absolute or mitigated, did not at first address {64} themselves to this question of the origin of evil in man, but merely assumed it; but it was not a point that could be shelved. with some variations the solution was at length propounded that the good god had created only a limited number of good spirits,[50] but that the evil god (or satanael,[51] a fallen angel) introduced to these good spirits a beautiful woman by whom they were seduced from their allegiance to the good god. these fallen spirits the evil god provided with tunics, i.e. bodies of flesh, so that they might forget their first estate. death was the passing of the spirit from tunic to tunic, i.e. from one body to another, until it came into that tunic in which it would be saved, viz. as a believer in their (the heretics') faith, and so return in that tunic to heaven. this was the testimony of james autéri, one of that famous family who did so much to fan into flame the dying embers of catharism at the beginning of the fourteenth century. another (unnamed) witness declared that when the son of god came down from heaven, 144,000 angels came with him, and they remained in the world to receive the souls of those who obeyed god, i.e. heretics, and carry them back to heaven.

[22] part ii, pp. 273, 274, venice.

[23] v. infra, p. 83.

[24] chronicle, migne's "patrol," tom. 141, p. 63.

[25] "history," book iii, chap. 8.

[26] d'achery "spicilegium," vol. i, p. 604.

[27] incidentally we may note the fact of a council called to decide a matter of faith presided over by a layman, with laymen as co-judges with ecclesiastics.

[28] agono.

[29] "chron. epis. albig. et abbot. cast.," d'achery, iii, 572. radulf ardens, however, preacher of william ix, duke of aquitaine (d. 1137), speaks of the heretics as manichees ("sermons," p. 325), v. infra, p. 39.

[30] peter himself was dead by a.d. 1121. v. abelard, opp. p. 1066.

[31] migne, "patrol," tom. 189, p. 719.

[32] ibid., p. 1079.

[33] preacher of william ix, duke of aquitaine. this was c. a.d. 1101. thirteen years later (a.d. 1114) robert of arbrisselles, summoned by the bp. amelius to toulouse, by his eloquence and reasoning brought back many into the fold of the church (percin, ii, 3).

[34] "sermones in cantica," lxvi (song of solomon, ii, 15).

[35] this heresy cannot be identified with that of the publicani, if william of newbury can be trusted in his account of the council of oxford, a.d. 1160. (l. ii. cap. xiii.) "at the same time there came into england certain wayfarers (erronei), believed to be of that body commonly called publicani. these, doubtless, had their origin in gascony from an author unknown, and had poured the poison of their perfidy into many regions. they were, however, ignorant rustics and dull of understanding.... from this and other plagues of heresy england has certainly been free (immunis), although in other parts of the world so many heresies have sprouted up. there were thirty of them, both men and women, under the leadership of one gerard, who alone was educated. in nation and language they were teutons, but they had contrived to bewitch with their sorceries a little woman of england." examined by the council of bishops summoned by the king, gerard said they were christians and venerated apostolic doctrine, but rejected holy baptism, the eucharist, marriage and catholic unity. refusing to recant, they were handed over to the secular arm, branded on the forehead, beaten, expelled out of the city and made outlaws. only "the little woman" recanted; the remainder perished miserably by cold and exposure.

[36] for 1165 labbe and fleury; also, the archives of the inquisition of carcassonne. trenve?al, viscount of albi, who was present, died in 1167. for 1176 roger de hoveden.

[37] neander, without authority, calls them catharists.

[38] hugo, bp. of durham; john, bp. of norwich; robert, bp. of hereford; and reginald, bp. of bath—the maximum number invited.

[39] laurence, archbp. of dublin, and catholicus, archbp. of tuam, and five or six bishops (binius).

[40] binius mentions some of their opinions, which he assigns, erroneously, to the waldenses. (1) no obedience to the roman pontiff; his decrees are nullius momenti. (2) judgement by blood forbidden. (3) righteous laymen can consecrate: unrighteous laymen lose their power. (4) consecration of the elements once in the year, without "hoc est corpus meum," but by saying pater noster seven times. (5) derided indulgences, purgatory, invocation of saints, miracles, feasts and fasts of the church, angel's salutation and apostles' creed. (6) urenti carnis libidine omnem carnalem commixtionem licitam esse. (7) the "perfect" ought not to do manual labour.

[41] "gretzer," vol. xii.

[42] the first creator was (i) a liar, because he said man should surely die if he ate of the tree, and he did not; and (ii) a murderer because he sent the flood.

[43] paschasius radbert used the same argument.

[44] "gretzer," vol. xii.

[45] this view of carnal matrimony being a sin is also given in a book called "supra stella," by salve burce, a citizen of piacenza, a.d. 1235, in which all heretics are charged with agreeing that "matrimony makes us debtors to the flesh," which saints must not be (rom. viii). frederick william garsias declared before the inquisition of carcassonne that there was no matrimony except between the soul and god.

[46] it is worth while noticing that this withdrawal was made when it was pointed out to him that the eastern church did not enforce celibacy on its clergy. does this show a lingering preference for the east as against the west?

[47] v. p. 60, note.

[48] v. p. 58. had they been cathari, the points of controversy would have been more pronounced and fundamental.

[49] v. p. 63.

[50] this was also the opinion of origen.

[51] or the satan-god.