THE SEED
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 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 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 _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 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
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]
§ 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 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 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 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 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."
§ 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 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 Trenveçal, Viscount of Albi, Béziers and Carcassonne. Other princes
were conspicuous by their absence. Binius honours it with the title of
"the 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, 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 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 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, 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 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, 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.
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 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 "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 Provençe 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."
(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 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 _Provençe_ 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 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, 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; (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 צֶלֶם and the דְּמוּת, or
the εἰκών and the ὁμοίωσις 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 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. Trenveçal, 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.