§ 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.