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.