We are now in a position to study more closely the documents from which an estimate may be formed of the beliefs and practices of those whom the Church exerted its full strength to destroy. Our task is not a simple one, because, as already stated, there was not one heresy, but many, and we are dependent for our knowledge of their tenets almost entirely upon their enemies whose odium theologicum discounts their trustworthiness.
§ 1. EYMERIC
It may simplify our task if we set down the fourteen heads under which the Inquisitor Eymeric in his "Directorium Inquisitorum"[22] classifies what he calls "recentiorum Manicheorum errores."
(1) They assert and confess that there are two Gods or two Lords, viz. a good God, and an evil Creator of all things visible and material; declaring that these things were not made by God our heavenly Father ... but by a wicked devil, even Satan ... and so they assume two Creators, viz. God and the Devil; and two Creations, viz. one of immaterial and invisible things, the other of visible and material.
(2) They imagine that there are two Churches, one good, which they say is their own sect, and declare to {31} be the Church of Jesus Christ; the other, however, they call an evil Church, which they say is the Church of Rome.
(3) All grades, orders, ordinances and statutes of the Church they despise and ignore, and all who hold the Faith they call heretics and deluded, and positively assert (dogmatizant) that nobody can be saved by the faith (in fide) of the Roman Church.
(4) All the Sacraments of the Roman Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, viz. the Eucharist, and Baptism performed with material water, also Confirmation and Orders and Extreme Unction and Penance (poenitentia) and Matrimony, all and singular, they assert to be vain and useless.
(5) They invent, instead of holy Baptism in water, another spiritual Baptism, which they call the Consolation (consolamentum)[23] of the Holy Spirit.
(6) They invent, instead of the consecrated bread of the Eucharist of the Body of Christ, a certain bread, which they call "blessed bread," or "bread of holy prayer," which, holding in their hands, they bless according to their rite, and break and distribute to their fellow-believers seated.
(7) Instead of the Sacrament of Penance they say that their sect receives and holds a true Penance (poenitentia), and to those holding the said sect and order, whether they be in health or sickness, all sins are forgiven (dimissa), and that such persons are absolved from all their sins without any other satisfaction, asserting that they themselves have over these the same and as great power as had Peter and Paul and the other Apostles ... saying that the confession of sins which is made to the priests of the Roman Church is of no avail whatever for salvation, and that neither the Pope nor any {32} other person of the Roman Church has power to absolve anyone from his sins.
(8) Instead of the Sacrament of carnal Matrimony between man and woman, they invent a spiritual Matrimony between the soul and God, viz. when the heretics themselves, the perfect or consoled (perfecti seu consolati), receive anyone into their sect and order.
(9) They deny the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ from Mary ever virgin, asserting that He had not a true human body, etc., but that all things were done figuratively (in similitudinem).
(10) They deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary was the true mother of our Lord Jesus Christ; they deny also that she was a woman of flesh (carnalem). But they say their sect and order is the Virgin Mary, and that true penance (poenitentia) is a chaste virgin who bears sons of God when they are received into their sect and order.
(11) They deny the future resurrection of human bodies, imagining, instead, certain spiritual bodies.
(12) They say that a man ought to eat or touch neither meat nor cheese nor eggs, nor anything which is born of the flesh by way of generation or intercourse.
(13) They say and believe that in brutes and even in birds there are those spirits which go forth from the bodies of men when they have not been received into their sect and order by imposition of hands, according to their rite, and that they pass from one body into another; wherefore they themselves do not eat or kill any animal or anything that flies.
(14) They say that a man ought never to touch a woman.
§ 2. ADEMAR
The earliest mention of the heterodox as Manichees is found in Ademar, a noble of Aquitaine, who says: "Shortly afterwards (A.D. 1018) there arose throughout {33} Aquitaine Manichees, seducing the people. They denied Baptism and the Cross, and whatever is of sound doctrine. Abstaining from food, they appeared like monks and feigned chastity, but amongst themselves they indulged in every luxury and were the messengers of Anti-Christ, and have caused many to err from the faith."[24]
§ 3. COUNCIL OF ORLEANS
These "Manichees" may have fled from the theological school at Orleans where heresy had been detected and punished only the year before, although neither Glaber Radulf[25] nor Agono, of the monastery of St. Peter's, Chartres,[26] both contemporaries, denominates them Manichees. The proceedings of the Council of Orleans, though beyond our area, is of interest to us, because of the eminence and influence of its theological school, and also because the Queen, Constance, was daughter of Raymond of Toulouse, she having married Robert after he had been compelled to divorce his first wife, Bertha. The heresy, by whatever name it reached or left Orleans, probably affected Southern France, for it is stated that the heresy was brought into Gaul by an Italian woman "by whom many in many parts were corrupted." The "depravity" of the heretics was spread secretly, and was only disclosed to the King by a nobleman of Normandy, named Arefast, who became acquainted with the existence of the heresy through a young ecclesiastic, Heribert. At the Council (A.D. 1022) which the King summoned, and which consisted of many Bishops, Abbots and laymen,[27] the three ringleaders, Stephen, the Queen's Confessor, Heribert, who had filled the post of ambassador {34} to the King of France, and Lisois, all famous for their learning, holiness and generosity, declared that everything in the Old and New Testaments about the Blessed Trinity, although authority supported it by signs and wonders and ancient witnesses, was nonsense; that heaven and earth never had an author, and are eternal; that Jesus Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary, did not suffer for men, was not placed in the sepulchre, and did not rise again from the dead; that there is no washing away of sins in Baptism; that there is no sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ at the consecration by a priest; intercessions of saints, martyrs and confessors are valueless. Arefast, the informer, said he asked wherein then he could rest his hope of salvation; he was invited to submit to their imposition of hands, then he would be pure from all sin, and be filled with the Holy Spirit Who would teach him the depths and true meaning (profunditatem et veram dignitatem) of all the Scriptures without any reserve. He would see visions of Angels who would always help him, and God his Friend (comes) would never let him want for anything.[28] They were like the Epicureans, and did not believe that flagitious pleasures would be punished, or that piety and righteousness—the wealth of Christians—would receive everlasting reward. Arefast also brings against them the odious charges of extinguished lights and promiscuous intercourse; the children thus begotten were solemnly burnt the day after their birth, their ashes preserved and given to the dying as a Viaticum. Threatened with death by fire, they boasted that they would escape from the flames. Sentenced to death, the King feared lest they should be killed in the Church and commanded Queen Constance to stand on guard at the door. But the Queen herself got out of hand, for as the condemned {35} heretics came forth she gouged out (eruit) with a staff the eye of Stephen, her late confessor. As soon as they felt the fire, they cried out that they had been deceived by the Devil, and that the God and Lord of the universe, Whom they had blasphemed, was punishing them with torture temporal and eternal. Some of the bystanders were deeply moved and endeavoured to rescue them, but in vain. The number who perished varies between fourteen and ten. "A like fate met others who held a like faith," says Glaber, "and thus the Catholic faith was vindicated and everywhere shone more brightly."
The Council's investigations also brought to light the fact that a Canon of Orleans, and Precentor, called Theodotus (Dieudonné), had three years before died in heresy, although he pretended to live and die in the communion of the Church. On this deception being discovered, his body was exhumed by order of Bishop Odalric and thrown away. It will be noted that the Council does not call them Manichees or any other name. In fact, with the exception of Ademar, no one for nearly a century identifies the heretics with Manicheism. They are not labelled at the Council of Charroux in A.D. 1028 (or 1031). At the Council of Rheims in A.D. 1049 they are vaguely spoken of as "new heretics who have arisen in France." The Council of Toulouse in A.D. 1056 condemned in its thirteenth Canon certain heretics, but does not specify their errors. In A.D. 1110 in the Diocese of Albi, Bishop Sicard and Godfrey of Muret, Abbot of Castres, attempted to seize some heretics already excommunicated, but were prevented by nobles and people; but they are only colourlessly described as:
Astricti Satanae qui sunt anathemate diro,
Noluntque absolvi restituique Deo.[29]
{36}
§ 4. COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE
Another Council held at Toulouse in A.D. 1119, presided over by the Pope, Callistus III, is more precise, but does not denominate them. By its third Canon it enacted: "Moreover, those who, pretending to a sort of religion, condemn the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the Baptism of children, the priesthood and other ecclesiastical orders and the compacts of lawful marriage, we expel from the Church of God as heretics and condemn them, and enjoin upon the secular powers (exteras potestates) to restrain them. In the bonds of this same sentence we include their defenders until they recant."
§ 5. PETER DE BRUIS
A new heresiarch now comes upon the scene in the person of Peter de Bruis, of whom nothing previous is known, except that according to Alfonso à Castro he was a Gaul of Narbonne. We first hear of him from Maurice de Montboissier, better known as Petrus Venerabilis, Abbot of Cluny, who addressed an open letter "to the lords, fathers and masters of the Church of God, the Archbishops of Arles and Embrun" and certain Bishops. As the Abbot died in A.D. 1126(7), and the heresiarch laboured for twenty years in promulgating his teaching, he was contemporary with the Council of Toulouse of A.D. 1119,[30] and its condemnation may have been directed in part against his followers, who were called Petrobrusians. The letter of the Abbot has a preface which is not his, but which was written after his death. This preface sums up the tenets of the Petrobrusians under five heads:
(1) They deny that little children under years of {37} discretion (intelligibilem aetatem) can be saved by the baptism of Christ, and another's faith cannot benefit those who cannot use their own ... for the Lord said, "Whosoever believed and was baptized was saved."
(2) Temples and Churches ought not to be built, and those already built ought to be pulled down, and sacred places for praying were not necessary to Christians, since equally in tavern or church, in market or temple, before altar or stall, God, when called upon, hears and hearkens to those who deserve.
(3) All holy crosses should be broken up and burnt, since that instrument by which Christ was so fearfully tortured and so cruelly put to death was not worthy of adoration, veneration or any other worship, but in revenge for His torments and death should be dishonoured with every kind of infamy, struck with swords and burnt.
(4) Not only do they deny the truth of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Sacrament daily and continually offered up in the Church, but declare that it is absolutely nothing and ought not to be offered to God.
(5) They deride sacrifices, prayers, alms and other good things done by the faithful living for the faithful departed, and affirm that these things cannot help any of the dead in the smallest degree.[31] Also "they say God is mocked by Church hymns, because He delights in pious desires, and cannot be summoned by loud voices or appeased by musical notes."[32]
In the letter itself Peter Venerabilis points out to the prelates that in their parts the people were re-baptized, churches profaned, altars thrown down, crosses burnt. Meat was publicly eaten on the very day of the Lord's Passion, priests were scourged, monks imprisoned and compelled by terrors and tortures to marry. "The {38} heads, indeed, of these pests by God's help as well as by the aid of Catholic princes you have driven out of your territories. But the slippery serpent, gliding out of your territories, or rather driven out by your prosecution, has betaken itself to the Province of Narbonne, and whereas with you it used to whisper in deserts and hamlets in fear, it now preaches boldly in great meetings and crowded cities. But let the most distant shores of the swift Rhone and the champaign adjacent to Toulouse, and the city itself, more populous than its neighbours, drive out this opinion; for the better informed the city is, the more cautious it ought to be against false dogma." Peter de Bruis was burnt by the faithful in revenge for the crosses which he had burnt.
§ 6. HENRY OF CLUNY
But "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church," whether that Church be true or false, and the mantle of Peter de Bruis fell strangely upon Henry, a fellow monk at Cluny of Peter Venerabilis. Henry, "haeres nequitiae ejus," with many others "doctrinam diabolicam non quidem emendavit sed immutavit," and wrote it down in a volume which Peter himself had seen, and that not under five heads, but several. "Haeres," however, must be loosely interpreted with regard to both time and teaching. For Henry had already been wonderfully successful as a revivalist elsewhere, and his teaching did not entirely coincide with that of Peter de Bruis. For instance, whereas the latter burnt the cross, Henry had one carried before him and his followers when he entered towns and villages, and made it the emblem and inspiration of a life of self-denial, to which his own monastic training would predispose him. So far from calling for the destruction of sacred buildings, he used them, when he obtained {39} permission—as he did from Bishop Hildebert—for his mission preaching. He insisted upon the celibacy of the clergy, but regulated in minute detail the marriage of the laity. In fact, it is not easy to see how his teaching could be called heretical, unless it were his opposition to saint-worship, and doubtless he would have been allowed to move about freely had he not denounced the luxurious lives of the clergy and exposed them to the contempt and insults of the people. Arrested in A.D. 1134 he was condemned for heresy at the Council of Pisa, and imprisoned there; but he was released and returned to France, where he laboured in and around Toulouse and Albi, and met with remarkable success, not only amongst the laity, but even amongst the clergy; so much so, indeed, that the Churches were emptied of both, in order that priest and people might join the sect, which, after its leader, was called Henricians. Not until A.D. 1148 was he finally suppressed. Brought before a Council at Rheims he was sentenced to imprisonment for life, a punishment which goes to shew that he was not regarded as a heretic, but as a firebrand whose inflammatory activity must, for the peace of the Church, be extinguished. Reform of life rather than reform of doctrine was the aim of Henry's mission.
§ 7. RALPH ARDENS
But although that mission was successful, it did not absorb all the anti-church movements. The Dualistic creed still obtained in many parts of Southern France, as Radulf Ardens[33] ("Sermons," p. 325) declared: "Such to-day, my brethren, are the Manichean heretics, for {40} they have defiled our fatherland of Agen. They falsely assert that they keep to the Apostolic life, saying that they do not lie or swear at all; on the pretence of abstinence and continence they condemn flesh-food and marriage. They say that it is as great a sin to approach a wife as it is a mother or daughter. They condemn the Old Testament, and receive only some parts of the New. But what is more serious is they preach that there are two authors of Nature (rerum), God the author of things invisible, and the Devil the author of things visible. Hence, they secretly worship the Devil, because they believe him to be the creator of their body. They say that the Sacrament of the Altar is plain (purum) bread. They deny Baptism. They preach that no one can be saved except by their hands. They deny also the resurrection of the body."
§ 8. BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX
Bernard of Clairvaux (b. A.D. 1091), however, refuses to connect the heretics with any human founder, Mani, Peter de Bruis, or Henry. "These" (heretics), he exclaims,[34] "are sheep in appearance (habitu), foxes in cunning, wolves in cruelty. They are rustics, ignorant and utterly despicable, but you must not deal with them carelessly.... They prohibit marriage, they abstain from food. The Manicheans had Mani for chief and instructor, the Arians Arius, etc. By what name or title do you think you can call these? By none, for their heresy is not of man, and they did not receive it through man. It is by the deceit of devils.... Still some differ from the rest, and profess that marriage should be contracted only between bachelors and virgins (inter solos virgines). They deny that the fire of purgatory remains after death."
{41}
§ 9. COUNCIL OF TOURS
But something more official, more imposing than separate and isolated denunciations and condemnations of individuals was demanded by reason of the rapid and extensive growth of these heresies. Accordingly a Council met at Tours in A.D. 1163, the title of the fourth Canon of which is: "That all should avoid the company (consortium) of the Albigensian heretics." Here, for the first time, I believe, we meet with the name Albigenses as a distinct religious sect. The heresy is, if the title is authentic, directly and officially connected with these people, although Toulouse, and not Albi, is specifically mentioned in the Canon itself. The fourth Canon says: "In the parts of Toulouse a damnable heresy has lately arisen, and like a canker is slowly diffusing itself into the neighbouring localities, and has already infected Gascony[35] and many other provinces. The Bishops and Priests of the Lord in those parts we enjoin to be on their guard and under threat of anathema forbid anyone {42} to receive any known to be followers of that heresy." They were to boycott them. Catholic princes were to arrest them and confiscate their goods. Their conventicles were to be carefully sought for, and, when discovered, forbidden. But it is remarkable that what this "damnable heresy" consisted of is not defined, and, however damnable, the penalties are comparatively mild—neither prison nor death.
§ 10. COUNCIL OF LOMBERS
Whether the Tolosan authorities resented being dictated to by a Council of Tours, or whether they connived at the heresy they were directed to suppress, we cannot say. But, at any rate, the Canon proved ineffective, and it was found necessary to call another Council, and that in the infected area itself. But it was deemed inadvisable to summon it to meet in any of the large towns, either, because in the quietness of a small town the business could be transacted with greater thoroughness (cf. Nicea in preference to Byzantium) or because the feeling against the Church in the large centres of population made it unsafe. Accordingly Lombers, a small town in the Diocese of Albi, was decided upon, and here the most important Council which had so far met, to deal with this "damnable heresy," assembled, either in A.D. 1165 or A.D. 1176,[36] but the earlier date is probably correct. Amongst those who were present were the Archbishop of Narbonne, the Bishops of Nimes, Agde, Toulouse and Lodève, eight Abbots, four of whom were of the Diocese of Albi, as well as Trenve?al, Viscount of Albi, Béziers and Carcassonne. Other princes were conspicuous by their absence. Binius honours it with the title of "the {43} Gallican Council against the Albigenses," as if all Southern France were represented; while the official account says that its sentence was directed against those who called themselves "Boni homines."[37] Now, for the first time apparently, an official inquiry was held. The matter was not left to hearsay, but the heretics were given an opportunity to speak for themselves. Certain of their leaders, of whom Olivier was the chief, were cited to appear before the Council, and the examination was conducted by Gaucelin, Bishop of Lodève, at the instance of Gerald, Bishop of Albi. (1) They answered that they rejected the whole of the Old Testament, but accepted "the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, the seven canonical (Catholic?) Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse." (2) They would say nothing about their Creed unless they were forced. (3) As for the Baptism of little children, and whether they were saved, they would say nothing, but would quote from the Gospels and Epistles. (4) Questioned on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord as to where it was consecrated, through whom they received it, and who received it, and whether the consecration was affected by the good or evil character of him who consecrated, they replied that those who received it worthily were saved, and those who received it unworthily acquired to themselves damnation, and added that it was consecrated by every good man, whether clerical or lay. Further than this they would not answer, maintaining that they ought not to be compelled to answer concerning their Creed. (5) About Matrimony they answered evasively, sheltering themselves behind a quotation from St. Paul's Epistle. (6) With regard to Penance, whether it is efficacious for salvation at the end of life, whether soldiers, mortally wounded, would be saved if they repented at the end, {44} whether each one ought to confess his sins to the priests and ministers of the Church, or to any layman whatever, or of whom St. James spake: "Confess ye your sins one to another," they said it sufficed for the weak to confess to whomsoever they would; and as for soldiers they would say nothing, because St. James says nothing, but only about the sick. Gaucelin inquired whether, in their opinion, contrition of heart and oral confession were alone sufficient, or whether it was necessary that reparation be made after penance by fasts, scourgings, alms and lamentation for their sins, if opportunity for such presented itself. Their reply was that James said only this—that they should confess and be saved, and they did not wish to be better than the Apostle. Many things they volunteered, as that we should swear not at all, as Jesus said in the Gospel and James in his Epistle; that Paul said in his Epistle what sort of men were to be ordained Bishops and Presbyters, and if men of other character were ordained, they were not Bishops and Presbyters, but ravening wolves and hypocrites and seducers ... wearing white robes and gemmed rings of gold; and therefore obedience should not be given them, since they were bad men, not good teachers, but mercenaries. The Council pronounced them guilty, and drew up a Refutation of their errors taken from the New Testament only. They retorted that the Bishop who pronounced the Sentence was himself a heretic, and turning to the people they said: "We believe"—and here they rehearsed the Articles of the Apostles' Creed, but omitting "the Holy Catholic Church." "We believe in confession of heart and mouth. We believe that he who does not eat the Body of Christ is not saved, and that it is not consecrated except in the Church, and by a priest, good or evil, and that it is not better done by a good priest than by an evil. We believe that {45} no one is saved except by baptism, and that little children are saved by baptism. We believe that married people are saved." They further declared that they would believe anything that could be proved from the Gospels and Epistles, but that they would swear to nothing.
The result, or rather lack of results, of this Council is perplexing. Either Gaucelin was a poor examiner, or was afraid to press his examination too far. Had he been a better or a bolder examiner, he must have quickly discovered that the differentiation between the Old and the New Testaments was due to strong Dualistic tendencies. Also, this Council was the most formidable array of the powers that be which the heretics had had to face. Yet no penalties are imposed, much less inflicted upon the guilty. The Council contents itself with a mere Refutation. The most probable explanation is that the people were not overawed by the move of the Church authorities from Tours to Lombers, and the latter were not ready for an explosion. The heretics candidly avowed that their answers were ad captandum vulgus, "propter dilectionem et gratiam vestri," and the Council did not venture further than the mild objection: "Vos non dicitis, quod propter gratiam Domini dicatis."
§ 11. A PREACHING EXPERIMENT
No help was to be expected at this time from the Pope in the suppression of heresy either in the South of France or the North of Italy, for he had more than he could manage in his struggle with Barbarossa and his Anti-pope. The Council had done little more than advertise its own weakness and the strength of the heretics. The Church therefore determined upon new methods, meeting preaching by preaching. Persuasion is better than force, but persuasion is more effective when coupled with force—or {46} hints of severe penalties for contumacy. The Kings of France and England sent out the Cistercian monk, Peter Chrysogonus, Cardinal and Legate, with certain Archbishops and Bishops "ut praedicatione sua haereticos illos ad fidem Christianam converterent," Raymond, Count of Toulouse and Raymond, Count of Castranuovo, and others lending them secular support. This move proved more successful than the Council, and many yielded. Sometimes the Commission would summon or invite the heretics to be more explicit as to their creed, granting them a safe conduct eundi et redeundi. Under these conditions two heresiarchs came forward, called Raymond and Bernard, and produced a certain paper in which they had drawn up the articles of their faith. But they could scarcely speak a word of Latin, and the Court "condescended" to hold the discussion in the vulgar tongue. They answered, "sane et circumspecte, ac si Christiani essent;" so much so indeed, that they were charged with deliberate lying, and accused of holding the usual erroneous opinions with which previous investigations have made us familiar. This they strenuously denied. They even asserted their belief that "panis et vinum in corpus et sanguinem Christi vere transubstantiabantur." But to this creed they would not swear, deeming oaths unlawful. The Court regarded this avowal as a mere cloke of duplicity and condemned and excommunicated them. This sentence Peter Chrysogonus justified in an open letter, and Henry of Clairvaux, who accompanied him, in a similar letter declared that if they had deferred their visit for three years scarcely anyone would have remained orthodox.
§ 12. THIRD LATERAN COUNCIL
Alexander III, having composed his differences with Frederick Barbarossa and the Anti-pope, summoned, {47} in A.D. 1179, the third Lateran Council. It was described as "A magnificent Diet of the Christian world." Over one thousand Bishops and Abbots (amongst them English[38], Irish[39] and Scotch), were present, besides many of the inferior clergy and representatives of Emperor and Kings. By its twenty-seventh Canon it condemned the heretics of Gascony, Albi and the parts about Toulouse, going under several names. If they died in sin no masses were to be said for their souls, nor were they to receive Christian burial.[40] One incident, however, at this Council, which received but scant notice at the time, has an important bearing upon our subject. This was a deputation of two Waldenses who begged official recognition of their movement from the Pope. We are concerned here only with their doctrines, which they professed to draw entirely from the Bible and the authoritative utterances of the Saints (auctoritates sanctorum). Had Alexander III been a Pope of statesmanlike prescience, the Preaching Orders which eventually saved the Church might have been anticipated by some thirty years. These Waldenses had no certain dwelling-place, travelled barefoot, wore woollen clothes only, had no private property, but "had all things in common," they followed naked the naked Christ. The Pope, to whom they gave a book containing the text of the Psalter with notes {48} and several other books of "either Law," approved of their vow of voluntary poverty, but refused them permission to preach, unless the clergy (sacerdotes) asked them. Walter Mapes, an Englishman, afterwards a Franciscan, tells us ("De Nugis" i. 31) that he met the Waldenses in Rome. He calls them ignorant and unlearned, and by command of the Pope entered into conversation with them, asking them at first the easiest questions, e.g. "Did they believe in God the Father? and in the Son? and in the Holy Ghost?" To each they answered, "We believe." "And in the Mother of Christ?" But when they answered again, "We believe," they were greeted with a general shout of laughter, and retired in confusion, "et merito, quia a nullo regebantur et rectores appetebant fieri, Phaetonis instar, qui nec nomina novit equorum." The Abbot of Urspegensis, in his Chronicle (A.D. 1212), also mentions this petition of the Waldenses for Papal recognition, adding that they wore capes, like the "religious," and had long hair, unless they were "laymen." Men and women travelled together, which caused considerable scandal. Yet they asserted all these things came down from the Apostles.
§ 13. A PAPAL DECREE
Two years later Lucius III, on becoming Pope, issued a decree against the heretics under various names, including "Cathari, Patarini et ii qui se Humiliati vel Pauperes de Lugduno falso nomine mentiuntur." They were banned with a perpetual anathema, and were to be destroyed by the secular arm; but no errors are specified.
§ 14. ALAN DE INSULIS
At the third Lateran Council was present Alan, Bishop of Antissiodorensis, otherwise known as Alan de Insulis, {49} Alan the Great, Alan the Universal Doctor. He was born A.D. 1114 at Lille in Flanders, although others, e.g. Demster, identify De Insulis with Mona (Man or Anglesea). As a boy he entered Clairvaux under Bernard, and in A.D. 1151 was made a Bishop. In A.D. 1183, by command, he wrote a work in four books, dedicated to "his most beloved lord, William, by the grace of God Count of Montpelier." The title of the work is, "De Fide Catholica contra haereticos sui temporis praesertim Albigenses." The Albigenses, however, are not mentioned by name throughout the work. The second book is entitled, "Contra Waldenses," in which he says: "The Waldenses are so called from their heresiarch, Waldus, who, of his own will (suo spiritu ductus), not sent by God, started a new sect, presuming forsooth t............