[66] MSS. Bib. Nat. Coll. Moreau, 1274, fol. 72.

[67] Bonacursi Vit. Hæreticorum (D’Achery I. 211, 212).—Lucii PP. III. Epist. 171.—Muratori Antiquitat. Dissert. lx.—Constit. General. Frid. II. ann. 1220, § 5.—Lucæ Tudens. de altera Vita Lib. III. cap. 3.—Anon. Passaviens. contra Waldens. cap. 6.—P. de Pilichdorf contra Waldens. cap. 12.—Hoffman, Geschichte der Inquisition, II. 371.—Schmidt, Hist. des Cathares, II. 284.

[68] Mosaic. et Roman. Legg. Collat. tit. XV. § 3 (Hugo, 1465).—Const. 11, 12, Cod. I. v.—P. Siculi Hist, de Manichæis.—Zonara Annal. tom. III. pp. 126, 241, 242 (Ed. 1557).—Findlay’s Hist. of Greece, 2d Ed. III. 65.

The Bogomili (Friends of God), another Manichæan sect, whose name betrays their Slav or Bulgarian origin, have been cited as a link connecting the Paulicians and the Cathari, but incorrectly, although they may have had some influence in producing the moderated Dualism of a portion of the latter. Their leader, Demetrius, was burned alive by Alexis Comnenus in 1118 after a series of investigations more creditable to the zeal of the emperor than to his good faith. They continued to enjoy a limited toleration until the thirteenth century, when they disappeared.—See Annæ Comnenæ Alexiados Lib. XV.—Georgii Cedreni Hist. Comp. sub ann. 20 Constant.—Zonaræ Annal. t. III. p. 238.—Balsamon. Schol. in Nomocanon tit. X. cap. 8.—Schmidt, Hist. des Cathares, I. 13-15; II. 265.

About the middle of the eleventh century Psellus describes another Manichæan sect named Euchitæ, who believed in a father ruling the supramundane regions and committing to the younger of his two sons the heavens and to the elder the earth. The latter was worshipped under the name of Satanaki—(Pselli de Operat. Dæmon. Dial.).

[69] P. Siculi op. cit.—Bleek’s Avesta, III. 4.—Haug’s Essays, 2d ed. pp. 244, 249, 286, 367.—Yajnavalkya, I. 37.

For the corresponding tenets of the Cathari, see Radulf. Ardent. T. I. p. ii. Hom. xix.—Ermengaudi contra Hæret. Opusc.—Epist. Leodiens. ad Lucium PP. III. (Martene. Ampl. Collect. I. 776-778).—Ecberti Schonaug. Serm. contra Catharos, Serm. I. viii. xi.—Gregor. Episc. Fanens. Disput. Catholici contra Hæret.—Monetæ adv. Catharos Lib. i. cap. 1.—Arch. de l’Inq. de Carcassonne (Coll. Doat, XXXII. f. 93).—Rainerii Saccon. Summa.—Cæsar. Heisterbac. Dial. Mirac. Dist. v. cap. 21.—Lib. Sentt. Inquis. Tolosan. pp. 92, 93, 249 (Limborch).—Lib. Confess. Inq. Albiens. (MSS. Bib. Nat. fonds latin 11847).—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1163.

In a MS. controversial tract against the Cathari, dating from the end of the thirteenth century, the writer, following Moneta, states that their objections to the Old Testament sprang from four roots: first, the contradiction which seemed to exist between the Old and New Testaments; second, the changefulness of God himself, manifest in Scripture; third, the cruel attributes of God in Scripture; fourth, the falsehood ascribed to God. A single example will suffice of the arguments which the heretics advanced in support of their position. “They quote Genesis iii. ‘Behold, Adam has become as one of us.’ Now God says this of Adam after he had sinned, and he must have spoken truth or falsehood. If truth, then Adam had become like him who spoke and those to whom he spoke; but Adam after the fall had become a sinner, and therefore evil. If falsehood, then he is a liar; he sinned in so saying and thus was evil.” To this logic the orthodox polemic contents himself with the answer that God spoke ironically. Throughout the tract the reasoning ascribed to the Cathari shows them to possess a thorough acquaintance with Scripture, and the use which they made of it explains the prohibition of the Bible to the laity by the Church.—Archives de l’Inq. de Carcassonne, Coll. Doat, XXXVI. 91. (See Appendix.)

Yet the Catharan ritual published by Cunitz quotes Isaiah and Solomon. (Beiträge zu den theolog. Wissenschaften, B. IV. 1852, pp. 16, 26.)

[70] Tract. de Modo Procedendi contra Hæreticos (MSS. Bib. Nat. Coll. Doat, XXX. fol. 185 sqq.).—Rainerii Saccon. Summa.—E. Cunitz in Beiträge zu den theol. Wissenschaften, 1852, B. IV. pp. 30, 36, 85.

[71] Rainerii Saccon. Summa.—Lib. Confess. Inquis. Albiens. (MSS. Bib. Nat. fonds latin, 11847).—Coll. Doat, XXII. 208, 209; XXIV. 174; XXVI. 197, 259, 272.—Lib. Sentt. Inquis. Tolosan. pp. 10, 33, 37, 70, 71, 76, 84, 94, 125, 126, 137-139, 143, 160, 173, 179, 199.—Bern. Guidon. Practica P. IV. V. (MSS. Bib. Nat. Collect. Doat. T. XXX.).—Landulf. Senior Hist. Mediolan. ii. 27.—Anon. Passaviens. contra Waldens. cap. 7.—Processus contra Valdenses (Archivio Storico Italiano, 1865, No. 39, p. 57). The description in the text of the form of heretication, by Rainerio Saccone, is confirmed in its details by the depositions of witnesses before the Inquisition of Toulouse, showing that the form was essentially the same throughout the churches.—Doat, XXII. 224, 237 sqq.; XXIII. 272, 344; XXIV. 71. See also Vaissette III. Preuves, 386, and Cunitz, Beiträge zu den theolog. Wissenschaften, 1852, B. IV. pp. 12-14, 21-28, 33, 60.

The practice of the Endura among the Cathari of Languedoc has been investigated with his customary thoroughness by M. Charles Molinier (Annales de la Faculté des Lettres de Bordeaux, 1881, No. 3). It was not always limited to three days, and its rigor may be guessed by a single example. Blanche, the mother of Vital Gilbert, caused her infant grandchild to be “consoled” while sick, and then prevented the mother, Guillelma, from giving it milk till it died (Lib. Sententt. Inq. Tolos. p. 104). Molinier’s theory that the custom was of comparatively late introduction is confirmed by the absence of any allusion to it in the ritual published by Cunitz (loc. cit.), but that it was not confined to Languedoc is shown by the Anon. Passaviens. and the evidence in the Piedmontese trials of 1388 (Arch. Storico, ubi sup.).

A case in which the Consolamentum was administered to an insensible patient who subsequently recovered is recorded in the sentences of Pierre Cella (Doat, XXI. 295), and also several instances in which young girls were “perfected” at a very early age, and wore the vestments for limited periods of two or three years (ibid. 241. 244).

[72] S. Bernardi Serm. lxvi. in Cantica, cap. 3-7.—Ecberti Schonaug. Serm. i. v. vi. contra Catharos.—Bonacursi Vit. Hæreticor.—Gregor. Fanens. Disput. Cathol. contra Hæreticos cap. 1, 2, 11, 14.—Monetæ adv. Catharos Lib. I. cap. 1.—Cunitz (Beiträge zu den theol. Wissenschaften, 1852, p. 14).—Radulf. Coggeshall. Chron. Anglic. (D. Bouquet, XVIII. 92, 93).—Evervini Steinfeldens. Epist. ad S. Bernard, cap. 3.—Concil. Lombariens. ann. 1165.—Radulf. Ardent. T. I. p. II. Hom. xix.—Ermengaudi contra Hæret. Opusc.—Bonacursus contra Catharos (Baluz. et Mansi, II. 581-586).—Alani de Insulis contra Hæret. Lib. I.—Monet adv. Catharos. Lib. IV. cap. vii. § 3.—Rainerii Saccon. Summa.—Lib. Sententt. Inq. Tolosan. pp. 111, 115.—Coll. Doat, T. XXX. fol. 185 sqq.; XXXII. fol. 93 sqq.—Stephan. de Borbone (D’Argentré, Coll. Judic. de novis Error. I. i. 91).—Archiv. Fiorent. Prov. S. Maria Novella, Giugno 26, 1229.

In the early days of the Inquisition a certain Jean Teisseire, summoned before the tribunal of Toulouse, defended himself by exclaiming, “I am not a heretic, for I have a wife and I lie with her, and have children, and I eat flesh, and lie, and swear, and am a faithful Christian.”—(Guillel. Pelisso Chron. Ed. Molinier, Anicii 1880, p. 17). See also the Sentences of Pierre Cella, Coll. Doat, XXI. 223.

[73] Rainerii Saccon. Summa.—Tocco, L’Eresia nel Medio Evo, p. 75.—Gregor. Fanens. Disput. cap. iv.—Monetæ adv. Catharos Lib. i. cap. 1, 2, 4, 6.—Alani de Insulis contra Hæret. Lib. i.—Ecberti Schonaug. Serm. i., xiii. contra Catharos.—Ermengaudi contra Hæret. Opusc. cap. 14.—Millot, Hist. Litt. des Troubadours, II. 64.—Lib. Sententt. Inq. Tolosan, p. 84.—Gest. Episcop. Leodiens. Lib. ii. cap. 60, 61.—Stephan, de Borbone (D’Argentré, Collect. Judic. de nov. Error. I. i. 90).—Muratori Antiq. Ital. Diss. lx.

Among the early Christians there was a strong tendency to adopt the theory of transmigration as an explanation of the apparent injustice of the judgments of God. See Hieron. Epist cxxx. ad Demetriadem, 16.

[74] Lucæ Tudens. de altera Vita Lib. iii. cap. ii.

Before ridiculing the Catharan theory of Dualism, we must bear in mind how strong is the tendency in this direction of sensitive and ardent souls, who keenly feel the imperfections of man’s nature and its contrast with the possibilities of an ideal. Thus Flacius Illyricus, the fervid reformer, about 1560, came perilously near to the Catharan myths, and gave rise to a warm controversy by maintaining that original sin was not an accident, but the substance in man; that the original image of God was, through the Fall, not replaced, but metamorphosed into an image of Satan, a transformation of absolute good into absolute evil; a theory which, as he was warned by his friends Musæus and Judex, must necessarily lead to Manichæism.—See Herzog, Abriss der gesammten Kirchengeschichte, III. 313.

Orthodox asceticism also trenches closely on Manichæism in its denunciation of the flesh, which it treats as the antagonist and enemy of the soul. Thus, St. Francis of Assisi says, “Many, when they sin or are injured, blame their enemy or neighbor. This should not be so, for every one has his enemy in his power, namely, the body through which he sins. Thus blessed is that servant who always holds captive and guards himself against that enemy delivered to him, for when he does thus no other visible enemy can hurt him” (S. Francisci Admonit. ad Fratres No. 9). And in another passage (Apoph. xxvii.) he describes his body as the most cruel enemy and worst adversary, whom he would willingly abandon to the demon.

According to the Dominican Tauler, the leader of the German mystics in the fourteenth century, man in himself is but a mass of impurity, a being sprung from evil and corrupt matter, only fit to inspire horror; and this opinion was fully shared by his followers even though they were overflowing with love and charity (Jundt, les Amis de Dieu, Paris, 1879, pp. 77, 229).

Jean-Jacques Olier, the founder of the great theological seminary of St. Sulpice, in his “Catechisme Chrétien pour la vie interieure,” which I believe is still in use there as a text-book, goes as far as Manes or Buddha in his detestation of the flesh as the cause of man’s sinful nature—“Je ne m’étonne plus si vous dites qu’il faut haïr sa chair, que l’on doit avoir horreur de soi même, et que l’homme, dans son état actuel, doit étre maudit ... En verité, il n’y a aucune sorte de maux et de malheurs qui ne doivent tomber sur lui à cause de sa chair.”—See Renan, Souvenirs de l’enfance et de jeunesse, p. 206.

With such views it is simply a question of words whether the creator of such an abomination as the crowning work of the terrestrial universe is to be called God or Satan; he certainly cannot be the Good Principle.

[75] Processus contra Valdenses (Archivio Storico Italiano, 1865, Nos. 38, 39).—S. Bernardi Serm. in Cantica lxv. cap. 5; lxvi. cap. 1.—Gregor. Fanens Disputat. cap. 17.—Anon. Passaviens. contra Waldens. cap. 7.—Radulf. Coggeshall. Chron. Anglic. (D. Bouquet, XVIII. 93).—Concil. Remens. ann. 1157, c. 1.—Ecberti Schonaug. contra Catharos Serm. i. cap. 1.—Cunitz, Beiträge zu den theol. Wissenschaften, 1852, B. IV. pp. 4, 12-14.—Lucæ Tudens. de altera Vita Lib. II. cap. 9; Lib. III. cap. 5.—Lami, Antichità Toscane, p. 550.

The Cathari probably had Romance versions of the New Testament as early as 1178, when we find the cardinal legate disputing at Toulouse with two Catharan bishops whose ignorance of Latin was a subject of ridicule, while they seem to have been ready enough with Scripture.—Roger. Hoveden. Annal. ann. 1178. See also Molinier, Annales de la Faculté des lettres de Bordeaux, 1883, No. 3.

Abbot Joachim bears testimony to the external virtues of the Cathari of Calabria, and the advantage which they derived from the vices of the clergy.—Tocco, L’Eresia nel Medio Evo, p. 403.

The story of the sacrament made from the bodies of children born of promiscuous intercourse was widely circulated and variously applied. It was related in the eleventh century of the Euchitæ by Psellus (De Operat. Dæmon.) and continued to be told of successive heretics—even of the Templars.

[76] Ecberti Schonaug. contra Catharos Serm. I. cap. 2.—Cæsar. Heisterbac. Dial. Mirac. Dist. v. cap. 18.—Lucæ Tudensis de altera Vita Lib. II. cap. 9; Lib. III. cap. 9, 18.

[77] Anon. Passaviens. c. 6.—Processus contra Valdenses (Arch. Storico Ital. 1865, No. 39, p. 57).

[78] Radulpli Glabri Lib. iii. c. 8.—Landulf. Senior. Mediolan. Hist. ii. 27.—Cæsar. Heisterbac. Dial. Mirac. Dist. v. c. 19.—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1163.—Guill. de Newburg. Hist. Anglic. Lib. ii. c. 13.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1210.—Chron. Turon. ann. 1210.—Radulf. Coggeshall Chron. Anglic. (D. Bouquet. XVIII. 93).—Bernard. Guidon. Practica P. iv. (Doat, XXX.).—S. Bernardi Serm. in Cantic. lxv. c. 13.—Lucæ Tudens. de altera Vita Lib. iii. c. 21.—Constitt. Sicular. Lib. i. tit. i.

The story of the young girl of Cologne assumes a somewhat mythical air when we find it repeated by Moneta as occurring in Lombardy (Cantù, Eretici d’Italia, I. 88); but this only enforces the universal tribute to the marvellous constancy of the heretics.

[79] Radulf. Coggeshall l.c.—Pauli Carnotens. Vet. Aganon. Lib. VI. c. iii.—Campana, Storia di San Piero Martire, Lib. II. c. 2, p. 57.—Fragment, adv. Hæret. (Mag. Bib. Pat. XIII. 341).—Cf. Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1315.

[80] Schmidt, Hist. des Cathares, I. 15-21.—Muratori Anecdota Ambrosiana, II. 112.—Guillel. Tyrii Lib. II. c. 13.—Innocent. PP. III. Regest. II. 176; III. 3; v. 103, 110; VI. 140, 141, 212.—See also the curious letter of a Patarin in Matt. Paris, Hist. Angl. ann. 1243 (Ed. 1644 p. 413).

[81] Gerberti Epist. 187.—Radulphi Glabri Lib. ii. c. 11, 12.—Epist. Leodiens. ad Lucium PP. II. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 776-8).

[82] Ademari S. Cibardi Hist. Lib. III. c. 49, 59.—Pauli Carnot. Vet. Aganon. Lib. VI. c. 3.—Frag. Hist. Aquitan. et Frag. Hist. Franc. (Pithœi Hist. Franc. Scriptt. xi. pp. 82, 84).—Radulf. Glabri Hist. III. 8, IV. 2.—Gesta Synod. Aurel. circa 1017 (D’Achery I. 604-6).—Chron. S. Petri Vivi.—Synod. Atrebat. ann. 1025 (Labbe et Coleti XI. 1177, 1178; Hartzheim. Concil. German. III. 68).—Landulf. Sen. Mediol. Hist. II. 27.—Gesta Episcop. Leodiens. cap. 60, 61.—Hermann. Contract. ann. 1052.—Lambert. Hersfeldens. Annal. ann. 1053.—Schmidt, Hist. des Cathares, I. 37.—Radulf. Ardent. T.I.P. ii. Hom. 19.

Bishop Wazo’s complaint that pallor was considered a positive proof of heresy was by no means a new one. In the fourth century it was regarded as sufficient to betray the Gnostic and Manichæan asceticism of the Priscillianists (Sulpic. Severi Dial. III. cap. xi.), and Jerome tells us that the orthodox who were pale with fasting and maceration were stigmatized as Manichæans (Hieron. Epist. ad Eustoch. c. 5). To the end of the twelfth century pallor continued to be regarded as a diagnostic symptom of Catharism (P. Cantor. Verb. abbrev. c. 78).

[83] Guibert. Noviogent. de Vita sua Lib. III. c. 17.—Schmidt, op. cit. I. 47.—Martene Thesaur. I. 336.

[84] Epist. Leodiens. ad Lucium PP. II. (Martene Ampl. Coll. I. 776-778).—Alex. PP. III. Epist. 2 (ibid. II. 628).—Concil. Remens. ann. 1157.—Hist. Monast. Vezeliacens. Lib. IV. ann. 1167.—Cæsar. Heisterbac. Dial. Mirac. Dist. v. c. 18.—Radulf. Coggeshall ubi sup.—Innocent. PP. III. Regest. IX. 208.

[85] Alex. PP. III. Epist. 118, 122.—Varior. ad Alex. PP. III. Epist. No. 16.—Annal. Aquiciuctens. Monast. ann. 1182, 1183.—Guillel. Nangiac. ann. 1183.

[86] Histor. Trevirens. (D’Achery II. 221, 222).—Alberic. Trium Font. Chron. ann. 1200.—Evervini Steinfeld. Epist. (S. Bernardi Epist. 472).—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1163.—Ecberti Schonaug. contra Catharos Serm. VIII.—Schmidt, I. 94-96.

[87] Guillel. de Newburg Hist. Anglic. Lib. II. c. 13.—Matt. Paris. Hist. Anglic. ann. 1166 (p. 74).—Radulf. de Diceto ann. 1166.—Radulf. Coggeshall (D. Bouquet, XVIII. 92).—Assize of Clarendon, Art. 21.—Petri Blesens. Epist. 113.—Schmidt, I. 99.