of ecclesiastical procedures, which is followed to this day. But as we cannot in this work pursue such a variety of matter into its detail, we shall select only those which were the most important in substance or in consequence.

If any doubt hitherto remained in the orthodox church respecting the manner in which the body and blood of Christ were Transubstantiation. present at the Eucharist, it was on this occasion removed by Innocent, who unequivocally established, or rather confirmed, that which is now, and which had then been for some time, the doctrine of Roman Catholics. Moreover, as he well knew the efficacy of a name to propagate and perpetuate a dogma, and also that he might have a fixed verbal test whereby to try the opinions and obviate the evasions of heretics, he invented and stamped upon that tenet the name of Transubstantiation.'

Another canon (the twenty-first) strictly enjoined to all the faithful of both sexes, to make, at least once in the year, a private confession of their sins, and that to their own priest or curate; and to fulfil the penance which he might impose on them. They were at the same time prohibited from confessing to any other priest, without the special permission of their ownt. They were also directed, under severe ecclesiasSacramental tical penalties in case of neglect, to receive the Eucharist confession. at Easter, unless a particular dispensation should be granted them, also by their own priest. By this regulation, the system of auricular confession was indeed carried to very refined perfection; and there is no reason to doubt that a canon, which imparted even to the lowest of the priesthood such close and searching influence over the conscience and conduct of a superstitious generation, was speedily brought into universal operation. That in some instances, that on very many particular occasions, the effect of this influence has been beneficial to society; that sinful dispositions have been frequently repressed and crimes prevented by the present and immediate control of a pious minister, is not merely probable, but indisputable. But as a system of morality, that could not possibly be creative of righteous principles which held out, through bodily penance, a periodical absolution from sin,-even if the hands which administered it were always pure. But when we consider the abuse to which such a power is necessarily liable, and how greatly, too, it would increase through the abuse, we cannot fail to perceive that it was a machine too powerful to be entrusted to the necessary infirmity, to the possible caprice or wickedness, of man.

By the proposed reformation in the faith of the Church, nothing was in fact meant, except the extirpation of heresy, and this Extinction of was the first object presented to the attention of the heresy. council. After a formal exposition of faith, upon those points especially on which the existing errors were sup

* Mosheim is probably wrong in supposing that full liberty had hitherto been left to pious persons to interpret the doctrine according to their own reason. The sense of the church was sufficiently expressed by the councils which were held against Berenger; or had it not been so, at least the Council of Piacenza confirmed the doctrine explicitly declared on former occasions. It only remained to Innocent to ascertain and consolidate the doctrine by the term.

+ The sacrament was taken immediately after confession. This is the first canon, as far as I know,' says Fleury, which imposes the general obligation of sacramental confession. There was then a particular reason for it, on account of the errors of the Vaudois and Albigeois touching the sacrament of penance.' At the Council of Toulouse, in 1228, the confession and sacrament were enjoined thrice in the year; but this again was n the very focus of heresy.

posed to have arisen, the Pope and the Prelates immediately proceeded (in the third canon) to anathematize every heresy. As soon as they are condemned (says the Council), they shall be abandoned to the secular power, to receive the suitable punishment. The goods of laymen shall be confiscated; those of clerks applied to the uses of their respective churches. Those who shall only be suspected of heresy, if they do not clear themselves by sufficient justification, shall be excommunicated. If they remain a year under the suspicion, they shall be treated as heretics. The secular powers shall be advised, and, if need be, constrained by censures, to make public oath that they will exile all heretics marked out by the Church. If the temporal lord, on admonition, shall neglect to free his territories from their pollution, he shall be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and the other Bishops of the province; and if he should not submit within a year, the Pope shall be informed; to the end that he may pronounce his vassals absolved from the oath of fidelity, and expose his domain to the conquest of the Catholics. These, after having expelled the heretics, shall peaceably possess and preserve it in doctrinal purity-saving the right of the liege lord, provided he offer no obstacle to the execution of this decree. It is remarkable that this decree, which placed secular authorities directly at the disposal of the spiritual, and on the penalty, not of spiritual censures only, but of subjugation and military possession, was enacted in the presence, and with the consent, of the ambassadors of several sovereigns. But this subject has already led us to the last division of the chapter, into which we shall properly enter with a general inquiry as to the forms which heresy assumed in that age, and the measures which Innocent actually adopted for its extinction.

IV. On the Extirpation of Heresy.-Since the termination of the controversy concerning images, nearly four hundred years had elapsed, during which the Church had been very rarely disturbed by doctrinal dissension; and amid the various vices which may have stained, in so long a space, her principles and her discipline, she was at least free from the blackest of all her crimes, since her hands were free from blood. The eucharistical opinion of Johannes Scotus, as it had been nourished by the partial brightness of the ninth century, and overshadowed, but not oppressed, by the stupid indifference of the tenth, so, when revived by Berenger, it disappeared in the superstition of the eleventh, without violence or outrage. Not, perhaps, because the ecclesiastics of that age were tolerant or temperate, but rather, because its advocates were not sufficiently numerous or formidable to make a general persecution necessary for its suppression. But in the dawning light of the twelfth age some new heresies were called into life, and others, which had previously lain hid, were discovered and exposed: so that the attention of men was more generally turned to the subject, and the rulers of the Church were roused from their long and harmless repose. Since it was even thus early that several of the Protestant opinions were publicly professed, and expiated by death; and since these may be traced, under a variety of forms and names, but with the same identifying character, from the beginning of the twelfth century to the Reformation; it is proper to notice the first obscure vestiges which they have left in history. In so doing, we shall first describe those sects which were founded (in the West at least) at that time; we shall then proceed to the mention of the Vaudois, to whom a still earlier existence is, with great probability, ascribed.

The Petrobrussians.

About the year 1110, a preacher, named Pierre de Bruys, began to declaim against the corruptions of the Church, and the vices of its ministers. The principal field of his exertions was the south of France, Provence and Languedoc, and he continued, for about twenty years, to disseminate his opinions with success, and, what may seem more strange, with impunity. Those opinions may probably have contained much that was erroneous; but they are known to us only through the representations of his adversaries. In a Letter or Treatise, composed against his followers (thence called Petrobrussians), by the Venerable Abbot of Cluni*, they are charged with a variety of offences, which the writer reduces under five heads (1.) The rejection of infant baptism. (2.) The contempt of churches and altars, as unnecessary for the service of a spiritual and omnipresent Being. (3.) The destruction of crucifixes, on the same principle, as instruments of superstition. (4.) The disparagement of the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, in asserting that the body and blood was not really consecrated by the priests. (5.) Disbelief in the efficacy of the oblations, prayers, and good works of the living for the salvation of the dead. These errors, howsoever various in magnitude, are controverted with equal warmth by Peter the Abbot; but that which appears to have been most dangerous to the heretic, was the third; at least we learn, that in the year 1130, the Catholic inhabitants of St. Giles's in Languedoc were roused by their priests to holy indignation against that sacrilege; and consigned the offender to those flames, which his own hand had so frequently fed with the images of Christ. He was burnt alive in a popular tumult; and this may possibly be the suffering to which St. Bernard, in a passage already cited, has made allusion. But the errors were not thus easily consumed; the list, on the contrary, was enlarged by many additional notions, proceeding, some from the piety, others from the ignorance, of his followers.

One of these †, named Henry, an Italian by birth, obtained a place in the contemporary records, and gave an appellation The Henricians. to a sect, from him called Henricians. This enthusiast traversed the south of France, from Lausanne to Bourdeaux, preceded by two disciples, who carried, like himself, long staffs, surmounted with crosses, and were habited as Penitents. His stature was lofty, his eyes rolling and restless; his powerful voice, his rapid and uneasy gait, his naked feet and neglected apparel, attracted an attention, which was fixed by the fame of his learning and his sanctity. These qualities gave additional force to his eloquence; and as it was not uncommonly directed against the unpopular vices of the clergy, he gained many proselytes, and excited some commotions. Eugenius III. sent forth, for the suppression of this evil, a legate named Alberic; but it appears that his mission would have been attended with but little success, had he not prevailed on St. Bernard to share with him the labour and the glory of the enterprise. Henry was then in the domain of Alfonso,

* Petri Venerabilis, Lib. contra Petrobrussianos, in Biblioth. Cluniensi.

Henry is generally described as a disciple and fellow-labourer of Pierre de Bruys. The objection to this opinion, urged by Mosheim, is, that Henry was preceded in his expeditions by the figure of the cross, whereas Pierre consigned all crucifixes to the flames. Without supposing that the objection of Pierre might be to the image of the Saviour, not to the form of the cross, the objection is far from conclusive. Some account of the heresies of the twelfth century is given by Dupin, Nouv. Biblioth. 12 Siecle, c. vi. ̧

Count of St. Giles and Toulouse; and St. Bernard wrote to prepare that prince for his arrival, and to signify his motives. The churches (he said) are without people; the people without priests; the priests without honour; and Christians without Christ. The churches are no longer conceived holy, nor the sacraments sacred, nor are the festivals any more celebrated. Men die in their sins-souls are hurried away to the terrible tribunal-without penitence or communion; baptism is refused to infants, who are thus precluded from salvation.' He added many reproaches against Henry, whom he accused of being an apostate monk, a mendicant, a hypocrite, and a debauchee. The biographers of that Saint relate, that he was received, even in the most contaminated provinces, like an angel from heaven; and at Albi, the place most fatally infected, an immense multitude assembled to hear his preaching. The day which he skilfully selected for their conversion, was that of St. Peter. He examined in succession the various peculiarities of their belief, and showed their deviation from the Catholic faith. He then required the people to tell him which of the two they would have. The people immediately declared their horror of heresy, and their joy at the prospect of returning to the bosom of the Church. Return, then, to the Church (replied St. Bernard); and that we may the better distinguish those who are sincere, let all true penitents lift up their hands.' They obeyed this injunction with one consent: and though St. Bernard, in the course of a leisurely journey from Clairvaux to Albi, had performed many extraordinary miracles, this (as the simple. Chronicler reports) was the mightiest of all.' Henry himself appears to have fled to Toulouse, whither the eager Abbot pursued him. Thence he once more escaped, and once more St. Bernard followed, purifying the places infected by that pestilence. At length the fugitive was seized and convicted at Rheims, before Eugenius in person, and consigned to prison (in 1148), where he presently afterwards died.

About the same time it would appear that certain other sects, differing in some less important points among themselves, but united in a sort of desultory opposition to the Roman Church, had gained footing, not in France only, but in Flanders, in Germany, and even in the north of Italy. Without any formal separation from the Church, or an entire disregard of its public offices, they had their own ministers, both Bishops and Priests †, to whom they paid a more observant deference, and whom they affirmed to be the only legitimate descendants from the apostles. The opposition of these heretics seems to have been more particularly directed against the wealth and temporal power of the Catholic clergy-but at the same time they rejected infant baptism, the intercession of saints, purgatory-and pro

Epistol. 240. (Lutet. Paris. 1640.) It begins, 'Quanta audivimus et cognovimus mala quæ in ecclesiis Dei fecit et facit quotidie Henricus hæreticus! Versatur in terra vestra sub vestimentis ovium lupus rapax,' &c.

+ Milner, Cent. xii. c. iii., cites the following passage from Evervinus's Letter to St. Bernard, preserved by Mabillon, and written about 1140:- There have been lately some heretics discovered among us, near Cologne, though several have with satisfaction returned again to the Church. One of their Bishops, and his companions, openly opposed us in the assembly of the clergy and laity, in the presence of the Archbishop, and many of the nobility, defending the heresies by the words of Christ and the apostles. Finding that they made no impression, they desired that a day might be appointed for them, on which they might bring their teachers to a conference, promising to return to the Church, provided they found their masters unable to answer the arguments of their opponents; but that, otherwise, they would rather die than depart from their judgment. Upon this declaration, having been admonished to repent for three days, they were seized by the people in the excess of zeal, and burnt to death. And what is amazing, they came to the stake, and bare the pain, not only with patience, but even with joy.'

fessed, in fact, to receive only those truths which were positively delivered by Christ or his apostles. They are described to have been extremely ignorant, and confined to the lowest classes. But it is at least certain, that in the principality of Toulouse, the nobility had engaged with some obstinacy in the heresy of the Paulicians-less through error than through design, and a malicious satisfaction in the humiliation of the clergy. But the same motives are not less likely to have operated, wheresoever the same or similar opinions were promulgated.

and Paulicians.

Another religious faction had at that time considerable prevalence, Heresy of the Cathari which, under the various names of Cathari (or Catharists-Puritans), Gazari, Paterini, Paulicians or Publicans, Bulgari or Bugari *, was more particularly charged with Manichæan opinions. The origin of these heretics has been the subject of much controversy; for while some suppose their errors to have been indigenous in Europe, there are others who derive them in a direct line from the heart of Asia. It is certain that a very powerful sect named Paulicians, and tainted, though they might affect to disclaim it, with the absurdities of Manes, spread very widely throughout the Greek provinces of Asia during the eighth century. It is equally true, that after a merciless persecution of about one hundred and fifty years, their remnant, still numerous, was permitted to settle in Bulgaria and Thrace. Thence, as is believed by Muratori, Mosheim, and Gibbon, they gradually migrated towards the West; at first, as occasions of war, or commerce, or mendicity (another name for pilgrimage) might be presented; and, latterly, in the returning ranks of the crusaders. It is asserted, that their first migration was into Italy; that so early as the middle of the eleventh century, many of their colonies were established in Sicily, in Lombardy, Insubria, and principally at Milan; that others led a wandering life in France, Germany, and other countries; and that they everywhere attracted, by their pious looks and austere demeanour, the admiration and respect of the multitude. It is moreover maintained, that these widely scattered congregations were organized in united obedience to a Primate, who resided on the confines of Bulgaria and Dalmatia. In confirmation of the authorities on which these opinions rest, it should be observed, that among the various forms of heresy which were detected by the keen eyes of the early Inquisitors, there was scarcely one which escaped the charge of Manichæism t.

Admitting, then, that this charge was very commonly invented for the purpose of making the others more detestable, we cannot question that it was sometimes founded in truth. And while, on the one hand, we are far removed from an opinion, that would refer the origin of all the earliest Western sects to the emigrants from the East-that would consider, not only the Cathari, but the Petrobrussians, Henricians, and even the Vaudois themselves, as descendants from the family of Manes-it is equally

* About the middle of the thirteenth century, the Emperor Frederic II. enumerated all the forms, or rather names, of heresy then most scandalous, in the opening of an edict published against them. It begins as follows:- Catharos, Patarenos, Speromistas, Leonistas, Arnaldistas, Circumcisos, Passaginos, Josephinos, Garatenses, Albanenses, Franciscos, Beghardos, Commissos, Valdenses, Romanolos, Communellos, Varinos, Ortulenos, cum illis de Aquâ Nigrâ, et omnes hæreticos. . . damnamus,' &c. See Limborch. Hist. Inquisit. lib. i. c. 12.

The first canon of Innocent's Lateran Council distinctly states the church doctrine respecting the Unity of the Deity, in opposition to that of the Two Principles-a sufficient declaration, that many Manichæans were believed to be found among the heretics.