led the Crusade ?
Coats of Arms
Coats of arms
Them All ... "
Cathars still exist ?
Cross of Toulouse
Source Documents: Interrogation of Baruch, once a Jew, then baptized
and now returned to Judaism
Baruch's story is an interesting one as it shows how a broad range
of Christians pressured Jews to convert - from the rampaging Christian
rabble ("shepherds") who will kill any Jew not prepared
to convert, to the bishop who follows legal forms - at least according
to the record. Nevertheless, it does not take great perception to
read between the lines and see that Baruch agreed to convert to
save his life, percieving what the bishop really meant.
The year of our Lord 1320, the 13th
day of the month of July. Since it has come to the attention
of the Reverend Father in Christ, Monsignor Jacques, Bishop of Pamiers by the Grace of God, that Baruch of Germany,
who was once a Jew, but abandoned the blindness and perfidy
of Judaism and was converted to the faith of Christ, (receiving
the sacrament of baptism in the city of Toulouse during the
persecution of the Shepherds) and that later "like a dog returning
to his vomit" (II Pet. 2,22) he took
the opportunity, while living with the Jews of the city of
Pamiers in the Jewish manner, to return to the sect and rite
of the Jews; the aforesaid Lord Bishop had him arrested and
detained in his prisons.
He caused him to appear in his presence
in the Episcopal Chamber in the Bishop's Palace at Pamiers, with the assistance of
Brother Gaillard de Pomiès, substitute for Monsignor the Inquisitor
of Carcassonne, and in the presence of My Lord master Bernard
Faissier, magistrate's officer
of Pamiers, and of master David of Troyes, a Jew called to
translate Hebrew to Monsignor the bishop, if there were need.
He interrogated him then concerning what had gone before,
after having received from him the vow, taken physically on
the law of Moses, to tell the truth as much concerning himself
as charged as concerning others as witnesses. This done, he
told and avowed the following:
This year, one month ago last Thursday
(the 10th of June), the "Shepherds" arrived, with banners
flying, coming from Bergerac to Grenada, all the while threatening
to exterminate the Jews. Solomon of Ondes, a Jew, came at
that time to find the bailiff
of Grenada, in the company of the Jew Eliazer, his scribe
and asked him, as he recounted it to me later, if he would
protect him from the "Shepherds". The bailiff agreed to do
But when there later arrived a whole
multitude, he said to Solomon that he could no longer protect
him, but that he should take a boat on the Garonne and go
to Verdun, where was located a much larger fortress of My Lord the king. Solomon then took a boat and prepared to travel
down the river to Verdun. Seeing this and learning of it,
the Shepherds arrived with a small boat and, taking him from
the river, they took him to Grenada and said that he had better
be baptized or they would kill him. The bailiff,
who was present, said that if they killed the aforementioned
Solomon, they would have to kill him also. Hearing this, the
Jew said that he did not wish that the bailiff should suffer
this for his sake and asked of the Shepherds what they wished
of him. They said to him that it was necessary to be baptized
or to be killed. The said Jew then said that he preferred
to be baptized than to be killed and they baptized him there
along with his scribe Eliazer.
The next day the aforesaid Solomon
and Eliazer came and found me in Toulouse, and recounted to
me what had happened to them, saying that they had been baptized,
but nevertheless not sincerely, and that, if they could do
it, they would return willingly to Judaism. I told them that
I knew Jewish law very well, but not Christian,
and I knew not how best to counsel them, unsure if they could
return to Judaism with impunity, but that I would ask Brother
Raimond of Jumac, assistant to Monsignor the Inquisitor of
Toulouse, in order to know if this could be done.
I met then with Bonnet, a Jew from
Agen, and Brother Raimond and master Jacques, notary of My Lord the Inquisitor of Toulouse, and told them the story of
Solomon, asking them if a baptism received, not with desire
and the will to receive it, but only with terror, was valid.
Brother Raimond replied that such a baptism was not valid,
and I understood his reply in
this sense. I returned at once to Solomon and Eliazer and
told them that the said Brother Raimond and master Jacques
had told me that such a baptism was not a baptism and that
they could confidently return to Judaism.
Later, I heard that Solomon had relinquished
his person to the hand of My Lord the Senechal of Toulouse,
until he could determine from the Roman
Curia if such a baptism was a baptism.
The baptized Jews who returned to Judaism
did so in the following manner, according to the teaching
of the Talmud. They cut the nails of their hands and feet,
shave their hair and wash their
entire body in running water, just as, according to the Law,
one purifies a foreign woman when she is to be married to
a Jew. We believe that baptism renders impure those who receive
Ironically, this Jewish practice is the
origin of Christian baptism.
The following Sunday, the sub-deputy
(subvicarius) of Toulouse, Alodet, brought to Toulouse 24
wagons full of Shepherds, whom he had arrested for the massacre
of 152 Jews, commited at Castelsarrasin and vicinity. And
when the Shepherds arrived at Chateau-Narbonnais, and 20 wagons
had already been brought into the chateau, the people of Toulouse
gathered in a great crowd nearby. The Shepherds who were in
the last wagons gazed at this crowd and began to call for
help against those who were taking them prisoner, saying they
wished to avenge the death of Christ, but instead they were
going to prison. Certain members of the Toulousian mob then
broke the ropes which tied them in the wagons. Thus freed,
they jumped from their wagons and began to cry with the crowd.
"To death, to death, let us kill all the Jews!" I heard this
recounted throughout Toulouse, but I was not witness to it
The Shepherds and the crowd then swept
through the quarter of the Jews.
I was in my study, when a large number of these people arrived
at my house, shouting "To death, to death, be baptized or
we will kill you immediately!"
Seeing the furor of these people, and
that they were killing before my eyes other Jews who refused
to be baptized, I replied that I would prefer to be baptized
than to be killed. They grabbed hold of me and brought me
immediately out of the house, without letting me take other
clothes or anything that was there and took
me just as I was to the church of St. Stephen. When I arrived
two clerics showed me several corpses of Jews before the church,
saying to me, "If you will not be baptized, you must die,
as those whom you see." I was then struck lightly by several
of those helping and I replied that I would gladly be baptized
but that I had a friend, a Preaching friar, named Brother
John of Germany and that I wished him to be my godfather.
I said this, hoping to myself that if I could be turned over
to this Friar, who was a good friend, that I could avoid death
without being baptized.
Then the two clerics brought me out
of the church and tried to take me to the house of the Friars.
But when we came out of the church, the mob killed before
my eyes the Jew Asser, from Tarascon in Provence as well as
one other and the people of the crowd of Toulouse asked these
clerics if I was baptized; they said no. I had asked them
to say that I was, but they refused. I was again struck on
the head, not to the point of bleeding, but there was a lump,
which healed by itself, without recourse to a doctor, bandage
or remedy. I thought that this blow would knock the eyes out
of my head. And seeing that they were killing the other Jews
who did not wish to be baptized, and since the two clerics
said that they could no longer defend me, nor take me to the
house of the Friars, because I would be killed before reaching
the middle of the road, I asked them what I should do in order
not to be killed. They said to me "You can see well enough
what is required, either be baptized or die!" I replied, "Let
us go back to the church. I would rather be baptized than
let myself be killed."
We returned at once to the church and
when we were there I said to the clerics to wait a little
while to see if my sons would arrive. They waited a little
while and since my sons did not
come, they said to me that they could wait no longer, but
that I must be baptized at once or depart from the church
to where they were killing the others.
I said then that I wished to have as
godparent the sub-deputy of Toulouse, because, since he had
in his retinue a sergeant by the name of Pierre of Saverdun,
a friend of mine, and I hoped that this Pierre could save
me from death, if he came with the deputy, and prevent my
being baptized. But they said that the deputy could not come,
because that day he had brought the Shepherds from Castelsarrasin
and was resting from weariness.
A moment later, the clerics told me
once again to come to the stone where the baptismal fonts
were placed. I accepted and pronounced the word "sous-viguier",
meaning by that that the viguier would be my godparent, but
also (hoping?) that if, after the baptism, the viguier would
say that a baptism received under fear of death was not valid,
my baptism would not be valid. If, on the contrary, he said
that such a baptism was valid, mine would be.
I willingly approached the stone on
which others were baptized, I placed myself before the curé
and he did to me everything that is customarily done when
one is baptized, or so I believe. Nevertheless, before the
curé began to read and perform the baptism, the clerics told
me to say to the curé that it was in good faith that I came
to baptism and did what I did, because if I did not say this,
I would be killed. This then is what I did, although I thought
just the opposite.
I was placed in the font where there
was water and I was baptized and everything
was performed as is the custom in such cases. They gave me
the name of John.
This done, I asked those clerics to
accompany me home to see if anything remained of my belongings.
They told me that they would not go there because they were
tired and sweaty; instead, they took me home with them, and
I drank wine with them. Later they accompanied me home to
see if anything remained and we found all my books torn to
bits, my money stolen and only seven pieces of fabric, of
which some were pawned and the others mine, among which there
was a silk coverlet. The cleric who had become my godfather
and I put these articles in a sack and carried them away.
As we were just ready to leave we met someone from the Capitole
of Toulouse or his retinue whom my said godfather knew, and
who was armed for the protection of the Jews. My "godfather"
said to this capitoul or this man, "This one here is baptized
and a Good Christian." This man glanced at me; I came to him
and he said to me on the side "Do you wish to be a good Jew?"
I said yes. He then said to me "Do you haveany
money?" "No, but take this" I said and gave him the sack into
which we had put what I just mentioned. He took it away freely,
saying to me "Fear not, say that you are a Christian and comport
yourself like you are."
Capitole = municipal council
capitoul = member of the municipal
When we left the house, we met again,
my godfather and I, ten capitouls accompanied by many armed
sergeants. One of these capitouls called me to him and said
to me in a low voice, "Are you a Jew?" and I said yes, in
a low voice, so that the cleric could not hear me. The capitoul
told him to go and leave me there, and he returned me to the
sergeant, ordering him to guard
me with his life as he guarded his very self, and to do this
on part of the Capitole, the sub-deputy, and the senechal.
The sergeant took me by the hand. When we were close to the
municipal building (or Capitole) I said that I was a Jew,
but when we were in other streets and someone asked the sergeant
if I was a Jew, he replied that I was baptized and a Christian,
as I had asked him to do.
Jews had been accepted as a normal part
of society before the crusade. They were persecuted only after
the Catholic Church became powerful after the County of Toulouse
had been annexed to France - but the capitouls evidently retained
someting of the theit traditional tollerance
And the murder and pillage of the Jews
lasted until the evening of that night. In the evening, I
said to the sergeant to go to the sub-deputy of Toulouse,
in order to ask him if a baptism received under fear of death
was valid or not. When we arrived at his house, he was dining
and the sergeant said for me, "Here is a Jew who wishes to
be baptized by you, My Lord sub-deputy".
He replied "We are dining, come to the table." Since I did
not wish to eat, I looked around me and I saw Pierre of Saverdun.
I took him aside and told him that I did not wish to be baptized,
and to tell the sub-deputy not to force me to receive baptism,
because, as I said to him, such a baptism was not valid.
Pierre then told the sergeant to leave
and said he would guard me and he gave me another sergeant
with whom I went to walk in the Chateau Narbonnais. When the
sub-deputy was finished dining, we returned to his house.
He said to me then "Do you wish to bebaptized
now, or wait until tomorrow?" But Pierre of Saverdun took
him aside and spoke to him. I do not know what he said, but
the sub-deputy said "Indeed, I will not baptize this Jew by
force, nor anyone else!" I deduced from this that the baptism
I had received was nonexistent, because when I was being baptized
I had thought to myself that if the sub-deputy thought this
was a valid baptism, I would believe myself baptized and if
not, then not.
This done, I took counsel with Pierre
of Saverdun to see if I should stay at Chateau Narbonnais
or to go elsewhere. Since the said Pierre told me that the
Jews who remained in Chateau Nabonnais were either baptized
or killed we decided that I would leave Toulouse. The foresaid
Pierre gave me three esterlins and came with me to the juncture
of the road that goes right to Montgiscard, telling me to
go quickly and to speak German while en route.
I hastened to Montgiscard. When I arrived
there, as I passed by the square, an armed crowd fell on me
demanding to know if I were Jew or Christian. I demanded of
them who they were. They replied "Shepherds! If you are a
Jew we will kill you, if you will not be baptized.!" I replied
that I was not a Jew and they told me then that they were
going to put me in prison. I said "Do you have the power to
throw people into prison?" They
said yes, because they had there the bailiff of the region
and his men. Thinking then that I would suffer no ill-consequences,
I told them that I was a Jew and they took me to a house where
there were master Bendit Loup and Bonne, his daughter and
many other Jews with whom I passed that night and the following
day. The following night, we went with the men of the bailiff
to Mazères and from Mazères to Pamiers.
|Were you made a Jew again,
in Pamiers or elsewhere according to the aforementioned mode
No. When someone is perfectly and voluntarily
baptized and wishes to return to Judaism, one performs the
above-mentioned rite of purification, according to the teaching
of the Talmud, because he is considered to be soiled. But
when he was not perfectly baptized or he was forced to receive
baptism, he is not made a Jew again in the aforementioned
manner, because we think that such a baptism is nonexistent.
|Have you said to other persons
baptized by the fear of death that they were not baptized and
they they could return to Judaism with impunity and without
|No, except for that which
I have already mentioned concerning Solomon and Eliazer.
Have you told one or any Jews to receive
baptism solely to escape death and return to Judaism?
Have you ever assisted at the rejudaising
of a baptized Jew?
Do you know any baptized Jew who was
returned to Judaism?
This deposition was made the year and
day above, in the presence of the foresaid
and myself Guillaume Peyre-Barthe, notary of my said bishop,
who wrote and received this.
After this, in the same year as above
the 14th of the same moth (July 14, 1320), the said Baruch
appeared for questioning in the episcopal Chamber before my
said Lord Bishop and the deposition which he had made the
preceding day was read to him in the vulgar tongue. He was
asked by My Lord the Bishop if he wished to persist and if
he wished to add, correct or change anything. He replied that
he persisted in it and wished to persist in it, except he
added that when Solomon and Eliazer, the baptized Jews, came
from Grenada to Toulouse to see him, as he has said in his
deposition, they found along with
him Salvat, a Jew from Tarascon in Provence. He added also
that when he said to Solomon and Eliazer that the baptism
received by them was not a baptism, and that they could return
to Judaism, he also said the following to them - since such
a baptism was not a baptism, they could return to Judaism.
He added that the massacre of Jews
which took place that day in Toulouse, as he had testified,
was of about 115 persons.
When you put yourself before this cure
and he proceeded with the ceremony of baptism, or when you
were placed in the baptismal fonts, and during the act itself
of baptism, did you protest in word or in deed or show a contrary
will to being baptized, by resisting in any way?
No. I feared that I would be assasinated
if I did or said anything, and my godfathers told me to say
before the curé that it was in good faith that I came to baptism,
and that in not doing so, I would be killed. I believe that
the curé understood this, andconcerning
this I rely on his testimony and ask you to interrogate him,
if he believes that I would have been assassinated if I had
protested or resisted, in word or in deed.
According to your Law, or the Talmud,
or according to your own opinion, do you think that a Jew,
who believes that one can only be saved in observing the Jewish
Law, and not the sect of the
Christians or pagans, should let himself be killed rather
than convert to these sects in which he believes it is not
possible to be saved'
If, without the command of a prince,
someone wished to kill me or another Jew unless we converted
to Christianity or paganism and we were persuaded that one
can only be saved in Judaism, it would be better to convert
to these than to let oneself be killed. In effect, this concerns
a fleeting and transitory situation and one can eventually
repent and return to Judaism. But if the situation comes by
the order of the prince, that the Jews must be killed or baptised
(or converted to paganism) then the Jew should rather let
himself be killed than convert to Christianity or paganism,
because the order of a prince lasts a long time.
Is it a greater sin for a Jew who believes
that he can only be saved in Judaism to let himself be baptized
in order not to be killed, than to let himself be killed to
It is a greater sin to let himself
be baptized, for such a Jew, than to let himself be killed.
Does a Jew, believing salvation is
only possible in Judaism, who lets himself be killed rather
than convert to paganism, sin in any manner?
No, on the contrary, he does well.
If you believe that a Jew who lets
himself be killed because he does not wish to convert to Christianity
or paganism does not sin, but on the contrary does well, why
did you prefer to be baptized than killed'
I do not believe that my baptism was
a perfect baptism, because it was unexpected and also because
in my heart I thought that if the sub-deputy of Toulouse ratified
it, it would be a baptism, if no, no. Also because I thought
that I could repent of having received it, and it was for
this that I preferred baptism to death.
Do you wish to live in the future as
a Jew or as a Christian?
I wish to live as a Jew and not as
a Christian, because it does not seem to me that I am a Christian.
When you were baptized, did you consider
this baptism valid, or did you wish that it were?
I never believed that it was valid;
I only received it in hopes that the time and day would soon
Witnesses My Lord Pierre du Verdier,
archdeacon of Majorca, master David, Jew, and myself Guillaume
Peyre-Barthe, aforementioned notary, who has received
and written that which precedes.
And thereafter the said Lord Bishop
exhorted the said master Baruch and asked him - granted that
the baptism, which, according to his account, was not received
by force nor under an absolute constraint, obliged him according
to law and reason to observe and believe the Christian faith,
and that the necessity which had pushed him towards
the faith had led him not toward the worse, but toward the
better, to believe and observe in the future the Christian
faith, -- granting this, he can rest assured that if he obstinately
persists in his Judaism, he will be tried according to the
law as if he were an impenitent heretic.
|Then the said master Baruch
Since I am ignorant of what the Christians
believe and why they believe it, and since on the contrary
I know my Law, and why the Jews believe what they believe,
and since our faith is established by the Law and the Prophets,
which I have studied as a doctor for 25 years, if no one can
demonstrate to me by my Law and the Prophets that the faith
of the Christians is in agreement with them, then I do not
wish to believe or observe Christianity, and I prefer to die
than to leave Judaism, the more so since I am no small authority
for the Jews of these regions. But if My Lord the Bishop or
some else proves to me and shows according to the Law and
the Prophets that that which the Christian believe and observe
is in concord with the Law and the Prophets, and that the
sect and the rite of the Jews, in our epoch, are no longer
salutary I am ready to leave the sect and the rite of the
Jews and to pass to the faith and belief of the Christians.
The Lord Bishop promised to do this,
he said, with the help of God. Then, in the presence of the
aforesaid master David the Jew, and several Jews newly baptized,
in this case attempting to translate to My Lord the Bishop
the word of Baruch and of the Law and also what My Lord said
to master Baruch, who did not understand fully the vulgar
tongue of this country, began the discussion of the articles
of the Christian faith against the Jew Baruch, who resisted
all that My Lord Bishop said to him in favor of Christianity
with all his might, citing the Old Testament.
And in the first case the dispute concerned
the trinity of persons, the unity of the divine essence, and
the proper names of the persons and their procession; this
dispute lasted nearly two weeks and in this dispute Baruch
was entirely defeated. Having nothing more to say, he confessed
that there is a trinity in the divine persons and a unity
in the essence or nature divine.
And, he said, he believed it because he was vanquished by
the authority of the holy Scripture of the Law and the Prophets.
He confessed also that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the
proper names of the divine persons according to the Scriptures
and he confessed the processions of persons.
It seems very unlikely that Baruch could
have been defeated by genuine argument - since the doctrine
of the Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament
Then the dispute passed to the demonstration
of the fact that the messiah or Christ promised in the Law
and the Prophets should be God and man, seeing that one
unique person should be composed of divinity and of true humanity
and should be truly God and man. This dispute last close to
8 days. Having nothing further to say against this according
to the Scriptures, this Jew, astonished never to have found
this before in the Scriptures (because they say that their
Messiah must come as a man pure and simple, like other men),
confessed to believe this article according to the divine
Again, Baruch's conversion must have been
attributable to fear of what would happen if he did not accept
the bishop's views. The docrines of the Trinity and Incarnation
are not stated even in the New Testament, let alone the Old.
Then the dispute passed to the demonstration
of the fact that the Messiah promised in the Law had already
come, which was the most difficult, and this dispute lasted
three weeks and more, but the Jew, beaten, finished by consenting
to this. After this it was very easy to show him by the Law
and the Prophets that Christ was conceived and born of the
Virgin, that he had suffered death for us and our salvation,
that he descended to hell and awoke the third day, was ascended
to heaven and will come again to judge the living and the
dead and to reveal to him the sacraments of the Church and
their power to remit sins and confer grace, and although he
resisted a bit on the sacrament of
the Mass, he ended by consenting to it. But it was difficult
to demonstrate to him the immortality of the human body after
the Resurrection and the fact that these bodies will have
no further need of nourishment or other necessities of this
life, in which generation and corruption will cease, and that
the bodies of the damned can remain in the eternal fire and
not be consumed, although they can endure an intolerable suffering.
To all this he finished by consenting.
He demanded lastly why the legal obligations
of the Old Testament were not observed by Christians, since
they hold to all the rest of the faith and belief of the Prophets
and it was shown to him by the
Law and the Prophets that at the coming of Christ they were
obliged to cease.
He remained in this belief for about
15 days, saying that in the future he would no longer be called
Baruch, but John, not a Jew, but a Christian, but that he
wished to instruct himself more by reading alone the books
of the Law and the Prophets. Then it came to the attention
of my said Lord Bishop that he had begun to falter in the
Christian faith and that he said to certain persons that he
did not believe what the Christianfaith
said, for which reason he was interrogated again by the bishop.
After this last interrogation, my said Lord Bishop gave him
again further lessons, giving him the solution to those points
that gave him doubt, which he said he found in reading by
himself in the books of the Law and the Prophets. And he said
that he wished absolutely to be Christian and to abjure Judaism.
After this, the same year, the 16th
of August, the said Baruch was brought into the presence
of My Lord Bishop in the episcopal Chamber of Pamiers and
appeared for questioning, with Brother Gaillard assisting
My Lord the Bishop.
According to your deposition, have
I instructed you and have I proven to you by the Old Testament
that contained within the divine being there is a Trinity
of persons, towit the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,
and a unity of divinity and that these qualities are compatible?
Yes, but I seem to have found some
contrary arguments in the Old Testament.
Since I instructed you and demonstrated
to you the Trinity of divine persons and the unity of their
essence, have you said to one or any persons that it seems
to you true, according to the scriptures of the Old Testament,
that there is a Trinity of persons and unity of essence, and
when you said this, did you believe it in your heart?
Yes, at that moment, but later I read
and studied in the Old Testament and I found several contradictions,
which now give me doubt.
How long have you remained in the belief
of the Trinity of persons and unity of the essence of the
For eight days, I have read and studied
the scriptures of the Old Testament, without finding the contrary.
This is why I believed it during that time, but later, I found
a contradiction in the scriptures and I doubted and I doubt
|What are the scriptures
of the Old Testament which caused you to doubt that there is
a Trinity in the divine persons?
I. The authority which is found in
the fifth book of the Law "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God
is one" (Deut. 6,4). "Audi Israel, dominus Deus tuus Deus
unus est." I deduced from this authority that it in fact denies
the Trinity of persons. By the fact that it says "the Lord
God", the unity of essence or nature is established, and by
the fact that it says "is one", is established the singularity
or unity of person.
II. And another passage of the same
book (Deut. 32,39), "Ru atha qui havi hahavi hu veu Helohim
ymmazi havi hamitz vehayie" a citation of which is translated
"Veiatz ara que yeu yeu so, e no y a Dieu ammy, i ye aucire
e ye vuire fare." "See now that I, even I am he and there
is no god beside me!" I deduce from this passage, where it
says"Ego, ego sum", that it excludes
the plurality of persons, by repeating two times the pronoun
Ego, which is made explicit furthermore in the following proposition,
"Non est Deus mecum." "There is no god beside Me."
III. The passage at the beginning of
the same Book (Deut. 4.35), "Atha horessa lazahat qui Adonay
hu Habeloim veu hotz milnedo", which I translate "Tu garda
per saber que Adonay es Habelhoum, mes plus ses lu ses lu."
"Ut scires quoniam Dominus ipse est Deus, et non est preter
Deum." Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that
the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him." I deduce
from this that since the Christians say that within the divine
being there is a Father and Son, two distinct persons, they
said that by the word Adonay one understands the Father, but
by the word Eloim one understands
the Son, and because in the divine scriptures one often meets
these two words separately and sometimes one next to the other,
that therefore they say that God the Father is distinct as
a person from the Son. But their opinion is disproved by this
text, since here is said "Adonay ehu Heloim" and that "hu"
means the same thing as "himself." Therefore the Father is
entirely the same thing as the Son, and I have thus concluded
that the Father is not distinct from the Son according to
|IV. -- There occurs often
in the books of Moses "Ego sum Adonay" when they talk of God
and not "Ego sum Adonay Heloim", that which would be the case
if the Father and the Son were one God, it seems.
V. -- Isaiah says (Is. 44,6) "Tho amar
Adonay mehelet vogoalo Adonay Sabaoth anu risson vahami Haharon
humibalazai heu Heloim" which translates "Hec dicit Dominus
Rex Israel et redemptor eiuis, Dominus ego primus et ego novissimus,
et absque me non est Deus." "Behold what the Lord King of
Israel, its redeemer, the Lord, says - I am the first and
I am the last, and beyond me there is no God." This caused
me to deny that the Son was distinct from the Father and to
think that he is the same person as the Father, because in
Hebrew there is in the first proposition "Adonay Sabaoth",
by which one understands the Father and then in the second
he says "I am the first and I am the last " and adds "beyond
me there is no God", as if he were saying that what one designated
by "Eloim" is none other than "Adonay Sabaoth", and that therefore
the Son is the same thing as the Father.
VI. -- In the third book of Kings (III
(I) Kings 18, 39) after the sacrifice of Elijah, the people
say "Adonay hu Ayheloim, Adonay hu Habeloim." "Dominus ipse
est Deus, dominus ipse est Deus." (The Lord is God, the Lord
is God". I deduce from this -- since
the people did not say "Adonay Heloim", but "Adonay hu Heloim",
they meant that there were not a Father and Son in the divine
being , or they would say "Adonay Heloim". By placing "hu"
between the two, he does not distinguish the persons of Adonay
and of Heloym, that is to say the Father and the Son. Therefore
there is one sole person of Father and Son.
For the moment, I do not recall the
other passages that made me doubt the unity or the plurality
of the persons of the Father and Son.
Have you cited these passages in the
discussion that you had previously with us?
Yes, for the most part, and My Lord the Bishop gave me the solution to them, but I do not recall
After this, the same year, the 25th
of September, the aforementioned John appeared for
questioning in the Chamber of the Bishop of Pamiers before
my said Lord Bishop assisted by Brother Gaillard de Pomiès,
in the presence of the venerable lords Pierre du Verdier,
archdeacon of Majorca and canon of Narbonne, Germain de Castelnau,
archdeacon of Pamiers, Jacques Albenon, monastic prior of
Pamiers, Hugues Artand, prior of Pradières, and many other
canons of the said church of Pamiers, as well as religious
persons -- the prior of Sainte-Marie de Carmel with three
of his companions, the prior of the Augustinians, the sub-prior
of the Preachers and four Minors,
the consuls of Pamiers and many other burgesses of the city,
namely Bernard Faissier, official of Pamiers, Hughes de Bilhères,
appellate judge of Pamiers, master Guillaume de Saint-Julien
of Pamiers and Jean Bausitz, judge of Pamiers, jurists and
also me, the notary signed below. All his preceding confession
was read to him and explained in the vulgar tongue, which
he acknowledged to be true and said that he wished to persist
John is Baruch's Christian name
He was also asked if he had been instructed
by My Lord the Bishop in the Christian faith, in all the articles
of faith and the sacraments of the Church separately and one
by one, and the same concerning the authorities of the Old
Testament, and he was asked if he believed in his heart the
truth of what the sacrosanct Roman Church teaches and preaches
concerning these articles of faith, the sacraments, and the
cessation of the legal obligations of the Old Testament, if
he believed that this doctrine of the Church was in accordance
with the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament. He replied
that he believed and confessed orally that the Catholic faith
was true, as well as all the articles of faith and all the
sacraments of the Church, and that that which the Church preaches
and teaches concerning these articles of faith, the sacramanets
and the cessation of the legal obligations is in accordance
with the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament. He said
that he believed this faith with his heart, promised to believe
and teach it in the future, and said that he believed that
it had been for the good of his soul that the persecution
that had caused him to be baptized had happened, that he had
not been brought to believe the Catholic faith by the fear
of death or of torture, by the violence of the dungeon, by
threats, terrors, flatteries or promises, but by the divine
Scriptures which were put forward to him by My Lord the Bishop.
Because of this he abjured willingly
the Jewish perfidy, its superstition and the ceremonies of
the Jewish Law and all other heresy. He swore
as well the following:
"I, Baruch, appearing for questioning
before you, Reverend father in Christ My Lord Jacques, by
the Grace of God Bishop of Pamiers, abjure entirely all heresy
against the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Roman Church, and all beliefs of heretics,
of whatever sect condemned by the Roman Church and especially
the sect to which I held, and all complicity, aid, defense
and company of heretics, under pain of what is rightfully
due in the case of a relapse into judicially abjured heresy;
Item, I swear and promise to pursue
according to my power the heretics of whatever sect condemned
by the Roman Church and especially the sect to which I held,
and the believers, deceivers, aiders and abetters of these
heretics, including those whom I know or believe to be in
flight by reason of heresy, and against any one of them, to
have them arrested and deported according to my power to my
said Lord Bishop or to the Inquisitors of the heretical deviation
at all time and in whatever places that I know the existence
of the above said or any one of them.
|Item, I swear and promise
to hold, preserve and defend the Catholic faith that the Holy
Roman Church preaches and observes.
Item, I swear and promise to obey and
to defer to the orders of the Church, of My Lord the Bishop
and the Inquisitors, and to appear on the day or days fixed
by them or their replacements, at all times and in whatever
place that I receive the order or request on their part, by
messenger or by letter or by other means, to never flee
nor to absent myself knowingly or in a spirit of contumaciousness
and to receive and accomplish according to my power the punishment
and the penance that they have judged fit to impose on me.
And to this end, I pledge my person and all my worldly goods.
After this, the 3rd of December in
the same year, the aforesaid master John appeared before my
said Lord Bishop and Brother Gaillard de Pomiès in the episcopal
chamber of Pamiers, renouncing and concluding in the present
affair, demanded mercy and non-judgment, praying and asking
the said lords to act with mercy. And
the said lords bishop and Brother Gaillard proceeded to pronounce
the sentence in the following terms "Let it be known to all,
etc." See the sentence in the Book of sentence on heretical
Written the year and date above, before
the witnesses listed below, and myself master Guillaume Peyre-Barthe,
notary of my said Lord Bishop, who have received and written
all of this.
|And I, Rainaud Jabbaud,
sworn to the business of the Inquisition, by the mandate of
the abovesaid Lord Bishop, have faithfully corrected the above
confession against the original.
Baruch's sentence does not survive.
Translation by Nancy Stork, San José State University -
to whom many thanks for permission to reproduce this text.