Confession of Baruch, once a Jew, then baptized and now returned to Judaism

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 Bishop's Chamber of 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 this.

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 it.
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 myself.

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 (municipal assembly) 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 (man from the municipal assembly or its militia) 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 have any 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."

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.

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 be baptized 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 of rejudaising?
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 fear?
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, and concerning 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 avoid baptism?
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 pass.

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 replied:

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.

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 Scriptures.
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 Christian faith 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 divine beings?
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 even now.

-----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 person.

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 it.

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 in.

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 deviaton.

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. The bishop acting with Gaillard de Pomiès, without the inquisitor, could have imposed a maximum sentence of the wearing of the yellow cross.

Return to Jacques Fournier Home Page