The origin of the Albigensian heresies was not indigenous, but imported, although the raw imports were quickly combined with the home products. Their vigorous growth and wide popularity were due to the peculiarly favourable conditions of the country at the time of their introduction.

§ 1. NOT MANICHEAN

The Church commonly labelled the heresy "Manichean," but the label was a libel. The word suited well the purpose of the Church, because the name "Manichean" had had for centuries sinister associations, aroused the utter detestation of the orthodox and brought down upon those accused of it the severest penalties of Church and State. It recalled the conflicts of the early Church with Gnosticism. It exercised a subtle fascination over Augustine, and although he afterwards combated it, yet even as Bishop, according to Julian of Eclanum—no mean critic—"he was not entirely free from its infection." The aggressiveness of Manicheism, albeit characteristically insidious and secretive, had, at the appearance of Catharism, become a spent force. The contrary opinion is based on inference, not historical data. The Dualism of the Manichees was not the Dualism of the Catharists, and there were other differences even more separative. No Manichean writer or leader or emissary has left the slightest trace of his name or influence upon Catharist propaganda. The eagerness with which this weapon was forged by the Church and the success with which it was wielded make us suspicious of its justice. Even Bernard of Clairvaux denies that the Catharists originated from Mani.[3]

§ 2. NOT PRISCILLIAN

Much the same may be said of the view, less widely held, that Catharism was a resurgence of Priscillianism, of the survival of which we have evidence as late as the beginning of the seventh century. It passed the Pyrenees into France. There was undoubtedly a close connection between Aragon and Toulouse. In their Dualism and Asceticism, in their study and canon[4] of the Scriptures the two movements had points of resemblance, but this is the utmost that can be said in favour of the theory. The Catharists neither claimed to have had their origin in Spain nor attempted to find there a favourable soil for planting their tenets. The slight support that they received was given for political or family reasons only. They used its nearer valleys and mountains as places of refuge, not spheres of propaganda.

§ 3. NOT DONATIST

The resemblance between the Donatists and Albigenses, in their attitude on the unworthiness of ministers affecting the validity of sacraments and even of the Church itself, affords no historical ground for the theory that that Schism left any seeds in France to germinate only after several centuries. That Schism was confined to North Africa. Apart from the presence of five Gallic Bishops, or assessors with the Bishop of Rome in the trial, Caecilian v. Donatus, ordered by the Emperor in A.D. 313, and the Council held at Arles in the following year, France had no interest in the Donatist controversy. The opposite was the case, for the Gallic Bishops were directed to intervene, and the Council was held in Gaul, because Gaul was immune from it, and its doctrinal isolation presumed an impartial platform for the disputants. Another point of resemblance between Donatists and Albigenses was that both alike objected to the coercive interference of the State in Church affairs.[5] But this and the unworthiness of ministers are "marks" of a Church which have been discussed in all ages, and are no evidence of historical connection.

§ 4. PARTLY PAULICIAN

We reach firmer ground in seeking a connection between the Catharists and the Paulicians. We cannot go so far as to say with ReinÉri, himself once a Catharist, that the movement sprang from Bulgaria and Dalmatia, but there is evidence to show that the Catharists themselves did not dispute some affinity. Paulician (corrupted into poplican, publican, etc.)[6] was an early appellation of the Catharist; and a comparison of their tenets and organization proves that there was too much in common to be ascribed to mere accident. In the ninth century the Paulicians of Armenia saw that circumstances were favourable for the dissemination of their creed among the Slavonic people. For in the early part of that century the Greek monks, Methodius and Cyril, had converted Bulgaria to Christianity, and its King, Boris, who wished to be on friendly terms with both the Frankish Kingdom and the Byzantine Empire, was baptized, and took the name of Michael after his godfather Michael III, the Byzantine Emperor. A special feature to be remembered in this work of conversion is that these two monks translated the New Testament from the Greek into the Bulgar language, and drew up a liturgy. They relied not only upon the spoken word, but also upon the written word "in a tongue understanded of the people"—a method of evangelization common to the Paulicians, Albigenses and Waldenses. Not only so, but the version current amongst the Western heretics can be shewn to be based upon the Greek and not upon the Vulgate. The Doxology of the Lord's Prayer is found in the New Testament of the Slavs and of the Catharists, derived from the later Greek MSS., but does not occur in the earliest codices or in the Vulgate. In Prov. viii.22 the Catharists read ??t?se ("created") with the LXX, but the Vulgate (possedit) ??t?sat? ("possessed"). The Hebrew ????? may be rendered by either, but the former, frequently quoted by the Arians, to the alarm and perplexity of Hilary, against Athanasius, furnished the Church with grounds upon which to base a charge of Arianism against the Catharists. In the archives of the Inquisition of Carcassonne is a Latin version of the Apocryphal Narrative of the Questions of St. John and the Answers of Jesus Christ, at the end of which is a note: "This is a secret document of the heretics of Corcorezio, brought from Bulgaria by Nazarius their Bishop, full of errors."

The insistence upon the right of every nation to have the word of God in its own language was a principle common to Paulicians and Catharists, while the Papacy, holding that such a practice contributed to schism as well as heresy, endeavoured to thrust one version, the Latin, upon the whole Church, and refused permission to any but the clergy to read the Scriptures. The Oriental Church was scarcely more compliant. Sergius, of Tavia in Asia Minor, one of the ablest of the apostles of Paulicianism, was won over to the sect by a personal study of the Scriptures which, he had been taught, were to be read only by the clergy.[7] The story which comes from the Paulicians of Galatia of Asia Minor might be transferred almost word for word to describe similar conversions to Catharism in Gallia of France.

Reverting to Bulgaria, Boris had desired to give Christianity an authoritative and organized position in his dominions, and for this purpose applied to Constantinople for a Bishop. Being refused, he appealed to Rome. But from the Pope he received an even sterner rebuff. However, jealousy gave what justice denied; for the Patriarch of Constantinople, on hearing of Rome's refusal, altered his tone and gave the King more than he asked, viz. one Archbishop and ten Bishops. We may be certain that these Greek prelates would do nothing to mitigate the antipathy which the Slavo-Greeks would feel towards Rome, and this antipathy deepened into a settled hatred when Rome, later, denied them the right to have the Scriptures in any language but Latin. These troublous times the Paulicians of Armenia, ever zealous propagandists, seized upon for spreading their doctrines. Their asceticism appealed strongly to monks in Bulgaria, Thrace, etc., and in many a monastery Paulicians were welcomed. Persecution also drove them westward, and when in A.D. 969 the Emperor Tzimisces established them in Philippopolis, it was a comparatively easy matter for them to transmit their doctrines along the great trade routes through Bosnia and Dalmatia across and around the Adriatic to Lombardy and France.

At Philippopolis the Paulicians would find a sect called the Euchites already in possession, and, as the latter professed both an absolute and a mitigated Dualism, the two bodies would readily fraternize. The Euchites derived their name from e???, because they regarded prayer as superior to all other Christian duties. But their Slavonic name was Bogomile, which, according to Euthymius, means "God, have pity,"[8] owing to their frequent use of this phrase in worship. Now "Bogomile" was a name frequently applied to the Catharists, nor did the Catharists repudiate it. Moreover, as will be shewn later, there is a close correspondence between the doctrines and practices of the Paulicians and Bogomiles and those of the Albigenses. These prevailed everywhere throughout the Byzantine Empire, and Crusaders and pilgrims could not fail to come across them. What more probable, then, than that Crusaders straggling and struggling homeward from defeat and disaster in Palestine, to which they had gone at the summons and with the blessing of Holy Church, should lend a sympathetic ear to those whose doctrines were commended by personal asceticism and communal philanthropy? The blessing had turned to a curse. They returned with the loss not only of health and wealth, but of reverence for and faith in Rome. The Pagan had beaten the Christian. Is it surprising that Catholicity should succumb to suggestions for a new version of Christianity which gave them a plausible and picturesque solution of the conflict between good and evil? Is it surprising that the soldiers of the conquered Cross should be the channels by which this concept flowed over those very countries from which these disgruntled warriors had set forth? Nor must we overlook the pilgrims and the Western mercenaries in the employ of the Eastern Emperors bringing back with them at least information of these sects, even though they did not agree with them.

Again, there is some evidence that the Cathari were prepared to show deference, if not actual subordination, to the Paulicians. At the Synod held A.D. 1167 in St. Felix de Caraman[9] near Toulouse, at which were present Catharists from Lombardy and Italy, as well as France, Nicetas, the Paulician "Bishop" of Constantinople, attended by request and presided. His ruling that an absolute and not a relative Dualism was the true Creed of Catharism was accepted. The consecration which certain "Bishops" had received from Bulgaria he declared to be invalid, and he reconsecrated them by the imposition of his hands. The "Perfects," fearing lest the Consolamentum[10] which they had received from such "Bishops" might also be invalid, received the rite again from this "Bishop" of the strict Paulicians. He instituted to the Sees of Toulouse, Carcassonne and the Valley of the Aran three "Bishops" whom these Dioceses had respectively elected. Lastly, he was consulted as to the delimitation of the Dioceses of Toulouse and Carcassonne, and his arbitration was accepted by all parties. His decision was avowedly based upon Eastern and primitive precedent, viz. of the Seven Churches of Asia—not by following the existing municipal and political boundaries of the State, but by considering solely the spiritual interests of the Church. The courtesy of inviting an eminent co-religionist to preside over the Synod's deliberations, and the impartiality to be expected from a disinterested stranger, fail to satisfy the terms of the equation. The authority which Nicetas exercised, acceptance of his consecration and consolamentum in place of the previous ones acknowledged as invalid through a doctrine, erroneous because out of harmony with that of the East, can only be explained on the ground that this Paulician Bishop of the East came to the West as the duly accredited representative of a foster-mother to her daughter Churches.

The title by which the heretics were most widely known was that of Cathari. Unquestionably[11] derived from ?a?a???, "pure," it points to Eastern associations. First met with in the second half of the twelfth century, it is the only appellation used of the heretics by ReinÉri and Moneta.

That a Gnostic element, undefined and indefinable, underlay and mingled with the Catholicism of the working classes cannot be denied, and if we can identify the sources of one or two strong streams feeding the Albigensian heresy, these do not necessarily exclude others whose sources evade us. In A.D. 890 Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, discovered Gnostic elements in his antiphonary. The Declaration of Belief which a century later (A.D. 991) Gerbert published on his appointment to the Archbishopric of Rheims was obviously called forth by the prevalence of Docetic and Dualistic teaching in his Province: "I believe that Christ was the Son of God, that He took a human form from His mother, and in that body suffered, died and rose again. I believe that one and the same God was the originator of both the Old and New Testaments, that Satan was not originally evil, but had fallen into evil; that our present body and no other would rise again; that marriage and eating meat were both allowable."

In A.D. 1016 an Armenian anchorite was detected in Rome and denounced as a heretic, and scarcely escaped with his life. As "Armenian" became synonymous with heretic, we may assume that Armenians were frequent visitors to other places in the West, and that their heresy was Paulician.

§ 5. PARTLY INDIGENOUS

It is not therefore to Spain or Africa that we must look for the origin of the Albigensian heresy, but rather to the East, for in that direction the names Manichean, Bogomile, Bulgar, Paulician, Poplican[12] and Catharist point, but we can only speak in generalities. We cannot say of this heresy: "In the year —— a band of missioners under —— came to France to convert it to Catharism," as we can say of the English Church: "In the year 597 a band of missioners under Augustine came to England to convert it to Christianity." When we have stretched our historical data to their utmost capacity, when we have made full allowance for the devastation wrought by friend and foe—by friend in the destruction of the records against themselves of the Inquisition, by foe in the destruction of heretical literature—we are convinced that the imports from the East fail in quantity and quality to account for the Albigensian heresies as we find them in full vigour and variety. Their germs might have been found almost anywhere in Western Christendom in the Middle Ages, but the stimulus to growth came not from without, but from within. It was a spontaneous outburst of a profound discontent with a Church which by its Ultramontanism opposed all national independence, and by its unspirituality forfeited all respect for its creed. Just as the Church turned back to Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy to illuminate the mystical element—the relationship between the outward and the inward—in its own entity and in its Sacraments—a philosophy which had long lain dormant in her midst—so the Catharists turned back to Dualistic Gnosticism to illuminate the origin of good and evil, and its bearing upon ecclesiastical organization. But whereas the students of the North were attracted to dialectics, the light-hearted of the South of France were drawn to picturesque myths. It was an age when men everywhere, and especially in France, were devoting themselves to a reconsideration of the Church, in its essence, its doctrines and its activities; but while the Church forced facts to suit philosophic theories, the Catharists adopted and devised Dualistic theories to suit the facts. The Church claimed that its doctrines, such as that of the Holy Roman Empire or of Transubstantiation, were not new, but inherent in and developed from the authority and teaching of its Divine Head. The Catharists maintained that they were corruptions and profanities, weeds not fruit, and only when they were swept away would the Christian Church be pure and therefore powerful. How far circumstances favoured them falls now to be considered.