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 {10} 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 {11} 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 {12} 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 ?κτισε ("created") with the LXX, but the Vulgate (possedit) ?κτ?σατο ("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, {13} 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 {14} 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 ε?χ?, 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 ............