in attempting to summarize the foregoing testimonies of friend and foe we must again guard ourselves against the inference that doctrinal similarity with previous heresies involves organic succession. historical links fail us when we attempt to construct the genealogical table. the general fact to be recognized is that while the catholic church had expelled those ancient heresies from her doors, their odour remained, and, remaining, reminded her members of problems about god and man, spirit and flesh, time and eternity to which only revelation, and not speculation, could supply the answer.

the nature of god. the resemblance between the dualism of gnosticism and catharism is obvious. each taught both an absolute and a modified dualism; but a closer study shews us that whereas with gnosticism (and particularly manicheism) this dogma was fundamental, with catharism it became more and more subordinate to discipline and conduct. it was offered as a solution to the mystery of evil, but in the catechizing of their candidates for membership, no question touching dualism was put to them. thus discipline of life was presented to them not as a struggle with an evil god, but as a following of apostolic christianity and a practical protest against a corrupt hierarchy. the lord's prayer was used as much as a creed as a prayer, yet there is not {89} the slightest evidence that they understood "?π? το? πονηρο?" to be "from the evil one."

the nature of christ. the albigenses were constantly charged with holding docetic views of christ. yet they believed in an incarnation, though not that of the nicene creed. they were prepared to say that christ was born "in virgine," but not "ex virgine," or as the paulicians put it, "δι' α?τ?? ?? δι? σωλ?νο? διεληλυθ?ναι." the basic belief in the utter sinfulness of flesh was an insuperable obstacle to belief in the sinlessness of the incarnate christ, an obstacle which late in christianity the theory of the immaculate conception attempts to surmount. the manichees, under parsic influence, taught that as "the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness overcame it not," so the christ could not enter a human body, except in appearance; and the priscillianists denied a human body to him, and said he was innascibilis, because the human body was the seat of sin. the albigensian solution was that christ was created sinless man in heaven, and in his perfect nature of body, soul and spirit was born in the virgin mary. the one passage of scripture which was read at their distinctive service—the consolamentum—was st. john i. 1-17, where the order is "the word was made flesh and (then) dwelt among us." the two clauses in the creed, therefore, should be reversed and run: "he was made man, and came down from heaven." it followed from this real humanity of christ that his suffering was real and not docetic. hence the albigenses regarded the cross as an instrument and symbol of the actual shame and suffering of christ, and, as such, should not be honoured.

the nature of the holy ghost. although the albigenses in their services paid worship to the holy trinity by their frequent "adoremus," they did not accept the {90} position of the council of chalcedon. both the son and the holy spirit were, according to them, created by god the father, and there was a difference of essence (substantia) between the three persons. the father was greater than the son (st. john xiv. 28) and the holy ghost, and the son greater than the holy ghost. the holy ghost did not function in the world until after the ascension of christ. he does not himself enter into man at the imposition of hands. the perfect man as made in the image of god has a tripartite nature of body, soul (anima) and spirit. owing to sin man's spirit went back to heaven, and hence the present imperfect man consists of corpus and anima. but the spiritus of each man is guardian and guide (custos, rector) of the anima, and is restored to him by the paraclete or principal (i.e. the holy) spirit by the imposition of hands.[73]

the nature of their church. the basis of gnosticism was knowledge (γν?σι?), but that of catharism faith (fides). the gnostics or γνωστικο? repelled the πιστικο?, whereas the πιστικο? or credents formed the great majority of the catharists. gnosticism was esoteric, catharism exoteric. gnosticism was intellectual, catharism spiritual. catharism taught that none could be saved outside its fold, but none were predestined from entering that fold. if this is gnosticism it is the gnosticism of marcion, the mildest of all gnostics. (the only exception to this "catholicism" was due to the emphasis which the catharists laid upon faith itself, whereby they were led to exclude infants from membership, {91} because they could not be certain of a member's faith until he avowed it.) hence, where gnostics founded schools, admission to which was grudgingly granted, catharism founded churches with an ever-open door for all.

the movement failed—failed in spite of all its zeal, self-sacrifice, sincerity and scripturalness. with the political and military forces ultimately brought to bear against it we are not here concerned. without these, however, it was doomed to failure through its own weaknesses and divisions. it was a bold bid for freedom of thought and speech in all matters of religion. it was a revolt against the assumption that all must believe alike, and that the laity must never question what the priesthood taught. the infallibility of the church had become practically an article of the faith. and because this indefeasible right of man was declared by the church to be indefensible, independence changed into intolerance, and freedom into disruption. but any upheaval, social or religious, to be successful must be united and progressive. it must be of one heart and one mind in defence and attack. it must also convince the people that it has recovered old truths or discovered new. the indispensable foundation of belief is one god: a religion which starts with two, and yet protests that it is christian, whatever other merits it may possess, can never attract and retain the adherence of that or any other age, whatever relation it might seek to establish between the two. catharism from the very beginning was a house divided against itself as to the god of its worship and obedience. the albigensian christ offered no atonement, all-sufficient and complete, for the sins of men, and so brought to men no peace which passeth all understanding. their "perfect" life was impracticable and would have brought {92} society to an end. all agree that the waldenses, who started de novo from the scriptures, and endeavoured to live and teach according to their precepts, began solely as reformers and not as schismatics. yet even they could not keep themselves untainted by the stronger and more numerous catharists, and it was easy for their enemies to convince an uncritical age that there was little difference between them. the albigenses have perished, the waldenses remain, and such seekers after truth ever will, who

"correct the portrait by the living face,

man's god by god's god, in the mind of man."

[73] this is moneta's view. moneta's great work is the chief, as it is the only contemporary systematic investigation of catharism. it was published under the editorship of augustine riccheni, professor at bologna, at rome in a.d. 1743. of moneta himself we know little. he was born at cremona, and, fired by the eloquence of the dominican friar, reginald, entered that order in a.d. 1220, an order which arose specially to combat albigensianism. he was appointed censor of the faith at milan, and died some time after a.d. 1240.