THE ALBIGENSES.
I will introduce the treatment of the sects, between century ten
and century sixteen, in the following words of Mosheim: “We find from the time
of Gregory the VII several proofs of the zealous efforts of those who are
generally called by the Protestants the witnesses of the truth; by whom are
meant such pious and judicious Christians as adhered to the pure religion of
the gospel, and remained uncorrupted amidst the greatest superstition who
deplored the miserable state to which Christianity was reduced, by the
.alteration of its divine doctrines, and the vices of its profligate ministers;
who opposed with vigor the tyrannic ambition both of the lordly pontiff and the
aspiring bishops; and in some provinces privately, and others openly, attempted
the reformation of a corrupt and idolatrous church, and of a barbarous and
superstitious age. This was, indeed, bearing witness to the truth in the
noblest manner, and it was principally in Italy and France that the marks of
this heroic purity were exhibited,”1 From these reformers were
derived great hosts of recruits to the Baptist churches. The influence of
Baptist churches created a great desire among the members of the Romish church
for reformation. Out of Baptist influence originated Martin Luther's
Reformation.
The name Albigenses was one of the designations of the Paulicians
from “the beginning of the eleventh century to the middle of the thirteenth
century.” Coming…
1
Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., cent. 11, part 2, chap. 3, sec. 2.
…from Asia, where they were known as Paulicians, they crossed the
Balkan Peninsula and reached the Western empire. In the tenth and the eleventh
centuries, under the name Paulicians, but especially Albigenses, from the town
of Albiga in Southern France, and Cathari — from their pure lives — they filled
and moulded both France and Italy, affecting in a less degree, other parts of
Europe.
The Albigenses — and others, too, — are, in this book, treated
under distinctive heads; not because they were not identical with their
predecessors and contemporaries, but for the sake of clearness, to conform to
the usual classification — a classification that recent researches demand
should be abandoned. Here I remind the reader of a necessary caution: “It ought
always to be borne in mind, however, that for the larger part of our
information regarding those stigmatized as heretics, we are indebted, not to
their own writings, but to the works of their opponents. Only the titles remain
of the bulk of heretical writings, and of the rest we have, for the most part,
only such quotations as prejudiced opponents have chosen to make. That these
quotations fairly represent the originals would be too much to assume.”1
Kurtz: “The little town of Albi in the district of Albigeois, was regarded as
the great center of the party, whence the name of Albigenses.”2
The Encyclopedia Britannica says of the Albigenses: “The descent
may be traced with tolerable distinctness from the Paulicians.” † Dr. Carl
Schmidt, an eminent German authority of Strasburg, speaking of their being
called Albigenses, says: “Before that time the sect was spoken of as Publicants
or Publicani, probably a corruption…
† Ency. Brit.,
Art. Albigenses.
1
Vedder's Bap. Hist., p. 50; Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., cent. 12, chap. 5, sec 1.
2
Kurtz Ch. Hist., vol. l, p. 462; Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. 1, p. 46
…of the name Paulicians, which the Crusaders had brought back from
Western Europe.”1
To the charge that the Albigenses held to Manichaeism, I reply:
(1.) By reminding the reader of Vedder's words beginning this article. (2.)
That, as they are identical with the Paulicians, the refutation of this charge,
in Chapter XI, is the refutation of this charge against the Albigenses. (3.) To
this I add the following: Robinson, one of the most careful and reliable
historians, did not sufficiently credit the charge to affirm it. His cautious
words are: “The Albigenses were Manichaeans, or nearly so,” “Nearly so” is not “so.”2
There are certain modified forms of Manichaeism which, while erroneous, would
not unchurch any party. Mosheim says that those who held to Manichaeism held it
“differently interpreted and modified by different doctors.”3 Prof.
Carl Schmidt gays: “The representations which Roman Catholic writers, their
bitter enemies, have given them, are highly exaggerated.”* Even admitting them
slightly tainted with Manichaeism, since they lived in an age of little thought
and learning, it would no more affect their claims to be churches of Christ
than slight errors of the head, especially of the unlearned, now unchurch. (See
Chapter V of this book.) (4.) But there is no proof conclusive that the
Albigenses were so much as tainted with Manichaeism. Wadington, speaking of the
great Romish controversialists attempt to blacken their characters, (Bishop
Bossuett) observes: “He has failed to prove their Manichaean origin — still
more their Manichaean doctrine.
* Schaff-Herzog
Ency., vol. 1, p 47.
l
Schafl-Herzog Ency., vol. 1, p. 46; The Bogomiles, pp. 122, 123, 128, 131;
Cramp's Cap. Hist., p. 99.
2
Robinson's Eccl. Researches, p. 463.
3
Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., cent. 12, part 2, chap. 5, sec. 6; Wadington's Ch.
Hist., p.478.
… He calls them indeed 'new' Manichaeans and admits that 'they had
softened some of their errors.' But they had parted with the characteristic
error, or in fact they never held it.' “1 On p. 291 Wadington
observes: “Manichaeism was the frightful term employed to express their
delinquency; but it is more probable that their real offence was the adoption
of certain mystical notions, proceeding, indeed, from feelings of the most
earnest piety, but too spiritual to be tolerated in that age and in that
church.”2
Though the charge that the Albigenses rejected marriage, baptism
and the supper, has been refuted in page 119, refuting the same charge against
them under the name Paulicians, the reader will notice that these charges are,
incidentally, farther refuted in the following. The Encyclopedia Britannica
says of them: “The statement that they rejected marriage, often made by Roman
Catholics, has probably no other foundation in fact than that they denied
marriage as a sacrament; and many other statements of their doctrines must be
received at least with suspicion, as coming from prejudiced and implacable
opponents.”3
Alanus, speaking of the Albigenses, says: “They rejected infant
baptism…It does not appear that they rejected either of the sacraments.”4
Collier says: “They refused to own infant baptism.”4 Brockett gays: “Nothing
is said by Hoveden of their rejection of the sacraments of baptism and the
eucharist, which would certainly have been mentioned by so careful a writer as
Hoveden, had it existed. Indeed, his strongest objection to them was their
refusal to take an oath.”4 Favin, a…
1
Wadington's Ch. Hist., p. 552— note.
2
Idem, p. 291.
3
Art. Albigenses.
4
The Bogomiles, p. 122.
…historian, is quoted as saying: “The Albigenses do esteem the
baptizing of infants superstitious.” Izam, the Troubadour, a Dominican
persecutor of these heretics, says: “They admitted another baptism.”1
Chassanion is quoted as saying: “I cannot deny that the Albigenses, for the
greater part, were opposed to infant baptism; the truth is, they did not reject
the sacraments as useless, but only as unnecessary to infants.”
They had no Campbellism in them. As Armitage observes: “They
rejected the Romish church and esteemed the New Testament above all its
traditions and ceremonies. They did not take oaths, nor believe in baptismal
regeneration; but they were ascetic and pure in their lives; they also exalted
celibacy.”2 Their encouraging celibacy, as they believed in
marriage, was probably for the reason that Paul encouraged it temporarily,
because of persecution being harder to endure in families than when single.3
As refusing to take oaths was a practice of many of these ancient
Baptists, I here stop to say: While that matter with Baptists is a matter of
little importance, yet I believe they were, probably, nearer right than we are;
for, while by “swear not at all” our Savior alluded to only profanity, yet, as
Archbishop Whately observes, I believe that men who will tell a lie will swear
one as readily, once the penalty is out of the way; hence, instead of taking
oath annex the penalty of swearing a lie to telling it in court.
In church government the Albigenses were Baptists. A historian
says: “Their bards or pastors were every one of them heads of their churches,
but they acted on nothing without the consent of the people and the clergy,”…
l
Robinson's Eccl. Besh., p. 463.
2
Armitage's Bap. Hist., p. 278.
3
1 Cor.,7;27, 40.
…i. e., the ministers who had charge of no church. “Deacons
expounded the gospels, distributed the Lord's supper, baptized, and sometimes
had the oversight of churches, visited the sick and took care of the
temporalities of the church.” Chr. Schmidt says: “Their ritual and
ecclesiastical organization were exceedingly simple.”1
This was so much the case that the Romish church, not seeing any
church in so simple an organization, thought they had no churches, and Prof.
Schmidt has, thereby, been mislead into the same conclusion. In Chap. XI —
noticing them as Paulicians — they are clearly proved to have been, in church
government, Baptist.
The Albigenses were pure in their lives and a zealous people in
good works. Carl Schmidt says of them: “Their severe moral demands made
impression because the example of their preachers corresponded with their words
…In a short time the Albigenses had congregations with schools and charitable
institutions of their own …The Roman Catholic church, so far as it still could
be said to exist in the country, had become an object of contempt and derision.
This state of affairs, of course, caused great alarm in Rome.”2
Thus, “the Albigensian heresy,” as Lord Macaulay observes, brought
about the civilization, the literature, the national existence …of the most
opulent and enlightened part of the great European family.”3
1
Schaff-Herzog Ency., p. 421.
2
Schaff-Herzog Ency., vol. 1, p. 47.
3
Macaulay's Works, vol. 6, p. 463.