MJ

It seems nobody is reacting to this material. But I am fascinated by it for a couple of days, now. Perhaps I am even more than fascinated by it. Just imagine that there is an Armenian dimension under the symbol of “Skull & Cross- Bones” - the Cross-Bones are fully Armenian, and the Skull is half-Armenian, and it has been most powerful symbol of invincibility from Templar Knights through Masons to pirates.

I am glad my word has such a weight , but check the short poem on the subject of the heart of a mother, which has turned into ashes.

Window Quarterly Vol. 2, No. 3, 1991 Copyright 1991 [Permission is granted to use, print, reproduce this article provided the following acknowledgment is given: From Window Quarterly 2, 3 (1991); ACRAG c. 1991. *** THE ARMENIAN PROTESTANTS A Brief History Compiled by Hratch Tchilingirian The beginnings of the Armenian Protestant church dates back to the early nineteenth century. As a movement, it was "imported" and "implanted" by American and European missionaries, amidst the "intellectual renaissance" that was taking place in the Armenian community within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. Tracing the roots of Armenian Protestantism is not as easy as it may seem. The authors who have written about the subject, while they agree on dates and personalities, are divided over the reasons, rationale and effects of the events that lead to the establishment of a separate Armenian Protestant denomination. Among the books that were consulted for this article were Leon Arpee's A Century of Armenian Protestantism; G.H. Chopourian's The Armenian Evangelical Reformation: Causes and Effects, and Vahan H. Tootikian's The Armenian Evangelical Church (see sources below). The purpose of this article is to give a historical account of events rather than an analysis of the movement. The First Reformers The first Protestant missionaries that were sent to the Turkish empire were from the Church Missionary Society of the Church of England in 1815 and in 1818, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. In 1827, the Syrian Mission (established in 1823 by the American Board), led by two ministers, received two Armenian helpers. Among the first missionaries was William Goodell who arrived in Constantinople in 1831 and founded the Mission of the American Board for the Armenians of Turkey. In 1833, John Der-Sahakian and his companion, Paul Minassian joined the mission. Within a year, Der-Sahakian was appointed general superintendent of the Mission's high school in Pera. However, in 1837, the school was forced to close due to pressures from the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. Despite the opposition of the Armenian Patriarchate, the evangelical movement made considerable headway with a following of about 500 people. The "mission" of the Protestant ministers caused a great deal of uproar in the Armenian community. The Mother Church, headed by the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, protested the activities of the missionaries among the Armenians. Eventually, the confrontation lead to a formal anathema of Protestants by the Patriarch and even persecutions by the Ottoman government authorities. Here is an excerpt from a report sent by a missionary to the American Board, which gives a glimpse of events of the time: "In order that misunderstanding may be cleared up, it should be stated here that missionaries to the Armenians and Greeks were not sent to divide the churches or to separate out those who should accept education and read the Bible in the vernacular. Their one supreme endeavor was to help the Armenians and the Greeks work out a quiet but genuine reform in their respective churches. The missionaries made no attacks upon churches, their customs, or beliefs, but strove by positive, quiet effort to show the necessary changes. . . . When the separation did come, it was in spite of every effort of the missionaries to prevent it." 1 The missionaries were critical of the Armenian Church and viewed its practices as "corrupt." Here is how Goodell describes the Armenian Church: . . . like all the Oriental churches, the Armenian had become exceedingly corrupt. It was almost wholly given up to superstition and to idolatrous worship of saints, including the Virgin Mary, pictures, etc. The Armenians hold to transubstantiation, and worship the host; and, indeed have adopted most of the errors of popery... As with all rigid formalities, the weightier matters of the law and the gospel are considered of small account compared with the punctilious performance of religious rites and ceremonies.2 While the "supreme endeavor" of the Protestants "was to help the Armenians...work out a quiet but genuine reform in their respective churches," their eventual mission was characterized by an attack on the established "Mother Church." These confrontations lead to a wide persecution of Protestants. Thus, in an attempt to survive the opposition in Turkey to their missionary work, the missionaries secured temporary shelter and amenities were obtained from contributions received from Protestant sympathizers in England, America, India and the Caucuses, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Wurttemberg and Switzerland. Meanwhile, in mid February 1846, the evangelicals sent a petition to the minister of foreign affairs begging for protection of the imperial government. They refuted all charges of civil rebellion and stated that the reason for their persecution was due to their refusal to conform to the practices of the national church such as the worship of images and priestly absolution. The following month they submitted a petition to the British, Prussian and American diplomatic representatives and finally one to the Sultan himself. On March 12, 1846, the minister of foreign affairs spoke with the Armenian Patriarch, Matthew, who, after extensive negotiations, declared from the pulpit of the cathedral church, that "Religion is free in Turkey!" On May 17, 1846 the evangelicals were authorized to resume their "normal" life and obtain credit as Protestants. Thus ended the civil persecution of the Protestants. Organization of Protestant Churches On June 21, 1846, on the occasion of the feast of Etchmiadzin, Patriarch Matthew issued an encyclical of perpetual excommunication and anathema against all Protestants to be publicly read at every annual return of the festival throughout the churches. Thus, "the reformers," originally a party within the church, excluded from the church's fellowship and ordinances, formed a rival organization outside the church, i.e. the Protestant church. On June 25, 1846, a constitution was drawn up for the Armenian Evangelical Church about to be organized. This constitution provided for a form of government half-way between Congregationalism and Presbyterianism. The doctrine of the church was embodied in a confession of faith composed of 12 articles to which all candidates for church membership were to express publicly. On July 1, 1846 the constitution was formally adopted by the evangelicals of Constantinople and the First Armenian Evangelical Church of Constantinople (with a total of 40 members) began. During the months of July and August, three more evangelical churches were organized on the basis of the above described constitution; Nicomedia and Adabazar with 14 members each and Trebizond with nine members. At the end of a year, the infant church of Constantinople had more than doubled its membership and the aggregate membership of the four churches was about 140. After the consummation of the ecclesiastical organization, the civil recognition by the Turkish government was made the important object of endeavor by the evangelicals. On August 17, 1846 a meeting of the "Protestant Nation" (milet) was called at Constantinople and an executive committee of four was appointed to represent the community in its external relations. On June 16, 1846, this committee submitted a petition to the local governor requesting separation from the Armenian community and the granting of a charter. Four petitions were sent to the Sultan in the space of a few months. However, through the petition of the British embassy, and the efforts of Lord Cowley and later Stratford de Redcliffe, the first imperial acknowledgement was issued on November 15, 1847, recognizing the Protestants of Turkey as a separate community and granting them freedom of conscience and worship. But it was not until 1850, again through the efforts of Lord Stratford, that the rights and privileges of the Protestant community were permanently defined by imperial firman (edict) and the Protestants were authorized to elect a chancellor or civil head. On December 13, 1850, at a popular meeting of the Protestant community in Constantinople, this was publicly read and Stephen Seropian was elected civil head of the community. As of the beginning of 1850, the expansion of Armenian Protestants was not great in scope; there were only 7 mission stations in the Armenian field: Constantinople, Bebek, Brusa, Smyrna, Trebizond, Erzrum, and Aintab; 6 outstations: Nicomedia, Adabazar, Rodosto, Diarbekir, Urfa, and Cesarea; 18 missionaries and 20 female assistants; 8 churches with 2 of them in Constantinople, with an aggregate membership of about 240. However, by the end of 1850, with the promulgation of the imperial firman, the whole country was opened up to missionary operation. It awakened a general readiness everywhere to listen to the preaching of the Protestants. About 100 towns and villages around Aintab, Marash, Urfa, Diarbekir, Arabgir, Agn, Silvas, Cesarea, Tocat, and Marsovan began to show "signs of an awakening," and from remote localities "came requests to the missionaries for preachers of the gospel." By the end of 1860, the field had become so extensive that it necessitated its subdivision into three separate missions; the Western Turkey Mission (including what was afterward the European Turkey Mission), the Central Turkey Mission and the Eastern Turkey Mission. Combined, there were 23 mission stations; 65 outstations; 50 missionaries and 50 female assistants; 40 evangelical churches, with a total membership of nearly 1,300 people. The Rationale for a Protestant Armenian Church According to the scholars who have written about the Protestant movement in Turkey, the missions of the American Board to the oriental churches, more specifically the missions of the Armenian church, were originally committed to a policy of strict non-proselytism (non conversion from one belief to another). Accordingly, this policy had as its sole aim the instillation into those churches evangelical ideas--without alienating any of the members from them. In their pursuit, "the American missionaries in Constantinople at first avoided all controversy and based their efforts on what the oriental churches needed above all else an enlightenment to arouse a widespread interest in the Word of God." However, in the 15 years from the founding of the Armenian mission, the missionaries of the American Board in Turkey "felt compelled" to establish an independent evangelical church, contrary to the original plan. L. Arpee enumerates four reasons which led the missionaries to establish a Protestant church in Turkey prior to 1846 and to regard a strict adherence to their original policy of non- proselytisms as impracticable. 1) Pressure from the home churches for tangible results. 2) Intolerance of the oriental churches. 3) Antagonism between oriental orthodoxy and the missionaries doctrines and methods. Arpee writes, The Armenian church, although it theoretically held to the Scriptures as the supreme authority, had given place to a great mass of patristic interpretations and ceremonial rituals with the result that the Word of God had been all but lost in the traditions of man." On the other hand, the missionaries' ideas and methods of ultra- evangelism were far to radical for the oriental churches and sooner or later would invite opposition. Therefore, long before they were excommunicated by Patriarchal anathema, the evangelical Armenians found themselves seceding. 4) The official recognition of the treaty rights of American missionaries in Turkey by the U.S. government in 1842. The U.S. government pointed out to the Turkish empire that the American missionaries in Turkey were entitled by treaty to the protection of the U.S. government as long as they refrained from proselyting. Since no distinction could be drawn from proselyting and non-proselyting missionaries, it was now understood that if a missionary had any right to reside in the Turkish dominions at all, he was also entitled as a citizen of the U.S. to the protection of his government. By 1914, on the eve of the first World War, Protestants had 15 stations in Turkey, 146 missionaries, 137 churches and 13,891 communicant members. The most notable single evangelical influence on the Armenians of Turkey came from the combined efforts of the American Board and the American Bible Society in disseminating the scriptures into the people's vernacular, (i.e. Goodell's Bible for Turkish speaking Armenians, published in 1842 and Elias Riggs' modern Armenian Bible, published in 1853). By 1890's, the relationship between the Apostolic and Protestant Armenian churches was cordial enough to permit the collaboration on a modern Armenian New Testament, which was published under the Armenian Patriarch's imprimatur to provide free circulation among the Armenians. Eventually, the massacres of Armenians in Turkey, (1895- 1908) drained not only the Protestant Armenians of their leaders, but the entire Armenian nation. The 1915 deportations and massacres swept the Armenian evangelical churches out of Asia minor. The American Board liquidated its hundred-years interest in Turkey and withdrew from the field. However, as Armenians scattered throughout the world, so did Armenian Protestant congregations, which can be found in large Armenian communities in the Diaspora. With the emergence of an Armenian Protestant church, in the 19th century, a rapture was created between the Armenian Apostolic Church and those who followed the missionaries. What were predicted as "dangerous trends" by Patriarch Matthew of the time -- which eventually gave permanence to the separation between the Armenian evangelicals and the Mother Church-- are summarized by V.H. Tootikian in these terms: a) "the Armenian Evangelical Church failed in her original goal to reform the Armenian Apostolic Church," It "failed to keep the balance between the Armenian- Christian and Protestant-Evangelical heritages," c) "The Armenian Evangelical Church weakened the solidarity of the Armenian people," d) It "withdrew into isolation," and e) "The Armenian Evangelical Church gradually became complacent."3 However, Tootikian adds, that " when every criticism has been made, and every allowance recorded for the imperfection of the Armenian Evangelical Church, the fact remains that she worked her way into many corners of the life of the Armenian Nation. Obvious faults and weaknesses must not hide the deeper significance of the Evangelical Movement, because measured by its effects, it proved itself a potent force among the Armenian people." -researched by Jeannie Murachanian --------------------------------------------------- Notes 1. James L. Barton, Daybreak in Turkey (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1908), pp. 108-109. Cited in The Armenian Evangelical Reformation: Causes and Effects by G.H. Chopourian (New York: AMAA, 1972) pp.1-2. 2. Quoted in Chopourian, op. cit. pp. 26-27. 3. Vahan H. Tootikian. The Armenian Evangelical Church. (Detroit: Armenian Heritage Committee, 1982). pp. 85-93. ----------------------------------------------------- Sources for further reading: The Church of Armenia by Malachi Ormanian, Diocese of the Armenian Church, New York. A Century of Armenian Protestantism by Leon Arpee. New York: Armenian Missionary Association of America, Inc., 1946. The Armenian Awakening by Leon Arpee. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1909. The Rise of the Evangelical Movement Among Armenians by A.A. Bedikian (English Translation of the Beginning of the Evangelical Movement Among Armenians.) New York: Armenian Missionary Association of America, Inc., 1970. The Armenian Evangelical Reformation Causes and Effects by G.H. Chopourian New York: Armenian Missionary Association of America, Inc., 1972. The Armenian Evangelical Church by Vahan H. Tootikian, Detroit, MI: Armenian Heritage Committee, 1982. The Separation of the Armenian Catholic and Evangelical Denominations in the 19th Century by Puzant Yeghiayan. Antelias: The Armenian Catholicosate of the See of Cilicia, 1971. *** =================================================== _ _ _ _ _ |_| ___ _| | ___ _ _ _ | | | | | | _ / _ / _ | / _ | | | | | | | |_| |_| || |_ | | | || |_| || |_| || |_| |_| | _________/___||_| |_| ___/ ___/ _________/ View Of The Armenian Church ===================================================

Window Quarterly Vol. 2, No. 3, 1991 Copyright 1991 [Permission is granted to use, print, reproduce this article provided the following acknowledgment is given: From Window Quarterly 2, 3 (1991); ACRAG c. 1991. *** RETHINKING ARMENIAN PROTESTANTISM by Fr. Vazken Movsesian Earlier this year, the editors of Window were invited to address a youth group of the Armenian Brotherhood Bible Church. By their claims, the Brotherhood is a "non- denominational" group with a mission of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ among Armenians. Conveniently, the Armenian Church refers to them as Protestants. We arrived at a location in Pasadena, California, which had no resemblance to a church from the outside. On the inside there was the inescapable warmth of a Christian home. Young men and women greeted us in a most hospitable manner. They were eager to listen and perhaps even challenge us, as clergy of the Armenian Church. The program began with a half-hour of worship. A small combo set up their equipment. The pianist gave a tone and the guitar and bass tuned-up. With the drummer's steady beat, this group of 50-70 young Armenians began praising the Lord with song and testimony. To our ears, for which sacred hymns were expressed in solemnity, these Armenian spirituals, set to a light-rock and roll beat, were a novelty, to say the least. Young minds, especially of college years, are skeptical. We could see the questions in their eyes: What can these Orthodox clergy teach us? By the end of the evening, the barriers were down on both sides, and we were engaged in an open dialogue. To have focused on our commonalty might have been more cordial, but the drift toward our differences granted us a more fruitful discussion. As Protestants, they saw ecclesiastical institutionalization as a hindrance to the individual quest for Christ. Nevertheless, the question was finally asked at the end of the evening: What can the Apostolic and Protestant churches do to be united as the Body of Christ? This question is seldom discussed within the Armenian Church. In the early 1970's, two commissions, respectively set up by the Armenian Apostolic and Armenian Evangelical churches, convened in New York city to discuss issues pertaining to a rapprochement. Between October 1970 and December 1971, the Commission had eight sessions, where theological, pastoral, canonical and other related issues were discussed. As a result of these consultations, a Report was prepared (February 1972) and sent to the official bodies of the two groups for further study and assessment. The Chairman of the Commission was Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan, Second-Chairman, Rev. Senekerim Sulahian, Secretary, Rev. Dikran Kasouni, Second-Secretary Mr. Bedros Norhad.1 Unfortunately, there were no follow ups to these consultations. Nearly two decades later, this question resurfaced. It was a good question and worthy of an answer, with hopes of instigating a concerted effort toward rapprochement. If the reference to the Armenian Orthodox Church is made as the "Mother Church" (commonly referred to by the Armenian Protestants) then by implication alone, we may conclude that there is a desire for the children to return home. But no steps have been taken on either side toward this reunion. For many, the thought of reuniting Armenian Protestants and Orthodox is incomprehensible. The Protestant community is seen by the Church as a splinter group functioning autonomously, yet morally (even magically) bound to the "mother" Armenian Church. While terms such as "mother" and "child" may suggest endearment, reality does not speak this language of cooperation and union. Proselytizing continues today throughout Armenia as well as the diaspora by the Protestant groups. Meanwhile, the Armenian Church, like the father of the prodigal, waits and hopes (with an occasional burst of rhetoric) for the child to find his way home. Protestants are making in-roads to Armenia and establishing communities. The official organ of the Armenian Missionary Association bellows, often subtly and at times overtly, with criticism of Armenian Church practices. A new publication Hatz mer hanabazort--"Our Daily Bread"-- aimed at providing spiritual comfort to the individual believer sorely diminishes Christianity to an individual experience.2 The examples of this type of abuse and indignation toward the teachings of the Armenian Church are innumerable, yet the Church is reluctant to condemn (or at least answer) these publications nor their authors. Quite the opposite, cordial ties are maintained between the Church and Protestant communities in an almost nonsensical manner. It is not uncommon to find the Armenian Church in America celebrating Saint's Days (e.g., Sts. Vartanantz) with with the Protestants who have no affinity for the saints. Requiem services are held on Armenian Martyrs' Day with the "participation" of groups which not only have no regard for the ceremony, but have critically labeled the requiem as heathen. The Armenian Church to date has hesitated to address rapprochement for a variety of reasons. First, Protestantism has not been seen as a considerable threat. The Church has only recently taken notice, primarily due to the proselytization occurring within Armenia -- the Church's once-exclusive domain. Secondly, the schism with the Protestants has been overshadowed by the jurisdictional division within the Armenian Church itself. The past six decades alone have been give-and-take matches between Etchmiadzin and Antelias affiliates. The reference to "unity in the Armenian Church" is a usual reference to settling the division of the Catholicoi, rather than healing any rift of ecumenical consequence. Primarily, though, the Armenian Church has remained dormant regarding the Protestants because of the ethnic composition of the denomination. The Protestants, by virtue of being Armenian, are considered part of the same family, as if the "Armenian Church" title encompasses three branches: Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. This fallacy is perpetuated within the Protestant community as well. An Armenian Protestant minister in the Los Angeles area once observed that the Armenian Church was similar to the Temple of Judaism, while the Protestant church was akin to the synagogue. For the Jew, the main sacrifice took place in the Temple, while a form of worship consisting of readings from the scriptures, preaching, prayers and psalms was the custom of the synagogue. Hence, this minister presents a parallel where Protestants follow the synagogue model while the modern-day sacrifice (=badarak) takes place in the Temple known as the Armenian Church. On closer inspection, however, the analogy is flawed. For the Jew, the faith was one, only the method of approach differed to that faith. For the Orthodox and the Protestant, beyond methodology is the disparity between the beliefs. Furthermore, the synagogue form developed during the exile, when it was impossible to sacrifice at the Temple. The Armenian Church has never been without its "sacrifice," (though the purpose of the sacrifice may have been unclear from time to time.) At issue here is not merely a difference of approach or method. Nor is this a denominational issue. As a matter of history, the early evangelical movement among Armenians was greeted with repeated anathemas, clearly an indication of a breach on theological grounds. The Protestants have repeatedly claimed that their discord with the Apostolic Church has been to make the Gospel message relevant to the people. Rituals, liturgy, the sacraments, institutional administration have no place in the Protestant model. It is possible though, that in the process of finding a "pure" Christianity and "cleaning" the faith, the Protestants may have thrown the baby out with the bath water. "There is nether Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Nestled in the Santa Cruz hills of Northern California is the Saints Peter and Paul Orthodox Church. Beneath its circular dome you will find a multitude of icons depicting the saints of the Church, candles burning around the reserve sacrament, the air still fragranced with incense from the daily worship and all the serenity of a monastery. An occasional truck roars by on the highway which leads to the church, reminding you that you are not in some other place or time. About half an hour's drive to the south, skimpy bikinis invoke cardinal desires on the beaches of Santa Cruz. A half an hour's distance to the north reveals America's Silicon Valley, where "icons" are small images on computer screens. This is the town of Ben Lomond. The Sts. Peter & Paul parish is an Orthodox Church. It is the paradigm of orthodoxy for here, the faith is professed with ethnic oblivion. It is neither Greek nor Russian, though both Greeks and Russians would feel at "home" in this surrounding. The parish is one of a growing number of communities throughout the world, part of the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission (AEOM). The history of this group spans over the centuries, yet they were established less than a decade ago. Their story is unique-- a story of looking for a method and discovering the Faith -- finding the Church of Jesus Christ. The quest of these pilgrims is chronicled in Becoming Orthodox, A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith3 by Fr. Peter Gillquist, an archpriest in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Gillquist, and his fellow "travelers" were all Protestants, with the most evangelical upbringing. Their evangelism has not ended. Their approach may be construed as un-orthodox among the evangelicals, though their message is heralded louder than ever before. Their story begins in Arrowhead Springs, California. Here, these men made up the leadership of the Campus Crusade for Christ. Heeding the words of Christ's Great Commission -- spreading the Gospel to the whole world -- the activities of the Crusade focused on bringing America's college students to faith in Christ. Many of us who went through the American public school system and college remember the Bible Study groups assembled under trees and the Jesus rallies on the football fields. Their tracts were catchy and meetings were always inviting. But for Gillquist and some of his fellow workers, they found that there was something more to "church" than the classrooms and gymnasiums "where two or three gathered" in His name. By 1966, they were "convinced from the Scriptures that the Church was the means to fulfilling that Great Commission."4 In 1968, a group of these leaders resigned from Campus Crusade to "pursue evangelism through the Church." The question then followed: What is the Church? Their attempts to build house-churches in different parts of the country, fashioned after their understanding of the New Testament model, met with failure. They stayed in touch with one another, exchanging thoughts about their successes and failures. In 1973, these ex-Crusaders regrouped in hopes of overcoming the frustrations of working individually. They decided that seven men would assume the leadership of a new "network." Gillquist was chosen to preside. Subsequently, they met quarterly to study and pray together, continuing their quest for the New Testament Church. "Our background as evangelical Protestants," writes Gillquist, "meant that we somewhat knew our way backward to the Protestant Reformation, and that we knew our way forward to A.D. 95, the end of the New Testament era." Methodically, they approached the study of the Church starting from New Testament times. They researched Church history to look for continuity and polity. Early Church worship and Christology was studied by examining and scrutinizing the decisions of the early Church fathers and Ecumenical councils. They used the Holy Scriptures to verify everything in a very skeptical manner. They hid nothing from their people: they found no need to start yet another denomination. They wanted to "land somewhere in the historic Christian faith." Furthermore, they agreed that if their findings differed from what they held as true, but were "squared with the Scriptures," then they would change. Gillquist recalls, "Here we were: anti-established Church, anti-liturgical, anti-sacramental, congregational in polity. We represented people who ranged from hyper- dispensationalists to signs and wonders charismatics, reading publications as diverse as Ramparts and the Jesus People Survival Guide. With all this, we were making ourselves open and vulnerable to the Fathers and Councils of the early Church!" Their quest lead them to find that the apostolic church was liturgical and sacramental, with a clearly-defined laity, governed by bishops, priests and deacons. They discovered the biblical basis of the Liturgy, Ecumenical councils, the role and importance of icons, incense and vestments. "We had to eat a lot of crow -- buckets of it," confesses Gillquist. As these ex-Campus Crusaders were discovering Eastern Orthodoxy they formed the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC). Their practices changed to conform to their findings. But alas, here they were, the arms, feet, and mouth of New Testament Church, without a body to make them whole. "We had come to Orthodox Christianity 'out of the books,'" says Gillquist. The moment of truth had arrived. Moved to be united with the Body of Christ, they were in dialogue with the Orthodox Church of America, the Greek Orthodox Church, and met with many of the Orthodox jurisdictions. In 1985, they presented themselves to His Holiness Ignatius IV, the Patriarch of Antioch and His Eminence Metropolitan Philip Saliba, Primate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese in America. In 1986 the EOC Synod drafted a proposal to Metropolitan Philip "to be considered for entrance into the Orthodox Church through his Archdiocese." Later that year they entered the canonical Orthodox Church. This became "the first time in history an evangelical denomination... gained official approval to become part of the Eastern Orthodox Church."5 The end of this journey became the beginning of their ministry. Chrismation followed. One-by-one, parish-by- parish the EOC was "Welcomed Home"6 to the fold of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. According to the wishes of Metropolitan Philip the EOC was named the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission, to avoid the operation of a church within a church. Soon, hundreds were welcomed to Orthodoxy. New missions have begun in Fargo, North Dakota; Salt Lake City, Utah; East Lansing, Michigan; Bloomington, Indiana; Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania; Wheaton Illinois and the list is only beginning. Pastors "who love Christ and His Church and are seeking the fullness of Orthodox worship and faith," are making inquiries.7 Today, converts are found throughout the world. The church has an eight-hundred member support group called the Order of St. Ignatius which underwrites special projects. They operate the Concilliar Press which publishes the Again quarterly as well as books, cards and tracts. They have iconographers and are suppliers of Orthodox worship material. To sum it up: they are the New Testament Church. Without compromising their call to evangelize, they are spreading the oneness and the fullness of life with Christ, through the Orthodox Holy Church. They are neither Greek, nor Russian, nor Romanian, nor American nor Armenian. They are Christians. They are one in Christ Jesus. Toward the Only, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church If there is an answer to the question presented to us by the Armenian Brotherhood -- What can the Apostolic and Protestant churches do to be united as the Body of Christ? -- then the AEOM experience presents a key to this desired oneness. Given a chance to absorb pure orthodoxy, where ethnic and national aspirations are filtered, the members of the EOC--formerly strict Protestants-- found their roots and the vehicle to bring Christ to the people. With Armenians, it would not be reasonable nor fair, to place the entire burden on the Protestant Community, in a challenge to find their orthodox roots. A few years ago, I attended a reception honoring WCC president Emile Castro. His Eminence Archbishop Vatche Hovsepian was there to address this gathering on behalf of the Armenian Church. The Archbishop took to the podium and recalled the struggle of the Armenian Church to keep the Faith throughout the centuries. In his final words he said, "You (members of the WCC) have much to learn from us (the Armenian Church) just as we have much to learn from you." Accordingly, the Armenian Church has much to offer other churches--some, which have never known Christianity without struggle or persecution. On the other hand, churches of the WCC may offer the Armenian Church the experiences of working in an ecumenical spirit for global and social concerns -- something new, and therefore lacking in the focus of the Armenian Church. A similar statement of reciprocal learning is what is needed between Orthodox and Protestant Armenians. With nearly 200 years of Armenian Protestantism, the Armenian Church cannot assume them to be a passing fad. The Church must come to terms with her children who long to express their faith. Evangelism has been a practice of the Church since apostolic times -- it cannot be dismissed as a "Protestant practice." Concerns for relevancy of the Sacraments, in terms of language and connection to contemporary issues, is not only raised by the Protestants but many of the Armenian Church faithful as well. Learning from the Protestants does not mean a compromise of orthodoxy. The Protestant Armenian community affords the Armenian Church the opportunity to benefit from the West. While the world turns its attention to global concerns, the Armenian Church, as the Body of Christ, cannot be confined to ethnic parameters. She must come out of her ethnic ghetto and not blemish Her sacred mission with such secular concerns of national preoccupations. The aspirations of the nation are best served when it is fed a diet of spiritual sustenance. The Armenian nation has remained intact because of the Armenian Church: not because she taught national pride, but because she provided the virtues necessary for a people to survive and progress. The counter part to reciprocal learning belongs to the Armenian Protestants. The Protestant communities are in serious need to evaluate their direction and preaching. As Fr. Gillquist and other members of the EOC soon found, there was an element missing from the Christian equation. If the message of Protestant evangelism does not account for the Church, then they are depriving the believer of one of Christ's greatest gifts. Christianity is not an individual faith, it is a collective experience. God did not give the world a Bible from which we would find our salvation. God gave us a greater gift, His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. In turn, Christ gave His Body, the Church, through which we would be saved. It was His Body -- His Arms, Legs, Mouth -- which formalized and gave us the articles of Faith and the Bible. And today, if we are to remain faithful to the New Testament understanding of the Church, it cannot be with the exclusion of His Holy Body. Through liturgy, sacraments and communion of the saints, the Church offers the fullness of the Christian message which is the only message sanctioned by Christ for preaching. The AEOM had the unique advantage of learning orthodoxy "from the books" and not necessarily from practice. Can the Armenian Protestants find an outlet and a form of express in the Armenian Church much like Fr. Gillquist and the EOC found in the Orthodox Church? If so, would the Armenian Church be open to "welcome home" the Armenian Protestants, as Metropolitan Phillip did to the EOC? Mutual respect and receptiveness are the only means by which this may occur. Toward this end, there are certain stumbling blocks already in place which may be too cumbersome to lift. At present, the infiltration of Armenia by Protestant missionaries is of great concern to the hierarchs of the Church. In his sermon at the blessing of the Holy Miuron, His Holiness Catholicos Vazken I, emphatically says, "The Armenian people will never tolerate proselytizing by other churches within the bosom of our nation..." The motives of missionaries to Armenia are in serious question: Are they there to bring the Gospel of Christ to the spiritually starved people? Or are they there with the ultimate hopes of winning converts to their churches? In 1989, a Greek Orthodox priest disrupted an open-air evangelistic campaign in northern Greece. There was physical & verbal abuse alleged on both sides. Almost at the same time, the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece established a special "anti-heresy department" to neutralize the influences of Protestants within Greece.8 Fortunately, these old world beat-um-up methods have not been reported in Armenia. But, with the recent declaration of independence by Armenia, also came a declaration of the primacy of the Armenian Church. Legistating religion only insures a safe haven for believers, but is not a substitute for actual instruction and evangelization. In conclusion, these reflections about Armenian Orthodox and Protestant unity began innocently by a simple question. I have tried to offer a practical approach to this end through a model of reciprocal learning. I am not an idealist. I do realize we are far from unity and perhaps, just as far from even entertaining the notion. I hope that this article may be a catalyst for subsequent discussions about this subject and eventual movement in the direction of rapproachement. Ironically, the issue of uniting the Armenian Apostolic and Protestant churches is an issue of both religion and nation. The Armenian nation would certainly be strengthened with a single solidified Church, but more importantly it would be to the benefit of Christ's Holy Body. And to this we are commited. ---------------------------------------------- Notes: 1. The full text of the Report was published bilingually by Pen-Text Publishing Company, Boston, MA. 2. Published in Armenian by the Armenian Missionary Association, New Jersey, this small pamphlet, offers a short scriptural passages for the days of the week, followed by a 3- 5 paragraph commentary/illustration of the passage. 3. 1989, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc, Brentwood, Tennessee. 4. All quotes in reference to the formation of the AEOC, unless otherwise noted are from an article by Peter Gillquist, Arrowhead Springs to Antioch in Again Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 1, Concilliar Press, Mt. Hermon, California. 5. Christianity Today, February 6, 1987 6. A phrase used by Metropolitan Philip to describe the EOC experience. 7. Becoming Orthodox, p. 181. 8. Christianity Today, October 6, 1989, p.41 *** =================================================== _ _ _ _ _ |_| ___ _| | ___ _ _ _ | | | | | | _ / _ / _ | / _ | | | | | | | |_| |_| || |_ | | | || |_| || |_| || |_| |_| | _________/___||_| |_| ___/ ___/ _________/ View Of The Armenian Church

quote:Originally posted by Sulamita: Really? I would never think ... I did not find any "Shiraz" in this poem. How weird To be honest I am not even sure how influenced Emin was by Shiraz. Do you? Yes, I do think it resembles Shiraz. Check Shirazes "Hushardzan Mairikis" series.

MANICHAEANISM Manichaeanism was not just a "Christian heresy" (as some Catholics regarded it) but was a separate religion, with basic truths recognizable to Zoroastrians and Buddhists as well as Christians. The basic Manichaean worldview is dualistic, or "ditheistic"--there is an endless battle between the moral and evil principles, neither of which ever creates or annihilates the other (unlike the Jehovah/Satan duality of Christianity). The conflict between the moral and evil principles resulted in the "light" of our souls--an eternal light emanated from the Moral God--being trapped within the corrupted, doomed bodies of the physical universe, which was created by the Evil God to divide and separate our souls from the Ultimate good so that we would be trapped in a cycle of suffering and death. The ultimate goal of a Manichaean was the release of the soul from the cycle of death and rebirth in the physical world. This would be brought about by understanding the truth of Manichaeanism, recognizing the connections we have with all other beings, and therefore adopting the moral worldview advocated by Mani. Mani considered himself the last of a series of prophets; each of the earlier prophets, while wise and enlightened, only partially understood the revealed Truth, and so their religions remained incomplete and easily perverted. However, Mani recognized elements of true wisdom in the earlier teachings. Zarathustra (in Persia) taught ditheism (dualism), that there are two opposed Gods, one of order and one of chaos ('the devil'), in eternal opposition--a concept which was copied and twisted by Christians and Muslims. The Buddha (in India) provided insight into the nature of suffering and the eternal cycle of life and death--and how to escape it. Jesus (in the Roman Empire) tried to sacrifice himself to take on the suffering that the evil God intended for others; although Christian beliefs about his relation to the evil Creator-god Jehovah were corrupted, Mani felt the basic impulse of Jesus was pure. The final prophet, Mani, understood the truth, and preached the coherent, logical religion that we call Manichaeanism. Ironically, Zoroastrians, Christians and Buddhists have all claimed that Mani was one of their own--and in the first two cases, a dangerous herectic whose words were feared by corrupt and power-hungry leaders. Although Buddhism may just be an incomplete version of Manichaeanism, many other religions including Christianity are violent and hate-filled, spiritual traps set for us by the Evil Lord of this universe to blind us from Mani's teachings. NEO-MANICHAEANISM The Neo-Manichaean Church represents a modern incarnation of the ancient religion. Reviving Manichaeanism is an extremely difficult task, because of the destruction of much of the original religion's texts, laws, artwork, and records of ceremonies by the persecutors. However, we believe that the basic truths of the old religion are logical and universal, and therefore can be preserved and spread in the new. The revival of the Religion of Light is the ultimate triumph of truth over power. Those who used brutality to destroy Manichaeanism are now suffering their ultimate defeat, for the revival of Mani's teachings as a living religion represents the only form of revenge a moral being can promote: the revenge of survival and remembrance. WHY NEO-MANICHAEANISM? The Neo-Manichaean faith addresses the issue that is the great weakness of the world's largest religions: the origin of evil and suffering. The answer is simple, but dangerous to the false religions that now dominate our world: the creator-God is ultimately responsible for the evil and suffering in the world, because that God is itself evil. There is no other explanation for our situation. No moral being would willingly create suffering, or allow it to exist. There is no "plan" so wonderful that it would justify such suffering--the plans of Gods do not require trade-offs. A God would not "need" to allow suffering as a way to define pleasure, or to teach us a lesson about life, because by definition a God could accomplish these goals just as easily without harming a fly. There is only one reason why a God would create evil: because it wanted evil to exist. Although we believe that the Evil God continues to intervene to prevent the liberation of our souls from his trap, our goal is not to simply destroy a horde of devils and demons in some final battle for planet Earth. Neo-Manichaean beliefs focus not on the power struggle between rival gods of order and chaos, but on the fundamental difference between the Evil and Moral principles. The Ultimate good is within us--the "light" of our souls, trapped within the shell of the physical universe. The moral side of the struggle should not be considered a "king god", the popular image of a bearded old white guy sitting on a throne with power and punishment at its disposal. Such images are false and misleading. Instead, the Moral principle is a pure IDEA, the Ultimate good, and its influence is intrinsic and timeless. The enlightened prophets--Zarathustra, Buddha, Jesus, and Mani--all advocated the cause of morality, the only idea that can end our suffering and remove the world from the grasp of evil. Because we have consciousness, humans have the potential to gain wisdom and understand the truth, which is the first step in escaping the endless cycle of suffering and death. We can choose to practice moral behavior, voluntarily rejecting the selfish desires of our corrupt physical bodies whenever this selfishness harms others. Morality is not the following of orders, be they laws of governments or commandments of gods. Morality is about empathy, the ability to imagine the world through the eyes of another being, and the mindfulness to place the interests of another above your own WITHOUT REWARD OF ANY KIND. Even if you accept that humans evolved from purely selfish lower animals, this does not mean you have to accept selfishness and natural selection as the future of our species. Our sapience may have the effect of magnifying our awareness of the world's suffering, but this can be considered our advantage as well as a curse. We know that things do not have to remain as they are. "Heaven" or "Pure Land" or "Paradise" are not the goals of the NeoManichaean. We are not trying to go somewhere else, to another world created by the same evil principle as our own. The Buddhist concept of Nirvana best represents the breaking down of barriers to the connections between all our souls, the triumph of morality and the spirit over the limitations and suffering in the physical world, and the renunciation of the power of the evil God. A moral being will never use force even for a "righteous cause", because coercion and power are the weapons of evil. Moral beings must by definition lack power, except for the influence of truth. This is why the side of morality cannot destroy evil in battle, but must instead overcome evil by teaching every individual how to escape it. Of course, this limits the ability of moral beings to rapidly or continuously defeat evil, for the functioning of our minds is limited by our corrupted physical bodies, created with distracting needs and desires. It will be a long, difficult battle. In order to win, Neo-Manichaeanism must avoid the errors of the world's ruling religions. If you use power over another person to convert them, you have not followed the Neo-Manichaean path. "Power" does not just mean physical force but any unfair influence, such as superior wealth, social pressure, or even taking advantge of a person's loneliness by taking them into the family of the Church. These are the tactics of the false religions--religions inspired or corrupted by worship of the evil Creator-god. The teachings of Mani cannot be spread in such immoral ways; only fair, logical debate can be used to convince others of the truth of Neo-manichaeanism. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/399...chaean.html#man

Sea Change in the Caspian? Stratfor 02/15/01 By Aaron Ortiz E-mail to a friend Summary Caspian Sea countries, eager to exploit the sea's economic resources, may soon form a coalition designed to solve border issues and move toward dividing the Caspian Sea among them. Collaboration, however, might not continue past the immediate issue, border demarcation in the Caspian Sea, because of competing national interests. Analysis The presidents of Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan will hold a summit in March in the Turkmen city of Turkmenbashi. Deputy foreign ministers from each country are already working out details and possible areas of cooperation, according to IRNA. Among the items on the agenda is a reported Russian initiative to create a five-sided Caspian Sea forum, through which the five littoral nations can discuss common issues. The Caspian Sea, a landlocked body of water surrounded by Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan, potentially holds oil and gas reserves valued in the billions of barrels and trillions of cubic meters, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. But competing territorial claims on oil and gas fields have limited production, exploration and exploitation of the Caspian's mineral resources. The fall of the Soviet Union created three new states: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Previously, only the Soviet Union and Iran shared the Caspian Sea. Now there are five, each wanting as much of the seabed as possible. Now the littoral states may believe they can form a roundtable - one that may ultimately lead to a division of the Caspian and its resources. Following that, however, regional tensions and competing national interests could limit additional avenues for cooperation. Talks between Russia and Iran, two countries with different views concerning the Caspian Sea's division, may have led to the new grouping. In January, Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev visited Iran to discuss improving ties. According to an unnamed Iranian source, the defense minister also discussed repartitioning of the Caspian Sea, reported the London-based Al-Sharq al-Awsat Dec. 29. Russia has been active elsewhere. In January, Moscow and Baku reached common ground in solving competing territorial issues. Russia conceded to a demarcation of the Caspian seabed based on a modified median line to be determined later. This agreement mirrored a 1998 agreement between Kazakhstan and Russia. The crux of these agreements was that each state had exclusive rights to mineral resources in its sector of the seabed, while the waters were to be jointly administered. This is a significant modification of Russia's previous position that Caspian resources should be shared evenly. While the forum's creation signals the littoral states are willing to discuss Caspian issues, other issues concerning regional security can keep them apart. The Caspian forum is unlikely to come to a territorial agreement in the near term. Russia has proven similar arrangements can produce meaningful results. For example, Russia in 1996 spearheaded the formation of the Shanghai Five, which comprised China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. This regional grouping originally convened to resolve border issues, namely demarcation of the border with China. Having solved border and other interstate issues, the Shanghai Five took on the additional task of regional security. But competing national agendas interfered with their cooperation. For example, differences between Russia and China over Afghanistan exposed rifts within the forum. If the group expands, additional members - such as Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - will exacerbate existing fissures. Much like the Shanghai Five, the "Caspian Five" should eventually achieve success on border issues and lead to the exploitation of resources in the Caspian Sea. But it will face similar complications to the Shanghai Five. Afghanistan's war affects Iran, Russia and Tajikistan. The Chechen conflict affects Azerbaijan. Additionally, conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan involve Russian and Iranian interests. These regional conflicts have the potential to divert the new Caspian forum once immediate border and economic issues are resolved. Aaron Ortiz is an analyst for Stratfor.com, the leading provider of global intelligence over the Internet. Posted February 12, 2001.

Armenia and Azerbaijan Signal Progress in Talks on Enclave The New York Times February 20, 2001 By DOUGLAS FRANTZ ISTANBUL, Feb. 19 - After seven years of an uneasy truce and stalled peace talks, signs of progress have emerged in the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the enclave of Nagorno-Artsax. Diplomats said recent events had indicated movement toward solving a problem that has created at least a million refugees in the two countries and threatened stability in the Caucasus and neighboring Turkey. President Robert Kocharian of Armenia and President Heydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan met last month in Paris. Western diplomats said the two were expected to meet again within the next month for further talks. President Jacques Chirac of France met them in Paris and telephoned President Bush on Feb. 1 to brief him. The call was confirmed by a spokeswoman for Mr. Chirac. Western diplomats said that Mr. Chirac and Mr. Bush had discussed Nagorno-Artsax at length and that the French president was guardedly optimistic about a possible settlement. With municipal elections approaching in France, Mr. Chirac would like to have a settlement to offer the 400,000 ethnic Armenians in France. The State Department special negotiator for Nagorno-Artsax, Carey Cavanaugh, refused to confirm the call, but said in an interview here that France, the United States and Russia were involved in intense talks on a possible solution. The three countries form the Minsk group, which is trying to negotiate a settlement under the sponsorship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. A flurry of other diplomatic activities is widely expected in the coming weeks. The Swedish foreign minister is scheduled to visit Armenia and Azerbaijan as part of that country's presidency of the European Union. Officials from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe plan a three-day swing through the Caucasus next week. Relief organizations are also beginning to assemble a multibillion- dollar regional aid package in the event of a settlement. As many as one million refugees were displaced by six years of fighting, and the basic installations of Nagorno-Artsax have suffered severe damage. Details of the talks between Mr. Kocharian and Mr. Aliyev have been closely guarded. Both leaders face opposition at home if they are seen as giving away too much. Diplomats said the two wanted to work out a complete package of aid to go along with any settlement. Along with Mr. Chirac's involvement, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia visited Azerbaijan last month and told Mr. Aliyev that Russia was ready to guarantee installing a peace settlement. The fighting began in 1988, when the ethnic Armenians in the enclave declared independence from Azerbaijan. About 35,000 people died before a truce in 1994 that left the region under the control of separatist ethnic Armenians supported by Yerevan. There have been sporadic clashes along the border, though the Azerbaijan and Armenia defense ministers agreed in December to improve communications in an attempt to avoid violence. On Saturday, Turkey proposed a high-level meeting with Azerbaijan and Armenia to discuss a settlement. Turkey is an ally of Azerbaijan, but does not have diplomatic relations with Armenia. "Officials of both countries and Turkey in a trilateral setting would be a serious contribution to finding a solution," Foreign Minister Ismail Cem told a conference on stability in the Caucasus. An Armenian foreign ministry official attending the conference, Samuel Mkrtchian, played down prospects for a trilateral meeting.

If you would not tell us that it was written by Emin, the immediate conclusion would've been this is written by Shiraz. Maybe Emin has written it in his young days, while being under the influence of Shiraz?

19 February SOUTH CAUCASUS AN IMPORTANT REGION FOR EU YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 19, ARMENPRESS: The European Union's political troika, namely Sweden's foreign affairs minister Ann Lind, EU secretary general Javier Solana and EU responsible for foreign links Chris Paten, will arrive tomorrow in Yerevan on a one-day visit. During the visit the political troika will meet with Armenia's president Robert Kocharian, parliament speaker Armen Khachatrian, foreign minister Vartan Oskanian, head of the parliament foreign relations committee, as well as the representatives of the parliamentary groups and fractions. A meeting with the reporters is anticipated as well. During a press conference, held at the Greece's Embassy, the ambassadors and envoys of Italy, Great Britain, Greece, Germany and France underlined the fact that being one of the biggest donors in the region, the EU aims at raising its political reputation here. As it was mentioned, during the last9 years the EU has provided more relief to the Trans-Caucasus countries (about 1 billion EURO) than the USA or Russia. "The EU's activities are directed to the process of development of democracy and economy, prevention of conflicts", particularly stated Greece's ambassador to Armenia Panayotis Zographos. The EU representatives will leave Yerevan for Tbilisi February 21, the same day they will leave for Baku.

Hello Dragon, Welcome to the forum. Your guess is right, subject to correct pronoounciation. "Paulicians" are "Bavlikianner." I am not aware of an Armenian version of the term "Manichaeism." [ February 23, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

I think there have three major early waves of Armenians to US. The people from the peasant class have moved to Fresno, the ones from the manufacturing class have moved to Detroit, and the intelligentsia has moved to Massachusetts. Obviously this is not a rule written on the stone, but it seems to me as an accurate description by in large.

Pkk... Marx... Religion... Lenin SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION BYEGM 2/19/01 12:14:14 PM CUMHURIYET- Columnist Mustafa Balbay writes on the developments occurring in the 1990s. A summary of his column is as follows: Even though the second anniversary of terrorist Abdrullmah Ocalan's capture and return to Turkey on 15 February 1999 was not emphasized, it gave important clues as to the situation reached at present. In the 90s, Turkey was requested to sit at the same table with the leader of the terrorist organisation, instead she brought Ocalan to trial. However, if we analyze the issue only by the views of the 1990s, it will be incomplete. Today we are in the 2000's, and new policies are being formed according to new circumstances. Let's discuss the issue regarding persons, organizations, and geographies. During the trial process of Ocalan, his supporters remembered Mandela and thought they would improve their own leaders` image step by step. However, his image in Imrali is shrinking day by day. This outlook is reflected in the press organs of the PKK terror organisation. Can the PKK introduce a new leader taking this fact into consideration? There are searches in this vein. The PKK seems to have changed the content of its European studies as a whole. There is no 'war of independence', 'armed conflict', 'resistance to attack by the Turkish Republic forces'. Instead they are trying to work to persuade everyone that there is a completely different nation in Anatolia, and preparing to build its infrastructure. Some of the headlines in the news by European sources show that the infrastructure for the request of cultural rights are being prepared. 'Federations of Kurdish Associations in Germany 'YEKKOM' has began studies to have Kurds accepted as a separate minority. If these studies take root, they will ask for Kurdish education in schools, Kurdish radio and television and the like. Again in Germany, there is the preparation for another formation under the name of Kurdish Parents Union. As the PKK sees the importance of education, it wants to branch out in this direction. The PKK has requested Kurdish language education within the framework of 'the Living Ethnic Languages Law' enacted at The Hague. In Sweden courses for Teaching Kurdish in Turkey are being given every four months. Last month the PKK met in Lausanne and accepted a decision on improving Kurdish language and culture. When we take a look at the transformation the terrorist organisation went through from the 1980s to 2000s, interesting milestones attract our attention. At the beginning, the PKK emphasized that it was a Marxist-Leninist organisation. In time it was involved in trade. and the marks referred to has changed. It gained money in terms of Marks. The situation is different concerning Lenin. The PKK saw that the religion factor was important in the Southeast and the regimes stemming from Leninism were falling down one by one. Therefore, it began to use religion instead of Lenin. When it was understood that this method was also not enough to reach a victory soon, those who had aims on Turkey had to think of different schemes. What else was there to put forward instead of the Kurdish issue but the Armenian allegations? During the 1990s, those who did not have any respect for Turkey's territorial integrity used to color Southeastern Anatolia differently and wrote Kurdistan on it in maps. Today the same regions are referred to as Armenia. Even this change is enough to show what kind of games are played on the peoples of the land stretching from Caucasia to Mesopotamia. It was an interesting coincidence that France was hosting Armenian President Kocharyan on the anniversary of Ocalan's return to Turkey. In Northern Iraq, the terrorist organisation wants to draw Barzani and Talabani under its influence and form a region where only it can control. It wants to continue armed education over there while asking for full democracy in Southeastern Anatolia. We would like full democracy to be enforced not only in Southeastern Anatolia but in the whole of the country. However, if democracy becomes a tool instead of a goal it won't help anyone. Those who support the PKK and take it as their guide are not able to answer this question clearly: 'Shall we lean on the foreign powers abroad or Anatolia?'

Independent (UK) Feb 19 2001 The world's largest nation without a state seeks a new home in the West By Justin Huggler They are the forgotten people. In their homelands in the Middle East, the Kurds are persecuted and murdered: their houses burnt to the ground, their children gassed to death. They have been the victims of ethnic cleansing by Western allies and rogue states alike. A vast, slow Kurdish exodus is constantly moving into Europe, risking their lives in dangerous sea crossings such as that of the East Sea to escape the terror and the hardship. The 908 Kurds found in the hold of the East Sea are believed to have originated in Iraq. The journey they made is a well-trodden one. The Kurdish-governed enclave of North Iraq – created by Western governments after the Gulf War – is one of the most isolated communities in the world, a landlocked virtual state, its borders controlled by hostile countries. But Kurds from Iraq enter Turkey legally with visas. Although the Turkish authorities refuse Western journalists access to the Kurdish areas in North Iraq, where the Turkish army is hunting down Kurdish rebels, they freely issue visas to Iraqi Kurds. They do so to encourage emigration, say Kurdish sources, because Ankara fears North Iraq's independence encourages Turkey's Kurds to rebel. Once in Turkey, one of the main world centres of the trade in smuggling people, it is easy for the Kurds to find someone to take them to Europe, for a price. They are refugees. The poverty the Kurds flee is part of their political repression. In Iran, Kurdish areas are kept destitute to prevent Kurdish power bases from forming. In Turkey, Kurds have watched while their entire possessions were burnt before their eyes by security forces. North Iraq is desperately poor because it is deliberately cut off from the world by its neighbours. Ironically, the Iraqi Kurds' only major source of trade comes from smuggling Iraqi fuel into Turkey – breaking the very sanctions against Iraq that are supposed to be helping them. There are at least 15 million Kurds; they are the largest nation in the world with no proper state of their own. They inhabited the mountains that span the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Georgia and Armenia long before those borders were drawn – by the British and French, dividing the Middle East between them after the First World War. All the countries inhabited by Kurds fear losing territory to a Kurdish state. As a result, they are persecuted everywhere. Their plight resembles that of Kosovo's Albanians but there was no Western military intervention to protect the Kurds.

MosJan, It would be very interesting to know what are their arguments based on. Like is there a substance there, or are they a couple of lunatics?

http://www.pbministries.org/History/John%20T.%20Christian/vol1/images/header_history_vol1.gif The Sources of Information—The Greeks, The Armenians—"The Key of Truth."—The Apostolic Origin—They Rejected Other Communions—The Story of Constantine—The Connection of the Mohammedans—The Sabians—The Numbers of the Paulicians—Religious Liberty—The Free State of Teprice—Among the Albigenses in France—Persecuted—Conybeare on Baptist Succession—Justin A. Smith—Widely Scattered in Europe—the Paulicians not Manichaeans—Their Doctrines—The Synod of Arras—A Confession of Faith—The Adoptionists—The Form of Baptism—Macarius—The Oriental Church—The Bogomils—Brockett—Their Persecutions—The Form of Baptism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is to be regretted that most of the information concerning the Paulicians comes through their enemies. The sources are twofold. The first source is that of the Greek writers, Photius (Adv. recentiores Manichaeans. Hamburg 1772) and Petros Sikeliotes (Historia Manichaeorum qui Pauliciani. Ingolstadt, 1604), which has long been known and was used by Gibbon in the preparation of the brilliant fifty-fourth chapter of his history. Not much has been added from that source since. The accounts are deeply prejudiced, and although Gibbon suspected the malice and poison of these writers, and laid bare much of the malignity expressed by them, he was at times misled in the facts. He did not have the completeness of information which was necessary for a full delineation of their history. The second source of information in regard to the Paulicians is Armenian in its origin and has recently been brought to light and illustrated. There was an old book of the Paulicians called the "Key of Truth," mentioned by Gregory Magistos, in the eleventh century. Fortunately, Mr. Fred C. Conybeare, M, A., formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford, was much interested in affairs in Armenia. He was a second time in that country, in 1891, in quest of documents illustrative of the history of the Paulicians. He fell upon a copy of the "Key of Truth" in the Library of the Holy Synod at Edjmiatzin. He received a copy of it in 1893; and the text with an English translation was printed by Mr. Conybeare in 1898. He also accompanied the text with important data received from Armenian histories and from other sources. As may be judged this is not only a new but a very important source of information. The Paulicians are at length permitted to plead, in a measure, for themselves. We are able, therefore, practically to reconstruct the Paulician history. The Paulician churches were of apostolic origin, and were planted in Armenia in the first century. "Through Antioch and Palmyra the faith must have spread into Mesopotamia and Persia; and in those regions become the basis of the faith as it is spread in the Taurus mountains as far as Ararat. This was the primitive form of Christianity. The churches in the Taurus range of mountains formed a huge recess or circular dam into which flowed the early Paulician faith to be caught and maintained for centuries, as it were, a backwater from the main for centuries" (Bury’s edition of Gibbon’s History, VI. p. 543). The earliest center of Christianity in Armenia was at Taron, which was the constant home and base of operations of the Paulicians. They claimed that they were of apostolic origin."The Key of Truth" says: Let us then submit humbly to the holy church universal. and follow their works who acted with one mind and one faith and taught us. For still do we receive in the only proper season the holy and precious mystery of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Heavenly Father:—to-wit, in the season of repentance and of faith. As we learned from the Lord of the universal and apostolic church, so do we proceed: and we establish in perfect faith those who (till then) have not holy baptism (Margin, That Is to say, the Latins, Greeks and Armenians, who are not baptized); nay, nor have tasted of the body or drunk of the holy blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore according to the Word of the Lord, we must first bring them into the faith, induce them to repent, and give it (Margin, Baptism) unto them (pp.76,77). Upon this point Adeney says: "Therefore, it is quite arguable that they should be regarded as representing the survival of a most primitives type of Christianity" (Adeney, The Greek and Eastern Churches, 217). He further says: "Ancient Oriental Baptists, these people were in many respects Protestants before Protestantism" (Adeney, The Greek and Eastern Churches, p. 219). The Paulicians did not recognize persons of other communions as belonging to the churches. "We do not belong to these," they said. "They have long ago broken connection with the church and have been excluded." Such is the testimony of Gregory Magistos, A. D., 1058, whose history is one of the chief sources of information. We can only lightly touch upon a few events connected with their history. The story of the conversion of Constantine, A. D. 660, is interesting. This young Armenian sheltered a Christian deacon who was flying from Mohammedan persecutions. In return for his kindness he received a copy of the New Testament. "These books became the measure of his studies and the rule of his faith; and the Catholics, who disputed his interpretation, acknowledged that his text was genuine and sincere. But he attached himself with peculiar devotion to the writings and character of Paul and the name of Paulicians is derived by their enemies from some unknown leader; but I am confident that they gloried in their affinity to the apostle to the Gentiles" (Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, V. p. 386). Constantine felt that he was called upon to defend and restore primitive Christianity; being greatly impressed by the writings of Paul, he took the name of one of his followers, Silvanus; and the churches founded by him received names from the primitive congregations. The entire people were called Paulicians from the apostle. These statements of the apostolic simplicity of these devout Christians tell more of the manners, customs and doctrines than volumes of prejudiced accounts left by their enemies. With Paul as their guide, they could not be far removed from the truth of the New Testament. Professor Wellhausen, in his life of Mohammed (Encyclopedia Britannica, XVI. 571, 9th Edition), gives a most interesting account of the Baptists of the Syro-Babylonian desert. He says they were called Sabians, Baptists, and that they practiced the primitive forms of Christianity. Indeed, "Sabian" is an Arabized word meaning "Baptist" They literally filled with their members Syria, Palestine, and Babylonia (Renan, Life, of Jesus, chap. XII). They were off the line of the main advance of Christianity, and were left untouched in their primitive simplicity. From them Mohammed derived many of his externals. The importance of this must not be undervalued. "It can hardly be wrong to conclude," continues Prof. Wellhausen, "that these nameless witnesses of the Gospel, unmentioned in church history, scattered the seed from which sprung the germ of Islam." These Christians were the Paulicians. This bit of history will account for a fact that heretofore has been hard to understand. The emperors had determined to drive the Paulicians from their dominions. They took refuge "in the Mohammedan dominions generally, where they were tolerated and where their own type of belief never ceased to be accounted orthodox." This we learn from John the Philosopher. The Arabs had since the year 650 successfully challenged the Roman influence in Armenia. The same protection, probably, preserved the Paulician churches through many ages. It is certain that the Paulicians were true to the Arabs, and that the Mohammedans did not fail them in the hour of trial. The number of the Paulicians constantly increased, and they soon attracted the attention of their enemies. In the year 690 Constantine, their leader, was stoned to death by the command of the emperor; and the successor of Constantine was burned to death. The Empress Theodora instituted a persecution in which one hundred thousand Paulicians in Grecian Armenia are said to have lost their lives. The Paulicians, in the ninth century, rebelled against their enemies, drove out Michael III, and established in Armenia the, free state of Teprice. This is a well-known site, some seventy miles from Sivas, on the river Chalta. They gave absolute freedom of opinion to all of its inhabitants (Evans, Historical View of Bosnia, p. 30). From the capital of this free state, itself called Teprice, went forth a host of missionaries to convert the Slavonic tribes of Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Servia to the Paulician faith. This is positively stated by Sikeliotes. Great was their success—so great that a large portion of the inhabitants of the free state migrated to what were then independent states beyond the emperor’s control. The state of Teprice lasted one hundred and fifty years, when it was overcome by the Saracens. All around them were persecutions for conscience sake—they themselves had lost one hundred thousand members by persecutions in the reign of Theodora—yet here was a shelter offered to every creed and unbeliever alike. This is a striking Baptist peculiarity. The Baptists have always set up religious liberty when they had opportunity. Conybeare, speaking of the Paulicians, justly remarks: And one point in their favor must be noticed, and it is this, Their system was, like that of the European Cathars, in its basal idea and conception alien to persecution; for membership in it depended upon baptism, voluntarily sought for, even with tears and supplications, by the faithful and penitent adult. Into such a church there could be no dragooning of the unwilling. On the contrary, the whole purpose of the scrutiny, to which the candidate for baptism was subjected, was to ensure that his heart and intelligence were won, and to guard against the merely outward conformity. which is all that a persecutor can hope to impose. It was one of the worst results of infant baptism, that by making membership in the Christian church mechanical and outward, it made it cheap; and so paved the way of the persecutor (Conybeare, The Key of Truth, xii). In the year 970 the Emperor, John Tzimisces, transferred some of the Paulicians to Thrace and granted them religious liberty; and it is recorded to their credit that they were true to his interests. In the beginning of the eighth century their doctrines were introduced and spread throughout Europe, and their principles soon struck deep into foreign soil. It was in the country of the Albigenses, in the Southern provinces of France, that the Paulicians were most deeply implanted, and here they kept up a correspondence with their brethren in Armenia. The faith of the Paulicians "lived on in Languedoc and along the Rhine as the submerged Christianity of the Cathars, and, perhaps, also among the Waldenses. In the Reformation this Catharism comes once more to the surface, particularly among the so-called, Anabaptists and Unitarian Christians between whom and the most primitive church ‘The Key of Truth’ and the Cathar Ritual of Lyons supply us with the two great connecting links" (Key of Truth, x). They were persecuted by the popes; and all literary and other traces of them, as far its possible, were destroyed. But "the visible assemblies of the Paulicians, of Albigeois, were extirpated by fire and sword; and the bleeding remnant escaped by flight, concealment, or Catholic conformity. In the state, in the church, and even in the cloister, a latent succession was preserved of the disciples of St. Paul; who protested against the tyranny of Rome, and embraced the Bible as the rule of faith, and purified their creed from all the visions of the Gnostic theology" (Gibbon, Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire, V. p. 398). Many historians, besides Gibbon, such as Muratori and Mosheim, regard the Paulicians as the forerunners of the Albigenses, and, in fact, as the same people. One of the latest of these, already frequently quoted, is Professor Conybeare, one of the highest authorities in the world on Paulician matters. He affirms that the true line of succession is found among Baptists. He says: The church has always adhered to the idea of spiritual regeneration in baptism, although by baptizing babies it has long ago stultified itself and abandoned the essence of baptism. Indeed the significance of the baptism of Jesus, as it presented itself to St. Paul, and the evangelists was soon lost sight of by the orthodox churches. . . We hear much discussion nowadays of the validity of orders English, Latin, and oriental. The unbiased student of church history cannot but wonder that it has never occurred to any of these controversalists of the Church of England to ask whether they are not, after all, contending for a shadow; whether, in short, they have, say of them, real orders in the primitive sense in which they care to claim possession of them. The various sects of the Middle Ages which, knowing themselves simply as, Christians, retained baptism in its primitive form and significance, steadily refused to recognize as valid the infant baptism of the great orthodox or persecuting churches; and they were certainly in the right, so far as doctrine and tradition count for anything. Needless to say, the great churches have long ago lost genuine baptism, can have no further sacraments, no priesthood, and, strictly speaking, no Christianity. If they would reenter the Pale of Christianity, they must repair, not to Rome or Constantinople, but to some of the obscure circles of Christians, mostly in the East, who have never lost the true continuity of the baptismal sacrament. These are the Paulicians of Armenia, the Bogomil sect round Moscow whose members call themselves Christ’s, the adult Baptists (those who practice adult baptism) among the Syrians of the upper Tigris valley, and perhaps, though not so certainly, the popelikans, the Mennonites, and the great Baptist communities of Europe. This condemnation of the great and called orthodox churches may seem harsh and pedantic, but there is no escape from it, and we place ourselves on the same ground on which they profess to stand. Continuity of baptism was more important in the first centuries of the church than continuity of orders; so important, indeed, that even the baptism of heretics was recognized as valid. If store was set by the unbroken succession of bishops, it was only because one function of the bishop was to watch over the integrity of the initiatory rite of the religion. How badly the bishops of the great churches did their duty, how little, indeed, after the third century they even understood it, is seen in the unchecked growth, from the year 300 A. D. onward, of the abuse of the baptismal rite, resulting before long in its entire forfeiture (Conybeare, The History of Christmas. In The American Journal of Theology). Dr. Justin A. Smith, so long the scholarly editor of The Standard, Chicago, says of the Paulicians: The sum of all this is, that whether or not a succession of Baptist churches can, as some think, be traced through the centuries of the Middle Ages down to the time when our denominational history in its strict sense begins, we may at least say that our ancestry goes upward along a line of descent in which, if any where in the world, pure Christianity survived; and that among our Baptist progenitors, in this sense, were men and women who had the conspicuous honor to be maligned by those whom history proves to have been adepts in the two trades of murder and slander (Smith, Modern Church History, p. 227). One thing is certain, that in Italy, in France, and along the Rhine, the Paulicians and the Albigenses were found in the same territory, and there were no great differences between them in practice and doctrines. Writers go so far as to assert that there was a succession of churches and of interests. It is well attested, that in the middle of the eleventh century they were numerous in Lombardy and Isurbia, but especially in Milan, in Italy; and it is no less certain that they traveled through France, Germany and other countries, and by their sanctity they won large numbers of common people to their way of thinking. In Italy they were called Paternes and Cathari, and in Germany, Gazari. In France they were called Albigenses. They were called Bulgarians, particularly in France, because some of them carne from Bulgaria, and they were also known by the name of Boni Homines (Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, II. pp. 200-202). Their enemies extolled their piety. A succession of them is found through the Middle Ages. The Paulicians were accused of being Manichaeans, and much prejudice has been excited against them on this account. "The Paulicians," says Adeney, "have been most egregiously libeled of all of the Christian sects" (The Greek and Eastern Churches, p. 216. New York, 1908). The Roman Catholics have always denounced the teachings of Marcion with singular hostility. It is now clearly known that the Paulicians were not Manichaeans. The Key of Truth settles this matter (p. 18). Modern Armenian scholars do not hesitate to correct this error (Ter Mkittsehain, Die Paulikianer im Byzantinischen in Armenien, Leipzig, 1893). Conybeare has no doubt on the subject. Turning to the doctrines and practices of the Paulicians we find that they made constant use of the Old and New Testaments. They had no orders in the clergy as distinguished from laymen by their modes of living, their dress, or other things; they had no councils or similar institutions. Their teachers were of equal rank. They strove diligently for the simplicity of the apostolic life. They opposed all image worship which was practiced in the Roman Catholic Church. The miraculous relics were a heap of bones and ashes, destitute of life and of virtue. They held to the orthodox view of the Trinity; and to the human nature and substantial sufferings of the Son of God. Baptist views prevailed among the Paulicians. They held that men must repent and believe, and then at a mature age ask for baptism, which alone admitted them into the church. "It is evident," observes Mosheim, "they rejected the baptism of infants." They baptized and rebaptized by immersion. They would have been taken for downright Anabaptists (Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont. Oxford, 1821). Something of the opinions of the Paulicians is gathered from a Synod held in Arras, in the year 1025, by Gerard, Bishop of Cambray and Arras. One Gundulphus, a Paulician, was condemned. He had taught his doctrines in many places. It was found on examination that the Paulicians held: The law and discipline we have received from our Master will not appear contrary either to the Gospel or apostolic institutions if carefully looked into. This discipline consists in leaving the world, in bridling carnal concupiscence, in providing a livelihood by the labor of our hands, in hurting nobody, and affording our charity to all who are zealous in the prosecution of this our design. Concerning baptism they made reply: But if any man shall say, that some sacrament lies hid in baptism, the force of that is, taken off from three causes: the first is, Because the reprobate life of ministers can afford no saving remedy to the persons to be baptized. The second, Because whatsoever sins are renounced at the font, are afterwards taken up again in life and practice. The third, Because a strange will, a strange faith, and a strange confession do not seem to belong to, or to be of an advantage to a little child, who neither wills nor runs, who knows nothing of faith, and is altogether ignorant of his own good and salvation, in which there can be no desire of regeneration, and from whom no confession of faith can be expected (Allix, The Ecclesiastical Churches, p. 104). A better answer could not this day be given. There is a Confession of Faith which is attributed to the Paulicians, A. D. 1024, which declares: In the beginning of Christianity there was no baptizing of children: and their forefathers practiced no such thing and we do from our hearts acknowledge that baptism is a washing which is performed in water, and doth hold out the washing of the soul from sin (Mehrning, Der heiligen Tauff Historie, II. p. 738). It is possible that the Paulicians were Adoptionists. This is the view of Conybeare (lxxxvii), but his views are often inferential (xiv). He further says: "My Suggestion that the European Cathars were of the Adoptionists origin also rests on mere inference" (xiv). The connection of this view with that of modern Baptists is set forth by Conybeare as follows: It is therefore a promising field of research to enquire whether the Paulicians were not partially responsible for many sects which at the Reformation made their appearance and exhibit, some more, some less, an affinity to Paulician tenets as set out in the Key. This is not the place to embark on such an inquiry, which would require a separate work. Perhaps the data no longer exists which would enable one to trace the channels of communication. To do so would require in any case a vast amount of research; but it does seem probable that in at least two of the sects of the age of the Reformation we have a survival of the same ancient form of the Catholic Church which the pages of the Key reveal to us. These two sects are the Anabaptists and the Unitarians, afterwards called Socinians from their great teacher Socinus. From the former are derived the great Baptist churches of England and America, and also the Mennonites of Germany. The arguments of the sixteenth century Baptists against Paedobaptism are the same as we have in the Key, and—what we might also expect—an Adoptionist view of Christ as a rule went with them in the past; though the modern Baptists, in accepting the current doctrine of the Incarnation, have both obscured their origin and stultified their distinctive observances. From the first ages Adoptionist tenets have as naturally and as indissolubly been associated with adult baptism, as has infant baptism with the pneumatic Christology, according to which Jesus was from his mother’s womb and in his cradle filled with the Holy Spirit, a pre-existent Divine being, creator, and controller of the universe (Conybeare, The Key, cl, cli). Whatever may be the final conclusions in the matter, it is certain that the Adoptionist views of the Paulicians accentuated their opposition to infant baptism. The form of baptism was to dip the subject into the water once, while the Greeks dipped three times. There is much evidence that in Armenia the form of baptism was immersion. Macarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, A. D. 331 to 335, writing to the Armenians, says that baptism was administered with triple immersion burying in the water of the holy font" (Library of the Mechitarist Fathers of Vienna. MSS. Cod. Arm. No. 100). There is an oration preserved out of the twelfth century ascribed to Isaac Catholicos of Armenia, which gives the practice of the Paulicians. John Otzun, A. D. 718, speaks of the Paulicians descending into the baptistery (Otzun, Opera, 25. Venice, 1834). And he further tells how the Mohammedans tried to prevent them from baptizing in the running rivers, for fear that they would bewitch the waters and render them unwholesome. The constant practice of the Oriental Church was immersion. Rev. Nicholas Bjerring says of its baptism: "Baptism is celebrated sometimes in the church and sometimes in private houses, as needs may be. It is always administered by dipping the infant, or adult, three times" (Bjerring, The Offices of the Oriental Church, xii. New York, 1880). And further on in the Liturgy he gives the ceremony of immersion. Thus did the Paulicians practice immersion as the Scriptures indicate. The Bogomils were a branch of the Cathari, or Paulicians, who dwelt in Thrace. Their name appears to have been derived from one of their leaders in the midst of the tenth century, though others declare that their name comes from a Slavic word which is defined, "Beloved of God." The Bogomils were repeatedly condemned, and often persecuted, but they continued to exist through the Middle Ages, and still existed in the sixteenth century. Their historians claimed for them the greatest antiquity Dr. L. P. Brockett, who wrote a history of them, says: Among these (historians of the Bulgarians) I have found, often in unexpected quarters, the most conclusive evidence that these sects were all, during their early history, Baptists, not only in their views on the subjects of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but in their opposition to Pedobaptism, to a church hierarchy, and to the worship of the Virgin Mary and the saints, and in their adherence to church independency and freedom of conscience in religious worship. In short, the conclusion has forced itself upon me that in these Christians of Bosnia, Bulgaria, and Armenia we have an apostolic succession of Christian churches, New Testament churches, and that as early as the twelfth century these churches numbered a converted, believing membership, as large as that of the Baptist churches throughout the world today (Brockett, The Bogomils of Bulgaria and Bosnia, pp. 11, 12). Some Roman Catholic writers have affirmed that the Bogomils did not practice baptism, or observe the Lord’s Supper; and, that further, they denied the Old Testament Scriptures. This probably means no more than that they rejected infant baptism, and quoted the New Testament as supreme and authoritative in the matter. The persecutions of the Bogomils, as of other Paulicians, were continuous and severe. Every effort was made to destroy them. "Yet it was not stamped out," says Conybeare, "but only driven under ground. It still lurked all over Europe, but especially in the Balkans, and along the Rhine. In these hiding places it seemed to have gathered its forces together in secret,. in order to emerge once more into daylight when an opportunity presented itself. The opportunity was the European Reformation, in which, especially under the form. of Anabaptism and Unitarian opinion, this leaven of the early apostolic church is found freely mingling with and modifying other forms of faith. In engendering this great religious movement, we feel sure that the Bogomils of the Balkan States p1ayed a most important part" (The Key of Truth, cxcvi). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Books for further reading and reference: Fisher, p. 142. John C. L. Gieseler, A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, II. pp. 208-212; III. pp. 494-500. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Edition of Bury. F. C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum. F. C. Conybeare, The Key of Truth. John L. von Moshiem, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, II. pp. 101-105, 135, 136, 201-205. Augustus Neander, A General History of the Christian Religion and Church, V. pp. 337-370. http://www.pbministries.org/History/John%20T.%20Christian/vol1/history_of_the_ba ptist_vol1.htm://http://www.pbministries.org/History... ptist_vol1.htm://http://www.pbministries.org/History... ptist_vol1.htm://http://www.pbministries.org/History... ptist_vol1.htm://http://www.pbministries.org/History... ptist_vol1.htm://http://www.pbministries.org/History... ptist_vol1.htm://http://www.pbministries.org/History... ptist_vol1.htm [ January 25, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS By G.H. Orchard Baptist Minister, Steventon, Bedfordshire, England, 1855 Taken from the New Testament, the first fathers, early writers, and historians of all ages; chronologically arranged; exhibiting their churches with their order in various countries under different names from the establishment of Christianity to the present age: with correlative information, supporting the early and only practice of believers’ immersion: also observations and notes on the abuse of the ordinance, and the rise of minor and infant baptism. [Note from the publisher. This valuable out-of-print book was prepared for electronic publication by Way of Life Literature. The scanning was done by Pastor Doug Hammett and his sons, Lehigh Valley Baptist Church, Emmaus, Pennsylvania. For a catalog of other books, both current and old, in print and electronic format, contact us at P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061-0368. 866-295-4143 (toll free), fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail). Canada: Bethel Baptist Church, 4212 Campbell St. N., London, Ontario N6P 1A6, 519-652-2619 (church), 519-652-0056 (fax).] [Table of Contents for "A Concise History of the Baptists" by G.H. Orchard] CHAPTER 2 SECTION V: ORIENTAL CHURCHES CONTINUED "It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."--Jude 3. 1. The council of Nice, already referred to, took notice of two sorts of Dissenters, who held separate assemblies. These were the Cathari and Paulianists, the latter were a kind of semi-Arians; the former were Trinitarians (Novatianists,) who viewed the Catholic church as a worldly community. These Puritans or Novatianists were exceedingly numerous in Phrygia. [Lardner, Cred. of the Gos. v. iii. p. 2, c. 47, p. 310] These Dissenters baptized all that joined their assemblies by immersion in the name of the Trinity, on a personal profession of faith; and if they had been baptized before, they re-baptized them. Canons now were enacted by aspiring prelates,+ yet the Greek Christians paid very little regard to any ecclesiastical rule, and though successive assemblies were called, the more the bishops tried to enforce uniformity, the faster what they called heresy spread; so that, in the twelfth century, the world was full of (dissidents,) heretics. [Rob. Res. pp. 71-3] [+ During the last century, baptism was viewed as preparing the soul for glory, and subsequently, it was delayed for years, or till death approached. This delay and neglect, these prelates were anxious to recover the people from, and in their expressions and zeal for the ordinance, they brought the people to the other extreme, and pernicious consequences ensued. 360 Basil expressed to his people the bitter complaints those would make, who died unbaptized. 360 Gregory Nazianzen speaks of different punishments for different persons, in another world, which is to be regulated by their treatment of baptism. 374 Ambrose says, "For no one comes to the kingdom of heaven but by baptism. Those not baptized may have a freedom from punishment, which is not clear." 380 Chrysostum declares, there is no receiving the bequeathed inheritance before one is baptized. 388 Augustin asserts, "Salvation of a person is completed by baptism and conversion." These assertions awakened each person under these prelates’ charge, to receive baptism; the penitent, the prisoner, sickly persons and children, the dying, and dead bodies, received the purifying rite, in order to avoid the purgatory of the unbaptized. This was the strong limb to paedobaptism!] 2. It appears highly probable, from many circumstances, that both the greater and lesser Armenia were enlightened with the knowledge of the truth, not long after the first rise of Christianity. The interests in communion with Rome and Constantinople were, in this fourth century, incorporated with the parent society. The character of the Armenians was, that they were a frugal, laborious, stern, and peaceable people, if let alone, but formidable and warlike, if oppressed; which accounts for the policy of the government at early periods, and the evils resulting in its change of measures towards Dissenters in these and other provinces. [Rob. ut sup.] While the catholics were engaged about the relics of Palestine, and professors in hierarchies were subsiding into an awful and secure slumber, a reformer appeared, in the person of one AERIUS, a presbyter monk. "He excited divisions," says Mosheim [Mosh. Hist. c. -1, p. 2, ch. 3, ~ 21], throughout Armenia,+ Pontus, and Cappadocia, by propagating opinions different from those that were commonly received. He condemned prayers for the dead, stated fasts, the celebration of Easter, and other rites of that nature, in which the multitudes erroneously imagine that the life and soul of religion consists. One of his principal tenets was, that the bishops were not distinguished from presbyters by any divine right; but, that according to the institution of the New Testament their offices and authority were absolutely the same. His great purpose seems to have been that of reducing Christianity to its primitive simplicity.++ He erected a new society, and we know, with the utmost certainty, that it was highly agreeable to many good Christians, who were no longer able to bear the tyranny and arrogance of the bishops of this century. [* Mosheim History, C. 4, pt. 1, chapter 1, ~ 19. note. No one circumstance ever gave such footing, or ever strengthened national establishments so much, as infant baptism. Minor baptism was confined to no age; it might have been at fourteen years, as in the Georgian nation, which embraced Christianity under Constantine, Wall, pt. 2, p. 260, or at seven or six, as recorded, Rob. Hist. Bap. pp. 144, 299. But the general delay of baptism was a distress to the clergy, Id. 249. 381 Gregory at Constantinople, A.D., 381, and Austin, at Hippo, introduced new views and rites. The first considered children might be dipped at three years of age, Id. 3-19, and also babes, if in danger of death, Id. 249, as dying unbaptized, left their future state uncertain, ut sup.; the latter asserts, infants are baptized for the pardon of sin, Wall, i. 303. The anxiety on the part of the orthodox, to rescue children from the errors of the Arians, was in this age manifest. No way promised so much success as the obligations to keep the creed into which each was solemnly baptized. This charity in both parties, Arians and Trinitarians, furthered the infant cause, and gave additional importance to those interests which aspired to orthodoxy or eminency in numbers. See Eight causes furthering Paedobaptism, Rob. Bap. c. 27.] [+ Wolf, the Missionary, says, "The priest (of Armenia) puts the child into the water, and washes the head with three handfuls of water, and prays, and saith, ‘I baptize thee in the name, &c., and then dips the child," &c., Bap. Mag. 1826, v. xviii. p. 29. This is confirmed by Missionaries Smith and Dwight, who say, according to the rules of the Armenian church, baptism consists in plunging the whole body in water three times, as the sacred formula is repeated. Miss. Reseat. in Armenia, p. 312, &c. See Simon’s Critical History of the Relig. and Customs of Eastern Nations, chap. 12 and 13, p. 134, &c.] [++ We are unacquainted with the reformer’s views and success. The mode of baptizing in the East, is farther stated by Millar, who asserts, "In all the oriental provinces with the northern nations, immersion is the only mode of baptism, the child is dipped three times in Russia, as in the Greek church." Geog. v. ii. p. 480, col. 1.] 3. We have now no interesting matters to give, nor can we detail any information, to break the monotony of the aspect of the interests generally, for nearly two centuries. The Nonconformists continued to be dispersed all over the empire, and had trusted to Providence for liberty to worship. Their history is large, and has proved difficult to many. The clergy were always troublesome, but never attempted their conversion. Some emperors had been indifferent to them, others had cherished them, others had persecuted them. We shall leave the general history, and endeavor to identify one class of consistent Puritans. Few of the clergy of the establishments could compose a discourse in the seventh century, when Mahomet arose to scourge the nations. [Mahomet has rendered baptizo in the Koran, divine dying. Immersion is only one part, the tinging of the soul with faith and grace, is the other; or tincturing the mind with the doctrines of the gospel, we should say. In this way all through the Koran, he has fully translated the word, Rob. Bap. p. 7, and 493. But dying is not done by sprinkling or pouring, but the subject dyed is dipped. Gale’s Ref. Let. 3, p. 83. The Mahometans are totally immersed, or bathed in water. Sale’s Koran, v. i. s. 4, pp. 13840. This mode of baptizing is further evident from the most respectable historians. The mosque of Damascus, says Dr. Po****, has an octagon baptistery, View of the East, v. ii. b. 2, c. 8, p. 120. On each side of the mosque, are fountains for the purpose of washing before worship, Id. v. ii. b. 3, oh. 1, p. 128. No unbaptized person may enter a Mahometan church, Lon.] Mosheim speaks of a drooping faction, in this century, "The Russians baptize adults in the river, by trine immersion," with whom the Greek church was engaged in the most bitter and violent controversy. This drooping faction in Armenia, he calls Manicheans, and says they were revived by Paul and John, two brothers, who revived the doctrine, and modified it, from which sprang a new sect. But as Dr. Mosheim’s account is at variance with others, we shall select our materials of this new sect from other sources. [by Millar’s Geog. ib. and see authorities quoted in Robinson’s Letter to Dr. Turner, Works, iv. p. 235] Bathing was a practice of great antiquity; the Greeks, as well as the heroic age, are said to have constantly bathed. Immersion would to such be very agreeable. [Floyer’s Hist. of Bathing; Dr. G.S. Howard’s New Royal Encyclo. v. i. Art. Bathing; Sir R. Ker Porter’s Travels, v. i. p. 231] 4. It was about the year 653, that a new sect came into notice in the East,* under the name of PAULICIANS, which deserves our attention. There resided in the city of Mananalis, in Armenia, an obscure person of the name of CONSTANTINE, with whom this sect appears to have originated. One day, a stranger called upon him, who had been a prisoner among the Saracens, in Syria, and having obtained his release, was returning home through this city; he was kindly received by Constantine, and entertained some days at his house. To requite the hospitality of his generous host, he gave Constantine two manuscripts, which he had brought out of Syria; and these were the four gospels, and the Epistles of the apostle Paul. From the nature of the gift, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the stranger set a value upon these manuscripts, that he was acquainted with their contents, and was one who knew the truth, all which receives corroboration from the fact, that he had been an office-bearer, a deacon in a Christian church. It is equally probable that the conversation of Constantine and his guest would occasionally turn upon the contents of these manuscripts. That his conversation and present had some effects on the mind of Constantine, is evident, for, from the time he got acquainted with the contents of these writings, it is said he would touch no other books. He threw away his Manichean library, exploded and rejected many of the absurd notions of his countrymen. He became a teacher of the doctrines of Christ and his apostles. [Jones’s Lecr. on Ec. Hist. v. ii. p. 179. 9, ch. 2] "He formed to himself," says Milner, "a plan of divinity from the New Testament; and as Paul is the most systematic of all the apostles, Constantine very properly attached himself to his writings with peculiar attention. From the attention this sect paid to this apostle’s epistles and doctrine, they obtained the name of Paulicians." "In the present instance," continues Milner, "I see reason to suppose the Paulicians to have been perfect originals. The little that has been mentioned concerning them, carries entirely this appearance; and I hope it may be shortly evident that they originated from a heavenly influence, teaching and converting them; and that, in them we have one of those extraordinary effusions of the divine Spirit (on his word), by which the knowledge of Christ and the practice of godliness is kept alive in the world." [History of Church, Cent. 9, ch. 2] These originals, or rather, restorers of the New Testament order of things, being allowed by all historians to have been the encouragers, if not the main strength of the Albigensian churches in France, at after periods; we shall be the more particular in our attention to their character and practice. [Gibbon’s Ro. Hist. Ch. 54] [* In Vaughan’s Life of Wickliff, v. i. c. 2, s. 1, p. 115, the denominational aspect of this sect is suppressed, though Gibbon has spoken out; this course is pursued through that work. Those who neglect part of the commission, are afraid to mention its performance in other denominations.] [The Syrians, the Armenians, the Persians, and all the oriental nations, who must have understood the Greek word baptizo, have practised dipping, and it is so rendered in their versions of the Scriptures. Rob. Hist. Bap. p. 7; Ryland’s Cand. Reasons. Baptizo is rendered to dip, by the Peshito, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, German or Luther, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish versions. See Greenfield’s Del. of the Mahratta version, pp. 40-44] 5. The Paulicians sincerely condemned the memory and opinions of the Manichean sect, and complained of the injustice which impressed that invidious name on the simple followers of Paul and Christ. The objects which had been transformed by the magic of superstition, appeared to the eyes of the Paulicians’ in their genuine and naked colors. Of the ecclesiastical chain, many links were broken by these reformers; and against the gradual innovations of discipline and doctrine, they were strongly guarded by habit and aversion, as by the silence of Paul and the Evangelists. They attached themselves with peculiar devotion to the writings and character of Paul, and in whom they gloried. In the gospels, and epistles of Paul, Constantine investigated the creed of the primitive Christians; and whatever might be the success, a Protestant reader will applaud the spirit of the inquiry. In practice, or at least in theory, of the sacraments, the Paulicians were inclined to abolish all visible objects of worship, and the words of the gospel were, in their judgments, the baptism and communion of the faithful. A creed thus simple and spiritual, was not adapted to the genius of the times, and the rational Christian was offended at the violation offered to his religion by the Paulicians. [Gibbon, ut sup] 6. In confirmation of the above historian, as to their views of the ordinance of Baptism, we subjoin the authorities of a few respectable writers. In these churches of the Paulicians, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, they held to be peculiar to the communion of the faithful; i.e., to be restricted to believers." [Jones’s Lect. v. ii. p. 181] The Paulicians or Bogomilians baptized and re-baptized adults by immersion, as the Manicheans and all other denominations did in the East, upon which mode there was no dispute in the Grecian church. [Rob. Bapt. p. 211; and Res. pp. 90] "It is evident," says Mosheim, "they rejected the baptism of infants. They were not charged with any error concerning baptism." [Mosh. Hist., Cent. 2, pt. 2, oh. 5, ~ 4 and note] "They, with the Manicheans, were Anabaptists, or rejecters of infant baptism," says Dr. Allix, "and were consequently often reproached with that term." [Rem. Ch. Pied. eh. 15, p. 138, and Rob. Bap., p. 497] "They were simply scriptural in the use of the sacraments," says Milner, "they were orthodox in the doctrine of the Trinity, they knew of no other Mediator than the Lord Jesus Christ." [Ch. Hist. Cent. 9, ch. 2] 7. These people were called ACEPHALI, or headless (from having no distinct order of clergy or presiding person in their assemblies) and were hooted in councils for re-baptizing in private houses, says Robinson, and holding conventicles; and for calling the established church a worldly community, and re-baptizing such as joined their churches. [Res. p. 92] The religious principles and practices of these people are purposely mangled and misrepresented, but it is possible to obtain some evidences of what they were. They are charged with neglecting the Old Testament; but they knew that economy was abolished, they therefore rejected it as a rule of faith, not as history. The expounders of Genesis filled the church with vain disputes about matter and spirit, the origin and duration of the world. They saw the priests set up Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, as rules for an hierarchy. The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, gave kings authority to slay and kill in the cause of Jesus. And the infant cause not complied with, required the cutting off, which has been but too successfully prosecuted by the advocates of the rite. The Paulicians, with other dissenters, rejected the Pentateuch and the historical books down to Job, as a rule of faith and practice in a Christian community, and received the devotional and prophetical parts with the New Testament, as a law for the Lord’s house. [Res. p. 90, and Hist. of Bap. p. 450] The writings and the lives of their eminent ministers are totally lost; so that we know nothing of these men but from the pens of their enemies, yet even these confess their excellency. [Milner’s Ch. Hist. Cent. 9, ch. 2] 8. But we now return to their efforts. Constantine gave himself the scriptural name of SYLVANUS. He preached with great success in Pontus and Cappadocia, regions once enlightened and renowned for Christianity and suffering piety (1 Pet. 1) were again blessed with the gospel through his exertions. Great numbers of disciples were made and gathered into societies. The body of Christians in Armenia came over to the Paulicians, and embraced their views. In a little time, congregations were gathered in the provinces of Asia Minor, to the westward of the river Euphrates. Their opinions were also silently propagated in Rome, Milan, and in the kingdom beyond the Alps (France). Churches were formed as much upon the plan and model of the apostolic churches as it was in their power to bring them. Six of their principal churches took the names of those to which Paul addressed his epistles, Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, Thessalonica; while the names of Sylvanus’s fellow-teachers were Titus, Timothy, Tychicus, "This innocent allegory," says Gibbon [Ro. Hist., ch. 54], "revived the memory and example of the first ages." The Paulician teachers were thus distinguished only by their scriptural names. They were known by the modest title of fellow-pilgrims, by the austerity of their lives, their zeal or knowledge, and the credit of some extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. They were incapable of desiring the wealth and honors of the Catholic prelacy; such antichristian pride they bitterly censured; and even the rank of elders or presbyters was condemned as an institution of the Jewish synagogue. ["The candor of Gibbon is remarkable in this part of his history."--Milner] There is no mention in all the account of this people of any clergy among them. [Rob. Res. p. 80] Though charged with the Manichean errors, they have been honorably freed from this reproach by respectable writers. [Jortin’s Rem. on Hist. v. iii., p. 498, and Lardner’s Cred. of the Gosp. History, pt. 2, oh. 63, v. iii., p. 546] They called themselves Christians, but the Catholics they named Romans, as if they had been heathens. [Lardner, Id. p. 407] 9. We have here exhibited a confession of simple worship, a scriptural constitution to their churches and its officers, with a blameless feature in the manners of these Christians, which has been conceded by their enemies. Their standard of perfection was so high in Christian morals that their increasing congregations were divided into two classes of disciples. [These two classes can be traced through the Albigensian, Waldensian, German, and Dutch Baptist Churches, from this parent stock.] They had not any ecclesiastical government, administered by bishops, priests, or deacons: they had no sacred order of men distinguished by their manner of life, their habit, or any other circumstance from the rest of the assembly. They had certain teachers whom they called companions in the journey of life; among these there reigned a perfect equality, and they had no peculiar rights, privileges, nor any external mark of dignity to distinguish them from the people. They recommended to the people without exception, and that with the most affecting and ardent zeal, the constant and assiduous perusal of the Scriptures, and expressed the utmost indignation against the Greeks who allowed to the priests alone an access to those sacred fountains of divine knowledge [Mosh. Hist. C. 9, p. 2, ch. 5,~5] No object can be more laudable than the attempt to bring back the Christian profession to its original simplicity, which evidently appears to have been the aim of the Paulicians, though for this commendable conduct, terms of reproach and epithets of disgrace have been heaped on their memories by interested historians and dictionary writers. In this good work of preaching and evangelizing provinces, Sylvanus spent twenty-seven years of his life, taking up his residence at Cobossa, and disseminating his opinions all around. The united exertions of these people, their scriptural views, doctrine, discipline, and itinerating system, were attended with evident displays of divine approbation, and multitudes embraced a gospel simply and fully preached. 10. Alarmed at the progress these novel opinions were making, and discovering the growing importance of the Paulicians, the church party "engaged in the most bitter and virulent controversy with them." Ineffectual in their efforts, the Greek emperors began to persecute them with the most sanguinary severity. The Paulicians were sentenced to be capitally punished, and their books, wherever found, to be committed to the flames; and further, that if any person was found to have secreted them, he was to be put to death, and his goods confiscated. A Greek officer named Simeon, armed with legal and military authority, appeared at CORONIA to strike the shepherd, Sylvanus, and to reclaim, if possible, the lost sheep. By a refinement of cruelty, this minister of justice placed the unfortunate Sylvanus before a line of his disciples, who were commanded, as the price of their pardon, and as proof of their penitence, to stone to death their spiritual Father. The affectionate flock turned aside from the impious office; the stones dropped from their filial hands; and of the whole number, only one executioner could be found. This apostate, Justus, after putting Sylvanus to death, gained by some means admittance into communion, and again deceived and betrayed his unsuspecting brethren; and as many as were treacherously ascertained, and could be collected, were massed together into an immense pile, and by order of the emperor, consumed to ashes. Simeon, the officer, struck with astonishment at the readiness with which the Paulicians could die for their religion, examined their arguments, and became himself a convert, renounced his honors and fortune, and three years afterwards went to Cobossa, and became the successor of Constantine Sylvanus, a zealous preacher among the Paulicians, and at last sealed his testimony with his blood. [Milner and Jones, ut sup] To free the East from those troubles and commotions said to arise from the Paulician doctrines, a great number of them were transported into THRACE during this century; but still a greater number were left in Syria and the adjoining countries. From Thrace these people passed into Bulgaria and Sclavonia, where they took root, and settled in their own church order. From these churches, at after periods colonies were sent out, and they are said to have inundated Europe, [Mosh. Hist. c. 11, p. 2, ch. 5, ~ 2, 3] though some relics of these ancient communities were to be traced till the fifteenth century. 11. From the blood and ashes of the first Paulician victims, a succession of teachers and congregations repeatedly arose. The Greeks, to subdue them, made use both of arguments and arms, with all the terror of penal laws, without effecting their object. The great instrument of this people’s multiplication was, the alone use of the New Testament, of which some pleasing anecdotes are related. One Sergius was recommended by a Paulician woman to read Paul’s writings, and his attention to the sacred records brought him to embrace their views. For thirty-four years he devoted himself to the ministry of the gospel. Through every city and province that Sergius could reach, he spread abroad the savor of the knowledge of Christ, and with such success, that the clergy in the hierarchies considered him to be the forerunner of Antichrist; and declared he was producing the great apostasy foretold by Paul. The emperors, in conjunction with the clergy, exerted their zeal with a peculiar degree of bitterness and fury against this people. Though every kind. of oppressive measure and means was used, yet all efforts for their suppression proved fruitless, "nor could all their power and all their barbarity, exhaust the patience nor conquer the obstinacy of that inflexible people, who possessed," says Mosheim, "a fortitude worthy of a better cause"! 12. The face of things changed towards the end of the eighth century, and the prospects of this harassed people brightened under the emperor Nicephorus, who restored to them their civil and religious privileges. During this auspicious season the Paulicians widely disseminated their opinions, and it is recorded that they became formidable to the East. [Chambers’ Cyclop. Art. Paulicians] Those persecuting laws which had been suspended for some years, were renewed and enforced with redoubled fury under the reigns of Michael and Leo, who made strict inquisition throughout every province in the Grecian empire, and inflicted capital punishment upon such of them as refused to return to the bosom of the church. These decrees drove the Paulicians into desperate measures. "Oppression maketh a wise man mad." [Gibbon renders an indirect apology for the conduct of these people at this period. Hist. ch. 54] The Paulicians are now charged with having put to death some of their clerical oppressors, and also of taking refuge in those provinces governed by Saracens, and that in union with those barbarians, they infested the Grecian states. The power and influence of these dissidents were found to be so great as to suggest the policy of allowing them to return to their own habitations, and dwelling there in tranquility. The severest persecution experienced by them was encouraged by the empress Theodora, A.D. 845. Her decrees were severe, but the cruelty with which they were put in execution by her officers was horrible beyond expression. Mountains and hills were covered with inhabitants. Her sanguinary inquisitors explored cities and mountains in lesser Asia. After confiscating the goods and property of one hundred thousand of these people, the owners to that number were put to death in the most barbarous manner, and made to expire slowly under a variety of the most exquisite tortures. The flatterers of the empress boast of having extirpated in nine years that number of Paulicians. Many of them were scattered abroad, particularly in Bulgaria. Some fortified the city of Tephrice and Philippopolis, from which last city they were called Philippopolitans; and though they were driven hence, yet the spirit of independence was not subdued. A portion of this people emigrated from Thrace, and their doctrines soon struck deep root in European soil. Such as escaped from the inquisitors fled to the Saracens, who received them with compassion; and in conjunction with whom, under experienced officers, they maintained a war with the Grecian nation for the period of one hundred and fifty years. During the reign of John Zimicus, they gained considerable strength, and during the tenth century, they spread themselves abroad throughout different provinces. From Bulgaria they removed into Italy, and spreading themselves from thence through the other provinces of Europe, "they became extremely troublesome to the Roman pontiffs upon many occasions.’’ Here the history of this interesting-people rests, so far as it respects the Levant; but we shall give a slight statement of their migratory movements in order to make our future sections illustrative of these people, though under different names. 13. "From Italy," says Mosheim, "the Paulicians sent colonies into almost all the other provinces of Europe, and formed gradually a considerable number of religious assemblies, who adhered to their doctrine, and who realized every opposition and indignity from the popes. It is undoubtedly certain, from the most authentic records, a considerable number of them were, about the middle of the eleventh century, settled in Lombardy, Insubria, but principally at Milan; and that many of them led a wandering life in France, Germany, and other countries, where they captivated the esteem and admiration of the multitude by their sanctity. In Italy, they were called Paterini and Cathari. In France, they were denominated Bulgarians, from the kingdom of their emigration, also Publicans, instead of Paulicians, and boni homines, good men; but were chiefly known by the term Albigenses, from the town of Alby, in the Upper Languedoc. The first religious assembly which the Paulicians formed in Europe is said to have been at Orleans, in the year 1017, on which we shall enlarge under the churches in France, to which we shall repair after we have traced their existence and labors in the kingdom of Italy. 14. Here we may be permitted to review the apostolic character and exertions of this extensive body of people, while we may express our surprise at the virulent opposition, the cruel measures used, and the extensive sacrifice of human life, for successive ages, on the alone ground of religious views. A special instance of divine grace was displayed in this people’s rise and early success; and we must attribute their preservation and enlargement to the exercise of the same compassion. An evident mark of apostolic spirit possessed by this people must be admitted by all; without any funds or public societies to countenance or support the arduous undertaking, otherwise than their respective churches, the Paulicians fearlessly penetrated the most barbarous parts of Europe, and went single-handed, and single eyed, to the conflict with every grade of character. In several instances they suffered death or martyrdom, not counting their lives dear, so that they could promote the cause of their Redeemer. [see Mosheim’s History; Gibbon’s Ro. Hist. ch. 54; Robinson’s Eccl. Res. ch. 6, pp. 77-79; Jones’s Lectures on Eccl. Hist. v. ii., pp. 179--184] http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/or...orchard2-05.htm

Ararat-Eskijian Museum and Library Ararat Home of Los Angeles 15105 Mission Hills Rd. Mission Hills, CA 91345 Telephone (818) 838-4862 ____________________________________________ Armenological Studies, Research and Exhibits Director: Melkon Armen Khandjian And Ararat Eskijian Museum Founder : Luther Eskijian http://www.ararat-eskijian-museum.com/images/Map-Exhibit.jpg Jointly present an exhibition of Armenia Thru 3000 Years of Maps Sunday June 25, 2000 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. It's been said: "That a picture is worth a thousand words". But a mapmaker in 1650 has said: "The eye will learn more in an hour from a map, than the ear can learn in a day from discourse". Did the Armenians discover and settle in Middle America 1500 years before Columbus? Were the Portuguese and the Spaniards migrants from Armenia and spoke Armenian before the Roman conquest? What facts does Das Annoleid, the epic poems of the Bavarian Germans, disclose about their migration out of Armenia and conquest of Bavaria some 900 years ago? And did the Germans in general originate from the Oudi district of Artsakh? Are the roots of the Irish and the Albanians from the Caucasian Armenia? Why does a late 19th century renowned American historian claim that the first settlers of New England, 1620, the Puritan Pilgrims, were the religious and spiritual descendants of the Paulician Armenian religious reformers? Find out about these intriguing questions by visiting the exposition of Armenia Thru 3000 Years of Maps. The exposition of maps is a journey thru millenniums, from beginnings of history until today. It is uniquely educational and cultural experience fro individuals of all ages. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A unique exhibition of the chronological history of Armenia presented thru ancient, antiquarian and modern maps and atlases. On display are either-original maps or facsimiles carved on clay, drawn on parchment or printed on paper. These maps, encompassing three millenniums, cover subjects such as Biblical stories of Eden and Noah's Ark; Greek, Roman, European and Arab maps; maps drawn by Columbus and other great discoverers; the hand drawn map of Leonardo da Vinci; maps showing the Armenian occupation of Jerusalem before the Jews; maps of Armenian regional costumes; celestial maps; Clician Armenia and the Crusaders; the maps of the genocide; and maps of Armenia printed by the Ottoman Turks. All these international maps designate the landmass between the Caspian, Black and Mediterranean Seas as Armenia! Until the 16th Century, the mapmakers did not recognize Turkey. As for Azerbaidjan it is non-existent until Sovietization of the area! This exhibition is an undeniable witness tohistoyr: That Armenia is the only surviving nation since antiquity in spite of three millenniums of invasions, destructions, migrations, persecutions and genocide. http://www.ararat-eskijian-museum.com/Maps...ps-Exhibit.html

http://www.templarhistory.com/theskull.gif The skull and cross-bones, are long known to have Templar and latterly Masonic connections and were commonly used as a symbol on Templar & Masonic grave sites in the past. The Skull and Cross-bones, Masonic or not, point out to us all, our own mortality and eventual death. This image of mortality was believed to figure in Templar ritual. Now while this claim in and of itself seems quite believable, one of the legends of how it came to be is not. It is well known that the order of the Templars was monastic in nature and therefore forbidden to have involvement with women as shown in the Templar Rule of Order. The legend of the "Skull of Sidon" claims that one Templar knight had a relationship with a woman who died. He dug up the woman's corpse and consummated their relationship resulting in a most grisly birth nine months later. "A great lady of Maraclea was loved by a Templar, A Lord of Sidon; but she died in her youth, and on the night of her burial, this wicked lover crept to the grave, dug up her body and violated it. Then a voice from the void bade him return in nine months time for he would find a son. He obeyed the injunction and at the appointed time he opened the grave again and found a head on the leg bones of the skeleton (skull and crossbones). The same voice bade him 'guard it well, for it would be the giver of all good things', and so he carried it away with him. It became his protecting genius, and he was able to defeat his enemies by merely showing them the magic head. In due course, it passed to the possession of the order." From The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln According to these same authors this tale can be traced back to a twelfth century author named Walter Mapp, an early chronicler of Templar history. Although the story at that time was not connected with the Templar Knights, by the time of their trials 1307-1314 CE it was well woven into the Templar legend. In fact it was called upon during the actual trials of the Templars. Edward Burman in his book "Supremely Abominable Crimes" tells of an Antonio Sicci, an apostolic notary from Vercelli, Northern Italy. Sicci recounts to the inquisitors the tale of the Lord of Sidon, which he claimed he learned while working for the order in the Holy Land. His accusation and recounting of the tale is similar to that quoted in Baigent and Leigh's book. As loony as this tale seems to modern eyes, it was easily bought during the period. The inquisitors and theologians would have picked up on the fact that the woman of the piece was Armenian by background. This they would have connected with the Armenian Church and its Paulician sects. The Paulicians and the Bogomils were practitioners of Catharism, which the church had all but wiped out during the Albigensian Crusade. Since the church believed the Cathari to be practitioners of the Black Mass and necromancy, the woman's Armenian background would make the story a matter of guilt by association. http://www.templarhistory.com/sidon.html [ February 20, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Medieval Sourcebook: Anna Comnena: The Bogomils, c. 1110 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After this in the course of the years of his reign, a very great cloud of heretics arose, and the nature of their heresy was new and hitherto unknown to the Church. For two very evil and worthless doctrines which had been known in former times, now coalesced; the impiety, as it might be called, of the Manichaeans, which we also call the Paulician heresy, and the shamelessness of the Massalians. This was the doctrine of the Bogomils---compounded of the Massalians and the Manichaeans. And probably it existed even before my father's time, but in secret; for the sect of the Bogomils is very clever in aping virtue. And you would not find any long-haired wordling belonging to the Bogomils, for their wickedness was hidden under the cloak and cowl. A Bogomil looks gloomy and is covered up to the nose and walks with a stoop and mutters, but within he is an uncontrollable wolf. And this most pernicious race, which was like a snake hiding in a hole, my father jured and brought out to the light by chanting mysterious speels. For now that he had rid himself of much of his anxiety about the East and the West he turned his attention to more spiritual matters. For in all things he was superior to other men; in teaching he surpassed those whose profession was teaching; in battles and strategy he excelled those admired for their exploits. By this time the fame of the Bogomils had spread everywhere. (For Basil, a monk, was very wily in handling the impiety of the Bogomils; he had twelve disciples whom he called "apostles," and also dragged about with him some female disciples, wretched women of loose habits and thoroughly bad, and he disseminated his wickedness everywhere.) This evil attacked many souls like fire, and the Emperor's soul could not brook it, so he began investigating the heresy. He had some of the Bogomils brought to the palace and all proclaimed a certain Basil as the teacher and chief representative of the Bogomilian heresy. Of these, one Diblatius was kept in prison, and as he would not confess when questioned, he was subjected to torture and then informed against the man called Basil, and the disciples he had chosen. Accordingly the Emperor entrusted several men with the search for him. And Sotanael's arch-satrap, Basil, was brought to light, in monk's habit, with a withered countenance, clean shaven and tall of stature. The Emperor, wishing to elicit his inmost thought by compulsion under the disguise of persuasion, at once invited the man on some righteous pretext. And he even rose from his chair to greet him, and made him sit by him and share his table, and threw out his whole fishing-line and fixed various baits on the hooks for this voracious whale to devour. And he made this monk, who was so many-sided in wickedness, swallow all the poison he offered him by pretending that he wished to become his discliple, and not he only, but probably his brother, the Sebastocrator Isaac, also; he pretended too to value all the words he spoke as if they came from a divine voice and to defer to him in all things, provided only that the villain Basil would effect his soul's salvation. "Most reverend father," he would say (for the Emperor rubbed sweets on the rim of the cup so that this demoniac should vomit forth his black thoughts), "I admire you for your virtue, and beseech you to teach me the new doctrines your Reverence has introduced, as those of our Churches are practically worthless and do not bring anybody to virtue." But the monk at first put on airs and he, that was really an ass, dragged about the lion's skin with him everywhere and shied at the Emperor's words, and yet was puffed up with his praises, for the Emperor even had him at his table. And in all this the Emperor's brother, the Sebastocrator, aided and abetted him in the play; and finally Basil spued out the dogmas of his heresy. And how was this done? A curtain divided the women's apartments from the room where the two Emperors sat with the wretch who blurted out and openly declared all he had in his soul; whilst a secretary sitting on the inner side of the curtain committed his words to writing. And the nonsense-monger seemed to be the teacher while the Emperor pretended to be the pupil, and the secretary wrote down his doctrines. And that man, stricken of God, spun together all that horrible stuff and did not shun any abominable dogma, but even despised our theology and misrepresented all our ecclesiastical administration. And as for the churches, woe is me---he called our sacred churches the temples of devils, and our consecration of the body and blood of our one and greatest High Priest and Victim he considered and condemned as worthless. And what followed? the Emperor threw off his disguise and drew the curtain aside; and the whole Senate was gathered together and the military contingent mustered, and the elders of the Church were present too. The episcopal throne of the Queen of Cities was at that time occupied by that most blessed of patriarchs, Lord Nicholas, the Grammarian. Then the execrable doctrines were read out, and proof was impossible to attack. And the defendant did not deny anything, but immediately bared his head and proceeded to counter-demonstrations and professed himself willing to undergo fire, scourging and a thousand deaths. For these erring Bogomils believe that they can bear any suffering without feeling pain, as the angels forsooth will pluck them out of the fire. And although all reproached him for his impiety, even those whom he had involved in his own ruin, he remained the same Basil, an inflexible and very brave Bogomil. And although he was threatened with burning and other tortures he clung fast to his demon and embraced his Satanael. After he was consigned to prison the Emperor frequently sent for him and frequently exhorted him to forswear his impiety, but all the Emperor's exhortations left him unchanged. Before the Emperor had begun to take severe measures against him, after his confession of impiety he would occasionally retire to a little house which had recently been prepared for him situated fairly close to the royal palace. It was evening and the stars above were shining in the clear air, and the moon was lighting up that evening, following the Synod. When the monk entered his cell about midnight, stones were automatically thrown, like hail, against his cell, and yet no hand threw them, nor was there any man to be seen stoning this devil's abbot. It was probably a burst of anger of Satanael's attendant demons who were enraged and annoyed because he had betrayed their secrets to the Emperor.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: From: Elizabeth A. S. Dawes, trans., The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena, (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., Ltd., 1918), pp. 412-415, reprinted in Alfred J. Bannan & Achilles Edelenyi, eds., Documentary History of Eastern Europe, (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1970), pp. 7-11. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This text is part of the Internet Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. Nopermission is granted for commercial use. © Paul Halsall, September 1998 halsall@murray.fordham.edu http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/comn...a-bogomils.html

Paulicians [pôlish'unz] Pronunciation Key Paulicians , Christian heretical sect. The sect developed in Armenia from obscure origins and is first mentioned in the middle of the 6th cent., where it is associated with Nestorianism. The teachings of the Paulicians seem to show some gnostic influence, possibly that of Marcion or Paul of Samosata, and many of the adherents leaned toward adoptionism. The sect especially valued the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline Epistles. They rejected the sacraments but nevertheless considered baptism of the greatest importance. They were iconoclasts and rejected extreme asceticism. By the 7th cent. the sect spread to the eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire, where it met with strong persecution. The Council of Dvin (719) brought on new persecutions of the Paulicians in Armenia, but the permissive Isaurian emperors allowed them to flourish and even settled them as allies in Thrace. Renewed persecution caused them to side with the Muslims against Byzantium. By 844, at the height of its power, the sect established a Paulician state at Tephrike (present-day Divrigu, Turkey) under the leadership of Karbeas, or Corbeas. In 871 the Byzantine emperor Basil I ended the power of this state and the survivors fled to Syria and Armenia. In 970 the Paulicians in Syria were deported to the Balkans, where they combined with the Bogomils. Those in Armenia became identified with a minor sect, the Tondrakeci. They ceased to be a threat after the 11th cent. and did not survive to modern times. See N. G. Garsoïan, The Paulician Heresy (1968). http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0837906.html

The Lord Raises up the Paulicians in the East to Engage the Gates of Hell One of the enemy's more ingenious ploys is to suppress critical knowledge of the past. This would include knowledge of our Protestant forefathers. Men and women who died protesting Satan's lies, holding to sola Scriptura and sola fide. In order to taint the witness of these Christians, Satan has planted seeds of doubt as to their orthodoxy. These same seeds of doubt, planted by our adversary centuries ago, are still taught and believed today. The truth can often times be difficult to assess, due to the fact that the enemy has taken great pains to destroy the original writings of those who oppose. Thus, we are often left with the difficult task of discerning fact from fiction, truth from lies, as stated in the only surviving biased records of the enemy. Let us compare two views to determine the orthodoxy of the Paulicians. First we will examine the view of the adversary, one which deems them heretics. Our first citation is that of Roman Catholic theologian, the Rev. John Dowling, who reproduces translations of 9th century histories written by opponents of the Paulicians:[15] "Petrus Siculus [i.e., Peter of Sicily] addresses his history to the archbishop of the Bulgarians….These Paulicians, he says, 'are the same as the [heretical] Manichæns, whose impurities they disclaim, but whose doctrines they carefully hold and defend.'….He states the principal heads of the heresy of the Paulicians in six particulars: 1- They asserted that there are two principles of things, and that the Maker and Governor of this world is not the same as the Maker and Governor of the world to come. 2- They denied that honour is due to the Virgin, as Christ was not born of her, but brought his body down from heaven. 3- They rejected the Eucharist. 4- They dishonoured the cross. 5- They rejected the Old testament, and called the prophets deceivers and robbers…. 6- They refused to allow the ministry and priesthood of the church. In contradistinction to this translation by a foe of the Paulicians, Dowling gives the Protestant translation of the same history, by the Rev. Blair: 1- That there is one supreme God, and another God who introduced sin. 2- That the Virgin Mary does not deserve divine adoration. 3- That there are three persons in One God, and that Jesus became incarnate. They believe the other Christian doctrines, but refuse [to believe] the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ [i.e., transubstantiation]….. 4- That the sign of the cross is to be contemned, and is a ground for their separation. 5- That the Scriptures are to be read,[16] and the Pope is not supreme. They did not deny, though they might possess the Old Testament. 6- That there is no ground for the different orders of clergy in the Roman Church, and that pastors are fellow-pilgrims.[17] To this account of the Paulicians, the Encyclopedia Britannica makes these observations: That they denied Jesus was made of the Mary's flesh, they smashed up crosses when they could, they repudiated Peter, calling him a denier of Christ, the garbs of monks originated from the mind of the devil, and that they, the Paulicians, were the universal church, not buildings of wood and stone.[18] If this present writer could make a few comments on interpreting these alleged doctrines: First, if the Paulicians held to the sin nature of Mary, which the Bible teaches and the Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox repudiate, it would seem that Christ could not have partaken of that aspect of her, thus making His flesh of a significantly different and higher order than hers. Second, because the Roman Pontiff falsely claims apostolic descent from Peter, the alleged 'first pope', it could be seen by them that rejection of the Papacy constituted rejection of Peter. We know the Papal Antichrist denies Christ, so it would be correct to cite Peter's dark side as describing the inherited nature of Christ-denying popes. Third, it was not the garb of the monks which the Paulicians denounced, but the orders themselves, as originating from Satan, not from Scripture. Fourth, the original meaning of the Greek word for 'church' is 'called out ones.' The Paulicians were simply stating their separation from the idolatrous apostates, claiming God's people did not constitute literal buildings or cathedrals, rather faithful humans. Rev. E. B. Elliott, renowned author of the unequalled 19th century commentary on the Revelation, gives a synopsis of Paulician history: "It was about the middle, then, of the seventh century that the Paulikian[19] sect had its rise. At that time, as I have already elsewhere shown, the most grievous corruptions were not only admitted into, but enforced in, both the doctrine and the worship of the Catholic Church, as it was called, in Greek Christendom. The images of saints suspended on the church walls, and the votive offerings beneath them, the glare of lamps and the fumes of incense, told everywhere to the eye, too clearly to be mistaken, of the almost universal departure from the simplicity and the spirit of the Gospel. Other mediators (the Virgin Mary more especially) had been substituted for the one and only true Mediator between God and men, the God-man Christ Jesus; and other protectors, like the old pagan tutelary deities, for his Almighty protectorship…..The very principle of salvation, simply by faith in the dying and ascended Saviour, was so obscured as to be almost lost." [20] Elliott traces the origin of the Paulicians through one Constantine, in A. D. 654, not Paul of Samosata, the heretical Manichæn Bishop, as their enemies held. Rather, the Paulicians derived their name from the great teacher of election by grace, the Apostle Paul. Constantine, founder of the Paulicians, Stoned to Death for Heresy, His Disciples Burned Alive By Eastern Orthodox 'Christians' Citing the hostile testimony of historian, Peter of Sicily, Elliott details the martyrdom of Constantine and his Christian followers: "…an edict of persecution was issued against him and his Paulikian congregations by the Greek government…the penalty of death was declared against both teacher and disciples, such as might persist obstinately in heresy, but with the injunction of mercy to such as might recant…The result was that Constantine himself at least was theron stoned to death…The report of the revival of heresy reached the ears of a neighboring Bishop, after three years…and Simeon [the new Paulician leader], and a large number of his followers…were all thrown on (a vast funeral pile); and burnt alive." [21] Elliott then proceeds with their history down to the time of two great Paulician leaders, Gegnæsius and Joseph, whose ministries paralleled the rise of Iconoclasm, "that grand movement against image-worship." Elliott postulates this movement against images to have originated with the Paulicians themselves, citing the hostile history of Georgius Hamartolus: "…the Iconoclasts were the protectors of the abominable and demoniacal worship of the Manichæns, from whom in fact they derived their origin."[22] In other words, the Paulicians, who were accused of the Manichæn heresy, were the very Iconoclasts who originated the movement against image-worship in the Eastern empire. Both Elliott and Milner View the Paulicians as One of the Two Witnesses of Rev.11: They Take the Historicist View of Revelation Let us now resume our investigation into the history of the persecuted Paulicians by quoting Milner once more: "The reigning powers, both in the east and the west, were overgrown with false worship: ….(and by) the submission of all the European Churches to the domination of the Roman See. There the seat of Antichrist was firmly fixed…….From the year 727, to about the year 2000, we have the dominion of the Beast;[23] and the prophesying of the witnesses in sackcloth, which was to continue 1260 days, or forty and two months, that is for 1260 years.[24] We must now look for the real Church, either, in distinct individual saints, who, in the midst of popery, were preserved by effectual grace in vital union with the Son of God, or, in associations of true Christians, formed in different regions, which were in a state of persecution and much affliction. Where then was the Church in the eighth century? She still subsisted; and the opposition made to idolatry…demonstrates her existence……. "The enemies of the Paulicians give them the name from some unknown teacher; but there seems scarce a doubt, that they took the name from St. Paul himself. For Constantine gave himself the name of Sylvanus; his disciples were called Titus, Timothy, Tychicus, the names of the Apostle's fellow-labourers…Their enemies called them Gnostics or Manichees; and confounded them with those sectaries…We know nothing of these men but from the pens of their enemies. Their writings, and the lives of their eminent teachers are totally lost….This people also were perfectly free from the image-worship, which more and more pervaded the east. They were simply scriptural in the use of the sacraments: they disregarded relics…and they knew of no other Mediator but the Lord Jesus Christ…..'To their other excellent deeds,' says the bigoted Peter, the Sicilian, 'the divine and orthodox emperors added this virtue, that they ordered the Montanists and Manichæns [i.e., Paulicians] to be capitally punished; and their books, wherever found, to be committed to the flames; also, that if any person was found to have secreted them, he was to be put to death, and his goods to be confiscated.'…….For a hundred and fifty years these servants of Christ underwent the horrors of persecution, with Christian patience and meekness; and if the acts of their martyrdom, their preaching, and their lives were distinctly recorded, there seems no doubt, but this people would appear to have resembled those, whom the Church justly reveres as having suffered in the behalf of Christ during the three first centuries….The blood of the martyrs was, in this case, as formerly, the seed of the Church: a succession of teachers and congregations arose, and a person named Sergius, who laboured among them thirty-three years, is confessed by the bigoted historians to have been a man of extraordinary virtue. The persecution had, however, some intermissions, till at length Theodora,[25] the same empress who fully established image-worship, exerted herself beyond any of her predecessors against them. Her inquisitors ransacked the lesser Asia, in search of these sectaries; and she is computed to have killed by the gibbet, by fire, and by sword, a hundred thousand persons." [26] "The Key of Truth' Delineates Paulician Teachings A late 19th century find by the Rev. Fred Conybeare, of Oxford, The Key of Truth purports to be an ancient manuscript of Paulician doctrines.[27] Citing an excerpt from the record of an 1837 Inquisition of Armenian Paulicians, we find that these 'heretics' rebaptized all whose foreheads the sacred oil of the wild beast is laid, and that on their faces they make no sign of the cross.[28] In his summary of the ancient tenets of the Paulicians, Conybeare gives the following principles: - They called themselves the true Church, the Elect. - They repudiated infant baptism. - The Virgin Mary is no longer a virgin, nor does she intercede for us. - Purgatory is a falsehood. - Images, pictures, holy crosses, incense, candles are all to be condemned as idolatrous, alien to the teaching of Christ. - The Paulicians were not dualists [i.e., Manichæn]. - Denied confession to a priest. - Their canon contained the entire New testament, nor did they reject the Old Testament. - The false priests deceive the simple-minded with mere bread. The devil's favorite disguise is that of a monk. - The Scriptures and a knowledge of divine truth are not to remain the exclusive possession of the Orthodox priests. We will continue Part 2 with a look into the reasons why the Paulicians and other true Christian sects were falsely labeled Manichæns. TO BE CONTINUED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] German theologian and professor of Church history at numerous universities (d. 1930), Eng. transl. by Neil Buchanan, Little, Brown & Co., 1898, Vol. 4, p. 318 ff. [2] Original publication, 1788. We quote from the 1952 Britannica edition, Vol.2, pp. 195-96. [3] Original publication, 1562. We quote from the 1823, Baltimore edition, p. 179 ff. [4] The History of the Church of Christ, 2nd Edition, Revised by Rev. Isaac Milner, London, 1810. [5] Ibid., pp. 151-52. [6] Ibid. pp. 153-57. [7] Ibid. p. 198. [8] Ibid. p. 200 [9] I.e., evil spirits subordinate to Satan. [10] Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Ed. By Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Hendrickson Publishers reprint, 1995. [11] Ibid., p. 207. [12] Gibbon, loc. cit. [13] Let the reader note: this is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, attributing to the Holy Spirit an evil work in the name of holiness. [14] Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, op. cit., pp. 571-73. [special thanks to Rick Hutson for the material.] [15] A Letter to the Rev. S. R. Maitland on the Opinions of the Paulicians, London, 1835. [16] I.e., by the laity, which the 9th century Greeks forbade. [17] History of the Waldenses, pp. 169-70. [18] 1959 edition, article, Paulicians. [19] Elliott prefers to use this term, a corruption of the term Publicans used by their opponents. [20] Horæ Apocalypticæ, London, 1863, vol.2, p. 249 ff. [21] Ibid., pp. 254-55. [22] Ibid. p. 256. Elliott cites Dowling, op. cit., p. 42. [23] Milner cites Rev. 11 & 13 as his authority. [24]The Protestant Year-Day Principle: one year for each prophetic day. [25] Eastern Orthodox Empress, A. D. 842-55. [26] Ibid. pp. 204-8. [27] Oxford, 1898. All subsequent writers on the Paulicians quote this source as authoritative. 28 Ibid. pp. xxiv-v. This 'heretical' doctrine follows, exactly, prophetic wisdom which warns against taking such a mark of the beast (Rev. 14:9). http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/wor...protestant3.htm

And so True Believers in small fractured groups, still maligned and branded as heretics merely because they attempted to walk more closely to Apostolic teachings, made their way through Europe and continued to spread the shreds of God's Truth they still possessed and had faithfully preserved for more then eleven hundred years. Stewart Easton in his book, "The Western Heritage" tells us that: "The common element of all 12th century heresy was the belief that true Christianity consisted in leading a life more consistent with the life of Christ as it had been portrayed in the Gospels" (page 234) The Bogomil's evangelistic zeal had spread their Paulician teachings throughout the Alpine regions of France and Italy, as well as Germany and Servia, where many so called "heretical" Christian sects flourished during this time period. In Germany we find references to "The Friends of God". In Servia there were "The Paterenes". Others were called Passagi, Bulgarians, Cathari, Publicani and were sometimes referred to collectively by their adversaries as Albigenses. It would be incorrect to assume that all these different groups believed the same things, let alone preserved and faithfully followed all the Paulician beliefs of their ancestry. As the Encyclopedia Britanica makes clear in an article on the Bogomils: "It is a complicated task to determine the true character and the tenets of any ancient sect, considering that almost all the information that has reached us has come from opponents" (vol 4, pg 119) Some of them such as "The Cathari", who had been influenced by Manichaeism (a Persian cult), did in fact hold many heretical beliefs. But Christ's Church, as God had promised (Mt 16:18), would survive. Near the turn of the 12th century, the Roman Church became concerned about the "Heresies" that were over running the Valley Louise in Duaphiny, France. Around 1104, a man from this valley, Peter of Bruys and later, one Peter Waldo were both said to have preached a Gospel of repentance. Waldo, a business man, brought the same skills that had made him successful in business to his organization of the church. He and his followers dedicated their lives to preaching the Gospel and gave up all they owned to be used by the church as was needed; believing that Christ who Himself owned no possessions, had set this example. According to Stewart C. Easton, Waldensians based the creed of their Church: "... on the ideal of the early Christian church as far as they understood it." Easton, The Western Heritage, pg 234 Waldensianism was condemned by a council of the Roman church and in later years even pursued by the Inquisition. However the movement was never totally stamped out. In the early thirteen hundreds, Waldensian sects in the Netherlands were called Lollards. And by 1315 a Waldensian minister "Walter the Lollard", brought the Gospel of Christ and the seventh day sabbath to England, where it remained for centuries in relative obscurity. http://www.truechristian.org/great_falling...h/11twelfth.htm

The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter LIV Supine superstition of the Greek church In the profession of Christianity, the variety of national characters may be clearly distinguished. The natives of Syria and Egypt abandoned their lives to lazy and contemplative devotion: Rome again aspired to the dominion of the world; and the wit of the lively and loquacious Greeks was consumed in the disputes of metaphysical theology. The incomprehensible mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, instead of commanding their silent submission, were agitated in vehement and subtile controversies, which enlarged their faith at the expense, perhaps, of their charity and reason. From the council of Nice to the end of the seventh century, the peace and unity of the church was invaded by these spiritual wars; and so deeply did they affect the decline and fall of the empire, that the historian has too often been compelled to attend the synods, to explore the creeds, and to enumerate the sects, of this busy period of ecclesiastical annals. From the beginning of the eighth century to the last ages of the Byzantine empire, the sound of controversy was seldom heard: curiosity was exhausted, zeal was fatigued, and, in the decrees of six councils, the articles of the Catholic faith had been irrevocably defined. The spirit of dispute, however vain and pernicious, requires some energy and exercise of the mental faculties; and the prostrate Greeks were content to fast, to pray, and to believe in blind obedience to the patriarch and his clergy. During a long dream of superstition, the Virgin and the Saints, their visions and miracles, their relics and images, were preached by the monks, and worshipped by the people; and the appellation of people might be extended, without injustice, to the first ranks of civil society. At an unseasonable moment, the Isaurian emperors attempted somewhat rudely to awaken their subjects: under their influence reason might obtain some proselytes, a far greater number was swayed by interest or fear; but the Eastern world embraced or deplored their visible deities, and the restoration of images was celebrated as the feast of orthodoxy. In this passive and unanimous state the ecclesiastical rulers were relieved from the toil, or deprived of the pleasure, of persecution. The Pagans had disappeared; the Jews were silent and obscure; the disputes with the Latins were rare and remote hostilities against a national enemy; and the sects of Egypt and Syria enjoyed a free toleration under the shadow of the Arabian caliphs. About the middle of the seventh century, a branch of Manichaeans was selected as the victims of spiritual tyranny; their patience was at length exasperated to despair and rebellion; and their exile has scattered over the West the seeds of reformation. These important events will justify some inquiry into the doctrine and story of the PAULICIANS; (1) and, as they cannot plead for themselves, our candid criticism will magnify the good, and abate or suspect the evil, that is reported by their adversaries. Origins of the Paulicans, or disciples of St. Paul, A.D. 660, etc The Gnostics, who had distracted the infancy, were oppressed by the greatness and authority, of the church. Instead of emulating or surpassing the wealth, learning, and numbers of the Catholics, their obscure remnant was driven from the capitals of the East and West, and confined to the villages and mountains along the borders of the Euphrates. Some vestige of the Marcionites may be detected in the fifth century; (2) but the numerous sects were finally lost in the odious name of the Manichaeans; and these heretics, who presumed to reconcile the doctrines of Zoroaster and Christ, were pursued by the two religions with equal and unrelenting hatred. Under the grandson of Heraclius, in the neighbourhood of Samosata, more famous for the birth of Lucian than for the title of a Syrian kingdom, a reformer arose, esteemed by the Paulicians as the chosen messenger of truth. In his humble dwelling of Mananalis, Constantine entertained a deacon, who returned from Syrian captivity, and received the inestimable gift of the New Testament, which was already concealed from the vulgar by the prudence of the Greek, and perhaps of the Gnostic, clergy. (3) These books became the measure of his studies and the rule of his faith; and the Catholics, who dispute his interpretation, acknowledge that his text was genuine and sincere. But he attached himself with peculiar devotion to the writings and character of St. Paul: the name of the Paulicians is derived by their enemies from some unknown and domestic teacher; but I am confident that they gloried in their affinity to the apostle of the Gentiles. His disciples, Titus, Timothy, Sylvanus, Tychicus, were represented by Constantine and his fellow-labourers: the names of the apostolic churches were applied to the congregations which they assembled in Armenia and Cappadocia; and this innocent allegory revived the example and memory of the first ages. Their bible In the Gospel, and the Epistles of St. Paul, his faithful follower investigated the Creed of primitive Christianity; and, whatever might be the success, a Protestant reader will applaud the spirit, of the inquiry. But if the Scriptures of the Paulicians were pure, they were not perfect. Their founders rejected the two Epistles of St. Peter, (4) the apostle of the circumcision, whose dispute with their favourite for the observance of the law could not easily be forgiven. (5) They agreed with their Gnostic brethren in the universal contempt for the Old Testament, the books of Moses and the prophets, which have been consecrated by the decrees of the Catholic church. With equal boldness, and doubtless with more reason, Constantine, the new Sylvanus, disclaimed the visions, which, in so many bulky and splendid volumes, had been published by the Oriental sects; (6) the fabulous productions of the Hebrew patriarchs and the sages of the East; the spurious gospels, epistles, and acts, which in the first age had overwhelmed the orthodox code; the theology of Manes, and the authors of the kindred heresies; and the thirty generations, or aeons, which had been created by the fruitful fancy of Valentine. The Paulicians sincerely condemned the memory and opinions of the Manichaean sect, and complained of the injustice which impressed that invidious name on the simple votaries of St. Paul and of Christ. The simplicity of their belief and worship. Of the ecclesiastical chain, many links had been broken by the Paulician reformers; and their liberty was enlarged, as they reduced the number of masters, at whose voice profane reason must bow to mystery and miracle. The early separation of the Gnostics had preceded the establishment of the Catholic worship; and against the gradual innovations of discipline and doctrine they were as strongly guarded by habit and aversion, as by the silence of St. Paul and the evangelists. The objects which had been transformed by the magic of superstition, appeared to the eyes of the Paulicians in their genuine and naked colours. An image made without hands was the common workmanship of a mortal artist, to whose skill alone the wood and canvas must be indebted for their merit or value. The miraculous relics were a heap of bones and ashes, destitute of life or virtue, or of any relation, perhaps, with the person to whom they were ascribed. The true and vivifying cross was a piece of sound or rotten timber, the body and blood of Christ, a loaf of bread and a cup of wine, the gifts of nature and the symbols of grace. The mother of God was degraded from her celestial honours and immaculate virginity; and the saints and angels were no longer solicited to exercise the laborious office of meditation in heaven, and ministry upon earth. In the practice, or at least in the theory, of the sacraments, the Paulicians were inclined to abolish all visible objects of worship, and the words of the gospel were, in their judgment, the baptism and communion of the faithful. They indulged a convenient latitude for the interpretation of Scripture: and as often as they were pressed by the literal sense, they could escape to the intricate mazes of figure and allegory. Their utmost diligence must have been employed to dissolve the connection between the Old and the New Testament; since they adored the latter as the oracles of God, and abhorred the former as the fabulous and absurd invention of men or daemons. We cannot be surprised, that they should have found in the Gospel the orthodox mystery of the Trinity: but, instead of confessing the human nature and substantial sufferings of Christ, they amused their fancy with a celestial body that passed through the virgin like water through a pipe; with a fantastic crucifixion, that eluded the vain and important malice of the Jews. They hold the two principles of the Magians and Manichaens..A creed thus simple and spiritual was not adapted to the genius of the times; (7) and the rational Christian, who might have been contented with the light yoke and easy burden of Jesus and his apostles, was justly offended, that the Paulicians should dare to violate the unity of God, the first article of natural and revealed religion. Their belief and their trust was in the Father, of Christ, of the human soul, and of the invisible world. But they likewise held the eternity of matter; a stubborn and rebellious substance, the origin of a second principle of an active being, who has created this visible world, and exercises his temporal reign till the final consummation of death and sin. (8) The appearances of moral and physical evil had established the two principles in the ancient philosophy and religion of the East; from whence this doctrine was transfused to the various swarms of the Gnostics. A thousand shades may be devised in the nature and character of Ahriman, from a rival god to a subordinate daemon, from passion and frailty to pure and perfect malevolence: but, in spite of our efforts, the goodness, and the power, of Ormusd are placed at the opposite extremities of the line; and every step that approaches the one must recede in equal proportion from the other. (9) The establishment of the Paulicans in Armenia, Pontus, etc . The apostolic labours of Constantine Sylvanus soon multiplied the number of his disciples, the secret recompense of spiritual ambition. The remnant of the Gnostic sects, and especially the Manichaeans of Armenia, were united under his standard; many Catholics were converted or seduced by his arguments; and he preached with success in the regions of Pontus (10) and Cappadocia, which had long since imbibed the religion of Zoroaster. The Paulician teachers were distinguished only by their Scriptural names, by the modest title of Fellow-pilgrims, by the austerity of their lives, their zeal or knowledge, and the credit of some extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. But they were incapable of desiring, or at least of obtaining, the wealth and honours of the Catholic prelacy; such anti- Christian pride they bitterly censured; and even the rank of elders or presbyters was condemned as an institution of the Jewish synagogue. The new sect was loosely spread over the provinces of Asia Minor to the westward of the Euphrates; six of their principal congregations represented the churches to which St. Paul had addressed his epistles; and their founder chose his residence in the neighbourhood of Colonia, (11) in the same district of Pontus which had been celebrated by the altars of Bellona (12) and the miracles of Gregory. (13)Persecution of the Greek emperors. After a mission of twenty-seven years, Sylvanus, who had retired from the tolerating government of the Arabs, fell a sacrifice to Roman persecution. The laws of the pious emperors, which seldom touched the lives of less odious heretics, proscribed without mercy or disguise the tenets, the books, and the persons of the Montanists and Manichaeans: the books were delivered to the flames; and all who should presume to secrete such writings, or to profess such opinions, were devoted to an ignominious death. (14) A Greek minister, armed with legal and military powers, appeared at Colonia to strike the shepherd, and to reclaim, if possible, the lost sheep. By a refinement of cruelty, Simeon placed the unfortunate Sylvanus before a line of his disciples, who were commanded, as the price of their pardon and the proof of their repentance, to massacre their spiritual father. They turned aside from the impious office; the stones dropped from their filial hands, and of the whole number, only one executioner could be found, a new David, as he is styled by the Catholics, who boldly overthrew the giant of heresy. This apostate (Justin was his name) again deceived and betrayed his unsuspecting brethren, and a new conformity to the acts of St. Paul may be found in the conversion of Simeon: like the apostle, he embraced the doctrine which he had been sent to persecute, renounced his honours and fortunes, and required among the Paulicians the fame of a missionary and a martyr. They were not ambitious of martyrdom, (15) but in a calamitous period of one hundred and fifty years, their patience sustained whatever zeal could inflict; and power was insufficient to eradicate the obstinate vegetation of fanaticism and reason. From the blood and ashes of the first victims, a succession of teachers and congregations repeatedly arose: amidst their foreign hostilities, they found leisure for domestic quarrels: they preached, they disputed, they suffered; and the virtues, the apparent virtues, of Sergius, in a pilgrimage of thirty-three years, are reluctantly confessed by the orthodox historians. (16) The native cruelty of Justinian the Second was stimulated by a pious cause; and he vainly hoped to extinguish, in a single conflagration, the name and memory of the Paulicians. By their primitive simplicity, their abhorrence of popular superstition, the Iconoclast princes might have been reconciled to some erroneous doctrines; but they themselves were exposed to the calumnies of the monks, and they chose to be the tyrants, lest they should be accused as the accomplices, of the Manichaeans. Such a reproach has sullied the clemency of Nicephorus, who relaxed in their favour the severity of the penal statutes, nor will his character sustain the honour of a more liberal motive. The feeble Michael the First, the rigid Leo the Armenian, were foremost in the race of persecution; but the prize must doubtless be adjudged to the sanguinary devotion of Theodora, who restored the images to the Oriental church. Her inquisitors explored the cities and mountains of the Lesser Asia, and the flatterers of the empress have affirmed that, in a short reign, one hundred thousand Paulicians were extirpated by the sword, the gibbet, or the flames. Her guilt or merit has perhaps been stretched beyond the measure of truth: but if the account be allowed, it must be presumed that many simple Iconoclasts were punished under a more odious name; and that some who were driven from the church, unwillingly took refuge in the bosom of heresy. Revolt of the Paulicans, A.D. 845-880. The most furious and desperate of rebels are the sectaries of a religion long persecuted, and at length provoked. In a holy cause they are no longer susceptible of fear or remorse: the justice of their arms hardens them against the feelings of humanity; and they revenge their fathers' wrongs on the children of their tyrants. Such have been the Hussites of Bohemia and the Calvinists of France, and such, in the ninth century, were the Paulicians of Armenia and the adjacent provinces. (17) They were first awakened to the massacre of a governor and bishop, who exercised the Imperial mandate of converting or destroying the heretics; and the deepest recesses of Mount Argaeus protected their independence and revenge. A more dangerous and consuming flame was kindled by the persecution of Theodora, and the revolt of Carbeas, a valiant Paulician, who commanded the guards of the general of the East. His father had been impaled by the Catholic inquisitors; and religion, or at least nature, might justify his desertion and revenge. Five thousand of his brethren were united by the same motives; they renounced the allegiance of anti-Christian Rome; a Saracen emir introduced Carbeas to the caliph; and the commander of the faithful extended his sceptre to the implacable enemy of the Greeks. They fortify Tephrice, In the mountains between Siwas and Trebizond he founded or fortified the city of Tephrice, (18) which is still occupied by a fierce or licentious people, and the neighbouring hills were covered with the Paulician fugitives, who now reconciled the use of the Bible and the sword. During more than thirty years, Asia was afflicted by the calamities of foreign and domestic war; in their hostile inroads, the disciples of St. Paul were joined with those of Mahomet; and the peaceful Christians, the aged parent and tender virgin, who were delivered into barbarous servitude, might justly accuse the intolerant spirit of their sovereign. So urgent was the mischief, so intolerable the shame, that even the dissolute Michael, the son of Theodora, was compelled to march in person against the Paulicians: he was defeated under the walls of Samosata; and the Roman emperor fled before the heretics whom his mother had condemned to the flames. The Saracens fought under the same banners, but the victory was ascribed to Carbeas; and the captive generals, with more than a hundred tribunes, were either released by his avarice, or tortured by his fanaticism. The valour and ambition of Chrysocheir, (19) his successor, embraced a wider circle of rapine and revenge. In alliance with his faithful Moslems, he boldly penetrated into the heart of Asia; the troops of the frontier and the palace were repeatedly overthrown; and pillage Asia Minor. the edicts of persecution were answered by the pillage of Nice and Nicomedia, of Ancyra and Ephesus; nor could the apostle St. John protect from violation his city and sepulchre. The cathedral of Ephesus was turned into a stable for mules and horses; and the Paulicians vied with the Saracens in their contempt and abhorrence of images and relics. It is not unpleasing to observe the triumph of rebellion over the same despotism which had disdained the prayers of an injured people. The emperor Basil, the Macedonian, was reduced to sue for peace, to offer a ransom for the captives, and to request, in the language of moderation and charity, that Chrysocheir would spare his fellow-Christians, and content himself with a royal donative of gold and silver and silk garments. "If the emperor," replied the insolent fanatic, "be desirous of peace, let him abdicate the East, and reign without molestation in the West. If he refuse, the servants of the Lord will precipitate him from the throne." The reluctant Basil suspended the treaty, accepted the defiance, and led his army into the land of heresy, which he wasted with fire and sword. The open country of the Paulicians was exposed to the same calamities which they had inflicted; but when he had explored the strength of Tephrice, the multitude of the Barbarians, and the ample magazines of arms and provisions, he desisted with a sigh from the hopeless siege. On his return to Constantinople, he labored, by the foundation of convents and churches, to secure the aid of his celestial patrons, of Michael the archangel and the prophet Elijah; and it was his daily prayer that he might live to transpierce, with three arrows, the head of his impious adversary. Beyond his expectations, the wish was accomplished: after a successful inroad, Chrysocheir was surprised and slain in his retreat; and the rebel's head was triumphantly presented at the foot of the throne. On the reception of this welcome trophy, Basil instantly called for his bow, discharged three arrows with unerring aim, and accepted the applause of the court, who hailed the victory of the royal archer. Their decline. With Chrysocheir, the glory of the Paulicians faded and withered: (20) on the second expedition of the emperor, the impregnable Tephrice, was deserted by the heretics, who sued for mercy or escaped to the borders. The city was ruined, but the spirit of independence survived in the mountains: the Paulicians defended, above a century, their religion and liberty, infested the Roman limits, and maintained their perpetual alliance with the enemies of the empire and the gospel. Their transplantation from Armenia to Thrace. About the middle of the eight century, Constantine, surnamed Copronymus by the worshippers of images, had made an expedition into Armenia, and found, in the cities of Melitene and Theodosiopolis, a great number of Paulicians, his kindred heretics. As a favour, or punishment, he transplanted them from the banks of the Euphrates to Constantinople and Thrace; and by this emigration their doctrine was introduced and diffused in Europe. (21) If the sectaries of the metropolis were soon mingled with the promiscuous mass, those of the country struck a deep root in a foreign soil. The Paulicians of Thrace resisted the storms of persecution, maintained a secret correspondence with their Armenian brethren, and gave aid and comfort to their preachers, who solicited, not without success, the infant faith of the Bulgarians. (22) In the tenth century, they were restored and multiplied by a more powerful colony, which John Zimisces (23) transported from the Chalybian hills to the valleys of Mount Haemus. The Oriental clergy who would have preferred the destruction, impatiently sighed for the absence, of the Manichaeans: the warlike emperor had felt and esteemed their valour: their attachment to the Saracens was pregnant with mischief; but, on the side of the Danube, against the Barbarians of Scythia, their service might be useful, and their loss would be desirable. Their exile in a distant land was softened by a free toleration: the Paulicians held the city of Philippopolis and the keys of Thrace; the Catholics were their subjects; the Jacobite emigrants their associates: they occupied a line of villages and castles in Macedonia and Epirus; and many native Bulgarians were associated to the communion of arms and heresy. As long as they were awed by power and treated with moderation, their voluntary bands were distinguished in the armies of the empire; and the courage of these dogs, ever greedy of war, ever thirsty of human blood, is noticed with astonishment, and almost with reproach, by the pusillanimous Greeks. The same spirit rendered them arrogant and contumacious: they were easily provoked by caprice or injury; and their privileges were often violated by the faithless bigotry of the government and clergy. In the midst of the Norman war, two thousand five hundred Manichaeans deserted the standard of Alexius Comnenus, (24) and retired to their native homes. He dissembled till the moment of revenge; invited the chiefs to a friendly conference; and punished the innocent and guilty by imprisonment, confiscation, and baptism. In an interval of peace, the emperor undertook the pious office of reconciling them to the church and state: his winter quarters were fixed at Philippopolis; and the thirteenth apostle, as he is styled by his pious daughter, consumed whole days and nights in theological controversy. His arguments were fortified, their obstinacy was melted, by the honours and rewards which he bestowed on the most eminent proselytes; and a new city, surrounded with gardens, enriched with immunities, and dignified with his own name, was founded by Alexius for the residence of his vulgar converts. The important station of Philippopolis was wrested from their hands; the contumacious leaders were secured in a dungeon, or banished from their country; and their lives were spared by the prudence, rather than the mercy, of an emperor, at whose command a poor and solitary heretic was burnt alive before the church of St. Sophia. (25) But the proud hope of eradicating the prejudices of a nation was speedily overturned by the invincible zeal of the Paulicians, who ceased to dissemble or refused to obey. After the departure and death of Alexius, they soon resumed their civil and religious laws. In the beginning of the thirteenth century, their pope or primate (a manifest corruption) resided on the confines of Bulgaria, Croatia, and Dalmatia, and governed, by his vicars, the filial congregations of Italy and France. (26) From that aera, a minute scrutiny might prolong and perpetuate the chain of tradition. At the end of the last age, the sect or colony still inhabited the valleys of Mount Haemus, where their ignorance and poverty were more frequently tormented by the Greek clergy than by the Turkish government. The modern Paulicians have lost all memory of their origin; and their religion is disgraced by the worship of the cross, and the practice of bloody sacrifice, which some captives have imported from the wilds of Tartary. (27) Their introduction into Italy and France. In the West, the first teachers of the Manichaean theology had been repulsed by the people, or suppressed by the prince. The favour and success of the Paulicians in the eleventh and twelfth centuries must be imputed to the strong, though secret, discontent which armed the most pious Christians against the church of Rome. Her avarice was oppressive, her despotism odious; less degenerate perhaps than the Greeks in the worship of saints and images, her innovations were more rapid and scandalous: she had rigorously defined and imposed the doctrine of transubstantiation: the lives of the Latin clergy were more corrupt, and the Eastern bishops might pass for the successors of the apostles, if they were compared with the lordly prelates, who wielded by turns the crosier, the sceptre, and the sword. Three different roads might introduce the Paulicians into the heart of Europe. After the conversion of Hungary, the pilgrims who visited Jerusalem might safely follow the course of the Danube: in their journey and return they passed through Philippopolis; and the sectaries, disguising their name and heresy, might accompany the French or German caravans to their respective countries. The trade and dominion of Venice pervaded the coast of the Adriatic, and the hospitable republic opened her bosom to foreigners of every climate and religion. Under the Byzantine standard, the Paulicians were often transported to the Greek provinces of Italy and Sicily: in peace and war, they freely conversed with strangers and natives, and their opinions were silently propagated in Rome, Milan, and the kingdoms beyond the Alps. (28) It was soon discovered, that many thousand Catholics of every rank, and of either sex, had embraced the Manichaean heresy; and the flames which consumed twelve canons of Orleans was the first act and signal of persecution. The Bulgarians, (29) a name so innocent in its origin, so odious in its application, spread their branches over the face of Europe. United in common hatred of idolatry and Rome, they were connected by a form of episcopal and presbyterian government; their various sects were discriminated by some fainter or darker shades of theology; but they generally agreed in the two principles, the contempt of the Old Testament and the denial of the body of Christ, either on the cross or in the eucharist. A confession of simple worship and blameless manners is extorted from their enemies; and so high was their standard of perfection, that the increasing congregations were divided into two classes of disciples, of those who practised, and of those who aspired.Persecution of the Albigeois, A.D. 1200, etc. It was in the country of the Albigeois, (30) in the southern provinces of France, that the Paulicians were most deeply implanted; and the same vicissitudes of martyrdom and revenge which had been displayed in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, were repeated in the thirteenth century on the banks of the Rhone. The laws of the Eastern emperors were revived by Frederic the Second. The insurgents of Tephrice were represented by the barons and cities of Languedoc: Pope Innocent III. surpassed the sanguinary fame of Theodora. It was in cruelty alone that her soldiers could equal the heroes of the Crusades, and the cruelty of her priests was far excelled by the founders of the Inquisition; (31) an office more adapted to confirm, than to refute, the belief of an evil principle. The visible assemblies of the Paulicians, or Albigeois, were extirpated by fire and sword; and the bleeding remnant escaped by flight, concealment, or Catholic conformity. But the invincible spirit which they had kindled still lived and breathed in the Western world. In the state, in the church, and even in the cloister, a latent succession was preserved of the disciples of St. Paul; who protested against the tyranny of Rome, embraced the Bible as the rule of faith, and purified their creed from all the visions of the Gnostic theology. The struggles of Wickliff in England, of Huss in Bohemia, were premature and ineffectual; but the names of Zuinglius, Luther, and Calvin, are pronounced with gratitude as the deliverers of nations. Chracter and consequences of the reformation. A philosopher, who calculates the degree of their merit and the value of their reformation, will prudently ask from what articles of faith, above or against our reason, they have enfranchised the Christians; for such enfranchisement is doubtless a benefit so far as it may be compatible with truth and piety. After a fair discussion, we shall rather be surprised by the timidity, than scandalized by the freedom, of our first reformers. (32) With the Jews, they adopted the belief and defence of all the Hebrew Scriptures, with all their prodigies, from the garden of Eden to the visions of the prophet Daniel; and they were bound, like the Catholics, to justify against the Jews the abolition of a divine law. In the great mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation the reformers were severely orthodox: they freely adopted the theology of the four, or the six first councils; and with the Athanasian creed, they pronounced the eternal damnation of all who did not believe the Catholic faith. Transubstantiation, the invisible change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is a tenet that may defy the power of argument and pleasantry; but instead of consulting the evidence of their senses, of their sight, their feeling, and their taste, the first Protestants were entangled in their own scruples, and awed by the words of Jesus in the institution of the sacrament. Luther maintained a corporeal, and Calvin a real, presence of Christ in the eucharist; and the opinion of Zuinglius, that it is no more than a spiritual communion, a simple memorial, has slowly prevailed in the reformed churches. (33) But the loss of one mystery was amply compensated by the stupendous doctrines of original sin, redemption, faith, grace, and predestination, which have been strained from the epistles of St. Paul. These subtile questions had most assuredly been prepared by the fathers and schoolmen; but the final improvement and popular use may be attributed to the first reformers, who enforced them as the absolute and essential terms of salvation. Hitherto the weight of supernatural belief inclines against the Protestants; and many a sober Christian would rather admit that a wafer is God, than that God is a cruel and capricious tyrant. Yet the services of Luther and his rivals are solid and important; and the philosopher must own his obligations to these fearless enthusiasts. (34) I. By their hands the lofty fabric of superstition, from the abuse of indulgences to the intercession of the Virgin, has been levelled with the ground. Myriads of both sexes of the monastic profession were restored to the liberty and labours of social life. A hierarchy of saints and angels, of imperfect and subordinate deities, were stripped of their temporal power, and reduced to the enjoyment of celestial happiness; their images and relics were banished from the church; and the credulity of the people was no longer nourished with the daily repetition of miracles and visions. The imitation of Paganism was supplied by a pure and spiritual worship of prayer and thanksgiving, the most worthy of man, the least unworthy of the Deity. It only remains to observe, whether such sublime simplicity be consistent with popular devotion; whether the vulgar, in the absence of all visible objects, will not be inflamed by enthusiasm, or insensibly subside in languor and indifference. II. The chain of authority was broken, which restrains the bigot from thinking as he pleases, and the slave from speaking as he thinks: the popes, fathers, and councils, were no longer the supreme and infallible judges of the world; and each Christian was taught to acknowledge no law but the Scriptures, no interpreter but his own conscience. This freedom, however, was the consequence, rather than the design, of the Reformation. The patriot reformers were ambitious of succeeding the tyrants whom they had dethroned. They imposed with equal rigour their creeds and confessions; they asserted the right of the magistrate to punish heretics with death. The pious or personal animosity of Calvin proscribed in Servetus (35) the guilt of his own rebellion; (36) and the flames of Smithfield, in which he was afterwards consumed, had been kindled for the Anabaptists by the zeal of Cranmer. (37) The nature of the tiger was the same, but he was gradually deprived of his teeth and fangs. A spiritual and temporal kingdom was possessed by the Roman pontiff; the Protestant doctors were subjects of an humble rank, without revenue or jurisdiction. His decrees were consecrated by the antiquity of the Catholic church: their arguments and disputes were submitted to the people; and their appeal to private judgment was accepted beyond their wishes, by curiosity and enthusiasm. Since the days of Luther and Calvin, a secret reformation has been silently working in the bosom of the reformed churches; many weeds of prejudice were eradicated; and the disciples of Erasmus (38) diffused a spirit of freedom and moderation. The liberty of conscience has been claimed as a common benefit, an inalienable right: (39) the free governments of Holland (40) and England (41) introduced the practice of toleration; and the narrow allowance of the laws has been enlarged by the prudence and humanity of the times. In the exercise, the mind has understood the limits of its powers, and the words and shadows that might amuse the child can no longer satisfy his manly reason. The volumes of controversy are overspread with cobwebs: the doctrine of a Protestant church is far removed from the knowledge or belief of its private members; and the forms of orthodoxy, the articles of faith, are subscribed with a sigh, or a smile, by the modern clergy. Yet the friends of Christianity are alarmed at the boundless impulse of inquiry and scepticism. The predictions of the Catholics are accomplished: the web of mystery is unravelled by the Arminians, Arians, and Socinians, whose number must not be computed from their separate congregations; and the pillars of Revelation are shaken by those men who preserve the name without the substance of religion, who indulge the license without the temper of philosophy. (42) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College. Last updated on August 27, 1999. Contacting the CCEL. http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volum...ume2/chap54.htm

The heretical Paulicians of Armenia From The Crossing Place by Philip Marsden -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None of the Balkan miseries had left a mark on this landscape: no bloody civil war or hated occupation, none of the concrete edifices – rest camps, picnic areas, statues – that I came to recognize as apparatchiks’ way of dealing with nature. It appeared clean and unbruised. But it had not always been so still. When Anna Comnena wrote about medieval Bachkovo she threw in a description of the surrounding villages. The people of these villages, she said, were restless, fidgety, always moving – hardly the normal characteristics of peasant groups. Who were these people? Historians have suggested that the site of Bachkovo was chosen to offset a group of local heretics: a centre of Orthodox faith would help counter their heresies. The villages must have been peopled by Paulicians, the sect banished to the Balkans from Armenia in about the ninth century. That would explain too Anna Comnena’s observation – restless, pious exiles with no attachment to anywhere but the land they’d left behind. But there are none left now. By the nineteenth century the Paulicians and Armenians had all but assimilated. Not long after midday I came across a man with a goat. I’d heard his tuneless whistling through the trees long before I saw him. He was standing in front of a simple homestead and his goat was pissing against the bare earth. When he saw me he started talking in low, unsurprised tones as though carrying on a conversation we’d interrupted earlier. But I couldn’t understand a word. ’Niema Bulgarski,’ I said. ’Turkski?’ ’Turkski, yok.’ ’Russki?’ ’Nyet.’ We’d reached an impasse. I admired his goat in Russian and he smiled. Then we stood in silence and watched it nose through the leaves for food. ’Armenski,’ he announced. ’Armenian! You speak Armenian?’ ’I am Armenian.’ But before I could put any of my questions about how he came to be there, or to make any link, however tenuous, with the Paulicians. his easy-going manner suddenly snapped. He pointed into the forest. A figure was approaching through the trees. ’Oh! You must leave!’ ’Who is it?’ ’Wife – quick, go!’ He ran inside his house and came out clutching a broom and, as I left, was franticallv sweeping the yard. I carried on into the hills and soon the silence of the forest had cocooned me from this strange figure. I didn’t envy that man and consoled myself that had he been a strict Paulician, he would not have married at all. It was a miracle – or rather a hypocrisy – that the sect survived so long. Of all the things Armenians helped introduce to Europe from the East, none had quite the impact as the Paulician heresies. Unwelcome in Armenia, the Paulicians were exiled to the Baikans in the ninth century. There they persisted with their deviant beliefs, a continuing irritation to the Byzantine authorities. In 1130, the time of the first Gothic cathedrals, Christian heresy appeared in earnest for the first time in Europe. It spread rapidly, divisively, turning people against the Church, and Church against people. Anxious synods were called in Rome; whispers of heresy filled the markets and monasteries. Women who refused the advances of priests were branded heretics and tortured. The Papal authorities resorted to a sweeping campaign of inquisition and sponsored a series of crusades to flush out the heretics who named themselves Cathari, ‘the pure’. Unlike earlier crusades, these ones, which began in 1208, were not to some far-flung dusty land, but to southern France. In one purge, fifteen thousand heretics were slaughtered; many others were blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses and lined up for archers to use as targets. For the first time, Europe was tearing itself apart over an idea. The idea was Manichaean dualism, and its progress can be traced from France back to the Balkans, back to Armenia, to a whole host of ancient roots. In Europe its success depended on two persuasive notions: the inherent corruption of any established Church, and the prevalence of demons whose wicked ambitions taunted the lives of every medieval peasant. For dualism addressed the question which has troubled theologians and philosophers from Job to Kant: if God is all-powerful and all-good, how can the existence of evil be explained? The dualist world is classified by two elements, spirit and marter. Spirit is God’s domain, and is good; matter is Satan’s, and is bad. Everything that is associated with the visible world is therefore evil. The problem began when Satan and his rebel angels were cast out of Heaven. In retaliation they created the material world, the mountains and oceans, the beasts and the trees. But when it came to rnan, Satan found he was unable to breathe life into him. So an agreement was reached with God to share this creature: God provided the spirit, Satan the body. Because man combines both elements, his mortal life is a continuous torment. His corporeal desires vie constantly with the better wisdom of his soul. He is a divine spirit entombed in an evil body and the earthly duty of all is to do everything to end this devilish conspiracy. Fierce piety and iconoclasm were one thing, but dualists went too far for the Church authorities. These were people, after all, who scorned not only all images, but also any elevation of the Virgin. They abhorred the Cross which was the symbol of Christ’s earthly suffering. And the Church itself, its buildings and clergy, was nothing more than a corrupt and worldly agency pandering to the whims of the devil. For most dualists, eating and drinking were necessary evils. But marriage and all that encouraged procreation ranked as great sins: having children extended the domain of the demiurge, creating new bodies, new prisons for the spirit. Conversely, non-procreative sex was permitted and, by all accounts, indulged with vigour. Sexual orgies were standard practice; many dualists held that the body was intrinsically evil below the navel so it didn’t matter what you did with it. The French called all heretics Bougres, after the Bulgarian Bogomils, and from this, with the suspicion that dualists also promoted sodomy, came the verb ’bougrire’ and the English ’to bugger’. The notion of spirit and matter, and the eternal conflict between them, is common to all sorts of religious traditions: Buddhist, Gnostic, Zoroastrian, Manichaean. In the early Christian years it emerged in dozens of bizarre sects, each adopting their own rites, antagonizing the authorities, but all having an essentially dualist belief. Among the more austere were the Montanists, famous for luring women from their husbands, who were known to receive their prophecies through dreams, to hate their own breath, eat radishes and actively seek out persecution. When the Emperor Justinian came after them, they burnt themselves alive. The Borborites, the ’muddy ones’ (so called from the Greek for ’mud’), considered any show of bodily hygiene as unnecessary pampering; they used both semen and menstrual fluid for their liturgy. The Carpocratians could not achieve salvation unless they had experienced every known sin. There were also the Helvidians and Paternians who were well-known for licentiousness. The Adamites were expected to pray naked, as if still in the Garden, and the Messalians required initiates to pray until the evil spirits bubbled out of their mouths; they would then fast for three years, after which, purged and pure, they could indulge again in all manner of bodily pleasures. What really went on in these sects is hard to discover – to many of them written records were also evil, and those reports that do survive were largely put around by their detractors. The Paulicians, strict dualists though they were, appear to have been more temperate in their rites and did leave for posterity a curious Armenian text entitled The Key of Truth. Most of the sects had been whittled away by the seventh century; those that hadn’t were swamped by the Arab invasions, and many dualists became Muslim. But for the Armenians, ever the exception, clinging to Christianity in the mountains, the spread of Islam spawned a dualist revival and saw the rise of the Paulicians. No less attuned than previous dualists to the mantles of the devil, the Paulicians’ The Key of Truth, written in Armenian, identifies twelve guises of evil: 1. Serpents 2. Ravens (for their love of lewdness) 3. Beasts of the field 4. Calves (or seals – the Armenian word is the same) 5. Light 6. Women (who adorn themselves and chase men) 7. Men (who agree to things) 8. Teachers of the school 9. Clerics of the church 10. Apostles 11. Bishops 12. Monks (who love vegetables and damp places) ’We have only mentioned twelve,’ warns The Key of Truth, ’in order not to be tedious to you, my loved ones.’ But the list is enough to show the Paulicians’ particular disdain for the Church. In Armenia that was hardly surprising – ordination was a hereditary right and dioceses were often run like little fiefdoms. For the laity, isolated and pious, Manichaean dualism was an appealing alternative. ’Nowhere else were the two strands of early Christianity more evenly intertwined than in Armenia. From the west, from Byzantium, the creed had come wrapped in gold-threaded cloth, with gilded icons and teams of saints to honour. It was a pompous, authoritarian institution, dishing out Christianity from above. Such a faith was never any more than a gloss on the bucolic paganism of the Armenian peasants. They were steeped in less worldly beliefs, Zoroastrian and Manichaean among them. The Christian evangelists from the south impressed them more: holy men from Syria ’with words like honey’. The desert had nurtured a purer, more austere faith and it was this strand of Christianity that was closest to dualism. The established Church in Armenia lashed out at the heretics: they must forfeit their land, have their foreheads branded with the image of a fox and be hamstrung if they relapsed, and, if all else failed, be banished to the far west of the Byzantine world. In Thrace, the exiled Armenians and dualists dominated Philippolis (now Plovdiv), the region’s capital. It was a dumping-ground for Byzantium’s misfits, Anna Comnena’s ’polluted waters’, a handy buffer for the Scythian invaders who would periodically sweep down from the north. And when the Crusaders passed through the town it was the Paulicians who alone did not flee. The Knights Templar, with their esoteric traditions and strange rites, clearly had strong dualist leanings. One account tells how they were required, among other things, to spit on the Cross. They had encountered Paulicians and Armenians not only in Philippolis but also near Antioch – Templars and Armenians even joined forces to take the castle of Baghras. It is popularly supposed that the Templars ’caught’ their heresies from the Cathars in France. But in fact it may well have been the other way round. Cloth and rug merchants also helped spread dualism and, in Europe, heretics were often called ’weavers’. Already in the thirteenth century, the Armenians were selling carpets widely. Many scholars contend that dualism spread not only from the Paulicians but also from Messalians and others. But it is telling that of all the various names used for heretics in western Europe, the only one with a specific Eastern derivation was Publicani, a Latinization of Paulician. At Vezelay, seven Publicani were burnt alive in 1167. Even in England a number of Publicani were discovered and had their foreheads branded. The heresies didn’t last. The Bogomils, Balkan dualists spreading from Paulician and Messalian roots, were crushed by the Turks. Rome succeeded in ridding itself of the Cathars, the Paterenes and the Albigensians. But the Paulicians survived in the Balkans as they did in Armenia itself. They survived in the same way the Armenians have always survived, and for which they have always been persecuted: by doggedly refusing to conform. As late as 1717, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu rode into Plovdiv and wrote home that she had found ’a sect of Christians that called themselves Paulines’. And in the mid-nineteenth century, Plovdiv’s Russian consul reported Paulicians in the city. Perhaps the hen-pecked goatherd was indeed a lapsed dualist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © This material is copyright. Reproduction and printing of single copies of this material is permitted if it is done in study, research, quotation and fair play. All further reproduction or any alteration of the text for other uses may be done only by permission of the copyright holder (usually the author). Please acknowledge the author in any quotation from this material. http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/edu/g-bank/a...s/heretic1.html