amends to bigotry, for his zeal in the internal purification of the Church, by his rancour against its sectarian seceders. The struggles, the victories, and the misfortunes of that persecuted race are eloquently unfolded in the pages of Gibbon: we shall not transfer the narrative to this history, for it belongs not to our purpose to trace the details even of religious warfare. It may suffice to say, that the sword, which was resumed by the enemy of the Images, was most fiercely wielded by their most ardent patroness; and that, during the fourteen years of the reign of Theodora, about 100,000 Paulicians are believed to have perished by various methods of destruction. The conflict lasted till nearly the end of the century; and, at length, the survivors either sought for refuge under the government of the Saracens, or were transplanted by the conqueror into the yet uncontaminated provinces of Bulgaria and Thrace. But not thus were the doctrines silenced, or the spirit extinguished. The fierce exiles carried with them into their new habitations the sectarian and proselytizing zeal; and the errors of the East soon took root and flourished in a ruder soil. During the tenth and eleventh centuries the Paulicians of Thrace were sufficiently numerous to be objects of suspicion, if not of fear; and in the latter we find it recorded, that Alexius Comnenus did not disdain to employ the talents and learning, with which he adorned the purple, in personal controversy with the heretical doctors. Many are related to have yielded to the force of the imperial eloquence; many also resigned their opinions on the milder compulsion of rewards and dignities; but those who, being unmoved by either influence, pertinaciously persisted in error and disloyalty, were corrected by the moderate exercise of despotic authority*.

After this period we find little mention of the Paulician sect in the annals of the Oriental Church. But we should remark that Armenia, the province of its birth, was never afterwards cordially reconciled to the See of Constantinople; and that, though it no longer fostered that particular heresy, it continued to nourish some seeds of disaffection, which frequently recommended it in later ages to the interested affection of the Vatican.t

Opinions of the
Paulicians.

It is generally much easier to describe the fortunes of a suffering sect than to ascertain the offence for which they suffered. The resistance of the Paulicians, their bravery, their cruelty, their overthrow, are circumstances of unquestionable assurance; the particulars of their opinions are disputed. By their enemies, they were at once designated as Manichæans -it was the name most obnoxious to the Eastern as well as the Western Communion: yet, if we may credit contemporary testimony, they earnestly disclaimed the imputation. The truth is, that they are only

They were removed to Constantinople, and placed in a sort of honourable exile in the immediate precincts of the imperial palace. Anna Comnena (Alexiad, b. xiv.) describes with filial ardour her father's zeal and patience in converting these Manicheans. Tois μὲν ὅπλοις τοὺς βαρβάρους ἐνίκα, τοῖς δὲ λόγοις ἐχειροῦτο τοὺς ἀντιθέους. ὥσπερ δὲ τότε κατὰ τῶν Μανιχαίων ἐξώπλιστο, ἀποστολικὴν ἀντὶ στρατηγικῆς ἀναδειξάμενος ἀγωνίαν—και ἔγωγε τοῦτον τρισκαιδέκατον ἂν ἀπόστολον ὀνομάσαιμι ἀπὸ πρωΐας οὖν μεχρι δείλης ἑώας ἢ καὶ ἑσπέρας, ἐστιν οὗ καὶ δευτέρας καὶ τρίτης φυλακῆς τῆς νυκτὸς μεταπεμπόμενος αὐτοὺ;, &c. &c.

...

See the Note at the end of this chapter.

Iidem sunt (says Petrus Siculus, page 764) nec quicquam divertunt à Manichæis Paulliciani, qui hasce recens a se procusas hæreses prioribus assuerunt, et ex sempiterno exitii barathro effuderunt: qui, tametsi se a Manichæorum impuritatibus alienos dictitant, sunt tamen dogmatum ipsorum vigilantissimi custodes, &c.' Historia de Manichæis;' a Latin translation of which is published in the Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum Veterum ; tom.

known, like so many other sects, through the representations of their adversaries. These have been investigated by Mosheimt with his usual care and impartiality, and the result of his inquiry may be received with as much confidence as is consistent with the nature of the evidence.

The most obvious difference between the Paulicians and Manichæans related to the ecclesiastical profession and discipline. The former rejected the government by bishops, priests, and deacons (to which the Manichæans adhered), and admitted no order or individuals set apart by exclusive consecration for spiritual offices. Neither did the authority of councils or synods enter into their system of religious polity. They had, indeed, certain doctors, called Synecdemi, or Notarii; but these were not distinguished by any peculiar dignities or privileges, either from each other or from the body of the people. The only singularity attending their appointment was, that they changed, on that occasion, their lay for scriptural names. They received all the books of the New Testament, except the two Epistles of St. Peter; and the copies of the Gospel in use among them were the same with those authorized by the Church, and free from the numerous interpolations imputed to the Manichæans.

The peculiarities already mentioned may appear alone sufficient to have excited the animosity of the established clergy of the East; but these were by no means the only offences objected to the Paulicians by the Church writers. These last, without professing to give a perfect delineation of the monstrous system of the Heretics, are contented to charge them with six detestable errors: 1. That they denied that either the visible world or the human body was the production of the Supreme Being; and distinguished their Creator from the most High God who dwells in the heavens. 2. That they treated contemptuously the Virgin Mary. 3. That they disparaged the nature and institution of the Lord's Supper‡. 4. That they loaded the cross of Christ with contempt and reproach. 5. That they rejected, after the example of the greatest part of the Gnostics, the books of the Old Testament, and looked upon the writers of the Sacred History as inspired by the Creator of the world, not by the Supreme God. 6. That they excluded Presbyters and Elders from all part in the administration of the Church§.

xvi., ann. 860-900. The expressions of Photius are 'Mndils d'ús pilns irigas BháornM εἶναι, παρ' ἣν ἐῤῥίζωσεν ὁ θεόμαχος Μάνης, τὴν παραφυάδα ταύτην τὴν δυσσεβῶν Σεργίου δογμάτων μία γάρ εστι καὶ ἡ ἀυτή, δες. (Διήγησις, &c., published in the Bibliotheca Coisliana (Paris, 1715) page 349.

The books from which our best accounts of the Paulicians are derived, are Photius (Διήγησις τῶν νεοφάντων Μανιχαίων καταβλαστήσεως), and Petrus Siculus (Historia de Manichæis). By the account of Petrus Siculus we learn, that, in the year 870, under the reign of Basilus the Macedonian, he was sent as ambassador to the Paulicians at Tibrica, to treat with them concerning the exchange of prisoners, and that he lived among them for nine months.

Cent. ix. p. 2. chap. v.

The words of Petrus Siculus are-Quod divinam et tremendam corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri conversionem negent, aliaque de hoc mysterio doceant-A Domino nempe non panem et vinum in cœna discipulis propinatum, sed figuratè symbola tantum et verba, tanquam panem et vinum, data.' In the article following-Quod formam et vim venerandæ et vivificæ crucis non solum non agnoscant, sed infinitis etiam contumeliis onerent." The six articles thus stated by Petrus Siculus are given by Photius in the same order, and with no very important alteration or addition: only, the patriarch increases the list by the charge of the most abandoned obscenity and profligacy.

The Sicilian elsewhere admits that the Paulicians professed the principal Catholic doctrines; but aliter ore, aliter corde. These mental heresies, so gratuitously imputed where every outward proof is wanting, are the most wicked invention of ecclesiastical

rancour.

We are, of course, bound to receive these articles with suspicion, as the allegations of an enemy. Still they had, unquestionably, some foundation. The first and fifth are sufficient to prove that the Paulicians maintained some opinions resembling those of Manes. It seems, indeed, most probable that they were descended from some one of the antient Gnostic sects, which, though diversified in many particulars, all professed one common characteristic. Again, whether or not they believed the eternity of matter is questionable; but it was seemingly their opinion that matter was the seat and source of all evil; and that, when endued with life and motion, it had produced an active principle, which was the cause of vice and misery. Respecting the third charge, it appears that, in their passion for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, they attached merely a figurative sense to the bread and wine administered by Christ at the last supper, understanding thereby a spiritual food and nourishment for the soul. The second and fourth evince their freedom from some of the popular superstitions of the Greeks-adoration of the Virgin, and reverence for the fancied relics of the Cross; and this, again, had alone been crime sufficient to arm against them, in the eighth and ninth centuries, the intemperate zealots of the Oriental Church. Add to this, that they held the images of the Saints in no reverence, and recommended to every class of the people the assiduous study of the sacred volume; not suppressing their indignation against the Greeks, who closed the sources of divine knowledge against all, except the priests*. . . These various subjects of difference duly considered, we shall not wonder that the Paulicians became the victims of the most deadly persecution which ever disgraced the Eastern Church. And since they were, in some manner, the reformers of their time, and as their zeal was indiscriminately directed as well against the sacerdotal order as against the corruptions introduced or supported by it, the Schismatics of Armenia resembled, both in their principles and their excesses, the Bohemians of the fifteenth age. The resemblance was increased by the violent means which were in both cases adopted to crush them, and which were resisted with the same ferocious heroism by both. Nor were their concluding destinies very different; for, though the sect of the Paulicians was at length expatriated, and finally extinguished or forgotten in the Bulgarian deserts, the Christians of Armenia never afterwards returned with any fidelity to the communion from which they had been so violently dissevered.

Amidst the metaphysical disputes which agitated the Greeks in the sixth and seventh centuries, that strong disposition to mysticism, which is peculiarly congenial with the oriental Mysticism prevacharacter, gave frequent proofs of its activity, though it lent in the East. never became the predominant spirit. It was princi

* A considerable proportion of the work of Petrus Siculus is consumed in describing the process, by which the mind of Sergius or Constantine, the founder of the sect, was corrupted by the seductions of a Manichæan woman. The following is an important specimen of the dialogue (page 761): Audio, Domine Sergi, te literarum scientia et eruditione præstantem esse, et bonum præterea virum usquequaque. Dic ergo mihi, cur non legis sacra Evangelia? Quibus ille ita respondit. Nobis profanis ista legere non licet, sed sacerdotibus duntaxat. At illa-Non est ita ut putas; nec enim personarum acceptio est apud Deurn. Omnes siquidem homines vult salvos fieri Dominus et ad agni tionem veritatis venire. At sacerdotes vestri, quoniam Dei verbum adulterant et mysteria occulunt, quæ in Evangeliis continentur, idcirco, vobis audientibus omnia non legunt quæ scripta sunt, &c. It is related that Constantine received from a deacon, in return for some acts of hospitality, the present of the New Testament. Thus it appears that, before the middle of the seventh century, the Eastern clergy had effectually shut up the sources of sacred knowledge.

But

pally cherished in the monastic establishments; and when free from the strange notions into which it not uncommonly seduced irregular minds, it gave birth, without any doubt, to much genuine and ardent piety. in the course of ecclesiastical history, through a painful necessity perpetually imposed upon its writer, it is by the excesses of piety rather than its natural and ordinary fruits, by the abuses of religion rather than its daily and individual uses and blessings, that attention is fixed and curiosity excited. In the civil and political records of nations the exploits of patriotism and the deeds which throw dignity on human nature, are proclaimed and celebrated, because they were performed in the public fields of renown, with kings and nations for their witnesses. But in a religious society the purest characters are commonly those, which shun celebrity and court oblivion. The noblest patriots in the kingdom of Christ are men who serve their Heavenly Master in holiness and in peace. They have their eternal recompense; but it is rare that they rise into worldly notice, or throw their modest lustre on the historic page.

On this account it is, that, while the absurdities of mysticism are commonly known and derided, the good effect which it has had, in turning the mind to spiritual resolves and amending the heart of multitudes imbued with it, is generally overlooked. We cannot now recall the names, or publish the pious acts or aspirations, which have been concealed or forgotten; yet may we approach, in a spirit of benevolence, the follies which have been so carefully recorded; and while we pursue with unsparing denunciation the crimes of ecclesiastical hypocrites—the ambition, the frauds, the avarice, the bigotry of a secular hierarchy-we may pass with haste and compassion over the errors and extravagances of piety.

Mosheim ascribes the introduction of the mystical theology into the Western Church to a copy of the pretended works of Dionysius the Areopagite, sent by the Emperor Michael Balbus to Lewis the Meek. Whether this be true or not, it was certainly in the East that those opinions were most prevalent, not in earlier only, but also in later ages. It is particularly recorded, that, in the twelfth century, numerous fanatics disturbed the unity and repose of the Oriental Church by errors proceeding from those principles. It is said that they rejected every form of external worship, all the ceremonies, and even the sacraments of the Church; that they placed the whole essence of religion in internal prayer; and maintained that in the breast of every mortal an evil genius presided, against which no force nor expedient was availing, except unremitted prayer and supplication. One Lycopetrus is believed to have founded this sect, and to have been succeeded by a disciple named Tychicus; and their followers were presently known throughout the East by the denomination of Euchites, or Messalianst, Men of Prayer. The term was considered ignominious; and it presently came generally into use to designate all who were adverse to the persons of the clergy, or the system of the Church. The Churchmen of the West were at the same period beginning to employ the terms Waldenses and Albigenses with the same latitude and for the same purpose; and as, in the one instance, we are well assured that many holy individuals were involved in the indiscriminate scandal, so also may the

Euchites or Mes

salians.

* Cent. ix. p. 2, chap. iii. The works of Dionysius, though long received as genuine, are a palpable forgery, probably of the fifth century.

This was, in fact, only the revival of an ancient heresy, condemned, under the same name and probably for the same errors, by the Council of Antioch, held towards the end of the fourth age. See Fleury, 1. xix. s. 25, 26, and 1. xcv. s. 9.

seeds of a purer worship have lurked in the barren bosom of the Messalian heresy.

Two centuries afterwards, the eye of Barlaam, an inquisitive ecclesiastic, sharpened by much intercourse with the hierarchy of the

West, detected, in the monasteries of Mount Athos, a Hesychasts, or very singular form of fanaticism. A sect of persons was Quietists. there discovered, who believed that, through a process

of intense contemplation, they had attained the condition of perfect and heavenly repose. The method of their contemplation is conveyed in the following instructions, handed down to them, as it would seem, from the eleventh century*:- Being alone in thy cell, close the door, and seat thyself in the corner. Raise thy spirit above all vain and transient things; repose thy beard on thy breast, and turn thine eyes with thy whole power of meditation upon thy navel. Retain thy breath, and search in thine entrails for the place of thy heart, wherein all the powers of the soul reside. At first thou wilt encounter thick darkness; but by persevering night and day thou wilt find a marvellous and uninterrupted joy; for as soon as thy spirit shall have discovered the place of thy heart, it will perceive itself luminous and full of discernment.' When interrogated respecting the nature of this light, they replied that it was the glory of God; the same which surrounded Christ during the transfiguration. These enthusiasts were originally called Hesychasts, or, in Latin, Quietists; they afterwards obtained the name of Oμpaλóyvxo, or Umbilicani, men whose souls' are in their navels.' They were also known by that of Thaborites, from their belief respecting the nature of their divine light.

It might seem beneath the dignity of history to waste a thought or a sigh on such pure fanaticism. Yet such was it not considered in the age in which it rose; but it occupied, on the contrary, the solemn consideration of courts and councils. Barlaam officiously denounced the heresy to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Metropolitan was astounded, and instantly summoned the Hesychasts into his presence. As they argued with confidence, a Council was thought necesary to decide so grave a controversy; but the Emperor Andronicus hesitated to convoke it, and strongly recommended to both parties silence and reconciliation. Howbeit, the polemics persisted; the Emperor yielded; and the Council was assembled. The Archbishop of Thessalonica, Gregory Palamas, advocated the cause of the Thaborites; and, what might astonish even those most familiar with the triumphs of religious extravagance, he succeeded. Nay, so signal was his success, that the accuser thought it expedient to retire from the country and return to Italy. . . . The controversy was soon afterwards renewed, and became the occasion of other councils, which agreed without exception in the condemnation of the Barlaamites. But the question had now assumed a more general form; the Quietism of the Monks of Mount Athos was no longer the subject of dispute; it ascended to the mysterious inquiry, whether the eternal light with which God was encircled, which might be called his energy or operation, and which was manifested to the disciples on Mount Thabor, was distinct from his nature and essence, or identified with it? The former was the opinion of the pious Archbishop Palamas. It grew gradually to be considered as the

It is found in a spiritual treatise of Simon, abbot of the monastery of Xerocerka, at Constantinople, and is cited by Fleury, 1. xcv. s. 9.

+ It was held on June 11, 1341, and the Emperor presided in person, together with the Patriarch and many of the nobility of the empire.

See Mosheim. Cent. xiv. p. 2, ch, v,