three events, viz. Rome. The Muratorian Canon speaks of Paul'setting out from the city to Spain '; but there is nowhere else any mention of such a journey, or any evidence that the hope expressed in Ro 1524 was ever fulfilled. To the statements of the romancing Acts of Peter and Paul no importance can be attached.

24. The Pastoral Epistles. While it is possible to find a place for the Epistles of the Captivity within the two years of the Roman imprisonment (Ac 2880), it is otherwise in the case of the Pastoral Epistles. They form a closely connected group, marked off from all the rest by differences of language, aim, and historical situation. It is impossible to believe that they were composed during the time that Paul was writing the other Epistles; they must at least be later than all the rest, and, if genuine, they presuppose Paul's release and subsequent missionary activity. 1 Tim. implies that Paul has been at Ephesus, where he has left Timothy, himself proceeding to Macedonia (13), and he has hopes of returning to Ephesus (314 413). According to 2 Tim., Paul has been at Troas, Corinth, and Miletus (413. 20). At present he is a prisoner (18. 16), and apparently at Rome (117). He has made a first defence' (416). He has none of his friends beside him save Luke (41), though others are associated with him in sending greetings (421). Some have forsaken him (115 411), others have been sent by him on various missions (410. 12). Timothy is urged to come to him before winter and to bring Mark (49. 11. 21). The Epistle to Titus implies that Paul has been in Crete and has left Titus there to regulate church affairs. The letter is carried apparently by Zenas and Apollos, who are travelling to Crete and beyond (313); and Paul asks Titus to meet him at Nicopolis, where he intends to pass the winter, as soon as he can send either Artemas or Tychicus to relieve him. Attempts have been made to fit these historical notices into the known life of Paul, but unsuccessfully, and this quite apart from the difficulties connected with the marked divergencies of language and doctrine exhibited by the Pastorals as compared with the earlier Epistles. Accordingly, the defenders of the Pauline authorship are obliged to postulate for the Apostle a period of freedom after the Roman imprisonment, during which he visited Ephesus, Macedonia, Epirus, and Crete, followed by a second imprisonment and martyrdom. The evidence for this, apart from that of the Pastorals such as it is, is very scanty. Clement of Rome, in a highly rhetorical passage, after saying that Paul suffered bonds seven times, says that, 'having taught the whole world righteousness, and having gone to the limit of the West (Ti To Tépμa Tîs dúσews), and having borne witness before rulers (μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων), thus was he released from the world and went to the holy place.' The 'limit of the West' may mean either Rome or Spain, according to the standpoint of the speaker; but the way in which the arrival in the West and the μaprupla are connected with his release from the world suggests one locality for all 1 Ep. ad Cor. 5.

25. The martyrdom of Paul.-It has been urged that the abrupt ending of the book of Acts implies that Paul was released at the end of the two years. But, if that was the case, it is strange that the writer did not, even in a few sentences, add what would have been a fine climax for his book and a strong apology for Christianity in the Roman in Rome. If Luke knew of Paul's further activity, his silence remains a mystery. There is no reason to believe that he meant to write a third book for Theophilus.

The close of Paul's life, therefore, like its beginning, is enveloped in obscurity. That he suffered martyrdom at Rome there can be no doubt. That it was by beheading, and that the place of execution was three miles outside the city on the Ostian Way, is the consistent tradition of the Roman Church. The date will lie between A.D. 64 and 67, most probably nearer the former than the latter limit.

LITERATURE.-Full bibliographies are given in HDB, DCG, DAC, EBI, PRE3, and other Biblical dictionaries and encyclo pædias. The following is a selection from earlier works that are still worth consulting, with a somewhat fuller list of more recent books (see also the bibliographies in the NT Introductions

and in the commentaries on the separate Epistles):

i. LIFE AND WORK.-A. Neander, Hist. of the Planting and Training of the Church, Eng. tr., 2 vols., London, 1851; F. C. Baur, Paulus2, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1866-67, Eng. tr., London, 1873-75; M. Krenkel, Paulus der Apostel der Heiden, Leipzig, 1869; E. Renan, Saint Paul (forming vol. iii. of Hist. des origines du Christianisme), Paris, 1869, Eng. tr., London, 1869; T. Lewin, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul5, 2 vols., London, 1890; W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 2 vols., new ed., do. 1877; F. W. Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul, 2 vols., do. 1879; G. V. Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, Eng. tr., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1886; E. Schürer, A Hist. of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Eng. tr., 5 vols., do. 1886-90 (a tr. of the 2nd German ed.; a 3rd German ed. was published at Leipzig in 1901); A. Hausrath, A Hist. of the NT Times: the Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, Time of the Apostles, Eng. tr., 4 vols., London, 1895; W. M. do. 1895 A. C. McGiffert, A Hist. of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1897; C. von Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church, Eng. tr., 1.2, London, 1897; O. Cone, Paul, the Man, the Missionary, and the Teacher, do. 1898; C. Clemen, Paulus; sein Leben und Wirken, Giessen, 1904; B. W. Bacon, The Story of St. Paul, London, 1905; R. J. Knowling, The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, do. 1905; W. M. Ramsay, Pauline and other Studies, do. 1906; A. Sabatier, The Apostle Pauls, Eng. tr., do. 1906; H. Weinel, St. Paul: the Man and his Work, Eng. tr., do. 1906; W. M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul, do. 1907; W. Wrede, Paul, Eng. tr., do. 1907; E. de W. Burton, A Handbook of the Life of the Apostle Paul5, Chicago, 1909; T. Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire, Eng. tr., 2 vols., London, 1909 (a reprint, with corrections, of W. P. Dickson's tr. of the fifth vol of the Hist. of Rome, London, 1886); A. E. Garvie, Life and Teaching of St. Paul, do. 1910; J. Drummond, Paul: his Life and Teaching, do. 1911; G. A. Deissmann, St. Paul: a Study in Social and Religious History, Eng. tr., do. 1912; A. Schweitzer, Paul and his Interpreters, Eng. 1913; Maurice Jones, The NT in the Twentieth Century, tr., do. 1912; A. C. Headlam, St. Paul and Christianity, do. do. 1914; C. G. Montefiore, Judaism and St. Paul, do. 1914; R. H. Strachan, The Individuality of Saint Paul, do.

1916.

ii. WRITINGS.-R. J. Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles, London, 1892; J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, do. 1892; B. Jowett, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans3, do. 1894; G. G. Findlay, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle, do. 1895; G. B. Stevens, The Messages of Paul, do. 1900; J. Moffatt, The Historical NT2, Edinburgh, 1901; F. H. Chase, The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, London, 1902; 1902; R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh, 1903; E. Vischer, Die Paulusbriefe, Halle, 1904; T. Nägeli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus, Göttingen, 1905; D. Völter, Paulus und seine Briefe, Strassburg, 1905; H. von Soden, Hist. of Early Christian Literature, London, 1906; A. S. Way, The Letters of St. Paul, do. 1906; W. P. Du Bose, The Gospel according to Saint Paul, New York, 1907; E. Jacquier,

. H. Stokoe, Life and Letters of St. Paul, pt. ii., Oxford,

Hist. of the Books of the NT: i. St. Paul and his Epistles, Eng. tr., London, 1907; R. Scott, The Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh, 1909; T. Zahn, Introd. to the NT, Eng. tr., i., do. 1909; Kirsopp Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1911; J. Moffatt, An Introd. to the Literature of the NT, Edinburgh, 1911.

iii. THEOLOGY AND ETHICS.-L. Usteri, Die Entwickelung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs6, Zürich, 1851; A. Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche2, Bonn, 1857; E. Reuss, Hist. de la théologie chrétienne au siècle apostoliques, 2 vols., Paris, 1864, Eng. tr., London, 1872-74; C. Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus, Rostock, 1868; O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, Leipzig, 1873, Eng. tr., 2 vols., London, 1877; E. Ménégoz, Le Péché et la Redemption d'après saint Paul, Paris, 1882; G. B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology, London, 1892; C. C. Everett, The Gospel of Paul, Boston, 1893; A. B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, Edinburgh, 1894; F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, Cambridge, 1894, The Christian Ecclesia, London, 1897; P. Feine, Das gesetzfreie Evangelium des Paulus, Leipzig, 1899; H. St. J. Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to contemporary Jewish Thought, London, 1900; W. E. Ball, St. Paul and Roman Law, Edinburgh, 1901; P. Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, Leipzig, 1902; M. Goguel, L'Apôtre Paul et Jésus-Christ, Paris, 1904; H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conception of the Last Things, London, 1904; W. E. Chadwick, The Social Teaching of St. Paul, Cambridge, 1906, The Pastoral Teaching of St. Paul, Edinburgh, 1908; A. B. D. Alexander, The Ethics of St. Paul, Glasgow, 1910; J. Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism, London, 1910; P. Gardner, The Religious Experience of Saint Paul, do. 1911; A. E. Garvie, Studies of Paul and his Gospel, do. 1911; H. L. Goudge, The Mind of St. Paul, do. 1911; S. N. Rostron, The Christology of St. Paul, do. 1912; H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions, do. 1913; W. M. Ramsay, The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day, do. 1913. ALLAN MENZIES. WILLIAM EDIE.

PAULICIANS. - The Paulicians, of whom Gibbon says that they shook the East and enlightened the West,' were an anti-Catholic sect which originated in the 7th cent. (possibly earlier), experienced many alternations of imperial favour and ruthless persecution, remained influential till the 12th cent., and is not without descendants in Eastern Europe to-day. Making its appearance first on the eastern borders of the empire, and having its natural home in Armenia, Mesopotamia, and N. Syria, it spread, partly through propaganda and partly through the transplantation of its votaries, westwards through Asia Minor, then into Eastern Europe to establish new centres in the Balkan Peninsula. The specific opinions which have been ascribed to it include a dualistic conception of the government, if not of the origin, of the world, an Adoptianist doctrine of the Person of Christ, a vehement and stubborn rejection of Mariolatry and the worship of saints and images, a similar rejection of sacramental symbolism, and a special emphasis on adult baptism as the only valid form. The basis of these opinions is found in a concentration on Scripture as the sole and sufficient authority to the exclusion of tradition and the teaching of the Church.' In view of these commonly accepted characteristics of Paulicianism, both its history and its tenets have naturally been subjects of heated controversy. The Paulicians have been celebrated uncritically as early Protestants against 'Catholic' abuses, or they have been condemned unheard as deadly heretics. A just and critical estimate will be arrived at only when all such presuppositions have been laid aside, and when to the Greek sources, on which alone until lately historians have relied, have been added the Armenian, and, further, when the literary relations between the Greek sources have been thoroughly sifted and established.

1. Sources. It cannot be said that this task has yet been accomplished, but it is plain that considerable caution must be used in handling those sources from which most information as to the early history of the sect has hitherto been drawn. These are Photius, in his four books Against the Manichæans, and what purports to be his contemporary, Petrus Siculus, History of

1 See Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. liv.

the Manichæans. As to the first, C. Krumbacher 1 notes that his work presents a problem not yet fully solved. The second book of this work, in which Manichæan and Paulician doctrines are controverted, does not correspond to what the close of the first book would lead us to expect, and the two parts of the first book itself have no constructive relation to one another (1-9, 10-27), while they contain much repetition and not a little mutual divergence. As to Petrus Siculus, who reproduces the contents of Photius almost verbatim, Mkrttschian has shown that he is dependent upon Photius, and also that the personal narrative of a sojourn in Tephrike, which provides a setting for the argument, presents a tissue of improbabilities. licians, written at a time when they were already Petrus Siculus' is, in fact, a tract against Pauactive in Bulgaria, thrown into the form of a pseudo-historical writing a fact which is not obscurely suggested in the opening words. But Photius is not itself original, for it is pretty clear that the document bearing the name of Petrus Hegumenus, which was edited by Gieseler in 1849, is not, as Gieseler supposed, a copy from Photius or Siculus, but, as Mkrttschian has shown (p. 9 f.), the source from which both Photius and Siculus and also Georgius Monachus have drawn their information. The situation was further complicated, or possibly simplified, through the publication in 1896 of a document which is incorporated in the MS of Georgius Monachus in the Library of the Escorial, and probably represents the earliest source of the material common to all the foregoing; it adds to the common material one important paragraph, and also a fully detailed method of confuting the Paulicians which throws further light upon their views. This document (Codex Scorialensis), with the valuable commentary of its editor, J. Friedrich, must in future take the first place among the Greek authorities.

The Armenian sources, with one possible exception, proceed, as do the Greek, from hostile writers who are more anxious to overwhelm their Paulician opponents than to give an account either of their opinions or of their history. The possible exception is The Key of Truth, which was discovered by F. C. Cony beare, translated from the Armenian, and edited by him in 1898, with an exhaustive introduction and valuable appendices.3

The Key of Truth, now preserved in the archives of the Holy Synod at Etchmiadzin, was found in 1897 in the possession of a group of Paulician' or 'new Manichæan' families in the Russian Caucasus. It bears a subscription to the effect that it was written' in 1782, meaning, according to Conybeare, that it was copied then, the work itself being of much older date, belonging indeed (apart from the catechism at the end, which is later) to the 10th cent., and probably incorporating material that is considerably older still. It is a manual of 'Thondrakian' or Paulician teaching and practice, mutilated unfortunately by the removal of almost a quarter of its leaves, and these among the most important, as they must have contained the Paulician criticism of Catholic doctrine and practice, and probably also an exposition of Paulician Christology. Cony beare, in his introduction, exhibits the detailed agreement of The Key of Truth on the one hand with the Armenian writers of the tenth and notices of an earlier date,' and he concludes that this is proof eleventh centuries, and on the other hand with the Greek enough that in it we have recovered an early and authoritative exposition of Paulician tenets' (p. xliv). It is no valid objec tion to this position (though one of Conybeare's critics has called it the clearest sign' of a late date) that the writer shows 'entire dependence upon the New Testament both for his doctrines and for his representation of what he calls the Universal and Apostolic Church.' 4 For it is plain from the Greek authori

1 Gesch. der byzantinischen Literatur, Munich, 1897, p. 75; see also Friedrich, SMA, 1896, p. 86 f., and Mkrttschían, Die Paulicianer, p. 8.

2 Πέτρου Σικελιώτου ἱστορία

πρὸς τὸν ̓Αρχιεπίσκοπον Βουλγαρίας.

προσωποποιηθεῖσα ὡς

3 Important reviews in The Guardian, 12th Oct. 1898, p. 1591 f. (replies and rejoinders, ib., 19th Oct., 26th Oct., 16th Nov., pp. 1637, 1676, 1793); The Critical Review, viii. [1898] 383 (by

J, Bartlet); ThLZ xxv. (1900] 304 (by E. Preuschen); Theol.

Jahresbericht, xviii. [1899] 232.

4 The Guardian, 12th Oct. 1898, p. 1592.

ties that precisely this sole dependence on the NT was recognized as a characteristic of the Paulicians. Conybeare conjectures that the author may have been Smbat (i.e. Sindbad) Bagratuni, the founder of one of the Armenian dynasties and

one of the creative forces of the Paulician Church.

2

2. Doctrine.-The Greek authorities from Cod. Scor. downwards are practically unanimous in classifying the Paulicians as Manichæans,' and the description has generally been accepted by historians. It is, however, very doubtful whether the classification is not at least misleading. Controversialists of the 7th and following centuries were only too ready to use the term 'Manichæan' quite uncritically as an opprobrious description of almost any sect which deviated from orthodoxy. Photius, e.g., charges the Western Church with practical surrender to Manichæism because of its doctrine of the double procession of the Spirit, and the Bulgarian bishop Clement on the same ground charges the Westerns roundly with the same heresy. There is no doubt that the term was loosely applied to cover various gradations of dualistic theory ranging from a dualism which is absolute and nonChristian to that which is found within the NT itself. And the Paulicians themselves neither claimed nor admitted any connexion with Mani and his teaching. On the contrary, it is plainly stated in the Greek sources that they anathematized Manes, and also ‘Paul and John,' sons of a Manichæan woman, in whom the Greeks see the founders of the sect. This is confirmed by Gregory Magistros, the chief Armenian authority (in The Key of Truth, pp. 142, 147). The latest investigators (Mkrttschian, Friedrich, Conybeare) are disposed to set aside the elaborations of the charge of Manichæism as the natural development of a mistaken classification, and connect the Paulicians with either the Marcionites (Mkrttschian) or the Adoptianists (Cony beare), or with no well-marked earlier form of heretical teaching (Friedrich)..

The presence and importance of an Adoptianist element in the Paulician system have been forcibly maintained by Conybeare on the evidence of The Key. But it does not depend on that alone. In that part of Cod. Scor. which has not been excerpted by the subsequent chroniclers (ed. Friedrich, xix.xxii.) the Paulician view of the Incarnation is clearly indicated. According to Scor. xix., God out of love to men commanded an angel to go down to earth and be born of a woman, and on this angel He bestowed the title of Son. The same assertion is repeated and expanded in the instructions for controverting the heresy which follow. With this accords the teaching of The Key, where the Baptism is definitely marked as the beginning of the Sonship:

'It was then he became chief of beings heavenly and earthly, then he became the light of the world, . . . then he was filled with the Godhead' (p. 75).

Eucharist in the words of Christ and the Cross in Christ Himself (Scor. viii. 1). This is consistent with the general principle that the function of Christ was to save men by instructing them, while the charge on which the Greek authorities dwell with horror, that the leaders of the Paulicians offered themselves for adoration as Christs, probably arose from a misunderstood exaggeration of the sanctity of the vevμаTIKOί as members of the Body of Christ. They rejected the Catholic priesthood and hierarchy, and with special emphasis image-worship and the monastic life. Their own clergy were known as ouvékôŋμoɩ (cf. Ac 1929), and there was no distinction in dress or in habits between them and the rest of the sect (Scor. xiv.).

In all these matters they made their appeal exclusively to Scripture, which they were in the habit of describing as rò evarɣériov kal å åπÓσTOλos. Interpreting this to refer to the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul alone, Mkrttschian (taking up a suggestion made by Gibbon and by Neander) finds in it a proof that the Paulicians derived from the Marcionites. But Friedrich has shown (pp. 93-98) that there is no good ground for so limiting the Paulician canon (though they probably rejected the Epistles of Peter1 and the Acts of the Apostles), and that Paulicianism has nothing in common with Marcionism beyond a general emphasis on dualism. With all these material divergences from orthodox faith and practice, the Paulicians claimed to be the true Catholic Church, holy, universal and apostolic,' emphasizing therein the internal quality against institutional continuity.2 3. History. The earliest extant reference to the Paulicians by name occurs in A.D. 719, when John of Otzun, catholicos of Armenia, warns the orthodox against mixing with the sect of obscene men who are called Paulicians' (Conybeare, p. 152; Mkrttschian, p. 62). The name itself is commonly understood to point to some connexion, real or alleged, between the sect and some Paul, who was influential either in its founding or in its reformation. And this eponymous Paul has been variously identified with the apostle Paul (so pseudoPhotius, PG cii. 109), with an unknown Paul, belonging to Samosata, brother of John, who, according to the first paragraph of Cod. Scor., learnt the Manichæan heresy from his mother Callinike, and propagated it in Armenia, and finally with Paul of Samosata himself, as was asserted by Gregory Magistros:

'Here then you see the Paulicians, who got their poison from

Paul of Samosata."

2 Photius, de S. Spir. Mystagogia (PG cii. 315); Clement, ed. F. Miklosich, p. 13, ap. Friedrich, p. 92.

3 Cod. Scor., ed. Friedrich, p. 76: elra ons is ènì тоû 'OKтaßiov Καίσαρος γενέσθαι χάριτι ἢ ἀμοιβῇ τῶν πόρων καὶ τοῦ τελέσαι τὴν ἐντολὴν τὸν Χριστὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ.

The

ated Paul, the son of Callinike, together with John his brother and Manes (iii.).

This Constantine, for whom a probable date is c. 640 (though Friedrich, p. 111, puts it two centuries earlier), left no writings of his own, but sought to concentrate attention on 'the gospel and the apostle,' maintaining that men ought not to read any other book whatever besides these (Cod. Scor. ii.). His propaganda met with success among 'the Armenians' (ib. i.), where the township of Phanarea-Episparis became the headquarters of the sect. The Greek authorities record the names of six leaders who succeeded him, each of whom adopted the name of one of St. Paul's companions, and also the names of the centres where they established churches (Cibossa, Mananalis, Argæum, Mopsuestia, and Cynochorita), to each of which they gave the name of a Pauline field of labour. The outline which is given by the Escorial document may be supplemented from such later writers as pseudo-Photius and Petrus Siculus. According to these, Constantine Silvanus, after twenty-seven years of leadership, was stoned to death by order of an envoy sent by the emperor Constantine Pogonatus (668-685). The like fate, however, befell the persecutor, who, having been converted, succeeded his victim in the leadership of the sect. The sons of Paul, who followed, strove for the succession, and one of them, Gegnesius, summoned to Constantinople, was able to give an account of his views that satisfied the patriarch. Under Baanes the sect suffered through a lowering of the moral standard, but it was restored under Sergius Tychicus, whose labours, extending over thirty years, qualified him to be regarded as the reformer or even second founder of the Paulicians. Quotations from his Epistles are found in Petrus Siculus. I have run from East to West, and from North to South, preaching the Gospel of Christ until my knees were weary' (p. 36).

The charge specially levelled against Sergius is that of inordinate exaltation of himself, as the porter, and the good shepherd and the leader of the body of Christ, and the light of the house of God,' to the point of identifying himself with the Holy Spirit and offering himself to be worshipped. But even his opponents admitted the purity of his character and the sincerity of his beneficence (ib. p. 44), and the charge, like others of a similar character, may have grown out of a misunderstanding of an emphasized doctrine of the Church as the Body of Christ.

Probably under the influence of Sergius, the Paulicians increased greatly in numbers and importance. They were found chiefly among the hardy mountain peoples of the Taurus, and, alike as defenders of the empire and as objects of imperial persecution, they showed the greatest stubbornness and courage. By one emperor (Constantine Copronymus [741-775], himself probably a Paulician) they were protected and invited to settle in Thrace; by Nicephorus (802-811) they were employed in the protection of the empire on its eastern frontier; by Michael and Leo v. they were ruthlessly persecuted. But the Paulicians were too numerous, too warlike, and too well-organized to be dragooned into orthodoxy. They resisted, revolted, and even retaliated by raiding Asia Minor from their mountain fastnesses. After twenty years of comparative tranquillity they were exposed to still more violent persecution under Theodora (842-857), which under Basil developed into a war of extermination (see Krumbacher, p. 1075). The Paulicians were driven into the arms of the Saracens, and with some assistance from them, under the leadership of an able ruler Chrysocheir, they not only successfully resisted the imperial forces, but forced them back and pillaged Asia Minor up to its western shores.

Their success, however, was shortlived. Chrysocheir was defeated and murdered; his chief stronghold, Tephrike, was taken and destroyed; his followers were decimated and dispersed.

Though their political organization thus came to an end, the. Paulicians continued to exist in scattered communities in Armenia, in Asia Minor, and especially in the Balkan Peninsula, to which considerable bodies of them had been transplanted. In Armenia they again experienced revival and expansion under Smbat (middle of 9th cent.), who, according to Conybeare, may have been the author of The Key of Truth. From the town of Thondrak, where he had his headquarters, his followers received the name of "Thondrakians.' Another branch from the same root is probably to be found in the sect known as 'Athingani' referred to by Theophanes (Chronographia, 413), and yet another in the 'Selikians.' The biographer of the patriarch Methodius claims for him the credit of having converted to orthodoxy one Selix and his followers, who held 'Manichæan' opinions-opinions which in detail correspond with those charged against the Paulicians in Cod. Scor.1

A second deportation of Paulicians on a large scale from Armenia to Thrace was carried out by John Tzimiskes (970), and, while the Latin crusaders found the sect in Syria in the 11th cent., Lady Mary Wortley Montagu found them in the neighbourhood of Philippopolis in the 18th. In Europe they developed into or amalgamated with the Bogomils (q.v.), and their views and influence were propagated throughout the Middle Ages by various anti-Catholic sects-e.g., Cathari, Albigenseswhose filiation with the Paulicians is probable, though difficult to trace. Their name, like Manichæan,' became in turn a generic description for any of these movements which opposed the developments of Catholic hierarchy and doctrine. This makes it impossible to decide whether the Popelicani,' the 'Piphles' of Flanders, or the Publicani' who were condemned and branded at Oxford in 1160 (because they detested Holy Baptism, the Eucharist and marriage') were directly descended from the Paulicians or bore their name as a term of reproach.

The Paulicians are best understood as a section in that continuous stream of anti-Catholic and anti-hierarchical thought and life which runs parallel with the stream of orthodox' doctrine and organization practically throughout the history of the Church. Often dwindling and almost disappearing in the obscurity of movements which had no significance for history, it swelled from time to time to a volume and importance which compelled the attention even of unsympathetic historians. The initial impulse of such reaction and of successive renewals of its force was probably practical rather than intellectual-an effort after a purer,' simpler, and more democratic form of Christianity, one which appealed from tradition and the ecclesiastics to Scripture and the Spirit. The Paulicians have the notes common to nearly all the forms of this reaction-the appeal to Scripture, the criticism of Catholic clergy in their lives, and of Catholic sacraments in the Catholic interpretation of them, and the emphasis on the pneumatic character and functions of all believers. If The Key of Truth be accepted as evidence of the opinions held by the Paulicians in the Middle Ages, they were Adoptianist in their Christology; in1 PG cxl. 284; see Friedrich, p. 82; Bonwetsch, PŘE3 xv. 53: die Selikianer . . . waren offenbar Paulicianer'; Krumbacher, p. 987.

2 Evans, Through Bosnia and Herzegovina, pp. xxix and xlvii, quoting Radulphus de Coggeshall, Chron. Anglic.; Evans thinks that they were Bogomils.

lichen Reichsorthodoxie ein echt apostolisches Bibelchristentum

3 Krumbacher, p. 970: the Paulicians 'setzten einer verwelt

entgegen.