We return now to our series on Revelation 12, an Exodus narrative in which we find the Woman, fleeing from the error that proceeds from the mouth of the devil, seeking her place of safety in the wilderness. As we have noted in this series, many saints avoided the apostasy as Roman Catholicism was coming to power as the prophesied successor to the Roman Empire. Their objections were consistently raised against the oppressive episcopal hierarchy, clerical celibacy, the continuation of the Passover sacrifice in the form of the Roman mass, prayers for the dead, intercession of the saints, the inordinate magnification of Mary, the veneration of human remains in the form of relics, veneration of the wood of the cross, baptismal regeneration and Roman primacy. If we would find the Woman of Revelation, we need only discover the flood of error from the mouth of the serpent, and then find the people who stood on the Word to resist it. The flood of error is not hard to find, nor is it difficult to find the people who countered it with the Scriptures.

The flood described in Revelation 12 is the sudden propagation of error throughout the known world in the latter half of the 4th century, and the Woman is composed of those faithful saints and reformation movements that resisted the abominable new empire of Roman Catholicism: Jovinianus, Vigilantius, Sarmatio, Barbatianus, Ærius, the Paulicians, the Christianocategori, the Aposchistæ, the Autoproscoptæ, and other such resistance movements: they were described by their opponents as foreign priests disguised as “pilgrims and strangers” teaching things “contrary to the custom of the [Roman] Church” (Pope Celeste, Epistle 2, Ad Episcopos provinciæ Viennensis & Narbonensis; see Poisson, cols. 181-184), its leaders accused of being “disguised under the name of bishops or priests,” meeting in “separate assemblies,” and “in strange places” (Pope Zachary, Epistle X to Boniface; for original, see Sacrosancta Concilia, Tomus Sextus (Lutetiæ Parisiorum, 1671) cols 1518-1522). Their accusers called them by a great many, and occasionally derogatory names, but they called themselves “Christians,” and, in recognition of the theological catastrophe of the great apostasy, “the people who have not swerved in faith” (Garsoïan, Nina G., The Paulician Heresy (Paris: Mouton & Col (1967) 51), 163).

The Bogomils

We left off previously with the Paulicians, whose “martyrs, … were counted by hundreds of thousands, and whose slayers invariably took their orders from the persecuting clergy of old and new Rome” (Conybeare, Fred C., The Key of Truth, Preface (Oxford: the Clarendon Press (1898), civ). The time frame is now the 9th century and beyond, and we now take up our narrative with the displaced Paulicians and their progeny, the Bogomils of Bulgaria. Conybeare relates the history of their origin, and the Paulician missionaries who first evangelized them:

Large bodies of Paulicians were transported to Thrace in the eighth century and again in the tenth. The first of these emigrations was organized by Constantine Copronymus, himself in all probability a member of the Paulician Church. … It was again an Armenian emperor, John Tzimiskes, who in 970 deported another body of 100,000 Paulicians to the line of the Danube. One hundred years before the latter date we learn from Peter of Sicily, who resided nine months in the Paulician stronghold Tephrik, that the Paulicians of the Taurus were sending missions to convert the young Bulgarian nation to their religion. It is certain that in a large measure they succeeded in their object, and the result was the movement of the Bogomiles. We only know this sect from its enemies, who, true to their habit of distorting facts, half wilfully, half in ignorance, portrayed its adherents as Manicheans. (Conybeare, Fred C., The Key of Truth, Preface (Oxford: the Clarendon Press (1898) cxxxvii)

The name Bogomils is assigned to them by their critics, and comes from the name of their chief proponent and means “beloved of God.” But they called themselves “Christians.” We are at once intrigued by the familiarity of the Bogomils with the Scriptures and their anti-Roman Catholic evangelistic zeal. The Roman Catholic sheep were thus warned that the outward appearance of industry, modesty, prayer, thrift, orthodoxy, evangelism, “great humility” and thoughtful discourse, coupled with a disturbing lack of idle chatter were all devious devices to camouflage their error:

The heretics in appearance are lamb-like, gentle, modest and quiet, and their pallor is to show their hypocritical fastings. They do not talk idly, nor laugh loudly, nor do they manifest any curiosity. They keep themselves away from immodest sights, and outwardly they do everything so as not to be distinguished from the Orthodox Christians, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. The people, on seeing their great humility think that they are orthodox, and able to show them the path of salvation; they approach and ask them how to save their souls. Like a wolf that wants to seize a lamb, they pretend at first to sigh; they speak with humility, preach, and act as if they were themselves in heaven. Whenever they meet any ignorant and uneducated man, they preach to him the tares of their teachings, blaspheming the traditions of the Holy Church. … The wretched ones think that they know the depth of the Scriptures and, [are] willing to comment on them” (Cosmas, Sermon against Bogomilism, c. 970 AD (Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Peters, Edward, ed (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980) 108, 112).

They certainly sound like an unprincipled group of lawless malcontents, those Bogomils, what, with their knowledge of the Scriptures, gentle industry and patient evangelism. So apparently good, kind and faithful were these persecuted Bogomils that Cosmas had to persuade his own people to stop sympathizing with and defending them: “Many people do not know what their heresy is, and think that they suffer for the sake of righteousness, and will be rewarded by God for their chains and imprisonment. … How can they rouse anybody’s sympathy for their great sufferings … ?” (Peters, 113).

Rejection of the Flood of Error

As usual, their doctrines and teachings may only be understood derivatively, by inference from the testimony of their calumniators, as we have no surviving evidence from their own hands. Remarkably, while they have been grouped with the Gnostics and the Manichæans, their critics’ main objections focus instead on their rejection of the 4th century Roman Catholic novelties we have exposed in this series and throughout this blog. Listen as Cosmas the Priest provides the “first modern statement of Bogomil beliefs,” which, by negation, is a veritable catalogue of Roman Catholic novelties and idolatries that emerged in the late 4th century, to which the Bogomils had the temerity to object:

The demons are afraid of the cross of Christ, but the heretics cut it and make of it their tools. The demons are afraid of the image of the Lord God, painted on a board; the heretics do not reverence icons, but call them idols. The demons fear the relics of the saints and dare not approach the reliquary caskets in which lie the precious treasures that are given to the Christians to free them from misfortune; the heretics on seeing us revering these objects, mock them and laugh at us.

About the cross of God they say, “How can we bow to the cross? Is it not the tree on which the Jews crucified the Son of God? The cross is detestable to God.” That is why they instruct their followers to hate the cross and not to reverence it, saying, “If some one murders the son of the king with a piece of wood, is it possible that this piece of wood should be dear to the king? This is the case with the cross.”

Why do you heretics inveigh against the sacred orders that are given us by the holy apostles and holy fathers, the liturgy, and the rest of the services which are carried on by good Christians? You say that the apostles established neither the liturgy, nor the holy sacrament, but it was John Chrysostom who instituted them. Do you know that from the incarnation of Christ to John Chrysostom [347-407 A.D.]  it was more than three hundred years?  … Why then do you say that the holy sacrament and the ecclesiastical orders are not given by God, and why do you abuse the Church and the priests, calling them “Blind Pharisees”?

The heretics do not venerate the Holy Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but talk nonsense of her; their words and insolences are so bad that they must not be written in this book. …

He who does not admit the Holy Communion and the blood of Christ, cursed be he!

He who does not pray with hope to the Virgin Mary, cursed be he!

He who does not kiss the icons of our Lord, of the Holy Virgin, and of all the Saints with veneration and love, cursed be he! …

He who does not honor the saints and does not revere their relics with love, cursed be he!

He who blasphemes the Holy Liturgy and all prayers given to the Christians by the Apostles and the Holy Fathers, cursed be he! (Sermon of Cosmas the Priest against Bogomilism, c. 970 (Peters, 109-117))

Bowing to images, icons, relics, and the “wood of the cross,” the veneration of Mary, clerical celibacy, the Roman sacrifice of the mass, the “real” presence of Christ in the bread and wine, and specifically, the late 4th century origins of the Roman Eucharistic liturgy, thee hundred years removed from the Apostles. The Bogomils had simply refused to stumble into the great apostasy, and true to form, the Roman Catholic priest could not understand why they would not join him in his late-4th century errors. As we have noted on many occasions, the “strong delusion” of 2 Thessalonians 2:11 is the Presumption of Apostolic Continuity that leads men to think that the novelties and abominations from the latter half of the 4th century actually originated with the Apostles. The Bogomils’ objection was in fact true: the Roman liturgy, and the other medieval trappings, had originated with John Chrysostom, among others, a full three centuries after the Apostles.

Continuing the Protestant Legacy

In the Bogomil objection to the veneration of the cross we hear—now 6 centuries removed—the echoes of those who objected to the very same novelty when Cyril of Jerusalem was defending it in 350 A.D. Cyril said that the devils shudder at “the Sign of the Cross of Christ,” but when attempting to introduce a devotion to it, he encountered resistance from those who wanted evidence from the Scriptures:

But some one will say to me, “You are inventing subtleties; show me from some prophet the Wood of the Cross; unless you give me a testimony from a prophet, I will not be persuaded” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 13, paragraph 19).

In the Bogomil objection to the Roman liturgy, in which Christ is said to be sacrificed to the Father, we hear the echoes of Ærius of Sebaste in his objection to the late 4th century novelty of offering Christ to the Father in the Lord’s Supper:

What is the Passover you celebrate? You are giving your allegiance to Jewish fables again. We have no business celebrating the Passover,’ he says; “Christ was sacrificed for our Passover.” (Epiphanius, Panarion 3.1.75, 3.4 (emphasis added))

In the Bogomil objection to the veneration of relics, we hear the echoes of late-4th century Vigilantius, who decried the introduction of such novelties into the church:

Under the cloak of religion we see what is all but a heathen ceremony introduced into the churches (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, paragraph 4).

In the Bogomil objection to the veneration of icons, we hear the echoes of the ancient rejection of images in the church, as evidenced by Epiphanius of Salamais, who tore down a tapestry he had encountered, “being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures” (Jerome, Letter 51, paragraph 9).

In the Bogomil “words and insolences” against Mary that “are so bad that they must not be written in this book” we hear the echoes of Jovinianus who insisted that Christ’s birth was natural, such that Mary conceived Christ as a virgin, but that Christ opened her womb naturally:

But from their perverse ways they are induced to say “She was a virgin when she conceived, but not a virgin when she brought forth.” … But why should it be incredible that Mary, contrary to the usage of natural birth, should bring forth and yet remain a virgin; (Ambrose, Letter 42, to Siricius (389 A.D.), paragraphs 4, 7)

The Bogomil objection to “the orders of the clergy,” was really an objection to clerical celibacy, since the “heretics” are alleged to have asked, if “the orders of the clergy are always sanctified by God,” then “why do you not carry out your life according to the law and the words of Paul? A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife… having his children in subjection with all gravity?” (p. 111 (emphasis added)). In this objection, we hear the echoes those late 4th century bishops who (according to Jerome’s histrionic response) took seriously the apostolic qualification for ministry, in accordance with 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6:

Shameful to relate, there are bishops who … who ordain no deacons but such as have been previously married; … unless the candidates for ordination appear before them with pregnant wives, and infants wailing in the arms of their mothers, will not administer to them Christ’s ordinance [and] think no man to be worthy of Christ’s ministry unless he is married and his wife is seen to be with child. (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 2, 17)

In Cosmas’ complaint that the Bogomils blaspheme “the Holy Liturgy and all prayers given to the Christians by the Apostles and the Holy Fathers” (117) and that “they worship the devil to such an extent that they call him the creator of the divine words” (113), we see neither a rejection of the Lord’s Supper nor a rejection of the Scriptures (as the Bogomils were ever eager to cite them) but rather a hatred for the allegedly “divine words” from the late 4th century liturgies ostensibly handed down by Peter, James, Basil and Chrysostom. Cosmas complains that the “heretics” reject the liturgy of Chrysostom, the liturgy of Peter, the liturgy of James and the liturgy of Basil, all of which he claims have been “given by God” (110). And yet, Chrysostom’s and Basil’s liturgies, if they may be truly traced to them, cannot have originated any earlier than those late-4th century writers after whom they are named. The liturgy of James, too, originated in the late-4th century, certainly no earlier than Basil’s, and the Liturgy of Peter is a medieval derivative of the others. It is these—the novel late-4th century liturgies of Roman Catholicism with the abominable sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood—that the Bogomils ascribed to the devil, just as Revelation 12:15 suggests to us. Thus, in Cosmas’ complaint we see in the Bogomils not the devil worship of Cosmas’ imagination, but rather the love of the Scriptures we would expect from the Woman of Revelation 12.

Bogomil Love of Scripture

We find repeatedly in Cosmas’ accusations, not a disregard for the Scriptures, but rather a deep abiding love for them. As Cosmas said, the Bogomils “think that they know the depth of the Scriptures” (112). The evidence suggests to us that the Bogomils were guilty as charged. We note, by way of example, that Cosmas accuses the Bogomils of despising marriage and children, which is frankly impossible. In his sermon, he had already represented them both as affirming “the law given through the apostles” (112), and of actually appealing to that “law” in their criticism of celibate Roman priests, asking why they do not “carry out your life according to the law and the words of Paul,” namely that the bishop should be “the husband of one wife… having his children in subjection” (111). It is a fool’s errand to accuse the Bogomils of simultaneously affirming the apostolic precepts of married clergy with children and condemning marriage and children. This is evidenced by the wry and understated acknowledgement even by their accusers that an alleged Bogomil disgust for children and prohibition of intercourse is inexplicable in view of the sheer number of the very obviously reproducing Bogomils:

It is doubtful, however, that the rigid forebearance from sexual intercourse was equally enforced on all members of the Bogomil sect. The considerable proportions assumed by the sect in the course of its history are difficult to explain without the recognition that some of its members were perhaps permitted to have children. (The Bogomils: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism, Dimitri Obolensky, 129)

More plausibly, the Bogomils simply rejected the Roman teaching of infant baptismal regeneration, the Roman sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the Roman celibate clergy—doctrines we join them in condemning as late 4th century novelties. Cosmas’ accusation that they believe the devil “has ordered the people to marry, to eat meat and to drink wine” more likely originates from the Bogomil use of Matthew 24:38 and Luke 17:27—the only passages in the New Testament that mention eating, drinking and marriage together—that in the days of Noah, the thoughts of men’s hearts were “only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5) and the perishing “did eat, they drank, they married wives” until they were destroyed. Apparently the Bogomils thought people ought to be sober and watchful, unlike the mockers of Noah’s day, which is not exactly the same thing as consigning marriage, food and wine to the realm of the devil.

“Do you see,” Cosmas asks, “how thoroughly damned they are, rejecting holy baptism and feeling an aversion to baptized children? If it happens by chance to see a child they shrink from it as from a bad smell,” and call them “little mammons, little devils, and little wealthy men” (Peters, 114). The alleged hatred of marriage and children, of course can be attributed to Cosmas’ own conflation of their rejection of the Roman sacraments with their likely use of Luke 16:8-9 that explicitly links “the children of this world” to “the mammon of unrighteousness.” We see here an intimate Bogomil familiarity with the Scriptures as well as Cosmas’ own inability to hear what they were saying. Of course, if Cosmas really wanted to find evidence of an actual, explicit belief that marriage and children were from the devil, he needed to look no further than his very own “saint” Jerome who professed that very thing:

“And yet though Lucifer be fallen (the old serpent after his fall) …  [h]e is king over all things that are in the waters— that is to say in the seat of pleasure and luxury, of propagation of children, and of the fertilisation of the marriage bed.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book II, chapter 4)

We doubt very much that Bogomils came anywhere close to plumbing the depths of Jerome’s abominable blasphemy. Their justifiable rejection of Roman sacraments and their obviously wholesome insistence that clergy ought to be married and produce children is Scriptural, but was obviously not consistent with Cosmas’ unscriptural view.

Cosmas’ complaint that the Bogomils call John the Baptist “the forerunner of Antichrist” (Peters, 111) is shocking on its face until we read that Cosmas had condemned the heretics in exactly those terms:

The heretics are condemned to a double condemnation, because, spreading a different teaching as new apostles and forerunners of Antichrist, they prepare people for admiring the Son of Perdition. (Peters, 116)

What is particularly notable is that Cosmas’ criticism of the Bogomils on this point occurs in the context of Jesus’ baptism by John: “Even He bent his divine head down and was baptized of him.” Given the Bogomil objection to the Roman sacrament of baptism, and Cosmas’ own reference to John’s baptism when he said they were “forerunners of Antichrist,” it is a simple matter to reconstruct a plausible conversation that led to such a silly accusation:

Bogomil: Your baptism does not convey the Holy Spirit as you claim.
Romanist: We received from the apostles a baptism that is for the forgiveness of sins.
Bogomil: But without the Spirit, your baptism is no better than the baptism of Apollos.
Romanist: You are forerunners of Antichrist, teaching against the sacraments of the church Christ founded.
Bogomil: No, you are forerunners of Antichrist, for your baptism is only the baptism of John by which men remain in bondage, their flesh trusting in the water, but their hearts not trusting in Christ. Just as Aquila and Priscilla expounded the way of God more perfectly to Apollos (Acts 18:24-19:5), we now preach the way of God more perfectly to you.
Romanist: So you’re saying John the Baptist was the forerunner of Antichrist?

Given the propensity of the Romanist to twist both the Scriptures and the testimony of the accused, we have little doubt that a conversation very much like this one led Cosmas to conclude that the Bogomils believed John the Baptist was “the forerunner of Antichrist.” Given the love of the Bogomils for the gospels, and the fact that they called themselves “Christians,” we are unconvinced of Cosmas’ accusation that they called the one who prepared the way for their cherished Namesake the “forerunner of Antichrist.”

The same Bogomil love of Scripture is seen in Cosmas’ question about their Sunday practices.

We ask them, saying, “Who ordered you to fast on Sunday, the day of the Resurrection, to bow and to work?” They answer that this is not written in the gospel, but it is arranged by men…” (Peters, 115)

We take with a grain of salt Cosmas’ objection to the Bogomils working on Sunday. His testimony against them regarding earthly toil is confused and contradictory. In addition to his claim that they did work on Sunday, he also reports that the Bogomils considered it “unbecoming to labor and do earthly work” (Peters, 115). The Bogomils denied being “lazy,” he says, and they used the wood of the cross to make their tools, which is indicative of industry and enterprise, not laziness. Rather, the Bogomils allegedly accused the Roman clergy of being lazy. We are sure therefore that, whatever “work” they are accused of doing on Sunday was godly and needful, and whatever “labor” and “earthly work” was unbecoming to them from time to time was avoided for godly purposes. After all, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike” (Romans 14:5). We therefore place no merit in his claims about work.

But in Cosmas’ objection to their fasting and bowing on Sunday, we see a staunch rejection of traditions of men, for it is not the Scriptures, but traditions that prohibited fasting and bending the knee on Sunday. Tertullian (204 A.D.) said kneeling and fasting were prohibited on Sunday (De Corona, Chapter 3), and Basil (374 A.D.) said the reason is because it is “the day of resurrection” (de Spiritu Sancto, chapter 27). Laudable though these traditions may be—and instrumental in highlighting the late-11th century innovation called Eucharistic adoration—they are nevertheless traditions of men, and the Bogomils were perfectly justified in disregarding them.

Cosmas accuses the Bogomils of condemning “those that eat meat and drink wine according to the Law, and [thinking] that they are not worthy to enter into the Kingdom of God” (Peters, 117). And yet, there is actually a passage in the New Testament that mentions both the eating meat and drinking of wine in the context of the Kingdom of God, and warns—in an extremely narrow context, of course—that to eat meat and drink wine may be damnable, suggesting that the mature believer ought avoid meat and wine lest he cause the weaker brother to stumble into unbelief:

For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. … For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:17, 20-23)

Rather than a superstitious aversion to meat and wine, we find rather in Cosmas’ criticism a Bogomilian love for the truth and a self-sacrificing care for the weaker brethren.

In his Romanist mindset, Cosmas complains that the Bogomils actually obey the commands of the apostle James to “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed” (James 5:16). Cosmas is aghast that “they do not understand that this is said to priests” and “bound with the chains of the devil,” they go about confessing their sins and forgiving each other (Peters, 116). What a scandal that must have been to him: professing Christians confessing their faults to one another and forgiving one another. Sacré bleu!

Even in Cosmas’ attempts to ascribe a hint of heterodoxy to the Bogomils, he inadvertently reveals their knowledge and use of the Scriptures. Bogomil use of phrases like “unjust steward,” “watch and pray” and “wedding garment” all point us to Scripture texts known to any student of passing familiarity with the New Testament teachings on godly wisdom and sober living (Luke 16:8, Mark 14:37, Matthew 22:11). Such passages would be of obvious use in refuting the Roman oppressors. We may safely infer from these phrases and Cosmas’ apparent frustration that the Bogomils successfully wielded the sword, sowing the seeds of Scripture in the hearts of the people. For example, Cosmas accuses the Bogomils of saying, “we watch and pray and do not live a lazy life as you do” (Peters, 109). Cosmas means to show their pharisaical pride, but we see rather an apparent reference to Jesus’ admonition to Peter to stop falling asleep, and to “watch and pray” lest he stumble into temptation:

And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour? Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. (Mark 14:37-38)

Cosmas complains that the Bogomils hate “lawful marriage” and also blaspheme “the rich who wear wedding garments with respect” (Peters, 117). In this we see not only the Bogomil rejection of sacramental marriage with all of its somber liturgical pretense and fancy attire, but also their familiarity with Jesus’ parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:2-14) and James’ warning to the rich not to trust in their finely manufactured garments: “Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten” (James 5:2). We can imagine the Bogomils in their evangelistic zeal simply pointing out to the Roman Catholics that fancy wedding clothes would not gain them access to the real Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:11-13).

Cosmas attempts to showcase a confused Bogomilian exegesis, because “some of them call the devil a fallen angel, and the others account him an unjust steward” (Peters, 113). We see instead their familiarity with Luke 16:8, John 8:44 and 1 John 3:10 (among others), and their conviction that the children of this world, like the unjust steward, are of their father, the devil:

And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. (Luke 16:8)

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. (John 8:44)

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:10)

These are simple statements from the Scriptures, as any student of the New Testament knows, and we can easily imagine the Bogomils making use of them to argue against the Romanist. We can also imagine a scandalized Cosmas hearing about “the children of this world” who are “children of the devil” like the “unjust steward,” and concluding that the Bogomils thought “everything on earth, animate and inanimate [is] devilish” (Peters, 114) and that the devil is an “unjust steward” (Peters, 113).

We hear from another accuser of the Bogomils, that they considered themselves to be Mary’s equal:

They say that those of their faith, in whom dwells what they thinkof as the Holy Spirit, are all, and are called, Theotokoi, God-bearers. They bear the Word of God and give birth to it by teaching. The first Theotokos [Mary] had nothing more than they. (Contra Patarenos edited by Hugo Eterianus, Janet Hamilton, Sarah Hamilton, Bernard Hamilton (Boston, MA: Brill (2004) 44).

In this we see rather the Bogomil knowledge of Christ’s words of the Gospels, when He says, “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matthew 12:50; cf. Mark 3:35), and Paul’s words to the Galatians: “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you” (Galatians 4:19).

They are accused of calling Jerusalem the city of the Devil, rather than the city of the Great King. Jesus taught that we ought not swear “But I say unto you, Swear not … by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.” (Matthew 5:34-35). The Bogomils are alleged to have responded, “the great king is the Devil, because He is cosmocrator” (Contra Paterenos 44). We simply point out that “cosmocrator” simply means “ruler of this world,” an epithet applied abundantly in the Scriptures to the Devil (John 12:31, 14:30; Ephesians 6:12). Before the end of the first century Christ Himself was referring to Jerusalem as “Sodom” and “Egypt” (Revelation 11:8). During Jesus’ earthly ministry, it was wrong to swear by Jerusalem because it was the city of the great king. The Bogomils were apparently disinclined to swear by Jerusalem because it was “Sodom” and “Egypt.” In this observation, their accuser thought to showcase their superstition and rejection of Scripture, yet all he has done is show their knowledge and love of it.

Neither Gnostics, nor Manichæans nor Unitarians

The Bogomils are accused of being a Gnostic sect, as are many of the manifestations of the Protestant resistance throughout history; one of the foundational principles of gnosticism is that there is a Father God (Who is not the Creator) and there is a Creator God (Who is not the Father). As Irenæus explained, the gnostics believed that “there are two gods, separated from each other by an infinite distance,” the Father and the Creator (Against Heresies, Book IV 33.2). And yet, Cosmas acknowledges that the Bogomils considered the Father and the Creator to be one: “Bowing, they recite, ‘Our Father,’ but for this they must be condemned, because only in words do they call the creator of the heaven and earth, father; elsewhere they ascribe his creation to the devil” (Peters, 115). Another tenet of Gnosticism is a denial of the incarnation, and yet the Bogomils are also accused of going about preaching “that Christ was incarnate” (Contra Paternos, 45). If they were Gnostics, they were very, very bad Gnostics. In any case, the Bogomils are fully exonerated of the charge because the central precept of the Gnostics is that “truth was not delivered by means of written documents” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book III 2.1) and yet the Bogomils were constantly rejecting Roman traditions precisely because they were “not written in the gospel” (Peters, 115).

The Bogomils are accused of being Manichæans, and yet a simple examination of the accusations against them shows the vacuousness of the charge. The Manichaens were fascinated by the number five. According to Mani, his god “has five members: meekness, knowledge, understanding, mystery, insight; and five other spiritual members: love, faith, truth, nobleness, and wisdom. … and the members of the atmosphere are five … ; and the members of the earth are five … . The other being is the darkness, and his members are five: cloud, burning, hot wind, poison, and darkness” (Nicæan and Post Nicæan Fathers, Series 1, Volume 4, Editor’s preface on Augustines’s work against the heresy of the Manichæans).

Given the Manichæan fascination with the number five, we might expect the Bogomils to read some broadly significant allegory into the parable of the five loaves. And so Cosmas attempts to allege, but comes up empty-handed:

And to what meaning of the scriptures do they not give a wrong sense? … They do not believe that the multitude in the desert was fed with five loaves of bread; they say, “it was not loaves of bread, but the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.” (Peters, 113, 115)

Well, they certainly missed an opportunity to advance their Manichaean cause, did they not? What better way to read the Scriptures through Manichæan eyes than to assign the five loaves some mystical, allegorical meaning like the five “members” which are “love, faith, truth, nobleness, and wisdom.” Instead they assign the significance of the number of loaves to the first five books of the New Testament, just as Augustine had assigned their significance to the first five books of the Old (Augustine, Sermon 80, paragraph 1). We can imagine a conversation unfolding like this:

Romanist: Why don’t you believe in the real presence of Christ in the bread?
Bogomil: Like your forbears, you chase after bread to have your bellies filled (John 6:26), but five loaves of bread—be they multiplied or not—are still but food for the belly. Better that the word of God be multiplied to you instead in the form of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, than you should chase after your abominable loaves.
Romanist: So let me get this straight: you don’t believe the five loaves were multiplied, and you think it was just a reference to the four Gospels and the Book of Acts?

We have seen how often these simple believers have been unfairly chastised and ignorantly ridiculed, and know better than to take the accusations of Manichæan heresy seriously. In truth, even if the Bogomils thought the five loaves really had some significance related to the bread of the word of God, the view can hardly be considered “heretical”:

“The five loaves signified the five books of Moses’ Law.” (Augustine, Sermon 80, paragraph 1)

“Perhaps by the five loaves [the Gospel writers] meant to make a veiled reference to the sensible words of the Scriptures…” (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book XI, paragraph 2)

Of the claim that they were Manichæan, we are simply reminded that the charge was the accusation of first resort for the late-4th century advocates of the flood of error. Ambrose, by way of example, accuses Jovinianus and his followers of being Manichæan simply for believing Christ’s birth was natural: They “have proved themselves to be truly Manichees, by not believing that He came forth from a virgin” (Ambrose, Letter 42, to Siricius (389 A.D.), paragraph 12). Yet even Jerome believed Christ had opened Mary’s womb naturally, complete with morning sickness, blood and membranes, until he was re-educated to embrace her in partu virginity:

Jerome Against Helvidius (383 A.D.)
Add, if you like, Helvidius, the other humiliations of nature, the womb for nine months growing larger, the sickness, the delivery, the blood, the swaddling-clothes. Picture to yourself the infant in the enveloping membranes. …. We do not blush, we are not put to silence. (Against Helvidius, paragraph 20)

Jerome to Pammachius (393 A.D.)
Let my critics explain to me how Jesus can have entered in through closed doors when He allowed His hands and His side to be handled, and showed that He had bones and flesh, thus proving that His was a true body and no mere phantom of one, and I will explain how the holy Mary can be at once a mother and a virgin. (Jerome, Letter 48, paragraph 21)

Clearly Jerome had a change of mind between 383 and 393 A.D. Was Jerome, too, a Manichæan until 393?

The Bogomils are accused of being anti-Trinitarian, and yet the evidence against them on this charge “is confused and on some points contradictory” (Obolensky, 211). The Bogomils are thus alleged to believe the Logos consisted of the oral teachings of the Father and was not an actual Person:

“The Logos was for them not the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Eternal Word incarnate, but merely the spoken word of God, manifested in the oral teaching of Christ.” (Obolensky, 211)

It is interesting that Irenæus Himself countered the Gnostics by referring to Jesus as the spoken creative word of His Father, calling Jesus “the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives” forth its fruit (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV 18.4). Are there not, besides this from Irenæus, sufficient passages of Scripture in which Jesus equates God’s spoken words with “the Son” and the Son as the mouthpiece of the Father?

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8:38)

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. (John 14:24)

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son… (Hebrews 1:1-2)

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. (John 8:28)

It was hardly uncommon, by the way, to refer to the Trinity as “the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost:

“the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom” (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus II.15)

“One therefore is God the Father, one the Word, one the Spirit…” (Gregory Thaumaturgus, A Sectional Confession of the Faith, 4)

“Father and Word and Holy Ghost” (Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 45 paragraph 30)

It is as easy to imagine the Bogomils appealing, as did many before them, to the clear implications of Bible verses referring to Jesus, the Person, the Spoken Word of His Father, as it is to imagine their accusers misrepresenting such appeals to create a false charge against them.

Additionally, the Bogomils are accused of teaching,

“that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not distinct hypostases, but different names of the Father; they are emanations of the Father, two rays proceeding from the two lobes of His brain. This emanation is an event in time, which took place between the years 5500 and 5533 from the creation of the world; before and after these dates, the Son and the Holy Spirit had no separate existence outside the Father.” (Obolensky, 212)

This laughable assertion is put to bed when it becomes clear that the ancient system of Hebrew calendration placed Christ’s birth in the year 5500, and His death in 5533, as attested by many before them:

“For as the times are noted from the foundation of the world, and reckoned from Adam, they set clearly before us the matter with which our inquiry deals. For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year.” (Hippolytus, Fragments, Second Fragment, 4 (c. 235 A.D.))

“For the Jews, deriving their origin from them as descendants of Abraham, having been taught a modest mind, and one such as becomes men, together with the truth by the spirit of Moses, have handed down to us, by their extant Hebrew histories, the number of 5500 years as the period up to the advent of the Word of salvation, that was announced to the world in the time of the sway of the Caesars.” (Julius Africanus, Fragment 1 (c. 240 A.D.))

Take these expressions from the early writers, along with the knowledge that the Father sent the Son in the year 5500 (John 8:57) according to the Jewish calendar, and the Father sent the Spirit in the year 5533 (John 14:26), then consider them in light of other passages that speak of the unity of the Father and the Son (John 10:30) and “Now the Lord is that Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:17), and finally mix in the ignorance and bigotry of the accusers of the Bogomils, and it is easy to see where such accusations originate. Suddenly all the anti-Trinitarian allegations of “emanations” from the “lobes of His brain” “between the years 5500 and 5533” fall ridiculously to the floor.

Apart from this indirect evidence of their innocence of the charge of anti-Trinitarianism, we also have direct evidence from Euthymius of Constantinople that the Bogomils identified not only as Christians but also as Trinitarians: “Do not be astonished, my brothers … when you hear [the Bogomils] say that they believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that they keep the apostles and saints in memory, and call themselves Christians” (Contra Patarenos, 38-39). Such a testimony from an accuser that they claimed to be Trinitarians—and in view of the plausible ignorance, confusion and misunderstanding of their accusers—suggests that the charge of anti-Trinitarinism is entirely without merit.

Conclusion

We have reviewed the testimony of the adverse witnesses who report to us that the Bogomils insisted that they were “Christians,” and that “they believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” and that they maintained their own orthodoxy such that even the Roman Catholics “think that they are orthodox, and able to show them the path of salvation.” It is certainly notable that their accusers cite oral protestations of doctrinal and Scriptural orthodoxy from their own mouths and dismiss it as a deception, while at the same time accepting without suspicion the unsubstantiated hearsay of their detractors who had since “returned again to the Orthodox faith” (Peters, 112). Yet despite the best efforts of their accusers to misrepresent them, even the Roman Catholic sheep were sympathetic to them, believing that “they suffer for the sake of righteousness.”

The accusations of Gnosticism, Manichæism, and anti-Trinitrianism all fall by the wayside once we examine the evidence through an objective lens, knowing very well that the only evidence we have against the Bogomils comes from their accusers who themselves were deceived and had an incentive to suppress an obviously superior expression of Christianity. Their alleged rejection of meat and wine is easily understood in the light of the Scripture that actually recommends, for the sake of the Kingdom of God, abstaining from meat and wine in very specific circumstances (Romans 14:17-23), and the accusation that they considered marriage, eating and drinking to originate from the devil is easily clarified when we see that the only passage of Scripture that refers to them together describes to us the behavior of the reprobate (Matthew 24:38 and Luke 17:27). Their alleged hatred of marriage and children is easily overturned in view of their profession—from the testimony of Cosmas himself—that they insisted that the clergy ought to marry and have children in accordance with “the law of the Apostles” as well as from the glib observation from their accusers that the Bogomils were obviously engaging in procreative activities. It was the Roman sacraments they hated, not the institution of marriage by which God provides a godly seed unto Himself (Malachi 2:15). The allegation of a figurative interpretation of the “five loaves” is hardly ground for heresy, considering the ancient evidence that others took the same approach, and their rejection of traditions because they were not Scriptural traditions, shores up their Protestant bona fides. The comical claim of an emanation of the Son and Spirit from the Father between the years 5500 and 5533 is easily grasped in context when it is observed that the Jewish calendar placed Christ’s incarnation in 5500 and the sending of the Spirit in 5533—a dating system that certainly predated Rome’s novelties, and is substantiated by the earlier writers.

What is apparent, from the hands of their accusers, is that their chief offense was that they went about evangelizing the lost by preaching the truth to them:

In the beginning they teach the newly converted simply, exhorting them to believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to know that Christ was incarnate and gave the sacred Gospel to the Apostles. They order them to keep the precepts of the Gospel and to pray and fast …and to live in purity and be long-suffering and to repent and to tell the truth and to love one another. (Contra Paterenos, 45)

And thus, attempts to lay heresy, heterodoxy and confusion at the feet of the Bogomils instead reveal to the attentive reader not only how much the Bogomils loved the Scriptures, but also how soberly and attentively the Bogomils had searched out and identified the Great Apostasy we know as Roman Catholicism and sought to evangelize its captives. The Bogomils zeroed in on the date of the apostasy—the late-4th century—recognizing that the ostensibly “divine words” of the medieval liturgy in which Christ is allegedly sacrificed to His Father, were unscriptural novelties, inimical to the Gospel, destructive to the souls of men. As noted above, if we would find the Woman of Revelation, we need only discover the flood of error from the mouth of the serpent, and then find the people who stood on the Word and resisted it. We therefore count the Bogomils—industrious, thrifty, thoughtful and wise, evangelistic in their preaching, zealous in their rejection of novelty and error, loving above all else the Word of God by which they were “nourished” and thereby protected “from the face of the serpent” (Revelation 12:14)—to be among the offspring of the Woman, foretold by John and preserved by their Shepherd in heaven.

We will continue this series in our next installment.