Jarrel - Baptist Church Perpetuity - Landmark Baptist

Novatians and the Donatists, which names are here dropped out of history. It
appears in application to churches which occupied the same territory which
these occupied. The name Paulician appears when Montanists, Novatians and
Donatists, instead of being extinct, must have numbered many hundred
thousands of members. This, therefore, forms so strong a presumption that
Paulicians were only Montanists, Novatians and Donatists, under another
name, that, in the absence of any clear historical evidence to the contrary, we
must conclude that Paulician is but a new label for the good old wine. The
name is as strong contrary evidence as can be produced. But we have just seen
that names originate from so many things which do not effect the identity of
these churches that they are of no evidence as to their origin or identity.
(The reader here turn to and read the first part of Chapter 11 of this book.)
The following, from Neander, illustrates the great and significant uncertainty
and confusion in which all who claim the Paulicians were of post-apostolic
origin are involved:
“It is an hypothesis of both the authors to whom we are indebted for the most
important information which we possess respecting this sect, though
neglected by all succeeding writers, that this sect was an offshoot of
Manichaeism; and that it took its origin from a woman, Callinice by name,
who lived in the district of Samosata, somewhere about the fourth century,
and whose two sons, Paul and John, were considered as the founders of the
sect. From the former of these, it is said, moreover, that the sect took its name;
and it was the opinion of one party that the name Paulicians was derived from
a combination of the names of both founders, in the form pauloiwa>nnai.
But we have strong reason for doubting the whole account.” f562
This Neander rejects, and Gieseler calls it a “later Catholic fiction … given to
them on account of the high value they attached to Paul.” f563 Rejecting this
early Romish explanation of the origin of the Paulicians, Neander, Gieseler,
Kurtz and others fall back on Constantine, of the neighborhood of Samosata,
about A.D. 660, as the Paulician founder. But in view of what we have seen, as
to the disappearance of the names Montanists, Novatians and Donatists from
view and the great power of the Paulicians immediately after this assumed
origin, this explanation of the origin of the Paulicians must be rejected as being
as utterly groundless as the Romish explanation, for which it is the substitute.
Others, seeing the groundlessness of either of the two just now mentioned
explanations of the origin of the Paulicians, resort to the equally groundless
hypothesis that they were originated by an “Armenian named Paul, who lived
under Justinian II” — near a century before Constantine of Samosata. f565
But Wadington, having little or no confidence in any of these explanations of
the origin of the Paulicians, and attempting to make none of his own, says: