CHAPTER III CMS INTERVENTIONS AMONG THE PUTHENCOOR: TRAJECTORIES OF CONFLICT IN THE 19th CENTURY

Introduction

This chapter primarily focuses on the conflicts between the Puthencoor (Jacobites/Orthodox) and the Church Missionary Society (CMS). It discusses about the activities initiated by CMS missionaries and their collaborations with the Puthencoor. The problems faced by the Puthencoor as a result of the missionary interventions were also discussed. It likewise examines the attempts made by CMS missionaries to reform the Puthencoor. The conflicts between them at last generated a split in the Puthencoor due to the acceptance of the Protestant theology by a small group of people.

Historical Background

The beginning of the nineteenth century saw the foundation of the British power in India. Prior to the nineteenth century the strategy of the English East India Company towards Kerala was commercially oriented. At that juncture Kerala was separated into three areas -Travancore, Cochin and Malabar. The first two were under the control of the native rulers, and the third one under the British which incorporated the regions of Zamorin of Calicut. The British wanted to bring Travancore and Cochin also under their control.

The political aspects once again have influenced the life of Puthencoor Christians when Cochin was taken from the Dutch by the English in 1795.1 The British encouraged Christianity, particularly Protestantism.2 They were prepared to give plausible assistance to the Puthencoor Christians in all ways by using their power.3 The capture of Cochin helped to preserve the interest of British East India Company and later on of the British Crown. By the capture of Cochin,

1 L. W. Brown., Op. cit., p. 125. 2 J. W. Gladstone., Op. cit., p. 52. 3 L. W Brown, Op. cit., p. 125.

125 the British made close relations with the local rulers of Cochin and Travancore.4 The British allowed the presence of local kingdoms, who were eager to acknowledge the dominance of the foreign power. The Travancore and Cochin kingdoms accepted the political supremacy of the British since they had no other choice for their existence. So they obeyed the orders of the Madras Government in every aspect. A similar relation continued all through the British time frame.5 Any how the native states were under the British supervision and their foreign affairs were completely in British hands.6

Beginning of Anglican Missionary Work

As per the treaty signed in between Travancore and the English East India Company, a British Resident was appointed in Travancore and Cochinin 1800. The Resident exercised more control over the undertakings of these states than the Portuguese and the Dutch had ever possessed. The first two Residents, Col. Colin Macaulay (1800) and Col. John Munro (1810), were in effect sovereigns of the nation from 1800 to 1819.7 During this period these two British Residents were not simply the delegates of the great British Nation, but acted as the conservators of the British influence and the guardians of the British honour.8 It was a clear fact that the British Residents, worked as per the interest of their Government and for the spread of Protestantism in this nation. They strove for the execution of their task specifically through the introduction of their missions.9 In addition they had unique interest in the affairs of Syrian Christians. The British felt that the ancient church in Kerala was more similar to the Protestants. The Syrian Christians, especially the Puthencoor made good contacts with the British since they required the support of a European power to oppose the Portuguese missionaries. Another reason was that they likewise belong to the Christian community who were the adversaries of the Roman Catholics.10 The rulers of Travancore were also prepared to give considerable help to the British Residents as well as the Christian missionaries. Consequently,

4 White House, Op. cit., p. 287. 5 J. W. Gladstone, Op. cit., pp. 55-56. 6 Kenneth Scott Latourette, Christianity in a revolutionary Age: A History of the Christianity in the 19th and 20th centuries, New York, 1961, p. 401. 7 L. W. Brown, Op. cit., p.125. 8 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 37. 9 Ibid., p. 38. 10 MEP, Book 8, 1899, Vol. 1, p. 11.

126 by the beginning of the nineteenth century the political circumstance become noticeably ideal for the activities of the Protestant missionaries.

The British rule opened the entry for Protestant missionary activity in Kerala. The rapid growth of the Protestant missionary was due to a number of factors. The alteration of its charter in 1813 permitted the entry of missionaries to the East India Company’s territories.11 The active sympathy of some British Residents including officials tended for further spread of Protestant faith. The Protestant missionaries began to arrive in Kerala from 1806 onwards. The Church Missionary Society (C.M.S) and London Missionary Society (L.M.S) concentrated their work among the Puthencoor and the lower castes respectively in Cochin and Travancore states. Col. Macaulay, was the Resident who gave the passport for the first Protestant missionary, Rev. W. T. Ringeltaube in February 1806. He was one of the leading Protestant missionary who reached South Travancore. He belonged to London Missionary Society (L.M.S). Later CMS missionaries also rendered their missionary services. The Protestant missionaries drew converts from the depressed classes and hill tribes of primitive culture.12 They gave stress for education and assisted by grants from government for building educational institutions. Apart from that they built churches and translated liturgy into vernacular language. This gave impetus to the development of missionary activities and afterward they played an influential role in the Kerala society.

Opening up a Mission Field: British and the Puthencoor

Col. Macaulay was anxious about the spread of Gospel and was considered as a good friend of Christianity.13 The activities of the Protestant missionaries in Travancore began with the arrival of Richard Hall Kerr and Claudius Buchanan to Kerala in 1806, amid the reign of Col. Macaulay. They were the agents of the Anglican Church. They reached here to explore the life and conditions of Syrian Christians. This was to be the principal imperative British religious contact with the Syrian Christians.14

11 Kenneth Scott Latourette, Op. cit., p. 407. 12 Ibid., p. 411. 13 Claudius Buchanan, Op. cit., p. 134. 14 Susan Viswanathan, Op. cit., p. 18.

127 Dr. Kerr, senior chaplain in Madras presidency, was sent by Lord William Bentinck, the Governor of Madras in 1806. He was sent to enquire about the Syrian Christians especially the Puthencoor Christians and to present an official memorandum.He reported that “the Puthencoor Christians were a group of about seventy or eighty thousand, for the most part cultivators and craftsmen, living exclusively in interior regions, considerate to their religious obligations and to their clergy, respected by Raja and the Nairs and notable for their veracity and simplicity.”15 In addition Dr. Kerr commented that there were no images in their churches and their clergy marry like the Protestants. He revealed that their service performed in the church was similar to that of the Church of England. As indicated by him the unification of Syrian church in Kerala with the Church of England was the noblest effort.16 His report also gives hints about the conflict between the Puthencoor and the Pazhayacoor. He remarked that in some churches the divine service was performed in the Syrian and Latin rite. Some of them were adhered to their ancient rites and some others have joined the Church of Rome. Subsequent to the celebration of the mass the latter have carried away the images from the church sooner than the others come.17

Dr. Claudius Buchanan, who was the Principal of the Fort William College, Calcutta came to Kerala twice, that is in 1806 and 1808. He was warmly welcomed by Col. Macaulay, the British Resident. He came here at the appeal of Lord Wellesely, Governor General of India, to inquire into the condition of the Christian inhabitants in Kerala.18 His main purpose was the collection of Syriac manuscripts and the translation of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular language.19 He found fifty-five churches of the Puthencoor including churches at Mavelikara, Chengannoor, Kalliseri, Puthenkavu, Maramon, Kozhenchery, Niranam, Ranni, Kandanad, Angamali and Kunnamkulam.20

15 Claudius Buchanan, Op. cit., p. 148. 16 Ibid., pp. 146-150. 17 Ibid. 18 Whitehouse, Op. cit., p. 237. 19 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 203. 20 Daniel. I., The Syrian Church of Malabar, Madras, 1949, p. 38, Also see E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 203.

128 In the course of his visit, Claudius Buchanan was invited by Mar Dionysius I to meet him at Kandanad Church on 23rd November 1806. A good number of priests from various churches had assembled there to meet Buchanan. He portrayed the bishop as a man of exceptionally respectable character; well-known for his godliness and for the consideration he dedicates to his sacred functions and pre-eminence in general learning than the other priests.21 Buchanan held boundless discussions with Mar Dionysius on a conceivable solidarity with the Church of England and also with their forms of worship, prayer, ceremonies and so on.22 In the discussions with regard to the issue of unity, the clerics were anxious about the ordination. They indicated that the church enjoyed apostolic succession and tradition and this position of the congregation ought to be recognized in any scheme of agreement.

Afterward Buchanan continued his discussions with the clergy and said that the missionaries appointed by the Church of England may be permitted in the future to preach in various churches of the Puthencoor and this will empower the congregation to withstand the threat from the Roman Catholic Church.23 The bishop replied that he would sacrifice much for such a union but was not prepared to compromise the dignity and purity of the church.24 It is clear from this statement that Mar Dionysius I needed the assistance of the missionaries for the reason that they measured themselves as weaker than the Roman Catholics, who till then had delighted in political help. They also thought that this connection will revitalize the church. Even though he had a plan for any type of union, he wanted to keep up the purity of the congregation and was exceptionally conscious about their customs and practices. This was because of the reason that, they had a bitter experience from the Portuguese, who at first extend some assistance and later tried to change their deep rooted traditions and practices.

Buchanan assured Mar Dionysius I that, the Church of England would not wish to hurt it, but rather to promote its welfare, to revive its spirit and to use it as an instrument of future good in British India.25 The bishop replied that the

21 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 167. 22 David Daniel, The Orthodox Church of India, New Delhi, 1986, p. 136. 23 Claudius Buchanan, Op. cit., pp. 128-134. 24 Ibid. 25 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 167.

129 union either with the English church or at least a convenient connection between both churches would be a joyful occasion and it would be favourable to the advancement of the religion in India.26 Thus Mar Dionysius I gave an approval for a mutually concurred association with the Church of England. After these discussions Mar Dionysius Ipresented Buchanan an exceptionally old manuscript copy of Bible in Syriac.27 It was the one preserved in the Syrian church at Angamali, the seat of the Syrian Bishopric till its evacuation to Cranganore by Roman prelates.28 Buchanan commented on the oldness of this book. He says that

“The inquisitors condemned many books to the flames, yet they kept the Bible, being content to order that the sacred text ought to be amended comfortably to the vulgate of Rome. But numerous bibles and other volumes were not created at all. In the Acts of the Council of Nice, it is recorded that Johannes, Bishop of India, signed his name at that Council in A. D 325. The Syrian version of the sacred writing was brought to India, as indicated by the prevalent belief, before the 325 AD. Some of their present copies are definitely of ancient period.”29

At the point when Buchanan recommended the desirability of translating the Syriac Bible into Malayalam, Mar Dionysius I received the plan with great pleasure. He agreed to supervise the work himself with the assistance of RambanPhilipose of Kayamkulam. Thus the four gospels were translated in 1807. Buchanan consented to get this manuscript printed. The four Gospels were printed at Bombay in 1811 and copies thereof were distributed in the churches. Besides publishing the gospels, Mar Dionysius I got the whole bible printed in England. Consequently Buchanan warmly advocated the cause of the Puthencoor Syrians on his return to England. The solemnity of his help roused the interests of CMS missionaries on the Puthencoor faction. Buchanan had presented assorted conditions of the Puthencoor in his report. He requested his congregation and the mission society to render conceivable assistance to this church. He wrote that the doctrines of the Puthencoor were few in number,

26 Claudius Buchanan, Op. cit., pp. 128 - 134, Also see E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 204. 27 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 64. This Bible is more than a thousand years old and is now in the University Library at Cambridge. 28 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 205. 29 Claudius Buchanan, Op. cit., pp. 128-134.

130 however similar in the basic points with those of the services in the Church of England.30 Buchanan delivered several speeches in England regarding this. The descriptionabout his visit among the Puthencoor were published in his work Christian Researches in Asia.

The reports submitted by Kerr and Buchanan generated curiosity in the minds of missionaries of the Church Missionary Society. In England, a desire emerged to set up sociable relations with the Church in Kerala and to spread Christianity in India. Subsequently Kerr and Buchanan directly or indirectly become instruments in getting the help from CMS to the Puthencoor Christians of Kerala.

Church Endowment Fund 1808 (Vattippanam)

Another vital step taken by Mar Dionysius I was the investment of 3000 star pagodas31 which is equivalent to Rs. 10,500, in Government securities for the wellbeing of his group.32 There were diverse descriptions with respect to the origin of the fund. One version is that the money was the amount saved by Mar Dionysius I. While according to another, Col. Colin Macaulay, the then Resident of Travancore during the turbulent period of the revolt of 1808 borrowed an amount from the Bishop.33 Instead of reimbursing the sum it was consequently invested with the British government.34 Another version is that these sums were obtained from the relinquished property of Mathu Tharakan, a wealthy Christian. It is true that an extensive amount of money in the shape of arrears of tax was unpaid to the Travancore Government from Mathu Tharakan and that his properties were attached for the purpose.35 But it is also said that Tharakan’s dues were realized only after Col. Colin Macaulay’s resignation because he was a great supporter of Tharakan. The third version is that it was the

30 Claudius Buchanan, Op. cit., pp. 122-123. 31 It is gold coin worth three and a half rupees. 32 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 206. 33 In 1808 a rebellion took place in Travancore and Col. Maucauly faced certain troubles during this period. The main reason behind this rebellion was Velu Thampi, the Diwan of Travancore. After 1805, the relation between the Diwan and the Resident strained. The Resident demanded the immediate payment of the increased subsidy and retirement of the Diwan. But it led to clashes between Travancore and the Resident. In the later period Travancore was forced to surrender to the British. 34 Daniel I., Op. cit., pp. 40-41. 35 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 206.

131 private money of the resident given as a thanksgiving offering when he escaped the revolt of 1808.36 During the revolt, Col. Macaulay borrowed money from his Christian friends’ viz., the Mar Dionysius I and the Bishop of Veropoly to meet the crisis. He was not able to reimburse it. So this sum was afterwards converted into perpetual investments.37

In October 1808, the sum was banked at eight percent interest as perpetual loan with the Madras Government. Mar Dionysius I was entrusted to draw the interest on behalf of the Puthencoor, with the understanding that it ought to be utilized for charitable or religious purposes. In reality the money was given over to Colonel Macaulay by the successor of Mar Dionysius I. This is obvious from the cash receipt dated Dec. 1, 1808.38 The establishment of the Trust Fund was one of the significant episodes during the reign of Mar Dionysius I. The British were in charge of the institution of this trust fund, which was set up for the benefit of the Puthencoor community. The bond for investment was issued five months after the demise of Mar Dionysius I (Mar Thoma VI), in the name of his successor Mar Thoma VII.39 The investment has since turned into the funds for upholding the education in the Syrian theological seminary at Kottayam. Anyhow in the later years this trust fund was the cause of immense conflict and lawsuits.40

Conflicts between Mar Thoma VIII and Joseph Ramban

After a short career of fifteen months Mar Thoma VII died in June 1809. Before his death he consecrated his successor, Mar Thoma VIII by laying his hand on his head. Yet, the truth is that the dignity of the successor would be perfected by a representative from Antioch. Col. Macaulay embraced the transmission of the application letter to Antioch to get a delegate for ordination.In the meantime Mar Thoma VIII convened a meeting of the congregation members at Kandanad in 1809. The meeting acknowledged him as

36 Daniel. I, Op. cit., pp. 40 – 41. Also see E. M. Philip, Op. cit., pp. 207-208. 37 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 208. 38 David Daniel, Op. cit., p. 539. A similar sum was invested for the advantage of the Pazhayacoor (Roman Catholics) as well. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Veropoly drew the interest on their part. 39 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 208. 40 Ibid., pp. 263-266.

132 their Metropolitan. It also decided that Pulikottil Joseph Kathanar41 was to be ordained as Ramban. He and Ramban Philipose of Kayamkulam would function as the advisers to Mar Thoma.

In the intervening period a conflict occurred between Mar Thoma VIII and Joseph Ramban. Some supported Mar Thoma VIII, while others followed Joseph Ramban of Kunnamkulam. A group within the Puthencoor community contended that Mar Thoma VIII was not authoritatively consecrated and he should not carry out any of the functions of the bishop until the point when his dignity was idealized by a Patriarchal delegate. While the opposite party held the view that the church should not be reduced to a situation of widowhood till the arrival of the delegate from Antioch.42 The conflict moreover included the issue related to the privilege to draw interest on specific funds, which had been contributed by British Government for the benefit of the congregation. Eventually the complaints of the opponents were laid before the British Resident, one party denouncing Mar Thoma VIII for exercising his powers as a bishop before affirming his position by the Patriarch and the other party accusing Joseph Ramban, pioneer of the opposition, with noncompliance to the Bishop.43

In the meantime, Col. Macaulay was succeeded by Col. John Munro, as the Resident in 1810. He was the Resident as well as the Diwan of Travancore. He was also in charge of the supervision of Cochin. He was a man of devotion and evangelical conviction. He took initiative to absolve the followers of Christianity in South Travancore, from all duties.44 He wrote letters to the Government and the CMS on the condition of Christianity in South Travancore. From these letters it is clear that he was paid much attention for the promulgation of Christianity. He welcomed the CMS missionaries to work among them and provided various aids also to the London Missionary Society.45 He protected Christian missionaries from the attack of the local Hindus. Col. John Munro also facilitated the Puthencoor faction, in order to revive a grieving church and to get

41 Pulikottil Joseph Kathanar was a native of Kunnamkulam and a parishnor of Arthat church. 42 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 210. 43 Ibid. 44 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., pp. 42-43. These duties were connected with the temples, houses etc. 45 Ibid., p. 42.

133 the support of the Christians for the British Raj.46 While supporting the native Christian community and Anglican mission, the objective of the Resident was partly political and partly religious. He utilized his authority to rectify the grievances of Puthencoor. He took effort to improve the condition of the Puthencoor Christians, their clergy and their churches. Some of them were appointed as Judges and others were appointed in public service.47 Thus he was profoundly helped this community in transforming their lives.

The conflict between Mar Thoma VIII and Joseph Ramban widened during the reign of Col. John Munro. In a letter to Col. Munro, the supporters of Mar Thoma VIII accused Joseph Ramban, and says that he had ill will towards Mar Thoma VIII in light of the fact that he issued a bull against the Ramban with respect to the factional fight between the priests of Kunnamkulam church.48 The references unveils that the conflict was between Kidangan Geevarghese Kathanar and Joseph Ramban and the former sent complaints against the latter to Mar Thoma VIII. These occurrences confirm that some of the conflicts during that time are personal in nature. Anyhow in the later period Kidangan Geevarghese Kathanar had joined hands with Joseph Ramban; when he found that the latter have high hand in church affairs.49 Another reason behind the conflicts between Mar Thoma VIII and Joseph Ramban was the negligence showed by the former in setting up a seminary for the education of clergies. This disregard was because of the fact that the interest on the endowment due from the British Government treasury should have to be spent mainly for the erection of the seminary.50

The dispute between Mar Thoma VIII and Joseph Ramban was brought before the Madras Government. The Government of Madras, Custodian of the Trust fund, forwarded through Col. Munro seventeen questions to Mar Thoma VIII.51 They enquired about the history, government, rituals and maintenance of the Puthencoor church. Mar Thoma VIII replied for these questions on 20th April

46 C. B Firth, Op. cit., p. 168. 47 Ibid. 48 Pukadiyil Ittoop, Op. cit., p. 170. 49 Ibid., p. 175. 50 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 216. 51 Curian Kaniyamparambil, The Syrian Orthodox Church in India and the Apostolic Faith, Muvattupuzha, 1988, pp. 118-119.

134 1812.52 His answers give a clear picture about the early history of Puthencoor church. In reply to the question related to the origin and history of the Puthencoor, the bishop in reply, repeated the tradition of St. Thomas and also the arrival of Thomas of Cana. In response to the question related to the nature of supremacy exercised by the Patriarch of Antioch and succession to episcopacy, it was said that this church was always subject to the See of Antioch and the consecration of bishops was performed by delegates of Patriarch. From the subsequent answers it is clear that he had 55 churches, 162 priests and 30,000 Christians under his rule. The duties of the priests were celebration of Eucharist, rites of marriage, baptism, extreme unction, confession and so on. He further said that the priests were supported by certain fees for Eucharist celebrated for deceased. It is clear from the answer that there was no seminary for priestly training and the aspirants for priesthood had their theological study under Konat Geevarghese Kathanar in the north and in the south under Cheppat Philipose Kathanar and Maramon Palakunnath Geevarghese Kathanar.53 For the questions concerning the finances of the church, the bishop replied that the churches had no funds and the receipts consisted of burial fees, tithe on marriage dowries etc. With regard to the general education Mar Thoma VIII acknowledged the absence of public schools. In respect of doctrines and rituals he stated that they followed the teachings of Apostle and conducted rituals as per the books received from Patriarch of Antioch. With reference to government he replied that the Syrian often suffered oppression but not in matters of religion. In reply to the question related the antiquity of Pakalomattam family, the bishop replied that this family supplied Archdeacons and bishops for time immemorial. From the response to these questions, it is clear that Puthencoor Christians believed in the dominance of See of Antioch and everything was in accordance with the books sent from Antioch.54

The conflict between Mar Thoma VIII and Joseph Ramban reached its climax in 1813, when Col. Munro visited Mar Philexinos, Bishop of Thozhiyur, who stood at the side of Ramban.55 Subsequently the Resident invited the

52 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., pp. 210- 211. For details see Appendix XIII. 53 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 119. 54 Ibid. 55 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 213.

135 representatives of all churches to meet him at Quilon. He also deputed an officer to take possession of the Bishop’s personal properties and credentials. Col. Munro decided in favour of Joseph Ramban on condition that he ought to set up a school for the training of Puthencoor Christians.56 The Resident pronounced the consecration of Mar Thoma VIII as invalid and precluded him from exercising the functions of the bishop until the arrival of the representatives from Antioch. This was an issue regarding the validity of consecration. This order was somewhat first of this kind. In addition the Resident declined to pay the bishop the interest on the endowment due from his treasury. Accordingly this conflict proceeded for a few years without any outcome.

Establishment of Seminary

The founding of theological seminary was another important act of ecclesiastical significance. The Puthencoor faction had no educational institution of its own to train and educate the clergy in theology during 19th century. In the early period they were basically taught under the guidance of a scholarly priest called Malpan in the Malpan Padasalas of respective churches. Pulikottil Joseph Ramban, the pioneer of the opposition party was greatly interested in building up a theological institution for the education of the Syrian clergy. He went through several parishes in Travancore and Cochin, preaching the necessity of a seminary. He prepared a plan and estimate for building the proposed institution. At first Mar Thoma VIII was agreeable to the scheme; however in the later period he declined to support the respectable plan of Ramban because of various issues between them. But the British were in favour of Joseph Ramban for the reason that he was conducive to their notion of progress particularly in the field of education for clergies. At the same time the British were playing power politics to further interest of their church and missionaries.

In the intervening time Col. Munro made an arrangement for the improvement of the Puthencoor, by establishing a college for the education of clergy. In 1813 Pulikottil Joseph Ramban, discussed the venture with Col. Munro and he made it feasible for the Ramban to draw the interest on the Trust Fund deposit money which had been lying accumulated for three years.

56 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 64.

136 Munro handed overthe interest of trust fund amounting Rs. 3360 to Joseph Ramban. The Ramban was permitted to utilize this fund for the completion of his plans. Another amount of Rs. 3350 was received as promissory note from Mulanthuruthy, Kandanad, Nadamel and Arthat churches.57 Col. Munro at that moment started to convince the rulers of Travancore to donate money and land for the fulfilment of the project.58 The site necessary for the purpose was provided by Rani Gowri Lakshmibai, the ruler of Travancore. She donated 16 acres of land in Govindapuram on the Southern bank of Meenachil River at Kottayam and a sum of Rs. 29,000 in 1813. This land was free of tax. It was afterwards supplemented by a second grant of an estate known as Munroe Island near Kottayam yielding approximately thousands of rupees annually. Later an amount of Rs. 21,000 was also sanctioned by the Diwan Peshkar Venketa Rayar in 1818.59 All these assistance were conceivable on account of the support given by Col. Munro. Joseph Ramban succeeded a lot in improving the condition of the Puthencoor socially, religiously, politically and morally with the help of Col. Munro. So later he brought English missionaries to work among the Puthencoor Christians. But this turned to be a cause for unending mischief in the later years.The missionary version is that, the principal objective of the establishment of a theological college was to train the clerics and to provide proficiency in Syriac language, in which they are deficient.60 The foremost intention of the missionaries was to manage and support the ancient church rather than to bring about change.61 The missionaries were cautious in the early years of interaction with the Puthencoor. At this moment this group of Christians themselves was undoubtedly receptive to Anglican influence.

After possessing enough funds and an enviable site, the Ramban proceeded with the construction of theological seminary. He established the framework of the present Kottayam Seminary in 1813 and opened it as an educational institution by 1815. It was the first educational institution of this kind in the country apart from the seminaries at Cranganore and Vaipicotta set up by the Portuguese. The educational plan incorporated the study of Sanskrit,

57 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 120. 58 Whitehouse, Op. cit., p. 239. 59 David Daniel, Op. cit., p.143. 60 Susan Viswanathan, Op. cit., p. 20. 61 Ibid.

137 English, Latin, Hebrew, Syriac, Malayalam and Theology. The English language was introduced for the first time in Travancore state in the seminary.62

In the meantime Col. Munro comprehended that as indicated by the provision of the Trust Fund, the beneficiary of the interest had to be the Metropolitan of the Puthencoor faction. During the time of compromise made during the conflict between Mar Thoma VIII and Joseph Ramban, Col. Munro entrusted Ramban to receive the interest of the Trust Fund and advised him to utilize this fund for the construction of seminary. However this step initiated by Col. Munro was disapproved by the Government of Madras. At the same time Joseph Ramban was asked to reimburse the amount drawn from the Resident’s treasury as part of the interest of Trust fund. Therefore, inorder to cope up with the situation, Col. Munro asked Joseph Ramban to acknowledge consecration at the hands of Mar Philexinos, the Metropolitan of Thozhiyur church. Mar Philexinos voluntarily agreed the demand of the Resident for his assistance in the consecration of Joseph Ramban. The opportunity for consecration was given to Mar Philexinos because of the conflicts that existed between Mar Thoma VIII and Joseph Ramban. Accordingly in March 1815 Joseph Ramban was consecrated as bishop with the name Mar Dionysius II. He was a member of the Pulikkottil family at Kunnamkulam. Thus the custom of choosing the bishops from the Pakalomattam family vanished from the historical backdrop of the Puthencoor Christians. The names of the villages or family, from which the bishops came, were frequently prefixed to their names for the benefit of identification.63 Meanwhile a group within the church waited for a chance to revolt against this. They began to question the legitimacy of the consecration of Mar Dionysius II by the Metropolitan of Thozhiyoor church.

As a result of the frequent disputes a custom had grown up since 1816 that the government of Travancore and Cochin ought to formally proclaim the bishop of the Puthencoor and thereafter this bishop will be recognized as legitimate.64 It is evident that from this period onwards the Travancore and Cochin Governments began to intervene in the appointment and expulsion of the

62 David Daniel, Op. cit., p. 144. 63 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 66. For example, Mar Pulikottil Dionysius (1817-1818), Mar Punnathara Dionysius (1818-1825) and Mar Cheppat Dionysius (1825-1852). 64 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 174.

138 bishops of the Puthencoor.65 If a bishop got the support of the British Resident, the native states would also recognize him as Bishop and would issue Royal proclamations. Thus it was the British who became the actual decider as to who would rule the Puthencoor Christians. The will of the people was now subsumed by questions of legality and legitimization through state power. Here Mar Dionysius II had the support of the British Resident and through him of the two native states as well.66 Consequently the Travancore and Cochin Governments ordered the people to accept Mar Dionysius II as their Metropolitan. This was the beginning of ‘Thiruvezhuthu Vilambaram’ (Royal proclamations).67 This proclamation regarding the appointment of Mar Dionysius II forced the rebels to stay quiet. Here we can see that the Royal proclamations became more important than the Staticon for the recognition of a bishop. But in some cases Royal proclamations did not legitimize the power of the bishop as the people failed to recognize them. From that time onwards, the state Governments began to legitimize the position of bishops and it became a law afterwards. It became a regulation throughout this period and these proclamations ordered all the Puthencoor Christians to comply with the new bishop. If a bishop was once approved, it was considered as punishable for a Syrian to disobey these orders afterward.68 If a bishop was not recognized by the states through proclamations, he should not generously use the Episcopal authority. Mar Dionysius II doubted the legitimacy of his bishopdom; therefore he declined to exercise any of the episcopal functions of a bishop.69 He signed the receipts only as ‘Metropolitan’.70

Advent of CMS Missionaries

Col. Munro took steps to enhance the condition of the Puthencoor faction, which was spiritually and socially in a declining state. He required some well-educated, sincere clerics to manage the college and to assist him to work

65 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 218. 66 Ibid. 67 RAE, Series II, No. 1089, List VII. It is a Royal proclamation conferring the name Mar Dionysius and the title Metropolitan on one Joseph. See Appendix XIV for details. Also see Curian Kaniyamparambil Op. cit., p. 121. 68 N. J. Thomas, Op. cit., p. 200. 69 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 219. 70 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 122.

139 out his plans for the benefit of Syrian church.71 His policy moreover incorporated the Seminary education as an obligatory requisite for ordination and translation of the Bible into vernacular language.72 So he applied for the assistance from the Church Missionary Society73 (CMS) in England to send out clergy for the purpose of instructing the people and to improve the condition of the Puthencoor Christians.The Church Missionary Society responded emphatically. The Madras Corresponding Committee, which was formed in 1814, chose to send missionaries to South Travancore.74 This move gave the CMS and the Anglican Church a firmer grip on the Puthencoor. Knowledge was thus used to bring the church to accept Anglican theological viewpoints, thus slowly changing the earlier theology. In India CMS focused their work in Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and their work in South India was controlled by the Madras Corresponding Committee. They did most of their missionary work among the Syrian Christians. The publication of Dr. Buchanan’s Christian Researches keyed up sympathy and enthusiasm in the minds of the Englishmen in support of the Puthencoor Christians.75 At the point when these missionaries come across these Christians, the latter were in a poor state, having neither political power nor financial power.76 Along these lines they commenced their activities in South Travancore in the nineteenth century.

First Phase

The period from 1816 to 1825 was considered as the main phase of assistance from the CMS missionaries. In the primary stage, Col. John Munro was the moving force behind CMS in South Travancore. The first group of evangelists to work among the Puthencoor Christians was Rev. Thomas Norton (1816-1840), Rev. Benjamin Bailey (1816-1850), Rev. Joseph Fenn (1817-1826) and Rev. Henry Baker (1817-1866). In the underlying phase, the controlling figure of CMS work was Col. John Munro in association with Mar Dionysius II,

71 Whitehouse, Op. cit., p. 239. 72 J. W. Gladstone, Op. cit., pp. 62-63. 73 CMS was a voluntary organization of clergy and laity belonging to the Church of England. It was started in England by the efforts of John Venn and Thomas Scott in the year 1799. This was initially known as the Society for Missionaries in Africa and the East. The leaders were Thomas Scott, Wilberforce, Henry Baker, John Wenn, Charles Simeon and Charles Grant. 74 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit.,p. 122. 75 Daniel I., Op. cit., p. 43. 76 POCMS, 1822- 1823, p. 236.

140 the bishop of Puthencoor group. Bailey, Baker and Fenn, who were known as the ‘Kottayam trio’, assumed special responsibility as per the interests and needs of the mission.

The foremost CMS missionary, who landed at Cochin on 8th May 1816, was Thomas Norton. He was a missionary chosen for missionary activities in Ceylon, but he was diverted to Travancore. Along these lines the Anglican mission of assistance to the Syrian church had started.77 This mission began to function during Mar Dionysius II. Col. Munro was particularly keen to ensure that the Puthencoor Christians became a client community of the British. He told Thomas Norton that he aimed to accomplish this by granting privileges to them, believing that in return the British government would receive their grateful and devoted attachment on every emergency.78 He tried to attach the Puthencoor Christians to Protestant Christianity and British influence.

After the arrival of Norton, Col. Munro welcomed Mar Dionysius II to Quilon for a meeting. Col. Munro offered further assistance to the Puthencoor community by placing a European in the seminary at Kottayam as a medium of correspondence connecting former and the latter. Col. Munro introduced Norton to the bishop as the one who proposed to work among the Puthencoor for their social and religious progression. However Mar Dionysius II objected the missionary work in the Syrian church. In addition he said to Col. Munro that “He is a member from a different group, his faith and our beliefs are not one; if he happened to live in the seminary, it may prompt religious fights, and the outcome may be unacceptable.”79 It is clear from this statement that Mar Dionysius II had in fact predicted the inconvenience which must be confronted by his group in the later period. He understood that it is better to welcome the discontent of the Resident than to deceive his community. This happening caused displeasure in the mind of Munro for the reason that he expected a cordial invitation for the missionary by Mar Dionysius II. When Munro’s intention to station Norton in the seminary was denied by the bishop he was forced to make Alappuzha as the focal point of missionary activities.80 He asked Norton to station at Alappuzha

77 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 169. 78 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., pp. 340-341. 79 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 222. 80 MEP, Book 8, 1899, Vol. 1, p. 11.

141 and to visit Kottayam once in a while.81 This was reluctantly permitted by the bishop. On his way to home the bishop communicated his misery to his attendant priests that “I feel pitiful for having sought the help of Munro in the construction of the seminary and since the times of Dr. Buchanan, the eyes of Europeans are upon our church as those of a kite upon chickens.”82

After this meeting Norton realized that there existed some anxiety in the mind of the bishop and the clergies with respect to their contact with the English.83 So he tried to clarify the intention of the mission to remove the suspicion in minds of the Puthencoor. The aim of the missionaries is clear from the letter (dated September 23rd 1817) addressed by British Resident to the Church missionary Society. This letter says that “with regard to the Syrians, our general perspective will be to use and promote the study of Syriac language, and to widen the ancient simplicity and purity of Syrian church, which was presently mutilated by the Popish superstitions and customs.”84 Norton initiated a Christian service in Mr Walcott's bungalow on 27th October 1816.

It was during this time that Middleton, the Anglican Bishop of Calcutta, paid a visit in October 1816. The Bishop visited a number of Puthencoor churches in Travancore and held talks with Mar Dionysius II and Norton. Middleton advised the missionaries to be cautious while using their privileges.85 Col. Munro likewise asked the Madras Corresponding Committee to send missionaries not with the intention of establishing an independent mission in Travancore, but to help the Syrian Church in their evangelistic work.

Following Norton, three other missionaries came here to work amongst the Puthencoor group. They were Benjamin Bailey (1816 - 1850), Henry Baker (1817 -1866) and Joseph Fenn (1818-1827). The missionaries considered a significant number of the traditions and practices in the Syrian church as unconventional and unbiblical. So they needed to introduce changes in the liturgy and worship of Syrian church. They began to work together with the goal of instructing and reforming the Puthencoor Christians. Benjamin Bailey arrived

81 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 129. 82 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 223. 83 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., pp. 97-98. 84 Whitehouse, Op. cit., p. 240. 85 James Hough, Op. cit., pp. 28-31.

142 at Alleppey on 19th November 1816. Munro instructed Bailey to assume the responsibility of translating Syrian scriptures into Malayalam. Later Bailey moved to Kottayam for learning Malayalam language. He was cordially invited by the representatives and students of the seminary. He was the first English man to become the Principal of the seminary. During this period secular education was also being introduced. In December 1816 Norton started building a church with the permission of the government and the contribution made by the CMS companions. There he conducted the first baptism of five men, seven ladies and fourteen kids. Apart from this Norton attempted to actualize his targets like learning Malayalam, translation of Bible into Malayalam, building schools and so on. He embraced the usual schemes of evangelism like bazaar preaching, conversation, distribution of leaflets and so forth. He began to visit Kottayam from time to time in order to look at the progress of the college. All the way through these visits he used to held discussions with Mar Dionysius II with regards to the arrangement of training in the college.While Bailey settled at Kottayam, Norton steadily pulled back from his missionary activities.86

In the meantime, Mar Dionysius II died and Mar Philexinos of Thozhiyur was called to succeed him as Metropolitan and to take the responsibilities. He took charge on January 1817 and extended all his help to the missionaries. He was proclaimed as Metropolitan of the Puthencoor by the states of Travancore and Cochin.87 But because of health issues, Mar Philexinos consecrated George Punnathra under the title Mar Dionysius III on 29th October 1817 as Metropolitan.88 Another declaration was instantly issued in 1818 announcing the appointment of Mar Dionysius III as assistant to Mar Philexinos and urging upon every one of the Puthencoor faction, to show obedience to the new prelate.89

In the subsequent period Bailey took the leadership of mission and began to execute the plans of the Resident i.e., efficient education of the clergy at the

86 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., p. 132. 87 RAE, Series II, No. 823, List VI, B 11. This document is a copy of the Proclamation dated 992 M. E (1817) issued by the Travancore Sirkar placing all Puthencoor Christians of Malabar separated from Rome under orders of the new Metropolitan Philexinos, Kottayam and direct to issue a similar one in Cochin . See Appendix XV for details. 88 Pukadiyil Ittoop, Op. cit., p. 194; Also see L. W. Brown, Op. cit., p. 135. 89 RAE, Series II, No. 893, List VI, Bundle 12, 1818. This document is a copy of the proclamation submitted by Metropolitan of Malabar (Mar Philexinos) communicating to the Syrian Christians about the appointment of George Punnathara as Metropolitan of Malabar on account of his ill health and directs to follow his precedents. Also see E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 225.

143 college, translation and circulation of scriptures and enforcement of discipline within the Puthencoor church.90 He concentrated his time and efforts in translating Bible and in printing.91 Bailey chose Kottayam as his base and contributed a tremendous effort for the improvement of Puthencoor church and its people. All through the period from 1816 to 1826 much progress was accomplished in translating the Bible into the vernacular language. In 1817, he set up a press at Kottayam and translated the Bible and the English prayer book into Malayalam and brought out two Malayalam dictionaries. All these absolutely helped the laymen to acquire biblical knowledge. With the establishment of CMS Press at Kottayam, Bailey (18th October 1821) came to be known as the 'Father of printing press'.

Mar Dionysius III maintained cordial relations with the missionaries. They attempted to convince Dionysius III by promising him that, the foremost aim of the mission was to expel the evils which sneaked in to the Puthencoor from the Church of Rome and to bring them back to their ancient practices. Even though there were some underlying conflicts, the church and mission kept up a cordial relation during the first phase. The funds of the seminary were brought under the joint administration of the Metropolitan and the missionaries.

In the meantime, the CMS gave guidelines to the missionaries that, they were sent to teach pure scriptural doctrine among the Syrians. They likewise advised them that, they came here not to convert Puthencoor Christians into Anglicans or to assume authority over them, but to convey new thoughts to reform them from within. The missionaries decided to comprehend and show concern towards liturgy and traditions of the Puthencoor Church to evade issues. But they neglected to show sympathy towards this group of Puthencoor Christians in the 19th century. The Corresponding Committee at Madras likewise cautioned them not to meddle with the Puthencoor and the church except in idealize understanding with the bishop.92

At the same time Col. Munro, the British Resident encouraged the missionaries to assume some sort of authority over the Syrian church. The

90 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 344. 91 W. S. Hunt, Op. cit., p. 123. 92 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 169.

144 passionate Resident was inclined to view the Puthencoor faction as a battalion under his command, with the missionaries as his junior officers.93 The reign of Col. Munro witnessed active dynamic work of the missionaries till 1819. In addition, Rani Parvathi Bai, who was the Regent (1815 - 1819), extended her assistance to the missionary activities in Travancore. The missionaries tried to play out their mission without causing unnecessary conflicts. They functioned under the patronage and control of Col. Munro. He initiated some plans and gave instructions to the missionaries to act as per his plans in the Puthencoor church. It is evident from the statements published in the proceedings of the CMS Mission.94 The policy of East India Company was non- interference in religious affairs. But actually the missionaries acted as the agents of the British resident and interfered in the internal undertakings of the Puthencoor church. They desired to change this church into the Church of England. They translated the Book of Common prayers into Malayalam and distribute the copies to the parishes. They also attempted to remove images from the churches. They could keep up a connection with the priests and Metropolitan of the Puthencoor church without any disagreements. The efforts of the missionaries were not worthless. They were able to set up a comradeship between the Puthencoor Christians and the Anglicans. The missionaries introduced a few reforms within Puthencoor church without ruining the companionship.

Rev Joseph Fenn was the first missionary specifically sent to work in the Puthencoor church by the Home committee of the CMS. He settled down at Kottayam in October 1818.95 His enthusiasm for missionary work was stimulated by reading the accounts of Claudius Buchanan. With the division of missionary activities among the evangelists, the supervision of seminary and the establishment of schools turned to be the obligation of Fenn. He started a Grammar School at Kottayam. Through the efforts of Col. Munro, the Puthencoor Church got numerous donations for their advancement. Fenn exploited this circumstance and this helped him to initiate missionary activities among the Puthencoor extensively.

93 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 170. 94 POCMS, 1819-1820, pp. 168-169. 95 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., p. 138.

145 In the meantime there existed a dispute about the ownership of four churches. The missionaries applied for the consent of the Resident to acquire the control of some of the churches under the control of Pazhayacoor. The Valiapalli church at Kottayam and the church at Piravam were till then under the joint possession of the Pazhayacoor and the Puthencoor, while the churches at Changanassery and Alleppey had been once chapel under the church at Niranam.96 Mr. Fenn was empowered to take possession of these four churches. He ousted the Pazhayacoor from the churches at Kottayam and at Piravam.97 Yet, the churches in Changanassery and Alleppey continued under the strong control of the Pazhayacoor for quite a long while. However Fenn, with the support of the Government officials and the Puthencoor Christians took possessions of the Changanassery church and appointed a Syrian priest to carry out official duties. But when the CMS missionaries withdraw from this church the Pazhayacoor expelled the Puthencoor. However with the help of military Fenn drove out the Pazhayacoor and regained the church for the Puthencoor. But in the later period the order with respect to the churches at Changanassery and Alleppey was cancelled. The missionaries gradually began to look upon themselves as custodian of the Syrian churches and tried to read out the rules of discipline and forms of worship.98

In the intervening period a meeting was convened under the supervision of Mar Dionysius III of the Puthencoor church at Mavelikara on 3rd December 1818 to consider the reforms of the church. The meeting was held at St. Mary’s church, Mavelikara. This is popularly known as Mavelikara Assembly. It is said that forty priests and seven hundred laity attended the meeting. In the meeting, Rev. Joseph Fenn presented the recommendations which mainly include the desirability to change the forms of worship and customs. They also made proposals to perform the prayers in a language understandable to the general population. The mediation of St. Mary and other saints were another belief of the church which was criticized. He had likewise stressed the requirement for the unification of both churches. The missionaries recommended that a committee of the Metropolitan, Malpan, CMS missionaries and six learned priests should take

96 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 226. 97 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 126. 98 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., pp. 227-228.

146 initiation for introducing suitable changes in the traditions of worship and life in the church. The meeting thoroughly revealed the motivation behind the CMS missionaries to reform the faith and character of the church.

But Mar Dionysius III feared about the interference and the introduction of new reforms in the church by the missionaries. He considered it as extremely offensive to the church interest. He says that “I am standing on the edge. Tomorrow I should either drop out with the sahibs or betray my church. They need to change our faith. I would preferably lose my honour than be a traitor. Pray for me that I may go through this ordeal unscatched.”99 From this statement it is clear that by the Mavelikkara meeting, Mar Dionysius III lost the confidence in the missionaries and suspected their truthfulness. The former was conscious about the imperfection of his ordination. So he appealed to Patriarch of Antioch during that critical period for a representative to affirm his consecration and to refute the Protestant doctrine. The application was delivered to Rev. James Hough, for safe transmission to the Patriarch.100 James Hough conducted long discussions with the bishop regarding the matter of reforms, yet the latter was not ready to go beyond the canons of his church. At the point when the bishop began to suspect the missionaries he privately wrote a letter to the Patriarch requesting for a delegate. However Mar Dionysius III pretended to be a friend of the missionaries in order to retain his honour and influence. At the same time he desired the presence of an Antiochean bishop to validate his ordination.

During this phase they succeeded in translating the scriptures into Malayalam language and starting schools in almost all the parishes. They established a good relationship with the Travancore government during this period of time. All these advancements occurred during the reign of Col. Munro. However, his retirement caused serious effects in the mutual relationship between the State, the CMS missionaries and the Puthencoor church. About three hundred Puthencoor Christians were dismissed from the service of Travancore government after the retirement of Col. Munro on 24th January 1819.101 This was a result of the strict order from Madras Government that there

99 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 229. 100 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 127. James Hough was the author of The History of Christianity in India 101 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., pp. 135 &141.

147 is no need to support a specific religious section. They scolded Col. Munro for disregarding the British strategy of religious neutrality. After Munro left Travancore, the special concessions granted to Puthencoor Christians seem virtually to have ceased. The departure of Col. Munro and the consequent outcomes had driven the missionaries to follow various ways for missionary activities. McDonnell, the successor of Munro took steps to curb the involvement of missionaries in local politics.102 The missionaries began to retreat from the activities related to the Puthencoor church. Hereafter they made a division of work among themselves.103 They turned their attention on the spread of education, translation of scriptures, printing and training of priests.

In April 1819, Henry Baker arrived at Kottayam. His field of work was setting up schools in connection with the parishes of the Puthencoor and it numbered around fifty five.104 A Grammer school for secondary education and a printing press was established at Kottayam in 1821. High schools were started at Mavelikkara, Mallappally, Trichur and so on. Baker was a good preacher and teacher. The establishment of various sorts of schools by Baker and other missionaries was a challenge to the existing situation in society because the lower caste was restricted from acquiring knowledge. With their attempt it is clear that acquiring knowledge is not put aside for the high caste alone. Education for girls was a progressive aspect of the educational movement initiated by Baker.

Another important incident occurred in 1821 was the visit of Middleton, the Bishop of Calcutta for the second time to enquire about the missionary activities.105 He held a meeting with Mar Dionysius III to know his opinion about the missionary work.106 They chiefly discussed about the strategy adopted by the missionaries towards the Puthencoor church. He asked that “whether the missionaries meddled with the internal affairs of the church, whether they introduced any changes and whether they made followers.”107 Mar Dionysius III replied uncooperatively on every one of these inquiries. The Bishop Middleton

102 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., p. 143. 103 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 65. 104 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., p. 144. Also see W. S. Hunt, Op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 127-129. 105 James Hough, Op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 71-73. 106 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., p. 151. 107 James Hough, Op. cit., pp. 72-73.

148 informed Fenn that his anxiety about numerous unfavourable reports about the works of the missionaries had been removed. Towards the close of 1821 the mission was visited by W. H. Mill, the Principal of Bishop’s College, Calcutta. He visited Kerala with a view to study the Syriac manuscripts in the possession of the ancient church. He spent much time with the missionaries especially Fenn and he was much impressed about their works.

Second phase

The period from 1825 to 1833 was considered as the second stage of missionary assistance. This phase was a period of tensions. This was the after effect of the difference in the basic theology held by the two sections. In the beginning the missionaries made use of their freedom in the Puthencoor church to introduce reforms in the practices which were considered as superstitious and unbiblical. The missionaries realized that this Christian community considered worship as the most essential component of their religion and believed in apostolic faith. The service in this church was conducted with the cooperation of prelates, priests, deacons and the laity. The Anglicans were not able to acknowledge these traditions in the light of the fact that their fundamental form of religion was based on the sermon preached by the clergy. They did not agree with the prayers delivered by the Puthencoor for the departed. The missionaries could not appreciate the reverence given by the latter to Virgin Mary. After 1825, the relation between the missionaries and the Puthencoor church experienced major transformation as a result of the difference in the faith.

Mar Dionysius III realized through experience that the presence of the missionaries was not amiable to the interests of the church. So he applied to Antioch for assistance. However he continued his harmonious connection with the missionaries. This relationship again strained after the death of Mar Dionysius III in 1825. In the meantime a general meeting was conducted to choose a successor of Mar Dionysius III. Before this meeting Mar Philexinos of Thozhiyur was called to assume the functions of the Metropolitan, but he declined this request. So, three candidates were proposed to become the successor of Mar Dionysius III during the meeting i.e., One by the missionaries, the second by the southern parishioners and the third by the northern

149 parishioners.108 At last the decision was made by lot and Philipose Malpan of Cheppad, the nominee of the southern parishes becomes the successor.109 But there were stiff oppositions from the side of missionaries regarding the selection of the successor.110

In the meantime, a section of the clergy and people in the Puthencoor church under Konat Abraham Malpan became agitated due to the activities of the missionaries.From this period onwards, the priests of Konat family became prominent in the mainstream of conflicts.111 After the establishment of seminary, Konat Abraham Malpan was teaching there along with the CMS missionaries. This rebel party requested the Patriarch of Antioch to send a delegation to affirm the consecration of the new Metropolitan candidate and to reinforce the affiliation of the church with Antioch. But the delegation did not turn up and so under this circumstances the consecration of Philipose Malpan of Cheppad was conducted under the guidance of Mar Philexinos II of Thozhiyur church in August 1825.112 The new Metropolitan adopted the title Mar Dionysius IV (Cheppad Mar Dionysius). This consecration was followed by a Royal proclamation, appointing him as the successor of Mar Dionysius III.

Soon after this episode, the Patriarch Mar Ignatius Geeverghese VI deputed Mar Athanasius Abdul Masih, to Kerala honoring the repeated appeals from late Mar Dionysius III.113 He was cordially welcomed by Mar Philexinos II and Mar Dionysius IV in 1825. Mar Athanasius produced letters from the Patriarch to the British authorities for assistance. A meeting of the representatives of all churches was convened on the 29th of December 1825 at Cheria Palli Kottayam, under the initiative of Mar Philexinos.114 The Staticon (Bull) of Mar Athanasius was publicized in this meeting.115 Subsequent to this

108 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 128. 109 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 231. 110 James Hough, Op. cit., p. 395. Also see Pukadiyil Ittoop, Op. cit., p. 197. 111 Konat Abraham Malpan was a member of Konat family.The Syriac word Malpan means teacher. The elderly priests who trained the priests were usually referred as Malpans. All the Malpans of the Konat family held the title‘Malankara Malpan’. The title ‘Malankara Malpan’ is an honorary title officially conferred by the Malankara Metropolitan, upon dignified priests of the Church who have made important contributions to the Church. There was a tradition of conferring this honor on one Malpan on the 40th day of demise of his predecessor. 112 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 128. 113 Ibid. 114 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 231. 115 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 129.

150 incident, Mar Athanasius was formally acknowledged. The events that occurred after the arrival of this prelate gave missionaries clear confirmation of the ascendency of Antioch over the local churches. They understood that rigorous measures have to be adopted to counter the sway of Antioch and for the reformation of the Syrian church.

In the meantime, Mar Athanasius, the representative of the Patriarch of Antioch questioned the consecration of Mar Dionysius IV by Mar Philexinos II, the bishop of Thozhiyur church. So he demanded to produce the credentials of Mar Philexinos II. However, there was no reliable document in the possession of Mar Philexinos II to prove the validity of his consecration. Consequently the oriental bishop therefore asked the native bishops to abstain from exercising Episcopal functions until he had conveyed the actualities to the Patriarch and got his authorization to re-consecrate them if required.116 The missionaries were waiting for an opportunity to dispose the Antiochian bishops, opinioned that the decision was wrong. The enraged Mar Philexinos II conspired with the missionaries against Mar Athanasius.117 In this circumstance Mar Dionysius IV could not actively support Mar Athanasius.

In the meantime, Mar Athanasius met Col. Maxwell, the then Resident with credentials and requested his acknowledgment as the Metropolitan and expulsion of the local prelates. Mar Athanasius asserted that he was the only legitimate bishop. The Resident did not comply with the request because; Mar Dionysius IV had been properly chosen by the people and proclaimed as head of the church by the government. At the same time the Resident gave authorization to Mar Athanasius to visit churches with the advice that he should not make any trouble against the lawful head of the church.118 Meanwhile, he offered Holy Mass at Mattanchery.119 However, he tried to perform the functions of the Metropolitan without bothering about the warning.

The conservatives supported Mar Athanasius; though the missionaries supported Mar Dionysius IV.120 At the same time some of the clerics favored

116 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 232. 117 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 129. 118 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., p. 162. 119 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 129. 120 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 171.

151 Mar Athanasius and opposed Mar Dionysius IV. Meanwhile the former attempted to take control of the seminary by force. Consequently the native bishops sent a few petitions to the British Resident and he was ready to uphold their cause. This circumstance constrained the government to intervene in this issue. The Government of Travancore, after receiving consent from the Resident Col. Maxwell, ordered Mar Athanasius to leave the country without delay.121 Here we can see the significance of British Resident in a native state. Mar Athanasius was also asked not to create any disturbance against Mar Dionysius IV, the lawful head of the church. Some priests who had supported the oriental bishop were punished at this point of time.122 The detained priests were released after ten months subsequent to the payment of heavy fines. It had been assumed that the missionaries were responsible for persuading the government to took action against Mar Athanasius.123 However the missionaries denied this allegation firmly. But the fact is that the conflicts caused by the arrival of the oriental bishop and the mentality of Mar Dionysius IV towards the missionaries was not at all favorable.

The expulsion of Mar Athanasius created chaos inside the Puthencoor congregation. In the meantime, the adherents of missionaries began to leave them, especially due to the influence of the Konat Abraham Malpan. The latter was a renowned Syriac scholar who gave leadership to the church during the time of reform movement. But the former was against the reformed ideas of the missionaries and he began to teach the students in seminary regarding this. Thus because of his influence, in 1826 some of the students had left the seminary and the schools were closed as a result of the unsettling turbulence. But the position of the missionaries turn out to be secure after the deportation of Mar Athanasius. Joseph Fenn resigned from his service on 24th November 1826 on account of ill health.124 His departure was an obvious misfortune to the CMS Mission of help.

121 V. Nagam Aiya, Op. cit., p. 215. 122 Z. M. Paret, Op. cit., pp. 159-160. Also see E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 222. 123 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 233. 124 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., p. 159.

152 Third phase

The period from 1833 to 1836 was considered as the third phase of missionary help. The preceding incidents denoted a turning point in the relation between the missionaries and the Puthencoor church. During this phase the latter were more attached to the Patriarch of Antioch and their reliance on the Patriarch of Antioch strengthened. The new batch of missionaries realized that their attempt for reforming the Puthencoor church on the Anglican lines was not effectively conceivable. This disappointment forced the missionaries to take some radical measures. However this created a lot of tensions and finally this period saw the open disagreements between the two.

The deportation of Mar Athanasius made the position of the missionaries secure. The affairs in the seminary were carried on jointly by the missionaries and Mar Dionysius IV. But this harmony prevailed only for few years. The careful interference of the missionaries into the life and ecclesiastical affairs of the Puthencoor Christians began to disappear with the arrival of Rev. Peet (1833-1865) in 1833 and Rev. Woodcock in 1834.125 This new group of missionaries was dissatisfied because of the lack of progress in the reforming movement. So they decided to follow a more vigorous policy. At his arrival Peet took the charge of the seminary. He thought that it was high time to make the Syrian church, Anglican. He was quite a different personality with that of Bailey and Baker. It was through the efforts of Peet that schools in Mavelikara, Kodukulanji, Chenganur, Poovathur, Elanthur, Thalavadi, Puthupally, Kannetu, Krishnapuram and Kattanam started. The uncompromising attitude of Peet widened the gulf between the Puthencoor and the Anglicans.126 The aggressive policy of Peet was continued even after the arrival of Rev. Woodcock. They tried to criticize the religious practices of the Puthencoor as nonsense. They failed to realize that the reform in an ancient church can be achieved through a deliberate process. The reaction of the Puthencoor towards the changed mentality of the missionaries was evidently hostile. The former directed their clergy and laity not to listen to the words of the missionaries. The outcome was that the missionaries

125 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., pp. 116-120. 126 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., pp. 244-262.

153 found themselves unfit to restrain, the condemned errors of the Puthencoor Church.127

Meanwhile Peet took over the administration of the seminary. This gave an opportunity to the missionaries to Anglicize the Puthencoor church as a whole. In the seminary Peet posed himself as supreme.128 He began to employ discretionary measures for reforming the church without considering the sentiments of its members. The missionaries criticized those components of the life and liturgy of the Puthencoor which appeared to them as offensive.129 They discarded the Roman precepts and ceremonies which crept into the Puthencoor Christians. They provoked the Puthencoor Christians by serving meat to the students of the seminary on lent days. Peet strongly criticized the profound reverence to Virgin Mary and the practice of ordaining uneducated boys as deacons by the Metropolitan.

Some of the leading members of the Anglican Community understood the requirement for the settlement of the issues. While the relations were deteriorating, Bishop Daniel Wilson, the Anglican Metropolitan of India at Calcutta was asked to intervene in the issue. Consequently he came to Kottayam in November 1835. The bishop was a strong evangelical Anglican who desired to reform the church of the Puthencoor. So he held a meeting with Mar Dionysius IV and other priests. He proposed six points in order to introduce certain reforms in matters of discipline, faith and administration of the Puthencoor church.

The proposals were:- • “According to general guidelines the local bishop ought to ordain those who had passed through the college at Kottayam and had obtained a certificate of proficiency and a good conduct. • Accounts denoting the produce of the land and other property belonging to the church ought to be submitted per annum to the British Resident.

127 George Broadley Howard, Op. cit., pp. 94-95. 128 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 132. 129 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 171.

154 • A permanent endowment should, if possible, be organized for uncertain dues collected in connection with various ceremonies such as marriage, baptisms, funerals and for the need of clergy. • Schools should be built up in connection with every parish church. • The clergy should explain the Gospel each Sunday to the people during divine service. • Prayers should be rendered in vernacular and that one of the liturgies of the mass should be prepared and translated into Malayalam.”130

The recommendations were received by Mar Dionysius IV with great consideration. Mar Dionysius IV had a firm conviction that he had no privilege to change the rites of his community. So he promised Bishop Wilson that he will put these suggestions before a general body of clergy. The tactic of Mar Dionysius IV was to agree the proposals outwardly. But it is clear that he was not ready to accept it. On the following day Wilson along with Mar Dionysius IV attended a Sunday service held at Cheriyapalli, at Kottayam and at Kandanad, where the former delivered a sermon.131 Before leaving the country, Dr. Wilson asked Bailey to translate the sermon and circulate it amongst 250 clergy and 100,000 laity of the church and place things in a proper manner to meet his desires.132 Then the Bishop left to Bombay. In fact, Bishop Wilson realized that Mar Dionysius IV did not have any desire to acknowledge the changes suggested by him. So he sought the assistance of the British authorities to solve the issue.133

Mavelikkara Synod 1836

The Puthencoor faction realized the attempt of missionaries to disregard its integrity with the help of political power. They become conscious about the fact that the acknowledgement of the proposals will strengthen the influence of the missionaries and weakened their relation with the Patriarch of Antioch. They thought that it will prompted the abolition of some of their most fundamental practices and doctrines and will cause changes in the government, discipline and

130 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 75. Also see C. M. Agur, Op. cit., pp. 120-121. 131 W. S. Hunt, Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 84. Also see E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 237. 132 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 237. 133 MEP, Book 8, 1899, Vol. 2, p. 21.

155 liturgy of their church. In short, they realized that the acceptance of proposals will lead to the overall interference of the missionaries in the internal life of the church. Each one of these thoughts forced Mar Dionysius IV to summon an assembly and to improve their contacts with the Patriarch of Antioch.

Consequently a representative assembly of the churches was convened on 16th January 1836 under the initiative of Mar Dionysius IV at Puthiyacavu church, Mavelikkara. The intention of the Synod was to think about the recommendations of Bishop Wilson. The meeting was attended by more than fifty priests and a large number of laymen of the church. Mar Kurilos III, the successor of Mar Philexinos of Thozhiyur church also attended the meeting.134 One of the missionaries also went to the meeting to influence the members by his presence. The meeting after careful consideration of the proposals of Bishop Wilson emphatically rejected all the suggestions of Bishop Wilson.135 They unanimously declared that they were not ready to introduce any changes in the church without the consent of the Patriarch of Antioch.136 They considered Bishop Wilson as the Menezes of 19th century. The decisions of the Synod are known as the Mavelikkara Padiyola of 1836.137 This document clearly shows the ethics and belief of the Puthencoor church. They took an oath that they would have no further contact with the church missionaries. It rejected to acknowledge any faith other than the Jacobite faith.138 Accordingly the attempts of Bishop Wilson to achieve compromise between the two parties failed. However a section among the Puthencoor under the leadership of Palakunnath Abraham Malpan was supportive in accepting some of the Anglican principles.

The resolutions of the Synod irritated the missionaries. From the decisions of the Synod the missionaries realized that neither union, nor compromise, nor reformation was feasible. In fact there had been some misconceptions on the part of the Anglicans regarding the nature of the

134 During this period the Mar Thoma bishops maintained cordial relations with the bishops in Thozhiyur church. Because, on several occasions Thozhiyur bishops consecrated bishops when the episcopal succession, and the churches were in danger. Mar Philoxenos II Kidangan (1811– 1829) of the Thozhiyur Church consecrated three successive bishops in the Puthencoor Church namely Mar Dionysius II in 1816, Mar Dionysius III in 1817, and Mar Dionysius IV in 1825. 135 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., p. 220. 136 MEP, Book 8, 1899, Vol. 2, p. 21. 137 See Appendix XVI for the decisions taken during Mavelikkara Synod. 138 S. G. Pothan, The Syrian Christians of Kerala, Bombay, 1963, p. 49.

156 Puthencoor church. The Anglicans thought that this church, which was not in communion with Rome, was fundamentally being in agreement on all points with the Church of England.139 After the Synod at Mavelikkara, the missionaries held conferences on 19th and 22nd January 1836. Through these meetings, they confirmed that their connection with the Puthencoor was virtually dissolved.140 This matter was forwarded to the Madras Corresponding Committee for further action. John Tucker, the Secretary of the committee reached Kottayam to gather information about the Mavelikkara assembly and its effects.141

Although the freedom enjoyed by the missionaries to preach their dogmas in churches and to manage the seminary affairs helped them to enforce Wilson’s Proposal, without the mediation of the native bishop or his priests.142 The missionaries felt that they can easily reform the Puthencoor church by circulating the Bible and giving bible oriented education. They continued visiting churches and won a good number of Puthencoor Christians to their side by giving them good job and salary.143 They openly began to use the Book of Common prayers of the Church of England in the seminary chapel and in some parishes. They began to instruct the students of the seminary in the dogma contrary to the Syrian faith. They compelled the students in seminary to eat meat on lent days.144 They rejected the prizes and promotions of the students who neglected to acknowledge the reforms. They disregard the prayers and Eucharist for the dead. The missionaries also attempted to manipulate some cases against Mar Dionysius IV.

All these steps embraced by the missionaries annoyed Mar Dionysius IV. Consequently all the deacons were withdrawn from the seminary and the Bishop Wilson’s endowment of thousand rupees was also rejected.145 Those who continued in the seminary were excommunicated. At the same time the missionaries appointed four Syrian priests, who favoured reform, on fixed salary to revise the liturgy as per the proposals of Dr. Wilson. However after the

139 M. E. Gibbs,‘Anglican and Protestant Mission 1706-1857’, in H. C. Perumalil & E. R. Hambye (eds.), Christianity in India: A History in Ecumenical Perspective, Alleppey, 1972, p. 237. 140 W. S. Hunt, Op. cit., Vol. II, p.13. 141 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., p. 249. 142 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., pp. 238-239. 143 MEP, Book 8, 1899, Vol. 2, p. 23. 144 Ibid., p. 21. 145 W. S. Hunt, Op. cit., p. 85.

157 completion of the revision, three of the revisers declined to use it, when they were forced to celebrate the Holy Eucharist.146 They commented that it was better to die than to celebrate a Mass as per the revised liturgy.147 Thus it was a fruitless attempt from the side of the missionaries.

The split between Mar Dionysius IV and the missionaries widened because of the forcible entry of Peet into the treasury room of the seminary on a Palm Sunday in 1836.148 The treasury room was under the joint control of Mar Dionysius IV and the missionaries. This entry was not with the permission of Mar Dionysius. Peet removed all the books and valuable documents from seminary to his residence. These documents included copper plates granted to the Syrian Christians by the Chera rulers; Col. Macaulay’s acknowledgement for the loan of Pagodas, credentials concerning the relations between the Syrian church and the government and the documents related to the financial administration of the Seminary.149 This incident enraged the Puthencoor Christians and caused difficulty in their cooperation with the missionaries. Under this condition, Mar Dionysius IV appealed to the Resident. But as Mar Dionysius allied with missionaries, he had no one to take his complaints to. Since, the local officials have no courage to go against the wishes of the British.

This implied the termination of the mission of assistance and in due course the property was partitioned by a board of arbitrators mutually agreed upon.150 At the point when the association was broken up, the CMS redirected their activities into the work of evangelization. This led to the formation of Anglican congregations, in the area occupied by the Puthencoor church. In 1836 a group of Syrian Christians at Mallappally, feeling discontented about the unreformed condition of their church moved towards the missionaries with a request to become an Anglican congregation. The missionaries were doubtful at first, yet later guaranteed to help them. Thus in March 1836 the foundation of a

146 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 135. 147 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., pp. 239-240. 148 MEP, Book 8, 1899, Vol. 2, p. 24. 149 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., p. 215. 150 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 83.

158 new church was laid in this place.151 Likewise in different places the Anglican congregations were formed in the later period.

The conflict between the missionaries and the Puthencoor was unavoidable in the long run. In 1837 Mar Dionysius IV proclaimed in all his congregations that the missionaries were never again permitted to preach in their churches.152 In this way twenty years of collaboration between the Puthencoor and the missionaries was formally severed in 1837. But they maintained their contacts with the former through schools and the new college built by CMS with its share of the revenue of the old seminary. In 1838 the CMS decided to work among the non- Christians rather than the Syrian church in future.153

Cochin Award 1840

At the point when the attempts for union between the Puthencoor and the CMS broke up, there were some disputes with regards to the property associated with the college at Kottayam. It was hard to solve the issues and to make mutual decisions. In the mean time Mar Dionysius IV complained to the Madras government and later to the Court of Directors. They replied that the conflict should be settled by a court. So an arbitration court was set up to make a decision on the issue. The arbitrators were appointed by the Travancore government. The Board of Arbitrators comprised of Baron De Albedyhll nominated by the missionaries, J. S Vernede designated by Mar Dionysius IV and W. H. Horsely assigned by the Government.154 They met at Cochin and both the parties put their case before the arbitrators and submitted evidences in support of their contentions. The Board gave their decision in April 1840. It was generally known as Cochin Award.155 Their award followed the plan prepared by the Resident for partition, with slight modifications.

At last the properties and endowments which had been managed jointly by Mar Dionysius IV and the missionaries were divided by the arbitrators into two categories, one to be handed over to the Puthencoor, the other to be held in

151 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 83. 152 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 172. 153 Ibid., p. 173. 154 Daniel I., Op. cit., p. 45. 155 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 127.

159 trust by the missionaries, the secretary of the corresponding committee of the CMS and the Resident. They also declared that these properties should be used for the advantage of the Syrian community as per the intention of the original donor.156 All the funds and endowments prior to the arrival of the missionaries belong to the Puthencoor, specifically the three hundred star pagodas (Vattipanam) and the interest on it, the seminary at Kottayam and the land, granary and other property attached to it. These were awarded to the Metropolitan of the Puthencoor. At the same time these properties should be held in trust by him and two others that is, a priest and a lay man of Puthencoor church, who were to be selected by the people as overseers of their church property.157 Here we can see the beginning of church administrative hierarchy. The relation of the Metropolitan with these trustees also increased. The returns from the endowments allotted to the Syrians were to be paid to the Metropolitan and two others appointed by the community.

As per the provisions of the Cochin award, the other properties and endowments received subsequent to the arrival of the missionaries, specifically, the Munro Island or Munrothuruthu.158 The Board of Arbitrators decided that they ought to be managed by the missionaries since the Metropolitan of the Puthencoor declined to work with them.159 The missionaries, who had to leave the seminary, were asked to build a seminary of their own.160 The Resident had to hand over the properties to the CMS missionaries awarded to them even before they have received the order of the Court of Directors. The missionaries refused to return this properties and the Metropolitan of the Puthencoor took no further steps. The old seminary was returned to the use of the Puthencoor. Accordingly with the profound loss of property, the Puthencoor disposed the influence of the missionaries.

Mar Dionysius IV could not freely exercise his Episcopal authorities in the remaining years because of the uncertainty created by the missionaries. One instance was that Mar Dionysius IV dismissed the trustees in the church at

156 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., pp. 172-173. 157 Susan Viswanathan, Op. cit., p. 23. Also see C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 128. 158 This was given by the Travancore government in the name of Joseph Fenn. 159 Francis Day, Op. cit., p. 253. Also see Daniel I., Op. cit., p. 45. 160 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 136. This was on the site where the CMS College was now situated. It became the new seminary and the former became old seminary.

160 Piravom for the misappropriation of church funds. The dismissed trustees requested assistance from the missionaries and with their advice the trustees complained to the Government against the Metropolitan. But the Government officials refused to take necessary actions regarding this. The missionaries with the help of the members of Piravom church tried to includeMar Dionysius IV in a case.161 The missionaries influenced the British Resident to direct the native state to issue strict orders asking the subordinate authorities to charge criminal complaints against the Bishop and to issue warrants to arrest him.162 Later the bishop was arrested yet he escaped from the punishment.

In the meantime the seminary was closed for need of funds. The Resident offered to pay Mar Dionysius IV a sum adjusted by the Court of Arbitrators as the share of the Puthencoor in the trust funds. However the former rejected to accept this amount because he considered it as unjust. At the same time he proceeded with his request to the Government of Madras and to the Honorable Court of Directors of the East India Company in England for funds. Simultaneously grievances were sent against Mar Dionysius IV by his opponents to the Patriarch of Antioch.

Towards a New Reformed Faction

The desire of the missionaries was to free the Puthencoor Christians from superstitions such as the use of prayers for the dead, to the saints, the veneration of Mary and other similar practices. For this purpose they attempted to keep up the correspondence between the Puthencoor. In the meantime the missionaries attempted to create conflicts among the Puthencoor Christians and tried to win a few to their side.163 Subsequently some of them, who had been enormously influenced by the missionaries, joined the new Anglican congregation. However a hard core of the Protestant supporters continued within the Puthencoor community.164 There existed another section of people in the church who were incredibly influenced by the mission, but they continued within the mother church. They organized a movement to reform the Church from within, along the

161 MEP, Book 8, 1899, Vol. 2, p. 23. 162 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., pp. 241-242. 163 MEP, Book 8, 1899, Vol. 2, p. 22. 164 N. J. Thomas, Op. cit., p. 201.

161 canons put forward by the missionaries. This paved the way for the conflicts between the conservatives and the liberals within the Puthencoor church.165

The person who gave directions to the reform movement was Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan of Maramon. He was one among the four priests, who were appointed by the missionaries to revise the Syrian liturgy.166 He learned the protestant principles during his education and the changes among the Puthencoor Christians began to manifest under him. He had been closely associated with the missionaries at the Seminary, where he taught Syriac and wanted to reform as well as to save the church from corruption. The twelve main adherents of Abraham Malpan were Kaithayil Geevarghese Malpan of Puthupalli Church (Kottayam), Adangappurath Joseph Kathanar of Callipas Church (Kallooppara), Eruthikkal Marcus Kathanar of Kottayam Cheriapalli, Vengathara Geevarghese Kathanar of Kolenchery Church, Karingathe Jacob Kathanar of Thumbamun Church, Thomman Kathanar of Paravur Church, Mani Kathanar of Mamalachery Church, Kangerathumotil Jacob Kathanarof Cathanur Church, Mathunny Kathanar of Tevalakkara Church, Marathumotil Thoma Kathanar of Venmani Church and Champauchery Unithon Kathanar of Colloocherry Church.167 After the Mavelikkara Declaration in 1836, these twelve priests under the leadership of Abraham Malpan submitted a memorandum to the British Resident Colonel Fraizer recommending necessary changes within the Syrian church. This is called the ‘Trumpet call of Reformation’ and it becomes fruitful.168

Accordingly Abraham Malpan made introductory steps for reformation by celebrating the Holy Qurban in his own parish church at Maramon in 1837 by using the revised form of Taksa (liturgy). In the Eastern churches there are no formulated doctrinal confessions or Articles of faith, to which there is a formal commitment by the church or its membership.169 But the fundamental principle finds their expression in the prayers and meditations of the liturgy, especially the Taksa for the celebration of Holy Qurban. The liturgy holds a primary place in

165 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., pp. 244-262. 166 MEP, Book 8, 1899, Vol. 2, p. 22. 167 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 125. 168 Antony Korah Thomas, Op. cit., p. 85. 169 C. P. Mathew & M. M. Thomas, Op. cit, Delhi, 1967, p. 74.

162 the life of the church. As a Malpan engaged in teaching the Taksa to the priests, he knew the significance of Taksa in the life of faith and devotion of the Syrian church. He revised Taksa and brought new integrity to it. They would not like to embrace the western way of worship, however insisted on continuing the oriental nature of the church.170 The reformers had exceptionally magnified thoughts with respect to the priestly office and duties of priests.171 The reformers insisted that the candidates for the priesthood should be men with high education and theological knowledge.

In the revised liturgy Abraham Malpan excluded the prayers for the dead, the saints and Virgin Mary; lessened the number of sacraments; detached the sacrificial aspect of Holy Qurban; precluded the mystical significance of the sacraments; made changes in confession and the observances of fasts and festivals. He recommended that the service ought to be conducted in Malayalam and not in Syriac. The vestment and incense were retained.They stopped the burning of candles before images and the sounding of gongs and cymbals during Eucharistic ceremonies.172 The delivery of sermons and songs began to assume incredible significance. This period witnessed the emergence of a great revivalist movement who gave much prominence to devotional music. They began to celebrate Eucharist (Qurbana) only on Sundays when there were communicants. However, on earlier occasions the priest performed the ceremony without considering the partakers.173 Here we can see that serious attempts were made by Abraham Malpan for the formation of a new faction.

Besides using the revised liturgy in his parish, Abraham Malpan ruined a statue of a church, with which an annual festival was associated and in 1837 he ceased the festival.174 Moreover an attempt was made for organizing clergies by paying salaries to them. This liberated the priests from their reliance on their parishioners. Abraham Malpan likewise attempted for translating bible into vernacular and made it accessible in the printed form. Thus the whole Maramon parish favored the revised Taksa (liturgy). The deacons who received

170 Antony Korah Thomas, Op. cit., p. 85. 171 L. W. Brown,Op. cit., p. 140; Also see C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 127. 172 Susan Viswanathan, Op. cit., pp. 21-22. 173 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 126. 174 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 174.

163 instructions under the Malpan stood by him. The clergies and members of the Puthencoor church who followed Malpan and approved the reforms, turned into Reformists. In the initial stage, by organizing convention meetings, speeches and by teaching reformed ideas in seminary, the reformed party was able to spread mainly in the Travancore state. The parishes like Kozhencherry, Chengannur, Tiruvalla, Kottayam, Kalloopara, Mallapally, Ayroor and Ranni supported reformation.

Mar Dionysius IV was not ready to acknowledge the changes introduced by the reformed party. The celebration of Holy Qurban by Abraham Malpan in accordance with new Taksa at Maramon was not with the sanction of the Metropolitan. Consequently Mar Dionysius IV excommunicated the whole Maramon Parish in 1837.175 He declined to ordain the deacons who had undergone training under Abraham Malpan. So as to suppress the reform movement Mar Dionysius IV banned the latter.176 As a result Malpan went back to his parish and stood in his belief. The missionaries offered him the post of a teacher in their school for higher education in Kottayam, yet he denied the offer.177 In 1840 Abraham Malpan surrendered his position in the seminary.

It appears that there were also people who were unhappy with Mar Dionysius IV and had sent memorial to the British Resident complaining about his mismanagement. The representations against the Metropolitan were also sent to the Patriarch in this regard. In the meantime the supporters of the reform party realized that a bishop who favored the reforms was indispensable. So Abraham Malpan devised a new plan for consecrating a bishop. He chose Deacon Palakunnathu Mathew, his nephew as their candidate for consecration as bishop. At that time the deacon had been studying in a CMS School in Madras. Abraham Malpan sent him to the Patriarch at Mosul in 1841. Palakunnathu Mathew remained there for two years as a member of the Patriarch’s household. It is stated that he had taken with him a couple of false documents with the signatures of the people requesting the Patriarch to consecrate him. Meanwhile he celebrated Holy Qurban at Mosul in 1842.178 The Jacobite Patriarch Mar Ignatius

175 C. P. Mathew & M. M. Thomas, Op. cit., p. 77. 176 P. Cheriyan, Op. cit., p. 285. 177 Antony Korah Thomas, Op. cit., p. 86. 178 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 132. Also see Daniel I., Op. cit., p. 48.

164 Elias II consecrated him as Metropolitan under the title Mathews Mar Athanasius.179

The desire for reformation becomes true in about 1843. The moment when Mathews Mar Athanasius returned to Kerala in 1843 with credentials, he tried to acquire the support of the community. Because he observed that a party was formed to work against him, which includes Mar Dionysius IV, Philipose Kattanar and Konat Abraham Malpan. Hence in 1843 he convened an assembly of his own supporters at Kallungathara in Kottayam.180 They prepared a document known as Kallungathara Padiyola which must be presented before civil authorities. The main intention of the Padiyola was to legitimize the ordination of Mar Athanasius. With this assertion the Mar Athanasius approached authorities by making some claims regarding his authority over the Puthencoor community and so on. Mar Athanasius latterly read his Staticon publicly.He was said to have recited a prayer instead of the one addressed to the Virgin Mary, which he considered quite unnecessary, at Kandanad and Maramon churches. 181

In the meantime Mar Dionysius IV began to send letters to the Patriarch accusing Mar Athanasius as a great supporter of Protestantism. Apart from this Mar Dionysius IV complained that the new bishop was rejecting the canons, old faith and practices. In response to the protests, Patriarch Jacob II, the sucessor of Mar Ignatius Elias II sent his secretary, Mar Kurilos, to assume responsibility of the Kerala church. He reached Kerala on September 9, 1846.182 Subsequently the Puthencoor community again divided into Kurilos and Athanasian parties, each attempting to expel the other. On his arrival Mar Kurilos carried with him the Staticon or document which stated his title and powers.183 Mar Dionysius IV, who found it difficult in this circumstance, gave up his position as Metropolitan and requested Mar Kurilos to lead the Puthencoor community.

Mar Athansius, the bishop of the reform party, challenged this state of affairs and pleaded for help from the Government of Travancore to solve the

179 L. W. Brown, Op. cit., p. 141. 180 E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 248. Refer Kallungathara Padiyola in Chapter V for more details. 181 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 133. 182 V. C. Samuel, Op. cit., p. 11-12. 183 C. P. Mathew & M. M. Thomas, Op. cit., p. 78.

165 matter of conflict. The government realised that there were two claimants for the post of the Metropolitan of the Puthencoor church. It was a very difficult task for them to accept one of them as the rightful bishop. So the government appointed a committee at Quilon to look into the issue in 1848.184 This committee was composed of two Europeans and two Travancoreans. After due examination they understood that the documents of Mar Kurilos were forged one. Thus the committee gave verdict in favour of Mar Athanasius. The position of Athanasius strengthened after the Quilon Committee’s judgment. Upon the report of the committee, Mar Athanasius was recognized and proclaimed as Metropolitan of the Puthencoor in 1852 by the Travancore government.185 When he obtained the seat of authority Mar Athanasius became active in the cause of reformation. He began to work with the policy of his uncle Abraham Malpan, by introducing some reforms in his church gradually. The members of the Puthencoor, who resisted Mar Athanasius, now came under him and it put the opposition party in to great trouble.

As per the proclamation issued in 1852, Mar Kurilos was exiled from the princely states of Cochin and Travancore.186 Consequently he took shelter in Thozhiyur church, which was situated in British Malabar. Here we can understand that the bishops of Thozhiyur church again helped the Puthencoor faction during the time of crisis. In the meantime Mar Kurilos made an appeal to the Board of Directors in England against the order of princely states. But the directors understood the circumstances and directed the Resident, not to interfere in the church affairs. This was a strategy adopted by the company to create a peaceful atmosphere.

The power of Mar Athanasius reached its culmination in 1863 when the Diwan of Travancore issued an order prohibiting Mar Kurilos from entering churches. The Diwan empowered the magistrates to oust the priests and laymen from each church, who do not accept Mar Athanasius.187 This order also stated

184 Thiranjedutha Sarkar Theettoorangal, (Mal.), Trivandrum, 2005, p. 21. See Appendix XVII for the declaration which deals with the appointment of a committee to settle the dispute between Mar Athanasius and Mar Kurilos, both claiming to have been sent by the Patriarch of Antioch as the Metropolitan of the Puthencoor Christians of Malabar. 185 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 139. Also see E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 250. 186 RCJ, 1886, Vol. I, p. 197. Also see C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 139. 187 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 139.

166 that those who wished to follow Mar Kurilos might do so, but must build churches for themselves, leaving the existing churches and properties in the possession of Mar Athanasius.188 Even if Mar Athanasius was left in ownership of properties; his position was troublesome. He was under the influence of the Protestants and wished to make changes as per the principles of the reform party. However he was aware that the majority of the Puthencoor would not acknowledge them. Consequently, when the conditions were favourable, he supported the revised liturgy and encouraged scripture reading, preaching and Sunday schools. But among the conservatives he kept the old ways, and at that time he continued to acknowledge the Patriarch of Antioch, administering the oath of allegiance to him at all his ordinations.189 This was the strategy of compromise adopted by Mar Athanasius to secure his position and to get the support of the people. But there was no imperative gain for the conservative party between 1853 and 1864 on the grounds that Mar Athanasius enjoyed a number of privileges through the Royal proclamation of 1852.

On the other hand, the conservative party, who gained strength under the leadership of Mar Kurilos, suspected Mar Athanasius and intended to replace him.190 Mar Kurilos was assisted by a young priest, Pulikottil Joseph. The latter assumed the liability of taking care of various cases in courts. In the meantime, this young priest was sent to Patriarch in 1865 and returned as Mar Dionysius V with the Staticon which approved him as Metropolitan of the Puthencoor. It prompted the long conflict between conservative party and the reformist party for ecclesiastical authority. In 1866 Mar Dionysius V appealed to the government that he should be acknowledged as the legitimate Metropolitan and to expel Mar Athanasius. But the Diwan of Travancore declined to disclaim Mar Athanasius and accept Mar Dionysius V. Because the former obviously knew that the acknowledgement of Mar Dionysius V was against the decisions of the Quilon committee. So the Diwan announced that the state governments will not involved in the issues of the church and directed that the claims may possibly be fought in civil courts.191 Here we can see that the state was trying to

188 Susan Viswanathan, Op. cit., p. 24. Also see E. M. Philip, Op. cit., p. 250. 189 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 175. 190 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 143. 191 RCJ, Op. cit., pp. 194-195.

167 move back from the issues related to the Puthencoor group. So they directed this community to solve their problems with the help of the Judiciary. It has to be noted that this withdrawal by the state was due to the fact that it did not want to get involved in a fight where the British also had a stake. During the period the missionaries cooperated with Puthencoor, the state responded well to the wishes of the Resident and helped the faction in whatever way it could. But now that the faction had taken positions against the interest of the British, the state did not want to get involved and so took the safer option of delegating this conflict to the judiciary.

The conflicts in the Puthencoor church continued and the people remained divided in their loyalties. Meanwhile, various new churches were built in different parts and civil cases were filed in courts to release the old churches from the control of Mar Athanasius. However, most of these cases were decided in favour of Mar Athanasius on the ground that he had been proclaimed as Metropolitan by the Government. In 1868 Mar Athanasius consecrated his cousin Thomas Kathanar as his successor with the title Thomas Athanasius.192 Anyhow the consecration was conducted without the consent of Patriarch. So it was an open breach with Antioch. Mar Dionysius V submitted another memorandum in 1869 to the Madras government to prove his claims as well as to request the government not to dispense the interest on Trust fund to Mar Athanasius.193 But according to the advice of the Travancore government, the Madras government decided in favour of Mar Athanasius. Here again we see the state of Travancore taking the side of the British. Consequently Mar Dionysius V lost the case and the interest on star pagodas was awarded to Mar Athanasius. The latter received this amount until his death (1877).

In the meantime, the trusteeship arrangement of church properties was introduced by Mar Dionysius V in 1870.194 Even though the Cochin Award gave the provision for Triumverate system of trusteeship in 1840, it was not introduced. So the representatives of the church convened an assembly and chose Mar Dionysius as Metropolitan trustee, Punnathra Chacko Chandapilla Kathanar

192 L. W. Brown, Op. cit., p. 145. 193 Ibid., p. 144. 194 David Daniel, Op. cit., p. 154.

168 as the Priest trustee and Kulangara Ittychan Piley as the lay trustee. They continued in their positions till their successors were elected in 1886. Here we can see the establishment of church hierarchy and the Priest trustee and lay trustee become prominent.

Arrival of Patriarch

Mar Dionysius V, the head of the reactionary party become powerless to oppose the influence of Mar Athanasius. After the death of Mar Kurilos in 1874, Dionysius lost his main support and matters grew out of control. So to tackle this situation Mar Dionysius V appealed to the Patriarch Mar Ignatius Peter III for help. The latter felt that his supremacy in Kerala can be established by solving the problems of Mar Dionysius.195 The Patriarch had to go to London first to get permission for his journey.196 He sought the support of Achbishop of Canterbury who advised him not to disturb the peace of Kerala church.197 Thus the Patriarch Ignatius Peter III, who was the successor of Patriarch Jacob II, arrived at Cochin in 25th June 1875.198 He was accompanied by Mar Gregorius Abdulla of Jerusalem, who at a later period became Patriarch. It was the first instance that a Jacobite Patriarch had arrived here in person. His visit was the occasion of establishing his power firmly over the Kerala church.199 The Diwan of Travancore sent a letter to the Patriarch of Antioch in September 1875 under the order of Raja of Travancore offering him due respect and assistance to make his journey comfortable.200

After his arrival, the Patriarch sent a letter to Raja of Travancore regarding his visit to various churches and requested him to command the Diwan to issue orders to all local officers intimating them about their visit to churches.201 Thus he made personal visits to some of the churches.202 The arrival of the Patriarch created great impression among the Puthencoor Christians. They showed an incredible adoration for the office of Patriarch. The visit of a

195 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 91. 196 L. W. Brown, Op. cit., p. 145. 197 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p.149. 198 Ibid. 199 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 92. 200 KSAT, Bundle No. 67/14. This is a letter from Diwan to the Patriarch dated September 1875. For details see Appendix XIX. 201 Ibid., This is a letter written by Patriarch to Raja of Travancore, dated October 1875. 202 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 150.

169 Patriarch was an important strategy adopted by the Puthencoor to negotiate and to compromise the problems. Many parishes in the North went over to the Patriarch, but some in the south remained faithful to Mar Athanasius.203 Some people who hitherto supported Mar Athanasius now backed up Mar Dionysius V and the Patriarch. Yet the hard core of the reforming party remained.204 From a letter sent by Mar Dionysius to the Diwan of Travancore, it is clear that Mar Athanasius behaved improperly during the visit of Patriarch at Mavelikkara church.205 Mar Dionysius remarked that Mar Athanasius took revenge upon people who took Patriarch to their churches. It is clear from a petition sent by the trustee of Kottayam Cheriapally to the Diwan of Travancore that, some churches were against the decisions and activities of Mar Dionysius. In this petition the trustee says that this church was under the control of Mar Athanasius, the lawful Metropolitan.206 Through this petition the trustee complained about the visit of Patriarch to this church and the forced possession of this church by Mar Dionysius. He explained aboutthe outrages made by the latter in the church such as putting down of altars, appropriation of the income of the church and so on. He argued that this was the direct violation of all the decrees already passed in the church. The trustee also requested the Diwan to order the magistrate to investigate this issue properly. Thus like at the time of the split between the Puthencoor and Pazhayacoor factions at the level of individual churches, there were contestations.

In the meantime Thomas Mar Athanasius, the successor of Mathew Mar Athanasius, sent a telegraph to Diwan of Travancore complaining about Mar Dionysius V.207 In this telegraph Thomas Mar Athanasius remarked that Dionysius party entered into the seminary forcefully and dispersed his students. He added that Kottayam Magistrate came there at midnight and apprehended them. He also requested Diwan to issue orders to make his act aright. The Patriarch excommunicated Mar Athanasius in public and requested the

203 L. W. Brown, Op. cit., p. 145. 204 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 175. 205 KSAT, Bundle No.67/14, Letter dated 11th January 1876. See Appendix XXI for details. 206 Ibid., It is a letter written in 1875. 207 Ibid., This document is a Telegraph dated 14th October 1875.

170 government to withdraw his recognition.208 In the meantime the Patriarch sent a telegraph to Raja of Travancore asking him the immediate closure of Seminary.209

However at first the Patriarch did not succeed in influencing the Government to recognize and proclaim Mar Dionysius V as the Metropolitan of the Puthencoor. But later the Patriarch and Mar Dionysius went to Trivandrum and made discussions with Maharaja Aayilliam Thirunal of Travancore. After a few meetings, the Travancore Government withdraw the earlier proclamation of 1852 in favour of Mar Athanasius. In March 11, 1876 the Travancore government issued another proclamation to the effect that the government would no more interfere in the church affairs.210 Thus the government decided to escape from this difficult situation by adopting the policy of non-interference.211 The government order also says that the conflicts between the rival Metropolitans with respect to the claims over the churches and church properties should be established in the Courts.212 A similar proclamation was also made in the State of Cochin.213 The withdrawal of the support from the Government weakened the position of Mar Athanasius as Metropolitan of the Puthencoor. The arrival of Patriarch was a turning point in the history of the Puthencoor church and it reinvigorated the Puthencoor Christians. But the faction fought back to get their churches and establishments and also the title of ‘Metropolitan’ of the Puthencoor. The church after the Synod of Mulanthuruthy got organized as can be seen in the next section.

Synod of Mulanthuruthy in 1876

The Patriarch Peter III convened a Synod at Mulanthuruthy in June 1876 to formalize the connection between the Kerala church and the Patriarchal See. This meeting was conducted with a view to settle the conflict that existed in all churches. The representatives from hundred and three churches of the

208 KSAT, Bundle No.67/14, A letter dated 7th December 1875 sent to the Diwan in charge by Resident in charge. In this letter there were references about excommunication of Mar Athanasius by the Patriarch. 209 Ibid., It is telegraph dated 13th November 1875. 210 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 151. 211 Ibid., p. 176. 212 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 92. See Appendix XXIII for details. 213 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 151.

171 Puthencoor participated in it. But the churches that followed Mar Athanasius did not take an interest to participate. The Synod decided to continue with the West Syrian liturgical, doctrinal, and theological norms. It proclaimed their official loyalty to the Patriarch and accepted his jurisdictional claims.

Mar Dionysius V was confirmed as the bishop of Puthencoor community under the title ‘Malankara Metropolitan’. Besides this, six other bishops were consecrated by the Patriarch. The whole church was divided into seven Dioceses namely Angamali, Cochin, Kandanad, Kottayam, Niranam, Quilon and Thumpamon.214 Mar Dionysius was put in charge of the diocese of Quilon and other dioceses were under the command of the consecrated bishops. This laid the foundation of the present day administrative system of the Puthencoor church (Jacobite/Orthodox). The division of the church into dioceses was primarily for administrative convenience. Every one of these bishops was equal in authority and each directly responsible to the Patriarch, but the seniority of Dionysius V gave him a priority.215 This gives us a clear picture about the structure of power hierarchy in the Puthencoor church.

In the early period the newly appointed bishop had to acquire Staticon and Royal proclamations to legitimize his consecration. But from this time onwards he had to sign an agreement registered under the law of Travancore to legalize his position.Before the consecration each bishop should execute a bond (Udampadi) to the consecrator (the Patriarch) which, all the new metropolitans submitted before the Patriarch and thence this become a custom among the Puthencoor Christians.216 Thus by signing this document the bishops agreed to acknowledge the power of the Patriarch.217 The church also passed a resolution. “It was resolved that a committee should be appointed, that schools should be opened, that funds should be gathered to take civil action for recovering the seminary and property, and that a record should be maintained regarding the receipts in churches in connection with burials, marriages etc.”218 This resolution was passed mainly to avoid further conflicts.

214 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 92. 215 Ibid. 216 Curian Kaniyamparambil, Op. cit., p. 155. 217 C. P. Mathew & M. M. Thomas, Op. cit., p. 81. 218 RCJ, Op. cit., p. 75.

172 After the Synod of Mulanthuruthy, the belief, liturgy, episcopacy, church administration etc of the Puthencoor was now as before in keeping with those of the Antiochean. However the position of Mar Dionysius was strengthened by the arrival of the Patriarch. The Synods convened at Mulanthuruthy and later at Parumala finally led to the division between the two factions. After many years of litigations for the churches and other establishments, the separation between the two came out. After making arrangements through the synod, the Patriarch departed for Syria in 1877 after a stay in India for nearly two years. In the meantime Mar Athanasius the leader of the reform group had passed away in July 1877 and he was succeeded by Thomas Mar Athanasius. This group later became the Mar Thoma Church.

The activities initiated by the reform movement led to the formation of Anglican diocese in Travancore and Cochin in 1878. It came into existence with the full support of the Church of England. The Anglican Church has tried for evangelizing the Christians as well as the non-Christians with the help of its efficient organization, educational institutions, well educated clergy and so on.219 The Puthencoor church excommunicated many of its members who joined Anglican congregation. At the same time the CMS missionaries discouraged intercourse between their congregation and other Christians.

Synod of Parumala 1878

Mar Dionysius V continued his fight against Mar Athanasius with the help of the new bishops on the basis of the decisions taken during the Synod of Mulanthuruthy.The fourteenth canon of Synod of Mulanthuruthy had empowered him to conduct legal suits to free the church from Protestants.Even though various regulations were passed in the synod of Mulanthuruthy, these decisions were not fulfilled till then. This forced them to convene a synod of the Metropolitans and other members of the managing committee set up by the Mulanthuruthy synod. Thus a synod was met at Parumala in February 1878 under the president ship of Mar Dionysius V.220 He convened the Synod under the name ‘the Syrian Christian Association’ (Samoohakar).221 All other

219 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 84. 220 David Daniel, Op. cit., p. 186. 221 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 151.

173 Metropolitans and forty six leading priests were present in this synod. The main aim of the meetings was not doctrinal, but to deprive Thomas Mar Athanasius of his privileges; to recover all church property in a civil suit; to raise a common fund by debt-bonds and otherwise to meet the heavy expense that would involve instituting the suit and to render advice and means to Mar Dionysius V.222

Resolutions were passed as to the line of conduct to be pursued by them in future. The synod elected a new managing committee of 40 members, 17 members of the old committee (A Class) and 23 new members (B class). It was determined to file a suit against Thomas Mar Athanasius. It also decided to raise necessary funds for the expenditure thereof. Subsequent meetings were also held at Puthupalli and Vittikkel for the same purpose.223 Accordingly they raised a large sum for conducting the civil suit.

Legal Proceedings with Reformers 1879-1889

Mar Dionysius V stood on firm grounds in his claim to the office of Malankara Metropolitan and he took legal action to deprive Thomas Mar Athanasius of that office.224 Mar Dionysius V filed a suit No. 435 of 1054 in Zilla court, Alleppey on 4th March 1879, to recover from Thomas Athanasius the Kottayam seminary and other properties.225 Thus this suit earned the name ‘Seminary Case’. Accordingly the conservative party took the reformists to the court. Mar Dionysius V fought in opposition to the reform party through courts in the successive years. He filed cases against the reform party in the District Court (1879-1884), High Court (1884-1886), and Royal Court (1879-1889) successively. In all three courts the judgment went against Thomas Mar Athanasius (defendant) and in favour of Mar Dionysius V (Plaintiff). Subsequently the suit delayed for about ten years before several levels of courts.

In 1889 the final judgment was pronounced. The Appellate court was composed of three judges: two Brahmins and one European. Mr. Ormsby the European judge pronounced a minority judgment. As indicated by him, the Puthencoor church was an autonomous church in Kerala with a custom that each

222 C. M. Agur, Op. cit., p. 156. 223 Ibid. 224 David Daniel, Op. cit., p. 186. 225 Daniel I., Op. cit., p. 51.

174 Bishop consecrated his successor and that the consent of the Patriarch was not necessary for the legitimacy of the consecration or for the due succession of prelates in the church.226 The Brahmin judges on the other hand held that the church was under the Patriarch of Antioch who was the only authority who was able to consecrate Bishops of the Puthencoor church.227

The Judgment of the Royal Court of Final Appeal has established the following: 1. The Patriarch of Antioch has been acknowledged by the Puthencoor community as the spiritual head of their church. 2. The consecration by the Patriarch or by his representatives duly authorized on his behalf was and has been felt absolutely necessary to entitle a person to become a Metropolitan of a church in Kerala. But he must be a native of Kerala and acknowledged by the community before or after the consecration and appointment. 3. The Patriarch or his foreign representatives have had no interference with the internal administration of the Puthencoor church. 4. As regards the temporal affairs and their administration of this church has been an autonomous church. 5. It is the right of the Patriarch to send Moron from time to time to this church.228

After the Royal Court judgment the conservative party under Mar Dionysius V moved the civil authorities for the possession of seminary and regained it from Thomas Mar Athanasius.229 Thus he got full control over the seminary and properties of the church. In addition the judgment recognized the position of Mar Dionysius V as legitimate. Thus the reformist party lost the case though the adherents of Thomas Mar Athanasius used to make a point that the Christian Judge’s verdict was in their favour. The other party argued that the Christian Judge was perhaps influenced by his own theological and ecclesiastical

226 L. W. Brown, Op. cit., p. 145. 227 Daniel I., Op. cit., p. 51. 228 L. W. Brown, Op. cit., p. 145. Also see RCJ, Op. cit., p. 75. 229 C. V. Cheriyan., Orthodox, Op. cit., p. 301.

175 prejudices, where as the two Hindu judges were unbiased and so their verdict was impartial.230

This suit was followed by a number of minor suits with respect to numerous individual churches in possession of the reformed party. At the end all these suits were decided in favour of Mar Dionysius.231 The reform party got Maramon and Kozhenchery churches by court decisions and the Kottarakkara church without contest.232 Five other churches were to be used by two parties on alternative Sundays. Even though the reform party lost their possessions, it turned to be the occasion for the formation of Mar Thoma church.

Formation of the Mar Thoma Church

The suits prompted cleavages in the parent church. The formation of a new church was accelerated by the effect of the verdict of the Royal Court of final Appeal of 1889. The conflict which emerged in the Puthencoor Church in the 19th century between conservatives and reform party ended by separating the church further into two ie, the Mar Thoma Church and the Puthencoor Church (Jacobite/Orthodox). The former was an independent church while the latter continued their allegiance to the Jacobite Patriarchate. The formation of this church in the last quarter of 19th century was the result of the movement started by Abraham Malpan. The Mar Thoma Church, left almost entirely without churches or other property, set itself with great courage to build up a church life of its own, helped by a revival movement. 233

In its liturgy, which is a revised form of the liturgy of the Puthencoor, and in the social life of the community it retains, though in modified form, its eastern traditions; in theology its affinities are with western evangelicalism.234 They set aside some of their traditional style of worship including ceremonial vestments, church architecture, celibacy of priests, liturgy of St. James with

230 C. P. Mathew & M. M. Thomas, Op. cit., p. 83. 231 One example for such minor case was Arthat church case. Here the case was between Mar Dionysius and Thomas Kathanar. Because of the influence of Mar Athanasius some of the parish members of this church stood at the side of reform party and raised claim over the Arthat church. This case was finally decided in favour of Mar Dionysius in 1905. Also see RAE, Arthat church case, J. series, 1905, p. 8. 232 Antony Korah Thomas, Op. cit., p. 87. 233 C. B. Firth, Op. cit., p. 177. 234 Ibid.

176 some amendments etc. They did not acknowledge the form and content of Anglican theology totally. They have erased all the passages that involve prayer for the dead, invocation of the saints or transubstantiation.235 They followed a middle way between the Puthencoor rites and the new protestant rites. The Mar Thoma group claimed that the reforms made by them was to remove the incorrect beliefs and practices which had crept in at the time of the Portuguese domination and that neither Babylon nor Antioch had any established supremacy over it.236 The Puthencoor faction continued to recognize the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch after the separation of Mar Thoma Church.237

Conclusion

This period was considered as crucial in the history of the Puthencoor. The British perceived themselves as authoritative and Puthencoor Christians as powerless. During the arrival of British the latter was in a decaying state. As the British were the adversaries of the Roman Catholics, the Puthencoor desired the support of this colonial power to oppose the Portuguese missionaries. This led them to accept the British as a strong companion. This was the period when the Puthencoor decided to walk together with the Anglican Church for their betterment. In the initial stage the Puthencoor Christians received the aids from CMS because they had no other way to revitalize their church. Moreover, when compared to the Pazhayacoor faction they saw themselves as weak materially and felt the need of a political support to better themselves. But in later period the missionaries tried to criticize the religious practices of the Puthencoor and attempted to reform the church.

By the Mavelikkara Synod of 1836, the Puthencoor declared that they were not ready to introduce any changes in the church without the consent of the Patriarch of Antioch. They took an oath that they would have no further contact with the church missionaries. It is clear that this was the beginning of conflicts between Puthencoor and CMS.The conflicts during this period were mainly because of theological differences and personal issues. The desire of the

235 V. Nagam Aiya, Op. cit., p. 219. 236 F. E. Keay, Op. cit., p. 94. 237 Ibid., p. 100.

177 missionaries was to free the Puthencoor Christians from superstitions such as the use of prayers for the dead, to the saints, the veneration of Mary and other similar practices. For this purpose they attempted to keep up the correspondence between the Puthencoor. Consequently some of them, who had been influenced by the missionaries, joined the Anglican congregation. Finally the second half of 19th century witnessed the division of the Puthencoor community and formation of a new church called Mar Thoma church.

The Puthencoor Christians gave much importance for the ordination of their bishops. It is evident that during this period the Travancore and Cochin Governments continued to interfere in church affairs. If a bishop got the support of the British Resident, the native states would also recognize him as Bishop and would issue Royal proclamations. In 1816 the Travancore and Cochin states ordered the people to accept Mar Dionysius II as their Metropolitan. It is clear that this was the actual beginning of the issue of Thiruvezhuthu Vilambaram (Royal proclamations). This proclamation soon became a legal necessity for the Metropolitans which legitimized them vis-à-vis the state. It is to be noted that the role of state was important in legitimizing the ordination of the bishop and it helps the latter to strengthen his position. This legality also gave the Metropolitan the control of the material wealth including all assets of the church. In some instances the bishops of the Puthencoor sought the help from Thozhiyur bishops to legalise their consecration. This is evident from the consecration of Mar Dionysius IV by Mar Philexinos II, the bishop of Thozhiyur church in 1825.

This period also witnessed change in the hierarchy of the Puthencoor church. By the meeting convened at Kandanad in 1809 two priests namely Joseph Ramban and Philipose Ramban were appointed as advisers to the Metropolitan, Mar Thoma VIII. Here we can see the beings of an ecclesiastical hierarchy or people who were to become prominent along with the Metropolitan in the church hierarchy. Even though the Cochin Award of 1840 gave the provision for Triumverate system of trusteeship arrangement of church properties in 1840, it was not introduced. This was fulfilled in 1870 during the reign of Mar Dionysius V. It is noteworthy that during this period Mar Dionysius was chosen as as Metropolitan trustee, Punnathra Chacko Chandapilla Kathanar as the Priest trustee and Kulangara Ittychan Piley as the lay trustee. It is evident

178 that from this time onwards the priest trustee and laity trustee become prominent in church hierarchy. By the Synod of Mulanthuruthy in 1876, position of the Malankara Metropolitan as the head of Puthencoor community was confirmed and the authority was delegated to other bishops by the division of the church into seven dioceses. New bishops were also ordained. But the Metropolitan was the first among equals. This laid the foundation of the present day administrative system of the Puthencoor church. Every one ofthe bishops were equal in authority and each was directly responsible to the Patriarch. In the early period the newly appointed bishop had to acquire Staticon and Royal proclamations to legitimize his consecration. But from this time onwards he had to sign an agreement registered under the law of Travancore to legalize his position. It is clear that all these regulations were made to bring the church firmly under the control of the Patriarch.

The British as well as the native state intervened in the conflicts as arbitrator. The role of British Resident was vital during this century. It isto be noted that he had immense administrative powers and he exercised more control over the activities of the native states. It was a clear fact that the British Residents, worked for the interest of their Government and for the spread of Protestantism. So they were favourable to the activities of the missionaries. The British resident, especially Munro maintained good relations with the Puthencoor. Munro considered seminary as a vehicle for change. It is evident that the establishment of a seminary at Kottayam and the Church endowment fund were the achievements of the Puthencoor as a result of this cordial association in the early 19th century. The Madras government also intervened in settling some issues related to the conflict between Mar Thoma VIII and Joseph Ramban. The former raised seventeen questions to Mar Thoma VIII regarding the history, administration, and customs of the Puthencoor church inorder to investigate and to solve the problem. Munro tried to solve this issue by consecrating Joseph Ramban, who belonged to Pulikottil family at Kunnamkulam, as Metropolitan and thus break the tradition of the rule of Pakalomattom family. For this he sought the help of Mar Philexinos, the bishop of the Thozhiyur church. The Resident tried to influence the native states to issue Royal proclamations regarding this. Thus Col. Munro understanding the

179 importance of ordination used the legitimacy of the ordination of the Thozhiyur bishop to give legality to the ordination of the Metropolitan of the Puthencoor. From this time onwards the validity of ordination become much more important than claim to being a member of Pakalomattom family.

It is evident that the disputes between Puthencoor and CMS with regards to the property associated with the seminary were settled by the intervention of the Travancore government. It is obvious that the British also acted as arbitrators at the time of Cochin Award in 1840 to settle conflicts in the church. But sometimes the native state tried to retrieve itself from difficult situation by leaving the decisions to the judiciary. It is clear from the order issued by the Travancore government in 1876. This government order also says that the conflicts between the rival Metropolitans should be established in the civil court. From then onwards we can see that the state government tried to adopt a policy of non-interference in the matters of the church. The people in a sense accepted this and judiciary was seen as an impartial third party. From now on legality and technicality assumed importance in these conflicts often disregarding the will of the people.

180